A whole new thread: HST criticisms
Lyle McDonald
with criticisms (beyond the standard X isn't big/lean/whatever) of HST
who would like me to try and explain them is welcome to do so.
My promise, I won't curse, I won't name call, I won't insult. If I do,
this is to be taken as an outright FAILURE on my part to explain the
situation. I will adress ANY criticism you have of the program to the
best of my ability. How's that for setting it up fairly?
Note:
1. This is Bryan's program and he does know more about it than I do. He
has looked into the details of the physiology to a far greater degree
than I and there may be places where I do not know the answer, or have
to go to him for an explanation.
2. Let the fun begin.
Lyle
Adam Fahy
news:3C87AA02...@onr.com...
> 1. This is Bryan's program and he does know more about it than I do. He
> has looked into the details of the physiology to a far greater degree
> than I and there may be places where I do not know the answer, or have
> to go to him for an explanation.
Why doesn't Bryan just come to MFW and answer the questions people have
about his theories? That would seem to make the most sense.
-Adam
Lyle McDonald
He doesn't have the time or the inclination. That's what the HST
discussion board is for anyhow, that's where he hangs out. He's got
enough on his plate without dealing with mfw. So I get to be his proxy.
I may be lacking in a few of the very minor details (all of which will
be molecular level stuff that I haven't bothered to look at yet), but
they will be few and far bettween and I understand the principles and
application of the system to almost as great a degree as he does.
Lyle
Robert Dorf
Bryan mentions a "one set is as good as multiple sets" study. Here's an
excerpt from Alan's FAQ;
In a study performed at Montclair State University (5) researchers
investigated the effect of a single set vs. a multiple set routine on
increasing upper body strength. They had the subjects perform either one set
or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies
using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks. This kind of study has
been done before but this one is particularly valuable because it involved
previously "trained" subjects. This is significant because untrained
subjects will usually respond positively to virtually any training routine.
Just because a training strategy works for beginners doesn't mean it will
work for experienced lifters. These researchers found that doing a single
set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same
movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench
press. The take home message is that you needn't do more than a single work
set to achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets.
So what's your opinion on this study? In the last line quoted above ("The
take home message is that you needn't do more than a single work set to
achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets") is Bryan talking
about gains in terms of hypertrophy, strength in a given rep range, work
capacity, some combo of the above? What exactly did the study measure?
Bryan says that the subjects who did one set had the same increase in bench
1RM as those who did three. Almost everything I've read in regards to
powerlifting training indicates that multiple sets are best for increasing
1RM in experienced trainees (however you want to define "experienced").
Thoughts?
Alan McClure
"Robert Dorf" <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
news:u8fcql2...@news.supernews.com...
Good Question.
Alan
Lyle McDonald
> Bryan mentions a "one set is as good as multiple sets" study. Here's an
> excerpt from Alan's FAQ;
>
> In a study performed at Montclair State University (5) researchers
> investigated the effect of a single set vs. a multiple set routine on
> increasing upper body strength. They had the subjects perform either one set
> or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies
> using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks. This kind of study has
> been done before but this one is particularly valuable because it involved
> previously "trained" subjects. This is significant because untrained
> subjects will usually respond positively to virtually any training routine.
> Just because a training strategy works for beginners doesn't mean it will
> work for experienced lifters. These researchers found that doing a single
> set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same
> movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench
> press. The take home message is that you needn't do more than a single work
> set to achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets.
>
> So what's your opinion on this study? In the last line quoted above ("The
> take home message is that you needn't do more than a single work set to
> achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets") is Bryan talking
> about gains in terms of hypertrophy, strength in a given rep range, work
> capacity, some combo of the above? What exactly did the study measure?
I'd need the full reference but I vaugely remember this one from a year
or two ago.
Most studies (by design and constraint) only measure strength gains. I
believe that was the case, that they only measured strength for this one
(I'll see if I can dig it up) but can't say for sure until I look it up.
If they only looked at strength, that would be one problem with
applying it the way Bryan is trying to.
Additionally, all studies relate strength gains in a statistical type of
way. A study can show no statistical differences in gains, but they may
have real world results. This can lead to problems with interpretation.
Example, a couple of studies I'm reading now looked at fat adaptation
followed by high carb and its effects on cycling time trial performance.
The studied concluded no difference in improvement because statistically
it wasn't significant. But there was, on average, a 4% increase
(strangely, only in some subjects, some folks did worse) in performance.
In the real world of time trial cycling, 4% is first vs. last place.
So real world results can be confounded by statistical game playing. A
few percent difference in gains is statistically insignificant in the
lab, it may be the difference between an athlete winning and losing in
the real world.
Of course, it then comes down to the goal. For someone looking for
maximal strength for competition, a 5-10 lb difference in gains (for 3
vs 1 set for example) is worth the extra time investment. For the
average person, it may not be. And, as know, most of these studies have
more to do with developing policy for the general public, not for
athletic performance.
For hypertrophy the same might hold. Assume that 1 set gives you 95% of
the size gains of 3 sets (I'm making these numbers up so you know).
That's probably not statistically significant in a scientific sense. In
the real world, it depends? For the average person, tripling work
volume and workout time (which tends to hurt adherence and make people
drop out) probably isn't worth the small gains. For an eliet athlete, it
probably is. For a non-elite, non-competing but otherwise obsessed
bodybuilder, its a judgement call.
That said, most of these types of studies don't measure hypertrophy and
I don't agree with Bryan here that you can directly extrapolate between
the two. Hypertrophy is related to biochemical changes in muscle that
'turn on' the growth mechanisms. Strength is related to both neural and
muscular factors. Its possible that a volume that produces strength
gains isn't the same as that to produce size gains.
> Bryan says that the subjects who did one set had the same increase in bench
> 1RM as those who did three. Almost everything I've read in regards to
> powerlifting training indicates that multiple sets are best for increasing
> 1RM in experienced trainees (however you want to define "experienced").
> Thoughts?
Problems with all of the studies.
As any PL will tell you (if Keith or anybody else wants to chime in
here, he's welcome to), 1RM is as much a learning/skill issue as it is
anything else. More practice via multiple sets would be predicted, a
priori, to improve 1RM simply through the practice issue (this is, as
much as anything, the reason behind the use of high frequency,volume,etc
of Olympic lifters: lots of practice at high skill component lifts).
Most of the multiple vs. single set training programs use fairly generic
rep ranges (8-12) which aren't an ideal way to improve 1RM anyhow.
One of the problem I see with a lot of the periodized studies
(concluding that periodized programs give better improvements in 1RM
than non-periodized is related to this). If you have one group who
periodizes their program down to low reps vs a program that's non
periodized in a high rep range, of course the periodized program will do
better. Was it because they periodized or because they practiced the
low reps (or is that a different question in the first place). No
matter how I train someone in an 8-12RM, expecting him to see major
improvements on a 1RM without giving them practice in low reps would be
silly. Put differently, if I trained someone with nothing but 8-12RM
loads (progressively of course) and then gave them 3 weeks to practice
low reps, would they necessarily get worse 1RM improvements than the
periodized group who's program periodized tehm to the low reps?
That I'm aware of, nobody has tested this possibility but I haven't
looked at it in a while so don't swear me to it. It is what coaches
like Ken Liestner does with his HIT guys. They stay in high rep ranges
most of the year but he gives them weeks of low-rep practice immediately
prior to the PL meet because he recognizes the skill component of a true
1RM. That would be a better model to test periodized vs. non-periodized
programs IMO. At least give the higher rep non-periodized guys a few
weeks to improve the SKILL needed to do a true 1RM, then see who makes
better gains.
All that said, this is all sort of tangential to HST anyhow (I don't
honestly think Bryan should be pulling those types of studies, looking
solely at strength, to defend a system that's based around hypertrophy).
1RM gains aren't per se indicative of gains in size as athletes prove
all the time.
To my knowledge, nobody has systematically examined the effects of
different volumes on the hypertrophy response (again, I'll see if the
above study did or not if I can find it) except for in beginners which
isn't a good model.
What everybody has to keep in mind (including Bryan apparently) is that
HST has one and only one goal: size increase. The explicit goal is NOT
strength (although you will get stronger) NOT work capacity (which will
probably go down) NOT muscualr endurance. So comparing it to systems
with different goals (i.e. Korte 3X3 which has strength as its explicit
criterion goal or even WST which does as well) is missing the point.
Differen goals suggest different optimal programs. HST is NOT meant to
be optimal for any of those goals, nor does Bryan claim it to be. It is
optimized towards one and one goal only, increased size. That's all
that need be discussed in this thread.
Dunno if that really answers the question or not.
Lyle
Robert Dorf
> Robert Dorf wrote:
>
> > Bryan mentions a "one set is as good as multiple sets" study. Here's an
> > excerpt from Alan's FAQ;
> >
> >
> > So what's your opinion on this study?
>
> I'd need the full reference but I vaugely remember this one from a year
> or two ago.
> Most studies (by design and constraint) only measure strength gains. I
> believe that was the case, that they only measured strength for this one
> (I'll see if I can dig it up) but can't say for sure until I look it up.
> If they only looked at strength, that would be one problem with
> applying it the way Bryan is trying to.
Thanks. I can see why Bryan cited it (to assure Joe Gymrat that he can do
HST and still make strength gains) but his use of that study has a certain
"lies to children" feeling to it that makes me uncomfortable.
<snip>
>
> All that said, this is all sort of tangential to HST anyhow (I don't
> honestly think Bryan should be pulling those types of studies, looking
> solely at strength, to defend a system that's based around hypertrophy).
> 1RM gains aren't per se indicative of gains in size as athletes prove
> all the time.
Agreed.
nos...@yahoo.com
: That said, most of these types of studies don't measure hypertrophy and
: I don't agree with Bryan here that you can directly extrapolate between
: the two. Hypertrophy is related to biochemical changes in muscle that
So would you personally also reccomend the "1 set" concept w/ HST?
Or would you say that the average person should shoot for 2, 3, etc?
Lee
> What everybody has to keep in mind (including Bryan apparently) is that
> HST has one and only one goal: size increase. The explicit goal is NOT
> strength (although you will get stronger) NOT work capacity (which will
> probably go down) NOT muscualr endurance
>
What is work capacity? I assume that endurance is defined as ability to
repeat something, how does that differ from capacity?
Alan McClure
<nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I6Ph8.32210$jj4.2...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
I wouldn't say that 2 or 3 is good necessarily. It would be very easy to
end up injuring yourself by mixing 2-3 sets with the kind of intensity used
in HST(especially in the second week of each microcycle) and the timeframe
the lifts occur in.
Alan
Lyle McDonald
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3C87B8AF...@onr.com...
> > Robert Dorf wrote:
> > I'd need the full reference but I vaugely remember this one from a year
> > or two ago.
> > Most studies (by design and constraint) only measure strength gains. I
> > believe that was the case, that they only measured strength for this one
> > (I'll see if I can dig it up) but can't say for sure until I look it up.
> > If they only looked at strength, that would be one problem with
> > applying it the way Bryan is trying to.
> <snip>
>
> Thanks. I can see why Bryan cited it (to assure Joe Gymrat that he can do
> HST and still make strength gains) but his use of that study has a certain
> "lies to children" feeling to it that makes me uncomfortable.
Another problem I have with it: it's abstract only at this point. Why I
can't find it on Medline (1). Abstracts mean less than jack squat until
they are full published (it's the rough equivalent of a science fair
project when it gest publishes in the journal supplement).
Weird thing is there is at least one full published study on single vs.
multiple stes in experienced lifters. It may not have been out when
Bryan wrote that article. And now I can't find it. But I know it's out
there. And it will be mine, oh yes, it will be mine.
Lyle
1. Anyone else in this thread: if you are citing a reference that
someone else used (i.e. Bryan, someone on Supertraining), please give me
the full reference if possible. Just a decription makes it nearly
impossible to find.
Lyle McDonald
>
> <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:I6Ph8.32210$jj4.2...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
> > Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote:
> > : That said, most of these types of studies don't measure hypertrophy and
> > : I don't agree with Bryan here that you can directly extrapolate between
> > : the two. Hypertrophy is related to biochemical changes in muscle that
> >
> > So would you personally also reccomend the "1 set" concept w/ HST?
> > Or would you say that the average person should shoot for 2, 3, etc?
For some reason, nospam's posts aren't showing up on my server, I'm only
seeing the responses to them. Hmm.
In answer to your question, as always it depends.
The ability to make low volumes of work effective (in any sense, size or
strength) is very much a learned capacity. Bryan and I have discussed
this explicitly but I think he either forgets it when he's writing, or
hasn't adressed it yet.
Put succintly, as individuals progress in their training, they learn to
generate higher levels of intensity (here I'm foregoing the normal
sciencey definition of %1RM in lieu of the more lay definition of
'working hard and stuff'). That is, they can get more out of less sets.
You can think of this is some sort of mystical hoodoo along the lines
of the mind-muscle link or inroad or wahtever makes you happiest.
Trained athletes are simply better able to work their muscles to a
higher capacity after years of training.
My training partner, for example, has been training over 17 years. He
can generate levels of fatigue, damage, etc. in a couple of intense
sets. What he can do in a few sets probably approximates what most
people need multiple sets to accomplish.
I can do this too, although not to as great a degree as my training
partner. I can literally wipe myself out in a couple of intense sets,
both muscularly and neurally.
Bryan has this capacity, as he has been training for over a decade and a
half. He has the neural capacities to work his muscle harder in a given
single set than most people can with a whole bunch of sets.
However, not everyone can do this and this is something Bryan (and I
since I will be likely be 'helping' him put all this into a booklet
form) has to consider and adress. It's also why I don't consider HST as
it is specifically laid out to be optimal for beginners. They lack the
capacity to make that kind of volume work. At the same time, since they
are working from such a lower starting point, it may not matter.
To make HST 'work' (work here means in terms of generating the necessary
biochemical changes in the muscle to 'turn on' growth) in a low number
of sets may not be possible for all indiviudals, depending on their
training ability and some other factors. They may very well need more
sets to generate the same training effect.
> >>
> I wouldn't say that 2 or 3 is good necessarily. It would be very easy to
> end up injuring yourself by mixing 2-3 sets with the kind of intensity used
> in HST(especially in the second week of each microcycle) and the timeframe
> the lifts occur in.
It's a mattter of degrees. The person who requires 3 sets to generate
that kind of intensity may have no problem repeating it 2 days later.
Sort of by definition, if they need those 3 sets, they lack the capacity
(I'm talking here about biological capacity, not trying to make them
sound weak or weenie or anything like that) to make such a program injurious.
Not everybody can make 1 set intense (again, by the common/lay
definition above) enough to be effective. They may very well need a
second (and maybe a third). If someone isn't able to make 3
sets/exercise work, I doubt they are going to get any more of an effect
by doing more sets. At that point, they probably just aren't pushing
themselves very hard and are coasting through the workout.
Basically, generating training intensity (again, lay definition) is a
learned capacity like most things. It takes time and can be improved
upon. But not everybody has it from the get go. People with it can get
a lot out of 1 or 2 near maximal sets. People without it can't.
And this is a place where higher volumes and/or lower intensities (here
as %RM or %max) are extremely useful. It goes back to the practice
issue, it gives them a chance to develop the skills (using hte muscles
involved in the movement, mind-muscle link, that sort of rot) necessary
to make lower volumes work.
A strict HST type of program is ONLY for those folks who are already at
that level to one degree or another (some intermediates, most advanced
lifters). I wouldn't consider it optimal for devloping those abilities necessarily.
Then again, this is one very good use of the higher rep periods. The
lower load allows you to do more sets, and the higher volume gives you
more practice. That, as much as injury considerations, i sa good reason
to include those higher rep periods.
Lyle
Top Sirloin
wrote:
>It would be very easy to
>end up injuring yourself by mixing 2-3 sets with the kind of intensity used
>in HST(especially in the second week of each microcycle) and the timeframe
>the lifts occur in.
Word.
-Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen
Adam Fahy
> > Why doesn't Bryan just come to MFW and answer the questions people have
> > about his theories? That would seem to make the most sense.
>
> He doesn't have the time or the inclination. That's what the HST
> discussion board is for anyhow, that's where he hangs out. He's got
> enough on his plate without dealing with mfw. So I get to be his proxy.
If it's on http://www.thinkmuscle.com I'd go there, but you have to
register, etc. Plus I really detest web boards vs newsgroups.
-Adam
Lyle McDonald
They are related but semi-different issues.
Most people use endurance to refer to resistance of fatigue within a
single bout of exercise (for example a single set, how quickly you
fatigue as you continue doing reps). Work capacity is more your ability
to handle (or not handle) a givne volume (frequently defined as
setsXreps or setsXrepsXweight) of training.
So someone who cna handle 10 sets of 10 reps (100 reps total volume) has
a lower work capacity than someone who can handle 20 sets of 10 reps
(200 total volume) even if they both fatigue at the same rate during any
given individual set.
Again, they are related. Generally, the guy who can handle the higher
work volume (i.e. 200 reps) would also see less fatigue if he did the
lower volume (100 reps) workout, because itw ouldn't represent as much
of his overall work capacity.
In strength training (differentiated here from growht training as tehy
are different), there is a common obsession with work capacity, mostly
that came out of what the Russians were doing. YOu used to hear a LOT
about how OL's were doing so many thousands of reps per year (or how
swimmers did so many hundreds of thousands of yards per day or year) and
that was used as a rough indicator of various things.
Over time, athletes would be building on their work capacity, starting
low and building up as they adapted. It was generally felt that the
higher the work capacity, the better the athlete (and there was probably
some truth to this iwthin a given range, you need enough volume to get
an adaptation without doing too much to injure or burn out the athlete,
it's a typical inverted U dose/response curve). Of course, said build
up also occurred quite literally in conjunction with the introduction of
more and more drugs (that increase work capacity and recovery) and there
were always examples of top athletes who succeeded with relatively low
total work volumes.
Bodybuilders didn't start doing silly volumes (the ones that most people
are used to) until steroids entered teh picture. Arnold and his ilk
programmed the idea of super high volumes into folks but everyone before
that period did relatively reasonable work volumes.
The trend has *generally* changed in recent years, especially in terms
of endurance sports where the idea has moved from pure volume (athletes
were slogging lots of useless miles just to add up the numbers) to more
quality of training (more work at lactate threshold since that's more
important relative to ultimate performance in most events). I'm the
wrong person to comment on this too much but I believe that same general
tendency AWAY from massive work volumes (usually for the sake of high
work volume) has taken place in strength sports. Especially in the ones
where drug use is less rampant.
Lyle
George G.
news:3C87C45A...@onr.com:
>
>
> Basically, generating training intensity (again, lay definition) is a
> learned capacity like most things. It takes time and can be improved
> upon. But not everybody has it from the get go. People with it can
> get a lot out of 1 or 2 near maximal sets. People without it can't.
Is this simply an issue of strength? Or is this something else?
So that we don't go round and round like in that other thread, let me
elaborate. Let's take Keith Hobman, who probably has only minimally more
muscle now than two years ago (given his stated non-interest in
hypertrophy, and even if I'm wrong on this, lets just say he doesn't,
m'kay). He is much stronger now than he was then. Would this not be the big
factor if he took up HST? He could generate the needed "intensity" (I'm
using your def here) to make a single set work. He's working the same-sized
muscle with a much heavier weight. No?
>
> And this is a place where higher volumes and/or lower intensities
> (here as %RM or %max) are extremely useful. It goes back to the
> practice issue, it gives them a chance to develop the skills (using
> hte muscles involved in the movement, mind-muscle link, that sort of
> rot) necessary to make lower volumes work.
>
> A strict HST type of program is ONLY for those folks who are already
> at that level to one degree or another (some intermediates, most
> advanced lifters). I wouldn't consider it optimal for devloping those
> abilities necessarily.
>
> Then again, this is one very good use of the higher rep periods. The
> lower load allows you to do more sets, and the higher volume gives you
> more practice. That, as much as injury considerations, i sa good
> reason to include those higher rep periods.
>
> Lyle
As a not-very-strong beginner this interests me. HST has been serving the
purpose of muscle-retention well during my diet. Once I switch to a growth
phase, how should I modify it?
--
George.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The wise lifter senses when it's time to stop, even if the schedule
doesn't say so, and often calls that the end of his cycle - he lives to
lift, injury-free, again."
-Steven Freides-
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> pontificated in
> news:3C87C45A...@onr.com:
>
> >
> >
> > Basically, generating training intensity (again, lay definition) is a
> > learned capacity like most things. It takes time and can be improved
> > upon. But not everybody has it from the get go. People with it can
> > get a lot out of 1 or 2 near maximal sets. People without it can't.
>
> Is this simply an issue of strength? Or is this something else?
Something else.
> So that we don't go round and round like in that other thread, let me
> elaborate. Let's take Keith Hobman, who probably has only minimally more
> muscle now than two years ago (given his stated non-interest in
> hypertrophy, and even if I'm wrong on this, lets just say he doesn't,
> m'kay). He is much stronger now than he was then. Would this not be the big
> factor if he took up HST? He could generate the needed "intensity" (I'm
> using your def here) to make a single set work. He's working the same-sized
> muscle with a much heavier weight. No?
Not necessarily. The type of intensity I'm talking about here is really
much more of a neural/mental issue. Not taht those aren't also involved
in the strength thing but I think it's fallacious to automatically
asssume that stronger means an ability to generate the type of intensity
I'm talking about here.
You can move big weights and still not be concentrating very much. Good
athletes concentrate and focus far better than bad.
> > Then again, this is one very good use of the higher rep periods. The
> > lower load allows you to do more sets, and the higher volume gives you
> > more practice. That, as much as injury considerations, i sa good
> > reason to include those higher rep periods.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> As a not-very-strong beginner this interests me. HST has been serving the
> purpose of muscle-retention well during my diet. Once I switch to a growth
> phase, how should I modify it?
I wouldn't necessarily. However, the 12 (or even 15) rep phase is one
that you will assuredly want to try and work on mental focus, really
'feeling' (and I hate using those types of vague hoodo terms but it is
what I'm getting at) the muscle that you're working.
Put differently, there is a difference in doing a set of 15 with a
submax weight and just going through the motions. Up down, up dow, up
down, 13, 14,15. Done, whew, I need a beer. Go into any gym and that's
what most people do.
Contrast that to someone putting every bit of concentration he can into
each rep (there's an old bodybuilding homily to the effect of making
every rep a set, every set a workout, which is just a descriptive way of
getting people to pay attention to what they're doing).
If yo'ure having trouble getting this, think about the last time you
took a set to true failure. The first few reps were probably pretty
easy, but the last took every ounce of effort and concentration you had
(assuming you didn't give up when the going got tough). I'm talking
about learning to apply that concentration on every rep of the set, even
the easy ones.
If you ever get the chance to watch tapes of max OL or PL performances,
you'll be able to get a better example of this. The tapes of some of
the Europeans are classic. They'll be relaxed, goofing around between sets.
As soon as they approach the bar and get their grip on it, everything
changes. You can see it in their eyes that every ounce of concentration
is being applied. And they do this whether its a warmup set or a work set.
You see this in the gym. The guys who aren't really concentrating have
their heads and feet flapping around as they bench. The guys who are
have locked themselves into the bench, set their feet, locked their head
; they have one goal and that's putting every ounce of effort they have
into the bar. You should be able to set off a bomb and they don't react
to it (well, maybe a bit of an exaggeration).
This is a skill like any other and comes only with deliberate continuous
practice. Visualization is a good way to do it. Prior to a set, take
the last 30 seconds to get focused (some peope can turn it on instantly
but they are the exceptions as far as I'm concerned). Quiet your
breathing, tune out the distractions. Visualize the set, the muscle
you're working, seeing it and almost feeling it contract. If you have a
talkative training partner, make sure they understand that they are to
shut their mouth during this time period. When you're ready, start the set.
The 15 and 12 rep parts of the cycle are a good place to practice this
since the weights are relatively lighter. By the time you get into the
lower reps you should be better at it. If you feel like you need more
practice, spend some more time in the higher reps, or lengthen the
cycles at each rep range and use smaller weight increments to give you
more practice time.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
> Bodybuilders didn't start doing silly volumes (the ones that most people
> are used to) until steroids entered teh picture. Arnold and his ilk
> programmed the idea of super high volumes into folks but everyone before
> that period did relatively reasonable work volumes.
I should note, for the benefit of everyone that pre-steroid bodybuilders
also typically trained full body, 3X/week.
It wasn't until Arnold et. al. introduced silly volumes that split
training really took over the bodybuilding world.
Raj may wish to consider that within the context of this discussion.
Most bodybiulding authorities (i.e. Poliquin, etc) are trying to find
workeable compromises between what people already believe (I still see
it written that you MUST follow a split routine to make progress in
bodybuilding) and what will still give results.
that's called accomodation. Or, less optimistically, pandering.
Doesn't make it optimal. just makes it more easily acceptable to folks
programmed by the status quo.
Bryan is going to have a horrible time getting his HST ideas accepted by
a mainstream that is mentally programmed to think that:
a. split routines
b. high volumes
are REQUIRED for hypertrophy.
Their psychological resistance has nothing to do with the optimality of
the program. It simply reflects what happens when people hear the same
(wrong) things for long enough: they start to believe it as de facto correct.
But the same (wrong) thing repeated is still wrong.
Lyle
Mark Hartman
Lyle McDonald
A slight variant of it that has to do with trying to optimize diet mods
I'm working on, but yes. I train full body (split on Mon/Tue, full body
on Thu, full body on Fri) three times per week with increasing weights
over time. The principles are the same (people also forget that HST is
more principle based than anything else), my application is slightly
different because of what I'm personally doing with diet.
When Elzi's schedule settles back down, she is going to use it. She
always got better results training bodyparts twice per week before and
we expect her to see better gains training them 3X/week as long as we
can work around her hip injury and keep the volume controlled.
When one of the bodybuilders (another mfw regular if it matters) I'm
helping out right now gets done with his current program, he's going to
use it. My first change to his program was to increase his bodypart
training from once/twice per week (he's doing more specialization right
now) to get him used to the idea of training more frequently. His gains
did nothing but improve. He will be using an HST style program during
his next cycle. I fully expect his gains to improve further.
Bryan has used it for quite some time, and used it with his clients when
he was still training people.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Mark Hartman wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message news:<3C87AA02...@onr.com>...
> > > Just so Raj wil untwist his panties, I'm startin a new thread. Anybody
> > > with criticisms (beyond the standard X isn't big/lean/whatever) of HST
> > > who would like me to try and explain them is welcome to do so.
> > >
> > > My promise, I won't curse, I won't name call, I won't insult. If I do,
> > > this is to be taken as an outright FAILURE on my part to explain the
> > > situation. I will adress ANY criticism you have of the program to the
> > > best of my ability. How's that for setting it up fairly?
> > >
> > > Note:
> > > 1. This is Bryan's program and he does know more about it than I do. He
> > > has looked into the details of the physiology to a far greater degree
> > > than I and there may be places where I do not know the answer, or have
> > > to go to him for an explanation.
> > > 2. Let the fun begin.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Are you using it?
>
> A slight variant of it that has to do with trying to optimize diet mods
> I'm working on, but yes. I train full body (split on Mon/Tue, full body
> on Thu, full body on Fri)
Whoops. That should read ".....full body on Thu, full body on Saturday".
Lyle
Lester Long
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > Bodybuilders didn't start doing silly volumes (the ones that most people
> > are used to) until steroids entered teh picture. Arnold and his ilk
> > programmed the idea of super high volumes into folks but everyone before
> > that period did relatively reasonable work volumes.
>
> I should note, for the benefit of everyone that pre-steroid bodybuilders
> also typically trained full body, 3X/week.
>
> It wasn't until Arnold et. al. introduced silly volumes that split
> training really took over the bodybuilding world.
>
> Raj may wish to consider that within the context of this discussion.
> Most bodybiulding authorities (i.e. Poliquin, etc) are trying to find
> workeable compromises between what people already believe (I still see
> it written that you MUST follow a split routine to make progress in
> bodybuilding) and what will still give results.
>
> that's called accomodation. Or, less optimistically, pandering.
>
> Doesn't make it optimal. just makes it more easily acceptable to folks
> programmed by the status quo.
>
> Bryan is going to have a horrible time getting his HST ideas accepted by
> a mainstream that is mentally programmed to think that:
> a. split routines
> b. high volumes
>
> are REQUIRED for hypertrophy.
I had a hard time accepting this as well. In fact, HST was the first time
that I ever did a full body workout, after over 15 years of training! I
really like the feeling (this is non-scientific) after the workouts. It was
like my heart and lungs actually and measurably benefited from the routine.
Lester
Lee
This seems strange to me. If I do something and it doesn't get the required
results, then I change it. If you always do what you always did, you will
always get what you always got. If I was slogging my guts out on a training
system for a long time, and it didn't produce relative results I would
change until I found something that did. I find it strange that people don't
look at life in this way.
Don't these people wonder why they don't look like big bodyduilders? I can
imagine them syaing that they don't because they don't take all the drugs,
so if you don't take the drugs that Mr Big takes, you shouldn't
automatically do his training program.
Mike Zack
Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> So real world results can be confounded by statistical game playing. A
> few percent difference in gains is statistically insignificant in the
> lab, it may be the difference between an athlete winning and losing in
> the real world.
>
Lyle:
Just a side note: you are confusing two definitions of "significant."
The normal english use means something like "important" or "noticeable"
or "salient" or "meaningful." The mathematical/statistical definition
means "not random" or "not by chance alone" (or more precisely, not
significantly different that by chance). (And all you closet
mathematicians out there, I'm realize I'm skipping over confidence
intervals.) Therefore, while the 4% increase in performance may be
important, in this case you could not ascribe the cause of that 4% to
the experimental treatment regarding carbs. Or more precisely, there is
just as much a probability that the outcome happened by chance as it did
by the particular intervention. Therefore, you can try it, but
statistically, based on the research we can predict only that just as
many people will go up in performance as will go down. Do you feel lucky
today?
Same for three sets vs. one. 5% increase in size or strength may be
significant (in the general sense) when it occurs, but if it does not
consistently happen greater than by chance in an experiment, then it is
not statistically significant (that is, not significantly different than
a random event).
What usually happens in scientific research is the opposite - you get a
highly significant result statistically speaking (because no one want to
publish research that does not mathematically "prove" something) but not
significant in the general sense (e.g. an improvement of 0.1% - who
cares?). You can increase the statistical significance of the results by
increasing the number of data points (people who participate in the
study) but there ain't much you can do to increase the "real world"
significance other than by doing a better experiment or finding a more
efficacious (boy I like that word) treatment.
Lyle McDonald
> This seems strange to me. If I do something and it doesn't get the required
> results, then I change it. If you always do what you always did, you will
> always get what you always got. If I was slogging my guts out on a training
> system for a long time, and it didn't produce relative results I would
> change until I found something that did. I find it strange that people don't
> look at life in this way.
Hey, I'm with you and yoru preaching to the choir. That just doesn't
describe most people. I've seen folks (fat loss and muscle gain) slog
away at the same thing for literally years with no measurable progress.
It's almost as if they expect that something that hasn't worked for 6
months will suddenly start working tomorrow. They also tend to be the
people who are the most resistant to change. I've had lots of discussion
with clients that went along the lines of
They: I'm not losing weight.
me: What are you doing?
They: X,y,Z, but it's not working.
Me: Ok, here's what I think you soiuld change and try.
They: But that will NEVER work.
Me: I hate this job.
> Don't these people wonder why they don't look like big bodyduilders? I can
> imagine them syaing that they don't because they don't take all the drugs,
> so if you don't take the drugs that Mr Big takes, you shouldn't
> automatically do his training program.
A problem is that the magazines tend to be very secretive (some would
say outright liars) about the drug issue. People really do seem to
belive (or want to believe) that these advanced programs (which are
usually NOT written by the bodybuilders anyhow and probably represent a
vast over-exaggeration of what's really being done) are useable for them
without the drugs. The magazines keep up this status quo mainly because
it sells product.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> >
> > So real world results can be confounded by statistical game playing. A
> > few percent difference in gains is statistically insignificant in the
> > lab, it may be the difference between an athlete winning and losing in
> > the real world.
> >
>
> Lyle:
> Just a side note: you are confusing two definitions of "significant."
> The normal english use means something like "important" or "noticeable"
> or "salient" or "meaningful." The mathematical/statistical definition
> means "not random" or "not by chance alone" (or more precisely, not
> significantly different that by chance). (And all you closet
> mathematicians out there, I'm realize I'm skipping over confidence
> intervals.) Therefore, while the 4% increase in performance may be
> important, in this case you could not ascribe the cause of that 4% to
> the experimental treatment regarding carbs. Or more precisely, there is
> just as much a probability that the outcome happened by chance as it did
> by the particular intervention. Therefore, you can try it, but
> statistically, based on the research we can predict only that just as
> many people will go up in performance as will go down. Do you feel lucky
> today?
I agree, and appreciate the correction. I am no statistician.
>
> Same for three sets vs. one. 5% increase in size or strength may be
> significant (in the general sense) when it occurs, but if it does not
> consistently happen greater than by chance in an experiment, then it is
> not statistically significant (that is, not significantly different than
> a random event).
Of course, the variance also affects this. Some studies have reached
statistical significance becuase of one severe statistical outlier. One
of the early keto/endruacnce studies was like this. It had like 6
people all but one of whom lost performance. That one guy got a HUGE
boost in endurance during the post-testing protocol and raised the
'average' improvement up to the 'no change' area. He really skewed the
results of the data, for whatever reason.
I really wish taht more studies (older ones did it all the time, newer
studies only do it with small study groups) would provide individual
data. Even if it doesn't reach statistical significance, if everybody
showed a trend in one direction, that still gives you some idea about
what might have been happening (i.e. there might ahve been a significant
change with enough people). More interestingly, when you see an exmaple
like above (everybody but ONE person goes one way and that one person
does something toally different), it may be worth looking at that person
to see what's different about him.
one of teh creatine studies was like this, everybody got results from
creatien but one guy. So they looked in more detail. Turned out he was
a vegetarian, for some resaon his body wasn't responding to the
creatine. Gave 'em another grant proposal at least.
See below for more comments.
>
> What usually happens in scientific research is the opposite - you get a
> highly significant result statistically speaking (because no one want to
> publish research that does not mathematically "prove" something) but not
> significant in the general sense (e.g. an improvement of 0.1% - who
> cares?). You can increase the statistical significance of the results by
> increasing the number of data points (people who participate in the
> study) but there ain't much you can do to increase the "real world"
> significance other than by doing a better experiment or finding a more
> efficacious (boy I like that word) treatment.
Sure, and in the endurance studies I mentioned, they even comment that
the study wasn't large enough to give it much statistical power. It was
something like 6 people. A real limitation in diet studies.
What was cool is that they showed the individual changes within the
error bars. Some peope improved, some peopel lost performance, some
people stayed about the same.
More intersting than the actual results were the trends I saw. The
folks with the lowest performance on carbs got the biggest improvement
after fat adaptation. The folks with the highest performnace on carbs
got the biggest decrase after fat adaptation. the folks in the middle
stayed about the same with no real pattern that showed up.
This suggests to me that whether someone is better off fat adapting or
not may depend on some other aspect of their biochemistry. Related to
taht, empirically (wrt: diet and fat loss and how folks feel), I've
found that people who feel fine on carb diets feel HORRID on lowcarb
diets ; and vice versa. Suggesting differences in biochemistry at some
more fundamental level in how folks handle macronutrients. Recent
research is also identifiying genotypes of people who are either good
carb or fat oxidizers which probably ties into this. Some people's
bodies are simply better at upregulating fat oxidation than others in
response to increaesd fat intake.
I *suspect* that the endurance studies I'm talking about may be finding
a similar thing sort of accidentally. That is, whatever mechanistic
reason that the folks who did poorly on lowcarb DID poorly on lowcarb
might be teh same reason their bodies run better on fat.
&c &c
Thanks for the clarification,
Lyle
not a statistician
rajinder johal
> Just so Raj wil untwist his panties, I'm startin a new thread. Anybody
> with criticisms (beyond the standard X isn't big/lean/whatever) of HST
> who would like me to try and explain them is welcome to do so.
>
> My promise, I won't curse, I won't name call, I won't insult. If I do,
> this is to be taken as an outright FAILURE on my part to explain the
> situation. I will adress ANY criticism you have of the program to the
> best of my ability. How's that for setting it up fairly?
>
> Note:
> 1. This is Bryan's program and he does know more about it than I do. He
> has looked into the details of the physiology to a far greater degree
> than I and there may be places where I do not know the answer, or have
> to go to him for an explanation.
> 2. Let the fun begin.
>
> Lyle
Since I haven't got much to write I will make my points quickly.
1. You previously stated the program was optimal but on more than one
occasion below have said it is not necessarily the case. So really
there is nothing to argue about anymore since I never stated the
program was anything other than good, merely that it will not always
be optimal for all people at all times.
2. Regarding volume - you have again made the point below that it is
important depending on training experience etc. I would add that if
the program was truly optimal then if I deviate from it I should
obtain poorer results but you cannot possibly guarantee that if I
perform a few extra sets per week that my results must be worse.
3. Regarding work capacity - As you know I never stated work capacity
was the be all and end all for inducing hypertrophy. If I did so
kindly supply the quote. Otherwise my point remains, namely that by
enhancing work capacity recovery should be improved which in turn will
allow greater potential for more frequent training and progressive
overload.
4. My contention regarding 3x3 was NEVER to argue the primary
objective of the program. Instead I said it was a system which
afforded progressive overload much like HST but at higher volume and
comparable intensity. A slightly adapted 3x3 could be performed to
meet hypertrophy concerns.
5. You mentioned real world results first not me. Either we can argue
real world results or we don't. There can't be any "It's ok to present
results showing HST works but I don't count". By including real world
results I could simply point out the training methods of the
overwhelming majority of lifters who have made greater progress than
HST guys. But it is a specious argument and I know it since we both
know genetics, eating habits, prior training methods, injuries, drug
use, etc all serve to distort the results.
6. Regarding the multi-set approach vs single set methods I think it
is valid to invoke the fact that the overwhelming majority of elite
sports coaches advocate the former, not just for sporting requirements
but for hypertrophy. Same applies for all the bodybuilding champions I
know including Dorian Yates, who after witnessing him training once (I
went to university in Birmingham) definitely performed more than 1, or
for that matter, 2 sets per bodypart.
To conclude, there is really nothing much to argue about given your
own comments on this thread.
dahammel
"Alan McClure" <alanmc...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:u8fdl1d...@corp.supernews.com...
Hey Alan:
I have a suggestion for the next FAQ revision; a number of people here and
other forums have mentioned the references that Bryan has used in
formulating HST. Perhaps this would be an easy and useful addition, simply
accumulating all of the directly applicable references for people to look
up. Just an idea.
d.
dahammel
I don't know why you'd need to:
Example: 1) Triceps. If you do a bench press, a shoulder press and an
isolation movement, your tricep is already getting 3 sets of involvement,
not including any warm-up set at the beginning for upper body.
2) Quads. I do a set of standard deadlifts, trap bar
deadlifts, and then a set of front squats for isolation. Again, 3 sets
directly involving quads.
3) Neck. I do a set each of two types of neck bridges, and
a set of trap bar shrugs. Again, my neck worked in 3 different sets.
If you plan your compound movements properly, and add isolation movements
around them, you're already doing multiple sets for almost all major muscle
groups.
d.
Hella1
Rather noble of you to offer this service. I took the time to read the rest
of the post's on this thread so that I would not repeat someone elses
question that you already took the time to answer. Before I post my
questions, I would like to state that I do use HST and have found it both
effective and gratifying. However, I still have some qualms and I appreciate
the opportunity to have them addresed.
The program includes setting a pre-dertermined max weight for any of various
rep-ranges. After the completion of one macro-cycle you typically just set
your next set of maxes a percentage higher than the previous sets. Here's my
question: what if you want to start a diet with your next HST cycle? At the
begginning of the diet your strength will still be decent so your pre-set
maxes are still within reach. However, as the diet goes on and you lose some
strength those pre-set maxes *may* become unattainable. Thus, your 4th w/o
of the micro-cycle may now be your max. So what do you do for the 5th and
6th w/o? Do you just endure and use your 4th w/o max for two more w/o and go
on to the next rep scheme? Or do you just stop there and go on to the next
rep scheme without doing your 5th and 6th w/o? And what about the maxes for
the next set of rep-ranges do you down-regulate them? How much? Do you take
the time to re-set those maxes? Or do you just chuck the whole cycle and
start over? But what if you start over and you still can't hit your
re-re-set maxes because your still dieting or adding in some cardio?Won't
that cause too much disruption in the 8 week protocol? etc... There is no
problem if the maxes felt too light (great your making progress, just keep
going) but when they start getting prematurily heavy (despite the fact that
you took the time to pre-determine them or your just using your previous
cycles' per Bryan's recommendation) for whatever reason (like diet, fatigue,
infection etc..) it can throw off your entire 8 weeks. I feel that the set
weights can cause quite a bit of static unless one is living in a sheltered
environment where nothing is going to change for 8 weeks, and that just may
not be realistic.
The one thing Bryan does not do (although he does do quite a bit on his site
and articles) is address variation that can and often does show up in
peoples/athletes lives. I just keep reading him post that <paraphrase>"HST
is the best method for keeping muscle on while dieting" ; well great? But
that is hardly specific enough to cover even a relatively common disturbance
such as strength attenuation that doesn't magically appear at the begginning
of a cycle but rather may generate in a non-linear fashion as your program
progresses or even at variable idiopathic intervals. I hope I am being fair
and not overly critical, but I have to admit that it iritates me that so
much of the program is gilded, in that there is absolutely no substantive
explanation for situations that may arise just slightly skewed from the
mundane.
However, I fully accept that he is still in the process of writing a book
(with you :) Thus, I am willing to wait untill he can better broadcast his
ideas within the context of expanded literatue that allows for the further
discussion of variable principles. However, if anyone visits his website
message board (www.thinkmuscle.com) they will immediately notice a great
deal of confusion (everything from diet to exercise selection is in
question, without much in the way of explanation). I understand that Bryan
is super-busy and can hardly be expected to answer every question, however
the size of interrogation is rather sizable, and that just *may* be
indicative of insufficient information. I just honestly don't feel he does a
very prudent job of answering these concerns (wether thru articles or
messageboard responses). Furthermore, I have to admit that I find a soupcon
of ignorance in having individuals begin a training program that is promoted
to be (and may very well be) the most effective secodary to scientific
evidence, with articled explanations, that at least IMHO, contains too many
watershed areas. It's possible that I am holding Bryan up to an unatainable
standard because I see you on here day in and day out answer all inquiries.
I could care less if you dash your responses with rude or glib seasoning.
It in no way alters the quality of the information. It's just that I feel
Brayn has written and responds in a skeleton type fashion to questions on a
program that has great potential in putting some beef on one's bones. This
conduct and miscommunication beclouds the merit of the protocol.
I honestly, did not expect to rant in this manner when I began writting my
post. As you can tell I am a bit dissapointed. I invested a good deal of
time and commitment to HST, largely because I value and appreciate Bryan's
respect for peer reviewed literature. Thank you for this platform to air my
concerns.
Hella1
p.s. per our conversation about a month ago on MFW, HST as it is laid out
now, *may* not be the most effective hypertrophic protocol that is *also*
safe. However, that's anothe issue for another day ;)
p.s.s. unless you want to touch upon that now as well ;) ;)
dahammel
"Hella1" <no...@never.net> wrote in message
news:Y76i8.3233$Nd.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
You're overthinking this WAY too much. The general idea of progressive
overload over time doesn't have to be linear in nature (ie. adding the same
amount of weight every workout), nor consistent every workout (if you do two
workouts in a row at the same weight the world doesn't come to an end, and
hypertrophy doesn't magically stop). If you need to keep the weight the
same for a workout or two its not a big deal...you're still ADDING weight
over a short period of time. Easy solution if you're worried: don't "set"
the weights. Play it by ear, pick a starting weight that looks challenging
from your training log, add weight every workout and then try for your max
every two weeks. If you max at 14 or 16 instead of 15, again, the world
doesn't come to an end.
Bryan's spent plenty of time on Thinkmuscle describing the concepts in a
general nature. There is plenty of personal adaptation to be made, and as
long as the general concepts are followed you should progress. Plenty has
been said about Mel Siff in these threads teaching people to come to their
own conclusions. It seems to me Bryan is doing the same thing, but keeps
getting so many ignorant questions on his message board from people who
haven't even read his articles that a degree of hand-holding has been
necessary with certain individuals, and thus it appears that some of his
ideas aren't consistent.
Plain and simple: pick a weight, use the concepts (15's, 10's, 5's, increase
weight every workout if possible, rest after the 5's or negatives, and start
again), personalize them with your own exercises, needs, wants, beliefs,
theories, and time management, and see what works for you. You will find
that using the same system forever is monotonous and counterproductive, and
therefore Bryan suggesting variation for different individuals is a good
thing.
d.
Lyle McDonald
> 1. You previously stated the program was optimal but on more than one
> occasion below have said it is not necessarily the case. So really
> there is nothing to argue about anymore since I never stated the
> program was anything other than good, merely that it will not always
> be optimal for all people at all times.
No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
Duh.
The main group it's not optimal for is beginners.
Beyond that, for anyone looking at HYPERTROPHY HST is about as close to
optimal as anything we have now.
> 2. Regarding volume - you have again made the point below that it is
> important depending on training experience etc. I would add that if
> the program was truly optimal then if I deviate from it I should
> obtain poorer results but you cannot possibly guarantee that if I
> perform a few extra sets per week that my results must be worse.
I can't guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow.
I can make statistical predictions, however.
> 3. Regarding work capacity - As you know I never stated work capacity
> was the be all and end all for inducing hypertrophy. If I did so
> kindly supply the quote.
You stated (more or less) that HST was no good for improving work capacity.
Yer right, but that's not the gaol of it.
So what's your point.
> Otherwise my point remains, namely that by
> enhancing work capacity recovery should be improved which in turn will
> allow greater potential for more frequent training and progressive
> overload.
You're confusing frequency an volume with tension overload.
> 4. My contention regarding 3x3 was NEVER to argue the primary
> objective of the program. Instead I said it was a system which
> afforded progressive overload much like HST but at higher volume and
> comparable intensity. A slightly adapted 3x3 could be performed to
> meet hypertrophy concerns.
A lot of programs WILL generate hypertrohpy.
What works and what is OPTIMAL are NOT the same thing.
> 5. You mentioned real world results first not me. Either we can argue
> real world results or we don't. There can't be any "It's ok to present
> results showing HST works but I don't count". By including real world
> results I could simply point out the training methods of the
> overwhelming majority of lifters who have made greater progress than
> HST guys.
And how many of htem have tried both systems.
You have implied that you don't think HST is a good (or optimal program).
Yet everyone who's used it reports BETTER results than they had gotten previously.
Draw your own conclusions.
> 6. Regarding the multi-set approach vs single set methods I think it
> is valid to invoke the fact that the overwhelming majority of elite
> sports coaches advocate the former, not just for sporting requirements
> but for hypertrophy.
good for them.
"Most do this" isn't an argument. MOst elite sports coachcs also work
with elite athlets who are using drugs. That doesn't mean that their
methods have ANY relevance to the non drugged bodybuilder.
Same applies for all the bodybuilding champions I
> know including Dorian Yates, who after witnessing him training once (I
> went to university in Birmingham) definitely performed more than 1, or
> for that matter, 2 sets per bodypart.
>
> To conclude, there is really nothing much to argue about given your
> own comments on this thread.
To conclude: you never had any real criticisms (along the lines of the
physiological rationales behind HST). YOu had a bunch of meaningless
assertions that aren't arguable.
From a physiologicla perspective, based on the physiology behind
hypertrohpy, the principles of hypertrophy (in terms of frequency,
intensity, progression) are optimal.
You wanna argue the physiology, argue the physiology. That was the
point of this thread. NOt a bunch of 'he says, she says' type of
nonsense. Well Poliquin says, but King says, but Dorian says. So what?
HST is bsaed on the underlying physiology that pertains to hypertrophy.
Let's argue that.
Lyle
nos...@yahoo.com
: No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
: Duh.
: The main group it's not optimal for is beginners.
: Beyond that, for anyone looking at HYPERTROPHY HST is about as close to
: optimal as anything we have now.
I know you said yesterday you weren't getting my posts, so hopefully
you see this :)
I saw in this thread your reasoning for why HST is lacking for beginners,
and that made sense. My question here is, is that because there's really
"no optimal" (in terms of hypertophy), or are you saying that HST is really
actually worse then other programs for beginners?
If the latter, what sort of things would you say are "more optimal than
average" in terms of beginners - and what sorts of things make them such?
THanks
George G.
> "George G." wrote:
>>
>> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> pontificated in
>> news:3C87C45A...@onr.com:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Basically, generating training intensity (again, lay definition) is
>> > a learned capacity like most things. It takes time and can be
>> > improved upon. But not everybody has it from the get go. People
>> > with it can get a lot out of 1 or 2 near maximal sets. People
>> > without it can't.
>>
>> Is this simply an issue of strength? Or is this something else?
>
> Something else.
>
>> So that we don't go round and round like in that other thread, let me
>> elaborate. Let's take Keith Hobman, who probably has only minimally
>> more muscle now than two years ago (given his stated non-interest in
>> hypertrophy, and even if I'm wrong on this, lets just say he doesn't,
>> m'kay). He is much stronger now than he was then. Would this not be
>> the big factor if he took up HST? He could generate the needed
>> "intensity" (I'm using your def here) to make a single set work. He's
>> working the same-sized muscle with a much heavier weight. No?
>
> Not necessarily. The type of intensity I'm talking about here is
> really much more of a neural/mental issue.
I thought that is what strength is?
> Not taht those aren't also
> involved in the strength thing but I think it's fallacious to
> automatically asssume that stronger means an ability to generate the
> type of intensity I'm talking about here.
How do you separate the two? The only way I envision this is if you lifted
a 5RM one day, then did the same 5RM weight another but did it with more
"intensity" and ended up more tired. The more "intense" 5RM lift would have
to be just like the other in that you still couldn't possibly do one more
rep. If not, then what is this if not strength?
>
> You can move big weights and still not be concentrating very much.
> Good athletes concentrate and focus far better than bad.
Yes, but the comparison here is for a given individual.
Some very good advice. This is most definitely something I need to work on.
I think I'll drastically reduce the number of exercises I'm doing in the
next cycle to allow myself to focus and learn a few specific ones.
Nina
nos...@yahoo.com wrote:
Nothing to add, just wanted to quote your post so if it doesn't come up
on Lyle's server, maybe this one will.
Cheers,
Nina
a Giver
"We are all awaiting the instant gratification granted us through
the blessed affirmations of Her Royal Highness, The SlackMistress."
-Mike Turco
Lyle McDonald
As another poster said, you're overthinking this.
It's wonderful to think/expect truly linear progress during the loading.
And depending on where you start percentage wise, you may get it.
But don't overthink it. If you have a workout where you don't increase
weight, it's not as if the world ends. Move on and be happy. If you're
having multiple workouts with stagnation, I'd say something is wrong.
> The one thing Bryan does not do (although he does do quite a bit on his site
> and articles) is address variation that can and often does show up in
> peoples/athletes lives. I just keep reading him post that <paraphrase>"HST
> is the best method for keeping muscle on while dieting" ; well great? But
> that is hardly specific enough to cover even a relatively common disturbance
> such as strength attenuation that doesn't magically appear at the begginning
> of a cycle but rather may generate in a non-linear fashion as your program
> progresses or even at variable idiopathic intervals.
Idiopathic, good word. ;)
> I hope I am being fair
> and not overly critical, but I have to admit that it iritates me that so
> much of the program is gilded, in that there is absolutely no substantive
> explanation for situations that may arise just slightly skewed from the
> mundane.
No, you're brining up issues that need to be adressed. In its original
form, HST was not developed specifically for fat loss. NOt that it
doesn't appear to work empirically (or shouldn't for some reason, it's
not as if the principles of muscualr physiology change when you're
dieting or anything). To be honest, Bryan and I haven't really
discussed it wrt: fat loss in terms of should anything be changed, can
anything be changed.
At this point, I'm not sure that you're not worrying too much about it
and I'm going to say the same thing I'd say wrt: any training program
whlie dieting: do your best to keep within the framework of the HST
program as its laid out. IF you find yourself not making the same
strength gains (i.e. can't add weight to the bar), I would consider that
par for the course for any diet. It's a function of dieting and it's a
rare program indeed that lets you make major strength gains while
dieting (newbies and the ilk excepted). If you find yourself losing
significant amounts of strength (i.e. you are backsliding), I would
suspect that something is very wrong with your diet (deficit too large,
need to refeed more often) and that you're losing muscle.
That says more about the diet than the training program really. Well,
generally it would. Basically, as with mass gaining, training while
dieting has to adhere to certain principles. The main one being it
should ideally spare muscle mass loss by maintaining a stimulus to the
muscle to maintain its size. The same stimuluis that should maintain
size is no different than the stimulus that should increase it.
Difference being you don't have the nutrients to build while dieting so
you only maintain.
In that HST fulfills the principle requirements (tension, overload,
progression) to stimulate growth, it also fulfills the principles to
maintain muscle while dieting.
so if you're losing mucsle, odds are there's a problem with the diet.
dunno if that really answers the question but it's the best I've got
right now.
> However, I fully accept that he is still in the process of writing a book
> (with you :) Thus, I am willing to wait untill he can better broadcast his
> ideas within the context of expanded literatue that allows for the further
> discussion of variable principles. However, if anyone visits his website
> message board (www.thinkmuscle.com) they will immediately notice a great
> deal of confusion (everything from diet to exercise selection is in
> question, without much in the way of explanation).
Yes, I know. At this point, Bryan hasn't integrated HST with diet or
anything else (someone else commented on this in another thread and
Bryan emailed me to say that he's working on a response to that very
question). So there are still some holes that need to be plugged up. He
also hasn't done a wonderful job of elucidating the detailed physiology
behind the system (we had a discussion about this about 3 weeks back
where I bored everyone to tears with discussion of mRNA and ribosomes
and a discussion of spaghetti) which is what's leading to some of the
confusion. His articles are very vague, I'll be the first one to agree.
I have the advantage of having spent hours discussing it with him,
while I feel comfortable to give explainations in his stead.
> I understand that Bryan
> is super-busy and can hardly be expected to answer every question, however
> the size of interrogation is rather sizable, and that just *may* be
> indicative of insufficient information. I just honestly don't feel he does a
> very prudent job of answering these concerns (wether thru articles or
> messageboard responses). Furthermore, I have to admit that I find a soupcon
> of ignorance in having individuals begin a training program that is promoted
> to be (and may very well be) the most effective secodary to scientific
> evidence, with articled explanations, that at least IMHO, contains too many
> watershed areas. It's possible that I am holding Bryan up to an unatainable
> standard because I see you on here day in and day out answer all inquiries.
> I could care less if you dash your responses with rude or glib seasoning.
> It in no way alters the quality of the information. It's just that I feel
> Brayn has written and responds in a skeleton type fashion to questions on a
> program that has great potential in putting some beef on one's bones. This
> conduct and miscommunication beclouds the merit of the protocol.
I don't disagree. At this point, I'd say its a time issue. Bryan has
real (read, business, financial, family) things to deal with. One might
argue that he shouldn't have released HST in even skeleton form (where
it stands now) without being able to detail the physiology behind it
involved. You'd have to ask him regarding his motivation in doing so, I
can't speak for him. He had an idea, he wanted to present it on
Mesomorphosis (before it became thinkmuscle), so he did.
I can reassure you that Bryan has looked at all the physiology involved
to come to his conclusions (which may or may not be useful to you),
even if he hasn't gotten to the point of elucidating it all.
In this respect, I don't know that he's any different than most training
authors. Look at most articles and they are more or less canned 'do
this, do that' types of programs. That's not so much an explanation as
it is a reality of writing for a mass audience.
Related to that, at meso, we usually got feedback mail that was of two types.
1. love the techie stuff (i.e. my protein article), keep it up
2. hate the techie stuff, can't you just give us the practical stuff
1 came from the techheads who want all the detailed physiology.
2 came from the mass readers
Who do you think makes up a greater majority of the readership of
non-niche magazines?
Basically, someone is going to be annoyed no matter what you do. If
Bryan wrote pages of detailed physiology explaining the system, it'd
make many happy and piss off the average reader (noting that the mfw
regulars are NOT the average muscle mag reader). So you do the opposite
and it has the opposite effect. And it is a fine line to walk. And he
probably could have found a better comprmise explaining more of the physiology.
His articles on Thinkmuscle are very vague, I'll be the first to admit.
They leave more questions than they have answers which is why people on
the board (I presume) are having so many questions. And Bryan isn't in
a place to answser them right now time wise.
>
> p.s. per our conversation about a month ago on MFW, HST as it is laid out
> now, *may* not be the most effective hypertrophic protocol that is *also*
> safe. However, that's anothe issue for another day ;)
>
> p.s.s. unless you want to touch upon that now as well ;) ;)
Nah, it's all good.
Bryan mentioned that someone on the HST board reported a pec injury and
declared that 'HST was the most dangerous protocol out there'. So let's
discuss the injury issue, as being non-injurious IS one of the key
principles upon which any good training program must be based. So it's
a valid topic to discuss.
Lyle
nos...@yahoo.com
: Nothing to add, just wanted to quote your post so if it doesn't come up
Danke :)
Lyle McDonald
> Nothing to add, just wanted to quote your post so if it doesn't come up
> on Lyle's server, maybe this one will.
Thanks, because his post didn't show on my server.
> In article <8I8i8.33892$jj4.2...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>,
> nos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote:
> > : No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
> > : Duh.
> > : The main group it's not optimal for is beginners.
> > : Beyond that, for anyone looking at HYPERTROPHY HST is about as close to
> > : optimal as anything we have now.
> >
> > I know you said yesterday you weren't getting my posts, so hopefully
> > you see this :)
> >
> > I saw in this thread your reasoning for why HST is lacking for beginners,
> > and that made sense. My question here is, is that because there's really
> > "no optimal" (in terms of hypertophy), or are you saying that HST is
> > really
> > actually worse then other programs for beginners?
NOt exactly. Not optimal =! worse.
Most beginner programs follow a HST style of trainign anyhow.
In fact, almost all books that deal with beginners will prescribe
3X/week training, starting with moderate loads, low volumes (typically
1-3 sets), and progressing slowly. Which describes HST to a tee.
The difference in really in goal. For a beginner the goal is learning
to do the movements, as most gains during the first 4-6 weeks are mostly
neural, in terms of leaning to do the movements. Very little actual
size gains until after that.
But hte program design isn't really any different for the most part.
It's really after that point that HST deviates from waht most folks
would suggest.
MOst suggest moving to higher volumes/bodypart (more sets and/or more
exercises) and split routines once you reach the intermediate level.
The idea being that you now need more work/bodypart to keep stimulating
gains. Bryan, of course, disagrees with that.
Probably the biggest change I would personally make to HST for beginners
(noting again that it is NO different fundamentally than what I'd do
with abeginner anyhow) is:
a. not going into the 5 rep range
b. not having the 100% RM days at the end of each cycle.
IMO, beginners have no business working at maximal effort or with low
reps during the initial stages of their program. They don't have the
need (studies show taht they make the same gains whether they use low
reps or high reps, and train to failure or not) and they don't have the
skill (to do it safely).
As per another post, learning to exert maximal effort safely is a
learned skill and makign beginners work with too heavy weights and/or
low reps/high loads is an excelletn way to NOT teach them to do this.
Because they don't have the motor patterns ingrained well enough, and
don't have the learned capacity.
That said, this is how I personally used to go about training beginners.
They'd start with 1 set of a series of exercises to work all the major
muscle groups. Low loads, highish reps (I used an 8-12), slow tempo,
working on muscular recruitment, that sort of rot. It's like learning
any new skill, it takes practice. I'd usually add small amounts of
weight at each workout. But it would depend on their description of it
and my observation of how much effort they were putting into it. I
wanted them nowhere close to failure during that time period.
At week 2, we'd add a second set. Still low weights, same rep range.
STill working on form, breathing, etc.
Week 3, you could move up to a third set (depending on time constraints
of course). Same thing.
They'd stay at that level for several more weeks. Adding weight
gradually as they learned the movements, and they'd be moving closer to
what might be termed muscular failure but I'd still keep them short of
it. I wanted every rep to be form perfect, because unlearning bad form
is a lot harder than learning good form in the first place.
Depending, I might moe them to a sligthly lower rep range (8-10 reps)
after 4-6 weeks, to give them a little more experience working at lower
rep ranges. Still non-failure, still not adding weight at each workout
UNLESS I felt they were ready for it (i.e. it wouldn't hamper form or
motor learning).
So the basic differences are fairly small.
Where HST uses an obligatory weight increase (ideally you MUST increase
weight at each workout), I would use a more subjective method of
decision. How hard did they reprot it to be (I taught them a 10 point
rating of perceived exertion scale). How hard did I think it looked for
them. I'd make the decision on whether or not to increase weight based
on those.
Where HSt suggestes a rather linear model moving from 15's to 5's (or
negs) over 8 weeks, I'd use a slower progression. Again, this has more
to do with not screwing up motor learning with low reps (nb: my buddy
Charles Staley prefers to have beginners to multiple sets of 5 but with
very submaximal weights, for motor learning. So intead of 2 sets of 10,
he has them do 4 sets of 5 with low weights. They get the same volumje
of practice without the fatigue of doing higher reps ; a good approach
if you prefer it and can keep your ego out of it).
After a beginner had completed a full cycle of that type of training
(perhaps 8-12 weeks where they might be approaching true muscular
failure in the last 4 weeks), he'd probably be ready to do a true HST
style program. Well, assuming his coach wasn't totally incompetent and
he had really learned good motor learning &c during that time period.
So backcycle, start with the 15's, and then move on as outlined in
Bryan's articles.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> rajinder johal wrote:
>
> > 1. You previously stated the program was optimal but on more than one
> > occasion below have said it is not necessarily the case. So really
> > there is nothing to argue about anymore since I never stated the
> > program was anything other than good, merely that it will not always
> > be optimal for all people at all times.
>
> No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
> Duh.
>
Incidentally, Raj, I find it highly amusing that after all of your
verbiage about my not having a leg to stand on regarding HST, your
actual criticism of it as a program (or the PRINCIPLES beyond it) were
nothing of the sort.
I was expecting you to take issue with some aspect of the physiology
that Bryan is basing it on.
Instead, I got a lot of "Well, XX says do this."
You're right about my optimality statement so I will qualify it.
"For individuals beyond the beginner stage, who have a modicum of skill
in training, I feel that HST is the optimal program for developing hypertrophy."
Happy, now? I should have clarified more upfront.
But considering my overall philsophy re:diet, supplements, etc, it's
pretty clear that 'optimal' is a context based thing. It always is.
For the sitaution of a non-beginner who wants skeletal uscle hypertrophy
and cares nothing about work capacity or strength or any other biomotor
abilities, I think HST is either optimal or at least as close to it as
we've come yet. For any other goal, it's not. What is hard about this
to conceptualize? Anyone who thinks that anything can be optimal for
eveyrone under all situtions is delusional. Bryan isn't and I'm not
either, but you're holding us to that standard.
Incidentally, also realize that HST is a princple based program, Bryan
even admits that the scheme he has presented on Thinkmuscle is only ONE
interpretation of those principles (mainly the rep schemes more than
anything else).
There are physiological principles behind his decison for frequency
(that I exploaind at length to Alan McClure a while back). There are
physiological principles behind the need to train progressively (same
thread). What other aspects of the PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES do you take
issue with?
If you want to argue with the PRINCIPLES (i.e. physiological principles)
behind it, this is your thread and I'm your man. When you said "Lyle
doesn't have a leg to stand on" I presumed you meant I couldn't back the
physiogical principles.
Instead your argumetns are as lame as in the flame thread
"Lyle has made mistakes"
"Lyle has holes in his knowledge"
"Coach XXX says something different" (note: same argument as "Guys on
elitefitness say 1-ad works" that's not a fact that can be debated, and
its not an argument).
None of these have ANYTHING to do with HST per se, except as an attempt
to dance around the actual program. It's the same as drawing attention
to the rape victim's past instead of looking at the facts about what
happened or didn't happen. And "XXX says different" is not an argument
either. It's the lawyer having two expert witnesses say two different
things. "WEll, xXXX says." "Well, YYY says" Those aren't arguments
either. It's dancing around the real issues and facts. And its
certainly not science. Because I can find a strength coach at the elite
level who says just about anything. And I can trudge him up as 'proof'
that something works (i.e. you can quote Poliquin who says do a high
volume and I'll come bakc that Ian King suggets low volume).
Again, that's not debating the science or principles beyind it (just
like with your lame 1-ad argument in the other thread). This making sense?
You're the one without a leg to stand on because you don't have any real
criticisms to bring forward. Not any criticisms of the PHYSIOLOGY
involved at least. YOu wanna discuss the physiology involved, feel free
to bring up the problesm you have with the system or the principles
behind it. If all you can do is say "XXX says something different"
you've already lost. That's not an argument.
Lyle
Hella1
You make some good points and I will certainly take some of your suggestions
to heart.
However, I would like to counter a few of the things you wrote:
> You're overthinking this WAY too much.
The site is called "ThinkMuscle" afterall. However, I really don't feel I am
overthinking the situation. I like the site and the program because it is
different from all others in that it applies science rather than a lifter's
"feel". The quiddity of the whole experience is steeped in our understanding
and ability to rationalize why we are doing what we are doing. Furthermore,
I really don't think my complaint is trivial in that, per Bryan's posts, the
program would run best if you were able to increase weight at every workout.
If that is being thwarted, that means I am running a less than optinmal
cycle. Which is fine, everything can't be perfect. However, I think it is
fair that there be some suggestions for a possible remedy. If I can't make
my maxes for a couple workouts, no problem, I'll just repeat the same
weight. But what happens when it becomes chronic due to dieting for example?
Is HST still the best for keeping LBM on while cutting, or should one just
get in there and try to lift as heavy(with strict safe form) as possible?
See my point? I'm not complianing about a couple of sets or workouts but the
deterioration of an entire 8 week cycle due to a relatively standard real
world situation (i.e. dieting). I don't think it would have been a poor
choice for Bryan to have addressed this issue in his initial article, or
follow up Q and A's: for example, should someone who is embarking on a
hypocaloric regimen decrease their max weights by 10-15%? See it's fairly
standard stuff, it doesn't require heeps and heeps of information. I just
feel, it is a weak point in the program that this very basic situation was
not addressed. I'll even go farther and state that had the program only been
desighned for eucaloric or hypercaloric settings, I would have absolutely no
right to complian. But again, it has been stated that HST could and should
be used while dieting. Additionally, I only wrote my post because of Lyle's
invitation to do so, I was contributing, if you will...He asked for
criticisms and I supplied one. Had the issue never been raised I probably
would have never posted my concern in the form of an indepoendent post.
The general idea of progressive
> overload over time doesn't have to be linear in nature (ie. adding the
same
> amount of weight every workout), nor consistent every workout (if you do
two
> workouts in a row at the same weight the world doesn't come to an end, and
> hypertrophy doesn't magically stop). If you need to keep the weight the
> same for a workout or two its not a big deal...you're still ADDING weight
> over a short period of time. Easy solution if you're worried: don't "set"
> the weights. Play it by ear, pick a starting weight that looks
challenging
> from your training log, add weight every workout and then try for your max
> every two weeks. If you max at 14 or 16 instead of 15, again, the world
> doesn't come to an end.
I never stated I thought the world was coming to an end. Again, Lyle asked
for some thoughts and I reciprocated.
> Bryan's spent plenty of time on Thinkmuscle describing the concepts in a
> general nature. There is plenty of personal adaptation to be made, and as
> long as the general concepts are followed you should progress. Plenty has
> been said about Mel Siff in these threads teaching people to come to their
> own conclusions.
1. I have no idea who Mel Siff is.
2. I whole heartedly agree with you that their needs to be some personal
variation and adaptation; but my original concern, IMHO, had to do with
something that is very general, very everyday, and very easy to have
addressed. Even if the answer would have been in general terms with options
for personal variation ;)
It seems to me Bryan is doing the same thing, but keeps
> getting so many ignorant questions on his message board from people who
> haven't even read his articles that a degree of hand-holding has been
> necessary with certain individuals, and thus it appears that some of his
> ideas aren't consistent.
I can assure you I've read every article. Also, I hope I am not ignorant,
but then again I wouldn't know because if your ignorant how can you be aware
you are ignorant....;) I know you weren't addressing me (I hope) I'm just
teasing...
But I see your point, except that my concern was not addressed in any
articles or Q and A's, and as far as I know Bryan has not addreses this
specific issue on his message board. I could be wrong about this. Yet again,
my criticism could be retorted with general, easy to comprehend principles.
Hand holding would not be neccessary. Just something along the lines of :
"When dieting lower max's by x percent at first and see how you feel. If you
still can't reach the new weight and it seems like your whole cycle is
getting messed up maybe you should try y instead. " That type of thing, not
a whole library of material. I would just trully appreciate something other
than "HST is the best while dieting" Well can you expand on this and give us
a few suggestions during or just prior to this period, should heaven forbid,
our strength goes to hell in intermittent unpredictable intervals (i.e. real
world dieting or disease)? I mean I could make this much more complicated,
like asking about what is the best way to alter HST pre or post refeed
etc... But I am not, my initial concern had to do with a general principle
basically circling around strength decreases intra-HST, secondary to low
energy intake.
> Plain and simple: pick a weight, use the concepts (15's, 10's, 5's,
increase
> weight every workout if possible, rest after the 5's or negatives, and
start
> again), personalize them with your own exercises, needs, wants, beliefs,
> theories, and time management, and see what works for you. You will find
> that using the same system forever is monotonous and counterproductive,
and
> therefore Bryan suggesting variation for different individuals is a good
> thing.
>
>
>
> d.
Your suggestions here are very good and what I will likely do myself. I just
thought it would have been nice had Bryan covered the issue, even if with a
veil of information. Again, it's one of the few criticisms I have about HST.
The program, I feel is quite good. And I appreciate the fact that Bryan took
the time to develop it. Even if it offers him some financial incentive
later, I still get to use it now for free, and that's pretty cool. But your
only as strong as your weakest link and I feel that with Bryan's original
articles, too many basic issues wen't unresolved. And these aspects have not
been covered in subsequent articles... i.e...dieting, specific exercise
selection (when only doing one or two sets it's importance is heightened)
etc... Maybe it will be covered in his (and Lyle's) book, I'll gladly wait.
But Lyle asked for criticisms now, so I pony'd up my $0.02.
Thanks for your response.
Hella1
Lyle McDonald
>
> Dahammel,
>
> You make some good points and I will certainly take some of your suggestions
> to heart.
> However, I would like to counter a few of the things you wrote:
>
> > You're overthinking this WAY too much.
>
> The site is called "ThinkMuscle" afterall. However, I really don't feel I am
> overthinking the situation. I like the site and the program because it is
> different from all others in that it applies science rather than a lifter's
> "feel". The quiddity of the whole experience is steeped in our understanding
> and ability to rationalize why we are doing what we are doing. Furthermore,
> I really don't think my complaint is trivial in that, per Bryan's posts, the
> program would run best if you were able to increase weight at every workout.
> If that is being thwarted, that means I am running a less than optinmal
> cycle. Which is fine, everything can't be perfect. However, I think it is
> fair that there be some suggestions for a possible remedy. If I can't make
> my maxes for a couple workouts, no problem, I'll just repeat the same
> weight. But what happens when it becomes chronic due to dieting for example?
Then change your diet.
Seriously, I think you're confusing issues here.
Inability to add weight to the bar while dieting has far more to do with
dieting than training. It would be a rare program indeed that let you
make major strength gains while dieting.
Even chronic stagnation of strength (i.e. maintenance but not loss) is
no big deal in my book. As long as you're not backsliding, I don't
think there's a problem.
Expecting to continue to make strength gains while dieting is expecting
a lot more than most training or diet programs can provide.
> Is HST still the best for keeping LBM on while cutting, or should one just
> get in there and try to lift as heavy(with strict safe form) as possible?
See my other response, the same principles for gaining mass and
retaining LBM while dieting are the same. In that HST meets those
principles for gaining mass, it also meets those principles for retaning LBM.
> See my point? I'm not complianing about a couple of sets or workouts but the
> deterioration of an entire 8 week cycle due to a relatively standard real
> world situation (i.e. dieting).
Consider that, at a certain level of leanness, an 8 week dieting cycle
without a break may be too long. Again, this is a problem with diet,
not training. Except inasmuch as you're thinking that the standard 8
weeks cycle (which I will tell you here and now Bryan picked more out of
convenience than anything else) of training MUST correspond to an 8 week
diet without a break.
So revamp HST (same principles of frequency, prgression, etc) to a 4
week cycle to correspond to a 4 week diet, with 2 weeks off, then 4 more
weeks of dieting. Better way to diet anyhow. How would I set this up?
A possibility off the top of my pointy head.
During the first 4 weeks of dieting, do the cycle of 12's and 10's.
Progressive with obligatory weight increaess just as laid out. When
you're hitting the wall of dieting where thingsg start to go wrong
(usually about 4 weeks for a variety of reasons), take 2 weeks off the
diet at maintenance + 10% and do the 8's or 5's (yo'ull likely regain
any muscle you may have lost). Or do a week of 8's and a week of 5's.
Or whatever.
I'd skip the negs while dieting, I don't think any benefit outweighs the cost.
Go back to 12's and diet another 4 weeks. 2 more weeks at maint + 10%
with 10's and 8's. take a week off of training, start over if you have
more fat to lose. Or move into massing.
Problem solved.
Alternate solution, at the end of every 2 week block of training (i.e.
the last 2 workouts), go to a 3-4 day hyperclaoric overfeed. So every
14 days you end up dieting 10 days, followed by 4 days of high calorie
overfeeding. Cyclical dieting oni a 2 week cycle. The 4 days
correspond with the nearer maximal loading and you get both a leptin
bump, metabolic boost, and maybe recover any lost muscle (while having
the fuel to get through the heaviest workout).
Then you drop back to the next rep range, and go bakc to dieting.
I'm working on a different 3rd solution but you'll have to wait for it.
> I don't think it would have been a poor
> choice for Bryan to have addressed this issue in his initial article, or
> follow up Q and A's: for example, should someone who is embarking on a
> hypocaloric regimen decrease their max weights by 10-15%?
Only if they want to lose mass at an accelerated rate.
> But I see your point, except that my concern was not addressed in any
> articles or Q and A's, and as far as I know Bryan has not addreses this
> specific issue on his message board. I could be wrong about this. Yet again,
> my criticism could be retorted with general, easy to comprehend principles.
> Hand holding would not be neccessary. Just something along the lines of :
> "When dieting lower max's by x percent at first and see how you feel. If you
> still can't reach the new weight and it seems like your whole cycle is
> getting messed up maybe you should try y instead. " That type of thing, not
> a whole library of material. I would just trully appreciate something other
> than "HST is the best while dieting" Well can you expand on this and give us
> a few suggestions during or just prior to this period, should heaven forbid,
> our strength goes to hell in intermittent unpredictable intervals (i.e. real
> world dieting or disease)?
I just did, so take a pill. ;)
> I mean I could make this much more complicated,
> like asking about what is the best way to alter HST pre or post refeed
> etc... But I am not, my initial concern had to do with a general principle
> basically circling around strength decreases intra-HST, secondary to low
> energy intake.
Again, this is a problem with all training systems while dieting, which
incidates taht its more a dieting problem than a training problem.
You're making it sound like this is some huge failing of HST, when its'
really a reflection of dieting reality. Odds are you won't gain
strength, assuming you don't diet badly you can probably maintain it, if
yo'ure losing strength, something is very wrong with your diet. Again,
less a problem with the training program as the physiological reality of dieting.
Lyle
Alex Brands
> "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3C87AA02...@onr.com...
>
> > 1. This is Bryan's program and he does know more about it than I do. He
> > has looked into the details of the physiology to a far greater degree
> > than I and there may be places where I do not know the answer, or have
> > to go to him for an explanation.
>
> about his theories? That would seem to make the most sense.
I just realized....I've never seen Lyle and Bryan at the same time.....do
you suppose...?
Lyle McDonald
Shhhhhh..
It's a secret.
But nobody at the ARnold this year noticed taht I was there and he wasn't.
Lyle
dahammel
> But nobody at the ARnold this year noticed taht I was there and he wasn't.
Did you get to see any of the strongman competition stuff? I hear Mark
Henry won it this year.
d.
Hella1
Lyle,
Thank you. I read both of your responces and you answered all of my
questions. I guess I was saying that if I had my 'druthers, what you just
did, would have originally been done by Bryan. This may have saved me (and
maybe some others) some confusion. Although, I fully understand that Bryan
did not write HST coupled with the primary concern of not confusing "Hella1"
over on MFW ;)
If we took my own trepidations and sort of viewed them with a wide lens
camera, I think we would see that my complaint is actually that the HST
articles are too vague. You already spoke to this in your other post and I
appreciate your honesty.
I look forward to the book you are co-authoring with Bayn as well as the
third program you are developing for dieting while on HST. Thanks again.
Hella1
rajinder johal
> rajinder johal wrote:
>
>
> No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
Ok so you accept my one basic criticism of HST. Good.
>
>
> I can't guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow.
> I can make statistical predictions, however.
And again you accept it isn't necessarily optimal. Good.
>
>
> You stated (more or less) that HST was no good for improving work capacity.
True but what is your point? I was arguing it wasn't optimal for
hypertrophy and you now have accepted this.
> > Otherwise my point remains, namely that by
> > enhancing work capacity recovery should be improved which in turn will
> > allow greater potential for more frequent training and progressive
> > overload.
>
> You're confusing frequency an volume with tension overload.
You are playing word games. Rather than carry on give me your precise
definition of optimal, and tension overload. What I'm saying is this
and only this:
Take 2 guys. One follows HST for 8 weeks. He performs 1 set per
bodypart 3 x a week. He satisfies the criteria of tension overload by
adding weight consistently throughout the 8 weeks. Overall volume is
low as will be total protein degradation due to the relatively low
volume and for much of the program, low intensity. Guy 2 performs say
3 sets per bodypart 3 x a week. Frequency is therefore equal to #1. He
also satisfies the criteria of tension overload by adding weight
consistently throughout the 8 weeks. So therefore both trainees meet
this requirement. Overall volume is average to high and total protein
degradation will be high assuming similar cycling of weights. Clearly
then the two programs are similar in frequency, tension overload and
intensity. Volume and protein degradation is greater for #2. If he can
achieve it without undue stress then enhancing work capacity will
allow #2 to meet his higher workload with greater ease than if he had
poor work capacity which in turn would make his workload too much. Do
you see now why work capacity is important - IT ALLOWS YOU TO DO MORE
WORK. If you deny that total work is important why not just have guys
in HST perform 1 set per week yet still provide tension overload. For
that matter there are weightlifters who will increase strength levels
considerably throughout the course of their careers without increasing
mass. This is despite the fact that they are obviously suppying the
tension overload that you seem to be arguing is the be all and end all
of training.
The fact is you cannot possibly state that program 1 is better for
hypertrophy than 2 assuming the guy can recover from 2's greater
workload. If anything if #2 is supplying adequate nutrients he should
supercompensate proteins to a higher level than 1. This is one reason
you see pro bodybuilders train with high volumes - because they know
that if they supply adequate nutrients and don't overtrain, especially
the CNS, then they get greater hypertrophy. True, natural bb'ers can't
expect to handle pro bb'er volumes but even without regard to
nutrition, supplements, restoration methods etc, there is bound to be
a wide distribution in the recovery ability of natural trainees such
that a one size fits all program like HST, although it may work, can
never be said to be optimal, i.e. the best for hypertrophy. Saying HST
is the best program for hypertrophy for all trainees is exactly
comparable to Mentzer stating Heavy Duty was the best program for
hypertrophy. I don't deny HST has more of a basis in physiological
studies than Heavy Duty but you are still attempting to extrapolate as
you freely admit, studies representing only a small sample of lifters
looking at strength to the training of bodybuilders interested in
hypertrophy.
>
> A lot of programs WILL generate hypertrohpy.
> What works and what is OPTIMAL are NOT the same thing.
Agreed. HST works. It may be optimal, i.e. the best for some people
some of the time. It is not the best for all people at all times.
>
> And how many of htem have tried both systems.
> You have implied that you don't think HST is a good (or optimal program).
I've repeatedly said it IS good. Not NECESSARILY optimal.
> Yet everyone who's used it reports BETTER results than they had gotten previously.
Based on a sample of lifters who couldn't design their own training
programs perhaps?
> Draw your own conclusions.
Why can't you draw the same conclusion from users of 1-AD, and 1-test
products? They overwhelmingly report GREATER gains, including retained
gains, than HST users?
>
That doesn't mean that their
> methods have ANY relevance to the non drugged bodybuilder.
No-one says HST is only for naturals. The opposite in fact. Also its
biggest proponents such as Bryan (androsol, androspray etc) and you
(DNP,ephedrine) have a history of using drugs which will alter results
markedly, admittedly moreso in Bryan's case. So your point escapes me.
> .
>
>
> From a physiologicla perspective, based on the physiology behind
> hypertrohpy, the principles of hypertrophy (in terms of frequency,
> intensity, progression) are optimal.
I've not argued any of those 3. Recall the 3x3 is IDENTICAL in
frequency and COMPARABLE in intensity and progression. Who cares if
its first objective is hypertrophy? If it causes more hypertrophy than
HST as a side effect then clearly even by your own argument HST cannot
be optimal.
>
>
> HST is bsaed on the underlying physiology that pertains to hypertrophy.
> Let's argue that.
>
Great. Then in a nutshell. In a program identical in frequency, and
very similar in intensity and progression what is it about HST which
automatically gives you the right to call it superior to:
a) a program featuring greater volume?
b) a program featuring less volume?
Lyle McDonald
there was strongman stuff at the Arnold?
Lyle
Lester Long
Lyle, T-mag has an article on the Arnold this week. The strongman stuff is
inspiring.
Lester
Lester Long
"Lester Long" <lo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a6br6h$kmb$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
While you are there Lyle, check out the article on Berardi; your commentary
would be helpful and interesting. I still would love to see him and Tate
discuss Nutrition's importance in strength training and bodybuilding.
http://www.t-mag.com/articles/199ess.html
Regards,
Lester
dahammel
Apparently so. I just read this last week.
d.
Ognjen Arandjelovic
> Ok so you accept my one basic criticism of HST. Good.
No, you cannot read. He said PROGRAMME (ok, he said program, but he is a
dumb Merkun). HST is NOT a programme, as Bryan presents it. It is a set
of PRINCIPLES. And Lyle told you this N times. No wait, why does this
surprise me, aren't you the guy who asks Lyle the same question a
million times and ignored previous answers?
> Take 2 guys. One follows HST for 8 weeks. He performs 1 set per
> bodypart 3 x a week.
See, that is already NOT a part of HST. HST does not say one, two or any
precise number of sets (or reps for that matter), and Bryan CLEARLY SAID
so. So fucking read what he wrote. He did give some recommendations and
guidelines, and whenever he went to anything more strict than, it was
obviously because of the pile of please-spoon-feed-me cry babies who did
not even read what he wrote. Which is what I told him ages ago, but it
again comes to what Bob Tokyo said, little lies to kids - are you going
to have it accepted by a wide number of people who know little about
physiology and use some voodoo to justify it, or are you going to be
physiologically correct and confuse the shit out of them, and end up
with a small number of people following it. The programme he presented
on his site is ONE programme that puts in use the principles behind HST,
and AS SUCH makes certain assumptions about people for which it is
intended to be optimal.
> > Draw your own conclusions.
>
> Why can't you draw the same conclusion from users of 1-AD, and 1-test
> products? They overwhelmingly report GREATER gains, including retained
> gains, than HST users?
Now you got him. I mean, we all know that those boards where you read
that are visited by analytical, critical people, who are able to
accurately isolate a single variable and estimate its impact on muscle
GROWTH, that itself is such a simple thing to track, having in mind that
it usually has a very high rate of change with time, right? It is not
like Lyle knows, or even trains any of those people whose experiences he
has used, it is not like that he is able to interpret their reports in
the light of their personalities, training experience and, roughly, a
few zillion other variables.
Oggie
rajinder johal
OK based on this post we were disagreeing over definitions etc. If
you'll see I've always adopted a high frequency, progressive type
approach albeit with higher volume. You say 1 set is best I say more
but the physiological basis of either approach being "better" isn't
established. My sole objection was similar to if someone like Louie
Simmons says his approach is best - a line he skirts damn near which
is why he takes so much stick. Now you have heavily qualified your
earlier comments I have no real beef with you regarding HST. For the
record I apologise for any offensive remarks I may have made earlier.
One question though: You claim HST is backed by science but so is 1-AD
so why do you accept the former and not the latter? As far as real
world results if you disregard those for 1-AD/1-T products shouldn't
you do the same for HST? I'll be interested in your answer. For now,
although I will address any specific criticisms made by you or others
I consider the topic over now you have gone from "HST is optimal", to
"HST is optimal depending on this and this". That is all.
Elzinator
>Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message news:<3C891483...@onr.com>...
>> rajinder johal wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
>
>Ok so you accept my one basic criticism of HST. Good.
And that is a pertinent criticism? I doubt that anyone, including
Bryan, ever claimed that HST is optimal for all people and at all
times. To think so, would be outright stupid.
So your smug satisfaction on that is unfounded.
>
>>
>> I can't guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow.
>> I can make statistical predictions, however.
>
>And again you accept it isn't necessarily optimal. Good.
Again, your comments are fallacious. 'Optimal' implies satisfying
conditional goals within a set of parameters. That one training regime
would satisfy all goals within all parameters is a very ignorant
assertion. I know Lyle or Bryan would never have claimed that HST
meets that criteria under all circumstances.
>> You stated (more or less) that HST was no good for improving work capacity.
>
>True but what is your point? I was arguing it wasn't optimal for
>hypertrophy and you now have accepted this.
Not optimal for hypertrophy? No, in that goal you are wrong. Since the
program is based on basic concepts of muscle biology and training
physiology, it is an effective program for people who respond
'normally' (the area under the curve) to the basic tenets of muscle
physiology, and if the proper environment is provided.
Do not interpret my comments as 'sticking up' for Lyle, but I am
supporting the basic science of Bryan's program. It will not be
optimal for all, but it will for many whose goals are hypertrophy.
To compare against a pro-bb's regime is unfair. The pro's are so
chemically enhanced that it make comparison impossible. The use of AAS
has been demonstrated to enhance recovery by significantly reducing
protein degradation and increasing fatigue tolerance. The growth
hormone and insulin increase protein accretion to result in a
significantly increased total protein balance, and the 'brakes' on
hypertrophy are removed, so to speak. Using them in an argument
containing those who do not supplement with chemicals is fallacious
and ridiculous. The reason that most pro-bbs train with high volumes
is that they cannot go heavy (it destroys their joints, which are
compromised by the AAS), their fatigue tolerance is greatly increased,
and they use a high volume/light weight to achieve a 'pump' in their
muscles (the old myth that 'pump' = muscle growth, a psychological
trait more than anything).
Again, your argument here has no grounds what so ever, and your
background in muscle biology and whole body physiology is lacking,
otherwise you would make these errors that you base your assertions
on.
>True, natural bb'ers can't
>expect to handle pro bb'er volumes but even without regard to
>nutrition, supplements, restoration methods etc, there is bound to be
>a wide distribution in the recovery ability of natural trainees such
>that a one size fits all program like HST, although it may work, can
>never be said to be optimal, i.e. the best for hypertrophy. Saying HST
>is the best program for hypertrophy for all trainees is exactly
>comparable to Mentzer stating Heavy Duty was the best program for
>hypertrophy.
Who claimed that HST was optimal for everyone??
If you want hypertrophy, then either adapt what works for you in your
set of parameters, or go with the big boys and supplement with AAS,
insulin and growth hormone.
>I don't deny HST has more of a basis in physiological
>studies than Heavy Duty but you are still attempting to extrapolate as
>you freely admit, studies representing only a small sample of lifters
>looking at strength to the training of bodybuilders interested in
>hypertrophy.
No no no. I am familiar with the basic concepts of HST as well as
muscle biology and physiology, and enough exercise phys. to know that
the program can work for a large population of lifters who desire
hypertrophy. But, given the wide range of interindividual, and even
intraindividual response, no program, no matter what it is, can claim
to optimal (that is the key work here) for all. And I doubt anyone
here, or Bryan, was claiming that.
>> A lot of programs WILL generate hypertrohpy.
>> What works and what is OPTIMAL are NOT the same thing.
'Optimal' is a very relative term. Not only may it not be optimal for
all, but even if it is for one at a given time, it may not be later.
So trying to tag 'optimal for all' is really an insidious argument.
>Agreed. HST works. It may be optimal, i.e. the best for some people
>some of the time. It is not the best for all people at all times.
Well, duh. No shit Sherlock.
>> And how many of htem have tried both systems.
>> You have implied that you don't think HST is a good (or optimal program).
>
>I've repeatedly said it IS good. Not NECESSARILY optimal.
>
>> Yet everyone who's used it reports BETTER results than they had gotten previously.
>
>Based on a sample of lifters who couldn't design their own training
>programs perhaps?
Now you are just being contentious and argumentative. Your credibility
is flying out the window.
The responses of people who have tried Bryan's HST program has been
very positive, from seasoned and advanced trainees as well as novices.
Many tweak specific aspects of the program to suit their individual
parameters, and that is to be expected with any training program.
>> Draw your own conclusions.
>
>Why can't you draw the same conclusion from users of 1-AD, and 1-test
>products? They overwhelmingly report GREATER gains, including retained
>gains, than HST users?
Um, no. And your comparison is inappropriate. .
>That doesn't mean that their
>> methods have ANY relevance to the non drugged bodybuilder.
>
>No-one says HST is only for naturals. The opposite in fact. Also its
>biggest proponents such as Bryan (androsol, androspray etc) and you
>(DNP,ephedrine) have a history of using drugs which will alter results
>markedly, admittedly moreso in Bryan's case. So your point escapes me.
You are grasping at straws here.
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
Elzinator
Hi, Oggie. Nice to see you again.
Smiley growls,
Elzinator, Lady BitchCatcher
Elzinator
Thanks for summing this up. I haven't followed this thread and I was
wondering where this new dude was coming from. I suspected that his
rationale was based more in personal contention than actually basing
it on facts, and if your summary is correct, it confirms my suspicion.
And I wasted a post in response to him.
Oh well.
Proceed.....
Hoff
silly with this whole "optimal for all people all of the time" BS.
You want to nitpick wording with Lyle in a 1000 post thread, be my guest (I
know, you don't need my permission). God knows I've seen Lyle go at this
type of thing with others, and I've only lurked around here for around 2
years.
I *think* what Lyle and Bryan are getting at is the *principles* behind HST
are optimal for hypertrophy, not the specific details of the one version
Bryan has laid out to date. I believe even Lyle has made reference to the
fact that Bryan had to essentially "dumb down" HST when laying out this
initial program.
From Lyle's own posts here, it is apparent that even he doesn't follow HST
to the letter of the initial program.
Anyway, just my .02. But this whole "optimal means it is optimal for all
people all of the time" kind of reminds me of arguing with my 6 year old.
Hoff
"rajinder johal" <rajinde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1a9cad7.02030...@posting.google.com...
John M. Williams
>> > No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
>> Ok so you accept my one basic criticism of HST. Good.
>
>No, you cannot read. He said PROGRAMME (ok, he said program, but he is a
>dumb Merkun).
We Merkuns corrected quite a few crappy British phonetics.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
--------- http://www.enforcergraphics.com ----------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
Lyle McDonald
>
> OK, dude, all potential "flaming" aside, you're starting to look pretty
> silly with this whole "optimal for all people all of the time" BS.
>
> You want to nitpick wording with Lyle in a 1000 post thread, be my guest (I
> know, you don't need my permission). God knows I've seen Lyle go at this
> type of thing with others, and I've only lurked around here for around 2
> years.
>
> I *think* what Lyle and Bryan are getting at is the *principles* behind HST
> are optimal for hypertrophy, not the specific details of the one version
We have a winner.
At least Hoff can read.
> Bryan has laid out to date. I believe even Lyle has made reference to the
> fact that Bryan had to essentially "dumb down" HST when laying out this
> initial program.
Yup.
> From Lyle's own posts here, it is apparent that even he doesn't follow HST
> to the letter of the initial program.
Nope, I'm applying the principles of it and it IS a principole based
program. I train full body three times weekly, because of the known
biological (fundamental) principles behind do so for my goals. I am
using a sligthly different rep scheme based on my specific goals (and
the idet inrepretation that I am working with).
I am not following the type of rep scheme that Bryan laid out in ONE
INTERPRETATION of HST in his articles.
I am following the PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF IT.
That its.
And Raj still hasn't brought up a single issue (that I've seen)
regarding the PRINCIPLES behind it. Just a lot of fallacious
comparisons and semantical nitpicks.
Makes me wonder if he's really Siff trolling. It's the same game.
Ignore the facts, play with words.
Lyle
George G.
Lyle McDonald
>
> Did you see my other reply?
Yes, chill, I'll get to it.
Ok, to help Raj understand what we're getting at I'm going to use an
anlogous situation, which may be easier for him to understand.
The point I'm trying to make is the difference between optimal in terms
of PRINCIPLES and in terms of the actual SPECIFIC APPLICATION (because
Raj is clearly conflating the two in his 'criticisms' of HST).
Let's talk about fat loss and diets and what I think is OPTIMAL.
When I went about trying to figure out what constiatutes an optimal
diet, I looked physiological principles. That is, I asked "What
requirements do we HAVE to meet to approach optimality?" The answer to
that is not based on "What XXX says." or "What a bunch of pro-bbs do."
It's based on the fundamental physiology of the human body.
Some of the answers I found.
1. Must generate a caloric deficit so that teh body draws on stored energy
2. Must maintain lean body mass trhoguh sufficient provision of protein
3. Must provide sufficient dietary fat for both hormonal and
appetite/hunger reasons
4. Must, within the limits imposed by our physiology, limit metabolic
slowdown *c
Those are the main principles of any diet. Other, more practical goals
might be:
1. Taste good (fulfills psychological issues of the diet)
2. Provide food variety (similar to 1)
3. Blunt hunger (differentiated here from appetite)
There are surely others.
So how do I apply those PRINCIPLES when someone asks me to set them up a
diet. I mean, I've given this information a billion times but here it
is again for the slow readers or those with short-term memory problems.
1. 10-12 cal/lb (based on estimates of known metabolic rates and how
much of a deficit appears to give optimal results compared to the
deficit). This may need to be modified slightly (8-9 cal/lb) depending
on various factors.
2. Protein at 1 g/lb or so: based on estimates of how much protein is
required to prevent or at least ameliorate muscle loss. On top of how
much is needed to support heavy training.
3. Fat: at least 25% of total calories with fish oils and EFA's as the majority.
4. Carbs: to make up the remainder depending on individual food
preference, activity level, personal preferences for foods, etc.
5. High carb/high cal refeed every so often (depending on many different
factors which I'm not typing up again right now). One approach we've (we
= Elzi and I) suggested is a fixed refeed based on some theoretical
estimates of when leptin will start to crash. WE've also suggested a
more 'subjective' way of determining refeed frequency having to do with
personal feelings of increased appetite. The second is arguably more
specific, but harder to do for many people.
Those fulfill the first (read: Primary) needs of a good diet. The
secondary goals are met by other components.
1. Choose low GI/high fiber carbs to help with hunger control
2. Eat meals that are a mix of protein, carbs, fat and fiber (slows
gastric emptying helping to control hunger).
Now, those are the principles behind an optimal diet. And even with
that, people bitch. They want specific numbers on carbs etc. Because
its easier than thinking. This is where I can (or can not) give
specific numbers as ONE INTERPRETATION of the physiological principles
So if they need hand holding, I can give them a specific percentage.
10 cal/lb 25% protein, 45% carbs, 30% fat, refeed every 5th day becuase
your bodyfat percentage is XX%.
That fulfills the principles and gives the folks ONE INTERPRETATION of
those principles because they need their hands held. The 25/45/30 is
only optimal inasmuch as it fulfills the original criterion (meeting
PHYSIOLOGICLA REQUIREMENTS for fat loss with minimal muscle gains).
A diet of 30% protein ,30% carbs and 30% fat is ANOTHER INTERPRETATION
of those principles that ALSO MEETS THE PHYSIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS.
A diet that is 30% protein, 65% fat and 5% carbs (keto) also fulfills
those same PHYSIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS. But it's simply ANOTHER INTERPRETATION.
The game Raj is playing is taking ONE INTERPRETATION that Bryan gave for
HST (the one on Thinkmuscle an the boards, which was provided for the
folks who need their hands held) and conflating THOSE INTERPRETATIONS
with the PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES behind HST.
He's arguing against the specific (given to whiners who need their hands
held) interpretation with the PRINCIPLES behind it.
On top of using really lame arguments (pro-bbs do this, coach XXX says
this) to do it.
It's like conflating the principles of HIT with '1 set to failure'.
The first is a set of principles (regarding training frequency, volume,
etc) with an interpretation.
You can argue the principles, the interpretation will be context dependent.
In the context of hypertrophy, the PRINCIPLES (in terms of frequency,
progression, maybe volume, the week off, the negatives) behyind HST are
optimal, based on the PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES of the human body (as
Elzi pointed out). It has nothing to do with what someone else says or
what anyone else does. It's to do with the physiological principles of
the body. Raj is too busy criticizing ONE INTERPRETATION to realize this.
Ok, stimulants are kicking, time to train.
Lyle
rajinder johal
1. It is very convenient to change the meaning of the term optimal to
suit your own argument.
2. Bryan specifically says HST is a program as does Lyle. Look it up.
But to suit your argument this has morphed into "HST is a set of
principles". Great copout. Lyle also has repeatedly been unable to
provide proof for 1-2 sets per bodypart (critical to the success of
the program according to Haycock) being superior to a higher volume
approach. No doubt you will counter by saying HST is based on
optimising x,y, and z and this includes optimising volume. Fine -
show me the proof that 1 set which Bryan specifically recommends is
best. Here are a few quotes courtesy of thinkmuscle.com from Bryan,
"There has been a tendency recently for people using HST to increase
the volume of training but keeping the frequency the high. THIS IS NOT
WHAT HST CALLS FOR (forgive the caps but this is important). HST calls
for 1 set of each exercise (after a warm up) no matter how you split
up your body. Now, I personally have said that you can do 2 sets if
the first set didn't do anything. But this only happens when you are
working with submaximal weight loads. NOT when you are using max
weights.
If you begin to increase the number of sets per body part while
keeping the frequency high you will run into problems. Most people
will begin to get strain injuries.
3 work sets (after warm up) per exercise PER WEEK will not cause these
types of injuries!"
Are you following it now Oggie? Still don't accept it calls for 1-2
sets? Well keep reading. Same thread on thinkmuscle.com - " WARNING
for anyone using HST "
"Finally, about modifying the original HST program. You must make sure
that the volume of training does not change if you split up the
workouts into upper and lower body. Just because I am only training
half as many body parts each workout, does not mean those body parts
can handle more punishment. What happens is that we end up with more
energy and this translates into more volume. More volume translates
into injuries. So BE SURE THAT IF YOU MODIFY THE ORIGINAL HST PROGRAM
THAT YOU DON'T INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SETS PER BODY PART PER WEEK."
Still gonna argue that 1 set isn't what he calls for Oggie? Learn to
read before handing out advice and talking trash. If you have anything
to say contact me offline since I won't be checking this list anymore
so rampant is the selective reading involved, plain lying, refusal to
address the volume issue, the 1 rule for HST 1 for prohormones, and
Clinton-like arguing over the meaning of words.
To Elzi: If you are saying something is optimal you are surely saying
it is the best or most favourable for producing a given outcome. Mike
Mentzer said the same when arguing for Heavy Duty. Admittedly, it is
said to be optimal given the research but the research is being
applied dubiously anyway especially with respect to volume in HST.
Interestingly on the thread "What is the best training method for
gaining strength?" Bryce Lane clearly states there is no best or
optimal method for gaining strength OR mass. My point being that
clearly it is not only me who regards the meaning of optimal as
obvious and also he is someone else who holds the commonsense belief
that it is impossible for there to be an optimal program.
As I said, now that Lyle has qualified his statement this whole debate
is over bar for my still awaiting his evidence that 1 set is better
when real world results suggest the opposite. You are right to say pro
bb's aren't the best example but the overwhelming majority of natural
bb's also use a high vol. approach. Speaking on a personal level I
have placed one guy on both a modified 3x3 and HST. He has about 2
weeks to go and has eaten for bulk both programs. So far his results
for strength AND size are better under modified 3x3, i.e. the high
volume approach. Just thought I'd mention it.
Elzi Volk - "Not optimal for hypertrophy? No, in that goal you are
wrong. Since the program is based on basic concepts of muscle biology
and training
physiology, it is an effective program for people who respond
'normally' (the area under the curve) to the basic tenets of muscle
physiology, and if the proper environment is provided."
BTW, I think that Bryan's theories on frequency, and cycling are spot
on in response to the above. NOT on volume or necessarily intensity.
That is all. I'll be sure to check up on this thread later but this is
my last contribution. If it turns out that Lyle ponies up definitive
evidence that 1 set is optimal I'll take my hat off to him.
Adam Fahy
news:c1a9cad7.02030...@posting.google.com...
> Lyle also has repeatedly been unable to
> provide proof for 1-2 sets per bodypart (critical to the success of
> the program according to Haycock) being superior to a higher volume
> approach.
According to your quotes (snipped), the concern is one of injury potential.
The idea seems to be, any increase in potential mass gain via multiple sets
is offset by the increased potential for injury, given the frequency.
This is similar to my concern about the period of negatives recommended (but
not demanded) in Haycock's articles. Personally I think the injury
potential is high enough to discourage their use, regardless of whether they
may be slightly more advantageous before a layoff.
Of course, I also disagree that multiple sets are significantly unsafe [in
comparison to one or two], even at the given frequency. Perhaps they would
be if maximal efforts are required, but that's not necessarily the case from
what I've read.
-Adam
Lyle McDonald
> news:c1a9cad7.02030...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Lyle also has repeatedly been unable to
> > provide proof for 1-2 sets per bodypart (critical to the success of
> > the program according to Haycock) being superior to a higher volume
> > approach.
do you know what PROOF means, Rah?
I mean, in a scientific sense. the answer is obviously no.
So let's reverse it for fun: You provide PROOF that higher volume gives
better results.
you can't do it any more than I can prove the converse.
Because said proof can't exist in any meaningful sense.
We can find evidence of people who have made gains from anywhere from 1
set of 1 rep to 20 sets of 20 reps. What does that prove except that a
lot of different things work? It proves nothing. IT demonstrates that
there are a lot of different things that work. And you're now confusing
'what works' with 'what may be optimal'. Those are different issues,
just like the diet examples. A lot of things work as long as they
fulfill certain scientific PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY. Again,
you're confusing APPLICATION with PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES.
So Raj, the onus is on you now, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
one is superior to the other. Prove that higher sets will generate more
hypertrophy. Or PROVE that 2 sets won't give teh same results as more
sets. If anything, the research to date supports the contrast, multiple
sets do not give significantly more mass gains than single sets. You
won't accept this as 'proof' of course, and will likely fall back on
'but all pro bb's do this' or 'all strength coaches say this' (wrong
anyhow, Ian King suggests very few sets for hypertrophy).
I mean prove it without resorting to fallacious arguments of the "All
pro BB's do this" or "All strength coaches do the other." Because I can
find folks who get huge that way, just as you can find folks who get
huge some other way. IT proves nothing.
Proof in a scientific sense. Not a 'Because XXX says that' sense.
It doesn't exist, it can't exist. Yet you expect me to do something
that is impossible and will accept nothing less. Sorry, I"m good, I'm
not a magician, I can't prove something that is unprovable (1). NO
matter, everyone else has already handed your behind to you in this
thread, showing you how absurdly fallacious your arguments are. I dno't
have to say it because tehy are saying it so much better.
Lyle
1. A matter of scientific note for Raj to consider. Gravity is NOT
proven. By his logic, a scientist can not PROVE taht gravity does what
it is claimed to do. Yes, every measurement of gravity to date has been
positive. But that is not proof, because the next one might be
negative, disproving it. Nothing in science can be PROVEN, it can only
be DISPROVEN or have evidence in support.
So, tell me Raj, if gravity can't be proven, how do you expect me to
PROVE what yo'uve asked me to prove?
I can provide plenty of evidence (empirical and scientific) that low
sets generate hypertrophy. Everyone who's grown with HST, or Hardgainer
phislosphy, or a bunch of other low volume approaches provide taht
evidence. So does most of the extant research to date. IT's not proof
in your mind, but it is evidence.
dahammel
Not to mention, with all the "proof" and science stuff bantered about, its
interesting to note that much science dwells on the null hypothesis. Raj
decided to argue the null hypothesis, but didn't provide any references at
all to disprove the supporting evidence that Bryan has written about. Its
hard to say something isn't "optimal" when you can't DISprove it. It seems
to me Bryan has put his stuff out there, and detractors should attempt to
DISprove it using alternative scientific evidence with references. Anything
is merely speculation.
d.
Bryce Lane
: gaining strength?" Bryce Lane clearly states there is no best or
: optimal method for gaining strength OR mass.
There isn't an "optimal method" that applies to *everyone* at all times,
*everywhere*. That is what I meant if I did not say so. There certainly is
an "optimal method" that applies to any particular individual at any
particular time. Finding it is how many of us make a living.
The only way to find this out is to do things long enough to where you have
the feel or history for it and know what responses you will get to whatever
you may do. You must do this long enough to know where the next "optimal"
may lie based on where you have been before. HST is as good a place to start
as any if you are only interested in size. You start with what Bryan says
and do what you gotta do as you find out the details later on.
I think you and Lyle are both playing games with words. You are actually
saying similar things though you would both be loathe to admit it by this
time I suspect. This will continue to degenerate until one of you starts
actually listening to the other.
I don't know much about Bryan's program since this is not typically what I
am interested in. However I suspect what he means by "optimized" is not that
HST is the "best program for everyone/everywhere at any time" but that he is
simply grouping and utilizing what tools are available to produce a program
which is the most likely among a large statistical population to produce
muscular growth. Thats it, nothing else!
At no time did I get the impression from my reading that he was declaring
HST to be "the end of BB history".
Bryce
Lyle McDonald
> According to your quotes (snipped), the concern is one of injury potential.
> The idea seems to be, any increase in potential mass gain via multiple sets
> is offset by the increased potential for injury, given the frequency.
Yup, I'm going to put together a very long post adressing this as an issue.
> This is similar to my concern about the period of negatives recommended (but
> not demanded) in Haycock's articles. Personally I think the injury
> potential is high enough to discourage their use, regardless of whether they
> may be slightly more advantageous before a layoff.
Yup, that's a judgement call. A cost/benefit ratio as it were. I'll
adress this too.
> Of course, I also disagree that multiple sets are significantly unsafe [in
> comparison to one or two], even at the given frequency. Perhaps they would
> be if maximal efforts are required, but that's not necessarily the case from
> what I've read.
Exactly.
To sum up what I'm going to write up in detail (I lied, I got started
and went ahead and wrote it here), optimal in any sense is a matter of
competing rate processes. Basically a calculus type of program where
the best you can do is optimimze any one part of the system. Sure, you
can always maximize some other part of the system,
but it's usually at the cost of limiting some other.
For example, you could train at a higher intensity per workout (close to
max), but this will limit your frequency because of both neural fatigue
and increaed
injury potential. Optimizing the systems means finding a COMPROMISE
between all the variables, the combination of intnsity, frequency,
volume, progression that optimizes what you're trying to do.
It's like the old calculus problem of what's the largest area you can
enclose with a fixed amount of fence. You can maximize the long axis
but it will imit the width axis, or vice versa. But neither give the
maximum (optimum) area. Some compromise in long and width axis gives the optimal.
In HST, the goal is to optimize (quite generally):
a. physiological
b. practical
c. psychological requirements
For hypertrophy. That will lead to some compromises in the system in
order to maximize the system as a whole. Becaues there are ways that
you might maximize 'a' but end up shorting 'b' or 'c' (tangent: my
current scheme for dealing with stubborn bodyfat is in that boat, what I
think is phsyiologiclaly optimal is not practical, hence it is not yet
optimized ; I will end up having to forego some of the physiological
optimality to ensure practical utility).
So what are the physiologicla requirements for growth (category a)?
I'm going to ignore the butt simple stuff along the lines of "Pick
exercises that hit the target muscles" that sort of rot. That's all
pretty obvious.
If we simplified the physiologicla requirements down to one requirement
it would be:
1. Stimulate protein synthesis such taht net protein accretion ocurs.
An additional physiological factor is:
1. Don't get injured
That should be obvious: gaining muscle means stimulating the mucle to
synthesize more protein than you're losing over time.
So what does stimulating protein synthesis require.
1. Tension overload: this should be obvious. So why is it
important. As it turns out, tension turns on a different set of genes
than fatigue. The genes turns on by tension overload 'tells' the nucleus
to churn out an mRNA strand that increaes the muscle's protein content.
Even that has further requirements. mRNA only codes protein because of
the action of ribosomes (cellular machines that turn mRNA directions
into proteins).
I adressed this in detail in a thread with Alan McClure. The key
components are this:
a. Exercise increases ribosome activity. After any single exercise
bout, the ribosomes in the trained muscle will increase their activity.
This increase is short term. Based on the data by McDougall (looking at
protein synthesis via tracer research), maybe 36 hours or so. So at 36
hours, ribosome activity in that muscle is back to normal.
b. Exercise elevates mRNA levels coding for wahtever protein the muscle
wants to make. As above, this is short term. Any physiology book will
show that as soon as mRNA levels are elevated, the cell will start
degrading them. So increases in mRNA are also transient.
c. The cell needs adequate energy (the cell 'knows' how much energy it
has by a variety of means including the ATP/ADP ratio and others). This
does tie in with the volume. Something to note is that the body is NOT
good at doing two things at once generally. Losing fat/gaining muscle
is one ; developing strength and endurance simultaneously is another.
Here's one you never hear about, storing glycogen and building muscle
don't generally occur at the same time. Simply, the body can do one or
the other but not both (but some people can do both well and steroids
increase the ability to do both which is why steroids 'let' you get away
with higher volumes). So what does this have to do with the price of
rice in china? In high volume training, you depelte a lot of muscle
glycogen. So when you refeed carbs, they go to repleting muscle
glycogen first, protein synthesis second.
I suspect that the reason that many 'hardgainers' do well on lower
volumes has to do with this. With low volume, they can stimulate
increaess in protein synthesis but do it WITHOUT depleting glycogen so
much that incoming calories go towards glyocgen synthesis. This is
probably a reason taht PL training (low reps don't deplete as much
glycogen since you rely on the ATP/CP energy pathway) works so well for
many as well.
Folks who can store glycogen AND syntheesize protein well (becaues of
genetics or drugs) do fine on higher volumes (Since Raj likes trotting
out what 'others' say I"ll play the same game and mention that Poliquin
says that explicitly in The POliquin Principles, noting that certain
types of training work better for individuals who are better at storing
nutrients in their muscles). They are usually the exception in the
weight training world as far as I'm concerned.
A couple of other issues, the inclusion of an eccentric (controlled)
component. Studies show that eccentrics:
a. cause muscle damage which
1. stimultes local mechanogrowth factor release, involved in both growth
and satellite cell proliferation
2. upregulates both androgen and IGF_1 receptor number in the trained muscle
I'll adress the question of "Why not just do negatives?" below.
Ok, so the above gives us a general schema for training for hypertrophy.
We are trying to optimize the following: tension overload (progressive
at that) along with elevating (ANd keeping elevated) both ribosome and
mRNA levels in target muscles. by combining tension overload
(concentric) with an eccentric component, we also generate the damage
which stimulates local MGF release (and satellite cell activation) along
with increases in androgen/IGF_1 receptor number. We want to do this
without depleting glycogen so much taht incoming carbs (which determine
the cells' energy status and thus ribosomal activity) go to glycogen
storage instead.
Given the short time courses of both mRNA and ribosome activity, this
means training a given muscle frequently to keep levels elevated
constantly (and remember taht that IS the goal of hypertrophy trianing,
keep protine synthesis elevated as much as possible). ONce every 36
hours might be more optimal, but it's not practical for most people
because it requires training at different times of the day. Training
every 48 hours is a compromise based on practical considerations.
Training lower volume every day is another compromise. Bryan has
offered BOTH as possible solutions.
So I've just explained the PRINCIPLES behind low volume higher frequency
training. It's an attempt to optimize teh above variables: progressive
tension overload AND increased mRNA/ribosome levels/activity AND
allowing incoming calories to go towards protein synthesis.
Now, some other considerations. What about failure, for example?
Bryan is adamant about avoiding failure (except for at the terminal
workout of any given rep range). Why? Two words: neural fatigue.
Training to mucsular failure generates neural fatigue far out of
proportion to the muscular stimulus. Empirically, guys going to failure
and beyond need 7-10 days to regain strength production (which they are
incorrectly using as a proxy for muscular recovery). Have them stop one
rep short of failure (a minor decrease in metabolic work) and they
recover more than twice as quickly. early stystems (i.e. Starr's
heavy/light/medium) recognized this. The goal of the light workout was
to give teh muscle 'some' training while allowing overall recovery to
continue. Bryan approahces it by increasing tension linearly for
shorter periods. So intead of H/L/M, you get
lightest/lighter/medium/mediumer/heavy/heavier/. Then backcycle.
Scientifically, this has been demonstrated as well. After a
neurally/muscularly damaging stimulus, strenght is lost for the first 2
days but it is NOT due to the muscular damage. Rather, it is due to
impaired excitation/contraction (EC) coupling which refers to everything
that goes on in between the motor neuron (releasing acetyl choline) and
the actual muscular contraction. The short-term strength decrease from
this type of training is neural NOT muscular. So generating it and then
waiting for strenght to recover (HIT fallacy #375) is limiting the
stimulus to the muscle as the expense of the nervous system. W hich is
fine if your goal is nervous system training, but the goal of
hypertrophy/HST is muscular.
So consider a situation where you trained to failure during your work
sets. This causes too much neural fatigue to let you train again in a
couple of days (or if you do, you have to use lighter loads which
doesn't fulfill the requirements of progressive tension overload which
means you are already undermining your goals). It's also possible that
higher volumes might cause too much damage along these lines which would
ALSO impair your ability to return to the gym and repeat the workout.
Which compromises the goal of increasing (and keeping increaed)
mRNA/ribosome levels. Basically you need enough volume to turn on the
adaptations WITHOUT generating so much neural fatigue or muscular damage
taht you impair your ability to meet the freuqency requirements. I know
that's not the PROOF that Raj wants but that's the PHYSIOLOGICAL
PRINCIPLE behind the set count.
To avoid failure and the accompanying neural fatigue, Bryan suggests
starting submaximally, which *allows* you to add weight at each workout.
This lets you generate the muscualr cahgnes at each workout with
progressive tension overaload (mRNA, ribosomes, etc) WITHOUT generating
the neural fatigue that would compromise said frequency. Again, it's
about optimizing a number of different variables at the same time. You
may not maximize any one variable, but you max maximize the system as a whole.
Ok, now you do hit failure at the end of every 2 week cycle. Which will
generate some neural fatigue and cause problems of EC coupling. But its
followed by a built in backcycle as you start the next rep range at a
submaximal level. As well, it's fundamentally impossible to avoid ALL
neural fatigue and it will accumulate over the length of the cycle.
Which the week off at the end goes a long way towards helping with.
That same backcycle also ties into injuries. Going at max for long
periods is a great way to get a joint injury because your joints and
connective tissue take longer to recovery than your muscles. Every 2
weeks you get a backcycle built into the system. And every 8 weeks you
get a full week off (which has other implications).
Ok, so the next question: why 2 week cycles? Why not longer or shorter?
Is there some magic in 2 weeks? Frankly, no. Bryan picked it as a
compromise. He and I have discussed it and longer cycles would work
just as well (using smaller percentage increases, that sort of thing).
So why 2 weeks? Ties into psychological issues. Bodybuilders are
notorious for not liking to work submaximally (look at how many idjits
on the HST board comment that the yare going to follow the program but
still want to work to fialure).
He had to find a balance betewen what *might* be physiologically optimal
while still fulfilling the psychological needs (and anyone who thinks
that psychological requiremenst are equally critical in program or diet
design is a true theorist who doesn't know anything about human beings
or how to train them) of bodybuilders to work to failure. They don't
like to work at low effort levels which a 4 or more week cycle would
require. So he settled on 2 weeks. They have to start less
submaximally, can use larger weight increases (fulfilling other
psychological needs) and hit a RM every 2 weeks. A compromise to try
and optimize two different variables.
Ok, so that explains the frequency, intensity, progression and non
failure part of it. As well as the 2 week cycle (which is arbitrary,
but is a compromise between physiological and psychological needs).
Ok, what about the rep progresion. Why 15, 12, 8, 5, negatives? 'Why
not' is the answer. Seriously, anyone who thinks that there is a magic
to rep counts is on drugs. Raj will clamor for proof but I can find
guys who get big on any rep count you can pick. Everything from singles
up to 20 rep squats and everything in the middle. You could use 14,11,9
and 6 for all it would matter in the big scheme. 15, 12, 8 and 5 are
commonly used rep ranges in training, hence psychologically easier for
most to accept. Same reason so few coaches use sets of 13 for anything.
It's tradition more than anything else.
But even that's not entirely correct. And it goes back to the injury
issue. As you use continually increasing tension loads (to fulfill the
physiological requirements elucidated above), you start to get
cumulative damage to connective tissue and such (which heals more slowly
than other tissues). Trying to keep adding weight forever eventually
leads to injuries. So you counter "Why not cycle weights differently?"
Becasue that doesn't meet the requirements of progressive tension
overload and the other goals of the system.
By the time you get to the negatives (adressed next), you're pushing
that envelope of injury (although this is highly individual). First and
foremost, the week off will give you some time to heal (on top of
another critical component). As well, starting with the higher reps
gives you more time to heal, jacks up blood flow to the joints, and has
hormonal effects that may help with connective tissue healing and injury.
Personally, I do NOT consider 15 reps an OPTIMAL range for hypertrophy
(for a bunch of complicated neurological reasons I've elucidated before
and this is long enough already). It's a compromise that Bryan decided
on to give connective tissue microtrauma time to heal. And note that
Bryan has said that you only NEED to do the 15's if you feel strain
(joint) injury coiming on. it's not a REQUIRED part of the program
(listening Raj?), but suggested IF you need it. Otherwise start at 12's
which is more consistent with hypertrophy (higher tension) anyhow.
Again, starting back at 15's is a compromise between physiological and
practical (and injury) requirements. But that's part of the entire
system: trying to optimize all the variables that go into things at the
same time.
Ok, negatives and the week off since they are related. If there' a
reason folks stop growing (well, there are lots of reasons) here's the
one nobody every mentions. As you train, your body increases the amount
of connective tissue within your muscular structures. This is geared
towards one thing: decreasing muscle damage from training.
But what did we establish was a REQUIREMENT for growth: muscular damage.
As you train consistently, it becomes harder and harder to generate
that damage. ONe way to keep damage omcing is to keep increasing the
weight, which is already built into HST (you progress from lighter to
heavier over the cycel). Another is with negatives. That's the reason
for their (suggested but NOT required) inclusion. An atteempt to
generate a little last bit of muscualr damage at the end of the cycle as
your body is adapting.
Of course, that has to be considered within the context of the overall
system. If you're already beaten up, or can't do negatives safely,
adding them (again, suggested but NOT required, Raj) is a poor choice.
If you're fine joint wise And can do them safely, they may add to the
program. If it injures you, it's crossed the line of optimizing one of
the variables (don't get injured) and isn't part of it.
Of course, as anybody knows, doing negatives for long periods generates
so much muscular damage (and neural fatigue for a bunch more complicated
neurological reasons that I"m not boring anybody with since I'm not up
to date on them anyhow) that you overtrain. So Bryan suggests (but does
NOT require, Raj) them at the end of the cycle.
Righ before the week off. Which has several goals.
The first is general recover (neural, muscular) after the entier cycle.
The second goal is as important: detraining lets the increaesd
connective tissue go away so that you can get more easy damage when you
start the next cycle.
Taht is, at the end of 8 weeks of continuous training (or wahtever the
exact numbers are), damage is too hard to generate because of increaesd
connective tissue (and the practiacl realities that you can only add
weight for SO long before you get hurt). A week off (strategic
deconditioning) lets some of that CT adaptation dissipate so taht damage
(and hence growth) is easier the next cycle.
You also have to hope that connective tissue adaptations go away faster
(or to a greater degree) than the size increases which is supported by
data (the early de-adaptation to training is neural first). AS well, if
you did the eccentrics, you should have a delayed training effect that
keeps growth going as the connective tissue is going away. Well, hopefully.
The question: is 1 week enough? Some of the data says no, that some of
the connective tissue adaptations are still present weeks or months
after detraining. It might be physiologically optimal to take 3 months
off every cycle but taht crosses practical optimality, not to mention
psychological issues.
Even if it takes 6 months for CT adaptations to go away, that's not
practical for training (train 8 weeks, take 3 months off) because you'd
lose any muscle gained. Nor would it fulfill psychological requirements
because most folks hate being out of the gym even if its better for them
in the long run (Bryan and I have talked about other ways around this,
like very light training because obsessed bodybuilers hate taking time
off). Once again, its a compromise between trying to maximize the
physiological response while taking into account practical and
psychological realities.
And those are the main PRINCIPLES behind HST. Read taht sentence again,
Raj. The PRINCIPLES. That's what this thread is mainly to criticize.
Summing them up more or less:
Non failure and lowish volume to avoid neural recovery which impairs
training frequency which is necessary to elevate (and keep elevated)
mRNA/ribosome levels, an eccentric component to generate MGF release and
changes in receptor number, etc, etc. The low volume also avoids
glycogen depletion which requires that the muscle first replete muscle
glycogen before it can synthesize new muscle. &c &c. It was a multiple
degree of freedom system that Bryan tried to optimize, maximizing all of
the variables without significantly shorting one.
Because you can easily come up with systems that will increase one
variable but at the major expense of another. WAnt to do higher volume
or go to failure? Fine, but the fatigue will decrease frequency of
training which limits mRNA/ribosome activity. Want to do negatives all
the time for maximal damage? Fine, but you're going to get injured, or
get so neurally fatigued that you lose far more than you gain. Etc.
Bryan had to look at ALL of those competing variables to come up with
the PRINCIPLES behind the system. The exact scheme that Raj is
criticizing off of Thinkmuscle is ONE interpretation of those principles
which is mainly for folks who need hand holding. Apparently he still
doesn't understand the difference.
The 2 week rep cycles are fairly arbitrary, Bryan would agree. Someone
who can psychologiclaly handle longer periods working submaximally (like
me) could use longer cycles. 2 weeks is a nice compromise between
getting folks to work submaximally and not having them get antsy
(psychological) about working submaximally.
8 weeks is convenient in that it lets you get 4 progressive rep cycles
(including the 15 rep cycle aimed mainly at injury control) of 2 weeks
apiece (NB: in Supertraining, Siff/Verkoshansky note that 16-18 week
cycles with 8 week mini cycles was 'found' by Russian coaches to be
aabout optimal before al onger time off was necessary). Then a week of
negs (suggsested but NOT required) for a last littel bit of damage
before the week off.
You could set up a 16 week cycle that adhered to the primary HST
PRINCIPLES quite easily. I gave an example for Hella1 for dieting. An
INTERPRETATION of the HST PRINCIPLES for a specific situation.
But the principles stay the same. And I contend that they are as
optimized as they can be (optimized within the context of a nubmer of
competint goals) towards hypertrophy. Individual interpretations get
into other practical and/or psychological issues.
But the physiological optimality is all based on fundamental biological
principles of the human body.
Whew. I'd say that was better than geting laid but I don't have any
frame of comparison. Hopefully it will answer any questions anybody
still has, and explain to Raj what's being discussed here. He's too
busy focusing on trivialities (specific interpretations) and ignoring
the principles of the system.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
> Interestingly on the thread "What is the best training method for
> : gaining strength?" Bryce Lane clearly states there is no best or
> : optimal method for gaining strength OR mass.
Good for Bryce. Seriously.
When did he become the final arbiter of anything?
All he did was express an opinion.
FUnny how often Raj thinks that regurgitating someone else's opinion
actually acts as 'evidence' of anytihng. raj would make a great lawyer.
Raj: Your honor, someone said "She's not a rapist." My case is closed.
Raj appears to confuse opinions with facts.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
> Not to mention, with all the "proof" and science stuff bantered about, its
> interesting to note that much science dwells on the null hypothesis.
I would go beyond the word 'much'.
Science and scientific concepts ultimately rest on the null hypothesis.
> Raj
> decided to argue the null hypothesis, but didn't provide any references at
> all to disprove the supporting evidence that Bryan has written about.
Nope, it's pretty obvious he doesn't undertsand the PRINCIPLES of the
system. He's arguing about a single INTERPRETATION presented on
Thinkmuscle and confusing that with something very different.
> Its
> hard to say something isn't "optimal" when you can't DISprove it. It seems
> to me Bryan has put his stuff out there, and detractors should attempt to
> DISprove it using alternative scientific evidence with references.
Yup. but they won't because they can't. The research is all there to
support the PRINCIPLES behind HST.
Instead, like Raj, all they can do is trot out tired stuff like
Well,
"XXX says"
"YYY does"
So what, that's not science. Nor is it argument. It counts as hearsay,
if that.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
> Thank you. I read both of your responces and you answered all of my
> questions. I guess I was saying that if I had my 'druthers, what you just
> did, would have originally been done by Bryan. This may have saved me (and
> maybe some others) some confusion. Although, I fully understand that Bryan
> did not write HST coupled with the primary concern of not confusing "Hella1"
> over on MFW ;)
>
Actually, I asked Bryan about this.
He did state that he, quite in fact, did what he did with the explicit
goal of annoying you. Just so you know. ;)
> If we took my own trepidations and sort of viewed them with a wide lens
> camera, I think we would see that my complaint is actually that the HST
> articles are too vague. You already spoke to this in your other post and I
> appreciate your honesty.
I agree, that's why I've been on his butt to write this booklet and
explain the details for 2 years. But his laziness is only outweighed by
my own.
Hopefully the long post I just made will clear up any other issues. At
the rate I'm going, these mfw post are going to write this booklet
anyhow. Just keep asking annoying detail questions and I'll answer them
here. Then just collect them, edit, and booklet is done. That's only
half a joke, by the way.
I'll always write stuff on mfw but won't get motivated to do real
writing. At one point I thought I shoud just make a list of questions
to answer and have mfw folks post them every so often. I"ll asnwer them
and get chapters written that way.
Except that I never save stuff.
Lyle
Robert Dorf
<snip>
>
> Hopefully the long post I just made will clear up any other issues. At
> the rate I'm going, these mfw post are going to write this booklet
> anyhow. Just keep asking annoying detail questions and I'll answer them
> here. Then just collect them, edit, and booklet is done. That's only
> half a joke, by the way.
>
> I'll always write stuff on mfw but won't get motivated to do real
> writing. At one point I thought I shoud just make a list of questions
> to answer and have mfw folks post them every so often. I"ll asnwer them
> and get chapters written that way.
>
> Except that I never save stuff.
>
> Lyle
Google.
Lyle McDonald
>
> I'm assuming Raj wrote:
> > Interestingly on the thread "What is the best training method for
> > : gaining strength?" Bryce Lane clearly states there is no best or
> > : optimal method for gaining strength OR mass.
>
> Good for Bryce. Seriously.
> When did he become the final arbiter of anything?
acutally, I realized that my response was incorrect. Choose from the following.
1. Bryan says taht HST is the best method for size, and since he has
more muscle mass than Bryce, his opinion wins.
2. I bet that Bryce WOULD agree that there is a set of fundamentally
BEST principles for getting stronger (and this is about PRINCIPLES, Raj)
that MUST be met for gains. And that the specific INTERPRETATINO of
those PRINCIPLES are context specific.
Understanding the distinction yet, Raj, becuaes I'm g etting bored with
capitolizing the words I want you to pay attention to.
You're still confusing fundamental biological PRINCIPLES (about which
there is NO real room for debate once they are established) and the real
world INTERPRETATIONS (about which there is). And yo'ure still fixated
on a single INTERPRETATION that Bryan put on Thinkmuscle, and seem
unwilling to accept that that is only ONE interpretation of the PRINCIPLES.
HST is a set of PRINCIPLES that are an attempt to fulfill a myriad of
real world variables in an optimal way, the INTERPRETATION.
But I"m tired of repeating myself. You're still playing semantic games
(prove this, XXX says) that aren't worth adressing any longer.
If you honestly think that the argument of "Bryce said" (or ANYBODY said
so it doesn't look like I'm singing our Bryce) represents real argument,
I'd suggest you never get into a debate or go to court. You are without
a clue and I'm not the only one to point it out to you.
You wanna bring facts (i.e. scientific research based facts about human
physiology and the physiology of muscle growth) to this debate to
criticize the FUNAMENTAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES behind HST, do so.
Otherwise quit wasting my and everybody else's time with this blather.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Interestingly on the thread "What is the best training method for
> : gaining strength?" Bryce Lane clearly states there is no best or
> : optimal method for gaining strength OR mass.
>
> There isn't an "optimal method" that applies to *everyone* at all times,
> *everywhere*. That is what I meant if I did not say so. There certainly is
> an "optimal method" that applies to any particular individual at any
> particular time. Finding it is how many of us make a living.
>
> The only way to find this out is to do things long enough to where you have
> the feel or history for it and know what responses you will get to whatever
> you may do. You must do this long enough to know where the next "optimal"
> may lie based on where you have been before. HST is as good a place to start
> as any if you are only interested in size. You start with what Bryan says
> and do what you gotta do as you find out the details later on.
>
> I think you and Lyle are both playing games with words.
No, I'm basing my comments on research all of which I can back up with
scientific literature.
Raj is playing word games.
I realize that you don't know the difference (you played the same gamse
with your 'PROVE that there are genetic differences' crap just like he's
playing now) because you're scientifically ignorant, Bryce.
But there is one.
I'm arguing facts. The facts about muscle growth, the facts about mRNA
and ribosome time course, the facts about injuries. The fact about
physiologicla, practical, and psychological issues that have to be taken
into account to define an OPTIMAL trainng program.
Raj is playing word games with the definition of optimal, what someone
else's opinion about something is, that sort of nonsensical argument.
Basically, if we took this to court, I'd bring in hundreds of research
references (facts) to make my case. Raj would drag in his and your and
Poliquin's opinions about stuff. Or claim that 'since I can't prove
something beyond a shadow of a doubt' (said proof being a scientific
impossibility, you can only provide evidence for or against), 'taht I
can't prove anything'. Like you did in the genetics thread because you
couldn't admit how full of it you were.
Facts =! opinions despite what some folks think to be the case.
My opinions are bassed on the fundamental FACTS of human physiology all
demonstrated by repeatable, measurable scientific research. That's where
I develop my opinions from.
Raj's are based on "what Bryce said" "What pros do." Those aren't
facts. Those aren't even evidence.
Lyle
Bryce Lane
I don't take your hysterical nonsense seriously. The group that does is
getting smaller by the day.
Bryce
"Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3C8AB652...@onr.com...
Lyle McDonald
I've given you my opinion in the past.
His food combining ideas (which are the same fad ideas from years ago)
are voodoo nutrition, and show a lack of understandnig of how fat is
stored in fat cells. Fat can store itself without insulin because of
the action of acylation stimulation protein. His idea looks good on
paper but belies how the body works.
His ideas to eat big is nothing new. Duh, eat to grow. This is news?
Post workout nutrition, carbs + protein + BCAA. Cutting edge. Yeah, whatever.
Pre-workout nutrition is a good idea.
He hasn't revolutionized anything. He's formalized very basic concepts
and let the Tmag hype artists make it sound way more exciting than it
really is.
Eat big to get big. Umm, duh.
Pre and post wowrkout nutrition. Umm, duh.
I'm sure Tate et. al. do the same thing without obessing about it. Most
powerlifters do. Train big, eat big, grow big. Umm, duh.
Not that his overall advice (excepting the food combining blather, and
his calorie suggestions which are absurdly high IMO) isn't good. But
thinking it's anything new is absurd.
Lyle
Lester Long
I do. I keep certain of your posts in a word document. By the way, you
long post clocked in at 3500 words. At $1 word, that's a good month's pay.
In fact, maybe I'll take all your great posts, and edit them into a book,
for your review.
Regards,
Lester
Lyle McDonald
> > Except that I never save stuff.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> I do. I keep certain of your posts in a word document. By the way, you
> long post clocked in at 3500 words. At $1 word, that's a good month's pay.
> In fact, maybe I'll take all your great posts, and edit them into a book,
> for your review.
If I could get paid for being an obnoxious wordy bastard, I'd be a rich man.
Anyhow, if anything, I'll be using all these posts to put together the
basics of the HST booklet Bryan and I are gonna write.
Do'nt make me have to get medieval on your ass. ;)
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> 1. A matter of scientific note for Raj to consider. Gravity is NOT
> proven. By his logic, a scientist can not PROVE taht gravity does what
> it is claimed to do. Yes, every measurement of gravity to date has been
> positive. But that is not proof, because the next one might be
> negative, disproving it. Nothing in science can be PROVEN, it can only
> be DISPROVEN or have evidence in support.
>
> So, tell me Raj, if gravity can't be proven, how do you expect me to
> PROVE what yo'uve asked me to prove?
>
> I can provide plenty of evidence (empirical and scientific) that low
> sets generate hypertrophy. Everyone who's grown with HST, or Hardgainer
> phislosphy, or a bunch of other low volume approaches provide taht
> evidence. So does most of the extant research to date. IT's not proof
> in your mind, but it is evidence.
To really drive this home for the folks who don't understand the concept.
I cannot PROVE that the sun will come up tomorrow.
I may be of the OPINION that it will based on all data to date (it has
not yet failed to come up). That is, based on what data is available, I
can make a prediction about what to expect. It would surprsie me if it
didn't, but that's an OPINION based on the data. It does not constitute PROOF.
the first time that the sun does not come up as expected, my model is
disproven (assuming the data point is a real one). That's the hallmark
of science, as I've said already: being able to disprove something.
For Raj to ask me to PROVE anything shows how clueless he is about this.
I can offer a major amount of scientific EVIDENCE regarding the
physiology of muscle growth (see long post). I can explain how that is
used to develop an INTERPRETATION (an opinion basically) of how best to
put those together. I believe I did so in that post.
I can not PROVE anything. I can DISPROVE something by finding a case
where the model doesn't work. But that's it.
So I can't prove that 2 sets are superior (or inferior or even equal) to
more sets in any real sense. He can't prove that they aren't superior
to more sets either (that is, not prove in any real sense and using
"Well XXX says" isn't proof or even evidence its an assertion). I can
produce evidence that many individuals are growing on 2 sets using
Bryan's program. Is that PROOF that they wouldn't grow better with
higher volumes. No, of course not. It's evidence that 2 sets will in
fact generate measuable hpertrpohy, at least within the context of the
overall HST program. Because PROOF in this sense is an impossibility.
It's entirely possible that 2 sets would NOT generate hypertrophy within
the context of a different type of program (i.e. HIT with the longer
frequencies between workouts to pull one out). That is neither here nor
there. 2 work/sets is ONLY being argued as OPTIMAL within the context
of the ENTIRE HST program. It's the sum of the system that is OPTIMAL,
not any single part of it (see long post).
Now, I could possibly disprove that 2 sets works at all.
That is, if NOBODY EVER got growth from 2 work sets, that would disprove
the contention that '2 work sets is suficient to stimulate growth.' Or
if NOBODY grew from HST, that would tend to argue against it's
effectiveness. It would disprove the model of HST as being a program
that generates hypertrophy. Since that data has not been found and
quite in fact, the contrary data is available (people do grow on HST),
the model of HST is not disproved.
As soon as I can find a SINGLE individual who grows with 2 work sets (or
any number of work sets), I now have EVIDENCE that that set count will
work. is it PROOF of anything? No. It's evidence in support of a given
model.
Does that PROVE that a different set count wouldn't work better? Of
course not.
So, again, Rah is showing just how confused he is.
2 sets (or 1 or even 3) appears to be optimal WITHIN ALL OF THE OTHER
CONSTRAINTS of the system that HST is trying to apply itself to (see
long post).
To PROVE (in the sense of the word) that it was better or worse would
require that I compare different protocols (2 sets vs. more ignoring the
myriad variables that this would change) among an infinite number of
subjects over an extended period of time. Having tested every human
being in existence with no variable except set count, I could draw a
conclusion that would approach PROOF.
IN teh absence of such data (I can NOT test every human with anything
approaching any level of confidence), all I can provide is data. Such
as the fundamental principles of growth, hypertrophy, damage, etc. All
supported by severe amounts of scientific research. I can provide
evidence (and have done so, except I didn't type in references becuase I
don't have them all handy) for the PRINCIPLES involved, as well as the
rationale for the INTERPRETATION of those principles.
But it will never constitute PROOF in the kind that Raj wants (or Bryce
wanted in the genetics thread).
But by demanding such PROOF, they do an end run around the topic.
"Since Lyle can't PROVE XXX beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don't have to
look at the rest of the evidence and can maitain my idiotic opinion."
Because, NO, I can't PROVE anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can
provide sufficient evidence that its pretty overwhelmingly in favor of
something. No more, no less.
Falling back on the "PROVE IT" argument is simply a hallmark of feeble
minds with no understanding of actual science, how it done, or what it
means. It's also a hallmark of people who don't know how to argue facts.
So, again, when folsk are ready to bring actual scientific evidence that
goes against the PRINCIPLES of HST, wake me up. Until then, it's all a
bunch of he says, she says crap. Well, on Raj's end anyhow. Poliquin
says, Bryce says, Howdy Doody says. Well so what what any of them say.
I can find other 'experts' who say something totally different. Proving
nothing excpet that you can find an 'expert' who says anything if you
look hard enough. The bigger question is whether or not what they say
is based on anything real. Such as scientific evidence. I'm interested
in the science of the system, not what anybody else says.
Lyle
Lester Long
> Lester Long wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Except that I never save stuff.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > I do. I keep certain of your posts in a word document. By the way, you
> > long post clocked in at 3500 words. At $1 word, that's a good month's
pay.
> > In fact, maybe I'll take all your great posts, and edit them into a
book,
> > for your review.
>
> If I could get paid for being an obnoxious wordy bastard, I'd be a rich
man.
I assume you are morally opposed to writing for the online (or paper for
that matter) magazines? I'm sure they would love your articles, so long as
you don't talk about "eat, lift, rest, repeat", and instead discuss the
exciting new possiblilties of the latest supplements!! Luckily I'm so
cheap, I don't buy supplements, and thus never fall for that.
Has anyone compiled a list of the worthless supplements hawked over the past
couple decades? I forget them, just like I forget jokes.
> Anyhow, if anything, I'll be using all these posts to put together the
> basics of the HST booklet Bryan and I are gonna write.
I look forward to it. How's his HSN line going? Last I heard, his Protien
will be out over the next few weeks.
> Do'nt make me have to get medieval on your ass. ;)
What, you wanna whip it again or somthin? Dude, I told you, let's keep that
part of our relationship off the boards. :)
You gotta come to NY. Maybe we'll go meet Mr. Carlo and Mike Lane. And
Watson. Where is he?
Regards,
Lester
Lyle McDonald
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote:
> > Lester Long wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Except that I never save stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > I do. I keep certain of your posts in a word document. By the way, you
> > > long post clocked in at 3500 words. At $1 word, that's a good month's
> pay.
> > > In fact, maybe I'll take all your great posts, and edit them into a
> book,
> > > for your review.
> >
> > If I could get paid for being an obnoxious wordy bastard, I'd be a rich
> man.
>
> I assume you are morally opposed to writing for the online (or paper for
> that matter) magazines?
Depends on the mag. I've submitted stuff to Flex, used to write for
Cyberpump and Meso. Would have contributed to Peak if it hadn't died.
May be contributing to an upcoming newsletter (put out by Eric Serrano).
I wouldn't write for any mag I didn't respect, and unfortunately,
that's most of them.
> I'm sure they would love your articles, so long as
> you don't talk about "eat, lift, rest, repeat", and instead discuss the
> exciting new possiblilties of the latest supplements!! Luckily I'm so
> cheap, I don't buy supplements, and thus never fall for that.
>
> Has anyone compiled a list of the worthless supplements hawked over the past
> couple decades? I forget them, just like I forget jokes.
There have literally been thousands since I"ve been watching the last 13
years or so. I can count the ones that actually did anyting on two
hands and maybe a food. I know people think me a cynic about this stuff
but it's ahrd not to be when maybe 0.5% of the stuff that's been
released came anywhere close to the claims.
With those kinds of statistics, to believe that the NEXT BIG THING (tm)
is actually anything more than hype is just delusional. Of course,
that's the target market for bodybuilding supplements: delusional and
desparate folks who want to believe that the next product will work. Or
who are willing to spend any amount of money to gain a few pounds.
Meso was a rarity in that they had NO editorial control over content.
If we wanted to say something sucked (even if Meso sold it), that was
fine. Most mags tow the bottom line and won't let you say anything that
isn't the party line (buy our products, they're grrreeat). I won't work
under those conditions.
Flex is an anomaly among the mags right now, in that it doesn't tow the
line like the others (Weider has M&F to whore product anyhow). Jim
Wright (science editor) cares about scientific truth and nothing else.
Muscular Development is trying to move towards that (or at least giving
the superficial appearance of doing so), but their real focus is on
drugs and T&A. At least they realized the errors of their 'All Natural' attempt.
> > Anyhow, if anything, I'll be using all these posts to put together the
> > basics of the HST booklet Bryan and I are gonna write.
>
> I look forward to it. How's his HSN line going? Last I heard, his Protien
> will be out over the next few weeks.
I'm not involved with that at this point, and haven't asked Bryan about
it in a while. I knew that the protein was due out soon. That's the
extent of my involvement right now.
>
> > Do'nt make me have to get medieval on your ass. ;)
>
> What, you wanna whip it again or somthin? Dude, I told you, let's keep that
> part of our relationship off the boards. :)
Oh yeah, forget I mentioned it.
Lyle
Elzinator
>> According to your quotes (snipped), the concern is one of injury potential.
>> The idea seems to be, any increase in potential mass gain via multiple sets
>> is offset by the increased potential for injury, given the frequency.
>
>Yup, I'm going to put together a very long post adressing this as an issue.
jesus....................
rajinder johal
> > "rajinder johal" <rajinde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c1a9cad7.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Lyle also has repeatedly been unable to
> > > provide proof for 1-2 sets per bodypart (critical to the success of
> > > the program according to Haycock) being superior to a higher volume
> > > approach.
>
> do you know what PROOF means, Rah?
> I mean, in a scientific sense. the answer is obviously no.
>
> So let's reverse it for fun: You provide PROOF that higher volume gives
> better results.
I NEVER said higher volume was better or optimal. I merely presented a
very similar program in terms of frequency, albeit with greater
volume, e.g. modified 3x3 and asked for proof that hst is better. Okay
I withdraw proof. Instead show me evidence that HST is better. Face it
if your only evidence is case studies which sometimes are allowed and
sometimes not in this debate that is weak as hell to. If they are
allowed then I can happily quote natural bb's who on the whole use a
high volume approach and/or 3x3 type guys ,i.e. frequency and
intensity about the same but higher volume. Again, the onus is on you
to provide evidence that your approach is better than a differing one.
And don't try to pull a fast one like your friend Oggie and argue it
isn't calling for, ideally, 1 set. I could hunt it up but I do recall
reading of studies which showed a periodized multi set approach was
the best for either strength or size gains. Either way the onus is
clearly on you to prove your boast about HST. Your the one claiming an
optimal program based on a set of principles NOT me.
>
> If anything, the research to date supports the contrast, multiple
> sets do not give significantly more mass gains than single sets.
Reading that last comment are you therefore saying multi sets do
produce better mass gains. If so the debate is truly over. Unless you
are going to give me yet another new definition for optimal, maybe
optimal with respect to muscle gained per unit of time spent in the
gym? I'm curious and will certainly hang around for your explanation.
Ian King suggests very few sets for hypertrophy).
Low compared to most strength coaches but still relatively high
compared to HST. In Get Buffed he says 6 per bodypart every 5-6 days I
think. HST as performed accurately calls for 3 per week.
Quick question: Why do you regard often poorly controlled studies
often on untrained subjects with so much more regard than the combined
experiences of thousands of coaches and millions of athletes? Do you
think something absolutely must be scientifically validated before
considering it to be optimal?
>
>
> I can provide plenty of evidence (empirical and scientific) that low
> sets generate hypertrophy. Everyone who's grown with HST, or Hardgainer
> phislosphy, or a bunch of other low volume approaches provide taht
> evidence. So does most of the extant research to date. IT's not proof
> in your mind, but it is evidence.
And I can generate much more EVIDENCE that higher sets work.
Interesting you said "most" of the research.
John M. Williams
No, not Jesus. The New Testament isn't THAT long!
Lyle McDonald
And I didn't even take any ephedrine today.
Go figger.
Lyle
Ognjen Arandjelovic
>
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 11:46:55 +0000, Ognjen Arandjelovic wrote:
<snip>
> >Now you got him. I mean, we all know that those boards where you read
> >that are visited by analytical, critical people, who are able to
> >accurately isolate a single variable and estimate its impact on muscle
> >GROWTH, that itself is such a simple thing to track, having in mind that
> >it usually has a very high rate of change with time, right? It is not
> >like Lyle knows, or even trains any of those people whose experiences he
> >has used, it is not like that he is able to interpret their reports in
> >the light of their personalities, training experience and, roughly, a
> >few zillion other variables.
> >
> >
> >Oggie
>
> Hi, Oggie. Nice to see you again.
Thanks Elzi, good to see you too.
Very busy at the moment, lots of academic commitments, but should be
posting full time soon. Still reading nerd reports though ;)
> Smiley growls,
>
> Elzinator, Lady BitchCatcher
Growls and hugs,
Oggie
P.S. I recently found out that a guy that I know has horses, just 5
minutes from where I live. He promised to teach me how to ride this
summer - is that kewl of what!
Ognjen Arandjelovic
>
> Ognjen Arandjelovic <Ognjen.Ar...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > No program can be optimal for all people at all times.
> >> Ok so you accept my one basic criticism of HST. Good.
> >
> >No, you cannot read. He said PROGRAMME (ok, he said program, but he is a
> >dumb Merkun).
>
> We Merkuns corrected quite a few crappy British phonetics.
Plain lazy, leaving it to me to correct them on everything else ;)
Oggie
Ognjen Arandjelovic
>
> "There has been a tendency recently for people using HST to increase
> the volume of training but keeping the frequency the high. THIS IS NOT
> WHAT HST CALLS FOR (forgive the caps but this is important). HST calls
> for 1 set of each exercise (after a warm up) no matter how you split
> up your body. Now, I personally have said that you can do 2 sets if
> the first set didn't do anything. But this only happens when you are
> working with submaximal weight loads. NOT when you are using max
> weights.
>
> If you begin to increase the number of sets per body part while
> keeping the frequency high you will run into problems. Most people
> will begin to get strain injuries.
>
> 3 work sets (after warm up) per exercise PER WEEK will not cause these
> types of injuries!"
>
> Are you following it now Oggie?
I know very well what Bryan wrote. And I have said that Bryan DID go
into specific recommendations when he felt it was necessary. Taking a
few quotes out of context, not just the context of the thread, but the
way Bryan has introduced and developed HST, means nothing. This post was
given, if I recall correctly, in response to a person with some injury
problems. Bryan tailors his recommendations to suit the level of the
person asking questions. He said MANY TIMES that HST is a set of
PRINCIPLES, so Lyle and me are not making it up as we go along, as you
try to make it appear. But one look at his forum, and that is a number
of selected people who are more interested in learning about HST,
reveals that most people are not capable of putting those principles
together. To avoid people doing stupid shit and blaming HST on that, he
does say, when he feels it is needed, that HST calls for specifically
this or that. Your failing to understand that in the light of his other
writing is your problem. Even if you want to focus on trivialities like
this, from the top of my head, Bryan did give more than one sample
programme resulting from HST. The first one is the one given on the
site, 6 sets per body part per week, 3 full body workouts a week. The
other one is the one that you are so focused on, 3 sets per body part
per week. He also talked about 2 times a day training, both splitting it
by body parts and splitting the work done for a certain body part. He
also mentioned more frequent training, that, I think, he mentioned doing
himself, such as 6 times a week, full body.
Lyle pretty much covered the rest. You were explained the things you had
problems with N times, you still choose to ignore them and bitch about
it. Your problem, I have better things to do.
Oggie
Ognjen Arandjelovic
>
<snip>
> A couple of other issues, the inclusion of an eccentric (controlled)
> component. Studies show that eccentrics:
> a. cause muscle damage which
> 1. stimultes local mechanogrowth factor release, involved in both growth
> and satellite cell proliferation
> 2. upregulates both androgen and IGF_1 receptor number in the trained muscle
Just some major nitpicking, but if my (terrible) memory serves me well,
concentric movement upregulates AR and IGF-1 receptors more than
eccentric.
Apart from that, step away from the keyboard and slowly put the
ephedrine on the ground.
Oggie
Elzinator
>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> A couple of other issues, the inclusion of an eccentric (controlled)
>> component. Studies show that eccentrics:
>> a. cause muscle damage which
>> 1. stimultes local mechanogrowth factor release, involved in both growth
>> and satellite cell proliferation
>> 2. upregulates both androgen and IGF_1 receptor number in the trained muscle
>
>Just some major nitpicking, but if my (terrible) memory serves me well,
>concentric movement upregulates AR and IGF-1 receptors more than
>eccentric.
YOu must be referring to the study in last year's Am J Phys. by Bamman
et al., but it demonstrated the response of IGF-1 mRNA and the
androgen receptors. They did not measure IGF1 receptor levels.
"....However, we found a substantial increase in AR mRNA concentration
after both CON and ECC loading. To our knowledge, this is the first
report of such an increase in humans after an acute exercise bout. AR
content has been shown to increase in type II muscle after resistance
training in rats (10). Also in rats, gastrocnemius hypertrophy by
electrical stimulation has been associated with an increased number of
muscle ARs (20). Our data indicate both AR and IGF-I mRNA
concentrations are upregulated by heavy mechanical load. Although the
mechanism is not clear, muscle androgen and IGF-I activities may be
related.
We report for the first time changes in muscle mRNAs associated with
tissue growth and repair after a single bout of resistance exercise in
humans. The novel approach of studying high-intensity CON and ECC
loading separately enabled us to test the influence of ECC action on
the IGF-I and AR responses to mechanical load. The results indicate
that high-intensity lengthening and shortening contractions both
induce muscle IGF-I and AR gene transcription. Moreover, the enhanced
IGF-I activation after ECC loading supports the concept that IGF-I is
somehow involved in tissue regeneration after mechanical load-induced
damage."
Which resulted in greater AR upregulation (higher AR mRNA)?
First, they extracted the total mRNA from samples of tissue, then they
converted the mRNA to cDNA by reverse transcription (RT) in a PCR
thermocycler. Then they used primers that contain specific
oligonucleotides that hybridize to specific sequences at both the 5'
and the 3' ends of the DNA sequence for the androgen mRNAs.They then
ran the cDNA and primer mixture through many cycles of annealation and
denaturation. This exponentially amplifies the hybridized copies of
DNA and primers and is called PCR.
If you look at the Southern blot of the RT-PCR products, the band
density for the AR in the eccentric lane looks greater (darker) than
in the concentric lane. But if you compare the apparent densities
against the GAP densities that were run in each lane with the AR as a
marker, the GAP in the concentric (CON) lane appears lighter (less
dense) than the GAP in the eccentric (ECC) lane.
To quantitate the hybridized DNA in the bands, the band densities were
quantified by densitometry. After standardizing the optical density of
each band for background, the band density for GAP was used as the
adjusting factor. This is important because while the ECC band looks
like it has greater density than CON, when adjusted to GAP, the CON
density is greater than ECC.
Levels of AR mRNA were significantly elevated 48 hours post-training
in both ECC and CON compared to baseline. It looks like the OD of the
AR mRNA was about 58 for ECC and 68-70 for CON. Baseline was 35. So,
based on their RT-PCR and Southern blots, yes, AR mRNA was slightly
higher 48 hours post-training CON.
IGF1 mRNA, measured by the same techniques, were higher (110) after
ECC training than CON (98). Again, this is 48 hr post-training.
There are a few comments here that I will make briefly.
First, time post-training is important factor and not equal. Several
studies have shown that mRNA expression varies considerably across
time after exercise. The only way to develop a true picture of gene
expression is to take sequential measurements across a time frame. But
we know the limitations in that with humans: multiple biopsies. That
is why these kinds of studies are done in animal models.
Secondly, this really does not demonstrate complete gene expression,
but only transcription. There are multiple points in the pathway from
transcription to complete protein that translation and the complete
protein can be altered, and even inhibited. It would have been helpful
if they had measured protein levels in the local tissue. Instead they
measured systemic levels. This is a good indicator of systemic changes
but not local changes, which is very important for several growth
factors/hormones such as IGF-1. This would not be applicable for the
androgen receptors unless they wanted to quantitate changes of the AR
in the nucleus, which would have been very interesting, but also a
very very difficult technique.
Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
Hope that helps.
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
Elzinator
>Elzinator wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 11:46:55 +0000, Ognjen Arandjelovic wrote:
><snip>
>> >Now you got him. I mean, we all know that those boards where you read
>> >that are visited by analytical, critical people, who are able to
>> >accurately isolate a single variable and estimate its impact on muscle
>> >GROWTH, that itself is such a simple thing to track, having in mind that
>> >it usually has a very high rate of change with time, right? It is not
>> >like Lyle knows, or even trains any of those people whose experiences he
>> >has used, it is not like that he is able to interpret their reports in
>> >the light of their personalities, training experience and, roughly, a
>> >few zillion other variables.
>> >
>> >
>> >Oggie
>>
>> Hi, Oggie. Nice to see you again.
>
>Thanks Elzi, good to see you too.
>Very busy at the moment, lots of academic commitments, but should be
>posting full time soon. Still reading nerd reports though ;)
Oh good. I hope you find interesting the one I just posted in response
to your question/comment.
I've been busy being a mad scientist. It's good to be in a lab again.
>> Smiley growls,
>>
>> Elzinator, Lady BitchCatcher
>
>Growls and hugs,
>Oggie
You probably missed the catty reference to BrandaLee, our recent
visitor smiley-and-hugs LadyDreamCatcher poster. (scuse me while I
gag) I think she's trying to catch Will in her dreamcatcher. (Maybe
she thinks Will is dreamy ;)
>P.S. I recently found out that a guy that I know has horses, just 5
>minutes from where I live. He promised to teach me how to ride this
>summer - is that kewl of what!
Dude, kewel! You're going to have a sore butt and tight abductors.
Enjoy it. Keep me posted. My buddy is still back in Texas.
Will Brink
> Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
Marry me.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
> Elzi
>
> Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
--
Will Brink
__________________
http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/
Elzinator
>In article <47km8u0cioh58tj5b...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com wrote:
>
>
>> Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
>
>Marry me.
You're too short.
dahammel
> The question: is 1 week enough? Some of the data says no, that some of
> the connective tissue adaptations are still present weeks or months
> after detraining. It might be physiologically optimal to take 3 months
> off every cycle but taht crosses practical optimality, not to mention
> psychological issues.
>
> Even if it takes 6 months for CT adaptations to go away, that's not
> practical for training (train 8 weeks, take 3 months off) because you'd
> lose any muscle gained. Nor would it fulfill psychological requirements
> because most folks hate being out of the gym even if its better for them
> in the long run (Bryan and I have talked about other ways around this,
> like very light training because obsessed bodybuilers hate taking time
> off). Once again, its a compromise between trying to maximize the
> physiological response while taking into account practical and
> psychological realities.
Excellent post Lyle.
I'm glad you addressed this part about "light training" instead of complete
rest. Could you expand on this a bit? I've toyed around with starting the
15's extremely light for the first week in an HST cycle rather than the
complete week off during weight loss period, in order to keep up a level of
activity, maintain the routine of doing it 3 times a week, and to work on
form. What's your take on doing very light weights to start instead of the
week off? What are the benefits and pitfalls of this?
(Hey Alan: I hope you read Lyle's post here, you could almost cut and paste
the entire thing into the FAQ).
d.
Lyle McDonald
Yeah, all good questions and I'm ill equipped to give you much in the
way of answers.
To be honest, I haven't looked in great detail at the whole connective
tissue adaptation/de adaptation cycle. I've seen a couple of the papers
(like the one showing it takes like 6 months for the adaptations to
completely go away) and the rest was Bryan and my personal conversations.
So he (and probably Elzi since I suspect taht the repeated bout effect
of eccentric trainnig is related to this) has way more data than I do.
The ultimate question, for which I do'nt have an answer right now is essentially:
a. is there some intensity of training that will still let the
connective tissue adaptations go away wihle still letting you maintain
things like neural pathways, etc
That is, do you need total detraining, or is partial going to be sufficient.
Thinking about it, something that might be worth trying (ala Hatfield)
would be eccentric de-emphasized training. That is, not having looked
at it (meaning I'm guessing out of my butt here), I suspect that the
connective tissue adaptaions (which are again to help limit further
damage) are mainly due to the presence of the eccentric component.
So what if you train without the eccentric component (at least to the
limits of safety and sanity). Maybe take 50% of your XRM (where X is
the rep range you're going to use, say 15 in this case), do the
concetric to maintain neural pathways and basically let the weight free
fall as much as possible to avoid the eccentric. The weight *should* be
light enough to not get you hurt, but still let you work the neural
pathways (so you don't forget how to do them). Might even hav a
beneficial effect on joints and such from the blood flow too.
Just speculating off my head in a 'just woken up haze', that'd be my
suggestion for now. A compromise basically.
Lyle
notes on sanity and safety: When I first moved to Austin, the training
partner was still in a Hatfield ABC type of training. One of the
components of that training was a negative de-emphasized type of
training. Of course, we did it. There's nothing scarier (or stupider)
than taking a squat weight and literally free falling into the bottom
and trying to catch it when you bottom out. We very nearly killed
ourselves many times. So be careful with this stuff.
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> pontificated in
> news:3C87CCBE...@onr.com:
>
> > "George G." wrote:
> >> So that we don't go round and round like in that other thread, let me
> >> elaborate. Let's take Keith Hobman, who probably has only minimally
> >> more muscle now than two years ago (given his stated non-interest in
> >> hypertrophy, and even if I'm wrong on this, lets just say he doesn't,
> >> m'kay). He is much stronger now than he was then. Would this not be
> >> the big factor if he took up HST? He could generate the needed
> >> "intensity" (I'm using your def here) to make a single set work. He's
> >> working the same-sized muscle with a much heavier weight. No?
> >
> > Not necessarily. The type of intensity I'm talking about here is
> > really much more of a neural/mental issue.
>
> I thought that is what strength is?
Can I just say 'it's magic' and you'll let it go?
Becuae I'm doing a poor job of explaining this and not sure I can any better.
> > Not taht those aren't also
> > involved in the strength thing but I think it's fallacious to
> > automatically asssume that stronger means an ability to generate the
> > type of intensity I'm talking about here.
>
> How do you separate the two? The only way I envision this is if you lifted
> a 5RM one day, then did the same 5RM weight another but did it with more
> "intensity" and ended up more tired. The more "intense" 5RM lift would have
> to be just like the other in that you still couldn't possibly do one more
> rep. If not, then what is this if not strength?
I'm getting at a sort of vague, nearly pseudo-mystical idea here.
The mind-muscle link that bodybuilders always go on about.
It's sort of ephemeral, as much an issue of concentration and focus
(which are neural issues) as anything else. But it's different than
just the neural output to get the weight moving.
> >
> > You can move big weights and still not be concentrating very much.
> > Good athletes concentrate and focus far better than bad.
>
> Yes, but the comparison here is for a given individual.
Ok, so let's compare two sets with the same individual.
Both 5RM, with say 100 lbs on the curl.
One set is done with a slight swing, no pause at the top, not much
control on the way down, no pause, curl it up again. IT still requires
neural output. You basically go through the motions. Watch most people
bench, this is what you see.
Second set, at the beginning of each rep, you lock your body tight, arms
in by side, big breath, curl the weight deliberately, squeeze at the
top, control the eccentric. Brief pause, reset everything, body tight,
second rep, squeeze at the top.
Superficially, you did the same thing. 100X5 reps.
In terms of what I'm talking about, you didn't.
The first required the minimal amount of effort (muscular and neural) to
get through the set. The second will leave you exhausted in the true
sense of the word. A few of the second type of set will be equal (in
terms of muscular stimulation) as a whole bunch of the first kinds.
Failing that, a wizard did it.
> > The 15 and 12 rep parts of the cycle are a good place to practice this
> > since the weights are relatively lighter. By the time you get into
> > the lower reps you should be better at it. If you feel like you need
> > more practice, spend some more time in the higher reps, or lengthen
> > the cycles at each rep range and use smaller weight increments to give
> > you more practice time.
> >
> > Lyle
> >
>
> Some very good advice. This is most definitely something I need to work on.
> I think I'll drastically reduce the number of exercises I'm doing in the
> next cycle to allow myself to focus and learn a few specific ones.
I think, as you practice this (and like everything it gets better with
practice), you'll get a better understand of what I'm doing such a poor
job of explaining above. Yo'ull also note that most people in most gyms
do the 'going through the motions' type of lifting. Watch a serious
lifter or athlete and you'll see the difference. Even their warmups
look different.
If not, blame the wizard.
Lylle
Ognjen Arandjelovic
>
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:57:33 +0000, Ognjen Arandjelovic wrote:
> >Lyle McDonald wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >> A couple of other issues, the inclusion of an eccentric (controlled)
> >> component. Studies show that eccentrics:
> >> a. cause muscle damage which
> >> 1. stimultes local mechanogrowth factor release, involved in both growth
> >> and satellite cell proliferation
> >> 2. upregulates both androgen and IGF_1 receptor number in the trained
> >> muscle
> >
> >Just some major nitpicking, but if my (terrible) memory serves me well,
> >concentric movement upregulates AR and IGF-1 receptors more than
> >eccentric.
>
> YOu must be referring to the study in last year's Am J Phys. by Bamman
> et al., but it demonstrated the response of IGF-1 mRNA and the
> androgen receptors.
Good guess, that's the one.
> They did not measure IGF1 receptor levels.
Yup, you are right, my memory failed. Thanks for posting the quotation.
<snip the text>
Very good point.
> The only way to develop a true picture of gene
> expression is to take sequential measurements across a time frame. But
> we know the limitations in that with humans: multiple biopsies. That
> is why these kinds of studies are done in animal models.
>
> Secondly, this really does not demonstrate complete gene expression,
> but only transcription.
Ditto.
> There are multiple points in the pathway from
> transcription to complete protein that translation and the complete
> protein can be altered, and even inhibited. It would have been helpful
> if they had measured protein levels in the local tissue. Instead they
> measured systemic levels. This is a good indicator of systemic changes
> but not local changes, which is very important for several growth
> factors/hormones such as IGF-1. This would not be applicable for the
> androgen receptors unless they wanted to quantitate changes of the AR
> in the nucleus, which would have been very interesting, but also a
> very very difficult technique.
>
> Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
>
> Hope that helps.
Most definitely. Thanks for that Elzi, your time and effort is always
much appreciated.
Oggie
> Elzi
Will Brink
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:08 GMT, Will Brink wrote:
> >In article <47km8u0cioh58tj5b...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
> >
> >Marry me.
>
> You're too short.
Im taller than you honey and hung like a llama...
>
>
> Elzi
>
> Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
--
Robert Dorf
"Will Brink" <WI...@BrinkZone.com/NoSPAM> wrote in message
news:WILL-11030...@bstnma1-ar1-4-62-116-130.elnk.dsl.gtei.net...
> In article <koum8ussgn7b7v3d0...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com
wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:08 GMT, Will Brink wrote:
> > >In article <47km8u0cioh58tj5b...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
> > >
> > >Marry me.
> >
> > You're too short.
>
> Im taller than you honey and hung like a llama...
>
<cue guitar>
rajinder johal
Anyway assuming you still want to answer serious questions...
Let's say I grant you that HST is optimal for sake of argument. Take a
motivated trainee who has zero interest in sports or strength or
safety even and has a few yrs training background and no injury
issues. His sole concern is mass and he never gets bored.
Ignoring nutriton and assuming he is natural how long would you keep
him on HST? 1,2, maybe 3 cycles? Forever?
As this guy's coach what, if anything, would prompt you to change
programs since you've said many times that changing every few weeks is
mainly for psychological reasons and this guy is never bored.
Do you predict that repeat cycle users of HST will experience
continued growth upto their genetic limits as Mentzer used to predict
for Heavy Duty?
Why is the science of studies, especially non-representative, often
poorly designed studies, better than the wisdom of elite coaches who,
if anything, have probably trained more people than any study/used
every training theory around at some time or another to reach their
respective training philosophies?
Not being bitchy, but assuming HST is a lifelong dream program when do
you expect to notice real changes in your own physique, e.g. add
20+lbs?
dahammel
> Let's say I grant you that HST is optimal for sake of argument. Take a
> motivated trainee who has zero interest in sports or strength or
> safety even and has a few yrs training background and no injury
> issues. His sole concern is mass and he never gets bored.
>
> Ignoring nutriton and assuming he is natural how long would you keep
> him on HST? 1,2, maybe 3 cycles? Forever?
>
> As this guy's coach what, if anything, would prompt you to change
> programs since you've said many times that changing every few weeks is
> mainly for psychological reasons and this guy is never bored.
>
> Do you predict that repeat cycle users of HST will experience
> continued growth upto their genetic limits as Mentzer used to predict
> for Heavy Duty?
Legit questions. Hopefully Lyle and others will answer these, and you'd do
well to post these in the Thinkmuscle forum as well to see how Bryan
responds.
Although you could postulate for the recreational trainer, this is an ideal
program long-term. Low injury potential due to low volume, progressive
overload and varying rep ranges to avoid stagnation, not much total time
dedicated to training (ie. can fit in a busy schedule), a variety of
different exercises are acceptable, periodic layoffs that normal people can
write into their programs every 6-8 weeks (ie. holidays, etc), etc.
d.
Elzinator
>In article <koum8ussgn7b7v3d0...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:13:08 GMT, Will Brink wrote:
>> >In article <47km8u0cioh58tj5b...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bottom line, do both concentric and eccentric movements.
>> >
>> >Marry me.
>>
>> You're too short.
>
>Im taller than you honey and hung like a llama...
Um, I just stood next to you a few weekends ago, Will. I think you are
my height. I can't comment on the latter, but......
jpegs, please.