Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - steven-miller

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 33
376
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: low bar squat vs high bar squat
« on: November 16, 2010, 08:09:16 am »
Quote from: bball2020 on November 16, 2010, 12:59:57 am
i guess i do high bar, but not with olympic form kind of a hybrid?  IDK tell me what you think, feels pretty comfortable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfdwWPpbyj0

I don't think that this is a good squat to be honest - regardless of high or low bar. Observe several problems:
- weight shifts to the forefoot at the bottom instead of staying over mid foot the whole time
- knees traveling forward a lot while having little hip involvement which causes a lot of unnecessary stress on the knees
- sufficient depth is reached at no point causing a less than optimal involvement in muscle mass, muscle, that would be pretty useful for jumping
- the squat as a whole looks more like a leg press

Things I like:
- stance looks good
- correct alignment of knee with the big toe (knees out)

IMO you are doing yourself a disservice by not trying hard enough to improve your squat form. I am not talking the high-bar vs. low-bar discussion here but about learning a proper squat. Is your squat better than 90% of what you see in gyms? Sure it is. Is it good enough? That is the question you have to answer for yourself.
A good squat will recruit more muscle mass than yours by having you go over the full range of motion and will therefore be more beneficial for athletic performance. Using your hips better in the squat will improve hip strength better which is going to be beneficial for athletic performance. It will also decrease stress on the knees which you have enough off by jumping, plyos and stuff like that. And staying uninjured is pretty good for athletic performance.

377
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Unilaterals Make You Weaker
« on: November 16, 2010, 07:35:39 am »
Quote from: mattyg35 on November 15, 2010, 11:16:52 pm
This shit is apples and oranges.

Why not just do both and reap the benefits they provide?

If you're an athlete(that involves running), and you want to only do bilateral work, it will catch up to you.

IMO, there's no point attacking a single 'method' b/c of what it lacks. No single 'method' is all inclusive to get you strong, powerful, fast, and ripped, etc. Use each 'method' what it's meant for.

Comparing lunges and squats is retarded. You can do max effort squats, but why the fuck would you do max effort lunges?

If you have 2 lower body days a week, one day do bilateral movements, the other day do unilateral. WOW that was hard to think up.

T-nation btw, has been on a rapid decline in article quality. Go surf thru the archives if you want to find something useful.

On another note, imo, training articles/information has been beaten to death. I would like to see recovery be the new 'it-girl' trend in strength training articles/media. It's easy to beat the shit out of yourself in the gym, but if you're not recovering in time then you're just spinning your wheels. More recovery=more progress.

Sure you can do both, but that was not the point of discussion between adarq and me. It was also not the point of the article to proclaim the uselessness of unilateral exercises for running athletes, but rather for athletes that powerlift, olympic lift or do bodybuilding.
Your comment is apples, the rest of the discussion was oranges.

378
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Unilaterals Make You Weaker
« on: November 15, 2010, 09:04:44 pm »
Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 08:40:05 pm

do two tests, pre/post testing after 4 weeks lunges, and pre/post testing after 4 weeks of bicycle.

I am not a rank novice, so riding a bicycle will do nothing for me. But the point is taken, lunges will preserve max strength in the squat better. But I thought the argument rang that gains will transfer to the squat....


Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 08:40:05 pm
then how does a reasonably strong person increase squat 30%? how else would you improve your unilaterals, other than unilaterals alone? it's just progressive overload and of course an intermediate lifter could improve their 1RM lunge 30% by using unilaterals alone.

peace

An intermediate lifter might be able to increase their squat by 30%. But it will usually take them several months, maybe even a year if one gets stuck every now and then and if circumstances are not that perfect all the time, which they are usually not. You were talking about a 30% increase in 12 weeks in a unilateral exercise. Exercises where lower weights are handled are also exercises with less potential for growth and those will therefore progress slower. That makes the scenario even more unrealistic. The most sensible way to increase ones strength in say the lunge would in my opinion be to do squats and lunges and progress both at the same time, at a rather slow pace - with smaller steps in the lunge than in the squat. The lunge would profit somewhat well from the squat, but the other way round probably not so much. I do think that doing unilaterals exclusively would yield inferior results for an intermediate.

379
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Unilaterals Make You Weaker
« on: November 15, 2010, 08:32:03 pm »
Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 06:34:33 pm
you're using a bicycle analogy, when we're talking about heavy barbell unilateral training?

<-- confused

My point with that analogy was that transfer depends on the level of the lifter and that very untrained people will have a lot of carryover from unilaterals to squats - just like they will have a lot of carryover from pretty much any hard physical activity, probably even from riding a bicycle.

Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 06:34:33 pm
so, say you have an intermediate lifter who is experienced with all lifts in question, you pre-test squat, then hit barbell walking lunges, barbell bss, barbell stepup hard for 12 weeks, with significant increases on each lift, say 30% increases on each lift, you don't think he would get much transfer to squat? if not, why? you're still learning to activate more mu's, activate the fastest mu's, achieving hypertrophy, improving strength in other things that matter like core etc, improving strength/hypertrophy in all muscle groups related to squat, reducing inhibitory mechanisms, improving things like neural drive, increasing strength/composition of other biological structures such as bone/tendon, improving intermuscular coordination that is somewhat similar to squatting, etc... EDIT: plus you still have very heavy barbells on your back.

There are holes in that argumentation, for example that we are starting from the assumption, that an intermediate lifter can gain 30% on say his 1rm lunges weight from training with unilaterals alone which I can imagine will be hard for an already reasonably strong person.
But even if he can, without at least maintaining coordination and specific strength for the squat, I don't think the unilaterals will have direct carryover. I could imagine that with several weeks of training the squat again, that it would progress rather well since some of the mentioned adaptations might have taken place, but honestly, I don't even think this rate of unusually fast progress (for an intermediate that is) would last for long. I think you are overestimating the potential regarding the adaptation from training with unilaterals exclusively - at least for intermediate trainees - and underestimating the importance of maintaining squat efficiency and specificity of the loads that will be handled with that. Since you mention core strength especially - I do in fact think that strength in the trunk musculature would suffer quite a bit and that suddenly testing a squat max after weeks of unilaterals will hit the athlete quite unprepared.

Of course, I am speculating here. Maybe you can convince me to make a point and try unilaterals exclusively for 4 weeks with a pre and post test of squat 1 rm. But right now I am pretty convinced that this is a horrible idea.

380
Article & Video Discussion / Re: Unilaterals Make You Weaker
« on: November 15, 2010, 06:14:30 pm »
Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 05:22:40 pm
it'll still have transfer.. regardless, if you gain strength/mass unilaterally, it will transfer, it's just that squat/lunge is such a different movement that of course it won't transfer perfectly, that's why the article bugs me, of course you're going to have to re-learn the squat a bit, but of course it will transfer... For example, if you weren't hurt, and focused on doing some massive unilaterals, barbell walking lunge, barbell bss, barbell stepup, and you did this for 12 weeks, comparing a pre-test squat 1RM vs post-test, there'd be no doubt that post-test squat would be way higher.

Not doubting your experience or knowledge, but I find that pretty hard to believe. In my opinion you could be happy to squat the same weight after 12 weeks of unilaterals - very happy - but certainly you would not squat more than before except the case that you were pretty untrained in the squat before. You can take a rank novice, measure what he squats on day 1 and then let him ride the bicycle for 12 weeks a lot and measure his squat after and it might have increased. But that does not mean that cycling does have a big transfer to squatting for anyone but a relatively untrained individual (untrained in the squat that is).

381
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Post your own RVJ to SVJ deficit
« on: November 15, 2010, 09:42:54 am »
Quote from: ghettoracer on November 15, 2010, 07:47:24 am
SVJ I can touch a 10' rim now.  So I think I'm at 29.5".  My RVJ is only about 3" better at most.  Does that mean I have decent strength base and that I need to work on my jumping techniques more?

You can do different things with similar longterm outcomes. Even if you could profit from more power and reactivity training right now, you could also benefit from an increase in max strength because it will make a power block somewhere down the road more productive. It depends on many external factors, for example whether or not you are training for a competition or just for fun, whether you are in-season or off-season and similar considerations.
One thing I do believe is that it makes sense to utilize the novice phase for strength increases to its maximum potential with a rather heavy focus on maximal strength and some power work in form of powercleans and also powersnatches.

I don't believe that one can generally infer from the RVJ - SVJ - difference to a valid indication of training means without further information about individual variables that have an influence on this difference. For further information on this you should check out Kelly Bagget's website and articles.

In any instance, usually working on jumping technique is not the answer - unless it is really horrible, which in fact I have been able to observe rather often in volleyball players, like using no arm swing, really uncoordinated approach, bad plant etc. Don't know if that is the case for you though, it's not like a 33" RVJ is terribly bad.

382
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: low bar squat vs high bar squat
« on: November 13, 2010, 06:20:10 pm »
Quote from: bball2020 on November 13, 2010, 05:13:47 pm
YEP

Just curious if everyone could post

A) low bar or high bar squat and how strict of a technique

B) Squat before and VJ(OR RVJ) before  IE  8 months ago squatted 315lbs while jumped 28 inches

C) Squat after and VJ(OR RVJ) after   IE currently squat 375lbs and jumps 34 inches

D) Why you choose to do low bar or high bar(or dont do either)


A) Low-bar squat 1rm: 452 lbs; pretty good technique, consistently below parallel

B) Low-bar squat 8 months ago: 353 lbs; SVJ: ~31"

C) Low-bar squat: see A; SVJ: currently at 36"

D) Low-bar allows more weight to be used because of more muscle mass being actively involved. Low-bar squat strength can therefore be increased faster, which makes it a more useful exercise compared to the typical high-bar squat - which is still a good exercise. High-bar squat supposedly having more carry-over into VJ is IMHO a bad argument, because carryover happens, at least from the late novice stage upwards, through different exercises anyway, like powersnatches, powercleans, jump squats, depth jumps and the like.

But let me say this: Which squat you train primarily is a rather minuscule aspect of training and I think it is more important to do the right stuff (for example make the decision to begin with squats at all) at the right time. Also making sure to stay unstuck for as long as possible in a strength phase is more important than doing it high-bar or low-bar. Both probably have similar usefulness for VJ training as long as you get stronger and then use that strength to become more explosive. That being said, choosing the low-bar technique plays a role in "staying unstuck", too and it is actually rather easy to learn and trains the body in a very balanced fashion.

383
Article & Video Discussion / Re: StrongerTeam aka CanHeDunk : Episode 6 : Before & After Progress
« on: November 13, 2010, 04:55:07 pm »
I guess this device could be useful for some auxiliary stuff, but it's certainly not "invaluable" and probably won't justify the price.

384
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 03, 2010, 08:32:52 pm »
And weight gain is primarily about aesthetics, so I guess you are right and I am wrong. My fault. Everything is about looking good, right? It has to be...

385
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 03, 2010, 07:56:40 pm »
I did not comment on it because I have no interest in speculating about Rippetoe's motives to post pictures of Zach. Your perception is that he did that to brag about aesthetic aspects - as if that was the only thing in the world people would have an interest in bragging about. Rip has posted his opinion on training for physique more than once and his thoughts about that lead me to believe that he does not have a motive to brag with anything related to training for aesthetics. But as I said, there is no point in discussing this and I am also not interested in your opinion on the matter.

I also see little value in this "what is more impressive" debate and I think you fail to see the point. You obviously lack the ability to imagine that there are people training for different things then to look good in the mirror and that those people don't train with the goal in mind to impress you with their amazing abs and low body fat percentage. They might not even care how much they weigh, they only care to get stronger. But I am sure this did never occur to you.

P.S.: A box squat is not a squat.

386
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 03, 2010, 07:21:55 pm »
Quote from: JCsBck on November 03, 2010, 06:55:08 pm
Quote from: steven-miller on November 03, 2010, 06:50:53 pm
Quote from: JCsBck on November 03, 2010, 06:26:36 pm
And gaining 65 pounds but only putting on 200 pounds on your squat is pretty lousy imo.

And your best squat was what again?



355 box squat at 182. Not impressive at all, but am I bragging about that? No. All I care about is aesthetic progress, which is why I post shirtless pictures. I don't post shirtless pictures to brag about my squat.

My point is that: You did not even get near his rate of progress in terms of strength, even if you don't care about this aspect, but yet you critique his "poor" squat gains in face of his bodyweight, although you don't even know what it means to make such progress.

387
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 03, 2010, 06:50:53 pm »
Quote from: JCsBck on November 03, 2010, 06:26:36 pm
And gaining 65 pounds but only putting on 200 pounds on your squat is pretty lousy imo.

And your best squat was what again?

388
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 03, 2010, 06:11:47 pm »
Quote from: JCsBck on November 03, 2010, 03:49:53 pm
The reason Zach gets made fun of is because Rippetoe bragged about how much muscle and how little fat he put on.  Rippetoe is the reason the kid gets made fun of online, because he was bragging about the Aesthetic part of it. If he just talked about how he got his squat up 200 pounds in 6 months, then nobody would care.

Rip was claiming like 45 pounds of muscle and 20 pounds of fat or something ridiculous like that.

If you think Rip bragged about the aesthetic outcome of Zach's training up to that point then you are are delusional. He did although claim that the kid gained tons of muscle and he is in a better position to judge that then you or me are since he caliper measured him. I am not going to get into the debate whether the numbers are accurate or not, for me it's pretty obvious that Zach gained a lot of muscle and strength and that was the whole point of that article which was published back then. It's not Zach's fault that some people without brains thought it would be fun to cry about those pictures and how the kid failed and stupid shit like that.

Quote from: adarqui
steven-miller, i'm not making fun of Zach one bit, but the fact is that's what happens when you bulk dirty. He might not care one bit about any of that, but that has no bearing on what actually happened to his physique during that bulk.. Lots of people think you have to stuff your face to put on some decent mass, and end up going down the road he took to put on mass, usually not to that extent, but that "well i'll put on fat with muscle then cut (edit:) fat" ideology is definitely the most common among athletes trying to put on mass, imo.

peace

I don't know what's the point of that argument. It's not that you suddenly wake up and have 22% bf because you ate a cheeseburger the day before. People should be able to evaluate their progress at any point and come to conclusions whether or not they are getting closer to their goals or if they better clean up their diet a bit.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with the ideal to put on muscle but stay rather lean (say at 10% bf or lower). You just have to accept that gains will, at least for most people, come slower and this is especially true for novices who will stall prematurely because their eating does not keep up with their potential for growth in strength and mass.

389
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 03, 2010, 01:56:41 pm »
I don't like how Zach is butchered as an example of a failed diet in this ridiculous thread. His goal was to get bigger and stronger, both of which he accomplished very well. His goal was not to enter a physique contest or to be an underwear model. Just get over it, that there are people who couldn't care less if they have a six pack or not. Also notice that those who cry the loudest about this being an example of how not to approach eating and training are often also those who never got an average kid as strong as fast - good diet or not.

Would I encourage eating this way for an athlete that wants to jump higher? No, probably not since athletes will usually need to be in contest shape for a big proportion of the year. But if the objective is to get as strong as possible as fast as possible eating a ton of stuff with GOMAD is likely going to meet your needs very well.

390
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: 3x8 or 3x5?
« on: November 02, 2010, 07:10:58 pm »
Quote from: Kellyb on November 02, 2010, 03:38:30 pm

That's great stuff, thanks for posting this!

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 33