HLM VS Hypertrophy Template

[J_Horsley]

This question is more a matter of personal curiosity than a need-to-know-immediately kind of thing.

I'm currently in week five of the HLM template and have previously run the hypertrophy template. I was comparing the two templates side-by-side a while ago and noticed that in the early weeks of each program, the two templates look pretty similar in terms of volume on the competition lifts.

The hypertrophy template calls for 6 reps at RPE 6, 6 reps at RPE 7, and 3 sets of 6 reps at RPE 8.

HLM calls for 6 reps at RPE 7, 6 reps at RPE 8, 6 reps at RPE 9, and then 2-3 sets of 6 with 5% off the bar from RPE 9.

So the total volume here is more or less identical, depending on the week. I'm wondering, then, is the hypertrophy template actually any more ideal for stimulating hypertrophy than the HLM template? If so, why? Is it not so much in the rep/set scheme for the competition lifts, but more in the use of myoreps for supplementary lifts? Or does the reduced stress from intensity allow for better use of recovery resources, thus facilitating better muscle growth?

I enjoyed the hypertrophy template when I ran it before, and it was great for leaning out a little. I'm sure it has a place in programming, so my question isn't coming from a place of skepticism. Rather, I'm just trying to understand the nuances of programming a bit better.

[edrice2]

I have been wondering the same thing, particularly looking at the bridge vs 3 day hypertrophy as I am completing the bridge soon and going into it. The volume does not seem that different - pressing is more with the extra slot but squats are much less.

[Squib]

If so, why? Is it not so much in the rep/set scheme for the competition lifts, but more in the use of myoreps for supplementary lifts?

I think this is where the hypertrophy bias comes from, all of the supplementary lifts in the 3&4 day hypertrophy templates are 8+ reps or myo-reps. In the strength focused templates, yes the "SL-2" lifts are 8+ reps, but the "SL-1" exercises are 4's and even triples down the line (which also applies to the comp lifts in the later parts of the strength templates, but in the hypertrophy template it's 6's throughout the template).

Another thing to keep in mind is that barbell medicine prefers a concurrent style of periodisation - they like working on lower rep ranges (including singles) and higher rep ranges in all of their templates. All of their templates have strength and hypertrophy aspects.

[PWard]

HLM is at a higher RPE, which is better for strength gains in comp lifts. Also, if I recall correctly, the reps per set decrease as the weeks go by, which is further bias towards strength development.

Hypertrophy template is at a lower RPE, which is not as specific for strength gains. It also doesn't fatigue you as much, so you have more gas in the tank for the supplemental lifts (which really are the bread and butter of this program).

HLM's supplemental lifts and rep schemes are more specific to the comp lifts. There is also much less emphasis on GPP.

Hypertrophy template has a greater focus on GPP and hypertrophy on supplemental lifts and GPP days. Variations chosen are more general and less specific. Rep schemes chosen are more specific for GPP and hypertrophy, and less specific for comp lift carry over strength development.

One doesn't have to reinvent to wheel to tilt a programs bias one direction or another. Both are meant to facilitate strength, hypertrophy, and GPP gains, just in varying degrees. You don't have to throw the entire framework out to change bias, just by changing some of these small things it can make a big difference.