Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Gotcha!
Achieving Progressive load Continuously
- Thread starter wisslewj
- Start date
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Mar. 10 2008,21:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Great point Quad...and I think you are 100% right on.
Its seems that my observations are they same.
If you are on low volume and are not growing try high volume.
If you are own high volume and now growing try low volume.
High reps try low reps....yadda yadda yadda.
Hey what are Railroads? Never heard of them??</div>
absolutely, with in reason no rep range should be over looked.
depending on the cycle involved mine last 6-8 weeks max then i start again and change the exercises which i will touch upon shortly.
(Joe.Muscle @ Mar. 10 2008,21:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Great point Quad...and I think you are 100% right on.
Its seems that my observations are they same.
If you are on low volume and are not growing try high volume.
If you are own high volume and now growing try low volume.
High reps try low reps....yadda yadda yadda.
Hey what are Railroads? Never heard of them??</div>
absolutely, with in reason no rep range should be over looked.
depending on the cycle involved mine last 6-8 weeks max then i start again and change the exercises which i will touch upon shortly.
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 10 2008,18:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...and he shrunk again, then grew again...but brick by brick is building the house.
I'm working into a volume workout myself right now (the adding reps scheme) because I need a new program to hit myself with.
It COULD be...that lowrep works for a while, highrep works for a while, one or another program works for a while...and they all seem to stall out after a bit. My point is that it may be just that it's not the high or low reps or whatever, but the adaptations to new stimuli that creates just as much hypertrophy as the exersize system or volume.
I can't back this up, but it is a collective awareness from seeing so many different things work for so many people - many swearing it is the Holy Grail and we should all be doing just this ONE THING...yeh, right.
How many times have we seen:
5x5
10x3
HST
Shock sets
Railroads
Strip sets
20 rep, and even mega rep systems being touted as the "best" road to size?
I think the best road to size is food, sleep, and hitting the gym hard and often...but dang, that opens up the frequency argument again, doesn't it?
</div>
this for me really stands out.yeah progressive load is very important, but ive been observing that adaptations to new exercises/stimuli are giving me real gains again.
i recently changed gyms as mine shut down, it was a real dungeon anyway. i started at a "real" bodybuilders gym lol, its got every weight rack, machine, bb and dumbell you could imagine and when i say machine im not talkin multigym s@@t, machines that actually"work" and some of them are in a sense close to being free weights if u get my drift.
now the point is that ive been training there for 4 weeks, in just over 2 weeks i put on 7lbs naturally i might add
i went from 224lbs to 231lbs no change in diet or volume.the gains have slowed again but ill just change the exercises next cycle.
so to recap my body has been struggling to adapt to these new weights and machines thus ive grown in the process.
as you said diet and rest along with consistant training will yeild results, if a program stalls out then move to another for a while.
finally i dont believe in the whole shock the body type of training, i mean if i superset im punishing the muscle which could force some further adaptations but not much. but when you switch from dumbells which u have been doing for say 8 weeks and then go back to barbell this is when the adaptations are optimised for growth imo.
(quadancer @ Mar. 10 2008,18:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...and he shrunk again, then grew again...but brick by brick is building the house.
I'm working into a volume workout myself right now (the adding reps scheme) because I need a new program to hit myself with.
It COULD be...that lowrep works for a while, highrep works for a while, one or another program works for a while...and they all seem to stall out after a bit. My point is that it may be just that it's not the high or low reps or whatever, but the adaptations to new stimuli that creates just as much hypertrophy as the exersize system or volume.
I can't back this up, but it is a collective awareness from seeing so many different things work for so many people - many swearing it is the Holy Grail and we should all be doing just this ONE THING...yeh, right.
How many times have we seen:
5x5
10x3
HST
Shock sets
Railroads
Strip sets
20 rep, and even mega rep systems being touted as the "best" road to size?
I think the best road to size is food, sleep, and hitting the gym hard and often...but dang, that opens up the frequency argument again, doesn't it?
this for me really stands out.yeah progressive load is very important, but ive been observing that adaptations to new exercises/stimuli are giving me real gains again.
i recently changed gyms as mine shut down, it was a real dungeon anyway. i started at a "real" bodybuilders gym lol, its got every weight rack, machine, bb and dumbell you could imagine and when i say machine im not talkin multigym s@@t, machines that actually"work" and some of them are in a sense close to being free weights if u get my drift.
now the point is that ive been training there for 4 weeks, in just over 2 weeks i put on 7lbs naturally i might add
so to recap my body has been struggling to adapt to these new weights and machines thus ive grown in the process.
as you said diet and rest along with consistant training will yeild results, if a program stalls out then move to another for a while.
finally i dont believe in the whole shock the body type of training, i mean if i superset im punishing the muscle which could force some further adaptations but not much. but when you switch from dumbells which u have been doing for say 8 weeks and then go back to barbell this is when the adaptations are optimised for growth imo.
Brilliant.
I've grown revervations about shock training, and I think I know why. I've not grown from any shock stuff I did that I could be certain about, and perhaps this is why.
Most shock routines aren't routines, but something you slam into at most once a week or periodically. Doing this, what is the body adapting to? By the time you get to the next one, if it's over a week, the body has "forgotten" the prior stress and has no reason to adapt.
Sort of like having a diet coke with a 3 course meal.
If, on the other hand, you apply the principles we're so familiar with here, and manage the aggressor training, you could possibly wind up with results you seek. (progression, consistency, etc) But the trick here would be dual-management, since you're also doing your other program and trying to progress and grow from that.
I could see that at some point, you'd begin to wonder which of the two systems it was that was giving you gains. But you'd have to admit, adding shock days would be similar to adding volume, and as a change, could be good. I just don't think that once in a while is doing anything.
I've grown revervations about shock training, and I think I know why. I've not grown from any shock stuff I did that I could be certain about, and perhaps this is why.
Most shock routines aren't routines, but something you slam into at most once a week or periodically. Doing this, what is the body adapting to? By the time you get to the next one, if it's over a week, the body has "forgotten" the prior stress and has no reason to adapt.
Sort of like having a diet coke with a 3 course meal.
If, on the other hand, you apply the principles we're so familiar with here, and manage the aggressor training, you could possibly wind up with results you seek. (progression, consistency, etc) But the trick here would be dual-management, since you're also doing your other program and trying to progress and grow from that.
I could see that at some point, you'd begin to wonder which of the two systems it was that was giving you gains. But you'd have to admit, adding shock days would be similar to adding volume, and as a change, could be good. I just don't think that once in a while is doing anything.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Most shock routines aren't routines, but something you slam into at most once a week or periodically. Doing this, what is the body adapting to? By the time you get to the next one, if it's over a week, the body has "forgotten" the prior stress and has no reason to adapt. </div>
Which leads back to the HST principle of chronic vs acute stimuli. You need to apply the stimuli to your body chronically, over long periods of time. That means you have to do it often, not just once in a while. Your body doesn't get better at something by doing it once and then never again, or not for a long period of time. It gets better by doing things repeatedly.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli
In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.</div>
Which leads back to the HST principle of chronic vs acute stimuli. You need to apply the stimuli to your body chronically, over long periods of time. That means you have to do it often, not just once in a while. Your body doesn't get better at something by doing it once and then never again, or not for a long period of time. It gets better by doing things repeatedly.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli
In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.</div>
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 11 2008,19:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Brilliant.
I've grown revervations about shock training, and I think I know why. I've not grown from any shock stuff I did that I could be certain about, and perhaps this is why.
Most shock routines aren't routines, but something you slam into at most once a week or periodically. Doing this, what is the body adapting to? By the time you get to the next one, if it's over a week, the body has "forgotten" the prior stress and has no reason to adapt.
Sort of like having a diet coke with a 3 course meal.
If, on the other hand, you apply the principles we're so familiar with here, and manage the aggressor training, you could possibly wind up with results you seek. (progression, consistency, etc) But the trick here would be dual-management, since you're also doing your other program and trying to progress and grow from that.
I could see that at some point, you'd begin to wonder which of the two systems it was that was giving you gains. But you'd have to admit, adding shock days would be similar to adding volume, and as a change, could be good. I just don't think that once in a while is doing anything.</div>
yeah i think shock routines are too short to achieve real results.
well lets just look at the adaptation theory for a minute, we all know that a newbie to training will pack on muscle and get stronger very quickly(maybe the first 6-12 months), why?
because his/her body is adapting to the stimuli and the load is progressive wether u do hst or standard split, until you begin to plateu, this is where you have to get more creative in your training if you want to progress as fast as a newb(if possible).
so if you can create a program that can keep you adapting and progressing all the better. there is no holy grail of training style but there are ways of optimizing them.hst is a good one.
obviously diet and rest have to be in check.
(quadancer @ Mar. 11 2008,19:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Brilliant.
I've grown revervations about shock training, and I think I know why. I've not grown from any shock stuff I did that I could be certain about, and perhaps this is why.
Most shock routines aren't routines, but something you slam into at most once a week or periodically. Doing this, what is the body adapting to? By the time you get to the next one, if it's over a week, the body has "forgotten" the prior stress and has no reason to adapt.
Sort of like having a diet coke with a 3 course meal.
If, on the other hand, you apply the principles we're so familiar with here, and manage the aggressor training, you could possibly wind up with results you seek. (progression, consistency, etc) But the trick here would be dual-management, since you're also doing your other program and trying to progress and grow from that.
I could see that at some point, you'd begin to wonder which of the two systems it was that was giving you gains. But you'd have to admit, adding shock days would be similar to adding volume, and as a change, could be good. I just don't think that once in a while is doing anything.</div>
yeah i think shock routines are too short to achieve real results.
well lets just look at the adaptation theory for a minute, we all know that a newbie to training will pack on muscle and get stronger very quickly(maybe the first 6-12 months), why?
because his/her body is adapting to the stimuli and the load is progressive wether u do hst or standard split, until you begin to plateu, this is where you have to get more creative in your training if you want to progress as fast as a newb(if possible).
so if you can create a program that can keep you adapting and progressing all the better. there is no holy grail of training style but there are ways of optimizing them.hst is a good one.
obviously diet and rest have to be in check.
I've always thought of noobs as being in a separate camp, but never really thought why...it just is what it is...but you've got to be right; the reason for the growth is doing something after doing nothing.
What this doesn't explain though is why the first 5-6 months is such an accellerated growth period compared to the rest of your life.
What this doesn't explain though is why the first 5-6 months is such an accellerated growth period compared to the rest of your life.
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 12 2008,20:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I've always thought of noobs as being in a separate camp, but never really thought why...it just is what it is...but you've got to be right; the reason for the growth is doing something after doing nothing.
What this doesn't explain though is why the first 5-6 months is such an accellerated growth period compared to the rest of your life.</div>
in the end your body knows what to expect from your routines and has sufficient strength to cope with the loads once you have been training for a few years.
drawing on a building analogy that i think you like to use. the foundations go down pretty quickly and then its building it brick by brick from then on
(quadancer @ Mar. 12 2008,20:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I've always thought of noobs as being in a separate camp, but never really thought why...it just is what it is...but you've got to be right; the reason for the growth is doing something after doing nothing.
What this doesn't explain though is why the first 5-6 months is such an accellerated growth period compared to the rest of your life.</div>
in the end your body knows what to expect from your routines and has sufficient strength to cope with the loads once you have been training for a few years.
drawing on a building analogy that i think you like to use. the foundations go down pretty quickly and then its building it brick by brick from then on
<div>
(lcars @ Mar. 10 2008,16:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">@wisslewj, you may have miss understood i start all my rep schemes with almost 100% effort. that goes for high reps (15-20) down to the low reps(5-1), this way you can progress the load adequately and take advantage of high and low reps.</div>
Yes. I have switched from sub-max to nearly 100% effort on all rep schemes and have seen better growth gains as a result. My gains have also been better in the higher rep ranges. When in doubt, be your own guinea pig.
Wisslewj, you make some great points about the gymnists. The biceps some of those guys have are huge with nice definition. I also agree that they are incorporating principles of HST at what must be close to 100% effort.
Great thread.
(lcars @ Mar. 10 2008,16:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">@wisslewj, you may have miss understood i start all my rep schemes with almost 100% effort. that goes for high reps (15-20) down to the low reps(5-1), this way you can progress the load adequately and take advantage of high and low reps.</div>
Yes. I have switched from sub-max to nearly 100% effort on all rep schemes and have seen better growth gains as a result. My gains have also been better in the higher rep ranges. When in doubt, be your own guinea pig.
Wisslewj, you make some great points about the gymnists. The biceps some of those guys have are huge with nice definition. I also agree that they are incorporating principles of HST at what must be close to 100% effort.
Great thread.
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 11 2008,21:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Which leads back to the HST principle of chronic vs acute stimuli. You need to apply the stimuli to your body chronically, over long periods of time. That means you have to do it often, not just once in a while. Your body doesn't get better at something by doing it once and then never again, or not for a long period of time. It gets better by doing things repeatedly.</div>
... which is exactly why I am never going to look back at those routines that have you hit one muscle group once a week. Each workout gives you mad, mad DOMS because the muscle you just worked is "completely recovered" from the last workout. What a drag! The HST principles can be applied to any routine for any purpose, so why look back at all? And it makes much more sense as well.
(Totentanz @ Mar. 11 2008,21:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Which leads back to the HST principle of chronic vs acute stimuli. You need to apply the stimuli to your body chronically, over long periods of time. That means you have to do it often, not just once in a while. Your body doesn't get better at something by doing it once and then never again, or not for a long period of time. It gets better by doing things repeatedly.</div>
... which is exactly why I am never going to look back at those routines that have you hit one muscle group once a week. Each workout gives you mad, mad DOMS because the muscle you just worked is "completely recovered" from the last workout. What a drag! The HST principles can be applied to any routine for any purpose, so why look back at all? And it makes much more sense as well.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes. I have switched from sub-max to nearly 100% effort on all rep schemes and have seen better growth gains as a result. </div>
Well, are you sure it's the load or perhaps the very change we're talking about? One other possibility is the increased workload total. I could see you stalling out with this and getting more gains from returning to HST or something else, if I'm right about change itself as a growth initiator.
Interesting though that you bring up highrep ranges, in light of our recent discussions. Another anecdote in favor, and you're a pretty big guy.
Well, are you sure it's the load or perhaps the very change we're talking about? One other possibility is the increased workload total. I could see you stalling out with this and getting more gains from returning to HST or something else, if I'm right about change itself as a growth initiator.
Interesting though that you bring up highrep ranges, in light of our recent discussions. Another anecdote in favor, and you're a pretty big guy.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
You can definatly train with higher load than hst all the time you just have to be smart about it.
HST does nothing more than trick us into doing all the right things that the "inner bodybuilder" in us all wants to do.
My best results come when I follow HST right by the book...its when I get to getting bored and doing other routines / higher loads / closer to failure training that I get into trouble.
However Closer to failure training more volume and higher loads work better for me when I don't dedicate myself to a true 3 times a week program.
So long story short run HST or any program with progressive load as often as possible but the only time I see a reason to train to failure is when you are not training often enough.
HST does nothing more than trick us into doing all the right things that the "inner bodybuilder" in us all wants to do.
My best results come when I follow HST right by the book...its when I get to getting bored and doing other routines / higher loads / closer to failure training that I get into trouble.
However Closer to failure training more volume and higher loads work better for me when I don't dedicate myself to a true 3 times a week program.
So long story short run HST or any program with progressive load as often as possible but the only time I see a reason to train to failure is when you are not training often enough.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">but ive been observing that adaptations to new exercises/stimuli are giving me real gains again.</div>
Lcars, how so? as in, what changes have you made?
also, changing exercises is akin to the 'confusion' principle, which is bullocks. but if the new exercise produces more loaded stretch, then more growth can occur (if growth has stalled out on the previous exercise), i'm not so sure about just using new exercises, if one allows you to handle more load on a muscle group, is it going to produce more growth then?
Lcars, how so? as in, what changes have you made?
also, changing exercises is akin to the 'confusion' principle, which is bullocks. but if the new exercise produces more loaded stretch, then more growth can occur (if growth has stalled out on the previous exercise), i'm not so sure about just using new exercises, if one allows you to handle more load on a muscle group, is it going to produce more growth then?