ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:30 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6433
Location: Halifax, NS
Bill, great to see you here. Someone else posted that video on another forum (Robb Wolf's site) and used it to argue that people shouldn't do heavy squats. After viewing the video, I didn't get that from the video all, just to be careful of extreme range of motions. I think that's valid advice regardless of the training methods used.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
So what is the gyst? I made it through 20 minutes of the video, and had to turn it off. It was builidng up to something that seemed interesting.

Props to you Bill for coming and discussing your work.

_________________
Thanks TimD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:31 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
JungleDoc: just stumbled upon it.

here's a link to the transcript of a recent podcast http://www.complete-strength-training.c ... ain-1.html Broken up into 5 parts, but not that long.

A couple of text pieces from Conditioning Research:
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.co ... ll_18.html
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.co ... art-1.html with a couple of additional short pieces by Chris.

Dave Durell has a podcast interview on his site High Intensity Nation from January, but that probably doesn't help.
These are obviously free, but of course there's always the full manual ("Congruent Exercise") available on Amazon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:35 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
stuward wrote:
Bill, great to see you here. Someone else posted that video on another forum (Robb Wolf's site) and used it to argue that people shouldn't do heavy squats. After viewing the video, I didn't get that from the video all, just to be careful of extreme range of motions. I think that's valid advice regardless of the training methods used.


Oh, I'm sure that went over well on that board, guess I'll head over there to get my next beating;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
hoosegow wrote:
So what is the gyst? I made it through 20 minutes of the video, and had to turn it off. It was builidng up to something that seemed interesting.

Props to you Bill for coming and discussing your work.


The gist of the "leg press vs. squat" video is that when you study the bones, joints, discs, muscles of the spine, you can't be surprised if you end up with back issues, especially if you squat with a barbell. If you want to really play it safe, you'd save your heavy leg work for a well designed leg press, i.e. one with the spine curves built in. If you want to continue with squats, deadlifts, etc., you should be aware of the inevitable spine issues, and either roll the dice and hope you don't get injured, or make accommodations, like many older trainees do (lighter weights/higher reps, belt squats, etc.).

For me personally, and my clients, most of whom are around my age (5x +), no barbell squats. But I understand that others aren't receptive to that, so they should at least be aware of the issues and decide for themselves.

"Props for discussing"...that's interesting, because usually the temptation is to let the work speak for itself or get dragged into online brawling. The middle ground of being available for people who are receptive, but not head butting with those that aren't is tricky. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
For the most part, discussions here, even if involving major disagreements, are civil. If you'd like to stick around in this and other topics, we'd love to have you. We're a pretty diverse bunch, bodybuilders, powerlifters, oly lifters, "general health" lifters, even some who aren't lifters, (though that tends to be the natural bent for most of us), ranging from teenage gym bros to frail old codgers like me.

Personally, I really love to squat and deadlift, and the thought of giving them up makes me sad. However, the thought of having to give them up because of injuries makes me even sadder. I'd like to keep looking for ways to minimize the risk.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:09 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6433
Location: Halifax, NS
BillDeSimone wrote:
... so they should at least be aware of the issues and decide for themselves...


I think this is the key concept. You`ve presented some interesting stuff, but even though you don`t use squats in your work, what you presented doesn`t preclude squatting. It`s all about being aware of the risks and taking appropriate steps to mitigate that risk. Personally, I like the effect that squats have on strengthening my back. I think that following a progressive, controlled training program lets you strengthen the body so that you`re less likely to sustain an injury the next time you`re helping your kids move their furniture. I have no delusions that I will ever be able to lift like Fred Hatfield but it doesn`t mean I can`t benefit from his methods.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6433
Location: Halifax, NS
BillDeSimone wrote:
stuward wrote:
Bill, great to see you here. Someone else posted that video on another forum (Robb Wolf's site) and used it to argue that people shouldn't do heavy squats. After viewing the video, I didn't get that from the video all, just to be careful of extreme range of motions. I think that's valid advice regardless of the training methods used.


Oh, I'm sure that went over well on that board, guess I'll head over there to get my next beating;)


I`d like to see your view on Crossfit. There seems to be a lot of people doing that over there.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:45 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
"I think I mentioned the story in the book where I had someone come into the studio to have their body fat checked. And, they were clearly ripped, really just shredded. But, they were hunched over and twisted. So, I asked what happened and the guy says, "Well, I threw my back out doing CrossFit. I was doing tire flips." I said, "Well, when you get better, train with me and I'll train you just as hard and I guarantee you won't hurt your back."

He said, as he was bent over and twisted and grimacing, "Well thanks. But I really like the class. Look how well it worked." So in his mind, the tradeoff for getting in shape was the risk of an almost crippling injury."

"Aaron:
So, transitioning a little bit, what is your take on functional training, CrossFit, and this whole emphasis on doing exercises that are directly functional, however those people are defining that?
Bill:
Well, there is the first problem. Functional training means whatever the person says it means. Again, like I point out in the book, to me the best parts of this functional training “catalog”, let's call it that, the best parts of it distinguish between the muscles that move the limbs and the muscles that stabilize the joints and suggest appropriate training for each of them.
The worst part of the functional training “catalog” ignores that distinction and risks your long term joint health for the sake of a hard work out right now. As if the hard work immunizes you against chronic joint issues.
So as far as "Functional Training," that's my take on it. It's not all useless. There is a role for some of it, but a lot of times it's just used as an excuse for sloppy form or sloppy manual labor masquerading as exercise.
Aaron:
And just by the CrossFit story you shared earlier, there are definitely those people who get results they like but are injured or just otherwise...
Bill:
Well, again, the issue isn't the results. Productive isn't necessarily the issue. Margin of error is the issue. So, personally, CrossFit or P-90X or any boot camp-inspired work out is just not my preference. It's just not my thing. I think you get too caught up in being competitive and keeping up the pace that you don't pay attention to posture and how you're loading your joints.
...if sloppy form becomes a measure of how hard a person's working, and you're getting congratulated on sloppy form, I just don't think it bodes well for the future of that person's joints.
The other thing is, again, this is a preference, but all this congratulating themselves for getting through a tough workout. They're not doing it for their team, like a sport, where you're playing hurt. And they’re not doing it as an actual boot camp when you're doing it for a unit. They're doing it for selfish purposes. They're beating their own joints up and congratulating themselves on beating their own joints up.
To me, rather, if I have competitive urges I want to get out of my system, I'll do an actual sport rather than take it out on my own body. Do a sport and take it out on somebody else's body."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
http://asp.elitefts.net/qa/default.asp?qid=167882&tid&ref=nf

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:32 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3475
I've seen some pretty convincing reasoning not to (heavy) squat, for example, mike boyles relatively recent view on them (who i'm a very big fan of). I have a personal love for BB squats but, I don't have a bias towards them and i'm not emotionally attached to them. I do have a few clients who don't BB squat*. I find it difficult to argue with the logic he used, I think it makes sense. I'm just not getting that in this case.

I don't buy into the pyramid analogy but it is an interesting way of viewing it. Man made pyramids but man didn't make spines. Therefore, man understands pyramids but we don't fully understand spines yet. I think it's apples and oranges. However, the structure of them, as you outlined, is really what has brought the whole "no sit ups, train the 'core' for stability only" thought process, as the larger vertebrae at the "base" of the spine/pyramid don't allow for as much rotation as the smaller ones further up. So, in my mind the structure indicates the capacity to move, or not, as the case may be. Not that it's the same as pyramid - a pyramid doesn't have scaps, shoulder joints, and arms to help hold things on top of it, either, or the capacity to broaden the top part of it (upper body muscle mass), or a set of "guy wires" connecting the top part to the bottom to help cope with stability demands and protect the structure (the lats). It doesn't work for me. However, I did find the different take on it quite interesting and I appreciate anything that makes me challenge my own thoughts.

Previously studies have shown the leg press to cause more lower back stress but, i'm assuming by "well designed" leg press, there will be the claim that this won't be the case, which may or may not be true (I don't know).

You're telling my why we shouldn't back squat but, I'm wondering why we should leg press? There's plenty of ways to load the legs with reduced stress on the spine (IF this is true with the leg press) without going on a fixed lever machine with, as far as i can tell, the only benefit being pumping up the quads, and i've never trained a general population fat loss client who could care less about big quads.

*As for clients back squatting. I believe the devils in the details. I wonder how you define "heavy" or what you class as a "good" squat. There is a difference between training the squat for general strength, and training the squat in prep for a Powerlifting meet. I think a client needs to pass a whole bunch of criteria before a back squat can be considered. I'll be the first to admit that most general populations definitely should NOT back squat. They don't have the movement capacity, hip mobility, shoulder mobility, ankle mobility or general athleticism required to perform a good back squat. However, that doesn't mean they should "never" back squat, it just means they need to move better first and progress correctly before it becomes a potential option.

Also, is it just back squats, and if so, is it just "heavy" back squats? What is heavy and what about front squats, goblet squats, OH squats, non-heavy back squats (i don't want to say light).

Also, what about deadlifts? Similar stress (if not more) on the lower back but the weight isn't placed on top of the shoulders/pyramid?

What's wrong with stress on the spine? I think a lot of people miss this. Yes, too much stress on the spine and you will hurt. However, too little stress on the spine and you will be weak, frail, and vulnerable to injury. I think stress on the spine is not only good but essential, particularly if you want to be robust and durable. I think the application of stress is what really matters.

At least 80% of us will have back pain in our lives so, by NOT squatting, what do I gain? It wouldn't surprise me at all if more people who don't squat have back pain vs those who do squat but, it would also be close to impossible to determine.

A few studies now (I can reference if you like but will require me to search for them, they are there, though) show MRI results on pain free lower backs and show around 60% of those pain free subjects have disc herniations or bulges. How come some people with back pain don't have chronic damage to the spine where as some people with no back pain DO have damage to the spine yet have no symptoms? ..... What does it matter, then, and how do they move?

I think movement is key. I think omitting squats or other "dangerous" exercises is missing the big picture.

As for what's "functional" - that could be debated all day. I don't see anything functional about a leg press though, so that doesn't stick at all. I don't actually think HEAVY squats or even BB back squats are necessarily functional. I think the deadlift is far more "functional". As Gray Cook said, "maintain the squat, train the deadlift".

Again, it's admirable that you're on and willing to have a civil discussion about it. This response was kind of rushed but I felt obliged to respond with some kind of substance since my previous point on your presentation before you came on here wasn't exactly constructive.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:50 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
KPj wrote:
Also, what about deadlifts? Similar stress (if not more) on the lower back but the weight isn't placed on top of the shoulders/pyramid?


I'm just a layman, but the weight is effectually on the shoulders regardless of the hands position, since that's where the arms are attached to the body. So I guess the same logic holds for deadlifts as for squats (except for belt squats where you really don't put any stress on your back).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:26 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3475
josh60 wrote:
KPj wrote:
Also, what about deadlifts? Similar stress (if not more) on the lower back but the weight isn't placed on top of the shoulders/pyramid?


I'm just a layman, but the weight is effectually on the shoulders regardless of the hands position, since that's where the arms are attached to the body. So I guess the same logic holds for deadlifts as for squats (except for belt squats where you really don't put any stress on your back).


That's my point, really. Also, in a leg press you could say similar. You jam your spine between a plat form and shoulder pads. The spine is still compressed, in other words. Sheared if you allow lumbar flexion (just like a squat, too). Actually it's compressed with less demand on your core to brace and stabilise and buttress/fight the stress, since the machine itself provides stability that your core/torso would need to provide if you were on your feet. So you potentially get yourself into a situation where your limbs (in this case, the legs/quads), are capable of producing force beyond what can be safely transferred, stabilised, or absorbed throughout your torso/core, rather than limiting what can be moved to the capacity that your technique allows.

So lets say 58 year old Joe Blogs needs to push his car because it's broken down. He can use all that strength he has in his legs which hes built via machines, and now he's going to shove that through his torso in order to transfer force to his arms, in to the car, to help it move. But his torso doesn't know how to cope with that kind of force, because it's never had to cope, as the machine has always been there to take a large portion of this burden, and now he's more vulnerable to hurting himself whilst pushing his car because his spine isn't robust enough to cope with the stress and his torso isn't stable enough to distribute the stress efficiently in a way that minimises risk to the spine whilst maximising the ability to get the car moving.

This may not happen if you don't develop any appreciable strength on the machines, though, by lifting super slow, which will limit your ability get any stronger. However, in this case, 58 year old Joe Blogs may need to call on his 58 year old wife to move the car for him, because the wife sees a trainer who improves her movement, keeps her pain free, and gets her stronger with free weights :P

The theory on lifting speed seems to defy physics - "slower speeds allow for greater force generation". This goes against how the laws of physics determine the measurement of force. In laymen terms imagine being challenged to jump onto a high box. To do this you need to produce a lot of force. Are you going to jump slowly, or are you going to jump as explosively as possible? I would bet that your feet won't even leave the ground if you attempt it slowly. My money would be on the guy with the ability to rapidly accelerate.

Apologies in advance for the tone if I sound a little off. I skimmed through a few of the links and I get the idea that Bill has been stung through injury by old school Mentzer style body building methods and, due to this, has written off free weights. A pet hate of mine is when people think "free weights" and "bodybuilding" are interchangeable. It really irritates me when I see a middle aged fat loss client being put on body part splits by trainers (some PT courses pretty miuch base their methods on bodybuilding). However, if i'm wrong i'm perfectly willing to hold my hands up and say so.

I'm enjoying the food for thought, though.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 7:38 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
KPj wrote:
Also, in a leg press you could say similar. You jam your spine between a plat form and shoulder pads. The spine is still compressed, in other words.
The leg press machine I use is such that the legs are perpendicular to the spine, so there is no pressure on the spine along the body axis. The pressure is almost entirely on the heap joint and the pelvis (although it is along a non-natural direction, a point that was not discussed and might be of some significance).
Quote:
So lets say 58 year old Joe Blogs needs to push his car.... But his torso doesn't know how to cope with that kind of force, because it's never had to cope, as the machine has always been there
This might very well be true. The thing is you have to weigh the rare need for car pushing against the risk of not being able to even push even your chair due to a serious back problem... And anyway, that's what AAA is for... :-)
Quote:
The theory on lifting speed seems to defy physics
no, it is exactly what physics says: If the power is given, the speed and force are inversely proportional (power being the multiplication of them).
Quote:
... Are you going to jump slowly, or are you going to jump as explosively as possible?
I think you misunderstand the idea. Of course you will jump as explosively as you can when you try to get the maximum upward velocity. The point Mr. DeSimone is making is that by getting this desired maximum speed you cannot exert as much force as you can achieve by slow pressing. Say your squat weight (including body weight) is 500 pounds, when jumping you will only push downwards 300 or so (just a number I picked) at the max. But in jumping you don't care about the force, you care about power summed over duration (i.e. energy that will translate to height).
Quote:
I'm enjoying the food for thought, though.
me too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 8:54 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3475
josh60 wrote:
The leg press machine I use is such that the legs are perpendicular to the spine, so there is no pressure on the spine along the body axis. The pressure is almost entirely on the heap joint and the pelvis (although it is along a non-natural direction, a point that was not discussed and might be of some significance).


I don't understand how this can be the case. There is rarely no pressure on your spine. Unless you hang upside down or lay on your back with your knees bent, there's pretty much always pressure. You get 3x the compression on your lower back just by sitting down.

Again, though, what's the problem with pressure on the spine? Why is it a bad thing, unless it's applied wrongly, of course.

josh60 wrote:
The thing is you have to weigh the rare need for car pushing against the risk of not being able to even push even your chair due to a serious back problem... And anyway, that's what AAA is for... :-)


This makes the implication that those who use free weights will be prone to serious back problems when, actually, just the general population, in fact the majority, are almost certain to develop back problems. I would also question the notion that by choosing to lift heavy things via free weights that i'm "rolling a dice" with my health.

Also, the majority of "back injuries" occur when bending over, picking up low load items such as a pen or newspaper. Not lifting heavy things. The notion that lifting heavy weights = serious back problems just has no basis, in itself.

What's a serious back problem, anyway? Plenty of people get back to lifting heavy things and being pain free after spine fractures, bulges and herniations. More importantly and again, plenty of people who have zero symptoms are lifting or being athletic or physical with herniations and bulges yet have no idea. So I question the relevance that serious back problems have to squats, free weights, or lifting heavy things in general.

With regards to the AA/car comment - One of my clients, a 58 year old female who, up until 2 years ago had back pain for about 15 years, has requested to try and push and pull a car for some fun strongman style conditioning this summer (she knows another trainer and I go out the back during summer and pull cars/vans).

Getting stronger is empowering.

With that being said, the car comment was flippant, really. "functional" is like "toning", it means different things to different people and no one is really right or wrong.


josh60 wrote:
no, it is exactly what physics says: If the power is given, the speed and force are inversely proportional (power being the multiplication of them).


I'm definitely not a physics pro so, i'm open to being criticised here but, I just don't get what you're saying. Doesn't force = mass x acceleration?

As far as I understand, the only way a slow bar speed can generate maximum force is if the load is really high (so the intent on lifting fast is still there). If you try and lift a heavy weight slowly, it will not move. However, a heavy weight will move slowly. What i'm criticising is light weights moving slowly and the claim that this some how generates maximum force.

josh60 wrote:
Say your squat weight (including body weight) is 500 pounds, when jumping you will only push downwards 300 or so (just a number I picked) at the max. But in jumping you don't care about the force, you care about power summed over duration (i.e. energy that will translate to height).


I would say if it's a high enough box, it's going to end in disaster if you push with 300lbs of worth of your max. If you want to jump at a maximum height you better give it everything, as if 500lbs is on your back.... The same principle gets applied to speed/dynamic work. Light weights lifted with maximum force.

Training slow is a great way to, well, become slow, or slower. If we go back to our general population clients, and factor in that power is one of the first things to diminish with age, then i would be even more inclined to train the ability to move fast, to be explosive.

josh60 wrote:
Quote:
I'm enjoying the food for thought, though.
me too.


It's definitely interesting. Whilst I don't have a the majority of my clients do heavy BB back squats, it's not for the same reason. However most of my clients came to me with some kind of pain or injury, or history of pain or injury, or post pain or injury. It's became a niche of mine. I don't deal directly with pain, I have a good physio I work with, but I deal with lots of people in pain in conjunction with the physio. Therefore, I have a different perspective than what's being discussed here. Actually, the opposite end of the spectrum. Strength training and free weights are almost the basis for what I do with clients - if strength training is the basis, then movement is the "base". Movement as in, our primitive, instinctive, intuitive capacity to move efficiently that mother nature provided us with and modern lifestyle sucks out of us. I help people get that back and, when they get it back, I "cement" the ability with strength. When they get this, then the prospect of pushing a car sounds like fun rather than daunting :P

No one has ever been injured during any session with me and i've dealt and deal with some very physically delicate people*. I do a lot of (relatively) heavy lifting. Therefore, I take exception to the notion that i'm putting people at risk buy taking this approach as opposed to making it all machine based. My approach is nothing new, either, and is just my interpretation of borrowed principles and information from many great minds and pioneers in various fields.

*physically delicate people. There's 2 common things I see in the most frail of clients I work with. Poor movement and lack of strength. Movement is always first, though. I think the forest is being missed for the trees. Or the messenger is being shot instead of the culprit (the messenger being free weights/ back squats).

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group