Strength and Endurance still matter

Peak_Power

New Member
We can all pretty much agree that hypertrophy is caused by "workload", that is work done with a particular load, and within certain limits, the more work done and the more load, the more hypertrophy is stimulated (with load being more important, according to Bryan's research).

So in order to do lots of work with heavy loads, you need to be strong and have good muscular endurance. Of course you can also take advantage of fatigue management techniques like max-stim (though Dan will point out that max-stim is more than just a fatigue management tool
tounge.gif
). It lessons the need to have continuous muscle endurance with heavy loads, because you put the weight down after each rep, and allows you to repeatedly do more work with more load.

The point is though that working on strength and endurance in terms of hypertrophy is a means to an end, if your goal is hypertrophy, you can do endurance and strength work and not get any real gains in muscle mass, because you're working the mitocondria and nervous system, and the fuel delivery systems of the body, but the gains you make will make you able to do more total workload: more work with a heavier load, and therefore able to stimulate more growth. This becomes a lot more imporant the closer you get to your genetic potential, because you want to stimulate every last bit of hypertrophy you can, and every ounce of endurance and strength will help with that. As arnie says, it might come down to that one extra rep you do (when you're that close to your genetic potentional).

The great thing is HST takes advantage of this, the 15s work endurance, especially if you do 2 sets of 15 (its killer, I've tried it), the 10s are a nice balance, and the 5s focus mainly on strength. That's why if you're only ever going to do one weights program for the rest of your life, it should be HST. It has everything.

But...if you've been doing HST or maxstim for a long time, you might want to do something a bit different, like Rippetoe or GVM, or something that spefically focuses on an area you want to work on, whether its strict strength, endurance, or overall workload for growth.

The point is though whatever program you do, make sure its specifc for what you want to improve. For instance, someone might critisise GVM as a "bad program", but there's nothing bad about it, just that its not specific to hypertrophy (because the weights are too light), and that people say its good for growth, when strength based, heavy weight programs are generally better for growth than high volume light weight programs, because as Bryan says, load is the most important thing. But at the end of the day its how much work you do with that load, which comes down to how much work you CAN do, that matters.
 
I feel entirely the same way, if you had to do only one workout for the rest of time - HST would be the one for sure. Strength programs alternated with HST seem to be the ideal tho - with HST being the "constant" and the strength programs being alternated , both to prevent boredom and also to take advantage of the fact that there is just so 0any great strength routines.

I like waterbury method, 10x3 is good for a short burst (4 weeks or so), Blood and guts (good for 6 weeks or so),percentage training always does good things for me ,and of course this years flavor of the times- the 5x5, (it's popularity frankly amazes me - and I attribute that to the fact that people just aren't giving the 10x3 a shot), nothing against it tho...


HST is obviously a hypertrophy based routine and it delivers on that account, in my own experience tho the strength gains are piddly compared to a solid strength program and the strength loss during sd although a neat trick for growth, becomes more of a factor the closer one gets to thier genetic potential and the more one cares about optimal strength gains.


I suspect at some point the whole SD thing may be re-visited , perhaps even changed to a more conventional de-load or something. The longer I practice HST the more apparent that the SD may be modified/re-thought becomes.It works but perhaps some fine tuning would make it work better with less strength loss.
smile.gif
 
Greetings,

With regards to strength, it is my understanding that HST can be done with heavy weights, it's just a matter of weight and rep range. Furthermore, one could do max-stim+HST+heavy. M-time from MS, load progression from HST, heavy from itself. Start at any rep range and weight range you want, progress from there. Since it's done with m-time, it can be done with much heavier weights and/or for many more repetitions with the same weights, etc.

It is also my understanding that the muscle responds to a change in weight both up and down. So, one could simply seesaw heavy weights for a few with emphasis on upward load progression. For example, one could begin at 250 and add 10lbs for three workouts then reset back down to 250 (or 255 if you prefer to seesaw two ways) and continue to add 10lbs, etc. The progression is there, it's just a very short cycle within the megacycle. And since it's done with heavy weights, adaptation and subsequent resistance to stimuli takes more time to set in so even the tiniest progression or a repetitive progression is effective.

Peak_power, I disagree with your statement about the cause of hypertrophy. It is not workload that is the cause, it's the load, period. Furthermore, the muscle does not need to work for hypertrophy to occur but it does need to be loaded. Every time I write this I feel like I'm lying.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 03 2007,18:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Peak_power, I disagree with your statement about the cause of hypertrophy. It is not workload that is the cause, it's the load, period. Furthermore, the muscle does not need to work for hypertrophy to occur but it does need to be loaded. Every time I write this I feel like I'm lying.</div>
Martin, have you read this?

Work
 
Well, you are both right. Muscle tissue strain seems to be the stimulus for hypertrophy. Load is what we use to cause strain, and workload is what we use to make sure the VOLUME of strain is enough to induce a decent response.
They are interrelated measurements anyway, you can't have one without the other.
SD is supposed to help decondition the muscle, so it is less 'tough' and more susceptible to strain. But I agree with Russ, the whole practice and theory of it needs to be revisited with more studies.
 
Im not really that sold on SD....I wish Bryan would update us on his thoughts on this.

Yeah you get sore after an SD...but what does that really prove???

Hell I can sweep the floor all day .....or due side raises all day with soup can and be sore.

I like the Idea of SD and I agree with it for overall joint health...mental attitude...taking a break...etc.....but I am not so sure 1 week 2 weeks or even 3 weeks is enough?

But I still do SD b/c it makes me hungrier and look forward to the gym!

I think that is one thing that goes overlooked.

There is something to be said about being Mentally fresh to lift the iron...after taking a break...you feel the urge to lift heavy sh-it!
 
Ya if load was the only thing that was important, and work wasn't, we could do just 1 rep of our 1RM (the heaviest load we can lift), and that'd be that. Why stuff around with pidly 5RM and 10RM loads? Why not just hold the weight above our heads and hold it there? You have to do work with the load to produce mechanical strain.

I know Dan Moore is very critical of SD, because he says that 2 weeks wouldn't do much at all, in order to SD long enough for it to be effective, you'd lose too much strength and mass for it to be worth it.

The way you guys have responded it shows that the focus of most lifters is strength and mass, and one of the things I wanted to draw people's attention to is that endurance is important too, as we can see from max-stim, it was created to negate the need for continuous muscular endurance, but even with m-time we don't recover totally, so endurance is still an important factor in being able to do enough work with a load, and should be talked about more.

Really, unless you're talking about your true 1RM, you're always talking about strength-endurance (the weight you can lift for 5reps or 10 reps continuously, etc)
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ May 03 2007,20:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Im not really that sold on SD....I wish Bryan would update us on his thoughts on this.</div>
Bryan did discuss it recently in this thread. I don't know that he or anyone can say more right now until an appropriate study is done.

<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 03 2007,20:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Well, you are both right. Muscle tissue strain seems to be the stimulus for hypertrophy. Load is what we use to cause strain, and workload is what we use to make sure the VOLUME of strain is enough to induce a decent response.
They are interrelated measurements anyway, you can't have one without the other.
SD is supposed to help decondition the muscle, so it is less 'tough' and more susceptible to strain. But I agree with Russ, the whole practice and theory of it needs to be revisited with more studies.
</div>
I think this post is pretty much spot on, but would make one addition. Dan seems to believe in a metabolic turnover (ATP turnover at least in part, I think) component to the stimulus for muscle growth, so it's not only strain. The strain seems to be agreed upon as the most important factor, though. I've got a couple of bucks in my wallet that I'll kick in to help fund those studies that we need, but I think it may take more than that.

<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 03 2007,20:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Shut up and lift...or go run a marathon.</div>
Somebody tell Carl that Aaron has hacked into his account.
tounge.gif
 
<div>
(Lol @ May 03 2007,18:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 03 2007,18:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Peak_power, I disagree with your statement about the cause of hypertrophy. It is not workload that is the cause, it's the load, period. Furthermore, the muscle does not need to work for hypertrophy to occur but it does need to be loaded. Every time I write this I feel like I'm lying.</div>
Martin, have you read this?

Work</div>
No, (to be honest, I don't know since to view the link requires registration and login) but I did read this:

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....t=10493

Amongst other interesting articles.

About endurance. I'd like to know of one activity that requires one to repeat the movement under continuous load except during training. Otherwise, M-S looks more like regular activities than any other rep scheme.

It seems to me that in order to improve one's endurance, one must work to the limit of endurance and beyond for the body to adapt to the stress and either become resistant to the stimuli or improve.

Endurance, in my opinion, is also a function of fuel capacity and consumption. For example, one could train to exhaustion to increase his fuel capacity, replenishement rate and consumption efficiency. From what I understand of anabolism and catabolism, it would not lead to hypertrophy but it certainly will lead to greater endurance.

Anyway, according to the specificity principle, in order to improve on anything, one must train in that thing and nothing else. For instance, M-S trains to lift the same weight multiple times with rest in between reps while conventional method trains to lift the same weight multiple times under continuous load. One would lead to greater strength and endurance at lifting the same weight multiple times with rest in between while the other would lead to strength and endurance at lifting the same weight multiple times under continuous load.
 
<div>
(RUSS @ May 03 2007,09:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> I like waterbury method, 10x3 is good for a short burst (4 weeks or so), Blood and guts (good for 6 weeks or so),percentage training always does good things for me ,and of course this years flavor of the times- the 5x5, (it's popularity frankly amazes me - and I attribute that to the fact that people just aren't giving the 10x3 a shot), nothing against it tho...


         </div>
I love 10 x 3 and when the biking season is over I will pretty much do it exclusively.

Last year I did pretty much 90% of the time 5 x 5 and after reevaluating my goals, 5 x 5 is too &quot;Strong man/ Football&quot; for me.

In hindsight, my body felt much better with 10 x 3 as compared to both 5x5 and HST.
 
<div>
(Lol @ May 03 2007,23:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Blimey, those chemicals have kicked in!  
biggrin.gif
</div>
Lol, Lol!
 
<div>
(Peak_Power @ May 03 2007,21:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
Well let me dispell some myths of what I am supposedly critical of. No, I'm not critical of SD at all in fact I find it quite true. What I question is, how long should it be done for? and when should it be done? There is a difference.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">max-stim, it was created to negate the need for continuous muscular endurance, but even with m-time we don't recover totally, so endurance is still an important factor in being able to do enough work with a load, and should be talked about more.</div> Very good point.

Martin wrote <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anyway, according to the specificity principle, in order to improve on anything, one must train in that thing and nothing else. For instance, M-S trains to lift the same weight multiple times with rest in between reps while conventional method trains to lift the same weight multiple times under continuous load. One would lead to greater strength and endurance at lifting the same weight multiple times with rest in between while the other would lead to strength and endurance at lifting the same weight multiple times under continuous load.</div>Yes, the specificity of skill training is true no doubt and what you are saying makes perfect sense. But on the other hand and when looking at energetics of muscle tissue during contraction which would actually utilize more energy and hence train the energy systems as well? Continuous reps or intermittent?

I have quoted this particular study umpteen times now because I think it really delivers on how we can view this but also because it's an in vivo &quot;real world&quot; look at what we can do and how it may change or views on what we can do and how we should do it.

Anyway it the Denton et al paper and here are some highlights.

J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Aug;20(3):528-34.

Kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate profiles of continuous and intraset rest loading schemes.

Denton J, Cronin JB.

New Zealand Institute of Sport and Recreation Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Denton, J., and J. B. Cronin, Kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate profiles of continuous and intraset rest loading schemes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(3): 528-534. 2006.-The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the acute kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate responses to continuous and intraset rest loading schemes that differed in terms of rest frequency but not total rest duration. Nine male subjects performed an isoinertial bench press task (6 repetition maximum load) with a continuous, an intraset rest equated by total rest time, volume, and load (ISRV), and an intraset rest equated by total rest time and load (ISRR) loading scheme. The scheme order was assigned in a block-randomized order with a minimum of 48 hours of recovery between testing sessions. Attached to the bar of the Smith machine was a linear position transducer that measured vertical displacement with an accuracy of 0.01 cm. Displacement data was sampled at 1,000 Hz and collected by a laptop computer running custom-built data acquisition software. Finger prick blood lactate samples were taken from the nondominant hand before exercise, immediately after exercise, and 5, 15 and 30 minutes after exercise. Blood glucose samples were taken before exercise only. It was observed that manipulating the rest period, by increasing the frequency but decreasing the length of each rest period, did not significantly influence the kinematics and kinetics associated with resistance training, but did have an effect on the postexercise blood lactate response when the load, rest duration, and training volume were equated (ISRV). This finding may be of practical significance if fatigue is important in strength development or conversely if power training requires minimal fatigue. It was also observed that increasing the frequency of the rest period enabled the subjects to perform a greater number of repetitions (ISRR), resulting in significantly greater kinematics, kinetics, and blood lactate accumulation.

2_r_1.jpg


2_Tbl3_1.jpg


2_fig3_1.jpg
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ May 04 2007,13:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Peak_Power @ May 03 2007,21:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
Well let me dispell some myths of what I am supposedly critical of. No, I'm not critical of SD at all in fact I find it quite true. What I question is, how long should it be done for? and when should it be done? There is a difference.

</div>
If one is not a professional athlete, SD should be done until the body says it is enough. No paper, statistics or theory is needed.  If one is not suffering from the clinically diagnosable and the real physiological effects of overtraining, SD is not needed.

If one is a professional, then the bank account determines the SD.  In my observations and talking with non-professional athletes, I conclude the main reason for what some may claim as the need for SD, is simply BAD training with incorrect form and protocol.

As far as rest between sets is concerned and in a CNS fatigue-free state, one needs only to wait long enough for ATP/CRP regeneration. I am not convinced it is possible to set up guidelines based upon resistance exercise driven muscle growth gene expression.

All this talk about endurance is troubling because it is not clear to me what endurance in this thread means.  Endurance is most widely understood as exercise or activity performed at sub-maximal workloads with respect to cardiovascular limits over time. Unless you train, avoiding anaerobic energy production, you will not achieve endurance. It is not easy to achieve big muscles  purely through aerobic energy production, heavy squatting forces reliance upon anaerobic energy production. Very few have the mental and articulate joint stamina to &quot;endurance-squat&quot;. Endurance squatting is not a competitive sport.
 
Endurance is for Richard Simmons.
tounge.gif

Lift something big.

The most impressive feat of strength-endurance I have ever seen was Mariusz Pudzianowski deadlifting 300 kg. 17 times in a row!!!
wow.gif
The guy in second place was a powerlifter and got it 11 times, everyone else got it like 6 or less.
Strength-endurance and Absolute strength are extremely similar anyway. In hypertrophy training you need to focus on load, not endurance so much.
I hardly ever do more than 5 rep sets and I am growing. I mostly do max-stim and the muscle strength is the biggest factor, not the strength-endurance.
 
Dan Moore, according to that study, M-time + load progression + heavy looks like it would train everything simultaneously, including energy systems.
 
<div>
(Lol @ May 04 2007,22:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think I've posted a link to this before but it's worth posting again. Enjoy!

A little bit of strength-endurance</div>
sometimes I wish I was an orthopedic surgeon.
 
Back
Top