Achieving Progressive load Continuously

W

wisslewj

New Member
Hey Guys,

I was plotting my workout and noticed a large zig zag in some areas. While I know some is ok, it occurred to me that this was breaking the principle of "progressive load."

For example, I Squat 200x5, 185x10, 170x15 as maxes. Well, when I count back the weight for the week, there is huge overlap (zigzag). This isnt an issue jumping from the 1x15 to the 2x10 because the volume also increases and thus compensates so load is continually raised.

However at the 3x5 usually suggested, progressive load all but stops. Even at 4x5 its awhile before load ascends again. (Its even lower for a few workouts!) So, that said, I have a few possible fixes that I am curious if others have used or know are ok and work?

One is to just do 1x15, 2x10, 5x5. Since the volume would again ascend each time, the issue is solved and progressive load achieved. But this is a tough workout!

Another option is 1x15, 2x9, 4x5. This saves a bit of energy during the 5's phase but still keeps overload constantly rising save maybe a workout in the beginning of the week depending on what one lifts. (Since volume is 15, 18, 20)

The last option is to stick with the 1x15, 2x10, 3x5 method, but introduce a secondary exercise, perhaps in the 10 range, that brings up the difference. So incline bench at 3x5 with a set of declines for 10 tossed in there. The declines can progress as the other exercises every workout.

All of these keep the load progressive, which as I understand it, is the primary factor in HST. (Obviously many are important but this seems stressed alot.)

Now, has anybody tried these alterations with success? I tried the vanilla HST in the past with little success. However, looking back at the routine, I realized that from 10's to 5's I had very little progressive load increase. The zigzag was just to large. (I also used way to many exercises which left me pretty fatigued!)

I am thinking that getting back to the core moves, with assured progressive load might make all the difference.

Thoughts would really be appreciated. (Especially since it seems like the 1x15, 2x10, 3x5 scheme copmpletely breaks the progressive load priciple.)

Thanks,
Jeff
 
Thanks for the link Quad.
smile.gif


However, it didnt seem like anyone really addressed the issue of achieving constant load as an overall set/rep scheme. My question was slightly different then your proposed workout. (though we are thinking similarly.)

In other words, your plan of adding weight little by little and lowering the reps doesnt achieve constant load increase unless you also continued upping yor sets as well. (You actually lost load over the workout if sets didnt increase as weight went up and reps went down.)

Thats my issue because it breaks the progressive load principle. 1x15, 2x10 3x5 is great from the 15's to the 10's. But from the 10's to the 5's load actually decreases. Here it becomes a strength workout and not a hypertrophy one it would seem.

Am I making sense lol? I think I am sold on the need to raise the volume constantly so as to achive the primary priciple of overload. It makes logical sense. I am just hoping some one can give some feedback from experience in doing this.

THanks again
JEFF
 
<div>
(wisslewj @ Mar. 06 2008,22:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks for the link Quad.
smile.gif


However, it didnt seem like anyone really addressed the issue of achieving constant load as an overall set/rep scheme. My question was slightly different then your proposed workout. (though we are thinking similarly.)

In other words, your plan of adding weight little by little and lowering the reps doesnt achieve constant load increase unless you also continued upping yor sets as well. (You actually lost load over the workout if sets didnt increase as weight went up and reps went down.)

Thats my issue because it breaks the progressive load principle. 1x15, 2x10 3x5 is great from the 15's to the 10's. But from the 10's to the 5's load actually decreases. Here it becomes a strength workout and not a hypertrophy one it would seem.

Am I making sense lol? I think I am sold on the need to raise the volume constantly so as to achive the primary priciple of overload. It makes logical sense. I am just hoping some one can give some feedback from experience in doing this.

THanks again
JEFF</div>
I don't think you are understanding what we mean by 'progressive load.' It is not synonymous with 'progressive volume.'
 
Tot,

Progressive load means that the total weight moved has gone up correct?

load= sets x reps x weight

So 100lbs x 15 reps = 1500 load correct?  And thats what should theoretically be increasing every time.  And it DOES from the 15's to the 10's.  But not on the 5's.

Well, it eventually does, but for many workouts it actually decreases.

For example, assuming 170x1x15, 185x2x10, 200x5x3 are my maxes and using 5 lbs incraments, my ending &quot;load&quot; for the 10's is 3700 but my starting load for the week of 5's is only 175x3x5=2626.  My load decreased, not increased.  And it will be a few workouts before it increases again at all.  (Though it will by the end.)

Assuming I have load right, its not constantly progressing unless volume (total reps) increases as well each 2 week block.  (which is why more sets are needed.) This will be almost impossibe for the 7th and 8th weeks and that thus becomes more of a strength training time.

Am I following this right?

Thanks
Jeff
 
Quad and Tot,

I have it now.  Lol set me straight!  I was screwed up!  
blush.gif


Quad, I now see what you were trying!
smile.gif


I am curious though.  This just makes HSTing sound like a normal workout to me, save the SD part.  Doesnt everyone usually progressively add weight to the bar?  Other then the SD, I have apparently been HSTing for months now lol.  

Perhaps this SD is just what I need to restart growth!

Thanks gain and sorry for the confusion.  I get to where the stupid hat for the week!  
tounge.gif


Jeff

PS... my whole initial question is pointless in light of correct understanding, so if the Mod wants to delete the thread, give it the old boot!
smile.gif
 
We keep Lol around just for clarity.  
smile.gif

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am curious though.  This just makes HSTing sound like a normal workout to me, save the SD part.  Doesnt everyone usually progressively add weight to the bar?  Other then the SD, I have apparently been HSTing for months now lol.  </div>HST has many factors not found in &quot;normal&quot; workouts, and some that are; just read the articles for that. The SD is all about growing from submax weights. Some, like Scientific Muscle don't really believe in it, and many cannot deny it's power due to success with it. I for one find that it can allow growth while healing the body, and as a vintage lifter, (how's that one, O&amp;G?) it is periodically invaluable.
As I began to stall out in growth after many cycles, I began IGNORING the zigzag and simply kept adding weight to the bar in linear fashion BUT STILL ADDING SETS AT THE REP CHANGE!!! How on earth do you find that to be LESS workload? :
Your 15 rep squatrack bicep curl begins at 75 lbs. Increment 5 lbs.
Your ending 15 reps is 105, or 1575 lbs.
Your beginning 10 reps is 110 x 10 x 2, or 2200 lbs. Hello?
Next, you begin to stall out in the mid-tens due to overload.
You REPEAT that weight (X x 10 x 2) until you properly nail it, then add your increment. You cluster if needed until not needed.
WHATEVER your tens end in, you add your increment and do your 3 sets of 5.
Say, you ended with 125 x 10 x 2, or 2500. Your next w/o is 130 x 5 x 3, or 1950.
If the workload were also fully linear, your total should be 2515, or 168 x 5 x 3; an impossible scenario. Your muscles are REALLY gonna feel the 130's as it is, but your LOAD (NOT workload at this point) is still linear.
Mine did.
BTW, I used squat stands, not the rack, and a cambered curl bar to save my wrists...I'm SUCH a cheater...
laugh.gif


I should add that in subsequent discussions about this, the consensus from the guys was to zigzag IF NECESSARY due to overload. Many won't be able to finish a cycle fully linear, since you're bumping off of your maxes now and then; you're just increasing your strength as you go, but we all have limits. My technique was as mentioned above; stay at a weight until you can progress.
If this were a &quot;normal&quot; workout, it wouldn't have started submax and wouldn't have made it through the 15's without overloading, and advancement of increments would have been very minimal throughout, henceforth less effective.
The OTHER linear progression one could use is adding weight until near maxed out, and dropping reps while adding more weight. This is closer to some traditional systems. It becomes a balancing act of a descending rep scheme vs. ascending load. It's all good.
 
Yes, every workout scheme progressively loads the bar, but to what extent? HST takes advantage of this key principle by dividing the cycle into mesocycles for each rep range. Likewise, not all routines work full body with high frequency such as HST. HST also starts at a lighter load because that load will be effective enough for hypertrophy upon SD and lighter mesocycles before it.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The SD is all about growing from submax weights. Some, like Scientific Muscle don't really believe in it, and many cannot deny it's power due to success with it. I for one find that it can allow growth while healing the body, and as a vintage lifter, (how's that one, O&amp;G?) it is periodically invaluable.</div>

OT: I think Sci doesn't buy the idea that taking a week or two off is enough to 'reset' muscle tissue to a more sensitive state from which it will then readily grow when subjected to lighter loads again (as in the 15s).

I don't really like the term sub-max loads because we are always lifting sub-maximally unless we are doing 1RM singles. It's more to do with how low a %age of 1RM can we get away with using to elicit a growth response? Whether SD changes this or not is open to debate but, at least in my case, something definitely changes after only seven days. If I do a session of 15s after weeks of heavy 5s I do not get DOMS anywhere but, if I take a week off, that same 15s workout makes me sore all over. Even though DOMS is not a sign that a PS response has been triggered, it is a sign that something has altered over the course of just seven days! (Perhaps just my ability to get DOMS?!
biggrin.gif
)
 
You're perfectly correct as usual Lol, but for the sake of general reference we use the common ground &quot;submax&quot; in lieu of excessive scientific definitions - and it compares to what we all used to do: work as hard as we could, every time we could, as long as we could.
Submax is merely less than we ordinarily would use with HIT. Interesting thought tho; lesser percentages and all that.
For me, two weeks is optimal for SD, Nine days minimal.
 
Yeah, my optimal and minimal SD's are the same as quads'. Unfortunately, I haven't practiced a true SD in quite some time thanks to my perpetual cut that I am on!
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Mar. 07 2008,10:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Unfortunately, I haven't practiced a true SD in quite some time thanks to my perpetual cut that I am on!</div>
That's what sickness and injuries are for...
smile.gif


I think many lifters just use as much weight as they possibly can, hoping to add another few reps from time to time as they feel they can manage. HST specifically calls for more weight on the bar each workout whether you feel like it or not. Progressive load is the first principle of HST.
 
i train each bp once per week now, increasing the load each week until i reach the end of a cycle for instance my 1 rm max. i find this submaximal progressive load very unapealing.

to me if you are using less effort to move a weight(80%) than you should be then you are not in an optimal environment for hypertrophy you are just maintaning.the body needs new or more demanding stimulie to grow and adapt.

which is another reason i only use sd as a form of rest and recouperation, and not deconditioning, as you would need far longer for that to happen properly and by that time your gains will be slipping a way.

i know this will be offensive to some people and i guess its just my opinion but all i know is the training principles i have put together at the moment are working for me.
 
Quad,

I REALLY like that approach! I hate the idea of going backward on weight. One workout, no biggie, but 3 or 4 as some of this zigzag causes and I am getting ticked lol.

Do you think this is doable as a whole body approach or would it be to tiring? Maybe apply it to a lagging body part to develop more strength? What are your thoughts on it from a hypertrophy vs. strengtht result?

I know you said your Bi's didnt grow from this. Do you think its more because it ends up being a strength routine or do you think that you have just reached your gun limit?

I might try this approach on a body part and see what happens.

Icars,

I tend to agree with you. I just finished training much as you suggest and it was great. I got really strong and even gained some. But my gains were plateuing at the end. I was hoping the HST would get me going again!
smile.gif


I didnt do well my first HST I tried awhile back. Didnt gain anywhere. But I also applied it somehwat incorrectly by doing way to much. Hopefully this time I get results! I will say that this last routine I actually approached in a hybrid HST style and it worked great.

I started with easier weight to get back in the groove and then linearly just added weight each week. It was 2 day a week at first per part, then 1 as the weight grew. The sub max was there at first, but eventually it was far more of a linear progression with heavy friggin weight.

Basically it ended up being like Quads routine but only 1 time a week per part.

Interesting point though is that I DID grow most with the 2x a week and sub max weights. I got strong with the bigger weights. (But I was going to failure with those.)

Thanks again for the help guys. I think I got the gist now and just need to get pumping and see how it goes. In Quads words..&quot;just put some more weight on and lift!&quot;
biggrin.gif


jeff
 
<div>
(lcars @ Mar. 07 2008,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">to me if you are using less effort to move a weight(80%) than you should be then you are not in an optimal environment for hypertrophy you are just maintaning.the body needs new or more demanding stimulie to grow and adapt.</div>
But then, surely, you are back to the argument that fatigue is more important than work done or strain on the muscle tissue? I thought that argument had been laid to rest a long time ago? (But maybe that was in a galaxy far, far away?
smile.gif
)
 
Lol,

One thing that I think really shows how useful submax loads and specifically the strain can be is gymnasts. They use mere body weight in low leveraged postions and become freakishly strong!

Basically they exercise in that semi stretched position. I myself have begun adding this stuff to my workouts and have benefited immensly! (I do lever, planche, handstand etc) I figure if a measly 135 pound guy can dead lift 400 lbs never having previously lifted (as Coach Sommer claims) there must be SOMETHING to it!
biggrin.gif


I also added statics in the stretched postions with bench and shoulders and both full rep ranges shot way up. (This was heavy weight held for 10 seconds.) Only negative is the heavy stuff gets tough to recover from after about a month. Both the joints and recovery take a beating, even though overall the workout &quot;seems&quot; easy.

I think submax weights, with the right exercises can be very key to developing freakish strength and eventually growth. I am sure all the plyo stuff gymnasts do add to their growth as well, but the low leverage exercises form a bulk of their training.

Jeff
 
<div>
(Lol @ Mar. 07 2008,05:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Mar. 07 2008,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">to me if you are using less effort to move a weight(80%) than you should be then you are not in an optimal environment for hypertrophy you are just maintaning.the body needs new or more demanding stimulie to grow and adapt.</div>
But then, surely, you are back to the argument that fatigue is more important than work done or strain on the muscle tissue? I thought that argument had been laid to rest a long time ago? (But maybe that was in a galaxy far, far away?  
smile.gif
 )</div>
Warning Don't take this out of context!
biggrin.gif


I agree...but it seems a lot of people including myself grew like a weed off of fatigue training.

I will use myself for example.

Now before i get started...let me state for the record I am all for high frequency and full body training.

So yes I like HST but more so I like training fullbody!

Now back to my original example of myself.

If we know that fatigue is not good...how do I explain to myself and friends...that I managed to add 40 pounds of muscle in about 4 years with high volume low weight fatigue training?

Again I am not disagreeing with you Lol...I am agreeing with you...but not to sound Like A BRO-TARD...but a ton of people NOT on steroids make damn good gains on programs were they are just doing tons of work and not incorporating progressive load. Again the reason I know is b/c I was one of those guys who never trained below 8 reps and never did less than 20 sets per bodypart once a week.

I guess what I am saying is I have learned tons of information here at hst in 4 years...and I train now with better results and way less effort!

So the science works...but there are so many examples of it not working too!
 
Appreciate your thoughts Joe.

I don't think anyone is saying that you can't make gains if you go to failure, only that it's not necessary. It's not about whether fatigue per se is good or bad, it's just that fatigue is not the important part of the growth equation. It's certainly true that if you regularly train to failure you will get better at dealing with it. (I did but, like many others, I also got 'sick' of puking and feeling nauseous!). Look at the way Oly lifters train; look at Max-Stim; look at the way HST is set-up and a plethora of other programs that produce very real results.

Another point that you make is that you never trained below 8 reps (maybe, like me, you always worked in the 8-12 rep range?), yet with plenty of volume you got results. That makes sense too, particularly if you were pushing the reps to (or close to) failure; doing so would ensure that all fibres were firing to some degree. Plenty of volume would help ensure that you were encouraging a PS response. (However, if you aren't 'roiding' it certainly isn't an optimal way to train, as I think you now appreciate.)

There are still lots of answers that we have yet to discover about the complexities of muscle hypertrophy and all the pathways involved, but I think that mechanotransduction in muscle cells caused by mechanical strain on the tissue is not in question. Fatigue is not a prerequisite for strain, but load is.

I appreciate that a certain amount of failure training can help with neuromuscular development and can lead to strength gains which in turn can lead to further hypertrophy, as strain levels can then be increased. HST certainly allows for this kind of training at the end of each mesocycle.

That's my understanding of it right now anyway.
 
Thanks for the response Lol...great insight!

Yeah I guess what I was looking at is how much I have learned from Bryan,Dan,Lyle and others and the science side of training has helped me a lot.

It has help me in the sense of I don't beat a dead horse...I simply train just enough to grow and quit and I personally love it that way.

I was just curious how so many people train so stupidly with volume / intensity / frequency / lack of nutrition that they still make gains.

But I think you hit the nail on the head...and I think given enough training stimulus everyone will grow for a while then stall out.

I guess the way I should look at HST and others is the fact that I have been able to gain more muscle on 1/3 of the work!

Which is way more pratical and efficient!

Thanks again for your thoughts!!!
 
<div>
(lcars @ Mar. 07 2008,15:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i train each bp once per week now, increasing the load each week until i reach the end of a cycle for instance my 1 rm max. i find this submaximal progressive load very unapealing.

to me if you are using less effort to move a weight(80%) than you should be then you are not in an optimal environment for hypertrophy you are just maintaning.the body needs new or more demanding stimulie to grow and adapt.

which is another reason i only use sd as a form of rest and recouperation, and not deconditioning, as you would need far longer for that to happen properly and by that time your gains will be slipping a way.

i know this will be offensive to some people and i guess its just my opinion but all i know is the training principles i have put together at the moment are working for me.</div>
My training has evolved to something very close to lcars'.  Only I am finding best results every 5 days.  Also I am basing that on strength increases, and size is coming with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top