Dan ... "In the Right Now"

[Martin Levac]

Strength is neuromuscular in nature.

For strength to increase, the muscle must grow larger and/or the CNS must become more proficient. For the CNS to become more proficient, it requires repetition (practice). Repetition will produce two things: Growth and resistance to the growth stimulus. The more repetition there is, the greater and quicker the adaptation occurs, the sooner the muscle stops growing. Simultaneously, strength increases. Strength may continue to increase even when muscle growth stops.

For two lifters of equal size, the skillful lifter has the ability to lift heavier than the green lifter only because of the proficiency he has developed at lifting the weight. Conversely, the green lifter has the ability to grow much faster than the skillful lifter.

Catch 22 again.

HST understands the catch 22 and adopts a method to render skilled lifters sensitive like the green ones with Strategic Deconditioning. In effect, HST implicitly restricts strength increases in order to allow continued growth. Strength will increase but only proportionately with muscle growth. Then, when the lifter has attained his size goal, he may resume strength training to continue to increase strength.

We may conclude falsely that the stronger we are, the more resistant we are to the growth stimulus. Instead, it's not the strength level that determines how resistant we are, it's the method we use to increase our strength levels that determines how resistant we are.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 27 2007,19:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Strength is neuromuscular in nature.

For strength to increase, the muscle must grow larger and/or the CNS must become more proficient. For the CNS to become more proficient, it requires repetition (practice). Repetition will produce two things: Growth and resistance to the growth stimulus. The more repetition there is, the greater and quicker the adaptation occurs, the sooner the muscle stops growing. Simultaneously, strength increases. Strength may continue to increase even when muscle growth stops.

For two lifters of equal size, the skillful lifter has the ability to lift heavier than the green lifter only because of the proficiency he has developed at lifting the weight. Conversely, the green lifter has the ability to grow much faster than the skillful lifter.

Catch 22 again.

HST understands the catch 22 and adopts a method to render skilled lifters sensitive like the green ones with Strategic Deconditioning. In effect, HST implicitly restricts strength increases in order to allow continued growth. Strength will increase but only proportionately with muscle growth. Then, when the lifter has attained his size goal, he may resume strength training to continue to increase strength.

We may conclude falsely that the stronger we are, the more resistant we are to the growth stimulus. Instead, it's not the strength level that determines how resistant we are, it's the method we use to increase our strength levels that determines how resistant we are.</div>
&quot;Just to add a bit on RBE, having a change of heart I tend to agree with Lyle, 7 to 10 days off is probably only good for taking a break. It surely doesn't impact satellite cell, domain size, myosin composition or other fiber related physiological index. 30 days, that's another story.&quot;

Dan (Moore)



&quot;argubaly the biggest difference in what I wrote 3 yeras and ago and now has to do with RBE. I am no longer onvince that 7-10 days off does jack squat in terms of affecting it. I sort of alluded to that in the original piece, research shows that RBE is still significant 6 weeks-6 months down the road. Doesn't mean taht time off, or a week of light training isn't a damn good idea, especially after heavy negatives, but I doubt it's really detraining the muscle in terms of the RBE very much.

As well, and a lot of people have apparently come to this conclusion already, starting at too submax a weight so that you can add weight every workout doesn't work becuase the initia lfew workouits are too light to accomplish anything. Many seem to be starting at a higher %age (80% of previous best) and simply repeating the same weight more than once w/in a 2 week mini-cycle. The idea that you have to increase load at every workout to grow is simply incorrect.&quot;

Lyle(McDonald)


&quot;Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwlifter
I'm with everyone on this. Resetting RBE always bugged me, were even talking about this on hypertrophy-research right now. I can't see keeping the adaptations that brought on the conditioning, while you then decondition and become more 'sensitive to even less' of a stimulation.

It's because that's not how the body works. Not in the least.

It sort of reminds of that goofy protein cycling thing the dipshit on t-mag drew up years ago. Ok, great, you protein starve and your body eventually decresae protein oxidatin/breakdown. OF course, you're losing LBM like a motherfucker the entire time. So now you start eating protein again, but before you gain new LBM, you have to replace what you lost. And, guess waht, by the time you're back up to where you were before, your body has reversed the adaptations on protein oxidation/breakdown (I seem to recall that said dipshit was at one point arguing that the decrease in protein ox/breakdown was permanent, which shows just an utter ignorance of human physiology). End result: you are right back where you started and you just wasted a bunch of time to get theree.

Anyhow, I'm sure to completely reverse any RBE would mean totally detraining.
Great, now your muscles are damage sensitive again but you also lost all your gains. Which you can now regain. But yo'uve made no actual progress.

I understand what Bryan was trying to accomplish: he was trying to make it so that you could keep growing without just having to go heavier and heavier. Or, at the very least, dissociate how much weight you were putting on the bar with the size gains you were making.

Nice idea, doesn't seem to work out as well in practice as it does on paper.&quot;

Lyle


&quot;So in that respect, I don't think that, if HST went wrong somewhere, the whole increased load = increased strain per functional unit of muscle was really the problem. The real crux of the issue, imho, is A) long-term vs. short-term growth and B) the implications of RBE on progressive overload. Meaning, I'd virtually guarantee more frequent training ala HST will smoke less frequent stuff in the short term, but over a longer term approach, I expect the differences to start to subside, perhaps even favoring the more strength-oriented approach. Like Lyle said, the idea that you can keep growing using the same loads may sound somewhat logical on paper, but it 800% doesn't work out that way when you bother trying it.&quot;

My (mikeynov) $.02


&quot;Rather, the idea was that you could get a dissociation of load on the bar and the growth occurring. So take two individuals, one who never deloads and one who does SD to get the magical RBE detraining effect. So at the end of their first 10 week cycle, they are at 100 lbs on the bar. Now the second guy has to keep going up and up. The second, by magically resetting the 'tension threshold' for growth can now start at 80 lbs and continue growing.

So 10 more week down the road, the first guy has 200 lbs on the bar, the second is at 160.

Repeat it again. Third guy is having to put up 300 lbs, second is at 240.

They are both continuing to put weight on the bar, but at a different rate (i.e. dissociation of weight on bar with muscle growth).

Again, great in theory, doesn't seem to be working out in practice.&quot;

Lyle




Actually the whole thread may be an eye opener in several respects...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10249

 

[RUSS]

&quot;I'm still in favor of periods of deloading, but not to the extent of taking complete rest - rather reduce frequency, volume and load (although I like the Pendlay 5x5 system where you deload keeping weight constant between a volume phase and an intensity/peaking phase).&quot;

BLADE (yes, THAT Blade)

Hmmmmmmmmmm................

 

[mikeynov]

Strategic deconditioning is definitely the biggest mental roadblock I have with the original HST. And, if you think about it, were Bryan's ideas on SD not true, or put differently, that taking 9-12 days off doesn't particularly decrease the threshold tension which makes your muscles grow again, HST becomes basically just another intensity cycling routine that wouldn't necessarily work better than any other method of growth, all else constant (i.e. similar loading/frequency/volume).

However, I haven't completely given up hope that Bryan might be at least partially correct about SD. He never, ever intended to suggest that RBE could be reversed in that short of a time period. Unfortunately, I am aware of absolutely no evidence which would indicate that 9-12 days off would do literally a thing to restore the growth potential of lighter loads.

Right now, I'm experimenting with the idea in my own training. My &quot;hunch&quot; way back in the day on the HST board was that something like a 3:1 work to SD ratio (i.e. 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off, or 3 weeks on, 1 week off) would start to be enough time to maybe do something. I still feel like 9-12 days is too low a number as a default recommendation, and something like a full 14 days off would be around the minimum time I'd recommend to have any hope of accomplishing what Bryan was setting out to do.

Really, though, that SD was doing &quot;something&quot; seems to account for some of the early HST anecdotes, including Bryan's. Meaning, he described HST as a system which allowed him to grow before getting stronger, as he could get no stronger without first growing (i.e. had become in the vicious cycle I've posted about). He wound up gaining something like ~20 pounds, and a lot of the early testers of HST did report some unusual gains (like ~5+ lbs of LBM their first cycle). I still have no idea how to explain any of that minus SD.

 

[mikeynov]

In all seriousness though, somebody, at some point, needs to make a thread devoted entirely to the science/discussion of strategic deconditioning. And I would REALLY like Bryan to give his latest thoughts, as he surely has contemplated the idea a whole lot in the past ~5 or so years.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 27 2007,22:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In all seriousness though, somebody, at some point, needs to make a thread devoted entirely to the science/discussion of strategic deconditioning.  And I would REALLY like Bryan to give his latest thoughts, as he surely has contemplated the idea a whole lot in the past ~5 or so years.</div>
Amen...

 

[Lol]

Yup, I'd love to know where HST's founder stands on SD and dealing with RBE now that HST has been around for 5 years. I have a lot of sound principles to work with in my training, thanks mainly to Bryan, Dan and Lyle but I don't feel that SD is one of them. It's just that I feel less informed about SD than any of the others. It's seems a bit more like voodoo than the application of real scientific/physiological understanding.

Whatever transpires about SD, there are a lot of positive benefits from having a short break from training so I will still take a 9 day SD between cycles.

 

[lcars]

i use sd for allowing my joints to recouperate and to allow my body to soak up plenty of good carbs before i head back into another cycle.and believe it is a waste of time as far as rbe is concerned,7-14 days is nowhere near long enough.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 27 2007,20:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Strength is neuromuscular in nature.
For strength to increase, the muscle must grow larger and/or the CNS must become more proficient. For the CNS to become more proficient, it requires repetition (practice). Repetition will produce two things: Growth and resistance to the growth stimulus. The more repetition there is, the greater and quicker the adaptation occurs, the sooner the muscle stops growing. Simultaneously, strength increases. Strength may continue to increase even when muscle growth stops.

For two lifters of equal size, the skillful lifter has the ability to lift heavier than the green lifter only because of the proficiency he has developed at lifting the weight. Conversely, the green lifter has the ability to grow much faster than the skillful lifter.

Catch 22 again.

HST understands the catch 22 and adopts a method to render skilled lifters sensitive like the green ones with Strategic Deconditioning. In effect, HST implicitly restricts strength increases in order to allow continued growth. Strength will increase but only proportionately with muscle growth. Then, when the lifter has attained his size goal, he may resume strength training to continue to increase strength.

We may conclude falsely that the stronger we are, the more resistant we are to the growth stimulus. Instead, it's not the strength level that determines how resistant we are, it's the method we use to increase our strength levels that determines how resistant we are.</div>
im beginning to wonder if this is hst's achilles heal?

the increased frequency allows the body to adapt more rapidly to the loads(submax or otherwise), and inpart we use sd to offset some of this adaptation right?

the recommended time proposed for an sd period isnt really sufficient to offset the adaptation. and because we use submaximal weights while adapting to the stimulus for most of a cycle i feel hst doesnt have a larger advantage if any over some other training routines.


that said im sure there will be some feedback, but remember this is not to say people will not continue to make good gains from hst, im not saying that at all.
i just believe that varied techniques and programs work better than sticking to one type, moreover, i also feel that diet, rest and consistancy of training are far more important than a given program alone.

this is just my personal experience.

 

[imported_etothepii]

If I remember correctly, the reasoning behind SD is based on studies on atrophy, and the fact that astronauts, atrophied mice/rats, grow muscle back quickly with relatively low intensity exercise, light weight, etc. This begs the question: are atrophy studies a valid justification for SD?

In lay-terms, SD makes sense. If you plateau in growth, it’s because your muscles are too accustomed to the weight you are lifting. So, get them unaccustomed to it. But yeah, 9-12 days?

Early on, it looks like the standard SD works for most folks. In fact, it works well. I’m still a relative newbie, for example, so I see not need not to SD. But for already huge guys, after a cycle or two, I can see how merely deloading for a wile might be better than SD.

Of course you could just switch exercises in order to confuse the muscle, right?!?! OK, I used that joke already on another thread…

But anyway, this cycle, I have completed 8 weeks, plus a couple more heavy 5’s workouts, and I am going back to the 15’s and 10’s again to push those maxes. I’ll probably hit the 5s again to see where my strength is. Then, I’ll stick with the 5s until I need to rehab a bit, which means SD.

So I guess you might call it a dual factor HST? (I’m not great with all the weight lifting jargon.) Here’s what I mean:

SD
2 weeks 15s.
2 weeks 10s
2 weeks 5s
2 weeks heavy 5s, eccentrics, max-stim, etc.
1 week 15s
1 week 10s
1-? Weeks heavy 5s, eccentrics, max-stim, etc.
SD

By the time you finish, you will know all your RMs, so you don’t need to test them for the next cycle.

 

[RUSS]

My issue is one of semantics - Strategic Deconditioning is as good a &quot;catch phrase&quot; as say , &quot;cruising&quot; (doggcrap) , or &quot;layback&quot; (blood and guts) , or &quot;de-load&quot; , &quot;time off&quot; , &quot;un-load&quot; , and what have you ( de-load and un-load concepts are different , but for simplicities sake and to make a point I've lumped them all together).

What makes me somewhat un-comfortable is not the term (I kind of like it- sounds all &quot;science-like&quot, and it's not that it isn't necessary in som form or other - you've got to de-load or un-load at some point in every sustainable system . It's the &quot;voodoo&quot; claims of what it's actually doing that strike me as beneath the collective intelligence/dignity of HST as a whole .

When interacting with guests or noobs (here on the board) or when extolling the virtues of HST to friends/family in the &quot;real&quot; world - the whole SD subject kind of feels like when you take your girl to meet your wonderfull family hoping the whole time that she doesn't look too closely at &quot;crazy aunt clara&quot; whose just waiting for the aliens from neptune to take her home , lives on scotch and lithium and used to be uncle Bob ...

SD works , but it works for some very down to earth reasons that have nothing to do with how it's presented. Aunt Clara however hasn't worked since the Army sent her/him home from vietnam with hushed tales of meeting the two headed Laotian raccoon and with tattered fishnet stockings peeking out from her standard issue combat boots...

I think 15's &quot;work&quot; too as a way to extend recovery while creating the illusion of productively &quot;doing something&quot; , as a re-hab/pre-hab tool , and as a way to &quot;ease&quot; lifters with joint issues back into the productive loads while managing injury potential.


I also suspect Bryan is one of the most intelligent &quot;system creators&quot; to ever grace the Iron game - by &quot;disapearing&quot;(for all intents and purposes) WE work out the kinks in HST and &quot;perfect&quot; it in a way that a single individual (no matter how genius) would not be capable of . Perhaps the book is taking so long because WE are still not done writing it...

 

[RUSS]

BTW Martin ,

I thought your post on &quot;validation&quot; was brilliant and very insightfull.

 

[Fausto]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I also suspect Bryan is one of the most intelligent &quot;system creators&quot; to ever grace the Iron game - by &quot;disapearing&quot;(for all intents and purposes) WE work out the kinks in HST and &quot;perfect&quot; it in a way that a single individual (no matter how genius) would not be capable of . Perhaps the book is taking so long because WE are still not done writing it... </div>

Russ...that is a brilliant statement...I thought of it many times...it makes perfect sense

wow!

 

[mikeynov]

The flipside to all of this poo-pooing of SD is that it's absolutely integral to the original basis of HST itself, and why it would be superior to other methods.

Meaning, if we're back to square one of needing to get stronger to get bigger, this runs directly contrary to Bryan's reasoning in coming up with the program in the first place.

 

[Lol]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 28 2007,23:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Meaning, if we're back to square one of needing to get stronger to get bigger, this runs directly contrary to Bryan's reasoning in coming up with the program in the first place.</div>
That's true, but it has to be reiterated that SD can and does work fantastically well, especially over the first 6 or so cycles. It was exactly what I needed after 4 to 6 weeks of heavy 5s. I definitely grew more lean mass before/as I got stronger and my RMs rose accordingly each cycle. (I had previously plateaued after 3 months of HIT training.)

What I am thinking of doing is one high volume cycle followed by one low volume cycle with an SD at the start and in the middle and then a high volume cycle followed by a low volume cycle without SD. ie.:

SD, High vol cycle, SD, Low vol cycle, High vol cycle, Low vol cycle

It'll be interesting to see whether dropping SD between cycles will noticeably affect my results.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 27 2007,21:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Strategic deconditioning is definitely the biggest mental roadblock I have with the original HST.  And, if you think about it, were Bryan's ideas on SD not true, or put differently, that taking 9-12 days off doesn't particularly decrease the threshold tension which makes your muscles grow again, HST becomes basically just another intensity cycling routine that wouldn't necessarily work better than any other method of growth, all else constant (i.e. similar loading/frequency/volume).

However, I haven't completely given up hope that Bryan might be at least partially correct about SD.  He never, ever intended to suggest that RBE could be reversed in that short of a time period.  Unfortunately, I am aware of absolutely no evidence which would indicate that 9-12 days off would do literally a thing to restore the growth potential of lighter loads.

Right now, I'm experimenting with the idea in my own training.  My &quot;hunch&quot; way back in the day on the HST board was that something like a 3:1 work to SD ratio (i.e. 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off, or 3 weeks on, 1 week off) would start to be enough time to maybe do something.  I still feel like 9-12 days is too low a number as a default recommendation, and something like a full 14 days off would be around the minimum time I'd recommend to have any hope of accomplishing what Bryan was setting out to do.

Really, though, that SD was doing &quot;something&quot; seems to account for some of the early HST anecdotes, including Bryan's.  Meaning, he described HST as a system which allowed him to grow before getting stronger, as he could get no stronger without first growing (i.e. had become in the vicious cycle I've posted about).  He wound up gaining something like ~20 pounds, and a lot of the early testers of HST did report some unusual gains (like ~5+ lbs of LBM their first cycle).  I still have no idea how to explain any of that minus SD.</div>
Mikeynov,


You said &quot;were Bryan's ideas on SD not true, or put differently, that taking 9-12 days off doesn't particularly decrease the threshold tension which makes your muscles grow again, HST becomes basically just another intensity cycling routine that wouldn't necessarily work better than any other method of growth, all else constant (i.e. similar loading/frequency/volume).&quot;


I've said/wrote before that when a concept (no matter how ingenius) doesn't adapt itself to reflect a changing dynamic it risks becoming dogma . LOL reports that in HIS experience &quot; it has to be reiterated that SD can and does work fantastically well, especially over the first 6 or so cycles. It was exactly what I needed after 4 to 6 weeks of heavy 5s. I definitely grew more lean mass before/as I got stronger and my RMs rose accordingly each cycle. (I had previously plateaued after 3 months of HIT training.)&quot;.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for LOL , his opinions and his &quot;online persona&quot; , yet this one sentence just leaps off the page at me - &quot;(I had previously plateaued after 3 months of HIT training.)&quot; - Now because of my enormous respect for LOL's intelligence , I will take his observation(s) at face value even though my knee-jerk reaction tends towards thinking that HST being basically the opposite of HIT MAY have had a bit to do with the initial results , as IMHO 3months of HIT would have created an adaptation that HST MAY have &quot;broken through&quot; by virtue of it's radically opposed principals.
I don't know LOL's lifting history but if he was either coming back to lifting after some time , coming to HST after extensive but inneffective time training , or simply within the first year or so of serious training some of his observations regarding the first 6 cycles or so might fall under the umbrella of &quot;noobie gains&quot; . Now let me leave LOL alone - but first let me apologize for any offense LOL , you were the perfect example for my point and in no way would I try to disrespect you - I hope you don't feel that way - please remember I did use a lot of &quot;MAY&quot;s and &quot;might&quot;s.
This begs the question in my mind of what was Bryan using as a routine before HST , what were the OTHER lifters using (that reported initial SD &quot;success&quot , and how different generally were those programs. Did lifters using systems &quot;closer&quot; to HST have lesser SD results? Did lifters using systems with greater basic differences report the greatest results? I have no real way of knowing but I've got a hunch that HST was probably substantially different in enough aspects to break the adaption to other systems (in varying degrees) and of course this was credited to &quot;SDing&quot; as it is (as you've stated) the MAIN tenant separating HST from the crowd .

Maybe HST was able to compile known facts in such a way that from scientist to bricklayer , people were able to get a &quot;birds eye view&quot; of training in such a way that other systems didn't foster , and people (and thier gains) benefitted from this almost &quot;college-like&quot; synopsis of lifting principals , when previously they may have been training ineffectively again crediting the &quot;thing most unique&quot; about the system - namely SD. Granted I'm speculating quite a bit but only while clenching Occam's razor tightly in my Layman's hand.

IMHO Bryan is one of the principal forces that &quot;brought back&quot; TBT and frequency , two principals that alone have enabled more effective training for thousands who would have otherwise taken MUCH longer to see comparable gains.


You point out that without SD HST is simply another intensity cycling program . True , but this should only dissillusion those who were perhaps viewing HST with somewhat of a religious reverance. Fact is it's a great program open to input from it's practitioners that rivals anyother effective program I'm aware of and can make an informed &quot;routine tweaking&quot; customizer out of the most clueless noob in no time.

I believe in HST's value , I'm not planning on deserting ranks anytime soon (not to say that with my outspokeness some may not wish me to!) - but I believe that HST isn't finished being created either...it's actually quite exciting to be &quot;involved&quot; in it's ongoing &quot;creation&quot;.

EVERYTHING STATED IS OF COURSE IMHO only...

 

[RUSS]

Again to illustrate I quote lyle's board:



http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums....ount=18

 

[Fausto]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You point out that without SD HST is simply another intensity cycling program . True , but this should only dissillusion those who were perhaps viewing HST with somewhat of a religious reverance. Fact is it's a great program open to input from it's practitioners that rivals any other effective program I'm aware of and can make an informed &quot;routine tweaking&quot; customizer out of the most clueless noob in no time.</div>

Well put, Russ...the fact alone that it is open to tweaking from its practitioners makes it a great program and flexible to boot!

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I believe in HST's value , I'm not planning on deserting ranks anytime soon (not to say that with my outspokeness some may not wish me to!) - but I believe that HST isn't finished being created either...it's actually quite exciting to be &quot;involved&quot; in it's ongoing &quot;creation&quot;.</div>

So far from what I've seen since I joined in April 2002 HST already has a variety of new facets, including a few variables drawn out by Mikey himself and others...that offers newbies and anybody else for that matter an opportunity to pick from within the best suitable program and yet stick to the principles!.

 

[Lol]

<div>
(RUSS @ Aug. 29 2007,18:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

Mikeynov,

You said &quot;were Bryan's ideas on SD not true, or put differently, that taking 9-12 days off doesn't particularly decrease the threshold tension which makes your muscles grow again, HST becomes basically just another intensity cycling routine that wouldn't necessarily work better than any other method of growth, all else constant (i.e. similar loading/frequency/volume).&quot;

I've said/wrote before that when a concept (no matter how ingenius) doesn't adapt itself to reflect a changing dynamic it risks becoming dogma . LOL reports that in HIS experience &quot; it has to be reiterated that SD can and does work fantastically well, especially over the first 6 or so cycles. It was exactly what I needed after 4 to 6 weeks of heavy 5s. I definitely grew more lean mass before/as I got stronger and my RMs rose accordingly each cycle. (I had previously plateaued after 3 months of HIT training.)&quot;.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for LOL , his opinions and his &quot;online persona&quot; , yet this one sentence just leaps off  the page at me - &quot;(I had previously plateaued after 3 months of HIT training.)&quot; - Now because of my enormous respect for LOL's intelligence , I will take his observation(s) at face value even though my knee-jerk reaction tends towards thinking that HST being basically the opposite of HIT MAY have had a bit to do with the initial results , as IMHO 3months of HIT would have created an adaptation that HST MAY have &quot;broken through&quot; by virtue of it's radically opposed principals.

I don't know LOL's lifting history but if he was either coming back to lifting after some time , coming to HST after extensive but inneffective time training , or simply within the first year or so of serious training some of his observations regarding the first 6 cycles or so might fall under the umbrella of &quot;noobie gains&quot; . Now let me leave LOL alone - but first let me apologize for any offense LOL , you were the perfect example for my point and in no way would I try to disrespect you - I hope you don't feel that way - please remember I did use a lot of &quot;MAY&quot;s and &quot;might&quot;s.

This begs the question in my mind of what was Bryan using as a routine before HST , what were the OTHER lifters using (that reported initial SD &quot;success&quot , and how different generally were those programs. Did lifters using systems &quot;closer&quot; to HST have lesser SD results? Did lifters using systems with greater basic differences report the greatest results? I have no real way of knowing but I've got a hunch that HST was probably substantially different in enough aspects to break the adaption to other systems (in varying degrees) and of course this was credited to &quot;SDing&quot; as it is (as you've stated) the MAIN tenant separating HST from the crowd .

               Maybe HST was able to compile  known facts in such a way that from scientist to bricklayer , people were able to get a &quot;birds eye view&quot; of training in such a way that other systems didn't foster , and people (and thier gains) benefitted from this almost &quot;college-like&quot; synopsis of lifting principals , when previously they may have been training ineffectively again crediting the &quot;thing most unique&quot; about the system - namely SD. Granted I'm speculating quite a bit but only while clenching Occam's razor tightly in my Layman's hand.

IMHO Bryan is one of the principal forces that &quot;brought back&quot;  TBT and frequency , two principals that alone  have enabled more effective training for thousands who would have otherwise taken MUCH longer to see comparable gains.

You point out that without SD HST is simply another intensity cycling program . True , but this should only dissillusion those who were perhaps viewing HST with somewhat of a religious reverance. Fact is it's a great program open to input from it's practitioners that rivals anyother effective program I'm aware of and can make an informed &quot;routine tweaking&quot; customizer out of the most clueless noob in no time.

I believe in HST's value , I'm not planning on deserting ranks anytime soon (not to say that with my outspokeness some may not wish me to!) - but I believe that HST isn't finished being created either...it's actually quite exciting to be &quot;involved&quot; in it's ongoing &quot;creation&quot;.

EVERYTHING STATED IS OF COURSE IMHO only...</div>

Russ, I always appreciate your thoughts.

My gains from HST were definitely noobie gains over the first year but I think there may be a bit more to it than that.

I spent a couple of years in my 20s doing first Weider and then HIT workouts: I did make some good gains early on but eventually became totally frustrated and just kept changing things up to try to break past sticking points (I pretty much convinced myself at the time that it must be due to only having access to barbells and dumbbells rather than all the fancy Nautilus kit that was (apparently) so much better at stimulating muscle growth (ha!). Anyway, I finally packed it in as I figured I just wasn't genetically 'gifted' enough to get anywhere the potential I had hoped for.

Twenty years on, I was particularly cheesed with my lack of back strength (I had ruptured a disc doing some building work a few years earlier and was always doing things that caused it to bother me again). I decided to return to the iron game and went back to my Dr. D books for a refresher course on HIT as well as the now existent Dr.D. HIT website. I jumped back into doing full-body, three-times-a-week workouts and did the typical 8-12 reps (upping the load 5% once 12 reps were attained). I used mainly compounds.

After some great gains in strength over the first couple of months and a bit of weight gain, I stalled out after only three months (I also got a lot of colds!). I was pretty fed up with the colds and having to flay myself witless each session. That's when I decided to see if there were any new thoughts on training out there and chanced on HST. Finally, some really sound principles to train by! SD sounded plausible too so I took a 9 day break after finding the requisite 15, 10 and 5RMs.

The HST workout was almost the same as the HIT workout as far as exercise selection went but I wasn't going to failure anymore and I was progressing the loads each session. I wasn't used to lifting heavy loads and so my joints suffered the first few cycles but SD and the 15s sorted that out. What really shocked me was that I continued to make good progress, cycle after cycle, for twelve months on the trot. I had never been able to do that before and so, as you can imagine, I was rather sold on the whole HST training model.

After the first year of HST, I spent the next four months cutting, partly as an experiment as I'd never done anything like it before and partly because, at 15 1/2 stone, I couldn't get into my suits anymore and couldn't afford a whole new wardrobe! (I split my best jacket down the back, much to my little lads glee.)  I didn't SD whilst cutting and pretty much spent the whole time doing 10s and 5s. I got lots of niggling injuries and didn't really enjoy the experience although I dropped 2 stone in weight so it had the desired effect.

Since then I have SDed and continued with my regular 15s, 10s and 5s cycles. I'm making gains again and hitting new PRs but at a slower rate; I've reduced my calorie excess so I'm eating less than before. I am now stronger than I have ever been in my life but it seems that I still have a bit more potential.

So, after all that blathering, what can I really say about SD? I really can't 'know' how effective it is. What I 'feel' about it is that it has helped me to recover better after a training cycle and it has kept me mentally fresh and positive about my training. One thing I noticed when I was cutting was that when I dropped back from 5s to 10s with no SD I didn't get sore. After cutting and taking some SD I got sore from 15s again. Yeah, I know soreness is not a sign of PS triggering but SD did seem to change the effect of exercise on the tissue, after only a 9 day SD.

Even if it eventually turns out that SD is nothing more than a refreshing break after a hard cycle, I won't feel cheated. The rest of the training principles that are the basis of HST have been explained to me better by Bryan and Dan than anyone else on the planet and I owe a debt of gratitude to them (and a lot of the very helpful folks who frequent this board). I really hope that Bryan does feed us his most recent thoughts on the efficacy of SD. He must have plenty of results from trainees by now.

That's enough from me, I'd better get some exercise!

 

[lcars]

to reiterate some of lol's points, i too found hst after becoming frustrated at the lack of progress i was making from &quot;standard&quot; workouts. hst gave me a fresh start because i had spent several months out of the gym while concentrating on running. i had lost a fair bit of mass at that time so i was primed for growth.

all i can say is that hst got me back on track, and it took considerably longer for my progress to slow compared to previous training programs id used.SD was and always has been a way for me to recover my strength,rest my joints and focus on what i will be doing in my next cycle. i personally dont believe there are any other benefits of SD, if one works to the guide lines.

basically hst gave training another dimension for me to work in, for one i could steadily increase the load while not overtraining and hitting a platue. at first glance hst(vanilla)seems a little &quot;out there&quot; but once you have grasped its fundimental principles it all falls into place and makes perfect sense.

moreover, as previously mentioned hst is a platform that we can build on, it is somewhat of an unfinished symphony, where by you can tailor it to your specific needs. it tends to be more fluid than other programs.

most importantly, its kept me motivated