Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Article by Bryan Haycock on his lattest newsletter.

  1. #1
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0

    Article by Bryan Haycock on his lattest newsletter.

    I think this makes a good read and has the potential to start a very interesting debate, especially the part were he refutes some tradicional bodybuilding beliefs.Here it goes:


    "Is HST Actually Different From Other Programs?

    This is a very good question and one that deserves to be answered, without simply zealously defending the premise that is being questioned. This makes for a very bad circular argument that can be VERY frustrating for people with skeptical, though honest, questions.

    First, let's start with what isn't different about HST compared with previous training programs. The length of this list is what has raised this question in the first place, and justifiably so. Let's begin with the "concepts" and then follow with the "methods".

    Pre-existing Scientific Concepts of Weight Training Found in HST

    • Stimulus Leads to Adaptation (cause and effect
    • Specific Adaptation to Implied Demands (SAID) or simply "Specificity"
    • Progressive Resistance
    • Some relationship between Time and Tension
    • Diminishing Returns

    Pre-existing Methods of Weight Training Found in HST

    • Traditional Weight Lifting Movements both compound and isolation (squat, bench, curls, etc)
    • Training the whole body 3 times per week
    • Altering weight loads used over time
    • Altering the number of repetitions used over time
    • Doing eccentric reps (negatives)

    There has not ever been a weight training program that did not incorporate or mention at least most of these Concepts, and at least some of these Methods. Entire books (big books) have been written to explore these concepts and teach these methods. Whenever research was required, like for a textbook, you would find "strength and conditioning" research sited to support the validity of the concepts and virtues of each particular training method. The studies used "strength" and other "performance indicators" as a measure of whether the concept and/or method were valid.

    This has been perfectly sufficient for nearly everybody including trainers, teachers, professors, coaches and athletes, who have ever lifted a weight. For those who this wasn't sufficient, they simply explored other methods for steadily increasing body mass, I'm referring specifically to hormones.

    The exploration of the hypertrophic effects of hormones began in the 50s and has continued unabated every since. Today, a competitive bodybuilder considers himself conservative if he only uses 1 gram of Testosterone per week. Lest I digress, we are not including the effects of androgens and other drugs in this discussion. That is a different issue with concepts and methods specific to the pharmacology and endocrinology of hormones and muscle tissue.

    Now let's consider the concepts and/or principles or beliefs of traditional weight training that HST refutes. These are the concepts that the new research refutes most specifically.

    Pre-existing Concepts that HST Refutes:

    • A muscle must be fully recovered before you should train it again.
    • You should not train a muscle that is sore (DOMS, not injury).
    • You must never train a muscle on consecutive days. (i.e. train the same muscle everyday)
    • The concept of "Overtraining" in general as it applies to bodybuilding.
    • You must train with maximum "intensity" to elicit significant muscle growth.
    • You should not use eccentric training on a "frequent" basis.
    • You must change your exercise selection regularly in order to "confuse the muscle" into continued growth.
    • You must hit a muscle at every angle in order to adequately train it.
    • Muscle Fatigue is the primary indicator of having triggered the growth signal
    • You must effectively isolate a muscle in order to train it effectively.
    • You can train a muscle in such as way as to change its natural shape.
    Pre-existing Methods and/or practices that HST Refutes:

    • Training a muscle no more than once or twice per week.
    • Training less frequently as your "intensity" increases.
    • Adding weight only when you can complete a certain number of additional reps at that weight. (This is a fundamental difference!)
    • Training to failure every set and/or workout (If you don't how would you know if you can perform additional reps at that weight yet?)
    • Forced reps
    • Performing several "obligatory" exercises per body part per workout
    • Performing multiple exhaustive sets per exercise
    • Changing exercises to "confuse" the muscle.
    The above erroneous concepts/beliefs and the methods/practices they engender are the cause of all the confusion and different training programs out their today. Most all of it stems from bodybuilding magazines fabricating these concepts and practices to address their ongoing need for new content each month and to conceal the use of drugs required to attain the level of mass flaunted by the sponsored models. By limiting your study of muscle growth to these magazines you will be ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. But that is an issue to be addressed elsewhere.

    Now, there is one traditional concept with its associated methods and practices that often make HST appear to be like previous programs. That is the concept of "periodization".

    We will only briefly discuss the topic of periodization, as only a brief treatise will be sufficient to show the differences between periodization and HST. For more detailed discussions of periodization you are advised to read "Super Training: Special Strength Training for Sporting Excellence" by Siff & Verkhoshansky, "Special Strength Training" by Verkhoshansky, "Fundamentals of Sport Training" by Matveyev and "Science and Practice of Strength Training" by Zatsiorski.

    Traditional concepts of periodization are based on methods used to manipulate intensity (i.e. work and/or load), volume and frequency in order to manage CNS fatigue and adaptability in athletes. To date, the art of periodization has entered the mathematical age and significant progress is being made in modeling systems designed to predict CNS fatigue and changes in the individual's fitness level. (1,2,3). Once an individual familiarizes him or herself with the true concept of periodization, they will immediately see the difference between Strategic Deconditioning and Periodization for strength training.

    For example, here are a few differences between SD and Periodization:

    • SD is used to decrease fitness level (A.K.A. conditioning).
    • Periodization is used to increase fitness level.

    • SD is used to increase the micro trauma associated with training.
    • Periodization is used to decrease the trauma associated with training.

    • SD is used to reduce work capacity.
    • Periodization is used to increase work capacity.

    • SD is applied irrespective of the need for "rest".
    • Periodization according to the need for rest.

    • SD is not based on "peaking" performance.
    • Periodization's sole purpose is to allow the athlete to peak on a specific date.

    So, when people ask, "What's different about HST?", tell them plenty! And its those differences that make HST superior to any other bodybuilding training method existing today.



    Additional Reading:

    1: Pichot V, Busso T, Roche F, Garet M, Costes F, Duverney D, Lacour JR, Barthelemy JC. Autonomic adaptations to intensive and overload training periods: a laboratory study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Oct;34(10):1660-6.

    2: Busso T, Benoit H, Bonnefoy R, Feasson L, Lacour JR. Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Feb;92(2):572-80.

    3: Busso T, Denis C, Bonnefoy R, Geyssant A, Lacour JR. Modeling of adaptations to physical training by using a recursive least squares algorithm. J Appl Physiol. 1997 May;82(5):1685-93.

    "

  2. #2
    fat and small Blood&Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    On the Night Train
    Posts
    3,336
    Great article.

    We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero, condemned by the gods to shoulder his rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever. The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the mysterious Other. He even dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming always above him like a huge gray moon. He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to the bottom, and go home.

    Parables and Portraits, Stephen Mitchell

  3. #3
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0
    Very good.

  4. #4
    Cardio bunny Alex.V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Duke
    Posts
    41
    And its those differences that make HST superior to any other bodybuilding training method existing today.
    I laughed out loud at this. The proof is where?
    "Except Belial. He knows everything. This isn't a sarcastic attack, either. He really knows everything." -----Organichu
    "Alex is all knowing and perfect"-----Jane (loosely paraphrased)
    -515/745/700 bench/deadlift/squat
    Current mile time: 4:23
    Marathons: 3
    Century races: 3
    Ironmans: 1
    Ultramarathons: 1
    Current supps: http://www.atlargenutrition.com/prod...covery/results

  5. #5
    Jack's Utter Surprise Saturday Fever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chico
    Posts
    3,691
    In the claim!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Titan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    465
    Ya! Take that!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Titan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    465
    anyone else have thoughts on this?

  8. #8
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0
    Originally posted by Belial


    I laughed out loud at this. The proof is where?
    I usually refrain from making these kind of statements, but I've never seen ANY bodybuilding program resulting in such consistent gains in such a variety of lifters as HST does.

    But if you're gonna refute HST then at least let's try to rip the science which it's based on apart.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Manveet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    White Rock, BC
    Posts
    5,774
    I laughed out loud at this. The proof is where?
    lol that was funny.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gavan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    586
    interessant but need developpment !

    for example : Why not work a muscle from different angles ? HST routine include 2 exercises for chest : Incline press and Dips.

    isn't it 2 angles ?

    Will REALY dips accentuate work on lower chest and incline press on upper chest ? (or the contrary...)

    ---

    HST refute Performing multiple exhaustive sets per exercise

    WHY ?
    Gain Muscles ? Overload !
    Lose Fat ? Input < Output
    Genetic determines your potential
    Chins : 10x106kg Dips 10x109kg

  11. #11
    fat and small Blood&Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    On the Night Train
    Posts
    3,336
    Originally posted by Belial


    I laughed out loud at this. The proof is where?
    I don't think Haycock meant it quite the way it sounds...

    He's merely saying that since HST is based on known physiological processes and a comprehenseive review of the literature, and due to the fact that it was designed solely for hypertrophy, it is superior to other 'bodybuilding' methods (i.e. where hypertrophy is the sole metric of of success). Haycock has openly admitted that if strength is one's goal, he would be better off using something along the lines of Westside.

    There are far too many variables involved in exercise for a true proof (in the mathematical sense, using the rules of induction) as to the superiority of any one approach over another. So, the only thing we have is empirical evidence. I do think that if you look at people who have properly applied the tenants of HST (i.e. not doing retarded sh*t like saying 'I'm gonna do HST, but I'm gonna go to failure at every workout, etc) you're going to find that it is the most nearly universally successfull approach if one's goal is hypertrophy. (That's not saying other methods don't work very well, though.)

    That's just my take, though.

    We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero, condemned by the gods to shoulder his rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever. The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the mysterious Other. He even dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming always above him like a huge gray moon. He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to the bottom, and go home.

    Parables and Portraits, Stephen Mitchell

  12. #12
    As I Am Paul Stagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    8,668
    Originally posted by Blood&amp;Iron

    I don't think Haycock meant it quite the way it sounds...

    He's merely saying that since HST is based on known physiological processes and a comprehenseive review of the literature, and due to the fact that it was designed solely for hypertrophy, it is superior to other 'bodybuilding' methods (i.e. where hypertrophy is the sole metric of of success). Haycock has openly admitted that if strength is one's goal, he would be better off using something along the lines of Westside.

    There are far too many variables involved in exercise for a true proof (in the mathematical sense, using the rules of induction) as to the superiority of any one approach over another. So, the only thing we have is empirical evidence. I do think that if you look at people who have properly applied the tenants of HST (i.e. not doing retarded sh*t like saying 'I'm gonna do HST, but I'm gonna go to failure at every workout, etc) you're going to find that it is the most nearly universally successfull approach if one's goal is hypertrophy. (That's not saying other methods don't work very well, though.)

    That's just my take, though.
    It works for the same reason what McCallum wrote 35 years ago (wich is remarkably similar to HST, by the way) works.

    Its progressive, and you have to work hard. it is also all in the application - if you don't really work hard, for example, you'll fail.

    I like the structure, and I think that has a lot to do with how people succeed - enough structure to keep you in line, and enough leeway to let you kinda do your own thing within the general confines of the routine.
    Squats work better than supplements.
    "You know, if I thought like that, I'd never put more than one plate on the bar for anything, I'd never use bands or chains, I'd never squat to parallel or below, and I'd never let out the slightest grunt when I lift. At some point in your lifting career (assuming you're planning on getting reasonably strong and big), you're going to have to accept that most people think you are some kind of freak." -Sensei
    "You're wrong, and I have a completely irrelevant pubmed abstract that may or may not say so." - Belial
    I has a blog.
    I has a facebook.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •