Why 15-10-5 and not 15-13-11-9-7-5?

Tom_A

New Member
-

Keeping the increases in weight the same in both cases, is there some reason why we should follow this rep scheme:

Week 1: 15
Week 2: 15
Week 3: 10
Week 4: 10
Week 5: 5
Week 6: 5

rather than this:

Week 1: 15
Week 2: 13
Week 3: 11
Week 4: 9
Week 5: 7
Week 6: 5

...other than "the need to simplify things so people will understand"?

Shouldn't an increase in weight be followed by a decrease in reps?  What is the benefit of keeping the reps fixed while increasing the weights?  Only at the end of each two week cycle would you lift anywhere near your max.

This seems weird to me.  The "normal" thing would be to adjust the reps in accordance with the increase in weights.
Sure, both are ways to get "progressive loading", but is the first rep scheme preferable to the second?  If so, why?  I  doubt that people are so stupid that they are able only to follow the first scheme and not the second.

I'm in the process of putting together my first HST-program, and I would like to know what rep scheme is preferable.  Has anyone experimented with this?  And if so, what was the results?

Thank you.


-
 
For a first cycle, I would just go with the standard 15/10/5 setup. It's easiest and it will get you acclimated to the HST principles. You may find it works well enough to get you through a few cycles before you feel the need to make any more changes.

Personally, what I'm doing right now is keeping the reps constant, using clustering, and abandoning the 15/10/5 scheme entirely. I just start with a weight roughly equal to my 15 RM and cluster to 20 reps, increasing the weight by 10 lbs or whatever increment I'm using every other workout. It simplifies a lot of the math, though I find it tends to make my workouts last a bit longer.

Regardless, like I said, you should try it the standard way at first. That should be more than sufficient.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Keeping the increases in weight the same in both cases, is there some reason why we should follow this rep scheme:

Week 1: 15
Week 2: 15
Week 3: 10
Week 4: 10
Week 5: 5
Week 6: 5

rather than this:

Week 1: 15
Week 2: 13
Week 3: 11
Week 4: 9
Week 5: 7
Week 6: 5

...other than "the need to simplify things so people will understand"?
Nope, no other reason than that, really.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Shouldn't an increase in weight be followed by a decrease in reps?
Not unless you can't do the proper reps anymore. This depends on how big the increase is; usually you don't lower the volume (reps) immediately because you were working out using submax weights anyway.... which leads to your next question...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What is the benefit of keeping the reps fixed while increasing the weights?
This seems weird to me. The "normal" thing would be to adjust the reps in accordance with the increase in weights.
No special benefit in keeping reps fixed, just makes it one less variable to worry about (volume). As for the "normal" thing you mentioned, actually that is what happens. Except that, because we are training submaximally most of the time, we only need to adjust the rep scheme less often. We just lessen the number of sets when we reach the second week (drop from 2 to 1), for example, or simply not have to really reach the required reps in the second set.

Also, the less your rep schemes are (15-10-5 vs 15-13-11-9-7-5), the less RMs you have to figure out for each exercise.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Sure, both are ways to get "progressive loading", but is the first rep scheme preferable to the second?
Not at all. Just simpler. Less of a logistics problem. With all the types of exercise you ahve for all your bodyparts, presenting a cycle as 15-10-5 seems much cleaner and simpler than outright saying "adjust reps as you increase the weight", which might entail having to "guesstimate" exactly what your rep should be for a particular weight - for example, if you were in your 15RM in flat bench, then you increased by 10 pounds, how many reps should you do? Then you increased by 10 pounds in another exercise, say squats, how many reps then for squats? What can happen (and probably will happen often) is that each exercise will have different rep schemes. And it falls to you to figure out what rep to target for. See where that leads? Can be a little bit confusing, leading to training instinctively. Not really a problem itself, but can easily lead to overtraining.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] I doubt that people are so stupid that they are able only to follow the first scheme and not the second.
Quite right. Lost of the old timers here were used to the 15-13-10-8-5 HST cycle. No difference really. Just another means of implementing progressive loading without having to worry about how many reps to target for.
And like Totentanz, a lot also simply use clustering - instead of rep schemes, there is just a target number of reps, and all you do is simply reach that using however many sets you need to reach it, stopping short of failure in every set. Again. it's just another way of managing the workout to worry about one less variable (volume).

Just remember, nothing is magic about rep schemes and sets. What matters is you use a significant load and do enough volume. And of course, increasing the load to stay ahead of RBE.

Regards,
-JV
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Personally, what I'm doing right now is keeping the reps constant, using clustering, and abandoning the 15/10/5 scheme entirely.
Actually, I'm trying to put together something like this myself. It is still early to comment on this, I'll see how it goes.

Anyway, like the others, I would strongly recommend a standard cycle (15-10-5) first to get the hang of it before you make any adjustments. The first cycle is invaluable for determining the volume you wish to (and can) use, settling on exercise selection, frequency etc, so try to keep it simple.

Regards,
Dimitris
 
-

Thank you, all of you!

That answers my questions. I'll use the 15-10-5 scheme for my first HST-program. Thank you again.


-
 
I've done two HST cycles in the 15-15-10-10-5-5-negs format but will try the 15-13-11-9-7-5 style next.
My only question is when doing the older format I max out (to Failure) at the end of every two week rep scheme, how often do you go to Failure with the rep scheme changing every week? Does it matter?
 
i suppose if your chaning every week then you must go to faliure every week which is maybe not a good thing.
also your increments will probably be smaller which is more condusive to strenght rather than hypertrophy..imo.. :confused:
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Giovanni @ Dec. 02 2005,7:35)]Totentanz:
How much rest you take between cluster's?
Thank you
Giovanni
It varies too much to give a definitive answer. But... I try to keep them as short as possible. Often I'll just use a rest/pause sort of technique.
 
Back
Top