Weight/rep progression after 5RM

HST_Rihad

HST_Rihad

Active Member
After reaching what's supposed to be your 5RM in 3 sets @3-5 minute rest (which is below RPE-10 apparently), how do you decide when it's time to increase the load?
(a) you rep out in the first set (still stopping short of failure), and take 7-8 reps as a sign that you can add more load next w/o. Attempt to do 5 reps in sets 2 & 3.
(b) do 5 reps in sets 1 & 2, but attempt to rep out in the last set (Lyle McDonald's style)

Personally I seem to like (a) better.
 
Either is fine. I would probably be closer to the latter. It's a better indicator of your strength retention (what some people would call "strength endurance"). Generally, a lifter with more than say, 10-12months of experience, who has plateau d, at least once, will understand when they can increase the weight and when they cannot.

Many lifters I know would increase the weight for one set, then two sets, then finally all three sets (probably increase the middle set first, then the third, then the first).


The difference in effectiveness, of method, will likely be insignificant IMO.
 
Coming from a slightly different angle, my experience has been that ascending sets are better at strengthening and descending sets are better at hypertrophy. By descending, I mean decreasing the weight just enough after each set so that you can hit the goal, say 5 reps, on each successive set. Try them all and see what feels the best for you. It's a good question and one that does not have a simple answer. I think it becomes a matter of what your goal is and your preference.
 
Old and Grey said:
By descending, I mean decreasing the weight just enough after each set so that you can hit the goal, say 5 reps, on each successive set.
Click to expand...

My goal is hypertrophy. Interesting, the descending method you described is akin to Martin Berkhan's RPT (reverse pyramid training).

Although this whole idea of dropping loads (sacrificing load for volume) seems to be violating HST principles. It seem to be a compromise between sticking to the same lower load across all sets allowing you to perform all designated sets, and increasing intensity.
 
Taken from the HST FAQ:
Yes, the # of reps a person uses is related to the amount of a weight they’re using as well as
their level of strength. However, the # of reps in no way should be used to dictate how much
weight they should use. In other words, the only reason we designate a specific number of reps
to use is to maintain order in our training. They are used as a guide whereby we can measure
our progress. An incorrect usage of reps is to only increase the weight when more reps can be
performed at a given weight load. This might be sufficient for an average strength-training
program, but it is not a good way to increase hypertrophy.
Click to expand...
Please kill me now... :)
 
I do not where you got that quote but it is consistent with the basic tenents of HST. That is, you do not work to maximum capacity except for the last session in any given rep range. To get to that point you progressively work with heavier, though submaximal, weights.

If you take one sentence in that quote "However, the # of reps in no way should be used to dictate how much
weight they should use" and try to make it stand alone by itself, you may get confused. Take the whole paragraph together to get the gist of what is being said.

When doing more than 1 set of an exercise, I personally decrease the weight after each set to maintain the same level of exertion without having to wait 5 or 10 minutes to full muscle recovery to complete the required number of reps with the same weight. However, I stick to the prescribed number of reps and do not alter that as you might with. say, a 5X5 routine. On the last session of a given rep range, that happens to be near failure. It is not near failure (maximum effort) on previous sessions. Others may do it differently.

HST says to work within a certain set of guidelines to get maximum hypertrophy. It does not say do A then B then C, etc. It allows for creativity to fit your particular needs and wants.

BANG!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
O&G, see, this weight dropping from set to set seems to be contrary to HST principles. If load is the main determinant of exercise effectiveness for hypertrophy (tension applied) irrespective of the work done (reps/sets), we should probably stick to it. Meaning, if we drop weight by 5-10% we're simply repeating loads from 1-2 previous workouts that used them, and that have since become less efficient for inducing growth.
 
I hear you Rihad but let me ask you this:

How is keeping the same load and being able to do less than, say, 5 reps on subsequent any more keeping in line with HST? I choose to interpret HST as meaning that 5 reps IS 5 reps. If you want to interpret it as 5 reps really means 4 on the second set and perhaps 3 on the third set, or that it is best to take long rest periods like strength athletes so that you can get 5 reps on subsequent sets, that is fine by me. Many people do it differently. To me, where hypertrophy is the goal, it seems like it is working too close to failure on the subsequent sets. I maintain the same effort within a workout and progress only from one workout to the next.

That is the beauty of HST. It allows you tailor a program to your needs, wants, time schedule, etc. There are many ways to achieve the same goal. The only variable is can you find the best one to hit your genetic potential the quickest way. In the end, everyone can get to that point no matter which HST based road they take. Unfortuantely it takes many years of lifting to finally come to that conclusion. Totz takes a route different from me, LOL has his own route, Alex has his, etc. Read everything on here creatively, not literally.
 
The thing is, effort required to lift the weight is related to straining your CNS and gaining strength, only load done at sufficient volume has everything to do with muscle strain (per HST). I'm not making this up, quoting Bryan HST FAQ part 11.2.
[...]So, the primary stimulus for muscle-fiber growth is the physical effects of loading the muscle (lifting and lowering a weight), not the "effort" required to lift or lower it.
Click to expand...

Still, the load you drop onto in sets 2-3 may still be just enough to strain the muscle somewhat. I need to think about it :)
 
You cannot "load" a muscle without effort and expect gains, except, perhaps, if it is done through electrical stimulation. Even then the effort would be the electricity used.

A simplistic formula would be lifting + lowering + effort = muscle fiber microtrauma = hypertrophy. Done a certain way, it can mean more neural trauma than fiber trauma. Ergo, volume comes into play (reps and sets). However, if effort in the formula = 0, the end result is no trauma regardless of volume.
 
Each of you is using "effort" in a slightly different context, however this means that you're talking about different things.

@HST_Rihad - To my eyes, O&G is saying that you have to be lifting to your capabilities. e.g. don't set a 5RM that you truly know is really only 90% of your 5RM. If you don't lift a mass that is large enough, within your cycle progression, you won't continue to make progress.

@O&G - To my eyes, Rihad is focusing on 'effort' as a descriptor of CNS use (and strain), and is not applying a pragmatic interpretation to your usage of the word.




In general; don't stress so much, Rihad. Part of determining optimal training (and what constitutes optimal training in your opinion) is trial & error. I wouldn't have half the gains I have today if I hadn't failed first. Anyone, in any successful pursuit in life, will tell you the importance of failure in determining the breadth and extent of your success. That doesn't mean you should knowingly train doing a muscle-magazine one-part-per-session for a year. But if you ascending loads, or descending loads for a cycle and find it didn't work out as well as you hoped, it's not the end of the world. You've completed the 'method' part of your experiment. It's not enough to just do endless theory and convince yourself you're right/correct without putting it into practice and testing that information.
 
O&G, AlexAustralia is right, obviously I wasn't referring to "effort" in general sense, but rather questioning the necessity of having to work @RPE close to 10.

AlexAustralia, if you ask me, the best performance progression I've had was three years ago, DB flat bench press (loads in kg):

Fri: 34x5
Mon: 34x5
Wed: 34x7
Fri: 34x7.5
Mon: 34x8
Wed: 34x8
Fri: 34x8.5

End of next 6-week cycle:
Fri: 36x5
Mon: 36x6
Wed: 36x7
Fri: 36x7

See, nice progression doing one set only.
<style> <!-- BODY,DIV,TABLE,THEAD,TBODY,TFOOT,TR,TH,TD,P { font-family:"Liberation Sans"; font-size:x-small } --> </style>

<tbody>
</tbody>


That was Summer 2010, three years ago. Then I just thought I didn't need this strength/performance progression that much, and it wasn't really what Bryan suggested for progress in hypertrophy, I had insufficient work volume etc, so I ditched the single-set rep-outs. I haven't grown that much in strength since then, you may add 5-10 kg to that over both arms (although I have consistently been adding in chest size since):
May'12 108cm
Mar'12 107.5cm
Jan'12 107cm
Dec'11 106cm
Oct'11 105cm
Jul'11 104cm
Mar'11 102cm

<tbody>
</tbody>
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top