Strategic Deconditioning

<div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I went over to Lyle's forum and read it for about a week. I saw familiar names such as Tot, Sci and Aaron. What I didn't like was the amount of disrespect and trash that was thrown around. There was even a section for pornography. This is why I love this forum so much. The content is clean, and the members are forced to speak clean. This is why there was such an uproar over Martin Levac. His banter and offensive words would be the usual at a forum like Lyle's.</div>
That's why (at least I assume) he started the 2nd one. It's a &quot;kinder and gentler&quot; forum that he can point people to for support.

Both are useful, but not everyone will like the old, wild one.

Very interesting discussion here. I haven't been on the forum here in a while and am enjoying it. One thing that occurs to me is that for those who do the traditional 1 body part per week split they may be getting an SD-like effect. So they get a less frequent stimulus, but perhaps a stronger one due to the volume, plus a stronger response due to being deconditioned for a week. I know that some will argue that only drug users benefit from that, etc, but I know guys who do well with it.

I'm not arguing for its superiority, just looking for a way to explain why different combinations of frequency, load, volume, etc can be successful for people. It seems to be highly individual, but I've seen people do well with a lot of different systems.

That doesn't mean that everyone will do equally well with any system, but if we really want to understand how this stuff works we have to account for all the data points with our theory.
 
The correct answer to ANY question on body building is ALWAYS the same:

Maybe Yes
Maybe No

What changes are the vast multiples of variables that need to be inputted to come up with an answer that MAY be appropriate for you (or perhaps not).
 
Bryan,

I would like to see your opinon on sets and reps for HST.

Im just wondering if you believe 1 to 2 sets is really still enough.

I know I have never Mentally been able to handle doing just 1 or 2 sets...and I know that some research has showed that 50 to 100 reps a week is ideal for hypertrophy.

Thanks,

Joe.
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ May 12 2008,1:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan,

I would like to see your opinon on sets and reps for HST.

Im just wondering if you believe 1 to 2 sets is really still enough.

I know I have never Mentally been able to handle doing just 1 or 2 sets...and I know that some research has showed that 50 to 100 reps a week is ideal for hypertrophy.

Thanks,

Joe.</div>
He's already answered this question....answer: It depends on the person's conditioning.

More conditioning: more sets.

Less conditioning: less sets.
 
Maybe Yes.

Maybe No.

Bodybuilding is easy.
laugh.gif
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 12 2008,3:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ May 12 2008,1:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan,

I would like to see your opinon on sets and reps for HST.

Im just wondering if you believe 1 to 2 sets is really still enough.

I know I have never Mentally been able to handle doing just 1 or 2 sets...and I know that some research has showed that 50 to 100 reps a week is ideal for hypertrophy.

Thanks,

Joe.</div>
He's already answered this question....answer: It depends on the person's conditioning.

More conditioning: more sets.

Less conditioning: less sets.</div>
Those studies were on untrained people I believe.

I would like a more real world study for say the majority of the posters here at (hst) in other words the regulars.

I ask this only b/c of the controversy around 1 to 2 sets that I have learned from lyles board.
 
Joe, once you are past a few years of regular training I think you really have to figure it out for yourself. You know the variables you can tweak. You know that progressive load is important. You know that too much volume will be overly fatiguing and that it will affect frequency too. Too little volume and your level of conditioning may not produce much of a response even if the frequency is higher. I think this is where logging results, workouts and diet over time, along with a bit of analysis, can be so useful.

I'm pretty certain that for most newbie trainees, 1 or 2 sets can produce great results for at least a few cycles. However, if you have been regularly training for multiple years (like yourself) 1 or 2 sets is not likely to be enough, particularly at the heavy, low rep phase of a cycle.

At the end of the day, if you want to grow larger muscles it's about adding weight to the bar over time and by continuing to strain the muscle tissue enough to trigger a PS response whilst giving your body enough rest and nutrients to lay down new tissue and to aid CNS recovery. And then there's the hormonal side of things which is going to limit progress at some point.

What's the controversy over on Lyle's board?
 
<div>
(Lol @ May 12 2008,10:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Joe, once you are past a few years of regular training I think you really have to figure it out for yourself. You know the variables you can tweak. You know that progressive load is important. You know that too much volume will be overly fatiguing and that it will affect frequency too. Too little volume and your level of conditioning may not produce much of a response even if the frequency is higher. I think this is where logging results, workouts and diet over time, along with a bit of analysis, can be so useful.

I'm pretty certain that for most newbie trainees, 1 or 2 sets can produce great results for at least a few cycles. However, if you have been regularly training for multiple years (like yourself) 1 or 2 sets is not likely to be enough, particularly at the heavy, low rep phase of a cycle.

At the end of the day, if you want to grow larger muscles it's about adding weight to the bar over time and by continuing to strain the muscle tissue enough to trigger a PS response whilst giving your body enough rest and nutrients to lay down new tissue and to aid CNS recovery. And then there's the hormonal side of things which is going to limit progress at some point.

What's the controversy over on Lyle's board?</div>
Lol,

I gotya...I am not interested in the set / rep for me like I said I am more interested to see if Bryan has changed his way of thinking from when hst orginally was set up.

Again all of this was based on science and as he has said in the beginning it all could change.

This is were this thread came from b/c a lot of people dont believe in SD or the effect it has on RBE...etc. Some of those people without putting words in there mouth are over at Lyles board.

Lyle opinion as you know if very much respected and educated and he has said more than once that he thought SD especially in the 2 week time frame was just STUPID with regard to RBE...etc.

Again I don't want to put words in there mouth but if you go over there and research and read for a while you can learn quickly what the LIKE and dislike about certain aspects of HST.

I don't say this to say they are knocking HST they are just scientifically challenging it (which I think is a good thing at times.)

The reason I ask what Bryan opinion is of HST on volume, reps, sets...is b/c again something that I have learned from my lifting days ( no science ) is that it works and works real good.

This is also something that I have learned from Lyles as well...if you take a look at his bulking program and others they are pretty tough programs in the LOAD,WORK,VOLUME....areas.

The reason from what I can gather from the readings overthere is b/c as Lyle as said time and time again if you want bigger pecs and arms...train your pecs and arms a lot more.

Its kind of like the guy in the squat rack always doing curls...(he gets on our nerves) but his arms are impressive.

So I say all of that not for my learning ( I know)...but to see if Bryan still thinks the 1 to 2 set recommendation works.

I don't doubt it does work...I just don't think it works long.

See the thing about HST that I have learned is when you get down to the HARD part of training in the program in can at times almost convert to and upper / lower program.

In other words as bryan said when the weights really get heavy during the program you may want to go with more sets and volume and less frequency.

Well a lot of us ( myself included) know this from researching and knowledge.

This again is were my question comes from if we think SD doesn't work then why not pick a Lyles Bulking routine and start off with heavier weights more volume and less frequency...I mean in the end thats were potentially HST is getting you?

I think that is why guys like Sci...have made great gains but have done it not by sticking to the protocals set in stone.

Basically Sci (correct me if I am wrong Sci-muscle) has adopted a routine with less frequency always heavy loads and increase load when he can and has great results.

Im rabbling now so I hopet this makes sense!
biggrin.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I gotya...I am not interested in the set / rep for me like I said I am more interested to see if Bryan has changed his way of thinking from when hst orginally was set up.</div>
bryan has never set up a routine as such,its pricipals,the vanilla routine on the main page is just an example.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lyle opinion as you know if very much respected and educated and he has said more than once that he thought SD especially in the 2 week time frame was just STUPID with regard to RBE...etc.</div>
again 2wks was an example ,bryan himself said it can take longer.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The reason from what I can gather from the readings overthere is b/c as Lyle as said time and time again if you want bigger pecs and arms...train your pecs and arms a lot more.</div>
wouldnt that count as frequency in HST.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So I say all of that not for my learning ( I know)...but to see if Bryan still thinks the 1 to 2 set recommendation works.</div>
he only recomends that for newbies,and has said on many occasions if you need more do more,as he does himself.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This again is were my question comes from if we think SD doesn't work then why not pick a Lyles Bulking routine and start off with heavier weights more volume and less frequency...I mean in the end thats were potentially HST is getting you?</div>
whats to stop you starting with 90% of your rms on HST .

people seem to think that HST is a routine thats on the front page of this site it isnt thats just an example of how to use HST,there are many other ways besides that mate.
cool.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Of course...of course...but how there is still a majority routine for the masses.

You can't in my opinion so that you are increasing loads therefor you are doing hst.

Thats not the point.

The point is that hst recommends 3 times a week training frequency submaximal loads ...SD...yadda yadda.

If you train 3 times a week you have to check your volume and intensity.

My point was as you start to learn more and more about hypertrophy you start to see IMO that work and volume tends to be more important that frequency.

At least thats my opinon and I dont see any research pointing to that 3 time a week is better.

I like 3 times a week for life reason.

I like low volume for life reason.

I get the principals of HST...( I think...maybe in 4 more years I will for sure
biggrin.gif
)

But my point is it would be nice for Bryan to expand a little not a lot.

I know you can do 6 days a week upper lower and etc...
 
Also to add:

I think I have always been labled the HIGH VOLUME guy.

But IMO my recent workouts in the past 2 years are not that at all.

You be the judge

Chest 24 to 48 reps depeding on load.
Back 24 to 48 reps depending on load.
Shoulders 12 to 20 reps depending on load
1 set for biceps
1 set for triceps
Leg press or squats 24 to 50 reps depending on load.

Twice a week training 80% of the time...sometimes I get in 3 times a week.

Workout takes about 30 mins.
 
if you want more work and volume just work closer to your maxes,ie instead of starting at 75% start at 90%

HST has fatigue managment built in most others dont,you need to go by how you feel,i have done bodypart splits,hit,and most other routines but if you want to lift regular and for a long time i would recomend HST.
 
Faz...I got ya brother you dont have to sell me on the idea...Im sold.

I am just saying for some of us...I would like Bryan to elaborate more of an Advanced HST for some of the veterans.

And answer a little bit more than 6 times a week for upper lower.

Again all I am saying is as you become more advanced you have to continue to add weight to the bar.

At some point you cant add but so much to the bar at which time you still need to try to do more WORK.

Maybe in the form of more volume less frequency or more metabolic work...etc.

Saying all of that I think for some of us who don't like to lift submaximally or our careers and life don't work according to HST rigid scheme of submax loads there are better options that trying to start and stop and Hst routine.

Those options are in the form of a routine like Lyles, or LCars or something along the lines of Sci-muscle routine.

Again Im getting off topic...but what I was trying to say ( i think) is from my understanding of RBE, SD, HST, etc...as you become more and more advance I think two times a week frequency done NOT...HST but with INCREASEING load tends to be were all good routines end up going.

I still don't understand why everyone keeps saying well im increasing load...therefor I am doing HST...no you are not.

You are using and HST principal...which was discovered many moons ago...but you can say you are doing HST just b/c you routine is calling for increasing load.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 12 2008,11:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Shut up and lift.</div>
I cant im too much of a panzy!

tounge.gif
 
Train heavy all the time if you want, just realize that you'll have to drop frequency.

That is essentially what l, lcars and some others are doing. I like more &quot;HITish&quot; routines. High-intensity, low volume, medium frequency. Kind of like DC training, people say its more geared towards 'strength' but many guys also get big doing it! Imagine that!

In the end, just follow the basic principles and tweak your training for you.
Like Lol said, keeping training journals and looking over them can be an eye-opener to see what has worked the best for you in the past.
 
This isn't about me though.

I think that for one if you are truely training 3 times a week you have to keep volume low and submaximal.

But for others like myself who as of lately tend to miss workouts it a Normal hst routine becomes hell and havak to follow.

Not only that but I think submaximal without the frequency can hurt your gains.

So the solution in my mind (within reason) is to make up for frequency with load,volume,work.

So my question again to Bryan was does he agree with the research of saying 50 to 100 reps a week tend to yield great results.

The 1 to 2 sets protocal would not belong in the above statement..it couldn't under best case scenario.

So for season lifters my guess is Bryan would maybe agree with the total work per week idea?

But Im not sure which is why I raised the question.

Its actually a good question IMO..b/c they have discussed this over at Lyles...and it makes great sense from the standpoint it give you a blue print to go off of in terms of weekly volume / work with whatever loads you are using.

So for example what we discussed over at lyles was in the form of SETS per week.

Some of us agreed that the old Bodybuilding mags were somewhat on to something with there recommendation of 12 sets a week for large muscle (pec,back,legs)

So depending upon your frequency and of course load...I would agree that is a pretty good way of looking at it.

I would actually say 9 to 12 sets a week would be ideal.

Here at hst we don't look at sets we look at more weekly reps.

But for the sake an argument we will look at my SETS example above.

If you agree that 12 sets a week yield results then its just a matter of how you get there.

HST 3 times a week at 4 sets = 12 sets weekly
upper / lower Lyles bulking routine calls for 4 to 6 sets twice a week.

So my point behind this was I think Lyle tends to lean more toward this viewpoint and I was wondering if Bryan still leans toward minimumal sets.

Thats all.....im off to do steroids now!
laugh.gif
 
One thing to keep in mind is that an objective of HST is to create an &quot;environment of chronic, increasing tension.&quot; We start off with submaximal weights and then attempt to ride this wave of increasing weights as far as we can until the weights are just too heavy to lift anymore (at which point, we do negatives). We create the &quot;chronic environment of tension&quot; by lifting frequently. As is mentioned above, the increased frequency necessitates a drop in volume per session, but not necessarily in total weekly volume (due to increased frequency). Once we have become adapted to the heavy weights, we SD to reduce our conditioning to even the lighter loads of the 15s. I know this has all been said thousands of times before on this board, but it's worth saying at least one more time.

So is 1 or 2 sets enough tension? Well, that's where &quot;relative tension&quot; come into play. After a good SD, a single set of 15s at 70% of the 15RM weight, is seriously more tension than the muscles are used to when viewed relative to the tension experienced during the SD. Even though such a weight &quot;feels&quot; rediculously easy, after SD the muscles have less conditioned resistance to the load, and therefore a PS response is going to occur.

So here's the thing: you can take on a bit too little volume, and maybe you won't grow as quickly as you think you could, or you can take on too much volume and you'll nose-dive and it'll be GAME OVER. Of course, there's a sweet spot in between too much and too little, but as Bryan has pointed out many times, this sweet spot moves around depending on many other factors. It's actually a fat lot easier to stay close to the sweet spot by erring on the side of a bit too little volume; I think you'll stay more anabolic more often, as well. I hope that Bryan will weigh in on this thread, but I've had plenty experience with the &quot;too much volume&quot; choice, and I don't think I've gained all that much more for my efforts. Actually, I think too much volume too frequently can send you so catabolic that you won't gain jack! This may be one reason why many claim not much strength increases with HST--they're just taking on too much volume too fequently due to impatience and fear of not growing, and the body can't keep up throughout the cycle.

One other thing, muscle growth is not to my knowledge an ON/OFF type of response, like a light switch. If this were the case, then doing, say, 2 sets of squats might cause ZERO growth, but doing 3 sets would cause me to grow like a weed. I doubt it. I think muscle growth is more like getting a sun tan; 5 minutes every day for a long time will likely give you a good tan, 10 minutes every day might give you the same tan more quickly, and 15 minutes might roast you and cause your tan to peel off within days (bummer).

Okay, just some of my thoughts...
 
Great analogy with the sun tan I like that!

Yeah I know there is no one size fits all and the answer is always it depends (BS) but I would be nice to see Bryan way in on some real world results.

Everyone always jumps the band wagon saying but there is no one size fits all..thats complete Bull crap IMO.

Of course at the end of the day it depends per person...but many many...gurus right programs for the masses and they are effective.

So it would be nice to see Bryan say...ok after the beginner stage of weight training here are some variables to look at for the more advance Hster's.

Some of those variables we all know but still good to see reasurance.

Like sets / reps / volume and the ability that LOAD and TUT plays in the recommendation of all the above.

Its not going to change my training routine....but it is interesting to see what Lyle,Waterbury,Cosgrove,Westside,Dan Moore..etc all layout for people.

I have saved in my notes what Bryan routine looks like during the 10's and it was pretty high on the volume side as far as reps go.

So I would like to see him way in on these issues thats all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top