Newbie gains again??

[zmt]

Hi Scott

you are so long in the business I am sure you have heard about HST Hypertrophy-Specific Training by Bryan Haycock

one of the principles of HST is Strategic Deconditioning (SD) (complete rest for about 10-14 day, once every 2-3 months)

it is somehow similar to Intensive Cruise (lower frequency and Tier) but the idea is (I think) different

SD is about resensitization of muscle cells so they can respond to lower loads again which can be similar to newbie gains again

FT is missing that (again I think) part but we have (and love (!)) IC

do you think we miss something ?

more in new podcast with Bryan (have much respect for him as well)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_yulOJkPnc

where even after many years Bryan still thinks SD is a good idea and should be used regularly (every 2-3 months)

thanks for the input

[Scott Stevenson]

Hi Scott

you are so long in the business I am sure you have heard about HST Hypertrophy-Specific Training by Bryan Haycock

one of the principles of HST is Strategic Deconditioning (SD) (complete rest for about 10-14 day, once every 2-3 months)

it is somehow similar to Intensive Cruise (lower frequency and Tier) but the idea is (I think) different

SD is about resensitization of muscle cells so they can respond to lower loads again which can be similar to newbie gains again

FT is missing that (again I think) part but we have (and love (!)) IC

do you think we miss something ?

more in new podcast with Bryan (have much respect for him as well)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_yulOJkPnc

where even after many years Bryan still thinks SD is a good idea and should be used regularly (every 2-3 months)

thanks for the input

Right now, I've not got time to listen to the full interview, but it sounds great (just listening as I type).

Maybe you can outline his reasoning for this?... Research, empirical findings, etc?...

-S

[zmt]

I was expecting such reply

here it comes

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...cise_BFRRE
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23053130

(thanks to Borge Fagerli)

will wait for your response - but only in your free time - much appreciate your time spending here with us

thank you Scott

[zmt]

and also old article with references by Bryan

Hypertrophy-Specific Training : : Official Home of HST

[Scott Stevenson]

Hey Bud!

OK, settling into this now - listening to the podcast in the background.

This idea of taking time off, or rather reducing training frequency, to by resensitizing has been put forth in a recent article digging into frequency of training: 1. Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Counts BR, Laurentino GC, and Loenneke JP. Frequency: The Overlooked Resistance Training Variable for Inducing Muscle Hypertrophy? Sports Med 47: 799-805, 2017.

They mention this study, using an animal model of muscle growth (compensatory hypertrophy) where they delineate some of the "molecular brakes" that restraint muscle growth slow muscle growth
https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.11...00674.2013

So, there's definitely something to this, IMO, in that we want to maintain novelty of stimulus and having a period of no training, or training less frequently, can do this.

This brings up a few points in my mind:

• The Ogasawara study is a nice one, but the larger question is whether, when one reaches muscle size far beyond the untrained constitutive level (coming nearer one's "genetic ceiling"), do the brakes stay on such that there is no longer a more rapid gain in strength and size. Note that the overall gains in strength and size were the same in both groups in that study.

So, by analogy, are comparing two runners here; One who keep running vs. one who sprints and then slows down to recover and can then sprint again, but never ends up getting ahead (in the long run) of the runner who just runs continuously.

• The other possibility here is that, as with an Intensive Cruise, the decrease in training load (volume) and frequency, may accomplish this re-sensitizing, while also accomplishing a rebounding of strength (and size if one's eating well enough), getting the best of both worlds to some degree (meaning there is some desensitizing without a detraining effect, but instead there's an improvement in performance / loading capacity that is superimposed upon the resensitization, if it occurs, that comes with the IC type deload.)

-S

[zmt]

Thanks Scott for deep analysis

if I am reading this correctly by using Intensive Cruise we are getting best of both worlds
- some re-sensitizing
and
- some training stimulus for future gains

and there is no real to take REGULAR breaks from trainings (of course this also mean that vacations can also be useful

Thank you again Scott

---

about genetic limits
I have similar feelings like Pumped340 - we can't bypass our limit naturally
but ..
there is also world outside this

[Scott Stevenson]

Thanks Scott for deep analysis

if I am reading this correctly by using Intensive Cruise we are getting best of both worlds
- some re-sensitizing
and
- some training stimulus for future gains

Well, I'm just speculating here that there could be some re-sensitization going on during an IC, but the taper is really where I think the magic lies, if done properly. The idea there is that you've set into motion adaptive processes that are counterbalancing the insult of the training sessions. Then, when you drop the volume (Tier) and frequency of training down a bit, and give time (and adequate rest, calories, etc.) for the adaptive processes to occur, you come back at the start of the next Blast having rebounded.

I think in the FAQ of the book I note that folks can use the Tiers to periodize and/or, of course, adjust per the current state of recovery. The notion of pyramiding into a new Blast - starting initially with a lower Tier - is rooted in this idea of getting the most from the least, or in the context here, that there's some re-sensitization to the training stimulus, so a lower amount of training insult is plenty to create an adaptive stimulus at the start of a Blast.

Simply the re-sensitization (if occurring) would suggest that one should reduce training load (volume) somewhat, but ALSO, if one has rebounded well is not capable of incurring a greater training insult (training loads a/o reps have gone up, which could in some degree be a matter of CNS recovery), then this would also be a reason to reduce training volume.

and there is no real to take REGULAR breaks from trainings (of course this also mean that vacations can also be useful

Thank you again Scott

You're welcome!

There can be many reasons to take regular breaks from training and a lot of guys do this with success. (IT can be simply for joint and connective tissue health, which seems to degrade faster and recover more slowly than sk. muscular tissue.)

I don't know how well folks are having success employing HST, but it seems there would be a sweet spot (which Børge Fagerli talks about as well) where you've not optimized the re-sensitization without any loss of muscle size and capacity in the gym.

One thing that was happening back in the days when I was the official DC Trainer for Dante was some guys were coming back after a cruise where they didn't do any training having lost strength somewhat substantially. this wasn't everyone, but it seems to be a function of how well they were able to auto regulate a cruise (and perhaps how long to blast, etc.) Literally, some guys would regress strength-wise (some of which was perhaps psychological from having taken 2 full weeks off from the gym) so much that they'd spend half or more of their next Blast returning to the strength levels at the end of the previous Blast. So, it was like 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, which is something I feel like I've remedied in large part with the Intensive Cruise aspect.

Still, as Haycock suggests, strength is not really goal in bodybuilding, but I'm a bit dubious of the idea (and I don't think Haycock is saying this to this extent) that one could, over the long haul of creating someone who is monstrous in size, largely uncouple gains in strength from gains in size. More specifically, if someone where, let's say hypothetically, losing all of their strength gains obtained during a previous Blast during a strategic de-conditioning (but not losing size), such that they were getting stronger and then the weaker over the course of many years such that there was no gain in strength overall, that that person simply could, by means of a re-sensitization, end up getting substantially larger.

Rather, i'd bet on there being better growth if someone were using a IC (taper) type of approach, getting progressive strength gains (with unchanging form) and eating to support growth.

So, again, I'm not saying Haycock is saying this, but let's compare:

• Scenario where over 3-4 years, strength has gone up 50% on all lifts
• Scenario (at the risk of arguing via reductio ad absurdum) where someone makes no strength gains, but trains less and relies on strategic deconditioning / resensitization to manifest gains.

I think there needs to be some progressive overload, and taking time off and using the renewed novelty of stimulus (re-sensitization) can play a role here, but I personally would favor the approach that leads to greater performance. For SOME - this is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE - the time off could be a way to foster greater performance gains in the gym, b/c they tend to overdo things a bit. The question becomes (and again, I defer to those who have been using HST) as to how much / how long one would take time off to produce this.

---

about genetic limits
I have similar feelings like Pumped340 - we can't bypass our limit naturally
but ..
there is also world outside this

Well, that's an entirely different topic, as I don't think that most folks really test what is genetically possible and your'e dead on as far as the comment about a world outside bodybuilding. Imagine this, for example:

You have a brain tumor driving appetite, and have been hypnotized to beyond what you would typically do, and literally focus your entire life, every waking moment, on becoming the muscularly largest human you possibly can.

• Think folks like Dante when he was pushing up over 300lb
• Jordan Peters, who was able to put down 10,000 kcal / day when we were working together.
• The phenomenon of the guys who go over to the middle east and are enlisted in the Oxygen gym bodybuilding boot camp. (Yes, there are drugs involved there, but in talking / listening to one of the Pros who has been there - in person and uncensored - it's really not anything extraordinary in terms of amounts of exotic chems. They guys are just constrained to simply eat, train and rest. Literally, they are on a militaristic regimen without time for any personal endeavors, social life, relationship time, etc.

So, I think the governor for how good someone becomes as a bodybuilder is ultimately genetic, but that how good one becomes is realistically a matter of what one is willing to do, and very few people are willing to put themselves in a life position where they can pull out all the stops.

-S

[zmt]

1.
if reading correctly
Bryan - in SD - suggests to use (in next HST cycle) lighter loads (weights) at the beginning of new cycle to start again processes of growing
HST is based on somehow (some zig-zags (for a week or two) are OK) linear progression
and is also based on progressive overload (increases weights) in time - from cycle to cycle
HST utilized same exercises so need of re-sensitization for them

FT is not based on linear progression (in short period of time we are using MR, Pump Sets and Load sets) - as far as I understand and use it
FT uses also some kind of re-sensitization (in my opinion - please correct me Scott) of muscle cells by rotating exercises - so every time there is a new stimulus to muscle cells (during Blasts) - even time is somehow similar - 21 weeks in FT and 14 days in HST
and by reducing volume (Tier) and frequency during IC

2.
I'm not saying HST>FT nor FT>HST
been using HST long time ago
and I love FT right now - many reasons - and I'm 46 and have a best physique in my life right now

just asking
should we use something similar to SD in our FT training?
but if I am right I have (with your help Scott) answered my own question

3.
Scott you are absolutely right about dedication

as in every aspect of life

you receive what you have given

but as Pumped340 suggested by
'world outside NATURAL limits' I meant drugs
but this drives us to another topic - maybe we should start new post ?

[Scott Stevenson]

I took him saying "There is also world outside this " to mean there is a world outside of natural limits i.e. gear. Maybe I misinterpreted though.

I do wonder though, all of those examples are guys on hefty amounts of gear at one point or another. It really does seem like most huge pros have at one point gotten VERY heavy and then cut down. However, it seems almost all natural pros disagree with this approach and when they look back at the periods where they were fatter they say it was a ridiculous thing to do and it shouldn't be done. (Now we could argue that it did indeed help them and they are just not acknowledging that). Alberto Nunez, Eric Helms, Brad Loomis, Layne Norton, Jeff Alberts, Doug Miller, Brian Whitacre, Tom Venuto, etc etc natural pros who advocate never really pushing body weight or body fat too high. Just makes you wonder.

Now if you had a gun to my head and told me I had 3 years to put on the maximum amount of muscle I'd probably bulk like crazy over 2 years and try to put on 50+lb and then spend the last year slowly dieting....but then again I did that and by the time I lost the fat I was back where I started so I do see a discrepancy there in the natural vs enhanced camp. Just an observation.

Yeah, it's hard to know whether there is something categorically different going on with AAS, which we know does obviously greater the potential for much greater growth, so that increases in muscle size, even if just <10%, would be more evident in someone who's using PEDs and pushed the limits and really gone for broke.

Psychologically speaking, there's also that the gains are so much better with AAS, etc. that one would eventually realize that the gains in more muscle are not worth the fat that comes along for the ride. (This is not to say that there might not be some more muscle that comes in going to 250 vs. just a leaner 230, but it's more apparent when someone is comparing going to 310 vs. 270 and the impetus to keep gaining when one is so large is perhaps rooted differently: At 250 a natty guy might not stand out as much as if he were at 310 so he'd want to get down to a leaner BF% more quickly.)

Even then - those last few pounds may not translate on stage in an entirely obvious way. (2-3 lb of stage weight is noticeable to a competitor, but maybe not worth it

There's also that there may be (not true of everyone) a difference in mindset between a natural and drug using competitor: A do at all costs kind of mentality that could differentiate them.

1.
if reading correctly
Bryan - in SD - suggests to use (in next HST cycle) lighter loads (weights) at the beginning of new cycle to start again processes of growing
HST is based on somehow (some zig-zags (for a week or two) are OK) linear progression
and is also based on progressive overload (increases weights) in time - from cycle to cycle
HST utilized same exercises so need of re-sensitization for them

FT is not based on linear progression (in short period of time we are using MR, Pump Sets and Load sets) - as far as I understand and use it
FT uses also some kind of re-sensitization (in my opinion - please correct me Scott) of muscle cells by rotating exercises - so every time there is a new stimulus to muscle cells (during Blasts) - even time is somehow similar - 21 weeks in FT and 14 days in HST
and by reducing volume (Tier) and frequency during IC

I can really say exactly if what you're saying about HST is entirely true, but the progressing in FT is not set out in a pre-determined "linear" or other way, and yes, I would say there could be some re-sensitization coming from IC.

I don't wquite fillow the 21weeks vs. 14 days comparison you make...

2.
I'm not saying HST>FT nor FT>HST
been using HST long time ago
and I love FT right now - many reasons - and I'm 46 and have a best physique in my life right now

just asking
should we use something similar to SD in our FT training?
but if I am right I have (with your help Scott) answered my own question

Well, I think that a layoff, call it strategic b/c it's planned, could and should have a place as a possibilty if someone is just not progressing and regular deloading (I'm speaking generically here, not jsut about FT) isn't sufficient.

I think the crux of the issue is whether, if one is making progress and by all estimates would CONTINUE to do so, whether it would be at that point better to:
• Strategically decondition in some way?...
• Continue making progress?...

(Sorry if I'm creating a strawman argument above... Not my intention.)

I really can't say for sure, as I've never intentionally derailed what I thought was a progressing, fruitful period of training by deloading long enough to intentionally create a deconditioning effect.

I do think - for some folks who perhaps aren't very good at autoregulating - that setting a deconditioning effect in their sites may mean they deload longer and in a way that means they actually do get refreshed enough to start making forward progress again.

A question that Bryan may have answered (I didn't hear it on the podcast) is HOW much deconditioning are we shooting for and how can we measure / quantify this?... Should one have actually lost high load strenght or perhaps just some degree of strength -endurance (able to maintina workload over a workout) or is this really a matter of just some diminution of the repeated bout effect, but without an actual substantial amount of deconditioning from a PERFORMANCE perspective.

In other words, need one actually become "deconditioned" to optimize the resensitization and I would suspect that that's not the case...

... and this is another topic... But one can create this same novelty of stimulus effect (as you intimated kind of above) by simply rotating exercises, using a DUP (as HST does) or even just employing a different trainng sytem altogether. This is why I suggest (and have seen folks have good results with) rotating among 2-3 programs, such as FT, MD and DC. This is would take us off topic, but fits here in that if finding a trainign stimulus one is responsive (sensitive to) is important (I think it is!), then this can be had by variety without a "deconditioning" per se.

3.
Scott you are absolutely right about dedication

as in every aspect of life

you receive what you have given

but as Pumped340 suggested by
'world outside NATURAL limits' I meant drugs
but this drives us to another topic - maybe we should start new post ?

Yeah, I got you now (addressed above).

I'd rather not have a huge drug talk thread, but if we're keeping it scientific and theoretical, and doesn't degrade into which drugs work best, which I think we can do, we can start another thread.

Still, if you have a though connected to this thread, that involves AAS and novelty of stimulus, we'll jsut keep it here.

-S

[zmt]

I don't wquite fillow the 21weeks vs. 14 days comparison you make...

my bad ...
meant 21 DAYS (3 exercise in Loading Days one per week) VS 14 days of SD
this way we have (again I assume) some kind of re-sensitization to the stimulus (to given exercise)

Well, I think that a layoff, call it strategic b/c it's planned, could and should have a place as a possibilty if someone is just not progressing and regular deloading (I'm speaking generically here, not jsut about FT) isn't sufficient.

I think the crux of the issue is whether, if one is making progress and by all estimates would CONTINUE to do so, whether it would be at that point better to:
• Strategically decondition in some way?...
• Continue making progress?...

(Sorry if I'm creating a strawman argument above... Not my intention.)

I really can't say for sure, as I've never intentionally derailed what I thought was a progressing, fruitful period of training by deloading long enough to intentionally create a deconditioning effect.

clear

A question that Bryan may have answered (I didn't hear it on the podcast) is HOW much deconditioning are we shooting for and how can we measure / quantify this?...

never heard (I think I know Bryan's works quite well over the years) of measuring state of deconditioning in real life in HST
but SD calls for 12-14 days as optimal (some re-sensitization but not too much to loose too much strength)

Should one have actually lost high load strenght or perhaps just some degree of strength -endurance (able to maintina workload over a workout) or is this really a matter of just some diminution of the repeated bout effect, but without an actual substantial amount of deconditioning from a PERFORMANCE perspective.

In other words, need one actually become "deconditioned" to optimize the resensitization and I would suspect that that's not the case...

as far as I remember - been a while - SD calls not for a full deconditioning - just for some re-sensitization to lighter loads and been able to use them effectively in new HST cycle

... and this is another topic... But one can create this same novelty of stimulus effect (as you intimated kind of above) by simply rotating exercises, using a DUP (as HST does) or even just employing a different trainng sytem altogether. This is why I suggest (and have seen folks have good results with) rotating among 2-3 programs, such as FT, MD and DC. This is would take us off topic, but fits here in that if finding a trainign stimulus one is responsive (sensitive to) is important (I think it is!), then this can be had by variety without a "deconditioning" per se.

hence we are not missing anything - FT is so complete system !

thank you again Scott for deep analysis !