Sissy squat [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Sissy squat

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Josh

A few days ago during my leg session I tried sissy squats (my first time). I followed the instructions in Arnold's encyclopedia, one hand holding to a support while standing upright, then bending the knees while standing on my toes with upper body leaning backward I lower my body until my heels touch my buttocks. But I am not sure whether I've done this correctly, because I did not feel anything like weight training doing this exercise. I only felt like stretching my quads. Is this how sissy squats suppose to do, just stretch the quads? Or is there any trick, any twist that I need to be aware of to make this more effective?

- Josh

Posted by: Prince

I use to do them after squats as a burn exercise, really high reps. I have not done them in years though.

Posted by: LAM

that is the purpose of the sissy squat, it stretches the muscle facia...

Posted by: ezekiel

I never could quite get the hang of them.

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

What does stretching muscle fascia have to do with anything?

Posted by: LAM

lol...

Stretching your muscles while they are pumped will gradually help to stretch your connective tissue or muscle fascia. This eventually allow your muscles to grow past their current size. Muscle fascia is like a tight girdle around the muscle fibers, restricting their size.

This is why people who were once overweight find it much easier to gain muscle mass--their connective tissue has already been stretched to allow more growth. And why muscle memory is a great thing for serious weight trainers who have taken long lay-offs from the gym...

Posted by: Sub-Zero

The strecth the quads & also build up your teardrop muscle

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by LAM

Stretching your muscles while they are pumped will gradually help to stretch your connective tissue or muscle fascia. This eventually allow your muscles to grow past their current size. Muscle fascia is like a tight girdle around the muscle fibers, restricting their size.

Where, in the name of my unit, did you dig that turd up from?!

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Originally posted by LAM
lol...

Stretching your muscles while they are pumped will gradually help to stretch your connective tissue or muscle fascia. This eventually allow your muscles to grow past their current size. Muscle fascia is like a tight girdle around the muscle fibers, restricting their size.

Is that so? Why wouldn't that happen on its own as part of the growth process? I'm not aware of any growth function in the body that requires application of external mechanical force.

This is why people who were once overweight find it much easier to gain muscle mass--their connective tissue has already been stretched to allow more growth. And why muscle memory is a great thing for serious weight trainers who have taken long lay-offs from the gym...

I'd argue more that its simply the adaptation to the muscle fibers, to the neuromuscular junctions, and to the overall anatomy that's responsible for that, not simply "stretched fascia."

Posted by: LAM

TCD...that's old skool bb'ing 101 !

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by LAM
TCD...that's old skool bb'ing 101 !

From the same skool that say high reps for cutting and low reps for mass?

Posted by: Josh

Thanks for all the inputs.

- Josh

Posted by: ALBOB

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Where, in the name of my unit, did you dig that turd up from?!

You wouldn't happen to have a more logical retort to his statement, would you? What's wrong with what he said? You usually back up your statements with good sound reasoning and I'm pretty interested in this subject so come on, put up or shut up.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by LAM
Stretching your muscles while they are pumped will gradually help to stretch your connective tissue or muscle fascia.

Albob, Because this doesn't happen.

Posted by: ALBOB

Let's use a baloon as an analogy. Your muscle facia is like the baloon, the muscle fibers are like the air filling that baloon. If you take a baloon out of it's bag and try to blow it up, it's very difficult. But, if you first stretch out that baloon it's much easier to blow it up. As LAM said, and I believe, it works the same with muscle facia and the tissuse inside. Why do you say this isn't so? Come on, you've convinced me of other things, tell me WHY this isn't so.

Posted by: Robboe

I'm really not in the mood for this right now (amazingly, i know) but if you could stretch the facia and connective tissue then muscle reshaping would be possible.

Posted by: Scotty the Body

Hmmmmmm, when you think about it, if you could stretch the facia and connective tissue, then how would it be possible to tair the connective tissue like some people have?

I don't know? Any studies? : scratch:

Posted by: ALBOB

I don't necessarily agree that this would allow muscle shaping. Like you always say, if one fiber in a muscle contracts, the whole muscle contracts. In this case, I'm not talking about stretching a little portion of the facia, I'm talking about the whole thing.

Scotty, I'll use a different rubber device as an example this time. Put a rubber band in the fridge then, once it's cold, take it out and stretch it. It'll probably break. But if you warm that same rubber band up first and then stretch it, it'll stretch just fine. Same with muscle tissue and facia; when they're cold they tear, when their warm they stretch. Connective tissue is a different story. If you're talking about tendons and ligaments, I don't thing you can stretch those. Not without doing damage anyway.

Posted by: Scotty the Body

Your perdy good with them rubber devices Albob!

Your analigy makes sence to me, but so far no ones come up with anything solid and its the first time I've ever heard anything about stretching the facia or connective tissues.

Posted by: ALBOB

I'm with LAM on this one, I read about it MANY years ago. As far as I know it's still a theory though but it makes sense to me. (Especially when you consider I'm into rubber.

) That's why I keep bugging TDC for a better explanation, I'm curious why he thinks it WON'T work.

Posted by: Slon

I doubt anyone (even the mighty TCD) can provide the definitive contra arguments here. And, again, the subject is so difficult to study properly, thus the old theory, appealing to many, will probably remain unproven for some time.
Going back to the original topic (sissy squats, in case anyone forgot :-), I got a great burn out of them couple of times, but soon my legs adapted. I do them once in a while, coupled with leg extension, to keep body guessing.

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

The balloon analogy doesn't work because connective tissue isn't a static thing. That model assumes that the fascia is a static, inanimate thing. Its not.

The balloon model would have to account for growth and remodeling of the balloon itself, along with the increase of the interior volume....which it doesn't.

Like I said, I don't know of many growth processes in the body that require external mechanical force to facilitate.

Posted by: LAM

ALBOB...I've had this info verified with Terry Giles. With his 25 years of experience developing supplements and standing at 5'10 330 lb in the off season and a competition weight of 295 @ 5% . I'm going by his word..

He knows more than all of us at this site put together.

Posted by: ALBOB

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
The balloon analogy doesn't work because connective tissue isn't a static thing. That model assumes that the fascia is a static, inanimate thing. Its not.

The balloon model would have to account for growth and remodeling of the balloon itself, along with the increase of the interior volume....which it doesn't.

Like I said, I don't know of many growth processes in the body that require external mechanical force to facilitate. [/QUOTE]

Ya' lost me. How could it be static? I'm talking about stretching it. That, by definition, means NON-static. As far as accounting for the increase of interior volume, that's WHY we're stretch in the first place, to allow for greater interior volume. At least that's my understanding of the theory. Going back to TDC, I'm truely trying to understand this because from what I can tell it's only a theory but it's a theory that makes sense to me.

Posted by: ALBOB

Quote:

Originally posted by LAM
ALBOB...I've had this info verified with Terry Giles. With his 25 years of experience developing supplements and standing at 5'10 330 lb in the off season and a competition weight of 295 @ 5% . I'm going by his word..

He knows more than everyone at this site put together.

Thanks LAM, I appreciate that. I would like to continue the discussion though because I'm truely curious why some people think it doesn't work. Hopefully we can keep this one on a logical level and not digress into name calling.

TDC you're a weenie.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

He knows more than all of us at this site put together.

LMAO @ his stats. You do realise drugs totally change the equation, right?

And people, when you exercise you do stretch the facia, but LAM was talking about stretching and reshaping it permanently. You do realise that, right?

Posted by: ALBOB

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy And people, when you exercise you do stretch the facia, but LAM was talking about stretching and reshaping it permanently. You do realise that, right?

Nowhere in anybody's post, other than yours, do I see any reference to re-shaping. Stretching, yes, but not reshaping. Now talking about stretching, what's wrong with it being permanent? Since I haven't gotten a response back from Snake Eyes I'll stick to my elastic analogies. If you stretch any form of elastic enough it will eventually lose it's elasticity. In the case of the facia I don't see it LOSING it's elasticity but I contend it's possible to make it more pliable hence, allowing easier growth of the muscle tissue inside. If muscle tissue can expand/grow, why are you so adamant that the facia can't?

Posted by: Scotty the Body

If it is possible, I wonder if stretching while exercising will even be enough to make a difference on the facia.

I can understand a overweight person having a stretched facia when they loose the weight because it was "overloaded" (kind of like the overfilled balloon being easier to fill the second time) but would stretching really make any difference?

Maybe if you were to punp a shit load of synthol in it, lol j/k.

Posted by: ALBOB

Quote:

Originally posted by Scotty the Body Maybe if you were to punp a shit load of synthol in it, lol j/k.

That would sure stretch SOMETHING.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by ALBOB

Nowhere in anybody's post, other than yours, do I see any reference to re-shaping. Stretching, yes, but not reshaping. Now talking about stretching, what's wrong with it being permanent?

Stretching something permanently sounds pretty much like reshaping to me.

Posted by: Slon

the more I think about it, the less I like the baloon analogy (sorry!). Just thinking by analogy (yes, it is not a proof :-) ) - if you were fat, and then lost weight, after some time your skin won't just hang stretched, but it will become tight again. Bellies of pregnant women are the good example. While some still have stretch marks, those are by no means "reserves" of skin allowing to quickly baloon again.
Also, you can re-shape your hair. Heating and/or specific chemicals break disulphide bonds and new ones are formed holding the "new" shape. However, the effect is not permanent either and hair that was re-shaped has no "memory" of it.

Just some thoughts...

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Quote:

Originally posted by ALBOB
Ya' lost me. How could it be static? I'm talking about stretching it. That, by definition, means NON-static. As far as accounting for the increase of interior volume, that's WHY we're stretch in the first place, to allow for greater interior volume. At least that's my understanding of the theory. Going back to TDC, I'm truely trying to understand this because from what I can tell it's only a theory but it's a theory that makes sense to me.

You're confusing your terms here. When I say that fascia is not a static thing, I mean just that. It grows and changes just as much as the muscle. Why would it require any external influence such as stretching to allow the muscle to grow?

Do you have to deliberately stretch your skin when you get bigger? No, it grows with the body. Why would this be any different? The body isn't a series of isolated parts fastened together; its an integrated whole that works as a single unit.

Posted by: Training God

Posted by Terry Giles
"As far as weight lifting goes; stretching is a very important element to success as a weightlifter be it a bodybuilder or a power lifter. The reason lies in the muscle fascia - the muscle fascia is the "envelope" that surrounds the muscle. By stretching the muscles - you are in fact stretching the muscle fascia - thereby allowing more "room" inside the fascia for muscular growth and development."

*** Stretching increase the ROM around a joint. Which in turn allows for a greater range of motion to be carried out by that joint through the muscle. A muscle which is "tight" decreases the ROM around that particular joint. This is because the fascia (collagenous and elastic fibres) that envelopes the muscle is tightened. Stretching this only serves to increase the ROM of a joint. Nothing more. If you were to take a look at people with poor posture you will see that this is a result of neuromuscular problems and tight and long (weak) muscles. Stretch the tight muscles and loosen them and you will see no more growth then if you didn't. Strengthen the tight muscles and they grow and in turn become tighter causing problems such as soft tissue discomfort.

Posted by: ALBOB

Quote:

Originally posted by Slon
the more I think about it, the less I like the baloon analogy (sorry!). Just thinking by analogy (yes, it is not a proof :-) ) - if you were fat, and then lost weight, after some time your skin won't just hang stretched, but it will become tight again. Bellies of pregnant women are the good example. While some still have stretch marks, those are by no means "reserves" of skin allowing to quickly baloon again.

I agree 100% BUT, I see two things wrong with that argument. #1: the skin doesn't return to it's normal size instantly, it takes time. #2: the REASON it returns to normal size is because there's nothing keeping it stretched. In our case, the case of body building, we're trying to keep the facia stretched by keeping it filled with enlarged muscle tissue. The whole concept revolves around making it EASIER for the muscle to grow by pre-stretching the facia so the muscle can grow larger and fill it up thus keeping it stretched. That same theory goes toward answering Snake Eyes' question. You don't HAVE to stretch the facia to allow the muscle to grow but, by doing so, you make it EASIER for the muscle to grow.

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Again, show me an analogous process anywhere in the body and the theory might hold more weight.

Posted by: Slon

why then beginners muscles are the easiest to grow (significantly, with or without stretching , massage, anything) and regularly working muscles have tendency to become tight and need to be stretched? If the fascia was never stretched before, it should be tight, but ALL beginners' gains are HUGE compared with seasoned athletes.
I think that the most proven approach for hypertrophy is the progressive load followed by special de-conditioning phase, and then back again. Stretching and massage might bring some additional blood to the muscles, but "lenghtening / reshaping the envelope"...do not know...

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Sissy squat

Article Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60