# I finally did it!



## Arnold (Oct 24, 2004)

After 4+ months of no squats, only leg press, I decided I could not stand it anymore, after 15 years of squatting I just cannot stop.

I started out with one plate on each side, did 3 sets, then moved up to 205lbs, did 2 sets of 10 and it felt like about 400lbs! 

Needless to say I am *very* sore today. It helps me remember how squats incorporate practically the entire body! 

The reason I stopped doing squats for 4 months was due to two nerve issues I had in my back over the past year. The first one was my brachial plexus nerve in my upper back, the second was my sciatic nerve in my lower back. I have been going to a chiropractor for the past 4 months as well.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 24, 2004)




----------



## OceanDude (Oct 24, 2004)

Hey, I hear you one the squats Robert. I have a mechanical problem with them too - it  just does not feel right. But we need that massive multi-muscle group stress to get the GH release later in the night. I think you can get a fair approximation and similar benefit by doing dead lifts though. But I found that I can get a pretty good squat effect by using the power squat machine facing toward the back rest. On this machine I find that I can get extremely heavy weights on my shoulders and I don't have to worry about getting locked down and being unable to duck out. I have been as high as  540 lbs of plates (no idea how much the apparatus weighs) and I can pretty much put different emphasis on quads or glutes depending on how I vector my thrust angle. Which is not bad for a guy who comes in at 190 lbs on a lean frame. I don't get any of the binding in the lower back that I do with the conventional squat rack. Try it you might like it.

OD


----------



## Arnold (Oct 24, 2004)

I do not feel that I have a mechanical problem with squats, I think it might just be old age. 

I think maybe after 20 years of lifting weights, and 15 years of squats it is all just catching up with me so to speak. My chiropractor tells me I have a very healthy spine, but I do have one leg that it about 10mm shorter which puts my hips off balance and I have a slight curvature in my spine because of this. I now wear a heel lift, and I only see him once every two weeks for an adjustment, where as the first month I was seeing him 3 times per week.

I have had no pain or problems the past 4 months, and I felt really good doing the squats, I just felt weak. I think I will continue to do them, but I will probably never go above 225lbs.


----------



## OceanDude (Oct 24, 2004)

I hear you on the age thing but I bet I am fairly older than you and feel like my best years are still ahead of me. In fact i did BB to alleviate the aches and pains and its been the best possible therapy for me - no longer do I get nagging hip pains like I use to. I am stronger now that I have ever been in my entire life - by far. I got a real late start in all this and really did not start any serious bb till after age 35 or so and then sporadically. I have been out of it now for 2 months due to hurricane situation here but will probably be starting back up again this Monday - not looking forward to the initial weeks of pain though as I get re-acclimated to it...

OD


----------



## gopro (Oct 25, 2004)

4 months!? I haven't squatted in 4 years! And probably never will again. If I thought my leg development was suffering as a result, I would reconsider, but thats not the case.

Anyway, just be careful RD!


----------



## P-funk (Oct 25, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> 4 months!? I haven't squatted in 4 years! And probably never will again. If I thought my leg development was suffering as a result, I would reconsider, but thats not the case.
> 
> Anyway, just be careful RD!




Why?  Past injury?


----------



## gopro (Oct 25, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Why?  Past injury?



Every time I would go to sets of 400 + my lower back would begin to hurt...sometimes right while I was squatting and sometimes within a day. Yes, my form has always been textbook, and this was even while regularly doing deadlifts with 500 +, so my lower back was strong. Also, and even more importantly, squats NEVER felt that great to me. I never got soreness in my quads from squatting that was comparable to hacks or leg presses.

Basically, I feel that squats just aren't for me.


----------



## Johnnny (Oct 25, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio



> After 4+ months of no squats, only leg press, I decided I could not stand it anymore, after 15 years of squatting I just cannot stop.
> 
> I started out with one plate on each side, did 3 sets, then moved up to 205lbs, did 2 sets of 10 and it felt like about 400lbs!
> 
> ...



I wouldn't f$ck around with your back.

You don't want back problems when you're older as once your back is shot, it's very hard to get it back to normal if you ever do.

There are ppl who can't even bend down to pick up a shoe box or something.


----------



## BulkMeUp (Oct 25, 2004)

So does this mean the almighty squat is not one of those exercises-to-live-and-die by as professed by some??   

I have been told i am borderline for lower back problems. I have a similar hip misalignment situation as Robert DiMaggio, wherein one leg is a bit shorter than the other. And like gopro, i dont feel a great burn/pump doing them as i do with legpresses. 

In the past i avoided them in order not to create any back probs(which is why i avoid deadlifts as well, but thats another discussion altogether), but have been advised in other threads that i should do them and hence a few months ago i started doing them. Of course i am not anywhere near you guys. I can do a max of 160 10reps in my 4th set (presently doing pyramid style), and sometimes my hips roll side to side and i dont like that. 

Height 6'/165lb. So would you guys say it is ok to continue but keep the weights reasonable?


----------



## Johnnny (Oct 25, 2004)

I wouldn't go near squats with back problems


----------



## BulkMeUp (Oct 25, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go near squats with back problems


I dont have any back problems presently. I have been told that i am _borderline _ for them.


----------



## Johnnny (Oct 25, 2004)

Bulkmeup

If you're borderline for back problems why make them worse or cause back problems faster?

Not worth it IMO.


----------



## gopro (Oct 25, 2004)

BulkMeUp said:
			
		

> I dont have any back problems presently. I have been told that i am _borderline _ for them.



If you are uncomfortable with them and are going to be more worried about hurting yourself than focusing on your legs, then forget them and work hard on hacks, leg presses and lunges with dumbells. Incredible legs can be built with these exercises.


----------



## Vieope (Oct 25, 2004)

_Injury in the lower back is still possible even if the exercise is done with perfect form? _


----------



## shutupntra1n (Oct 25, 2004)

I have done squats a few times but I also did not like the tension in certain areas. I have stuck to lunges, presses, extentions and curls and never felt my legs lagged in training. I also even felt the elliptical with heavy resistance and walks/jogs on hill terrain once in a blue gave my legs a nice wo


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 25, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _Injury in the lower back is still possible even if the exercise is done with perfect form? _




You can have perfect form, but if a stabilizing muscle is to weak you can hurt yourself.  I don't think one should just start doing squats like most people do.  What they do is they compensate for the weaker muscle by utilizing another muscle more than they would have to.  Initially form looks ok, but over the course of time this will lead to a dysfunctional movement pattern that gets worse with continuation of the movement.


Hey RD, one of my legs is 10mm shorter than the others, the middle one.


----------



## shutupntra1n (Oct 25, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You can have perfect form, but if a stabilizing muscle is to weak you can hurt yourself. I don't think one should just start doing squats like most people do. What they do is they compensate for the weaker muscle by utilizing another muscle more than they would have to. Initially form looks ok, but over the course of time this will lead to a dysfunctional movement pattern that gets worse with continuation of the movement.
> 
> 
> Hey RD, one of my legs is 10mm shorter than the others, the middle one.


  A picture is needed to fully figure out what the problem is


----------



## DOMS (Oct 25, 2004)

I feel the burn and subsequent swelling throughout my legs.

I like everything about doing squats except getting a bit nauseated and walking like a prison bitch the next day...

Righ on RD!


----------



## Vieope (Oct 25, 2004)

_Thanks *Dale* _


----------



## BulkMeUp (Oct 25, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Hey RD, one of my legs is 10mm shorter than the others, the middle one.


*wow* your gut has gotten so big you are now classifying it as a leg??!!   





j/k


----------



## BulkMeUp (Oct 25, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> If you are uncomfortable with them and are going to be more worried about hurting yourself than focusing on your legs, then forget them and work hard on hacks, leg presses and lunges with dumbells. Incredible legs can be built with these exercises.


Thanks gopro!

If i did squats with mod/low weights and focussed on the other exercises to build mass, would i be wasting my time?


----------



## gopro (Oct 25, 2004)

BulkMeUp said:
			
		

> Thanks gopro!
> 
> If i did squats with mod/low weights and focussed on the other exercises to build mass, would i be wasting my time?



No you wouldn't. Squats are still an awesome functional exercise, and many people have built great legs with high rep/lower weight squats.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 25, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I never got soreness in my quads from squatting that was comparable to hacks or leg presses.



I am liking hacks and leg presses a lot more, I dont feel it in my quads either honestly but I am willing to get my form critiqued to see whats up.


----------



## Arnold (Oct 25, 2004)

another point to made about squats is that they work more than just legs, they are practically a full body exercise.

after a 4 month layoff I found out the next how many muscles are involved in the squat, not only was my entire lower body sore, but my entire back was also sore.


----------



## Tank316 (Oct 25, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> If you are uncomfortable with them and are going to be more worried about hurting yourself than focusing on your legs, then forget them and work hard on hacks, leg presses and lunges with dumbells. Incredible legs can be built with these exercises.


this is all i did for the past April show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   
i too, just started doing full squats again.   and yes, its getting to be an age thing.


----------



## gopro (Oct 25, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> another point to made about squats is that they work more than just legs, they are practically a full body exercise.
> 
> after a 4 month layoff I found out the next how many muscles are involved in the squat, not only was my entire lower body sore, but my entire back was also sore.



Like I said...an awesome functional exercise making everything work in concert to make the entire body strong. However, this is not the main purpose of a pure bodybuilder. Isolating the target muscle is. For some, squats still do this, but like you, I would wake up sore in my back from squats...and this is something that I DON'T want.


----------



## Yanick (Oct 25, 2004)

I love squatting too much to ever give it up, barring some kind of serious injury or something...there's nothing quite like having all that weight on your back and being able to handle it like its nothing.


----------



## Arnold (Oct 25, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> However, this is not the main purpose of a pure bodybuilder. Isolating the target muscle is. For some, squats still do this, but like you, I would wake up sore in my back from squats...and this is something that I DON'T want.



hmmm...that is opening up a can of worms, sounds like you're suggesting that isolation exercises are better for gaining mass than compound movements.


----------



## gopro (Oct 25, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> hmmm...that is opening up a can of worms, sounds like you're suggesting that isolation exercises are better for gaining mass than compound movements.



No, not really. I guess "isolate" was not the right word, as neither leg presses or hacks are isolation exercises, but compound lifts. However, they do take the need for balancing and some stabilization out of the equation allowing a great "focus" on the quads.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 25, 2004)

What result will this "focus" have that could not be obtained on an exercise like squats?  How will this result occur (what is the mechanism)?


----------



## P-funk (Oct 25, 2004)

Yanick said:
			
		

> I love squatting too much to ever give it up, barring some kind of serious injury or something...there's nothing quite like having all that weight on your back and being able to handle it like its nothing.




Samne here.  Squats are my favorite.

I feel these more in my quads than any other leg exercise.  Hacks and leg presses don't do it for me at all.


----------



## gopro (Oct 26, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> What result will this "focus" have that could not be obtained on an exercise like squats?  How will this result occur (what is the mechanism)?



If you are not comfortable with squats, and/or are feeling the exercise in other areas besides the quads, which is the target muscle, you will not achieve as good a mind/muscle connection and will not get as much out of it. If you are feeling lower back pain, or are having trouble with the balance you will not achieve as much hypertrophy as you would with leg presses or hacks. If you find squats to be very natural then its different story...but not everybody does.


----------



## gopro (Oct 26, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Samne here.  Squats are my favorite.
> 
> I feel these more in my quads than any other leg exercise.  Hacks and leg presses don't do it for me at all.



Thats YOU...and thats cool. For me, squats are more than a waste of my time.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 26, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Thats YOU...and thats cool. For me, squats are more than a waste of my time.




I know, I wasn't disagreeing with you.


----------



## gopro (Oct 26, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I know, I wasn't disagreeing with you.



I know...I was just saying for others that think they MUST squat, that its not necessarily true (although the should be given a fair shake before making any decisions on them).


----------



## Flex (Oct 26, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Needless to say I am *very* sore today. It helps me remember how squats incorporate practically the entire body!



Glad to have you back on the darkside


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 26, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Samne here.  Squats are my favorite.
> 
> I feel these more in my quads than any other leg exercise.  Hacks and leg presses don't do it for me at all.



Another squatter for life here.  However, I don't really feel it in my quads relative to other exercises unless I squat olympic style.  I like powerlifter form better, but the end result is that my gluts, hams, and lower back take a lot more of a beating than my quads.

One variation of the squat I have found to hit the quads better is the single leg squat.  There are also other benefits to this exercise: disproportionate legs aren't an issue because your back leg rests on a bench; far less weight is required, so the strain on one's lumbar spine is drastically reduced; even more stabilizer muscle action is required to maintain good form.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 26, 2004)

> However, I don't really feel it in my quads relative to other exercises unless I squat olympic style.



I think you hit it on the head there Cow.  I should say that I only squat olympic style, maybe that is why i feel it more in my quads and less in my erectors than others.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 26, 2004)

How does an olympic squat differ from the "normal" sqaut?


----------



## P-funk (Oct 26, 2004)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> How does an olympic squat differ from the "normal" sqaut?




olympic squat the bar sits higher on your traps and you have a narrow stance and squat almost straight down.  Where as a powerlifter squats typically with a widerstance, the bar resting low on the traps and sitting back a lot more.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 26, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> What result will this "focus" have that could not be obtained on an exercise like squats?  How will this result occur (what is the mechanism)?



I liken it to using straps on my back work. I dont have to concentrate or pay attention to more muscles being taxed, when I only want to tax to the max a set group of muscles none of which being my forearms, which I can attend to at night. This is obviously a bit more of a BB mindset than PL, but if you can sit down and be 'lazy' doing those leg presses instead of doing a total body cardio workout, then its easier on the mind.


----------



## Yanick (Oct 26, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> olympic squat the bar sits higher on your traps and you have a narrow stance and squat almost straight down.  Where as a powerlifter squats typically with a widerstance, the bar resting low on the traps and sitting back a lot more.



Yup. Olympic squats are what you see most bb'ers doing (high bar, narrow stance), and PL squats you see very rarely in gyms unless you go to a hardcore gym where ppl actually know what they are doing.  I have been doing PL squats for months now and at my peak i squatted 405 for a single, however yesterday (it was the first workout in 2 weeks so that might be another factor) i squatted olympic style and hit 295 for 4. Due to the huge difference in the two squats i would say ppl should figure out ways to cycle both as i will do in the future.  And yes when squatting like a PL you don't feel too much in your quads, whereas Oly squats your quads are getting hit very hard (front squats, rack position not that pussy bb'er shit, are also great for the quads).


----------



## Arnold (Oct 26, 2004)

I fail to see how a "bodybuilder" would benefit from a PL squat, the goal of a PL squat is to get the weight up, using a lot of lower back and ass.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 26, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I fail to see how a "bodybuilder" would benefit from a PL squat, the goal of a PL squat is to get the weight up, using a lot of lower back and ass.




I don't see it either


----------



## chris mason (Oct 26, 2004)

"Olympic" style of squatting is done with the back very upright, a relatively narrow stance, and to full depth.  Olympic lifters will squat in this fashion because it more closely mimics the squat portion of the clean and snatch than does a more typical powerlifting style squat.



GoPro, if one doesn't have this "mind/muscle" link you mention why is the workout any less benficial?  Are the muscles not contracting?  Do individual muscle cells have the ability to contract to varying degrees?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 26, 2004)

A bodybuilder has to have hamstrings, glutes and erectors.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 26, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> GoPro, if one doesn't have this "mind/muscle" link you mention why is the workout any less benficial?  Are the muscles not contracting?  Do individual muscle cells have the ability to contract to varying degrees?



IMO because one simply does not exert the same amount of concentration required for going 100%. I feel personally, that a lot of people are 90% or maybe 95% especially on balls to the wall leg and back work. When doing taxing movements it is easy for the mind to give up, if there is no mind to muscle "connection" there is no "in the zone."

If there is no "mind to muscle" connection, there is no being in touch with ones body.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 26, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> A bodybuilder has to have hamstrings, glutes and erectors.




true....


----------



## Arnold (Oct 26, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> A bodybuilder has to have hamstrings, glutes and erectors.



Yes, but a PL squat emphasizes the glutes and erectors, whereas an Olympic style squat is more balanced and incorporates glutes, quads and erectors more equally, which is ultimately a more effective way for a bodybuilder to train.


----------



## gopro (Oct 26, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> GoPro, if one doesn't have this "mind/muscle" link you mention why is the workout any less benficial?  Are the muscles not contracting?  Do individual muscle cells have the ability to contract to varying degrees?



If you do not believe in the power of the mind being able to affect all things that occur within the body I cannot even broach this subject with you. For many, while squatting, too many muscles are brought into play, spreading the work throughout the body. Some will squat more with their glutes than thighs, and some will use far too much back. Even the arms can come into play. This great reduces the effectiveness of the exercise from a physical and psychological standpoint.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 26, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Yes, but a PL squat emphasizes the glutes and erectors, whereas an Olympic style squat is more balanced and incorporates glutes, quads and erectors more equally, which is ultimately a more effective way for a bodybuilder to train.



Yeah, but if you can increase the amount of tension over the same amount of time, hypertrophy will be greater.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 26, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> If you do not believe in the power of the mind being able to affect all things that occur within the body I cannot even broach this subject with you. For many, while squatting, too many muscles are brought into play, spreading the work throughout the body. Some will squat more with their glutes than thighs, and some will use far too much back. Even the arms can come into play. This great reduces the effectiveness of the exercise from a physical and psychological standpoint.


This is your typical cop-out answer when you are asked to explain something with words other than "because".  

I didn't mention anything about the power of the mind not having a profound effect.  I asked YOU to explain yourself.

Please do so.

Ok, let me ask you a question.  I will stick with squats because that is what this thread is about.  Let's say you have someone who is more of a "back" squatter.  In other words they use a lot of lower back to leverage up their heavy squats.  Are they not using their thighs at this point?  Have you ever considered why someone might be a "back" squatter?  Maybe it is because their thighs are relatively weak.  You will naturally apply just enough back to get the job done when lifting a heavy weight in the squat.  This can occur when the thighs are already pushing for all they are worth (i.e. getting a VERY intense workout).  Does this mean that the individual I am describing will not build his thighs with squats?  

I will let you in on a little secret, I am a "back" squatter.  Squats still beat the shit out of my thighs more than any other movement I have ever tried.  When I have been forced to layoff of standard squats for extended periods my thighs suffer. 

I am not saying that concentrating on the muscles you are targeting has no value, but I certainly think you and others are overrating it.  

Now, I do see a value in using certain movements if you are a bodybuilder.  Hack squats will certainly place less emphasis on the hips and glutes than standard squats (and more on the thighs).  So, if a bodybuilder was heavy in the butt and light in the thighs using hack squats would be a smart move.


----------



## Yanick (Oct 26, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> A bodybuilder has to have hamstrings, glutes and erectors.



exactly


----------



## Cold Iron (Oct 26, 2004)

I think the mind connection plays a role, who big? not sure
I've had my share of bad sets on the squat and a lot of the time I attribute this to losing the "connection". If I have bad form on a rep, a lot of the time it compromises the rest of my set. When I lose this "focus", it affects my form and I am expending part of my energy for the lift on trying to stabilize myself. If I'm in the zone, I can concentrate completely on the lift itself and devote 100% of my energy to lifting as much as possible.

The mind is WAY more powerful than we can even comprehend  

and NO i have 0 scientific data to back that up


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 26, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> A bodybuilder has to have hamstrings, glutes and erectors.



Agreed.  I think PL squats have a place in one's bodybuilding routine at some point in their career.  As Yanick said, including both into your routine can be beneficial.  Hell, do both at the same time.  Use olympic style squats on quad day and PL squats on ham day.


----------



## gopro (Oct 27, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> This is your typical cop-out answer when you are asked to explain something with words other than "because".
> 
> I didn't mention anything about the power of the mind not having a profound effect.  I asked YOU to explain yourself.
> 
> ...



You amaze me in regards to how smart you think you are. Your words in the above post hold no more value than the words of my previous post. Is there somebody in your life that pats you on your back each day and says, "You are such a smart boy Chrissy!" I'm thinking there must be cause you could not be this arrogant on your own.

It is very very simple, so lets see if you can wrap your brain around this. Squats are a valuable exercise, however, they are more valuable for some than others. For you, they work well at building your quads...even though you admit to being a back squatter. By the way, did you ever stop and think that you might affect more hypertrophy specifically in your quads with exercises that take your back out of the movement?

Anyway, for me, and for others, squats are not so valuable for building quads, or at least are less valuable than other movements such as hacks or leg presses, which is the point of all of this. This can be for one or more reasons...

-squats do not feel comfortable in terms of performance and thus you will be more worried about trying to feel comfortable than focusing on lifting hard
-squats hurt negatively in areas thus causing further performance problems and loss of focus on lifting hard
-b/c of body structure, squats work the glutes or lower back harder than they do the quads...yes, the quads are working even during bent rows, but I wouldn't use bent rows to build my thighs

Now, from a bodybuilding standpoint, any or all of the above are a negative factor when trying to build the quads in this case. Moving as much weight as possible from point A to point B is not always the answer when it comes to hypertrophy. If you can squat 500 lbs, but that weight is being collectively moved by your glutes, lower back, hips and thighs...how much actual weight are the quads being called upon to lift. Again, some people can really keep other muscles involvement to a minimum when squatting...Tom Platz was amazing at forcing his quads to do the work when squatting...but some cannot, for whatever the reason.

I have squatted 500 lbs during a workout and I have hack squatted 500 lbs during a workout, and after the 500 lb squats my quads are slightly pumped, but my ass and lower back feel pretty trashed. After the 500 lb hack squats my quads are feeling twice their normal size and my lower back and glutes feel largely untouched. Hmmm, I wonder which of these exercises will be more valuable in terms of quad hypertrophy for me (or anyone else like me).

If you are an athlete you need to squat, but if you are a bodybuilder, you do not NECESSARILY need to squat.


----------



## madden player (Oct 27, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Needless to say I am *very* sore today. It helps me remember how squats incorporate practically the entire body!


 ...I know that being sore or the 'pump' doesn't mean muscle growth but it sure feels good.  Glad to hear you are squatting again.  Good luck with that.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 27, 2004)

I may be an idiot etc., but you STILL have not explained your position with anything other than your opinion.  I am asking you to provide something more than your opinion.  If you can't do that then just say it is your opinion.

In addition, I have not said you are incorrect, only asked you to explain yourself with something other than opinion.


----------



## gopro (Oct 27, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> I may be an idiot etc., but you STILL have not explained your position with anything other than your opinion.  I am asking you to provide something more than your opinion.  If you can't do that then just say it is your opinion.
> 
> In addition, I have not said you are incorrect, only asked you to explain yourself with something other than opinion.



Oh my lord Chris...the above post was not my opinion, but fact. It is not my opinion that the sun rises and sets each day, its a fact.

Do you accept anything that was not written in a textbook or scientific journal?

And you are not an idiot, but one stubborn muther frucker.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 27, 2004)

I was reading on another board how one particular guy just started doing them again, and his plan is every other week only. He runs 600 for reps


----------



## chris mason (Oct 27, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Oh my lord Chris...the above post was not my opinion, but fact. It is not my opinion that the sun rises and sets each day, its a fact.
> 
> Do you accept anything that was not written in a textbook or scientific journal?
> 
> And you are not an idiot, but one stubborn muther frucker.


There is a big difference between the fact that the sun rises and sets and what you are stating.  I can tell you EXACTLY why the sun does rise and set, it isn't just my opinion.

When someone squats and has relatively strong hip flexors and glutes that does not necessarily mean they are not working their quads hard.  It is not a fact that squats are not working their qauds hard.


----------



## Tank316 (Oct 27, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between the fact that the sun rises and sets and what you are stating.  I can tell you EXACTLY why the sun does rise and set, it isn't just my opinion.
> 
> When someone squats and has relatively strong hip flexors and glutes that does not necessarily mean they are not working their quads hard.  It is not a fact that squats are not working their qauds hard.


Great go get a job as a weather man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 27, 2004)

Great, offer something useful to the conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tank316 (Oct 27, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> Great, offer something useful to the conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I did, humor.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 27, 2004)

Haha, fair enough. I've got no beef with you or this thread, I probly should have just kept my mouth shut.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 27, 2004)

Tank316 said:
			
		

> I did, humor.



Very dignified response.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 27, 2004)

Here is the point.  It is erroneous to conclude that because someone tends to use more back and hip in their squatting that their quads are not being maximally stressed.  The quads may be the limiting factor in the movement and the hips and back are being incorporated more heavily in order to complete the movement.  

Obviously it depends on the lifter.  

Are squats necessary for large thighs?  No.  Will they make most people a lot bigger and stronger?  Yep.

I am really not disagreeing with you at all Eric, just asking you to prove your point with something other than bodybuilding rhetoric.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 27, 2004)

Yanick said:
			
		

> Yup. Olympic squats are what you see most bb'ers doing (high bar, narrow stance), and PL squats you see very rarely in gyms unless you go to a hardcore gym where ppl actually know what they are doing.  I have been doing PL squats for months now and at my peak i squatted 405 for a single, however yesterday (it was the first workout in 2 weeks so that might be another factor) i squatted olympic style and hit 295 for 4. Due to the huge difference in the two squats i would say ppl should figure out ways to cycle both as i will do in the future.  And yes when squatting like a PL you don't feel too much in your quads, whereas Oly squats your quads are getting hit very hard (front squats, rack position not that pussy bb'er shit, are also great for the quads).




thats funny cuz everyone i know does pl squats, i almost never see anyone doing olympic, i myself have always done pl, just started doing olympics yesterday...not b/c i saw this thread...but b/c i needed a change in squat, since i never do it, and need something new to start off my legs


----------



## Yanick (Oct 27, 2004)

myCATpowerlifts said:
			
		

> thats funny cuz everyone i know does pl squats, i almost never see anyone doing olympic, i myself have always done pl, just started doing olympics yesterday...not b/c i saw this thread...but b/c i needed a change in squat, since i never do it, and need something new to start off my legs



I was just speaking from personal experience, having spent almost all of my weightlifting career in a Bally's you tend to have to lift with the stupidest people in the world (atleast the city).


----------



## gopro (Oct 27, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> Here is the point.  It is erroneous to conclude that because someone tends to use more back and hip in their squatting that their quads are not being maximally stressed.  The quads may be the limiting factor in the movement and the hips and back are being incorporated more heavily in order to complete the movement.
> 
> Obviously it depends on the lifter.
> 
> ...



No its not wrong to conclude that, which is why most powerlifters, who could care less about stressing a muscle (and thus squat in such a way to use glute, back, hip, and quad power in concert), have far less developed quads than the average bodybuilder. And no, its not just b/c bodybuilders tend to be more defined...their thighs are larger (yes, yes, there are exceptions...but these usually occur in the guys that also incorporate bodybuilding strategies into their lifting).


----------



## Du (Oct 27, 2004)

I do squats and my quads grow.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 28, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> No its not wrong to conclude that, which is why most powerlifters, who could care less about stressing a muscle (and thus squat in such a way to use glute, back, hip, and quad power in concert), have far less developed quads than the average bodybuilder. And no, its not just b/c bodybuilders tend to be more defined...their thighs are larger (yes, yes, there are exceptions...but these usually occur in the guys that also incorporate bodybuilding strategies into their lifting).


You are confusing cause and effect.  Those powerlifters with relatively small thighs for their strength levels have said thighs due much more to heredity than training.  For example, Phil Harrington, one of our sponsored powerlifters has squatted over 900 lbs at under 200 lbs in bodyweight.  His thighs are not very large.  Irrespective of how he trains they will just not grow easily.  James Searcy is a 330 lb man with absolutely huge thighs from his powerlifting training.  

Phil could do leg press, hack squats, you name it and he would not have huge quads.  He is just not predispositioned to it.  

It is a proven fact that blitzing the musculature is not necessary to stimulate growth.  When someone is squatting, even if their style does not place the greatest emphasis on their quads they the quads are still being worked sufficiently to stimulate growth.  If they do not respond with great hypertrophy it is heredity.


----------



## Robboe (Oct 28, 2004)

I'm not quite with it here, what _exactly_ is the arguement here?


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 28, 2004)

The_Chicken_Daddy said:
			
		

> I'm not quite with it here, what _exactly_ is the arguement here?



Whether or not squats can induce maximal levels of hypertrophy in the quadriceps, I believe...  I say sure, why not.  From what I understand, progressive overload has a greater effect on hypertrophy than the level of isolation or the plane of motion.


----------



## Tank316 (Oct 28, 2004)

_ I believe Eric is at the Mr Olympia_


----------



## Arnold (Oct 28, 2004)

The_Chicken_Daddy said:
			
		

> I'm not quite with it here, what _exactly_ is the arguement here?



who knows anymore, basically eric and chris will argue and disagree on just about everything.


----------



## Tank316 (Oct 28, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> who knows anymore, basically eric and chris will argue and disagree on just about everything.


LOL, look what you started when you do squats Rob!!!!


----------



## DOMS (Oct 28, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> I do squats and my quads grow.



Same here.  From the lactic burn and subsequent pain from inflammation, I feel that my quads take a beating from doing squats.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 28, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> I do squats and my quads grow.



I couldn't get significant quad growth until I started doing squats and deadlifts.  However, I do not have access to a leg press or hack squat machine, so my results could have been considerably different.


----------



## Robboe (Oct 28, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> who knows anymore, basically eric and chris will argue and disagree on just about everything.



Good good, thought i'd lost the plot.

I enjoy a good arguement with Eric as much as anyone here, but from what i can gather, Chris is arguing about something that does or doesn't work for Eric?


----------



## Arnold (Oct 28, 2004)

I thought the argument was the "mind/muscle" connection, chris wanted eric to explain exactly how this works and to prove it or something?


----------



## Robboe (Oct 28, 2004)

I give up. Just gonna watch this little fella for a bit


----------



## chris mason (Oct 28, 2004)

Ok, allow me to exmplain.  I wasn't really arguing with the man, I *just asked him to explain himself with something other than his opinion*.

I suppose part of the reason is that he sounds just like Flex magazine (or the like).  You know, all of the mind-muscle, bodybuilders need isolation, squats won't work the quads as hard for some as for others and so on.  

I asked this because the majority of the time when he posts his thoughts he presents them as absolute fact yet he has no rational argument other than "because I said so".  

I am not saying his ideas don't work, what I am trying to point out to him is that it might be better to explain his thoughts in order to give them more validity.


----------



## Robboe (Oct 29, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> Ok, allow me to exmplain.  I wasn't really arguing with the man, I *just asked him to explain himself with something other than his opinion*.
> 
> I suppose part of the reason is that he sounds just like Flex magazine (or the like).  You know, all of the mind-muscle, bodybuilders need isolation, squats won't work the quads as hard for some as for others and so on.
> 
> ...



Ahhhh! Reeto. Got it now. 

Couldn't see the forest for the trees and all that jazz. Fair point actually.


----------



## gopro (Oct 31, 2004)

The facts are simple, but Chris just wants me to go into a scientific diatribe as to why squats will not cause maximum growth for everyone, and/or why not "feeling" squats, having squats cause pain in the lower back, or being a hip/glute or lower back squatter should take anything away from the movement. He doesn't like me to speak from vast experience, anectodal evidence or state my opinion, when most of the people he most admires in this game are doing just that (all top coaches in all areas of lifting). I can speak in text book science if I wish to, and sometimes it is necessary. However, for the sake of this argument, it is not. 

SOME PEOPLE CANNOT SQUAT IN A WAY WHERE MAXIMUM TENSION IS BEING PUT ON THE QUADS!! SOME PEOPLE WILL IN FACT ACHIEVE MORE HYPERTROPHY FROM HACK SQUATS AND/OR LEG PRESSES, THAN FROM SQUATS. HOW THE EXERCISE IS PERFORMED...HOW YOU FEEL DURING THE EXERCISE...THE ABILITY TO MENTALLY "LOCATE" THE MUSCLE YOU ARE TRYING TO WORK...AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER FACTORS WILL HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON HOW MUCH CAN BE ACHIEVED FROM SQUATS, JUST LIKE BENCHES, OR DEADLIFTS. SIMPLY BENDING THE KNEES, GETTING YOUR THIGHS TO PARALLEL OR JUST BELOW, THEN GETTING BACK UP, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE FOR A MAXIMALLY EFFECTIVE QUAD EXERCISE.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 31, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> The facts are simple, but Chris just wants me to go into a scientific diatribe as to why squats will not cause maximum growth for everyone, and/or why not "feeling" squats, having squats cause pain in the lower back, or being a hip/glute or lower back squatter should take anything away from the movement. He doesn't like me to speak from vast experience, anectodal evidence or state my opinion, when most of the people he most admires in this game are doing just that (all top coaches in all areas of lifting). I can speak in text book science if I wish to, and sometimes it is necessary. However, for the sake of this argument, it is not.
> 
> SOME PEOPLE CANNOT SQUAT IN A WAY WHERE MAXIMUM TENSION IS BEING PUT ON THE QUADS!! SOME PEOPLE WILL IN FACT ACHIEVE MORE HYPERTROPHY FROM HACK SQUATS AND/OR LEG PRESSES, THAN FROM SQUATS. HOW THE EXERCISE IS PERFORMED...HOW YOU FEEL DURING THE EXERCISE...THE ABILITY TO MENTALLY "LOCATE" THE MUSCLE YOU ARE TRYING TO WORK...AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER FACTORS WILL HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON HOW MUCH CAN BE ACHIEVED FROM SQUATS, JUST LIKE BENCHES, OR DEADLIFTS. SIMPLY BENDING THE KNEES, GETTING YOUR THIGHS TO PARALLEL OR JUST BELOW, THEN GETTING BACK UP, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE FOR A MAXIMALLY EFFECTIVE QUAD EXERCISE.



Fair enough.  However, I do feel that squatting olympic style is more effective at placing tension on the quad muscles than squatting with a powerlifting stance.  I'm not disregarding your statements, but I just feel that considering all other variables to be equal the olympic stance is more effective at hitting the quads.


----------



## chris mason (Nov 1, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> The facts are simple, but Chris just wants me to go into a scientific diatribe as to why squats will not cause maximum growth for everyone, and/or why not "feeling" squats, having squats cause pain in the lower back, or being a hip/glute or lower back squatter should take anything away from the movement. He doesn't like me to speak from vast experience, anectodal evidence or state my opinion, when most of the people he most admires in this game are doing just that (all top coaches in all areas of lifting). I can speak in text book science if I wish to, and sometimes it is necessary. However, for the sake of this argument, it is not.
> 
> SOME PEOPLE CANNOT SQUAT IN A WAY WHERE MAXIMUM TENSION IS BEING PUT ON THE QUADS!! SOME PEOPLE WILL IN FACT ACHIEVE MORE HYPERTROPHY FROM HACK SQUATS AND/OR LEG PRESSES, THAN FROM SQUATS. HOW THE EXERCISE IS PERFORMED...HOW YOU FEEL DURING THE EXERCISE...THE ABILITY TO MENTALLY "LOCATE" THE MUSCLE YOU ARE TRYING TO WORK...AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER FACTORS WILL HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON HOW MUCH CAN BE ACHIEVED FROM SQUATS, JUST LIKE BENCHES, OR DEADLIFTS. SIMPLY BENDING THE KNEES, GETTING YOUR THIGHS TO PARALLEL OR JUST BELOW, THEN GETTING BACK UP, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE FOR A MAXIMALLY EFFECTIVE QUAD EXERCISE.


 
Hmmm, I hate to drag this point on but you realize the above explanation is nothing other than "I said so".  

Fair enough, no need to continue.  I will say no more.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 1, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I hate to drag this point on but you realize the above explanation is nothing other than "I said so".



Honestly though, Chris, judging from history and previous experiences...Were you expecting anything else?


----------



## ALBOB (Nov 1, 2004)

I have really small muscles and I'm out of my mind, how do I make a connection?  

P.S. to chris mason:  When Eric and I were talking at the Mr. Olympia Expo he really was saying what a great guy he thinks you are.


----------



## gopro (Nov 1, 2004)

The_Chicken_Daddy said:
			
		

> Honestly though, Chris, judging from history and previous experiences...Were you expecting anything else?



Nice back door jab TCD. You are an idiot...and from past experiences, should I expect anything else?


----------



## gopro (Nov 1, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  However, I do feel that squatting olympic style is more effective at placing tension on the quad muscles than squatting with a powerlifting stance.  I'm not disregarding your statements, but I just feel that considering all other variables to be equal the olympic stance is more effective at hitting the quads.



I agree with you, and am not saying that any form of squatting is ineffective. What I AM saying is that for some people it is NOT the best quad builder, while for others it might be. In fact, for the majority of people it probably is, however, there are limiting factors for some, making it a less than optimal exercise. Now I said optimal, because it will not be wholly ineffective (unless it causes you an injury everytime you do it, possibly over time causing you to LOSE muscle) by any means...but like I said, less than optimal. It is very simple, that for some, hack squats or leg presses is going to result in more hypertrophy than the squat, just as for some, t-bar rows might result in more hypertrophy of the back muscles than with bent over rows. Certain limitations will lead to less tension and less fiber recruitment in the target muscles...end of story.


----------



## Tough Old Man (Nov 1, 2004)

Holly smoly. I'm 52 yrs old and just started squats for the first time last month. Tore an ass muscle the first day but just continued doing them every week. Pain went away finally last week. Sure the next problem will be my balls dropping on the floor. You Think I'm to old to start doing them. And yes I have a fxck up lower back.


----------



## Wannabebig.com (Nov 1, 2004)

I believe what Go Pro is trying to say to you Chris is that the acyclical lumbomechanical forces are sequenced in such a manner during a squat that a hypertrophic effect in the quads will not result due to a interdigitated neuromotoric force coupling effect.

Is this correct Go Pro?


----------



## Du (Nov 1, 2004)

Wannabebig.com said:
			
		

> I believe what Go Pro is trying to say to you Chris is that the acyclical lumbomechanical forces are sequenced in such a manner during a squat that a hypertrophic effect in the quads will not result due to a interdigitated neuromotoric force coupling effect.
> 
> Is this correct Go Pro?


Thats what I tried telling them!


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 1, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I agree with you, and am not saying that any form of squatting is ineffective. What I AM saying is that for some people it is NOT the best quad builder, while for others it might be. In fact, for the majority of people it probably is, however, there are limiting factors for some, making it a less than optimal exercise. Now I said optimal, because it will not be wholly ineffective (unless it causes you an injury everytime you do it, possibly over time causing you to LOSE muscle) by any means...but like I said, less than optimal. It is very simple, that for some, hack squats or leg presses is going to result in more hypertrophy than the squat, just as for some, t-bar rows might result in more hypertrophy of the back muscles than with bent over rows. Certain limitations will lead to less tension and less fiber recruitment in the target muscles...end of story.



That's all well and good.  However, I was just stating the the olympic squat seems to be better at hitting the quads relative to powerlifter style; I wasn't making reference to other exercises out there.  I understand your point just fine.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Nice back door jab TCD. You are an idiot...and from past experiences, should I expect anything else?



Just as you were being honest here, i was just being honest. You always dance around the questions asked of you without answering them directly.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 2, 2004)

Wannabebig.com said:
			
		

> I believe what Go Pro is trying to say to you Chris is that the acyclical lumbomechanical forces are sequenced in such a manner during a squat that a hypertrophic effect in the quads will not result due to a interdigitated neuromotoric force coupling effect.
> 
> Is this correct Go Pro?



lol.


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 2, 2004)

seems to be a few people here that suffer from penis envy!!!!!


----------



## Wannabebig.com (Nov 2, 2004)

Tee heee, he said "penis."


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Wannabebig.com said:
			
		

> I believe what Go Pro is trying to say to you Chris is that the acyclical lumbomechanical forces are sequenced in such a manner during a squat that a hypertrophic effect in the quads will not result due to a interdigitated neuromotoric force coupling effect.
> 
> Is this correct Go Pro?



Oh my goodness, Maki used so many big words!! I don't think I could ever understand what he is saying. Damn, you and Chris are so dang smart! I swear, I wish I were either one of you guys...so educated, so well read, so special. I can't believe that Chris is not the most famous trainer on earth and you are not the most well known writer and award winning bodybuilder. I guess it must because of some unknown scientific reason that even YOU TWO haven't found yet. Well, I'm sure you'll cut and paste something soon about it.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

The_Chicken_Daddy said:
			
		

> Just as you were being honest here, i was just being honest. You always dance around the questions asked of you without answering them directly.



Listen tiny, I did not dance around anything. My answers were clear and concise and something that every member could understand, relate to, and actually apply to their training, as always. Speaking with scientific mumbo jumbo is all well and good...and guess what, I can do it too...but it talks above the heads of 85% of the members who might not spend their lives reading and learning the technical terms of everything that has to do with lifting weights. 99% of people want information that they can easily understand (read:don't need a dictionary or medical book to figure out what is being referred to) and apply to their programs. Some people hear they "need to squat to grow," and although they are getting little out of it, will continue doing it endlessly...getting nowhere. What I did in this thread is teach people with common squatting problems that they may never get as much out of squats as the next guy, and might build more muscle with other exercises like hacks or leg presses. This is one of the reasons that people love to publish what I write...they tell me that I don't try to speak over people's heads and teach them things that they can begin to apply immediately.

I could have answered Chris in the manner he wished me to long ago, but...

a. Even the technical bullshit would not completely answer the question.
b. He would have found a way to try and refute my answer in any way possible, even if it took a day's research
c. Most importantly I am not here for Chris, but from the other members that are truly seeking help in finding real world answers to their training problems...things that actually occur outside of a lab.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> That's all well and good.  However, I was just stating the the olympic squat seems to be better at hitting the quads relative to powerlifter style; I wasn't making reference to other exercises out there.  I understand your point just fine.



Hmmm, getting testy. Oh well, yes, I understand your point too and totally agree that olympic squatting is better than powerlifting style for affecting quad growth.


----------



## Du (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> c. Most importantly I am not here for Chris, but from the other members that are truly seeking help in finding real world answers to their training problems....


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 2, 2004)

> c. Most importantly I am not here for Chris, but from the other members that are truly seeking help in finding real world answers to their training problems...things that actually occur outside of a lab


Your advice is greatly appreciated, i for one,have taken my physique to a new level in 3 1/2 yrs.And remember Eric, to look like a chicken, you have to lift like a chicken!


----------



## pmech (Nov 2, 2004)

Wow tank you are out in the middle of nowhere. I use to live in the Marshfield area up by you.


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 2, 2004)

pmech said:
			
		

> Wow tank you are out in the middle of nowhere. I use to live in the Marshfield area up by you.


been there, nice town. yes, i'm up in the sticks, i forgot, where are you now?


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Hmmm, getting testy. Oh well, yes, I understand your point too and totally agree that olympic squatting is better than powerlifting style for affecting quad growth.



I didn't intend to sound testy.  Unfortunately, because you are only viewing text, and I refuse to use those emoticons, it is impossible to discern my attitude based on my tone of voice.  I apologize for coming off like this.


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 2, 2004)

This thread, just like others, has taken a wrong turn for the worse..Chris, any comments on why?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Nov 2, 2004)

I'll give some insight for myself.

I'm not around trying to help rookies. New lifters will benefit from anything they do, as we're all aware. I'm interested in helping the guys who want to take things a notch higher and want to begin applying principles themselves. I'll use Cow as an example. Initially, we had our disagreements. But he is interested in advancing his knowledge, which inevitably will help him advance himself as a weightlifter. He is the type of lifter I hope to reach or help. Someone like MonStar. When I first met him he hated deadlifts and his max was sub-400. I introduced him to Westside, gave him some suggestions on things to tweak. Now he's pulling in the 600s both sumo and conventional and his other numbers are phenomenal as well.

When someone says "This does this." I'm not seeking to discredit what they said in all cases. Hell, not in many cases. I simply want to expand on that so the advancing lifters can soak up information and continue to improve themselves mentally and physically.

And I don't think it's too much to ask that the advanced lifters of this board be eager to do the same. That's my take on why these conversations go in such different directions than where they started. And I know I wasn't asked, but I figured I'd chime in anyways.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> I'll give some insight for myself.
> 
> I'm not around trying to help rookies. New lifters will benefit from anything they do, as we're all aware. I'm interested in helping the guys who want to take things a notch higher and want to begin applying principles themselves. I'll use Cow as an example. Initially, we had our disagreements. But he is interested in advancing his knowledge, which inevitably will help him advance himself as a weightlifter. He is the type of lifter I hope to reach or help. Someone like MonStar. When I first met him he hated deadlifts and his max was sub-400. I introduced him to Westside, gave him some suggestions on things to tweak. Now he's pulling in the 600s both sumo and conventional and his other numbers are phenomenal as well.
> 
> ...



I look to help everyone at every level...from pure rookies to the very advanced. Look at Tank as an example...he was probably carrying around more muscle than 99% of members on this board when I "met" him, yet, he says that my advice has helped him add even more muscle by breaking a huge plateau, along with taking his physique and overall gains to another level.

I love helping the newbies and I love helping the advanced...as long as I am helping.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 2, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> I'll give some insight for myself.
> 
> I'm not around trying to help rookies. New lifters will benefit from anything they do, as we're all aware. I'm interested in helping the guys who want to take things a notch higher and want to begin applying principles themselves. I'll use Cow as an example. Initially, we had our disagreements. But he is interested in advancing his knowledge, which inevitably will help him advance himself as a weightlifter. He is the type of lifter I hope to reach or help. Someone like MonStar. When I first met him he hated deadlifts and his max was sub-400. I introduced him to Westside, gave him some suggestions on things to tweak. Now he's pulling in the 600s both sumo and conventional and his other numbers are phenomenal as well.
> 
> ...



I agree with this logic.  The how has already been stated.  It is the why which we are trying to understand.  Not all the information has to be simplified for those who cannot understand.  As well, complex topics can be explained in a manner that can easily be taken in by those who are less advanced.

Those who don't care to get deeper into the topic can just leave off at the how.  Those who don't accept the how without a reason behind it can delve into the underlying details.  Personally, I like to know why.  Just because someone claims something isn't good enough for me.  That's why I like getting into the science of physiology and kinetics; it explains why things work a certain way.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I look to help everyone at every level...from pure rookies to the very advanced. Look at Tank as an example...he was probably carrying around more muscle than 99% of members on this board when I "met" him, yet, he says that my advice has helped him add even more muscle by breaking a huge plateau, along with taking his physique and overall gains to another level.
> 
> I love helping the newbies and I love helping the advanced...as long as I am helping.



Well, it would help me if you got into a more detailed explanation as to why squats are optimal for quad hypertrophy in some people, but not in others.


----------



## Wannabebig.com (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Oh my goodness, Maki used so many big words!! I don't think I could ever understand what he is saying. Damn, you and Chris are so dang smart! I swear, I wish I were either one of you guys...so educated, so well read, so special. I can't believe that Chris is not the most famous trainer on earth and you are not the most well known writer and award winning bodybuilder. I guess it must because of some unknown scientific reason that even YOU TWO haven't found yet. Well, I'm sure you'll cut and paste something soon about it.



Calm down big guy, there's no need to get your panties in a bunch. I was merely being a bit goofy. I'm sorry if I insulted you, I was just trying to inject a bit of humor into the thread. I wasn't making a stab at you and those words, hell, I just made it up. I don't even have a clue as to what the heck I just said.

Btw, I'm not a bodybuiilder. I have no desire to become one. Just functionally fit will do.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Wannabebig.com said:
			
		

> Calm down big guy, there's no need to get your panties in a bunch. I was merely being a bit goofy. I'm sorry if I insulted you, I was just trying to inject a bit of humor into the thread. I wasn't making a stab at you and those words, hell, I just made it up. I don't even have a clue as to what the heck I just said.
> 
> Btw, I'm not a bodybuiilder. I have no desire to become one. Just functionally fit will do.



Fine...I'm cool with that (and even though your answer made little sense, I think Chris would have accepted it better than anything I have said.).

As to the bodybuilder thing...didn't you tell me you were going to compete? You once asked me about working with you on diet.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Well, it would help me if you got into a more detailed explanation as to why squats are optimal for quad hypertrophy in some people, but not in others.



I have answered this already a few times above. If those answers are not satisfying to you, well, then I am sorry about that. To me, its so simplistic and obvious, yet people are looking for such technical explanations. Oh well, maybe its just me.

Do you believe, out of curiosity, that there is one basic exercise per bodypart that is optimal for everyone...or superior to all other movements for that bodypart, for affecting hypertrophy?


----------



## pmech (Nov 2, 2004)

Tank316 said:
			
		

> been there, nice town. yes, i'm up in the sticks, i forgot, where are you now?


Kenosha, down by the border. I want to move back up there, but the IT industry isnt exactly boomin up there.


----------



## chris mason (Nov 2, 2004)

Hey Gopro, exactly why would 1 exercise not be optimal for everyone?


----------



## Arnold (Nov 2, 2004)

didn't he already answer that?


----------



## Wannabebig.com (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> As to the bodybuilder thing...didn't you tell me you were going to compete? You once asked me about working with you on diet.



Yes, that was almost 2 years ago I believe. Things change.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> didn't he already answer that?



Yes, but my answer did not come from the journal of Exercise and Kinesiology, so it was irrelevant to him.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Wannabebig.com said:
			
		

> Yes, that was almost 2 years ago I believe. Things change.



I would delve into this further, but I won't bother. Ok, just figured you probably had competed since then as most people compete at least once before deciding to give up on it.


----------



## Wannabebig.com (Nov 2, 2004)

That is an inncorrect assumption on your part Go Pro. "Giving up" and "things change" are two different things. You're assuming something that you do not know anything about.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Nov 2, 2004)

For someone who likes to help advanced lifters as well, I still only see very basic responses. Maybe we can hook up an EMG test and see if squats work the quads optimally. 




Oh wait, I totally squashed all the EMG jabber. I guess all we have to go on is someone's word.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Wannabebig.com said:
			
		

> That is an inncorrect assumption on your part Go Pro. "Giving up" and "things change" are two different things. You're assuming something that you do not know anything about.



Maki, honestly I did not mean it like that...I only meant "give up" in the sense that you decided against competing, or decided that bodybuilding was not the direction you wanted to go with your physique/focus.


----------



## gopro (Nov 2, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> For someone who likes to help advanced lifters as well, I still only see very basic responses. Maybe we can hook up an EMG test and see if squats work the quads optimally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am getting close to banning you...just for the fun of it! How did you get this smart? Can I be you?


----------



## chris mason (Nov 2, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> didn't he already answer that?


That's debatable, but I suppose.

Let me take a stab.  Let's look at the squat.  The squat is alternatively named the deep knee bend.  Movement takes place at the hip, knee, and ankle joints.  

There are many factors which will effect how someone squats, here are just a couple:

-The relative strength of the major involved muscles (how much force can they create).  

- The ability of said muscles to express their generated force (this relates to the insertion points of the muscles and the subsequent leverage created).  

Now, if someone tends to use more hip and back strength when they squat and less thigh strength then GoPro's assertation is that they are receiving less of a workout for their thighs than if they performed another movement.  His rationale is that the thighs are not contracting forcibly enough to promote hypertrophy.  

I don't agree with this assertation and here is why.  If someone has relatively weak thighs (relative to their glutes, hip flexors, lower back etc.) it doesn't follow that when they squat they are not using their thighs.  Now, these lifters may squat with a stance than minimizes the ROM for the thighs and places less emphasis on them, but that doesn't make the squat a poor exercise for that individual, it just means they need to alter their form to take the quads through a greater ROM.  

Maybe said weak-legged squatter already uses a narrower stance and takes the legs through a greater ROM.  Is he not contracting his quads as hard as possible on his near limit reps in order to lift the weight?  Will his body/mind thwart his efforts by somehow not stimulating the thighs to contract maximally in order to accomplish the goal of getting the weight up?  Of course not, the body is still going to maximally contract all of the involve muscles (within its momentary capability) to move the load.  Those thighs are still going to be providing whatever force they can muster.  

You see, those with weak legs whose legs may not respond well to squats are generally not going to respond well to anything.  I have never known a bodybuilder to switch from squats to leg presses and have their thighs blow up unless they had some sort of a mental block/were afraid of lifting with a big weight on their back and were more comfortable with leg presses for that reason (and or a muscle imbalance which will be discussed below).

Does that mean squats are ineffective for them?  Well, the exercise isn't the problem it is their weak will.

Now, I will also grant that for someone with very poor "core" development leg presses might work better because the lifter does not have to use the muscles of the trunk to aid in the lift (to the same degree).  That said, even for a bodybuilder having such a strength imbalance using the leg press to develop the thighs at the expense of the muscles of the torso is not something that should be encouraged.  Even a bodybuilder should endeavor to have some functionality to their musculature.  

The squat can work for virtually anyone, but it is not the only method of developing good thighs.  My point is that I don't agree that leg presses are better for some from a perspective of the exercise alone with respect to developing the thighs.

I will agree that hack squats can be the movement of choice if the bodybuilder wants to build his thighs relative to his hips and glutes.  In other words, if he has a big ass and small thighs then while squats may give him large thighs they would also not help his symmetry problem with his big ass.  A hack squat or leg press would be a better choice for that individual.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Listen tiny, I did not dance around anything.



"Tiny". How mature. 

If anyone moans, _here's_ where th name calling began.



> My answers were clear and concise and something that every member could understand, relate to, and actually apply to their training, as always. Speaking with scientific mumbo jumbo is all well and good...and guess what, I can do it too...



Badly, yeah. A lot of the time you spout shit you have no clue about. I vaguely remember the whole 1st and 2nd pass of the liver shit you used to rally about on the forums. In fact, i'm pretty sure there's an entire thread dedicated to it on Avant.

Anyhoo, i only said what i said because there has been numerous occasions in the past where i've asked you to clarify something (or prove it) and you've failed, merely dancing around the questions without answering them properly - Just like you've done here.

If a new poster asks a question, then by all means answer them in a near-baby response. But if someone like Chris of SF asks you a question, the least you can do without insulting their intelligence is answer on a technical level. They thrive on this shit.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 2, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I am getting close to banning you...just for the fun of it! How did you get this smart? Can I be you?



I'm pretty sure a few months back Monstar said you "threaten" to abuse your moderator powers all too easy in order to get your way and again dance around answering. Suppose this is an example of it.


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 2, 2004)

> "Tiny". How mature


 well he didnt lie or bullshit anybody about it, he should have thrown in ''drunk'' as well!!!!
Its plain and simple, you go out on a witch hunt for Eric when he makes a post!!! Now, since you know it all, why bother with it!!! If one frickin person gets results from a post/advice that he has given, then just leave it alone!!!!! Its more then Chris has to offer or yourself!  the witch hunt better come to end ..NOW!!!!! If you dont like whats on tv, turn the channel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Du (Nov 2, 2004)

Tank316 said:
			
		

> Now, since you know it all, why bother with it!!! If one frickin person gets results from a post/advice that he has given, then just leave it alone!!!!! Its more then Chris has to offer or yourself! the witch hunt better come to end ..NOW!!!!! If you dont like whats on tv, turn the channel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
Good fuckin post. Its about time someone said this.


----------



## chris mason (Nov 3, 2004)

It is cool that you have such loyalty to the guy Tank, I can appreciate that.

That said, let me ask you a question, if I disagree with something anyone posts on this board should I not type it?  Isn't the point of "discussion" boards, to discuss matters?  

Interestingly enough, through most of this thread I didn't even disagree with him I only asked him to provide more backing for his opinions. 

Speaking of witch hunts, wasn't it a member on this site saying how he and Eric were talking at the Olympia about what a "great guy" (yes, that would be tongue in cheek) I am?  If he was telling the truth I suppose I should be flattered.  Eric has alwasy stated on this site how I am not worthy of his time or consideration.  Interesting...


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 3, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> It is cool that you have such loyalty to the guy Tank, I can appreciate that.
> 
> That said, let me ask you a question, if I disagree with something anyone posts on this board should I not type it?  Isn't the point of "discussion" boards, to discuss matters?
> 
> ...


Chris, your past history with Eric is what this whole crap is all about!!!!
Discussion and debate are one thing, always jumpng on his shit is another! i find it interesting that Maki shows up, why? Witch hunt!?!?!Although i give  Maki credit, it seems he has matured!   ..  Is Eric over at WWB causing shit  HELL NO!!!!! From everything i have read when you post, i get NOTHING from it, i'm not being an asshole about it, but trust me Chris, i can be!Eric makes things in a sense''simple'' for members to understand! He has posted his P/RR/Sh training, to which there are a shit load of members who use, and i might add  are getting results, if a member has a ? about something to do with the program he takes his time and answers it, he doesnt ''dance around the ?'' he  explains it in simple terms, he doesnt say''do it cause i said so either''...if you need to have everything explained to you in technical terms all the time i feel sorry for your wife!
It has been truly a witch hunt from the get go, dont deny it either! I'm sure with all the boards out there, you can can go pick any experts brain with all your knowledge, it will lead to great things in your life..
Its fustrating to watch this shit over and over, debate and discuss all you want, i get nothing from you so could you just please leave!


----------



## gopro (Nov 3, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> That's debatable, but I suppose.
> 
> Let me take a stab.  Let's look at the squat.  The squat is alternatively named the deep knee bend.  Movement takes place at the hip, knee, and ankle joints.
> 
> ...



Again, the reason that powerlifters do not develop thighs to the same degree as bodybuilders is mostly b/c of the WAY they squat. If they changed their form to higher bar, more narrow stance, and squatted somewhat more upright, pushing more from the quads then the hips and glutes, they would hypertrophy the thighs more (and of course be able to squat less). Some people cannot change their form because of structural or psychological reasons, or b/c of chronic imjury. This creates a limiting factor which hacks or leg presses might not present. In training myself and many others that even squatted with what seems to be perfect, textbook form, the squat did not produce the same benefit in the quads that hacks or leg presses do. My rear grew way more in proportion to my thighs with squats, and just the opposite happened when hacks became my core movement. Hacks put more tension on my thighs...balancing was not an issue...and the ability to utilize a stance with my feet very close to me, all spelled better quad hypertrophy with little to no extra gluteus involvement. This is the case with many others as well. You also choose to ignore the mental aspect of all of this. Whether you consider it "weak minded" or not, some people are too afraid to push as far on squats as they do on leg presses or even hacks, which makes squats less than optimal. You might say, "well, get over it," but some people cannot, and thus they should go with movements in which they can push further and focus more on what they are doing. And I don't care whether you believe it or not, but the mind/muscle/focus connection DOES have an affect on results...this is something I learned about not only in the trenches, but in the classroom, with my strong backround in psychology (with some specific study in physiological psychology). 

The bent row is not the optimal back movement for everyone...the bench press is not the optimal exercise for everyone...the military press is not the optimal delt exercise for everyone...there IS NO SUCH THING! There is nothing MAGICAL about ANY exercise. Each individual has strengths or limitations that make some exercises better than others. Yes, some limiting factors can be worked on, and overcome, which can make a less then optimal exercise become more beneficial, but this is not possible in every case.


----------



## gopro (Nov 3, 2004)

Tank...you rule brother...


----------



## gopro (Nov 3, 2004)

The_Chicken_Daddy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure a few months back Monstar said you "threaten" to abuse your moderator powers all too easy in order to get your way and again dance around answering. Suppose this is an example of it.



You'd have a point if I actually DID ban him, or SF, or Mason...but I did not. Why? B/c I'm not afraid to have anyone around here call me out. Nobody. If I am going to ban someone, which I have yet to do, its b/c I feel they will be a detriment to the board. Personally, I think you are worthless to this board, and you still do your best to drag me down any chance you get, and yet I've let your punk ass stick around when you should be the first to go.


----------



## gopro (Nov 3, 2004)

The_Chicken_Daddy said:
			
		

> "Tiny". How mature.
> 
> If anyone moans, _here's_ where th name calling began.
> 
> ...



-I knew exactly what I was talking about and did what I did for a reason...and as a result caused changes in the company that I work for...positive changes (oh, and got a raise to boot).
-The ability to use LESS technological terms to get your point across is a skill and is what makes a good writer. Techni-babble can be used by anyone with cut and paste skills, as well as those with a journal or textbook in front of them. Do you know how many so-called experts on the web have turned out to be nothing more than 17 year old kids with good research skills, but with little to no actual knowledge?

Anyway TCD...now that I know your age (I thought you were older), I know you are still a punk kid, and MIGHT learn a bit as you move through life. Why don't you start here and keep quiet.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 3, 2004)

I think I will close *my* thread now.


----------

