Evidence supporting HST training

[DiBatista]

This is not my post but i thought it was realy good and i wanted some input on it.


For those of you who are still in mind that conventional training splits (i.e working each bodypart once per week to failure; waiting for it to heal; repeat) there is evidence which shows this "old shcool' train of thought may very well not create the most optimal conditions for hypertrophy (muscle growth).

That is where I feel HST (Hypertrophy Specific Training) come in. Here are links to articles negating the old school mentality on muscle repair...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4116&query_hl=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9227&query_hl=2

Secondly, there is evidence supporting that performing a single set of exercise has the same effect as performing mutliple sets. Here I will quote Brian Haycock...

"In a study performed at Montclair State University5 researchers investigated the effect of a single set vs. a multiple set routine on increasing upper body strength. They had the subjects perform either one set or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks. This kind of study has been done before but this one is particularly valuable because it involved previously "trained" subjects. This is significant because untrained subjects will usually respond positively to virtually any training routine. Just because a training strategy works for beginners doesn't mean it will work for experienced lifters. These researchers found that doing a single set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench press. The take home message is that you needn't do more than a single work set to achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets. This makes incorporating a whole body workout into your schedule much more feasible."

The study referenced above is; Curto MA., Fisher MM. The effect of single vs. Multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S114, 1999

Lastly,

In reference to working a single bodypart 3 x per week versus once possibly equalling greater gains, I can sopeka from experience that I feel much more anabolic 24/7. I feel as though I am maknig gains much quicker on HST that before on conventional methods (though HST is hardcore in the gym I will admit though I thrive on it). Again I will quote Bryan...

"In a study performed at the University of Alabama4, two groups of subjects performed the same periodized resistance training routine either once per week or three times per week. The results showed that muscle mass increases were greater in the three workout per week group, compared to the one workout per week group. In addition, the strength increases in this group were on average 40% greater! So what does this mean to you? It means the fear of overtraining, which sometimes verges on paranoia, may be preventing you from getting the most gains you can in the gym."

The article referenced here is... McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999

[Jean-Paul]

Thanks for the post. Why the "mad" face? Does this info make you angry?

[Simon.]

The fact that the subjects were ALREADY trained is exactly what makes the conclusions complete bullshit. It can safely be assumed that most, if not all the people who DO train have been doing it in a method similar to the one tested - 3 or more sets for more or less 10 reps.
Well OF COURSE HST PRODUCED MORE RESULTS BECAUSE THE TRAINEES CHANGED THEIR ROUTINE VOLUME AND INTENSITY SO -=OBVIOUSLY=- GAINS WILL SKYROCKET AT FIRST. It's just like saying someone's been doing exclusively flat bench for their chest work for 10 years, suddenly he tried adding in some flys and VIOLA! What do you know... He started making immediate gains. Hmm, THIS MUST MEAN FLYS ARE THE ULTIMATE CHEST EXERCISE. not.
There's plenty of evidence that HST is completely useless compared to other training techniques.

[Adam H.]

Originally posted by Simon.:
There's plenty of evidence that HST is completely useless compared to other training techniques.

I am completely in the dark here. What is the evidence that it is useless? I've always heard positive antecdotal evidence that HST can be quite effective if implemented properly.

Adam

[Jean-Paul]

It is not useless, its just another method for working out. Not all that original, but really not much is anymore.

The study may not have been conducted properly, but that doesn't render HST worthless. I like their concept far better than the tired old Weider principle of hammering a bodypart from every angle for an hour then resting it for a week.

[eastcoastsurfer]

It is interesting that they used people who had already trained for awhile. The general consensus is that you need to switch up training methods every few months so that your body doesn't adapt to what you are doing.

With that in mind, what if your body meta-adapts after training for awhile? Basically, your body adapts to recognizing stress (heavy weight) more quickly and can grow and get stronger with less stimulus (less sets)? So after you become an experience lifter it could actually take less lifting to gain similar gains as when you started.

[Bubba Booey]

I have been doing 3xper week, total body work for a couple of yrs now. Hate to admit it, but I even tried HIT last summer, and did see good strength gains (but no so much muscle mass).

I am much more of a Waterbury fan, and still feel that to obtain quality (meaning the gains will stand the test of time) gains in muscle mass (not necessarily strength), your muscles require more stimulus than one or two sets - particularly when for at least 4 of the six workouts every two weeks, you are training at a low % of your 1RM.