Is Load Progression Necessary For Hypertrophy?

Thank you @NWlifter !

"I myself am pretty positive the stimulus in general is more of a time vs load scenario, as a single rep with a 1RM will not stimulate more hypertrophy or even close to as much, as 3x12 for example."
That makes sense, but I understood it more along the lines of more of a "load+time" calculus.

I'm way behind on the analysis/understanding compared to you all, but any idea of if "upregulate/metabolic stuff" can improve the 15/10/5 blocks? Either:
1) Do a week or two of metabolic "stuff" before starting the "normal" rep ranges? Or,
2) Mix in a day or two of high rep myo-reps throughout a cycle when things start to slow down (in the 10s and 5s) as a way to add stimulus/recovery, but continue with the normal weight progressions. Or,
3) A one or two week bridge between cycles.

I asked based on a short stint I had with high reps before. I bought Borge's Myo-Reps e-book (~4-5 years ago?), and I hit the gym consistently for several months back then. Hard training 5-7 days per week was quick to a burnout though. I wasn't tracking weights (I ignored the templates, and basically maxed out each session for that rep range), but I did a full body split of:
A)Light (~25-30 myo-reps)
B)Heavy (3-5 reps)
C)Medium (~10-14 reps)
Repeat.

The "light" days of 25-30 myo-reps were tough training during the workout, but I felt great the following day. They seemed to speed up my recovery! So, without me going crazy on volume, I wonder if some myo-reps days would work for a kind of rehab day throughout a cycle.

And, kind of related. Anyone know if high rep myo-reps can serve as a "Hacked Strategic Deconditioning" 2 week training block? "Hacked" in that the lifter is still progressing for those two weeks (metabolic style fun), but still allowing the muscles to become desensitized enough for the heavier weights of the 15s/10s/5s?
 
The main thing is, regular training obviously works. (5x5, 4x8, myo-reps, higher reps, lower reps, etc.) the idea with HST is to 'hack' the system and gain faster. We have no idea what our individual 'fast' vs 'slow and steady' gains might be, so it's hard to judge these things.

Some of the older Russian information (they supported it with older studies and science and some logic), was saying we do need some metabolic for sarcoplasmic increases (which increases the gel protein matrix that energy is stored in) otherwise we'd stall on fibril growth. I don't know how true that is, but it is partially possible.

I think HST has the setup right, 15,10,5, then you get a couple weeks of each phase, you end up with the whole 'schmear' so to speak. No matter what though, our bodies can only adapt as they 'can adapt', we can stimulate all we want but it's the response that really limits us.

(btw the abbreviated group has a lot more variation in training than just the 2 day a week stuff, that's just the main theme's suggestions, but lots of us train more than that. The whole thing with it is sustainability, and is really relative to the individual)
 
Clayton said:
Thank you @NWlifter !

And, kind of related. Anyone know if high rep myo-reps can serve as a "Hacked Strategic Deconditioning" 2 week training block? "Hacked" in that the lifter is still progressing for those two weeks (metabolic style fun), but still allowing the muscles to become desensitized enough for the heavier weights of the 15s/10s/5s?
Click to expand...

Strategic Deconditioning really only works if the stimulus is removed. It is true, there is specificity to the stimulus, but the overlap between metabolic and mechanical stimulus is such that even if you only have one, you are still largely maintaining the repeated bout effect.

In saying this I do not mean it wouldn't be interesting to try though... I'm just saying the outcome would be different than complete stimulus removal.
 
On a somewhat related note. I re-listened to the "Sustainable Self-Development Podcast" interview with Bryan. I thought this quote was interesting:

"A number of principles are involved in HST. One of the most enlightening is that the effectiveness of any load to produce muscle growth is dependent upon the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied. This means that just because you lifted 100 pounds yesterday and it was an effective workout, six weeks from now, that 100 pounds will no longer be as effective in making your muscle grow.
Everyone says, "Oh yes, well, that's common sense." We've all experienced something similar to that. But people forget about this when it comes to their day-to-day training. They assume that the timeline for this effect, for these diminishing returns of a given load, is somewhat nebulous. Well, how long does it take for it not to be effective anymore? That's a good question, and we can't say we really know. It's more like asking where an electron is at any given time. You know where it should be; you just don't know where it is exactly.
In general, timelines for physiological adaptation tend to fall within 21 days. For whatever reason, three weeks is a good general period of time to assume that the adaptive process is necessary for the body to make changes. These changes involve the expression of genes and the production of new proteins and tissues, which typically manifest in about three weeks.
So, after about three weeks, you can assume that the load you're lifting, if you do it identically over that period of time, is going to be less effective than it was three weeks ago. Now, is that significantly less effective? Maybe, maybe not. If you're an experienced lifter, absolutely. If you're a non-experienced lifter and you're just starting, you may be well within that range of effective stimuli, and you could lift that same weight for a good three months and still make improvements."
Click to expand...

So, my logical (or illogical? hah!) question:

Would a lifter following HST principles while at the same time minimizing the negative aspects of training as much as possible (fatigue/more recovery/muscle damage, etc) benefit from repeating each weight for two-week periods instead of changing it every workout? Would this approach actually optimize hypertrophy better? Or, change it to weekly increases. At the very least, this allows each HST cycle to be significantly longer.

Basically, follow the normal HST progression but repeat each weight for six (or 3) sessions over 1-2 weeks while staying well under the 21-day "physiological adaptation" curve.

And, part 2. Since the "negatives" of training will be minimized by repeating weights, the next logical step is to bump up the frequency. After a 2-week SD, that a higher frequency would be unnecessary, so for the first week (or two), train 3x week. Then, train 6-7x week for the remaining cycle. Allowing for daily muscle protein synthesis, training stimulus, etc.
 
It's hard to guess on that, it's one of those 'theory vs reality' kinda things. Most studies on frequency now find that it's individual, it depends on recovery (not just the muscle but the joints, connective tissues, CNS, etc.) and that most of the time, the differences are so small that 'weekly volume usually is more predictive of long term stimulation. We also know that load itself doesn't matter that much, it's more about total 'tension-time', where 10 reps with 10RM is the same as 6 with 6RM.
 
My problem with the frequency studies (that I've seen) is that they're comparing volume-equated training plans, so my assumption is that comparing the same full-body workouts of 2x vs. 3-5x would incrementally increase (but not a true 1 to 1) with each additional weekly workout.
 
Clayton said:
My problem with the frequency studies (that I've seen) is that they're comparing volume-equated training plans, so my assumption is that comparing the same full-body workouts of 2x vs. 3-5x would incrementally increase (but not a true 1 to 1) with each additional weekly workout.
Click to expand...
for sure a full body of 1 set a week vs full body 3x a week would usually find the 3x a week way better. But, the volume equated tells us the truth, that 9 sets once a week is the same as 3 sets 3x a week. it keeps all variables the same except frequency so that one can be looked at. The bummer is, besides getting some new genetics, most methods end up so close that we can't even tell the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top