HST theory

Heavy Duty dude

New Member
I was wondering, how is Bryan's theory percieved by other scientists? Do they agree usually, are there areas of disagreement on such and such point?
 
I don't know if Bryan ever presented HST to any researchers and he would have to comment on that.

I will say this, several studies on hypertrophy have used very similar training protocols, IE a linear periodized progression, but many have used other protocols and seen roughly the same result. But until they really concentrate on trained subjects it's hard to say what produces what after the initial training adaptation.
 
i would like to see some more studys on rbe i have read some of your site dan..but i would like to know how often you can use the same weight before rbe catches up..
 
There really is no way to know. If you look at what remodeling occurs, as far as how many sarcomeres are impacted during remodeling, it's relatively few. It also depends on the length of the stretch and the length of the muscle during contraction. But histochemically the damage (trauma, remodeling or whatever the PC name is today) is definately reduced when the same load is used multiple of times. Now logically one can say that since it impacts only a limited number of fibers each workout it would take a while before it impacted enough fibers to really stall growth. But, it can also be said and seen that immediate changes do occur in the length tension relationship even with an acute loading. So it's really subjective.
 
And you Dan? You have studied all of this extensively. You have a lot of experience with HST and also other training systems I guess.

So what do you think?

I don't want to start anything here, I'm just asking your opinion. :D
 
Asking Dan his opinion about HST is like asking the Pope if he thinks religion rocks. :D

Dan has said before that he believes very much in HST. Not because Bryan pays him or because Bryan is his best bud, but simply because the principles behind it are not BS. You can pretty much see this at his site. I've seen him defend HST (sort of) whenever some rude bums decide to bash HST when it is clear they have no clue what the hell they are saying in the first place.
 
No, Bryan doesn't pay me. Actually I have never met the man face to face. I do consider him a mentor though.

But with saying that, every student at some point begins to have their own thoughts and I am no different there. This doesn't mean I don't believe the principles as Bryan defines aren't sound, they are. Nor does it mean that HST isn't sound, it is very sound.
 
Well, I'm a scientist and I believe in the principles of HST. So much so that I wrote several articles about HST.

Lately, I've been trying other types of training, and the most striking difference that I've noticed is that with HST I measure growth in lbs whereas with other programs I measure growth in tenths of a lb.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
But with saying that, every student at some point begins to have their own thoughts and I am no different there.

And what are your own thoughts?

I'm just trying to get some educated guesses on HST. I'm not criticizing it in any way. Doing science is tough and I know that criticizing is very easy.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (navigator @ Dec. 24 2005,12:20)]Well, I'm a scientist and I believe in the principles of HST.  So much so that I wrote several articles about HST.
Lately, I've been trying other types of training, and the most striking difference that I've noticed is that with HST I measure growth in lbs whereas with other programs I measure growth in tenths of a lb.
You're a scientist is what area?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Dec. 24 2005,3:49)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
But with saying that, every student at some point begins to have their own thoughts and I am no different there.
And what are your own thoughts?
I'm just trying to get some educated guesses on HST. I'm not criticizing it in any way. Doing science is tough and I know that criticizing is very easy.
Well, physiologically I question how much validity there is to the damage before hypertrophy hypothesis. I also question the hypothesis that tension is the prime stimulus, not that I question tension's role as key but I think a metabolic stimulus has to be present as well and some times this gets ignored.

On HST specifically, it's not that my ideas diverge all that much. I have, for lack of better words, concerns on how it's been interpreted by many who apply it. For instance, Bryan has again and again said use the MOST volume you can handle that doesn't interfere with frequency, yet again and again I see people say that one set is sufficient, and this could be for someone who has a low tolerance for exercise, but again if that is the case then perhaps they need to work on increasing their exercise tolerance and get to where they can do more work. Also why SD after only 2-3 weeks of working with heavy weight. I have not been able to see why that 2-3 weeks of heavy training = RBE caused stagnation. I personally feel that the heaviest part of the cycle should and needs to be continued for a substantially longer duration. Bryan has mentioned this as well many times, "no need to SD if gains are still occurring in strength or size" then to top this off there are many who even shorten this cycle while most studies show that DURATION is a factor in the gains you will see. Now I will add to this that, yes, I feel an SD should be taken if you feel completely abused and violated and your joints are just "crying in pain" and in that case a 7-14 day SD may be beneficial. In continuation with that I personally don't see how 2 weeks are enough time, 4 weeks to me would be the optimal amount of SD, but getting a bunch of muscle heads to quit training for that length of time is probably futile. So to sum it up, it's not HST per se that I have concerns with, because if you read many of Bryan's posts you will see he says these same things.
 
Well put DKM.

99 % of my answers come without any science to back it up...(so there is your sergions general warning)

But IMO after reading what DKM just spoke about he it the nail on the head. Especially with HST volume and principals.

I know some people ( and I am not talking to the die hards here) think HST is just the easy way out and its the miracle pill...ie the one set is enough quote.

Again the HST principals from what I have read are SOUND...but dont let the noobies or anyones think you still dont need to bust your @ss training. True some of the old school workouts were terrible but the idea behind them or in other words work ethic was not!

I agree with Dan about the not SD after 8 weeks as well as lenght of SD. Cant say I can scientifically back it up I just know after 12 years of training, you learn when your body wants to keep going and when it says stop.
 
wassup dan,

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]there are many who even shorten this cycle while most studies show that DURATION is a factor in the gains you will see

By duration do you mean the length of the cycle? if so would U extend the cycle during the 10s, 5s or 5RMs?

With regards to shortening the cycle I'd like to know when it's OK to drop the 15s Bcoz in bryans articles I remember him saying that its OK to drop the 15s after your very 1st cycle. So do the 15s contribute to the DURATION that you mentioned above?

in any case i'm confused coz I thought that the HST principles were set in stone ( I remember reading an article in the HST FAQ that gave a crap-load of reasons for why the basic HST cycle shouldn't B changed, criticizing people who modified it to suite themselves). so what's up with that?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I have, for lack of better words, concerns on how it's been interpreted by many who apply it. For instance, Bryan has again and again said use the MOST volume you can handle that doesn't interfere with frequency, yet again and again I see people say that one set is sufficient

OK now I'm really confused. So according to you if one can handle 5 sets of 10 reps on the bench and still be able to train 3 times a week without feeling burned out should thay GO FOR IT? But in Bryans introductory articles to HST I remember with impecable clarity the words "NO MORE THAN TWO SETS". You know, if this is the case I'm pretty sure i've been under-utilizing myself. So what's up with that?

any way i've been using the HST program for about 2 cycles now and its pretty good. so i think i'm ready to take it to another level. So Dan, why don't you clarify some of the misconceptions in the way people interprate HST so that we can get the most out of our precious time and money spent in the gym? (and since this post is all about science and scientists why not throw in some of that scientific rationale while your at it)

thanx man KD.
 
Yes, I mean overall duration of the cycle.

As far as the rest of it, yes work is a factor in hypertrophy. Since I really need to get to the shop and get some work done this morning let me be brief.

Duration, several papers have shown that the longer the training period the better the gains, especially in untrained individuals. Scientifically this goes back to neural learning vs, hypertrophy being the predominant player in strength gains over time. Relating this to RBE, IMOO, RBE isn't on or off, it is stages of adaptation. The magnitude of RBE does increase with each sucessive loading of the same weight but the individual magnitude of each loading isn't all that great (see Yu or Nosaka studies). Therefore the timeframe of RBE isn't immediate and the heavier the weight the longer you should be able to load with it. Secondly to that comes the issue of satellite cells (see my post under ACIT in the General Training Forum).

I don't recall anywhere it saying not to tweak or change some of the details of HST. What it comes down to is managing your own training while using the principles of HST. Yes, I strongly feel that if you are able to do more work (sets) then you should. But again this is very subjective to the individual who we are talking about and some simply can not. For a review on what Bryan says about tweaking read his Article.

In the HST training section you noted that it says, emphatically no more than 2 sets, it doesn't say this. It says 1 or 2 because some research show passed that you are only burning calories. While this may be true, the effect of hypertrophy is regulated by TUT as well as tension. If you read many of the studies I have posted as references to some of my articles at my site you'll be hard pressed to find any that only use one set yet most show some pretty large hypertrophic gains. In some strength studies (no I'm not equating strength and hypertrophy) the number of sets do make a difference and a moderate amount of sets appears to be better. Now again managing your own training is needed and if you can handle more volume and eat accordingly I doubt it will be detrimental.

If you are interested go to my site and read the articles Ron and I present and also some of the discussions on the Forum, there you will find many references to studies, reviews and other information where I gathered some of my thoughts. Another thing I suggest is read some of Bryans posts here in which he tends to go more into his "views" rather than his program design, which remember was intended for a broad audience, trained and or untrained.

Gotta run

Dan
 
I am only guessing here. But I would think that Bryan was smart to put a HST program up to go by b/c it helps with the marketing aspect of getting HST out there and letting people know about it. However true HST is the principals. So I could see were the two would get confused.

The thing is most people are lazy and if HST was just principals for everyone to read and then build there routine (which when you think about it thats exactly what it is) people would not do it.

Unfortunatly especially in America everyone wants to be told exactly what to do. So hence I think that is why the sample programs is here on the forum. Its gets your attention and interest and hopefully like myself you will tune in and start reading the fundamentals and principals and that in turn will help you understand Hypertrophy better.

My 2 cents...on understanding why 1 to 2 sets are recommeded from faq.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunatly especially in America everyone wants to be told exactly what to do. So hence I think that is why the sample programs is here on the forum. Its gets your attention and interest and hopefully like myself you will tune in and start reading the fundamentals and principals and that in turn will help you understand Hypertrophy better

Yeah, that's the case for a lot of the general public throughout the world. Reading into a new topic where the articles are long and you have to form your own understandings about everything is undesirable. Most people around here follow the basic laid out program and change it there on afterwards. My next cycle of 8x/wk with AM/PM splits, alternating exercises, loaded stretches, pulsing techniques, met sets, etc... is so much different than my first one. All of that came from truely understanding the HST principals and optimizing a routine that would work best for me.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Dec. 24 2005,4:50)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (navigator @ Dec. 24 2005,12:20)]Well, I'm a scientist and I believe in the principles of HST. So much so that I wrote several articles about HST.
Lately, I've been trying other types of training, and the most striking difference that I've noticed is that with HST I measure growth in lbs whereas with other programs I measure growth in tenths of a lb.
You're a scientist is what area?
Nav is a physicist, I believe.
 
Ok, thanks everyone for your feedback. :)

Dan, your views are very consistant with those of Bryan's. About the TUT and the number of sets issue, the goal of HST anyways is not to train at the limit of the TUT. The idea is more to get most of the hypertrophic gain and go back to train asap.
 
i think a lot of newbies get confused about the routines shown, and think they must stick to that one ...maybe it would be a good idea to put up a thread with different variations of routines all consisting of the HST principals but all being different...ie 3x a wk..5x a wk...3x split....5x split..compounds only..or compounds 1day isos the next ala fausto..maybe put a sticky on it.also if anyone decides to have a look at the site who doesnt do HST they will realize there are many ways to do HST :D
 
Back
Top