Your opinion on HST training?

[50joe]

I have been doing a 4 day split the past year or two, and tried HST this spring, I've got 2 weeks left.

I love it! It works great for me. I think I will be doing it more often, the change has to be good. Probably alternate between a cycle of HST , and my traditional split every once in a while.

I gained about 10lbs in the past 5 weeks, with minimal fat, bigger all around.
The last two weeks of HST I'm doing is Negatives, TUT sort of priciples. I hear from people the 2 weeks of 5's and these 2 weeks of Negatives promote the most growth.

So I have to chime in and say, for me, that HST was a welcome change to my routine although It took a lot of focus for me to want to lift lighter in the beginning (i was scared of getting smaller), but it was worth it in the end.

Over on the HST board, people have said it is a good routine for cutting too. I am about to start cutting :sad:

 

[Bean]

I'm in the middle of my 5th week of HST... It has worked pretty well...
I'm all natural right now and diet is sketchy because of my schedule... but I've burned fat and gained muscle definition for sure... strength has gone up some, etc...
i've gained about 10lbs naturally...

I can definitely feel the difference when the rep scheme changes... i had gotten used to 15s, then changed to 10s (and i raised the volume too actually) and really felt blasted... then changed to 5s and raised the volume just a little bit more, and definitely feeling it after monday's workout... youch....

 

[CDB]

I'm in the middle of my 5th week of HST... It has worked pretty well...
I'm all natural right now and diet is sketchy because of my schedule... but I've burned fat and gained muscle definition for sure... strength has gone up some, etc...
i've gained about 10lbs naturally...

I can definitely feel the difference when the rep scheme changes... i had gotten used to 15s, then changed to 10s (and i raised the volume too actually) and really felt blasted... then changed to 5s and raised the volume just a little bit more, and definitely feeling it after monday's workout... youch....

Most people seem to get the best results from constant or increasing volume. One thing you might try is what's called the cluster style of HST, where you pick a reasonable volume to work with, say 20 to 30 reps per exercise, and then do what you need to do to hit that rep count during each phase of the HST cycle while maintaining the load increase. So if you're doing some weight that you can only get 8 reps out, you do that, rest pause, push as many out as you can again, rest pause, etc until you hit 20 reps. Basically this method allows you to keep volume constant. One danger is you still don't want to go past you 5 rep max until you hit the negatives. Once you get past that rep max it gets harder to maintain a sufficient time under tension, even when completing the 20 reps. The movements become too intense and start to demand too much recovery in between sets. Danger of overtraining becomes more likely.

 

[jweave23]

Most people seem to get the best results from constant or increasing volume. One thing you might try is what's called the cluster style of HST, where you pick a reasonable volume to work with, say 20 to 30 reps per exercise, and then do what you need to do to hit that rep count during each phase of the HST cycle while maintaining the load increase. So if you're doing some weight that you can only get 8 reps out, you do that, rest pause, push as many out as you can again, rest pause, etc until you hit 20 reps. Basically this method allows you to keep volume constant. One danger is you still don't want to go past you 5 rep max until you hit the negatives. Once you get past that rep max it gets harder to maintain a sufficient time under tension, even when completing the 20 reps. The movements become too intense and start to demand too much recovery in between sets. Danger of overtraining becomes more likely.

This is what I have done with mhy current cycle. I only do about 16 reps per exercise, but that works well for me. (i.e 3 sets of 5's, 2 sets of 8's, etc).

 

[CDB]

This is what I have done with mhy current cycle. I only do about 16 reps per exercise, but that works well for me. (i.e 3 sets of 5's, 2 sets of 8's, etc).

I seem to be responding pretty well to the higher volume right now, doing 20 reps three times a week. Working nicely. When I get to the fives I may have to drop it though and throw in some drop sets instead. My joints aren't what they used to be.

 

[snakebyte05]

Any advice on using aas while on hst? I read the fact but it gave help for 2 week cycles. I am planning a 6 week cycle for a 12/8/5 schedule. Not sure if I should just go about the way I normally do, or If I should push my strength much more so while I am on. As is adding more weight each time and at the end of each 2 week period have the weight ending up higher than I could have previously lifted assuming the aas will bring my strength up to their. What are your opinions for using on hst? Go for it or use something else that will get better use of the aas (for mass building purposes)?

 

[exnihilo]

*Shrug* some people respond well to HST, seems like most don't respond very well though (I think a lot of people who respond well also just needed to take a week and a half break from hitting the weights anyhow). I think like anything else there are some tenants of HST which are good (SD, reduced volume, increased frequency) but as a "system" it's off base.

If you've got a routine that's been working for you stick with it while on cycle. If you don't, I'd suggest looking at adapting your routine to a "brawn" style routine, or if you're interested in really jacking your strength gains through the roof (at the POSSIBLE cost of some size gains, though not in my experience) a simplified WSB based routine.

 

[cpa5oh]

*Shrug* some people respond well to HST, seems like most don't respond very well though (I think a lot of people who respond well also just needed to take a week and a half break from hitting the weights anyhow). I think like anything else there are some tenants of HST which are good (SD, reduced volume, increased frequency) but as a "system" it's off base.

If you've got a routine that's been working for you stick with it while on cycle. If you don't, I'd suggest looking at adapting your routine to a "brawn" style routine, or if you're interested in really jacking your strength gains through the roof (at the POSSIBLE cost of some size gains, though not in my experience) a simplified WSB based routine.

When you say "brawn" style...you mean from the book "Beyond Brawn?" Basically very brief workouts with compound exercises (and maybe a bit of rest-pause training?)

 

[exnihilo]

Yes.

 

[CDB]

Any advice on using aas while on hst? I read the fact but it gave help for 2 week cycles. I am planning a 6 week cycle for a 12/8/5 schedule. Not sure if I should just go about the way I normally do, or If I should push my strength much more so while I am on. As is adding more weight each time and at the end of each 2 week period have the weight ending up higher than I could have previously lifted assuming the aas will bring my strength up to their. What are your opinions for using on hst? Go for it or use something else that will get better use of the aas (for mass building purposes)?

It's generally best to keep AAS short whileon HST, and place the cycle somewhere within the heavy lifting portion of the cycle. Say the last week of tens and first week of fives. For a longer AAS cycle I'd start it around the last week of tens and keep pushing through the fives, raising the weight when you can.

As for HST being off base, Exnihilo, I don't quite know what you mean by that. There's nothing off base in the research that supports it. When I do find people who don't respond well to it, both in real life and on the internet, it's always because they are doing something wrong. Either they don't SD before the cycle, they lift heavier weights than they are supposed to too early in the cycle. Everyone I know who has tried it more than once, who has gone through the basic cycle, learned from it and started tweaking to make it better fit themselves, has great results with it. The 15/10/5/negatives set up is the basic one size fits all implimentation of HST. As such it's not going to be as effective for everyone. Searching on the HST message boards you'll find tons of tweaked routines that still fit the basic principles of HST. But they also allow for higher volume for those who feel they need it, or consistent volume, or increasing or decreasing volume. Some people have developed routines that favor bigger increments in the weight change. Some do cluster HST as I do. Some skip the fifteens, some take negatives and make them the base of much more of the cycle.

People should also realize HST is not strength oriented. You will gain some strength, but nothing like you would if you hit a hybrid or specifically designed strength routine. It's also in my opinion the only weightlifting program that's truly on base, because rather than claiming it's based on science the actual science it's based in is posted on the site for anyone who wants to read it and discuss its import.

If you want size and don't prioritize strength, I'd feel confident saying some tweaked form of HST will end up working best for you.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

As for HST being off base, Exnihilo, I don't quite know what you mean by that. There's nothing off base in the research that supports it. .

Actually its quite the opposite with both research and results.

 

[exnihilo]

As for HST being off base, Exnihilo, I don't quite know what you mean by that. There's nothing off base in the research that supports it. When I do find people who don't respond well to it, both in real life and on the internet, it's always because they are doing something wrong. Either they don't SD before the cycle, they lift heavier weights than they are supposed to too early in the cycle. Everyone I know who has tried it more than once, who has gone through the basic cycle, learned from it and started tweaking to make it better fit themselves, has great results with it. The 15/10/5/negatives set up is the basic one size fits all implimentation of HST. As such it's not going to be as effective for everyone. Searching on the HST message boards you'll find tons of tweaked routines that still fit the basic principles of HST. But they also allow for higher volume for those who feel they need it, or consistent volume, or increasing or decreasing volume. Some people have developed routines that favor bigger increments in the weight change. Some do cluster HST as I do. Some skip the fifteens, some take negatives and make them the base of much more of the cycle.

People should also realize HST is not strength oriented. You will gain some strength, but nothing like you would if you hit a hybrid or specifically designed strength routine. It's also in my opinion the only weightlifting program that's truly on base, because rather than claiming it's based on science the actual science it's based in is posted on the site for anyone who wants to read it and discuss its import.

If you want size and don't prioritize strength, I'd feel confident saying some tweaked form of HST will end up working best for you.

I've seen consistent results with brawn style and WSB style training in myself and many others. I know of a trainer experimented by putting people on HST pretty much as written with some minor tweaks for volume and found the results to be inferior the sort of routine he normally uses. I myself tried HST before deciding that powerlifting was truly for me (a little over two years ago), and my net result was a two pounds gain of unknown composition over 10 weeks - not impressed (considering gained a SOLID 12lbs on a hybridized 5x5/dc with pretty much the exact same diet and a similar time frame and a shitload of weight on WSB style training, though I added a good amount of fat in packing that muscle on).

Training is not an exact science, and as I've said before you can't theorize a "perfect training system" from a handful of studies in isolation. Systems that really do work in the real world to produce world championship calibur athletes, such as WSB, are the product of applying some science with hundreds of thousands of hours of coaching and lifting experience, keeping what works and throwing away what doesn't. The russians didn't perform a lot of the silly experiments like americans do to see what is "optimal" - they looked at their top athlets, and had other athletes try what the top athletes were doing with some modification. Louie Simmons has been doing the same thing at westside, trying things great lifters from all over the country do, and seeing what works consistently, then incorporating that into his training methodology.

HST is basically bryan haycock's thought experiment - I think there are ideas in it that are good and help people fix huge training problems they may have (such as SD, reduced volume, very little "to failure" work, increased frequency) but that does not make it the "ultimate" hypertrophy system, and it certainly is not the "ultimate" strength system I encourage everone to use fairly abbreviated routines, focus on gaining strength every week, take a week or two off and for god sakes work the muscle more than once a week...

 

[CDB]

Actually its quite the opposite with both research and results.

I've read through quite a lot of it, I don't find any of the research to be off target. What problems do you see in general?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I've read through quite a lot of it, I don't find any of the research to be off target. What problems do you see in general?

No, I agree with you. The research and results back up HST. Actually I don't even consider it HST because that is just a nice little marketing tool they use to sell an already priven program taught in many Exercise and Strenght Programs.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I've seen consistent results with brawn style and WSB style training in myself and many others. I know of a trainer experimented by putting people on HST pretty much as written with some minor tweaks for volume and found the results to be inferior the sort of routine he normally uses. I myself tried HST before deciding that powerlifting was truly for me (a little over two years ago), and my net result was a two pounds gain of unknown composition over 10 weeks - not impressed (considering gained a SOLID 12lbs on a hybridized 5x5/dc with pretty much the exact same diet and a similar time frame and a shitload of weight on WSB style training, though I added a good amount of fat in packing that muscle on).

Training is not an exact science, and as I've said before you can't theorize a "perfect training system" from a handful of studies in isolation. Systems that really do work in the real world to produce world championship calibur athletes, such as WSB, are the product of applying some science with hundreds of thousands of hours of coaching and lifting experience, keeping what works and throwing away what doesn't. The russians didn't perform a lot of the silly experiments like americans do to see what is "optimal" - they looked at their top athlets, and had other athletes try what the top athletes were doing with some modification. Louie Simmons has been doing the same thing at westside, trying things great lifters from all over the country do, and seeing what works consistently, then incorporating that into his training methodology.

HST is basically bryan haycock's thought experiment - I think there are ideas in it that are good and help people fix huge training problems they may have (such as SD, reduced volume, very little "to failure" work, increased frequency) but that does not make it the "ultimate" hypertrophy system, and it certainly is not the "ultimate" strength system I encourage everone to use fairly abbreviated routines, focus on gaining strength every week, take a week or two off and for god sakes work the muscle more than once a week...

There is also a difference in growth vs. quality growth. Many powerlifterfs grow but their propertions and shape are awful. The growth is thick, bulky and has very little asthetic shape to it.


I hate to tell you but their are far more programs that use hyertrophy specific training (not the marketed HST) to create world class athletes than any WSB program. The basis for Sports and Exercise programs are based on the fundamentals of weight training, not some marketed program that is used to sell books and programs first. That works for WSB, HST and any other so called "training" program. Physical therapy is based on TUT because that is waht maximizes growth in muscles that have atrophied because of injury. The specifically target myofibullar hypertrophy and it certainly isn't using heavy weight.


If you want to say Haycocks HST is a though experiment then so is Simmon's. Both incorporate principles that will work for individuals with varying goals. They put their little tweaks and opinions and marketing spins on their respective programs. Both are not the end all and be all of training programs and all of them are based on other people's methods, mostly guys in little white jackets in college labs who have long been dead. Hate to break the news to those who hate the scientific aspect of training. And you are completely wrong about the Russians. They have performed more scientific experiements on wehat works than anyone. If you can read Russian, then look up how much research there is in this area. Its ENORMOUS. Their focus was on performance, not asthetic value.

If you want size then you target size, not strenght and the stimulus that encourgaes that specific goal is not heavy weight, low rep powerlifting systems. The same goes for strenght.

All you have to do is watch the majority of competitive bodybuilders without the genetics of Coleman (even he has gone away fomr heavy weight recently). Its all moderate and high reps systems. There are 4 that workout in my gym and they train virtually the same way.


If you grow more on heavy weight, then go for it but the majority of people and the majority of studies along with the majoroty of bodybuilders will never achieve quality growth in both size and proportion using any powerlifting routine.

 

[exnihilo]

There is also a difference in growth vs. quality growth. Many powerlifterfs grow but their propertions and shape are awful. The growth is thick, bulky and has very little athetic shape to it.

Not too worried about having bodybuilder proportions.

I hate to tell you but their are far more programs that use hyertrophy specific training (not the marketed HST) to create world class athletes than any WSB program. The basis for Sports and Exercise programs are based on the fundamentals of weight training, not some marketed program that is used to sell books and programs first. That works for WSB, HST and any other so called "training" program.

If by HST you mean the western periodization which it fairly closely resembles, take a look at the track record of athletes in pure strength sports that use western periodization vs the conjugate method. You will see that in both olympic lifting and powerlifting, conjugate method lifters DESTROY their western-periodization-trained counterparts, CONSISTENTLY.

If you want to say Haycocks HST is a though experiment then so is Simmon's. Both incorporate principles that will work for individuals with varying goals. They put their little tweaks and opinions and marketing spins on their respective programs. Both are not the end all and be all of training programs and all of them are based on other people's methods, mostly guys in little white jackets in college labs who have long been dead. Hate to break the news to those who hate the scientific aspect of training. And you are completely wrong about the Russians. They have performed more scientific experiements on wehat works than anyone. If you can read Russian, then look up how much research there is in this area. Its ENORMOUS. Their focus what on performance, not asthetic value.

The great majority of research Simmons has based his training method on is the work of Siff, Zatsiorsky and Verkoshansky. Specifically in the case of Zatsiorsky (as I have read supertraining somewhere around ten times, and he is "the man" so to speak) the "experiments" that he references usually of the sort where a group of advanced or elite athletes are instructed to make some fairly minor adjustment in their training schedule, then observing the results using sports-specific performance metrics. Look at the research Haycock uses for HST. It is all taken outside the context of a fully integrated training routine... Curls and leg extensions every day for a week in a group of chinese ball-players doesn't induce further DOMS, great, what does this tell us about a full training load and systemic stress from training? There is a quote somewhere from Zatsiorsky I believe, that goes along the lines of "We did not have money for fancy experiments like the americans - we had to find out very hard what works and what doesn't work" which characterizes the majority of soviet sports science research. It's all based on actual, real, PRACTICE - just like WSB. Find out what works, throw the rest away.

If you want size then you target size, not strenght and the stimulus that encourgaes that specific goal is not heavy weight, low rep powerlifting systems. The same goes for strenght.

All you have to do is watch the majority of competitive bodybuilders without the genetics of Coleman. Its all moderate and high reps systems. There are 4 that workout in my gym and they train virtually the same way.

And yet there are plenty of guys like Kennelly and Fiedler (each holds the bench press record in his respective weight class) who have developed massive muscularity training as powerlifters (Fiedler also competes at the national level as a bodybuilder if I remember correctly), and Kamili and Yates are both known for primarily using low-moderate volume low rep heavy weight training styles to put on mass. Perhaps a big part of the answer lies in fiber type composition, because some people get huge as hell with explosive, heavy weight, low rep, low volume training and don't respond to volume.

My own personal results trying HST, traditional exercise science/bodybuilding volume/TUT routine and brawn style/wsb routines was pretty telling for me - brawn and WSB are clear winners.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Not too worried about having bodybuilder proportions.



If by HST you mean the western periodization which it fairly closely resembles, take a look at the track record of athletes in pure strength sports that use western periodization vs the conjugate method. You will see that in both olympic lifting and powerlifting, conjugate method lifters DESTROY their western-periodization-trained counterparts, CONSISTENTLY.



The great majority of research Simmons has based his training method on is the work of Siff, Zatsiorsky and Verkoshansky. Specifically in the case of Zatsiorsky (as I have read supertraining somewhere around ten times, and he is "the man" so to speak) the "experiments" that he references usually of the sort where a group of advanced or elite athletes are instructed to make some fairly minor adjustment in their training schedule, then observing the results using sports-specific performance metrics. Look at the research Haycock uses for HST. It is all taken outside the context of a fully integrated training routine... Curls and leg extensions every day for a week in a group of chinese ball-players doesn't induce further DOMS, great, what does this tell us about a full training load and systemic stress from training? There is a quote somewhere from Zatsiorsky I believe, that goes along the lines of "We did not have money for fancy experiments like the americans - we had to find out very hard what works and what doesn't work" which characterizes the majority of soviet sports science research. It's all based on actual, real, PRACTICE - just like WSB. Find out what works, throw the rest away.




And yet there are plenty of guys like Kennelly and Fiedler (each holds the bench press record in his respective weight class) who have developed massive muscularity training as powerlifters (Fiedler also competes at the national level as a bodybuilder if I remember correctly), and Kamili and Yates are both known for primarily using low-moderate volume low rep heavy weight training styles to put on mass. Perhaps a big part of the answer lies in fiber type composition, because some people get huge as hell with explosive, heavy weight, low rep, low volume training and don't respond to volume.

My own personal results trying HST, traditional exercise science/bodybuilding volume/TUT routine and brawn style/wsb routines was pretty telling for me - brawn and WSB are clear winners.

1. We all know that.

2. Hyerptrophic specific training in laymans terms is anything over 4 reps. Whether then goal is myofibullar hypertrophy for increassed fiber thickness to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy to increase nutrient capacity and muscular endurance, those methods are used moreso than any powerlifting routine. You track compairons is one (since most track sports are quick explosive events). Try comparing that with boxing, hockey, soccer, basketball, football, etc...the list goes on and on. Take a look into their training regiments and you find the majority has nothing to do with powerlifting. In fact it has more to do with circuit training than anything. Many top collegiate programs have already removed squats from their programs because they found equal results with other methods withouth risk to injury. Universoty of Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, BYU to name a few.

3. I can see you haven't looked up the amount of clinical research done in the former Soviet Union that was governement funded. As I have already stated, the majortiy was based on performance, not asthetic value. Nobody said Haycock's method were perfect. I see a lot of things taken out of context. Both program (WSB and HST) take things out of context (or don't explain things at all). I already said both were marketed versions and what was already known.

4. You are talking about 2 out of how many in those sports? I don't take 2 individuals, I look at the whole picture and what they use and it certainly isn't powerlifting routines.


You can use you own personal results as a basis what works for YOU all you want. I generally take what works for the majority and what has been proven time and time again with the majority.

If your goals are not bodybuilding oriented, how can you offer adivce in terms of bodybuilding when you haven't gone that route?

 

[CDB]

HST is basically bryan haycock's thought experiment - I think there are ideas in it that are good and help people fix huge training problems they may have (such as SD, reduced volume, very little "to failure" work, increased frequency) but that does not make it the "ultimate" hypertrophy system, and it certainly is not the "ultimate" strength system I encourage everone to use fairly abbreviated routines, focus on gaining strength every week, take a week or two off and for god sakes work the muscle more than once a week...

I've never seen/read Haycock make those claims. He's actually said quite a few times the basic routine as listed on his site isn't the best implimentation of HST, just the best basic design that will fit everyone, but it won't give the best results. I do agree a well designed workout routine of any of the well known kinds such as West Side, Max OT and DC will produce results. As far as hypertrophy though those results will generally be in line with what research shows to be inducive to hypertrophy. HST was never designed as a one size fits all ultimate training program. What makes up HST is the set of principles and the research behind them. Certain constants will always be true. Time under tension is crucial. Increasing the weight is crucial. Taking time off every 8 weeks or so is crucial. That what's behind HST, the implimentation of those principles generally leads you to an HST like routine, especially when overcoming the repeat bout effect is a primary goal in the program.

 

[CDB]

No, I agree with you. The research and results back up HST. Actually I don't even consider it HST because that is just a nice little marketing tool they use to sell an already priven program taught in many Exercise and Strenght Programs.

Last I heard it was free for anyone who wanted to use it. He's got his own line of supplements, but it's basically just protein and creatine.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Last I heard it was free for anyone who wanted to use it. He's got his own line of supplements, but it's basically just protein and creatine.

He didn't write his articles for the good of mankind. The simple fact that people call it "HST" is proof enough. Its more to sell his name or his "training" methods. You can say the same about most of the programs on the net. I'm not saying they don't have truth to it but its marketed to sound like its their methods.

 

[CDB]

I hate to tell you but their are far more programs that use hyertrophy specific training (not the marketed HST) to create world class athletes than any WSB program. The basis for Sports and Exercise programs are based on the fundamentals of weight training, not some marketed program that is used to sell books and programs first. That works for WSB, HST and any other so called "training" program.

I agree with almost everything you say, but the above seems a bit off base. Last I'd checked Haycock wasn't selling anything except protein and creatine. He is coming out with a book, but has repeatedly said on the message boards on his site that it's not required reading. It's just going to present more research as to how and why muscles grow. A lot of people do get too attached to this program and others and start swearing by them as if they're the ultimate and nothing else will do, but that's just normal. Everyone needs a religion.

If you grow more on heavy weight, then go for it but the majority of people and the majority of studies along with the majoroty of bodybuilders will never achieve quality growth in both size and proportion using any powerlifting routine.

I prefer a mix. What seems to work best for me is a shortened HST cycle followed by DC training. Max OT I've never fully tried to be honest. Couldn't get into training each muscle group only once a week. As I understand it though it works good for strength.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I agree with almost everything you say, but the above seems a bit off base. Last I'd checked Haycock wasn't selling anything except protein and creatine. He is coming out with a book, but has repeatedly said on the message boards on his site that it's not required reading. It's just going to present more research as to how and why muscles grow. A lot of people do get too attached to this program and others and start swearing by them as if they're the ultimate and nothing else will do, but that's just normal. Everyone needs a religion.


I prefer a mix. What seems to work best for me is a shortened HST cycle followed by DC training. Max OT I've never fully tried to be honest. Couldn't get into training each muscle group only once a week. As I understand it though it works good for strength.

Bro,

He is promoting his name and his "methods". His training regiments are nothing new at all. Its like me telling you can loose weight by eating low GI carbs, healthy fats, and high protein and calling it the FLA Nutrition Diet. Its not mine and certainly can be tweaked for the individual but it certainly isn't something I came up with or I'm trying to sell by writing articles about them. Its the same with DC training (extended ECC time, what a new revelation). People post thinking at its their methods and they most certainly are not. They are just using methods that have been proven to work, put their own little spin on them to get name recognition in the industry.


Hmm...maybe I should do the same....

:lol:


...and I'm kidding about that

 

[CDB]

He didn't write his articles for the good of mankind. The simple fact that people call it "HST" is proof enough. Its more to sell his name or his "training" methods. You can say the same about most of the programs on the net. I'm not saying they don't have truth to it but its marketed to sound like its their methods.

I'd say that's true, but every subject of interest has its group of popularizers I guess. I've exchanged messages with Haycock a few times, he doesn't seem to be on a high horse about HST. And if he makes money off of it, more power too him. At least reliable information is getting out.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'd say that's true, but every subject of interest has its group of popularizers I guess. I've exchanged messages with Haycock a few times, he doesn't seem to be on a high horse about HST. And if he makes money off of it, more power too him. At least reliable information is getting out.

I don't have a problem with it but at least people should recognize it for what it is. That is all I am saying.

 

[exnihilo]

2. Hyerptrophic specific training in laymans terms is anything over 4 reps. Whether then goal is myofibullar hypertrophy for increassed fiber thickness to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy to increase nutrient capacity and muscular endurance, those methods are used moreso than any powerlifting routine. You track compairons is one (since most track sports are quick explosive events). Try comparing that with boxing, hockey, soccer, basketball, football, etc...the list goes on and on. Take a look into their training regiments and you find the majority has nothing to do with powerlifting. In fact it has more to do with circuit training than anything. Many top collegiate programs have already removed squats from their programs because they found equal results with other methods withouth risk to injury. Universoty of Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, BYU to name a few.

... snip ...

4. You are talking about 2 out of how many in those sports? I don't take 2 individuals, I look at the whole picture and what they use and it certainly isn't powerlifting routines.


You can use you own personal results as a basis what works for YOU all you want. I generally take what works for the majority and what has been proven time and time again with the majority.

If your goals are not bodybuilding oriented, how can you offer adivce in terms of bodybuilding when you haven't gone that route?

1. why do you think powerlifters do all their training at four reps and under?

2. There are football teams that do isolation exercises HIT style to develop "strength" (I could care less about the other sports listed, they aren't strength centric sports). All I can say is that there is a lot of stupidity out there... Squatting big (when accompanied by proper technique on the field and some plyo work) pretty much equals hitting hard. A lot of westside invented stuff (for instance, bands) is finding its way into the professional strength and conditioning arena. Billy Gillespie is a pro-football S&C coach and an excellent powerlifter, and he advocates a lot of powerlifting-derived training techniques to improve athletic performance for the athletes on his team that need incredible maximal and explosive strength.

3. *shrug* some people respond to volume, some people respond to load, whatever works. I could care less about the ratio between the two, but people really should know that there's another way of going about doing things if volume doesn't work well for them.

4. I am of the feeling that very few people who come on this board or any board that doesn't have a "contest prep" section and lots of "bodybuilding news" material are interested in putting on the panties, shaving, coloring their skin dark orange and getting all oiled up then dancing around on stage "flexing" and "posing". I think MOST guys come to boards like this just wanting to be get bigger, stronger, and be able to see their abs. To the end that the types of workouts modern powerlifters do will get you stronger faster than anything else out there, I think they are of interest to the general population of the board. If someone says "I hate strenght/I want to gain as little strength as possible while getting bigger/being strong doesn't mean anything to me" I kindheartedly tease that person a little and move on without offering any training advice. I also make sure to note when offering up powerlifter style training that it will tend to make you somewhat assymetrical, and if symmetry is important to you then you need to change the exercise selection.

Plus, in this case I figured an anti-testimonial from a guy my size would make a nice counterbalance to all the testimonials for HST from guys weighing in at 190-210

 

[CDB]

He is promoting his name and his "methods". His training regiments are nothing new at all. Its like me telling you can loose weight by eating low GI carbs, healthy fats, and high protein and calling it the FLA Nutrition Diet. Its not mine and certainly can be tweaked for the individual but it certainly isn't something I came up with or I'm trying to sell by writing articles about them. Its the same with DC training (extended ECC time, what a new revelation). People post thinking at its their methods and they most certainly are not. They are just using methods that have been proven to work, put their own little spin on them to get name recognition in the industry.

I see where you're coming from. I just think there is a lot of a information out there, and someone who can pull it all together and present in a clear way is generally a good thing. A lot of people would never find access to the research by those guys in white coats, nor understand what it meant if they did. Now if people market it as theirs, as if it's the result of their research and the like, I'd have a problem with that. I've never seen that in Haycock's presentations of HST is all. He always quotes research accurately. I've also never seen a method like his which makes an effort specifically to get around RBE to promote growth and with a specific focus on hypertrophy. I admit I could be wrong, I know you and more than a few others are more well read on the history and research in this area. I've just never seen the research and approaches he advocates brought together in that particular way.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

1. why do you think powerlifters do all their training at four reps and under?

2. There are football teams that do isolation exercises HIT style to develop "strength" (I could care less about the other sports listed, they aren't strength centric sports). All I can say is that there is a lot of stupidity out there... Squatting big (when accompanied by proper technique on the field and some plyo work) pretty much equals hitting hard. A lot of westside invented stuff (for instance, bands) is finding its way into the professional strength and conditioning arena. Billy Gillespie is a pro-football S&C coach and an excellent powerlifter, and he advocates a lot of powerlifting-derived training techniques to improve athletic performance for the athletes on his team that need incredible maximal and explosive strength.

3. *shrug* some people respond to volume, some people respond to load, whatever works. I could care less about the ratio between the two, but people really should know that there's another way of going about doing things if volume doesn't work well for them.

4. I am of the feeling that very few people who come on this board or any board that doesn't have a "contest prep" section and lots of "bodybuilding news" material are interested in putting on the panties, shaving, coloring their skin dark orange and getting all oiled up then dancing around on stage "flexing" and "posing". I think MOST guys come to boards like this just wanting to be get bigger, stronger, and be able to see their abs. To the end that the types of workouts modern powerlifters do will get you stronger faster than anything else out there, I think they are of interest to the general population of the board. If someone says "I hate strenght/I want to gain as little strength as possible while getting bigger/being strong doesn't mean anything to me" I kindheartedly tease that person a little and move on without offering any training advice. I also make sure to note when offering up powerlifter style training that it will tend to make you somewhat assymetrical, and if symmetry is important to you then you need to change the exercise selection.

Plus, in this case I figured an anti-testimonial from a guy my size would make a nice counterbalance to all the testimonials for HST from guys weighing in at 190-210

1. That is the point.

2. You said world class athletes, not just world class lifters. I'm am talking about athletes in general. There are many powerlifting DERIVED exercises but the majority of the programs are not powerlifting based at all. for good reason.

3. Usually its not volume, but CON/ECC time. If I do 16 sets per wotkout but only take 1-2 seconds each rep I am not going to expect much growth.

4. I think most of the guys that come on this board are geared more towrads bodybuilding than powerlifting so my advice tends to gravitate in that area. They want asthetic results, not to be able to squat 1000lbs. The original post was about HST which is "hypertrophy" specific which tends to more bodybuilding related than powerlifting.


Size doesn't mean much to me in terms of bodybuilding. I've seen guys 185 with incredible physiques. If I wanted to be 260+ I could do it fairly easily given enough time. Growth is fairly easy and more diet oriented then training oriented. Quality growth OTOH hand is not easy even with the best of diets.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I see where you're coming from. I just think there is a lot of a information out there, and someone who can pull it all together and present in a clear way is generally a good thing. A lot of people would never find access to the research by those guys in white coats, nor understand what it meant if they did. Now if people market it as theirs, as if it's the result of their research and the like, I'd have a problem with that. I've never seen that in Haycock's presentations of HST is all. He always quotes research accurately. I've also never seen a method like his which makes an effort specifically to get around RBE to promote growth and with a specific focus on hypertrophy. I admit I could be wrong, I know you and more than a few others are more well read on the history and research in this area. I've just never seen the research and approaches he advocates brought together in that particular way.

There have been others that have done it as well but the truth of the matter is that most people in this sport are intimated by the scientific aspect of training. Only recently (10+) years have you seen a consistent change with this with the use of the internet. So the reason you never really have seen articles of this type is because they just were't popular and/or as widely available as they are now. The average bodybuilder years ago would never sit down and read this. You have to admit, the majority of BB'ers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. YOu can see it in some old time trainers. Quote a study and they flahs you a dirty look. They don't want to hear it because they don't uderstand it.

 

[Ibanez]

HST just seems to me like linear periodization which has it's drawbacks. I think conjugate periodization would be better a choice, but I guess do whatever you want to.

 

[CDB]

Quote a study and they flahs you a dirty look. They don't want to hear it because they don't uderstand it.

I've definitely dealth with this reaction before. Sad part is I find the biggest obstacle to understanding the scientific aspect is a person's vocabulary. You don't need to be brain surgeon to understand this stuff, but there's tons of jargon involved that requires some patience to learn.

 

[CDB]

HST just seems to me like linear periodization which has it's drawbacks. I think conjugate periodization would be better a choice, but I guess do whatever you want to.

I think that's what Lysle McDonald recommends.

 

[exnihilo]

1. That is the point.

2. You said world class athletes, not just world class lifters. I'm am talking about athletes in general. There are many powerlifting DERIVED exercises but the majority of the programs are not powerlifting based at all. for good reason.

3. Usually its not volume, but CON/ECC time. If I do 16 sets per wotkout but only take 1-2 seconds each rep I am not going to expect much growth.

4. I think most of the guys that come on this board are geared more towrads bodybuilding than powerlifting so my advice tends to gravitate in that area. They want asthetic results, not to be able to squat 1000lbs. The original post was about HST which is "hypertrophy" specific which tends to more bodybuilding related than powerlifting.


Size doesn't mean much to me in terms of bodybuilding. I've seen guys 185 with incredible physiques. If I wanted to be 260+ I could do it fairly easily given enough time. Growth is fairly easy and more diet oriented then training oriented. Quality growth OTOH hand is not easy even with the best of diets.

1. You misunderstood. You can only get so strong from doing nervous system/fiber recruitment training only - we do hypertrophy work as well in the 6-8 range. We also do conditioning and stabilizer muscle work in the 10-20 range. At least powerlifters that aren't training in the stone age...

2. I figured when I said athletes and powerlifting in the same paragraph you would assume I meant strength centric sports. For a lot of sports only very small amounts of weight training are useful as additional size is detrimental and power developed in weight movements doesn't carry over at all to specialized sports movements...

3. *shrug* I haven't bothered to familiarize myself with the research behind TUT stuff because in practice it never worked for me (when I first started lifting I was taught to train with a 2:4 con/ecc tempo, and stuck with that for a while), so I can't really discuss that point with you in any proper fashion.

4. HST is bandied about by some people on the boards as "the super ultimate mega ultra be all and end all training system" (I think bryan pays them ) and so I think people are attracted to it because they think that since a few guys on the boards say it's the best and the guy is referencing journal articles (so it must be backed by science) that it really is that good. There is only one determinant of how effective a training system is - what results does it produce, and properly applied, will the system produce these results consistently? I jumped in to this thread to say that HST was not consistent in its ability to produce results for me, and I know of other people for whom this is also the case, thus I don't believe it is that effective of a training system. As for properly applying it, I followed the template on the HST website to the letter, so in my case I don't know how I could have mis-applied it.

Quality growth?! Are you referring to some guys who have striations and hard looking muscles, versus other guys who have muscles that appear softer and smoother? I always thought that was just a function of bodyfat and diuretic use...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

1. You misunderstood. You can only get so strong from doing nervous system/fiber recruitment training only - we do hypertrophy work as well in the 6-8 range. We also do conditioning and stabilizer muscle work in the 10-20 range. At least powerlifters that aren't training in the stone age...

2. I figured when I said athletes and powerlifting in the same paragraph you would assume I meant strength centric sports. For a lot of sports only very small amounts of weight training are useful as additional size is detrimental and power developed in weight movements doesn't carry over at all to specialized sports movements...

3. *shrug* I haven't bothered to familiarize myself with the research behind TUT stuff because in practice it never worked for me (when I first started lifting I was taught to train with a 2:4 con/ecc tempo, and stuck with that for a while), so I can't really discuss that point with you in any proper fashion.

4. HST is bandied about by some people on the boards as "the super ultimate mega ultra be all and end all training system" (I think bryan pays them ) and so I think people are attracted to it because they think that since a few guys on the boards say it's the best and the guy is referencing journal articles (so it must be backed by science) that it really is that good. There is only one determinant of how effective a training system is - what results does it produce, and properly applied, will the system produce these results consistently? I jumped in to this thread to say that HST was not consistent in its ability to produce results for me, and I know of other people for whom this is also the case, thus I don't believe it is that effective of a training system. As for properly applying it, I followed the template on the HST website to the letter, so in my case I don't know how I could have mis-applied it.

Quality growth?! Are you referring to some guys who have striations and hard looking muscles, versus other guys who have muscles that appear softer and smoother? I always thought that was just a function of bodyfat and diuretic use...

1. Yes but you can get pretty damn strong without ever going to the 6-8 rep range. Just different training.

2. I understand where you are coming from in terms of sports but they also use hypertrophy specific regiments to increase muscluar endurance (very light weight, high reps). So in essence, it still is a specific training for specific results. You get the benfit of quicker explosive repsonses along with high endurance.

3. If you're diet doens't correspond with that type of training, you will overtrian fairly easily and just won't grow. Its heavily carb dependent for optimal growth.

4. I agree, I see those people as well and they are very confused but his articles do have a good bit of truth and are based on research and resulst that do provide optimal growth.

Quality as in shape. Its the benefit of incorpating different types of hypertrophy which will influence both fiber thickness and nutrient capacity. Increasing nutrient/glycogen capacity faciliates optimal myofibullar growth which will give you a more rounded, full look rather than a thick bulky look with very litte "shape".

 

[Frank Reynolds]

I agree. There is no best one. As long as you have a decent ECC/CON time frame you will grow. I usually start everyone on the programs that the majority will respond to but it sure doens't cover everyone. Some response to lower CON times with increased ECC times (DC training..I still laugh at the thought that he named it after himself). Some respond to lower ECC times but higher volume and some just like a normal CON/ECC ratio with low volume.

You just have to tinker around and find what works for you and you don't to change routines completely to keep the body guessing. Just a change in rep time is sufficient enough.

How do you find what works best? Is this something that takes years to figure out, or can you tell fairly quickly? Now that i am not dieting, i want to maximize strength, and size gains and want to see what works best for me..

ALso this quality muscle you speak of is what i am after

 

[Dwight Schrute]

How do you find what works best? Is this something that takes years to figure out, or can you tell fairly quickly? Now that i am not dieting, i want to maximize strength, and size gains and want to see what works best for me..

ALso this quality muscle you speak of is what i am after

I flip a coin


Serisously, you start with what works for the majority of people then work it from there. Always start with a foundation that has solid training/nutrition then you can tweak from there. If not you will always be guessing and flip flopping back and forth in which case you will never know what works best in the long run.

For some it can be short, for some it takes years and years. IT all depends on the individual. For the most part it takes a little while just for the fact that anyone just starting will respond to just about anything.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

I flip a coin


Serisously, you start with what works for the majority of people then work it from there. Always start with a foundation that has solid training/nutrition then you can tweak from there. If not you will always be guessing and flip flopping back and forth in which case you will never know what works best in the long run.

For some it can be short, for some it takes years and years. IT all depends on the individual. For the most part it takes a little while just for the fact that anyone just starting will respond to just about anything.

Hmm coin flipping, you may be on to something..

I am going to pay close attention to my strength progress now, so i should be able to tell whats up pretty soon.. I will say my strength is already up considerably, so i think i should respond well to my current plan.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Yes, it generally does go up due to increased growth.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

There is also a difference in growth vs. quality growth. Many powerlifterfs grow but their propertions and shape are awful. The growth is thick, bulky and has very little asthetic shape to it.

Personally, I think this had ALOT (not all) to do with top level powerlifters being born with certain physical features that allow them to move massive weight, moreso than them training in such a manner that they grow out of proportion. I believe they have those proportions b/c they were born that way, for the most part. Of course, doing sumo squats all day long could contribute to large hips [and most of them don't even squat sumo of course], etc, but for the most part, I believe that powerlifters have powerlifter proportions b/c that's their genetic advantage for their sport. I.E. a guy with a sumer long arm will probably have a great deadlift, but, never a great "aesthetically pleasing" look to his arms.

My .02

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Their growth has more to do with training then genetic structure. Of course you will have those with genetic advatnges but that type of training will always contribute to a more thick look due to to emphasis on core size/strenth and less on the extremeties. Its a generally accepted fact. Exnilo shows abs with a 39 inch waist for a reason. A powerlifter without core strenght isn't much of a powerlifter. I've actually increased my waist size when I concentrated on more PL'er type exercises a couple years back (especially lower back)

Actually those with genetic advantages look more like bodybuilders (Pudzianowki) than powerlifters. The majority of powerlifters LOOK like powerlifters because of their training/diet.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

Actually those with genetic advantages look more like bodybuilders (Pudzianowki) than powerlifters.

Man he is an animal.. Probally my ideal build..

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Their growth has more to do with training then genetic structure. Of course you will have those with genetic advatnges but that type of training will always contribute to a more thick look due to to emphasis on core size/strenth and less on the extremeties. Its a generally accepted fact. Exnilo shows abs with a 39 inch waist for a reason. A powerlifter without core strenght isn't much of a powerlifter. I've actually increased my waist size when I concentrated on more PL'er type exercises a couple years back (especially lower back)

Actually those with genetic advantages look more like bodybuilders (Pudzianowki) than powerlifters. The majority of powerlifters LOOK like powerlifters because of their training/diet.

Pudz is the exception to the rule. Most of these guys are wide in the hips (great for leg power).

Exnihilo would have a tiny waist had his bone structure allowed him to. If you look, you can see the ridge of his pelvic girdle underneath his obliques. His midscection (mid-abdomen above the bellybutton) is rather narrow.

Ask exnihilo, I'm sure he will say he always had wide hips...waaaay before he started PLing. I do understand that PLers can get wider hips bc of how they train, though. But, I don't believe some guy with a twig waist is EVER going to be a great PLer (of course, there will be exceptions)

PLers can develope like BBers if their genetic allow for it...i.e. Kyle....he trains ONLY for PL and has a 930 squat, a 715 bench, and a 745 dead.

His genetics allow him to keep good proportions, despite training style. However, I'm sure thta if he followed a BB routine, he would be even more aesthetically pleasing, but, my piont is, it's genetic for the most part.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

PLers can develope like BBers if their genetic allow for it...i.e. Kyle....he trains ONLY for PL and has a 930 squat, a 715 bench, and a 745 dead.

Damn. sorry to take this OT but do you know his height and weight? That is my ideal build..

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Hes about 5'10ish and 242 lbs....

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Oh, and only 23yrs old hahha

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Pudz is the exception to the rule. Most of these guys are wide in the hips (great for leg power).

Exnihilo would have a tiny waist had his bone structure allowed him to. If you look, you can see the ridge of his pelvic girdle underneath his obliques. His midscection (mid-abdomen above the bellybutton) is rather narrow.

Ask exnihilo, I'm sure he will say he always had wide hips...waaaay before he started PLing. I do understand that PLers can get wider hips bc of how they train, though. But, I don't believe some guy with a twig waist is EVER going to be a great PLer (of course, there will be exceptions)

PLers can develope like BBers if their genetic allow for it...i.e. Kyle....he trains ONLY for PL and has a 930 squat, a 715 bench, and a 745 dead.

His genetics allow him to keep good proportions, despite training style. However, I'm sure thta if he followed a BB routine, he would be even more aesthetically pleasing, but, my piont is, it's genetic for the most part.

The exception to the rule are the genetic elite. Many of these guy do NOT have wide hips at all.

You seem to be missing the point altogether. Of course there will be be people with wider hips but the trianing in itself develops muscle in an around the core area making their waist thicker all around. The type of growth is purely myofibullar will little to no sarcoplasmic growth at all. THis isn't a myth. Its training fact. I have experienced it, trained people who have experienced and have seen it over the years with many people. I know plenty of powerlifters that don't have wide hips (bones strucutre) at all and throw up some pretty impressive weight due to core strength. Joey Gallaway is a prime example. The guy lifts extraordinary amounts of weight and is a stick. (185lbs soaking wet)


"PLers can develope like BBers if their genetic allow for it...i.e. Kyle....he trains ONLY for PL and has a 930 squat, a 715 bench, and a 745 dead.

His genetics allow him to keep good proportions, despite training style. However, I'm sure thta if he followed a BB routine, he would be even more aesthetically pleasing, but, my piont is, it's genetic for the most part."


That is exactly what I said before. The genetic elite look more like bodybuilders than powerlifters. THe majority of powerlifters don't look like powerlifters because of genetics, its because of the years of trianing/nutrition that builds ups the core (along with shitty diets). You can easily have a thick waist with small hips. Svend Karlsen doesn't have a large bone structure (was a bodybuilder). Magnus Samuelson has relatively thin hips but his waist is just as larger or even larger. You can even take it to the women's side with Jill Mills. She looks more like a bodybuilder than powerlifter. Many of the top level athletes do not have those qualities you state. Its quite the opposite.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

Hes about 5'10ish and 242 lbs....

Ahh not bad at all.. If i just gain50lbs of LBM then i am good to go:lol:

 

[exnihilo]

People with wide hips are undoubtedly better squatters, it just has to do with hip joint angles and muscle leverages. This is also true for people who pull sumo. If you squat narrow (which very few people can make work) or pull conventional the wide hips don't help you that much.

Generally, wide hips translate into more force generated when the hip is mostly flexed and the angle of the knee is 30-45+ degrees from the central plane of the body.

Unless your sport requires that sort of a position (football lineman where you need a wide base for balance, that sort of thing) you can just adjust your technique to bring your knees more towards the plane of your body and utilize the musculature of your back more, it's possible to get pretty similar results out of either.

No joke about the thick waist though lol. I can see my self in a couple of years at like 8-9% bodyfat with a 38" waist

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No joke about the thick waist though lol. I can see my self in a couple of years at like 8-9% bodyfat with a 38" waist

Hey, keep the low bf% to us bodybuilders. You don't want to be like us.



:lol:

 

[exnihilo]

Haha, if I can do it without getting weak it's all legit man

The weakness is what I'm trying not to emulate :whip: :trout: :rofl:

Edit: And I'll still eat oreos and bear claws from time to time :lol:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No need to get weak. Just eat right and change your training style a bit and you could hit that mark without any significant strength loss at all. I've cut people down while they gained strength (shameless pimping plug)

:lol:

You seem to believe too many myths about BB'ers.