Newest scientific support for Strategic Deconditioning

[Jester]

That's all nice & good, but once again, it just seems to be contrary to HST principles, because when working on 5's, the higher rep load isn't enough to be effective (except when in drop sets).

Higher rep work doesn't need a high load. You're working towards different effect, and using a different cause to get there.

Deloading is not equivalent to a complete discontinuation of load stress and metabolic stress. Someone earlier mentioned the repeated bout effect (RBE). Deloading will maintain the RBE, especially with loads as high as 75-80% 1RM. It could be you were thinking more 75-80% 10RM or 5RM or whatever, nevertheless, the stimulus is still sufficient to maintain the "trained" condition.

Again, I will remind everyone that this is not black and white. If you cut your loads in half, it is absolutely true that some deconditioning will occur if you stay there long enough. Complete SD is a stronger stimulus, and should allow more changes within the same amount of time.

New Topic: From occlusion data, we see confirmation of the faciliatory (is that a word?) role of metabolic stress on hypertrophy. Occlusion with very light loads (and high frequency) will activate the same anabolic signaling pathways as high mechanical load. Think of the two stimuli as two circles with significant overlap. The higher rep sets during the 5s provides this metabolic stress that we want to encourage growth. It doesn't matter if it is a drop set or a completely separate high rep set(s); as long as you create some metabolic pain deep in the tissue, you will accomplish the goal.

Yes, I was thinking 75% of 10RM.

Thanks. I win, AlexAustralia



OK, thanks, this time you win, AlexAustralia, so it's a draw Of course I'm for separate higher rep sets, I just thought there is some adaptation to lighter loads going on so they wouldn't be useful. Probably adaptation to metabolic stress (RBE) doesn't come that quickly?

Win what? I completely agree that SD works. The best results I've ever had were after an ~8 month 'SD'. Having said that, my experience is that if you stop using ~5RM loads (upper 5-rep range, let's say), and drop back to 15s or 10s, those loads are going to be just as effective again in a month. The trade-off is that you won't be able to recondition the tissue to lighter stimulus. You're also not going to stop the inevitable degree of 'metabolic' stimulus that occurs from almost any non-zero resistance work (i.e. you still get a marginal metabolic response from doing 2x5s, it's just not very much and reduces the more conditioned your muscles are).

I definitely wouldn't attempt to 'deload' just going back to the start of your 5s // end of 10s, although I still think it would be marginally effective.

Your body will adapt to metabolic stress. I wouldn't necessarily phrase it as 'RBE' though. Just becomes confusing to use the same term to describe two different adaptations.

 

[Totentanz]

@mikeynov, AFAIK, for metabolic work, higher rep drop sets are recommended even during 5's.

You recall incorrectly. It has been recommended in many posts throughout the years to add in metabolic work simply through higher reps or whatever works for you. Nobody ever said it must be dropsets, ever.

Some people simply deload back to 15s and do no SD. True, those workouts are probably useless right away in terms of muscle growth, but they still accomplish what they're meant for (healing up tendons w/ lactate), and by the time one gets to 10s, sufficient deconditioning of muscles would already be achieved? Or not?

Have you read the research that brought about the idea of SD?

I'm assuming not, since you seem unaware that there is more to SD than just deconditioning the muscles. Spikes in satellite cells after 9 days off from training, etc, etc. All the information is here on the site if you dig deep enough. That's why I don't mess around with SD. After a few cycles straight, sometimes after every cycle, I always take my nine days off and never have I had a cycle after a proper SD where I didn't make any progress, unless I was cutting.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You recall incorrectly. It has been recommended in many posts throughout the years to add in metabolic work simply through higher reps or whatever works for you. Nobody ever said it must be dropsets, ever.

Well, HST FAQ does mention Drop sets in a chapter of its own:

34. Drop sets and high rep sets
At the beginning of an HST cycle you will be using a weight you can do 15 reps with. After
proper deconditioning this will induce “some” hypertrophy, but after about 2 weeks the load
will be insufficient to induce any further growth. At this time the load must be increased in
order to get further growth.
Due to the inverse relationship between load and reps/volume (i.e. the heavier it is, the fewer
times you can lift it) you have to reduce the volume as the weight gets progressively heavier.
As you reduce the volume, the metabolic demands on the muscle tissue drop as well. This
reduces the activity of a signaling protein called ERK 1/2 which is known to facilitate
hypertrophy. Some very interesting research has evolved in the last 2 years that demonstrate the
value of hypoxic stress during muscular work with respect to hypertrophy.
So the question becomes, how do I continue to increase the weight over time, and not decrease
the activity of ERK 1⁄2? Well, you can either put on a tourniquet before each set, or you can do a
drop set.
Now a drop set doesn’t mean 1 set of reps. It means “repping-out” with lighter weight after
your work-set. But in order to be a true drop set, you don’t rest after the work set. You perform
your desired number of reps, in this case lets say 5. Then you immediately strip some weight
from the bar and keep going without resting. Normally, you will strip the weight twice before
“calling it good”. All the reps performed, including the work reps, should reach about 15-20 to
create a real metabolic environment inside the cell sufficient to activate ERK1/2 and related
signaling proteins.

So I made a logical conclusion that lower load/higher rep sets in HST are only useful in the first several workouts after SD, or as part of drop sets during heavy 5's.
And now I'm a bit confused with Bryan saying that higher rep sets can be done on their own during 5's, rendering drop sets essentially an archaic idea. It's what AlexAustralia said: "You're working towards different effect, and using a different cause to get there."

Have you read the research that brought about the idea of SD?

Nope, I haven't, and I am using SD always, because like you I believe in what (meta-)research Bryan has done.

 

[Jester]

I said metabolic and load effects are different, and using different mechanisms to get there.

The difference b/t drop sets and high rep sets in general is essentially negligible. They have the effect, and the cause (high rep work) is the same.

 

[HST_Rihad]

I said metabolic and load effects are different, and using different mechanisms to get there.

Yup. Today I did 72x5x3 on incline bench, and at the end of w/o did 50x15 until I subjectively hit the burn.

The difference b/t drop sets and high rep sets in general is essentially negligible. They have the effect, and the cause (high rep work) is the same.

If any difference isn't quite measurable, I'll go for a high rep set for incline bench several minutes after my last 5's set. Although I should say drop sets are more prone to give the burning sensation right from the first rep, so you do more reps in that state than when doing 15's after some rest, but obviously you do fewer reps total with a given weight. Just my own observation.

 

[Totentanz]

Yup. Today I did 72x5x3 on incline bench, and at the end of w/o did 50x15 until I subjectively hit the burn.


If any difference isn't quite measurable, I'll go for a high rep set for incline bench several minutes after my last 5's set. Although I should say drop sets are more prone to give the burning sensation right from the first rep, so you do more reps in that state than when doing 15's after some rest, but obviously you do fewer reps total with a given weight. Just my own observation.

Burn is irrelevant. There is no need to go to failure on the high rep sets, which is what you would be doing with a drop set. All we care about is activating the erk 1/2 pathway, which can be done with simple high rep sets not done to failure. You're alll about sparing your cns, so why would you stress it with drop sets when you can get the same signalling from high rep sets not done to failure?

 

[HST_Rihad]

Burn is irrelevant.

as long as you create some metabolic pain deep in the tissue, you will accomplish the goal.

There is no need to go to failure on the high rep sets

I never go to complete failure (meaning inability to complete a rep), because (a) I train alone, and (b) it isn't necessary.

 

[CDB]

Burn is irrelevant.

I'm aware of many late night and early morning infomercials which dispute this claim. It must be true, I saw it on TV.

 

[Jester]

I never go to complete failure (meaning inability to complete a rep), because (a) I train alone, and (b) it isn't necessary.

Why are you quoting Bryan? 'Burn' is still irrelevant. You have this weird habit of quoting Bryan and thinking that doing so ends the discussion.

I'm sure if it's because you think Bryan is never wrong, or that you can apply what he says out of context ... ? But quoting-spamming never won an argument or proved a point. Quoting should only ever be as a reference, not as an attempt to construct contentions.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You have this weird habit of quoting Bryan and thinking that doing so ends the discussion.

No offence, but it's because without scientific background all our thoughts and opinions are just that, thoughts and opinions. I never EVER prefer some big guys' advice just because they're big. Otherwise no one would listen to Lyle and everyone would listen to Ronnie. End of story.

I'm sure if it's because you think Bryan is never wrong

No, it's because the guy behind the stated principles, the guy with *some* knowledge on the science believes so. As an aside, basing his opinion on earlier research, Bryan was probably wrong suggesting that only 1-2 sets per MG is enough for hypertrophy even during 5's

'Burn' is still irrelevant.

Uhm... ok

The decrease in reps simply accommodates the increasing load. However, the high-rep
workouts serve an important purpose. Higher rep sets that really burn benefit the tendons and
muscle by both increasing resistance to injury (i.e. promotes tendon healing) as well as
increasing functional capacity respectively.

You will be able to tell if you've created the correct environment, not by how many reps you
can perform with a given weight, but because your muscle will be burning tremendously. It will
burn/ache like crazy! Drop sets are done by "feel", you don't really have to plan it. So, if you
want to only want to strip the weight once and rep-out...go ahead.

etc etc.

 

[Jester]

Obviously my issue isn't w/your categorisation of scientific approach&analysis vs muscle magazine approach(&lack of analysis). And that much ought to be obvious because I'm on this site, same as you and everyone else here. My issue w/with you nonsensically treating any one person's comments as biblical gospel. This thread is the perfect example of that fanaticism; you think/thought Bryan was an arbitrator on our discussion and that it was 'one win each' based on Bryan's input.

Whether Bryan agrees or not is relevant beyond it being the input of another person. Yes, Bryan has developed a magnificent system for hypertrophy training and from my 8+ years of reading his public posts and using that system, tweaking (or not, probably most importantly), and he's one of the most polite and generous 'anonymous' (I've never met him etc) contributors I've encountered on the internet. However, his opinion or statements aren't determinative and certainly aren't the final word in any sense. Following science is clearly the preferred method, but follow the science and evidence and not the speaker, and don't elevate one interpretation//discussion over another based merely on the owner of that interpretation. There's no reason to be so sycophantic. Once a person has done the reading, comprehends and understands, then it's a level playing field. Quoting Bryan doesn't mean your position is correct, it just means you know how to use the quote-function on the forum. What you have to say after learning the science is still just a series of thoughts and opinions, you get that, right ... ? Scientific data needs to be interpreted. And interpretation is subject to bias, naturally. It's also subject to exposure from real-world experiences. This is one reason why many of the studies that were analysed in Wernbom's meta-analysis are flawed, sometimes fatally so. Performing certain studies using untrained subjects is going to wreck the usefulness of any data from before you even start (for example).

You've made the same mistake in the very post I'm responding to right now. Quoting from the FAQ//Bryan as though that settles the issue or something ludicrous like that.


What matters is the high-rep work. The degree of feeling is going to be felt differently by different individuals. The high rep work is still done at a given load (don't pick up your 50RM and expect the same result as a 12 or 15RM) and is going to generate a response, separate to how you feel. Just as 1-2 work sets (8-12 rep totals) are largely effective for HST regardless of whether you still feel DOMS or not. Part of HST's sales pitch is that DOMS =/= growth, and similarly 'burn' =/= metabolic response. The more conditioned//better trained you are (not 'conditioned' to be confused w/load conditioned RBE), the less 'burn' you're going to feel. Does that mean your body isn't using energy to achieve the movement? Does it mean your muscles are no longer going to adapt and store glycogen? Of course not. Find me the study that associates 'burn' with being more effective than not ... ? Obviously the association being drawn is burn = hypoxic (not medically, just an acute sensation w/in the muscle) environment and what comes with it. But I'm extremely sceptical about drawing a line in the sand between the feeling of 'burn' and not reaching that point, and on the 'burn' side only do you get benefits.

Being wary of overtraining is something else I'd consider when you're attempting the high-rep work. Further, if you care for anecdotal advice, I'd recommend doing the sets separately. In my experience it's less draining on the CNS. Conducting your workouts based on 'muscle feeling' puts you right up there with HIT and one-bodypart-per-day routines, in which you punish the CNS until it has nothing left to give and you wake up the next day feeling like you were in the washing machine for an hour.


And no, Bryan is more or less spot on for 1-2 work sets being all that necessary during the 5's. It's not necessarily the ideal way to use exercise as a weight-loss mechanism, but it sure as anything builds muscle better than excess volume or overtraining.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Thanks! A nice long post.

Obviously my issue isn't w/your categorisation of scientific approach&analysis vs muscle magazine approach(&lack of analysis). And that much ought to be obvious because I'm on this site, same as you and everyone else here. My issue w/with you nonsensically treating any one person's comments as biblical gospel. This thread is the perfect example of that fanaticism; you think/thought Bryan was an arbitrator on our discussion and that it was 'one win each' based on Bryan's input.

I'm using HST because Bryan's explanations of what's going on and how to set up your training suit my mentality better. This is why I'm not in for Lyle's or Borge's principles on training, however because they work they all share the same fundamental principles.

Whether Bryan agrees or not is relevant beyond it being the input of another person. Yes, Bryan has developed a magnificent system for hypertrophy training and from my 8+ years of reading his public posts and using that system, tweaking (or not, probably most importantly), and he's one of the most polite and generous 'anonymous' (I've never met him etc) contributors I've encountered on the internet. However, his opinion or statements aren't determinative and certainly aren't the final word in any sense.

As he is the author of HST it's obvious that his thoughts on the subject are the most definitive for me. It would be naive to follow someone else's advice on training and claim you're using HST. That's not to say that input from other sources isn't welcome or appreciated, take my Soy protein topic, for example.

What you have to say after learning the science is still just a series of thoughts and opinions, you get that, right ... ? Scientific data needs to be interpreted. And interpretation is subject to bias, naturally. It's also subject to exposure from real-world experiences. This is one reason why many of the studies that were analysed in Wernbom's meta-analysis are flawed, sometimes fatally so. Performing certain studies using untrained subjects is going to wreck the usefulness of any data from before you even start (for example).

AFAIK Wernbom's study includes both trained & untrained people.

The more conditioned//better trained you are (not 'conditioned' to be confused w/load conditioned RBE), the less 'burn' you're going to feel.

Hmm... I can't say much, haven't been there It seems unbelievable you can't feel the higher rep burn forcing you to stop (not neural failure). I don't feel the burn when doing heavy triceps pushdowns 11-12 either. It's different when you pick a bit lighter load and go for 15-25 or whatever, then the burn would definitely creep up on me.

Does that mean your body isn't using energy to achieve the movement? Does it mean your muscles are no longer going to adapt and store glycogen? Of course not. Find me the study that associates 'burn' with being more effective than not ... ? Obviously the association being drawn is burn = hypoxic (not medically, just an acute sensation w/in the muscle) environment and what comes with it. But I'm extremely sceptical about drawing a line in the sand between the feeling of 'burn' and not reaching that point, and on the 'burn' side only do you get benefits.

I'm not sure, but it may be that feeling/getting close to the burn is akin to hitting/getting close to failure, it varies in degrees, not some boolean logic (true/false). But as repping out till you hit the burn is probably not as much strenuous on CNS as lower rep loads, it wouldn't hurt to attempt and hit the burn with a lighter load. Just to make sure you're definitely "on".

Conducting your workouts based on 'muscle feeling' puts you right up there with HIT and one-bodypart-per-day routines

Just the feeling of burn from higher reps. Also:
"But the amount of volume each person is used to varies. I am not saying that you have to train
to your volume limit. I'm just saying that if 1 set isn't enough, do another. Do too much and
you'll begin to get progressively weaker, and/or injured and you will lose your desire to train."

So going by the feel is also varied in degrees, not black/white.

 

[Jester]

2 quick points:

1. Wernbom didn't so a study. He combined data from other studies - which is why it's not a particularly definitive piece of work.

2. CG BP is a great exercise for triceps burn, as are CG push ups (rep count lower for this one)

 

[HST_Rihad]

2 quick points:

1. Wernbom didn't do a study. He combined data from other studies - which is why it's not a particularly definitive piece of work.

Yeah, I get the bolded part. Just calling it "study", or "research", or "work" for short.

2. CG BP is a great exercise for triceps burn, as are CG push ups (rep count lower for this one)

Thanks, I'm just doing iso tris work because it's part of vanilla HST. I also continue heavy tris pushdowns on 5's, although currently I'm attempting to push previously 8-9 rep count to 15 before adding more load.

 

[Jester]

The issue w/pushdowns for me is the horrible leverage. I find they're good at putting the connective tissue to work but incrementation and strength gains are very slow, because it's just not a great exercise from a mechanics perspective. FWIW.

 

[Sci]

I agree with Alex on this point. At least in my experience, dips and close-grip pressing are perfect for tricep mass. I also don't really care for the leverage in Pushdowns and a lot of other tricep isolations. Maybe it's just my elbows, but for me weighted dips are way harder on the triceps, but easier on the elbows, while Pushdowns and skull crushers tend to strain my elbows before the weight is really even all that heavy.
With weighted dips I can do huge amounts of weight, get an awesome tricep pump, and never feel it much in the elbows.

For biceps though I am going to try some isolations for awhile, as curling seems to get my biceps without any elbow strain, but we'll see, I could be wrong about this, have to try it out still.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Sci, it might be that your elbows are giving you problems because you've done heavy skull crushers on them. That plane of motion or amplitude or whatever is commonly considered bad for them when going lower rep. Not so for tricep pushdowns. I've never done skull crushers, but in pushdowns I can do decent 5's with just 2 bricks short of the max load available on the stack and elbow pain has never been an issue for me.

 

[Sci]

Actually I can do the whole stack with pushdowns, I just "feel" it's more natural with dips. Not very scientific I know.

Go ahead with Pushdowns, they are fine.

 

[Jester]

Dips are basically the exercise that the pushing chain evolved to do ... that's my take on it

I'm not sure there's a possible way to scientifically test for this (other than measuring in terms of absolute load), but the 'most natural' exercises tend to be the most effective for hypertrophy and strength; chins, rows, deads, dips, squats. The only marginally absent exercise is an overhead centric push obv.

Agreed, nothing wrong w/pushdowns, they're just not ideal for developing strength for leverage reasons and the form of the exercise. I'd give CGBP a go as a 5's + set of 15's champion for the triceps.

The other thing I think is worth giving a shot - just to see if it's your thing - is the tricep pulldowns using a rope handle. Easier on the wrists and will be less stressful on the tendons @ elbow.

 

[HST_Rihad]

The other thing I think is worth giving a shot - just to see if it's your thing - is the tricep pulldowns using a rope handle. Easier on the wrists and will be less stressful on the tendons @ elbow.

Tried pushing it through the rope handle, the knots at the end are pressing the meaty parts of my hands too much at heavier loads. The V shaped handle is the most comfortable. I've noticed that the more horizontal the bars of a handle get with respect to each other, the harder it becomes to push the same weight.