View Full Version : Don't want to start anything
07-29-2005, 06:47 PM
BUT, being that I am trying HST opposed to what everyone else says. I think I should seem some scientific evidence of some sort that shows that HST does work. I don't mean to come off as being an @$$ but I would really like to see some kind of writting that shows it works.
I was in high hopes of this and was starting on my 2nd week of 10s and the more I told ppl about it the more discouraged I got by their negative attitudes towards HST. The wierd thing is, today was the first day I went back to working out the "old" way and I noticed that like HST, I only did 2 exercises per body part. I only did back, traps and shoulders. I might as well be doing HST, I just don't have the energy in the gym to stay in there for 2-3 hrs hitting every muscle from all angles. I eat very well in my diet but after abotu 45 mins of intense training I am ready to quit.
07-29-2005, 07:04 PM
Hmmm, well I cant say that I know too many people with negative attitudes towards HST. Actually, there arent too many people at my gym that know anything about proper training, so thats not saying much. Do they seem to have reasoning against it?
As far as studies of its actual working, you probably won't find any. I mean you can find studies that the principles that govern it work...But again, probably will not find scientific studies in actuality of any routine. Its not like some doctor is going to say "Hey, you look like a skinny guy. Mind if I try to train you DC style and have you eat 500g of protein a day and we'll log the results?" There is no reason for scientists really to do that. And I'd rather they didn't; I would rather that they work on curing AIDS or cancer or something. Not meaning to be rude, just stating a point.
Specific comments: an HST workout isn't supposed to last more than 45 minutes. What are the exercises you are doing?
07-29-2005, 08:33 PM
Sounds to me like you aren't sold on HST because you have no idea what it is. Maybe you should take a look around this site and figure out what you're doing, because if you are in the gym that long then you are doing something really wrong.
07-29-2005, 09:19 PM
If you want scientific evidence to back HST up, read the HST article. Bryan posts loads of study references that back up his conclusions regarding HST.
07-29-2005, 11:14 PM
What are you doing in the gym for 2-3 hours? I train HST with two training partners and we finish in 70 minutes everytime and this is our program. (2 sets each)
Incline Bench Press
Lying Tricep Extension
There is no reason you should be in the gym for 3 hours. And why are you being discouraged by what other people think? Read the articles on this site and make an objective decision for yourself!
07-29-2005, 11:19 PM
Every forum about training methods has its success stories and also some who don't gain. Is it the method or the application of the method or the person that is the problem when there are few gains?
Here is what I recommend. Instead of doing whole body routines pick a bodypart such as arms and then train only that for a month. You can try HST or any other method. Keep records and see what happens to your arms. This is the best way you can experiment on yourself and find out what makes your arms grow.
There are so many different ways to train. Which is best? Yes, we would love to see studies that tested the methods and found out which one was superior. There are a few things that seem to be common in almost all bodybuilders who developed large size. They lift heavy resistances, there has been a progression in the resistances, they have been training for a long time and the volume of training is large.
After experimenting for some 46 years and owning a gym for 34 years I have concluded that the secret is to do many sets with a maximum resistance. It is crucial that one do the right exercise that works. If you are not growing rapidly then you might need to try different exercises.
I was wondering about more frequent training. However, as one gets larger the stresses put on connective tissue increases geometrically. It is just a guess but if you train really heavy for those 5 or more maximum sets then my hunch is to train a muscle every 4th day. That frequency gave me the best gains in strength when I was training for the pinch grip. I ended up one-hand pinching 92.5 kg which is a world record as far as the most anyone has done in that movement.
You guys here seem to be looking for a strict formula but that is unlikely to generate rapid hypertrophy. Sorry, fellas, but just about every top guy does heaps of sets. Luke Wood posted on Getbig that he does 24 sets for his shoulders and that 12 reps gave him the most size. Interesting. I would have thought lower reps was the answer. The size of Luke's shoulders has to be seen to be appreciated. You can find that post at Getbig under the thread "Hello, guys" by Luke.
07-30-2005, 12:10 AM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ July 29 2005,10:19)]Sorry, fellas, but just about every top guy does heaps of sets.
Sorry, fella, but just about every top guy does heaps of testosterone.
Now I'm not one to condemn steroid usage. I'll probably use steroids at some point in the future, once I can't gain naturally anymore... but you can't use training methods for naturals that were developed and used by steroid users. Naturals just can not handle the volume that a steroid user can.
07-30-2005, 12:21 AM
Quote[/b] ]Sorry, fella, but just about every top guy does heaps of testosterone
Line of the Day.
07-30-2005, 12:24 AM
Quote[/b] (chiefhog @ July 29 2005,11:21)]
Quote[/b] ]Sorry, fella, but just about every top guy does heaps of testosterone
Line of the Day.
Line of the Day≤
07-30-2005, 06:35 AM
Hey Vince http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]I would have thought lower reps was the answer.
It's not really the lower reps, I'll explain after I get another quote:
Quote[/b] ]You guys here seem to be looking for a strict formula but that is unlikely to generate rapid hypertrophy.
As for this one, it's not really a strict formula we're after. It's not even a formula at all. HST workouts, no matter how they are setup, are simply workouts that properly apply hypertrophy-specific principles (which were gotten through much scientific research, and only the mere basics are found here due to the depth and quantity of such research).
Perhaps you are not sold on HST simply because you don't really get it (or perhaps I have misread your post, which I hope I haven't). It's not the lower reps that are beneficial because "lower reps are magic" or a reason like that. And related to that, we aren't after a formula. No formula here. Just practical and proper applications of the principles, which is why you'll find a lot of variations in the workouts among HST adepts.
The lower reps are simply a mechanism in order to accomodate more frequent training. If you are able to train more frequently with super heavy weights despite keeping reps high (and still stay well away from CNS fatigue), then please do so, because that would mean lower reps would give you far less benefit. Unfortunately, not too many people can do more than a few reps with weights that are very close to their 1RM, especially those not using steriods.
So someone who understands HST principles would know that after realizing he can do at least 5 more sets for his 5RM (perhaps because he is a unique individual, bodybuilding vet, or pumped full of steriods), he should not deliberatley keep the volume low since he can afford to do higher reps and still train frequently (and the lower reps were simply a mechanism to be able to train frequently, so it is now effectively a very much unneeded mechanism).
Hope this clears up a few things. Good luck! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
07-30-2005, 08:13 AM
I am very certain that Vince understands that HST is not a routine, as he is aware of the reasons for using varying rep schemes. He is a knowledgable guy, he just has his own philosophies about things, which there is nothing wrong with. He doesn't need any explanations.
07-30-2005, 01:30 PM
Thanks Baby A *http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And no offense meant to Vince. I wasn't questioning the validity of any of his philosophies. However, his post was sure to attract notice (and replies) from HST followers, simply because it seemed to downplay the importance of, or misrepresent to a degree, certain HST principles. Plus forgetting the steriods factor, that definitely escaped nobody's radar.
Of course, one immediately realizes the breadth and depth of his knowledge and experience as a bodybuilder, nearly half a century in total. I've only been studying physiology and bodybuilding for less than half a decade, and have been lifting weights for only a little more than that, so I am by no means even close to him. But that's ok, because it was not my point to challenge any of his philosophies; I do not consider myself in any degree to be an expert, in whatever field, to have the right to be proselyting and converting people from their own solid philosophies. I just wanted it cleared 100% that his post would not be the cause of any confusion for anybody (which of course would naturally mean newbies).
So no offense taken, I hope. *http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif *I just wanted to be sure that scenarios like "Newbie: Hey, this guy made a great point, why insist on lower reps, lower reps definitely won't get me anywhere!" (which isn't a rare event) won't happen because of that post. People immediately noticed and pointed out the steriods, and I just wanted to be sure no one (newbies in particular because they really are the only ones who would probably need the pointing out) also misses the importance or place of the HST principle that seemed to have been misrepresented to a degree.
Regards to all *http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
07-31-2005, 05:11 AM
I don't want this to be an attack on HST or the science behind hypertrophy. I am doing my own studies using myself as a guinea pig plus a few guys at my gym are experimenting with various ideas.
However, if someone were to pay me for information about getting them big, naturally, as quick as possible I wouldn't advocate HST as formulated. No way, no how. That is not the way. If some of you make satisfactory gains then you will become believers.
There is so much crap in bodybuilding that I don't know where to start. The assumptions are many and some are false. The idea that you need steroids to get big is false. Now, how is this question going to be settled? Most trainees do not change their ideas. Most bodybuilders have entrenched ideas and usually do not change those ideas. I prefer to find the truth. It will have a correlation with getting rapid hypertrophy. That correlation will be high.
You don't need to train all bodyparts each week to grow rapidly. Almost everyone I know is doing way too many exercises. Try training just one bodypart and make it grow. Then apply that information to other bodyparts.
Very few humans, including Bryan Haycock, have approached their capacity regarding hypertrophy. I mean natural bodybuilding in all my posts. Send Bryan over to Sydney and I will prove what I say. You aren't going to find my information in any scientific journal.
Heavy Duty dude
07-31-2005, 05:54 AM
Vince, everyone on HST is trying to do as much volume as possible without losing strength, so what's your point?
We try to do exactly what you say..
07-31-2005, 06:34 PM
everyone, just ignore Vince. Trust me, don't bait him into an argument because he'll never stop.
08-02-2005, 08:47 AM
Vince, Volatile & Sonney in a room discussing Bodybuilding - can you imagine the crap they'd come out with...
08-02-2005, 09:21 AM
Quote[/b] ]And no offense meant to Vince.
I wasn't questioning the validity of any of his philosophies. However, his post was sure to attract notice (and replies) from HST followers, simply because it seemed to downplay the importance of, or misrepresent to a degree, certain HST principles.
You guys are not used to good ol' Vince. He has been doing this for years, by now I thought he would have tried one or two cycle of good old fashioned HST and come up with the research to back it up! Come on Vince http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/happy.gif
How is DOMS doing by the way? It is a good feeling, I must admit http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Hey, don't take it serious, I am just pulling your leg, you are entitled to believe in wehatever you want http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/happy.gif
08-02-2005, 03:51 PM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ July 31 2005,4:11)]There is so much crap in bodybuilding that I don't know where to start. The assumptions are many and some are false. The idea that you need steroids to get big is false. Now, how is this question going to be settled? Most trainees do not change their ideas. Most bodybuilders have entrenched ideas and usually do not change those ideas. I prefer to find the truth. It will have a correlation with getting rapid hypertrophy. That correlation will be high.
Interesting statement coming from someone who has not actually tried HST. Vince, your comments regarding HST have zero credibility.
08-02-2005, 08:35 PM
I don't put too much importance in belief in bodybuilding. If I did I would conclude that the whole sport is crazy. I am interested in the truth about hypertrophy and how to obtain it in significant ways and rapidly. Whether certain people object to what I say is irrelevant for hypertrophy theory. What is important is if someone can refute what I have stated. So far nobody has done that. Dismissing someone is not refuting him.
There was an analogy about a person living in a cave wondering what the world was really like. All he could see were shadows because there was not much light. Most bodybuilding forums are unenlightening. I present my ideas in the hope of helping some overcome sticking points. If you are growing rapidly using HST then you have no need to consider other programs. Those of us who have advanced far beyond what HST, as presented, can generate in us know we don't have to try something to assess its worth. Those who insist you do have to try other methods would be wise to consider what I have written because I do not joke about this subject and I have some important information to relate. What I say here will eventually be seen to be true.
What really bothers me is that so many dispute things instead of trying, collectively, to find the truth. I am amazed at my progress lately.
08-02-2005, 10:28 PM
Quote[/b] ]You guys are not used to good ol' Vince. He has been doing this for years, by now I thought he would have tried one or two cycle of good old fashioned HST and come up with the research to back it up! Come on Vince
How is DOMS doing by the way? It is a good feeling, I must admit
Hey, don't take it serious, I am just pulling your leg, you are entitled to believe in wehatever you want
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif You crack me up Fausto! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Yeah, I review past threads every time, and I actually did see so many threads he started or joined (and with what was said as his other username, "Allman"), and hey, if Bryan himself, Dan, Blade and Vicious can't settle him, I guess we'd really be better off following what BoSox said and just not entertain him, because even the most veteran HST experts just went round and round trying to explain stuff to him, and to no avail.
Well, guys, see you around the board (just not on this thread I guess).
Hey Fausto, go start a new thread!! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif kidding
Regards to all
08-03-2005, 03:43 AM
Quote[/b] ]What is important is if someone can refute what I have stated. So far nobody has done that. Dismissing someone is not refuting him.
I am still going to try and refute you one of these days, I like a challenge.
When I have the time I'll pick up on your research and start disecting it!
08-03-2005, 03:47 AM
"What really bothers me is that so many dispute things instead of trying, collectively, to find the truth. I am amazed at my progress lately."
Aren't you doing the same thing with HST, Vince?
08-04-2005, 12:55 AM
Arthur Jones said he could sell #### if it was marketed the right way. People do sell chicken #### and call it Dynamic Lifter. So Arthur is right.
Forgetting the hype, does a method work? HIT doesn't work as well as Arthur and Mike said it would. That high intensity method is not what the vast majority of big bodybuilders do. Neither do they use HST. It is early days so how much time should we give HST to get the message out there?
I tried so many methods. I have a very good idea about what I need to make my arms and calves grow. Would some variation of HST work? It would no longer be HST. I need much more volume than what is advocated.
Stimulus + food = hypertrophy
HST would not stimulate my arms to grow. I do not have to try this out. They need heaps of sets with heavy weights. I have proven that to myself over the last 46 years. You guys continue to look in the science for something that is not even there. Oh, you will have a sound understanding of muscle physiology but be none the wiser about the technology of hypertrophy.
I wish HIT and HST were the methods. Would save me a lot of time and thinking. I honestly believe that Bryan is missing the key factor to large muscular size. If not missing it then why doesn't he personally get much larger and show all the cynics out there that his method really does work.
From my analysis of bodybuilding I would say that large muscles are needed for moving heavy resistances many, many times. There is a muscular endurance factor that is crucial for very large size. Lots of methods might work for the intermediate but only the right method will produce those really large sizes. If you want arms over 18, assuming you are average in height, then you need to do many, many sets (5+)with a heavy maximum weight for those reps from 5 to 15.
We should be asking Luke Wood why he found 12 reps to work best. Luke does 24 sets for shoulders. Does anyone really believe that Luke or anyone else can build huge shoulders like that doing 2 or 3 sets?
Wait... wait wait wait...
Quote[/b] ]HST would not stimulate my arms to grow. I do not have to try this out.
You haven't even TRIED it or had someone else try it? And yet you're typing up essay after essay of reasons why it doesn't work? http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/happy.gif ....... http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
HST doesn't advocate low volume. You're not even looking past the sample routine.
HST advocates as much volume and as much frequency as you can handle and still keep to the principles.
So if you can handle 10 exercises per workout, 10 sets each, 12 times a week, then that WILL be better for hypertrophy than 3 times a week at 2 sets per exercise.
Buuut you don't seem to even want to try, sooo whatever. You'll make no converts here, just like you won't be converted.
08-04-2005, 05:23 AM
Rovi is right, you ought to try it before dismissing it, in the design of the program, you go as heavy as you want, put in as much volume as you can handle.
But don't forget http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif your CNS, for you will not be able to put all that volume you say you need to get growth, without wasting your CNS and burn it out if you keep up with the frequency http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif which is 3x p/ week.
That is the essential difference between HST and other programs, the CNS is very much looked after so that it does not burn out, so forget failure and forget GVT it simply does not work not with the frequency HST advocates!
Quote[/b] ]Arthur Jones said he could sell #### if it was marketed the right way. People do sell chicken #### and call it Dynamic Lifter. So Arthur is right.
He was dang right, many BB'ers are simploid "muscleheads" without much grey matter between their ears and therefore if you had to make #### smell delicious (a tedious and difficult task if you ask me, much easier said than done), they would eat it and advocate that their muscle were growing, http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif what a sad scenario.
I am definitely not putting anyone of us here on this category but I am sure that you will agree Vince and others.
We may have to start a adult basic education training for dumb muscle heads very soon, we would probably end up fairuing very well indeed. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
What is even worst is that the FDA would probably still allow some of these manufacturing "vultures" to place their products in the market without the necessary clinical trials http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
This thread is turning out better than I thought! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
08-04-2005, 06:12 AM
As far as I can tell in my limited wisdom vince is disagreeing with one fundamental principle of progressive load. HST advocates high volume but spread over say 3 sessions a week rather than just one set for a body part but to simplify both Vince and HST are in agreement about high volume.
So we're really just talking about whether lots of sets with a heavy weight is better than progressing the load over time - sd isn't really a factor because that's simply follows from progressive load.
So if someone with more knowledge and intelligence could back up the progressive load that should solve the problem...right?!
Although I think the biggest problem is saying that you know how to make your muscles grow without trying out the programme you are criticising is about as close minded as you can get.
But then again Vince is happy to use his programme, we're all happy to try and improve our past results by using HST so everybody's happy http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
08-04-2005, 06:33 AM
Yes, Rob, that is essentially the main problem I have with HST. The amount of volume is absolutely critical but it must not be spread over training sessions. The volume must be done at the highest intensity level possible for the target reps. Some have tried to persuade us that a few sets will build huge muscles. While that might be a possibility for the rare individual it is totally unrealistic for most of us. Just about every large bodybuilder does volume to obtain that size. I always try to find the minimum that will generate the most gains. The one thing I never did during my career was to do many, many sets with a maximum resistance. To me, this is the critical factor in hypertrophy training. If one applies this principle then progression occurs and size follows.
I state again that in order to isolate principles and discover what sort of volume works on your muscles to select one or two bodyparts and train only them. I recommend arms.
The frequency is another problem but is limited mainly by damaged connective tissue. I doubt that 3 times a week can be sustained for very long. It appears we have evolved muscles that adapt to daily stress. Our connective tissue soon needs a rest.
08-04-2005, 08:54 AM
Vince, you seemed sensible enough until you decided to turn to using pro bodybuilders as ways to advocate high volumes and discredit less sets as advised with HST. You do realize that these morons run the test levels of ten men, and that cows are given the same thing and manage to grow by simply grazing. Bodybuilders need nominal training knowledge. All they need is to have the money for all their drugs, learn to cycle, and eat massive amounts of food. They can grow with almost anything they do.
Three times a week can easily be sustained for an extended period, so long as the CNS is managed properly. Even then, that's why people periodize their training. True, this is more strength related, but I and many others have seen great size and strength gains from Bill Starr's 5x5 routine and it's many variations. This incorpoates a very high workload for four loading weeks. After this, one deloads and the body compensates and recuperates as you ramp up into an intensity phase.
08-04-2005, 01:25 PM
I don't dismiss anyone who can build huge muscles. It is so easy to credit drugs to their success. However, that is another subject and I prefer to talk about hypertrophy with no reference whatever to steroids, etc.
I base my theory on my own experiences and also from being around a gym for about 40 years. Have any of you actually tried to get really big so you could win a state level contest? If you had you will realise that you soon hit plateaus along the way and have to come up with different programs to get ever bigger. When I am commenting on HST vs the DOMS method I am not referring to beginners or others with a year under their belts. I am referring to trying to make already large muscles even bigger. If one can achieve that then that knowledge can be applied to beginners who should grow very rapidly, indeed.
I respect Bill Starr but am not familiar with the details of his program. However, I have doubts about any need for taking layoffs. Something just doesn't seem right about that. Layoffs might be needed for connective tissue to adapt. More research will be needed to convince me otherwise.
Programs that do not produce instant, next day hypertrophy are not maximizing our growth potential. I am telling you people that you can grow rapidly and not to accept anything less. All the lack of results has made religious people out of most of you. You accept that the promiseland is coming if you believe. I am slowly influencing a few of the fellas at my gym. Do you know who the most resistant to new ideas are? Nope, not the older guys. The young guys literally do not believe a thing I tell them. One young fellow comes daily and works up a sweat lifting those weights. I haven't seen anything in the way of discernable growth. So I intercept him from time to time to try to help him. He listens intently, asks a few questions, and then proceeds as if I said nothing at all to him. I haven't given up on him. I think next time I will get him to tell me what his ideas are. When a person has a definite theory about training it is very difficult to change those ideas. It amazes me how some do the same thing over and over and over and over and expect a result but achieve nothing in the way of growth at all.
08-04-2005, 03:35 PM
Yes Vince we get it. You are a pumper. What you advocate is nothing new. Same as Gironda. 10x10 8x8 blah blah blah. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
I'm a pumper, he's a pumper, she's a pumper, we're a pumper wouldn't you like to be a pumper too?
No. Spending hours in the gym every day risking long term repetitive usage injuries and eating potatos and yams all day is not a lifestyle choice even remotely interesting to me.
However, if I was say...a gym owner. I would express a great deal of interest in your DOMS method. Be sure to stock a lot of expensive, big mark-up carb drinks and energy bars dispensers right next to each station.
08-04-2005, 08:58 PM
The requirements for rapid hypertrophy in large muscles is not because of our theories. We have these theories because that is what works. The reason there is some concensus is because various individuals have concluded similar things.
A pump is a concomitant of getting a stimulating workout. My arm workout lasts about 45 minutes because I need a lot of warming up for them because of past injuries. Most should be able to complete an arm workout in 30 minutes. There is no need to train all the muscles each week. If you do then of course this pastime is going to consume you.
Hypertrophy training for rapid gains is always going to be dangerous. One is always at the edge pushing the envelope. Much care is needed to protect the muscles and connective tissue. Exercise selection is extremely important. There are many dangerous exercises that have no place in anyone's protocols. There are also many ineffective exercises but many keep doing these anyway. I have to say that people who exercise often abandon any sense of intelligence whatever. Many people in gyms are literally incapable of learning anything new about training.
Supplements are not what I push or recommend. Our gym sells these things because people will buy them elsewhere. I believe the supplement business is unethical and always has been. Do you have to eat a lot of food to sustain rapid hypertrophy? Well, from my experience, rapid growth leads to an heightened appetite and it is easy to eat more.
08-04-2005, 10:25 PM
Uh, soreness isn't an indicator of a bout of training's efficacy, number one. That's why many guys go without getting sore, while getting bigger.
If you take 45 minutes to train arms alone, that's pathetic. Either you're waiting 4-5 minutes between sets, or you're going overboard with volume. Especially for arms of all bodyparts.
08-05-2005, 01:06 AM
Hey guys http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Just leave Vince alone. For the past years, Bryan, Blade, Vicious, and Dan (dkm) have been debating with him until they just let him be.
Vince is a bodybuilding vet and gym owner for almost half a century. HST is almost brand new. Vince is deeply rooted already in old bodybuilding knowledge. A good number of the "proof" he's asking for is already available in the web, and in fact he's probably been pointed to it and lectured with it by Bryan, Dan, Blade, Vicious, etc. over and over, but of course, he'd still insist on the methods that worked for him (and the people he's seen) over the past decades.
Nothing's wrong with that. Sure, we can say working out with so many sets over and over in just one workout will cause CNS fatigue (and it will), but Vince already did that for decades and he saw no problem with that, so he still won't believe. And we can point out cortisol levels will be skyrocketing after an hour, so we just recommend 45 mins max as much as possible, but 45 mins is just his arm workout! We can say that this is scientific and uncontested already, that as glycogen and blood glucose begins to drop-off, cortisol (a catabolic hormone) level rises and runs rampant, which is bad because cortisol literally converts muscle tissue to proteins for conversion into glucose (This is simply the bodyís way of producing energy when all readily available energy (glucose) and stored forms (glycogen) of energy have been depleted). So we know for a fact, supported and undisputed by modern research, that longer workouts are actually more of a bad thing due to cortisol. Oh, and have I mentioned gluconeogenesis? But again, Vince has been doing the long workouts for decades, and for him it works (as well as for the people he cites), so even despite glaring evidence, he won't say "okay, i'll join the HST bandwagon!"
And the max loads with high volume versus progression of load. This is simply about RBE. You can beat RBE theoretically by simply continuing to increase the overload in your muscle. Theoretically, you can simply increase the load. But since you can't do that indefinitely, you can also keep on increasing the volume so that the weight that is mostly ineffective becomes somewhat effective again. So much herculean volume is needed when dealing with a load that the conditioned muscle has already pretty much adapted to. So really muscle-bound, ripped dudes like Vince do so many sets over and over, otherwise RBE makes sure they don't get squat of a result. On the other hand, we just SD. It's much simpler anyway. But again, Vince has been doing it his way, and has been very satisfied with the results.
So guys, just let it go. Let Vince contribute whatever he wants to the forum. If he says HST is wrong or whatever then cites his reasons, go ask experts if it confuses you. Just don't argue with him anymore, because if the trend in the past years will remain true, then Vince won't be joining HST anytime soon. And nothing's wrong with that, so just let him speak his mind and get it over with, and we can go back with our discussions of the methods that we studied and learned to be effective and also experienced to be effective as well. We can't expect all bodybuilding vets of advanced years to join our bandwagon, since they are heavily grounded in old bodybuilding lore. We already got O&G, we won't get Vince. We win some, we lose some. Let's just go on with our lives.
08-05-2005, 02:52 AM
Quote[/b] ]Vince, you seemed sensible enough until you decided to turn to using pro bodybuilders as ways to advocate high volumes and discredit less sets as advised with HST. You do realize that these morons run the test levels of ten men, and that cows are given the same thing and manage to grow by simply grazing.
Well said, Chtonian, and Vince seems to have that problem, very few of the guys he is mentioning can even get close to people like Zane, Drapper and the like, they probably wonder these days how far they would have gotten with HST!
However, Vince as JV says is set on his ways and will not give anything new a try! To me I analysed it first, tried out a few other things, enquired, got the owner of this new system to explain things to me (This usually does not happen in other sites, the other guys are just too busy to get involved in forums and the like) http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif , and realized this is different, Bryan put his head on the block of science and really put in the effort of creating the smart way of training!
This is what I call world class, work smarter not harder, why should we when with a lot less investment the returs are very good? Just does not make sense! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] ]I'm a pumper, he's a pumper, she's a pumper, we're a pumper wouldn't you like to be a pumper too?
Wow, that is hilarious, ecto, you have "hit the proverbial nail on the head" http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Vince, we are going to give up on you, you are a kind of saducee, and the gospel just cannot reach you, you have entrenched yourself in the mosaic law, and out of there only you can get! We cannot pull you out, mate! http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
It is sad, but as I have said previously, you are entitled to your own views even if we think they are erroneous. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
08-05-2005, 09:20 PM
JV and fausto portray me as some stubborn old bloke who won't try anything new. That portrayal reeks of irrationality and thickness.
Well, I try to be scientific in my training. If something doesn't work I abandon it and try something else.
**Vince is deeply rooted already in old bodybuilding knowledge.**
If something is knowledge then it is valuable. What some call knowledge is older theories, many of which are no longer current or which have been replaced by newer ideas. I do not cling to something just because other people believed something in the past. I believe whatever is consistent with my overall hypertrophy theory.
**But again, Vince has been doing the long workouts for decades, and for him it works**
Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement. I have not been doing long workouts for decades. For the first 40 years I didn't do that many sets. At various times I tried a bit more volume but never persisted with that method. In 1998 I experimented with the DOMS method and did whatever I had to do to sustain that soreness in my muscles. It turned out to be much more volume using specific, effective exercises. Over the last several years I have been doing many maximum sets to failure and this method is what results in the most hypertrophy for me. It works. Not just for me but for others, too.
We all have to figure out a way to overcome the RBE. Me included. No one is immune. HST suggests a way and I have a different route.
Some of you fellows throw research findings at problems and conclude that something is possible or not possible. Well, your science might be inadequate. While I admit that my theories have to withstand the inspection of science the current knowledge or our understanding of that science is lacking.
JV suggests that working a muscle for 45 minutes has all sorts of scientific evidence that this is not a good thing to do. Well, that conclusion is humbug. There has to be something wrong with your conclusions because my muscles and others do grow on such protocols. Get back in the lab and do the right experiments. Using exercise science in such an inappropriate way is bad science.
**However, Vince as JV says is set on his ways and will not give anything new a try**
Fauto, that statement is completely false. I have been trying new things for almost half a century.
HST as formulated by Bryan would suit beginner and intermediate programs in gyms. My programs can be used by beginners but they would not appreciate them and would prefer to do a total body program because that appears to be better. They go home feeling they have done something for all muscle groups. However, I never train my whole body on any day and doubt very many large bodybuilders do, either.
I will say this again. The test for truth is the gains that one can obtain using a program. No amount of explaining or science can refute that. If someone here wants to impress me they will come up with predictions from science that will explain things better than what has been done previously. I have heaps of questions that science cannot answer.
I remain unconvinced by the science thrown at me. You guys can do much better than that. Can you point to any research that has been done on my type of training and the physiological responses and implications from it? If you have none then you cannot dismiss what I have said because there is no evidence that my method does not work. Running to various research and coming up with explanations why my method cannot work is a gross misuse of science and a very bad example to all those who read this forum looking for knowledge and advice.
08-05-2005, 10:20 PM
Even assuming your method does work for natural trainees (this is still a key thing), HST is a much easier way to go about it. It's like a shortcut. You can't argue with results, this is true. However, why take the longer, bumpier road if you don't have to?
Of course, some of us have a bit of masochism in us and we enjoy that sort've thing. That's why people do 20-rep squats, even when they have no real purpose.
Also, there is a good deal of evidence, both shown in science and real world situations, where training that infrequently leads to stagnation pretty quickly. Most people stick with the once a week protocol and end up going no where with it, which in turn leads them to steroid usage and such.
On top of that, even if hammering away on a bodypart at high intensities with high volume does work for hypertrophy, you'll burn out for CNS rather quickly. The only way I can think of to avoid this is to lower the frequency of your training, or only use your method for ridiculously stubborn bodyparts. In that sense I can see a dedicated arm/calf session combined, but even then, one would be better served by pushing their bench, military, row and chinup weights up 30 lbs. (chins, this is a lot) to 150 lbs. I bet if you bench 205 and start putting up 315, your chest will be bigger, on a whole.
Of course, some specialization work can be done thereafter to bring up any noticable weak points.
08-05-2005, 10:22 PM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Aug. 05 2005,5:20)]If you have none then you cannot dismiss what I have said because there is no evidence that my method does not work.
Please forgive me if you've done this already, but can you summarize your "method" in straightforward terms? That'll make it easier to consider your method without browsing through several different multi-page theads.
08-07-2005, 05:58 AM
Quote[/b] ]can you summarize your "method" in straightforward terms?
I Agree that wil make things a lot easier for all of us.
08-07-2005, 10:19 PM
Where did Vince go? http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
08-07-2005, 11:45 PM
Someone on this forum gave me a suggestion to read about Dante's Doggcrap training and I have spent some time doing that. Interesting reading. Another person who claims to know what hypertrophy specific training is but is different from what you read on this forum. Clearly both methods cannot be right.
I also claim to have a method that builds muscle fast. My method is closer to DC than HST. DC is closer to HIT than HST. You guys here will have to pay your dues and find out which is the best method. Arguing issues will probably not convince true believers about anything different at all.
Those who want to learn more about what I suggested can do a search of this forum under my name. All the relevant threads should be there.
08-08-2005, 12:01 AM
Well, this is surprising. *I'm honestly asking for your latest, most up-to-date training advice, and now you don't want to share. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif
After all the threads you've posted in and all the debating with everyone here, I would have thought you'd jump at the chance to step up to the plate ...
08-08-2005, 03:04 AM
That is not fair http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif why must we do all the work http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Can you not summarize ina few lines what your system is all about?
Surely it can't be that difficult, many of us are at work and already struggle to debate your issues as they are quite long!
Come on, be fair http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/dozingoff.gif
Heavy Duty dude
08-08-2005, 09:57 AM
If you understand HST and DC you quickly realize that they both work on the same principle, which is to focus on the load and frequency more than on the volume.
What does Dante say? He says that he doesn't care how you get stronger as long as you get stronger as fast as possible. Whether you use rest pauses or whatever he doesn't care. The goal is to increase the load quick.
So HST and DC don't disagree. It's just that with HST you decondition so you can grow with the same load several times, while with DC you don't decondition so you have to increase the load. And the volume is almost irrelevant. In DC you do a total of about 15 reps max : 6-8 reps the first set, 4-5 the second, 2-3 the third.
Your system seems radically different, from what I've understood at least. You focus on DOMS. Now maybe there's some value to your system.. maybe when there are microtrauma on the muscle it's easier to make MORE microtrauma. I don't really know but I guess it is not completly irrational to think that it might be the case.. if something is already damaged in the body, it usually takes a smaller stimulus to continue to damage it..
The thing is, and this has been raised by a lot of people: how do you keep training so much to maintain a lot of doms without injuring yourself? It's still a mystery to everyone.. Do you use special techniques, like lots of warmups, active recovery, high reps to have the healing effect of lactic acid on the tendons.
Also how do you avoid losing strength by training so much? It is irrationnal to think that the average trainee will keep its strength for long like that.
Those are the real concrete questions concerning your system that everyone would like to have answers to.
08-08-2005, 10:46 AM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Aug. 07 2005,9:45)]Those who want to learn more about what I suggested can do a search of this forum under my name. All the relevant threads should be there.
No need, here ya go Nav and Fausto and anyone else who is interested.
Mikeynov's synopsis of Vince's DOMs training with Vince's additions (http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=1010;hl=vince)
Quote[/b] ]Here is a possible program to generate DOMS. It allows everyone to find their individual maximum. You need a standing calf machine with a weight stack. So, using your left leg only do heel raises. 5 reps with 100 pounds. Change the pin to add 10 pounds and then without resting do another 5 reps. Medium pace and all the way up and down and no ballistic movements. Add 10 pounds and do another 5 reps. Keep adding 10 pounds and doing 5 reps until you cannot do the weight for the full 5 reps. Then rest for about 1 minute. Do the same maximum weight for as many reps as you can. It should be possible to do about 10 full reps. Then take off 10 pounds and do 5 reps, and continue until you are back to where you started from. This should be sufficient to generate DOMS for several days. If not then you have to do additional exercises or sets with the maximum weight. If you start on the Monday then train again on the Thursday and keep going when you feel the DOMS diminishing. You might have to retrain more frequently.
Another program is as follows. Work up to your maximum heel raise weight by going up as before but this time go up by 20 pounds each time. When you reach your maximum you stop and walk around in a circle that takes about 10 seconds. Then you go back and do as many reps with that same maximum weight. Walk in a circle and do another set. Keep this up until you have done enough sets. Perhaps 5 to 10 maximum sets should suffice.
These should give you enough information to understand Vince's DOMs theory.
09-04-2005, 07:12 PM
HAHAHA! Vince sounds like.......well, everyone that I've ever talked to, outside this message board! Trying to explain HST's principles to anyone that is bigger than me(as of now)....is quite hard, but, I feel great to know that I have a family of HST'ers here http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
09-05-2005, 01:01 AM
HST: If there's a problem with gaining size; eat more protein(increase total calories in general), alter the exercises used(normally move from something like leg press to deadlift, for ex), decondition longer/more effectively.
DOMs: If there's a problem with gaining size;then do more sets/less sets - of course you don't know which, change exercises, spend more time in gym, tinker with each reps, intensity, get a better pump . . .
09-07-2005, 01:45 AM
Quote[/b] (Jester @ Sep. 05 2005,12:01)]HST: If there's a problem with gaining size; eat more protein(increase total calories in general), alter the exercises used(normally move from something like leg press to deadlift, for ex), decondition longer/more effectively.
DOMs: If there's a problem with gaining size;then do more sets/less sets - of course you don't know which, change exercises, spend more time in gym, tinker with each reps, intensity, get a better pump . . .
It's odd how long threads like this go on. I didn' see this question posed to Vince:
Vince, what is the HST routine?
Answer: Nothing. No such thing exists. There's essentially nothing new about HST except it's explanatory power. It tells you why a lot of the things that work, work. In so doing, it also suggests some guidelines for making workouts more productive by adhering to certain principles.
There's nothing magic or even necessary about a weight increase every workout, however eventually the weight does have to increase. This could be done three times a week, two times a week, once a week, whatever. The weight has to go up is the basic point. All HST principles do is give an answer as to why.
There's nothing special about the rep ranges, no matter what they are. They make accomadating and tracking volume easier so at least one more variable in the routine is controlled for over time, end of their significance.
Nothing magic about frequency too. The more frequently you can train, the more frequently you can apply a growth stimulous to your muscles at a given volume of work, the better. Less frequency will work, more will work, with varying trade-offs and benefits to each approach.
Nothing special about taking a breather and resting every once in a while. People have been training that way for a while. Except now that the research has been pulled together there's an explanation as to why this is a good thing to do.
I've read a lot of your posts. You seem to say two contradictory things: that there is no established scientific link between DOMS and hypertrophy, yet DOMS is necessary for hypertrophy. As I understood it the basics behind just what the heck DOMS is are still pretty vague. There's no way someone can make a positive link between the two things absent at least few studies that looked at those particular variables, preferably directly but also indirectly, in a one causes the other scenario.
Someone who wants to get big quick and fast is usually a newbie, and granting he can control his diet he will get bigger than he was pretty fast with even an inefficient, all over the place workout. Too many people have had success in applying HST principles to their workouts to dismiss the ideas behind it. To many people seem to take your approach, which seems to boil down to "feel it the next day" and "constantly tinker until you find something that works" and make little to no progress to ignore. Granted some do great, but we need consistent results across a broad range of people for something to become a principle.
I'd wager if you tracked their progress over time that their greatest gains would reflect the times when their diets were spot on and their training approach adhered as closely as possible to HST principles.
The science HST is based on is pretty much laid out for all to see. Study upon study upon study have been quoted and cited in these boards, many full texts available here and else where. Granted there could be and most likely are other factors involved in muscle growth. HST was never meant to be all encompassing. It's merely a statement of what we know now with some good degree of certainty about some of what's going on inside our bodies.
09-09-2005, 10:00 PM
Quote[/b] ]You seem to say two contradictory things: that there is no established scientific link between DOMS and hypertrophy, yet DOMS is necessary for hypertrophy
Nope, I didn't say either of those things. I could care less what the scientific community has found because they are not interested in bodybuilding. I know what I have discovered. There is a definite link between being able to sustain DOMS in a target muscle and rapid growth. The test of this truth is simple. Get your biceps sore and keep them sore. If you can, which most cannot, then you should grow rapidly. I assume that trainees have a calorie surplus. Those who want to have rows of abs should take up another sport.
In the past I have had problems with connective tissue. I assumed that rapid growth was possible in the muscles but the adaptation lagged in the connective tissue. I was reverse engineering from injuries to elbows and Achilles tendons. In recent months I have managed to avoid serious injury in the elbows while training the triceps as heavy as I can. My connective tissue in the triceps has been chronically tender and I have to do several light warmup sets to enable this exercise to be completed. After about 5 high rep light, progressive sets the pain mostly goes away.
What I conclude now is that it doesn't seem right that connective tissue would adapt at a different rate from the muscle. Both should adapt together. This is what I have found. To avoid injuries you have to make sure you don't do things that cause injuries. Avoid ballistic movements and do not put the elbows against any pads while exercising. Warm the muscle up thoroughly using light weights and high reps.
Quote[/b] ]DOMs: If there's a problem with gaining size;then do more sets/less sets - of course you don't know which, change exercises, spend more time in gym, tinker with each reps, intensity, get a better pump . . .
Nope, that is not at all what I would claim. If you have a problem gaining size in a muscle then train with many sets using the maximum weight for your target reps. I recommend trying to stay over 8 reps. 10 is still a good number. If growth does not follow then try changing the exercise. If growth still doesn't follow then try a new sport.
If you can pump your muscle up larger than ever then it will likely grow if DOMS is there the next day. I have found lately that training every 3rd day is about right. What I do is weigh the various feedback mechanisms I sense in the body. DOMS, pump, connective tissue pain, general feeling of well being. When the muscles are growing the feeling in the body is quite euphoric. The diet seems to take care of itself. When I am growing I just get hungrier.
Quote[/b] ]Vince, what is the HST routine?
Answer: *Nothing. *No such thing exists.
I thought that the more science one knew the more exact the training would be. If HST isn't precise then the science behind it must be lacking. No wonder there is so much confusion on this site.
09-09-2005, 11:13 PM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Sep. 09 2005,9:00)]
[quote]Vince, what is the HST routine?
Answer: Nothing. No such thing exists.
I thought that the more science one knew the more exact the training would be. If HST isn't precise then the science behind it must be lacking. No wonder there is so much confusion on this site.
Wow, you just totally missed the point.
09-09-2005, 11:17 PM
Vince misses every point
09-10-2005, 05:19 PM
Quote[/b] ]Nope, I didn't say either of those things. I could care less what the scientific community has found because they are not interested in bodybuilding. I know what I have discovered. There is a definite link between being able to sustain DOMS in a target muscle and rapid growth. The test of this truth is simple. Get your biceps sore and keep them sore. If you can, which most cannot, then you should grow rapidly.
I have. *Didn't work. *As with HST, nothing new about shooting for DOMS, or 'feeling' the workout.
HST did work.
Quote[/b] ]What I conclude now is that it doesn't seem right that connective tissue would adapt at a different rate from the muscle. Both should adapt together. This is what I have found. To avoid injuries you have to make sure you don't do things that cause injuries. Avoid ballistic movements and do not put the elbows against any pads while exercising. Warm the muscle up thoroughly using light weights and high reps.
Connective tissue and muscle tissue serve different functions and have different forces applied to them. *They may or may not develop at the same rate as each other. *The experience of many steroid users alone tearing connective tissues because their muscle strength developed much quicker than their connective tissue strength shows they can and do develop at different rates.
Quote[/b] ]Nope, that is not at all what I would claim. If you have a problem gaining size in a muscle then train with many sets using the maximum weight for your target reps. I recommend trying to stay over 8 reps. 10 is still a good number. If growth does not follow then try changing the exercise. If growth still doesn't follow then try a new sport.
Are you weeding out problem cases by simply not training them?
Quote[/b] ]I thought that the more science one knew the more exact the training would be. If HST isn't precise then the science behind it must be lacking. No wonder there is so much confusion on this site.
Depends on how much you know. *The presence of unknown variables doesn't negate the properties of known variables. *Not to mention if you told that to a doctor, a practitioner whose field is heavily informed by science, he'd let you know in science there are only varying degrees of certainty. *This is what's known with a reasonable certainty about causing hypertrophy:
You need to damage the muscle by lifting a load.
The more often you can apply the stimulus the better.
Muscles develop a resistance to being damaged by the same stimulus which means the weight needs to be increased as often as possible.
At a certain point gains will plateau because of strength limitations and other factors.
Within that there will be a lot of wiggle room depending on the individual. *Some people are capable of doing super volume levels all the time, some aren't. *Some add strength easy, some don't. *Some have issues with connective tissue, some don't. *With HST Haycock pulled together a lot of research about the muscle fibers themselves. *That doesn't change the fact that those muscle fibers exist in a complex system, the body, and any number of other factors within that body can affect the growth of muscle fibers.
Even out of a few simple, known principles amazing amounts of variety can result. *Look at life itself. *DNA doesn't differ that much between mammals, but we all look a lot different than one another, even though we all share some common features like symmetry along our long axis. *HST routines are the same. *Despite the amazing amount of varience these things will remain the same:
It will incorporate an increase in the weight as often as can be accomodated with other variables like volume in mind.
It will progress in a linear fashion from that point to an end point.
It will allow for as high a frequency as possible, once again accomodating other variables.
It will involved a strategic pull back from weight work to allow the musles to decondition.
Some people may find better results upping volume and cutting frequency. *Some find it better to skip the high rep work and go straight into the heavier portion of the cycle. *Some only increase the weight every other workout.
The variance allowed within a set of principles is expected. *It's caused by factors we aren't certain about but which still affect our overall goal of hypertrophy. *However, the effects of what we don't know don't negate the effects of what we do know. *They just allow for a degree of uncertainty and thus variation in the importance of any one HST principle over another.
09-10-2005, 08:17 PM
Quote[/b] ]The variance allowed within a set of principles is expected. *It's caused by factors we aren't certain about but which still affect our overall goal of hypertrophy. *However, the effects of what we don't know don't negate the effects of what we do know. *They just allow for a degree of uncertainty and thus variation in the importance of any one HST principle over another.
At any one time all of us are at certain points on the hypertrophy journey. It is always difficult to make any muscle grow more. What I have done is virtually ignored other muscles and trained only my arms. This has allowed me to find a method that keeps stimulating the muscles. Do my arms keep growing? Nope. They reach points and stay the same. I have tender elbows and a torn biceps. Those problems have prevented me from training too heavy and too frequently. I believe my general approach is about as good as it gets. I am aware of how much hard, heavy training further growth requires. There is no variation regarding principles. If the principles are wrong there can be no growth. Period. That much is certain. I doubt there is an uncertainty factor in hypertrophy training. The more I read this forum the less I see any principles at all. What I see are individuals failing to grow rapidly and then having to experiment with things to see if that works. HST shouldn't default into trial and error.
09-10-2005, 11:01 PM
Where have you seen individuals here who have failed to grow rapidly? What is your definition of "rapid growth"?? Have you even read the HST results thread? I'd say a lot of the results seen in there are quite rapid, especially when the bulk of the people here are training naturally.
09-11-2005, 08:59 AM
If readers are making satisfactory gains with HST then all I can say is congratulations. Whatever is the point of discussing hypertrophy if you are already growing steadily? When that growth stops you might be interested in what I have written.
09-11-2005, 10:08 AM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Sep. 09 2005,9:00)]Nope, I didn't say either of those things. I could care less what the scientific community has found because they are not interested in bodybuilding.
The scientific community relevant to this discussion is interested in hypertrophy - skeletal muscle growth. Some of this research stems from a bodybuilding interest, some from medical - Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy for example.
Any lack of interest in "bodybuilding" would seem to give scientific experiments mroe credibility as they lack a conflict of interest.
Have you actually done basic physiology @ university? You know that connective tissue and and the muscle have different contraction properties etc yeh...?
09-11-2005, 10:23 AM
When that growth stops, it obviously means that you have plateaued and need to take an SD. Really, you can just taking a few weeks off means that you can start growing again when you begin HST once again... I don't understand how that would invalidate HST's usefullnes, but that seems to be what you are saying.
And you do realize that eventually a person will no longer be able to grow - there is a such thing as a genetic max, after which you turn to drugs, but even then, you will eventually reach a point where you can no longer grow. It isn't like you can keep growing indefinitely.
09-11-2005, 10:34 AM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Sep. 10 2005,7:17)]What I have done is virtually ignored other muscles and trained only my arms. This has allowed me to find a method that keeps stimulating the muscles.
Do my arms keep growing? Nope. They reach points and stay the same.
I have tender elbows and a torn biceps. Those problems have prevented me from training too heavy and too frequently.
I believe my general approach is about as good as it gets. I am aware of how much hard, heavy training further growth requires.
There is no variation regarding principles. If the principles are wrong there can be no growth. Period. That much is certain. I doubt there is an uncertainty factor in hypertrophy training.
1. Good luck with big mass gains then.
2. Ok, so you're not growing . . . why should I train using your method then?
3. Ok, so you're in pain . . . why should I train using your method then?
4. How can you honestly believe that your general approach is as good as it gets, taking into account that you aren't growing and are injured . . .?
5. You aren't growing. You should vary your principles.
09-11-2005, 11:55 AM
Quote[/b] (Jester @ Sep. 11 2005,8:08)]Some of this research stems from a bodybuilding interest
Very very very little of the research has been with bodyduilding interests in mind.
Not saying they don't mimic what the BB community is doing but their interest surely isn't BB per se.
09-11-2005, 07:56 PM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Sep. 10 2005,7:17)]At any one time all of us are at certain points on the hypertrophy journey. It is always difficult to make any muscle grow more.
No, it isn't. In fact with a good diet and a routine that adheres to HST principles and yourown personal requirements regarding volume, intensity, etc., it's rather easy to keep growth coming.
Quote[/b] ]What I have done is virtually ignored other muscles and trained only my arms. This has allowed me to find a method that keeps stimulating the muscles. Do my arms keep growing? Nope. They reach points and stay the same. I have tender elbows and a torn biceps. Those problems have prevented me from training too heavy and too frequently. I believe my general approach is about as good as it gets.
So you are not causing any muscle growth, you're injuring yourself repeatedly, basically not achieving a single goal anyone here or elsewhere is interested in for that matter. How in God's name is such an approach as good as it gets in anyone's eyes?
Quote[/b] ]I am aware of how much hard, heavy training further growth requires. There is no variation regarding principles.
Correct, there is no variation in principle. There is in the application of principle especially when not everything is known about any particular situation. Which is why a consistent weight increase remains a constant goal of anyone interested in causing muscle growth. How much of an increase and how often the weights are increased can vary.
Quote[/b] ]If the principles are wrong there can be no growth. Period.
Not quite correct. People can about working out wrong, paying attention to the wrong details, and still achieve some amount of growth due a number of factors. Lack of training history for one, which gives them no place to go but up. Inadertent adherence to some HST principles while paying attention to other things.
Quote[/b] ]That much is certain. I doubt there is an uncertainty factor in hypertrophy training.
Then everyone who wants to be should be huge by now.
Quote[/b] ]The more I read this forum the less I see any principles at all. What I see are individuals failing to grow rapidly and then having to experiment with things to see if that works. HST shouldn't default into trial and error.
If we knew every possible factor that affects muscle growth and knew how it applied to each individual person who was training, there wouldn't be. We don't know everything. The people on these boards who try HST, stick with it, refine it to suit their body's response, tend to do very well with gains.
The people who don't do well seem to do a number of things. They try the one size fits all routine and expect it to turn them into Ronnie Coleman in 8 weeks. When it doesn't they give up. They post vague diets, indicating their nutrition isn't what it should be. The ask questions which makes it clear they're not getting the point of HST but are concentrating on certain portions of the one size fits all routine as if it's a magic formula for hugeness.
HST principles work, plain and simple. Their application isn't as simple as SD/15/10/5/negatives. Some will respond better to constant volume, like myself. We do cluster training. Some skip the fifteens, also like myself, because it seems I have to stay in the heavier portion of the weight range I use for better results, even after an extended 4 week SD, which I've tried.
When you're dealing with a system as complex as the human body, laying out 4 principles of what's needed to make one phenomena happen in a system where endless factors can affect that phenomena leads to variation depending on individual circumstances. If you can't see that then I'm sorry, but that's reality.
09-11-2005, 11:45 PM
I am growing my arms. What happens is that sometimes I can't get to the gym and then miss the day I was going to workout on. It is difficult keeping my arms at the maximum. However, recently I had them near my best ever. What I want to do is exceed that peak and this can occur only with consistency and effort. Arms that are over 17 1/2 inches cold are not easy to make grow. Getting them over 18 takes a lot of dedication and effort. I hope to reach that measurement soon.
Some people have no idea why certain muscles won't grow. If someone can't put on any weight then it is likely he has a calorie deficit and has to eat more high energy foods. I have a bloke in my gym that I train from time to time. I have mentioned this before but repeating it makes the point. Well, he can't get his arms to grow any more because he literally does not put enough mechanical tension on his arms. I have tried so many things but his large deltoids do most of the work. People 'cheat' during exercises and try to use more weight instead of contracting a muscle under that load. So the best theories and personal trainers can do only so much. There is nothing wrong with the theories but some people just do not apply them properly. When I think he has had a good workout he surprises me by saying he has not been eating enough because he is worried about putting on fat! Not only won't he build his arms bigger, but he cannot!
This is an interesting thread. The probably best thing about it is that it lays out the HST principles in a condensed and easy to understand manner. I am only in the middle of my 1st HST cycle, but have been involved in weight training for about 20 years.
To me HST seems logical, which is why I decided to evaluate the principles in practice. Evaluating doesn't mean doing one 8-week cycle, it means doing it for a long enough period to be able to compare my results while "on HST" with my "pre-HST" results. This will probably mean somewhere around 4-5 cycles, to be able to finetune and tweak my application of the principles. How can anyone say that something doesn't work without being willing to evaluate it?
Vince seems like a nice man, and he probably believes in his method. Like him, I will make up my own mind. Right now, I lean strongly towards HST.
09-12-2005, 12:58 PM
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Sep. 11 2005,9:45)]he can't get his arms to grow any more because he literally does not put enough mechanical tension on his arms.
In quite a few discussions I've had with Vince, the one thing I would never ever call him is unintelligent. Just this statement alone verifies he has quite a bit of understanding.
This statement also verifies he does agree with some of the same priciples that are applied in HST.
The truth is the truth and as such can be universally applied.
But as Xarhx has said and Vince just repeated in his last statement, Application is KEY.
09-12-2005, 09:41 PM
Hi Dan. Yes, the truth about hypertrophy has to apply universally. If something turns out to falsify any of my theories or ideas then I will have to abandon them. That is how science progresses and it is far easier to be mistaken about matters than correct.
One principle I do not agree with so far is strategic deconditioning. I see no need for a muscle to have to rest before further growth is possible. From my experience I would say it is possible to obtain linear, uninterrupted growth. In principle it should always be possible to do a workout that generates growth. What I do is make every workout one that generates growth. It works.
09-13-2005, 10:29 AM
But you agree that the only way to continue to generate growth is to continually increase the weight used, right?
Also, eventually you will reach your rep max, where you will no longer be able to continually increase the weight, although your rep max should be effective for causing hypertrophy for quite a while, still, it will eventually no longer be effective. Sure, you may be able to increase weight further after using your RM for a while, since strength will probably increase... but eventually you will reach a weight so heavy that you will not be able to increase any longer, and eventually that weight will become ineffective.
What do you do at that point? I suppose you could keep using that weight until your strength increases again, then increase your weight, but wouldn't the growth from such a thing be slow, since the weight is no longer working well for hypertrophy?
09-14-2005, 08:48 AM
Quote[/b] (Totentanz @ Sep. 13 2005,9:29)]
What do you do at that point? I suppose you could keep using that weight until your strength increases again, then increase your weight, but wouldn't the growth from such a thing be slow, since the weight is no longer working well for hypertrophy?
Go on a long SD and then start a new cycle .
Even if you can only add 2 lbs.
I keep a pair of 1 pounders just for that reason .
Slow is better than none !
09-14-2005, 09:23 AM
I haven't meant to indicate that you're unintelligent Vince, but I'm perplexed as to how you can outline your principles, then say that you're arms aren't growing and you're injured but the principles hold true.
You can cite improper application of course, but that seems like an easy way out, so to speak.
09-14-2005, 10:53 AM
The facts about HST are true with science to back it up, but you have it give it a chance. And one cycle is not enough to make a true decision.
I did a split HIT routine for 15 years and hit a point for about a year where I could not make any gains
Then I found the HST and with the help of Brian, Dan and Old & Gray Iím backmaking gains with the standard full body HST routine (5 10 15)...
In addition, Iím 53 years old and BBíing since I was 16 and still making gains with HST when nothing else would no longer work .
So, no one can tell me that HST doesnít work. If it is true for me, then it is has got to be true for you.
You are progressively adding more weight. Right ? Then why would it not work?
In addition, if this were my board, I would insist that we keep the subject matter to the science and principles of HST. If you want to do HIT then go to Dr. Dardens wed site.
Also I feel that Aaron_f flamed O&G for no apparent reason should apologize. He is a wealth of knowledge, and a great value to this forum. And I hate to see him gone.
Since Iím at it ÖÖÖÖ
Hey Vince Why do you stay on this forum?
Just to keep on disputing HST?
You seem like an intelligent guy, so why donít you tell us what /how you work out,and the gains you have made with your method.
Maybe we all can learn something from you.
You maybe able to start your own web site.
(SD)Even the pros take time off now and then.
3-4 hours in a gym! What is real funny!
5 or more sets are even funnier! Facts prove otherwise.
And NO! Iím not going to go find the fact again to show you.
I donít have to prove anything.
You just have to prove me wrong then Iíll listen.
09-26-2005, 10:09 PM
Quote[/b] ]But you agree that the only way to continue to generate growth is to continually increase the weight used, right?
No, there are other factors besides adding resistance. Otherwise all top bodybuilders would be enormously strong and most are not. As muscles grow they seem to require more training than smaller muscles. More sets. Oh, there are methods that claim high intensity is the key and only a couple of intense sets are required. I think that is false for almost all advanced bodybuilders. Larry Scott introduced new ways of training that weren't all about adding weight. His method involved exhausting a muscle with various training he called burns. Partial movements and intense pain. Over and over.
Quote[/b] ]The facts about HST are true with science to back it up
This statement is definitely false. What facts are you talking about? If all were proven there would be no need for any discussion about hypertrophy.
I smile when I think of the sites dedicated to hypertrophy research. What bodybuilding research has been done in the last decade? Almost nothing. The scientists could answer all our questions if they wanted to know how to make muscles grow large. Where is research? Nil, zip, zero. In the vacuum appear all manner of research proving absolutely nothing at all about hypertrophy. Doesn't anyone else see the irony of it all. If you people attend university then go to the exercise science departments and ask the good people there about the research in building up one's muscles. Good luck.
I am impressed with the detailed research into muscle physiology. However, most of that work is of little use to bodybuilders.
I am forging away in my own little experiment trying to make my arms grow larger. I am not giving up by saying I am at my maximum or that I require anabolic agents. Because I am specializing on arms I am omitting most of the factors that confuse most trainees who wouldn't have a clue about what is causing what. For a site dedicated to science why is it that so few are embracing testing on themselves?
From the Basile hypertrophy lab I would say that 3 sets with a maximum are insufficient to cause growth in a large muscle. 5 sets or more are required.
09-26-2005, 10:24 PM
Quote[/b] (Sonny @ Sep. 15 2005,3:53)]Also I feel that Aaron_f flamed O&G for no apparent reason should apologize. *
Oh bollocks, no apparent reason?
I questioned an assertation made by Coach Hale, and O&G got in a hissy because I dared question Hale and left.
If O&G wants to pack a sad - like a little baby and run away - then more power to him.
(and if Hale continued to post supposed scientific information with no research based backing then he would continue to be questioned.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.