HST, Arthur Jones, 20 Rep Squats Oh My!

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by redrooster, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. redrooster

    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 [​IMG]

    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! [​IMG]

    Thats my 2 cents worth.....


    RR
     
  2. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Good Post, RR. An interesting way of looking at it, and not to forget that the 15,10,5 rep scheme is a vanilla setup - you'll find many 'tweaks' in here we've experimented with, but I'd always advise to read all the articles first, especially the one about "tweaking" HST.
    We are at many different gym ages and experience, and some methods work better for some than others. I prefer a linear progression to the zigzag, for instance, and utilize at this time deload principles as needed, rather than on a schedule. For some, coming off of very brutal routines, HST at first is "too easy" and sometimes lacks any gains due to conditioning. Enter the longer SD.
    Some of us did a run of HST cycles and graduated to 5x5 or other strength routines for a bump up in strength only to return to HST for some growth, utilizing our newfound poundages.
    My opinion has been that any system will stall out in time, but should be given a good run before changing up. HST is so close to the "perfect" system, it becomes the "home" we return to after our little forays into other territory. Those of us who stray off now and then tend to stray into systems that use the same principles, like Madcow 5x5, and Max-Stim, which I'm using now to extend my longest HST cycle ever.
    Rock on, Garth! [​IMG]
     
  3. redrooster

    redrooster New Member

    Im in agrement with you here.

    HST in its vanilla form is a great way to start out and also that tweaking, within the main principles, is inevitable- at least in my world.

    Point in case. I m working on the excercises I will be using for my first cycle. I know that Im not up to speed physically to do back squats right now and at 44 I need to ease into back squats.

    In order to make a smooth transition to regular squats and to accelerate my weight loss, which unfortunately MUST be my first priority, I will be using the Tabata protocol using their version of the squat alternated with Hindu squats.

    When I can knock out 8 sets of these squats I should be able to start squating for real again. For me "real squating" means using a TRU SQUAT machine which in my mind is perhaps the single best piece of equipment ive used, with the possible exception of Jones' nautilus pullover.

    Im really looking forward to this little journey.

    RR
     
  4. Lol

    Lol Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (redrooster @ Jan. 13 2008,23:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For me &quot;real squating&quot; means using a TRU SQUAT machine which in my mind is perhaps the single best piece of equipment ive used, with the possible exception of Jones' nautilus pullover.</div>
    (Let me preface this comment by saying that, if you have a medical condition or other physical reason for not being able to squat with a bar then please take the following with a pinch of salt.)

    For me, real squatting means a bar and some iron. I truly believe at this stage in my lifting career, after trying just about every machine out there, that nothing really does the job as well as (and certainly not better than) this simple set up. The proviso is that you have to work on form for quite a while and really try to understand the mechanics of the movement in order to get the best out of it. A bad squat is worse than no squat. I got back into lifting at 40 years of age and just over two years later I now feel that I really know what I'm doing in the squat department.

    It also occurs to me that squatting with a free weight bar is more conducive to gaining functional strength. If this is important to you then it might be something worth considering.
     
  5. redrooster

    redrooster New Member

    I like the feel of a real squat and I enjoy the same feel

    with deadlifts. One with the iron as it were. But they do

    not like me. Mess my back up every single time.

    The Tru squat machine is a blessing, it fixes the

    alignment problems I have with the traditional squat.

    So for me I have to use the Tru Squat and leg presses.

    RR
     
  6. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    Machines constrain your body to a certain range of motion. They also tell your stabilizer muscles and sense of balance to turn off. Practicing good form with an unloaded barbell will pay dividends.
     
  7. scientific muscle

    scientific muscle New Member

    Machines work fine for hypertrophy. If he likes them, let him do them.
     
  8. QuantumPositron

    QuantumPositron New Member

    Pullover machines are a must in my opinion. You cannot get the continuity of resistance nor a resistance throughout the range of motion like you can with a pullover machine, Nautilus or otherwise. Moreover pullover machines allow you to use more weight than a barbell for the simple reason that you are typically strapped into one of these machines. With a barbell you will at some point be able to use more weight then your body can provide a counter weight for.

    The early Nautilus machines had a foot plate that you could use to help raise the weight. This was designed to permit supramaximal eccentric lifts. If only today's machines were as functionally designed. Screw the &quot;This machine works your biceps&quot; plackard.

    I like free weights too Colby. But for some lifts only a machine will do. They can also come in handy if you are working around an injury. Like everything, they have their rightful place.
     
  9. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Again, I had to retrain squats from the start when I went ATG. 135 on the bar was a lot in that new position, but they came up quickly enough. They also helped my &quot;bad&quot; back.
    Here's my usual required viewing. I should put it in my sig I guess: The Danjohn video:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529481301858251744
     
  10. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>

    Arthur Jones is a great artist of bodybuilding mechanics.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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. </div>

    Curious, but why legs and back? Is it because these are the big muscles, and the exercises we use for these muscles have large range of motion (i.e. they are very dynamic?)

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>

    Minimum = more rest than the minimum rest for not getting a heart attack or going into shock

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">he 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. </div>

    Let's hope this isn't your 10RM or even 85% of your 10RM because this couldn't be done from the get go.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The overload principle states that unless you do more than you are used to, you won't build muscular size or strength.</div>

    Overload principle equals progressive load principle of HST?

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>

    Good, we are not starting off with 85% of our 10RM. There is now room to progress the load and build muscle!

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>

    HST is great. Its principles are built on science, and it so happens that some trusted routines have some of the principles of HST, but not all of them! [​IMG]

    Good read RR!

    -Colby
     
  11. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 13 2008,21:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Machines work fine for hypertrophy. If he likes them, let him do them.</div>
    Sci, I was never forcing RR to go one way or another, but simply making suggestions like we all do here at this forum. In my experience, using a machine for Squats such as the Smith is detrimental to form. Lack of quality form affects safety and eventually muscle growth.
     
  12. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    Just one small point of contention:

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Doing Legs and back first stimulate GH and testosterone which help growth of all the body parts</div>

    Turns out this isn't the case.

    Working legs and back stimulate GH and test, sure, but only locally. This does not occur systemically. If you do curls, you stimulate growth of the effected muscles, but you aren't going to get big calves from doing curls, and you aren't going to get big arms from doing squats.

    I think we've all seen those guys with huge upper bodies and little legs. And on the contrary, I think there are plenty of us here who have big legs but small (relative to our leg size) upper bodies. My back and legs are big, but my arms and chest are tiny in comparison. Kind of seems counter-intuitive if ole AJ's statement about doing legs and back first was true, eh? Squatting and rowing have done nothing for my pec development, which would be surprising if I actually believed that bunk about squatting being necessary for test or hgh production.

    Squatting does not cause a systemic rise in growth hormone nor testosterone. There are studies to prove this, but if you really need to see them, then go look them up. They've been posted here before and this had been discussed many times before. I'm not inclined to rehash it more than I've already done just now.
     
  13. My last cycle consisted of a 30 rep scheme ... 2x15, 3x10, and 6x5 ... and it was by far my &quot;best cycle.&quot;

    &quot;Best cycle&quot; means that I felt the best doing it, enjoyed the workouts, put on the most weight, had the best strength increases. It won't be until after this cut that I actually SEE the product, but my anticipations are high.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Squatting does not cause a systemic rise in growth hormone nor testosterone. There are studies to prove this, but if you really need to see them, then go look them up. They've been posted here before and this had been discussed many times before. I'm not inclined to rehash it more than I've already done just now. </div>

    Yeah ... early on the contrary was believed, and it was a great way to get some lazy sob's into the squat rack. If this is a body-building myth that persists, I'm OK with it. At least it will make some guys work harder, and not avoid squats because &quot;they hurt.&quot; [​IMG]
     
  14. Joe.Muscle

    Joe.Muscle Active Member

    <div>
    (QuantumPositron @ Jan. 13 2008,09:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Pullover machines are a must in my opinion.  You cannot get the continuity of resistance nor a resistance throughout the range of motion like you can with a pullover machine, Nautilus or otherwise.  Moreover pullover machines allow you to use more weight than a barbell for the simple reason that you are typically strapped into one of these machines.  With a barbell you will at some point be able to use more weight then your body can provide a counter weight for.</div>
    Hey if I want to put pullover into my routine were do I put them?

    Back [​IMG]

    Chest???

    What muscle group do you guys so they fit into?
     
  15. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    Pullovers = Compound Exercise for Back and Chest [​IMG]
     
  16. <div>
    (Joe.Muscle @ Jan. 14 2008,10:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (QuantumPositron @ Jan. 13 2008,09:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Pullover machines are a must in my opinion.  You cannot get the continuity of resistance nor a resistance throughout the range of motion like you can with a pullover machine, Nautilus or otherwise.  Moreover pullover machines allow you to use more weight than a barbell for the simple reason that you are typically strapped into one of these machines.  With a barbell you will at some point be able to use more weight then your body can provide a counter weight for.</div>
    Hey if I want to put pullover into my routine were do I put them?

    Back [​IMG]

    Chest???

    What muscle group do you guys so they fit into?</div>
    I do DB pull overs. Here's my &quot;A&quot; routine:

    Dead Lift
    Military Press
    Pendlay Rows
    Dips
    Pull Overs

    Seems like the pullovers are an overkill on that day (hitting lats anc chest and tri's), but as I see it, on an A/B set-up, I have 4 days to recover before I do it again.

    FYI, my &quot;B&quot; routine is:
    Squats
    Bench Press
    Chins
    Upright rows
    DB shrugs
     
  17. QuantumPositron

    QuantumPositron New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Curious, but why legs and back? Is it because these are the big muscles, and the exercises we use for these muscles have large range of motion (i.e. they are very dynamic?)
    </div>

    The reason you put legs and or back first in the workout has to do with energy. Larger muscles and the lifts associated with them (rows, deads, squats..) require more energy then single joint lifts or lifts utilizing smaller muscle groups. At the start of a workout we are obviously at our freshest. Working the larger muscle groups of the day first ensures these muscles and their synergists - muscles that comprise the greater proportion of total body mass - are stimulated best. Many of us have also heard to do compound lifts first and single joint/iso's second in the workout. This is the same idea. The exception is the Priority Principle which, if you are not up on your Weider, states that a muscle group valued higher by the lifter should be done firstmost in the workout. The reason again is simple: a lifter is mentally and physically freshest at the beginning of the workout. Doing a favored muscle group first then means the muscle is given the lifter's best. There's no magic to this, just reason.

    Examples from my own routine: Deads and squats are done first, always, followed by back movements. Delts, arms, and forearms are done last in my routine. Currently I prioritize abs over everything else so, in truth, I do cable crunches before deads and squats. Some BB'ers have written that abs should always be done last because doing otherwise compromises other lifts. I was afraid of this but to date haven't had any problems.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Let's hope this isn't your 10RM or even 85% of your 10RM because this couldn't be done from the get go.</div>

    It can be accomplished with the rest-pause technique. Breathing squats are in a similar vein as breathing ladders or panic breathing sets. The goal is to increase oxygen demand well above oxygen supply so that panic breathing sets in. There is an article about it over at gymjones.com. According to the (very knowledgeable) author the endocrine response is tremendous. Is it muscle building? Don't know.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Hey if I want to put pullover into my routine were do I put them?</div>

    Pullovers involve the triceps long head and the pectoralis major, in addition to the latissimus dorsi. Typically it is thought of as a lat exercise so I would treat it as a back lift. An old HIT protocol calls for supersetting pullovers with pulldowns. The reason being that the lats of most lifters will eventually become stronger than the arm flexors can handle for pulldowns thus retarding lat development. In other words your lats will get so strong that your arms will fail before your lats are adequately stimulated. Doing pullovers first, which mostly excludes the arms, weakens the lats enough to make for a productive pulldown set, or so the thinking goes.
     
  18. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    <div>
    (colby2152 @ Jan. 14 2008,09:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 13 2008,21:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Machines work fine for hypertrophy.  If he likes them, let him do them.</div>
    Sci, I was never forcing RR to go one way or another, but simply making suggestions like we all do here at this forum.  In my experience, using a machine for Squats such as the Smith is detrimental to form.  Lack of quality form affects safety and eventually muscle growth.</div>
    True but now you are talking about a specific machine, a specific muscle group, form and safety and not hypertrophy specifically. How would this change if you wanted to break it down even further and say we are only examining the VL or VM or any other specific muscle in a group.

    In many muscles a machine will provide a better stimulus, in others not, it all depends but if the principles of growth are applied it's not about whether it's a machine or not. So Sci is still correct.
     
  19. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    How doesn't bad form compromise muscle growth?
     
  20. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    How does it? By your reasonings then anyone with sloppy form will not be as big as someone who uses perfect form, this is nonsense as there are just as many very large people with tremendous quads out there who have never squated with perfect form.

    Secondly, form is individualistic depending on everyone's individual mechanical makeup. So bad form for one may not be bad form for another. Just look at the huge difference between rounded backs and straight backed deadlifters.

    Lastly, Sci's comment was based on general machines being able to produce hypertrophy just as adequately as free weights, this is true and in many cases due to human mechanics and gravity, some machines may even produce better results than free weights.
     

Share This Page