Adarq.org

Thus if someone gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism, until it is fixed, long term weight loss will not be achieved. Thus the calorie argument becomes useless.

I really don't want this argument to get out of hand but.... you realizing what you are saying in this sentence right? 

....If some gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism (ie. Changes calories out)... the calorie argument becomes useless....

You are trying to make an argument against the calories in/calories out model.  You can't say well if we change the calories out part, then the model doesn't work... That's part of the model!   The counter example brought up by Dreyth might be a little contrived... but at least it's an attempt to argue against the model without changing one of it's parameters! 

Quote from: TheSituation on January 16, 2012, 08:55:43 pm

Your situation is impossible, that's why I had to change it.

Wait a second... it's impossible for two people to eat the same amount of calories and burn the same amount of calories as each other if only one of them lifts weights?
Again, please explain why the following is impossible:


Athlete A - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Lifts heavy weights 3x a week.

Athlete B - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Stopped lifting.



Now, if you mean it's impossible to get exactly the same calorie count down to x number of decimal places, then I understand you. Otherwise....notsureifsrs

Your situation is not impossible but it's pretty hard to answer unless we know a little more about the two athletes.

If athlete A and athlete B are both massive bodybuilders (ie both have a lot of muscle on their frame) when this experiment starts then athlete B will detrain because he no longer lifts and lose muscle.  As he loses muscle he will have to exercise more and more to burn exactly 3k calories a day.  If we imagine it's possible that he is able to do this exactly then yes, you have found a situation where it's possible to lose weight without a caloric deficit.   Understand athlete B will have to do an extreme amount of aerobic non-resistance exercise for this situation to be possible and that in reality this is a dangerous game to play because as you lose muscle it's likely that you will miscalculate food intake/cardio a couple days and gain fat mass. 

Now if athlete A and B are not so muscular then you shouldn't expect athlete B to necessarily lose a significant amount of weight.  Some detraining is likely but an intermediate athlete does not actually lose much muscle if he stops lifting for a year or so.  He would lose strength and maybe confuse that with muscle.... but actually losing muscle is harder than most people realize.

****
Anyway, your example provides a good point to the topic of energy balance.  While fat is essentially stored energy and is regulated primarily by energy balance, muscle tissue serves another role and therefore is controlled by traning stimulus as well as energy balance.   The example you brought up is pretty similar to what would happen to you if you went to live on the moon.  If you continued to eat 3k calories and exercised a great deal (somehow) you would still weight a lot less because your bones would be lighter because you spend so much time at much less gravity.   Whats important to understand is that why your situation is not a violation of thermodynamics.  Simply put: Athlete B used the energy in his muscles to fuel his extreme cardio.

  You might say: "But he didn't need to use muscle tissue because he ate 3k and burned 3k so he took in all the energy required to do his exercise"

Unfortunately that's not how it works.  While he would of course lose muscle faster on a caloric deficit.... caloric equilibrium does not guarantee that all energy is received from diet.  Any activity will cause energy to be harvested from fat tissue, sugar in the bloodstream (food you just ate), stored glycogen and muscle tissue.  Weight training and diet can affect the ratios but cannot turn off one of the sources of energy.  That's essentially what detraining muscle loss is.  Even if muscle is used for energy at a very low ratio (say 1%), if there is no stimulus to rebuild muscle it will be lost....



 

Thank you for the definition, it is sufficient for now. Your operationalization is lacking though, since going by feel might not be a valid measure of force production since you might feel muscle A fire more compared to muscle B, but that might be because B is way stronger than A and still produces more force - just less force compared to it's potential. You might want to think about that again.

About the studies you cited: They do not show anything of relevance to this discussion. The results showed that an unloaded jump-squat is highest in body power production. What shall we conclude from that? Jumping is the best training for jumping?

Btw., I feel my glutes quite well during front-squats compared to quads. By your definition it must be a glute-dominant exercise then.

And you PR'd your back-squat after front-squats not because they are so different, but because you are so weak.

I've been out of the country for a week so this discussion might be completely dead... but I just wanted to make a few salient points.   

1) First of all, your example of feeling front squats in your glutes is precisely why I think classifying exercises as quad or glute dominant doesn't make sense.  Not that a definition of "where you FEEL it" makes much sense either...  But I once had a coach who made the point that a weak front squat/high bar back squat ratio was usually caused by weak hamstrings/glutes.  His point was that while the front squat activates the quadriceps to a greater extent than the back squat, it also also almost completely takes the lower back out of the movement but still requires a high degree of hip flexion.  Therefore, to stand up a front squat the load for the hip extension is transferred primarily to the hamstrings.  So, the majority of athletes (save for those with really well developed hamstrings) will fail on an exercise which is deemed quad dominant because of weak hamstrings, which really shows the futility of labeling exercises quad/hamstring dominant. 

2) This sorta leads to the point I am trying to make about high-bar olympic squat VS low-bar squat.  You make a good point about the benefits of the greater load one can handle in low bar squat.  My main issue with the low bar squat is the point I was trying to make with the powerlifting video.  Well you happen to be able to perform full range low-bar squats to consistent depth with excellent form in the video posted of you.... I find athletes who perform the low-bar squat are more likely to increase the load while sacrificing their form/depth.  Obviously, athletes can cheat with the high bar squat too.  For this reason when If I start training an athlete who has spent time in the gym but doesn't really know what the are doing I ask how much they can deadlift.  While I think the deadlift is far inferior to the squat for most athletic transfer.... without outright lying it's really hard to cheat.  Straps or no straps if one athlete can deadlift 200 lbs and the other 400 lbs, the second has a stronger lower body.   As far as the hi-bar and low-bar squat.  If two untrained athletes spend six months and athlete A gets significantly stronger in hi-bar squat and athlete B gets significantly stronger in low bar squat (by some factor greater than 1 as you stated).... I think the difference in the aid to their athleticism would be somewhat negligible.   

However, in my experience if an athlete lifts alone the squat depth will get more sacrificed as the weight goes up for the low bar squat.  That's why I actually try to get athletes doing a full ATG olympic pause squat.  The advice is just so simple: Go down until you can't go lower.... Wait... Stand up.   Getting stronger at this lift is always a function of stronger legs while non-paused max squat and low bar attempts often suffer from less desirable form.  This is sorta what killed powerlifting in my mind: the goal to squat as much as possible resulted in high squats, a nebulous definition of parallel, strange squat equipment, the mono-lift, etc.  Now, of course you are an example of an athlete who is capable of low-bar squatting with impressive form, so this is not an argument against the lift but rather against what a lot of people turn the lift into.....

3) About your statement about whether oly lifters struggle standing up after you the catch in the clean/snatch.  I'm not much of an oly lifter but I think this is dependent on the weight class.  Watching the 2011 world championships at the lower weight classes the lifters either couldn't front squat the weight or wasted so much energy grinding out the front squat that they were dead for the jerk.... However, by the time the super heavyweights were up most lifters bounced right up with the weight and all the suspense was dependent on whether they would get the jerk.  It seems for heavier lifters it's easy to build up surplus front squat strength for weight's that are really difficult to jerk.    Finally, you should check out the jerk of pyrros dimas... It's an overhead squat jerk... and he catches it in a parallel vertical shins squat.... Sorta like your low bar squat, which might be another reason why it's a good idea to be able to handle a bunch of weight in the low bar squat. 

4)  Finally, the main point here is that weights (for athletes, not power/oly lifters) are about getting stronger.  As long as you choose a decent selection of lifts and you attempt to execute them with good bar speed, the goal in one year from today should be to be able to move a greater load in a somewhat equal time in:  The hi-bar squat, the low bar squat, parallel hi-bar squats, quarter squats, front squats, deadlifts, push-press, hang-cleans, power-snatch, hang snatch... etc, etc.  Some of these exercises activate different muscles to a different extent, but you won't be able to do get overall stronger in lower-body compound lifts unless your quads, hamstrings, glutes, ALL get stronger.   Weight training just isn't that specific.  Whether or not you feel squats in your back, quads, hamstrings, or in your brain (Dizziness might be where I FEEL it most), adding significant weight to compound-lower body movements makes your lower body stronger, period.  Your specificity will come in to play during your sport training and your sport season, ie 200m sprinters will have larger left the right hamstrings (running the turn), jumpers must spend A LOT of time jumping, bounding, etc, etc.  Lifting for athleticism is about executing compound movements that cannot be executed if any of the links are weak.  Save the quad-dominance and single muscle focus for the bodybuilders! 

Just my two cents.   A good discussion nonetheless.   

Squat-wise I have done nothing but low-bar from 140 kg x 1 up to 200 kg x 5. My quads look pretty similar to kingfish's. So no, I would not say that low-bar squats will cause you to miss out on quad strength. My first real front-squat work-out was 140 kg x 3 with more left in the tank - so low-bar carries over just fine, as will any strength exercise that works hips and legs through a nearly complete ROM.

People always forget how progressing in a given exercise is actually much more important than which variant of the exercise one is performing. And most people will outperform a high-bar progression with a low-bar progression easily, because you can just manage more weight that way, so the ceiling is higher, and you involve more muscle mass. Low-bar squats done correctly are an insanely good exercise for every kind of athlete.

I'll give you that specificity is pretty overrated and that even if one "looks" more like jumping that's a silly reason to do it with large loads.

Your front squat ratio (assuming ~140kgx 5 since had more in the tank) is 0.7.  Much better than most powerlifters, but I would still expect high bar squatters to have a higher ratio.  Myself I maxed at 315 lbs in the front squat when my back squat max was only 370 lbs.  Still, a couple people don't make an argument.

The main advantage to high bar squats is that they do translate better to olympic lifts.  You just can't catch a clean or snatch without knee flexion.  You just get lower with the high bar squat and if you want to do full olympic lifts then I really can't see why you would avoid high bar squats. 

Besides, the olympic lifts your argument seems pretty solid.  I don't have any REAL reason to dislike low-bar squats......But... I just feel like I have seen many more people have a really impressive low-bar squat while at the same time having poor deadlifts, vertical jumps, speed, etc.  I have no data whatsoever to back this up, it could just be a function of the fact that the low bar squat allows everyone to handle more weight, or maybe because powerlifters do it and they have a propensity to be uncoordinated fat slobs....   But in my experience is less likely someone has a good high bar squat and is terrible at everything else.  Really, I try and get everyone to at least BE ABLE to do both.  ie. If you can't squat a couple plates high bar and low bar somethings wrong.  Once you can do that, then I guess it doesn't really matter which you favor. 

I'm also very suspicious of the term low bar squat.  I've never seen you squat but since I know your an athlete concerned about your vertical I'm sure your low bar squat has a somewhat narrow stance, has some knee flexion, and probably has decent depth.  It might be that this kind of low bar squat has a lot of benefits, but powerlifting has created somewhat of a perversion of the low bar squat. 

For example heres a low bar squat that I bet would translate pretty well to athleticism:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivhv5znPg0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivhv5znPg0</a>

This one not so much:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UikcjCBN34Q" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UikcjCBN34Q</a>


 

Quote from: steven-miller on January 25, 2012, 02:53:28 pm

Quote from: Raptor on January 25, 2012, 02:01:09 pm

Well quad dominance is how much load an exercise TENDS to make your body use as far as the quads are concerned.

I do not understand this sentence. Can you explain this? I suppose quad dominance is not the same as potential knee flexion in an exercise?

Yeah, I think you can say that. At least in my version of the definition. So for me personally, that's pretty much the same - the potential of knee flexion and quad loading of a given exercise. Of course it's more a matter of that knee flexion/quad loading actually occuring than the potential of that since that's what we really care about.

I honestly don't understand the concept of quad dominance in strength training too well either.  In sprinting a common cue is to teach athletes at top speed to "point the knee and get the foot down (ie. Hip extension using the hamstring) rather than lifting the knee and quadricep using hip flexors.  Not sure if this is related?

But in squatting... why do you associate knee flexion with quadricep dominance?  Knee flexion is performed primarily by the hamstrings in everyone.

soo if my front squat is near 320 and my bw is at 170 were do you think my vertical and my snatch should be? i think my vertical is not correlating with my strength at all, im 5 10 and my standing vertical is around 25 inches

  

There really is no great relationship where front squat X == vertical jump Y.  Honestly, I'd be surprised if somebody who can front squat almost double body weight can only jump 25 inches and I'd assume that 320 pound front squat is a little high.... but stranger things have happened.  

What's important is how improvements to your front squat correlate with improvements to your vertical. You might be doing everything right but just have the most awesome leverages for squatting and poor jumping genetics.  However, if your front squat was once 250 and you weighed 170 and your vertical was also 25 inches, then something is wrong and you fall into the class of people who are not able to translate their strength in the squat to vertical jumping.

If you really want my guess, I'd assume someone fronting squatting close to 2x bodyweight would jump a minimum of 30+ inches.  Snatching is hard to estimate because if you have never done it your won't be very good.  However, I'd estimate your full clean should be approximately your 3 rep max in the squat (maybe around 300?) and your hang clean should be around 85% of your full clean (so about 260 lbs?).  Again the snatch is around 80% of the clean and jerk so.... If you are technically proficient then somewhere around 200 lbs?  All these numbers are just ballpark estimates that coaches use to move between lifts, and I applied ratios from full lifts to hang versions, so no telling how off I am.  That said, I think a ball park 200 lb hang snatch doesn't sound too off for someone who front squats 320.  

By this you mean the Olympic lifts themselves or you're actually meaning any kind of strength-speed exercise? If so, then you could substitute the O-lifts with jump squats and get the same if not more.

You could bridge that gap with jump squats and depth jumps.

You could do that but....

1) Jump squats are a little bit harder to scale.  Unless you have a specific height that you are jumping to, how do you know when you are progressing?  Does it really mean anything if you claim "I added 50 pounds to my jump squat!".  But adding 50 pounds to your hang snatch certainly does.  Also, how long can you add weight?  Is it safe to do jump squats with 75% of your squat max?  It's safe to do oly lifts with as much weight as you can!

If we are gonna deal with just the archetype steven brought up (ie. last kid picked in PE class, lets call him X), you could also argue that he wouldn't necessarily learn to express his strength better through a jump squat.  Remember, X is someone who can add weight to his squat without increasing his standing vertical jump.  When, he puts a bar on his back and jumps how do we know he will won't be super slow and jump poorly?  The advantage to olympic lifts is once they weight is moderate you absolutely CANNOT do any part of the pull slowly because you are not strong enough to hold the bar in space unless it's been accelerated already.  This isn't provided by jump squats.  X could squat to parallel and slowly ascend until almost standing and then when almost standing accelerate without any hip drive whatsoever and jump.   I recognize this argument is kind of silly because the person X I am describing right now sounds so poorly coordinated that he probably won't learn olympic lifts either and maybe would actually be best suited to do some type of long GPP program with bounding, jumping, stretching, etc so he can use his body before he does anymore strength training...

The thing is - should you struggle with hang cleans and hang snatches (if you learn them by yourself etc) or should you just go with jump squats and that's it?

That's the real question! I would say it depends on a three things, why you struggle with them, how much you hate struggling with them, and how well you express your strength.

Do you have a video of yourself struggling with them?

Whats your olympic style squat max vs your hang clean and snatch PRs?  

Is your vertical jump at all tied to your squat/bw ratio?

When you struggle with them does that means your form is decent but your wrists and shoulders hurt because of the rack position for clean and that's annoying?

Do you use straps for snatch and chalk for cleans?  

Do you not mind working at them or do you absolutely hate oly lifts and just do them because you think you need to to jump?

Are you 1-footed or two foot jumper, whats your max deadlift?

Do you do full lifts or lifts from the hang or power-versions?

Do you do overhead squats and front squats?  

Is your upper-body weak, ie pullups, bench, etc?

Are you good at bounding, sprinting, general coordination?

Those are the questions you have to know before you decide to drop oly lifts.  Those and probably some more I forgot!  One thing you might consider is doing them as part of your warmup, that way they don't waste much time.  For example before I squat I do a set of 3 hang power snatches and then five overhead squats, with 45 pounds, 95 pounds, 115 pounds, and 135 pounds.  Then I rack the weight and start squatting.  That was I get in some work without wasting time or much effort because if I wasn't doing that warmup I'd have to warmup with light squatting.

Good post, T0DDAY. I agree with a lot of what you said. My main argument against weighted jumps is always what you wrote under 1). That alone makes o-lifts superior.

About 3): I believe their necessity might not be overstated. It is just that the athletes you talk about might be able to get their max strength up via squats and benefit from it on the field, while that will not apply to average people with less talent. If you are the guy that was always picked last in PE, then you should do something for your explosiveness other than squats - which you will still have to do, because strong beats weak. If you are that genetic freak that jumps 35 without ever training for it, you can probably get away with only squats (although one could debate whether even this person would benefit from explosive lifts).

Yes, for non-athletes you are definitely right.  I was coming at the argument as someone providing training to an athlete who has already had at least moderate success in their sport (preferably track and field).  As great of an exercise that squatting is, it's shocking how non-athletes are able to increase their squat steadily without showing ANY ability to express that strength.  Olympic lifts are the best way to bridge the two.  The only problem I see is that those kind of people tend to have a really really difficult time learning to do Olympic lifts on their own.  They seem to always revert to some strange slow reverse curl maneuver.  But in theory, your right that the "last kid picked in PE" could def benefit tremendously by getting his olympic lifts up.

What's funny about scalability is how even the squat loses meaning if has really poor form.  That's why when I first train a low level athlete who has been in the weight-room I ask how much they can deadlift.  I think the squats a superior exercise, but the deadlift still gives the best estimation of total body strength no matter how its performed.