SUBMAX weights...

[yaniv]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 22 2007,22:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have read a few critiques of HST. None of them are credible. It is difficult if not impossible to discredit the science behind HST. It is even more difficult to explain away the results.</div>
lyle supports HST and suggests it with his &quot;bulking routine&quot; - he's respected and credible (ask Bryan...)

HST is the most well designed implementation of the latest science, for the vast training public. its a compromise, nevertheless, by design.

don't get me wrong, HST for me was a revelation; it allowed me to offer well build-long lasting routine for novice trainer that was restricted, at first, to its (HST) framework , and as he progressed and learned his limits, HST offered him, naturally, customization potential. all that, with no injuries and no BB voodoo...

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 22 2007,15:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have read a few critiques of HST. None of them are credible. It is difficult if not impossible to discredit the science behind HST. It is even more difficult to explain away the results.</div>
The results are no better or worse than 75% of the &quot;other&quot; programs , an intelligently planned 10x3 cycle blows an average HST cycle away - in both strength and size gains. I would not &quot;critique&quot; HST as I feel it has value , but the science is easily dismissed (as it's non-existant) to support SD being anything other than a un-loading period just like any other effective program (and there are literally hundreds) . SD was the only &quot;original&quot; principle , the others have been around and in use for literally decades.
I use HST because it's a break in intensity from other programs that give me better results but that psycologically and joint wise I may need a break from , HST works perfectly for this and still allows for some progress while &quot;taking it easy&quot; , I would never be at the strength levels I currently have with JUST HST , 10x3 push/pull splits hitting each muscle groups 2x/wk have been the most effective scheme I've ever used for size AND strength but I've been doing this 20 years and find that some variety keeps me stimulated mentally and looking forwards to upcoming cycles.
I honestly think HST's a worthwhile program , but blind fanaticism does suggest a lack of experience/education in other systems.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(yaniv @ Sep. 22 2007,17:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 22 2007,22:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have read a few critiques of HST. None of them are credible. It is difficult if not impossible to discredit the science behind HST. It is even more difficult to explain away the results.</div>
lyle supports HST and suggests it with his &quot;bulking routine&quot; - he's respected and credible (ask brian...)

HST is the most well designed implementation of the latest science, for the vast training public. its a compromise, nevertheless, by design.

don't get me wrong, HST for me was a revelation; it allowed me to offer well build-long lasting routine for novice trainer that was restricted, at first, to its (HST) framework , and as he progressed and learned his limits, HST offered him, naturally, customization potential. all that, with no injuries and no BB voodoo...</div>
What is a compromise, the science, the principles or the model program?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what anybody else does. I only care about me. As I should.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 22 2007,18:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 22 2007,15:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have read a few critiques of HST. None of them are credible. It is difficult if not impossible to discredit the science behind HST. It is even more difficult to explain away the results.</div>
The results are no better or worse than 75% of the &quot;other&quot; programs , an intelligently planned 10x3 cycle blows an average HST cycle away - in both strength and size gains. I would not &quot;critique&quot; HST as I feel it has value , but the science is easily dismissed (as it's non-existant) to support SD being anything other than a un-loading period just like any other effective program (and there are literally hundreds) . SD was the only &quot;original&quot; principle , the others have been around and in use for literally decades.
I use HST because it's a break in intensity from other programs that give me better results but that psycologically and joint wise I may need a break from , HST works perfectly for this and still allows for some progress while &quot;taking it easy&quot; , I would never be at the strength levels I currently have with JUST HST , 10x3 push/pull splits hitting each muscle groups 2x/wk have been the most effective scheme I've ever used for size AND strength but I've been doing this 20 years and find that some variety keeps me stimulated mentally and looking forwards to upcoming cycles.
I honestly think HST's a worthwhile program , but blind fanaticism does suggest a lack of experience/education in other systems.

</div>
Like I said, it's difficult to discredit the science behind HST or to explain away the results. Experience or knowledge of other programs is not a requirement for HST to be effective.


Let's speak of an unloading period just like any other stimulus. Or in this case, it's a lack thereof. Muscle will respond to it by deconditioning itself just like it responds to a load by conditioning itself. The alternative is that once conditioned, it remains so forever. If that were true, it would be reasonable to expect size gains to remain forever as well. That is obviously not the case. Therefore, conditioning does not remain forever either. What is in contention is the period of time required for conditioning to decrease or to decrease at least enough for a load to stimulate a growth response. Apparently, a couple of weeks of inactivity is sufficient.

Furthermore, we don't know exactly everything that happens to make the muscle resistant to the stimulus. Thus, some of what we don't know could revert more quickly than what we've already observed.

 

[yaniv]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,01:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
What is a compromise, the science, the principles or the model program?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what anybody else does. I only care about me. As I should.</div>

1. SD - frankly i don't care if SD works or not, its just a part of HST, and i consider it to be no more then unloading phase (oh... blasphemy). it doesn't disproof HST! RBE lasts 6-9 w, but still you can feel soreness after such short period, I'm guessing its the high reps (10s-15s) after the low rep phase (5s).

2. light weights/sub-max - you can gain with far less deloading. it a compromise for the x3/w to be possible. you can't go all out 3 times a week.

3. RM blocks/rep count - why not do RM at the end of every week and call it a block? for the simplicity of design. this is Bryan saying, no other. and it will probably &quot;kill&quot; most trainers.

so... it works, but for the sake of the majority - Bryan compromised. also max-stim, lyle's bulking, Pendlay 5x5, 10x3... all utilize the same principles - slightly different interpretation - and all are working. HST, still the best all rounder for &quot;everybody&quot;, as far as it can be done.
its all in the HST FAQ and in lyle quotes I've posted here.

RUSS, good points, and that's a sticker
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I honestly think HST's a worthwhile program , but blind fanaticism does suggest a lack of experience/education in other systems.</div>

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 22 2007,19:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 22 2007,18:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 22 2007,15:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have read a few critiques of HST. None of them are credible. It is difficult if not impossible to discredit the science behind HST. It is even more difficult to explain away the results.</div>
The results are no better or worse than 75% of the &quot;other&quot; programs , an intelligently planned 10x3 cycle blows an average HST cycle away - in both strength and size gains. I would not &quot;critique&quot; HST as I feel it has value , but the science is easily dismissed (as it's non-existant) to support SD being anything other than a un-loading period just like any other effective program (and there are literally hundreds) . SD was the only &quot;original&quot; principle , the others have been around and in use for literally decades.
I use HST because it's a break in intensity from other programs that give me better results but that psycologically and joint wise I may need a break from , HST works perfectly for this and still allows for some progress while &quot;taking it easy&quot; , I would never be at the strength levels I currently have with JUST HST , 10x3 push/pull splits hitting each muscle groups 2x/wk have been the most effective scheme I've ever used for size AND strength but I've been doing this 20 years and find that some variety keeps me stimulated mentally and looking forwards to upcoming cycles.
I honestly think HST's a worthwhile program , but blind fanaticism does suggest a lack of experience/education in other systems.

</div>
Like I said, it's difficult to discredit the science behind HST or to explain away the results. Experience or knowledge of other programs is not a requirement for HST to be effective.


Let's speak of an unloading period just like any other stimulus. Or in this case, it's a lack thereof. Muscle will respond to it by deconditioning itself just like it responds to a load by conditioning itself. The alternative is that once conditioned, it remains so forever. If that were true, it would be reasonable to expect size gains to remain forever as well. That is obviously not the case. Therefore, conditioning does not remain forever either. What is in contention is the period of time required for conditioning to decrease or to decrease at least enough for a load to stimulate a growth response. Apparently, a couple of weeks of inactivity is sufficient.

Furthermore, we don't know exactly everything that happens to make the muscle resistant to the stimulus. Thus, some of what we don't know could revert more quickly than what we've already observed.</div>
It's not particularly hard to &quot;discredit&quot; HST, at least in terms of its implementation, if not the abstract, science-derived principles. If the effects of (conventionally applied) SD are unknown, at best, then the whole program is suspect as laid out, imho, in terms of &quot;optimizing&quot; hypertrophy in any sense of the idea.

You admit as much yourself, and your only counter-point to this suggestion is that a couple of weeks of inactivity &quot;seems&quot; sufficient? Really? There's research demonstrating that the effects of RBE are lasting for months, and that actual atrophy takes place very, very slowly in trained subjects (in the many weeks to months range). None of this even begins to hint that two weeks is enough, and I don't think the anecdote in favor of HST &quot;working&quot; is any better than most other muscle building systems out there, no offense to my HST bro's.

The basics of HST (progressive load and the whole nine yards) certainly appear &quot;true&quot; as per the research, but the implementation people are selecting to capitalize upon this knowledge (particularly as it relates to the effects of SD) is wholly suspect until we have real evidence that our implementation is doing anything beyond any other progressive load oriented method that's been around for over a century.

Who knows, Bryan may well have this evidence, but if it's out there, nobody on this board has yet presented it.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(yaniv @ Sep. 22 2007,20:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,01:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
What is a compromise, the science, the principles or the model program?</div>

...
2. light weights/sub-max - you can gain with far less deloading. it a compromise for the x3/w to be possible. you can't go all out 3 times a week.

3. RM blocks/rep count - why not do RM at the end of every week and call it a block? for the simplicity of design. this is brian saying, no other. and it will probably &quot;kill&quot; most trainers.

so... it works, but for the sake of the majority - brian compromised. also max-stim, lyle's bulking, Pendlay 5x5, 10x3... all utilize the same principles - slightly different interpretation - and all are working. HST, still the best all rounder for &quot;everybody&quot;, as far as it can be done.
its all in the HST FAQ and in lyle quotes I've posted here.
...</div>
The compromise is the model program, not the science, not the principles.

HST's implementation is not the only program that is a compromise in terms of going all out. Bear in mind that no program can be done all out 3x per week so it's not like HST is special in that respect.

So what if we can gain on much less deloading? We still can't keep it up 3x per week. So it's back to the drawing board to figure out how much to deload. Or to cut back on volume. Or to cut back on frequency. Or a combination of all of the above.

We can go on and on but we will come back to the same conclusion.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 22 2007,20:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's not particularly hard to &quot;discredit&quot; HST, at least in terms of its implementation, if not the abstract, science-derived principles. If the effects of (conventionally applied) SD are unknown, at best, then the whole program is suspect as laid out, imho, in terms of &quot;optimizing&quot; hypertrophy in any sense of the idea.

You admit as much yourself, and your only counter-point to this suggestion is that a couple of weeks of inactivity &quot;seems&quot; sufficient? Really? There's research demonstrating that the effects of RBE are lasting for months, and that actual atrophy takes place very, very slowly in trained subjects (in the many weeks to months range). None of this even begins to hint that two weeks is enough, and I don't think the anecdote in favor of HST &quot;working&quot; is any better than most other muscle building systems out there, no offense to my HST bro's.

The basics of HST (progressive load and the whole nine yards) certainly appear &quot;true&quot; as per the research, but the implementation people are selecting to capitalize upon this knowledge (particularly as it relates to the effects of SD) is wholly suspect until we have real evidence that our implementation is doing anything beyond any other progressive load oriented method that's been around for over a century.

Who knows, Bryan may well have this evidence, but if it's out there, nobody on this board has yet presented it.</div>
It is easy to discredit the model program because that's all it is, a model. The nature of an effect does not need to be known for it to exist or to show signs of its existence. That's partly why it's difficult to explain away the results. Like a contract, it can still be valid even though one part is deemed suspect or non-functional. But taken as a whole, one bad part can make the rest look suspect.

Like I said, it's difficult to explain away the results, even with a bunch of research papers as proof. But proof of what? So the research says RBE lasts a very long time, much longer than 9-12 days. Does the research explain why it works anyway? It doesn't so we're back to square one. We don't know. Yet it works. The nature of an effect does not need to be known for it to exist or to show signs of its existence.

In other words, if SD doesn't exist, what then allows muscle to continue to grow after it has become resistant to the stimulus?

The evidence is easy to find: Don't SD.

Anyway, it can't be all bad since it works and apparently continues to work where other programs stop working.

 

[yaniv]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,05:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The compromise is the model program, not the science, not the principles.
</div>
right, just what I'm saying (or meant to...). i didn't refer to the science, only to the design. and i only gave examples.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HST's implementation is not the only program that is a compromise in terms of going all out. Bear in mind that no program can be done all out 3x per week so it's not like HST is special in that respect.

So what if we can gain on much less deloading? We still can't keep it up 3x per week. So it's back to the drawing board to figure out how much to deload. Or to cut back on volume. Or to cut back on frequency. Or a combination of all of the above.

We can go on and on but we will come back to the same conclusion.</div>
with the same set of principles, Bryan could have designed a different program for advanced trainees, and it will still be valid. less deloading with less frequency (x2/w)? I'm not suggesting anything new here.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(yaniv @ Sep. 23 2007,08:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">with the same set of principles, brian could have designed a different program for advanced trainees, and it will still be valid. less deloading with less frequency (x2/w)? I'm not suggesting anything new here.</div>
This observation seems very sensible to me . I do think 3x/wk fullbody can become limiting to advanced lifters as thier ability to generate higher intensity progresses past thier ability to recover (adequately) . When this occurs , the lifter ends up lifting at an intensity below his abilities (and IMHO below what would be considered optimal for someone wishing to actualize thier full genetic potential)- in order to &quot;fit&quot; thier lifting into the 3x/wk format.

At this point a strength athlete will logically begin to move into dedicating each of the three weekly workouts to one of the big lifts and some auxillary work (example- monday/deadlift,wednesday/bench,friday/squat ) - if he wishes to continue in the 3x/wk format . The lifter concerned more with hypertrophy will usually recognize the wisdom of dropping from 3x/wk each muscle group to 2x/wk at this point , realizing that this enables more intensity and volume (weekly) with more recovery time for each group - a win/win situation for those who have began to stall using conventional HST (and yes Martin - more than just a few eventually find themselves in this boat - and have shared this with the board.)

At this point working out 4 times a week using either an upper/lower or a push/pull and hitting each mucle group with more intensity AND volume can be just what is needed to break the rut and take it to the next level.

HST seems to live (and die) by frequency , opening ones mind to the option of manipulating this variable as one would volume and intensity (without being made to feel one is betraying HST) can result in another &quot;spike&quot; in size/strength gains akin to when a lifter first starts using 3x/wk tbt after previously training in an unfocused perhaps less than optimally concieved program.


I have racked my brain trying to figure how after a certain point 3x/wk could still be workable and optimal for a year round routine for the advanced lifter (not cycled with other higher intensity routuines) , and I believe that AAS would enable one to keep making &quot;enough&quot; gains this way that one may never feel the need to change/modify , even though an &quot;assisted&quot; lifter would still be better served at a certain point in thier lifting life to &quot;graduate&quot; to less frequent , higher intensity/volume per w/o AND per week , which can only be accomplished by manipulating frequency.

 

[mikeynov]

The weird thing is that, to me, logic-ing out HST led me to the conclusion that the overall pattern for one looking to optimize body mass would look like this:

Beginner - 3x a week per muscle group
Intermediate - 2 to 3 times per week per muscle group
Advanced - 1 to 2 times per week per muscle group

In essence, a shift from full body, to upper/lower, to probably an actual body part split (perhaps along Poliquin's recommendations, &quot;hitting&quot; body parts every ~5 days or so) with increased training age and specialization.

However, due to the &quot;model&quot; program, it seems half of everyone is still stuck on making themselves lift 3 times a week. Meaning, I don't know many people who are using HST logic in an upper/lower split, much less a body part split. Both are entirely possible - simply SD as per usual, and cycle from lower to heavier weights (~15 RM - 5 RM over a couple/few months seems a good enough prescription) in whatever format best describes your training age and goals.

 

[Martin Levac]

Does that mean that the advanced lifter who's been doing 1x per week on a crappy program should continue to do so when switching to HST? What happens to this guy when instead of continuing to train 1x per week, he decides to train 3x per week? Is he back to being a beginner lifter? I don't see how the level of the lifter should determine the training frequency.

The same principles apply regardless of experience. The alternative is that the science that governs how muscle grows goes out the window when one becomes an expert lifter.

 

[RUSS]

I agree and have come to basically the same conclusions, one way I thought of to address the &quot;stages&quot; (just one way- not nessessarily the only way)

beginner - 3x/wk full body
intermediate - 4x/wk - upper/lower or push/pull hitting each movement (major muscle group) 2x per week
Advanced- 3x/wk - upper/lower or push/pull hitting each movement once every 5 days ( mon/pull, weds/push, fri/pull, mon/push ect.ect.)

But I do agree that by that point an actual &quot;body part split&quot; could definitely be feasible. I think that because HST is basically a one size fits all (apart from user mods) , it does leave itself open to perhaps being religiously adhered to even after a point where some modifications may be in order to reflect the changing dynamic in a lifters &quot;lifting age&quot;.

The next logical step after 3x/wk full body is 2x/wk per muscle group - but only a split (at this point) will increase &quot;right now&quot; intensity AND volume , to drop to 2x/wk full body would be too hardgainer/hit-like and do little more than maintain so this leaves me with 4x/wk ( 2x each muscle group) as being the optimal &quot;next step&quot; when a lifters ability to generate intensity/muscle damage exceeds recuperative ability WHEN CONFINED TO 3x/wk FULL BODY format.

Taking the push/pull as an example - monday/push , tues/pull, thurs/push, fri/pull - you can hit things with much harder intensity AND &quot;right now&quot; volume (as well as much higher weekly volume) , the added recovery time maximizes strength , maximizes growth ect.ect.

 

[RUSS]

...

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,19:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Does that mean that the advanced lifter who's been doing 1x per week on a crappy program should continue to do so when switching to HST? What happens to this guy when instead of continuing to train 1x per week, he decides to train 3x per week? Is he back to being a beginner lifter? I don't see how the level of the lifter should determine the training frequency.

The same principles apply regardless of experience. The alternative is that the science that governs how muscle grows goes out the window when one becomes an expert lifter.</div>
Please inform me how the science behind HST contradicts the above. No offense, but it gets tiring to hear you speak of the &quot;science&quot; without actually referencing the science, only occasionally copy/regurgitating what Bryan has said in the past.

At least in intermediate lifters, it's already been established that 3x per week frequency is no better than twice per week frequency when matched for total volume, as per that review that was posted here a while back. Also as per the literature (Rhea), at least in terms of strength gain, the trend goes from a lower % of 1 RM at a higher frequency to a higher % of 1 RM at a lower frequency in terms of optimal dose/response from training. I.e. ~3 times weekly at ~60% 1 RM for a beginner giving an optimal dose/response, whereas ~twice weekly at ~80-85% 1 RM for a more intermediate/advanced lifter seems a better dose/response. I would expect this logic to parallel for muscle hypertrophy as well, and it seems to overwhelmingly match the anecdote of what &quot;works&quot; for people to get muscular.

Anecdotally, you can see this general trend continue, with the acute stimulus (in terms of intensity (%RM) and volume) needing to be progressively higher the greater your training age.

Also, I don't get this prejudice against body part splits. Look at your comparison - a &quot;crappy&quot; 1 time per week split versus HST? Strawman much? There are intelligent applications of body part splits - look in The Poliquin Principles, for example. A lot of people claim that only roided out people can handle body part splits, which seems some sort of holdover from retard HIT mentality where everybody who can lift more than once every third Sunday is clearly on drugs. As a counterpoint, consider the possibility that a lot of people are simply out of shape pussies.

There is a whole lot in terms of implementation that still leaves a tremendous amount of interpretation, imho, and appealing to the &quot;science&quot; in the abstract is meaningless unless you're ready to start citing that science, specifically.

 

[mikeynov]

Also, something worth noting...

Even with the admission that specialization into bodybuilding, or maximizing your &quot;genetic potential&quot; for mass will probably have you using a body part split at some point, that does not mean that a good part of your training career should NOT be spent with something more basic. I.e. people should always use the simplest approach that continues to consistently yield gains.

If HST at 3x a week has you growing indefinitely, of course you'd want to do this as long as possible. However, if you notice that you seem to stall with this approach, then there is plenty of reason to suspect that increasing the acute stimulus and decreasing the frequency (e.g. upper/lower type split) might start to yield a better dose/response.

Similarly, when this approach eventually fails you, then perhaps a body part split ala Poliquin, hitting muscles once every ~5 days, could be warranted.

Of course, to even get to that point will probably require years of the more basic stuff, but there is no reason, a priori, that we should dismiss the possibility that a split may better take us to our full potential after we've put our time into more basic stuff. Further, there is no reason we can't use the knowledge that we've gained in studying &quot;HST,&quot; in terms of the abstract principles, to guide this process.

A simple example of the above is using the same general logic of progressive load cycles punctuated by SD, even if one is using a body part split, instead of very slowly increasing the load whenever we happen to appear stronger over time. Even if the HST principles are &quot;true,&quot; in other words, does not mean we can't apply this logic onto other templates.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 23 2007,20:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,19:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Does that mean that the advanced lifter who's been doing 1x per week on a crappy program should continue to do so when switching to HST? What happens to this guy when instead of continuing to train 1x per week, he decides to train 3x per week? Is he back to being a beginner lifter? I don't see how the level of the lifter should determine the training frequency.

The same principles apply regardless of experience. The alternative is that the science that governs how muscle grows goes out the window when one becomes an expert lifter.</div>
Please inform me how the science behind HST contradicts the above. No offense, but it gets tiring to hear you speak of the &quot;science&quot; without actually referencing the science, only occasionally copy/regurgitating what Bryan has said in the past.

At least in intermediate lifters, it's already been established that 3x per week frequency is no better than twice per week frequency when matched for total volume, as per that review that was posted here a while back. Also as per the literature (Rhea), at least in terms of strength gain, the trend goes from a lower % of 1 RM at a higher frequency to a higher % of 1 RM at a lower frequency in terms of optimal dose/response from training. I.e. ~3 times weekly at ~60% 1 RM for a beginner giving an optimal dose/response, whereas ~twice weekly at ~80-85% 1 RM for a more intermediate/advanced lifter seems a better dose/response. I would expect this logic to parallel for muscle hypertrophy as well, and it seems to overwhelmingly match the anecdote of what &quot;works&quot; for people to get muscular.

Anecdotally, you can see this general trend continue, with the acute stimulus (in terms of intensity (%RM) and volume) needing to be progressively higher the greater your training age.

Also, I don't get this prejudice against body part splits. Look at your comparison - a &quot;crappy&quot; 1 time per week split versus HST? Strawman much? There are intelligent applications of body part splits - look in The Poliquin Principles, for example. A lot of people claim that only roided out people can handle body part splits, which seems some sort of holdover from retard HIT mentality where everybody who can lift more than once every third Sunday is clearly on drugs. As a counterpoint, consider the possibility that a lot of people are simply out of shape pussies.

There is a whole lot in terms of implementation that still leaves a tremendous amount of interpretation, imho, and appealing to the &quot;science&quot; in the abstract is meaningless unless you're ready to start citing that science, specifically.</div>
It gets tiring to hear me speak? Stop reading. What I write is meaningless? To whom? Those comments have no place in this discussion. I can't take you seriously at this point.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 23 2007,20:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If HST at 3x a week has you growing indefinitely, of course you'd want to do this as long as possible. However, if you notice that you seem to stall with this approach, then there is plenty of reason to suspect that increasing the acute stimulus and decreasing the frequency (e.g. upper/lower type split) might start to yield a better dose/response.</div>
There is no reason to go back to a program that stalled when HST allowed continued growth after the program stalled in the first place. There is no reason to believe that HST will stall where the other programs stall.

If what I read is accurate, then a upper/lower split, high intensity and/or high volume (increased acute stimulus), lower frequency, will stall while HST will allow continued growth at the same point.

 

[RUSS]

No offense but you DO tend to keep regurgitating the FAQs instead of actually sharing any experiential knowledge and DO seem to not get that the &quot;science&quot; is rather shaky on many points. Of course you have every right to air your &quot;views&quot; and I try to respect that here , I invite you to join Lyles board ...

 

[Lol]

Martin, I think Mikey just has a problem with your using the term &quot;science&quot; as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card not with what you are saying per se.

Do keep on discussing this as it's quite interesting.  

I wish I had something more useful to add to the discussion but I don't yet have the experience of Mikey or Russ.

=====

Oh Russ, beat me to it!