redrooster
New Member
As Ive stated on another post Im getting ready to start my first serious cycle of HST.
Being a student of the iron game I was considering a 6x6 HST hybrid. I have dropped that idea and have decided a pretty close to cookie cutter HST routine will get me started. Allow me to explain why I have chosen this path.What follows is simply my opinion.
Years ago I dicovered Arthur Jones' writings- clear, frank, brutally honest. Arthur was (R.I.P) a mavericks maverick. He espoused using his nautilus equipment with a strict regimented workout protocol.
His maxim was that in order to create growth stimulation you need to incorporate three key concepts into your routine.
1. Workouts must be brief.
2. Workouts must be intense.
3. Workouts must be infrequent. ( not daily)
A typical Nautilus workout would be 1 set to failure of 8- 10 excercises, three days a week.Starting with the larger muscle groups and finishing with the smaller. If you look at the HST cookie cutter routine you will see a mirror of the routine Jones advocated, in terms of excecises and what order they should be done in.
Doing Legs and back first stimulate GH and testosterone which help growth of all the body parts. Jones did experiments with Casey Viator inthe 70's when casey injured himself and could not grip a bar. He had Viator squat agressively and found that Viators arms increased in size as well as his legs.
The point of this is that the heavy leg work sets in motion the growth stimulation process. Jones advocated not even doing direct arm work as it was unneeded, squats and incidental arm work via presses chins etc. would sufficently stimulate arms to grow. Armed with this knowledge i still have yet to do a workout without doing arms
Jones also pointed out that if rest was kept at a minimum between sets the accelerated heart rate induced for the length of the workout led to superior cardiovascular conditioning which was proven successfully. It also helped the growth process greatly.
So what was the problem with Jones method?
In my opinion going to failure 8- 10 times per workout, 3 times a week. Jones correctly pointed out that failure sent a powerful signal to the CNS, which in turn switched on the growth machine. However the signal from failure was TOO powerful sending the adaptation responses into alarm. The ultimate product here is that the nautilus protocol worked great for a few weeks but then a plateau became inevitable.
Jones was a brilliant man and while he made sense of a myriad of training ideas and concepts that had been around for a long time, he did not invent this type of training,he invented some pretty interesting machines and got rich doing it.
His style of trainig was best previously represented by Perry Rader, publisher of Iron Man magazine.
Rader advocated 20 rep breathing squats followed by 2-3sets of a few basic excercises.
This style is outlined here from Super Squats:
Half a century ago, a decade before Arnold was born, the pioneers of the Iron Game had equipment that was crude by today's standards and none of the food supplements or drugs that have spawned the current crop of bodybuilding and lifting champions. Nonetheless, these hardy souls developed a system virtually guaranteed to pile muscular bulk on even the frailest physique, a system that works as well today as it did then.
Men who have been unable to register significant gains with other routines were suddenly gaining twenty pounds of muscle in a month or two. If you have trouble visualizing these results in bodybuilding terms, look at twenty pounds of lean beef in the butcher shop and picture that much mass added to your chest, shoulders, arms, back and legs. That sort of progress turns befores into afters, transforming proverbial ninety-eight pound weaklings into hunks who no longer have to worry about getting sand kicked in their faces. The system that produces these results is simple, but not easy. It builds real muscle, increases one's strength enormously, and gives the cardiovascular system something more than a tickle in the process. About the only drawback to following this routine is that you will outgrow your clothes.
The nucleus of this venerable program is one set of squats - twenty reps in the set, to be sure, but just one set. Additional exercises are incidental, two or three sets of several other basic exercises at most, and the general caution is to err on the side of doing too few additional exercises rather than too many. With one set of squats plus a couple of sets of bench presses and bent over rows as the prototypical routine, these workouts hardly compare to the half-day affairs common to today's bodybuilding and lifting stars or to what's hyped in the glossy muscle magazines. Make no mistake about it, however, this one set of 20-rep squats is not your ordinary cup of iron tea: Whatever our recipe might lack in complexity of volume will be more than recouped in intensity.
In addition to the 20-rep squats, trainees are advised to eat a lot of wholesome food, drink at least two quarts of milk a day, and to get plenty of rest in between the twice- or thrice-weekly workouts. That's it: one set of 20-rep squats, a couple of other basic exercises, plenty of good food, milk and rest. But, oh, those squats!
The specific approach to the 20-rep squats is nearly as simple as the overall program. First, load the bar to what you normally use for ten reps. Now, do twenty reps - no kidding. Second, every single workout, add at least five pounds to the bar. These two elements are what separate the men from the boys and produce results, by simultaneously embracing the two cardinal principles of weight training: overload and progressive resistance.
The overload principle states that unless you do more than you are used to, you won't build muscular size or strength. All those training cliches like "no pain, no gain" reflect the overload principle. By requiring twenty reps with your normal ten-rep poundages, you are forced into overload mode. The principle of progressive resistance goes back to Milo of Crotona, who carried a calf a given distance each day in ancient Greece - as the calf grew, so did Milo, getting bigger and stronger for his efforts. Adding five or ten pounds to your squat bar every workout simulates the process of carrying a growing calf and most people, urbanites especially, find it more convenient.
This method so simple, do 20 rep squats with a weight you would use as a 10rm and force out 20, taking as long as needed and breathing deeply between reps, like a freight train actually. there is no giving up, either knock out 20 reps or puke and quit, those are the options. Then do a few general upper body excercises, which were considered incidental,eat like a mad man and drink one gallon of whole milk a day. Done.
Its the same formula as Jones' nautilus routine.
It has the same problem as well. You start with a weight thatis already beyond your ability, and again your setting off CNS alarm bells from hell.
What few recall is that other advocates of the breathing squat methodology didnt use the heavy weights. They used lighter weights and focused on breathing itself. As we know from HST, progressive load is not equivalent to maximal load. The progessive overload combined with hard breathing created a perfect storm of growth stimulus. Going to your maximal loads was not only not needed, but was detremental. SOME old school guys knew this but as often happens this knowledge was lost.
Enter HST.
While the excercises and the order of excercises look similar amongst nautilus, 20 rep workouts and HST, the great and deciding difference is in the way load is applied.
Reaching you max and going to failure once in two weeks vs going to failure 6 times per excercise in two weeks is a HUGE difference.
Progressive overload and maximal overlaod are not synonomous. It is maximal overload vs optimal overload.
Maximal may be superior on the short run producing excellent gains, but in the long run it will not be able to keep up with the gains of an optimal system.
In my opinion its the beauty of HST.
So you can point to new studies all you want to prove the effeciency of HST but its predecessors, who didnt even have the entire equation right proved that along long time ago!
Thats my 2 cents worth.....
RR
Being a student of the iron game I was considering a 6x6 HST hybrid. I have dropped that idea and have decided a pretty close to cookie cutter HST routine will get me started. Allow me to explain why I have chosen this path.What follows is simply my opinion.
Years ago I dicovered Arthur Jones' writings- clear, frank, brutally honest. Arthur was (R.I.P) a mavericks maverick. He espoused using his nautilus equipment with a strict regimented workout protocol.
His maxim was that in order to create growth stimulation you need to incorporate three key concepts into your routine.
1. Workouts must be brief.
2. Workouts must be intense.
3. Workouts must be infrequent. ( not daily)
A typical Nautilus workout would be 1 set to failure of 8- 10 excercises, three days a week.Starting with the larger muscle groups and finishing with the smaller. If you look at the HST cookie cutter routine you will see a mirror of the routine Jones advocated, in terms of excecises and what order they should be done in.
Doing Legs and back first stimulate GH and testosterone which help growth of all the body parts. Jones did experiments with Casey Viator inthe 70's when casey injured himself and could not grip a bar. He had Viator squat agressively and found that Viators arms increased in size as well as his legs.
The point of this is that the heavy leg work sets in motion the growth stimulation process. Jones advocated not even doing direct arm work as it was unneeded, squats and incidental arm work via presses chins etc. would sufficently stimulate arms to grow. Armed with this knowledge i still have yet to do a workout without doing arms
Jones also pointed out that if rest was kept at a minimum between sets the accelerated heart rate induced for the length of the workout led to superior cardiovascular conditioning which was proven successfully. It also helped the growth process greatly.
So what was the problem with Jones method?
In my opinion going to failure 8- 10 times per workout, 3 times a week. Jones correctly pointed out that failure sent a powerful signal to the CNS, which in turn switched on the growth machine. However the signal from failure was TOO powerful sending the adaptation responses into alarm. The ultimate product here is that the nautilus protocol worked great for a few weeks but then a plateau became inevitable.
Jones was a brilliant man and while he made sense of a myriad of training ideas and concepts that had been around for a long time, he did not invent this type of training,he invented some pretty interesting machines and got rich doing it.
His style of trainig was best previously represented by Perry Rader, publisher of Iron Man magazine.
Rader advocated 20 rep breathing squats followed by 2-3sets of a few basic excercises.
This style is outlined here from Super Squats:
Half a century ago, a decade before Arnold was born, the pioneers of the Iron Game had equipment that was crude by today's standards and none of the food supplements or drugs that have spawned the current crop of bodybuilding and lifting champions. Nonetheless, these hardy souls developed a system virtually guaranteed to pile muscular bulk on even the frailest physique, a system that works as well today as it did then.
Men who have been unable to register significant gains with other routines were suddenly gaining twenty pounds of muscle in a month or two. If you have trouble visualizing these results in bodybuilding terms, look at twenty pounds of lean beef in the butcher shop and picture that much mass added to your chest, shoulders, arms, back and legs. That sort of progress turns befores into afters, transforming proverbial ninety-eight pound weaklings into hunks who no longer have to worry about getting sand kicked in their faces. The system that produces these results is simple, but not easy. It builds real muscle, increases one's strength enormously, and gives the cardiovascular system something more than a tickle in the process. About the only drawback to following this routine is that you will outgrow your clothes.
The nucleus of this venerable program is one set of squats - twenty reps in the set, to be sure, but just one set. Additional exercises are incidental, two or three sets of several other basic exercises at most, and the general caution is to err on the side of doing too few additional exercises rather than too many. With one set of squats plus a couple of sets of bench presses and bent over rows as the prototypical routine, these workouts hardly compare to the half-day affairs common to today's bodybuilding and lifting stars or to what's hyped in the glossy muscle magazines. Make no mistake about it, however, this one set of 20-rep squats is not your ordinary cup of iron tea: Whatever our recipe might lack in complexity of volume will be more than recouped in intensity.
In addition to the 20-rep squats, trainees are advised to eat a lot of wholesome food, drink at least two quarts of milk a day, and to get plenty of rest in between the twice- or thrice-weekly workouts. That's it: one set of 20-rep squats, a couple of other basic exercises, plenty of good food, milk and rest. But, oh, those squats!
The specific approach to the 20-rep squats is nearly as simple as the overall program. First, load the bar to what you normally use for ten reps. Now, do twenty reps - no kidding. Second, every single workout, add at least five pounds to the bar. These two elements are what separate the men from the boys and produce results, by simultaneously embracing the two cardinal principles of weight training: overload and progressive resistance.
The overload principle states that unless you do more than you are used to, you won't build muscular size or strength. All those training cliches like "no pain, no gain" reflect the overload principle. By requiring twenty reps with your normal ten-rep poundages, you are forced into overload mode. The principle of progressive resistance goes back to Milo of Crotona, who carried a calf a given distance each day in ancient Greece - as the calf grew, so did Milo, getting bigger and stronger for his efforts. Adding five or ten pounds to your squat bar every workout simulates the process of carrying a growing calf and most people, urbanites especially, find it more convenient.
This method so simple, do 20 rep squats with a weight you would use as a 10rm and force out 20, taking as long as needed and breathing deeply between reps, like a freight train actually. there is no giving up, either knock out 20 reps or puke and quit, those are the options. Then do a few general upper body excercises, which were considered incidental,eat like a mad man and drink one gallon of whole milk a day. Done.
Its the same formula as Jones' nautilus routine.
It has the same problem as well. You start with a weight thatis already beyond your ability, and again your setting off CNS alarm bells from hell.
What few recall is that other advocates of the breathing squat methodology didnt use the heavy weights. They used lighter weights and focused on breathing itself. As we know from HST, progressive load is not equivalent to maximal load. The progessive overload combined with hard breathing created a perfect storm of growth stimulus. Going to your maximal loads was not only not needed, but was detremental. SOME old school guys knew this but as often happens this knowledge was lost.
Enter HST.
While the excercises and the order of excercises look similar amongst nautilus, 20 rep workouts and HST, the great and deciding difference is in the way load is applied.
Reaching you max and going to failure once in two weeks vs going to failure 6 times per excercise in two weeks is a HUGE difference.
Progressive overload and maximal overlaod are not synonomous. It is maximal overload vs optimal overload.
Maximal may be superior on the short run producing excellent gains, but in the long run it will not be able to keep up with the gains of an optimal system.
In my opinion its the beauty of HST.
So you can point to new studies all you want to prove the effeciency of HST but its predecessors, who didnt even have the entire equation right proved that along long time ago!
Thats my 2 cents worth.....
RR
