Cluster training

9to5lifter

New Member
We know that tension on the muscle tissue is what makes it grow. Therefore, what is important is the total count of reps and not how many sets or reps per set. This naturally leads to the idea of cluster training (ok, I know I'm not saying anything new, this is just the prologue).

So, apart from time considerations, is there anything wrong with clustering all of the time? Is there really a need for A sets of B reps? Let us assume that someone wants to keep a constant rep count throughout his cycle (e.g. 15 total reps for each exercise). He starts out with his minimum effective weight, and increments each workout (or each other workout) until he reaches his strength limits. He doesn't count sets, he just clusters up to 15 reps, avoiding failure. There are not "microcycles" of 15, 10 and 5 reps. The weight steadily increases up to the point where only negatives are allowed.

Is there a drawback to the above scenario compared to a standard HST cycle? To simplify the comparison, suppose that the cycle length is the same (e.g. 8 weeks) and we are only interested in size gains. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
 
That's perfectly ok. I pretty much cluster when the weight becomes heavy. It's just really almost impossible to perfectly do a pre-determined number of reps per set as the weight becomes heavier and heavier.

And if it helps you to know this, I believe Bryan and Dan actually do something like that. See an old thread about volume (I think, I can't remember exactly what thread it is at the moment) and how guys manage to get their reps throughout the cycle. It got responses from a lot of guys, I participated in it as well, and there you'll see a pretty nice discussion that pretty much hits your question.

Regards,
-JV
 
Do you think that relying on the abilityto cluster a weight for specific reps can eventually lead to making the weights heavier than neccessary? I know that if I were going to pick my 3 rep max but I knew I could cluster it into 3 mini sets I would pick a higher weight.


Joe G
 
It could lead to that... I guess you'd just have to trust yourself not to use too heavy of a weight. Although if you have a partner and you are in the post-5s, negatives, etc, then I think it's okay to push yourself a little further. That's what I used to do, albeit without a partner, before I buckled down and actually did negatives. I would cluster to be able to increment beyond my 5 RM. It worked well, though not as well as negatives do.
 
The reason I brought this up is because clustering is such a liberty... It allows you to account for bad days in the gym (why can't I get 5 reps at this weight today, I did it the day before), go beyond your 5RM with relative safety, avoid zig-zagging when you want to, add more volume without hitting the CNS too much etc.

For example, when somebody is in the last workout of the 5's, it would be preferable to do 3 sets of 4 instead of 2 sets of 5 (at least size-wise). Moreover, clustering makes it easy to plan a cycle without zig-zagging, or maintain the same volume throughout. This way, you can concentrate on the tension you create and get rid of the old arguments about reps and sets (8-12 reps are optimal for hypertrophy etc).

When the exact mechanism of muscle hypertrophy is known, why bother with sets and/or failure? I believe Bryan laid out the program the way it is just to make sure that eveybody will be able to understand it, using traditional BB terminology.
 
This is actually exactly what I do, except I cluster to 20 reps, and it's so much easier psychologically, let alone physiologically.
 
no matter how you put i cant seem to think otherwise that clustering isnt has effective for certain situations...

If i need to lift 100lbs 15 times and i do it in 1 set, I could have done it by clustering, like 5 sets of 3 rep each, but something i could have lifted 15 times in 1 set, if i do it in 5 set its gonna be so easy it wont even feel like ive worked my muscle at all, now maybe its the same but it to me id doesnt feel the same...
 
Louno, I think you are missing the point a little. With clustering, you don't stop after x number of sets for no reason. You stop just short of fatigue. So if you are using your 10 RM for squats and you want to do 20 reps, you might do 9 reps, rest a minute, push out 8 more, rest again, then finish. What you do not do is use your 15 RM, stop after 6 reps even though you could do several more, rest, then finish the reps.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Louno @ Sep. 14 2005,1:56)]no matter how you put i cant seem to think otherwise that clustering isnt has effective for certain situations...
If i need to lift 100lbs 15 times and i do it in 1 set, I could have done it by clustering, like 5 sets of 3 rep each, but something i could have lifted 15 times in 1 set, if i do it in 5 set its gonna be so easy it wont even feel like ive worked my muscle at all, now maybe its the same but it to me id doesnt feel the same...
Totentanz hit it. If you are clustering to say 20 reps, you don't arbitrarily break that into 4 sets of 5 or anything like that. What you do is basically keep increasing the weight as in a regular HST cycle. However you don't have rep ranges to work with, so when you start getting to the heavier weights when you feel yourself getting fatigued you would stop there and do what you needed after that to hit the 20 rep goal.

So say you've just moved into the point of your cycle where you're past your twenty rep max. You can only get 16 reps out at whatever weight you're using while not going to failure. You do the 16, rest, do 4 more to hit twenty. So on and so forth. Basically you're just allowing for varying ability to lift over the course of a cycle and keeping volume consistent.

This is actually the most effective way I've found to train HST style. I still use my five rep max to calculate the end of the cycle, and decrease the weight by 10% for each preceding workout respectively. Since there's no 15/10/5 or 12/8/5 framework to force fit your weights into, there is no zigzagging. I find clustering to be a very, very good approach to HST.
 
How do you figure out the rest periods for clustering?

My only concern is that you could spend way too much time in the gym when working ~2/3RM..supersetting could shorten this of course.
 
Exactly what xahrx said. A cycle with a constant rep count (if you wish), progressive load, avoiding failure and allowing for good or bad days (or stength losses/gains).

There is another point worth mentioning. Vicious in his e-book mentions that cluster training may enhance MAPKp38 activity (as opposed to erk1/2) by stopping the set when increased neural drive is demanded (effectively keeping the stimulus of each rep as constant as possible, as it begins to drop after a few reps). I don't know how much truth there is to that, but it seems it can't hurt either. As he puts it, if cluster training doesn't do anything about optimizing hypertophy, at least it allows better CNS fatigue management. Comments anyone?

One last point I would like to make is that even if you cluster unnecessarily as Louno mentioned (3x5 instead of 1x15), there should be no big difference size-wise. After all, it is the tension applied that counts and not the CNS fatigue induced.

All in all, it seems to me that this approach has many advantages and no drawbacks.
 
Back
Top