SUBMAX weights...

[RUSS]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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. </div>


Back up or defend this statement please. And prove that HST doesn't stall , also prove that gains are superior to DC , 10x3 , 5x5, Max-stim ect.ect. Please prove that 2x/wk per muscle group is not just as effective for hypertrophy as 3x , while you are proving things also if it's no bother please prove your earlier statement that pretty much infered that lifting age/stage of developement isn't an important factor/variable to figure in when assessing appropriate frequency. Thanks in advance...

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 23 2007,22:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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. </div>


Back up or defend this statement please. And prove that HST doesn't stall , also prove that gains are superior to DC , 10x3 , 5x5, Max-stim ect.ect. Please prove that 2x/wk per muscle group is not just as effective for hypertrophy as 3x , while you are proving things also if it's no bother please prove your earlier statement that pretty much infered that lifting age/stage of developement isn't an important factor/variable to figure in when assessing appropriate frequency. Thanks in advance...

</div>
I am under no more obligation to prove anything than anybody else participating in this discussion. Agree or disagree, your choice.

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,21:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><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.</div>
What I'm saying is what Russ already said, that using &quot;science&quot; in the abstract as a defense for HST (in terms of methodology/implementation, or even the underlying principles), or simply copy/pasting what Bryan has written, is not really very informative.

The possibility certainly remains that everything you are saying is correct, but if we're looking for external validation of your viewpoint, then when you say &quot;science supports ,&quot; it would be near infinitely helpful to know what science, specifically, you're talking about.

 

[mikeynov]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,21:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><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.</div>
The thing you seem to be missing is that you do not have to go back to your &quot;old program&quot; once the 3 times a week, standard HST template has stalled.

How about load-cycling in something like an upper/lower split, taking 3 weeks per minicycle (e.g. 6 weeks for 3 weeks a piece each scaling up to 10 and 5 RM) while still inserting SD between cycles? Or a Poliquin style split where you use some destination for the end of a cycle (5 RM's), scaling up to that over a similar period of time, also with those periods of SD?

I'm not suggesting people try to go back to a &quot;crappy&quot; once a week body part split, waiting to increase load based solely on strength gain or something along those lines. I'm saying that you could use the basic principle of load cycling punctuated by periods of SD onto other templates besides thrice weekly, full body sessions.

 

[Lol]

<div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 22 2007,23:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>
Hey Russ, that's a pretty strong statement. Can you prove that?

One of the problems I have with statements like this is that it is nigh on impossible to show that gains from one training methodology outstrip another's. There are so many factors involved. Someone may initially make great gains doing a 5 x 5 program. When they stall out they then switch to another program, say 3 x 3, and make some gains again. It might be the training but it might just be a calorie related issue. Eventually, any and all programs will pretty much stall out and any gains in strength will, I suppose, be predominantly neural in nature rather than from muscle hypertrophy - assuming we are talking about natural trainees.

You folks that have been training and progressing for 20 years or so must surely be at a point now (let's call it 'B') where any progress you make is very hard to come by? Sadly, what none of us can do is to keep going back to square one, trying different training programs and seeing which one gets us to 'B' the quickest. Once we are at point 'B' we can all debate ad nauseam over which program now elicits the best growth response but, it would seem to me that gains will inevitably be really hard to come by - again, assuming we want to stay natural.

I am pretty certain at this point in my lifting career (nearly 3 years now) that I can make lean mass gains using 5 x 5, 3 x 3 or HST. However, these gains will in no way match the initial gains I made when I started training. Because we all have a finite potential, the more progress I make, the less future progress is possible. No one can as yet say what my exact limits are. You would have to know how many muscle fibres I have in each muscle and then calculate a possible muscle volume based on the number of fibres and each fibre's maximum potential diameter.

IMO (not worth a lot, I know), HST offers a new natty trainee a really good way to gain lean mass quickly without burning out, without having to lift heavy all the time (so there's less potential for injury) and without having to get too 'intelligent' about designing a routine. The first year should see some really good progress. The second and third years should also see some fairly good progress being made. After that, progress will undoubtedly slow but there will still be potential for improvement; it just won't be as great, as consistent or as obvious.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 24 2007,12:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 22 2007,23:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>
Hey Russ, that's a pretty strong statement. Can you prove that?

One of the problems I have with statements like this is that it is nigh on impossible to show that gains from one training methodology outstrip another's. There are so many factors involved. Someone may initially make great gains doing a 5 x 5 program. When they stall out they then switch to another program, say 3 x 3, and make some gains again. It might be the training but it might just be a calorie related issue. Eventually, any and all programs will pretty much stall out and any gains in strength will, I suppose, be predominantly neural in nature rather than from muscle hypertrophy - assuming we are talking about natural trainees.

You folks that have been training and progressing for 20 years or so must surely be at a point now (let's call it 'B') where any progress you make is very hard to come by? Sadly, what none of us can do is to keep going back to square one, trying different training programs and seeing which one gets us to 'B' the quickest. Once we are at point 'B' we can all debate ad nauseam over which program now elicits the best growth response but, it would seem to me that gains will inevitably be really hard to come by - again, assuming we want to stay natural.

I am pretty certain at this point in my lifting career (nearly 3 years now) that I can make lean mass gains using 5 x 5, 3 x 3 or HST. However, these gains will in no way match the initial gains I made when I started training. Because we all have a finite potential, the more progress I make, the less future progress is possible. No one can as yet say what my exact limits are. You would have to know how many muscle fibres I have in each muscle and then calculate a possible muscle volume based on the number of fibres and each fibre's maximum potential diameter.

IMO (not worth a lot, I know), HST offers a new natty trainee a really good way to gain lean mass quickly without burning out, without having to lift heavy all the time (so there's less potential for injury) and without having to get too 'intelligent' about designing a routine. The first year should see some really good progress. The second and third years should also see some fairly good progress being made. After that, progress will undoubtedly slow but there will still be potential for improvement; it just won't be as great, as consistent or as obvious.</div>
I don't know if this would fit your burden of proof - but , taking a gander @ before and after pics of lifters from every concievable program on the myriad of forums dedicated to lifting reveals that although we like to think of ourselves as &quot;keepers of the flame&quot; so to speak - the reality is that other systems are producing similar results , not just in noob but in lifters whose varied histories and training ages reflect the same elements as ours.
It's easy to put down other systems and claim superior results UNTIL you leave the bubble (not directed at you by the way) then you can't help but notice that lifters using systems we smugly look down upon , if done in a sustained fashion with proper diet - report and post evidence of gains equal to ours. Wait , I see it coming - they're bigger (in some cases) so of course they are on roids (pulleeeeeeze!)

We tend to pat ourselves on the back a lot , full of our superior science , yet it doesn't take too much surfing of the lifting world to realize that although HST in general has a good rep , there is a GENERAL feeling that we are zealots , with out the gains to back up our claims and when looking through our picture thread - the superiority certainly doesn't show, not to say that we don't have eveidence of gains and that our lifters shouldn't take great pride in thier accomplishments - just that it isn't particularly different than any other systems &quot;picture evidence&quot;.

Two things have always &quot;struck me&quot; about HST , 1, that other than calling deload week (or two) SD and assigning it &quot;mystical status&quot; nothing about HST is anything but what many coaches and athletes have been doing all along (I geuss they just didn't know before Bryan coined the phrase that they were HSTing!) . So I'm not really predisposed to fanaticism (again not directed at you) when it comes to HST as I dont (deep down) see it as anything more than a compilation of previously known and used facts strung together in such a way that the most lifters regardless of motivation , genetics ect.ect. would be able to do a sustainable program . I feel the same towards Waterbury and &quot;his&quot; 10x3 , 10x3 was around and &quot;perfected&quot; before he was born and I dont know bryans age but its likely that intensity cycling is older than him unless he is geriatric.
And 2 , that WE DONT have a lot of particularly large guys , now I understand that everyone has different goals and all but WE DO portray our system as superior IN HYPERTROPHY!!!!!!





I am not out to trash HST , I'm in large part reacting to what I've called &quot;blind fanaticism&quot; that I've seen lately that although (I'm sure) is done with pure and genuine intent is (IMHO) making us look like idiots , other lifters in other systems (like DC , 5x5,10x3 ect.ect.ect.) are gaining just as well , in some cases better and I think in many cases are more apt to give HST a go and perhaps participate in our forum if they sense a more realistic atmosphere as many of the more advanced individuals have enough experiential knowledge to see right through the hype.

On a personal level I've used other systems and don't PERSONALLY see the superiority in gains at all. Heck it's almost a pattern that our lifters end up doing 5x5 (cause it's inferior?

???). I read all the &quot;blade&quot; material in the FAQS and wonder why he isn't doing HST then if it's so great? Not sure if it was him or another respected member that compared HST max-stim and DC - but i sur as heck remember the results he reported.


I like hamburgers , but they aren't the only , best or superior meat , I like HST....................

 

[RUSS]

As for my statement of the 10x3 , I'd invite you to try it and draw your own conclusions - I'd be happy to PM you what I feel is the most optimal program (devised by yours truly) in the 10x3 format and like I said you be the judge!!!

EDITED: oh , and it uses &quot;HST' principals so no need to feel traitorous if you decide to give it a go!

 

[Joe.Muscle]

<div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 24 2007,05:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Sep. 24 2007,12:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 22 2007,23:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>
Hey Russ, that's a pretty strong statement. Can you prove that?

One of the problems I have with statements like this is that it is nigh on impossible to show that gains from one training methodology outstrip another's. There are so many factors involved. Someone may initially make great gains doing a 5 x 5 program. When they stall out they then switch to another program, say 3 x 3, and make some gains again. It might be the training but it might just be a calorie related issue. Eventually, any and all programs will pretty much stall out and any gains in strength will, I suppose, be predominantly neural in nature rather than from muscle hypertrophy - assuming we are talking about natural trainees.

You folks that have been training and progressing for 20 years or so must surely be at a point now (let's call it 'B') where any progress you make is very hard to come by? Sadly, what none of us can do is to keep going back to square one, trying different training programs and seeing which one gets us to 'B' the quickest. Once we are at point 'B' we can all debate ad nauseam over which program now elicits the best growth response but, it would seem to me that gains will inevitably be really hard to come by - again, assuming we want to stay natural.

I am pretty certain at this point in my lifting career (nearly 3 years now) that I can make lean mass gains using 5 x 5, 3 x 3 or HST. However, these gains will in no way match the initial gains I made when I started training. Because we all have a finite potential, the more progress I make, the less future progress is possible. No one can as yet say what my exact limits are. You would have to know how many muscle fibres I have in each muscle and then calculate a possible muscle volume based on the number of fibres and each fibre's maximum potential diameter.

IMO (not worth a lot, I know), HST offers a new natty trainee a really good way to gain lean mass quickly without burning out, without having to lift heavy all the time (so there's less potential for injury) and without having to get too 'intelligent' about designing a routine. The first year should see some really good progress. The second and third years should also see some fairly good progress being made. After that, progress will undoubtedly slow but there will still be potential for improvement; it just won't be as great, as consistent or as obvious.</div>
I don't know if this would fit your burden of proof - but , taking a gander @ before and after pics of lifters from every concievable program on the myriad of forums dedicated to lifting reveals that although we like to think of ourselves as &quot;keepers of the flame&quot; so to speak - the reality is that other systems are producing similar results , not just in noob but in lifters whose varied histories and training ages reflect the same elements as ours.
                 It's easy to put down other systems and claim superior results UNTIL you leave the bubble (not directed at you by the way) then you can't help but notice that lifters using systems  we smugly look down  upon , if done in a sustained fashion with proper diet - report and post evidence of gains equal to ours. Wait , I see it coming - they're bigger (in some cases) so of course they are on roids (pulleeeeeeze!)

                 We tend to pat ourselves on the back a lot , full of our superior science , yet it doesn't take too much surfing of the lifting world to realize that although HST in general has a good rep , there is a GENERAL feeling that we are zealots , with out the gains to back up our claims and when looking through our picture thread - the superiority certainly doesn't show, not to say that we don't have eveidence of gains and that our lifters shouldn't take great pride in thier accomplishments - just that it isn't particularly different than any other systems &quot;picture evidence&quot;.

                  Two things have always &quot;struck me&quot; about HST , 1, that other than calling deload week (or two) SD and assigning it &quot;mystical status&quot; nothing about HST is anything but what many coaches and athletes have been doing all along (I geuss they just didn't know before Bryan coined the phrase that they were HSTing!) . So I'm not really predisposed to fanaticism (again not directed at you) when it comes to HST as I dont (deep down) see it as anything more than a compilation of previously known and used facts strung together in such a way that the most lifters regardless of motivation , genetics  ect.ect. would be able to do a sustainable program . I feel the same towards Waterbury and &quot;his&quot; 10x3 , 10x3 was around and &quot;perfected&quot; before he was born and I dont know bryans age but its likely that intensity cycling is older than him unless he is geriatric.
                    And 2 , that WE DONT have a lot of particularly large guys , now I understand that everyone has different goals and all but WE DO portray our system as superior IN HYPERTROPHY!!!!!!





                     I am not out to trash HST , I'm in large part reacting to what I've called &quot;blind fanaticism&quot; that I've seen lately that although (I'm sure) is done with pure and genuine intent is (IMHO) making us look like idiots , other lifters in other systems (like DC , 5x5,10x3 ect.ect.ect.) are gaining just as well , in some cases better and I think in many cases are more apt to give HST a go and perhaps participate in our forum if they sense a more realistic atmosphere as many of the more advanced individuals have enough experiential knowledge to see right through the hype.

               On a personal level I've used other systems and don't PERSONALLY see the superiority in gains at all. Heck it's almost a pattern that our lifters end up doing 5x5 (cause it's inferior?

???). I read all the &quot;blade&quot; material in the FAQS and wonder why he isn't doing HST then if it's so great? Not sure if it was him or another respected member that compared HST max-stim and DC - but i sur as heck remember the results he reported.


                 I like hamburgers , but they aren't the only , best or superior meat , I like HST....................

</div>
I actually think this is one of the best comments I have ever seen here at HST.

Well put Russ.

The only thing I can add to why I like HST...is I get good results off of HST without doing a long ass workout.

I use to do 30 sets per workout...but there is no way in the world I could do that now wife career and life.

 

[Martin Levac]

Being a zealot is not bad in itself. It simply demonstrates zeal, another word for perseverance. And we all know how much of that we need to go week in week out to the same goddam gym to lift the same goddam weights over and over and to eat the same goddam food so many times every goddam day. We are all zealots, the whole lot of us regardless of the program we follow.

The alternative is that we do not persevere. And fail.

 

[liegelord]

What I have noticed about the 5x5 and HST, is you learn to listen to your body and see what works for you personally. I think this has been unnecessarily complicated; HST and 5x5 have served, at least me, to make things simple: focus on a few compound movements, get stronger over time and make sure you are eating properly with enough sleep. Don't train to failure and listen to your body.

 

[Lol]

Russ, YHM. Actually YHPM!

 

[Fausto]

In short it is never good to be fanatical about anything, open mindedness has always been my motto, I find HST very good but even better when mixed withh other systems such as Max-stim, 5 x 5 or other strength training programs to finish things off.

What is undeniable is that nowhere else do we see such freedom of press as we see here, totally democratic to say the least and frankly that is what I like about it!

Everyone so far has a point, except when they start to go extreme to either end.

 

[imported_dgm]

Russ, please post your 10x3 routine. I am interested in all the details ( movements, rest between sets, rest between workouts, intensity (failure/or shy of, etc.)
Appriciate it. Thanks in advance.
Don

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(Fausto @ Sep. 25 2007,07:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In short it is never good to be fanatical about anything, open mindedness has always been my motto, I find HST very good but even better when mixed withh other systems such as Max-stim, 5 x 5 or other strength training programs to finish things off.

What is undeniable is that nowhere else do we see such freedom of press as we see here, totally democratic to say the least and frankly that is what I like about it!

Everyone so far has a point, except when they start to go extreme to either end.

</div>
I couldn't agree more , and I think it says a lot about Bryans character that he allows such freedom , I believe that ultimately the unrepressed , uncensored (sometimes brutally honest)exchange of experiences/ideas will result in the HST board (as an entity) being MUCH greater than the sum of it's parts and ultimately the &quot;go to site&quot; for frank , enlightened discussion of training , open to sharing what we know and feel will improve any system and conversely open to considering what various systems may have to compliment ours.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(dgm @ Sep. 25 2007,07:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Russ, please post your 10x3 routine. I am interested in all the details ( movements, rest between sets, rest between workouts, intensity (failure/or shy of, etc.)
Appriciate it. Thanks in advance.
Don</div>
Gladly , I will start a new thread so as to minimize its intrusiveness on this threads original topic.

 

[_Simon_]

YEAH totally agree, we aren't slandering each other we're discussing ideas and (unlike some other forums) really listening to OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas, not giving people a hard time because of them ay!

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.

</div>

RUSS said this, but i wanna ask everyone regarding training history and so forth, i came from a twice/week training with a higher 'now' volume than i do now (from 10x3 dropping to 8x4, TO HST 2x10, 3x5). Now, because i previously did that higher volume, would my threshold be SET at that level, so as no further growth will happen unless i reach that 'Right Now' volume??? in THAT case, if true should i switch back to higher volume and lower frequency???

hmm from reading something Lyle said once regarding keeping ribosome translations up and donations from satellite cells etc, (somethin like that anyway lol) THIS is necessary for hypertrophy, i'm wondering whether certain 'Right Now' volume is necessary to attain based on my PREVIOUS training experience!?!?

DISCUSS!!!!!!!

hehe nah any help would be GREAT thanks

 

[Fausto]

Simon

I think it very much depends on how much you really deconditioned before taking up HST, if enough then the volume should not be an issue.

Sounds ot me like you were on a strength training program and you may as well go there agin once you finish the 5's to strectch gains so to say...many of us do 5 x 5, or other variations and are pretty happy with results.

 

[Ruthenian]

This is an absolutely great thread - thanks to all involved!  And thanks to Russ for posting his 10x3 routine in another thread.

I would like to dissent from the comments that SD is just another name for a deload period.  At least conceptually, I see a deload as a period of de-stressing to dissipate fatigue in line with dual factor logic (whether those advocating the deload period realize they are following this logic, or not). SD, on the other hand, is specifically for the purpose of deconditioning the muscle to enhance gains from a subsequent cycle.  No doubt, SD also has the effect of dissipating fatigue, but that is not the stated intent.

If we acknowledge another purpose for SD, the question then becomes whether 2 weeks is adequate to achieve the stated purpose.  If not, a two week period is, indeed, analogous to a deload and really isn't anything special.  This discussion has been an active one on the board and folks have been begging for Bryan to jump in on the issue.  

I tend to suspect that two weeks is not adequate to decondition the muscles, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that some meaningful period exists that is long enough to allow deconditioning without being ridiculously long (30 days?).

 

[bgates1654]

2 weeks of SD might be overkill for me. I dont know about you guys but that first day of 15s is terrible and the following 2-3 days are worse. I start with 75-80% of my 15RM. It seems to work just fine for me.

 

[_Simon_]

well yeah that's the thing Fausto it was basically the routine off Dan's site (frequency twice a week, volume about 30-32 reps per session), and i did that for about 8 weeks before i tested my RMs and did an SD week for HST. HAHAHA so many acronyms...
so yes i'm not sure whether i need more volume than i'm getting now, i'll stick this short 4 week cycle out and see how i go

so yeah hmm Ruthenian that's an interesting thought, if SD is doesn't unadapt the tissue then my conclusion would logically be that SD doesn't set out to what it was theorised to in the first place... BUT i'm thinking maybe that once we are exposed to these loads, that we don't so much ADAPT to them so that they are completely useless... but that once we start with the LIGHTER loads, maybe we decondition from THAT.

OH!

maybe the SD IN CONJUNCTION with the lighter loads DO serve a purpose, i'll explain. ok, so we SD, and yeah we condition a bit, then after spending a bit of time exposing our muscles to lighter loads, the threshold for growth doesn't necessarily RE-set, but maybe it sort of RE-adapts to them lighter loads! get me? like maybe it's not the SD per se that's responsible for deconditioning, but that in conjunction with lighter loads (be it 15s or 10s doesn't matter, much lighter is still lighter) deconditions or sort of RE-conditions the muscles to that LEVEL you're working at.

ummm hard to explain sorta, ok say someone carries 50kg boxes for a long time, and then umm their boss tells them 'okay freddy, we've finished with the bulk packages from oversees, now we gotta transport these crates of balloons' and these crates are say 15kg (i know, aLOT of balloons ok). but the muscles then adapt to that after this dude carrying them for awhile!

am i confusing threshold for adaption however?
ok to me threshold= muscle sensitivity in which above THAT threshold equals more growth/adaption
adaption= growth to adapt

so what i'm saying is, maybe that SD and the lighter loads lowers adaption AND threshold due to simply being exposed by it for a period of time.

BRYAN! YOUR BOOK IS NOW WRITTEN!!!!!

haha jokin

any thoughts? i reckon we need some science in here though rather than my theories haha anyone know of any studies (FULLPROOF proper studies that is) that attempts to reset RBE with lighter loads?

cheers, i think we're getting somewhere....