Question about the unchallenging weights used.

Nozza

New Member
Hi

Just read the HST article. Interesting to read something built from basic princples up.

The first question/doubt I have is this: For the start of the programme I am supposed to use my 15 rep max to work out the weight I will be using on workout #6. If this is say bench pressing 100lb then workout #1 will be 75lb. Clearly this will be unchallenging to a large degree.

So I will spend 2 weeks lifting very easy weights. Can existing theory be so wrong? Can you really gain much muscle lifting weights that are not challenging at all? I understand that progressive overload is the theory but surely the word "overload" means just that: that you load your muscle with as much as it can handle and then raise that.

HST sounds like progressive underload.

I also assume I will get a big strong over the 2 weeks and so even the 100lb will be on the easy side of things since my 15 rep max will have increased a tad.

If I approached my CV fitness like this I'd get nowhere. If I can run 5 miles in 20 mins I'd be setting a goal of 5 miles in 40 mins on run #1 and working my back up to what I can do anyway. That wouldn't really get me very far would it? Nature needs us to OVER load our systems surely?

Can someone explain why this is expected to work?

Thanks in advance

Nozza
 
Uv done it now kid.

I guarentee that someone comes on here and tells you the answers in the other threads + to read them. Ive made that mistake many times.

I know where ur coming from, Iv been bbing 4 years, but iv just started HST. Cant speak for the gains yet, but what I will say is that if your not used to 15s they do get harder as you get towards your max (the 1st week is a bit easy but aparently theres science to tell u this helps muscle growth?).
At the end of the 15s it does get harder, but its not like normal gym routines where say your chest would be nakerd all week, its more like a cardio sesh to me. But any workuout that has you doing you 15rep max on about 8 different compound movements is gona tire you out.!!!
 
You do need to overload your muscles to make them grow. The thing is after Strategic Deconditioning the weight needed to overload your muscles and cause hypertrophy, not develop strength, is much much lower than you'd expect. The idea of HST is to use the minimally effective load, and then the next workout you up the weight by just enough to overcome your body's adaptation to the previous load. The 15s also flood your body with lactic acid which helps strengthen connective tissues for the heavy lifting later in the cycle. This approach allows continual gains throughout the 8 week cycle.

As the other poster said, this is all answered in other threads and in the FAQ forum.
 
Yes I did read that. The idea being that by not working out for 9-12 days that your muscle unadapts and is ready for the new cycle. But that unadaption must be shortlived and for the majority of the 8 week cycle the muscles are adapted to the previous workout at least.

I guess what I'm asking is on what research specifically (I'm sure someone will have a reference) is the idea that progressive loading using loads well under the rep max is more effective than the usual advice of progressive loading which pushes the rep max upwards

It seems to me that as scientific as you try to be by piecing together various strains of research that it is impossible to be sure why any one training philosophy is actually working. It might be that HST's main reason for working is mostly the 3x a week low volume workout, or it might be lowering the set range, or the use of negatives. Is it not possible that you could do all these things and train with weights at your rep max every session and get better gains?

Just having people say it works isn't enough. Because every method of training from German volume to Superslow through Hardgainers to HIT works. Any method that has you regularly lifting weights, eating right and using heavier weights by end of your cycle relative (factoring in you your rep max) will work. They all have people who gain more using that method. What I'm trying to do is to evaluate each one as I come across it.
 
yep, after SD, repeated bout effect plummets, so you need less weight to see gains.

15 also help ligament, tendons and form. When doing the first week of 15s, always have perfect form, and slow down the exercise so the last rep of every set becomes very tough.

Remember that form when you do the 10s and 5s.

The 15s are more for preparing for the 10s and 5s and negatives, and it's at the 5s and negatives you'll see the most gains.

so no worries mate, read the faq, you'll miss gobs of info in there after the first read, so read it again.

This isn't about trying to grow faster or stronger, it's about growing bigger, so the running analogy isn't quite accurate.

and if you think about it as a neverending cycle, you can see how the SD and 15s help you recover from the overload you're doing from 10s, 5s and negatives, giving you breathing space to go over another higher hurdle next cycle, prepping the tendons, ligaments, perfecting the form, and lowering the RBE.

S.
 
Well as Ian said, now you've done it, just kidding ;) all I am going to do is post an excerpt from Bryan in the FAQ, this really sums it up well.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In order of importance:
1) Satellite cells must be activated, differentiated, and fuse with existing fibers, donating their nuclei.
2) Mechanical stress must be transmitted to the sarcolemma (mechanotransduction) and contractile protein structures within the sarcomeres. This will trigger focal adhesion kinases (FAK) that in turn initiate the downstream signaling events leading to an increase the contractile and cytoskeletal protein expression/synthesis.
3) pH and oxidative stress must be acutely increased within the muscle fiber.

Focusing just on the workout, this pretty much sums it up. If #1 doesn’t happen, you will not grow…ever. If number two doesn’t happen, you will grow a little, but you will soon reach the limits of the sarcoplasmic/nuclear ratio and growth will stop. If #3 doesn’t happen, you will still grow quite significantly, but the rate of growth might be enhanced or facilitated if #3 is achieved.

#1 is achieved when a certain level of microtrauma is experienced by the fibers. This is brought about by load, eccentric contractions, and to a much lesser extent, hypoxia (A.K.A. #3) When load, eccentric contractions and #3 occur, each fiber will produce and release muscle specific-IGF-1 (sometimes called mechano-growth factor) The IGF-1 in turn seeps out of leaky sarcolemmas and acts on nescient satellite cells to initiate #1. Microtrauma is rapidly reduced from workout to workout (Repeated bout effect) thereby limiting the effectiveness of any given load to induce further hypertrophy.

#2 is achieved by loading a muscle that is actively contracting.

#3 is achieved by contracting a muscle (doing reps) until you create an oxygen deficit and subsequent hypoxic byproducts (e.g. lactate and oxygen radicals).

The afore mentioned physiological principles of muscle growth are what we follow in order to ensure that 1,2 and 3 happen.

1 set is not necessarily "better" than 3 sets.

As far as muscle hypertrophy is concerned, high duration of load is best. The cellular signals that are initiated by strain on the structural and contractile proteins of the cell are increased as time under load increases. If it weren't for the involvement of fatigue in performing the actual reps and sets, you would be better off doing tons of sets and reps.

HST uses lower numbers of sets because the muscle is trained much more often. So, the muscle isn't actually loaded for less time, its just that the loading is more evenly spread out over time to keep the signal more constant. If there are any factors that allow a person to do more sets per workout, he/she should do them.

From what other research there is on the time course of genetic expression in response to overload, it is clear that we don’t even come close the amount of time needed to elicit the greatest hypertrophic effect. But what are you going to do? We have to lift the weight a lower it over and over in order to overload the muscle. From the overload research, I personally feel longer time under tension is better. But you have to balance that with CNS fatigue, and absolute load.

More sets with heavier weight is better than fewer sets with less weight. But there is a limit to our exercise tolerance. So you have to figure out a way to get as much loading of the muscle as you can, as often as you can, and still be able to constantly increase the load over time, without burning out or getting injured.

Keep in mind that HST does not dictate that the total volume (i.e. number of sets per body part) over the course of the week should be lower than what a person is accustomed to using with traditional routines. HST only advises that the volume be evenly distributed over more workouts in the same time period. So if you are used to doing 9 sets for back on "back day" using a traditional routine (e.g. training each body part once per week), HST would have you do 3 sets at a time for 3 different workouts.

Obviously, a guy who is used to doing something like 12 sets for back once per week, is not going to gain much by dropping to doing only 1 set for back even if it is 3 times per week. He went from 12 sets to 3 sets per week. Not only that, but HST would have him use submax weights most of the time where he is obviously plateaued and used to doing 100% max weights (Not true 100%, but 100% with the fatigue that inevitably accumulates by the 3rd set). This is just too great a reduction in training to provide him with significant gains. The key here of course is Strategic Deconditioning, that would then allow him to begin growing again, with less "average" weight and volume, but higher frequency.

Well, for me, 2 sets is enough on most bopdyparts. But then again, with body parts like back, I will usually do 3 sets at different angles of pull and grip widths.

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.

At first, you won't know how much is too much and how much is too little. So, start with 1 work set per body part per exercise, and work up from there.

Sometimes, you will find that you need to do more during the lighter workouts, and fewer sets during the heavier workouts. I hate to say this, but play it by ear, while you stick to the principles. You have to learn what it feels like. You have to actually experience growth from a series of workouts to be able to associate the specific feeling of "enough" work with subsequent growth.

This is a very good overall view but if there are more direct questions please ask.

As far as research, Bryan in the Article and the FAQ has pointed to many studies where he got the info. Feel free to review them and again if you have any questions please ask. There are a ton of people who can help you try and understand all this.

Good Luck and I hope you enjoy trying HST
thumbs-up.gif
 
All I can say nozza is why not give it a try, unless your a pro theres no reason why not too.

The way I look at it, if I do finish this 8 week cycle the worst that can happen is i lose a few pounds and then I can go back to my old ways and I will grow more as of the shock to he body!! (but actually because im doing a very balanced routine, my body will be more balanced)

I must admit I was a skeptic with this routine as iv trained for years using normal methods (ie what most people do) and this is so different. But at the end of the day the science looks good and whats the worst that could happen?
 
Thanks for the answers.

I'm not sure any of that really answers my key concern, which is uncertainty about hard evidence that progressive weight increase from say 75% of rep max to 100% of rep max is as effective as working to rep max and raising that max regularly.

The post below contains statements like "will find that you need to do more during the lighter workouts, and fewer sets during the heavier workouts. I hate to say this, but play it by ear". Surely this turns the original HST concept into little more than a long term pyramidised training cycle: ie you work to the max, raise the weights over time whilst lowering rep counts. An old periodised system that works as well as many.

It says: "More sets with heavier weight is better than fewer sets with less weight." That is generally accepted. That begs the question: then why use such light weights for all but one training session of each rep step of the system? Surely that is doing low sets with low weights. OK - I imagine the HST answer is "you are progressively loading the muscle so it doesn't matter". That is the nub of it. Which specific research backs that up? I like to review the actual research since much research is flawed by tiny sample groups etc etc.

I can see how upping load regularly over an 8 week cycle partly facilitated by lowering rep targets could be a good way to train. I can see how lower volume training at a higher frequency could be good.

What I can't see is real evidence that training at such low effort is optimum.

Out of interest re: Strategic Deconditioning - which research shows that 9-12 days of rest completely "deconditions" muscles to point where doing sub-max reps with small progressions is most effective? I'm sure this must be based on a study since the figures are quite specific.

Thx

N
 
nozza...you ask way too many questions. At one point you even say that "just having people say it works isn't enough". That's about as ridiculous a statement as there can be. People here have DONE THE ROUTINE...and seen results...what more do you need?

If you think there is a better way, then by all means, try that way...and post your results. But you've been presented with answers to your questions...and you keep circling back to the same questions. If the answers aren't good enough for you, then move on to a new routine :confused:
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I can see how upping load regularly over an 8 week cycle partly facilitated by lowering rep targets could be a good way to train. I can see how lower volume training at a higher frequency could be good.
Good
thumbs-up.gif

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What I can't see is real evidence that training at such low effort is optimum.
Out of interest re: Strategic Deconditioning - which research shows that 9-12 days of rest completely "deconditions" muscles to point where doing sub-max reps with small progressions is most effective? I'm sure this must be based on a study since the figures are quite specific.
No one ever said the tissue reverts back to a totally deconditioned state in 7 to 9 or even 14 days. What has been said is that this amount of rest does cause a reversal of some of the previous adaptation to training. So in all honesty you won't find what you are looking for.  
thumbs-up.gif


Now stick with me a minute, I think you agree that a progressive load system will grow muscle right?

Now what happens when using your routine and you are at your voluntary strength limit and you can no longer add progressive loads to keep going? Your growth stalls, right? now remember we are talking growth not strength. Strength can still increase but only marginally.

So there are numerous workouts where you do not add weight to the bar or increase the tension to the tissue and therefore do not cause trauma to the tissue. IE No Growth.
So we see that a progressive system based on load, not reps (we simply reduce them to get more weight on the bar) is better for inducing growth of muscle tissue but alas eventually we top out our strength and therefore what can we do?

SD, have you ever been ill and couldn't workout for 2 weeks and then when you hit the weights again you were very sore?
In other words the muscle tissue had reverted back to a previous conditioning state, not necessarily totally deconditioned, just less conditioned.

Combining these two methods we see how one can revert his conditioning and make lighter weights productive again, you with me on this? But again alas working out with this lighter weight is only beneficial for so long, what can we do?
Back around the horn again we go to progressively loading. We stagnant we add weight, we reach our strength limits, we SD, we then pick up the process all over again.

Studies, again there isn't any that I am aware of saying what percentage of your previous conditioned state you will acheive with so many days off. Sorry
sad.gif


Progressively loading, are their studies? Yes, but much of them are based on strength research not hypertrophy research, although there are some that are used, again I will be glad to send you them if you want.

RBE, yes there are plenty of studies on the Repeated Bout Effect, look at the bottom of the Articles that Bryan wrote and you will see them there. Or look in the FAQ. If you need a list of which to look for I will be glad to post em.

Tension studies, showing it is tension that produces growth not how hard you sweat, yes again see the bottom of the articles pages or go to the FAQ called "The Studies".
 
Anyone who says that the 2 weeks of 15s are "very easy" has obviously not gone through the routine yet. Go ahead and do it, the second week of 15s tear most people up. They're awesome, a great wake-up call for your muscles.
 
Gota disagree with you there micro.

Depends what your used to. If uv been training for years like myself and usually work one bodypart a day until u cant move, the 15s arent that special (especially the early days). I mean have you ever been sick after a day of 15s, cause i have after my old leg days.

Not slagging of HST, I realise its something different, but if someones been training like me or like in the Arnie days (ie loads and loads of heavy sets) 15s aint that hard
 
As long as people do not respect that hard is not = growth,hst-principles will never be unterstood.
 
Ian, I can definately see where this would be the case. But, let's look at something from a different perspective.

1. The 15's are used after a bout of deconditioning, meaning that by the time you hit the RM of the 15 it should be difficult to finsih all 15 reps, if it isn't then something is amiss in your planning.

2. The benefits in the 15's are not directly concerned with hypertrophy, although you can see some.

3. The secondary effect of lactate in the tendons is beneficial for tendon repair.

Even though hypertrophy is all our main aspiration, and the 15's aren't the biggest contributer to hypertrophy, they definately serve a purpose. As you go through a couple of cycles you will begin to realize their value in the grand scheme of things. BTW, you can skip the 15's if you wish but if you start feeling overuse soreness you might want to throw them back in every now and again.

Back to something I just noticed in Nozza's post. No HST is not periodization, nor is it pyramiding.
 
Despite all the bluster about "show me the science," I really don't think the atoms-and-molecules details even mean much to those who don't have a deep understanding of biochemistry--which would be most of us, I believe. ;) I don't mean to imply that none of us understand why HST works, because obviously many do!

I've been training for 18 years--always went as heavy as I could, as hard as I could, eating a good diet, etc. etc. etc. Still, my numbers and progress would stall for long periods at a time.
I just started HST a few weeks ago. Mid-way through the 10s, it seems a little too easy compared to what I used to do (too right, hannesburk). But there's also a quarter-inch on my left arm that wasn't there before, and lines in my delts that weren't there before, either.

So if backing off (especially in a cyclical fashion) can actually improve my results, hell yes, count me in!

Anyone who's skeptical about HST's effectiveness might want to scan the following thread describing peoples' results:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin....14;t=21
 
Gripstrength, you sound exactly the same as me. Im a natural skeptic (although my friends will say im just a moaner). Iv always trained similary to you and basically your opinion in that last post mirrors myn.

I would love to see your routine if possible? Although iv started myn im not 100% sure about it and would love to see someones ideas that had to go through similar changes (in routines)to me.
 
One last comment then I'll bow out.

A wise business man that I had as a mentor once asked me, after I left a position that stagnated and I couldn't get anymore growth from that position and was completely frustrated,

"Dan, do you know what is the best thing about banging your head against the wall?"

naturally I looked at him kind of crazy and said "UHHH No"

He said "When you get to stop"

The moral of the story is obviously if your banging your head against the wall because your muscle's aren't growing then STOP and rethink why they aren't growing.
 
Hey, thanks for all the replies guys. Very helpful.

I've not turned up to slag off something I've never even tried but I am a skeptic in all things. I always try to analyse and understand the underlying principles and look for causation etc. I have a good grounding in science and that's just the way my mind workds. That's why I made the bold statement that just having success stories isn't enough. The reason I say this is that most training systems work to a degree if they get people doing weights and eating right. Also people are notoriously bad at evaluating themselves. That's why there are a million and one crackpot diets and "2 minute abs miracles" out there with hoards of supporters who loudly proclaim their unique effectiveness.

When I said it was easy I was of course only predicting. I've not done HST. I currently train with a 3-way split over 3 days a week. 2 sets of 6 to max (won't always hit 6 on the 2nd set) after a warmup set. Maybe a drop set if I'm feeling energetic. So I'm doing 2 sets to my rep max. So it seems to me during the sessions where you work below your rep max will be easier than what I do now. Stands to reason?

I did train to concentric failure for a while but ended up being too tired all the time so I don't do that anymore. But it led me to review some training concepts and to this site.

I currently am able to up my weights every week whilst working to my max on most exercises and I'm gaining muscle at a fair rate IMO. So I'll stick with what works until it stops and then I may well try the HST system.

It all sounds good. I've been thinking about returning to a full body routine for a while anyway and I've been cycling rep ranges anyway. I drop my rep range by 1 every couple of weeks or so. The only part of the theory which didn't/doesn't make sense to me is the idea of progressive resistance by LOWERING the weights and then going back up. I'm not saying it doesn't work but I can't find much to say it does. If it didn't work then the whole HST cycle would still work anyway because you calculate your new rep max when you drop the rep range and seeing as you should have gained a bit of strength by merely training then you are effectively upping your relative load.

Out of interest, I'm wondering if the whole thing wouldn't work better if you calculated your weight drops and worked to the max - w/o#1 might see you doing 18reps at 75lb then #2 you might do 17 reps at 80lb until you do 15 reps at 100lb on the last w/o of that rep range? Has anyone tried that?

BTW, I'm with Gripstrength - if I can gain well by backing off and it hurts less then obviously I'm all for that.

Thanks again

N
 
Back
Top