Basic 'traditional' training program

S

scientific muscle

New Member
I have been somewhat disillusioned with the traditional HST lately.  Basically my doubts hinge on the ineffectiveness of strategic deconditioning and subsequently on how starting a cycle at submax weights can really have much adaptation effect.
I started noticing that when doing max-stim cycles, my gains only seemed to come at the higher loads.

As many of you know I am a fan of self-studying strength and hypertrophy research papers.  I decided to try a more 'traditional' weight-training approach with a hybrid of strength and hypertrophy as the goal.
Using my research I came up with a simple program which happens to be very similar to Dan Moore's original hypertrophy program before the invention of max-stim.  An article about this program can be found here: Hypertrophy routine by Dan Moore or also very similar is Lyle Mcdonald's Bulking Routine.

My program is slightly higher in intensity and simpler in exercise selection in order to maximize strength gains.

I typically do a full-body workout twice/weekly.

Deadlifts (alternating every other workout with Squats)
Bench
Chins
DB upright Rows

All exercises are done with a pyramiding warm-up of 2-4 warm-up sets.  Then I do 3 work sets of 6 reps as the goal.  If I hit 6 reps for all 3 sets I increase the load next workout.  Deadlifts are an exception, I have been doing only one top set of 6 since they are so draining.

Very, very simple approach to progressive loading which has been used in weight-training for decades.  This is nothing new and this type of approach is very similar to 'starting strength' type programs, and any linear progression strength program as popularized years ago by Bill Starr and other strength coaches.

So far the effects are awesome.  Today I benched 3 sets of 6 reps with 205 and a few weeks ago my one rep max was around 225.  My chest is also visibly growing rapidly.  (also lats, quads, delts, arms, etc.)

If I continue this until strength gains plateau and then restart doing submax 15s or 10s, then this would be HST almost exactly except with lower frequency.  But since I don't believe in SD at all any more, and also no longer believe starting cycles too submax is the most effective way to train, I have a simpler plan.  I will continue to add weight to the bar every workout (PRs every workout) as long as I am reaching the goal 3x6.  Once I am stalling for several weeks, I will simply drop back the loads about 10% or so and then continue progressing the loads every workout and breaking my PRs.

This seems to be more effective, and definitely a much faster way to make gains than 'vanilla' HST where the loads drop drastically at the beginning of every cycle.
I suppose Bryan and other HSTers reading this would simply call this approach 'StrengthSpecificTraining' since I am training at or near failure each workout and using heavier progressive loading and decreased frequency.  But in my research, there is very little difference between training for strength while eating a caloric surplus and training for hypertrophy while eating a caloric surplus.
Hypertrophy is after all a physiological adaptation which increases muscle-fiber cross-section size in order to increase strength.

So far I love this approach and even if it turns out that this is more SST than HST, I will probably continue it, because the rapid strength increases are very satisfying!

I just thought I would share this, since it is working so well for me thus far.

Peace.
cool.gif
 
are you cutting still or focusing on strength ATM?

Just don't lose it when u dont hit ur deadlift PR like last time.
 
Strength atm, then cutting while trying to maintain my strength.

One more thing for those who want to try this program:
This is a hybrid strength/hypertrophy program.  If you want strictly neural strength (pure SST), I would tweak this program by increasing the intensity by doing something like 6 sets of 3 or max-stim.
If you want strictly size (HST), I would tweak it by dropping intensity slightly and increasing volume, something like 5 sets of 10.
 
I dont know how old you are Sci, but I'm 33 and the benefits of SD even purely from a recovery angle are worth their weight in gold IMO. Starting out sub max after a lay off with lower weight / higher reps is also a blessing for the joints and aches.

Continual low rep training can be great for strength gains, but it is hell on the body for me after a while, and injuries, even little niggly ones, seem to follow.

And after you have done low rep for a while, try and do a higher rep set and you'll be amazed at how hard it is. The bodies adaption to the one form of training makes even a small change, like going from 5 rep sets to 8 reps a challenge IMO. Surely working through a variety of rep ranges must be beneficial.

Anyway, enough of my random thoughts and good luck with the new program!
 
Depends on what your goals are. The fact that a set seems difficult to do has little in common with it eliciting the response you`re seeking. Whilst SD is good for the reasons you quoted(joint health, recuperation et all), and is really something common-sensic(all athletes take breaks at some point in time, why should bbing be the only athletic endeavour where no breaks should be taken), it may do something along the lines of jacksquat in terms of actually affecting RBE/priming you for new growth.

That being said, MHO is that whilst HST as a system of principles and ideas is great, and sums up what should be known about hypertrophy quite nicely, the bog-standard general routine should be regarded as such:it`s something you do to get a feel/if you're a beginner/whatever. Getting caught up in the fixed 15-10-5-neg or 15-12-10-8-5-neg progression, with many stints of sub-maximal workouts and adding weight each and every workout is suboptimal, IMHO. If one reads the principles and has some ammount of knowledge WRT training, he can come up with something far better for HIMSELF(not the general public, not every Joe, but exactly and only for himself). That`s pretty much what Sci's done.

And I do hope nobody takes this as disrespect towards Bryan's work-i think it`s wonderful and he's amongst the very few top-notch experts in this field. I simply feel that the obsession with the basic routine outlined is one of the reasons why HST has pretty much backpedalled from something very very promising to simply something a few ppl do.
 
What Sci has done is what every BB from the beginning of time has done - tweak a pre existing routine to suit his personal preference. The question is whether the modifications made will be beneficial or detrimental to achieving his goals, and only time will tell.

To say HST has back pedalled is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't know if it has or hasn't, I'm new to HST, but what I can say is that I first saw this program many years ago, and when I decided to give it a try, it was still here which tells me there must be something to it.

To say that sticking to the basic routine is suboptimal contradicts your statement that training results are an individual thing - for some people the basic routine may be optimal. For many experienced lifters a venture back to basics can be exactly what they need for a period of time.

IMO bodybuilding is really a simple thing that people make complicated in the search of the most effective method of doing it. I like the simplicity of HST - progressive load that uses a high to low rep scheme to accomodate the load progression. Finding the the right mix of volume to recovery.

As I said before, good luck to Sci with his program. I was merely offering what came to mind.
 
And since you seem game for some constructive debate, let`s entertain one, shall we?

The fact that a program is still there shows little in terms of acceptance and overall employment of it. Mentzer's HD is still there...don`t really know how many are still using it, but it had tremendous momentum in its prime, only to wane into the woodwork. I feel that something similar is happening to HST, the sad thing being that HST is actually a valid program, whilst HD was mainly bogus. The thing is that sticking to the basic routine forever, without increasing weights between cycles, without adapting it, without trying to actually understand the principles behind it in order to better implement them, according to one`s individual peculiarities tends to fail where it counts:producing big, muscular trainees. All of the succes stories on this site(genuine ones, not anonymous posters growing 20 lbs of muscle in a day or whatever bogus is customary for the internet), were based on eventually adapting the routine. Boris Kleine adapted the routine to his needs. Bryan encouraged sticking to the principles, not specifically to what has been set-up primarily as an example routine, nothing more.

Granted, for some people the basic routine may be optimal...for a while, but I doubt it can be optimal forever, if they don`t increase weights from cycle to cycle, if they don`t adapt increments, if they don`t start at a higher %RM. My statement was primarily made in the present context, dealing with an experienced lifter. If anything, it`s more important for experienced lifters to minimize sub-max workouts, to ensure proper weight progression and so on, so I don`t agree with you here.

Where have I said anything to contradict the basic thing that bbing is very very simple?Au contraire, I`m a supporter of that idea. Does that mean that I`m in love with starting cycles very submaximally in order to accomodate every-workout increases?Knowing that recent research shows no such rate of adaptation in humans?Wondering whether or not the longish spree spent without actually providing an adequate growth-stimulus hurts more than it helps?No.
 
Doing heavy deadlifts only once per week should help increase your strength in that domain. I am sure you have checked out Leige's log.
laugh.gif
 
i think vanilla HST is for the begginers to understand the principals,as morgorth said you have to tweak certain things.
i think thats why bryan made it a set of principals,that way you can sdjust them to suit individuals.

personaly i do SD but its more for a break mentaly/physicly than anything else.

i also do 15s but i start at 80% and rep out so my first wk i could be doing 20+ reps,this being based on some studies that say that sub-max weights need to be done to near faliure,or the exercises should be performed faster.

i dont zigzag i just go from 80% of 15s to 3rm increasing every wk and my cycles are about 10 to 12wks.

so although i dont do the vanilla HST i beleive i still do HST.
 
forgot to add that my 5s are similar to what sci-mus cle does,when i am doing my 5s i start out with my 15rm and do 14reps then i use my 10rm and do 9 reps then i do my max 5s 3 sets,eventually droping to 5 sets of 3reps then 3 sets of 3 reps.
 
Very good stuff Sci. Seems a lot like what I was doing back in the day with respect to the reps and weights... but I didn't have any knowledge of frequency or exercises back then. I'll be interested in watching, and wish you still kept a log. Quick question... I understand you don't believe in SD, but when would you decide to take a break at all? A certain weight, or simply when you start to feel a little burnt out?
 
I`m not Sci, but generally, 8 weeks seems to be the cutoff point for a cycle. That`s about the point where you really stall and fatigue is accumulated, you start getting joint overuse etc.
 
SD is supposed to be about deconditoning the muscles to exercise. I am 29 and I believe in taking breaks for recovery purposes. But I have taken up to two weeks off and I don't think it does much in the way of deconditioning. The studies that I have looked at also point to RBE lasting much longer than 2 weeks.
 
I tend to agree with Sci on this one.

I do believe SD is a good thing...I just don't think its what WE all think it is in terms of what the research shows.

No one can lift Balls to the walls all the time nor can anyone lift HIGH volume all the time...but for a lot of us I think we CAN do it more than 8 weeks...ala HST style.
biggrin.gif
 
For shoulder balance. My shoulders get plenty of internal rotation and front deltoid work from benching. The overhead pressing on top of it was too much for me and my shoulders. The upright rows work my lateral and posterior delts more and also the external rotators. I love them.
Remember liege, everyone has a unique body and there is no 'one-size-fits-all' exercise selection. I have learned to respect each person's choice of exercise within reason, since we all have unique bodies.

Thanks for your support, though. The bench PRs are great and far more important to me than the overhead stuff. I know you are the opposite and love overhead stuff over benching, and I understand and respect it.
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Jun. 25 2007,09:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And since you seem game for some constructive debate, let`s entertain one, shall we?

The fact that a program is still there shows little in terms of acceptance and overall employment of it. Mentzer's HD is still there...don`t really know how many are still using it, but it had tremendous momentum in its prime, only to wane into the woodwork. I feel that something similar is happening to HST, the sad thing being that HST is actually a valid program, whilst HD was mainly bogus. The thing is that sticking to the basic routine forever, without increasing weights between cycles, without adapting it, without trying to actually understand the principles behind it in order to better implement them, according to one`s individual peculiarities tends to fail where it counts:producing big, muscular trainees. All of the succes stories on this site(genuine ones, not anonymous posters growing 20 lbs of muscle in a day or whatever bogus is customary for the internet), were based on eventually adapting the routine. Boris Kleine adapted the routine to his needs. Bryan encouraged sticking to the principles, not specifically to what has been set-up primarily as an example routine, nothing more.

Granted, for some people the basic routine may be optimal...for a while, but I doubt it can be optimal forever, if they don`t increase weights from cycle to cycle, if they don`t adapt increments, if they don`t start at a higher %RM. My statement was primarily made in the present context, dealing with an experienced lifter. If anything, it`s more important for experienced lifters to minimize sub-max workouts, to ensure proper weight progression and so on, so I don`t agree with you here.

Where have I said anything to contradict the basic thing that bbing is very very simple?Au contraire, I`m a supporter of that idea. Does that mean that I`m in love with starting cycles very submaximally in order to accomodate every-workout increases?Knowing that recent research shows no such rate of adaptation in humans?Wondering whether or not the longish spree spent without actually providing an adequate growth-stimulus hurts more than it helps?No.</div>
Always up for some friendly banter mate!

Fair call about longevity being a poor assessment of value, that said, Mentzer still has some rabid followers that swear by his stuff. NO program will have alot of followers for a long period of time IMO however - the reason is that most people have sheep mentality and will jump on the latest bandwagon, no matter what it may be. As soon as a host of people start posting about the current / next wonder program, they jump ship seeking the Adonis body for 5 easy payments of $39.95!

You commented that if you stick to the basic HST program;
- without increasing weight between cycles
- without adapting it
- without trying to understand the principals behind it
it tends to fail in producing big muscular trainees.

It is my understanding that HST is really nothing more than a set of principals. Increasing weight between cycles would be a given if possible, adapting it in terms of exercise selection, volume etc I believe is encouraged as the program is not set in concrete, and the basic example given is for reference only, and understanding the principals is vital to adapt the program, and still be doing HST. So in essence I agree with you, the difference would appear to be that I would still classify a program with these minor adaptations as &quot;Vanilla HST&quot;.

Our difference of opinion in reality is only concerning the effectiveness of starting with the sub max weights. Now maybe I have jumped the gun as I have only completed 1 HST cycle to date, but I got better results from HST than I have since I did newbie training. I am not claiming 20lbs of gain, I am stating PB lifts, added size, body weight with reduced body fat and a big smile on my dial.

So I appear to be an anomoly to the studies you refer to, at this point at least. I keep an open mind at all times however, hard to learn something new otherwise, and if my results reflect differently in the future I will be the first to admit so.
laugh.gif
 
if i remember correctly,bryan said that the longer the sd the better its effect,and also the more conditioned you are the longer you will need.

you could also look at the 15s as part of the sd,lets say you sd for 14 days then you do submax 15s for 1 and a 1/2 wks thats sort of deloading.

the problem is keeping people out of the gym
rock.gif


i was also thinking that for the guys that dont like to sd for to long,maybe they would benefit from doing 2wks of 15s + 1wk sd after the 5s,that way the 2wks of 15s you are deloading then 1wk of sd that would give you 3wks of deconditioning,and start back on the 10s.
 
Faz is correct about the benefits of the longer SD, especially for the seasoned lifter. As far as deloading is concerned, I think the 15's are too heavy. You would have to go into a mesocycle of about 25-30 reps IMO.

Danoz, HST is just a simple set of principles that are meant to be tweaked to fit YOU. Starting with sub-max weights is a highlight of HST so that you use progressive load. HST probably leans 75% towards strength and 25% towards hypertrophy. I'm just pulling those numbers out of the air as there is really no way to measure such a statistic. Sci wants a much more equal balance between strength and hypertrophy, and by the way he talks, he is probably leaning towards strength. All he is doing is HIT with half of the HST principles - most notably increased frequency.

For what it's worth, I think the program will work out for him. Best of luck Sci!
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Jun. 26 2007,13:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Faz is correct about the benefits of the longer SD, especially for the seasoned lifter.  As far as deloading is concerned, I think the 15's are too heavy.  You would have to go into a mesocycle of about 25-30 reps IMO.

Danoz, HST is just a simple set of principles that are meant to be tweaked to fit YOU.  Starting with sub-max weights is a highlight of HST so that you use progressive load.  HST probably leans 75% towards strength and 25% towards hypertrophy.  I'm just pulling those numbers out of the air as there is really no way to measure such a statistic.  Sci wants a much more equal balance between strength and hypertrophy, and by the way he talks, he is probably leaning towards strength.  All he is doing is HIT with half of the HST principles - most notably increased frequency.

For what it's worth, I think the program will work out for him.  Best of luck Sci!</div>
Hey Colby,
&quot;HST is a simple set of principals meant to be tweaked to fit you&quot; is pretty much what I was saying. My point though is that by doing this I would still call it vanilla HST as this was the intention of the program.

As for HST being geared more towards strength than hypertrophy - mmm, why then is it called &quot;Hypertrophy Specific Training&quot; - seems to directly contradict your belief.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top