Cyclical Load??

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">simon, is this a new program of Dan's or the modified maxstim? because if im not mistaken, maxstim is also another program of cyclical progression. you work up to a RM then move on to the next and work up to it again, the last RM is 4RM or so and then start over a new cycle at submax 10RM.</div>

keenef4, nah this routine is the one i found on Dan's Hypertrophy Research site which isn't up and running atm, it's not the maxstim one but just a general one. oh and i checked on Max-Stim site again and it doesn't say that it's cyclical, just shows the linear progression:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The progression is set up in an undulating linear fashion. There are 3 phases to this program.

Phase 1- Using your 10 RM load 4 workouts per week
Phase 2- Using your 8 RM load 4 workouts per week
Phase 3- Using your 6 RM load 4 workouts per week

Each phase starts out at 75% of the RM for that phase and increases over the duration to a maximum of 110% of the RM.</div>

to me this seems like an AWESOME program and sounds like what i was talking about before as in increasing your RM DURING the cycle rather than after a cycle (ie upping the weights for your NEXT cycle), WHILST still ramping up to them submaximally... hmmm... cool stuff...

(why it says FOUR workout per week is beyond me.... :S)

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">sorry guys, im not saying this is rocket science or anything and i know for sure that this is no thing new as I have already stated at the very beginning of the thread. I ask this because I dont understand the purpose of cyclical progression and why have many veterans here and on many other programmes changed from linear progression to cyclical progression? at the end, RBE still catchs us up this way or another. perhaps, cyclical progression somehow make this happen slower?</div>

YES!!! awesome question regarding cyclical progression
and YEAH Martin i do understand what you mean when you say <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">RBE will be greater when lifting the same heavy weight for 8 weeks than lifting progressively as in HST.</div>

thanks for that, it makes things clear for me, as in if u just KEEP lifting say your 10RM and trying to sloooooowly increase that RBE will accumulate, but if one continues to progress in tension RBE won't stop your gains, it's almost like Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote ay!
biggrin.gif


and THAT'S why HST is so effective because it never lets RBE stop your gains due to progressive tension overload at ALL times?

but i guess what my main concern is the progression ITSELF, NOT as in progressing submaximally to beat RBE, but in terms of overall strength gains (which ARE necessary for continued hypertrophy), i am just VERY confused as to why increase the weights (for the RMs) in the NEXT cycle and progress on a CYCLICAL basis.
ALTHOUGH, that leads me to think that maybe, just maybe that's not as important as RBE...

but the question is, is RBE dissipated enough after them 4 weeks of HEAVY 5s to cause further growth??? (cough cough STUDIES cough erhmm...
biggrin.gif
:D)
i've been searching pubmed EXTENSIVELY... will continue to do so haha

great thread thanks guys!

P.S. please guys tell me if my posts are too long and boring haha! i'll try to cut it down lol but i gots too much stuff i wanna say
biggrin.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">why it says FOUR workout per week is beyond me....</div>



Because frequency is 2x/wk per group (4x/wk total) ex:

M a
T b
W off
T a
F b
S off
S off


OR


M a
T b
W off
T a
F off
S b
S off


smile.gif
 
HEHE!!! nah but do u see how they show the load progression? it's done 4 times per week, and shows that for ONE exercise for example how to progress the load
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Example.

10RM load = 100 lbs

Week 1

Workout 1, A routine- 20 Reps –75 lbs.

M-Time- 1 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.

Workout 2, B routine- 20 reps –75 lbs.

M-Time- 1 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.



Workout 3, A routine-20 reps – 80 Lbs

M-Time- 2 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.

Workout 4, B routine- 20 reps –80 lbs.

M-Time- 2 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.



Week 2

Workout 5, A routine-20 reps – 85 Lbs

M-Time- 3 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.

Workout 6, B routine- 20 reps –85 lbs.

M-Time- 3 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.



Workout 7, A routine-20 reps – 90 Lbs

M-Time- 4 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.

Workout 8, B routine- 20 reps –90 lbs.

M-Time- 4 sec. Or whatever is needed to complete 20 reps without achieving any significant burn.

</div>

OH unless it is actually two different exercises with EXACTLY the same RM, i guess they just did that as an example ay... anyways! PLUS it's for workout A and B, yet if u go down to the exercises, it shows the same muscle groups for each workout... :S
meh anyways, i'm sure it's twice a week frequency but ;)
 
ANYWAYS... lol...
WHAT is the basis of cyclical load progression (as in increasing RMs in the NEXT cycle (ie HST style) rather than tryin to push em up now (ie Max-Stim routine)???

i'd love to learn
biggrin.gif
lol
 
BUMP * lol

wait, i'll add to this: WHAT is the basis of cyclical load progression (as in increasing RMs in the NEXT cycle (ie HST style) rather than tryin to push em up now (ie Max-Stim routine)??? OR is this not the point at all, the point of HST is to stay ahead of RBE by constantly increasing loads (and allowing growth with submax weights), whereas would a traditional program with increasing load slowly whilst letting RBE catch up too quickly?
still, RBE and growth adaptions (to a given load) are two DIFFERENT things correct?

But also yeah that's where HST and Max-Stim differ in one way, MS's progression goes from 75% to 110% of the RM (ie increasing your RM NOW and not later), and HST's goes from about 70-80% to 100%, but doesn't increase it NOW.
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Oct. 12 2007,08:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">BUMP * lol

wait, i'll add to this: WHAT is the basis of cyclical load progression (as in increasing RMs in the NEXT cycle (ie HST style) rather than tryin to push em up now (ie Max-Stim routine)??? OR is this not the point at all, the point of HST is to stay ahead of RBE by constantly increasing loads (and allowing growth with submax weights), whereas would a traditional program with increasing load slowly whilst letting RBE catch up too quickly?
still, RBE and growth adaptions (to a given load) are two DIFFERENT things correct?

But also yeah that's where HST and Max-Stim differ in one way, MS's progression goes from 75% to 110% of the RM (ie increasing your RM NOW and not later), and HST's goes from about 70-80% to 100%, but doesn't increase it NOW.</div>
Not everyone can continually thrive on workouts designed for increasing the 1RM During the cycle - age , genetics , joint condition , injuries , motivation , physically demanding jobs ect.- are all factors in many lifters lives.

Always remember that HST was designed to be THE BEST COMPROMISE of four basic principles that would be optimal FOR THE LARGEST CROSS SECTION OF LIFTERS . It's easy to lose sight of the reality of what MOST lifters (as a group) are construed of - poor to average genetics , higher slow twitch fiber proportion (relative to the &quot;gifted&quot; which are a very small minority) , lesser capacity to REALLY push the weights ( a mental/fear issue) , lower placement (of the importance of lifting) on lifes list of priorities , Less likely to make good food and sleep choices , less apt to stick out a program that &quot;feels&quot; too hard , less motivation and &quot;blood thirst&quot; for thrashing previous personal bests at all cost, ect. ect.

We (those obsessed enough to populate an online community dedicated to it - seriously , we dont even have an off topic lounge ) are not the &quot;norm&quot; . Though the overwhelming majority of those you banter with here are of average genetics ( as is 80-85% of the world) - thats the only average thing about them in regards to thier lifting .


Not exactly what you asked but I think you'll see the point I'm trying to make...
smile.gif
 
Just to calrify.

The progression mode itself is irrelevant, whether it's conjugate, linear, undulating or conventional, makes no difference. The name of the game is chronic overload. I do believe this is what Mikey was trying to get across.

RBE, the repeated bout effect, I keep seeing Martin saying this is proportional to other variables yet this has never been qualified or quantified. IOW, if you lift X weight for X weeks the repeat bout effect diminishes the hypertrophic effect by X amount.

Actually there is one paper I know of but the math is extreme and the measuring criteria impossible to reproduce without extensive lab capabilities.

So bottom line can one use the old world, I lift X til I'm stonger then I'll lift X+, absolutely and as Xarhx and Mikey have pointed out it's been done and proven. Is it optimal? That's another question. Will this require constant lifting to failure, no it doesn't. Besides, occasionaly lifting to failure is nothing evil and in fact may have some advantages.

BTW, Max-Stim is based on simple undulating linear progression and yes it is cyclical, IE work up to a certain % of 1RM, deload and work upwards again.

Lastly what _Simon is referring too is a series of articles written a few moons ago and I called it &quot;The Basics&quot; which if one were to read them, especially the one's on work and load, it becomes clear that the mode of progression isn't nearly as important as progression itself.

Bryan has HST laid out the way it is not because of some magical need to periodize but as a simple and effective means to provide constant overload of the tissue, please do not confuse these.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Besides, occasionaly lifting to failure is nothing evil and in fact may have some advantages.</div>



THANK YOU!!!
smile.gif
 
You're welcome RUSS.

One last point to make then I'll bow out.

RBE, the repeat bout effect, is a term used to denote the muscle tissue's resistance to damage after an initial damaging bout and in fact has never been used in the scientific literature to infer a resistance to growth.

A more appropriate term would be &quot;anabolic potential&quot;, &quot;growth potential&quot; or even &quot;hypertrophy potential&quot;, as these would encompass all things growth related. Even so, to this date I am unaware of any study that pinpointed this time frame and if there is (doubtful) how would volume changes, load changes, mode of contraction, TUT, ROM, Frequency and all the other variables involved affect this potential?

Far be from me to even begin to speculate.
rock.gif
 
that IS TRUE we don't have an off topic lounge haha i was gonna suggest that at one point lol

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The progression mode itself is irrelevant, whether it's conjugate, linear, undulating or conventional, makes no difference. The name of the game is chronic overload. I do believe this is what Mikey was trying to get across.</div>

So Dan if i'm correct you're saying that just increasing tension at ANY level is the key? or increasing your adaption threshold? let's leave RBE out of it for the moment, actually wait no haha

here's the question i really desperately (haha) need answered right: What is the aim for muscle growth, staying ahead of RBE (like HST does cycle to cycle), or increasing your adaption threshold? well, i KNOW that you have to get stronger over time, but in what WAY? cyclical or linear, or does it not matter? :S surely i thought it would be the MOST important part

and Dan, i thought that RBE prevents further growth? resistance to damage and resistance to growth, doesn't resistance to damage lead to resistance of growth?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan has HST laid out the way it is not because of some magical need to periodize but as a simple and effective means to provide constant overload of the tissue, please do not confuse these. </div>

WHAT do you mean when you say constant overload or chronic overload of the tissue??? Increasing RM, increasing tension no matter what level of tension started at, OR keeping ahead of RBE???

guys i REALISE i'm asking alot of bloody questions HAHAHA
biggrin.gif
but i'm still really not quite understanding what causes hypertrophy for some reason (ie not in terms of the microscopic stuff satellite cells and whatnot, but i'm talking about overload in terms of RBE and tension and RMs, like in practical weight training terms of whether you need to stay ahead of RBE for growth, whether you need to just keep tension increases (which relates to RBE actually), OR increasing your overall strength/RM NOW or later/cyclical)

REALLY appreciate all the help guys
biggrin.gif
laugh.gif
;)
 
In other words-
Don't overthink it.
Progressive load is the key to resistance training.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The mode of progression is not as important as the progression itself</div>, to quote my favorite labcoat Daniel Moore.
 
HEYHEY scientific muscle! you're back woohoo!
cheers for the response ay, but it doesn't live up to your name 'scientific muscle' LOL HAHAHA jokes
biggrin.gif


but i think it does matter in a way, in other words you're saying that lift heavier next session or so, that's all??? in terms of tension and dropping reps to accommodate that (and staying ahead of RBE) OR beating your RM by lifting close to failure??
wow.gif
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Oct. 16 2007,00:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HEYHEY scientific muscle! you're back woohoo!
cheers for the response ay, but it doesn't live up to your name 'scientific muscle' LOL HAHAHA jokes
biggrin.gif


but i think it does matter in a way, in other words you're saying that lift heavier next session or so, that's all??? in terms of tension and dropping reps to accommodate that (and staying ahead of RBE) OR beating your RM by lifting close to failure??
wow.gif
</div>
All of the above are correlated with progression.
 
GENERALLY, it IS what you said; lifting heavier each session, and dropping reps where needed. I've found that if you drop sets just because the program says so, you may lose your rate of progression. I drop sets only when it gets too hard.
FAILURE is a whole other bag. We avoid failure primarily because it tends to stop progression earlier, and we are also working out more often than other programs. Try whole body 3x/wk to failure and you'll see what I mean.
So there are basically 3 things going on IMO;
1.) Volume is maximal by choice, necessity and value. I'll do 3 sets of 10's where I can, or through part of the mesocycle. 5's have to be in 3 sets or more. The other thing volume comes from is the multiple sessions per week.
2.) Progression.
3.) Staying ahead of RBE. This is easy, comes naturally with HST.
It really IS that simple. It gets a little complicated when you begin to tweak it for yourself, based on the results you have gotten from a half year or so of cycles. Each person will have better results from certain parameters, although once worked to death, that can change to something else. Nothing works at it's maximum forever.
I think the only thing that truly remains consistent is the basic principles.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Oct. 15 2007,23:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lift heavy stuff. Next week, lift even heaver stuff and so on.
It worked for Milo thousands of years ago, it still works.</div>
I agree. However, I doubt that Milo ever achieved his final goal. That would have been a lot of bull...
biggrin.gif
 
yeah thanks guys for that, but the mode of progression is what my brain is fizzling over...

colby, yes i agree that they correlate with progression, but i'm asking which ONE is optimal, is
1) trying to beat RBE by constantly progressing submaximally and not pushing your RM up NOW (ie HST)
2) linearly pushing your RM up now with maybe undulating, dropping reps (traditional strength training, or something like Max-Stim)

better for hypertrophy
??

i TOTALLY agree with you there quadancer, u need enough volume, u need to progress, and stay ahead of RBE. but i'm having trouble understanding why HST doesn't push RMs DURING the cycle, i mean u could say that because you're training frequently, but seriously you don't have to go to TOTAL failure in order to increase weight and thus this should be fine to do (?), ie train as frequently as 3 times per week and push your RM???

so ok, max-stim is essentially the same principles as HST apart from the 3x frequency and SD, but it pushes the RM up DURING the cycle, except for using M-time, which makes it a hard gauge to say that it DOES push up the true RM...

thanks heaps guys, i know you are probably all SICK of my crap haha but i just wanna get answers ay haha and i realise i could just try it out which i am doing, but i just want to do what's optimal hehe (even though i don't train every 36 hours which is more optimal HEHE)
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Oct. 16 2007,11:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">colby, yes i agree that they correlate with progression, but i'm asking which ONE is optimal, is
1) trying to beat RBE by constantly progressing submaximally and not pushing your RM up NOW (ie HST)
2) linearly pushing your RM up now with maybe undulating, dropping reps (traditional strength training, or something like Max-Stim)

better for hypertrophy
??</div>
IMO, I would say HST is more optimal, but answers will differ for everyone.
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Oct. 16 2007,00:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HEYHEY scientific muscle! you're back woohoo!
cheers for the response ay, but it doesn't live up to your name 'scientific muscle' LOL HAHAHA jokes
biggrin.gif


but i think it does matter in a way, in other words you're saying that lift heavier next session or so, that's all??? in terms of tension and dropping reps to accommodate that (and staying ahead of RBE) OR beating your RM by lifting close to failure??  
wow.gif
</div>
In one way or another you have to progress LOAD. Now how you go about that is up to you. Bryan's vanilla HST program works great because progression is built right in no matter what. But some of my best gains have been pushing the strength envelop via max-stim and 5x5 type programs.

All these different programs work, because they all have progression. I have decided not to worry about the mode of progression anymore as I used to be like you and want to find some perfect parameters.
Now I just try to lift more and more each workout or at least each week, and I 'reset' the loads once I am plateauing...does it make sense now?
 
Stop looking at things with a microview.

Who cares if you use linear or cyclical progression?

At the end of the year, you will be using higher loads than you were at the beginning of the year. You don't measure your muscle growth in terms of each lifting session, you look at it in terms of months and years. So... why are you going to be looking at the load with such a narrow view? Zoom out a lot. If you are progressing your load OVER TIME then you will be fine. If you are backtracking and then building back up every now and then aka &quot;cycling the load&quot; then you will still end up using higher loads over the course of time.
In fact, I would argue that cycling the loads wouldn't result in much difference in the course of a year with regards to what loads you end up with at the end of the year compared to linear progression. After all, it is not required that you use maximal weights in order to increase strength. So someone who is cycling the load will still experience strengths and by the time they have built up to their previous maxes and push for new ones, I think they won't be too far behind the linear progression guy. Nevermind that the linear guy gets no deload time and will probably suffer eventually because of it, stalling his progress. Let's ignore that. The linear guy cannot progress beyond his max until he becomes stronger. How often will be become stronger? I doubt it will happen every week.

Anyway, I don't feel like continuing the tangent. The point:

Look at things with a macroscopic view and the method of progression becomes largely unimportant as long as you are progressing in some fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top