Muscle Hypertrophy

Discussion in 'General Training' started by Fausto, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. savagebeast

    savagebeast New Member

    I believe this is my first post in a "Vince thread." I must admit, I am both frightened [​IMG] and excited :D at the same time. Well, here goes nothing...

    I've read Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations." Basically, Popper's main point is that the main criterion for a scientific theory is its ability to be tested and proven wrong. If a theory has no means by which it can be refuted, then that theory is not scientific. A theory's strength comes from being repeatedly tested and from scientists trying to prove that the theory is false, and their continued failure to demonstrate fallacy in the theory. Popper believes that a theory can never be proven true, only false. The best theories, he says, are the ones that despite repeated testing, have never been proven false.

    For examples, he uses Einstein's theory of relativity and the psychological theories of Freud and Adler (I think it was Adler, it could have been someone else, though). He argues that the theory of relativity is science because it makes specific, objective claims about the universe. He says something about how it predicted that light would bend due to gravity, and this assertion was upheld when an eclipse allowed for this phenomenon to be observed. Freud and Adler's theories, on the other hand, could be adapted to fit any situation; their theories could be manipulated so that they could explain everything. Therefore, their theories could never be proven wrong, which makes them unscientific.

    Vince, I guess your point in mentioning this is that by questioning the HST method & principles, you will eventually accomplish one of two things: prove them false, or strengthen them and make them more valid. I suppose that's a noble goal. But just because no one has given you a satisfactory defense of HST doesn't mean that no satisfactory defense has been given. To be honest, Vince, I'm not sure what sort of response you're looking for. I firmly believe that no matter what anyone says, no matter what studies or scientific articles someone posts, you will still be unconvinced. True scientific discussions involve not just dishing out criticism, but taking it as well.

    And another thing: this debate is occurring on two different levels. Your evidence is your own experience, while the evidence presented by everyone else consists of scientific studies and physiology (along with some individual experience here and there). For the purpose of this debate, the two different sides might as well be speaking different languages.

    Vince, you reference an article about science, yet you're not really dealing with science. Sure, you have your own muscle experiments, and in the end that's all that really matters for you. But in the grand scheme of science, experiments with n=1 prove absolutely nothing (as I remember Aaron as having said in the past). If you can't reproduce the same results in others, then it means nothing.

    Also, if you want to try to discredit HST, then you might consider actually trying HST. Technically, if you want to discredit HST, you'd have to get a bunch of people to try it while controlling as many variables as possible, because, again, n=1 proves nothing. But the most futile endeavor you could possibly engage in is to use unscientific logic to try to disprove HST from a scientific standpoint.

    And to wrap things up, I'd just like to say that HST is more flexible than you give it credit for. If you want to do high volume, you can! If you were to give HST a try, you could figure out how many sets you are currently doing each week and set up your HST cycle so that you do the exact same total number of sets. The only difference is that with HST they would be spread out over several workouts.

    Aside from organizing and conducting a scientific study on HST, the only way to disprove it is to attack the principles upon which it is based. In order to do this, you have to analyze the validity of the research and the conclusions that were drawn from it. Otherwise, you're not going to accomplish much of anything.
  2. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    And with that statement, Vinces entire arguement can be condensed into the point. It is not scientific.


    because nomatter waht you say to vince, it goes back around in a circle until he is saying exactly the same point back to you again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

    so it cannot be refuted
  3. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert

    I know Dan, Aaron, I just wanna keep him here so that we can get this to a higher level, whils of course keeping things civil.

    I'd rather be careful after loosing O & G, to what I think was a bit of a sulking issue but nevertheless I don't hear from him and that is not so good.

    We don't want anyone to take us for morons. [​IMG]
  4. faz

    faz Active Member

    it seems to me vince that no matter what anyone says or produces as evidence you would not listen.
    you you advance up the hypertrophy size ladder,you will come to plateus then you might have to do different things ....
    isnt that strategic deconditioning?
    you say..i try to help others relating what i have found by experimenting on my muscles.
    but you havent tried hst.?
    (sorry i dont know how to cut and paste from thread to thread)
  5. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert

    The proverbial truth would be that you would most probably get "hooked" and that what we would all like to see.

    "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", for most of us here it was easy, we read, we tried, we saw, we bought it! That's it! [​IMG] [​IMG]
  6. Vince Basile

    Vince Basile New Member

    Savagebeast gave us a short introduction to Popper's ideas. However he missed the main idea that conjecture is needed to come up with a possible theory in the first place. Individuals and thinking originate theories, not science. It is always possible that an individual will come up with something better than what is currently believed. Therefore a n is not worth zero but may have immense value. Einstein was one n but look what he contributed. He did thought experiments and his are now a way of doing some physics.

    The proof of bodybuilding theories is in the gym or lab, not on discussion boards. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much testing of bodybuilding theories done in the labs.

    HST presents a rather vague notion of how to acquire hypertrophy. I come up with a different idea and make suggestions about doing specific things. I predict that very rapid growth will occur if certain conditions are met on a regular basis. HST cannot state that any particular rate of hypertrophy will result.

    Whatever method anyone comes up with, if it works then it must be consistent with the laws of physics. If our physiologies are similar then those methods should work for everyone. I am not out to prove my theory but to present a possible hypertrophy model that might be superior to current models including HST. However, I admit that HST is not any particular thing but a process of applying a few known hypertrophy principles distilled from reading scientific research studies. My approach has been to access all avenues and form a theory based on a combination or reading research, experimenting in the gym and trying to formulate a theory out of the whole enterprise.

    If anyone here wants to do a scientific analysis on HST then search this forum and come up with a model that accounts for all the variations that appear almost daily. I find it rather strange that so many accept HST without critically examining and testing it. A few who have examined the science behind the method have not been convinced it is as solid as many disciples maintain. We all have a long way to go.

    There should be no giving up on anyone who is sincere about progressing hypertrophy theory and practice.
  7. navigator

    navigator New Member

    Hi Vince,

    Can you go ahead and summarize your theory on hypertrophy right here? That'll save me a bunch of time not having to browse through several threads. I'd really like to see a list of the things you think I should do in order to maximize my gains.

    As it stands right now, I cannot seem to find a complete set of your ideas on how we should train.

    Much thanks.
  8. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert


    The ball is in your court as both threads are now asking you to
    please come forward with a simplistic view of your theory.

    Something like:

    HST = +/-

    1 - Work out maximum weights for each rep scheme or at least for 1RM
    2 - Progressive weight increase compounds 10%/isolation 5%
    3- Rep schemes get smaller as the weight increases, recommended 15/10/5/5 two weeks each
    4- SD after eight weeks to eliminate RBE.
    5- Keep nutrition in check (at least 1g protein per Lb bodyweight), generally use this split:
    carbs 50%/Protein 25%/Fat 25%, others can be used according to body and metabolism composition.

    Well that is a summary very brief but covering all corners.

    Surely now you can offer us yours, if you don't then you simply cannot obviously back up your theoretical views! [​IMG]

    Till then [​IMG]
  9. navigator

    navigator New Member

    Well, guys, I don't think Vince is going to give us a summary of his ideas. I took his advice and searched through his previous threads on this forum, and found that about two years ago, mikeynov wrote:

    "On the other hand, vince's position seems obscured by page-long posts and rambling on correlary subjects. it'd be really neat for vince to lay out a formulaic, neat, concise post detailing SPECIFICALLY what his DOMS theory entails, and, god forbid, an example routine to go with it? i would actually be quite interested in this... "

    I also found that Vince thinks that we must always train so that our muscles are sore--his "DOMS" theory. What we now need to know in staightforward terms is how Vince thinks we should be training according to his DOMS theory.

    Vince, I'm not trying to start a debate about training, or philosophy, nor am I preparing to convince you that HST is correct. I simply want a nuts & bolts description of your training approach.

  10. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert

    I think by now we all are [​IMG]

    Yep, just like I thought, DOMS.

    We all like DOMS, albeit in small doses.

    But how can we understand DOMS, if DOMS is not a system but simply a way of training to cause some trauma?

    Could it be that Vince does instinctive training without a real workout plan, does not sound like reality for such an experienced person. [​IMG]

    Some people like to train like that though, I have seen it.

    Well Let's see what comes up!
  11. I posted this in the other thread where people asked what VInce's plan was so I am posting it here as well.
    Mikeynov's synopsis of Vince's DOMs training with Vince's additions

    Also this was Vince's reply as a sample for calves from the thread that was soooooo long

  12. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    great so what is still being discussed? Reading his posts in this thread, I just can't understand WHAT he is saying. Is he saying anything?
  13. Dood

    Dood New Member

    Vince is saying the same thing he's always said:
    There is a way to grow muscle like genetically gifted steroid using pros, without being genetically gifted or using steroids. The way to do this is to create extreme DOMS all the time.
    Of course he has no examples of non steroid using BBrs applying this technique successfully, all the while trying to dismiss HST because it hasn't generated steroid like gains in non steroid users.
    He can't even post pics of his own massive gains using these techniques which should be easy since he's been using these methods for years. He also continues to ignore the fact that the endless pursuit of extreme DOMS always leads to injury and/or burnout, and is therefore not sustainable and therefore cannot lead to faster gains over the long term.
    And yes, we've been having the same arguments for 3 years now, so he's not even promoting new and interesting discussion.
    Still love the guy though, and his tenacity [​IMG]
    I hope I look at least half as good and have at least half his passion for BBing when I'm his age [​IMG]
  14. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert


    Sincerely, I am disappointed in your lack of response.

    To tell you the truth it seems that you are the one who is being vague!

    HST, if you have bothered to read the FAQ e-book, explains in detail how to aqcuire the fastest hypertrophy, covering different methods, both basic and advanced, in fact it goes as far as explaining how to use training methods combined with nutrition to accomplish the fastest results.

    Is this why we are struggling to find a summarized method?

    The only thing we found till now, was a summary created by Mikeynov, using your threads to put it together.

    Nothing different from what HST predicts? [​IMG]

    I don't think Bryan would want to be specific considering that we are dealing with biological values, i.o.w. that cannot be predicted as there is a miriad of different variables, which at best cannot be kept constant.

    "We do the same all the time in the microbiology laboratory and have on hell of a time explaining to chemists (including our boss) that precision as you would get in chemistry is just not possible, as micro-organisms change all the time, besides the fact that many a time we isolate different ones, thus cannot expect their reaction to be the same."

    However Bryan does state that if certain variables are kept constant and adhered to very rapid hypertrophy can be accomplished, in fact he uses himself from the time he was very sick to now, having put on +/- 60 pounds.

    So, to put an end to this very interesting discussion and controversy, I think we can conclude that you (Vince) either train by instinct or simply are not prepared to divulge a summary of your DOMS method [​IMG]

  15. Vince Basile

    Vince Basile New Member

    You can understand that I am more interested in discussing hypertrophy theory than particular methods. I realise that trainees like to know what the methods are all about. It is just that when I did that in the past it made no difference at all and our quest was sidetracked but nuts and bolts, sets and reps.

    I am absolutely convinced that the best way to really grow is to open the door and keep the door open. The only way you know the door is open is to get feedback that the muscle is growing. That feedback is twofold. Swelling and soreness. They go together. The interesting thing is that the swollen muscle will be a stronger one next time you train it. Oh, you won't believe it when you start training it again. Sometimes my triceps are so tender that it hurts to do biceps with them on a pad. However, the larger girth is a stronger one. If that DOMS state is sustained really rapid growth occurs. I have measured my progress and it was about 2 mm per workout for arms and calves. 12 workouts = 1 inch.

    So I have a theory and predictions from that theory. I see no one else out there except Dante making specific estimates for expected hypertrophy over a time frame. My results are about twice what Doggcrap training generates. Whether I could sustain that or whether others could duplicate my results is not known at the moment. I am having some success when a few advanced guys tried my method at my gym. It is crucial that you have the right equipment for training. There is no way I could generate that much hypertrophy in my triceps without my apparatus. I finished the second machine alterations last week so now the gym has 3 lying extension machines and two with side supports. The latest variation has height adjustments, too.

    About instinct and training. The only instinct I have when trying to lift something heavy is to get a forklift or use a hoist! Or recruit other people who are around.
  16. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert


    OK, that is it!

    I understand now what you mean! You simply do not want to place a summary on the forum, although it has been done for you!

    I both agree and disagree with you on various aspects, but yes [​IMG] I'll have to agree that DOMS to a ceratin extent causes some amount of growth, that it is inextricably linked to growth I have not the necessary knowledge to contradict you but, from what I have read of the research done, it is not so!

    I prefer, and I believe most of us do, to train according to s set plan and not to do things by instinct, you do however have a lot of years of experience in the BB game and most probably adapted to a ceratin way of training and that works for you, great! [​IMG]

    I am happy for you [​IMG] but to keep discussing this to no end is pointless.
  17. vicious

    vicious New Member

    Speaking of falsification, you could say what NWLifter and I do is something of a prolonged dialectical process. It's a lot of fun. Because we basically agree on the surface structure/nominal heirarchy of HST theory, most of the time we go through a lengthy high-level criticism in order to render something more refined or possibly new. I think that's important because, when we (often) disagree on an application of a principle, we still move toward a point of synthetic speculation rather than cold war-style debate. Which has tangentially been related to DOMS theory, particularly a separation between metabolic-induced/partion-related protein synthesis signalling and growth factor/satellite cell proliferation. Or something like that. ;)

    Largely, a consistent (though avoidable) problem with HST vs. "X" debates is that, largely, applying a dialectical argument between two ontologically exclusive models is wrife to create more frustration. The categorization and definitions within HST theory, because it does not abide by the fatigue model, is different from both periodization and HIT theory. You could say HST itself abides by biological systems; in that regard, periodization's supercompensation and dual factor patterns resembles the HST program's machinations. Moreover, Vince's DOMS model is valid in a broader biological sense (DOMS ~ significant mechanical strain ==> stress mechanotransduction ==> sarcomere hypertrophy), but does not contradict HST. I suppose the problem is that Vince is arguing DOMS as both broad theory and an explictly specific program prescription, the former used to dispute HST's given program, and the latter used to dispute HST's adherence to stress mechanotransduction/RBE. That, however, is an invalid inquiry, and it creates paradoxical conclusions. That is how I percieve, insofar, the philosophical dilemna between the scientific debate. It's just easier for somebody to try HST to the letter and map the concepts and terminology according to their real-world experience and sensations. Much easier and logically valid than deconstructing all the definitions and translating them into more periodization-friendly or HIT-friendly or Selye-friendy language. A lot of people would rather not do that, and so the arguments turn round-robin.

  18. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Hey I see my name mentioned again LOL [​IMG]

    OK, who votes that Jules get's the award for best vocabulary? Egads, I wish I had his number when I was taking some of the harder English classes in high school ;)
  19. Vince Basile

    Vince Basile New Member

    HST is whatever Bryan and others want it to be. I prefer to discuss the actual hypertrophy/hyperplasia processes in muscles and then reverse engineer a method to obtain that growth. Whatever generates the maximum amount of growth is the preferred method, safety and practical considerations taken into account, of course. Since Bryan has called his method THE hypertrophy specific one then it becomes rather difficult to isolate the issue of debating HST and debating whether in fact HST is THE hypertrophy specific method. I care not if HST produces hypertrophy in followers. I would expect that results can be obtained by following most protocols. However, if one desires the most rapid gains what does he do? That is where so many experts appear with various prescriptions for hypertrophy. It seems to me that all these different methods cannot be the optimum way to train. Thus, we can conclude that most systems overlap with the true hypertrophy method and that is why growth occurs.

    The DOMS method is not a sets and reps method at all because it cannot specify exactly what has to be done by any particular person. Over the years I have presented some routines and strategies that resulted in gains for me. However, there is no reason to believe that my method will be universally successful. Therefore, it is imperative that each trainee attempts to make the muscle grow and get feedback about what he did and then continue doing the successful things. I believe the best feedback is the state of DOMS and that if one is making the muscles grow then the DOMS becomes an indicator of rapid growth. Sustain the significant DOMS and the muscle should continue to grow rapidly.

    Dante and others have built in a progression method than includes variation and novelty in the hope that this will stimulate hypertrophy. I see no one else out there advocating that one obtain DOMS and then sustain that deep pain in the muscle by further heavy training.

    There is a debate that won't go away concerning intensity vs volume. In practice is seems that it is far more effective to do volume with high intensity. Just how high and how much volume is what no one seems to know. That is what has made this sport soooooo confusing. It is my hunch that really big muscles are required for endurance training with heavy weights. This would be easy to establish in the lab but so far no one has done a definitive study to educate us bodybuilders. In the meantime, we flounder around looking for the best method. I mean, doesn't anyone else see the obvious confusion that exists online? All those forums and so many experts and so many different ideas!

    To add to this confusion is the business of putting into practice the various methods and theories. Some individuals simply cannot do the exercises as outlined. If people cannot put target muscles under the required amount of mechanical tension then training methods and theories are totally irrelevant. These people will never generate much hypertrophy. People cheat in exercises and so much so at times that they defeat the very purpose of certain isolation exercises.

    I do thank Jules for his considered response. I will leave it to the scientific minded to come up with the physiological processes behind hypertrophy.
  20. vicious

    vicious New Member

    Seriously, you've helped pull me into new directions with my training. The Gironda variation of cluster training has really messed with my head; I can get pretty sore during 15s without really trying. It's great! :D


Share This Page