Are we sure HST isn't best suited for AS users?

S

soflsun

New Member
Here is my feeling about HST so far.  During the 15's, felt great and ready for the next workout.  Just finished my last day of 10's, and the effects of such closely spaced workouts seems to be starting to take its toll on my body.  As for 5's, I'm really quite nervous that at max poundages this is too much on the body.

My issue is this:

For people taking AS, their recovery and strength are much more heightened than the natural lifter.  Working out every 36-48 hours would probably not be an issue.  But what about for us regular guys?

The standard thinking in the fitness community is that the muscle needs time to rebuild after being torn down in the gym, generally hitting every major muscle group once /week.  While I do agree that this seems a bit excessive to give the body a full week to heal, I'm not convinced that 36-48 hours or less is enough for a natural lifter.

I believe that HST, while is was created to cause maximum hypertrophy, is actually creating an environment for a lack of hypertrophy (due to inadequate healing time) and more condusive to neural adaptations inceasing strength.  I have gotten stronger on this program in the rep ranges I have completed, but my muscle mass has actually diminished slghtly.  Also, many members here are quite strong IMO, but seem to lack the muscularity that would seem to go hand-in-hand with their strength.  This is an issue that should concern all of us...for a program DESIGNED to illicit maximum hypertrophy, above and beyond the norm of standard splits, why are we not bigger??
 
Maybe a more realistic approach would be to cycle HST with a traditional split routine, taking time to decondition in between cycles. This would seem to have the benefit of breaking plateaus and gaining strength, while not throwing out the basic principles of BB that have been the norm (and have worked) for so long. Possibly the best of both worlds?
 
If people aren't growing on HST, I don't think the issue is the whole 'wait long enough for your muscles to heal,' which research has demonstrated isn't really true (see, for example, the stretch overload stuff, the daily max eccentric stuff in humans etc). It would be, imho and as I conjectured here in the past, an insufficient acute stimulus to really drive growth. Doing enough "right now" to have an effect on any given training day for any given muscle group.

As for training frequently driving neural adaptations, it is a thought, and one of the reasons I've tossed around the idea of using more variation in exercise to offset this, e.g. picking 3 exercises per body part and only using one per week. I.e. gains in strength when you are performing a given lift frequently cannot be safely attributed to gains in muscle mass, since frequent training is, in effect, optimizing the neural magic, as you point out.

Which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I think DC training is interesting - the benchmark of progress is the gains in strength of your lifts (which it should be in general, imho), but you are performing any given lift a default of once every two weeks, at least partially dissociating the neural adaptations from the structural.

I once wrote a little piece on this idea, with my conclusion being that differences between training for strength and training for growth would be an increased focus on exercise variation and higher total volume (acute stimulus in general) for the latter, whereas the former would probably benefit from a smaller set of exercises practiced more frequently. Which, if you think about it, does end up looking like how a lot of people go about their HST routines.

There is an odd trend amongst the labcoat types to minimalize everything in training, which probably has roots in both HIT/Hardgainer. I think this can end up wildly backfiring for people, convincing everybody that they are a "hardgainer" who can't do much work without exploding.
 
mikey,

So you would change to a different exercise for each bodypart every week, and keep volume high with more reps/sets for each exercise.  Then waht happens to the weight?  If volume is high, weight will naturally be reduced.  This again goes against the principles of the basic split where maximum poundages are strived for each and every workout (remember, this does work for the majority of BB's).  Also, what about frequency of workouts?
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 22 2007,20:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have gotten stronger on this program in the rep ranges I have completed, but my muscle mass has actually diminished slghtly.</div>
Are you cutting or something? It doesn't make sense that you would shrink unless your diet was insufficient. Have you gained any weight?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Also, many members here are quite strong IMO, but seem to lack the muscularity that would seem to go hand-in-hand with their strength. This is an issue that should concern all of us...for a program DESIGNED to illicit maximum hypertrophy, above and beyond the norm of standard splits, why are we not bigger??
</div>

Honestly, I don't recall many here people who have posted pictures and are reporting also big numbers. Not really sure who you are referring. We have a few guys who have decent physiques and have posted relatively modest numbers, but that doesn't really go in hand with your argument.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 22 2007,20:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">mikey,

So you would change to a different exercise for each bodypart every week, and keep volume high with more reps/sets for each exercise. Then waht happens to the weight? If volume is high, weight will naturally be reduced. This again goes against the principles of the basic split where maximum poundages are strived for each and every workout (remember, this does work for the majority of BB's). Also, what about frequency of workouts?</div>
If you want to give a higher volume variation of HST a go, I'd probably just do an upper/lower split (something Bryan himself has actually recommended in the past), either four days a week with 3 week minicycles (probably just 10's and then 5's for a total of 6 weeks), or six times a week as per normal, though that route seems a lot more dangerous.

Absolute load would have to be reduced compared to a typical HST split, but you'd still want to emphasize progressive loading, both within the cycle (going from lighter to heavier from week to week) and from cycle to cycle (increasing your RM's).

As for exercise variation, this would be harder to plan out and I'm not sure I ever found a satisfactory way to go about this besides doing some form of cluster or max stim style HST and increasing the load weekly, doing any given exercise for a given muscle no more than, say, once weekly.
 
Tot,

I am trying to cut off some bodyfat, but my diet has not changed since switching to the HST routine.  My BF has remained unchanged, and my weight has gone down by about 5 lbs...so I have lost muscle.  Its visible in the mirror, I have gotten stronger and lost size on this program so far.  That just lends itself to the conclusion that the strength gains are neural.  I am not here to critique other members, and I don't think I am anything special (believe me), but I think it's safe to say that we have some pretty strong members, but size-wise we have disproportionately less hypertrophy than members on other sites (and I honestly don't go to any other forum but this one...I have only seen pictures from links that members here have posted or when searching for how to do an exercise).  The issue is...we SHOULD be bigger based on the theory of HST.  I see a problem.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 22 2007,21:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Tot,

I am trying to cut off some bodyfat, but my diet has not changed since switching to the HST routine. My BF has remained unchanged, and my weight has gone down by about 5 lbs...so I have lost muscle. Its visible in the mirror, I have gotten stronger and lost size on this program so far. That just lends itself to the conclusion that the strength gains are neural. I am not here to critique other members, and I don't think I am anything special (believe me), but I think it's safe to say that we have some pretty strong members, but size-wise we have disproportionately less hypertrophy than members on other sites (and I honestly don't go to any other forum but this one...I have only seen pictures from links that members here have posted or when searching for how to do an exercise). The issue is...we SHOULD be bigger based on the theory of HST. I see a problem.</div>
I don't think anybody is going to lose 5 lbs of muscle that fast. Water/glycogen, maybe.

Tot's point, which is a reasonable one, is that if you are losing scale weight in general (full body routines do seem pretty good at cranking up calorie expenditure, even above what you'd expect), you are not eating enough to gain muscle in the first place.

The best way to know if HST &quot;works&quot; is to eat enough for scale weight to slowly and consistently go up, and evaluate the gains at that point (i.e. if you're gaining a good amount of muscle:fat).
 
Aside from this weight point, is there any reason to believe that the higher frequency of full-body workouts is not allowing adequate recovery time for the muscles to rebuild.  If we keep breaking down the tissues without giving them adequate time to rebuild, wouldn't the net effect be muscle loss?  I definitely think that the repetition of exercises week in and week out is more condusive to neural adaptations than hypertrophy.

DC training?
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 22 2007,21:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aside from this weight point, is there any reason to believe that the higher frequency of full-body workouts is not allowing adequate recovery time for the muscles to rebuild. If we keep breaking down the tissues without giving them adequate time to rebuild, wouldn't the net effect be muscle loss? I definitely think that the repetition of exercises week in and week out is more condusive to neural adaptations than hypertrophy.

DC training?</div>
The only way to believe this is true is using an outdated, single factor &quot;supercompensation&quot; model of muscle hypertrophy, which research has pretty convincingly demonstrated is false.

As to the neural stuff, I don't necessarily disagree, when you perform a given exercise frequently, it becomes very hard to dissociate gains in performance due to neural magic vs. structural (muscle hypertrophy) changes.

DC training.
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 22 2007,20:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If people aren't growing on HST, I don't think the issue is the whole 'wait long enough for your muscles to heal,' which research has demonstrated isn't really true (see, for example, the stretch overload stuff, the daily max eccentric stuff in humans etc). It would be, imho and as I conjectured here in the past, an insufficient acute stimulus to really drive growth. Doing enough &quot;right now&quot; to have an effect on any given training day for any given muscle group.

As for training frequently driving neural adaptations, it is a thought, and one of the reasons I've tossed around the idea of using more variation in exercise to offset this, e.g. picking 3 exercises per body part and only using one per week. I.e. gains in strength when you are performing a given lift frequently cannot be safely attributed to gains in muscle mass, since frequent training is, in effect, optimizing the neural magic, as you point out.

Which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I think DC training is interesting - the benchmark of progress is the gains in strength of your lifts (which it should be in general, imho), but you are performing any given lift a default of once every two weeks, at least partially dissociating the neural adaptations from the structural.

I once wrote a little piece on this idea, with my conclusion being that differences between training for strength and training for growth would be an increased focus on exercise variation and higher total volume (acute stimulus in general) for the latter, whereas the former would probably benefit from a smaller set of exercises practiced more frequently. Which, if you think about it, does end up looking like how a lot of people go about their HST routines.

There is an odd trend amongst the labcoat types to minimalize everything in training, which probably has roots in both HIT/Hardgainer. I think this can end up wildly backfiring for people, convincing everybody that they are a &quot;hardgainer&quot; who can't do much work without exploding.</div>
Neural adaptation.

It is through neural adaptation that more motor units are used to perform one movement. Immediately we can conclude that we have more strength available. Consequently, we can lift heavier. Since we can lift heavier, we can load the muscle with more weight. Since we can load the muscle with more weight, we can progress the load for a longer period of time. Etc, etc.

I have seen your arguments elsewhere brought forth by other people but in a different context. We were speaking of practice and how it allowed one to perform the same movement with greater efficiency and precision. Essentially, we became stronger and more proficient the more we practiced the same movement. By changing the movement frequently, we don't have this repetition to drive our neural adaptation and thus we don't lift the weight with as much efficiency and consequently we can't lift as heavy.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 22 2007,20:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">mikey,

So you would change to a different exercise for each bodypart every week, and keep volume high with more reps/sets for each exercise. Then waht happens to the weight? If volume is high, weight will naturally be reduced. This again goes against the principles of the basic split where maximum poundages are strived for each and every workout (remember, this does work for the majority of BB's). Also, what about frequency of workouts?</div>
No, it doesn't work for the majority of BB'ers. It does work for the majority of AAS users, though. Well, anything works for AAS users.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 22 2007,20:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here is my feeling about HST so far. During the 15's, felt great and ready for the next workout. Just finished my last day of 10's, and the effects of such closely spaced workouts seems to be starting to take its toll on my body. As for 5's, I'm really quite nervous that at max poundages this is too much on the body.

My issue is this:

For people taking AS, their recovery and strength are much more heightened than the natural lifter. Working out every 36-48 hours would probably not be an issue. But what about for us regular guys?

The standard thinking in the fitness community is that the muscle needs time to rebuild after being torn down in the gym, generally hitting every major muscle group once /week. While I do agree that this seems a bit excessive to give the body a full week to heal, I'm not convinced that 36-48 hours or less is enough for a natural lifter.

I believe that HST, while is was created to cause maximum hypertrophy, is actually creating an environment for a lack of hypertrophy (due to inadequate healing time) and more condusive to neural adaptations inceasing strength. I have gotten stronger on this program in the rep ranges I have completed, but my muscle mass has actually diminished slghtly. Also, many members here are quite strong IMO, but seem to lack the muscularity that would seem to go hand-in-hand with their strength. This is an issue that should concern all of us...for a program DESIGNED to illicit maximum hypertrophy, above and beyond the norm of standard splits, why are we not bigger??</div>
If you don't grow, there's two possible reasons: You don't eat enough, you don't train properly. Then there's a contradiction here, you've gained strength but lost size. There is further contradiction here because you fear that you will not be able to do the 5's because of the heavy weights. Either you've gained strength of you haven't.

Check your volume.
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....;t=4628

As far as HST being tailor made for AAS users, I guess it is. If it's good enough for naturals, it must be good enough for AAS users as well. But if you're a natural lifter, you should check your volume and make sure it's not too much.
 
Users do not need to train as frequently to attain a specific level of gains.

The major influence of androgens on muscle mass is to increase basal protein synthesis and net balance.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,00:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you don't grow, there's two possible reasons: You don't eat enough, you don't train properly. Then there's a contradiction here, you've gained strength but lost size. There is further contradiction here because you fear that you will not be able to do the 5's because of the heavy weights. Either you've gained strength of you haven't.</div>
Martin,

I appreciate your comments, but I think you may be missing my point.  One of the reasons for not growing you say is not training properly, that is specifically what I am talking about...the principles of HST not being condusive to hypertrophy.  Meaning if you use HST you are not training properly.

It is not a contradiction to gain strength and lose size unfortunately.  If gains in strength are due to neural adaptations and not hypertrophy then strength does not necessarily equal hypertrophy.  Further, there is not a contradiction in my increase in strength and my fear of the weights during the 5's.  My point is that during the heavier poundages of the 5's, there may be insufficient time to heal during a 3x/week or more workout schedule.  This is why I feel HST may be better suited for AS users, and why our members seem to be gaining more strength relative to size.

Remember, the goal of this forum is supposed to be HYPERTROPHY not strength.  While larger muscles usually will result in more strength, more strength doesn't automatically result in larger muscles.  This is my point that seems to have been missed.
 
As a side note...I am not putting down HST or saying that is doesn't work.  I am just describing some of my personal findings and opening the discussion to possible flaws in the system.  After all, we all pretty much have the same goal here and I want to be sure we are making the most of our efforts.  I will continue to give this 100% and document my results.
 
Here are two cents from someone who never cared for or believed in the science behind bodybuilding but has always had a healthy common sense.

I’ve been working out for 1 year and 3 months. A month ago, the thing about “Go heavy or go home” made my spine go “click” during a lift and I was left with the option to either “Go light or stay home”. I searched like the devil for a suitable workout program and eventually came across HST. It seemed great as it starts out relatively light and with high reps. I also need to continue cutting. Huge losses aren’t healthy in my opinion, and I’ve always gone for 300 g / 0.7 lb max loss per week although fat loss was extreme at the beginning. In 1 year and 3 months, I have lost 48 Kg / 110 lbs and have dropped my body fat percentage from something close to 50% (48.8% to be exact) to something near 20% (22.8% to be exact).

I have been cutting steadily at about 28 cal / Kg or 12 cal / lb and if you listen to all those “specialists” around, then losing fat and gaining muscle shouldn’t be possible anymore. And really, with the common workout program I haven’t seen any stunning progress for months. I switched to HST and – surprise, surprise! – I’m gaining lean mass again while losing quite a bunch of fat. So, does this HST thing work? Definitely. Look at how well it worked for me just in the last four weeks:

Neck: – 0.5 cm / - 0.2 in.
Biceps: + 1.5 cm / + 0.6 in.
Forearm: + 0.5 cm / + 0.2 in.
Chest: + 0.5 cm / + 0.2 in.
Waist: – 2.5 cm / - 1.0 in.
Hips: + 1.0 cm / + 0.4 in.
Thigh: + 2.5 cm / + 1.0 in.
Calf: no change
Bodyweight: + 2.6 Kg / + 6 lbs.
Lean Weight: + 2.8 Kg / + 6.4 lbs.
Body Fat Percentage: – 1.1%
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 23 2007,04:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As a side note...I am not putting down HST or saying that is doesn't work. I am just describing some of my personal findings and opening the discussion to possible flaws in the system. After all, we all pretty much have the same goal here and I want to be sure we are making the most of our efforts. I will continue to give this 100% and document my results.</div>
From this FAQ:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....;t=4613

We find these statements below about proper training.

Quote:
(explaining the fundamental principles of HST)
Anyone who argues with these points after understanding them correctly is in error. That is a strong statement but it is true. These are principles that we &quot;know&quot; from research and experience. The data from this research is not theoretically based. It is based on identification, measurements, and direct microscopic observation. All future research will show us is more genetic detail, NOT that we were wrong on some sort of fundamental basis. So, anyone can with confidence apply these principles to their training and successfully induce muscular hypertrophy.

If anyone should attempt to apply these principles and not experience some degree of muscle growth, it is not because the principles are wrong, it is because the application of the principles was flawed. Once again, another strong statement, but it is true. For example, just because you plant a garden and water it does not mean you will successfully grow prize-winning vegetables. Does this mean that your garden acted by some other mysterious agricultural principles other than those based on water, sunlight and soil? Of course not! We &quot;know&quot; the principles of growing plants. Where we fail, is in our application of those known principles.
End quote.

In other words, if you were applying the principles properly, you would grow. On the other hand, if you are eating less to cut fat, you will shrink. It would be unreasonable to expect to grow when you eat to shrink. Training is not a magical phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit.

Food is what allows us to grow. It's also what allows us to shrink. It all depends on how much of it we eat. The training will determine how this food will be used in our growth. With proper training, more muscle will be built from the food we eat as long as there is sufficient protein to do so. This is why I advised to check your diet.


Concerning muscle repair. Training does not deconstruct or shrink muscle. Instead, training will damage muscle. We call it microtrauma and it stimulates some responses, one of which is growth. But a growth response is stimulated with a phenomenon called mechano-transduction even without micro-trauma. Where muscle can shrink during a workout is when we work out too much for too long and eventually we begin to use our own muscle as fuel. This is why I advised to check your volume. Furthermore, muscle can repair unhindered even if we load it again.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 23 2007,03:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Remember, the goal of this forum is supposed to be HYPERTROPHY not strength. While larger muscles usually will result in more strength, more strength doesn't automatically result in larger muscles. This is my point that seems to have been missed.</div>
Dude, you said that you are trying to cut bodyfat. There isn't a training system out there that can make you put on muscle while in a calorie deficit. The only way you can cut bodyfat and simultaneously put on muscle is during a few special circumstances (for instance, you are on drugs/are a total newbie/coming off a long layoff where you lost tons of muscle/etc) but is not something you should realistically expect.



This is how it works: If you aren't growing, look to your diet. You should be eating enough to gain an average of 1 or 2 lbs a week. Okay, now finally that you have your diet nailed down, you can then (and ONLY then) look to your training as the blame for your poor results.
Remember, at this point you should be gaining an average of 1 or 2 lbs a week. Now you should check the quality of that weight gained. Obviously, bodyfat estimates are somewhat unreliable, so it would be better to track a few slightly more reliable measurements. I suggest picking a few skinfolds that you can measure the same way each time - the best one would be the abdominal skinfold. Then you could also measure your waist size. If these measurements are increasing by large numbers, that can be a bad sign.
The other thing to look for is strength gains in the gym. If you are gaining weight steadily, strength is shooting up and your waist measurement isn't getting out of control, then you are likely putting on primarily muscle.


Since you are on a cut, the most you can look for is to maintain what you have. You have indicated that your strength is going up, which would suggest that you are maintaining your current muscle mass. If you appear to have lost size, during a cut, and you haven't lost strength, this usually is a sign that you are depleted, which gives the muscles a deflated appearance.


Seriously, I can confidently say that at least 90% of the time, a trainees poor results are due to not enough calories being consumed. Even an idiotic training program can yield some results when combined with proper nutrition. There is NO training program out there that can make you gain weight/size if you are not eating enough. It would be a violation of physics. If you have found a training program that can do this, you should let the science world know. They've been looking for a way to create energy for a long time.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aside from this weight point, is there any reason to believe that the higher frequency of full-body workouts is not allowing adequate recovery time for the muscles to rebuild. If we keep breaking down the tissues without giving them adequate time to rebuild, wouldn't the net effect be muscle loss? I definitely think that the repetition of exercises week in and week out is more condusive to neural adaptations than hypertrophy.</div>

I beg to disagree...let's consider chapter 5 of the HST_FAQ e-book:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">5. Training Frequency

Also read the Planning Your Training Frequency
Training frequency article.

The reason HST calls for more frequent training is because the acute anabolic effects of training, such as increased protein synthesis, muscle-specific IGF-1 expression, and other factors involved in modulation of short term protein synthesis, only last for 36-48 hours.

There is also mounting evidence of a &quot;summation&quot; effect by exercising while levels of these signals and responses are elevated, as should be expected.

This does not mean that the structural repairs to the tissue have been completed. Research has demonstrated that you can train a muscle before it is fully recovered structurally and not inhibit its ability to continue to recover.

So, HST uses this evidence and calls for repeated loading (training) every 48 hours or so to keep the anabolic activity of the muscle high, while trying to stay slightly ahead of the structural recovery curve by constantly increasing the load each workout.

Staying ahead of the structural recovery curve is really key to elicit real growth in a person who has lifted for quite a while. Of course, injuries can develop over time if care isn't taken to take time to heal, and prepare the tendons for repeated heavy bouts of lifting (SD and 15s serve this purpose in HST).

&quot;Recovery&quot; can refer to several different things.

1) &quot;Recovery&quot; can refer to the structural repair process of fixing the micro trauma. The damaged proteins can takes several days to be repaired and all evidence of damage removed. Even at the end of seven days after significant muscle damage from eccentric muscle actions, you may still see some small fibers regenerating.

2) Strength - this can be acute recovery as in the necessary time to rest between sets. Or it can mean the days that it usually takes to regain baseline strength after muscle damaging exercise.

So the trick is to have the CNS &quot;recover&quot; just in time to hit the muscle again as the acute anabolic effects are wearing off. That way you can stay anabolic more of the time.

Training once every 7 days will still allow you to grow, it just takes longer for the gains to accumulate. Training more frequently is more efficient if your goal is just to get bigger.

To understand, you have to consider the total volume over time. A week is easiest to consider, so, over the course of a week, it is the total volume that is important.

So 9 total sets for chest can be done in one workout or in several workouts. Both will stimulate growth.

However, you will be anabolic more of the time if you can actually create that stimulus more often. In the case of HST, 3 times as often.

There is a physiological benefit (acute anabolic effects of training) in doing 9 sets as 3 sets X 3 workouts, as opposed to 9 sets all at once - and then nothing for the next 7 days.</div>

Hope this helps you clear up some of the confusion.

I for one am one of those members whose strength has gone up a fair bit bot not the size, and I know for a fact that while I was easting more (at times) I grew better, buyt generally I haven't grown that much because I am confortable where I am, and because I don't feel like eating more than what I do! BUIt IO know that is what it takes to grow...no doubt...nutrition is almost 80% of the hypertrophy equation with at least 5% being attitutde! This is IMHO...of course!
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top