Tråd: HST vs DC/HIT/IART

IART

Brian Johnston feels you should train a muscle according to its "rate of fatigue". I feel a muscle’s rate of fatigue is irrelevant to “hypertrophy”. I argue that it is load, rather than fatigue, that is the prime stimulus for hypertrophy. Otherwise, wouldn’t marathon runners have hypertrophied muscle? What about distance swimmers?

Training programs based on fatigue are strength-endurance specific, not hypertrophy-specific. Never mind all the research showing load and microtrauma as the primary stimulus for hypertrophy. Not to mention the studies showing that fatigue actually reduces microtrauma.
Keep in mind that IART is heavily influenced by Arthur Jones. Arthur Jones isn’t “into” physiology, or science. He is into “common sense” and stress. I, on the other hand, am into science and the mechanisms of muscle fiber hypertrophy.

HIT or HD

To understand any comparison to HIT or HD use the following definitions:

Intensity = percentage of voluntary strength. In HIT terms it is equal to “perceived effort”.

Maximum capability - maximum voluntary strength

HST does not equal HIT. Except perhaps that they both have an H and a T in their acronyms.

- HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
- HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).

- HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
- HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.

- HIT's goal is fatigue.
- HST's goal is hypertrophy.

- HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
- HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.

- HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
- HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.

Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.

After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).

HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated.

DC/Doggcrapp method

DC's suggestions betray his strength training background. Methods based on fatigue/exhaustion (training to failure and rest/pause stuff) are really methods of increasing strength.

So in essence, he is shifting the emphasis towards strength gains. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that if that is your goal. All you have to do is induce more fatigue, and train less frequently.

Using a variety of exercise won't protect your tendons from injury. Using the same exercises doesn't increase your risk of injury either. Otherwise all Olympic lifters would be injured all the time. The variety thing is more an influence of BB mags. Although, if boredom is an issue, switch thigns up all your want, just make sure that the muscle is experiencing the same relative tension and demands across different exercises.

DC (I don't know him personally) is only one of many variations of HST that you will see in teh near future. Especially from more experienced lifters. Why? Because HST is true (so to speak). It isn't based on "tradition", a "style", "Russian secrets", or even an "opinion". HST is based on the way muscles actually grow in response to training. As a result, there will be a gradual yet natural shift of bodybuilding training styles towards HST.

Kilde: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/...t=ST;f=13;t=10

Kom i skade for å slette tråden der jeg ble spurt om jeg fulgte et dc program. Beklager dette.

Som jeg skriver i innlegget på IM, har jeg bestemt meg for å prøve en dc splitt. En artikkel som kommer i neste nummer av TN magasinet vil belyse dette enda mer. Det er såpass mange fellesnevnere mellom det vi står for og et dc program (nemlig en høy treningsfrekvens, fokus på belastningsprogresjon, perioder med hvile og/eller lavere intensitet etter 6-8 uker trening), at overgangen blir nesten umerkbar. Eneste forskjell er rest-pause trening og mer fokus på stretching - noe jeg forsåvidt har benyttet fra før av, men som nå blir en mer strategisk del av programmet. dc er mer styrke-orientert, og med min bakgrunn som styrkeløfter er det ingenting i veien for akkurat det. Jeg har mailet litt fram og tilbake med dc/Dante selv, siden jeg kjenner ham fra før av, og vi har pratet litt rundt de forskjellige emnene. Mange har jo dessverre satt meg i HST/RYP-båsen på bakgrunn av programmene og artiklene jeg har skrevet, til tross for at jeg har forsøkt å legge vekt på at HST egentlig bare er et sett med prinsipper som kan implementeres på mange måter. RYP er f.eks. en implementering. Jeg har en hel "verktøykasse" av metoder og teknikker jeg kan benytte når jeg skreddersyr treningsprogram og dietter til folk med vidt forskjellige målsetninger og bakgrunner (utholdende styrke, eksplosiv styrke, maks styrke, muskelmasse, teknikk, rehabilitering, osv osv), det håper jeg de fleste etter hvert begynner å få med seg. Det finnes ikke noe som heter "Det Perfekte Programmet"(tm) - det beste programmet er det som er tilpasset egne forutsetninger og målsetninger, og hvordan man reagerer på treninga (treningstoleranse og framgang).

Børge A. Fagerli

Ja Børge er jo titt og ofte innpå intensmuscle om dagen. så det virker som om han er fornøyd med DC.

Opprinnelig skrevet av MrMuscle

Ja Børge er jo titt og ofte innpå intensmuscle om dagen. så det virker som om han er fornøyd med DC.

Er ikke det litt suspekt siden han allerede har "alle" svarene??

Ingen tvil om at fyren er en smarting.
Han sitter på utrolig mye informasjon, selv om noen kanskje har problemer med måten han fremstiller dem.

Vil tro at HST skiller seg veldig fra DC-trening.

DC-trening er jo HIT med Rest Pause set og du kan jo lese hva Børge slev har skrevet om HIT.

Han sier jo selv at prinsippene ikke er så ulike. Fokus på høyere frekvens og progresjon.

Men da er jo ALLE treningsprinsippene like til mindre eller mer grad...

- HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
- HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).

This is incorrect. HIT is also used by bodybuilders.



- HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
- HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.

This is incorrect. HIT actually uses a more sensible system of progression, usually double but in some cases single. HST s progression is based on arbitrary cycles of rep ranges.



- HIT's goal is fatigue.
- HST's goal is hypertrophy.

This is ridiculous. Fatigue is not a goal of HIT. Hypertrophy can be a goal of HIT for some, strength for others. What the author of this article did is attempt to construct a "straw man" to knock down. It is not a fair comparison.



- HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
- HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.


HIT is better supported by the research than HST. I've spoken with a few people who are familiar with the studies HST is based on and read several myself, and much of the HST program is not really supported by the research. Haycock makes some huge assumptions in his conclusions.



- HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
- HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.

What a load of bullshit. HIT is based on sound principles, and has been shown by a large amount of research and experience to be a safe and effective way to train. HST comes from Bryan Haycocks interpretation of research, and is not directly supported by the research, unlike HIT.



Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.

It isn't necessary to train to failure to stimulate hypertrophy, what is necessary is simply progressive overload. Training to failure is more effective and provides a better, more objective measure of progress, however.



After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger.

This is also bullshit. You can get stronger without getting bigger, but you can not get bigger without getting stronger. If you are bigger, you have more contractile tissue, in which case, all else being equal, you will be stronger.



Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).

His "strategic deconditioning" is based on his misunderstanding of repeated bout effect. It's just an extended recovery period. Training frequency and resistance increases should not be based on an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all schedule, but rather on individual requirements.



HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated.

This statement is completely unfounded. "..growth is greatly accelerated"? According to what? Where are the numbers? If he's going to make claims like that he should have some numbers to back them up with.

Drew Baye

Opprinnelig skrevet av HIT

Men da er jo ALLE treningsprinsippene like til mindre eller mer grad...

Nja, de fleste gode treningsprogram har de prinsippene, det er jeg enig. Men man ser jo mange på treningssenteret som trener sin faste rutine; 3x8 med konstant vekt i hver øvelse, og selvfølgelig, hver muskelgruppe trenes en gang i uken.