MTV's true life "I'm on steroids"

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by rbuchman

Like or not Squats are NOT universally accepted as the best move ever. A significant portion of Collegiate strength coaches even won't let their athletes do them b/c of the injuries/stresses associated with them, while the others say they are the most essential move in lifting while a third portion is in favor of squats but only with a K bar. And these are trained professionals dealing with serious athletes.

But let's get back to topic steroids and looking bigger than you are strong.

Why don't you read up about what Louie Simmons has to say about it. He addressed that specific issue, about how Strength coaches and why they do or do not have their lifters squat. Pretty interesting.

The simple fact of the matter is that squats will do more for your lower body conditioning and overall cardiovascular conditioning than any other exercise that I can think of. Deadlifts are right there too. Try doing a 20 repper set of squats and then tell me it doesn't help your overall conditioning.

The fact of the matter is that people don't want to squat and will look for any reason not to, simply because they're too hard. That's what it comes down to.

[maverick]

Can somebody tell me why squats above parallel are a bad thing? I'm not questioning anybody's answers, I just want to know why above parallel squats are bad if they can result in mass like that vid 3norns posted. I mean, if someone didn't give a crap about whether some iron junkie thought their squats were good enough or not, why worry about? I'm not talking about bad form, just not full ROM. I've heard that stopping around parallel is bad for the knees, but I was wondering if there were other reasons.

I thought I heard luke w. mention at one point that he did a lot of limited ROM squats and they did wonders for his strength. If I'm wrong about that I apologize luke. I go generally go parallel for my squats when I'm going heavy and I do full squats when I'm doing higher rep. I was just wondering if I could be adding a new element by going even heavier and doing half squats on occaison.

[rangers97]

Originally Posted by maverick

Can somebody tell me why squats above parallel are a bad thing? I'm not questioning anybody's answers, I just want to know why above parallel squats are bad if they can result in mass like that vid 3norns posted. I mean, if someone didn't give a crap about whether some iron junkie thought their squats were good enough or not, why worry about? I'm not talking about bad form, just not full ROM. I've heard that stopping around parallel is bad for the knees, but I was wondering if there were other reasons.

I thought I heard luke w. mention at one point that he did a lot of limited ROM squats and they did wonders for his strength. If I'm wrong about that I apologize luke. I go generally go parallel for my squats when I'm going heavy and I do full squats when I'm doing higher rep. I was just wondering if I could be adding a new element by going even heavier and doing half squats on occaison.

generally speaking, would you do a half bench press?? Or half of a shoulder press?? I am not talking about specific training, but in general training, I guess that's why everyone says it's "bad". It's not bad per se, it's just not a squat. If you're not gonna hit parallel, then you can't go around saying you can squat x amount of weight. You can say you half squat x amount of weight, but if you're gonna call it a squat, you can't go half way. I think that's the reason....IMO

if someone told you they bench 300 and only went half way down or 3/4 of the way down and didn't touch their chest, you would tell them its not a bench press then. Same logic applies here I guess.

Less than full range squats are specific movements meant to bring up weaknesses I think. Sure if you half squat 400 pounds, it might help you rep squat 250 pounds since it is making you stronger somehow, but you can't go around saying you squat 400 that;s just not right

[maverick]

Right, but what I'm saying is that if you don't care what other people think (it has been known to happen), is there anything actually wrong with limited ROM squats. If I half squat 405, I'm not gonna tell people I squat 405.

I guess the advantage of half squats would be that you get to use more weight and put more stress on your quads. In addition, it gets you used to the heavier weight, so i you do full range squats, you'll be better prepared to handle it. I'm not trying to convince people to do limited ROM squats, cause I never have before, but I just wanna know why I shouldn't do them, if there is a reason.

[rangers97]

someone back me up on this if true, but aren't half squats or whatever the type of movements that are known to wreck people's knees? It was my understanding that the full movement, or at least to parallel will place less stress on the knees that a less than parallel squat.

[threenorns]

exactly - going only partway throws the entire load through the entire (limited) range square on the knee joint. the knees weren't designed to take that kind of stress directly, only in passing, as it were.

[luke.w]

Originally Posted by maverick

Can somebody tell me why squats above parallel are a bad thing? I'm not questioning anybody's answers, I just want to know why above parallel squats are bad if they can result in mass like that vid 3norns posted. I mean, if someone didn't give a crap about whether some iron junkie thought their squats were good enough or not, why worry about? I'm not talking about bad form, just not full ROM. I've heard that stopping around parallel is bad for the knees, but I was wondering if there were other reasons.

I thought I heard luke w. mention at one point that he did a lot of limited ROM squats and they did wonders for his strength. If I'm wrong about that I apologize luke. I go generally go parallel for my squats when I'm going heavy and I do full squats when I'm doing higher rep. I was just wondering if I could be adding a new element by going even heavier and doing half squats on occaison.

Maverick, I've always TIRED to make it clear that when I do less than a full ROM squat I start from the bottom, this enables you to get positioned good to not do damage to the knees (in my experiance) and also builds a differant type of power and strength,.....I absolutly do not see much benifit to unracking a weight and only going so far down, I do believe that is bad on the knees, and also hinders strength potential to be built.

Those big bb'ers have big legs for other reasons (you know what I'm talking about) that Markus guy looks fake anyway, I'd say that uses synthol, among other things.

I will in the near future do ATG back squats while unracking them, I only go ATG now on "overhead squats" and "front squats" both benifit the back squat, plus the better I get at bottom position squats the better my squatting gets, last week I plyed around with a bottom position squat that was beyond ATG, I had to almost crawl under the bar it was 225 (it was simple) I'd like to see 315 in that and get it on video.

I noticed Mav. that your doing walkouts first, I've always liked doing a heavy lockout first, the working weight feels light......I've mentioned this method on here before also.........I wonder if any PL'ers use this one?

[threenorns]

yup - i do them when i'm unsure of advancing to a new weight. they're great for bolstering confidence.

[maverick]

Originally Posted by luke.w

I noticed Mav. that your doing walkouts first, I've always liked doing a heavy lockout first, the working weight feels light......I've mentioned this method on here before also.........I wonder if any PL'ers use this one?

Yep, and I believe I credited you somewhere in my journal for that idea. Its really made a big difference. There's no mental defeat on the negative portion of the rep anymore. Thanks! :

Oh, and I forgot that you always set the limited ROM squats from the bottom position. I knew there was something I was forgetting.

[Dins_PR]

Firehawk, your posts are so acid packed with cynicism and anger, you are taking a direct hit towards me and not my opinions. I'm not a powerlifter, so I don't focus on the three core exercises (bench, dead, squat) I do 4-5 exercises per body part on it's own day (back, chest, bis, tris, legs, shoulders, abs).

I work for the whole body concept. I'm 6'0" and 175 pounds. That is light compared to the majority of the people lifting big numbers, but I still bench over 300, deadlift over 350, but retain a 5k run time of 17 minutes even last time I raced. Powerlifters train for three specific movements while I train for a full range of movement meaning I can substitute the squat with other exercises in my workout without any losses. One of the problems with this board is that we have powerlifters, bodybuilders, and just all around lifters all commenting and giving advice on the same questions. Of course we are all going to have different opinions, because we all have different points of view. Threenorms seems to be one of the more understanding of the powerlifters on this board, some of the rest tend to take to bashing and undermining the level of my fitness by calling a person a beginner or a casual lifter.

Everyone on this board has different goals, different workout routines and a different set of experiences. Sure some of us lift more than others, while others have better overall fitness, what we need to remember is that this is call DiscussFitness, not DiscussPowerlifting or DiscussBodybuilding, so there is going to be a diverse set of people visiting and posting. No need to go flaming.

[Firehawk]

Wow you bench near the same you deadlift? And you are all about total body conditioning? That's why I say you talk out your ass. Because on one hand you say you want the total package, and in the meantime you criticize the very exercises that will get you the total package. A full squat and a deadlift are arguably the two best total body exercises that both give you great functional strength. Nobody said you only had to do those, but don't criticize them and try to tell people that a leg press is just as good when it's been proven over and over and over again that it isn't.

I do get angry with people that post this nonsense, it shouldn't even be allowed to be posted it's so ridiculous. All it does is bring the IQ of the board down.

[Dins_PR]

Wow, more bashing, that's great. "Talk out your ass" "so ridiculous" "bring the IQ of the board down"

As I said, I work for the whole package, and I also said I don't like squats, so I don't do them and substitue other exercises in order to attain the whole package. I can criticize the squat, you know why? Cause this is a discussion board and I'm entitled to my opinion and view on the subject. And why do I deadlift around the same ammount as I bench? Apparently, you missed the part where I said how much I run, it would be impossible to run as much and as fast as I do if I could squat or deadlift huge weights.

Hence the whole package, I do heavy lifting, and high rep calisthenics of pushups, pullups, lunges, sprints, crunches to balance everything out. This is why I can bench over 300 pounds and still manage 100 pushups during the 2 minute pushup portion of the PT test.

I'll say it again, I don't like doing squats, so I don't do them.

[Firehawk]

First im not bashing you directly, just people like you that post this crap. Although, the "talking out of your ass", yes was directed specifically to you in this case. You are lost my friend.

It's harder to get a 300 bench than it is a 350 deadlift. If you're going to use the excuse that you can run a 5k in 17 minutes, then you must apply that to your upper body as well.

I know you said you don't like doing squats, but you have yet to provide a valid reason as to why you don't like them. No, the fact of the matter is if you were squatting, your dead would be going up. If you were squatting, perhaps your running time would improve.

Don't forget, you don't just have to use these exercises for maximal weight, you can do 20 reppers. I am pretty sure you never tried that though. They're too hard.

Let's trace back to what you said about why you don't squat.

First it was: "300 pounds on my shoulders, that hurts no matter where my arms are."
That problem is solved by wrapping your shirt or a towel on the bar if you need it that badly, but either way, if you worked up to that weight the bar would not hurt anymore on your back. We got girls in my gym (drug free) that squat more than 300 lbs at 148 lbs and i haven't heard them cry about the bar on their back hurting too much. IT's just nonsense my friend.

Second it was: "More people have bad form during squats than just about any other exercise because people are out there yelling their heads off about how crucial squats are. I'm not a powerlifter, so I could care less about squats."
Yeah quite a few people have bad form when doing squats, but that's no reason to avoid the exercise. Learn to do them properly and you'll be fine. It's too valuable for overall conditioning and strength. The part about not being a powerlifter is retarded. Squats ain't a dedicated powerlifting exercise.

Third it was: "And why is the squat the king of exercises? What about the military press? It works many muscles. What about the dip or the pullup? These are the king of exercise because you don't see people loading the bar with huge weight and grunting and growling. People just like the squat cause it hurts."

I'm still trying to figure out how you are able to compare squats against military presses or dips. I am also still trying to figure out what grunting and growling with huge weights have to do with an exercise being a "king" of all exercises.

If you're for the whole body concept, then that means size, strength, and stamina, overall conditioning. Look at luke and Dan. Those guys have amazing conditioning overall and they'll outsquat you, out deadlift you, and maybe out run you if they actually trained for it. Maybe you could run further than they could without passing out, but I bet you they could carry 100lb stones further than you could without passing out.

So the moral here is, you aren't training for the whole body concept. If you were, then you'd be doing anerobic training, heavy weight lifting, high rep lifting, and distance running. And you'd be training your lower body as well. Sounds like because you can run a far distance quickly that you think you've trained the lower body enough.

So far, at least from what you've typed on this board in this thread so far, is that your idea of a whole body package is a big bench press and a fast time in the 5k.

I just think you don't like training lower body. If that's the case, then just say it so we can move on. By the way, nice 5k time.

[Dins_PR]

Okay, I appreciate your last post quite a lot. I'll say this, I have trained my legs substantially in the past, I lifted heavy and gained much size, but it wasn't condusive to my running, when I ran I could feel that my thighs were too big, they were working too hard while I ran. It was as if I was trying to muscle my way through the run instead of flowing. This is the reason I never train to left heavy weights with my legs. The only time I do squats is with little to no weight and very high reps.

The reason I train heavy with my upper body is that I can maintain high lifting weights and still hold a fast run time. I agree that Luke and Dan are in incredible shape but when you train to run you have to sacrifice somewhere and it is in the size of your legs.

Next time I work legs (next saturday) I'll do high rep squats and see how they feel. Okay, 24 is on, everyone should watch it, it's the best thing since sliced bread, and Jack Bauer is the new Chuck Norris, you heard it here first.

[threenorns]

what's 24?