Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objective Bodybuilding

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do I need a 1 rep max to do this?

I don't think its necessary. Choose 8-10 excercises and then find your 15, 10, and 5 RM maxes for each exercise in that order. Find your 15 RM on say Monday, 10 RM on Wednsday, and 5 RM on Friday. You should end each 2 week cycle at your max for that RM. Basically the 6th workout of each cycle is a HIT type routine with all your sets going to failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No conclusions, but some pieces of the puzzle: 1/Steroid's long-term effects after years of non-use aren't fully known, but it's fair to assume that the effects on the heart and kidneys are not good. 2/ The relative number of muscle cells to capillaries remains constant, so if the muscle cells are increased in size, the capillaries can't supply oxygen as efficiently. 3/Lip service to free breathing while lifting is often ignored in real life. Although HIT itself most likely has no negative effect on the heart, a closed glottis and the resulting blood pressure spike while lifting the heavy weights used in HIT is not good for the vascular system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although HIT itself most likely has no  negative effect on the heart, a closed glottis and the resulting blood pressure spike while lifting the heavy weights used in HIT is not good for the vascular system.

And how does this compare to standard volume training with loads of sets per exercise and per workout and many workouts a week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
No conclusions, but some pieces of the puzzle: 1/Steroid's long-term effects after years of non-use aren't fully known,
But there are numerous human and mammilian sudies.

but it's fair to assume that the effects on the heart and kidneys are not good.
The effect of anabolic steroids in bodybuilding dosages has 1 main effect on the heart that is hardly proven, and that is thickenning of the left ventricular wall. Considering there is hardly any evidence to validate this since an androgen user would exercise with heavier weights, causing more natural left ventricular wall thickening, and considering that comparing an olympic athlete to an androgen user any day will show the olympian has a thicker LV wall, will not mean that it has unhealthy implications. The effects of androgens on the kidneys in humans are negligent--the only negative study I have seen is an in vitro study of renal cells submerged in testosterone.

2/ The relative number of muscle cells to capillaries remains constant, so if the muscle cells are increased in size, the capillaries can't supply oxygen as efficiently.
When muscle cells are trained, mitochondrial capacity is improved and thus ATPase efficiency. Not only this, but of course capillarization is a true effect, and would adapt to suit the needs of muscle cells, otherwise we'd have the cells dying left right and centre.

3/Lip service to free breathing while lifting is often ignored in real life. Although HIT itself most likely has no  negative effect on the heart, a closed glottis and the resulting blood pressure spike while lifting the heavy weights used in HIT is not good for the vascular system.
Count all exercise as unhealthy because of the blood pressure spike it can cause. :confused:

My adress to the two warring camps is to understand hypertrophy is mainly a nutritive phenomenon. As to HST, there are many problems:

2 weeks of eccentrics and then 2 weeks of strategic deconditioning? This is essentially four weeks of BS which could be used productively. Bodybuilders have sarcoplasmic atrophy very quickly, and lose muscular mitochondria efficiency rather quickly as well. There are studies showing eccentric exercise after concentric training shows no benefit compared to continueing concentric training. (1) (2)

The high rep training in the beginning (another waste of two weeks) has been proven not to be productive in regards to hypertrophy, and is no better in improving tendon strength. Much evidence shows that heavy tendon loading improves collagen alignment and stimulates collagen cross-linkage formation, both of which increase tensile strength. Bryan Haycock says that the high rep phase "prepares joints for heavy loading". The only time this would have purpose is in a new trainer.

(1)Brandenburg JP, Docherty D. The effects of accentuated eccentric loading on strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural adaptations in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 2002 Feb;16(1):25-32

(2)Bamman MM, Shipp JR, Jiang J, Gower BA, Hunter GR, Goodman A, McLafferty CL Jr, Urban RJ. Mechanical load increases muscle IGF-I and androgen receptor mRNA concentrations in humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Mar;280(3):E383-90.

The strike against HIT is its horrible effect of beating on the CNS, leading to less productive strength gains in most trials.

For all of those who want a complete look on hypertrophy, this article is probably my best recommendation:

Behind the Scenes: Hypertrophy (BTW, I assume the writer is an Objectivist, at the very least, a fan of Peikoff)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
2 weeks of eccentrics and then 2 weeks of strategic deconditioning? This is essentially four weeks of BS which could be used productively. Bodybuilders have sarcoplasmic atrophy very quickly, and lose muscular mitochondria efficiency rather quickly as well. There are studies showing eccentric exercise after concentric training shows no benefit compared to continueing concentric training. (1) (2)

The high rep training in the beginning (another waste of two weeks) has been proven not to be productive in regards to hypertrophy, and is no better in improving tendon strength. Much evidence shows that heavy tendon loading improves collagen alignment and stimulates collagen cross-linkage formation, both of which increase tensile strength. Bryan Haycock says that the high rep phase "prepares joints for heavy loading". The only time this would have purpose is in a new trainer.

All the objections you raise to HST are addressed on their forum. The reasons for SD and high rep, sub-maximal weights have been discussed at length there by Brian Haycock and others. In my opinion, HST is by far the more logical and scientifically based training system than any failure-based "Intensity" systems (ie Max-OT, HIT, Super-Slo, Dog-Crap, etc.). I like the epistemology of its author as well. He studied the causes of muscular hypertrophy and then devised a system which duplicates the resulsts found in the lab but accounting for the realities of the gym.

To use gym talk, "Its good stuff bro." And very objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the objections you raise to HST are addressed on their forum. The reasons for SD and high rep, sub-maximal weights have been discussed at length there by Brian Haycock and others. In my opinion, HST is by far the more logical and scientifically based training system than any failure-based "Intensity" systems (ie Max-OT, HIT, Super-Slo, Dog-Crap, etc.). I like the epistemology of its author as well. He studied the causes of muscular hypertrophy and then devised a system which duplicates the resulsts found in the lab but accounting for the realities of the gym.

To use gym talk, "Its good stuff bro." And very objective.

Thanks alot, I've done my share of reading on the site and the forum long ago. If you have any type of objection to my critique then adress it with something instead of saying "an authority said it is better, therefore it is so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks alot, I've done my share of reading on the site and the forum long ago. If you have any type of objection to my critique then adress it with something instead of saying "an authority said it is better, therefore it is so".

I'd direct your critique towards the HST forum so it can be more properly addressed. A philosophy forum is not the place to get into this level of detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd direct your critique towards the HST forum so it can be more properly addressed.  A philosophy forum is not the place to get into this level of detail.

Absolutely. That was my point Banana Eater. Make the objections you made over at Brian's forum and judge for yourself. You can also make the objections at Lyle McDonald's forum and you will get pretty much the same resoponses.

Your right, the appeal to authority is not valid. But denying the rational evidence offered by learned, legitimate authourities is equally as stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Most HST objections to HIT are, from what I can tell, derived from a misunderstanding of HIT. For instance, HST claims that the load must be progressive and changing or else the body will form a resistance (if I understand that right).

But in HIT, you NEVER lift the same weight for the same reps. Since you always train to failure, you do more reps each time, until you have done enough to increase weight. An increase of weight is then tied to a decrease in reps. So I fail to see how HIT does not achieve the principle of progressive load.

As for hypertrophy vs strength, I am in fact training for strength. If I need bigger muscles to be stronger, so be it. But I am training for strength as the primary goal.

The tension on the muscle is what actually causes growth.
And training to failure is not meant as an end unto itself; Mentzer has said that. It is a means to the end of ensuring maximum tension on the muscle.

Frequency

Very interesting idea, and not entirely out of line with Mentzer's theories. I would call this a DEVELOPMENT of his theories, and not a contradiction to them. The trouble is, does this at all differ with genetics and even it were true, you have to remember that HIT uses 4-5 exercises per session MAX and does do an upper/lower body split (i.e. 1 session arms, next legs, then arms). If you're looking to squeeze the maximum growth into a given time period, HIT is STILL better than HST. If the principle is true, I do see a possibility that a THIRD system could be developed that would be better than EITHER. But HIT still wins.

4) Strategic Deconditioning

Deconditioning is a part of HIT. Mentzer recommends that if you are unable to continuously increase your weight/reps, then you need to take a week off (or more). So this is nothing new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the objections you raise to HST are addressed on their forum. The reasons for SD and high rep, sub-maximal weights have been discussed at length there by Brian Haycock and others. In my opinion, HST is by far the more logical and scientifically based training system than any failure-based "Intensity" systems (ie Max-OT, HIT, Super-Slo, Dog-Crap, etc.). I like the epistemology of its author as well. He studied the causes of muscular hypertrophy and then devised a system which duplicates the resulsts found in the lab but accounting for the realities of the gym.

If you've studied HST (which I know you have) then you know that all of it isn't based on science. Anything I bring up when argued is replied with "its optional". 15's are optional, their standard recommendation of SD is optional, etc. There is no reason for an athlete to be doing 15's, since he is already an athlete.

Bryan is not sure on some things, since the science isn't there. The word still isn't out on the repeated bout effect regarding hypertrophy.

2 weeks for each rep range? This was picked at random because he felt a bodybuilder's ego wouldn't allow longer than that.

I'm not trying to argue that HIT or any other insane type of routine like it that is not based on science is better, I'm just saying that HST isn't completely concrete, so hailing it like it is perfect is wrong, especially in those avenues.

To best explain my routine, it would be called "moderately modified HST," although I'll start the training outlined in UD 2.0 soon.

BTW, I await Bryan's book (if it comes out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've studied HST (which I know you have) then you know that all of it isn't based on science. Anything I bring up when argued is replied with "its optional". 15's are optional, their standard recommendation of SD is optional, etc. There is no reason for an athlete to be doing 15's, since he is already an athlete.

Bryan is not sure on some things, since the science isn't there. The word still isn't out on the repeated bout effect regarding hypertrophy.

2 weeks for each rep range? This was picked at random because he felt a bodybuilder's ego wouldn't allow longer than that.

I'm not trying to argue that HIT or any other insane type of routine like it that is not based on science is better, I'm just saying that HST isn't completely concrete, so hailing it like it is perfect is wrong, especially in those avenues.

To best explain my routine, it would be called "moderately modified HST," although I'll start the training outlined in UD 2.0 soon.

BTW, I await Bryan's book (if it comes out).

Umm, I never wrote that quote - please attribute the quote to its proper author. This goes for everyone: please make an honest attempt to understand HST and moreover basic exercise science before you make incorrect claims, e.g. the above two posts. And once again, this is a philosophy-specific forum, not an exercise-specific forum, so can somebody please kill this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, I never wrote that quote - please attribute the quote to its proper author.  This goes for everyone: please make an honest attempt to understand HST and moreover basic exercise science before you make incorrect claims, e.g. the above two posts.  And once again, this is a philosophy-specific forum, not an exercise-specific forum, so can somebody please kill this thread?

Yah, I realized that when it was too late to edit my post.

And good job at refuting my arguement, by saying it is incorrect and adressing no claims, and then insulting me by telling me that I need to "understand basic exercise science".

It seems like some people would rather adress the topic right here and now (what else is this thread for?) rather than spending time on other boards. We are perfectly capable of adressing it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Singh, I have yet to find an exercise forum that is not full of blithering idiots who are not more interested in dogma than science. Please, please lets talk about this here where I at least know that people are rational.

There is more than a little truth in this but I find the HST forum to be very well administered and very informative. There are very few idiots there. I have been reading those forums on and off for about 6 months and I have learned alot. There is a commitment to science there. I personally like Brian's epistemological method; he studied the science of muscular hypertrophy and then attempted to design an exercise protocol that satisfied the science found in the labs but took into account the realities (often psychological) of working out in a gym.

I am partial to HST. I have had great success with it. I couldn't stand training to failure. It was physically and psychologically draining. I loathed going to the gym. Now I can't wait. Is this a scientific proof for the validity of HST? No. But I do believe that Brian Haycock has offered more scientific validation for his system than Mentzer ever offered for his (no disrespect directed at Mentzer who I personally admired). But I am not an exercise scientist and can not prove or disprove HST or HIT. All I can do is judge the credability and consistency of those who are giving me weight training advice. Personally, as I have said, I am partial to Haycock and McDonald.

Lyle's forum is also very informative but it does have far more 'boneheads' than Brian's. Lyle McDonald has a good empirical mind and he basically agrees with Haycock's approach as to that of the HIT school for whatever that's worth.

Lastly, I respect both Banana Eater's and Inspector's suspicion or disapproval of HST. They have offered good criticisms that allthough I do feel are addressed by Brian and Blade over at HST, nonetheless represent valid concerns and questions.

If they disputed the absolutism of reality or the morality of egoism however, that would be a different matter. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am partial to HST. I have had great success with it. I couldn't stand training to failure. It was physically and psychologically draining. I loathed going to the gym. Now I can't wait. Is this a scientific proof for the validity of HST? No. But I do believe that Brian Haycock has offered more scientific validation for his system than Mentzer ever offered for his (no disrespect directed at Mentzer who I personally admired). But I am not an exercise scientist and can not prove or disprove HST or HIT. All I can do is judge the credability and consistency of those who are giving me weight training advice. Personally, as I have said, I am partial to Haycock and McDonald.

When you were training to failure, how many sets per exercise and per workout did you do and how often did you train?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you were training to failure, how many sets per exercise and per workout did you do and how often did you train?

I did the routine straight out of Heavy Duty 2 with 4 or 5 days between workouts. First, I found that to be far too infrequent to train. This combined with the fact that Mentzer discouraged you to do cardio, I found it hard to avoid gaining weight. Secondly, I hated the stress of having to increase either my reps or my weight every single workout. If I couldn't do at least one more rep with the same weight or, heaven forbid, if I couldn't do the number of reps I did on my last workout, I would walk out of the gym depressed. And after three years of training that way, with diet being controlled, I had gained no additional mass (allthough I was marginally stronger).

As Brian Haycock and Lyle Macdonald point out, HIT advocates seem to fail to diferentiate between recovery time for the actual muscle cells and recovery time for the Central Nervous System (CNS). HIT drains the CNS to too great an extent for me. I can't stand it. I just couldn't deal with being physically exhausted for a day or two following each workout. With HST you don't train to that kind of fatigue until the heavier cycles and then you are immediately given a 1-2 week rest for strategic deconditioning. I like everything about HST and not suprisingly I have added significant size (with similar diet as when I trained HIT).

Again this is just my preferrence based on years of experimentation. So I have not made the change lightly or without consideration. I resisted HST for a while until I found that the evidence offered was just too much to ignore; and then I tried it myself and had great results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your description, allow me to put forth a theory:

The "light" cycles are in fact non-productive for you. They are doing nothing. The "heavy" workout that you do before the strategic deconditioning is the actual source of your growth. The deconditioning may or may not be too long of a recovery time.

HIT was not working for you because you needed to rest MORE than 4 days, which is what Mentzer advised for advanced bodybuilders.

This is based on the data you have given to me so far. What if Mentzer was right, but you were not properly using his theories? What if your growth under HST is only from an accidental application of proper HIT principles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your description, allow me to put forth a theory:

The "light" cycles are in fact non-productive for you. They are doing nothing. The "heavy" workout that you do before the strategic deconditioning is the actual source of your growth. The deconditioning may or may not be too long of a recovery time.

HIT was not working for you because you needed to rest MORE than 4 days, which is what Mentzer advised for advanced bodybuilders.

This is based on the data you have given to me so far. What if Mentzer was right, but you were not properly using his theories? What if your growth under HST is only from an accidental application of proper HIT principles?

This is the common criticism of the 'light cycles'; that they are not productive and growth really occurs during the heavy weight. Again, I'm not a exercise physiologist so in this sense BangSingh is right, this forum is not the ideal to discuss this subject. But, the theory behind HST is that the earlier 'lighter cycles' are essential for preparing the muscles for the greater mechanical load that they will face during the 5's and negatives. It is the progression from light load to heavy load while minimizing the rapid bout effect that causes the muscle to grow. Further, after the 1-2 week strategic deconditioning, your muscles will be traumatized by the lighter weight. Brian also gives at least three other reasons why the 15's are so important.

Honestly, as I have said, I have been reading the HST forums for a while. Its all there. You may not agree with it, but there *is* alot of science (complete with citations to studies) offered in support of the system.

One last comment from me on this: Brian Haycock is smart enough to know that if you are not motivated to go to the gym, you will never grow. HST has this 'trainer-friendly' component built in to it. Intensity systems like HIT or Max-OT no doubt are effective, however for me they are far too grueling and return no extra benefit. There is a psycholoical component to weight training. For me constant training to failure is draining and counter productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's entirely possible that you were simply mis-applying HIT and that your current growth may or may not have anything to do with the pre-loading. The pre-loading my be entirely for your psychological benefit. Correct me if I misunderstand, here.

One thing is that I have NEVER failed to be motivated so I am not interested in a system that uses such "crutches" and wastes my time.

Also, I don't understand your comment that "your muscles will be traumatized by the lighter weight" after deconditioning. You earlier said that 4 days was way too long to wait and that recovery was finished in 48 hours. Now you are saying that after 2 weeks of inactivity, a light weight is somehow still capable of "traumatizing" your muscles? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's entirely possible that you were simply mis-applying HIT and that your current growth may or may not have anything to do with the pre-loading. The pre-loading my be entirely for your psychological benefit. Correct me if I misunderstand, here.

One thing is that I have NEVER failed to be motivated so I am not interested in a system that uses such "crutches" and wastes my time.

Also, I don't understand your comment that "your muscles will be traumatized by the lighter weight" after deconditioning. You earlier said that 4 days was way too long to wait and that recovery was finished in 48 hours. Now you are saying that after 2 weeks of inactivity, a light weight is somehow still capable of "traumatizing" your muscles?  :)

Are you trying to instigate? Look, I've told you that this is not the forum for this. If you really want to do the 'HST/HIT' debate go to the HST forum. You will find all your objections answered. You may not agree but they will give you excellent arguments backed by scientific studies.

As for me, I do not think I misapplied HIT. I simply don't think it is that effective. IMO HST makes it look like low grade dog food. I don't consider the light cycles a 'crutch'; I consider unneccessary expenditure of effort for no return 'stupid'.

If you are feeling in the mood to joust with someone over this go over to HST.

I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trying to instigate? Look, I've told you that this is not the forum for this. If you really want to do the 'HST/HIT' debate go to the HST forum. You will find all your objections answered. You may not agree but they will give you excellent arguments backed by scientific studies.

And I've told you: I am not interested in debating the subject with non-objectivists. I've seen how people use technical jargon as a cudgel to intimidate and attack, and not as a tool to seek the truth. If you aren't an expert on HST, then I will just have to wait for one to come here.

I'm sorry if my questions frustrated you, but I honestly think that your experiance could just as easily be explained by my theory and that HST is not in fact helping you. It looks like we won't really be able to find it out by ourselves. For now, we will go our separate ways and use our preferred methods.

I consider unneccessary expenditure of effort for no return 'stupid'.

So do I! That's precisely why I am wary of HST. I hope someone will be able to clear this up for us. Until then... *shrug*

As an aside, I frankly don't care how hard I have to lift in the gym, or how sore I get afterwards. If it works, I'm going to do it. And I don't want to have to go to the gym three more times a week just to avoid soreness. If it turns out that HST is in fact more productive, then I will switch to that, too.

Until then, good lifting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I frankly don't care how hard I have to lift in the gym, or how sore I get afterwards. If it works, I'm going to do it. And I don't want to have to go to the gym three more times a week just to avoid soreness. If it turns out that HST is in fact more productive, then I will switch to that, too.

Until then, good lifting!

I go to the gym twice a week. How about you?

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...