Question on SD

B

bobpit

New Member
SD is supposed to decondition the muscles, so that they respond to hypertrophy (change) at the same weight that you lifted before.

In some other programs I read this kind of periodization:
1 cycle strength, then 1 cycle hypertrophy, repeat. The idea is to focus 1 cycle on your strength, and when you become stronger, you focus 1 cycle on hypertrophy, lifting heavier weights and you have better results.

Isn't this exactly the opposite? So could I just tell these guys that they would have a much easier time if the just did 1 cycle hypertrophy, take 10 days off and start all over again?

Am I missing something?
 
It`s never that simple...linear periodisation(the thing you`re talking about above) is a fairly old concept. The thing is that your strength cycle may not be the best thing for hypertrophy, and vice-versa. Basically, the idea is that the characteristic you`re not training loses "conditioning"(it`s fairly late here, so I guess you`ll not mind my rather crappy way of wording things). There are other ways to periodise, like conjugated, undulating etc. If you`re interested, read some Mel Siff, and, if available translated, Zatsiorsky and Verkohansky. Tudor Bompa(fellow countryman of mine) has a very good book on Linear Periodization(whose name I can`t seem to remember right now).

About SD...it`s good because taking a break from training is good in itself once in a while, due to numerous reasone. Does it affect RBE?Current research seems to point to the contrary(RBE has lingering effects for up to a few months, so resetting it would take a months long SD-not feasible). Is HST as an approach to hypertrophy superior to linear periodization?Certainly, because it has you doing the most important things for growing big muscles:train frequently enough(at least 2x per week) and increase weights frequently enough.

And again, since it`s late here, I may have posted this very long thing without it having relevance to your question...if that`s so, sorry mate
smile.gif
 
<div>
(bobpit @ Apr. 05 2007,13:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SD is supposed to decondition the muscles, so that they respond to hypertrophy (change) at the same weight that you lifted before.

In some other programs I read this kind of periodization:
1 cycle strength, then 1 cycle hypertrophy, repeat. The idea is to focus 1 cycle on your strength, and when you become stronger, you focus 1 cycle on hypertrophy, lifting heavier weights and you have better results.

Isn't this exactly the opposite? So could I just tell these guys that they would have a much easier time if the just did 1 cycle hypertrophy, take 10 days off and start all over again?

Am I missing something?</div>
Understand that the most &quot;common&quot; notions about hypertrophy are based on rep ranges, and a burning sensation in the muscle.

Strength coaches of decades past believed anecdotally that lifters who claimed to be bodybuilders would do multiple sets of &quot;higher&quot; (relative term) reps, such as 10-12. Not being entirely familiar with everything that a bodybuilder might do to grow they assumed it must be the higher reps that were creating the differences between their strength athletes and the bodybuilders.

So when creating periodization they called the period where the reps were between 10-12 &quot;bodybuilding&quot; or the hypertrophy phase.

What has become more clear today is that a bodybuilder can, and will eventually have to, use heavier weights/lower reps if they want to create a stimulus of the same caliber as they experienced when they were newer at the game. HST simply refers to this as RBE, and there are some good recent papers exploring this.

1: Coffey VG, Shield A, Canny BJ, Carey KA, Cameron-Smith D, Hawley JA. Interaction of contractile activity and training history on mRNA abundance in skeletal muscle from trained athletes. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 May;290(5):E849-55. Epub 2005 Dec 6.

2: Coffey VG, Zhong Z, Shield A, Canny BJ, Chibalin AV, Zierath JR, Hawley JA. Early signaling responses to divergent exercise stimuli in skeletal muscle from
well-trained humans. FASEB J. 2006 Jan;20(1):190-2. Epub 2005 Nov 2.

Of course, there are other papers as well but I think we've already been over them.

So what periodization actually does isn't so much create isolated hypertrophy and then isolated strength, but instead it brings about progressive changes in the nervous system and metabolic characteristics of the muscle to &quot;peak&quot; strength performance at a certain time. It does this by manipulating fatigue, and load.

HST, on the other hand, attempts only to manipulate load while keeping fatigue relatively constant. As the tissue inevitably grows resistant to the loading scheme, you apply a different and opposite stimulus in an attempt to undue some of the RBE.
 
Very interesting post, Bryan. Especially the part about the reason for higher rep ranges being considered a &quot;hypertrophy range&quot;.

Besides the peaking part, as I understand it there's another aspect of the theory behind periodization as typically applied in strength training, or dual factor theory.

In Practical Programming, Mark Rippetoe talks about the point where an intermediate lifter can no longer make gains that allow him to continue to lift more weight. Rippetoe's solution is to add enough volume to stimulate more growth. However, that level of stimulus cannot be recovered from in just a couple of days, so there are lighter days and heavier days. As the lifter continues to advance he goes from cycling heavier and lighter within the same week to doing so over longer periods of time.

Anyway, I see it as two different ways of dealing with RBE, when the lifter can no longer overcome it by adding weight to the bar. A dual factor approach finds a way to add more stimulus by periodically increasing volume, HST's approach is to make the same volume more effective again.

I think I've probably largely restated what you already said, just emphasizing a different aspect of the periodized approach. At least if I correctly understand what you're saying.
 
Since Bryan seems to post here more once again, I`d like to ask if he still feels the shortish 9-14 day SD has an effect on RBE?I`m curious about this as research suggests that such a short period has little effect on it.
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Apr. 06 2007,16:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Since Bryan seems to post here more once again, I`d like to ask if he still feels the shortish 9-14 day SD has an effect on RBE? I`m curious about this as research suggests that such a short period has little effect on it.</div>
Well, 9-14 days is not sufficient to revert the condition back to its original &quot;untrained&quot; state. It would take a very longtime to do that...perhaps 4-6 months depending on several factors.

The idea with Strategic Deconditioning (SD) is to remove the loading stimulus as long as possible without losing an unacceptable amount of contractile proteins. Unfortunately there aren't many papers on this subject and none that I know of that provide us with the exact numbers were after (i.e. how many days off before you lose contractile proteins?).

Of course, the exact number of days for optimal SD will not only depend on how long the tissue is unloaded, but also on other factors such as nutritional state, hormones (endocrine, paracrine, and autocrine), and training history. So it might not be the same for every lifter.

There is one other factor that is often forgotten when discussing &quot;effective&quot; training, and that is absolute load. By absolute I mean the amount of weight lifted without regard to one's Repetition Maximum (RM).

Muscle tissue has essentially the same composition and physical properties regardless of how much it has hypertrophied. For this reason, there exists a non-relative or independent threshold for how much load must be applied before it will respond significantly.

As long as one trains with absolute loads below this threshold, they will never induce significant hypertrophy regardless of the volume of training. On the flip side as long as one uses weights above this threshold growth is assured (or size is maintained) with little difference seen between exact numbers of reps, sets, etc. Once again, none of these can be represented by fixed values...biology is analog, not digital if you get my drift.

-bryan


P.S. I always post here, I just don't like to dominate the conversation.
smile.gif
 
Morgoth broached the idea I've been cultivating, despite the late hour upon which he mused.
I had stopped gaining anything by my 7th HST cycle and went for the 5x5, wherein I made some gains, but lost much of my conditioning. My first workout back to HST a couple days ago proved that, so I feel right about using a strength cycle alternately or sporadically with the HST program as a benefit, either to us older lifters with low hormones, or just to intermediate lifters who have stalled out.
I suppose you might see it as a long-term dual-program periodization? I don't know but another approach might be to alternate vanilla HST with a SST version of HST. But for me, the temptation at this time is to follow the deload with and HST cycle, winding down with 3's as the final weeks (the SST version) and do it again if it works.
 
I've mentioned before that in my experience there are diminishing returns. My first two cycles I gained 27 pounds. I gained in each cycle after that, but each time was less. No, it was not a matter of eating more, because I did and gained more fat; gaining weight is not a problem, increased LBM was.

The strength gains from a 8 week HST cycle were not enough for me to have continued long term progress with increased LBM. That's why I think it's a great idea to focus on strength before doing another HST cycle. That could mean just extending the 5's as long as possible, such as doing max-stim, or 8 weeks of a 3x5 or 5x5 type of routine. Doing HST when for example, your deadlift max is 15 pounds more than the previous cycle is not going to be as effective as when it is 50-75 pounds more than previous.
 
Thanks Bryan for the answer. It`s fairly in-line with what I`ve been thinking:eek:ne needs to experiment by himself to find an adequate milieu, just like with everything else.
 
I believe time off between long cycles is healthy regardless of deconditioning. Let's face it, doing heavy full-body workout 3 times/week is pretty hardcore. Especially when you consider that many bodybuilders only work a bodypart/week. At the end of a 10-12 week cycle, the loads are very high and my system is usually toasted.
I call SD by a different name: CNS recharge!
smile.gif
 
I see Leige is on board (post 9). I would add that when doing the SST, 5x5 or whatever, you can gain fat easier than HST - so putting carbs before the workout and during it are great for fuel, but watch the overall carbs. My gut just got away with me; now I'm suffering it.
My suggestion for the above workouts is slow bulk, unless you have a hummingbird metabolism.
 
<div>
(Bryan Haycock @ Apr. 06 2007,20:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is one other factor that is often forgotten when discussing &quot;effective&quot; training, and that is absolute load. By absolute I mean the amount of weight lifted without regard to one's Repetition Maximum (RM).

Muscle tissue has essentially the same composition and physical properties regardless of how much it has hypertrophied. For this reason, there exists a non-relative or independent threshold for how much load must be applied before it will respond significantly.

As long as one trains with absolute loads below this threshold, they will never induce significant hypertrophy regardless of the volume of training. On the flip side as long as one uses weights above this threshold growth is assured (or size is maintained) with little difference seen between exact numbers of reps, sets, etc. Once again, none of these can be represented by fixed values...biology is analog, not digital if you get my drift.

-bryan


P.S. I always post here, I just don't like to dominate the conversation.  
smile.gif
</div>
This got me thinking of Ronnie Colemans &quot;Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but nobody wants lift those heavy ass weights&quot;
tounge.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top