The science behind HST

[chuckie_hands]

Hi guys,
Have just stumbled across your site and it makes interesting reading. I have read a lot of info over the years on weight training / bodybuilding and am also a keen bodybuilder.
I have read the training articles and some of the posts in the forum and I have a few comments / questions regarding your training philosophy.

Bryan makes the point that after training it takes only 48hrs for the muscle to recover. Any tiredness following the 48hrs is associated with central nervous system (CNS) fatigue. If you train every 48hrs for 6 weeks the CNS will become progressively more fatigued. Do you agree?

I notice that HST refutes the concept that you must train with maximum "intensity" to elicit significant muscle growth. If you do bicep curls with no weight, no matter how many rep or sets you do, your biceps will not grow - why would people need gyms if this were the case. It is only when the muscle has to exert a force (intensity of contraction) such that the body's homeostatis is threatened that adaptation and muscle growth occurs (SAID principle). How can you be sure that your system provides adequate intensity to stimulate muscle growth?

The HST system refutes the idea that you need to train less frequently as you progress onto heavier weights. As the amount of weight lifted increases the amount of toxic byproducts porduced by the muscle will also increase. Since these are processed by the liver and kidneys, which do not increase in size or efficiency greatly, the increase in toxins will require more time to be processed (this may be similar to the CNS point earlier). As the weight lifted increases the volume of each training session must also increase (since the number of set and reps is constant). Surely this will eventually lead to overtraining?

What are the principles around which the 15rep, 10rep, 5rep training cycle is based upon?

The HST principles page states this training method only promotes hypertrophy and the development of strength is largely neuromuscular, which continues after hypertrophy has stopped. Does this mean that muscle developed in this way will have less strength, resulting in big but weak muscles?
The training page suggests that after each cycle of 7/8 weeks training the 15,10,5 rep maxes should be increased by 5-10%. I am training once per week and achieving an average increase in strength of 8-10% in 7/8 weeks. Since I am training only 1/3 as much as HST does this not suggest that HST is an inefficient way to train?

Just so you don't think I'm out to contradict everything on your site I do agree that:

Only one set per exercise is require to promote growth
Training while the muscle is sore is ok
Muscle cannot be "confused"
Muscle shaped cannot be changed
Muscle does not need to be trained at different angles

I look forward to seeing your replies!

 

[imported_dkm1987]

1-->

Quote[/b] (chuckie_hands @ Nov. 12 2004,10

1)]
1. Bryan makes the point that after training it takes only 48hrs for the muscle to recover.
2. I notice that HST refutes the concept that you must train with maximum "intensity" to elicit significant muscle growth. ......How can you be sure that your system provides adequate intensity to stimulate muscle growth?
3. The HST system refutes the idea that you need to train less frequently as you progress onto heavier weights.
4. What are the principles around which the 15rep, 10rep, 5rep training cycle is based upon?
5.Does this mean that muscle developed in this way will have less strength, resulting in big but weak muscles?
6. rep maxes should be increased by 5-10%. I am training once per week and achieving an average increase in strength of 8-10% in 7/8 weeks. Since I am training only 1/3 as much as HST does this not suggest that HST is an inefficient way to train?

1. Bryan makes the point (as the studies show) that anabolic increases (MPS, IGF, MGF) return to basal resting amounts at around 36 to 48 hours, it has nothing to do with recovery.

2. Intensity as defined in HST is the amount of LOAD you are putting the muscle under, not the amount of sweat. Load induced stimulus shows to have the greatest predictor of growth by kicking of the cascading events that lead to hypertrophy. The studies show (look to the studies Thread in the FAQ and also at the bottom of each part of the articles) that load is the best way to induce Mechanotransduction in the muscle tissue itself.

3. See #1. and #2

4. It is merely a means to the end result, one simply can not work healthy when always working heavy, so the structure allows us to work up to (progressivley) a heavy weight. It also allows a way to continually stay ahead of the Repeated Bout Effect by continually adding progressively heavier weights to point where no more weight can be added. The third aspect is there are two main inroads to hypertrophy 1. Metabolic reponse and 2. Load response, so when working with lighter weights we are still inducing the reponse through higher metabolic inroads and there are some studies that show Lactic Acid's beneficial input on tendon (collagen) repair.

5. No, any increase in Muscle CSA will induce force production increase as well as size, but HST is primarily concerned with the muscle tissue itself and not the neural adaptations, But they are related, naturally.

6. You are refering to strength? Again HST is primarily concerned with the muscle tissue and how to make it grow, the strength increases are a natural side effect (in a matter of speaking). Many here have reported larger strength increases, through this form of training, than they had previously seen in other forms of training. Also the percentages is a simplistic formula Bryan suggested due to the fact that many do not wish to retest their maxes at the end of each cycle. He has mentioned numerous times that sometimes one must simplify the ideas to conform to a mass audience, it doesn't lessen the overall effectiveness, it's just a way to convey the ideas more broadly.

Look at the site a bit more and feel free to ask questions. I would recommend looking at the recitations Bryan has given at the end of his articles then see if you don't get a better understanding.

 

[jeffw]

Quote[/b] ]What are the principles around which the 15rep, 10rep, 5rep training cycle is based upon?

There is an effective range of repetitions in mechanical load that elicit hypertrophy. That effective range is narrowed down to from about 20 reps to 120% of your 1RM (“negatives”). The 15-10-5 progression has you work within that range over the course of the given cycle.

Reference: “Progressive load sufficient to cause hypertrophy will limit the number of times the muscle can successfully contract against the resistance. There are several old studies that narrowed it down to a range of perhaps 20 reps (if the muscle is deconditioned) all the way up to 120% of your 1RM. So, depending on how conditioned the muscle is, you can use any rep range between 20 reps and negatives.”

"Why 6 workouts in 2 week blocks? Because it takes about that long using decent increments to reach your specified RM." [See The basics of HST FAQ]

It's easy, when first starting HST, to get caught up in the methods. Keep in mind that there is "nothing magical about the number of reps a person does."

Reference: "…there is nothing magical about the number of reps a person does. Your body doesn't know if you do 15 reps or 14 reps, it only knows how heavy (mechanotransduction through mechanosensitive pathways) it was and how much energy (metabolic by products such as lactate, pH, and ADP are indicators), and how much effort (rating of percieved exertion/CNS activation level) it took to do it.

It's fine to tweak one's routine as long as [it] adhere to the principles. The routine as it is laid out on this site is a best possible fit for the largest number of people. If you want to do more sets, and you can still hit your target weights for the next workout, go for it!" [Bryan in Contradictory Posts ]

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

Quote[/b] ]
As the weight lifted increases the volume of each training session must also increase (since the number of set and reps is constant). Surely this will eventually lead to overtraining?

Not necessarily. Your level of fitness increases when you train. You tend to recover faster and faster.

Also, it is possible that your CNS also becomes more resistant to training. So your say 4 sets of 5s at the end may not be much more stressful than your 2 sets of 15 at the beginning.

Quote[/b] ]
It is only when the muscle has to exert a force (intensity of contraction) such that the body's homeostatis is threatened that adaptation and muscle growth occurs (SAID principle). How can you be sure that your system provides adequate intensity to stimulate muscle growth?

The primary stimulus for muscle growth is the presence of microtrauma. You can make microtrauma the first rep just like the last. The load is transfered to the muscle the first rep as much as the last, so microtrauma will be done during the first reps. So don't think that it is only the last reps that damage the muscle.

Anyways, the microtrauma are done for the biggest part, so whether you go to concentric failure is rather pointless anyways.

Now how come that a someone who doesn't train "hard" doesn't grow? It's not necessarily because they don't "train hard", it is more because they don't train "heavy" enough.

Said differently, you can damage the muscle more the first reps of a heavy load than the last reps of a light load.

 

[Hypertrophier]

Quote[/b] ]1. Bryan makes the point (as the studies show) that anabolic increases (MPS, IGF, MGF) return to basal resting amounts at around 36 to 48 hours, it has nothing to do with recovery.

Hi. Does this affect only the trained muscle, or the whole body? Because when i split in a normal way and train 3-4 times per week, i can also up the anabolic increases, and the whole body takes the effect?
Does it only affect the trained muscle? i.e. if i split as pec+bi, lat+tri, leg+shoulders, do the lats get the anabolic effects from the pec workout 2 days before?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Hypertrophier @ Nov. 14 2004,1:58)]Hi. Does this affect only the trained muscle, or the whole body? .............do the lats get the anabolic effects from the pec workout 2 days before?

The lats get the effect from the lat workout, not the pec workout two days later. Remember it takes load and or metabolic work to induce the anabolic process, so if you are not working the muscle then neither are present. The effect from the previous workout could still be exhibiting the cascading but in some recent research (mTOR as the central action in the pathway) it is shown that the mechanotransduction effects start as early as 10 minutes from loading and last, as mentioned, to 48 hrs before returning to basline.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (Hypertrophier @ Nov. 14 2004,12:58)]

Quote[/b] ]1. Bryan makes the point (as the studies show) that anabolic increases (MPS, IGF, MGF) return to basal resting amounts at around 36 to 48 hours, it has nothing to do with recovery.

Just a quick clarification. Muscle protein synthesis returns to baseline quickly as does MGF. However there is a longer lasting IGF-1 effect that can last a few days.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Bryan Haycock @ Nov. 15 2004,1:04)]

Quote[/b] (Hypertrophier @ Nov. 14 2004,12:58)]

Quote[/b] ]1. Bryan makes the point (as the studies show) that anabolic increases (MPS, IGF, MGF) return to basal resting amounts at around 36 to 48 hours, it has nothing to do with recovery.

Just a quick clarification. Muscle protein synthesis returns to baseline quickly as does MGF. However there is a longer lasting IGF-1 effect that can last a few days.

Bryan are you saying MPS and MGF return quicker than 36 to 48 hours or are you just making the distinction that IGF-1 remains longer as depicted in this paper?

From This Article
<a href="http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/93/1/394" target="_blank">Exercise Effects on Muscle Insulin Signaling and Action
Selected Contribution: Acute cellular and molecular responses to resistance exercise </a>
Fadia Haddad and Gregory R. Adams
Vol. 93, Issue 1, 394-403, July 2002



Fig. 4. MGF and IGF-I mRNA expression in MG muscle at different time points after resistance exercise. mRNA for MGF and IGF-I increase at several time points after a single bout of exercise (A and C) and 2 successive bouts with either 8, 24, or 48 h of rest between bouts (B and D). The area under the curve was calculated by using the mean of the control (time 0) time point as the baseline. * P &lt; 0.05 vs. the contralateral muscle.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Nov. 15 2004,4:55)]

Bryan are you saying MPS and MGF return quicker than 36 to 48 hours or are you just making the distinction that IGF-1 remains longer as depicted in this paper?
From This Article
<a href="http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/93/1/394" target="_blank">Exercise Effects on Muscle Insulin Signaling and Action
Selected Contribution: Acute cellular and molecular responses to resistance exercise </a>
Fadia Haddad and Gregory R. Adams
Vol. 93, Issue 1, 394-403, July 2002
Fig. 4. MGF and IGF-I mRNA expression in MG muscle at different time points after resistance exercise. mRNA for MGF and IGF-I increase at several time points after a single bout of exercise (A and C) and 2 successive bouts with either 8, 24, or 48 h of rest between bouts (B and D). The area under the curve was calculated by using the mean of the control (time 0) time point as the baseline. * P &lt; 0.05 vs. the contralateral muscle.

I was making the distinction depicted in that paper.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Bryan Haycock Nov. 15 2004 @ 9:46)]
I was making the distinction depicted in that paper.

whew , I was about to start another digging frenzy to find out what you were pointing too.

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

I don't really understand.. from these charts it seems that the MGF is still pretty high after 48h - about twice the normal.

Chart B also shows that the best frequency for MGF production is 48h, which is contradictory with the fact that MGF should return to normal within 36-48h.

Or did I get it wrong?

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Nov. 16 2004,9:24)]I don't really understand.. from these charts it seems that the MGF is still pretty high after 48h - about twice the normal.
Chart B also shows that the best frequency for MGF production is 48h, which is contradictory with the fact that MGF should return to normal within 36-48h.
Or did I get it wrong?

Keep in mind that the study above simply shows a pattern. The time courses aren't set in stone. As the muscle adapts, the degree of mRNA elevation decreases. Or, if you are just starting after a lay-off, or you are new to lifting, the mRNA response may be greater, though the mRNA levels may not stay elevated any longer than the study above suggests. mRNA has a relatively fixed half-life.

Because of unpredictable factors such as degree of conditioning/degree of cellular damage, it is impossible to predict with exactness. Think of it like electron cloud models. Although we can't say with exactness where an electron is at any give time, we have a good idea where it should be. With this knowledge, although not exact in its entirety, we can make electrons work for us pretty effectively.

So as a simple guideline we use 48 hours as a good frequency if we want protein synthetic rates to be elevated more frequently, while maintaining reasonable output from our nervous system.

The study Dan shared simply helps to explain that MGF may be largely responsible for the accute responses of protein synthetic rate seen in other studies.

 

[NWlifter]

Hey Bryan,

Question for ya,... I typed out and posted this in another thread, it's a bit from Enoka's book. It really sounds like studies have shown the CNS as not being a factor in strength loss during a set with isotonic contractions. Long isometrics did cause reduced output but the CNS was 'back to full power' within an hour afterwards. It goes on quite a bit after this info. (explaining and showing the studies) that the fibers themselves are the point of the lessened force output post exercise. Any thoughts on that? Thanks

&quot;Neuromechanics of Human Movement&quot; 3rd edition, Roger M. Enoka
P. 374-375
Central Drive
The excitation provided by spraspinal centers is not impaired during high-force fatiguing contractions, but it can be during prolonged contractions. This limitation is expressed as an increase in the effor associated with the task, the appearance of tremor in the involved muscles, and the spread of activation to accessory muscles (Duchateau &amp; Hainaut, 1993; Gandevia, 1998)
The maximality of the activation provided by the nervous system to muscle is typically assessed through comparison of the force exerted during an MVC with the force that can be elicited artificially by electrical stimulation (Allen, McKenzie, &amp; Gandevia, 1998). This appreach involves applying single shocks or a brief train of shocks to the nerve during a fatiguing contraction. The test has been applied to both sustained and intermittent contractions performed at both maximal and submaximal intensities. For example, when subjects perfromred a sustained 60 second MVC with a thumb muscle (adductor pollicis) the force declined by 30% to 50%, but this decrease in voluntary force could not be supplemented by an electric shock (Bigland-Ritchie et al., 1982). Similarly, the maximal voluntary and electrically elicited force declined in parallel when subjects performed an intermittent (6-s contraction, 4-s rest) submxaimal contraction (target force was 50% of maximum) with the quadriceps femoris (Bigland-Ritch, Furbush, &amp; Woods, 1986). In this expermiment, the maximum voluntary and electrically elicited forces were elicited periodically during the submaximal contracion. The parallel decline in the voluntary and evoked forces suggests that the central drive remained maximal during these tasks.

He also mentions later in the chapter that very long isometric contractions, in the 30-60 minute catagory, do find the CNS as the reason for failure, BUT, after 30-60 minutes of rest, the CNS is recovered enough to maximally fire the MU's even though they are still fatigued.

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

Quote[/b] (Bryan Haycock @ Nov. 16 2004,3:16)]

Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Nov. 16 2004,9:24)]I don't really understand.. from these charts it seems that the MGF is still pretty high after 48h - about twice the normal.
Chart B also shows that the best frequency for MGF production is 48h, which is contradictory with the fact that MGF should return to normal within 36-48h.
Or did I get it wrong?

Keep in mind that the study above simply shows a pattern. The time courses aren't set in stone. As the muscle adapts, the degree of mRNA elevation decreases. Or, if you are just starting after a lay-off, or you are new to lifting, the mRNA response may be greater, though the mRNA levels may not stay elevated any longer than the study above suggests. mRNA has a relatively fixed half-life.
Because of unpredictable factors such as degree of conditioning/degree of cellular damage, it is impossible to predict with exactness. Think of it like electron cloud models. Although we can't say with exactness where an electron is at any give time, we have a good idea where it should be. With this knowledge, although not exact in its entirety, we can make electrons work for us pretty effectively.
So as a simple guideline we use 48 hours as a good frequency if we want protein synthetic rates to be elevated more frequently, while maintaining reasonable output from our nervous system.
The study Dan shared simply helps to explain that MGF may be largely responsible for the accute responses of protein synthetic rate seen in other studies.

I see what you mean.

This study is interesting because it clearly shows a cumulation effect of the MGF and IGF-1, which reinforces the idea of &quot;chronic&quot; stimulus versus &quot;acute&quot; stimulus.

It's also interesting because it seems to show that there is a optimum timeframe to train again. TRaining too early doesn't make much difference while the &quot;right&quot; frequency gives much better results.

It is amazing to see that the IGF-1 and MGF CAN get to quite high levels.

I wonder what would happen if someone trained almost every day with a significant volume. How high could the IGF-1 and MGF go and what would the effect be on muscle synthesis? Maybe this could lead to the conclusion that prioritizing a muscle for some time may be a good approach.

Why would we try to get our MGF level at say 0.12 when we know that it can get as high as maybe 0.3?

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ Nov. 17 2004,5:27)]Hey Bryan,
Question for ya,... I typed out and posted this in another thread, it's a bit from Enoka's book. It really sounds like studies have shown the CNS as not being a factor in strength loss during a set with isotonic contractions. Long isometrics did cause reduced output but the CNS was 'back to full power' within an hour afterwards. It goes on quite a bit after this info. (explaining and showing the studies) that the fibers themselves are the point of the lessened force output post exercise. Any thoughts on that? Thanks
&quot;Neuromechanics of Human Movement&quot; 3rd edition, Roger M. Enoka
P. 374-375
Central Drive
The excitation provided by spraspinal centers is not impaired during high-force fatiguing contractions, but it can be during prolonged contractions. This limitation is expressed as an increase in the effor associated with the task, the ...

...He also mentions later in the chapter that very long isometric contractions, in the 30-60 minute catagory, do find the CNS as the reason for failure, BUT, after 30-60 minutes of rest, the CNS is recovered enough to maximally fire the MU's even though they are still fatigued.

As you know there are various mechanisms at work that contribute to fatigue.

After a single set, it isn't likely to be the &quot;Central&quot; nervous system. Central nervous system plays more of a role in comulative fatigue or &quot;over training&quot;.

Short term decrements in strength, particularly after novel eccentric exercise is generally belived to be caused by disruptions to the sarcomeres, not CNS issues.

So, with HST we aren't so concerned with temporary or acute strength deficits. After all, we generally train to failure or close to it during the final 2-4 weeks of an HST cycle. We are more concerned with strength deficits over the course of many weeks. The idea being to expose the tissue to as havy a weight as possible as frequently as needed without overstressing the nervous system.

 

[NWlifter]

So just to clarify, one could train a single muscle daily and the cumlative strength loss that would indeed follow would most likely stem from incomplete recovery of the tissue. But, daily full body workouts might cause a cumulative fatigue of the CNS in addition to incomplete tissue &amp; endocrine recovery/restoration?