PDA

View Full Version : HST weight


fj
September 23rd 04, 01:37 AM
I am starting my first HST routine. One problem I have is it's very hard to
set progressive weight. For example, my max 15 rep for shoulder press is 35
lb dumbbell. The weight I should use in two weeks are 10,15,20,25,30,35.
Isn't 10lb too light? we don't have adjustable dumbbell so 22.5lb is not an
option.

The same case with bicep curl.

Any suggestion

fj

gman99
September 23rd 04, 01:54 AM
"fj" > wrote:
> I am starting my first HST routine. One problem I have is it's very hard
> to set progressive weight. For example, my max 15 rep for shoulder press
> is 35 lb dumbbell. The weight I should use in two weeks are 10,15,20,25,
> 30,35. Isn't 10lb too light? we don't have adjustable dumbbell so 22.5lb
> is not an option.
>
> The same case with bicep curl.
>
> Any suggestion
>
> fj

That was my thought...if you can do 2.5 pound increments....I couldn't do
that so I did a different exercise (hammer strength shoulder press) where I
could more easily increment the weight at smaller intervals. Also, although
some will have a **** fit...try doing only three progressions instead of
six.

Peter Webb
September 23rd 04, 04:51 AM
"fj" > wrote in message
...
> I am starting my first HST routine. One problem I have is it's very hard
to
> set progressive weight. For example, my max 15 rep for shoulder press is
35
> lb dumbbell. The weight I should use in two weeks are 10,15,20,25,30,35.
> Isn't 10lb too light? we don't have adjustable dumbbell so 22.5lb is not
an
> option.
>
> The same case with bicep curl.
>
> Any suggestion
>
> fj
>
>

25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
for your body to notice or care.

J.S. Jackson
September 23rd 04, 08:25 AM
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:37:25 -0700, fj wrote:

> I am starting my first HST routine. One problem I have is it's very hard to
> set progressive weight. For example, my max 15 rep for shoulder press is 35
> lb dumbbell. The weight I should use in two weeks are 10,15,20,25,30,35.
> Isn't 10lb too light? we don't have adjustable dumbbell so 22.5lb is not an
> option.
>
> The same case with bicep curl.
>
> Any suggestion

Yes 10 would be too low, I'd think. Instead of 5 lb increments, use 5% or
10% increments, then round that number to the nearest 5 lbs. 5% increments
would take you from 75%-100% of your RM over the course of the 6 workouts.
10% would (obviously) take you from 50%-100%. 50% feels pretty light,
nearly effortless...

I set up an Excel spreadsheet which does all the math. Just pop in the RM
for each rep range, and it calculates all the percentages and rounds the
result for each workout to the nearest 5 lbs.

Lyle McDonald
September 23rd 04, 04:44 PM
Peter Webb wrote:

> "fj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am starting my first HST routine. One problem I have is it's very hard
>
> to
>
>>set progressive weight. For example, my max 15 rep for shoulder press is
>
> 35
>
>>lb dumbbell. The weight I should use in two weeks are 10,15,20,25,30,35.
>>Isn't 10lb too light? we don't have adjustable dumbbell so 22.5lb is not
>
> an
>
>>option.
>>
>>The same case with bicep curl.
>>
>>Any suggestion
>>
>>fj
>>
>>
>
>
> 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
> 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
> for your body to notice or care.

Why not?

Lyle

Jay
September 23rd 04, 05:13 PM
> >
> > 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
> > 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
> > for your body to notice or care.
>
> Why not?
>
> Lyle
I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a weight
change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,

Adam Fahy
September 23rd 04, 06:00 PM
Jay wrote:

> I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a weight
> change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
> 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,

I can't see how it can make any earthly difference. The real issue is
what rate of progression you can handle over time. Sure, if you're able
to progress with high loads vs microloads it means by definition you are
more productive, but if you can only sustain progression in this manner
for a handful of weeks, vs months or years for a more moderate approach,
the choice should be obvious.


-Adam

Lyle McDonald
September 23rd 04, 06:57 PM
Jay wrote:

>>>25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
>>>22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
>>>for your body to notice or care.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>Lyle
>
> I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a weight
> change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
> 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,

Why not?

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
September 23rd 04, 06:58 PM
Adam Fahy wrote:

> Jay wrote:
>
>> I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
>> weight
>> change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
>> 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>
>
> I can't see how it can make any earthly difference. The real issue is
> what rate of progression you can handle over time. Sure, if you're able
> to progress with high loads vs microloads it means by definition you are
> more productive, but if you can only sustain progression in this manner
> for a handful of weeks, vs months or years for a more moderate approach,
> the choice should be obvious.

Brings up a question: say someone progressed from a 100 lb bench to a
300 lb bench using microloads. Since the increase would always be tiny,
does that mean that they would be no bigger by the time they could bench
300?

Lyle

aj
September 23rd 04, 08:09 PM
On 2004-09-23, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> Adam Fahy wrote:
>
>> Jay wrote:
>>
>>> I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
>>> weight
>>> change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
>>> 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>>
>>
>> I can't see how it can make any earthly difference. The real issue is
>> what rate of progression you can handle over time. Sure, if you're able
>> to progress with high loads vs microloads it means by definition you are
>> more productive, but if you can only sustain progression in this manner
>> for a handful of weeks, vs months or years for a more moderate approach,
>> the choice should be obvious.
>
> Brings up a question: say someone progressed from a 100 lb bench to a
> 300 lb bench using microloads. Since the increase would always be tiny,
> does that mean that they would be no bigger by the time they could bench
> 300?
>
> Lyle

Jay would be logically asserting that 'someone' could not progress to a
300lb bench using microprogression.

Never mind that I'm about 1 month away from doing just that.

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Lyle McDonald
September 23rd 04, 08:10 PM
aj wrote:

> On 2004-09-23, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>>Adam Fahy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
>>>>weight
>>>>change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
>>>>25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>>>
>>>
>>>I can't see how it can make any earthly difference. The real issue is
>>>what rate of progression you can handle over time. Sure, if you're able
>>>to progress with high loads vs microloads it means by definition you are
>>>more productive, but if you can only sustain progression in this manner
>>>for a handful of weeks, vs months or years for a more moderate approach,
>>>the choice should be obvious.
>>
>>Brings up a question: say someone progressed from a 100 lb bench to a
>>300 lb bench using microloads. Since the increase would always be tiny,
>>does that mean that they would be no bigger by the time they could bench
>>300?
>>
>>Lyle
>
>
> Jay would be logically asserting that 'someone' could not progress to a
> 300lb bench using microprogression.


I don't see that that follows as hypertrophy is only one mechanism of
strength gain.

Lyle

bc
September 23rd 04, 09:15 PM
"fj" > wrote in message >...
> I am starting my first HST routine. One problem I have is it's very hard to
> set progressive weight. For example, my max 15 rep for shoulder press is 35
> lb dumbbell. The weight I should use in two weeks are 10,15,20,25,30,35.
> Isn't 10lb too light? we don't have adjustable dumbbell so 22.5lb is not an
> option.
>
> The same case with bicep curl.
>
> Any suggestion
>
> fj

You can get those little doughnut-shaped magnets to do the small
increments. Just bring those with you when you go to the gym.

http://www.fitnessgiant.com/platemates.html

- bc

aj
September 23rd 04, 10:23 PM
On 2004-09-23, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> aj wrote:
>
>> On 2004-09-23, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>
>>>Adam Fahy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
>>>>>weight
>>>>>change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
>>>>>25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I can't see how it can make any earthly difference. The real issue is
>>>>what rate of progression you can handle over time. Sure, if you're able
>>>>to progress with high loads vs microloads it means by definition you are
>>>>more productive, but if you can only sustain progression in this manner
>>>>for a handful of weeks, vs months or years for a more moderate approach,
>>>>the choice should be obvious.
>>>
>>>Brings up a question: say someone progressed from a 100 lb bench to a
>>>300 lb bench using microloads. Since the increase would always be tiny,
>>>does that mean that they would be no bigger by the time they could bench
>>>300?
>>>
>>>Lyle
>>
>>
>> Jay would be logically asserting that 'someone' could not progress to a
>> 300lb bench using microprogression.
>
>
> I don't see that that follows as hypertrophy is only one mechanism of
> strength gain.
>
> Lyle

From 100 to 300?
I guess its possible.

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Peter Webb
September 24th 04, 01:33 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Jay wrote:
>
> >>>25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
> >>>22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
> >>>for your body to notice or care.
> >>
> >>Why not?
> >>
> >>Lyle
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
weight
> > change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
> > 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>
> Why not?
>
> Lyle
>

I am a big believer in HST, and I am just finishing my 5th or 6th cycle.

However, I don't believe that the HST program in its entirety has been
scientifically tested to show that all components are the optimum or
neccessary.
HST incorporates a number of concepts which appear well accepted -
progressive decrease in volume and increase in intensity, not training to
failure on every set, varying the weight and rep count, strategic
deconditioning (maybe), not exercising the same body part on two successive
days, etc.

This lack of rigourous testing - where one variable in HST is changed at a
time to see if it is indeed optimum/neccessary - means that any argument
must be based upon opinion rather than fact.

My own variation - **** (Superior Hypertrophy Intensive Training) throws in
another concept - on each microcycle (say the two weeks of 6's), I do 3 sets
per exercise for the first 2 workouts, 2 sets per exercise for the next 2,
and one set for the final workout (where I am at or near my rep max). ****
seems to be about as scientifically grounded as is HST itself.

So lets have a look at whether 10,15,20,25,30,35 would be better than 25,
25, 30, 30, 35, 35

If the guy can do 35, then 10 and 15 are not challenging the muscle at all,
and the week of 10, 15, 20 effectively has no training effect at all. This
is not what the concept of HST is about - the weight progression example
given on the HST web page is 175,180,185,190,195, and 200. If you can do
200, 175 is sub-maximal but still a workout - the increments are 2.5% per
visit, not almost 15% per visit.

If we assume that the HST optimum would be 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35,
then 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 would be exactly right on half the workouts, and
within 10% on the others. Maybe your body can tell the difference between
27.5 and 30 on the third workout, although I do not believe that I could
discriminate between these with my eyes closed when I was actually doing
them. OTOH, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 completely changes the program - it
starts at ridiculously low weights, which is not what HST is about. I
believe it is ludicrous to suggest that 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 is closer to
22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35 than is 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 in terms of its
impact on the body.

Indeed, my third generation ****IER program (Superior Hypertrophy Intensive
Training incorporating extra repeats) is based explicitly on this concept of
only three weight progressions per microcycle, where there are no dumbells
with exactly the weight I need. Some body parts I train using ****; others
are based upon ****IER; they both appear to work equally well.

Helgi Briem
September 24th 04, 10:16 AM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:13:09 GMT, "Jay" > wrote:

>> >
>> > 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
>> > 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
>> > for your body to notice or care.
>>
>> Why not?

>I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too
>gradual a weight change is not as productive for hypertrophy,
> meaning that the 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125.
> 20.5 21.75, etc,

I'd bet a million dollars that no one knows.

No experimental design possible with human subjects
could distinguish such tiny effects. No way, no how.
And I say that as a former professional statistical
analyst.

(Maybe if you could teach thousands of fruit flies
to weight train with microgram weights).

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Helgi Briem
September 24th 04, 10:18 AM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:33:04 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> wrote:

>My own variation - **** (Superior Hypertrophy Intensive Training) throws in
>another concept - on each microcycle (say the two weeks of 6's), I do 3 sets
>per exercise for the first 2 workouts, 2 sets per exercise for the next 2,
>and one set for the final workout (where I am at or near my rep max). ****
>seems to be about as scientifically grounded as is HST itself.

>Indeed, my third generation ****IER program (Superior Hypertrophy Intensive
>Training incorporating extra repeats) is based explicitly on this concept of
>only three weight progressions per microcycle, where there are no dumbells
>with exactly the weight I need. Some body parts I train using ****; others
>are based upon ****IER; they both appear to work equally well.

Thanks for sharing this ****. It will make all the difference in
my training.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

fj
September 24th 04, 05:50 PM
> Indeed, my third generation ****IER program (Superior Hypertrophy
Intensive
> Training incorporating extra repeats) is based explicitly on this concept
of
> only three weight progressions per microcycle, where there are no dumbells
> with exactly the weight I need. Some body parts I train using ****; others
> are based upon ****IER; they both appear to work equally well.

That's interesting. Can you be more specific on " extra repeats".

-fj

Lyle McDonald
September 24th 04, 06:49 PM
Peter Webb wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
>>>>>22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
>>>>>for your body to notice or care.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>>
>>>>Lyle
>>>
>>>I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
>
> weight
>
>>>change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
>>>25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>
>
> I am a big believer in HST, and I am just finishing my 5th or 6th cycle.
>
> However, I don't believe that the HST program in its entirety has been
> scientifically tested to show that all components are the optimum or
> neccessary.
> HST incorporates a number of concepts which appear well accepted -
> progressive decrease in volume and increase in intensity, not training to
> failure on every set, varying the weight and rep count, strategic
> deconditioning (maybe), not exercising the same body part on two successive
> days, etc.
>
> This lack of rigourous testing - where one variable in HST is changed at a
> time to see if it is indeed optimum/neccessary - means that any argument
> must be based upon opinion rather than fact.
>
> My own variation - **** (Superior Hypertrophy Intensive Training) throws in
> another concept - on each microcycle (say the two weeks of 6's), I do 3 sets
> per exercise for the first 2 workouts, 2 sets per exercise for the next 2,
> and one set for the final workout (where I am at or near my rep max). ****
> seems to be about as scientifically grounded as is HST itself.
>
> So lets have a look at whether 10,15,20,25,30,35 would be better than 25,
> 25, 30, 30, 35, 35
>
> If the guy can do 35, then 10 and 15 are not challenging the muscle at all,
> and the week of 10, 15, 20 effectively has no training effect at all. This
> is not what the concept of HST is about - the weight progression example
> given on the HST web page is 175,180,185,190,195, and 200. If you can do
> 200, 175 is sub-maximal but still a workout - the increments are 2.5% per
> visit, not almost 15% per visit.
>
> If we assume that the HST optimum would be 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35,
> then 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 would be exactly right on half the workouts, and
> within 10% on the others. Maybe your body can tell the difference between
> 27.5 and 30 on the third workout, although I do not believe that I could
> discriminate between these with my eyes closed when I was actually doing
> them. OTOH, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 completely changes the program - it
> starts at ridiculously low weights, which is not what HST is about. I
> believe it is ludicrous to suggest that 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 is closer to
> 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35 than is 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 in terms of its
> impact on the body.
>
> Indeed, my third generation ****IER program (Superior Hypertrophy Intensive
> Training incorporating extra repeats) is based explicitly on this concept of
> only three weight progressions per microcycle, where there are no dumbells
> with exactly the weight I need. Some body parts I train using ****; others
> are based upon ****IER; they both appear to work equally well.

So this one time in high school, I asked my physics prof what would
happen if you were driving at the speed of light and turned your car
lights on. He gave me a 10 minute response, akin to what you wrote
above that managed to totally avoid the question I'd asked him.

Lyle

>
>

aj
September 24th 04, 08:30 PM
On 2004-09-24, Peter Webb > wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay wrote:
>>
>> >>>25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
>> >>>22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35
>> >>>for your body to notice or care.
>> >>
>> >>Why not?
>> >>
>> >>Lyle
>> >
>> > I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too gradual a
> weight
>> > change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning that the
>> > 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125. 20.5 21.75, etc,
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Lyle
>>
>
<snip really long post explaining something dead simple>

Yeah, whatever. I drop sets from later workouts if I'm feeling
lazy as well. And yeah, 2.3-2.5% is about the increments my
spreadsheet comes up with too. So?

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

freddy
September 24th 04, 09:22 PM
>
> So this one time in high school, I asked my physics prof what would
> happen if you were driving at the speed of light and turned your car
> lights on. He gave me a 10 minute response, akin to what you wrote
> above that managed to totally avoid the question I'd asked him.

At least it didn't involve band camp and a flute.

Adam Fahy
September 24th 04, 10:17 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Adam Fahy wrote:

>> I can't see how it can make any earthly difference. The real issue is
>> what rate of progression you can handle over time. Sure, if you're
>> able to progress with high loads vs microloads it means by definition
>> you are more productive, but if you can only sustain progression in
>> this manner for a handful of weeks, vs months or years for a more
>> moderate approach, the choice should be obvious.
>
> Brings up a question: say someone progressed from a 100 lb bench to a
> 300 lb bench using microloads. Since the increase would always be tiny,
> does that mean that they would be no bigger by the time they could bench
> 300?

Yes; this would sufficiently confuse the muscle's "brain" into thinking
it wasn't progressing at all, and therefore wouldn't need to start growing.


-Adam

Lenny Lennerson
September 25th 04, 02:57 AM
> So this one time in high school, I asked my physics prof what would
> happen if you were driving at the speed of light and turned your car
> lights on. He gave me a 10 minute response, akin to what you wrote
> above that managed to totally avoid the question I'd asked him.

- So what was/is the answer?

Kevin J
September 25th 04, 04:17 AM
On 24 Sep 2004 18:57:44 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
wrote:

>> So this one time in high school, I asked my physics prof what would
>> happen if you were driving at the speed of light and turned your car
>> lights on. He gave me a 10 minute response, akin to what you wrote
>> above that managed to totally avoid the question I'd asked him.
>
>- So what was/is the answer?

I wanna know how the hell Lyle got his car to go the spped of light.
That's going to be one mass-ive car . . .

--
kj

Hugh Beyer
September 25th 04, 04:41 PM
Helgi Briem > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:13:09 GMT, "Jay" > wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> > 25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
>>> > 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35 for your body to notice or care.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>
>>I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too
>>gradual a weight change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning
>>that the 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125.
>> 20.5 21.75, etc,
>
> I'd bet a million dollars that no one knows.
>
> No experimental design possible with human subjects
> could distinguish such tiny effects. No way, no how.
> And I say that as a former professional statistical
> analyst.

I think you're right. But the HST site does (somewhere) say that you don't
want the weight increments to be to gradual, so 25.25.30.30.35.35 would be
better than 20. 20.25. 20.5 20.75.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Lyle McDonald
September 25th 04, 05:23 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> Helgi Briem > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:13:09 GMT, "Jay" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>25, 25, 30, 30, 35, 35 isn't different enough from
>>>>>22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35 for your body to notice or care.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>
>>>I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that too
>>>gradual a weight change is not as productive for hypertrophy, meaning
>>>that the 25.25.30.30.35.35 is better than 20. 20.125.
>>>20.5 21.75, etc,
>>
>>I'd bet a million dollars that no one knows.
>>
>>No experimental design possible with human subjects
>>could distinguish such tiny effects. No way, no how.
>>And I say that as a former professional statistical
>>analyst.
>
>
> I think you're right. But the HST site does (somewhere) say that you don't
> want the weight increments to be to gradual, so 25.25.30.30.35.35 would be
> better than 20. 20.25. 20.5 20.75.

Yes, fine. It says that.
But why is too gradual an increment detrimental?

I mean, other than the practical issue that adding .25 lbs/workout is
pretty much impossible (and w/in the variance of the weights in the
first place).
Lyle

Adam Fahy
September 25th 04, 07:16 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>
>> I think you're right. But the HST site does (somewhere) say that you
>> don't want the weight increments to be to gradual, so
>> 25.25.30.30.35.35 would be better than 20. 20.25. 20.5 20.75.
>
> Yes, fine. It says that.
> But why is too gradual an increment detrimental?
>
> I mean, other than the practical issue that adding .25 lbs/workout is
> pretty much impossible (and w/in the variance of the weights in the
> first place).

While I haven't reviewed HST articles in a while, I assume that if they
do this it is more for logistical issues than anything explicitly
physiological [grammar?] -- if you're cycling through, say, 65-85% of
your 1RM, progressing via tiny increments would mean long periods of
work far away from RM loads, and of course longer cycles overall.


-Adam

Lyle McDonald
September 25th 04, 08:54 PM
Adam Fahy wrote:
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think you're right. But the HST site does (somewhere) say that you
>>> don't want the weight increments to be to gradual, so
>>> 25.25.30.30.35.35 would be better than 20. 20.25. 20.5 20.75.
>>
>>
>> Yes, fine. It says that.
>> But why is too gradual an increment detrimental?
>>
>> I mean, other than the practical issue that adding .25 lbs/workout is
>> pretty much impossible (and w/in the variance of the weights in the
>> first place).
>
>
> While I haven't reviewed HST articles in a while, I assume that if they
> do this it is more for logistical issues than anything explicitly
> physiological [grammar?] -- if you're cycling through, say, 65-85% of
> your 1RM, progressing via tiny increments would mean long periods of
> work far away from RM loads, and of course longer cycles overall.

Lookin at Hugh's example again, it's sort of a meaningless comparison,
mainly from a practical pint of view.

A better comoparison would be
25 25 30 30 35 35 to
22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35

The jumps are bigger (but less frequent) in the first example, smaller
but each workout in the second. Is the second somehow inferior to the
first because the jumps are 'too small' and, if so, what is 'too small'?

Lyle

Lenny Lennerson
September 25th 04, 11:54 PM
Kevin J !> wrote in message >...
> On 24 Sep 2004 18:57:44 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> wrote:
>
> >> So this one time in high school, I asked my physics prof what would
> >> happen if you were driving at the speed of light and turned your car
> >> lights on. He gave me a 10 minute response, akin to what you wrote
> >> above that managed to totally avoid the question I'd asked him.
> >
> >- So what was/is the answer?
>
> I wanna know how the hell Lyle got his car to go the spped of light.
> That's going to be one mass-ive car . . .

- The fastest I got my car to go was 400 MPH at which point I
travelled back in time to 1984. It was pretty cool, I checked out a
Tonigh Show taping with Johnny carson, then went to see the original
Wrestlemania.

aj
September 26th 04, 07:47 AM
On 2004-09-25, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> Adam Fahy wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right. But the HST site does (somewhere) say that you
>>>> don't want the weight increments to be to gradual, so
>>>> 25.25.30.30.35.35 would be better than 20. 20.25. 20.5 20.75.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, fine. It says that.
>>> But why is too gradual an increment detrimental?
>>>
>>> I mean, other than the practical issue that adding .25 lbs/workout is
>>> pretty much impossible (and w/in the variance of the weights in the
>>> first place).
>>
>>
>> While I haven't reviewed HST articles in a while, I assume that if they
>> do this it is more for logistical issues than anything explicitly
>> physiological [grammar?] -- if you're cycling through, say, 65-85% of
>> your 1RM, progressing via tiny increments would mean long periods of
>> work far away from RM loads, and of course longer cycles overall.
>
> Lookin at Hugh's example again, it's sort of a meaningless comparison,
> mainly from a practical pint of view.
>
> A better comoparison would be
> 25 25 30 30 35 35 to
> 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35
>
> The jumps are bigger (but less frequent) in the first example, smaller
> but each workout in the second. Is the second somehow inferior to the
> first because the jumps are 'too small' and, if so, what is 'too small'?
>
> Lyle

Not a lot to do out there in Utah, eh?

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Lyle McDonald
September 26th 04, 07:17 PM
aj wrote:

> On 2004-09-25, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>>Adam Fahy wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think you're right. But the HST site does (somewhere) say that you
>>>>>don't want the weight increments to be to gradual, so
>>>>>25.25.30.30.35.35 would be better than 20. 20.25. 20.5 20.75.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, fine. It says that.
>>>>But why is too gradual an increment detrimental?
>>>>
>>>>I mean, other than the practical issue that adding .25 lbs/workout is
>>>>pretty much impossible (and w/in the variance of the weights in the
>>>>first place).
>>>
>>>
>>>While I haven't reviewed HST articles in a while, I assume that if they
>>>do this it is more for logistical issues than anything explicitly
>>>physiological [grammar?] -- if you're cycling through, say, 65-85% of
>>>your 1RM, progressing via tiny increments would mean long periods of
>>>work far away from RM loads, and of course longer cycles overall.
>>
>>Lookin at Hugh's example again, it's sort of a meaningless comparison,
>>mainly from a practical pint of view.
>>
>>A better comoparison would be
>>25 25 30 30 35 35 to
>>22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35
>>
>>The jumps are bigger (but less frequent) in the first example, smaller
>>but each workout in the second. Is the second somehow inferior to the
>>first because the jumps are 'too small' and, if so, what is 'too small'?
>>
>>Lyle
>
>
> Not a lot to do out there in Utah, eh?
>

You have no idea.
Or maybe you do.

Lyle