ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:01 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:09 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
KPj wrote:
I don't understand how this can be the case. There is rarely no pressure on your spine.
What I mean is that no pressure is added in the body axis direction - which is the direction that loads the discs in the spine - by pressing when the legs are perpendicular to that axis, which is the case in that leg press machine. Of course, if the back rest is not horizontal there is some pressure due to gravity, but it is not affected by the extra weight or machine resistance (and it is actually less than the pressure while sitting, due to the incline of the back rest).
Quote:
Again, though, what's the problem with pressure on the spine? Why is it a bad thing, unless it's applied wrongly, of course.
Mr. DeSimone claims that by applying a lot of pressure for many years you (probably?) harm your discs. Maybe by using a perfect technique the damage can be minimized or even eliminated (I have no idea. Personally I never consider what will happen to me if I apply a perfect technique for the same reason I don't give much thought to how I will spend the money I'm gonna win in the lottery) but his point is that with heavy squats your spine is bent a little inevitably, so more pressure is applied to one side of the discs than the other, and doing it over and over again for years will eventually harm them. As I said I'm just a layman, so I can only say that the argument sounds reasonable to me. While muscles, bones and tendons will get stronger with use, it's not the case with the discs which are made of cartilage. I would suggest they are more like your teeth; lifting heavy weights is the equivalent of crushing nuts by chewing them.
OTOH I guess it may be argued that by strengthening the back muscles you get better stabilization of the spine so maybe there is less wear and tear on the discs throughout the day and maybe it compensates for the extra pressure while squatting.
Quote:
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.
That's a valid objection, if true. However, I guess some will argue that those who continue to lift for a long time are those who happen to have a fortunate genetics that protects their backs while the rest of the population avoids it altogether or stops doing it after a short time since they feel it's not right for their backs. So if weight lifters are really suffering less than the general population it's not because lifting protects them but the other way around: only those who are naturally protected are heavy lifters. I guess some research is needed, but it wouldn't be easy to carry out.
Quote:
Also, the majority of "back injuries" occur when bending over, picking up low load items such as a pen or newspaper.
Tell me about it :-( But the claim is that by squatting heavily you will also be more prone to "back injury" next time you lift your sock. BTW, it happened to me once and put me in bed for a week.
Quote:
The notion that lifting heavy weights = serious back problems just has no basis, in itself.
That's where Mr. Desimone begs to differ.
Quote:
I'm definitely not a physics pro so, I'm open to being criticized here but, I just don't get what you're saying. Doesn't force = mass times acceleration?
At the risk of turning this into physics 101, yes, force is mass x acceleration, and yes, you'd better apply the maximum force you can in order to generate the maximum acceleration when you jump. The claim is, however, that in this case you just cannot generate the same amount of force that you can when you press or lift at a slower rate. This claim assumes your muscles are limited by the power they can generate. Compare it to driving a car: low gear means less speed and more force, so the idea is if you want to train with maximum force do it in low gear, which implies low velocity. However, IIRC Mr. DeSimone did not mention the fact we actually have more than one engine in our muscles (kind of hybrid car, I guess). i.e. the red and white fibers, so I'm not sure about the bio-mechanics of the situation: In theory your "fast speed" motor (white fibers) might be able to generate more power than the slow ones, and if that's the case, and if you really use one type or the other by changing the speed of your motion, the whole analysis is invalid. I have no idea. Again. Doc? Anybody?
Quote:
Movement as in, our primitive, instinctive, intuitive capacity to move efficiently that mother nature provided us with and modern lifestyle sucks out of us.
Well, Mr. Desimone makes the case that mother nature did not intend us to carry heavy weights on our shoulders - that's the point of the pyramid analogy he made.
Quote:
No one has ever been injured during any session with me
While this is encouraging, the issue is more about accumulated damage for the long run rather than injuries while training. Still, a good point.

I wish I could have this kind of discussion with the trainers in my gym... On second thought, in that case I would probably spend the whole training time discussing the issues which I much prefer over sweating, any day of the week :-) Oh, well.

edited: changed "disk" to "disc". grrrr.


Last edited by josh60 on Wed May 02, 2012 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 5:53 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
josh60 wrote:
What I mean is that no pressure is added in the body axis direction - which is the direction that loads the disks in the spine - by pressing when the legs are perpendicular to that axis, which is the case in that leg press machine. Of course, if the back rest is not horizontal there is some pressure due to gravity, but it is not affected by the extra weight or machine resistance (and it is actually less than the pressure while sitting, due to the incline of the back rest).


I would need to look into this more but, I find it very difficult to believe that when wedging your spine between shoulder pads and a loaded plat form, the load of the platform doesn't influence the stress on the spine. However, in my mind it's not relevant since, I "like" stress on the spine and body. I don't like poor application of stress, but I think stressing the body is essential.

josh60 wrote:
Mr. DeSimone claims that by applying a lot of pressure for many years you (probably?) harm your disks. Maybe by using a perfect technique the damage can be minimized or even eliminated (I have no idea. Personally I never consider what will happen to me if I apply a perfect technique for the same reason I don't give much thought to how I will spend the money I'm gonna win in the lottery) but his point is that with heavy squats your spine is bent a little inevitably, so more pressure is applied to one side of the disks than the other, and doing it over and over again for years will eventually harm them. As I said I'm just a layman, so I can only say that the argument sounds reasonable to me. While muscles, bones and tendons will get stronger with use, it's not the case with the disks which are made of cartilage. I would suggest they are more like your teeth; lifting heavy weights is the equivalent of crushing nuts by chewing them.


If you don't aspire to use perfect technique, then without sounding like an a$$hole, it's no wonder the argument is holding water, to be honest. This is analogous to me taking the leg press recommendation on board, going into a a deep leg press and allowing lumbar flexion and chewing up the lower back anyway (i.e doing it wrong). I know the recommendation was to avoid this when leg pressing, just like my recommendation is to squat properly and not incorrectly.

Your body just degenerates, it's part of the aging process. Just living for years and years will cause wear and tear and eventual harm if you're not gone before that sets in. It's a brutal fact that we struggle to deal with but it's one of the surest things in life. Just like a car eventually clocks up enough miles that it needs scrapped, our bodies do the same. Driving like an idiot shortens the life span of your car. Driving for sport also does this (which is akin to powerlifting or, any sport, and sport in essence is "over use"). However, not driving your car is a great way to seize up the breaks, wheels, allow air to leak from the tyres, flatten the battery, etc My brothers car has been sitting in my drive way doing next to nothing for about 2 years. It's a shadow of it's former self. Even the doors have seized up. I'm taking the analogy too far. My point is for optimal health you need the right amount of activity, not too little, not too extreme. You need a middle ground. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water and go to the other end of the spectrum. There is also no reason that people training for "general" strength end up as beat up as powerlifters. If this is the case then I guarantee there will be faults in both your programming and your technique.

josh60 wrote:
OTOH I guess it may be argued that by strengthening the back muscles you get better stabilization of the spine so maybe there is less wear and tear on the disks throughout the day and maybe it compensates for the extra pressure while squatting.


To be honest I think this is half of the problem I have with logic. Too much focus on muscles, not enough focus on movement. The majority of people I see with back pain already have strong lower backs and this is largely why they are in pain. Their lower back takes over in just about every movement you can think of, from squatting, hinging/deadlifting, lunging, stepping, to even reaching their hands over head. Most untrained people can't do a plank without turning it into a lower back exercise. They spend most of their time sitting down compressing the lower back, then whenever they stand they spend the whole time hanging off the lower back (forward weight shift, anterior pelvic tilt, forward head posture). Most of the time the lower back needs a break and a key factor in giving the lower back a break is RE learning proper hip function, and how to load the hips vs the spine. To be honest quad dominant exercises only enforce the movement issues which are at the route of the problem. I spend most of my time with new clients keeping the quads OUT of exercises. I rarely see the need with new clients to add quad specific work, unless they want bigger quads, which is normally more of a concern than a desire (especially with women).

josh60 wrote:
But the claim is that by squatting heavily you will also be more prone to "back injury" next time you lift your sock. BTW, it happened to me once and put me in bed for a week.


My claim is that if you have dysfunctional movement patterns, you are more prone to a back injury whether you squat heavy or not. Of course, piling loads of weight into an already dysfunctional pattern is just reckless. There is also an argument that a leg press plays to the dysfunction, too. However, if you have that dysfunction, you're prone to it regardless. It's just a matter of time. Movement doesn't seem to be taken into account.

josh60 wrote:
Well, Mr. Desimone makes the case that mother nature did not intend us to carry heavy weights on our shoulders - that's the point of the pyramid analogy he made.


We were intended to squat, though, and we were also designed to "adapt". And pyramids don't move, minus any illegal substances that may be available.

josh60 wrote:
While this is encouraging, the issue is more about accumulated damage for the long run rather than injuries while training. Still, a good point.


Yes, it is accumulated damage, not doubt about that. But, how am I able to take people who have accumulated enough stress to cause damage and pain, and get them back to moving well and lifting heavy things with no pain whatsoever? And i'm just a rookie.....

The things I think are getting repeatedly overlooked are movement quality, lifting technique, and the relevance of "damage" anyway...

This is the study showing people without back pain having bulges and protrusions - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 7143310201

Only 36 percent of the subjects had normal disks. This is isn't the only study that's found this. It's safe to assume that if you train 10 people, most of them have "damage" to their spine, regardless of whether they have pain or not. It also stated that the prevalence of disk abnormalities had little significance to physical activity. As you would assume, the older, the more likely there is to be damage. So if you have 10 clients who are 20 years old, it might not be too bad. If you have 10 who are over 40, then you need to assume that most of them have underlying "damage".

So, if I can be completely pain free yet have this damage, what exactly causes me to be in pain?

This isn't necessarily known yet but, what is gaining momentum is - How do they move?

If you take someone that moves like crap and load them up on heavy back squats then you are just begging for injury. If you take someone that moves well and clears the necessary criteria to make heavy back squats an option for them, then you will most likely have no issues at all. Of course you need to define "heavy", though. Just blaming back squats is what i'm disagreeing with. There are too many other things to consider. I'm also disagreeing with the solution. Training on machines does nothing for your movement, if anything this can make movement worse, although like lifting programs, the devils in the details in this respect, too.

Quote:
I wish I could have this kind of discussion with the trainers in my gym... On second thought, in that case I would probably spend the whole training time discussing the issues which I much prefer over sweating, any day of the week :-) Oh, well.


I talk far too much lol, especially when asked about pain, technique, movement, or strength. Can't help myself most of the time, it's something i'm very passionate about.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:02 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Halifax, NS
Nice analysis/rant Kenny and Josh. I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'm enjoying this.

_________________
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: Wed May 02, 2012 1:15 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
Josh, whom I don't believe I've met personally, has a good handle on my approach.
KPj, you're expressing yourself civilly, we just happen to disagree on a lot of your comments. Although you do say you're new at this, and I'm not sure if that means training yourself or training others, but experience in this tends to lead to caution. When you write things like "...clear the necessary criteria...heavy back squats...no issues at all", only in a relatively short span of training. You're getting away with it, not getting used to it.
And yes, there are other things outside the gym to consider, which is why my overall point is, why do things in the gym to accelerate it? My concern is training over a lifetime: I have for over 40 years. I don't think Jones or Schwarzennegger or any of today's experts are thinking in those terms.
BTW the leg press I prefer is the Nautilus Nitro with the spine curves built into the seat back, with the seat fully reclined. I agree that a flat seat back, with the seat close, would lead to complications, and that yes, there are ways to train the legs leaving the back completely out of it.

I used to think marathon runners were hooked up differently and all that running didn't bother them physically. A trainer who worked for me, endurance athlete, walked in in sandals and no toenails. I said, what happened to your toenails?, she said, with all the running they fell off. I said, don't you think that's your body's way of telling you you're running too much? And she said...what do i need toenails for?
Point being, it's not that they're hooked up differently, they just don't care. So if you like to barbell squat, and you don't believe there's any risk to the discs, with barbell squatting "heavy" over years, more power to you.
But for someone already feeling something, there are safer ways to train the back, and the legs, separately, than a barbell squat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:30 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 232
Location: Toronto
Making proclamations about what the spine is or isn't for, especially in conjunction with similar claims about spinal loading in exercise, makes me incredibly uneasy. Not only do we not have epidemiological information sufficient enough to support any of these claims, but these claims would also be impossible to control for (IE: meaningless).

You can look at the relative thickness of the lumbar spine and consider it's ability to handle compressive loads, and draw some conclusions. Fryette's rule, the relative thickness of the posterior and anterior longitudinal ligaments, Wolff's law... I'm comfortable saying "you know what, that probably shouldn't bend that way."

Similarly I can look at a fire and know not to throw accelerant on it.

Broad, non-sport specific health outcome claims without controls just sells books and DVDs.

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1991
Location: Texas
I've been reading this thread with quite a bit of interest. For my two cents, I think there are valid arguements for both sides. I think the key for a healthy back while squatting heavy is that you must have good form. For most of us, we learn crappy form and perpetuate that bad form until we screw something up or if we are lucky, learn our lesson before there is an injury.

I started lifting relatively late in life - 31. I lifted in high school, but was pretty much away for the subsequent 13 years. When I came back to lifting, I was mostly past the age where I lifted with a ton of ego. Consequently, I rarely got myself in trouble. Fortunately, I avoided many of the micro-injuries that cumulatively cause problems that Bill is talking about.

My opinion is that if you don't get stupid and go heavier than you should, you should have no problems. However, if you have tons of micro injuries, it might be best to avoid the squat. However, you can hurt yourself on the leg press just as easily as squatting. The more I lift, the more I'm convinced it is sloppy form that injures most lifters. This goes for even the best lifters, who grind out one more rep with poor form, or go 10 pounds heavier with poor form. It could even be a relatively light load on a bad day.

I think another key component to injuries is muscle imbalance that causes one side to have to over compensate for another. You look at most new lifters, especially men, there routines are usually poorly balance. Like I said in the shoulder thread, you have hurt shoulders when you bench, you probably have weak shoulders or back. The squat is no different.

You also cannot convince me that the squat and deadlift are not two of the best exercises to building overall mass and strength. Can you get mass and strength with other exercises? Sure. I'll even go as far as proposing (not saying it is true) that perhaps it might even be better for the average lifter who doesn't plan to compete. They don't have to learn a difficult lift. You won't make as good as progress, but in the long run, you could end up better off if you avoid an injury.

For example, if you have a 70 year old client that is a complete newb, are you going to teach them the barbell squat, or are you going to get them almost all on machines to build up a good strength base? The answer, in my mind, is retorical. Why would you treat a 30 year old newb any differently?

Bill, you have a good theory and it definitely passes the sniff test. I just don't know if I agree with it, but I sure do like the discussion. For the record, even if you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt you are right, I aint giving up my squat.

_________________
Thanks TimD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:42 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
JasonJones wrote:
Making proclamations about what the spine is or isn't for, especially in conjunction with similar claims about spinal loading in exercise, makes me incredibly uneasy. Not only do we not have epidemiological information sufficient enough to support any of these claims, but these claims would also be impossible to control for (IE: meaningless).

You can look at the relative thickness of the lumbar spine and consider it's ability to handle compressive loads, and draw some conclusions. Fryette's rule, the relative thickness of the posterior and anterior longitudinal ligaments, Wolff's law... I'm comfortable saying "you know what, that probably shouldn't bend that way."

Similarly I can look at a fire and know not to throw accelerant on it.

Broad, non-sport specific health outcome claims without controls just sells books and DVDs.


You are joking, right?
I have a dozen or so free videos on You Tube, one (1) book on Amazon, and I draw a straight line between anatomy and biomechanics to what I do in the gym.
There are countless infomercials, magazines, internet experts, books, etc. making outrageous claims, supporting them with pseudo-science and personal preference, and the only reason you don't hear from the people they hurt is because once they get hurt, they quit and keep off the boards.
But you're uneasy about my "proclamations" because there's not enough "epidemiological information"? There's never going to be: people quit when they get hurt, or they're embarrassed to admit it. I'd say there's not enough blah blah to support all that other nonsense.
And as far as "broad, non-sport specific health outcome claims" (whatever that is) to "just sell books and DVDs", really, direct that at the Tony Hortons and Jillian Michaels of the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 232
Location: Toronto
BillDeSimone wrote:
You are joking, right?

And as far as "broad, non-sport specific health outcome claims" (whatever that is) to "just sell books and DVDs", really, direct that at the Tony Hortons and Jillian Michaels of the world.

I don't support claims that are unsupportable. It does not matter who made them. "you can't be surprised if you end up with back issues, especially if you squat with a barbell" is one such claim, and I would consider it to be so whether it was made by you, KPj, myself, Tony Horton, Jillian Michaels, all the fitness magazines in circulation, or even Megatron.

Incidentally, had I known you had a book for sale I would have ended on a different note, I didn't mean anything personal.

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:42 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
BillDeSimone wrote:
Josh, whom I don't believe I've met personally...
Nope, I did not have the pleasure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:00 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
BillDeSimone wrote:
KPj, you're expressing yourself civilly, we just happen to disagree on a lot of your comments.


Good, everything is meant with due respect. Disagreeing without disliking is "healthy", I think.

BillDeSimone wrote:
Although you do say you're new at this, and I'm not sure if that means training yourself or training others, but experience in this tends to lead to caution. When you write things like "...clear the necessary criteria...heavy back squats...no issues at all", only in a relatively short span of training. You're getting away with it, not getting used to it.


Depending on context, new to both. I've been training consistently for ~7years or so, and been training others, minus a handful of training partners and family members, for just over 2 years.

I made some great progress training like an idiot until it caught up with me. I gathered up a nice list of injuries, especially for someone of my age (i'm 27), with no real athletic background. But then I learned how to do things right... And this is where we disagree.

Again, the majority of people I train don't BB Back squat, but not for the same reasons that you don't. I class it as an advanced exercise and, yes, there is a whole bunch of necessary criteria that needs to be "cleared" before it can be considered a potential option, then I have a whole progression people need to work through before a bar is actually placed on their back - if this suits their goals and risk:reward. Also, it's largely borrowed information from various other coaches who have been doing this for decades. There's nothing I do that i've made up myself. I have resources I can fall back on when unsure. When unsure I always err on the side of caution. I also work in conjunction with a good physio whom I refer tricky clients out to, and he approves the programs I have people on and is always at the other end of the phone for any advice or concerns. I have a nice little portfolio so far of clients who have gotten healthier as they have became stronger via free weights, and even when pain free they get follow up appointments with the physio, every 6 months or so, just to keep an unbiased and clinical eye on things.

One thing i've never seen mentioned from you is movement. Movement and resistance training are the basis for modern physiotherapy/physical therapy. The days of rehabing sore knees with leg extension machines are slowly but surely dying. I think a good training program will address movement dysfunction and I don't think machine based training is a good way of addressing this. In a lot of cases I think machine based training can feed the dysfunction, but that depends on a lot of things, too.

BillDeSimone wrote:
And yes, there are other things outside the gym to consider, which is why my overall point is, why do things in the gym to accelerate it? My concern is training over a lifetime: I have for over 40 years. I don't think Jones or Schwarzennegger or any of today's experts are thinking in those terms.


My overall point is - the things you do in the gym should "fight" the hazardous things outside of the gym which can't be avoided. For example, we know through Dr Stuart McGills work that the quickest mechanism to a disc injury is repeated flexion and extension cycles of the lumbar spine. People move too much from the lumbar spine. Training should encourage a stable spine as well as the ability to load the hips, which can't be taught on a machine. It can however be taught through exercises like squats - although a BB isn't necessary.

Also, with all due respect I get concerned when the likes of Jones or Schwarzenegger are used as examples of experts in training for "health". It makes me wonder if you view weight training completely through a body builders lens, in which case I can understand why you have the opinions that you do.

BillDeSimone wrote:
So if you like to barbell squat, and you don't believe there's any risk to the discs, with barbell squatting "heavy" over years, more power to you.


I have no doubt that lifting heavy in general will cause wear and tear. However wear and tear will be caused no matter what.

And if you take someone who shouldn't be squatting and doesn't know how to squat and then make them do it, plus add load, then that is a disaster waiting to happen. And I would say that based on my limited experience so far most untrained (and a lot of "trained) people fall into this category. I just don't believe it's the squats that are the problem, I think it's because people move like crap.

BillDeSimone wrote:
But for someone already feeling something, there are safer ways to train the back, and the legs, separately, than a barbell squat.


I agree :grin:

Thanks for the discussion so far.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:34 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
hoosegow wrote:
For most of us, we learn crappy form and perpetuate that bad form until we screw something up or if we are lucky, learn our lesson before there is an injury.


I think this is key. How often do you see people squat with good form? Minus my own clients ( :joker:), I could count on one hand the amount of people i've seen squat reasonably well this year in my gym, and i'm in there every day, at least 6 days per week.

If it's those horrible ankle/knee squats that are being referred to here then I would agree the leg press is probably safer. However, not a GOOD squat.

I think one of the most overlooked aspects of strength training is the "skill" involved. They don't teach you about this is PT courses, either. A well performed back squat requires an incredible amount of skill, and you need a good base of movement to be able to execute a good BB back squat. When you see a good squat it looks like the easiest thing in the world but there's a whole lot going on throughout the lift.

This makes squats and free weights in general very challenging to teach. This is where you need to be a "coach" and not just a "trainer". Some people are fantastic trainers but not so good at coaching. I think if you lack coaching skills then machine based training is a safer bet with your average general population clients (there isn't a PT cert that i'm aware of that teaches good coaching skills). It's like bowling with the bumper pads on to stop the ball rolling off the side - much more difficult to go wrong. You can take people who are crap at bowling and they will still get strikes and have a great time.


hoosegow wrote:
I think another key component to injuries is muscle imbalance that causes one side to have to over compensate for another.


One of the biggest predictors of future injury is a side to side discrepancy, so the research and those pioneering the physio/physical therapy world are on the same page as you. This is where movement screening comes into it - to find all of this before we decide what some one should or should not do, how much risk certain things have, and what we need to work on at a movement level. You need the underlying movement, then you add your strength or "fitness" on top of a solid base of movement. Screening is about creating a bench mark and carving out a direction to go in, then being able to compare (re test). It makes risk measurable, in other words.

A lot of people who BB squat can't even bodyweight squat properly. So they're loading up a movement pattern that has underlying dysfunction or as Gray Cook has worded it - adding strength to dysfunction.

hoosegow wrote:
For example, if you have a 70 year old client that is a complete newb, are you going to teach them the barbell squat, or are you going to get them almost all on machines to build up a good strength base? The answer, in my mind, is retorical. Why would you treat a 30 year old newb any differently?


I think this example is key. However I probably wouldn't have the 70 yearold on machines (although i wouldn't rule it out). However I most definitely wouldn't have them back squat. I've never trained a newbie 70 year old, but I've trained a few newbie 60 year olds (2 of my current regulars are ~60). For these clients just moving well creates an amazing training effect. We don't need load, whether that's from BB's, DB's, or machines. For these clients, "getting stronger" means, "sitting down without discomfort" i.e. "being able to perform a good, bodyweight, squat". One of my 60 year olds has never done a loaded deadlift. One of them has never performed a loaded squat. The difference is in the movement dysfunction and restrictions between them. The one that squats only goblet squats, it's like a token weight, not heavy (i little weight helps you keep the chest up without having to think about keeping the chest up..). I wouldn't see a reason to put a BB on his back but, it would be too risky just now anyway.

That brings another point that's being missed here - WHY?? Why BB back squat (or leg press?)? What are you trying to achieve? For some the BB back squat won't even come in to the equation either way.....

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:21 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
i vote this thread be moved into the "good enough to keep section" when it's done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:31 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
robertscott wrote:
i vote this thread be moved into the "good enough to keep section" when it's done.

I agree!

_________________
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: Thu May 03, 2012 2:29 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Posts: 29
"I don't support claims that are unsupportable. It does not matter who made them. "you can't be surprised if you end up with back issues, especially if you squat with a barbell" is one such claim, and I would consider it to be so..."

Then that's just seeing what you want. Nothing personal.

KPj, at 27, you've been training yourself 7 years and other people 2? I'm in my mid-fifties, have been training myself about 40 years, and started as a trainer in 1983. The need for caution becomes more obvious the longer you do this, and the more people you train.
Yes, wear and tear happens no matter what, and again, why add to it with something so obvious.

The difference between us old experienced types, is we no longer play the "risk/reward" game. There are no magic rewards, so extra risk is just that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: squat question
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:37 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 232
Location: Toronto
BillDeSimone wrote:
Then that's just seeing what you want.


Hardly. It's the basis of the scientific method, the framework by which we are able to evaluate hypothesizes, assertions and professional practices, especially within the field of human health. It's also a necessary litmus test to separate snake-oil salesmen from individuals who have dedicated their professional lives and years of education to the pursuit of knowledge in human health, longevity and biological function. You don't get to short circuit those requirements based on "experience," "age," or testimony from apocryphal lifters who got hurt and "don't post on boards." You either provide evidence to back up those claims, or they get rightly dismissed.

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk


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, 6 ... 8  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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