Il répond à différentes questions et 'challenge' la méthode HST. A la fin, 1 post très intéressants de Ron Sowers qui fait un condensé de certains points que la science a démontré à propos de l'hypertrophie.
c'est LONG mais assez fun à lire, plein de petites anecdotes de Vince, avec Ray Mentzer notemment...
VINCE BASILE (Mr. Canada 1970) :
There seems to be one thing happening in labs and quite another occurring in gyms. The language, equipment, protocols and so on are quite different. Just what does "disruption" mean? What about cell necrosis in muscle fibers?
In the good old days when your grandfathers were lifting weights it was thought that the way to build muscle was to break them down. Seems that was close to the truth. It has taken 50 years and we still don't know exactly what is going on in muscle fibres. I find that astonishing. How is it possible for a state like California to elect a bodybuilder as governor yet not have a clue about steroids or large muscle growth? Instead of concentrating on drug use why aren't we interested in studying how to grow large muscles? It seems there are a lot of people out there that want such muscles. Many take risks to achieve bigger and stronger muscles. So, why isn't the budget to study muscular hypertrophy larger? Why, in 2004, do bodybuilders get arrested instead of being helped to build great physiques?
When matters become political good sense often goes out the window. I wonder if Arnold has the capacity to do anything significant for hypertrophy? I doubt he would touch this with a 10 foot pole!
Getting back to research and progress. Where is that definitive text on hypertrophy? We have been waiting a long time. Is it that the research is exciting and proliferating and thus any text would be premature? Surely knowledge at any one time is but an approximation of the complete truth. So there need not be any delay to get something out there to give us a basis to build upon.
DOMS is often dismissed but I wonder if it is related to necrosis of cells and that this phenomenon leads to hypertrophy, given ideal conditions. Namely, that adequate nutrition is available and no interference with growth occurs.
The one single question that eludes all theories of hypertrophy is why do humans grow so slowly? Oh, we have the repeated bout effect but that is a cop out. Birds do not experience any such thing if a weight is attached to their wings. Something is amiss with hypertrophy theory. Something huge and important.
The one observation that is obvious to anyone who frequents gyms is that almost no one is growing except imperceptibly. Why is this so? All those theories and methods and still very slow growth. Is this about as good as it gets? If it is we can predict that zillions of trainees will be tempted by drugs to achieve what simple training cannot bring.
The champions look the same year in and year out except for the degree of definition. This is ridiculous. Why can't those guys keep growing? No wonder oil is used inside muscles instead of growing real ones! Something stinks in bodybuilding and the labs are doing nothing much to contribute anything significant.
It amuses me that Bryan has posted his thoughts about HSTand how advanced guys have to try different things but of course use the same principles. That seems a contradiction to me. What exactly does one do once sufficient size results from HST and growth stops? Join the countless numbers of people who are frustrated by bodybuilding methods. There is no true method. That is the conclusion I have come to. There are no studies to differentiate among the methods. This is a subject that should be interesting but nothing is happening that I am aware of.
You know, if you open a gym almost everyone is a beginner. Within a year there will be some guys who have developed some muscle. These intermediate guys stand out in gyms and in a few years there will be several big guys in that gym. So, in the population of HST believers there will be many who will make gains in the first year or so. After that just a few will advance to the next level while the majority will fall by the wayside blaming all manner of things for their lack of progress. I rather doubt that HST will lead to advanced physiques. Not in the current formulation. I have seen nothing there that will lead to maximum hypertrophy. Bryan knows this and perhaps it doesn't interest or concern him. Naturally there is no research whatever using champion bodybuilders. There is no way anyone is going to remove even one fiber of their hard earned physiques!
et ca continue :
Thanks to those who made considered responses.
Bodybuilding seems to be mainly an anecdotal activity. Most of us do things and then build a theory based on that experience. Over time certain things are felt to be known and so basic principles emerge. In addition, magazines, books and conversations contribute to our information. Perhaps some of this is misinformation. However, we have many possible methods to consider and most of us mix principles from several different methods.
If is fair that those with long experience training as an advanced bodybuilders do have some sense about what hypertrophy is all about. They use themselves as guinea pigs and their gains usually indicate that some knowledge was obviously present. There are few, however, who could actually formulate a complete theory of hypertrophy. Many of these people apply their knowledge by doing various kinds of personal training and effecting results in others.
Let us do a thought experiment. Suppose an advanced bodybuilder came to you and wanted your advice about making a muscle larger. Suppose that muscle was already large but they wanted it larger. Let us take calves and upper arms as examples. Suppose this 5 foot 10 inch tall person has 19 inch cold flexed arms and calves. Calves measured with the leg straight. Now, does anyone here believe he could not get this person's muscles larger? If this bodybuilder fails to make any gains we could claim he was at his genetic limit. We are talking about a natural bodybuilder here and drugs or other aids are not allowed.
Now, in this thought experiment, would anyone have this advanced bodybuilder do HST and 2 sets for calves and arms three times a week? It would be a miracle if that man kept his size under such protocols. Also, there is no way doing 2 sets would either warm up the muscle or provide a stimulus for additional hypertrophy. I would predict the chance of success would be zero.
We get a hint that Bryan is abandoning his principles when he suggests that advanced guys have to do more to grow. Why should they have to do more? If the principles of hypertrophy are the same for everyone why does anyone have to alter this formula to grow? Part of the idea was to trick the muscles re the repeated bout effect. Changing reps in a consistent way was supposed to provide one source of variety that keeps the muscle growing. For the muscle is suppose to adapt to changes in resistance more than extreme loads themselves.
I can state as a physiological fact that large muscles need many, many sets to achieve a stimulus for growth. Bryan hints that perhaps 3 or 4 maximum sets each workout might be required for these advanced guys. I should think so. The idea that advanced guys can grow using very brief workouts is nonsense. They can do nothing of the sort. Anyone who attempts those brief protocols will sooner rather than later injure himself. The question beginners should be asking is if they should be using 3 or 4 sets and grow even faster.
It is clear that big muscles are strong. Even bigger muscles will be somewhat stronger but usually will be able to do many, many sets with a heavy weight. The one common training principle of all advanced guys is volume. They need a heck of a lot of hard training to build those large muscles. There are no examples of anyone having built a really big body who didn't use various volume methods.
Now, are there two HST methods? One for beginners and another for advanced bodybuilders? I would prefer one method clearly stating exactly what is required to cause hypertrophy. If we have this then we have the true theory of hypertrophy and not some hybrid system that changes when one gets bigger.
Let me go back to an anecdotal experience. In 1969 I trained with Doug Hepburn in Vancouver, BC. Doug was a former world heavyweight weightlifting champion and also was an all round strongman. He benched 550 pounds without the use of any drugs way back in the early 50's. In the late 60's he invented a home training device using the principle of oiled leather rubbing against polished stainless steel for resistance. The apparatus worked extremely well but could provide only concentric resistance. We now know that the eccentric part of the repetitions are very important for hypertrophy.
Anyway, I presented at Doug's home to train on his personal apparatus which was a heavy duty variation of his machine. I told him I just wanted to train arms and see how I went. Well, the very first workout just about killed me. His protocol? 20 sets of 5 rep maximum. He set the machine on a resistance I could just barely do 5 curls followed by 5 standing triceps extensions. I would alternate each exercise. What a workout. The agreement was to do what Doug suggested. I didn't discuss why he had me do that many sets. In two weeks with no additional eating I managed to add 1/2 inch to my arms. This is after blasting them for years with just about every method known to bodybuilding. I was very impressed. I was growing after each workout. I trained 2 times per week. So I gained 1/8 inch each workout. That is a fabulous gain. I was amazed that concentric only training could induce such rapid growth.
Then Doug had to lend his machine to some business and I was so disappointed I abandoned using his help and went my own way. In retrospect, I did a silly thing. Being educated at university I guess I overestimated my ability to suss out the true theory and dismissed Doug's advice as a bit crazy. Well, didn't John Grimek prove long ago when he did 100 sets of presses that after a certain number of sets additional sets are a waste of time? We believed that the ideal number of sets was related to the ability to achieve the maximum pump. For me this number was about 7 sets. 7 set training built me 18 1/2 inch pumped upper arms and calves. Not bad but not huge. I believed 19 inches was beyond my capacity. Was I right? I doubt it. Further growth is possible but I just didn't use the right method.
Now, is Doug Hepburn's 20 sets of 5 reps the way to go? Probably it is better than my brief routine. And HST looks to be totally inadequate to lead to maximum hypertrophy. To be fair to Doug I never did discuss hypertrophy theory with him and he died two years ago so I won't get the chance. Why did he advocate such an extreme protocol? Well, he knew something from experience. Big muscles are capable of doing a lot of sets with a heavy resistance. So, if you do a lot of sets with a heavy resistance you should grow, all else being ideal, of course. I have observed that those with bigger muscles than mine seem to do way more sets than I do. They seem to have more muscular endurance. They can do set after set and sustain the reps using a heavy weight. Those of us with smaller muscles cannot duplicate what they do. We keep up with them for a few sets then our reps fall and we are left behind. They continue to do set after set after set.
Where are the experiments that induce hypertrophy in advanced bodybuilders? There is nothing relating to such people. It is mostly animal studies that are extrapolated to gain information. The studies done on college students is not going to be applicable to advanced bodybuilders. Well, I haven't seen any that are. Gonyea's cat studies and those done on fowl seem to be about as good as it gets.
Now, what I am saying is either blatently false or there is merit in what I say. I await a refutation but doubt that any will emerge in this forum.
encore et encore :
To Daniel and others.
Ray Mentzer lived at my house for 6 months in the late 1980's. So I had plenty of time to challenge him about his training theories. I also talked to Mike for a short time and we had an interesting chat. From what I know of Ray he would have tried just about everything to make himself grow. He did advocate heavy weights, few sets and infrequent training. One direct and one indirect workout per muscle per week. That is why he split training biceps and triceps. Now, the problem is not with muscles but with the connective tissue. If the ligaments, tendons and sheaths tear then the method that led to those injuries will not endure and therefore they will not evolve. We would have to say, to be fair to all, that heavy duty is not the dominant method and I know of no champions doing it exclusively, including Dorian Yates. Why? Huge muscles require a lot of warming up. Especially those who have trained a long time. It is almost inevitable that injuries will occur and these must be trained around. For example, sore shoulders and elbows. There is no way you can do most exercises without a lot of warming up. I once did a lying triceps extension with elbows fixed on a low bench and worked up to about 120 pounds on it. This was after about 5 warmup sets. When I finished I felt pretty good because no one else in the gym could use that amount. Ray saw what I did and then without warming up did the same weight. He was rubbing his elbows afterwards and it was a foolish thing to do. Ray was like that, a superman of sorts who just loved lifting heavy weights. He did have to visit the chiropractor every few days to deal with a sore neck and back.
I recall that Lance Dreher a former Mr Universe gave a seminar at my gym long ago. He advocated starting at the heaviest weight and going down from there. I pointed out to him that was foolhardy and bound to damage joints. He agreed that warming up was advisable. If others did what he said they would have damaged themselves for sure.
I don't think the requirement for warming up has been established in labs. However, all experienced trainees appreciate warming up and who out there would do a maximum bench or squat without warming up? So, how on earth are two sets going to be adequate for a muscle. Of course Mike and others cheated and didn't count the warm up sets. That is silly. All sets should be listed in any method including HST. I need about 8 sets before attempting really heavy 5 rep sets in the close-grip lat pulldown to the top of the chest. If I don't warm up sufficiently my elbows get sore.
Now is this experience just another anecdotal conjecture?
encore une couche :
Some people have asked if I have actually tried HST. No. I doubt that I will ever do so. Why? Most of the exercises recommended are not exercises that I do or would advocate that anyone else do. I also need far more warming up for some muscles and training three times per week would involve a lot of time and energy. Most of my objections are thought experiment results. From my experience things either are accepted or rejected and HST has been rejected. There are too many unanswered questions and Bryan does not debate much over the serious issues. That is his business but I find that strange. Why not engage the critics and remove the criticism?
This business of frequency is extremely important. Just when should one train a growing muscle again? When I looked at some of the research about protein synthesis I didn't see that synthesis ended at 48 hours. Have scientists done any longitudinal studies over a longer period so that we can see the growth mechanism better? From my experience, training a muscle every 2nd day is going to lead to connective tissue damage if the trainee is an advanced bodybuilder. I guarantee that injuries will occur. Also, why skip a day during the week? Gyms are open 7 days a week. If a principle is important then it should be adhered to. I realise that HST tries to accommodate actual people living in communities and working, etc. Well, gyms are open on Sunday and those at home can train on that day. Why skip a day? Makes no sense to me.
From my long experience I would say that a muscle should be retrained from 3 to 6 days and perhaps every 4th or 5th day is ideal. This is for long-term gains that can be sustained. It is also possible that frequency can be altered to provide novelty in workouts. If one trains every 2nd day the body will adapt to that frequency which might not be a positive thing.
HST is very specific about protocols for beginners but there is nothing specific to assist advanced trainees except to do a bit more to avoid the repeated bout effect. Well, advanced trainees have been doing more for at least 65 years now. It should be possible to outline various specific strategies to sustain growth in advanced trainees. What exactly does an advance bodybuilder do via HST and why should they do it?
The volume debate is crucial in hypertrophy theory. Bryan hints that more volume is required for advanced bodybuiders. This is exactly what I have been arguing all along. So, HST and conventional training aren't that far apart when you get right down to it. It is a pipedream to believe that Heavy Duty, HIT or HST will result in maximum gains doing just a couple of sets per workout. That is not possible.
Ray Mentzer gave a very interesting seminar. He challenged those who attended that he could exhaust their muscles with one rep. No one took up that challenge. Ray had a theory about the various ways a muscle can contract and used those insights in his method to provide novelty. According to him there were many, many combinations of contractions that could be used in workouts. It is obvious that if one makes a rep last a long time and if during that rep you go back down a bit, etc., then it can lead to failure before the rep is completed. However, since when does anyone train like that? Thus, it is not possible to exhaust a muscle with one rep doing conventional training. Ray cleverly changed the idea of what a rep is. We need not introduce stealth into hypertrophy theory.
I am not the only person to question HST methodology. While I support the attempt to find a scientific method that results in maximum hypertrophy I do not believe that anyone has presented any such thing. The method I proposed, DOMS, is not a method per se but a feedback strategy that should result in maximum hypertrophy. It seems odd that both Byran and myself cannot specify in advance what exactly has to be done by advanced bodybuilders to sustain growth. We can suggest various strategies but cannot say exactly what these might be. There doesn't seem to be anything specific that everyone can do that will lead to sustained growth. If this is true then what does that indicate as far as hypertrophy in humans goes? Why is it easy to specify what to do for beginners and intermediate trainees but difficult to help advanced trainees? That shouldn't be a problem if knowledge was available. However, if no knowledge is available then the current state of affairs will result. Since we cannot specify what advanced trainees should do it indicates that science does not know and that there is no research in this area. That much seems obvious to me. We can argue all we want but let us look at the research. If there is none what do we do? My conclusion is that we have to rely on experience and general theories formed from that experience and use that until we have to change or abandon our theories because of the findings that science finds for us.
Vince encore et toujours :
An important point so that everyone understands this business of criticism.
Quote
I find it amusing that Bryan has yet to chime in on this topic, but I can only imagine that he is tired of being ridiculed and misrepresented by threads like this.
If someone criticises HST theory how is that ridiculing anyone? Theories and methods can be criticised and should be criticized. That is the only way they evolve to be better. Philosophy urges us to criticise and falsify theories if we can. If those theories cannot be falsified then they are likely to stand a chance at being accepted as being true. Thus, the business of criticism is part of the scientific process and no method originator should be dismayed if others are criticising him. Instead, he should invite and welcome criticism and debate freely with all comers. Unless he is confident that such debate is a waste of his time.
Trying to falsify a method or theory is not personally attacking anyone at all. Let us be totally clear of this. I have nothing but respect for the approach that Bryan Haycock is pursuing. I, also, would like to see a scientifically based hypertrophy method that works.
I have to say that I have been enlightened and assisted by the various critics who attacked the DOMS feedback approach to bodybuilding. It helped me a lot regarding the anecdotal experiences of many. Such help made me finetune my strategy and made me see problems for the approach.
Once we resist criticism we stop being scientific. We should defend our theories against criticism and this way either change them or improve them by including that criticism into our method. Bryan is unwilling to specify what would require him to abandon his method? Surely he should know that certain positions are untenable if enough evidence does not support his position? However, Bryan clearly states that changes to HST will occur if and when new research requires that changes are necessary.
What seems clear to me is that HST is being diluted because of it's inability to be specific about advanced bodybuilders. That should be easy to specify if anyone knows how to keep hypertrophy occurring in advanced bodybuilders. If precise knowledge is lacking then all manner of hedging and avoidance will result and this is what I see.
On arrive au bout :
It seems to me that there is a group of questioning trainees who visit gyms and the internet and seem to want to know the latest theory about training. These guys usually haven't made much in the way of gains. Oh, they are hardly beginners but they are not that big, either. After seeing many such individuals over the decades I suspect these people cannot or will not pay their dues. If you ask them how much they can squat or bench the amount isn't much.
It reminds me of a funny but true story. Robert Nailon, in Australia, is a well-known bodybuilder-photographer. He befriended Arnold, Frank Zane, Larry Scott, and others who visited Australia and he usually trained with them. In 1980 we had the Mr Olympia contest in Australia and Robert got to meet a lot of the top pros. Some of them trained at his gym in Randwick which he has since sold many years ago. Anyway, one day the big guys were going to train legs and do some squats. Well, Robert declined to join them. Ken Waller shouted out, "Robert, you want to know the secrets but won't do the exercises!" The truth is that Robert was very strong in his arms and upper body but didn't do much training for his legs. Therefore he probably didn't want to embarrass himself by lifting far less than Ken was capable of. Ken could easily squat with over 500 pounds.
So, instead of seeking out the true theory of hypertrophy many herein might be better served by just getting in the gym and having a go. If you can do 10 deep squats with 400 pounds and can bench press 400 pounds you have paid your dues.
I want to relate a story about this young American fellow who showed up at a gym I used to own in Blacktown, a suburb of Sydney. He was an amiable guy and wanted to put on some muscle fast. He promised to do exactly what I told him. Well, having a dedicated student made training him worthwhile. I dislike training people who ask just about everyone, including the janitor, about training advice!
Anyway, what I did was have the 22 year old do three sets of three exercises twice a week. Squats, Bench press, and lat pulldowns. That was it. No abs, arm work or calf training. He was urged to eat heartily and have 4 meals a day. Well, after one month he put on 14 pounds which was a stone in the old Imperial system of weighing. I didn't detect an increase in fat deposits. His waist was almost the same. He persisted with this method for another month and gained an additional 7 pounds. That was nothing short of incredible and very satisfying to all of us. On the third month he wanted to do a few more exercises and included things for arms, etc. The result? He stopped growing. Doing all those other exercises used up more energy and diverted some of the energy needed for the basic, heavy exercises. I doubt anyone can continue to make gains using simple protocols in an unlimited fashion. However, the gains to his arms, etc., from not directly training them was significant. The lack of gains from training them directly was disappointing.
Final Vince post :
It is always refreshing to hear the opinion of a true expert and I thank Blade for his kind words.
To answer Michel,
The young fellow had a good physique to start with. He was an athlete and an active person. The instructions were to do each set until no further good reps could be done. There was no need to go to the very limit. Add some weight and do another set. Reps were to be in the 8 to 10 range. If more than 10 reps could be done then add more weight. This training happened about 1988 and I had no idea about the contribution DOMS might make.
I would do this very differently today. I would have the person warm up and then do 3 sets at the maximum with reps from 5 to 8. Depending on results I would modify the sets and perhaps add more sets if growth stalled.
--------------
RON SOWERS :
I seem to have bad luck getting my questions anwered on here, but let me take a shot at this subject. First a couple questions, then some observations on stimulation of hypertrophy.
1) The questions: I've read many studies that have shown that damage to muscle cells can take longer than 48 hours to heal. The one thing I never see addressed is this.
a)Even though another bout might not hamper recovery, how can it induce more growth in the fibers that still are not yet recovered?
b) If a muscle takes longer than 48 hours to heal, this means there is still damage, how can the fiber grow and go back to homostasis BEFORE it is healed of the microtrauma?
Observationss
If tension is the stimulus, WHAT does TUL have to do with the equation, before jumping to an answer, consider these points
a) During a set, the weight is constant.
b) If the weight is heavy enough, all fibers are contracting right from the first rep, therefore the same fibers are feeling the same resistance for the entire set.
c) Each rep adds to the fatigue state, metabolic and neural
d) Towards the end of a hard set, fibers are firing slower due to neural fatigue, recruitment is becoming lower.
e) The 'bird' studies we always speak of involve very long TUL, why?
f) Occlusion studies show that light weights+high metabolic fatigue = the stimulation of heavy weights with no occlusion.
g) Many studies show that damage is GREATEST 2 days AFTER the bout of exercise, NOT right after. This points to the idea that muscles are in worse shape 2 days later and I question how the body could possibly be finished adding protein stuctures at this point.
My proposal: The only reason we need a heavy weight is to induce maximum recruitment and higher rate coding. The faster firing frequency and tetanic contractions would increase the fatigue level very much over a lighter weight which allows the MU's to 'take turns' and rest for a few micro-seconds between contractions. Somehow this metabolic fatigue and depletion primes the fibers so they are more suceptible to mechanical damage. Possibly the latent free radical damage also can release MGF.
Ron
Il est fou c'est clair 
toujours la meme chose... il ne tient jamais compte de la génétique d'un Coleman ou Oliva et encore moins des drogues qu'ils prennent, pour lui tout s'explique par l'entrainement 
