Hypertrophy The rise of the (Hack Squat) machines

[LukeV]

Over the past decade I’ve noticed the hack squat machine transition from the place where people hang their wet towels to dry or gym owners store cleaning products to now even having a queue at times and with some seriously muscly dudes spotted in regular use. I asked around and it seems the hack squat is now considered the number 1 leg exercise for hypertrophy, outranking even the back squat. A Google search lead me to a forum for very dedicated bodybuilders whose lifestyles don’t require natural testosterone (are you with me?) where a poll had the hack squat as preferred for leg development by 37% to the back squat at 26%. (Interestingly the leg press machine, my personal favourite, nearly tied with the back squat at 24%.)

(Another interesting aside from that website polling is the popularity of higher reps amongst the ‘juicers’ these days. The majority reporting ~20 rep sets as a staple of their hypertrophy routines. That would also be a change from, say, 10 years ago when fewer would have been lifting above 12 reps at most.)

 

[Bill Lets]

My gym has a hack squat. I’m not sure what it is but it’s the same color and it looks like a elitefts machine. Most comfortable machine I have ever been on. You can replicate a sissy squat or you can place your feet higher. Both work the front of the thighs in a different way. You can even do wide stance which brings in more leg involvement.

I respect modern day BB’s for the hard work but I don’t like modern enhanced BB’s physiques. The massive amounts of “supplements” they take make gains and recovery to take place like magic. I like the era from Reg Park to Arnold. There was an expression at one time that BB’s and high bar back squats give you turnip thighs. Vince Gironde wouldn’t allow back squats to be performed in his gym. Vince had good thighs.

The modern ninja turtles would do good to do hack squats but unfortunately the trend is mass at all costs even stomachs. Even C-bum looks stupid with those wide unnatural delts. The old guys were more arms, chest, back and abs. Muscular legs just complimented and completed the physique and of coarse you lost points for small calves.

 

[LukeV]

My gym has a hack squat. I’m not sure what it is but it’s the same color and it looks like a elitefts machine. Most comfortable machine I have ever been on. You can replicate a sissy squat or you can place your feet higher. Both work the front of the thighs in a different way. You can even do wide stance which brings in more leg involvement.

I respect modern day BB’s for the hard work but I don’t like modern enhanced BB’s physiques. The massive amounts of “supplements” they take make gains and recovery to take place like magic. I like the era from Reg Park to Arnold. There was an expression at one time that BB’s and high bar back squats give you turnip thighs. Vince Gironde wouldn’t allow back squats to be performed in his gym. Vince had good thighs.

The modern ninja turtles would do good to do hack squats but unfortunately the trend is mass at all costs even stomachs. Even C-bum looks stupid with those wide unnatural delts. The old guys were more arms, chest, back and abs. Muscular legs just complimented and completed the physique and of coarse you lost points for small calves.

That sculpted appearance with definition and proportionality that used to be the hallmark of the bodybuilder has been displaced by the goal of muscle, muscle and more muscle. Not in all cases but enough

 

[Hung]

I respect modern day BB’s for the hard work but I don’t like modern enhanced BB’s physiques. The massive amounts of “supplements” they take make gains and recovery to take place like magic.

I think you will love the modern natty bodybuilding

 

[Bill Lets]

@LukeV I guess you said what I tried to say in a lot less words.
@Hung I like what the modern natty BB’s do and it’s much healthier.

 

[LukeV]

@LukeV I guess you said what I tried to say in a lot less words.
@Hung I like what the modern natty BB’s do and it’s much healthier.

You can Google Mr Olympia 1975 and Mr Olympia 2023, just for the images and you’ll see exactly the point. It’s not that there weren’t big guys in 1975 but that they looked like athletes. Compare to 2023 who look more like freaks. These are just two photos chosen more or less at random so not meant to be typical of all competitors but you see the point.



Versus

 

[Antti]

I think the hack squat is a great machine.

I always like a free weight squat first but I'm happy with a machine second. I'll even praise the leg extension machine, no matter how unhip I'll be for it.

 

[Bill Lets]

Bodybuilding contests usually get won with back development. Unfortunately modern day BB’s can’t scratch their backs.
Hack squats like any tool work if you know how to use it. Not sure if 20 rep sets gains are as long lasting as lower reps. Maybe?

 

[LukeV]

Bodybuilding contests usually get won with back development. Unfortunately modern day BB’s can’t scratch their backs.
Hack squats like any tool work if you know how to use it. Not sure if 20 rep sets gains are as long lasting as lower reps. Maybe?

Because I was almost always carrying injury due to acts of self-delusion I was working out and building muscle on high rep sets back in the days when people said that was impossible. I wasn’t happy about it because I also accepted the dogma of the time - I was working out in the endurance not hypertrophy range - but I was on 20+ rep sets because my joints and tendons couldn’t handle higher intensities due to over-training. Fellow lifters would stop and ask why I was wasting my time lifting such light weights but no-one was commenting on my declining physique or lack of progress. In fact, I was getting bigger at around the same rate as I thought I was before. This was 30 years ago, decades before Brad Schoenfeld’s research concluded hypertrophy gains were consistent up to 30 rep sets, provided proximity to failure was also consistent.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

the hack squat is now considered the number 1 leg exercise for hypertrophy, outranking even the back squat.

Hack Squat Quad Development

Hack Squats primarily emphasize Quad Development.

Developing Quads with Squats

To develop maximize Quads with Squats...

1) High Bar Back Squats

This place greater loading on the Quads; more so than Low Bar Powerlifting type Squats.

2) High Heel Back Squats

This shift the loading ever more so to the Quads.

3) Front Squats

Quad OverLoad occur with these Front Squats.

4) Safety Bar Squats

This elicits Quad development in a somewhat similar way to Front Squats; the workload is shifted forward, placing greater stress on the Quads.

5) Sissy Squats

This Squat place and enormous amount of work on the Quads.

Sissy Squats, along with Seated Leg Extension, are two of the most effective movement that develop the Rectus Femoris.

Shear Force

A lot of Shear Force is place on the knees with Hack Squats, Sissy Squats and Leg Extensions; which might be an issue for some.

higher reps... The majority reporting ~20 rep sets as a staple of their hypertrophy routines. That would also be a change from, say, 10 years ago when fewer would have been lifting above 12 reps at most.)

Higher Repetitions

Hypertrophy Training of 20 Repetition plus per set for Bodybuilding have been utilized for decades.

Tom Platz was a huge advocate of Mega High Repetitions.

Platz 23 Reps with 525 lbs (aka Quadzilla)



Super Squats



This method involves working up to one 20 Repetition Squat Set along with a high calorie diet for gaining weight.

The training objective is to perform one 20 Repetition Set of Squats with 150% of your Body Weight.

Back in the 1960's, John McCallum referred to it as "Breathing Squats".

Performing Super Squat/Breathing Squats continues to be very effective for gaining Muscle Mass and Body Weight, in conjunction with Diet.

Mega Repetition

To reiterate, Bodybuilders have used this method for decades and still use it today because it works.

Let's examine its similarity to...

Occlusion Training

This means slight wrapping an arm or leg with a tourniquet; on a scale of 1-10, discomfort should be around 6-7 to be effective.

Blood is pumped to the working muscles (Arterial Blood Flow). However, the tourniquet restricts blood from being pumped back to the heart (Venous Blood Flow).

Research shows (Dr. Jeremy Loenneke) that Occlusion Load of around 30-50% of 1 Repetition Max, performed for 30 Repetition Sets optimized Muscle Hypertrophy.

This produces a Mega Pump. The Pump has been show to produce a downstream effect that triggers Muscle Growth.

Ironically, Bodybuilder unknowingly elicit a similar Hypertrophy Effect with Mega High Repetition Sets.

The Traditional Bodybuilding Pump

When a muscle contracts it limits Venous Blood Flow back to the heart.

Blood is then trapped in the Muscles Trained, ballooning them up, producing The Pump.

The longer the Muscles are Contracted in an Exercise with Higher Repetitions, the more blood is pumped to the Muscles, the greater The Pump; more blood is trapped in the Muscles.

Short Rest Periods between Hypertrophy Sets of 30-60 second, limit the amount of Venous Blood Flow Back to the heart.

In other words, Shorter Rest Periods between sets ensure less blood flows back to the heart, enabling a lifter to maintain The Pump.

The next two set or more, continue to magnify The Pump.

 

[Spartan Agoge]

Over the past decade I’ve noticed the hack squat machine transition from the place where people hang their wet towels to dry or gym owners store cleaning products to now even having a queue at times and with some seriously muscly dudes spotted in regular use. I asked around and it seems the hack squat is now considered the number 1 leg exercise for hypertrophy, outranking even the back squat. A Google search lead me to a forum for very dedicated bodybuilders whose lifestyles don’t require natural testosterone (are you with me?) where a poll had the hack squat as preferred for leg development by 37% to the back squat at 26%. (Interestingly the leg press machine, my personal favourite, nearly tied with the back squat at 24%.)

(Another interesting aside from that website polling is the popularity of higher reps amongst the ‘juicers’ these days. The majority reporting ~20 rep sets as a staple of their hypertrophy routines. That would also be a change from, say, 10 years ago when fewer would have been lifting above 12 reps at most.)

IMO if muscle growth is someone's first priority, machines like the hack squat are much better that free weights, as they isolate muscle groups much better. Free weights are better for strength though, as they force you to stabilize and coordinate muscles.

 

[Chris Hall]

bodybuilders whose lifestyles don’t require natural testosterone

I think this by itself explains the preference for a machine exercise. For the enhanced athlete, building muscle is all about the stimulation of the muscle itself. For the rest of us, an anabolic hormonal response to training is just as important.

It makes sense that a good quality, well designed machine might be able to target muscles better. Big compound lifts seem to work better for generating that hormonal response - important part of the puzzle for most of us, but irrelevant if you have already got that covered via a syringe.

 

[Antti]

I think this by itself explains the preference for a machine exercise. For the enhanced athlete, building muscle is all about the stimulation of the muscle itself. For the rest of us, an anabolic hormonal response to training is just as important.

It makes sense that a good quality, well designed machine might be able to target muscles better. Big compound lifts seem to work better for generating that hormonal response - important part of the puzzle for most of us, but irrelevant if you have already got that covered via a syringe.

Do you have any data on how different exercises have different responses? I've only seen mentions of basic training with high volume, high intensity, using lots of muscle, but nothing specific.

 

[puddleduck]

That hormonal response from exercise is only acute in effect and definitely not the prime driver of muscle growth. That single metric can really drive you down a blind alley if you let it

 

[North Coast Miller]

Do you have any data on how different exercises have different responses? I've only seen mentions of basic training with high volume, high intensity, using lots of muscle, but nothing specific.

Same.

I've seen research that demonstrated skyrocketing GH from training to failure/beyond, esp at higher volumes.

There is an older bit of research contrasting machines to freeweights that claimed a larger hormonal response from freeweights but IIRC didn't parse that out. The magnitude wasn't that different and resting levels were comparable.

On a personal level, switching from a bro split to whole body seems to trigger a stronger anabolic response. I credit it with recruitment of more muscle per session.

That hormonal response from exercise is only acute in effect and definitely not the prime driver of muscle growth. That single metric can really drive you down a blind alley if you let it

Not a prime driver, but it is strongly suspected of having a notable effect when used with repeated acute spikes. I wouldn't chase it out of the gate, but based on what we know re cyclic or waveform mechanism of muscle synthesis, this shouldn't be discounted.

 

[Antti]

That hormonal response from exercise is only acute in effect and definitely not the prime driver of muscle growth. That single metric can really drive you down a blind alley if you let it

Same.

I've seen research that demonstrated skyrocketing GH from training to failure/beyond, esp at higher volumes.

There is an older bit of research contrasting machines to freeweights that claimed a larger hormonal response from freeweights but IIRC didn't parse that out. The magnitude wasn't that different and resting levels were comparable.

On a personal level, switching from a bro split to whole body seems to trigger a stronger anabolic response. I credit it with recruitment of more muscle per session.



Not a prime driver, but it is strongly suspected of having a notable effect when used with repeated acute spikes. I wouldn't chase it out of the gate, but based on what we know re cyclic or waveform mechanism of muscle synthesis, this shouldn't be discounted.

The spikes may seem short lived but I too am wary to dismiss them.

Take testosterone, for example. Women have less than men, but they seem to be able to build relatively equal amounts of muscle as men. Natural testosterone levels don't seem to be that big of an indicator, lots of men with low test get big despite of it. Exogenous testosterone, however, always seems to build more of it. So, I suspect there's more at play than we currently understand. Is the spike really less important than the resting level? Could the spike be indicative of something else?

And when it comes to signals they may be easy to misunderstand. Muscle damage causes hypertrophy to increase, but is it because we're adding more mass, or because we're repairing mass? The consensus used to be the former, but from what I've seen, it's turned to the latter. So we can't just look at protein synthesis numbers and see it as a marker for effective hypertrophy.

In any case, I'll take all the data I can. Maybe I can make something of it some day.

 

[puddleduck]

Same.

I've seen research that demonstrated skyrocketing GH from training to failure/beyond, esp at higher volumes.

There is an older bit of research contrasting machines to freeweights that claimed a larger hormonal response from freeweights but IIRC didn't parse that out. The magnitude wasn't that different and resting levels were comparable.

On a personal level, switching from a bro split to whole body seems to trigger a stronger anabolic response. I credit it with recruitment of more muscle per session.



Not a prime driver, but it is strongly suspected of having a notable effect when used with repeated acute spikes. I wouldn't chase it out of the gate, but based on what we know re cyclic or waveform mechanism of muscle synthesis, this shouldn't be discounted.

I was - and remain - persuaded fairly convincingly by this Lyle McDonald article

The Hormonal Response to Squats and Muscle Growth -

Today I want to take a final look at the topic of squats hormones and growth and why I still think it's a red herring in the training world.

bodyrecomposition.com

No point me expanding on these points as he puts them across better than I could. Worth a read

 

[North Coast Miller]

I was - and remain - persuaded fairly convincingly by this Lyle McDonald article

The Hormonal Response to Squats and Muscle Growth -

Today I want to take a final look at the topic of squats hormones and growth and why I still think it's a red herring in the training world.

bodyrecomposition.com

No point me expanding on these points as he puts them across better than I could. Worth a read

It doesn't take much looking to find that GH has been shown to enhance anabolism in muscle tissue, in numerous studies. That aside, his observation that systemic hormone levels only effect muscle that has been trained is spot on.

This is why I recommend whole body training and not a split. Hormone levels are effected by training method and total recruited muscle mass. Any session that includes the larger muscles of the legs will (all things being equal) lead to a larger hormone response, theoretically benefitting any muscle that has recently undergone tension and metabolic stress, even at a different site in the body.

Lactate by itself triggers HIF-1 and PGC-1. Now we know that without some form of tension and metabolic stress, it has no effect on muscle by itself. Add these things (in one experiment, mild muscle damage + lactate was enough to trigger hypertrophy) and you get a response.

So in fairness we're not just talking about GH and T but the whole gamut of responses. Also noted from the get-go that the difference in response is not liable to be critical. However, if you add up a handful of these mild contributors it can have a meaningful effect. Generally speaking, how you train is the single most important controllable element.

And anecdotally, squatting heavier always does seem to improve hypertrophic response, and not just to legs.

 

[puddleduck]

Yeah it’s interesting. I always thought the squats = whole body growth was in part because if you’re squatting, you’re probably taking other things seriously, but there may be other stuff going on.

To add to the anecdotal data, since my gym got a hip belt squat and I’ve started doing some ok weights again with them, (couldn’t back squat for last decade due to disc issues) I can’t stop growing. Even aged 46 with 32 years training. Also implemented a few other tactics that I’ve learnt in more recent years but it’s quite marked so something is definitely afoot

 

[Chris Hall]

Do you have any data on how different exercises have different responses? I've only seen mentions of basic training with high volume, high intensity, using lots of muscle, but nothing specific

No. That is why I used so many ‘weasel words’ such as ‘might’ and ‘seems to’