Dan ... "In the Right Now"

[Avi1985]

<div>
(etothepii @ Aug. 09 2007,08:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here's how my cycle has been:

A
Deads
Dips
Pendlay Rows
Military press

B
Squats
Bench
Pull ups
Standing rows

Each routine has a lower body, chest, back, and shoulder exercise. Oreviously, I would do:

Squat/Deads alternated
Bench
Pull Ups(superset)
Dips
Rows (superset)
Military press

I just think the A/B routine is better for energy levels. Also, with the A/B setup, I do a total of 30 reps -- 2x15, 3x10, and 6x5. With the other workout I had been doing the standard 1x15, 2x10, 3x5 scheme.</div>
How you do 6 sets of 5's for each muscle and keep your practice time less than 90 minutes?

 

[imported_etothepii]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How you do 6 sets of 5's for each muscle and keep your practice time less than 90 minutes? </div>

I usually workout around an hour. It's only 24 sets. Same as doing 3x5 for eight exercises, except there's less time prepping the weights for new lifts.

 

[_Simon_]

Dan <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So is micro trauma a necessity? IMO no.</div>

I always thought that of COURSE this was necessary, because in ORDER for satellite cells to donate their nuclei, something has to happen beforehand to CAUSE this action? and resistance training put tears in the fibers which then so on and so on, i'm lost here hehe.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is satellite cell donation occurring because of increased nuclear domain size and/or satellite cell donation occurring because of the immediate need to repair the fiber structure after damage.</div>

so can one increase nuclear domain size without resistance training? (without the ol vitamin S of course

)
it just seems that you are saying that hypertrophy can occur as a result of increased nuclear domain size, OR fiber repair from external stress! unless i misread ay...

and cheers Martin for the link, but i honestly don't know what to think anymore regarding hypertrophy training, Bryan said that we DO know how muscle grows and so on, yet there is STILL so much conflicting views! or unless the exact METHODS are the confusing part, but HOW muscle grows is fairly uniform would anyone agree?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
As the loads climb and the TUT for each rep invariably increases,</div>

Lol, what did you mean here? it's my understanding that TUT DECREASES as loads increase due to the inability to perform as many reps, unless u mean TUT per rep. because TUT is time under tension, and the more reps the more time under tension.

cheers for the chatter guys

 

[Lol]

<div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 21 2007,13:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
As the loads climb and the TUT for each rep invariably increases,</div>

Lol, what did you mean here? it's my understanding that TUT DECREASES as loads increase due to the inability to perform as many reps, unless u mean TUT per rep. because TUT is time under tension, and the more reps the more time under tension.</div>
for each = per

 

[Avi1985]

<div>
(etothepii @ Aug. 20 2007,20:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How you do 6 sets of 5's for each muscle and keep your practice time less than 90 minutes? </div>

I usually workout around an hour. It's only 24 sets. Same as doing 3x5 for eight exercises, except there's less time prepping the weights for new lifts.</div>
I still dont get it. How many worm up sets you do? and how many time you rest beetwen the sets?

 

[imported_etothepii]

I do about a 5 minute full body warmup before my workout, and I don't count that. I do a few warmup sets for my squat and dead lift, but that's it. My rest between sets depends on how I feel. It could be 1 to 3 or 4 minutes I guess.

I timed my workout last night and it took 70 minutes, not the hour that I thought I had been taking.

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(Dan Moore @ Aug. 19 2007,20:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

I borrowed it from someone, perhaps it was MikeyNov. I don't remember now. I think it was Mikey though.

Mikey you remember?</div>
It might have been me.

I've made iterations of the point a few different times, but I noted that, despite the otherwise &quot;optimal&quot; conditions of HST and its progeny (of which I'd include max-stim) in terms of factors relating to hypertrophy (frequency, progressive loading etc), that some people might not be reaping the rewards of this style of training simply because the acute stimulus (the &quot;right now&quot; thing) wasn't actually high enough to trigger the adaptation we were looking for.

And why, despite some of the sub-optimal aspects of conventional bodybuilding training (lack of frequency in particular), that it was a way to almost accidentally grow for sure in that, if you at least increase the load on the bar over time, the higher volume per body part virtually guarantees the acute stimulus is happening.

I realize the above is conjecture, but it would explain a lot of the observations out there of what's &quot;working&quot; to get people hyooge, or how people might modify their HST/max-stim approach to get the full theoretical benefit of this style of training.

 

[_Simon_]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> that some people might not be reaping the rewards of this style of training simply because the acute stimulus (the &quot;right now&quot; thing) wasn't actually high enough to trigger the adaptation we were looking for.</div>

hmmm where can i read more on this acute stimulus needing to be achieved? isn't load enough? and yeah, that's i THINK what i was saying before in regards to achieving microtrauma each workout or else there would be nothing to repair and grow. is THIS the acute stimulus needed? higher volume with progressive load?

WHAT volume for WHAT loads though? i understand that when higher frequency comes into the mix you can't have TOO high a volume. so is this along the lines of Dan Moore's routine of a frequency of twice a week per muscle group, with higher volume and progressive loads? (whilst dropping the reps i'm not quite sure of, i have to read up on it more)

(and is there a certain volume that causes enough microtrauma? or IS it individual/conditioning based as to what the muscles have 'been through' before?)

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I realize the above is conjecture, but it would explain a lot of the observations out there of what's &quot;working&quot; to get people hyooge, or how people might modify their HST/max-stim approach to get the full theoretical benefit of this style of training. </div>

and YES that would explain why when people follow the 'one bodypart per week' 'high volume' approach that many DO in fact get results...

so then enough VOLUME is the goal as well... even though having a high frequency entails a low enough volume, unless this low volume per workout is in fact IMPOSSIBLE to create a 'NOW' stimulus, however many people have success with HST.....
help me... please.....

lol

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 22 2007,00:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">help me... please.....

lol</div>
Volume is most definitely a factor in growth - were it not, we could perform a single repetition per muscle group and grow. This clearly does not track with reality.

Higher frequency as per the literature does appear to pay off, but I'd be very curious to see the dose/response (in terms of hypertrophy, there's stuff by Rhea looking at strength) for volume (acutely) as trainees gain training age, i.e. more exposure to the supra-natural loads of weight training.

Meaning, a beginner might grow on comparatively lower volume, whereas somebody training a few years might get a much better dose/response with more volume. Bear in mind, once again, that the volume I'm talking about is the &quot;right now&quot; volume, i.e. per session, versus weekly volume. I mean, it's kind of a no brainer to me - on some level, you have to do enough RIGHT NOW to actually grow. I'll give you a theoretical example using fake numbers:

Let's compare 9 sets per body part once per week versus 3 sets per bodypart 3 times per week with an average of 10 reps per set.

Now, the 9 sets per body part once per week might be sub-optimal in terms of distribution of volume, but let's say it averages 9 x 10 = ~90 total reps. Let's also say that the &quot;right now&quot; stimulus for an ideal response from training, acutely, is ~50 reps. 90 reps is well over that, but even if you exceed the ideal dose/response, being over still virtually guarantees that &quot;something&quot; happened.

On the flip side, if you perform 30 reps thrice weekly, you've distributed the volume in a more effective way, but the acute volume dips below that ideal dose/response, and thus the cumulative effect, if any, becomes compromised.

That's sort of my point. Volume clearly matters, and the trend of more volume as your training age increases also seems to very much track with reality. Thus, while the default routine might be fine for your average Joe, particularly those who are beginners, getting more creative with upper/lower type splits (see the routine Bryan himself posted at one point) and such to increase acute volume per muscle group per session becomes very important at some point, imho.

 

[Martin Levac]

It takes time to grow. It takes mechanical load to grow. The load also induces a resistance to itself. Thus, at some point in time, load must be increased or the number of times it's applied must be increased or the muscle must be resensitized to the load for further growth to occur. SD won't revert all the changes but it is nevertheless effective.

Catch 22. The more often the load is applied, the quicker RBE sets in. The greater the load, the greater the resistance to the load once RBE sets in.

To mitigate RBE and to grow as fast and as much as possible, use the lightest load that will stimulate growth and use it as little as possible immediately but as frequently as possible over time. In other words, if a single set of 5 is enough to stimulate growth, do only that until it becomes not enough. Otherwise, RBE sets in and you're stuck doing more reps or lifting heavier or taking longer SD or a combination of any of the above.

The goal of HST is not to stimulate growth over the weekend at the cost of taking a break afterward and then stopping there. The goal of HST is to stimulate growth over two months at the cost of taking a break for two weeks afterward in order to continue to stimulate growth over the subsequent two months after that. And so forth. The goal of HST is not to render the muscle immune to the growth stimulus. Au contraire, the goal of HST is to maintain the muscle as sensitive to the stimulus for as long as possible in order to continue to grow as quickly and for as long as possible.

Attempting to do as much as possible as quickly as possible to stimulate growth would accelerate RBE which would in turn stop growth prematurely.

 

[Fausto]

Mikey and Martin

Excellent points both of you, I take my hat off to both, well said and indeed high and critical points to be looked at when considering &quot;tinkering&quot; with existing HST procedures!

 

[Joe.Muscle]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 21 2007,13:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 22 2007,00:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">help me... please.....

lol</div>
Volume is most definitely a factor in growth - were it not, we could perform a single repetition per muscle group and grow.  This clearly does not track with reality.

Higher frequency as per the literature does appear to pay off, but I'd be very curious to see the dose/response (in terms of hypertrophy, there's stuff by Rhea looking at strength) for volume (acutely) as trainees gain training age, i.e. more exposure to the supra-natural loads of weight training.

Meaning, a beginner might grow on comparatively lower volume, whereas somebody training a few years might get a much better dose/response with more volume.  Bear in mind, once again, that the volume I'm talking about is the &quot;right now&quot; volume, i.e. per session, versus weekly volume.  I mean, it's kind of a no brainer to me - on some level, you have to do enough RIGHT NOW to actually grow.  I'll give you a theoretical example using fake numbers:

Let's compare 9 sets per body part once per week versus 3 sets per bodypart 3 times per week with an average of 10 reps per set.

Now, the 9 sets per body part once per week might be sub-optimal in terms of distribution of volume, but let's say it averages 9 x 10 = ~90 total reps.  Let's also say that the &quot;right now&quot; stimulus for an ideal response from training, acutely, is ~50 reps.  90 reps is well over that, but even if you exceed the ideal dose/response, being over still virtually guarantees that &quot;something&quot; happened.

On the flip side, if you perform 30 reps thrice weekly, you've distributed the volume in a more effective way, but the acute volume dips below that ideal dose/response, and thus the cumulative effect, if any, becomes compromised.

That's sort of my point.  Volume clearly matters, and the trend of more volume as your training age increases also seems to very much track with reality.  Thus, while the default routine might be fine for your average Joe, particularly those who are beginners, getting more creative with upper/lower type splits (see the routine Bryan himself posted at one point) and such to increase acute volume per muscle group per session becomes very important at some point, imho.</div>
I agree Mikey....excellent post.

Now lets make you do some work for us.

Would you mind posting a routine with your example.

Because someone like me may take this to the extremem and do tooooo much to try to get the right now effect.

Are you saying go to once a week training...or twice a week training.

From Dans site the right now effect looks to be around 45 reps?

Lets discuss....I love this type of stuff!

 

[cgutcu]

Ok, If I do 50 reps for chest, back and legs, and if this is the ideal volume, how much should I do for delts, biceps, and triceps, that are worked when back and chest are trained?The same 50 reps, or can I reduce the volume for 25?

 

[lcars]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 21 2007,17:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Aug. 19 2007,20:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

I borrowed it from someone, perhaps it was MikeyNov. I don't remember now. I think it was Mikey though.

Mikey you remember?</div>
It might have been me.

I've made iterations of the point a few different times, but I noted that, despite the otherwise &quot;optimal&quot; conditions of HST and its progeny (of which I'd include max-stim) in terms of factors relating to hypertrophy (frequency, progressive loading etc), that some people might not be reaping the rewards of this style of training simply because the acute stimulus (the &quot;right now&quot; thing) wasn't actually high enough to trigger the adaptation we were looking for.

And why, despite some of the sub-optimal aspects of conventional bodybuilding training (lack of frequency in particular), that it was a way to almost accidentally grow for sure in that, if you at least increase the load on the bar over time, the higher volume per body part virtually guarantees the acute stimulus is happening.

I realize the above is conjecture, but it would explain a lot of the observations out there of what's &quot;working&quot; to get people hyooge, or how people might modify their HST/max-stim approach to get the full theoretical benefit of this style of training.</div>



great post, this is the main reason i struggle with hst sometimes. i just think the volume is spread too thin, i feel i just dont do enough volume in the &quot;right now&quot;.

although if i adjust the volume to 3 sets of 5 reps (durin the 5's) i feel ive done enough.

plus due to my training age shall we say, i cant do with dropping too many exercises, as this seems to reduce the hypertrophic response (for me).

 

[Totentanz]

<div>
(lcars @ Aug. 22 2007,11:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">great post, this is the main reason i struggle with hst sometimes. i just think the volume is spread too thin, i feel i just dont do enough volume in the &quot;right now&quot;.</div>
Well then do more volume, like Bryan advocates in the FAQs. Obviously the &quot;vanilla&quot; routine is going to be far too little volume for anyone with several cycles of HST under their belt, which is exactly why Bryan posted that FAQ about volume.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 22 2007,12:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Aug. 22 2007,11:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">great post, this is the main reason i struggle with hst sometimes. i just think the volume is spread too thin, i feel i just dont do enough volume in the &quot;right now&quot;.</div>
Well then do more volume, like Bryan advocates in the FAQs.  Obviously the &quot;vanilla&quot; routine is going to be far too little volume for anyone with several cycles of HST under their belt, which is exactly why Bryan posted that FAQ about volume.</div>
if i went to 2x per week i could possibly do that.

you cant have high volume and high frequency imo, the workouts would be grueling and they'd work out around 2hrs for me, taking into account that id have to set up for about 10 different exercises.

not only that but ive never really cared for working with submaximal weights as this also is not enough in &quot;the now&quot; for me anymore. at one time i could get away with it but not now, as ive said before progressive load is the most important part of hst imo even moreso than frequency.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

I dont think you can do HST with High Volume 3 times a week if you did 50 to 60 reps for the right now.

You could do it in a 6 day routine...but who in the hell has time for that.

So I think finding a routine that hits the right now effect inside 3 to 4 days in optimal.

 

[Totentanz]

<div>
(lcars @ Aug. 22 2007,13:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">you cant have high volume and high frequency imo, the workouts would be grueling and they'd work out around 2hrs for me, taking into account that id have to set up for about 10 different exercises.

not only that but ive never really cared for working with submaximal weights as this also is not enough in &quot;the now&quot; for me anymore. at one time i could get away with it but not now, as ive said before progressive load is the most important part of hst imo even moreso than frequency.</div>
Bryan manages to do it somehow with his six days a week split that he has told us all about before. He is a lot further in his training age than you and it seems to be working for him.

Anyway, I agree that progressive load is the most important aspect of HST. Of course, that kind of requires some submax loading for a little while at least. Otherwise how can you progress the load, unless you can count on gaining strength on a regularly basis, which most trainees are not going to be able to do (not without doing some submax work anyway...)

 

[faz]

if you want to do more in the right now with submax weights, why not rep out on each set close to faliure.

 

[Lol]

IMO, I don't think mikeynov is saying 50 reps per bodypart per session is definitely going to cause a PS response in the muscle. There is no magic number. There will be an 'ideal' TUT for each person for each exercise and it will vary over one's training life. No one can know what that is for any individual. 50 reps each session per bodypart just happens to be a lot of reps (more than many are doing) so it will likely provide enough of a stimulus to cause PS.

However, if you are new to training (ie. less than a few years) that amount of volume will likely be unnecessary and, as Dan has pointed out, may be counter productive if attempted too frequently (&quot;,,, you may be creating a stimulus but it may be diminished due to overly increased metabolic needs ,,,&quot.

Once you have a few years of solid (pretty optimal) training behind you and have gained a good 30-50lbs then you may find that unless you start to increase your volume each session you will not continue to trigger a PS response. In other words, if you plateau at this point, even though you are training optimally as far as load progression and frequency goes, then adding volume could just be the stimulus you need to trigger PS again. Doing enough volume in the here-and-now might mean that you have to reduce frequency or it might not. That will just depend on how you react to it and it would be up to the individual to decide how progress is going. If you aren't getting any results after a few months then either it isn't working or your progress is extremely slow (which might be the case if you have been training intelligently for many years). I'm assuming in all this that we are talking about AS-free training.

I would think that SD will help slow the need to increase volume but, like everything else, it will become less and less effective over time. Eventually, I suppose, the only way that it'll remain effective is if you SD long enough to lose muscle and then spend the cycle gaining it back only to lose it again on the next SD. I might be wrong about this but there has to be a limit to progress without drugs.