conflicting information.

[madcat]

Hey guys, New user here trying to setup a hst schedule for the first time. After extensive reading on this site I must say I'm a bit confused. Alot of the articles on the forums have conflicting information. Rightly so I suppose, there are various sources for the information. I guess I'll stop ranting and get to the point. For instance, On the main page of this site, Bryan says that idealy you should use 1 week blocks for each rep range, but for simplicity it explains 2 week blocks. However in a forum topic posted by bryan, he shows his schedule and states that he uses 2 week blocks.
Which is really more effective?

 

[Brak]

Welcome, it is a lot to take in and some of it seems counterintuitive, but rarely is it contradictory. And the more you understand it, through practice the more it makes sense, especially the things that seem contradictory.

Does it really say one week blocks are more effective, that would make who whole cycle like 3 or 4 weeks. While I welcome you I hate to have your first post be one where you are told you read something wrong and you should go back and check it. But that is what I think. Almost everyone around here uses 2 week blocks and the few that don't are due to either time constraints (traveling and can't do a full 6-8 week cycle) or they have more rep maxes. For example instead of two weeks of 15s then two weeks of 10s, etc. They might do a week of 16s a week of 13s a week of 10s, a week of 7s, etc. I don't know of anyone that just purposely does one week of 15s, one week of 10s, one week of 5s, then some negs or drop sets and is done.

Oh, and just to hit on something I found to be contradictory...In the main paper on HST, Bryan says that anything 1 set was shown to have produced hypertrophy and that anything beyond the first effective set does little more than burn calories. So I was thinking, cool, no more than one set, otherwise I am just burning calories and wasting the calories I had worked so hard to eat all day. Then I read a post in the FAQs where Bryan or Blade (can't tell which) said that the recommendation is to do 1 set for the 15s two sets for the first week of 10s 1 set for the second week of 10s, two sets for the first week of 5s and 1 set for the second week of 5s. Seemed to contradict what I previously read. Then if you spend enough time in the forums you will see that most people's routine looks like 1x15s, 2x10s, 3x5s. This is done in an apparent effort to keep time under tension the same throughout the cycle. The explanation I got from Bryan and others regarding this discrepancy - The original article said that 1 set will induce hypertrophy given that the load is sufficient, but in addition to that, additional sets will increase the rate at which you will see results. As long as you don’t do so many sets that it will negatively impact your next workout. Experienced lifters can do more sets without worrying about it, and need to do more volume to continue to see results. So what about the statement that any set beyond the 1st effective set does little more than burn calories, I dunno…never really was able to reconcile that, but no-one seems to pay it any attention, they just do their multiple sets and that is that. Just wanted to make you aware of that contradiction and try to do my best to resolve it for you before you start trying to figure it out.

Like I said…welcome, and know that the counterintuitive nature of some of the material is due to it just being different from most things you might have learned in the past, and this strangeness can add to the feeling that some of it is contradictory, but I assure you, very little of it is once you fully understand it (as if I fully understand it, lol). Have fun…this site is a great find for me, this has been the only thing that has worked.

Brak

 

[madcat]

thanks for your reply brak, I appreciate it and will double check what I have read. What's weird for me is I am a bodybuilder and have competed professionally for some years. Yet here I am trying something new and feel like a "noob"
I am open minded however, I appreciate your kindness and advice and look forward to exploring this site further, especially when people are so willing to help

 

[Tom Treutlein]

The only reason I could see a person using one week of 15's would be to get to the heavier loads which tend to produce more growth. One week of the 15's (provided this isn't your first cycle) would be adequate.

Though, if your incretments aren't too large (2.5-5 lbs.) due to lack of strength, you could use one week blocks to make bigger jumps in weight, since that is supposedly better for hypertrophy.

Example | Bench Press | 2 Weeks | 15's
Day 1: 145
Day 2: 150
Day 3: 155
Day 4: 160
Day 5: 165
Day 6: 170

The 15 RM is 170, in this case. You count back to the first workout with 5 lb. intervals, thus giving you a starting weight of 145 lbs.

Or...

Example | Bench Press | 2 Weeks | 15's
Day 1: 145
Day 2: 155
Day 3: 170

Bigger jumps, not a steady interval, but that doesn't much matter. The big thing is, you're progressing the load. In the latter situation, the jumps in load are so great, that they would probably produce more hypertrophy than the former example. That is only my theory, based on some speculation.

I do personally like the idea of smaller blocks with larger jumps in weight. Problem is, the SD would be showing up more frequently, and unless the gains in hypertrophy were much greater from shorter cycles with bigger jumps in weight, I doubt they'd be worth it.

 

[BoSox]

Quote[/b] ]I do personally like the idea of smaller blocks with larger jumps in weight. Problem is, the SD would be showing up more frequently, and unless the gains in hypertrophy were much greater from shorter cycles with bigger jumps in weight, I doubt they'd be worth it.

right. The middle ground is to repeat weights... ie. 145, 145, 155, 155, 165, 165, so you can do each rep range for two weeks and still have larger increments.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Here are some quotes from Bryan from various FAQs, my reasoning for pointing to these is that the conflicts you are seeing aren't truly conflicts, all along the message has been the same. The best solution is setting up a wide as possible difference from starting weight to end weight, whether this is laid out in two week blocks or one week blocks, whether this is laid out with undulating progression or linear progression in the end makes little difference. Because fatique and strength are going to dictate these items anyway.

Quote[/b] ]Here is the key to understanding the answer to your question about increments. The smaller the difference between your required starting weight and your max strength will determine what kind of increments you will use. This is not
complicated, nor does it need to be. On average you should be able to make 6 increments between your minimum effective weight and your repetition max. It is not uncommon, however, that people will need to reduce the number of increments and repeat a few poundages to accommodate small muscle groups such as shoulders (lateral raises etc). All in all you will end up increasing the weight 18 -20 times over the course of 6-8 weeks. This consistent increase in load and Strategic Deconditioning has a great deal to do with the effectiveness of HST.

There is nothing magical about using 15s, 10s, and 5s. Some people have used 15,12,10,8, and 5s, changing reps each week. This creates quite a bit more fatigue in well-trained lifters though and can begin to interfere with their training.

What will determine your success is more dependent upon how wide the range is between your effective starting poundages during the 15s and your ending poundages used for 5s or negatives. So your goal for continued success, cycle after cycle, is to increase that range - by either decreasing the effective starting weight and/or increasing the finishing weight of the cycle.

Brak, there are numerous studies that either 1. show one set just as effective or 2. that more sets are more effective.
It is more than just burning calories and Bryan has pointed this out several times, so again the simplest factor to keep in mind when it comes to the effectiveness of sets is 1. Can you do more than one set and keep the frequency of your workouts elevated. 2. Can you do more than one set and keep your strength high enough to hit your prescribed rep goal. If you can then adding another surely isn't going to hurt you. Now whether it will help you is up to you and you will have to identify that. I personally feel it is more about timing and how the timing of subsequent sets plays on molecular pathways.

 

[Brak]

Dan, I do understand the truth about how many sets, you are right, Bryan has explained it on numerous occasions. The part I can't reconcile is why this page says under the section titled Low volume per exercise - "sets beyond the first "effective" set do little more than burn calories". True he said that "some" studies indicate. But in the cotext, he is clearly referencing these studies indicating that they are inportant within the context of the HST methods. Otherwise, why would it be there. So if this study and it's conclusion that "sets beyond the first "effective" set do little more than burn calories" is important, we are led to believe that doing more than one set would do little more than cause us to have to eat more food if we were bulking. This is clearly contradictory to what has been established that I won't argue with...that the more sets you do the better as long as the higher volume does not interfere with subsequent workouts. So although what is being discussed in the forums and in the FAQs is consistent and has always been, the inclusion of th 1 set statement in the HST methods article is misleading at best.

Now I suppose we could disect the statement and say "well, it did say 'first "effective"set'". So if I am doing 3 sets, the 3rd one is considered the "effective" set. Well, I suppose that could be done, but frankly I think it is a stretch.

Madcat, that is cool to hear you have experience...unfortunately, from what I've seen the more experience people have with other systems and training methods, the harder the HST pill is to swallow (whadaya mean, not going to failure). Fortunately for us though, once you wrap your mind around it, you will be that much more ready to utilize it and the good things you already know will come in handy for those of us that really are noobs. Happy growing.

Brak

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Brak, even though I am sure you have read this I am going to post it again for those who haven't.

This is from the FAQ , "How many Sets and How to determine it."

Quote[/b] ]From what other research there is on the time course of genetic expression in response to overload, it is clear that we don’t even come close the amount of time needed to elicit the greatest hypertrophic effect. But what are you going to do? We have to lift the weight and lower it over and over in order to overload the muscle. From the overload research, I personally feel longer time under tension is better. But you have to balance that with CNS fatigue, and absolute load.

More sets with heavier weight is better than fewer sets with less weight. But there is a limit to our exercise tolerance. So you have to figure out a way to get as much loading of the muscle as you can, as often as you can, and still be able to constantly increase the load over time, without burning out or getting injured.

Keep in mind that HST does not dictate that the total volume (i.e. number of sets per body part) over the course of the week should be lower than what a person is accustomed to using with traditional routines. HST only advises that the volume be evenly distributed over more workouts in the same time period. So if you are used to doing 9 sets for back on "back day" using a traditional routine (e.g. training each body part once per week), HST would have you do 3 sets at a time for 3 different workouts.

Obviously, a guy who is used to doing something like 12 sets for back once per week, is not going to gain much by dropping to doing only 1 set for back even if it is 3 times per week. He went from 12 sets to 3 sets per week. Not only that, but HST would have him use submax weights most of the time where he is obviously plateaued and used to doing 100% max weights (Not true 100%, but 100% with the fatigue that inevitably accumulates by the 3rd set). This is just too great a reduction in training to provide him with significant gains. The key here of course is Strategic Deconditioning, that would then allow him to begin growing again, with less "average" weight and volume, but higher frequency.

Well, for me, 2 sets is enough on most bopdyparts. But then again, with body parts like back, I will usually do 3 sets at different angles of pull and grip widths.

But the amount of volume each person is used to varies. I am not saying that you have to train to your volume limit. I'm just saying that if 1 set isn't enough, do another. Do too much and you'll begin to get progressively weaker, and/or injured and you will lose your desire to train.

At first, you won't know how much is too much and how much is too little. So, start with 1 work set per body part per exercise, and work up from there.