Progression

[HST_Rihad]

The whole point of HST is that after SD each and every workout should be effective for growth, not only after you have reached highish 5's. So there's probably little point in avoiding to take SD at a proper time. One exception could be while a person is dieting, where all he needs is to provide sufficient stimulus to spare the contractile elements while his fat is melting away. There we may prolong 5's for as long as needed.

It should probably be noted that volume may also be relative, not only load. So after SD less volume feels enough to get the ball rolling. How soon it catches up with your progression, the way RBE does, I don't know.

 

[Jester]

The whole point of HST is that after SD each and every workout should be effective for growth, not only after you have reached highish 5's. So there's probably little point in avoiding to take SD at a proper time. One exception could be while a person is dieting, where all he needs is to provide sufficient stimulus to spare the contractile elements while his fat is melting away. There we may prolong 5's for as long as needed.

It should probably be noted that volume may also be relative, not only load. So after SD less volume feels enough to get the ball rolling. How soon it catches up with your progression, the way RBE does, I don't know.

C&P of paraphrasing does not equate to a supported contention.

You think every return visitor hasn't read that ~ 50 times ... ?

 

[HST_Rihad]

Yeah, but you keep contradicting the fundamentals, without showing any solid ground to base your thoughts upon.
By reading your comments visitors may be left with the impression that only higher loads than you normally begin the cycle with are optimal for growth. In that were the case, HST wouldn't exist.

Here, I'm quoting the whole thing, in case you plan on saying I only cherry-picked the convenient parts to support my contentions:

I suspect the increase in volume that many people incorporate after a certain # of years is due to a lack of threshold load, and possibly due to years of sub-optimal training.

There's certainly reasons to incorporate more volume, such as optimising form, technique etc (especially relevant for 'dynamic' lifts such as Olympic lifts and things like high pulls, squats would be another one). But generally speaking, the volume most people use is far too high IMO, and the load too low.

SD will accommodate load reduction to a point, but you won't be making particularly (time) efficient gains if you keep needing to SD in order to move on forward using unnecessarily (relatively) light weights.

 

[Jester]

You are woefully misunderstanding what I have said ... but why spoil your peerless record?

 

[Jester]

The whole point of HST is that after SD each and every workout should be effective for growth, not only after you have reached highish 5's. So there's probably little point in avoiding to take SD at a proper time. One exception could be while a person is dieting, where all he needs is to provide sufficient stimulus to spare the contractile elements while his fat is melting away. There we may prolong 5's for as long as needed.

It should probably be noted that volume may also be relative, not only load. So after SD less volume feels enough to get the ball rolling. How soon it catches up with your progression, the way RBE does, I don't know.

a) Define "proper time"
b) I dare you to increase CSA working in your 15 rep-range exclusively. Here's your mini-cycle; 14 day SD, 2-weeks of 15, repeat. Now do the same for the 10s. And then try 14 day SD followed by 10s and 15s. This is part of the load range I am referring to.

Yeah, but you keep contradicting the fundamentals, without showing any solid ground to base your thoughts upon.
By reading your comments visitors may be left with the impression that only higher loads than you normally begin the cycle with are optimal for growth. In that were the case, HST wouldn't exist.

Here, I'm quoting the whole thing, in case you plan on saying I only cherry-picked the convenient parts to support my contentions:

c) Which "fundamentals" am I contradicting? My interest is sustainable, repeatable theory for muscle growth and the successful application of said theory. It is not in following vanilla-HST, nor dogmatically-presented "fundamentals" from any exercise regime or doctrine.

d) I am not advocating that you only use 3-1RM range. I am advocating that you use sufficient load stimulus. In my opinion, relative load stimulus the most important of the important(/threshold) factors with regard to muscle hypertrophy. Adding to that, I do not believe that 10RM and below is sufficient for the purpose of hypertrophy in any non-beginner trainee. The definition of 'beginner' is difficult to define and is probably best done so by taking their LBM and strength levels into account, rather than time training.

 

[HST_Rihad]

a) Define "proper time"

When load progress stops for say 2-3 weeks.

b) I dare you to increase CSA working in your 15 rep-range exclusively. Here's your mini-cycle; 14 day SD, 2-weeks of 15, repeat. Now do the same for the 10s. And then try 14 day SD followed by 10s and 15s. This is part of the load range I am referring to.

Those are different stimuli. 15's and 10's to some extent target sarcoplasmic hypertrophy more, this is the water content of your muscles, 5's etc target more fibrillar hypertrophy/hyperplasia of the protein structures themselves. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is more volatile in the sense that it's there for as long as higher rep work is present. It's the quickest to earn and lose. OTOH fibrillar hypertrophy doesn't come off that easily, and it doesn't come by easily either. It will surely disappear if you don't eat enough and train. But once again higher rep sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the first to come and go. So what you're proposing is enough to look "buffed" up to a point, at the expense of losing some of the contractile elements due to not using high enough loads, which 5's etc are all about.

It's good to combine the two approaches. Train heavy AND train higher rep after that on the same w/o.

c) Which "fundamentals" am I contradicting? My interest is sustainable, repeatable theory for muscle growth and the successful application of said theory. It is not in following vanilla-HST, nor dogmatically-presented "fundamentals" from any exercise regime or doctrine.

You're claiming that 15s or 10s don't have their merit (after sufficient SD). From what I've read in the HST FAQ people using HST should strive to decrease their minimum effective load to start a cycle after SD for the cycle to be most effective, not increase it.

d) I am not advocating that you only use 3-1RM range. I am advocating that you use sufficient load stimulus. In my opinion, relative load stimulus the most important of the important(/threshold) factors with regard to muscle hypertrophy. Adding to that, I do not believe that 10RM and below is sufficient for the purpose of hypertrophy in any non-beginner trainee. The definition of 'beginner' is difficult to define and is probably best done so by taking their LBM and strength levels into account, rather than time training.

I think you're underestimating the role of proper SD, which is to make your muscles sensitive to the stimulus of the 10s again. Add 15s before that to make 10s even more effective by the time you reach them.

 

[Jester]

No, that is not the definitive role of "proper SD". It is not designed with the 10s in mind. It's primary purpose is for the 5s and beyond, and many trainees report growth during the 2nd week of 10s.

SD's purpose is to potentiate hypertrophy, using a load stimulus that is no longer producing hypertrophy.

SD is about returning muscle to respond to lower loads (for obvious reasons, and no, nothing to do with injury).

 

[Old and Grey]

One or both of you must be talk show hosts or lawyers as you continually ask/answer questions in a way to support your personal view, sometimes both correctly and sometimes not. Why don't you do it via Private Message and, should you ever agree on anything, post it here as it surely will be gospel.

 

[HST_Rihad]

One or both of you must be talk show hosts or lawyers as you continually ask/answer questions in a way to support your personal view, sometimes both correctly and sometimes not. Why don't you do it via Private Message and, should you ever agree on anything, post it here as it surely will be gospel.

O&G, if I recall correctly, Mr. Alex is a lawyer.

Dropping to lower 5's (after SD) is definitely an option as long as it fulfils basic HST principles. It just shortens a mass gaining cycle by a couple weeks. Additional muscle deconditioning achieved by working 10s sometimes preceded by 15s in preparation for the 5s should in my opinion not be neglected. 15's and 10's is also an opportunity to work till failure, if so desired.

 

[Old and Grey]

Then you must be the talk show host.

 

[Jester]

O&G, if I recall correctly, Mr. Alex is a lawyer.

Dropping to lower 5's (after SD) is definitely an option as long as it fulfils basic HST principles. It just shortens a mass gaining cycle by a couple weeks. Additional muscle deconditioning achieved by working 10s sometimes preceded by 15s in preparation for the 5s should in my opinion not be neglected. 15's and 10's is also an opportunity to work till failure, if so desired.

And again ... you're just c&p'ing Bryan's contributions.


Find a voice of your own, and don't dogmatically believe that 15s and low (or even top-end) 10s will build mass in intermediate lifters. I realise this is not something you can test, because you're cutting down itsy bitsy size, but broaden your mind enough to question what you're reading on here, and then challenge it once you're done questioning.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Not really, my thoughts are based on a mix of thoughts presented by Bryan, Martin, Brad, Lyle, Venuto etc, of which 5% are my personal subjective ideas (the "salt" ). Yours seem to be too, but they're like 95% your personal thoughts (you're increasing minimum effective load instead of decreasing it). Which isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't contradict basic physiological stuff by a noticeable margin, to stay on the safe side of things

 

[Jester]

Not really, my thoughts are based on a mix of thoughts presented by Bryan, Martin, Brad, Lyle, Venuto etc, of which 5% are my personal subjective ideas (the "salt" ). Yours seem to be too, but they're like 95% your personal thoughts (you're increasing minimum effective load instead of decreasing it). Which isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't contradict basic physiological stuff by a noticeable margin, to stay on the safe side of things

"95%" my personal thoughts ... ? Woman, please ...

My conclusions are mostly based on Lyle's research and the essentially similar way I train and suggest training should be obvious. It's basically his bulking routine*** (higher reps added when bulking) with a difference - for myself, I prefer a higher-load (more effective), clusters-max stim-singles-rest pause techniques to pure set-rep matrices. The biggest difference I have with most of the proven authorities in the general field is the relevance of isolations (or rather, lack of relevance) with regard to hypertrophy.

I side with thermophysics and science with regard to diet and its implications, which is where you would differ from most regular posters.



You still have refuted, or discouraged the perception that the majority of your contentions are merely paraphrases of someone else. You haven't performed enough cycles in sufficient caloric surplus, or gained enough mass to legitimise your (copied) statements about the hypertophy that 15s and 10s may be able to produce.

You've proven to have a deficient understanding of physics and levers w/regard to partials, squats and BB Rows.


And yet your tone and content somehow infers you have something to provide in a form of education.


Please, by my guest and point out to me - explicitly - where I have contradicted "basic physiological stuff" ... ? I'm still amused that after the posts I spent instructing you (along with others) how to use hand incorporate high-rep 'burn' sets into your routine, that you're continuing to attempt lecturing me about them.




***I suppose you could say it's an adjusted cross between his take on specialisation and his bulking routine, with adjustments for load range, rep performance and 'cycle' length done in a reactive manner, ad-hoc rather than doctrinal.

 

[HST_Rihad]

What you're saying is your personal opinion, nothing else. Trying to eat at a surplus to gain fat shows lack of understanding of what muscle gains are all about. Being on a restricted calorie diet, I've added 3-4 cm to my chest circumference for the past month due to simply incorporating incline CGBP on top of my normal width incline bench, and VicNatural's DB rows on top of seated rows/pull-ups. Waist measurements continued to fall at their own pace.

And please don't get me started on the BB rows again. Yeah sure, traps are pulling the load, my ass This is so retarded... do you *really* think traps are "rowing" the load?.. By an inch, maybe.
Regarding partial squats & leg presses: I have actually been incorporating them with a full motion set done after, and the partials appeared to be playing a facilitative role in my full ROM strength gains, and thus more muscle strain.

 

[gbglifter]

This thread is regarding my choice of shoulder exercises for my A and B split.

Guys! You do realise that the very first sentence of this post explained what this post should be about? Dont get me wrong, it is very entertaining reading the back and forward bantering but its a bit off topic. Newbies etc are being distracted from what the post should be about. Start a new thread it could be called principles of muscle hyper trophy as per Alex as opposed to Rihad. The great debate.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Sorry, gbglifter, I'm pulling back. Interested parties are welcome to continue the debate in my log or in another thread.

 

[Jester]

Guys! You do realise that the very first sentence of this post explained what this post should be about? Dont get me wrong, it is very entertaining reading the back and forward bantering but its a bit off topic. Newbies etc are being distracted from what the post should be about. Start a new thread it could be called principles of muscle hyper trophy as per Alex as opposed to Rihad. The great debate.

Re: shoulder presses - I wouldn't be surprised if the more effective exercise is the machine, in this instance. As much I like DB presses, and Military Presses are a terrific power exercise (and you'd suspect hypertrophy), I think shoulder press machines are v.good for anterior delts.

Military Press and it's family of power lifts always seem to stack good shoulders on those who train that way, but that's a pretty dedicated style (check out Lol's log, for instance).

I mentioned this in Sci's log (although it isn't strictly related to the progression aspect), but I've found rack pulls to be pretty awesome for delts over the last 2 months. Impact on anterior is probably minimal and would be hard to separate (at best), but I think medial and posterior are bearing a significant portion of the strain in that exercise. Somewhat similar to an upright row with moderate or wide grip, or a high pull (I suppose) - less dynamic movement ofc.

 

[gbglifter]

I can agree regarding the anterior delts. I love sitting in the machine and just pressing hard, but I also love the military as it requires good core strength and is demanding on almost the entire body to hold good form. I feel Im getting the nest of both worlds by doing military once a week and machine press once a week.

I do like the rack pull. I am getting similar contact in both the deads and to some extent RDL, as long as proper form is maintained. You see a lot of people doing deads etc where they let the shoulders fall forward where they get stretched out, so to speak, instead of keeping them in place.

Back to the issue of pregression: Im treating both lifts as completely seperate lifts. Military progression on its own and machine press progression on its own. Ill see how this full cycle feels before I make any conclusions.