Discussion in 'Basic Training Principles and Methods' started by SameOldSameOld, Jul 12, 2007.
have you considered the thought that you might just be a pansy?
Sorry, look somewhere else.
Well if you think it is impossible to do multiple sets with your 5 RM, something that I and many others here have been doing for years, then that's the only real conclusion I can think of. You don't know how to push yourself.
I would probably be more interested in grinding out heavy sets if I had the goal of getting much stronger in mind.
I really think that the idea of maxing out on perceived effort intended for muscle growth (which 5RM done 5 times @RPE-10 implies) is something some of you guys came up with, HST has no such thing, only ever increasing load. Moreover, as an aside, Larry Scott (1965 Mr. Olympia) built his huge delts and arms using sets of 6 reps coupled with drop sets.
So you never read the part where The Haycock said to get bigger, you must get stronger? And to get stronger, you must get bigger?
That is completely wrong. And Bryan, the only person you seem capable of listening to, has expressly stated so. You don't "fry" nerves by doing one set at 5RM. Do you really think the human body is so utterly incapable of endurance, having evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, that you can't do more than one set of 5RM? That is patently absurd.
Larry Scott enjoyed steroids.
HST incorporates doing multiple sets at your rep-maximum. Bryan, Blade, Boris, Totentanz, Lance, Colby, Fausto, Dan Moore ... everyone who has ever succeeded on this program does multiple sets at their rep-maximum.
At their level, maybe they don't see any gains from anything lighter than 5RM. Who knows for sure. As soon as ~6RM x 5 x 3 + drop set stops working, I'll look beyond that.
Quoting Bryan, HST FAQ 7.4:
"After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless
I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to
get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before
they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at
least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every
workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to
become vulnerable to the training stimulus)."
Yes, ideally you get maximum hypertrophy from that load. You can't gain hypertrophy that would otherwise need a higher-load stimulus.
It appears as though you've misunderstood much of Bryan has written on the main site and here in the forums. Most of your quotes regarding him are being applied incorrectly. Sorry.
It seems like you are putting too much emphisis on exact number of reps?
I'm sure if Larry Scott had trained with 5 reps instead of 6 reps at the same weight his delts would look exactly the same.
Which is EXACTLY my point: 6RM is no worse than 5RM as some may believe. Wernbom's study supports this idea. At least it isn't worse off until you've trained properly for 10 years or so.
If that is what you are taking away from all this then you are a lost cause.
By the way, dempsey's post was supporting the point I was making through most of this, not your point. Your point has been throughout that volume is more important than load, and that you should increase volume instead of load. My point has been that you should manage volume while increasing load.
You believe that increasing load from 6 RM to 5 RM will place too much stress on the CNS, whereas I've said that increasing volume will place a greater load on the CNS than increasing load from something like a 6 RM to a 5 RM. As dempsey pointed out, there is not much difference between 6 RM and 5 RM, so going to 5 RM is not going to "fry your nerves" as you suppose. Whereas deciding to do 30 reps with a 6 RM load instead of managing volume while increasing load definitely has a greater chance of frying your nerves.
I won't be using 6RM or shoot specifically at 30 reps, it will be a load I can do 3 sets of 5's with 3 minute rest between sets. It might be 6RM. Or 5.5RM. I don't know. It might be close to 30 reps for some smaller muscle groups that are repeated in different exercises, it will be only 15 reps for chest. Working close to failure is what "fries nerves", but I would be staying at a safe distance of a rep or two from failure, that is, when speed starts to noticeably slow down (that would be 2 reps short), NOT when it's already slow! (that would be 1 rep short) - will I stop.
No. My point has been to LIMIT maximum weight to the one that would allow 3 sets to be done, or my 3x5/3' RM. Load MUST increase as soon as I do 3x5/3' at a given load, I add more load and repeat until I can do that again etc. In the end, if that would allow me to make consistent progress, who cares what we call it?
30 reps for smaller muscle groups is ludicrous. Not to mention 30 for them and only 15 for larger muscles like chest is the complete reverse of what you should be doing.
Volume, not failure is what "fries nerves". Failure is merely a term that reflects excessive volume within a set/cluster/consecutive reps. Not to mention, 1 set to failure will leave your CNS in better shape than 3 sets 'near failure'.
And again ... you're letting volume determine load, rather than the correct approach of loading determining volume.
Like I said.
Maybe you're right, that's just the coincidence of having only 1 exercise for chest, delts & lats in vanilla HST, but bis & tris get more direct iso work. I can keep it like that for now (there's nothing wrong with emphasizing arms), and some time in the future add more volume for bench & pulls. I like keeping 1 major exercise rather than a few similar ones one after another.
Mmm. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind while keeping balance on volume & intensity, and make sure I stop as soon as speed slows down, even if I believe I can manage next rep.
Wernbom et al collected some definite research on (a) optimal load ranges, (b) the value of "enough" per-bout volume on hypertrophy. You keep arguing with that, what else can I say for now.
You seem to think that the study you keep referencing (which is actually a meta-analysis, not a study, just fyi...) is somehow perfect.
You do realize that a meta is only as good as the data it is analyzing, right? You can't polish a turd. If half the studies you include in your analysis are **** studies, then all your data is going to have the taint of that **** on it.
It seems to me now Bryan was right when he wrote this, as it applies equally well to any newer info, not only HST itself.
Moreover, Haycock seems to support the numbers outlined in that work.
So I'm pretty much confident that increasing volume from 2 sets to 3 during 5's and keeping load within 85% is a step in the right direction.
Separate names with a comma.