As I said, if what you do works, great. Just to illustrate why I feel 1-2 weeks is plenty for me for each mesocycle (especially in HST where progression is linear), my max bench press is about 475 and during 10's my 10RM would be about 355 lbs. based on 355 being about 75% of my 1RM. I will start at about 70% of my 10RM on workout 1 of my 2-week mesocycle to allow for progression. That weight is about 245 lbs. and would allow for several weeks in that mesocycle if I micro-load. The problem is that 245 is such a light starting weight that I can do it for 17 reps, which is way too sub-maximal in my opinion.
this routine kicks major A$$
- Thread starter need2eat
- Start date
jvroig
Super Moderator
Hey need
Just read the thread.
I hope I'm not a victim of what you called "failure to communicate", but here are my thoughts.
Pros of this "routine" that evidently "kicks major @$$":
1. Increasing load.
2. Utilizing submax weights.
3. (I assumed) Still no failure training.
Cons:
1. SD might be too frequent - the longer you keep your body in an environment conducive to growth, the better the effects. This is why Dan would prefer fewer SD (unless of course he changed his mind, but last I knew him that was his valued opinion), and why you are encouraged to extend your cycle (5's / Negs) until your joints are screaming or you feel you can't do anymore or aren't growing (but this last one is a little hard to measure). Purposely doing SD will too frequently than necessary might not help. OR I could be wrong, of course.
So basically, really just HST + SD between rep ranges + extending rep ranges. Hard to actually gauge the effectiveness on paper unless you do it and we find out how you implemented it. Say, you spend 3 weeks on 15's, 6 weeks on 10's, and 6 weeks on 5's. That would be a lot different than 2 weeks 15s, SD, 2 weeks 10s, SD and 2 weeks 5s.
I'm not a fan of too frequent SD myself, I'd rather work out for 8-12 weeks (more or less 2-3 months at a time) so I only SD about 4 times a year.
It could work, or it could just be ok. Really tough to say when it's just on paper.
As for the "growth" during SD, last I checked, the growth you get when you SD or simply the week after you stopped lifting is due to glycogen stores getting replenished. It's really not muscle growth. Far as I know, muscle growth is over in SD (which is why you did SD in the first place, generally), especially 48h after a good workout.
Just my thoughts. Nice thread title btw, pretty catchy
Regards,
-JV
Just read the thread.
I hope I'm not a victim of what you called "failure to communicate", but here are my thoughts.
Pros of this "routine" that evidently "kicks major @$$":
1. Increasing load.
2. Utilizing submax weights.
3. (I assumed) Still no failure training.
Cons:
1. SD might be too frequent - the longer you keep your body in an environment conducive to growth, the better the effects. This is why Dan would prefer fewer SD (unless of course he changed his mind, but last I knew him that was his valued opinion), and why you are encouraged to extend your cycle (5's / Negs) until your joints are screaming or you feel you can't do anymore or aren't growing (but this last one is a little hard to measure). Purposely doing SD will too frequently than necessary might not help. OR I could be wrong, of course.
So basically, really just HST + SD between rep ranges + extending rep ranges. Hard to actually gauge the effectiveness on paper unless you do it and we find out how you implemented it. Say, you spend 3 weeks on 15's, 6 weeks on 10's, and 6 weeks on 5's. That would be a lot different than 2 weeks 15s, SD, 2 weeks 10s, SD and 2 weeks 5s.
I'm not a fan of too frequent SD myself, I'd rather work out for 8-12 weeks (more or less 2-3 months at a time) so I only SD about 4 times a year.
It could work, or it could just be ok. Really tough to say when it's just on paper.
As for the "growth" during SD, last I checked, the growth you get when you SD or simply the week after you stopped lifting is due to glycogen stores getting replenished. It's really not muscle growth. Far as I know, muscle growth is over in SD (which is why you did SD in the first place, generally), especially 48h after a good workout.
Just my thoughts. Nice thread title btw, pretty catchy
Regards,
-JV
I gotchya BIZ
With the weight your pushing, you could do 90% of your RM and still workout for a month just on one mesocycle...jeez
I get what your saying though.
jvroig
You nailed it man
"So basically, really just HST + SD between rep ranges + extending rep ranges."
simple simple simple.
I wonder though, if by taking some time off in between mesocycles, if it would somehow make the submaximal weight used in the next mesocycle, more efficient. As opposed to using a higher % of the RM or repeating a given poundage over consecutive workouts.
I dunno, I get bored too dang easy, Im trying to keep it as close to home as possible, without straying too far.
Think I may stick to what Ive done the last two cycle and repeat the poundages for every two workouts with the fives, for now...
With the weight your pushing, you could do 90% of your RM and still workout for a month just on one mesocycle...jeez
jvroig
You nailed it man
"So basically, really just HST + SD between rep ranges + extending rep ranges."
simple simple simple.
I wonder though, if by taking some time off in between mesocycles, if it would somehow make the submaximal weight used in the next mesocycle, more efficient. As opposed to using a higher % of the RM or repeating a given poundage over consecutive workouts.
I dunno, I get bored too dang easy, Im trying to keep it as close to home as possible, without straying too far.
Think I may stick to what Ive done the last two cycle and repeat the poundages for every two workouts with the fives, for now...
<div>
(need2eat @ Mar. 11 2007,09:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I got a question for ya dan moore.
One instance you say X bodybuilder used higher reps to gain muscle. Then you follow it with, the rep range is insignificant. Could you go into some detail how rep range is unimportant? </div>
Because overall what he did was use a fixed rep range (for the most part) but more importantly he continually added load to the bar, albeit he used strength as a measuring stick.
If that main principle is followed then the rep range used is irrelevant. The reason HST is load periodized is to accomplish this very thing, adding load to the bar over time.
Basically we have two ways of doing this ( or rather we are talking about only two ways, there are more).
1. Dual Progression, when X number of reps is performed add weight
2. Linear or Undulating progression (periodized), simply add load at a given time or point in your training cycle.
Both work and it has little to do with the rep range itself.
What you are suggesting is no different than taking several macro cycles and stringing them together, each 4 weeks long. Bryan himself has indicated that
1. Each load is capable of providing a stimulus for some time, albeit I am sure the conditioning state of the tissue itself will dictate which load is capable of this.
2. It's possible and waranted to use each load until all adaptation from that load has stalled.
So whether your cycle is 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or even 20 weeks long it comes down to managing it appropriately and using some proper planning, that's all.
(need2eat @ Mar. 11 2007,09:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I got a question for ya dan moore.
One instance you say X bodybuilder used higher reps to gain muscle. Then you follow it with, the rep range is insignificant. Could you go into some detail how rep range is unimportant? </div>
Because overall what he did was use a fixed rep range (for the most part) but more importantly he continually added load to the bar, albeit he used strength as a measuring stick.
If that main principle is followed then the rep range used is irrelevant. The reason HST is load periodized is to accomplish this very thing, adding load to the bar over time.
Basically we have two ways of doing this ( or rather we are talking about only two ways, there are more).
1. Dual Progression, when X number of reps is performed add weight
2. Linear or Undulating progression (periodized), simply add load at a given time or point in your training cycle.
Both work and it has little to do with the rep range itself.
What you are suggesting is no different than taking several macro cycles and stringing them together, each 4 weeks long. Bryan himself has indicated that
1. Each load is capable of providing a stimulus for some time, albeit I am sure the conditioning state of the tissue itself will dictate which load is capable of this.
2. It's possible and waranted to use each load until all adaptation from that load has stalled.
So whether your cycle is 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or even 20 weeks long it comes down to managing it appropriately and using some proper planning, that's all.
Ok, I get what your saying, dont hate my questions
If rep range is unimportant, why does everyone jump to low rep set exercises to gain strength, why not moderate to high rep?
As I know everyone likes to point to progressive load as an HST priciple, but from my experience, adding weight to the bar goes without saying.
Everyone read that?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What you are suggesting is no different than taking several macro cycles and stringing them together, each 4 weeks long. Bryan himself has indicated that </div>
It wasnt a looney idea after all.
I have a copyright on microcycles, so.....haha
If rep range is unimportant, why does everyone jump to low rep set exercises to gain strength, why not moderate to high rep?
As I know everyone likes to point to progressive load as an HST priciple, but from my experience, adding weight to the bar goes without saying.
Everyone read that?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What you are suggesting is no different than taking several macro cycles and stringing them together, each 4 weeks long. Bryan himself has indicated that </div>
It wasnt a looney idea after all.
Lifting N Tx
New Member
<div>
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,09:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If rep range is unimportant, why does everyone jump to low rep set exercises to gain strength, why not moderate to high rep?</div>
Because you're limited in the amount of weight you can use with moderate to high rep sets. Hypertrophy is an important component of strength, but so is neural efficiency. Getting better at high rep/low load sets has limited carryover to pure strength. Eventually you need some work with loads heavier than you can use for high reps with conventional sets.
As for SD between "microcycles", first you get some break by dropping to the next rep range. Two sets of 10 at your 15RM shouldn't take you that close to failure. I use "failure" to mean attempting, but failing, a rep, not working until you throw up and can no longer stand. If one needs more of a break than that, IMO that's what zig-zag is for. It serves as a mini-deload.
As for growth while resting, what JV said. You'll keep growing for a couple of days while the stimulus from the last workout lasts. After that, your muscles will slowly start to atrophy. That's why I don't want to SD too frequently. As long as you aren't too beat up, and you're still able to increase loads such that your muscles respond by getting bigger and stronger, no need to SD.
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,09:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If rep range is unimportant, why does everyone jump to low rep set exercises to gain strength, why not moderate to high rep?</div>
Because you're limited in the amount of weight you can use with moderate to high rep sets. Hypertrophy is an important component of strength, but so is neural efficiency. Getting better at high rep/low load sets has limited carryover to pure strength. Eventually you need some work with loads heavier than you can use for high reps with conventional sets.
As for SD between "microcycles", first you get some break by dropping to the next rep range. Two sets of 10 at your 15RM shouldn't take you that close to failure. I use "failure" to mean attempting, but failing, a rep, not working until you throw up and can no longer stand. If one needs more of a break than that, IMO that's what zig-zag is for. It serves as a mini-deload.
As for growth while resting, what JV said. You'll keep growing for a couple of days while the stimulus from the last workout lasts. After that, your muscles will slowly start to atrophy. That's why I don't want to SD too frequently. As long as you aren't too beat up, and you're still able to increase loads such that your muscles respond by getting bigger and stronger, no need to SD.
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Mar. 12 2007,11:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Because you're limited in the amount of weight you can use with moderate to high rep sets. Hypertrophy is an important component of strength, but so is neural efficiency. Getting better at high rep/low load sets has limited carryover to pure strength. Eventually you need some work with loads heavier than you can use for high reps with conventional sets.</div>
Exactly, and if using a dual progression model you'll have to wait until strength (all factors involved) gains are enough to add more load.
Which is why periodization may provide for more response than dual progression.
(Lifting N Tx @ Mar. 12 2007,11:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Because you're limited in the amount of weight you can use with moderate to high rep sets. Hypertrophy is an important component of strength, but so is neural efficiency. Getting better at high rep/low load sets has limited carryover to pure strength. Eventually you need some work with loads heavier than you can use for high reps with conventional sets.</div>
Exactly, and if using a dual progression model you'll have to wait until strength (all factors involved) gains are enough to add more load.
Which is why periodization may provide for more response than dual progression.
Hey BIZ! Great to see you here. Hope all has been well since we last spoke.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Because you're limited in the amount of weight you can use with moderate to high rep sets. Hypertrophy is an important component of strength, but so is neural efficiency. Getting better at high rep/low load sets has limited carryover to pure strength. Eventually you need some work with loads heavier than you can use for high reps with conventional sets.</div>
Thats why when someone says, rep range is unimportant, it makes absolutely no sense to me.
Everyone up to this point says, the first two mesocycles are in preperation for the 5's. By your own comment, high load, low reps is for strength, most people believe that. HST is about hypertrophy.
This is why I asked this question, why is rep range unimportant? I keep getting the answer its not, yet when I ask for detail, I get explanations as to how rep ranges affect you differently. So the true answer is, rep ranges do effect how your body responds to the load. Instead of doing a vanilla HST routine where your basically prepping for the end load (5's). If you do macrocycles as they are called, wouldnt this take full advantage of each rep range. Because if you keep pointing to the 5's as the key to hypertrophy, it becomes fuzzy, as 5's are for strength. If I read the HST principles correctly, its the submax weight that sparks continual growth, yet everyone has this fixation on the 5's, hey I like them too but Im thinking more attention should be paid to other rep ranges. As the body responds differently to different rep ranges.
Something else the quoted statement doesnt take into consideration, you may be handling lighter weight, but your still at your rep max for that rep range, the weight wont feel any lighter when your handling your RM load and sneaking up on the last few reps.
If Im to believe what is being stated, then all I have to do, is go grab more weight than I lifted the last lifting day, do as many reps as I can comfortably, stop. Next workout, grab a little more weight, do as many reps as possible, comfortably, stop. Repeat as needed, when I feel Im pushing my body too far, stop, take a break for a week or two, look at my records, go back mid cycle, find the weight I lifted, lift it as many reps as possible comfortably, then add a little more every workout after that. As any specific rep range is unimportant.
Anyone speak hillbilly and can translate what Im saying?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have a copyright on microcycles, so.....haha
You sure about that? </div>
Stop eyeballin my chicken.
Thats why when someone says, rep range is unimportant, it makes absolutely no sense to me.
Everyone up to this point says, the first two mesocycles are in preperation for the 5's. By your own comment, high load, low reps is for strength, most people believe that. HST is about hypertrophy.
This is why I asked this question, why is rep range unimportant? I keep getting the answer its not, yet when I ask for detail, I get explanations as to how rep ranges affect you differently. So the true answer is, rep ranges do effect how your body responds to the load. Instead of doing a vanilla HST routine where your basically prepping for the end load (5's). If you do macrocycles as they are called, wouldnt this take full advantage of each rep range. Because if you keep pointing to the 5's as the key to hypertrophy, it becomes fuzzy, as 5's are for strength. If I read the HST principles correctly, its the submax weight that sparks continual growth, yet everyone has this fixation on the 5's, hey I like them too but Im thinking more attention should be paid to other rep ranges. As the body responds differently to different rep ranges.
Something else the quoted statement doesnt take into consideration, you may be handling lighter weight, but your still at your rep max for that rep range, the weight wont feel any lighter when your handling your RM load and sneaking up on the last few reps.
If Im to believe what is being stated, then all I have to do, is go grab more weight than I lifted the last lifting day, do as many reps as I can comfortably, stop. Next workout, grab a little more weight, do as many reps as possible, comfortably, stop. Repeat as needed, when I feel Im pushing my body too far, stop, take a break for a week or two, look at my records, go back mid cycle, find the weight I lifted, lift it as many reps as possible comfortably, then add a little more every workout after that. As any specific rep range is unimportant.
Anyone speak hillbilly and can translate what Im saying?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have a copyright on microcycles, so.....haha
You sure about that? </div>
Stop eyeballin my chicken.
<div>
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,17:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If Im to believe what is being stated, then all I have to do, is go grab more weight than I lifted the last lifting day, do as many reps as I can comfortably, stop. Next workout, grab a little more weight, do as many reps as possible, comfortably, stop. Repeat as needed, when I feel Im pushing my body too far, stop, take a break for a week or two, look at my records, go back mid cycle, find the weight I lifted, lift it as many reps as possible comfortably, then add a little more every workout after that. As any other rep ranges are unimportant.</div>
Basically yes, that's all you have to do, assuming you eat enough.
Why would different rep ranges effect you differently? I don't get it. Load is what is important. The only reason that the 5s are the 5s is because you have progressed the load and so you can't do as many reps before you hit failure. Otherwise, they are identical to the 10s, just with lower volume. If you cluster or max-stim, or just do more sets, then you end up with the same volume as before, and in that case, there is no difference, just a heavier load being used.
But the idea that rep ranges effect you differently is what lead to the whole "high reps for toning, low reps for bulking" crap that people used to believe (some still do for who knows what reason...)
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,17:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If Im to believe what is being stated, then all I have to do, is go grab more weight than I lifted the last lifting day, do as many reps as I can comfortably, stop. Next workout, grab a little more weight, do as many reps as possible, comfortably, stop. Repeat as needed, when I feel Im pushing my body too far, stop, take a break for a week or two, look at my records, go back mid cycle, find the weight I lifted, lift it as many reps as possible comfortably, then add a little more every workout after that. As any other rep ranges are unimportant.</div>
Basically yes, that's all you have to do, assuming you eat enough.
Why would different rep ranges effect you differently? I don't get it. Load is what is important. The only reason that the 5s are the 5s is because you have progressed the load and so you can't do as many reps before you hit failure. Otherwise, they are identical to the 10s, just with lower volume. If you cluster or max-stim, or just do more sets, then you end up with the same volume as before, and in that case, there is no difference, just a heavier load being used.
But the idea that rep ranges effect you differently is what lead to the whole "high reps for toning, low reps for bulking" crap that people used to believe (some still do for who knows what reason...)
Wouldnt it be a fair statement, when you cut/tone your weaker, so using a lighter weight with more reps is more ideal?
Well I guess to answer my own question, a person could simply find their new rm for a given rep range and go from there.
When I think of HST in the context you and others are putting it in, there really is no need to do 5's, aka handle greater loads, which could lead to elbow/knee and other associated problems.
Although it doesnt take into consideration how some people require more sets/reps using a given load.
Hell, my HST routine just became alot easier to put on paper.
I still feel my body reacts differently, using different rep ranges, maybe its psychological.
Well I guess to answer my own question, a person could simply find their new rm for a given rep range and go from there.
When I think of HST in the context you and others are putting it in, there really is no need to do 5's, aka handle greater loads, which could lead to elbow/knee and other associated problems.
Although it doesnt take into consideration how some people require more sets/reps using a given load.
Hell, my HST routine just became alot easier to put on paper.
I still feel my body reacts differently, using different rep ranges, maybe its psychological.
<div>
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,17:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wouldnt it be a fair statement, when you cut/tone your weaker, so using a lighter weight with more reps is more ideal?</div>
No. Smaller loads do not spare muscle mass as well while on a calorie deficit. It is more ideal to go as heavy as you can, in order to retain more muscle and strength. Rather than cut back the load during a cut, if you are having problems with energy levels, you should reduce volume.
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,17:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wouldnt it be a fair statement, when you cut/tone your weaker, so using a lighter weight with more reps is more ideal?</div>
No. Smaller loads do not spare muscle mass as well while on a calorie deficit. It is more ideal to go as heavy as you can, in order to retain more muscle and strength. Rather than cut back the load during a cut, if you are having problems with energy levels, you should reduce volume.
<div>
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,17:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Another question would be, if the above is true, then why do macrocycles?</div>
You don't even have to. A lot of us these days don't. You just start with a certain percentage of your 1 RM, keep reps constant and keep progressing the load. Use clustering or max-stim or whatever, and abandon rep ranges entirely. This is actually a good way to setup and extended cycle.
(need2eat @ Mar. 12 2007,17:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Another question would be, if the above is true, then why do macrocycles?</div>
You don't even have to. A lot of us these days don't. You just start with a certain percentage of your 1 RM, keep reps constant and keep progressing the load. Use clustering or max-stim or whatever, and abandon rep ranges entirely. This is actually a good way to setup and extended cycle.
Next question, those who do not do mesocycles, what rep range do most people stick with?
Another kink that I notice, is when its said rep range is unimportant, then why do people feel they need more sets for a given rep range, are they just over eager? As with time and more load, a set number of sets/reps should become plenty, no? Or is that more psychological mumbo jumbo?
Another kink that I notice, is when its said rep range is unimportant, then why do people feel they need more sets for a given rep range, are they just over eager? As with time and more load, a set number of sets/reps should become plenty, no? Or is that more psychological mumbo jumbo?