I apologize for being "out" for a couple days.
1) Thank you navigator for presenting the principles and premises of HST so clearly. I could not have said anything better than what you offered above.
2) Bulldog: With respect to how much muscle a person can "ultimately" put on over the course of time, research would indicate that regardless of which method of training a person uses, if they do it long enough, with sufficient increases in weight loads, they will eventually end up at the same size plateau.
In other words, my efforts to make training more hypertrophy "specific" are intended to get you as big as you can become as quickly as possible. The overall scheme is focused on individuals that have already past the "beginner" phase of muscle growth.
Just to make clear, any method that adheres to the basic principles of muscle growth will get you to your genetic limits eventually. This is why there persists such difference of opinion as to which method is best, especially among those who are already knocking on the door of their genetic limits. They've all arrived there using a variety of methods over fairly long periods of time. Then to have someone say, "you can only get to where you are by this method" sounds ridiculous. They are living proof that any reasonable method will get you there eventually.
I have always said, focus on the principles. They are tried and true...and unchanging (at least until our genome changes). HST is a method based on these principles, designed for the reasonably experienced lifter, who is in it for the long haul. It will get you to your genetic limits as fast, if not faster, than any other method when applied properly. I know that sounds like a bold statement and even a bit presumptuous, but I have no scientific or anecdotal reason (yet) to believe otherwise.
3) Load vs Frequency: I am going to try to avoid using any but the most common terms to describe why HST is the way it is. The best weight load to use at any given time depends on condition of the muscle at the time. To little weight and there will be no “net” gain in protein mass. Too much load and there will also be no “net” gain in protein mass because of the disproportionate increase in protein breakdown and immune activity in the tissue (i.e. protein breakdown vs protein synthesis breaks even because of too much trauma to the muscle).
So we look for the sweet spot. Or at least we should be looking for the sweet spot. Unfortunately, in many instances people get so focused on lifting the heaviest weight they can and impressing other people around them, or trying to emulate the guys they see in magazines, that they overshoot the sweet spot. Will there still be growth? Yes. Will there be injuries? Inevitably. Will this approach work long term? No. Will it work long enough to get them to their genetic limit in one piece? Not likely (though there are some genetic freaks who never seem to get injured, they are RARE). Both Yates and Coleman’s careers were plagued with injuries because of the excessive poundages that they used.
So, anyone who says HST is not “high intensity” (i.e. involves heavy loads) has never used the method, or, they have misunderstood the requirement of any method to use heavy loads if growth is the goal. Now, if they are equating training to failure as “intensity” (as is most often the case) they are also saying the fatigue is the primary stimulus for muscle hypertrophy. I disagree. Marathon runners do not have huge legs nor do any other athletes who’s primary goal is to use fatigue as the primary training stimulus. Load and time under load is the primary stimulus in exercise induced muscle growth.
Now about frequency…The more “untrained” you are, the less frequently you have to train. This is because the training stimulus produces a robust and prolonged anabolic response. A heavily conditioned lifter, however, is in a different boat. That same training stimulus will cause only a slight and short lived increase in protein synthesis. (See Resistance training reduces the acute exercise-induced increase in muscle protein turnover. Am J Physiol. 1999 Jan;276(1 Pt 1):E118-24. & Resistance training alters the response of fed state mixed muscle protein synthesis in young men. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2008 Jan;294(1):R172-8.)
So the well conditioned lifter is faced with a choice, they must either lifter heavier and heavier weight, or they must lift more frequently to scrape out a cumulative effect of the reduced anabolic response. Though the upside of heavier and heavier weights is obvious, the self limiting nature of voluntary weight increases is not immediately obvious. The downside is only seen with real world experience. Fibrous tissue formation, injury, and CNS fatigue are the disadvantages of “always heavy-as-possible” lifting strategies.
Increasing frequency also has its upside and downside. The upside is that by increasing frequency you are now able to keep the tissue in an anabolic state more consistently. The downside is that due to limitations of the CNS, you cannot lift “as-heavy-as-possible” all the time.
So what do we do? I have attempted, with HST, to offer a reasonable compromise between progressive loading and increased frequency. The goal is always to increase the demands on the tissue as far as load is concerned. The weight MUST get heavier over time. HST, however, attempts to hit the sweet spot rather than the heaviest spot possible. And as anyone who has done both will admit, they really are two different spots a lot of the time.
As for frequency, HST suggests that most of the time, a muscle can be trained 3 times in a 7 day period while using a load in the sweet spot. As some of you have found, towards the end of a cycle, when the loads get very heavy, a twice/week lifting schedule is not detrimental, and depending on the |absolute| loads used, may be the best option to squeeze out a bit more progress from the cycle.
Finally, Joe.Muscle has legitimate questions about volume. He wants someone to tell him what the right amount of volume is to get the best outcome. Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer. You must do “enough” to grow. Do too little, and the anabolic stimulus of the workout will be too small to result in any net growth. Do too much and you cut into your gains due to catabolic activity after the workout, or you get into a 2 steps forward, 2 steps back scenario because of how much time you must take to recover between workouts. It just becomes too difficult to keep the tissue anabolic when not using testosterone or eating prodigious amounts of food.
Ok, I think this post is already far too long for most of us short-attention-span folks.
-bryan
