Ah Ha, Think I Caught On To Something....

I guess overall, what I was meaning was 'fatigue' is the stimulus, but when I say fatigue, I am not meaning only or exclusively 'metabolic by-product' type fatigue, fatigue seems to be quite varied and encompasses a lot of areas.
 
NWlifter said:
Just for the sake of discussion, I'd say though HST is not standard progression, it's 'amplified progression'.

The difference would be,
Choice A
Bench 150x8.. add a little, work up, add a little 6 months later your finally exposing the tissues to 190
Choice B
HST's loading, your exposing the tissues to 190 within weeks, and in a 'fast forward' progressive manner
Click to expand...
HST's SD is simply manipulating fatigue/recovery. There's nothing magical about it and 10-14 days of SD is just too little to negate RBE to any meaningful degree, and no, working with 100lbs barbell loads after SD won't make you jacked because of severe DOMS, you'll simply be recovering the muscle lost during the layoff. From the practical point of view SD is very useful. Having this weapon in your arsenal allows you to completely quit training for a few weeks or more and not be afraid of irrecoverable muscle loss - strength, size & body composition will all come back much-much faster than it originally took to achieve them. But from the point of view of continued progress, any kind of method used for manipulating fatigue/recovery, including but not limited to periodic de-loads, daily/weekly undulating-load routines using different rep-ranges, EVEN HST with no SD, are just as good.
 
Last edited:
Jester said:
Your post above needs some paragraphing...

...wondering what you’re getting at as well...
Click to expand...

Oh ok lol
I meant, fatigue is needed, but that doesn't always or exclusively mean metabolic fatigue.
Repeated bouts (sets,reps) that cause 'force loss' increase the stimulus.
If someone trains heavy but so little that force loss is very small, it seems stimulus also is.
And we really don't know if fatigue itself is stimulating, or if fatigue is a byproduct 'of' a stimulating 'workout'. (the old causation, correlation thing)
 
If you are talking about achieving failure per se, I think we can say for certain that doing that last rep is only useful if you are doing a single set. The added time required for neuromuscular recovery (muscular recovery outpaces the nervous system recovery by 1-2+ days) doesn’t seem to make it worth it. A submax protocol of 4 sets 7 reps at 70% of 1RM provided about the same hypertrophy as 3 sets to failure at 70% (so volume matched) although the former protocol didn’t really get close to failure until the very last set (compared to failure on all sets for the latter protocol).

So although I have been playing around with rest-pause techniques and modulating fatigue during my last HST cycle, I think that the submax workouts when switching rep range, or even zig-zagging, is no issue as long as total volume (sets x reps x load) is improving through progressive overload when looking at the cycle as a whole. In general, I think staying 1-2 reps from failure is a good rule and then occasionally pushing to failure.

I also think rest-pause/myo-reps is far superior to straight sets, in order to maximize MU recruitment, metabolic stress and the "sudden and dramatic shift in its internal chemical (and genetic) environment" that Bryan talked about - until you get the 5s and you would go for 2-4min rest periods and perhaps even Max-Stim/cluster/PITT-force type training to focus on the mechanotransduction and lessen the metabolic stimulus pathway.

This is what I’m doing in my current cycle, and I do notice a difference in strength improvements on the next workout if I push hard into failure territory, and with just 1 rep difference in total time under load I doubt that it is worth it from a hypertrophy standpoint.

Just thinking out loud :)
 
I didn't mean failure, or acute fatigue, just in general, the stimulus requires repeated 'fatiguing' contractions.
Example would be this
Take a 10RM
Do a rep, wait 10 minutes, do another, wait 10 minutes, etc.
vs
Do them all in a row

The latter is more stimulating.

Yes agree, the myo-rep rest pause scenario is nice, all the myo-reps are involving all the motor units vs straight sets where the stimulation is a ramp during the set as more and more higher MU's finally reach high activation levels.

Yes good thoughts Borge!

That's another point, mechanical fatigue... accumulation of the effects of repeated deformation, that would be a type of fatigue too.
 
NWlifter said:
I didn't mean failure, or acute fatigue, just in general, the stimulus requires repeated 'fatiguing' contractions.
Example would be this
Take a 10RM
Do a rep, wait 10 minutes, do another, wait 10 minutes, etc.
vs
Do them all in a row

The latter is more stimulating.

Yes agree, the myo-rep rest pause scenario is nice, all the myo-reps are involving all the motor units vs straight sets where the stimulation is a ramp during the set as more and more higher MU's finally reach high activation levels.

Yes good thoughts Borge!

That's another point, mechanical fatigue... accumulation of the effects of repeated deformation, that would be a type of fatigue too.
Click to expand...

Not convinced that it is more stimulating. Brad’s study equating total work indicates that isn’t; 3x10xload vs 7x3xgreater load. From memory, these sets were not done to failure, and the hypertrophy was equivalent.


There might be other arguments for doing the 10 reps consecutively, but I’m unconvinced that the hypertrophy stimulus is different to a measurable degree, so long as the load/tension is sufficient.
 
Jester said:
Not convinced that it is more stimulating. Brad’s study equating total work indicates that isn’t; 3x10xload vs 7x3xgreater load. From memory, these sets were not done to failure, and the hypertrophy was equivalent.


There might be other arguments for doing the 10 reps consecutively, but I’m unconvinced that the hypertrophy stimulus is different to a measurable degree, so long as the load/tension is sufficient.
Click to expand...


two things though..
I'd argue that total fatigue is probably simlar on those two
and
There is one study that compared I think 8x3 to 3x8 and 3x8 caused more hypertrophy if I remember right.

If load and tension are key and fatigue isn't needed, then just do one rep with with a 3Rm ;) It's the same tension as 3x3 with 3Rm.. or even one rep even with your 1Rm, which has the most tension possible, is not as stimulating as less weight for some fatiguing reps. Tension is zip without repeated applications which cause some type of fatigue (neural, mechanical, chemical) etc.
why is more volume more stimulating? Accumulation of 'something' that is degrading, something... that is some version of fatigue. Bend metal back and forth , that's fatigue... pull and strain a fiber over and over, the accumulation is a type of mechanical fatigue (the perpetual degradation of something that accumulates from repeated assaults)
this is getting into Sisco's stuff! Just do a 3 second static contraction with a huge load, tons of tension, no fatigue and lots of growth....
 
Last edited:
NWlifter said:
two things though..
I'd argue that total fatigue is probably simlar on those two
and
There is one study that compared I think 8x3 to 3x8 and 3x8 caused more hypertrophy if I remember right.

If load and tension are key and fatigue isn't needed, then just do one rep with with a 3Rm ;) It's the same tension as 3x3 with 3Rm.. or even one rep even with your 1Rm, which has the most tension possible, is not as stimulating as less weight for some fatiguing reps. Tension is zip without repeated applications which cause some type of fatigue (neural, mechanical, chemical) etc.
why is more volume more stimulating? Accumulation of 'something' that is degrading, something... that is some version of fatigue. Bend metal back and forth , that's fatigue... pull and strain a fiber over and over, the accumulation is a type of mechanical fatigue (the perpetual degradation of something that accumulates from repeated assaults)
this is getting into Sisco's stuff! Just do a 3 second static contraction with a huge load, tons of tension, no fatigue and lots of growth....
Click to expand...

The work done is the same for 1x10 vs 10x1, at the same load.

And I’m sure fatigue is induced, but you’re using the word to describe a LOT of different things. The most common use I’ve seen is to describe the effect on neural system.

Rather than using it interchangeably to deccibr metabolic stress within muscle cells, i.e. that a set of true 10-15RM might induce, or forty reps in a sessions etc.

My point that initiated the recent back-and-forth within this thread was that your “results” from training to a neurally-fatigued state, could have been achieved without taking it to that state.

Similar to what Blade said a i e; no point going to failure re: hypertrophy, unless it’s a one-set session.

If you train to improve ‘fatigue endurance, that’s fine. But you’re likely bettter off training towards hypertrophy.

Putting it another way;

Look at today’s crop of raw, tested powerlifters. They’re getting pretty damn jacked for their weight class - with exceptions to every rule of course.

And they aren’t doing it by ‘fatigue’ training, by and large. They’re doing heavy sets for a necessary amount of volume.

If anything, I’d say fatigue limits hypertrophy by reducing the work you can accomplish within a training period; session, week, block etc. Training up to fatigue, or not even quite there, i.e. RPE 8 or 9 vs RPE 9+, will get you a lot bigger, a lot faster.

Tension obviously isn’t the whole picture, but accumulating more volume =/= fatigue. And fatigue =/= hypertrophy. Otherwise bro splits would be king.
 
Just keep in mind that doing 4 sets 7 reps @70% will get a lot of people close to failure on the last couple of sets - or at least so close to failure that you are getting into "effective reps" territory (generally the last 3-5 reps before failure is reached). So with 8 sets of 3 reps at an 8-10RM load, you would recruit very few high threshold fibers. If you were to compare 3 sets of 8 reps at that load to 5 sets of 5 reps, the difference is less. There was one study showing 3 sets max reps for 25 reps total was slightly more effective than 5 sets of 5 at the same load, but the difference wasn’t huge.
 
Blade said:
I also think rest-pause/myo-reps is far superior to straight sets, in order to maximize MU recruitment, metabolic stress and the "sudden and dramatic shift in its internal chemical (and genetic) environment" that Bryan talked about - until you get the 5s and you would go for 2-4min rest periods and perhaps even Max-Stim/cluster/PITT-force type training to focus on the mechanotransduction and lessen the metabolic stimulus pathway.
Click to expand...

I really wanna incorporate more myoreps (as that style of trainingdoes make more sense to me), but am not sure if they're too draining for me from all the times I've done them... In my current HST cycle I even did only the last two sessions of each reprange (15s and 10s) as myoreps sets, and the next day or two I got a cold, both times! I'm not sure if it's just coincidence (or of course there could be many factors), but it was just so bizarre the timing. Perhaps I'm not doing them right, or pushing far too hard. I made sure that I wasn't going to absolute failure however so not sure...

I have done full cycles with them too and I got sick during one of them I think (but that was far too much how I was doing them haha).

That being said I haven't yet read the ebook so I'll do that as it may clarify things.

Jester said:
Not convinced that it is more stimulating. Brad’s study equating total work indicates that isn’t; 3x10xload vs 7x3xgreater load. From memory, these sets were not done to failure, and the hypertrophy was equivalent.


There might be other arguments for doing the 10 reps consecutively, but I’m unconvinced that the hypertrophy stimulus is different to a measurable degree, so long as the load/tension is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Sorry I can't see that doing 10 reps done with 10 minutes rest between each rep is as stimulating as 10 consecutive reps, no way!

Sometimes I see the argument for total workload being the same, but that overly 'mathematical' way of seeing training just isn't how it works in reality... I'm not sure if that's what you were saying however..

I can't see 10 reps that are so spaced out like that as having much if any effect to be honest, compared with them all done under constant tension. Different things would happen within the muscle.

The numbers can equal the same total workload (reps x sets x load), but I dunno it doesn't make sense to me that if volume, load and tension is equal (regardless of rest, how/when those reps are done) that that means it's the same stimulus and effect, just because the numbers are the same on paper. How they're done must matter surely..?
 
_Simon_ said:
I really wanna incorporate more myoreps (as that style of trainingdoes make more sense to me), but am not sure if they're too draining for me from all the times I've done them... In my current HST cycle I even did only the last two sessions of each reprange (15s and 10s) as myoreps sets, and the next day or two I got a cold, both times! I'm not sure if it's just coincidence (or of course there could be many factors), but it was just so bizarre the timing. Perhaps I'm not doing them right, or pushing far too hard. I made sure that I wasn't going to absolute failure however so not sure...

I have done full cycles with them too and I got sick during one of them I think (but that was far too much how I was doing them haha).

That being said I haven't yet read the ebook so I'll do that as it may clarify things.



Sorry I can't see that doing 10 reps done with 10 minutes rest between each rep is as stimulating as 10 consecutive reps, no way!

Sometimes I see the argument for total workload being the same, but that overly 'mathematical' way of seeing training just isn't how it works in reality... I'm not sure if that's what you were saying however..

I can't see 10 reps that are so spaced out like that as having much if any effect to be honest, compared with them all done under constant tension. Different things would happen within the muscle.

The numbers can equal the same total workload (reps x sets x load), but I dunno it doesn't make sense to me that if volume, load and tension is equal (regardless of rest, how/when those reps are done) that that means it's the same stimulus and effect, just because the numbers are the same on paper. How they're done must matter surely..?
Click to expand...

Agree that there is something at play re: metabolic stress induced by consecutive reps, but then you have lifetime labourers and the like who build up some degree of hypertrophy purely through repetitive tension.

So long as the load is sufficient, I can’t see there not being a response.

Throw it around the other way; those ten reps are going to be ‘fresh’ as can be - maybe the response is greater because the repetitions aren’t affected by sub-optimal intra-muscular distress? Does the muscle respond better to pure mechanical tension, or does it need the other stress factors as well?

No idea how you test for that.


Try it another way; if I do 25 clustered or even singled reps with my 5x5RM, or 5x5 with that load, do you think the response will change? Not a trick question.
 
_Simon_ said:
I really wanna incorporate more myoreps (as that style of trainingdoes make more sense to me), but am not sure if they're too draining for me from all the times I've done them... In my current HST cycle I even did only the last two sessions of each reprange (15s and 10s) as myoreps sets, and the next day or two I got a cold, both times! I'm not sure if it's just coincidence (or of course there could be many factors), but it was just so bizarre the timing. Perhaps I'm not doing them right, or pushing far too hard. I made sure that I wasn't going to absolute failure however so not sure...

I have done full cycles with them too and I got sick during one of them I think (but that was far too much how I was doing them haha).

That being said I haven't yet read the ebook so I'll do that as it may clarify things.
Click to expand...

You don't generally do myo-sets every workout nor on all lifts in a workout. If you were lifting 4 days a week on an upper/lower or push/pull split, you would have a regular style workout on day 1 and 2, then on day 3 and 4 you would have some lifts you do with conventional sets, then a few lifts where you do them with myo-sets. Or you can spread them out to the other days as well, or have one day where you only do myo-sets and then do regular sets all the other days.

I'd really recommend getting the ebook and reading that, or at least reading the write-ups on his site since he gives most of the info away for free there, pretty sure you can get the excel spreadsheet with the templates on his site as well.
 
Jester said:
Agree that there is something at play re: metabolic stress induced by consecutive reps, but then you have lifetime labourers and the like who build up some degree of hypertrophy purely through repetitive tension.

So long as the load is sufficient, I can’t see there not being a response.

Throw it around the other way; those ten reps are going to be ‘fresh’ as can be - maybe the response is greater because the repetitions aren’t affected by sub-optimal intra-muscular distress? Does the muscle respond better to pure mechanical tension, or does it need the other stress factors as well?

No idea how you test for that.


Try it another way; if I do 25 clustered or even singled reps with my 5x5RM, or 5x5 with that load, do you think the response will change? Not a trick question.
Click to expand...

Ah fair point regarding labourers! That does seem to be hours and hours of it every day, but yeah true that it doesn't have to be constant tension. Just 10 reps at 10 minute rest between reps doesn't seem that strenuous enough or moreso enough to trigger an adaption (not that it being strenuous as such is necessary).

Ah that's a fascinating point you bring up regarding those reps being fresher, but I would say that metabolic stress would contribute greatly, but then you would be able to get more quality work without fatigue getting in the way...

Hey that's why MaxStim was designed wasn't it! But yeah unsure of it's application and effectiveness in hypertrophy (strength definitely).

Yeah it's far too tricky a line to figure out it I reckon... there's so much overlap, but I'd say there's a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress.

And yeah I think the clustered reps in the 5x5 situation would produce pretty much the same, only because its
a) mechanical tension based training and constant tension doesn't seem necessary (as you're not aiming to create that internal metabolic environment within the muscle) and
b) not far too long that you're resting in the clusters that it would say to the muscle it 'doesn't need to adapt'.

All just thoughts of course hehe and it would be very hard to test the longer term results of very long rest 10 minutes etc). But I do think it really depends on the rep range you're working with. If metabolic stress (probably 10 reps and up give or take) I would emphasise continuous tension to create metabolic stress and occlusion-like effects.

Mechanical tension (heavier training) wouldn't matter so much, clustering would be acceptable as a different effect is sought after.

Great discussion, am fascinated with all this :)
 
Totentanz said:
You don't generally do myo-sets every workout nor on all lifts in a workout. If you were lifting 4 days a week on an upper/lower or push/pull split, you would have a regular style workout on day 1 and 2, then on day 3 and 4 you would have some lifts you do with conventional sets, then a few lifts where you do them with myo-sets. Or you can spread them out to the other days as well, or have one day where you only do myo-sets and then do regular sets all the other days.

I'd really recommend getting the ebook and reading that, or at least reading the write-ups on his site since he gives most of the info away for free there, pretty sure you can get the excel spreadsheet with the templates on his site as well.
Click to expand...
Awesome, thanks mate.

Yeah I did see the template you're following, looks really cool. And I bought the ebook about a month or so ago, haven't got round to reading it but am keen!

I've printed off pretty much every myoreps article and have read many times hehe, even underlining parts. Maybe I misread them, as the routines I made and did were myoreps on everything, 3x a week, progressing HST style, burned me out bad haha. Maybe something I tend to do, OVERapply something to make sure its effective haha...

Maybe my next cycle I'll give it a crack.
 
I’ll say this as well - there’s a LOT to be said for just getting in the gym and lifting the weights, rather than trying to get the theory right beforehand - at least to this level of detail.

Learning to apply is invaluable.
 
Jester said:
I’ll say this as well - there’s a LOT to be said for just getting in the gym and lifting the weights, rather than trying to get the theory right beforehand - at least to this level of detail.

Learning to apply is invaluable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100%, I do see that often, overtheorising and trying to get it perfect rather than getting in there and learning through application (have done my fair share of that admittedly in the past!). I just love the discussion aspect, but really only if it's useful in application.

I'm definitely learning so much through and learning how my body works best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top