No, I thought it was clear. It’s a hypothetical study created by AI based on available (that has access to) research.
Last edited:
Clustering, Myo-rep, Varying Rep Ranges Barbell Plan
- Thread starter Clayton
- Start date
NWlifter
Active Member
yes, when I said do, I should have said 'created', I did see hypothetical.
NWlifter said:
wow, they did do a study like that (even if hypothetical using data from other studies), awesome, thanks for posting it!!!
Short version/My take: Either just do cycles/variations of the Vanilla HST or add an extra set per workout per muscle group from cycle to cycle to see if that makes a difference. I think it also makes sense to start with a higher (although they suck) rep range, as this would allow for a longer cycle before progress stalls. So, something like 25/15/10/5. Other tweak would be to extend your favorite rep range until progress stops. So, normal progression, then say 5 weeks in the 10s, then move on to the 5s.
Started to post the long version, but hit the character limit.
Attachments
Long version:
My wife likes to watch TV shows/movies I have zero interest in, so I've spent the last 6 months reading on my iPad or laptop a few days per week while we're "watching" something.
Based on catching up on the research, I don't actually know if two identical twins training over a year would get that differing results if one is following the vanilla HST plan vs. the other trying to "optimize" everything.
20 years ago, I just wanted an answer to the question, "What routine should I follow?" but now I enjoy the rationale and tinkering behind it.
I've read everything I could find from a wide variety of authors, websites, and listened to a lot of podcasts while I drive to work. I have about 50 pages of really disorganized notes from: HST board, your book, the FAQ one, Borge's recent Myo-Reps book (and the previous one), strongerbyscience.com, elitefts.com, reddit discussions, Chris Beardsley patreon (free version) articles and Hypertrophy: Muscle fiber growth caused by mechanical tension book, Helms' The Muscle & Strength Pyramid, Petter Attia Outlive (and a dozen other "health" books), Menno Henslemans materials, the RP Strength/Renaissance Periodization books and website, DoggCrapp & intensemuscle.com forum, Dan John books, Jordan Peters, Stan Efferding, among others.
I'm a quick reader, so pretty much anything and everything I could get my hands on. Plus some time playing with different LLMs (Claude or ChatGPT, etc), and Pubmed and various research journals.
This is all stuff you know (so feel free to ignore!), but my takeaways:
1) Train whatever I want to grow at least 2x per week, but 3x is slightly better. Mo' Frequent Muscle Protein Synthesis = 'Mo Betta Hypertrophy.
At the very least 3x week allows for slightly more volume and more frequent MPS. So, either:
A) Full Body every other day
B) Upper/Lower or Push/Pull (with quads/calves on push, and hinge/hamstrings on pull), 4-6x week.
C) or whatever split I feel like doing, as it doesn't really matter as long as ≥2x per week per body part.
Overall plan: Either something like 1) HST/RP Strength, or a 2) "patient lifter" approach and pick a rep range I like, say 8-12 and do a "double progression" model where the weight is increased once I hit a certain amount of reps.
HST appears to work the best for me. But, it's generally also easier training most of the time (hard workouts roughly twice every two weeks). I'd prefer to avoid injuries with my back, shoulder, and elbow history.
2) Progress the load (technically mechanical tension, but "weight on the bar" is easier to track) over time.
Adjustment: I don't think workout to workout actually makes a big difference, which is counter to what I assumed and everything says. To paraphrase Haycock, "the timeline is somewhat nebulous for physiological adaptations...but within 21 days."
So, a higher stimulus is needed at least every 3 weeks (but 2 or 1 week is probably the "safe" estimate?). So, I may run an "extended" HST cycle, but repeating the second half of the weights for 1 week each. Ex: first week of 15s, normal. Then 3 weeks of 15s, but only increase weekly for that 1/2 of the block. Then first week of 10s, normal progression, with the 2nd half only weekly progression, etc.
3) Aim to walk at least 8k steps a day, and get enough sleep and protein. That's good for health/longevity, but it's harder to add muscle if unhealthy. Also, creatine appears to be good for everything.
4) Take a week off when progress stalls. Deload if wanting to focus on strength. SD if focus is hypertrophy. What actually occurs for me: SD automatically happens based on work/life.
5) After SD/Deload, start with minimum effective dosage, then progressively increase it over time. Rinse/repeat.
6) Tweaking the Volume:
It's always a moving target on what is "optimal" (based on the current condition of the muscle) but, I think the main tweak would be to play with the volume.
Of course, diminishing returns occur. But, either adjust within a cycle, 2x15, 3x10, etc., or progress from cycle to cycle, with 1 more set each cycle until MAV/MRV hits. But, doing a ton of work today (or this week) doesn't allow me to keep progressing over the next month.
Hot Take/Side Ramble: The Renaissance Periodization plans are really another version/application of the HST Principles. They focus on the progressive overload within the mesocycle by ramping the sets. The starting point is to increase the weekly sets by 2 each week., but it's in an autoregulated fashion. If you are recovering nicely, go ahead and do 1-2 more sets next week. Keep doing that until a deload is needed. Basically, start with MEV (minimum effective volume), then progress to/through MAV (max adaptive volume) and MRV (max recoverable volume). They favor deloads vs. SD.
Same concepts as the HST Principles, just a slightly different application.
Israetel thinks adaptations occur with volume quicker than they do with strength and hypertrophy adaptations. I have actually never done the common tweak of doing 2x15, 3x10, etc., So, I'm thinking about doing something similar, or just doing different cycles to find out what amount of total volume works best for me.
BUT! "RE: Mesocycle Progression in Hypertrophy: Volume Versus Intensity," by Brian Minor, Eric Helms, and Jacob Schepis have a nice counter argument to this approach. In their response to the RP article on ramping sets over a mesocycle:
"Therefore, a minimum effective volume exists...produces the smallest measurable hypertrophy, as does an optimal level of volume...producing the most robust hypertrophy...minimum effective and optimal levels of volume...may be 5 sets and 10+ sets/week per muscle group...a practical limit on training volume exists...maximum recoverable volume (MRV)...the existing data does not directly support the recommendation that set volume should be the primary training variable...a program where the number of sets was fixed...load increased to maintain RIR, cannot be said to be suboptimal. As the authors state, 'Adding weight on the bar while keeping repetitions the same or adding repetitions to each set but keeping load the same' are equivalent...so too is a decreasing rep scheme with similar RIR and sets in the 'hypertrophy' rep range." (emphasis added).
Holy cow, am I reading that correctly? The parts I bolded basically describe the "vanilla HST" progression with a slight difference of an increasing RIR within each rep range.
Back to volume, I thought this table from the pre-print edition of "Pelland, J., Remmert, J., Robinson, Z., Hinson, S., Zourdos, M. (2024). The Resistance Training Dose-Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain. SportRχiv" is pretty cool:
View attachment 2790
"Vanilla HST" falls on the load side of the "Higher Efficiency" Tier. The "additional weekly sets required for additional detectable hypertrophy" was the part I found really interesting.
6) Tweaking Reps in Reserve: I thought it might be better to use an auto-regulated approach to go close to failure each workout, but especially from the recovery standpoint, sticking with the normal HST progression works better for me.
Greg Nuckols has a post on Reddit that helps explain why the HST application to ramping RIR still works well for hypertrophy (regarding RIR discussion):
Basically, the range from 8-0 RIR, plus the benefit of a frequent stimulus, makes the "hypertrophy math" work better than going to 0RIR once or twice a week? So, if a set of 8 RIR has the effect size of about half of a set that is 0 RIR, doing 2 sets with 8 RIR is roughly equal to 1 set of 0 RIR? That's crazy math, as 6 sets with 8 RIR is way easier for me to do than 3 sets to 0 RIR. However, I think both would actually take about the same amount of time when considering rest breaks.
Then, consider the other research comparing 1-2 RIR to 0 RIR being roughly equal...Dang it, I'm back to doing the Vanilla HST program again. So, what's changed since HST was created?!?
My wife likes to watch TV shows/movies I have zero interest in, so I've spent the last 6 months reading on my iPad or laptop a few days per week while we're "watching" something.
Based on catching up on the research, I don't actually know if two identical twins training over a year would get that differing results if one is following the vanilla HST plan vs. the other trying to "optimize" everything.
20 years ago, I just wanted an answer to the question, "What routine should I follow?" but now I enjoy the rationale and tinkering behind it.
I've read everything I could find from a wide variety of authors, websites, and listened to a lot of podcasts while I drive to work. I have about 50 pages of really disorganized notes from: HST board, your book, the FAQ one, Borge's recent Myo-Reps book (and the previous one), strongerbyscience.com, elitefts.com, reddit discussions, Chris Beardsley patreon (free version) articles and Hypertrophy: Muscle fiber growth caused by mechanical tension book, Helms' The Muscle & Strength Pyramid, Petter Attia Outlive (and a dozen other "health" books), Menno Henslemans materials, the RP Strength/Renaissance Periodization books and website, DoggCrapp & intensemuscle.com forum, Dan John books, Jordan Peters, Stan Efferding, among others.
I'm a quick reader, so pretty much anything and everything I could get my hands on. Plus some time playing with different LLMs (Claude or ChatGPT, etc), and Pubmed and various research journals.
This is all stuff you know (so feel free to ignore!), but my takeaways:
1) Train whatever I want to grow at least 2x per week, but 3x is slightly better. Mo' Frequent Muscle Protein Synthesis = 'Mo Betta Hypertrophy.
At the very least 3x week allows for slightly more volume and more frequent MPS. So, either:
A) Full Body every other day
B) Upper/Lower or Push/Pull (with quads/calves on push, and hinge/hamstrings on pull), 4-6x week.
C) or whatever split I feel like doing, as it doesn't really matter as long as ≥2x per week per body part.
Overall plan: Either something like 1) HST/RP Strength, or a 2) "patient lifter" approach and pick a rep range I like, say 8-12 and do a "double progression" model where the weight is increased once I hit a certain amount of reps.
HST appears to work the best for me. But, it's generally also easier training most of the time (hard workouts roughly twice every two weeks). I'd prefer to avoid injuries with my back, shoulder, and elbow history.
2) Progress the load (technically mechanical tension, but "weight on the bar" is easier to track) over time.
Adjustment: I don't think workout to workout actually makes a big difference, which is counter to what I assumed and everything says. To paraphrase Haycock, "the timeline is somewhat nebulous for physiological adaptations...but within 21 days."
So, a higher stimulus is needed at least every 3 weeks (but 2 or 1 week is probably the "safe" estimate?). So, I may run an "extended" HST cycle, but repeating the second half of the weights for 1 week each. Ex: first week of 15s, normal. Then 3 weeks of 15s, but only increase weekly for that 1/2 of the block. Then first week of 10s, normal progression, with the 2nd half only weekly progression, etc.
3) Aim to walk at least 8k steps a day, and get enough sleep and protein. That's good for health/longevity, but it's harder to add muscle if unhealthy. Also, creatine appears to be good for everything.
4) Take a week off when progress stalls. Deload if wanting to focus on strength. SD if focus is hypertrophy. What actually occurs for me: SD automatically happens based on work/life.
5) After SD/Deload, start with minimum effective dosage, then progressively increase it over time. Rinse/repeat.
6) Tweaking the Volume:
It's always a moving target on what is "optimal" (based on the current condition of the muscle) but, I think the main tweak would be to play with the volume.
Of course, diminishing returns occur. But, either adjust within a cycle, 2x15, 3x10, etc., or progress from cycle to cycle, with 1 more set each cycle until MAV/MRV hits. But, doing a ton of work today (or this week) doesn't allow me to keep progressing over the next month.
Hot Take/Side Ramble: The Renaissance Periodization plans are really another version/application of the HST Principles. They focus on the progressive overload within the mesocycle by ramping the sets. The starting point is to increase the weekly sets by 2 each week., but it's in an autoregulated fashion. If you are recovering nicely, go ahead and do 1-2 more sets next week. Keep doing that until a deload is needed. Basically, start with MEV (minimum effective volume), then progress to/through MAV (max adaptive volume) and MRV (max recoverable volume). They favor deloads vs. SD.
Same concepts as the HST Principles, just a slightly different application.
Israetel thinks adaptations occur with volume quicker than they do with strength and hypertrophy adaptations. I have actually never done the common tweak of doing 2x15, 3x10, etc., So, I'm thinking about doing something similar, or just doing different cycles to find out what amount of total volume works best for me.
BUT! "RE: Mesocycle Progression in Hypertrophy: Volume Versus Intensity," by Brian Minor, Eric Helms, and Jacob Schepis have a nice counter argument to this approach. In their response to the RP article on ramping sets over a mesocycle:
"Therefore, a minimum effective volume exists...produces the smallest measurable hypertrophy, as does an optimal level of volume...producing the most robust hypertrophy...minimum effective and optimal levels of volume...may be 5 sets and 10+ sets/week per muscle group...a practical limit on training volume exists...maximum recoverable volume (MRV)...the existing data does not directly support the recommendation that set volume should be the primary training variable...a program where the number of sets was fixed...load increased to maintain RIR, cannot be said to be suboptimal. As the authors state, 'Adding weight on the bar while keeping repetitions the same or adding repetitions to each set but keeping load the same' are equivalent...so too is a decreasing rep scheme with similar RIR and sets in the 'hypertrophy' rep range." (emphasis added).
Holy cow, am I reading that correctly? The parts I bolded basically describe the "vanilla HST" progression with a slight difference of an increasing RIR within each rep range.
Back to volume, I thought this table from the pre-print edition of "Pelland, J., Remmert, J., Robinson, Z., Hinson, S., Zourdos, M. (2024). The Resistance Training Dose-Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain. SportRχiv" is pretty cool:
View attachment 2790
"Vanilla HST" falls on the load side of the "Higher Efficiency" Tier. The "additional weekly sets required for additional detectable hypertrophy" was the part I found really interesting.
6) Tweaking Reps in Reserve: I thought it might be better to use an auto-regulated approach to go close to failure each workout, but especially from the recovery standpoint, sticking with the normal HST progression works better for me.
Greg Nuckols has a post on Reddit that helps explain why the HST application to ramping RIR still works well for hypertrophy (regarding RIR discussion):
https://www.reddit.com/r/StrongerByScience/s/BzMncpfVwN (emphasis added).
Basically, the range from 8-0 RIR, plus the benefit of a frequent stimulus, makes the "hypertrophy math" work better than going to 0RIR once or twice a week? So, if a set of 8 RIR has the effect size of about half of a set that is 0 RIR, doing 2 sets with 8 RIR is roughly equal to 1 set of 0 RIR? That's crazy math, as 6 sets with 8 RIR is way easier for me to do than 3 sets to 0 RIR. However, I think both would actually take about the same amount of time when considering rest breaks.
Then, consider the other research comparing 1-2 RIR to 0 RIR being roughly equal...Dang it, I'm back to doing the Vanilla HST program again. So, what's changed since HST was created?!?