MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Squats Are Rubbish?
Author
Rating
Options

coomo

Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)Wolud really like to hear Dr Ds view here as well.Come on Ellington,its your site as well! Discuss!please!

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.Kayo can you manage to contribute without being racist, homophobic,or insulting Mike Mentzer? if not please dont post.

lastly wayne is it possible for you to discuss,without reference to speed of reps,accusations of drug use,avoidance of the following ;Newtons, joules,physics,one armed anything, and Lisa Stansfield.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

coomo wrote:
Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)


Hi Coomo,

It is not exactly clear what you are asking. Are you talking about what some have called the "indirect affect"?

If so, I doubt it exists as many perceive it.

Muscles grow and strengthen in direct proportion to their being stimulated.

In the SQUAT (as per your title) some think of the squat as a "leg" exercise, when it is not. It is pretty much an exercise stimulus for all the muscles and joints from where the load (bar) is placed on the shoulders, to the feet. That "Kinetic Chain" (sorry) is and will be affected to the degree each muscle is stimulated.

coomo wrote:

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.


Sorry to disappoint, but Kinetic Chains are very accepted scientific terms, and useful to understanding how forces are managed in a multi-joint system like the human body. Just Google Arthur Steindler if you need more information.
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

coomo wrote:
Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)Wolud really like to hear Dr Ds view here as well.Come on Ellington,its your site as well! Discuss!please!

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.Kayo can you manage to contribute without being racist, homophobic,or insulting Mike Mentzer? if not please dont post.

lastly wayne is it possible for you to discuss,without reference to speed of reps,accusations of drug use,avoidance of the following ;Newtons, joules,physics,one armed anything, and Lisa Stansfield.


Kinetic chain pseudo science, ridiculous, wow that is really showing yourself up.

No what you say is not possible its a myth, if you work your legs only your arms will not grow, why would they ??? The only way your arms would grow a very small degree it if you did squats and then your arms would be holding the bar and gripping it, but this would be so small it would not be worth mentioning, so why would a muscle grow lets say the arms if you was only working the legs only, and nothing else ??? If you are not working a muscle it would have no reason to grow.

I mean most find it hard to grow from direct never mind indirect.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Tony84

Ive never been a big believer that u have to do the "BIG" exercises to build mass. I cant tell u how many times i have talked to guys at the gym who said that never saw any growth in their chest until they stopped benching and started doing chest flys. There are so many websites that say if u could only do one exercise it should be the squat.

And i always think why? In my opinion the king of all exercises is the push up. U can build a nice body only doing push ups. It works about every muscle in your body either directly or indirectly like your leg muscles. If u do only squats u wont have a nice body. However squats do release lots of growth hormone so they do help build other muscles but those muscles still have to be worked.
Open User Options Menu

OSAKA/J

Actually, wayne, this is one time I'll agree with you: Most DO find it harder to grow from any exercise, whether direct or indirect.

Having said that, I have found, and this is anecdotal at best, that squats will provide some indirect work, only insofar as your whole body is working to stabilize and move the weight. On that matter, I'll have to agree with BIO. (My goodness, agreeing with the both of you; will wonders never cease...). Seriously...

The "work" you're doing to stablilize will provide a kind of "constant tension" to the other muscles in your body, not just your legs/hips/lower back; it is this "tension" (for lack of a better word) that will have some kind of effect over time. How much of an effect I can't say, just that when I didn't squat for a time (due to lower back problems) I noticed that my other bodyparts seemed to regress; why I can't say, as my diet, rest, hydration, et. al. were all the same. As I said, this is all a personal observation; I can't speak for anyone else in this matter.

I am NOT saying that squats will cause your arms and chest, back, etc. to increase to huge proportions--you do need direct work for that, of course. But the effort made to keep "in your groove" so to speak, will result IMO in slightly better results. Purely anecdotal, I know, but it's worked for me.

Osaka/J
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

OSAKA/J wrote:
Actually, wayne, this is one time I'll agree with you: Most DO find it harder to grow from any exercise, whether direct or indirect.

Having said that, I have found, and this is anecdotal at best, that squats will provide some indirect work, only insofar as your whole body is working to stabilize and move the weight. On that matter, I'll have to agree with BIO. (My goodness, agreeing with the both of you; will wonders never cease...). Seriously...

The "work" you're doing to stablilize will provide a kind of "constant tension" to the other muscles in your body, not just your legs/hips/lower back; it is this "tension" (for lack of a better word) that will have some kind of effect over time. How much of an effect I can't say, just that when I didn't squat for a time (due to lower back problems) I noticed that my other bodyparts seemed to regress; why I can't say, as my diet, rest, hydration, et. al. were all the same. As I said, this is all a personal observation; I can't speak for anyone else in this matter.

I am NOT saying that squats will cause your arms and chest, back, etc. to increase to huge proportions--you do need direct work for that, of course. But the effort made to keep "in your groove" so to speak, will result IMO in slightly better results. Purely anecdotal, I know, but it's worked for me.

Osaka/J


Hi Osaka/J,

You are quite correct that "training effect" is experienced by muscles other than the Primary Movers.

I would however be quick to suggest that "all" stabilizers are "directly" affected (stimulated) by the load.

I believe "indirect effect" is many times associated with muscle groups (say biceps) that really have no "direct" or sufficient stimulus. While this is possible via the subject simply experiencing an overall growth spurt, it seldom would happen in a mature (past major growth spurts) well conditioned athlete or trainee.

Your experience is quite common and normal.
Open User Options Menu

coomo

This is typical.I purposely started what I thought would be an interesting thread.Its content extremely relavent to EVRYONE who trains HIT (and otherwise) and what happens? virtually no response.Credit at least to those few who have an opinion, and who have bothered to reply.

It would seem unless interpersonal squabbling are present,and the threads can divert from the topic, no-one is interested.Think ill go to the mentzer site, at least there is open debate without conflict.
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

Well, indirect affect might be rubbish, but that hardly invalidates the squat. The squat provides great stimulus for every muscle in the body (save the arms) and if done properly has great ROM for the quads. The deadlift probably works more of the musculature in total, but none of it in very good ROM. Both are excellent, time efficient exercises, but neither is the be all, end all as their zealots would have you believe.

Nor are leg presses such a bad thing as the squat zealots would have you believe. We all get caught up in this "if you could only do one exercise" arguement, we forget that we can do all sorts of exercises. And if done with some regard to safety, they're all good.
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

coomo wrote:
This is typical.I purposely started what I thought would be an interesting thread.Its content extremely relavent to EVRYONE who trains HIT (and otherwise) and what happens? virtually no response.Credit at least to those few who have an opinion, and who have bothered to reply.

It would seem unless interpersonal squabbling are present,and the threads can divert from the topic, no-one is interested.Think ill go to the mentzer site, at least there is open debate without conflict.


Hi coome,

You did not give us your thoughts ???

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

It's quite easy:
Indirect effect (or direct effect on "stabilizers" -ugly word!) is pronounced when you are tending towards G type (G for general as per AJ's definition) muscles and less to non-existent when you are mainly/completely S type (S for specific).
With other words, if you already grow like weed with hapharzised, uncontroled and bad form (or clean and jerk...), chances are high that you experience also much indirect effect (like growing big lats from DL or calves from squats).
If not, forget about it and work the muscles you want to grow over the biggest possible ROM in good controled form.

Franco

Open User Options Menu

Gazz

coomo wrote:
Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)Wolud really like to hear Dr Ds view here as well.Come on Ellington,its your site as well! Discuss!please!

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.Kayo can you manage to contribute without being racist, homophobic,or insulting Mike Mentzer? if not please dont post.

lastly wayne is it possible for you to discuss,without reference to speed of reps,accusations of drug use,avoidance of the following ;Newtons, joules,physics,one armed anything, and Lisa Stansfield.


Coomo

I'd tend to agree that there is little spill, over but with a couple of caveats:

1. Whilst squats as a lone exercise may not develop the body as a whole, I believe that if squats are incorporated into a well rounded program of other exercises, then that program becomes more effective than it would have been if the squats had been replaced by say, leg extensions or a similar lesser exercise. I don't have any scientific proof to back this statement, merely personal opinion based on experience.

2. The emphasis on squats as THE exercise if you could only perform one exercise in a workout is overrated. There are two exercises which command greater respect as overall developers, the deadlift, and the Clean and jerk/press. Whilst both exercises will develop a greater number of bodyparts than the squat, they will not develop everything. Have a look at Olympic liters, Huge thighs & calves,rounded delts, good arms, good upper back, fantastic lower back: what happened to their chests, they don't emphasize the chest muscles as they are not a prime mover for their sport, indeed I believe that huge pecs would be detrimental to thier lifting abilities (correct me if I'm wrong, I,m no expert).

All the best

Gazz
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Gazz wrote:
coomo wrote:
Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)Wolud really like to hear Dr Ds view here as well.Come on Ellington,its your site as well! Discuss!please!

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.Kayo can you manage to contribute without being racist, homophobic,or insulting Mike Mentzer? if not please dont post.

lastly wayne is it possible for you to discuss,without reference to speed of reps,accusations of drug use,avoidance of the following ;Newtons, joules,physics,one armed anything, and Lisa Stansfield.

Coomo

I'd tend to agree that there is little spill, over but with a couple of caveats:

1. Whilst squats as a lone exercise may not develop the body as a whole, I believe that if squats are incorporated into a well rounded program of other exercises, then that program becomes more effective than it would have been if the squats had been replaced by say, leg extensions or a similar lesser exercise. I don't have any scientific proof to back this statement, merely personal opinion based on experience.

2. The emphasis on squats as THE exercise if you could only perform one exercise in a workout is overrated. There are two exercises which command greater respect as overall developers, the deadlift, and the Clean and jerk/press. Whilst both exercises will develop a greater number of bodyparts than the squat, they will not develop everything. Have a look at Olympic liters, Huge thighs & calves,rounded delts, good arms, good upper back, fantastic lower back: what happened to their chests, they don't emphasize the chest muscles as they are not a prime mover for their sport, indeed I believe that huge pecs would be detrimental to thier lifting abilities (correct me if I'm wrong, I,m no expert).

All the best

Gazz


What I would like to know is where and the hell did this love affair with the clean and jerk come from ?
Open User Options Menu

Gazz

Bill Sekerak wrote:
Gazz wrote:
coomo wrote:
Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)Wolud really like to hear Dr Ds view here as well.Come on Ellington,its your site as well! Discuss!please!

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.Kayo can you manage to contribute without being racist, homophobic,or insulting Mike Mentzer? if not please dont post.

lastly wayne is it possible for you to discuss,without reference to speed of reps,accusations of drug use,avoidance of the following ;Newtons, joules,physics,one armed anything, and Lisa Stansfield.

Coomo

I'd tend to agree that there is little spill, over but with a couple of caveats:

1. Whilst squats as a lone exercise may not develop the body as a whole, I believe that if squats are incorporated into a well rounded program of other exercises, then that program becomes more effective than it would have been if the squats had been replaced by say, leg extensions or a similar lesser exercise. I don't have any scientific proof to back this statement, merely personal opinion based on experience.

2. The emphasis on squats as THE exercise if you could only perform one exercise in a workout is overrated. There are two exercises which command greater respect as overall developers, the deadlift, and the Clean and jerk/press. Whilst both exercises will develop a greater number of bodyparts than the squat, they will not develop everything. Have a look at Olympic liters, Huge thighs & calves,rounded delts, good arms, good upper back, fantastic lower back: what happened to their chests, they don't emphasize the chest muscles as they are not a prime mover for their sport, indeed I believe that huge pecs would be detrimental to thier lifting abilities (correct me if I'm wrong, I,m no expert).

All the best

Gazz

What I would like to know is where and the hell did this love affair with the clean and jerk come from ?


Bill

I would like to know that too. Read the post mate. Where did I say that I was in love with the clean and jerk? My opinion is that deadlft and Clean and jerk are superior to the squat if you had to choose one, and only one exercise to train on. The rational being that both movements provide stimulus to a greater number of muscles and therefore invoke greater overall muscular stress across the body.

All the best
Gazz
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Gazz wrote:
Bill Sekerak wrote:
Gazz wrote:
coomo wrote:
Now ive got everyones attention.Im restarting a thread from a while back.one of our regular posters here,Bill Sekerak,who train of thought regarding HIT is the same as mine, had a conversation with AJ around 1995.The giest of the conversation was that after research with Medex,AJ believed that the "spill over" effect did not occur.

That the building of strength in the larger musculature did not affect the strength of the bodys smaller muscles.naturally this flys in the face of a basic belief that is foundational to strength training.(Hope you didnt mind me quoting you Bill)Wolud really like to hear Dr Ds view here as well.Come on Ellington,its your site as well! Discuss!please!

Note;Bio please dont use psuedo science,ridiculous statements like kinetic chain etc.Kayo can you manage to contribute without being racist, homophobic,or insulting Mike Mentzer? if not please dont post.

lastly wayne is it possible for you to discuss,without reference to speed of reps,accusations of drug use,avoidance of the following ;Newtons, joules,physics,one armed anything, and Lisa Stansfield.

Coomo

I'd tend to agree that there is little spill, over but with a couple of caveats:

1. Whilst squats as a lone exercise may not develop the body as a whole, I believe that if squats are incorporated into a well rounded program of other exercises, then that program becomes more effective than it would have been if the squats had been replaced by say, leg extensions or a similar lesser exercise. I don't have any scientific proof to back this statement, merely personal opinion based on experience.

2. The emphasis on squats as THE exercise if you could only perform one exercise in a workout is overrated. There are two exercises which command greater respect as overall developers, the deadlift, and the Clean and jerk/press. Whilst both exercises will develop a greater number of bodyparts than the squat, they will not develop everything. Have a look at Olympic liters, Huge thighs & calves,rounded delts, good arms, good upper back, fantastic lower back: what happened to their chests, they don't emphasize the chest muscles as they are not a prime mover for their sport, indeed I believe that huge pecs would be detrimental to thier lifting abilities (correct me if I'm wrong, I,m no expert).

All the best

Gazz

What I would like to know is where and the hell did this love affair with the clean and jerk come from ?

Bill

I would like to know that too. Read the post mate. Where did I say that I was in love with the clean and jerk? My opinion is that deadlft and Clean and jerk are superior to the squat if you had to choose one, and only one exercise to train on. The rational being that both movements provide stimulus to a greater number of muscles and therefore invoke greater overall muscular stress across the body.

All the best
Gazz


I wasn't referring to you in particular, it is just that lately every other poster seems to think that the clean and jerk is a superior exercise.
Open User Options Menu

Elaikases

HSDAD wrote:
Well, indirect affect might be rubbish, but that hardly invalidates the squat. The squat provides great stimulus for every muscle in the body (save the arms) and if done properly has great ROM for the quads. The deadlift probably works more of the musculature in total, but none of it in very good ROM. Both are excellent, time efficient exercises, but neither is the be all, end all as their zealots would have you believe.

Nor are leg presses such a bad thing as the squat zealots would have you believe. We all get caught up in this "if you could only do one exercise" arguement, we forget that we can do all sorts of exercises. And if done with some regard to safety, they're all good.


I tried dumb bell squats for a while, th Platz way, and got a great pump in my arms, just as advertised. The biggest problem is that the weight I needed for squats got to be more than I could handle as dumb bells. Dropped a couple of times and went to the bar.

Now I'm on the leg press machine. Dang, the weight curve on the eccentric cam does some interesting things.

Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Elaikases wrote:
HSDAD wrote:
Well, indirect affect might be rubbish, but that hardly invalidates the squat. The squat provides great stimulus for every muscle in the body (save the arms) and if done properly has great ROM for the quads. The deadlift probably works more of the musculature in total, but none of it in very good ROM. Both are excellent, time efficient exercises, but neither is the be all, end all as their zealots would have you believe.

Nor are leg presses such a bad thing as the squat zealots would have you believe. We all get caught up in this "if you could only do one exercise" arguement, we forget that we can do all sorts of exercises. And if done with some regard to safety, they're all good.

I tried dumb bell squats for a while, th Platz way, and got a great pump in my arms, just as advertised. The biggest problem is that the weight I needed for squats got to be more than I could handle as dumb bells. Dropped a couple of times and went to the bar.

Now I'm on the leg press machine. Dang, the weight curve on the eccentric cam does some interesting things.



Which machine is this ? A Nautilus dou-squat ?
Open User Options Menu

Elaikases

Bill Sekerak wrote:

Which machine is this ? A Nautilus dou-squat ?


Nope, a Matrix:

http://www.amazon.com/...0/dp/B000OWZOX2

Looks a lot like it. Heck, may be the machine.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Elaikases wrote:
Bill Sekerak wrote:

Which machine is this ? A Nautilus dou-squat ?

Nope, a Matrix:

http://www.amazon.com/...0/dp/B000OWZOX2

Looks a lot like it. Heck, may be the machine.


Looks interesting. I never saw this line before , the description says that the resistance varies due to four bar linkage , are you sure it has a negative cam ?
Open User Options Menu

Elaikases

Bill Sekerak wrote:
Elaikases wrote:
Bill Sekerak wrote:

Which machine is this ? A Nautilus dou-squat ?

Nope, a Matrix:

http://www.amazon.com/...0/dp/B000OWZOX2

Looks a lot like it. Heck, may be the machine.

Looks interesting. I never saw this line before , the description says that the resistance varies due to four bar linkage , are you sure it has a negative cam ?


Well, it has the differential resistance I associate with cams. Some of the machines have cams, as I look at them as I use the machine. I haven't really looked at this one, just started on it the other night.

What struck me is that moving from squatting 180-185 pounds, it was hard to get 190 pounds moving on the initial push, but once I got six inches of movement it was a good deal easier to move it the rest of the way.

The differential is what I noticed.
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy