Ahh.. what to do now..

[Debaser]

This is where DC training is really just a subset of HIT ideas. Up to a point, training more frequently results in more growth. That point is once every 36 hours. We know, medically, that 36 hours +/- a little is the time when growth triggered by training falls off. So when you train bodyparts once every 4 days, you spend at most 2 days growing and 2 days not. HST dictates that you train not according to fatigue but according to the actual growth timeframe of the muscles themselves.

So how can you possibly cite that as an example of why DC is better? I'd say that's an example of why it's worse.

-casualbb

Well, first of all you totally neglected the protein issue. I mean, "We know, medically" that anything above 1 g/lb BW of protein will not facilitate gains, correct? Believe that if you want, but Haycock is W.R.O.N.G. about protein. And how do we know that after 36 hours growth is little to nonexistant? Is this an ironclad study? Or more scientific bullshit that doesn't apply? Since we're so heartily subscribing to "legitimate studies" I'll go ahead and buy a metric shitload of HMB too, I hear, according to medical studies it works wonders.

HST is a fine program, but I think DC works better. According to those that have tried both, and by comparing the results I've seen from both DC followers and HST followers, DC wins. I don't give a fuck if it's empyrical, or hearsay, because I've seen it PERSONALLY.

 

[vinylgroover]

I know that size and strength are not interrelated, but can anyone here dispute that over time, an individual cannot hope to get stronger without an increase in muscle size or density whether that individual is a powerlifter, bodybuilder etc.......which is what i was getting at.

Spatts, how can you create more muscle fibres?

 

[spatts]

VG, size does lend to strength and strength to size...over time. How LONG the amount of time is largely based on genetics, and MANY other conditional factors. WSB has stength work, hypertrophy work, and speed work for a REASON. These guys don't strike me as the types to fart around with things that may or may not work. There are records being broken all the time.

The Repetition Method

The repetition method, otherwise known as the bodybuilding method, is the best method for the development of muscle hypertrophy (growth). This is the method in which all supplemental and accessory exercises are trained. This method is defined as "lifting a non-maximal load to failure." It's during the fatigued state when the muscles develop maximal force. According to this method, it's only during the final lifts that, because of fatigue, the maximal number of motor units are recruited. This system of training has a great influence on the development of muscle mass which is why it's become so popular among the bodybuilding population.

The fact that the final lifts are performed in a fatigued state makes this method less effective compared to the others when it comes to maximal strength development. This is one of the reasons why powerlifters are much stronger than bodybuilders. Another disadvantage of this method is that each set is carried to failure. This makes it very difficult to increase your volume and work capacity over time because of the amount of restoration needed. Training to failure is very hard on your ability to recover and in my opinion should only be used sparingly. When you extend a set to failure many times, the last few reps are performed with bad technique and this, of course, can lead to injuries.

Westside has modified this principle to what I refer to as the modified repetition method. With the modified version all sets should be stopped with the breakdown of technique and there should always be a rep or two left in you. Remember this principle is applied to all supplemental and accessory movements. These movements are designed to be exactly what they are: supplemental and accessory. The main goals of these movements are to complement the overall training program, not take away. By training to failure on every set you'd be taking away from the general purpose of the movements, which is to increase work capacity.

The parameters of this method are varied and depend upon the individual. Some athletes develop muscle mass with high reps and other with low reps. It would be crazy to assume one specific rep range works for everybody. What we've found to be best with supplemental and accessory work are sets in the range of 5 to 8 with repetitions between 6 and 15. This is a rather large range, but as I mentioned before, everybody is different. If you've been training for some time, I bet you have a better idea of what works for you than I could ever prescribe.
-Dave Tate

 

[vinylgroover]

Spatts,

I'm not debating about the why's and wherefore's of bodybuilding vs powerlifting or size vs strength.

I responded to Projects claim that you can get stronger without increasing muscle size.

Forget about bodybuilders for a second. Is it possible for a powerlifter to become stronger over time WITHOUT a commensurate increase in muscle size whether that increase is small or large.

 

[spatts]

Sorry, that post wasn't directed at you. I was just interjecting the WSB take on why hypertrophy range work may want to be included for a powerlifter.

Can a PLer become stronger WITHOUT ANY INCREASE over time? Doubt it. Never say never, but I've "never" seen it. There are alot of guys at PL meets that would just blow your mind with how frail they look, but they can move mountains. They're probably growing, just VERY, VERY slowly.

 

[casualbb]

Lestat -- Check this out: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=3

Most of your questions can probably be answered in the FAQ section of the HST forum. I can answer some of them here, if you want.

-casualbb

 

[casualbb]

Well, first of all you totally neglected the protein issue. I mean, "We know, medically" that anything above 1 g/lb BW of protein will not facilitate gains, correct? Believe that if you want, but Haycock is W.R.O.N.G. about protein.

Oh, okay, did you measure nitrogen excretion in urine? Did you slice them open and peek at the muscles to see what was actually happening? NO. So take advice from the people who did. I'm tired of this shit. It's so convenient that DC propagates the mindset of "Science isn't always right! Science doesn't really know how it works!" because it keep his own training from coming into question. Since DC and some of his steriodal BB clients got enormous from this program, "it works" and that overrides science.

I don't give a fuck if it's empyrical, or hearsay, because I've seen it PERSONALLY.

I'm going to stop listening to you, because you're obviously irrational. That's the kind of attitude that had people in the 1800's thinking that BLOODLETTING was an effective way to treat illness. "She recovered, man! I swear!" Enough.

-casualbb

 

[Debaser]

Most of the guys he trains are clean. He has cited many examples but just recently stated another one where a guy gained 35 lbs in 5 months, even doing intensive marine cardio. What you don't seem to understand is how COMMON these results are, if you read more of the threads on animal's board. I'm sorry, but if I hear, UNINANIMOUSLY "these are the best gains of my life" from MANY trainees then that's a routine I'm going to look at over a routine based on medical studies.

And you're missing the point. Whether or not science has dictated it, I myself have experienced greater gains with higher protein (SAME number of calories). Whether or not science agrees with HST, I have experienced greater gains with DC over HST. I can't explain it entirely. But, do you think I give a fuck? I'm making better gains, period. That's all that matters.

 

[johnb]

Debaser,

You don't care if science backs up DC's methods because they've worked for you and others you know. That's fine and I don't blame you, don't fix what ain't broke.

The point here is that the plural of anecdote is not data. I don't care how many people you know who've gained on DC's program. If I didn't understand and believe in the science behind HST's principles, it wouldn't matter how many people told me it worked for them either, I woudln't use it.

At this point in time, my goal is to maximize hypertrophy, without regard to strength. Based on my understanding of the human body and its response to training, HST is the way to go for me.

I'm glad DC is working for you and overall, at your age (you're failry young if memory serves), I think you're ahead of the game in how you look at training methods. You just need to remember that your way isn't always the right way.

 

[casualbb]

The point here is that the plural of anecdote is not data.

I couldn't have said it better.

If I didn't understand and believe in the science behind HST's principles, it wouldn't matter how many people told me it worked for them either, I woudln't use it.

That's why I couldn't "try" another program to see if I would gain better than I am on HST; I don't believe in the underlying principles of any other program I've run across, DC included.

-casualbb