Dan ... "In the Right Now"

[RUSS]

<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 23 2007,21:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here is something to munch on to go along with our fun conversations!

http://www.t-nation.com/readArt....1696844</div>
I try to keep up with Waterbury's articles - I had missed this one . I like what he did in dusting off the classic 10x3 , re-packaging it and bringing it out of relative obscurity . But his writing style feels like an insult to my intelligence sometimes - EVERYTHING is the greatest thing since the barbell (which he will eventually lead many to believe he invented ) , I understand the need to excite/inspire the commercial audience ( he's got to put food on his table too) , but if he was stuck on a desert island and could only use one set/rep scheme (which really made no sense to me - although having never been stranded like that I suppose it's possible that island monkeys could be come enraged at varying rep ranges and attack viciously if so provoked), it would be the 10x3 because it's the greatest thing going - yet when the deadline for another article hits , he submits that the 8x3 , 5x5, 4x6 are &quot;Three of the most effective set/rep ranges I've ever used &quot; - perhaps if he could find a set/rep range that DIDN'T make him swoon like a school girl , we could all save some reading time.
                He ends the link you gave with- &quot;Feel free to experiment with the 25 Method because it works awesome!&quot; - which probably has a quite different effect on a 15 year old reader than a 40 year old college educated adult like myself.
                 In general he comes off ( to me ) like a guy &quot;phoning it in&quot; - taking old news and trying to re-package it in a way that celebrates his own percieved genius. What ever ...........Thanks for the link It was an article I hadn't read and like I said I DO try to follow his stuff - kind of like how my wife follows Lindsey Lohans implosions on the T.V. news - it's entertaining.

P.S. He should have pulled a &quot;rock star&quot; and overdosed on some biotech product after writing the WATERBURY METHOD - then my opinion would be totally different  

(I'm kidding of course)!

 

[RUSS]

&quot;The 48-hour myth: A misconception perpetuated in strength training circles is the concept that one needs to train the same muscle every 48 hours or progress will fall short of being optimal. Quite the contrary is evident as numerous world-class bodybuilders and powerlifters are known to train a bodypart only once weekly.&quot;


&quot;Assessing your frequency: Change your frequency if you are not improving. Most trainess train too frequently. Experiment with reduced frequency. Few people who can continue to improve on a frequency of two to three times per week per muscle group while holding a regular job and being exposed to other life stresses.&quot;



&quot;Using frequency to your advantage: Rather than thinking that only one frequency will suit you, realize that a variety of frequencies over time will be beneficial; e.g. twice a day for the same muscle; or two days a week for the same muscle for a one to two week period reduced to once a day, twice a week for a one- or two-week period.&quot;


Charles Poliquin


                       Interesting.........

 

[Joe.Muscle]

<div>
(RUSS @ Aug. 23 2007,23:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">kind of like how my wife follows Lindsey Lohans implosions on the T.V. news - it's entertaining.

</div>
Quote of the year!!!

Hilarous!

 

[Joe.Muscle]

<div>
(RUSS @ Aug. 23 2007,23:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">P.S. He should have pulled a &quot;rock star&quot; and overdosed on some biotech product after writing the WATERBURY METHOD - then my opinion would be totally different  

(I'm kidding of course)!</div>
2nd best quote of the year!!!


Hehe...I hear ya Russ.

As a Chevy Chase would say from one of the greatest movies of all time NATIONAL LAMPOONS VACATION

&quot;Good talk Russ....good talk!&quot;

 

[DRAGON]

couldn't we use Prilephin's percent table as a start for determining the correct volume?

as this table is what a lot of elite powerlifters use to continually get stronger. as they use it in both their dynamic sessions and their max effort sessions.

for those that havn't seen or read it, his recomendations are as follows:

lifting your 55-65%RM - a range of 18-30reps is recomended. with 24 being the optimal for most.

70-75%RM - range of 12-24 is recomended. with 18 optimal for most.
80-85%RM - range of 10-20 is recomended. with 15 optimal for most.
90%+RM - range of 4-10 is recomended. with 7 optial for most.

He recomends using lower reps than we typically use for hypertrophy, but i would imagine the basic fact that this table's guidelines help optimize strength and speed/power shows that these would certainly be a good starting place for us all.

i personally found that a average rep range of 20 ( which i started using after reading one of dans articles)was pretty optimal for strength and hypertrophy in the 8-4 rep range i was using at that time. then i remembered this table and it made me go ahhhhhh.

just some food for thought.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Cool... Dragon!

 

[Fausto]

Yeah Dragon...guidelines rock,specially useful ones.

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(DRAGON @ Aug. 26 2007,11:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">couldn't we use Prilephin's percent table as a start for determining the correct volume?

as this table is what a lot of elite powerlifters use to continually get stronger. as they use it in both their dynamic sessions and their max effort sessions.

for those that havn't seen or read it, his recomendations are as follows:

lifting your 55-65%RM - a range of 18-30reps is recomended. with 24 being the optimal for most.

70-75%RM - range of 12-24 is recomended. with 18 optimal for most.
80-85%RM - range of 10-20 is recomended. with 15 optimal for most.
90%+RM - range of 4-10 is recomended. with 7 optial for most.

He recomends using lower reps than we typically use for hypertrophy, but i would imagine the basic fact that this table's guidelines help optimize strength and speed/power shows that these would certainly be a good starting place for us all.

i personally found that a average rep range of 20 ( which i started using after reading one of dans articles)was pretty optimal for strength and hypertrophy in the 8-4 rep range i was using at that time. then i remembered this table and it made me go ahhhhhh.

just some food for thought.

</div>
Two thoughts on this:

1) Even applying prilepin's #'s to powerlifting is highly questionable. The context of these numbers were in olympic weightlifters, and I don't think I need to explain why practice of the oly lifts is dissimilar for a large number of reasons to other exercises (one of which is the lack of eccentric component to oly lifts).

2) Then going further and attempting to apply that onto bodybuilding is even more of a stretch. These numbers were never, ever intended as guidelines to make muscles grow, they were solely an anecdotal compilation of numbers based on performance in the oly lifts by weightlifters.

So yah, they can't possibly be used as bodybuilding guidelines, and I strongly doubt their applicability to anything outside of oly lifting. That said, they're not entirely unreasonable numbers in general, but, in the very least, should not be a guideline whatsoever for bodybuilding endeavors.

My $0.02.

 

[DRAGON]

mikeynov - although the guidelines were intended for olympic lifts, louie at westside has said on countless occasions that this table has been one of the best things he ever implemented into westsides powerlifting protocol. you cant argue with westsides success in powerlifting which has concentric and eccentric components

below is a quote from date tate:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Prilepin studied olympic weight lifters to see what the optimal number of reps in each intensity zone should be. Louie applied this research into the training of the power lifts. At the time the bench press was being trained in the 70% range while the squat was being performed in the 80% range. This would equate to an optimal number of 18 lifts for the bench press in a range of 12 to 24 reps, and 15 lifts for the squat in a 10 to 20 rep range. He decided on two reps for the squats and three reps for the bench press because of time specificity of the competitive lifts. The time to unrack the weight to the completion of the lift in competition came out very similar to two reps in the box squat and three reps in the bench press.

It has stood the test of time and has worked over and over again without flaw. This has created an evolving system where the optimal number of lifts has remained 16 for the box squat and 24 for the bench press for weights under 80%.</div>

This table's volume guidelines optimizes an athletes ability to gain strength and hence increase load.

also please note the statement above - 'He decided on two reps for the squats and three reps for the bench press because of time specificity of the competitive lifts' i.e. the volume recomendations didn't change, simply the rep numbers in each set to make it more applicable to powerlifts.

So as far as optimum volume goes the above is best for strength regardless of type of lifting - and IMO best guidelines for bodybuilding too. any more volume than the above guidelines for whatever RM % then your overtraining, and less and your undertraining.

so as i said above IMO i think its a great place to start in regards to volume.

 

[mikeynov]

There is no evidence that prilepin's table optimizes anything, to be honest. It has not passed peer review in any form, and its applicability to endeavors outside of oly lifting is highly questionable and based sheerly on anecdote.

Incidentally, within Westside philosophy, work is split into three primary categories:

Max Effort
Dynamic Effort
Repeated Effort

The first is to drive strength, the second is to drive speed, the third is to drive growth. Westside does NOT use Prilepin's guidelines for Repeated Effort work, or anything even close to it. So trying to justify the use of Prilepin's guidelines for growth/bodybuilding recommendations when Westside itself does not use it for that purpose is pretty silly.

As I said, they're reasonable guidelines for a decent total number of reps in a session, but trying to use them to come up with &quot;optimal&quot; in terms of making a muscle grow doesn't really make sense.

 

[DRAGON]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is no evidence that prilepin's table optimizes anything, to be honest.  It has not passed peer review in any form, and its applicability to endeavors outside of oly lifting is highly questionable and based sheerly on anecdote.</div>

So because it has not been peer reviewed you class it as useless despite countless world class Olympic weightlifters, powerlifters, and coaches of many sports swearing by it???

From what I understand Zatsiorsky himself decided himself that the repetition method was optimal for hypertrophy after observing bodybuilders – who may or may not have been on steroids, who also may or may not have been over or under-training with their standard bodybuilding volume training, so the whole recommendation could be false or certainly less than optimal. In fact his recommendations are so vague can they really be classed as anything other than a guess?

Peer reviews studies have yet to agree on optimal recommendations hypertrophy despite countless studies, yet you accept zatsiorsky’s recommendations for hypertrophy with no peer review conclusions, but disregard prilepins strength recomendations???

Zats recommendation to work to failure (which the bodybuilders he witnessed used) has also been questioned for a long time now, and now many at Westside stop a few reps short of failure. If he was wrong about this…………

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Incidentally, within Westside philosophy, work is split into three primary categories:

Max Effort
Dynamic Effort
Repeated Effort

The first is to drive strength, the second is to drive speed, the third is to drive growth.  Westside does NOT use Prilepin's guidelines for Repeated Effort work, or anything even close to it.  So trying to justify the use of Prilepin's guidelines for growth/bodybuilding recommendations when Westside itself does not use it for that purpose is pretty silly.</div>

As for the Repetition method itself or ‘lactic acid training’ as louie himself has called it. It is used in supplemental and assistance excercises. The goal of which is to basically create metabolic strain in target muscles i.e. erk ½ activation.

The erk ½ activated along with the p38 activated through the extremely heavy loads used during the max effort  would indeed cause extra hypertrophy, so the repetition method is fine and does work as they intend it to optimal or not. However the real question must be this:

Is it the extremely heavy compound bench/squat etc that build up to a 1-5RM and in turn activates P38 that cause’s the most hypertrophy of the muscles?

Or the measly weight of the repetition method that activates the erk 1/2?

As we all know P38 is more important to hypertrophy. The erk ½ is simply a little extra. So the repetition method may in fact be overtraining, when a simple burn set after the main max effort movement may have the same effect.


As for Westside NOT using the prilepin’s table for hypertrophy guidelines, louie himself has recommended the following for hypertrophy:

6 reps for about 5 sets at 70% to build muscle hypertrophy
4 reps for about 5-6 sets at 80%
Stay away from the 90%, no need for it for bodybuilding

ALL of which fall under the table guidelines.

Including the classic 5x5, 3x10, and on and on

 

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As I said, they're reasonable guidelines for a decent total number of reps in a session, but trying to use them to come up with &quot;optimal&quot; in terms of making a muscle grow doesn't really make sense.</div>

It makes sense to me

Do you feel the classic 5x5 or 3x10 are simply reasonable guidelines then? In my eyes every good/productive set/rep scheme for hypertrophy is covered with these guidelines AND optimised for strength too. IMO its the best of both worlds.

Reps and set guidelines are mearly a way to manage fatigue. It’s the volume and weight that matters, and these guidelines show a time tested optimal way for strength/power/speed – hypertrophy will surely follow.

As I said before I am not saying I am 100% certain that this is optimal volume guidelines for hypertrophy, but IMO it is a good place to start.

 

[mikeynov]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So because it has not been peer reviewed you class it as useless despite countless world class Olympic weightlifters, powerlifters, and coaches of many sports swearing by it???</div>

I never called it &quot;useless.&quot; I suggested it's never been substantiated in any formal way (it hasn't) and that applying it to endeavors outside of weightlifting is questionable.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">From what I understand Zatsiorsky himself decided himself that the repetition method was optimal for hypertrophy after observing bodybuilders – who may or may not have been on steroids, who also may or may not have been over or under-training with their standard bodybuilding volume training, so the whole recommendation could be false or certainly less than optimal. In fact his recommendations are so vague can they really be classed as anything other than a guess?</div>

I didn't endorse the repeated effort method, I simply pointed out that westside itself does not use prilepin's guidelines to dictate their &quot;growth&quot; training.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Peer reviews studies have yet to agree on optimal recommendations hypertrophy despite countless studies, yet you accept zatsiorsky’s recommendations for hypertrophy with no peer review conclusions, but disregard prilepins strength recomendations???</div>

I never argued for RE/Zatsiorsky's position on hypertrophy.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Zats recommendation to work to failure (which the bodybuilders he witnessed used) has also been questioned for a long time now, and now many at Westside stop a few reps short of failure. If he was wrong about this…………

</div>

See above.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As for the Repetition method itself or ‘lactic acid training’ as louie himself has called it. It is used in supplemental and assistance excercises. The goal of which is to basically create metabolic strain in target muscles i.e. erk ½ activation.

The erk ½ activated along with the p38 activated through the extremely heavy loads used during the max effort would indeed cause extra hypertrophy, so the repetition method is fine and does work as they intend it to optimal or not. However the real question must be this:

Is it the extremely heavy compound bench/squat etc that build up to a 1-5RM and in turn activates P38 that cause’s the most hypertrophy of the muscles?</div>

You're going a bit off topic here, and I don't think appealing to cellular mechanisms is appropriate in this conversation, since we're not debating that (as far as I know).

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Is it the extremely heavy compound bench/squat etc that build up to a 1-5RM and in turn activates P38 that cause’s the most hypertrophy of the muscles?

Or the measly weight of the repetition method that activates the erk 1/2?

As we all know P38 is more important to hypertrophy. The erk ½ is simply a little extra. So the repetition method may in fact be overtraining, when a simple burn set after the main max effort movement may have the same effect.</div>

See above.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As for Westside NOT using the prilepin’s table for hypertrophy guidelines, louie himself has recommended the following for hypertrophy:

6 reps for about 5 sets at 70% to build muscle hypertrophy
4 reps for about 5-6 sets at 80%
Stay away from the 90%, no need for it for bodybuilding

ALL of which fall under the table guidelines.</div>

I have not seen Louie give these recommendations, but what I said about RE work is entirely correct - he is NOT basing this off of prilepin's table, which was my point. That even Westside, whose authority you were trying to apply to your case, does not use prilepin's numbers in the way you are attempting to use them.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you feel the classic 5x5 or 3x10 are simply reasonable guidelines then? In my eyes every good/productive set/rep scheme for hypertrophy is covered with these guidelines AND optimised for strength too. IMO its the best of both worlds. </div>

I think they're reasonable total numbers, yes. This whole &quot;optimized for strength&quot; assertion seems a rather unsupported thing to say, given that this has not been tested against any other standard ever and was derived from observation/analysis of training logs of olympic weightlifters performing the olympic lifts.

In short, if you actually plug the numbers in, they look like halfway reasonable numbers, but that's about the limit of their usefulness. Attempting to make claims regarding prilepin's numbers being &quot;optimal&quot; for anything other than weightlifting, much less bodybuilding, is highly speculative/questionable.

edit: edited out comments that could be taken as inflammatory.

 

[mikeynov]

I'm really not trying to get into a bickering e-match with you Dragon, I only raised two basic points, and I'm having trouble seeing what's difficult to understand about them.

1) Prilepin's table was never intended to be applied to anything other than weightlifting, and as such, is hard to justify as &quot;optimal&quot; guidelines for other endeavors. Turning it into a guideline for bodybuilding is using it in a way totally alien to its origins.

2) You brought up Westside for the defense of these guidelines, with Louie attributing success using these numbers with the dynamic effort method. I pointed out that they don't use DE work to grow, they use RE work to grow. Thus, Westside does not even use Prilepin's guidelines to determine &quot;optimal&quot; volume for growth, which rather undermines your attempt to use Louie's thoughts on Prilepin to your defense. I never endorsed Westside, RE, or anything else, I simply pointed out your own source doesn't use it in the way you are attempting to. That's it.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(RUSS @ Aug. 24 2007,13:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;The 48-hour myth: A misconception perpetuated in strength training circles is the concept that one needs to train the same muscle every 48 hours or progress will fall short of being optimal. Quite the contrary is evident as numerous world-class bodybuilders and powerlifters are known to train a bodypart only once weekly.&quot;


&quot;Assessing your frequency: Change your frequency if you are not improving. Most trainess train too frequently. Experiment with reduced frequency. Few people who can continue to improve on a frequency of two to three times per week per muscle group while holding a regular job and being exposed to other life stresses.&quot;



&quot;Using frequency to your advantage: Rather than thinking that only one frequency will suit you, realize that a variety of frequencies over time will be beneficial; e.g. twice a day for the same muscle; or two days a week for the same muscle for a one to two week period reduced to once a day, twice a week for a one- or two-week period.&quot;


Charles Poliquin


Interesting.........</div>
The one body part per week programs are certainly not as effective as HST is for growth.

&quot;Change your frequency if you're not improving&quot; assumes that &quot;trainees train too frequently&quot;. Thus, he is really saying to reduce frequency in order to improve. Again, the one body part per week programs are certainly not as effective as HST is for growth.

His examples of frequency fit a context of dual factor training and don't take into account research on which HST is based. It sounds like he is preaching some sort of half baked frequency selection based on some unknown information instead of a strict frequency guideline based on hard facts. Again, there's a whole lot of programs that aren't as effective as HST is for growth.

Perhaps Poliquin makes some sense somehow but I doubt that sense fits within the context of muscle growth.

 

[RUSS]

Martin ,

I think you may be missing the point....

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(RUSS @ Aug. 27 2007,00:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin ,

I think you may be missing the point....

</div>
Euh, I don't know anymore.

 

[Fausto]

I guess I better be very careful which guidelines I use in the near future.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">6 reps for about 5 sets at 70% to build muscle hypertrophy
4 reps for about 5-6 sets at 80%
Stay away from the 90%, no need for it for bodybuilding</div>

Mikey, how relevant is this, i certainly contradicts HST (I think of maximum load as being effective for hypertrophy and not just strength, and of negatives)?

I mean...should I drop my current loads because they not effective according to Louie?

Why should strength training principles change the way we think, I've always thought of HST as containing both strength and BB components and this is the reason why I believe it is a winner!

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(Fausto @ Aug. 27 2007,06:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I guess I better be very careful which guidelines I use in the near future.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">6 reps for about 5 sets at 70% to build muscle hypertrophy
4 reps for about 5-6 sets at 80%
Stay away from the 90%, no need for it for bodybuilding</div>

Mikey, how relevant is this, i certainly contradicts HST (I think of maximum load as being effective for hypertrophy and not just strength, and of negatives)?

I mean...should I drop my current loads because they not effective according to Louie?

Why should strength training principles change the way we think, I've always thought of HST as containing both strength and BB components and this is the reason why I believe it is a winner!</div>
It seems not so relevant. Again, they're not BAD guidelines - those numbers are reasonable. But I don't see them as &quot;optimized&quot; in any sense, at least not for bodybuilding.

At a guess, if Louie did say the above, I'm guessing he was talking about max effort work, though it's hard to say, it could have been user-friendly RE work for a certain demographic or something. Hard to say because, while a lot of people revere Louie, he's a bit of a wingnut at times and the idea of him saying contradictory or illogical stuff (anyone ever read his attack on HIT? I'm no HITer, but wow) is not something that would surprise me.

He wrote a piece on &quot;westside for bodybuilding&quot; back in the day in which two of the major changes, from memory, were:

1) higher rep max effort work (4-6 type stuff versus 1-3 type stuff)

2) focus on repetition work over dynamic work. I.e. instead of an ME squat day and DE squat day, you'd default to an ME squat day and RE squat day.

In short, don't worry about westside guidelines on anything unless you plan on using it specifically.

 

[Fausto]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In short, don't worry about westside guidelines on anything unless you plan on using it specifically. </div>

Thanks Mikey, not planning to, but there are some cool guidelines I like to use and seem to help quite a bit, staying away from 90% ain't one of them, no sir!

 

[DRAGON]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 26 2007,23:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm really not trying to get into a bickering e-match with you Dragon, I only raised two basic points, and I'm having trouble seeing what's difficult to understand about them.

1) Prilepin's table was never intended to be applied to anything other than weightlifting, and as such, is hard to justify as &quot;optimal&quot; guidelines for other endeavors.  Turning it into a guideline for bodybuilding is using it in a way totally alien to its origins.

2) You brought up Westside for the defense of these guidelines, with Louie attributing success using these numbers with the dynamic effort method.  I pointed out that they don't use DE work to grow, they use RE work to grow.  Thus, Westside does not even use Prilepin's guidelines to determine &quot;optimal&quot; volume for growth, which rather undermines your attempt to use Louie's thoughts on Prilepin to your defense.  I never endorsed Westside, RE, or anything else, I simply pointed out your own source doesn't use it in the way you are attempting to.  That's it.</div>
no bickering intended on my part either mikey

i do understand your points enitrely, and i can see how you feel that way. however:

1. i still dont agree writing off the table's guidelines because its not been peer reviewed. it has worked for all strength based programs since 1974. you cant argue with the strength gains made by lifters since they applied these recommendations. if louie and tate etc say it works and has continually made them stronger. i believe them. peer review or not.

2. i was mearly sugesting that as it has shown time and time again to help lifters increase strength it would be a good place to start for basing volume. as it would in louie's words continually allow you to gain strength workout to workout and avoid over training - this would allow for an increase in load continually which is good for hypertrophy.

3. i agree its guidelines were for strength and not hypertrophy, i was mearly making the point it is &quot;possible&quot; the prilepin inspired max effort and dynamic effort &quot;could&quot; be responsible for some the hypertrophy powelifters gain. yes the standard volume training recommended by them for hypertrophy does work to an extent as volume always has, but as you know the problem with volume training is over training, and i felt if the prilepin table helps avoid this with much heavier weight i.e max effort. then i see no reason it couldn't be applied to their hypertrophy work too. would its guidlines be &quot;optimal&quot; for hypertrophy? who knows.

Its main aim is to allow the muscles + cns to be stimulated optimally for strength - which i feel is a big part of the hypertrophy puzzle as it allows you to increase load. which IMO we are all striving for

as too much volume i.e. overtraining always without question limits our strength and size gains.

my other point about the epk 1/2 etc was off tangent a little  

but i was simply trying to show that the extra volume work they do would primarally be stimulating that. and the acctual hypertrophy effect they would get from the lightweight of the volume training compared with the p38 effect with the high load of the max effort might be minimal due to the vast difference in loads.

like i said above and again will repeat - i fully understand westside do not use these guidelines for hypertrophy, but to be fair they are simpy following the flock in regards to their hypertrophy guidelines.

i am mearly stating i feel if this table's guidelines can stimulate the muscle + cns to produce constant strength gains without over training then it is a perfect starting place for volume/intensity guidelines for hypertrophy too. again it may not be optimal but it will certainly help.

in my own bodybuilding endevours i noticed a similarity with gains in size and strength without overtraining when using these guidelines - without realising i was using them untill recently.

This gives me hope that there is in fact a major application for hypertrophy too.

the guidelines given by louie for hypertrophy and which fall under the prelpin tabe's recomendations were done in a radio show interview he gave a while ago. heres the link if your interested:

http://www.davedepewsystems.com/info/inarchive.asp?aid=3255