Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist's Article On Muscular Hypertrophy

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Correct.

If you want to see major strength gains, from your core exercises, (dead lifts, squats and bench) periodization and speed are two concepts that must be utilized.

For speed, use chains and bands to accommodate resistance, and you will build explosive strength and acceleration. 

If your goals for lifting are to get bigger and stronger, there is no other choice: West Side Barbell.  You can waste your time with the HIT, or HST, or whatever else is popular, but the proof is in the program.

Since my last post, October 28th, I've upped my bench from 305lb to 315lb.  I have yet to seen anyone here personally prove their training method.  In the weightlifting field, there is an abundance of over educated, under experienced people. 

If you are truly dedicated, and motivated, try http://www.elitefts.com/ and read some of the articles.  Then, instead of posting new reports, post your increasing numbers.

WS was never designed or intended to create muscular gains the best way, it's imperative is improving the Big 3, so I wouldn't say HST (HYPERTROPHY-SPECIFC training) has no merit in its own realm. I liked Westside for strength though, however I don't do strength training anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Single set training is better.

http://www.maxcontraction.com/body1.htm

If you take the time to look at the article presented it is targeted at “long-term recreational weightlifters”. To further contradict the articles intention, the subjects in this test were performing these exercises three times a week.

Another “academic” was quoted further down saying:

"The essential stimulus for building strength in muscle tissue is to take the muscle to fatigue one time [with one good set]," he said. "Once you push a muscle to fatigue, it is stimulated to become stronger."

Strength in muscle tissue? The maximal force muscle tissue can sustain? Or produce? In no way does he relate this to hypertrophy.

I find it interesting that you claim HST is nothing bar “internet BS” and then supply that link.

I’m not arguing for either program although I personally practice HST, I thought it necessary to point out your double standards, of which there are plenty more in the replies you have posted.

Personally I suggest you have a good hard look at HST, not necessarily to implement it, but to at least understand what is available and the philosophies behind different systems, as opposed to blindly dismissing anything that is not in line with your perspective, which you have obviously done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take the time to look at the article presented it is targeted at “long-term recreational weightlifters”.  To further contradict the articles intention, the subjects in this test were performing these exercises three times a week.

People need to work out at the frequency that their bodies can sustain. The fact that for the test subjects that was 3x a week and for most pros it is less does not at all change the validity of that article. Sorry, but your idea of what is wrong is mistaken, and furthermore you're nit-picking.

Another “academic” was quoted further down saying:

Strength in muscle tissue?  The maximal force muscle tissue can sustain? Or produce?  In no way does he relate this to hypertrophy.

The fact that not all strength increases are a result of hypertrophy does not invalidate a system that will consistantly increase strength. Sooner or later, if strength keeps going up, hypertrophy will HAVE to occur. I'm sorry, but your fallacious argument has been used here and I am not falling for it.

I find it interesting that you claim HST is nothing bar “internet BS” and then supply that link.

You've logically proven that something is wrong with the link I gave. Oh, wait. No, you didn't.

I’m not arguing for either program although I personally practice HST, I thought it necessary to point out your double standards, of which there are plenty more in the replies you have posted.
I don't have double standards. I know that Heavy Duty and Max Contraction explained the validity of their systems in simple terms and the reality of my results backs it up. I also know that HST people use "slick salesman" techniques, loads of jargon and technobabble, and have yet to give any evidence of why their claims contradict common sense. Every part of HST or MC that contradicts common sense is explained to me in a way I can understand and agree with. I can't say the same for your system. It may or may not be valid, but I don't think it's worth the risk for me to find out.

Personally I suggest you have a good hard look at HST

I have. I have spent hours and hours studying it. My conclusions remain.

but to at least understand what is available and the philosophies behind different systems, as opposed to blindly dismissing anything that is not in line with your perspective, which you have obviously done here.

How dare you claim that about me! Furthermore, your classic leftist call for an "open mind" will not go over well here.

If you want to explain your system's contradictions with the principles of HD and MC and why your system is right, then I am listening. If you are here to insult me personally and fill the board with more empty claims, then GET LOST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down.

To even try to test HST, I would have to risk 6 months of my life in which I could be achieving the slow, but quite steady progress I have with HIT. It's just not worth the risk to me.

------------------------------------------

I am going to try this new method myself and I will report the results. (It should be a few months)

Yes, I have. I have seen the abstracts, and those could be from anyone. I don't know those scientists so I don't know if they're loony or not.

So I assume you know the researchers behind the studies featured in the link you gave? Who are they?

I also know that HST people use "slick salesman" techniques, loads of jargon and technobabble, and have yet to give any evidence of why their claims contradict common sense.

Hate to break it to you champ, but science isn’t simple. Also, explain to me how “one set to failure is all that is required” is common sense.

If you knew ANYTHING about HIT and its derivatives, you would know that its fundamental beliefs about muscle growth requirements have been scientifically disproven countless times.

In regards to your typical left wing statement.. I AM LEFT WING and I don't give a #[email protected]$ how it goes down on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must people resort to name calling when you don't agree with them? I notice that "Objectivists" are so quick to fight to the death to defend Mike Mentzer that they lose all form of civility. Look, I can be an angry Objectivist too, but it appears obvious to me that the debate between HST and HIT is a scientific one and not one solved by broad philosophical principles.

I personally favor HST and have had far greater success with it than I did with HIT which I found physically draining. But I can't vouch for the precison of Haycock's research. To me it looks sound and I haven't seen anything resembling it from HITers but I'm not a scientist. It could be flawed. But I'm not going to call a peson who disagrees with me a "mystic of muscle". God, you guys are acting like the caricature of Objectivists made by Kellyites and some Libertarians (which for the record I am not one of and pesonally can't stand). This is not a debate for this forum. So grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I assume you know the researchers behind the studies featured in the link you gave? 

The link I gave links to someone who explains why his system makes sense and does not require a leap of faith. He worked with Mentzer and he co-wrote the book I had been using to implement my previous workout, so I have no problems trusting or understanding him.

As to the rest of your post, I note it still lacks proof or explanation. One set to failure IS common sense. Explain why more than one is needed.

As for you being left wing... that's your problem. I'm just letting you know that people here could give a damn about that "open mind" BS so you won't win any points with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a thread posted on the HST forums in response to this thread:

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bi...4048;st=0;r=1;&

Read Bryan Haycock's comments in particular.  And I'm not going to get into a flaming war now, since I've already made my positions clear on Mentzer & HIT.

Thanks for the link. So far no one there has answered my questions, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One set to failure IS common sense. Explain why more than one is needed.

Okay. You say needed? I'll assume you mean needed for hypertrophy. Well in terms of what your muscle 'needs' to grow, I'm sure that you could get away with even less than that (depending on your circumstances). The goal of any bodybuilding system is to provide maximum efficiency ie. maximum growth in a given period.

Probably everything I would say is given in this article:

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/volume.html

It is scientific however its not difficult to understand (as are all his articles and are well worth the look).

Key points are:

-too much neuromuscular fatigue induced performing that intensity

-time under tension is too small

Again, it is necessary to point out that this is for maximum hypertrophy.

In regard to your "leftist" statements, I don't believe that has anything to do with why I asked you to have an "open mind". Myself and ex-banana eater are trying to introduce you to a system, scientifically superior to your current one. You refusing to accept this fact translates to a flaw in your critical and logical thought processes which I'll put down to ego but whatever it is, it isn't of importance.

Frankly, I don't care about your position anymore. If you decide to try HST, good luck, if you stick with Heavy Duty, good luck. Just don't contribute to the wealth of false information that already plagues the bodybuilding community. It will only hinder progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting link. I'm just going to ignore your personal comments in the interests of returning this to civil. I'm using a differant adaptation of HIT now, btw, and it handles a lot of the neuromuscular fatigue issues. Even if that were true, I don't see that HST is "ideal." The frequency, weight, and reps seem arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify: HIT and MC advocate training to failure, so they make sense to me. The principle that one should train for shorter durations with heavier weights makes sense to me. It ensures all the fibres will be activated and stimulated to grow.

Some people have said that training to failure isn't good, so HST says "well, don't do that." It's grasped what NOT to do, but hasn't discovered what TO do. It doesn't seem to be optimizing for anything in particular. It doesn't use the heaviest weights possible nor the lightest. It doesn't train for the minimum duration nor the maximum. The amounts seem like they're just kind of "in the middle" as if its creator didn't really know how to do it, and he just kind of compromised so that it would work "pretty well."

HIT and, especially, MC are not like that. You could argue that the principles on which they are based aren't correct, but they ARE using those principles to the highest possible extent. (especially MC) I am not a muscle scientist so the only way I have to verify it is to try.

If I do MC, I can verify with results that it is right.

If I do HST, I won't be able to verify anything in particular since it is so "in the middle" and it isn't set to prove any principle in particular. The HST people have some interesting discoveries on their hands which, if true, would require major revisions of HIT style bodybuilding. The HST method, however, is NOT... I repeat NOT the optimal use of those discoveries, however. It's simply a system that says "whoa, let's not do HIT... but let's keep the lessons of not working out too frequently." That's not the be-all end-all IMO. So until someone invents a system that will FULLY utilize those discoveries, I have no way of testing whether those discoveries are true or not.

To sum up, if someone gets bigger on MC, then it has to be because the principles of MC are true, since it is so focused on applying those principles. If someones gets bigger on HST, it could be for any number of reasons, since HST is not maxxed out to apply any principle that I can see.

To those who said I am not trying HST because of "ego" or some such nonsense, please get that idea out of your head. I have my reasons and they are rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frequency, (seems arbitrary)

Numerous studies have reported that muscles are in an anabolic state for a maximum of only 36-72hrs.

HST frequency recommends training every 48 hrs to ensure you are constantly in an anabolic state. (for one HST cycle anyway).

weight, (seems arbitrary)
This one is a little more complicated.

Muscles grow in response to load. The muscles then adapt to that load so they won't grow if given the same stimulus. To counteract this law, HST increases the load every workout so you're constantly adapting. Once you have reached your maximum load (most you can lift) you have a variety of options.. you can perform eccentric only movements, continue lifting your max or SD (strategic decondition) etc.

If you want me to elaborate on SD I can.

and reps seem arbitrary.

The reps are arbitrary. They are basically to accomodate the increasing load however different rep ranges have different benefits.

As you may or may not know (approx):

10-15 range promotes lactic acid burn which has been shown to help strengthen/repair connective tissue (tendons and the like).

8-15 range favours release of GH growth hormone (stands for growth hormone funnily enough).

5-8 range favours release of testosterone growth hormone.

5-8 also recruits more type 2a and b muscle fibres where the benefits of this vary depending on muscle group and/or fibre type composition.

All these have their place within a weightlifting routine and you should try and utilise them all, although 5-8 are most effective in hypertrophy.

------

As you probably can tell Casey Butt is anti-HIT as are practically all the scientific community, this is because it makes false scientific claims. This is an undeniable truth. Many people do make good gains using it and I won't nor have I denied or disputed that fact. There are many positives in using that system but I won't list them as it doesn't help my case :)

I'm personally exploring HST and believe it has tweaking to become more effective in practice. I know said something along the lines of "have to be on steroids to work out that frequently" or something along those lines. You will actually find that the majority of people that use HST are the exact opposite, regular joe's who benefit a lot because it can provide good gains while avoiding the "injury associated intensity" and short workouts.

However I do believe it is scientifically the most advance workout system to date, and has the most potential to maximise hypertrophy (as the name suggests). Given that, I will defend it when somebody questions its principles which are scientifically sound.

Thanks,

Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

adamant: excellent summary of the current knowledge about hypertrophy and its use in the HST protocols. I too agree that to maximize HST a person needs to tweak the basic routine. But if you read Haycock's writing, he makes clear that HST is really a set of principles and encourages people to tweak it to their specific circumstances but after they have done a standard cycle or two to understand how it works. Many HSTers start with a 12 rep cycle and then go to an 8 and a 4. There are many ways to fiddle with it.

I also agree that the overwhelming majority of scientific comentators (that I have read anyway) do not believe that HIT is grounded in a proper understanding of exercise physiology. The most frequently cited is HITs failure to address the difference between the stresses to the central nervous system and the stresses to the muscle cell. HST focuses on what science knows about muscle cells, knowledge gained and verified in the labs. To my knowledge HIT can claim no such thing.

Does HIT work? Sure. I grew with it but the drain on my CNS as I moved up in weight wasn't worth it. I find HST much more user-friendly and far more reasonable given the realities of the gym. And it doesn't take that long. If you do the 3 workouts a week system, it averages out to about 1 hour to 1 hour and 30 minutes per workout (on 10s and 5s). For three times a week, that's nothing. Its very doable. After 2 cycles of HST with disciplined diet (about 4 1/2 months), my physique is in near competitive (unassissted) condition with far less exhaustion than I experienced with either HIT or Max-OT.

Bryan Haycock is probably not an Objectivist, but I feel his epistemelogical approach was more rational than Mentzer's. As much as I loved Mentzer for his glorification of Ayn Rand, I do agree with BigBAngSingh that he approached strength training rationalistically. It appears his premises were not grounded in biological reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, suffice to say I am doing Max Contraction now. It does address a lot of the issues you guys (and HST) mention about HIT. Also, you should know that HIT does mention the difference between CNS and muscle fatigue. At least it did in the book I read. Like I said, I think that HST has its points, but I don't think that its principles have been developed enough yet. I'd like to see someone combine the discoveries of MC and HST.

One thing is that this thread got a little personal, and I hope nobody here has any hard feelings. I don't.

As for MC, it is a further refinement of HIT so I suggest everyone have a look at it. Even if you don't think all the principles of HIT are sound, I think you will find that the ideas of MC can be applied to any routine and will improve it. I think in 20 years, working out is going to look completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...