Adarq.org
Performance Area => Article & Video Discussion => Topic started by: Raptor on August 10, 2012, 12:06:58 pm
-
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/jointbyjointvert.html
Excellent article^^^
-
Yes, Kelly has a similar section in his VJB 2.0, I like his explanations in finding an athletes weakness or dominance by each joint. But I think doing one knee extension compound movement like the squat, then a hip extension dominant movement , and an ankle extension dominant movement every session would be the bang for the buck as it hits the hips twice with two exercises and the knee extensors and calves once with just with one exercise. This should prevent quad over dominance but still gets trained while training both the hip extension and ankle extension. So all joints get worked. Kelly did provide good tests for assessment none the less
-
When your squat gets stronger, so do the muscles around hips and knees. Therefore you have the potential to jump higher.
If one muscle group, that is needed in a compound exercise, happens to be underdeveloped, then it will develop faster than other muscle groups if you do that compound exercise correctly. So if you are "quad dominant" this will take care of itself if you increase your squat utilizing correct mechanics. That is because a given weight on the bar during squats will be a more severe stress for the weak hips compared to the quads IF you happen to squat correctly and not compensate for your muscular irregularity.
Therefore one can forget about the diagnostics and focus instead on learning and executing exercises properly, in a way that increases hip and quad strength rather evenly for most individuals, and make the weight on the bar go up. The rest will take care of itself.
-
I think doing one knee extension compound movement like the squat, then a hip extension dominant movement , and an ankle extension dominant movement every session would be the bang for the buck as it hits the hips twice with two exercises and the knee extensors and calves once with just with one exercise. This should prevent quad over dominance but still gets trained while training both the hip extension and ankle extension. So all joints get worked. Kelly did provide good tests for assessment none the less
Your thinking is on the right track. That's pretty much identical to my beginner template which is discussed in that section in the book. Squat, hip dominant movement, ankle dominant movement. Or a full routine: plyo movement, RFD movement (jump squat, clean, snatch) squat, hip extension movement, calf raise variation
For the last few years I've been using that template for beginners and it works absolutely wonderful.
-
When your squat gets stronger, so do the muscles around hips and knees. Therefore you have the potential to jump higher.
If one muscle group, that is needed in a compound exercise, happens to be underdeveloped, then it will develop faster than other muscle groups if you do that compound exercise correctly. So if you are "quad dominant" this will take care of itself if you increase your squat utilizing correct mechanics. That is because a given weight on the bar during squats will be a more severe stress for the weak hips compared to the quads IF you happen to squat correctly and not compensate for your muscular irregularity.
Therefore one can forget about the diagnostics and focus instead on learning and executing exercises properly, in a way that increases hip and quad strength rather evenly for most individuals, and make the weight on the bar go up. The rest will take care of itself.
That's pretty much true, one can get by with nothing but squats and zero ankle extensor or hip dominant work, but I think a 3 exercise regimen is more optimal. In my experience if people just do squats without supplemental hip extensor work they often become overly quad dominant over time. That might not happen if they focused on low bar squats though.
If we take the notion we're trying to strengthen the 3 power producing muscle groups cotributing to the vert as quickly as possible, I prefer a high bar squat and hip extension movement vs a low bar squat. A high bar squat is going to inherently have more quad activation and will built quad strength quicker. A front squat is even better, but it's kinda a pain in the ass.
I see what you're saying though and you make a valid point.
-
That's pretty much true, one can get by with nothing but squats and zero ankle extensor or hip dominant work, but I think a 3 exercise regimen is more optimal. In my experience if people just do squats without supplemental hip extensor work they often become overly quad dominant over time. That might not happen if they focused on low bar squats though.
If we take the notion we're trying to strengthen the 3 power producing muscle groups cotributing to the vert as quickly as possible, I prefer a high bar squat and hip extension movement vs a low bar squat. A high bar squat is going to inherently have more quad activation and will built quad strength quicker. A front squat is even better, but it's kinda a pain in the ass.
I see what you're saying though and you make a valid point.
My squat example was really just to provide an illustration of why I believe that imbalances go away over time if you progressively overload an exercise utilizing mechanics that stress the over- and underdeveloped muscle groups to a similar degree. I share your opinion that ankle work and other exercises should be incorporated as well.
What I do not understand is your philosophy regarding the high-bar squat. You say that training it increases quad strength faster compared to low-bar *. This inevitably leads to comparatively weaker hips, which has to be compensated for via another exercise, that is primarily a hip extension movement. So you end up with two movements that favor either knee or hip extensors. In a low-bar squat you would instead use both muscle groups to a similar degree and get them stronger simultaneously and prevent imbalances from the start.
* I do not think this to be true. I find it more likely that HB squats just leave the hip extensors weaker. While I agree that the quads have to do a larger percentage of the work in the HB squat, the load that can be managed in this style is inferior to the LB variant. And since the knee joints can be worked over a similar ROM in both squat styles, it seems to me that the LB squat is better for VJ training as well. That is unless reality shows us that properly coached trainees' progress is faster for the HB vs. the LB squat over a meaningful time interval such as 4 months. I do not know whether this is the case, but it would be very, very surprising considering the universally observable phenomenon that exercises that allow for more weight to be used have a higher growth potential and are less prone to external and internal disturbances.
-
Yeah and also I would add that doing two exercises, say a front squat and a RDL for quad and glute/ham development is hard to correlate.
Can you safely say a 100 kg front squat has the same effect on the quads as a 100 kg RDL does for the glutes and hams or not? Can you say, if you have a front squat/high bar squat of 100 kg and a RDL/hip thrust of 100 kg that you're completely balanced? How do you balance these two things when there are different levers, ROMs, supporting muscles etc at work?
-
That's pretty much true, one can get by with nothing but squats and zero ankle extensor or hip dominant work, but I think a 3 exercise regimen is more optimal. In my experience if people just do squats without supplemental hip extensor work they often become overly quad dominant over time. That might not happen if they focused on low bar squats though.
If we take the notion we're trying to strengthen the 3 power producing muscle groups cotributing to the vert as quickly as possible, I prefer a high bar squat and hip extension movement vs a low bar squat. A high bar squat is going to inherently have more quad activation and will built quad strength quicker. A front squat is even better, but it's kinda a pain in the ass.
I see what you're saying though and you make a valid point.
My squat example was really just to provide an illustration of why I believe that imbalances go away over time if you progressively overload an exercise utilizing mechanics that stress the over- and underdeveloped muscle groups to a similar degree. I share your opinion that ankle work and other exercises should be incorporated as well.
What I do not understand is your philosophy regarding the high-bar squat. You say that training it increases quad strength faster compared to low-bar *. This inevitably leads to comparatively weaker hips, which has to be compensated for via another exercise, that is primarily a hip extension movement. So you end up with two movements that favor either knee or hip extensors. In a low-bar squat you would instead use both muscle groups to a similar degree and get them stronger simultaneously and prevent imbalances from the start.
* I do not think this to be true. I find it more likely that HB squats just leave the hip extensors weaker. While I agree that the quads have to do a larger percentage of the work in the HB squat, the load that can be managed in this style is inferior to the LB variant. And since the knee joints can be worked over a similar ROM in both squat styles, it seems to me that the LB squat is better for VJ training as well. That is unless reality shows us that properly coached trainees' progress is faster for the HB vs. the LB squat over a meaningful time interval such as 4 months. I do not know whether this is the case, but it would be very, very surprising considering the universally observable phenomenon that exercises that allow for more weight to be used have a higher growth potential and are less prone to external and internal disturbances.
Steven, it depends on how the low bar squat is done. You do it pretty damn upright, and done that way you will lose very little rom at the knee. This is not the way a lot of people low bar squat, and they end up sitting way back, not allowing much knee travel, driving their ass up and goodmorning the weight, doing much less work in a vertical force vector and from the quads.
-
What he said. The more upright the torso the more inherent quad activation you're going to get. In a low bar squat you have to start out with a certain degree of forward lean otherwise the bar will fall off your back. Do a low bar squat, then a high bar squat, then a front squat and note the differences. One fairly recent study compared half back squats, full high bar back squats, and full front squats and assessed how the gains translated into VJ gains - the front squats actually came out slightly ahead. IIRC the same sizes were fairly small, so more research needs to be done. That doesn't surprise me though considering those mirrored my own experiences. BUT, I still don't typically recommend the front squat unless someone just prefers doing it..it's too hard to load, too much technique, hurts too much - just not much of a fun movement IMO. And if someone prefers a low bar back squat over a high bar back squat I really have no problems with it in the grand scheme of things.
-
Finally got a chance to read the article, I like it as usual. That test mentioned is one we use prior to guys getting tested in the vert,
I find it not only helps dominance assessment but also helps the actual vert in creating a straight line with no wasted movement.
Ive seen some nice increases almost instantly once the less efficient movement was corrected. In fact I had posted that for fun in my blog a while back.
http://www.adarq.org/forum/lancests-performance-blog/force-vector-test-svj/
Nice article. Come talk with us more often man!
-
Steven, it depends on how the low bar squat is done. You do it pretty damn upright, and done that way you will lose very little rom at the knee. This is not the way a lot of people low bar squat, and they end up sitting way back, not allowing much knee travel, driving their ass up and goodmorning the weight, doing much less work in a vertical force vector and from the quads.
I have to stay very upright because of my long torso. If I lean over more, the bar gets forward of the mid-foot. So correct LBBS technique will produce varying torso angles. This applies to high-bar as well if some basic assumptions about "good technique" are accepted (e.g. weight in balance over the whole foot).
Regarding how many people do the LBBS, here is what I wrote before:
Therefore one can forget about the diagnostics and focus instead on learning and executing exercises properly, in a way that increases hip and quad strength rather evenly for most individuals, and make the weight on the bar go up.
People not letting the knees travel forward much at all, that shift the weight towards the heel or who are GMing a weight are not doing what I said there.
What he said. The more upright the torso the more inherent quad activation you're going to get. In a low bar squat you have to start out with a certain degree of forward lean otherwise the bar will fall off your back. Do a low bar squat, then a high bar squat, then a front squat and note the differences. One fairly recent study compared half back squats, full high bar back squats, and full front squats and assessed how the gains translated into VJ gains - the front squats actually came out slightly ahead. IIRC the same sizes were fairly small, so more research needs to be done. That doesn't surprise me though considering those mirrored my own experiences. BUT, I still don't typically recommend the front squat unless someone just prefers doing it..it's too hard to load, too much technique, hurts too much - just not much of a fun movement IMO. And if someone prefers a low bar back squat over a high bar back squat I really have no problems with it in the grand scheme of things.
I think that you would get similar quad activation values in a one-repetition-maximum attempt on LBBS and HBBS and a lower value in front squats. The deciding factor would be which element in the kinetic chain would fail if 1 kg more was on the bar. It is often the quads that fail in the LBBS and HBBS (a miss in the front-squat is usually caused by a failure to keep the torso upright, which is not a function of the quads). The fact that the quads are the limiting factor even in the LBBS is demonstrated by the common observation that inexperienced athletes good-morning the weight when it gets very heavy. This takes stress off the quads and lets the hips do the rest of the work.
Regarding the study you spoke about, I would be interested to see the exact method used to come to this results. There are a number of ways one could investigate such a topic and I would expect vastly different outcomes depending on study design and statistical analyses used.
Nice article. Come talk with us more often man!
I second that.
-
Maybe you look too simplistic on things Steven. You can say stuff like "the quads can't do this or can't do that" but the question is - are they supposed to do the majority of work?
What I mean is that if you can't "reach" your glutes and make them work in the squat the quads will overload a ton and try to compensate the lack of glute drive by working more, and they will fail and you might end up thinking "oh, I have weak quads, look at them fail", when in reality they weren't supposed to get overloaded like that in the first place if the glutes were to actually do their job.
So you gotta take that into account as well - sometimes the failure of a group of muscles is a direct effect of the weakness of another group of muscles.
-
Maybe you look too simplistic on things Steven. You can say stuff like "the quads can't do this or can't do that" but the question is - are they supposed to do the majority of work?
What I mean is that if you can't "reach" your glutes and make them work in the squat the quads will overload a ton and try to compensate the lack of glute drive by working more, and they will fail and you might end up thinking "oh, I have weak quads, look at them fail", when in reality they weren't supposed to get overloaded like that in the first place if the glutes were to actually do their job.
So you gotta take that into account as well - sometimes the failure of a group of muscles is a direct effect of the weakness of another group of muscles.
So which muscle group do YOU think is most likely to fail in a LBBS vs. HBBS?
-
This is the same kid. Former Rip trainee so I would assume his form is accepted as "good" on the low bar squat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuA_49PtFJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYeDpZfzEUY
Do you see the quads going through the same range of motion in both videos? Do you not think the second video shows a different force vector line, more similar to a deadlift, while the first shows a more similar movement pattern to a front squat?
-
Do you see the quads going through the same range of motion in both videos? Do you not think the second video shows a different force vector line, more similar to a deadlift, while the first shows a more similar movement pattern to a front squat?
It is not exactly the same ROM but I'd lie if I said the degree of flexion of the knee joint at the deepest position looked substantially different. But certainly, the knee joint will be a bit more closed in the HBBS compared to the LBBS, so I guess I can see your point.
(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1174/lbbsvshbbs.png)
Which force vector line are you talking about?
-
Im referring to the direction of force through the feet and ground, driving the shoulders, chest, and head upwards, in the high bar squat, vs driving the hips up via the lb. Think about jumping, you will see which one has more similar force vectors.
This is what makes the difference imo, in some lb squats, you see a similar line of push that you would in a vertical leap, in others you see an almost identical line to a deadlift. The reason the front squat gives more similarity to the vert is for this reason imo, you literally cant make it a deadlift, or you lose the bar.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCh4bm-lE2c
compare that to your squat Steven, and I think you will understand what I am referring to more clearly.
-
I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.
-
I gotta go train, Ill be on later though to read your replies.
deadlift= broad jump- horizontal force vector
front squat= vertical jump - vertical force vector
vertical---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------horizontal
front squat........................ high bar squat............................... low bar squat................... deadlift
**the way these exercises are performed can alter their position for each individual. the deadlift can go more vertical, the high bar squat more towards hfv, etc.
-
I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.
Right, and its a GREAT FUCKING EXERCISE, its just not the ONLY way, or single optimal way for EVERYONE. I have a ton of athletes low bar, and if youre a one leg jumper, its a good idea anyway.
-
Im referring to the direction of force through the feet and ground, driving the shoulders, chest, and head upwards, in the high bar squat, vs driving the hips up via the lb. Think about jumping, you will see which one has more similar force vectors.
This is what makes the difference imo, in some lb squats, you see a similar line of push that you would in a vertical leap, in others you see an almost identical line to a deadlift. The reason the front squat gives more similarity to the vert is for this reason imo, you literally cant make it a deadlift, or you lose the bar.
Now we have three different arguments IMO.
1) Does the HBBS build quad strength quicker than the LBBS?
2) Is the HBBS more similar to a vertical jump?
3) Is the HBBS a better exercise to build a vertical jump since it is perhaps more specific to it?
Regarding 1) I have made my point and stand by it. I do not think that there is a substantial difference between the two movements regarding quad involvement and I certainly do not think they allow strength in the quadriceps to be build quicker.
Regarding 2) I don't know to be honest. They are both very different. So, maybe.
Regarding 3) I do not think so. While the HBBS might be more similar to a jump compared to a LBBS, they are both so different that specificity is hardly relevant here. They both are supposed to build strength and whichever squat variant accomplishes this better will IMO be better suited.
deadlift= broad jump- horizontal force vector
front squat= vertical jump - vertical force vector
vertical---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------horizontal
front squat........................ high bar squat............................... low bar squat................... deadlift
**the way these exercises are performed can alter their position for each individual. the deadlift can go more vertical, the high bar squat more towards hfv, etc.
I still do not get what you mean with that. In the deadlift the bar gets pulled up and the center of mass of the lifter also goes up, not forward. The same applies to the LBBS and the other squat variants as well. Where is there a horizontal force vector? I could do a very explosive deadlift and jump straight up, not forward. I guess I misunderstand what you are trying to imply.
I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.
Right, and its a GREAT FUCKING EXERCISE, its just not the ONLY way, or single optimal way for EVERYONE. I have a ton of athletes low bar, and if youre a one leg jumper, its a good idea anyway.
Just to get this out of the way, I do not have to be right here. If there is a reason why the LBBS would not be optimally suited for strength training to increase the VJ, I am interested to know why.
-
I understand how the front squat can be the most similar to the vertical jump from a force vector stand point, but how can it be optimal loading for the quadriceps compared to HB and LB? I mean would using the front squat be taking the long route for strength?
-
@ Steven, think of the force vectors as knee extension and hip extension.
I dont think with the way YOU squat low bar, you would notice a difference in vert training. Very minimal at best since youre already so upright. I have seen it happen that, someone switches to a more knee driven squatting style, and gets a much higher correlation to vertical jump, olympic lifts, and 10yd sprints.
What I can say from seeing this every day, is that if I see a guy squatting deep and upright, a very high squat relative to his bodyweight, I can put the bank on it that he will jump well in the standing vert, start well in the 40, and if hes not already good at the olympic lifts I can get him there easily.
I can NOT make this statement with guys coming in who have been low bar squatting, and have a high squat #, but not nearly in the same manner. If you test the front squat, many times these guys will have much less success there, and the first group I referenced will be much closer to their squat. The only thing withstanding that they are able to hold the rack position, and this is easy to teach and get around.
The bottom line is that a heavy squat done deep and upright means that the LEGS are strong. If the LEGS are strong, the athlete will nearly always jump well. If the low back is strong, this doesnt mean the same thing. This is also why its hard to correlate vj with the deadlift.
-
I understand how the front squat can be the most similar to the vertical jump from a force vector stand point, but how can it be optimal loading for the quadriceps compared to HB and LB? I mean would using the front squat be taking the long route for strength?
The problem with using primarily the front squat is that the limiting factor with most outside o lifting becomes the rack position and not the strength of the legs. This can be from core strength or simply general flexibility, but it keeps people from loading the legs as hard as they could if holding the load wasnt the limiting factor.
The other issue is that a lot of jumpers already have minor knee issues or use them excessively, and the front squat takes a pretty nice toll on the knees in these cases.
If neither of those apply to you, front squats are fine as your primary lift. The only way I would use them as a primary is if someone had been squatting in a way that neglected the quads, and needed to drastically build strength in a more upright position to help their athleticism.
-
Maybe the low bar squat is "superior" (in lack of a better term) because men usually have overactive quads and strong quads to begin with, so doing low bar squats makes the posterior chain slowly catch up with the quads and balance stuff.
But then again - it depends on so many factors. LB does allow more weight though, but it's important how that weight is driven up.
-
@ Steven, think of the force vectors as knee extension and hip extension.
I dont think with the way YOU squat low bar, you would notice a difference in vert training. Very minimal at best since youre already so upright. I have seen it happen that, someone switches to a more knee driven squatting style, and gets a much higher correlation to vertical jump, olympic lifts, and 10yd sprints.
What I can say from seeing this every day, is that if I see a guy squatting deep and upright, a very high squat relative to his bodyweight, I can put the bank on it that he will jump well in the standing vert, start well in the 40, and if hes not already good at the olympic lifts I can get him there easily.
I can NOT make this statement with guys coming in who have been low bar squatting, and have a high squat #, but not nearly in the same manner. If you test the front squat, many times these guys will have much less success there, and the first group I referenced will be much closer to their squat. The only thing withstanding that they are able to hold the rack position, and this is easy to teach and get around.
Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.
The bottom line is that a heavy squat done deep and upright means that the LEGS are strong. If the LEGS are strong, the athlete will nearly always jump well. If the low back is strong, this doesnt mean the same thing. This is also why its hard to correlate vj with the deadlift.
You don't stand up from a properly performed LBBS with 110% of what you can HBBS and have weak leg involvement. The knee extensors work just as hard as in the LBBS as in his sibling and the hip muscles work harder. The lower back muscles will have to fire more as well, but they do not extend the hips and knees.
-
Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.
I think this is an example of cognitive dissonance. The SS thinking in line with the rest of the S&C world was "specificity: frequent practice of things or similar things we wish to become better at", then somewhere along the way, when Crossfit and SS philosophy were aligned it manifested in the slogan "Specificity is for insects"; now suddenly becoming better at LBBS and deadlifts (which SS considers GENERAL exercises) was better not just for the average gym rat but elite weightlifters seeking Olympic medals. And this is when SS jumped the shark and become the one hammer solution to any training problem or situation.
-
Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.
I think this is an example of cognitive dissonance. The SS thinking in line with the rest of the S&C world was "specificity: frequent practice of things or similar things we wish to become better at", then somewhere along the way, when Crossfit and SS philosophy were aligned it manifested in the slogan "Specificity is for insects"; now suddenly becoming better at LBBS and deadlifts (which SS considers GENERAL exercises) was better not just for the average gym rat but elite weightlifters seeking Olympic medals. And this is when SS jumped the shark and become the one hammer solution to any training problem or situation.
SS is claimed by nobody to be the best solution to any training problem. It is a beginner program. It is limited to this population.
What is fascinating though is that many beginners fail to recognize themselves as such. They then get into arguments on the Internet saying specificity was key to success although, as beginners, they are not in a position to know.
My take is that specificity is important for non-novices, while it is a pretty shallow concept when you don't squat shit. Some adaptations are in fact of a general nature. Lower body strength developed via squats is such a thing. It qualifies as "general" because it has implications for a plethora of rather dissimilar acts. When I first started doing powersnatches (PS) my best LBBS was 185 kg x 5. I believe it took me a handful of sessions to go up to 85 kg in the PS with the shittiest technique ever seen. Those 5 sessions were not what made me stronger, I just learned the new movement. General strength, developed before in many months of training, allowed this weight to be lifted. That is what "general" does and means.
And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.
-
Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.
If you have common sense, you may also draw certain conclusions based on the evidence youve seen. When there is a direct fucking line linking a strength exercise with a power event, it really does give you some evidence that strength exercise may be a good way to train for it.
Also, most people can low bar squat more than they can high bar, RIGHT NOW. What does that tell you? That its making you stronger since the weight is heavier? bullshit. You can also deadlift more than you can squat, so a deadlift makes you stronger too right? Youre putting yourself in a position thats EASIER to lift the weight.
You don't stand up from a properly performed LBBS with 110% of what you can HBBS and have weak leg involvement. The knee extensors work just as hard as in the LBBS as in his sibling and the hip muscles work harder
That depends on what you call proper, and fucking LOL @ sibling. You also are merely repeating Rippetoe horseshit with the last line again, even if there were studies to prove it, it would have to be quantified into different lever lengths/height/etc. The hips have to work pretty damn hard in a full olympic squat, the low back can compensate for weak glutes more easily in the low bar squat. Watch the last 3 reps of Rippetoes squat in the video I linked.
. The lower back muscles will have to fire more as well, but they do not extend the hips and knees.
They can damn sure do a majority of the work first though. Look how many deadlifters get away with very little leg contribution. Once you get that load moving UP, its pretty easy to straighten out those legs.
-
And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.
But you're not including the time it took you to build up a 185x5 squat first? If you go back to when you STARTED squatting and started working on your powersnatch then, while squatting too, would it take you AS LONG to snatch 85kg? I don't know the answer to that question but would be interested in hearing whether you think it would take longer than the time it took to work up to a 185x5kg squat + 6 days of working on the powersnatch.Btw you probably know that there is a difference of opinion here because there are those in the other camp ("olympic lifting IS strength training") would disagree that it would necessarily take much longer.
-
If you have common sense, you may also draw certain conclusions based on the evidence youve seen. When there is a direct fucking line linking a strength exercise with a power event, it really does give you some evidence that strength exercise may be a good way to train for it.
Sure you can do that. And you do get to call it common sense, but you do not get to call it evidence. You are talking about merely observing the characteristics that are already there when a guy gets into your gym the first time. A lot of things can have lead to those characteristics. When you have trained comparable groups of people with the LBBS and HBBS and observed the effects over time, you might actually draw a conclusion.
Also, most people can low bar squat more than they can high bar, RIGHT NOW. What does that tell you? That its making you stronger since the weight is heavier? bullshit. You can also deadlift more than you can squat, so a deadlift makes you stronger too right? Youre putting yourself in a position thats EASIER to lift the weight.
It is correct that you can lift more weight with the LBBS. And which exercise is easier to progress, Lance, the bench-press or the press?
That depends on what you call proper, and fucking LOL @ sibling. You also are merely repeating Rippetoe horseshit with the last line again, even if there were studies to prove it, it would have to be quantified into different lever lengths/height/etc. The hips have to work pretty damn hard in a full olympic squat, the low back can compensate for weak glutes more easily in the low bar squat. Watch the last 3 reps of Rippetoes squat in the video I linked.
I agree that things would need to be quantified. In absence of people willing to do it properly, let me ask you the following question: Do you think that when executed correctly, meaning that the lower back muscles work purely isometrically, a 1 rm LBBS would induce higher activation of the glutes and hamstrings compared to the HBBS?
They can damn sure do a majority of the work first though. Look how many deadlifters get away with very little leg contribution. Once you get that load moving UP, its pretty easy to straighten out those legs.
I agree that this is possible to do. Deadlifters often set up with a round back that later gets extended. However, it is rarely extended before the bar clears the knees. So up to this point the legs do most if not all of the work. But I can see what you are getting at.
However, talking about the squat, if no back bend occurs, there cannot be work done by it. This is a rather easy thing to diagnose and prevent I would think. So this isn't really an argument contra the LBBS.
-
And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.
But you're not including the time it took you to build up a 185x5 squat first? If you go back to when you STARTED squatting and started working on your powersnatch then, while squatting too, would it take you AS LONG to snatch 85kg? I don't know the answer to that question but would be interested in hearing whether you think it would take longer than the time it took to work up to a 185x5kg squat + 6 days of working on the powersnatch.Btw you probably know that there is a difference of opinion here because there are those in the other camp ("olympic lifting IS strength training") would disagree that it would necessarily take much longer.
I was actually talking about all the time spent effectively to reach 185 kg x 5. In this time I would certainly not have made 85 kg in the PS doing only the PS alone.
I am also aware of the disagreement and Lance linked to Pendlay's statement a number of times on this site. My stance is that one might call Olympic lifting strength training the same way as you can call unweighted pistols strength training. It gets you stronger if you really do them a lot, but eventually you won't progress anymore, so it happens to be an inefficient and ineffective use of resources. In this statement I exclude elite lifters since I am not yet entitled to an opinion about the effects of the two lifts done with higher absolute resistance than I am capable of producing right now. But for everyone else I do feel entitled to say that doing the olympic lifts does not increase strength nearly as quickly and to a much lesser degree than heavy squats and pulls.
And I see the consequences of this rather undebatable truth every fucking week that I go to the gym to train with weightlifters. There are guys that have done this for years and the vast majority of work they do is in the two lifts. Remember what I said about the 5 sessions to 85? That is the time it took to powersnatch more than anybody there could full snatch back then. That is why strength is a general adaptation and why it can best be produced with heavy resistance, most certainly for novices.
-
It is correct that you can lift more weight with the LBBS. And which exercise is easier to progress, Lance, the bench-press or the press?
Which exercise is easier to progress Steven, the squat or the rack shrug? Which one actually matters?
I agree that things would need to be quantified. In absence of people willing to do it properly, let me ask you the following question: Do you think that when executed correctly, meaning that the lower back muscles work purely isometrically, a 1 rm LBBS would induce higher activation of the glutes and hamstrings compared to the HBBS?
High bar done atg would show a higher quad and glute activity, low bar done to Rippetoe specs would win with the hamstrings in my opinion. IF you went deeper with the low bar, and stayed more vertical, then it would also show more glute activity, and possibly similar quad activity. I dont believe in using the squat as your primary hamstring exercise though, even with the guys who low bar squat.
I agree that this is possible to do. Deadlifters often set up with a round back that later gets extended. However, it is rarely extended before the bar clears the knees. So up to this point the legs do most if not all of the work. But I can see what you are getting at.
However, talking about the squat, if no back bend occurs, there cannot be work done by it. This is a rather easy thing to diagnose and prevent I would think. So this isn't really an argument contra the LBBS.
Rippetoe, in his squat linked, does exactly what I am referring to. I am not picking on him as this is much more commonly what you will see with a typical low bar squat, than someone staying more vertical and using the LEGS more to drive the lift. I think youre using yourself as your n=1 population, and failing to realize that your squat form is much different than the typical lbbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxl3Fj13Jdc
^ a low bar squat done like THAT, will give HUGE carryover to athleticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCh4bm-lE2c
^ a low bar squat done like THAT will give you a 22 inch vertical, 105k clean and jerk, 82.5 snatch, with a 600 squat. However it will help the deadlift a lot.
In all honesty Steven, youre a smart guy, dont act like you dont see the difference in those exercises and that you dont understand how one is more useful for athletic training, and one is more useful for lifting more weight in the squat.
-
This makes me think of a possible debate between a clean and a powerclean. Which one is more essential for field athleticism and which one is useful for, well, cleaning more weight.
-
Which exercise is easier to progress Steven, the squat or the rack shrug? Which one actually matters?
So you admit that the LBBS is easier to progress but you would say that this progress does somehow not matter?
High bar done atg would show a higher quad and glute activity, low bar done to Rippetoe specs would win with the hamstrings in my opinion. IF you went deeper with the low bar, and stayed more vertical, then it would also show more glute activity, and possibly similar quad activity. I dont believe in using the squat as your primary hamstring exercise though, even with the guys who low bar squat.
Why do you think the HBBS will elicit more glute activation? Look at the picture with the two squats I posted before. Would you not agree that even performed to this height the LBBS shows a similar amount of hip flexion as the HBBS? Does this not mean that the glutes extend over the same ROM but with more weight on the back and a bigger moment arm applied (provided that one squats HB with the bar over mid-foot)?
Rippetoe, in his squat linked, does exactly what I am referring to. I am not picking on him as this is much more commonly what you will see with a typical low bar squat, than someone staying more vertical and using the LEGS more to drive the lift. I think youre using yourself as your n=1 population, and failing to realize that your squat form is much different than the typical lbbs.
Please explain to me what it is that he does and when that occurs exactly. I do not see an abnormal amount of back movement in Rip's squat. Do you?
Regarding my own squat: I am aware of my technical limitations, at least some of them. That is why my squat is not a good model to follow and why I have been working for a couple of weeks now to clean it up. Relaxing the hamstrings at the bottom of the movement resulting in the knees coming forward is the biggest issue in some heavy sets. I think I somewhat succeeded with last Friday's set of 491 x 5 to avoid doing that.
[edited out]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxl3Fj13Jdc[/edited out]
^ a low bar squat done like THAT, will give HUGE carryover to athleticism.
[edited out]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCh4bm-lE2c&feature=related[/edited out]
^ a low bar squat done like THAT will give you a 22 inch vertical, 105k clean and jerk, 82.5 snatch, with a 600 squat. However it will help the deadlift a lot.
You apparently think Rip's low vertical, tested at some unknown point in time, is a function of his squat technique. You think that if he high-bar squatted 540 ATG he would have jumped higher? I don't. Whatever the technique, the mechanisms that make progress happen in every strength exercise can be assumed to be the same. Muscles grow, bones grow, tissue adapts, the nervous system adapts and so on. If someone starts out to LBBS 150 and increases that to 600 than these adaptations took place and they are more or less the same adaptations that the progress from HBBSing 135 to 540 would have lead to.
So if you are of the opinion that Rip's squat style is what lead to him only jumping 22 inches and snatching 82.5, then you would have to make a damn good argument how that is the case.
In all honesty Steven, youre a smart guy, dont act like you dont see the difference in those exercises and that you dont understand how one is more useful for athletic training, and one is more useful for lifting more weight in the squat.
I see the difference in exercises and I disagree with your stance on their usefulness. Maybe I am not that smart after all.
-
IF I HAD A HAMMER, I'D HAMMER IN THE MOOOOOORNING.
I'D HAMMER IN THE EVENING, ALL OVER THIS LAAAAAAAND.
I'D HAMMER OUT, "DANGER!"
I'D HAMMER OUT, "WARNING!"
I'D HAMMER OUT LOVE BETWEEN MY BROTHERS AND MY SISTERS
ALL OVER THIS LAND.
IF I HAD A BACK SQUAT, I'D LOW-BAR IN THE MOOOOOOORNING.
I'D LOW-BAR IN THE EVENING, ALL OVER THIS LAAAAAAAND.
I'D LOW-BAR OUT, "THIS EXERCISE IS SUPERIOR FOR STRENGTH DEVELOPMENT!"
I'D LOW-BAR OUT, "SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE I AM CONVINCED OF MY RECTITUDE!"
I'D LOW-BAR OUT REPS BETWEEN MY BROTHERS AND MY SISTERS
ALL OVER THIS LAND.
-
every time i read a post in this thread i think for a split second that people are talking about me. then i realize they are talking about low-bar back squats.
then i am chagrined.
-
So you admit that the LBBS is easier to progress but you would say that this progress does somehow not matter?
It would definitely matter, depending on the goal though, it may not matter nearly as much as progressing another exercise. If you wanted to improve your jerk, would you choose bench press as your primary, or the push press/press?
Why do you think the HBBS will elicit more glute activation? Look at the picture with the two squats I posted before. Would you not agree that even performed to this height the LBBS shows a similar amount of hip flexion as the HBBS? Does this not mean that the glutes extend over the same ROM but with more weight on the back and a bigger moment arm applied (provided that one squats HB with the bar over mid-foot)?
thats why I gave the depth disclaimer. The glutes are working the hardest in the very bottom of the squat, the longer lever arm of the high bar squat with the added depth will make the glutes work harder in this range of motion, and I dont agree that the glutes have to work very hard at any other point, they are at a leverage advantage after that, higher up in the range of motion. Muscles work the hardest, in the stretch.
This is my opinion, and my experience with both squat styles. If you switch from low bar to high bar, one of the most common occurrences is extremely sore glutes, why do you think this is?
Please explain to me what it is that he does and when that occurs exactly. I do not see an abnormal amount of back movement in Rip's squat. Do you?
(http://i.imgur.com/SHsQ3.jpg)
Thats the thing, its not abnormal, for a low bar squat. It is however not optimal if strengthening the LEGS , and driving the squat from the LEGS is the goal. The squat of the bobsled athlete I linked, and your own squat are not "typical" low bar squats, and are much more useful for athletic training, in my opinion.
I also did not make the picture here however it was shown as an example with lumbar flexion, and I do not know how to undo the captions.
Regarding my own squat: I am aware of my technical limitations, at least some of them. That is why my squat is not a good model to follow and why I have been working for a couple of weeks now to clean it up. Relaxing the hamstrings at the bottom of the movement resulting in the knees coming forward is the biggest issue in some heavy sets. I think I somewhat succeeded with last Friday's set of 491 x 5 to avoid doing that.
You do understand that I completely disagree with that right? Everything that makes your squat different, than what Rip is saying need be done, is what makes it more transferable to athletic events outside of powerlifting. If you lean over more, drive your hips up more, etc. etc., I would bet money you start getting less and less transfer out of your squat to your olympic lifts, and jumps.
You apparently think Rip's low vertical, tested at some unknown point in time, is a function of his squat technique. You think that if he high-bar squatted 540 ATG he would have jumped higher?
YES. I do not think he could squat NEAR 540 atg with a high bar position though, if he gained the LEG strength to do so, I most definitely think he would have jumped noticeably higher, and increased his horrid numbers on his olympic lifts. Of course he would not jump "great" until he practiced it much much more, and the same with the lifts, but with that type of LEG strength at his weight, he would have increased those numbers most definitely.
I don't. Whatever the technique, the mechanisms that make progress happen in every strength exercise can be assumed to be the same. Muscles grow, bones grow, tissue adapts, the nervous system adapts and so on. If someone starts out to LBBS 150 and increases that to 600 than these adaptations took place and they are more or less the same adaptations that the progress from HBBSing 135 to 540 would have lead to.
No. If someone takes their rack pull from 300 to 400, the same adaptations that take place moving the clean pull from 300 to 400 DO NOT take place. Not even close.
So if you are of the opinion that Rip's squat style is what lead to him only jumping 22 inches and snatching 82.5, then you would have to make a damn good argument how that is the case.
No, I dont think he cared. I still think he doesnt care, Steven, and he doesnt have any reason to. He trains newb lifters and recreational lifters. Asking him about olympic lifts and sports training is like asking your plumber how to fly an airplane.
He does however have to take a very hard and fast stance on these things though, if he wants to continue the cultish type following he enjoys.
I see the difference in exercises and I disagree with your stance on their usefulness. Maybe I am not that smart after all.
the guy in the video has a 40+ inch svj, squats 550 or so, powercleans close to 400. you have a ~37 inch vj, powerclean over 300.
rippetoe squatted more that both of you, had an actual olympic lifter as a coach, power cleaned 275, and vj 22 inches. You two have strong LEGS, he has a strong lower back.
correlation doesnt imply causation. right.
-
There is a very common plot twist in movies where you have a superhero with utter faith in his convictions and beliefs, doing things he believes are right. Then he finds out he was actually with the BAD side all along, his actions weren't aligned good but with evil and now he is forced to question every single speck of faith and wonders where things went wrong. The big paradox for the audience is how dark gave birth to light (or vice versa). I think the last time I saw it was in Batman Begins (is that the one where he goes up to the mountains to train? and ras el-goul is his teacher who not pure, benevolent and good like batman first thought but turns out to be actually evil!). That sort of thing is unfolding right here in this thread. Batman was still awesome tho, he was pure of heart, and his squat form was probably athletic which spared him from squat morning his lifts. In general the protagonist has some overriding virtues of character which protect him and even save him.
-
I think the same applies in terms of deadlifts vs squats.
That's why some people have such good deadlift numbers and such poor squat numbers, especially if they high bar squat - you can't cheat using the lowerback as much in the squat as you can in the deadlift.
So obviously people with great lowerback strength but weak leg strength will deadlift much more than they can squat. Think Mutombo on this forum.
-
There is a very common plot twist in movies where you have a superhero with utter faith in his convictions and beliefs, doing things he believes are right. Then he finds out he was actually with the BAD side all along, his actions weren't aligned good but with evil and now he is forced to question every single speck of faith and wonders where things went wrong. The big paradox for the audience is how dark gave birth to light (or vice versa). I think the last time I saw it was in Batman Begins (is that the one where he goes up to the mountains to train? and ras el-goul is his teacher who not pure, benevolent and good like batman first thought but turns out to be actually evil!). That sort of thing is unfolding right here in this thread. Batman was still awesome tho, he was pure of heart, and his squat form was probably athletic which spared him from squat morning his lifts. In general the protagonist has some overriding virtues of character which protect him and even save him.
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif)
-
There is a very common plot twist in movies where you have a superhero with utter faith in his convictions and beliefs, doing things he believes are right. Then he finds out he was actually with the BAD side all along, his actions weren't aligned good but with evil and now he is forced to question every single speck of faith and wonders where things went wrong. The big paradox for the audience is how dark gave birth to light (or vice versa). I think the last time I saw it was in Batman Begins (is that the one where he goes up to the mountains to train? and ras el-goul is his teacher who not pure, benevolent and good like batman first thought but turns out to be actually evil!). That sort of thing is unfolding right here in this thread. Batman was still awesome tho, he was pure of heart, and his squat form was probably athletic which spared him from squat morning his lifts. In general the protagonist has some overriding virtues of character which protect him and even save him.
(http://reddogreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Anakin-Skywalker-Shadow.jpg)
-
It would definitely matter, depending on the goal though, it may not matter nearly as much as progressing another exercise. If you wanted to improve your jerk, would you choose bench press as your primary, or the push press/press?
The comparison does not really apply. The bench-press would not suffice because it leaves out muscles that are important for the jerk. The same is not true for the LBBS and say a VJ.
Why do you think the HBBS will elicit more glute activation? Look at the picture with the two squats I posted before. Would you not agree that even performed to this height the LBBS shows a similar amount of hip flexion as the HBBS? Does this not mean that the glutes extend over the same ROM but with more weight on the back and a bigger moment arm applied (provided that one squats HB with the bar over mid-foot)?
thats why I gave the depth disclaimer. The glutes are working the hardest in the very bottom of the squat, the longer lever arm of the high bar squat with the added depth will make the glutes work harder in this range of motion, and I dont agree that the glutes have to work very hard at any other point, they are at a leverage advantage after that, higher up in the range of motion. Muscles work the hardest, in the stretch.
I agree that the glutes work the hardest when they are stretched. That is precisely what happens in the LBBS as the hips move back (contrary to the HBBS, where they move down, stretching the glutes as well).
So they get stretched in both types of the squat, but the LBBS has the longer moment arm AND heavier weight. The longer lever arm of the HBBS is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the LBBS has the torso more horizontal since the hips move back to a larger degree than in the HBBS. Provided that the barbell is located over the middle of the foot in both types of squat, this generates a larger moment arm for the LBBS. And larger moment arm + more weight equals more torque at the fulcrum.
This is my opinion, and my experience with both squat styles. If you switch from low bar to high bar, one of the most common occurrences is extremely sore glutes, why do you think this is?
Probably because the hamstrings get left out and the glutes do the work alone that otherwise gets distributed to a bigger amount of muscle mass (muscle mass that therefore gets trained).
[edited out]http://i.imgur.com/SHsQ3.jpg[/edited out]
Thats the thing, its not abnormal, for a low bar squat. It is however not optimal if strengthening the LEGS , and driving the squat from the LEGS is the goal. The squat of the bobsled athlete I linked, and your own squat are not "typical" low bar squats, and are much more useful for athletic training, in my opinion.
I also did not make the picture here however it was shown as an example with lumbar flexion, and I do not know how to undo the captions.
A still picture does not portray "back movement". Watch the video and tell me where the back moves and how much.
I will tell you what I see. If there is movement in the spine during this set of squats it is marginal. It is much too insignificant to take away substantial work from the legs. Because if the segments of the spine do not move in relation to each other, no work could have been done via the muscles that move these segments.
You do understand that I completely disagree with that right? Everything that makes your squat different, than what Rip is saying need be done, is what makes it more transferable to athletic events outside of powerlifting. If you lean over more, drive your hips up more, etc. etc., I would bet money you start getting less and less transfer out of your squat to your olympic lifts, and jumps.
You think the inclusion of the hamstrings in the squat is making me a worse athlete? Or staying tight during the whole lift instead of relaxing muscles at the low end of the ROM? I don't.
You apparently think Rip's low vertical, tested at some unknown point in time, is a function of his squat technique. You think that if he high-bar squatted 540 ATG he would have jumped higher?
YES. I do not think he could squat NEAR 540 atg with a high bar position though, if he gained the LEG strength to do so, I most definitely think he would have jumped noticeably higher, and increased his horrid numbers on his olympic lifts. Of course he would not jump "great" until he practiced it much much more, and the same with the lifts, but with that type of LEG strength at his weight, he would have increased those numbers most definitely.
One last time, in absence of an excentric and concentric contraction of the back muscles the only thing that moves a weight in the squat are the legs. I have never, in my whole life, seen a squat that uses the muscles of the back as prime movers - neither high-bar nor low-bar. With all due respect, this theory of yours is ridiculous.
I don't. Whatever the technique, the mechanisms that make progress happen in every strength exercise can be assumed to be the same. Muscles grow, bones grow, tissue adapts, the nervous system adapts and so on. If someone starts out to LBBS 150 and increases that to 600 than these adaptations took place and they are more or less the same adaptations that the progress from HBBSing 135 to 540 would have lead to.
No. If someone takes their rack pull from 300 to 400, the same adaptations that take place moving the clean pull from 300 to 400 DO NOT take place. Not even close.
Except that I do not talk about rack pulls and clean pulls. When the LBBS improves substantially, the legs got stronger. If the HBBS improves significantly, the legs got stronger. Therefore both have accomplished the same unless you want to imply that magic suddenly made the higher weight on the bar performable. If magic is not available the question becomes which squat style lets you make quicker progress...
So if you are of the opinion that Rip's squat style is what lead to him only jumping 22 inches and snatching 82.5, then you would have to make a damn good argument how that is the case.
No, I dont think he cared. I still think he doesnt care, Steven, and he doesnt have any reason to. He trains newb lifters and recreational lifters. Asking him about olympic lifts and sports training is like asking your plumber how to fly an airplane.
I never got so valuable training advice from a plumber, nor from anyone here. I guess that makes me a "newb lifter" or "recreational lifter". Fine with me.
the guy in the video has a 40+ inch svj, squats 550 or so, powercleans close to 400. you have a ~37 inch vj, powerclean over 300.
rippetoe squatted more that both of you, had an actual olympic lifter as a coach, power cleaned 275, and vj 22 inches. You two have strong LEGS, he has a strong lower back.
I am choosing not to evaluate the qualification of a coach based on his athletic achievements. Instead I like to listen to the information presented and come to my own conclusions. If Harvey suddenly became smart I would probably listen to him as well.
-
thats fine Steven, I told you my opinion on it, and I cant make what Im trying to get across any more clear. If you want to believe that no one drives their squat, deadlift, clean, (insert tons of athletic movements that should be glute and leg driven) using their lower back more than their glutes and LEGS, thats fine too.
Im not the only coach thats said this OVER and OVER though, so Ill tell the rest of the guys their theory is ridiculous too.
The good thing is Rips theory is always right though, since if you fail using his bullshit, you can just have him tell you that you didnt have the genetics to do it in the first place.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXu1bknI0y8
Marty Gallagher
-
His knees are moving? forward, they should't do that. Form is terrible.
MrBobcabob Acum 7 (de) luni
-
His knees are moving? forward, they should't do that. Form is terrible.
MrBobcabob Acum 7 (de) luni
Cults, wonderful on the outside but on the inside are very manipulating. Cult leaders are desperate to trick you into joining. They are after your obedience, your time and your money.
Cults use sophisticated mind control and recruitment techniques that have been refined over time. Beware of thinking that you are immune from cult involvement, the cults have millions of members around the world who once thought they were immune, and still don't know they are in a cult! To spot a cult you need to know how they work and you need to understand the techniques they use. Teaching you these things is what this article is all about.
This article exposes the secret techniques cults will use to try and trick and control you. Cult leaders will not want you to read this, but read it anyway. Once you understand How Cults Work you will be better able to spot and avoid cult recruiters, and protect your family and friends.
-
A cult will have a slick well-rehearsed Public Relations front which hides what the group is really like. You will hear how they help the poor, or support research, or peace, or the environment. They will tell you how happy you will be in their group (and everyone in the cult will always seem very happy and enthusiastic, mainly because they have been told to act happy and will get in trouble if they don't). But you will not be told what life is really like in the group, nor what they really believe. These things will be introduced to you slowly, one at a time, so you will not notice the gradual change, until eventually you are practicing and believing things which at the start would have caused you to run a mile.
cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone. No other organization has the truth, all others miss the mark. So it is not the belief system that decides your future, but it the belief system AND your membership with that particular group.
Be very suspicious of any group that claims to be better than all the others. A religious group may say that other groups following the same religion are OK, but they are the ones who have a better grasp of the truth and they are superior to the rest. This is often just a subtle version of exclusivism.
Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God. The cult leaders will claim to have direct authority from God to control almost all aspects of your life. If the cult is not a religious group then questioning the leaders or program will still be seen as a sign of rebellion and stupidity.
Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as "persecution" or "spiritual pornography", another cult calls it "apostate literature" and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true.
One of the most common forms of commercial cults is the pressure selling organization. These groups ostensibly make money by selling goods via their sales organization, but in reality they make their money by selling goods and motivational materials to their sales organization. Using mind control they seek to enlarge and maintain their sales force, and hence their profits.
-
Starting Strength has become a cult
Seriously, what’s up with that. I have yet to find anyone in real life doing Starting Strength but it seems as though every online fitness forum has a troop of members fighting their own battle against society and convincing the rest of humanity that Starting Strength is the only way to go. What’s even more laughable is that these same blind people take whatever Mark Rippetoe has said as gospel and will repeat everything like parrots without consideration to questioning what they repeat ad nauseum.
You like to go to the gym and want to build some muscle? Starting Strength, they answer.
You are a bodybuilder and want to build some muscle in the off season? Starting Strength, they reply.
You want to lift some weights to get in shape? Starting Strength, they scream at you.
You want to get stronger in the Power Clean? Starting Strength and “jump and shrug, bro“, they respond.
Of course, this whole cult-like status is powered by Rippetoe himself who has separated himself from conventional smiling and gentle fitness coaches and proudly made his way with a “take no prisoners” attitude that all pseudo-hardcore gym warriors love to hear and read about. As a matter of fact, Rippetoe was affiliated with Crossfit not until that long ago for the moneyz (for which he also took some heavy criticism) and is one of the men responsible for Crossfitters having the worst Power Clean technique out of all gym populations. Then, he left Crossfit and the shizzle hit the fan, which made for some online fun dramas. He has a loyal following because of all of this, to the point that many fitness forums are starting to have an anti-Starting Strength crowd to fight the SS nazis (as they call them).
Moreover, Mark Rippetoe has ensured to provide the program with other integrated goodies such as nutritional extremism in the form of advising his Starting Strength trainees to drink a gallon of milk a day, regardless of the fact that 50% of them turn overnight into overweight potatoes, or calling those who don’t agree with him a range of pejoratives. It goes with the persona and his primary audience loves it. Can’t argue with the marketing, I guess.
-
His knees are moving? forward, they should't do that. Form is terrible.
MrBobcabob Acum 7 (de) luni
Cults, wonderful on the outside but on the inside are very manipulating. Cult leaders are desperate to trick you into joining. They are after your obedience, your time and your money.
Yeah, I mean - look what's going on in the hole... "The Church of Starting Strength"? I mean seriously...
-
I think the same applies in terms of deadlifts vs squats.
That's why some people have such good deadlift numbers and such poor squat numbers, especially if they high bar squat - you can't cheat using the lowerback as much in the squat as you can in the deadlift.
So obviously people with great lowerback strength but weak leg strength will deadlift much more than they can squat. Think Mutombo on this forum.
That's a great point. I know I am a little late to the party but I don't know why Steven thinks you can't use your back to a large degree in squats and deadlifts. Mutumbo's problem is actually common in track athletes (I think he has a sprinting background) who develop pretty intense isometric back strength but generally don't put their quads through a full range of motion until they get to the weight room. I trained with a 135lb triple jumper who could easily deadlift 440lbs and powerclean 250lbs but couldn't squat 315 to save his life. Long legs short torso and strong back and glutes will make an athlete find a way to perform every lift without using his quads.
That said it's really all about the individual and the individuals athletic background. Qualifying that you perform the lifts with "correct form" is somewhat silly IMHO because ideally compound strength lifts should be performed with the technique that allows you to lift the most weight safely, not the form that makes you "feel the burn" in your quads. Lifting with form which doesn't allow you to handle the most weight you can makes an exercise lose it's usefulness as a measuring stick for strength improvement.
For me this involves performing a lot of front squats. I first started squatting and powercleaning (using my back almost completely) in college as part of poor strength and conditioning program for sprinting, I have deadlifted 560 at 195 without focusing on the lift and when I perform high-bar pause squats with more than 365 pounds on the bar I often end up turning the lift into a hybrid squat/good morning about halfway up. My back is strong enough that holding my torso erect on the front squat is never the challenge (my weak quads and hamstrings are).
Raising my max front squat triple from 275 to 325 over the last 6 months has done more for my quads than backsquatting would have. Additionally, I am now able to perform pause back squats with more weight with less goodmorninish form. I've raised my max standing vertical from about 34 to 36.5 inches as well despite gaining about 10lbs.
Don't know if it's made me faster... Really don't believe weight training has that much carryover past about 50 meters and before 50 meters it's only tenths or hundreds of seconds that can be improved anyway.
The point is... Maybe I could have made the same gains doing Low-Bar back squat with the form Steven prescribed, ie. trying to keep my torso upright and making my LBBS look more like a vertical movement.... But this would have been extremely difficult and hard to accomplish especially when dealing with fatigue. Front squats allow an athlete with my characteristics to get to the weight room, throw some weight on the bar, try and lift as much as possible, and get stronger legs which carryover to things like vertical jumping. That's a huge advantage IMHO.
-
That's a great point. I know I am a little late to the party but I don't know why Steven thinks you can't use your back to a large degree in squats and deadlifts.
So once again.
In order for the back to do actual work against the bar, the back muscles have to perform a concentric contraction that leads to the bar going up. This is not something that typically happens in back squats of any kind. If there is any significant movement of the back it is usually during the phenomenon idiotically referred to as "butt-wink". Meant with that term is a failure to keep the lumbar spine in extension at the bottom of the squat. But while a concentric contraction of the erectors takes place, this movement is not transmitted to the upper back because "butt-wink" is just moving the pelvis around, not lifting the weight. Therefore this type of back movement cannot be responsible for the completion of the rep. The whole work therefore gets accomplished by the legs, which therefore get trained.
The only instance the back would be able to lift the weight is during a good-morning-ish rep that includes a rounded back, that gets straightened at lock-out. This might sometimes be done but if it is, it is incredibly rare. I have yet to see it done in the gyms I frequent and I see a lot of idiotic shit there.
In the deadlift backs are more likely to contribute to the work against the barbell.
That said it's really all about the individual and the individuals athletic background. Qualifying that you perform the lifts with "correct form" is somewhat silly IMHO because ideally compound strength lifts should be performed with the technique that allows you to lift the most weight safely, not the form that makes you "feel the burn" in your quads. Lifting with form which doesn't allow you to handle the most weight you can makes an exercise lose it's usefulness as a measuring stick for strength improvement.
That is a weird way to look at it since deviations from formerly correct form happen in nearly every exercise over the course of the training progression. And while some of those deviations are relatively safe and allow, for the moment, the completion of a rep or set that would otherwise have been failed, it would be a mistake not to correct these things. The reason is precisely the usefulness of the exercise as a measuring stick for strength improvement. If form is not constant, there is no way one can reasonably account all progress on strength improvements. A good example would be increases in lower back rounding over the course of several deadlift sessions.
The point is... Maybe I could have made the same gains doing Low-Bar back squat with the form Steven prescribed, ie. trying to keep my torso upright and making my LBBS look more like a vertical movement.... But this would have been extremely difficult and hard to accomplish especially when dealing with fatigue. Front squats allow an athlete with my characteristics to get to the weight room, throw some weight on the bar, try and lift as much as possible, and get stronger legs which carryover to things like vertical jumping. That's a huge advantage IMHO.
I think you read the thread wrong. I never advised the LBBS to be performed with a very vertical back, that was Lance. I think a more horizontal back is what actually makes you get more out of it because of the reasons discussed extensively in this thread. I did not advise to do good-mornings though.
-
I think you read the thread wrong. I never advised the LBBS to be performed with a very vertical back, that was Lance. I think a more horizontal back is what actually makes you get more out of it because of the reasons discussed extensively in this thread. I did not advise to do good-mornings though.
Not exactly what I said, I posted examples of squats, to show examples of squats that train the LEGS more, and that would correlate more to athletic movement, driven from the LEGS.
-
Not exactly what I said, I posted examples of squats, to show examples of squats that train the LEGS more, and that would correlate more to athletic movement, driven from the LEGS.
Sorry for the misrepresentation.
-
I can progress in Leg Presses and Barbell Hack Squats faster than Back Squats, does that make them better?
But then again Steven-Miller is a rippetard and thinks his opinion matters because he can squat 450+ pounds.
-
I can progress in Leg Presses and Barbell Hack Squats faster than Back Squats, does that make them better?
But then again Steven-Miller is a rippetard and thinks his opinion matters because he can squat 450+ pounds.
I can leg press 660 lbs. Does that mean my opinion matters too?!
AWESOME! :highfive:
-
I can progress in Leg Presses and Barbell Hack Squats faster than Back Squats, does that make them better?
But then again Steven-Miller is a rippetard and thinks his opinion matters because he can squat 450+ pounds.
I can leg press 660 lbs. Does that mean my opinion matters too?!
AWESOME! :highfive:
He's probably going to respond by insulting me. Somehow that will give his opinion more credibility. He thinks his opinion is important because he increased his squat and jump by a certain amount. That's nice. If I increase my leg press by 400 pounds I'm going to jump higher. Does that make it optimal?
This is the same guy who said half squats are useless because he did them for a month and increased his half squat but couldn't jump any higher, completely ignoring that neural adaptations were responsible for his gains and not muscle gains. The irony of this is he kisses Rippetoe's ass when Rippetoe's entire program is based on this concept. You think you actually put enough more muscle mass every 2 days to squat 5-10 more pounds? No, you're just getting used to/getting better at squatting.
-
That is a weird way to look at it since deviations from formerly correct form happen in nearly every exercise over the course of the training progression. And while some of those deviations are relatively safe and allow, for the moment, the completion of a rep or set that would otherwise have been failed, it would be a mistake not to correct these things. The reason is precisely the usefulness of the exercise as a measuring stick for strength improvement. If form is not constant, there is no way one can reasonably account all progress on strength improvements. A good example would be increases in lower back rounding over the course of several deadlift sessions.
My point isn't that we shouldn't attempt to keep form constant, it's that we shouldn't plan a program around a lift that an athlete can safely lift drastically more with a slight deviation in form which changes the prime movers. That's why even though RDLs and Glute-Thrusts are excellent ways to build strength they are usually performed as assistance exercises for higher rep counts after the primary lifts are completed; because adding 5 pounds a week to your 3-rep RDL could be achieved with progressively more lumbar involvment and less hamstring recruitment; which is the main goal of the movement.
One reason compound lifts are so great in a program is that a focus on increasing the load will result in increased strength in one of the muscle groups used; which will lead to increases in athletic performance. As you said, this may be the weak link getting stronger (ie. a quad dominant athlete might initially build strength primarily in the hamstrings from squatting) initially, but will eventually require all the muscle groups to get stronger.
Thus my point is... although you find it hard to believe... A lot of hip dominant athletes with strong backs (such as many track and field athletes or every american football kid who does tons of powercleans with poor form) will turn the low bar squat into a modified good morning, which will rob the lift of it's usefulness as a lift to build strength in the legs... which is the goal.
The proof of this is that while you might not run into them in your gym their are athletes here who can low bar squat in excess of 500lbs but struggle with front squatting two plates. You are not in this category... but the fact that it's possible to perform the lift in a manner which will rob it of it's carryover is troubling.
Obviously, you can rob yourself of real gains in other primary lifts, by raising your butt off the bench in bench press or not going to depth in squatting.... but the difference is those form changes are actually cheating and easy to watch for and prevent. Athletes can perform legal depth low-bar squats that would get white lights in powerlifting meets by shifting a large amount of the load to their back... You can try and coach this away and enforce the athlete to have their hips rise slower and generate more leg drive... but why not just have an athlete attempt to move a load in a lift where the power has to come from the leg drive... like the front squat? Part of being a good coach is that while you might have a preference for a lift like the LBBS, you should realize that their are exceptions whose progress will be better served with an exercise in which they can concentrate more solely on load lifted and be ready to prescribe an alternative for such athletes.
-
You can try and coach this away and enforce the athlete to have their hips rise slower and generate more leg drive... but why not just have an athlete attempt to move a load in a lift where the power has to come from the leg drive... like the front squat? Part of being a good coach is that while you might have a preference for a lift like the LBBS, you should realize that their are exceptions whose progress will be better served with an exercise in which they can concentrate more solely on load lifted and be ready to prescribe an alternative for such athletes.
I agree that there are exceptions in which another exercise can legitimately be used in place of the preferred one. But an athlete making an easy to correct form error does not qualify as such in my opinion.
-
Speaking of leg pressing - why is it so "terrible"? I know, stabilization, fixed hips, 45 angle, why not squat? etc etc etc, but seriously - is it that bad if you say leg press + RDL or leg press + hip thrust?
The question is why would you not squat, but in the eventuality you can't squat/don't want to for whatever reason, is the leg press that terrible in combination with the right assistance exercises?
-
Speaking of leg pressing - why is it so "terrible"?
it's not.