6x6 HST Hybrid?

R

redrooster

New Member
Has anyone experimented with using a 6x6 or 5x5

routine using the HST protocols?

Im looking to cut and Im thinking this would an excellent

blend of programs.

Thoughts?

RR
 
Are you talking about the specific 5x5 program by Bill Starr? It can be used with HST in a certain split protocol. I have done that before. His program actually follows HST principles (progressive load, high frequency~3x/wk).
 
Im aware of Starrs use of 5x5 but dont know specifics.

My one and only problem with HST is one that is from experience. One set per body part leaves me skeptical to say the least. You see I spent many years wasting my time, banging my head against the wall, usingArthur Jones protocol or that of Mentzer.

The problem with Jones ideas was going to failure on a regular basis. Yes, it did produce maximal stimulation but leaves out other factors such as overall CNS overstimulation leading to certain platues.

Mentzer sought to alleviate this issue by spacing out the workouts, which helped the problem but left another, that being too infrequent workouts produce excellent CNS strength gains but lacking gains in size. Mentzer always said the size follows, but for me and inummerable others, it never does.

I was introduces to more volume, kicking and screaming, by of all people Casey Viator, Jones star pupil. He had me on a four day a week program, working each part about twelve sets twice per week, using three excercises per part pyramiding weight up in each excercise and going to failure on the last.

This meant three failure sets per part per workout. This induced a great pump and I gained more size in 6 weeks than I had in perhaps years of HIT training. I had discovered volume works for size!

After 6 weeks I stopped gaining and went into deep overtraining. I had discovered the inherent problem with going to failure and also a dislike for training back to back days. Your bodies systems need time to recoup too, not just your muscles.

I discovered Vince Gironda while working a midnight shift at work. Unfortunately that shift was hard on me physically, never really felt awake except for 11pm - 4 am, and when off work, weights werent too apealling so I never got to test his ideas out too much, but I distinctly like what Vince taught, not only lifting wise but nutrition as well.

Vinces 6x6 can be worked in a 4 day split or 3 day whole body. Im going to use the whole body routine. Vince knew the peril of going to failure too often leading to what he called"overtonis" or overtraining as the rest of mankind calls it.

The idea of Girondas 6x6 is maximal work in the shortest amount of time, similar to German volume trainings founding principle. He would have you load the bar with a static weight you could handle for 6x6 without going to failure, taking only 15-30 seconds between sets. Can you say pump?

In addition to stimulating growth this methodology also built capillary beds around the muscles increasing vascularity and also allowing the musles to be fed nutreints more effeciently during recuperation.

My idea is a marriage of traditional HST and Vinces 6x6.
Essentailly I will be using the HST protocol but rather than single or double sets I will employ 6x6.

In order to alleviate overtraining and muscle adaptation I will run one group of excercises for two weeks, equaling 6 workouts. Then switch to a second set of excercises for two weeks. This should produce enough muscle confusion to avoid adaptation.

This will be a full cycle. SD will be employed here. Vince recommended taking a break after every third week no matter what your age,as we know HST calls for after eight. Im 44 so Ill err on the side of too often.

Other modifications to both Gironda and HST is excercise selection. Vince was big on isolation excecises and HST people often use many excercise, too many for 6x6 HST to work I think, at least for me. IfI recall HST as taught by Brian condones more abreviated routines, but I see many using more excercises than he prescibed. I believe this is a recipe for failure, so for me at least Im going to keep the isolation excercises down.
Since this is all groundbreaking Ill have to experiment.

As this idea comes to fruition Ill let you know specifics and perhaps post a training log.

Id love feedback.

RR
 
Forgive me, but I do not have the time to read your entire post. I will comment on one of your first sentences though...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My one and only problem with HST is one that is from experience. One set per body part leaves me skeptical to say the least.</div>

Who said HST limits you to one set? Lift as many sets as you can without going to failure. If you have an exercise later in your routine that uses the same muscles, then save some energy. That is my simple and logical approach to sets in HST, and it works just fine for me!
wink.gif
cool.gif
 
That may be true. But you have to remember that what Bryan laid out was just an example for someone to start using the HST principles. He also makes it very clear that HST is not a &quot;routine&quot; and that you should experiment to find out the best way to apply the HST principles for yourself.
 
Do as much as you can. If you like 6 sets, do it. I do 20 sets on every exercise...sort of.
ghostface.gif
Have you heard of max-stimulation? Check out the link in my signature.
 
Ive read about Max-Stim but dont think I would like the pace.

I detest standing around even between sets. I cant imagine having to wait for a rep!

It is interesting though, I did some rest pause training in the past during the mentzer days. Im concerned the weight would get too heavy too fast going that route again, as stated Im 44 and NOT interested in putting up big weights. Size over strength is my game now.

Im also looking cut weight. After looking at the new picture thread of HST advocates Im really giving the idea of a couple of straight HST cycles a try.

RR
 
<div>
(redrooster @ Jan. 12 2008,21:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not being limited to one set is the idea here.

HST as taught by Brian originally, was one or two sets.

RR</div>
Actually, the FAQs say the opposite. The FAQs recommend one or two sets as a starting point but concedes that volume has to be adjusted for the individual.

If you haven't read through the FAQs, I highly recommend it. There is a lot more information in there than you'll find in the HST article alone.
 
One size does not fit all. If you want size, you must train for it. If you want strength, you must train for it too. The two types of training are not automatically the same. Just as training for a marathon is different from training for a sprint.

An example.

Training for strength. Strength is neuromuscular in nature. This implies that it is also specific. Repetition will train everything. The CNS, the muscles, the energy systems, etc. We grow stronger the more we repeat the motion.

Training for size. Here, the only thing that truly matters is the load the muscle is subjected to. More specifically, the load the muscle cells are subjected to. There is no need for CNS load or whatever else is needed for strength training.

The above is a gross interpretation of the actual training methods but it serves to illustrate the major differences between the two types of training. What it does not illustrate is the major similarities. In both instances, we must lift the bar. In both instance, we must lift the bar often and frequently. In both instances, we improve our strength. In both instance if we eat more, we increase our size.
 
<div>
(redrooster @ Jan. 13 2008,01:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Im concerned the weight would get too heavy too fast going that route again, as stated Im 44 and NOT interested in putting up big weights. Size over strength is my game now.</div>
Nobody can get big without putting up big weights. All the big guys here are very strong. I don't understand where people get the idea that you can get huge, hypertrophied muscles without getting exceptionally strong? Especially natural bodybuilders. The best natural bodybuilders in the world are also the strongest.
 
<div>
(redrooster @ Jan. 12 2008,08:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This should produce enough muscle confusion to avoid adaptation.</div>
I don't think muscle confusion exists....but I could be wrong?
 
All excellent posts guys.

Ill try to articulate my points better, altough I think we are basically in agreement on the broader points.

Totentanz said:
&quot;The FAQs recommend one or two sets as a starting point but concedes that volume has to be adjusted for the individual.&quot;

Agreed, Ive read the material pretty well as i like to study, but the point is that I AM just starting. Perhaps using the starter HST protocol would be best for me. Im going to start another thread on why, after thinking more deeply one or two sets frequently may be an effecient approach.


Martin Levac said:


&quot;Training for size. Here, the only thing that truly matters is the load the muscle is subjected to. More specifically, the load the muscle cells are subjected to. There is no need for CNS load or whatever else is needed for strength training.&quot;

I am primarily training for size. Altough initially I am cutting, but thats another post...  The style of 6x6 Im speaking of is ala Gironda not the Reg Park Bill Starr style. The idea is to use a straight weight throughout with 15-30 seconds rest between sets. The idea is not primarily strength gain but rather stimulating growth and building capillarry beds throughout the muscle, in other words building a pump. This is not synonomous with the 5x5 strength focused style advocated by Park/Starr. Its a different animal designed for muscular size and vascularity.

Scientific Muscle said:

&quot;Nobody can get big without putting up big weights.&quot;

Big weights is a relative term. Many of the great pre -steroid bodybuilders used the Gironda style 6x6 methodolgy to get big. If you look at what is required to use the 6x6 you will see that much lighter weights are required than for example a HIT approach.

The product of the workouts is different as well. Most HIT advocates end up very thick looking, including the waistline. NOT fat but thick, whearas old school guys are thin waisted and symmetry is king. I prefer the small waist and sweeping lats to the bigger guys.

Google an image search for Vince Gironda or one of his students don howorth- awesome.

So yes you need to work with progessively heavier weights but a 6x6 workout may be hoisting weights that are sigificantly less than an HIT workout. thats really my point.

Joe Muscle said:

&quot;I don't think muscle confusion exists....but I could be wrong?&quot;

I didnt use  to either, but too many people in the know have proved me wrong on that. I think on too many points I had accepted the linear, logical and wrong thinking of Mike Mentzer. looking back I dont know how I could have advocated so much that was so wrong. muscle confusion was one of those things. HST emphasizes this idea by changing up workouts every two weeks.

Our bodies adapt fairly quickly to external stimulus, it is a survival defense that is hard wired into us. Changing the stimulus offsets the adaptation.

Thanks for all the input, I like the minds here!

RR
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HST emphasizes this idea by changing up workouts every two weeks</div>

No, it doesn't. Again, you may want to read the FAQs as it seems you may have developed a flawed understanding of HST. Don't worry, a lot of people do at first.

HST emphasizes _progressive load_ which one manifestation of this results in dropping the reps per set every two weeks to accommodate the ever increasing load. There is nothing set in stone regarding reps or sets. The default template is merely one of the easiest and &quot;one size fits all&quot; applications of the principles. The main goal of the default template is to allow people who are accustomed to traditional routines to think in the HST framework, since the ideas behind HST are a lot to handle for most people, at first.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Changing the stimulus offsets the adaptation.</div>

This is not needed. Progressive load is the tool HST uses to fix this. Muscle confusion is a myth. Again, reading the FAQs is all I can suggest because Bryan addresses the fallacy of muscle confusion in the FAQs and the articles.
Adding more weight to the bar is the most effective tool for addressing adaptation that is out there.


Sorry if this all sounds terse, but I don't have much time at the moment. In fact, I have to go right now, but I'll come back later and add more on to this.
 
Im not communicating my thoughts well.

When I say 'muscle confusion&quot; I am meaning offsetting adaptation.

When I said HST changes up the workouts every two weeks to address this issue, i meant that the load is varied and therfore the stimulusis varied. But I also believe varying the excercises, even within a cycle, is beneficial to offset adaptation as well.

My fault again for not articulating my meaning.

Thanks for the input and for keeping on my toes!

RR
 
<div>
(redrooster @ Jan. 13 2008,13:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The product of the workouts is different as well. Most HIT advocates end up very thick looking, including the waistline. NOT fat but thick, whearas old school guys are thin waisted and symmetry is king. I prefer the small waist and sweeping lats to the bigger guys.</div>
This has nothing to do with training heavy or not. This has to do with training certain muscles. If you do a lot of heavy squatting and deadlifting like a powerlifter of course you will hypertrophy the waist and get huge abs, erectors, obliques, etc. The sweeping lats and smaller waist are simply a matter of training the lats and not the waist as much (and genetics.)

You seem like a smart guy, but you have some erroneous ideas about training. If you want symmetry and proportion you train the muscles you want to get larger, while reducing the work of muscles which you don't want to hypertrophy. It has nothing to do with training style. If you want muscle size you train for hypertrophy of that muscle, period. Hence the term hypertrophy specific training.
 
Vince Gironda trained back in the day and had little access to any science or research, so some of his ideas are simple myths. I respect some of his ideas greatly though. He especially contributed a lot to the kinesiology of bodybuilding and discovering the best exercisies for stimulation of certain muscles. I enjoy reading his ideas and tweaks of exercises to really isolate and maximally strain certain muscle groups.
 
Hi Redrooster. Good to have you aboard the HST wagon. As a past HITer myself I can understand your fear of seeing only 1 or 2 sets recommended in the 'starter' HST program. As the lads have pointed out, that's exactly why it's recommended - it's a good place to start for most people, especially those new to training. Once you are a more seasoned lifter with plenty of experience you will need to increase your volume. Volume per exercise is a hotly debated subject because there is no general answer. Many of us here find that 20 to 30 reps per exercise with our working weight (however those reps are divided up into sets) is manageable with a frequency of 2 or 3 times a week.

Just a few thoughts for now. Might have time for a few more later.

If you do 2 exercises per body part per session then you might do less volume for each exercise than someone who only does one exercise per body part per session. So if you did rows and chins in a session you might do 15 reps for each whereas if you just did rows you might do 30 reps.

Number of reps is also dependent on the exercise and the loading. I tend to start a cycle with around 30 reps per exercise and drop down to 20 by the end of the cycle for most exercises. For deads I handle things a little differently: I'll start a cycle with around 30 reps when the loads are light (2 x 15) and decrease that 30 reps down to only a single top set of 5 with my heaviest work load (my 5RM). At that point I will be doing several warmup sets before the final work set. I might do a few more lower rep sets (sets of 3 are good) with that same workload but, if I do, I am aware that it will take me a lot longer to recover and lower back fatigue will be a nuisance for at least the next few days.

5 x 5 works very well in conjunction with an HST cycle; at the end of 2 weeks of 5s you could go straight into a 5 x 5 cycle. If 6 x 6 is a similar beast then that would work too. 10 x 3 (or 8 x 3) is another effective alternative to try in place of 5s (or at the end of the 5s) and it also allows you to increase the loading beyond your 5RM if you want to.

Don't confuse muscle pump with an effective workout (or DOMS for that matter).

Using short rest periods can be useful if you want to get things done quickly but will not be conducive to doing sets with heavy loads as the cycle progresses into the 5s and beyond. Functional strength takes time to return after a heavy set, even if the set was not taken to failure. Your body will adapt to reduced rest periods over time but my feeling is that you will still be compromising what you can lift for your heaviest sets if you take under a minute od rest between sets. I like to take 3 - 5 minutes between sets at the end of the 5s.

Re the muscle confusion thingy: compound movements involve the use of many muscles. If you change from one compound to another then, unless they are almost identical movements, some of the muscles worked will be stressed to a greater or lesser degree. So, doing a rowing movement for the back will involve the use of many common muscles to a chinning movement but the strain on the working muscles and the range of motion will be different. There will also be muscles that are called heavily into play in one movement but hardly at all in the other. Even a change from pull-ups to chins will vary the strain on the muscles and range of motion involved - some more than others. This is why we get more DOMS when switching to a new exercise or an exercise that we haven't done in a while. I think it's good to have a few different exercises in your bag for each major muscle group and to change things around from time to time but there may be some core exercises that you use on a regular basis for nearly the whole of your lifting career. They will continue to be effective as long as you are able to progress the loading over time. That's where managing fatigue and frequency enter the equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top