Non Standard Workouts

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 24th, 2005, 8:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 24 2005, 07:05 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Chop, I have to agree with Carl again, as it's you who has missed the point. </td></tr></table> No, John, you missed the point. I quoted a portion of Carl Henrik's post and responded to it. The point under discussion (expanded from my original quote) is Carl Henrik's statement : "I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle (just like it does with higher weight, but that's no problem here) and as you get tired and try to keep the rate up, the risk with deep squats will be increased further as you might tend to rely on other tissues than muscle to bounce up." I responded that deep squats are not dangerous to the knees (in response to "generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle just like it does with higher weight"). Admittedly, anybody can hurt themselves by loading up the bar heavy enough, but that's simply a matter of a lifter exceeding his capacity. The depth of the squat is a different issue. In addition, I'd really like to see the athlete who can do bodyweight squats so fast and hard that he can injure himself due to ballistic factors. I suggest that before anyone reaches that point, they will simply find themselves on their backsides looking at the ceiling. Frankly, if I have Yoda on my side of the argument, that's enough for me, anyway. You are off on a tangent, John. Maybe CH can get a fine training effect out of half squats. That is beside the point. So are Shane Hamman's vertical jump, world high jump records, and your youthful squat performance. Porkchop

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 24th, 2005, 9:14 pm

Chop, You continue to live in a dream world. This SH, who I've never heard of, has the world record in the high jump? Really??? How high has he jumped??? Wow if some 350 pound guy jumped over 8 feet that is really something. But I think you are full of it. If not, then let's see a link that says he has jumped over 8 feet and has the world record in the high jump. Carl's statement, "I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle (just like it does with higher weight, but that's no problem here) and as you get tired and try to keep the rate up, the risk with deep squats will be increased further as you might tend to rely on other tissues than muscle to bounce up" is right on. Deep squats are indeed quite dangerous and you have to do them perfectly to avoid getting injuried. That's why there are always two spotters for full squats. Your comments about technique are like pit bull owners saying it was the victim's fault because they were moving or breathing or looked at the dog. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Maybe CH can get a fine training effect out of half squats. </td></tr></table> I'm sure he will and that's exactly the point.

[old] akit110 · Post by **[old] akit110** » July 24th, 2005, 11:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jul 23 2005, 08:08 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Weight Free Squats En Masse Yesterday I was "locked away" on the countryside without running shoes, erg or other cardio equipment. Since my training had been lacking the last couple of weeks I felt I could not let that day go by without doing some excercise. This is what I did, without access to any training equipment or having to bother with going outside even. 350 squats to parallell in 8 minutes. It worked up a good heart rate and I think it has a low non muscular impact if you can keep your lower back and knees safe. I encountered no problems using proper technique but we are all different. The quads took a good muscular beating and they are very sore today, but it was the first time trying this work out so that is natural. How do you feel about this as a regular cross training excercise? Perhaps instead of running or cycling, or as an excercise for low budgets or for those unwilling to be seen at a gym or in the running track. I am very positive about this excercise and even recommended it to some people before I had tried it myself, having just thought about it. Off course, the specific numbers can be altered and split into sets or intervals to suite specific needs, wishes and capacities. </td></tr></table> Carl, There's a lot of forums and articles on the internet talking about 'bodyweight training' (e.g. 'animal ability', 'Matt Furey', 'hindu squats' might be some key words to Google). Most of it is tied indirectly or directly to enthusiasts of certain forms of grappling martial arts. There is anecdotal stories about old-time wrestlers doing hundreds of bodyweight squats each day for years having knee problems, but these are individuals who were probably on the extreme end. About 6 years ago, I trained for about 7 or 8 months doing most nights: 1x500 bodyweight squats, 1x100 dive bomber pushups, and neck bridges. I actually lost a fair amount of weight and was pretty pleased with the results. There was definitely some carry-over strength-endurance to other activities. The only thing is that the sheer volume becomes mentally very tedious after a while so I slowly drifted away from that type of training.

[old] tditmar · Post by **[old] tditmar** » July 24th, 2005, 11:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 24 2005, 08:14 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Chop, You continue to live in a dream world. This SH, who I've never heard of, has the world record in the high jump? Really??? How high has he jumped??? Wow if some 350 pound guy jumped over 8 feet that is really something. But I think you are full of it. If not, then let's see a link that says he has jumped over 8 feet and has the world record in the high jump. Your comments about technique are like pit bull owners saying it was the victim's fault because they were moving or breathing or looked at the dog. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Maybe CH can get a fine training effect out of half squats. </td></tr></table> I'm sure he will and that's exactly the point. </td></tr></table> You have to be kidding everyone with these comments. I have to admit I skim most of these posts, but nowhere did Porkchop say Shane Hamman had the world record in the high jump. I am the one who mentioned Shane Hamman because he squats deep and is an amazing athlete, especially for his size. He can dunk a basketball at 5'9" and 385. That has actually been printed. He also holds the American record for the Clean and Jerk at 237.5kg. Here he is <a href='http://www.gaylehatch.com/Olympics7.html' target='_blank'>http://www.gaylehatch.com/Olympics7.html</a> He probably hold the record for the Snatch as well. HE HAS A 42" VERTICAL LEAP, same as Michael Jordan, not the record in the high jump, reread Porkchops comments. He just didn't find it relevant. This was the article I was referring to about his vertical jump which I thought might be relevant to the argument. <a href='http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-olympic-lifting.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-oly ... asp</a> Porkchop has stuck to a specific point of contention and I personally believe he has made the best argument. Second of all, he never said there was anything wrong with whatever squats you were talking about, he just disagreed with the comment of more injuries at greater angles. He just said whatever I posted about Shane Hamman was not relevant to his argument, that was all. And I take no offense. He is probably right, still it it interesting stuff.

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 25th, 2005, 12:15 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 24 2005, 08:14 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Chop, You continue to live in a dream world. This SH, who I've never heard of, has the world record in the high jump? [Porkchop responds: I didn't say that he did.] Really??? How high has he jumped??? Wow if some 350 pound guy jumped over 8 feet that is really something. [Porkchop responds: If you never heard of him, then how do you know how big he is?] But I think you are full of it. If not, then let's see a link that says he has jumped over 8 feet and has the world record in the high jump. [Porkchop responds: I said in an earlier post that high jump records are irrelevant to the point under discussion.] Carl's statement, "I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle (just like it does with higher weight, but that's no problem here) and as you get tired and try to keep the rate up, the risk with deep squats will be increased further as you might tend to rely on other tissues than muscle to bounce up" is right on. Deep squats are indeed quite dangerous and you have to do them perfectly to avoid getting injuried. That's why there are always two spotters for full squats. [Porkchop responds: Regardless of weight? The subject of the thread was Carl's bodyweight squats; I certainly hope that none of us need spotters for that. As far as I could tell, Carl Henrik has no plans to start powerlifting, so what does the number of spotters for heavy or maximal effort squats have to do with any of this. I squat submaximal loads at home with no spotters at all.] Your comments about technique are like pit bull owners saying it was the victim's fault because they were moving or breathing or looked at the dog. [Porkchop responds: This simile is among the most asinine I have ever read.] <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Maybe CH can get a fine training effect out of half squats. </td></tr></table> I'm sure he will and that's exactly the point. [Porkchop responds: No, the point is that he is limiting his training based on an unrealistic and simplistic perception of danger.] </td></tr></table> John, you continue to amaze. Once again you demonstrate an uncanny ability to argue over points that were never made, contradict positions that no one has take, conflate concepts that are entirely separate, and generally make a fool of yourself. Porkchop

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » July 25th, 2005, 9:47 am

[/quote] John, you continue to amaze. Once again you demonstrate an uncanny ability to argue over points that were never made, contradict positions that no one has take, conflate concepts that are entirely separate, and generally make a fool of yourself. Porkchop [/quote] You have to ignore his posts most of the time and not get sucked into anything approaching a serious discussion on any type of training. He may eventually have a valid and logical point, but his circular mental meanderings don't seem to be headed in that direction. Don't get sucked into his black hole discussions...there's no escape. Whatever his training plan is, it appears to work for him. He's definitely made a name for himself on this forum.

[old] JaneW. · Post by **[old] JaneW.** » July 25th, 2005, 10:57 am

Enough already. I'm here to learn about squats and how to do them properly. Porkchop, When you've time, how does one do a deep squat compared to a parallel squat with possible light weights? And if one isn't using weights, then can the deep squat provide a better exercise? Louie Simmons teaches the box squats to help develop better form. Box squats vs. deep squats? (There is a weight training thread. I prefer you answer it there. More relevant to my topic. Thanks.

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » July 25th, 2005, 12:58 pm

Talking about non-standard workouts: running on the beach (there is one near my club). Great workout - perfect to develop power and endurance in your legs. Just be aware of the risk to your knees. AM

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » July 25th, 2005, 1:37 pm

Porkchop is correct on this one. If you avoid bouncing at the bottom, full squats will not, themselves, harm your knees. (I would even argue that bouncing with just your bodyweight will not harm you either) However at a rate of 44/min, I don't think there are many who could avoid the bottom bounce if doing the squats full.. By the way, my background is 30 years of Powerlifting and Olympic Lifting where Parallel (Powerlifting) and Full (Olympic Lifting) squats were a staple of my training. I have given up weightlifting over the last 5 years in favor of the erg. To get back on topic, I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of so many bodyweight squats is. If its simply to get a workout while you are away from the erg or other weightlifting equipment, then fine, any port in a storm. But if this is intended to be an addition to or replacement of some other training then I am not sure what it is intended to do. So many bodyweight squats would not be considered a strength workout. It might be considered a good aerobic workout and if this is its purpose, I suppose its OK, I would rather put my time in on the erg where I can get the same leg workout with the addition of working the back, lats and arms or maybe training myself to a higher stroke rate.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » July 25th, 2005, 1:47 pm

I believe I have stated my view and Porkchop his. There are just a few things I would like to say, and then I hope this thread can get back to what I wished it to be. When I say parallel squats, I mean the type of squats done in the tabata squat video. His thigh bone is slightly below parallel and the upper end of his thigh slightly over. It's the interval I aim for. Calling this "half squats" is an understatement (in terms of knee angle and vertical movement) but I guess it's convenient in comparison to "full". In the tabata squat the video, the man is squatting at 69 squats per minute when active. My rate of 44 is not so high! Having completed a "tabata this" session at rate 42 including rests (21 per set) it seemed appropriate. The full squat further complicates the movement technically and at least some people with bad knees can do the parallel squat but not the full squat, this is my experience anyway. When talking about the whole population the full squats is therefore more prone to generate injuries. This is not so for the subgroup of healthy and cunning lifters. For heavy loads and slow motion, we have empiric data suggesting full squats is safe and better. For "aerobic squats" there are very little empiric data that I am aware of. I think to progress this the only way would be to gather such, which I guess means doing it yourself. Perhaps I will give it a try at some point and tell how it felt. If it's bad...I just need to stop in time

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 25th, 2005, 1:49 pm

Even Fred Harfield who is referred to as Mr. Squat has stated that full squats can pull away ligaments and tendons from their attachments and are dangerous. He adds they are only dangerous if not done "right", again like the victim of a pit bull attack who didn't do everything "right", thus it was the victim's fault and not the fault of the dog or the owner. It's rather amusing that only those on this thread with closed minds are the ones who think full squats are not dangerous.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » July 25th, 2005, 1:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dickie @ Jul 25 2005, 05:37 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Porkchop is correct on this one. If you avoid bouncing at the bottom, full squats will not, themselves, harm your knees. [right] </td></tr></table> Hi Dickie I see a risk of bouncing at the bottom that is larger with aerobic squatting than with strength squats, therefore I am skeptical. But I have not tried so I do not now if it's possible or worth the mental strain to avoid this. My purpose was not to build muscle or strength, just to keep my CV ability from deteriorating when I had no excercise equipment at hand.

[old] Yoda1 · Post by **[old] Yoda1** » July 25th, 2005, 1:59 pm

If a person shortens their range of motion, then the strength that is developed is within that range of motion. Full squat are one of the most basic exercises a person can do. But for many people it's hard. So, their answer is to shorten the distance of travel. The problem comes later within the joints themselves. Adhesions build up and soon that person can't do what was once their full range of motion. It's what happens as we grow older. Full squats done correctly are 100 percent safe. As Dickie said it's what the goal happens to be. If it's for CV reasons then what difference does it make. But parallel squats at an extremely fast rate aren't going to build any strength. Not much anyhow. But then neither are full squats going to build any strength either at a fast rate. In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, a person would be better off doing the full squats rather than parallel or half squats if for no other reason than by doing partials you've removed the hamstrings and glutes for the exercise. If doing the squats, regardless of the type, is to gain strength for the ERG, then it has to be full squats. Just look at the leg position on the ERG at the catch. Actually, full leg presses would be superior. PORKCHOP IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And he's still old. No yelling, Yoda

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 25th, 2005, 2:07 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(JaneW. @ Jul 25 2005, 09:57 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Enough already. I'm here to learn about squats and how to do them properly. Porkchop, When you've time, how does one do a deep squat compared to a parallel squat with possible light weights? And if one isn't using weights, then can the deep squat provide a better exercise? Louie Simmons teaches the box squats to help develop better form. Box squats vs. deep squats? (There is a weight training thread. I prefer you answer it there. More relevant to my topic. Thanks. </td></tr></table> Jane, I'm going to answer here, because, well, it's just easier. First of all, I don't represent myself to be a guru on all aspects of squatting; I only got into this to discuss the "safety" issue. Clearly, that got a little out of control. In the first place, there are two points to keep in mind when squatting deep: flexibility and strength at the extreme low position. I come from a 35-year background in martial arts, where flexibility is the norm, so it has never been a problem for me. Your mileage may vary. First of all, just squat down as far as you can. How far can you go? Do the backs of your thighs touch your calves? Are your feet flat on the floor? How is your balance? Is your back rounded or flat? What happens when you raise your head and look up? If you want an example of what kind of flexibility is possible, take a look at some pictures of societies where squatting, instead of sitting, is the norm. If you find that you are tight in any of the relevant areas, then you probably are not ready to do the movement with weights. Find a stretching regimen for the legs and back, and follow it. Then just start by doing bodyweight squats within your comfort zone. Work up to what you believe is a good rep and set protocol, say, 3 or 4 sets of 15 squats. Go slow, linger in the bottom position so you can feel the stretch, find the right foot position for your body, learn how your balance feels in the bottom position. The other point relates to strength at the bottom. Above the parallel position, the primary muscles involved in the squat are the quadriceps group. When you go below parallel, the load is borne more and more by the hamstrings, glutes, and lower back as you go lower. As a general matter, many people have a strength imbalance between their quadriceps and their hamstrings. I won't get in to a length discussion of that, but it explains, at least in part, why as a general matter poundages are lower as one squats lower. It takes time to strengthen the hamstrings. Louie Simmons' answer to the problem of strengthening the bottom of the movement is the box squat. Remember, though, that Westside training is oriented to power lifting, where the thighs must break parallel, but need not go lower. The boxes used are of a height appropriate to develop the low-position strength to accomplish the powerlifting squat. If you want to develop strength in a deeper range of motion, you have to go deeper. Louie Simmons is, many would say, the guru of powerlifting; I don't second-guess the guy. But his training and coaching goals are not mine and may not be yours. Simmons also developed the glute-ham machine to strengthen the posterior chain used in coming up out of the bottom of the squat. If you are experienced in lifting weights, then when you are comfortable with a really deep position, start putting some weight on your shoulders. but start slowly, maybe with only the bar. If you are not experience, then by all means consult with at trainer who is. There are a lot of resources (including video) on the web regarding squat technique, written by many who are more knowledgeable than I. Personally, I am not a big fan of squats done with dumbbells held at the sides of the body, but if that's what you want to do, that fits with squatting deep as well (and it is easier to dump the weights if you are really overloaded). "Can the deep squat provide a better exercise?" Better for what? What do you want to get out of your workout? Certainly, the deep squat will develop strength and maybe some endurance in muscles you may not be using at present. If that fits within your personal parameters, then the answer is yes. Will it raise your heart rate? Absolutely, but so will any number of other things. It all depends on what you like. There is no single definition of "being in shape," but squatting deep will get you "in shape" for some things. Personally, I feel that the position of the legs at the catch is somewhat similar to the bottom of a deep squat (not quite as compressed, and the foot position is different -- others would say it is more akin to the start of the deadlift; both positions have merit). I think that my deep squatting has assisted the initial part of my leg drive, and probably helps with lower back strength as well. Squatting deep is not rocket science. Some have described bodyweight squatting as the most primitive of movements -- it really ought to come naturally, and it speaks volumes that we actually have to analyze the movement. Just give it a try and decide whether it is for you. If it doesn't meet your needs, or if you just don't like it, find something else that works for you. As with any new exercise, proceed cautiously and don't overdo it. Porkchop

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 25th, 2005, 2:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Yoda1 @ Jul 25 2005, 12:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PORKCHOP IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And he's still old. No yelling, Yoda </td></tr></table> But I don't have wrinkly green skin and pointy ears! Besides, you talk funny. Porkchop

Concept2 Forum

Non Standard Workouts

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training