if bryan could re-write hst in 2014 what would he change?

120->190 kg strength increase in rack pulls or 230->300 kg in leg press is a bit too late for a beginner's CNS learning curve :)
 
HST_Rihad said:
AlexAustralia, why do you think that SD + load progression isn't increase in the stimulus? This is one of the principal ideas of HST.
Click to expand...
1. You care too much about labeling something as a 'principle of HST'. This label means nothing. Whether something is effective or not, and supported or not, is what matters. 2. Clearly load progression is an increase. However the amplitude of progression is relevant, and your posting seems to indicate you don't understand that becoming stronger is a critical component of load progression. It again raises the question of why you're terrified of getting stronger, but it's critical to become stronger and move heavier loads to continue hypertrophy on a long term scale.
HST_Rihad said:
120->190 kg strength increase in rack pulls or 230->300 kg in leg press is a bit too late for a beginner's CNS learning curve :)
Click to expand...
Hardly. That rack pull increase is entirely neural. Firstly, you're moving it on a tiny ROM, it's about as short a movement as a it can be and still be called a 'rack pull'. Secondly, your leg press is again not a leg press; it's a partial rep. Thirdly, neural efficiency increases are easily gained and easily lost. And there is nothing that indicates that said gains are not concurrent with hypertrophy. Your strength gains were not due muscle gains, they were due to doing easier, shorter ROM movements and because you were learning those movements and becoming better at them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's beyond me why people keep disparaging "easier" shorter ROM movements. They are much heavier than what you can do full ROM with and probably take longer to recover from.

I see what your idea of SD is, but it goes totally contrary to what Bryan devised it for. For strength increasing purposes, it doesn't matter if exercises are done in full or partial ROM.

The point was that strength increases came without the concomitant size increase, and they shouldn't have (according to some here).
 
Last edited:
Who said you couldn't make acute strength increases without accompanying hypertrophy? It seems you've misinterpreted/misunderstood again. I'm perfectly aware of how SD works, what it's purpose is etc. What you seem unable to understand is that SD isn't necessary/essential to gaining muscle, at least not as prescribed by Bryan. Deloading, for instance, is merely a form of SD (or vice-versa). They're the same thing, differing by degree only. There's been countless thousands who've achieved a physique nearing their genetic potential without utilising SD. Could they have reached it more efficiently incorporating SD? Possibly - though you can't actually test this, unfortunately. Regarding partials - they're fine. Your claim about being harder to recover from is completely unsupported. The issue is, a 300kg leg press full ROM is a helluva lot more impressive than a 300kg leg press partial ROM. I use partials for squats just about every session - they involve less glutes, and my quads are my greatest weakness. Nothing wrong with them, but I don't claim to have a 180kg squat just because I can do a partial with it.
 
Well I don't either, that's why I they were marked as partials in my sig when they were there. It's strange that you're saying full ROM 300 kg leg press are more impressive than partials. Bro talk, heh? A person using 300 kg load would use up to 350 in partials. What partials have helped me with is increasing full ROM loads, provided I do them both.
 
Bro talk heh?
Click to expand...
How ... exactly? Do you even know what that meme refers to? Because it isn't this; full ROM is harder than partial ROM. Henceforth, the former is more impressive.
 
This is starting to get silly :) Of course when someone does 300 kg half ROM, he's unable to move that weight in full ROM. But 300x5 half ROM is much harder than 240x10 full.
 
Alrighty then... I think I have gotten my answer on the increasing in loads, so thanks for that... One other thing I wondered about... If someone were to drop back their poundage's in all lifts and lift lighter, but with stricter form and better range of movement, what kind of effect would this have on any given muscle? I know of someone that is wanting to tighten up their form with various lifts and the only way to do it (that I can see) is for them to ease off on some weight and then apply stricter form. For myself, I am considering this for bench pressing as I am very "over" the ultra heavy weights at the moment and wonder if I am burned out from years and years of ultra heavy lifting? My chest is 50" anyway, so I am not that interested in it growing much anymore. However, I don't really want it to shrink down either. In my situation, I wonder if I drop back bench weights, work on stricter form and then slowly start working up in weight, but at a slower weight progression with maybe even repeating the same poundage's for two cycles? Not sure... Any thoughts on this approach? Thanks.
 
You're unlikely to lose size, but regardless, your ROM should always be complete - otherwise you simply aren't strong enough (assuming you're intending a full-ROM exercise).
 
Renky, a person following HST has plenty of time to use lighter than RM loads to work in very strict form. It's our own choice whether we should work past the loads where good form would break. No one tells us we should, yet this is what most of us do :) Subconscious bouncing etc.
 
In my situation, my chest has always been my biggest and strongest body part. I have always been pushing hard with increasing weight each workout (before HST) and then each cycle (on HST). I feel that over time I have just become too focused on getting the weight up and not doing it in a stricter/slower method and feeling the pectorals work. For example, when I was still focused on making chest grow, I would be on the 15's and my last work out in that range I would only make it to 12 reps and when I was in the 8's, I would max out at 5 or 6 Reps and so on. I just got obsessed with increasing the weight too much. Make sense? Maybe I have dragged in some bad habits to HST from other work out programs and methodologies? I wonder if I can recalibrate my "maxes" to a lower weight and still work the muscle well enough (after some crazy heavy weights) with lower weights and slower/stricter form? I have seen some other "gym guys" talking about lowering weights on various muscle groups, performing movements like arm curls with slightly different grip and at slightly different angles using lower weights, but the tension on the biceps still being pretty decent. I do not have enough science skill to form an opinion on what they are doing. I am always curious about different methods though and am still happy to learn new things so that I can share with others that I cross paths with. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Renky

With few exceptions, form is very important, especially on compound lifts where the weight are normally pretty heavy. The risk of injury is too high to use too much weight and sloppy form. Slower reps with stricter form is the best way to go, imo. However, I would suggest that the concentric portion of the lift always be performed explosively to build strength. Slow the eccentric portion down to 3-5 seconds to build size. Many times I will drag my final rep of a muscle group out as long as I can. I have gone as far as a 20-30 second eccentric on chins on my final rep of my final set.

There is some research going on now that uses very light weights, 20-30% of 1 rep max, and restricting the blood flow to the target muscle. Early results are encouraging but it will be years before enough work is done to justify trying it now, imo.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with training to failure at any rep count or speed. It is just not wise to do it more than once per week or every other week. The risk of CNS burnout and injury are too high. HITers appear do it all the time but in actuality they usually only train each muscle group once per week or every ten days.

When I trained in a public gym, I got more respect using light weights and strict form than the Bro's squiggling and squirming to get a few poor form reps out of a much higher weight. I got a lot of satisfaction watching a newbie copy my form and cadence and snicker at the bros that tried to bench at 405 pounds with 3 spotters helping, a lot of loud grunting and then the sound of crashing weights and high fives all around. However, you do have to leave your ego at the door, especially when doing reps of 15's.

Good luck!

O&G
 
Thanks for the replies. I agree totally. On chest, I am beginning to think I have hit my maximum genetic potential (I have never had chemical assistance and don't plan to) and wonder if I have hit the wall that Bryan referred to with not being able to increase weight progression much more (if I interpreted his comments accurately). I think this is what started me wondering about dropping back weights, working on stricter form and moving the weight slower on the downward part of the movement like O&G said. So the general consensus is that my chest muscles will not suffer with going lighter, provided the chest muscle still feels an adequate form of resistance? With the other body parts like biceps, I have seen guys talking about going with the lighter weights and varying grip and angle etc. One guy comes to mind... He uses a lighter weight than I would on dumbbell curls, angles his elbows out slightly and does not squeeze the dumbbell too tightly and keeps a constant tension on the muscle full range of movement. He claims this works his biceps BIG time. I would probably lift 5-10lbs more than he (I am guessing) on my curls, but I would need to admit his arms are a bigger than mine. I am pretty sure he is natural as he strongly proclaims he is and I can only take him at face value. I never knew what opinion to form regarding what he was doing. It is very interesting hearing you guys discuss these topics as I come away and learn from it. Nothing worse than having someone come up to you and ask for some credible gym advice and you not having the detailed understanding to explain things to them. Thanks.
 
HST_Rihad said:
He'd probably raise the muscle group volume from 1-2 sets to 30-60 reps. Heck, he already has. Also, lower rep heavy work further in the cycle would probably be augmented with additional higher rep metabolic work (although drop-set technique for similar purposes was recommended by him previously in the HST FAQ and later on this board). SD & weeks doing the eccentrics would stay where they are, as they still rock :)
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good summary, based on stuff Bryan has published the past few years.

I plan on using a lot these tactics regarding volume and frequency.

Going to increase volume and frequency, and not focus so much on peak loading.
 
Considering the lack of research of how much volume is optimal for negatives with loads beyond 100% of 1RM, I reserve the right to limit them to 1 set of 5-10 reps and let the load progression take care of the rest ;)
 
i dont think anyone on here is suggesting load isnt important in growth,of course it is,it is even recomended in HST pricipals,but the facts are you reach a point (as a natural) were you just cant lift anymore weight,(im 56 trust me i know) this is were SD comes in,i thinksome people on here are thinking that we are suggesting to just use a light weight plus SD and you will grow that is not what HST is suggesting at all
 
Hi I've recently joined HST and had a good read of materials. One question that may have been answered but I can't seem to find is the rep range. 30 reps for upper and 60 for lower, does this mean 60 reps for quads, 60 for hams, 60 for calves or is it all muscle groups combined in the lower body should do 60 in total?
 
HiAt what point do you consider a rep to be counted in the 30 or 60 rep range, for example I may do 2-3 warm up sets with 40-50% 1RM, not taxing sets just to get the muscle prepared, should these be counted in my rep count or just the ones for my 15, 10, and 5 RM sets? The reason I ask is because if I'm training with higher intensity I may do 1-2 sets close to my PB in an exercise to acclimatise to that weight, should these sets be counted in the 30/60 rep range? - they are performed at maybe 70-80% of my 1 RM but not going to failureThanks in advance and I apologise if this has already been answered
 
gm10864 said:
30 reps for upper and 60 for lower, does this mean 60 reps for quads, 60 for hams, 60 for calves or is it all muscle groups combined in the lower body should do 60 in total?
Click to expand...
That's 30-60 per muscle (~30-45 for upper body, ~45-60 for lower), it doesn't matter if you hit any given muscle through an isolation or a compound movement. See this recent post by Bryan:
Bryan Haycock said:
He's right. For me currently my leg workout consists of 6x10 leg press, 3x10 leg curl and 3x10 hyperextensions (using hams).
Click to expand...
gm10864 said:
HiAt what point do you consider a rep to be counted in the 30 or 60 rep range, for example I may do 2-3 warm up sets with 40-50% 1RM, not taxing sets just to get the muscle prepared, should these be counted in my rep count or just the ones for my 15, 10, and 5 RM sets? The reason I ask is because if I'm training with higher intensity I may do 1-2 sets close to my PB in an exercise to acclimatise to that weight, should these sets be counted in the 30/60 rep range? - they are performed at maybe 70-80% of my 1 RM but not going to failureThanks in advance and I apologise if this has already been answered
Click to expand...
The loading has to be within 65-85% of 1RM (as per Wernbom's meta study). Also see this article by Bryan. 85-87% is actually 6RM, 5RM being somewhere around 88-89%, so you can stick to 6RM's rather 5RM, which are somewhat less taxing, and tend to increase your volume by 20% for free :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top