SUBMAX weights...

[_Simon_]

I'm still a bit iffy on submax weights in the light of knowledge of SD which has come to my attention...

So if 1-2 weeks of SD doesn't make muscles THAT much more sensitive (ie RBE isn't eliminated much), HOW can them submax (lighter) weight be effective in any way? It seems that if one is training at the end of the 5s almost to failure (as we are using or trying to increase our 5RM), HOW could using submax lighter weights in the next cycle work???
I wish Bryan himself could clear this up, because i think that's an important basis of what HST is (TENSION-based hypertrophy using submax weights? (but working up to max weights))

I'm thinking of going back to doing something like Dan Moore's routine on his site (frequency of twice a week, increasing weight, dropping reps over time etc), which in my opinion is similar to HST but allowing more volume in the 'Right now' as Dan would put it... plus working closer to failure, which i'm still not sure about (if it activates and stresses all fibers, that's good imo...)

any thoughts guys, cheers !!!

 

[Fausto]

Simon

And here's what Bryan has to say about sub maximal weights and their use:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">28. &quot;Sub-maximal&quot; workouts, why not train to failure all the time

28.1. Submaximal training or not

Submaximal is a term relating strictly to strength. I use the term to describe the act of doing a set with fewer number of reps x
Many have the understanding that linear increments in weight load would always be submaximal as long as you don’t go to failure.

This is true, assuming failure always occurs precisely at that number of reps which represents your previously established RM with that specific weight load. But like we said earlier, your 10RM on one day might be your 8RM on another, or even a 12RM yet a different day. It would also be really impractical to try to find your RMs for every conceivable number of reps (and weight increment).

Let’s go back to the idea that there is no “on/off” switch for growth assigned to a given number of reps. 1 long rep (essentially just holding onto a weight for a long time) will make whatever muscles being stretched grow larger (initially).

At the same time, making a muscle do 50 consecutive high-force eccentric reps will also make it grow. So it isn’t critical to do a specific number of reps “per set”, although a minimum number of reps per “bout” will be required to achieve the minimum amount of time under tension required to stimulate growth.

This &quot;minimum time&quot; changes up (or down as in SD) as your muscle becomes more (or less as in SD) conditioned to the load.

I follow the 15&gt;10&gt;5&gt;eccentric rep progress. I always make sure I hit the target reps on the first set, but I don’t worry about falling short on the second set when I close to my RM.

With sufficient rest betweens sets it usually isn’t a problem though.</div>

 

[Totentanz]

Seeing as how you are pretty much a newbie, you don't even have to worry about it. Submax weights will be quite effective for you. Maybe in a couple years, this will be something you will have to worry about. When that day finally comes, then all you have to do is start out heavier. I start out around 80% of my RM at the lightest, no lighter, and work from there. Seems to work great for me.

Why add more volume to your routine when you don't have to?

 

[_Simon_]

well yeah i don't think i'm pretty much a newb, i've been training for over a year, which is SORTA newb-ish lol, but i just don't think the amount of volume i'm doing now IS enough, but what i'm trying to comprehend is HOW submax weights are effective at ALL if you've already trained with them (and considering the talk about SD not actually working at it's supposed to).

Bryan says <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This &quot;minimum time&quot; changes up (or down as in SD) as your muscle becomes more (or less as in SD) conditioned to the load.</div>

yet SD hasn't been proven to work!!! so my main question is if we say use our 5RM+ load for awhile, and SD doesn't actually do much, WHY go back to them lighter loads if we haven't deconditioned ourselves to the heavy loads we were using?

?

? :S:S:S

 

[Martin Levac]

In another thread, I was just saying that the most difficult position to hold is the one where we must prove what we say. Here, I will reverse the debate. You prove to us that SD does not work. For that, you must prove that HST does not work because HST and SD are inseparable.

 

[Fausto]

Simon

You are having a classic case of &quot;paralisis by analysis&quot;, prove it to yourself by trying it out instead of theorizing about it.

Believe me...most of us had to

 

[Totentanz]

No offense, but only having been in the game for just over a year IS a newb. You don't appear to have made all your newbie gains yet, so... but even if you had, submax weights are still effective as long as you don't go TOO submax. Like I said, I would recommend more seasoned lifters to start at no less than 80% of their max, which if you are squatting 300 lbs for your 5 RM, that is 240 lbs, which isn't a light load at all. If you started your 5s with 150 lbs for squat and your 5 RM is 300 lbs, then you are obviously going to be wasting time for the first few sessions.

If submax weren't effective, we'd all have to be using our 1 RMs each workout in order to make any progress. Obviously, this isn't the case. As long as you have not become conditioned to a load, it will still be effective. Further, you have real world proof in the members of this forum. Somehow, by some strange anomaly, many of us have managed to become stronger and more muscular by training submax and building up to your maxes.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(_Simon_ @ Sep. 11 2007,06:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">yet SD hasn't been proven to work!!! so my main question is if we say use our 5RM+ load for awhile, and SD doesn't actually do much, WHY go back to them lighter loads if we haven't deconditioned ourselves to the heavy loads we were using?

?

? :S:S:S</div>
Simon,

No one has said that SD (or backcycling , or a week off , or deloading , or other &quot;non SD labelled &quot;unloading ) doesn't &quot;work&quot; and isn't vital to preserving sustainable progress. There are some doubts/semantic questions concerning it's efficiency AS PRESENTED. HIT is the only system I'm aware of that DOESN'T use sub-max weights for the bulk of it's poundages.

 

[RUSS]

I agree 100% with Totentanz - an experienced lifter with no connective tissue issues IS &quot;wasting&quot; some time and perhaps to some degree &quot;detraining&quot; by starting too light, just adjust as he recommended when you get to that level. Remember that HST was designed to be the optimum balance that would work best for the largest amount of &quot;lifters&quot; - even though perhaps only 10% of lifters have any real genetic &quot;gifts&quot; 90% tend to believe they are in that 10% , the basic template was definitely set up for the majority.Enuff said about that...
HST is a general template , the Onus is put on us to optimize it for personal efficiency .

 

[_Simon_]

TEHEHEHE!

well i'm not askin for proof as such, but mainly WHY i'm doing it! (which ummm SORTA is proof, but in a scientific study sort of way )

hehe it's funny that at the start i was like &quot;OH yeah, yeah cool, i'll do that&quot; but now i'm like &quot;WAAAIT a minute, why am i doing this if it's just theories...&quot;
lol

no but really, i don't think i'm analysing it too much am i? i'm just asking a questionnnn...

okay! let me rephrase... ummm... once we are exposed to a load, we adapt to it, but are we forever adapted to THAT load?? and must we always go above that load in order to produce more gains?? and of course we'll UNadapt from a LONG layoff yeah... AND i realise that Bryan states that decreasing a muscle's sensitivity to lighter loads is the other way to keep getting gains (either that or keep slapping weight onto the bar), but that's the very THING that people here have been stating AGAINST so yes! (not against against, but as in SD doesn't decrease the sensitivity THAT much)

cheers fellas!

 

[_Simon_]

OH PEOPLE HAVE REPLIED WHILST I WAS TYPING! freaked me out there... hehehe

will reply once i've read......

 

[_Simon_]

okay BUT i still think volume is an issue for me personally and i think i will have to increase it, this cycle i haven't seen many gains to be honest although there have been lots of outside factors (stress, getting sick, missing meals, missing workouts...), not quite sure, but i'm just aaaalmost convinced that my 'Right Now' stimulus isn't being reached... i think... SEE how undecided i am!

i'm still considering doing for the next cycle a twice a week frequency, increased 'Now' volume, it's still HST principles in terms of progressive load EXCEPT i could start closer to my max and draw the max weights out longer trying to increase them, and THEN dropping the reps after increasing the RM for a bit, any thoughts on that idea??? (similar to Dan's max-stim routine but without the m-time (which i might actually include... hmm...))

thanks guys, really appreciate your views!

 

[Fausto]

I'm glad you have insight! Horray!

 

[_Simon_]

OH! OH! unleeeeess right, i stick to a frequency of three times a week, reduce exercises, all compounds, increase volume, but hmm, is that too much volume still if i were to do 3x10 and 4-5x5... (i might skip the 15s), or should i do a twice a week frequency...

and also i think starting each RM meso at about 80% of that RM is wise... yeah?

these are just random thoughts of mine because i don't know where to go from here lol, i just thought that if i thought out aloud, certain voices will guide me...

 

[dkm1987]

Simon, I did reply to PM but I also wanted to make a comment or two here as well.

I think what you are confusing is that yes, failure does cause more MU to experience full tetany and therefore more MU are experiencing the tension but keep in mind that during submax loading the time it takes to fatigue the initial MU that are receiving the tension may be much longer and by the time the faster units come into play you've already been snokered, so to speak. This reduces the total TUT that the faster MU are experiencing the tension.

So to be concerned with failure during submax loading may be defeating the purpose.

Other ways of ensuring a quicker response by the faster types is to perform the movement faster during the submax loading, now this isn't based on lactate metabolism at all as Bryan talks about in the 15's that a whole another issue and reasoning, I am merely pointing out that instead of thinking about failure training there are other methods to ensure higher activation.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(_Simon_ @ Sep. 11 2007,01:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm still a bit iffy on submax weights in the light of knowledge of SD which has come to my attention...

So if 1-2 weeks of SD doesn't make muscles THAT much more sensitive (ie RBE isn't eliminated much), HOW can them submax (lighter) weight be effective in any way? It seems that if one is training at the end of the 5s almost to failure (as we are using or trying to increase our 5RM), HOW could using submax lighter weights in the next cycle work???
I wish Bryan himself could clear this up, because i think that's an important basis of what HST is (TENSION-based hypertrophy using submax weights? (but working up to max weights))

I'm thinking of going back to doing something like Dan Moore's routine on his site (frequency of twice a week, increasing weight, dropping reps over time etc), which in my opinion is similar to HST but allowing more volume in the 'Right now' as Dan would put it... plus working closer to failure, which i'm still not sure about (if it activates and stresses all fibers, that's good imo...)

any thoughts guys, cheers !!!</div>
Dont like em, dont believe in em, dont use em.


maybe a newb would get some use out of them.

 

[lcars]

To elaborate, i like to increment each week thus keeping me close to my max's. alternatively i do two smaller mesocycles, that way i can, again, keep close to my max's.

im not saying no growth can be had from submaximal loads but IMO they are not OPTIMAL. also i do not recommend training to failure often, just close to it.


the only downside is, they are generally needed if one wants to do PROPER hst cycle

.

 

[mikeynov]

Interestingly, the question he's asking is a very good one, purely in terms of logic-ing out HST itself.

Meaning, the whole basis of the program revolves around lifting &quot;heavy enough&quot; to grow frequently, with SD inserted between cycles to ensure this is happening. If SD is not making an appreciable dent in the threshold tension necessary to elicit growth, then questioning the logic of spending most of one's time with submaximal weights seems pretty valid.

Meaning, it's pretty obvious that, for example, if you fixed all your working weights in the big exercises where they are now, the effect those weights have on making you grow would rapidly dissipate. So, say you're at ~8 RM and stay there forever - how long will that make you grow? Not very long, I'd wager.

What, then, is the difference between doing that and recycling through weights that you've already lifted before if SD isn't making any real difference? Instead of our example of a fixed 8 RM, we're just recycling through 15 - 5 RM or so over and over again. Even if we're boosting our RM's cycle to cycle, what percentage of every HST cycle is spent with weights we HAVEN'T been lifting before? A very small percentage.

Which would seem to indicate only a fraction of what we're doing would be meaningfully contributing to the growth stimulus as per the HST model itself, if and only if SD isn't really doing anything of value for lowering the threshold tension for making our muscles grow.

So, instead of blowing off his question, I'd be rather intrigued to see somebody attempt to give it a serious answer. To be frank, I have no answer to his question - if SD doesn't do what we think it does, HST as it's currently structured appears little more than an intensity-cycling strength training routine.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 11 2007,14:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interestingly, the question he's asking is a very good one, purely in terms of logic-ing out HST itself.

Meaning, the whole basis of the program revolves around lifting &quot;heavy enough&quot; to grow frequently, with SD inserted between cycles to ensure this is happening.  If SD is not making an appreciable dent in the threshold tension necessary to elicit growth, then questioning the logic of spending most of one's time with submaximal weights seems pretty valid.

Meaning, it's pretty obvious that, for example, if you fixed all your working weights in the big exercises where they are now, the effect those weights have on making you grow would rapidly dissipate.  So, say you're at ~8 RM and stay there forever - how long will that make you grow?  Not very long, I'd wager.

What, then, is the difference between doing that and recycling through weights that you've already lifted before if SD isn't making any real difference? Instead of our example of a fixed 8 RM, we're just recycling through 15 - 5 RM or so over and over again. Even if we're boosting our RM's cycle to cycle, what percentage of every HST cycle is spent with weights we HAVEN'T been lifting before? A very small percentage.

Which would seem to indicate only a fraction of what we're doing would be meaningfully contributing to the growth stimulus as per the HST model itself, if and only if SD isn't really doing anything of value for lowering the threshold tension for making our muscles grow.

So, instead of blowing off his question, I'd be rather intrigued to see somebody attempt to give it a serious answer.  To be frank, I have no answer to his question - if SD doesn't do what we think it does, HST as it's currently structured appears little more than an intensity-cycling strength training routine.</div>
one of the reasons why i think 15-5 rm would work better than 8 rm constant is:

we know it doesnt take long for our bodies to adapt to a specific load, so a routine consisting of 8 rm's alone would indeed have us going over the same weights over and over with very little scope for progression.

however if your training program consists of 15-5 rms over a period of several weeks you would only &quot;go over&quot; the same weights once until sd.so the adaptation to a given stimilus may not occur, or at the very least be slowed somewhat.couple that with the all important progressive load and i believe better results would be obtained.

this is only one angle from which to view this, and only my opinion.im sure there are more.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 11 2007,13:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Even if we're boosting our RM's cycle to cycle, what percentage of every HST cycle is spent with weights we HAVEN'T been lifting before?  A very small percentage.

Which would seem to indicate only a fraction of what we're doing would be meaningfully contributing to the growth stimulus as per the HST model itself, if and only if SD isn't really doing anything of value for lowering the threshold tension for making our muscles grow.

So, instead of blowing off his question, I'd be rather intrigued to see somebody attempt to give it a serious answer.  To be frank, I have no answer to his question - if SD doesn't do what we think it does, HST as it's currently structured appears little more than an intensity-cycling strength training routine.</div>
If only I could come up with a system where 75%-80% of each cycle is well within the &quot;comfort zone&quot; of even the most minimally motivated and genetically challenged lifter , while still giving that lifter the feeling of &quot;doing something&quot;. Oh wait ....