436
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: belts are for pussies
« on: December 10, 2013, 10:24:22 am »
My 2c (worth less than than when converted to real currency) is that this is a nail in the coffin for raw-dawg thinking which says beltless is best. For 2 guys squatting the same weight, the guy without a belt is stronger. Fact. No one can dispute that with any EMG study.
But moving on from that obvious fact, this says if you put on a belt, you get more pop out from your legs when squatting. Greg says it in terms of quad and hamstring recruitment which is something I don't understand but the gyst of it is that the weight gets a lot easier to move when you use a belt because you can fire more leg muscle fibres to move the load. This a revelation.
In the past it was thought just have more IAP with a belt made it easier because it helped with the superficial and obvious matter of stabilising the torso. But now we think it helps activate more muscles in the leg. If i was a beltless guy before, i'm not for-belted just because leg strength is training goal #1 for most of us and if a belt helps us use more leg musculature then that's a good enough reason to use it.
Rambling digression, it's kind of like when I squat without using caffeine. Everything is a lot heavier. A lot harder. I must take off 10% off the bar. It's magical taking caffeine and finding the same weights a lot easier and more than that, being able to lift a weight you couldn't lift without the caffeine. Belts seem to have the same effect here, so if we take caffeine to lift more weight better then using a belt is justified on the same grounds.
I only wish I could use a belt but it always seems to throw my form off so much. I wonder if it's because I get so much contribution from my legs and buttocks with a belt that it causes my hips to shoot up too fast? Might be something to explore.
But moving on from that obvious fact, this says if you put on a belt, you get more pop out from your legs when squatting. Greg says it in terms of quad and hamstring recruitment which is something I don't understand but the gyst of it is that the weight gets a lot easier to move when you use a belt because you can fire more leg muscle fibres to move the load. This a revelation.
In the past it was thought just have more IAP with a belt made it easier because it helped with the superficial and obvious matter of stabilising the torso. But now we think it helps activate more muscles in the leg. If i was a beltless guy before, i'm not for-belted just because leg strength is training goal #1 for most of us and if a belt helps us use more leg musculature then that's a good enough reason to use it.
Rambling digression, it's kind of like when I squat without using caffeine. Everything is a lot heavier. A lot harder. I must take off 10% off the bar. It's magical taking caffeine and finding the same weights a lot easier and more than that, being able to lift a weight you couldn't lift without the caffeine. Belts seem to have the same effect here, so if we take caffeine to lift more weight better then using a belt is justified on the same grounds.
I only wish I could use a belt but it always seems to throw my form off so much. I wonder if it's because I get so much contribution from my legs and buttocks with a belt that it causes my hips to shoot up too fast? Might be something to explore.