Applying HST principles the correct way

T

thegentleman1981

New Member
Dear Gentleman,

I hope it got clear, that I am no troll and will take care not to nitpick in future posts.
I tend to focus too much on the details and not getting the whole picture then-thank you to CDB and Totentanz to make the principles more clear for me.
I also read a bit through the thread "Customizing HST" and it has also some good ideas.

To get to the point:

I think of how to structure my training better and more "HST friendly" in the future.
My template conists of whole body LMH 2x the week. Straight sets.
You can also regard it as a weekly HST cycle including timed rest periods.

L:2x15 1min rest (60%1rpm)
M: 3x8-10 2min rest (70%1rpm)
H:3x3-5reps 4min rest (85-90%1rpm)

I was always unsure what to do when I stall.(in my case no PRs anymore) If I understand the principles and the repeated bout effect correctly it could look like:

1. If I stall on it I have the option to SD, then take about 75%for EACH DAY and take 6 weeks to get to the old PR level and try to break through it.
2. If I stall I have the option to increase the load to elict further adapion. So to cluster the schemes up:

L:3x10 1min rest
M: 5x5-6 2min rest
H:9x1-2

So if I should SD or should increase further the load seems to be dependent if I can "bear/need (tissue wise)" the more workload.

Would this be "correct" or do you regard my template anyway BS and I should turn to another one?
Thank You.
TG
 
Last edited:
If you plateau, the best thing to do is to SD. Now in the articles, SD times range from 9-14 days but I feel that a 9 day SD is optimal. There is some evidence that on the 10th day of rest, there is a spike in satellite cells which should (in theory) mean that you would have more potential for growth if you resume lifting. In my practice and in my observations of the others I have worked with, a nine day break seems to be superior to a deload or cruise. Cycles that were preceded by a nine day break have resulted in better results with exceeded old PRs and achieving new ones. Yes, this is just anecdotal but there is some scientific evidence to support it which is why I even tried it in the first place.
 
Interesting. Thank you for the reply Totentanz.

You mean SD and then just jump right into new PRs or SD and work my weight upwards again? (like starting at 75% of all days?)

Also lets say that works this time. Then I have new Prs but stall out again. I SD but next time I don´t hit PRS anymore.
Does this mean my thresold went up and I have to uppen the Mimimum Effective Load (MEL) and Minimum Effective Volume (MEV)?

No nitpicking,just want to get this right, that I can adjust the cylces in the future myself.

If this is true,would in not make sense to expand HST ONLY as your thresold moves up?

LEts say I am on the 15´s and on the last week. I still can move up the weight,so I stay there and hit Prs. Then I stall. I don´t go to the 10´s but I SD and start with 15´s again. Also this time I hit Prs. I SD
Now in the 3rd cycle I don´t hit PRS anymore. MY thresold moved up-so I have to increase MEV/MEL and "cluster" on to the 10´s.
So only uppen MV/ML when neccessary and needed.

The question is, when it is needed to up your MEL and MEV or what the signs for that are.

Have I got this one right?

Thank you again,
TG
 
Last edited:
See, the thing is that the 15s and 10s really are just all prep for when you hit your 5 rep maxes. The whole cycle is just leading up to that. This is why people skip the 15s often. For me, personally, I don't do rep ranges anymore so when I SD in order to try to bust through plateaus, I restart at 80% of what I was using before my SD and build back up to my old maxes over the course or 4-5 weeks before attempting to hit new maxes. So I would never SD after a 15 or 10 rep block. I also don't recommend attempting to hit PRs during the 10s and 15s either, but that's because my perspective is, as I said, that the 15s and 10s are just prep for the 5s. Some do shoot for new PRs during the 15s and 10s and that is fine if that is what you want to do.

Minimum effective load is pretty much always going to just be a percentage. I choose to use 80% of my max for my beginning loads when I plan out a cycle but evidence suggests that 60% of your 1 rep max will be the minimum effective load. Since your 1 RM will increase as you grow, this causes your minimum load to always be increasing along with it.
As for minimum effective volume... I think this depends on your strength class. There are some decent tables around the net for judging your strength standards. As an example, here is one for the deadlift from exrx: http://exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/DeadliftStandards.html
As you can see, it is based on bodyweight and then 1 RM and places you as untrained, novice, intermediate, advanced and elite. It will be normal for you to be different classes in different lifts, so average it out. The more advanced you are, the more volume will be required. Is there a hard and fast rule to figure it out? No. But I'm sure you've read in the FAQs what Bryan advises for this. Keep in mind that it will take weeks (if not a month or more) to judge by the guidelines he gives you whether volume is appropriate or not - this is due to the fact that conditions will change from day to day.
In my experience, it takes more than just a few cycles before you need to up volume. For example, my first couple of years I stuck to only two working sets for all lifts and continued to progress well. It was only once I got above 180 lbs of lean mass that I began having to increase the volume quite a bit. Which leads me into my next point... aside from strength standards, you also have to judge how close you are to your predicted genetic potential. There is a calculator here and also if you google Casey Butt's maximum potential calculator then you can use that. But basically, you enter in some measurements and it tells you the maximum amount of lean mass you can expect to be able to build as a natural. In my case, it told me I could expect to reach 200 lbs of lean mass if I maxed out my potential. It wasn't until I got within 20 lbs of that (or 10% away if you want to use percentages) that I really had to start upping the volume and splitting apart my workouts. Be sure that when you try to figure this out that you judge your bodyfat honestly, using calipers. When I was at 180 lbs of lean mass, I was at almost 220 lbs bodyweight, so quite a bit of bodyfat. If you misjudge bodyfat or measure in a dishonest way, it will skew your numbers a lot. Just a 3-5% miscalculation for me at that point in time would have resulted in me thinking I had almost 10 lbs more lean mass.
But anyway, the point is... the closer you get to your genetic max, the more you will have to pay attention to volume. Of course if you decide to use any steroids, insulin, peptides or anything like that, the rules will change a bit.
 
Thank you Totentanz for your long reply and time. I appreciate that.

So to close this here:

I think it depends on the personal philosophy if higher rep ranges are to be integrate or not. For those who are in favour of it regarding metabolic fatigue, its an option and can be used as part of the "build up" over the cycle.
For those who just regard the rep volume as important, may stick to their scheme and just build up in that range.
Like a classic 5x5 programm

For me its still questionable if these short cylces (like HLM a la casey butt,HLM a la Bill Starr or Wendler 531 weeks) are neccessary. Regarding DC,Generic Bulk or MAx OT its not.
The only difference (regardeless of different ranges) I see here is, that the shorter cycles allow more regeneration.
They build up over 3-4 sessions.Then build up again.The idea is, that after a heavy disruptive session, you need a lighter day-so to implement a bout, but only to carry you over to the next day without causing a heavy disruption in homestasis again.
In the "longer linear" approach fatigue is perhaps more accumulated because at a certain point you push the limit each workout and will eventually stall out earlier because the reduction in load only occurs on the end of the cycle.
So this will limit PRs. (I think of overreaching here)

I don´t know how you see that.

These thoughts are in my mind because I tend to focus on the details and I just want a simple and effective template for hypertrophy and strength
 
Last edited:
The simplest template for hypertrophy and strength would be to pick a rep total, stick to that same rep total for each lift throughout the cycle and just start at 60-70% of your 1 RM. Figure out what increments you are going to use, add that amount each workout to each lift. Do that for 6 weeks or so and then SD once you start to get burned out. 20 total reps is a good target for people more intermediate or beginner, 30 total reps works for people who are more advanced. Only thing to keep in mind is that squats or deads you may have to keep the rep total lower than the other lifts, so if you are using 30 total reps, keep those lifts at 20-25, if you are using 20 then keep them at 15. This is a totally doable template for anyone as long as they do not use more than 8 lifts at the maximum. It should be sufficient volume for anyone.

In case you had questions as to how to achieve your rep total per workout, you can go ahead and organize it into sets if you want, or cluster, or do rest-pause, or max-stim. They all work. Or you can combine them all. Do rest-pause in the lighter weights, cluster when it starts to get heavier and when it is heaviest, use max-stim.
 
Thank you Totentanz again for your fast and decent answer.

So regarding this and the principles it could look like:

A 4x5 with a start of approx 60%of my 1rpm would fit the bill.
I could workout 2x the week and repeat my session I did on Monday on Friday. I would increase the load each week-not session by 5%.
Lets say with 100kg my 1rpm I would start at 60kg and over 6 weeks,with a 5% increase in weight I will come to 85% of my 1rpm -to 85kg.
After this point I struggle to get my 4x5.
I could move/cluster up to 7x3,do rest pause till I get all 20 reps or I avoid failure and add the missing reps in a additional sets for example like:

1.set 5x90 (ok effort)
2.set 5x90 (quite hard)
3.set 4x90 (5th would be failure)
4.set: 3x90 (keep reserve)
5.set: 3x90
-------------------------------
20 reps

Would here be any andvantage in waiting till I get all 4 sets of 5 before increasing the weight?

Although I think, if using rest pause or sth similar its done to be with caution (especially when done 2x the week) to not reach failure too often and burn out.
Via this way I would favour the cluster/ "adding sets" approach above.

So as I am correct you seem not "afraid" of overreaching (my point with light sessions in between a cycle),concerned rest periods or eventually benefits of different rep schemes/metabolic work.

Just the increase in tension via mechanical loading.
So as I see that more clearly now,also the last "man" set on wendlers 531 is more a "gimmick" than a useful implemantation because the weight will get raised anyway.
I always thought that repping out on the last set leads to "tense up" and the recruitment of FT fibers add to the progress.
 
Last edited:
RE: muscle fiber recruitment - once you get to a certain load, this isn't going to matter. A high enough load will recruit all fibers during most of the reps anyway. It's only really with lighter loads that you will have any trouble with not recruiting all muscle fibers. There is no real advantage to repping out wrt to fiber recruitment if you are properly planning out your cycle. It can help you get a pump for sure, but getting a pump doesn't really do much except make you feel good about the workout.

Waiting until you can reach all desired reps before increasing the weight is going to actually be a potential limiter of growth. Because the load is the growth stimulus, not fatigue. So it is possible that if you keep using a weight for several sessions that RBE will catch up so the load is less effective. It is better to manage your fatigue so that you can always get all the reps instead of allowing fatigue to prevent you from achieving all desired reps. For especially heavy loads, I strongly recommend you look into max-stim if you have not already.
 
Totentanz,

Thank you very much for your replies and Input.
You answered my questions to the point and not blabling around "eat,rest,sleep repeat"_BS.

Your answers made sense to me and I have a good picture and plan now how to plan further.

I read again through our thread and one thing was not exactly clear for me:
Do you favour/ see any differences in shorter weekly cycles (LMH) vs longer ones? (classic HST)
Would a LMH approach not manage fatigue better? It always allows a deload after the heavy session.

And reagrding the RBE: Why do other programms maintain rep schemes (like Generic Bulk) and not clustering them on further?
 
Last edited:
thegentleman1981 said:
Totentanz,

Thank you very much for your replies and Input.
You answered my questions to the point and not blabling around "eat,rest,sleep repeat"_BS.

Your answers made sense to me and I have a good picture and plan now how to plan further.

I read again through our thread and one thing was not exactly clear for me:
Do you favour/ see any differences in shorter weekly cycles (LMH) vs longer ones? (classic HST)

And reagrding the RBE: Why do other programms maintain rep schemes (like Generic Bulk) and not clustering them on further?
Click to expand...

Shorter weekly cycles vs longer ones is going to come down to personal preference. What works better/is more maintainable for you?

Why do other programs stick with rep schemes? Pretty simple - because people are so accustomed to them. Kind of like the metric system in the united states. People stick with the old system because it is familiar. Rep schemes are just easier for most people to comprehend and easier for them to program. The thing is though... reps don't matter. A bro will tell you that you gotta lift in the 8-12 rep range for size. But your body doesn't know you are doing 8 reps instead of 5. All that matters is the load, and to a slightly lesser extent, the volume used. The load is what causes growth, you just need to satisfy the condition of using enough volume (which as we already discussed isn't exactly super easy to determine) and using reps/sets is simply an easier way for most people to make sure they are using enough load and getting sufficient volume with it.
There is no reason you can't take the generic bulking routine and cluster instead of doing sets/reps. Or you could turn it into myoreps instead of standard sets/reps.
 
In enjoy the conversation with you Totentanz.

Well I tried the Generic Bulk and stalled from the beginning-but I must mention that I did no ramp up before starting it.
The LMH approach in general suits me quite well, which doesn´t mean that a more simnple plan would not work if applied properly.
Perhaps it will nevertheless end in similar results:
The longer cycle need to be clustered up, while the shorter one already clusters in one week...
I think-as you mentioned: fatigue managment is most important here.

So if I understood you correctly,it makes no real difference by starting out with 15,or 10 before the 5´s.
The are just a way to organize the volume and if I do 2x15,3x10 or 5x6 doesn´t matter. That what matters is volume and increase in tension.
So tension is all that matters and fatigue/metabolic work is more or less neglectibel.
I just ask because I read through the dropsets/high reps faq and wonder how big the role of ERK 1/2 would be.
Or is it just a bonus of 10%growth for the very advanced lifter?
I am not that educated with the biological mechanism as you, but if fatigue is really not important,or a certain "TUT without a break" is not needed-could THEORETICALLY I also cluster up my volume over one day? At least some folks seem to do this with chin ups.
Or is a certain density needed?(I think also of EDT here)

The point with the RBE when staying at a certain load for too long also sounds logical.
Nevertheless, would it not be "smarter", when the weights gets heavier to also slowing the increaments,or staying with a certain weight for at least 2 sessions? I think this could lessen the accumulation in fatigue (fatigue managment) during the cycle and "ease" the joints and the body more into it. I also think of the articles of John Christy (RIP) and Stuart Mc Robert regarding micro loading here. I read the FAQ on increaments but still think that a more "slower" approach would sound "healthier" and could lengthen cycles and Prs.

BTW: What are your goals? Your Prs really look good.
 
Last edited:
I'm heading out in a second, but I wanted to reply to this briefly.

First off, let's touch on the fatigue issue... Fatigue isn't really totally unimportant, but basically the way it works is that as the loads get heavier, fatigue becomes less and less important until it does not matter. Once you have a heavy enough weight, you get full fiber recruitment with most reps, whereas with a lighter weight, you will not get full recruitment until the muscle is more fatigued. In my experience, using fatigue techniques in the heavier weights (dropsets/burn sets/etc) seems to serve only really to keep the muscles looking fuller. That said... I usually do include 2-7 sets of 12-15 reps on an iso for a muscle group after I do the heavy work. Is it more optimal than not including the fatigue techniques? It might enhance growth/strength gains a bit so if you can handle it without compromising your progress or burning yourself out, then you might as well try it out for a few cycles and see if it makes a noticeable difference.

RBE - when dealing with heavier loads (say within 80% of your 5 RM) then yes, you could use the same weight for longer. When I plan out cycles for stronger people who have psychological problems using lighter weights (i.e. they get discouraged, whatever) I start out at 80% of their 5 RM and repeat loads for 2-3 sessions. Once you are using your 5 RM, you could likely go up to two weeks using that load before you have to even worry about RBE being a problem. So yes, as you are suggesting, you could draw a heavier cycle out much longer which should, in theory, mean that you will be growing longer.

My goals? I want to be able to deadlift 800 lbs without straps and squat 600 without gear some day. I'd also like to be a lean 250 lbs. Haha. Not likely my genes will carry me that far without copious drug usage though.
 
Well thats also what KElly Bagget suggested. 'About 15% of the growth will be sarcoplasmatic. The rest sarcomer hypertrophy.
A deadlift with 800 (without straps) and a squat of 300 without gear is a high bench mark. Especially when lean.
Thats really a problem in all trainees when getting lean. Maintaining strength.
Also its interesting, that it seems that pulling strength is maintained but pushing strength diminishes.
Thats sth. we also discussed with Case Butt. Perhaps its evolutionary reasons (more pulling as pushing in caves DUNNO)

Well You really served me with good info in this thread Totentanz.

I think the last and important point you touched is motivation.

I think for everybody -also you and me-shooting for Prs at least some times in one cycle is important. You just feel good when you reached a PR-its the candy on the training road which leads to the cake. IME its easier to monitor it with a static rep scheme. You immediately notice a increase in reps for example. Adding reps might be easier in some cases instead of increasing the weight each time .If you increase the weight and notice you to need cluster it up,do rest pauses-its more difficult to identifiy a PR in this way. (Also: does not the RBE occur earlier when the increaments are too small? This could be "identified" as a too similar load then before. OR am I wrong on that?)

Of course when maintaining the same set/rep scheme and increasing reps before increasing weights the repeated bout effect will occur earlier-which you stated in a post of yours.

Well isn it possible to "trick" this out?:

Lets say I am in the 15´s and I reach a weight were only the last rep on the last set is near failure (fatigue managment),so a further load progression (when no tiny weights are used but "bigger" increaments) would result in clustering or sth else.
So I switch to rep progression untill I get all sets with 15 and then increase the weight and so on. So further shoot for PRS. The RBE will catch up-but when this happens and I stall,I switch to the cycle of 10´s and just build up from there.

So SD, ramp up-hit Prs:first weight,then when its getting difficult reps before increasing weight again.. Then when stalling-reduce fatigue via (f.ex cluster) ramp up again and hit new Prs and so on.
So milking a cycle dry and only starting the next "demanding" cycle when needed.




Also the LMH could work fine for that because the weight jumps/increaments simply from L day to M day to H day are quite big within each week. Could this diminish the RBE?

I now understand the principles much better than before, but I have to let them work for me-if you know what I mean-and sticking to a plan and motivation in terms of PR is one of the most important things of all to me.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, been busy.

I think your plan is worth trying out, see how it goes and if you have enough time, log it here or else just post some updates or something in this thread if you don't want to start a training log. I'd like to see how it works for you.
 
Hey no appologizes-its your time you give me.

Thank you for your answers and time Totentanz-I will read through our thread again and will start with my new programm soon.
Update will be posted.

thank you again,
TG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top