Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Answering questions on optimal volume and weight
- Thread starter casualbb
- Start date
Nanotitan: that's a huge can of worms you're opening there, lol 
Yes, in three ways:
1) The 15 rep phase is designed to promote joint health and stave off injury. It also increases your general conditioning.
2) There are two types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic and sarcomere. The latter is what people generally want and makes up the bulk of muscle size. It represents the addition of actual contracting elements. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, by contrast, is just an increase in volume due to more fluid. Not all that useful for strength. BUT sarcoplasmic hypertrophy does, to a significant extent, facilitate sarcomere hypertrophy. So if you're using a weight that you can bust 15 reps with, to only use 5 would be less optimal.
3) Generally less TUT is needed to cause growth when the weights get heavier. 5 reps with your 15RM may not cut it.
I like the way HST cycles the rep ranges, I believe it provides a good balance of a lot of things.
Whether or not a rep range will cause growth is relative to the conditioning of the muscles. If the muscles are conditioned to a level of load, no matter how many reps you do no growth will result. The common example is astronauts. After weeks in zero-g, their muscles are so deconditioned that even walking causes growth. So a 15 rep range is just as good for growth as a 5 rep range, assuming both weights are higher than muscle conditioning.
If I had to pick one rep range, though, to work with for all time, it'd probably be 10 reps.
It's really hard to say. Generally more volume = more growth, but volume itself has less of an influence than frequency.
Optimal volume: the most you can do without overtraining on your chosen frequency. This varies according to recovery genetics. I've personally tried doing 2 sets for HST but it burns me out. I've also tried 1 set 6x/week. This burns me out too. Some guys can do 2 or even 3 sets 3x/week, though.
Optimal weight: see above, this is related to muscle conditioning. But a loose definition would be the lowest weight that can cause growth.
-casual
Yes, in three ways:
1) The 15 rep phase is designed to promote joint health and stave off injury. It also increases your general conditioning.
2) There are two types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic and sarcomere. The latter is what people generally want and makes up the bulk of muscle size. It represents the addition of actual contracting elements. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, by contrast, is just an increase in volume due to more fluid. Not all that useful for strength. BUT sarcoplasmic hypertrophy does, to a significant extent, facilitate sarcomere hypertrophy. So if you're using a weight that you can bust 15 reps with, to only use 5 would be less optimal.
3) Generally less TUT is needed to cause growth when the weights get heavier. 5 reps with your 15RM may not cut it.
I like the way HST cycles the rep ranges, I believe it provides a good balance of a lot of things.
Whether or not a rep range will cause growth is relative to the conditioning of the muscles. If the muscles are conditioned to a level of load, no matter how many reps you do no growth will result. The common example is astronauts. After weeks in zero-g, their muscles are so deconditioned that even walking causes growth. So a 15 rep range is just as good for growth as a 5 rep range, assuming both weights are higher than muscle conditioning.
If I had to pick one rep range, though, to work with for all time, it'd probably be 10 reps.
It's really hard to say. Generally more volume = more growth, but volume itself has less of an influence than frequency.
Optimal volume: the most you can do without overtraining on your chosen frequency. This varies according to recovery genetics. I've personally tried doing 2 sets for HST but it burns me out. I've also tried 1 set 6x/week. This burns me out too. Some guys can do 2 or even 3 sets 3x/week, though.
Optimal weight: see above, this is related to muscle conditioning. But a loose definition would be the lowest weight that can cause growth.
-casual
Let's say I'm able to perform squats for 10 reps max with 75% of 1RM. Now let's say that I perform 2 sets of 8 reps every other day after strategic deconditioning. First with 75%, then adding maybe five pounds or so each consecutive workout. Now let's assume this causes increases in size and strength (it probably would).
Now let's say my hypothetical twin (who is at the same level of strength and fitness as me) performs 8 sets of 2 reps using the exact same weight progression. They are both doing the same amount of volume and have the same frequency. What differences in growth would there be, if any?
I imagine one could assume my twin would have lower levels of fatigue than me if rest between sets is equal as he would take longer to complete the same amount of reps as I did. But would this affect growth? And wouldn't lower levels of fatigue possibly enable one to perform more volume at = frequency?
Also, assuming that somehow we both completed our workouts in the same amount of time, would the different split rep/sets affect growth or strength differently?
Now let's say my hypothetical twin (who is at the same level of strength and fitness as me) performs 8 sets of 2 reps using the exact same weight progression. They are both doing the same amount of volume and have the same frequency. What differences in growth would there be, if any?
I imagine one could assume my twin would have lower levels of fatigue than me if rest between sets is equal as he would take longer to complete the same amount of reps as I did. But would this affect growth? And wouldn't lower levels of fatigue possibly enable one to perform more volume at = frequency?
Also, assuming that somehow we both completed our workouts in the same amount of time, would the different split rep/sets affect growth or strength differently?
Damn these are some good questions (pant pant)
I'd say the 8x2 twin would grow slightly more than the 2x8. Both would have equal microtrauma, so growth would be pretty similar. The 8x2 one would tax cell metabolism, which is what causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The 2x8 one would see none of that. Here's some technical jargon from the HST site:
Higher reps represent 3), which is why 8x2 would be better.
Managing fatigue is only an issue if the fatigue is preventing a weight progression. Also with high volume an overtrained state can gradually accumulate. HST adheres to the dual factor theory in that over an 8 week cycle, one accumulates fatigue only to recover completely during SD. But on a day-to-day basis, fatigue doesn't matter all that much. Many HST dudes do a twice/day 3x/week routine to increase volume without increasing fatigue. I do this for arm isolation; after doing 2 compound chests and 2 compound backs my arms are too tired for bis/tris. I just do them hours later.
Growth, maybe a bit. Strength? The 2x8 guy would be stronger in the short-term just due to less fatigue. Whether or not 2x8 would have more favorable neural strength adaptations long-term, I have no idea. I was under the impression that lower reps are good for that, but that's generally talked about in the context of high weights (like 85-100% 1RM), so I suspect that it's the lifting of near-maximal weights rather than the rep range that causes strength gains. Of course, the low reps are the result of the weight because weights that heavy can only be lifted 1-5 times.
-casual
I'd say the 8x2 twin would grow slightly more than the 2x8. Both would have equal microtrauma, so growth would be pretty similar. The 8x2 one would tax cell metabolism, which is what causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The 2x8 one would see none of that. Here's some technical jargon from the HST site:
Higher reps represent 3), which is why 8x2 would be better.
Managing fatigue is only an issue if the fatigue is preventing a weight progression. Also with high volume an overtrained state can gradually accumulate. HST adheres to the dual factor theory in that over an 8 week cycle, one accumulates fatigue only to recover completely during SD. But on a day-to-day basis, fatigue doesn't matter all that much. Many HST dudes do a twice/day 3x/week routine to increase volume without increasing fatigue. I do this for arm isolation; after doing 2 compound chests and 2 compound backs my arms are too tired for bis/tris. I just do them hours later.
Growth, maybe a bit. Strength? The 2x8 guy would be stronger in the short-term just due to less fatigue. Whether or not 2x8 would have more favorable neural strength adaptations long-term, I have no idea. I was under the impression that lower reps are good for that, but that's generally talked about in the context of high weights (like 85-100% 1RM), so I suspect that it's the lifting of near-maximal weights rather than the rep range that causes strength gains. Of course, the low reps are the result of the weight because weights that heavy can only be lifted 1-5 times.
-casual
Thanks, that makes sense.
When you say,
you mean stronger how? Would this strength improve weight progression and hence enhance growth over what another might achieve on a 2 sets of 8 protocol, even with sarcoplasmic growth benefits?
Also, you mention that
This brings several questions to mind.
What kind of fatigue?
What exactly causes it?
If the 8 sets of 2 protocol reduces fatigue, wouldn't it possibly push the time until need for SD further away, say maybe 10 weeks? This would in the long term equate to greater gains I believe. [possibility1]
If the fatigue you are talking about is caused by neural adaptation to a particular exercise, wouldn't the 8 sets of 2 protocol possibly hasten the adaptation due to the greater amount of first reps done? Maybe this would increase the need for strategic deconditioning. [possibility2]
In any case, which of these two possibilities has the greatest effect on gains. If it is possibility1, then performing lower rep sets (not neccesarily heavier weight) might be a better option even though effort is very submaximal. If it is possibility2, then the higher rep protocol would probably be best.
When you say,
you mean stronger how? Would this strength improve weight progression and hence enhance growth over what another might achieve on a 2 sets of 8 protocol, even with sarcoplasmic growth benefits?
Also, you mention that
This brings several questions to mind.
What kind of fatigue?
What exactly causes it?
If the 8 sets of 2 protocol reduces fatigue, wouldn't it possibly push the time until need for SD further away, say maybe 10 weeks? This would in the long term equate to greater gains I believe. [possibility1]
If the fatigue you are talking about is caused by neural adaptation to a particular exercise, wouldn't the 8 sets of 2 protocol possibly hasten the adaptation due to the greater amount of first reps done? Maybe this would increase the need for strategic deconditioning. [possibility2]
In any case, which of these two possibilities has the greatest effect on gains. If it is possibility1, then performing lower rep sets (not neccesarily heavier weight) might be a better option even though effort is very submaximal. If it is possibility2, then the higher rep protocol would probably be best.
Last edited:
