I finally did it!

[gopro]

didn't he already answer that?

Yes, but my answer did not come from the journal of Exercise and Kinesiology, so it was irrelevant to him.

 

[gopro]

Yes, that was almost 2 years ago I believe. Things change.

I would delve into this further, but I won't bother. Ok, just figured you probably had competed since then as most people compete at least once before deciding to give up on it.

 

[Wannabebig.com]

That is an inncorrect assumption on your part Go Pro. "Giving up" and "things change" are two different things. You're assuming something that you do not know anything about.

 

[Saturday Fever]

For someone who likes to help advanced lifters as well, I still only see very basic responses. Maybe we can hook up an EMG test and see if squats work the quads optimally.




Oh wait, I totally squashed all the EMG jabber. I guess all we have to go on is someone's word.

 

[gopro]

That is an inncorrect assumption on your part Go Pro. "Giving up" and "things change" are two different things. You're assuming something that you do not know anything about.

Maki, honestly I did not mean it like that...I only meant "give up" in the sense that you decided against competing, or decided that bodybuilding was not the direction you wanted to go with your physique/focus.

 

[gopro]

For someone who likes to help advanced lifters as well, I still only see very basic responses. Maybe we can hook up an EMG test and see if squats work the quads optimally.




Oh wait, I totally squashed all the EMG jabber. I guess all we have to go on is someone's word.

I am getting close to banning you...just for the fun of it! How did you get this smart? Can I be you?

 

[chris mason]

didn't he already answer that?

That's debatable, but I suppose.

Let me take a stab. Let's look at the squat. The squat is alternatively named the deep knee bend. Movement takes place at the hip, knee, and ankle joints.

There are many factors which will effect how someone squats, here are just a couple:

-The relative strength of the major involved muscles (how much force can they create).

- The ability of said muscles to express their generated force (this relates to the insertion points of the muscles and the subsequent leverage created).

Now, if someone tends to use more hip and back strength when they squat and less thigh strength then GoPro's assertation is that they are receiving less of a workout for their thighs than if they performed another movement. His rationale is that the thighs are not contracting forcibly enough to promote hypertrophy.

I don't agree with this assertation and here is why. If someone has relatively weak thighs (relative to their glutes, hip flexors, lower back etc.) it doesn't follow that when they squat they are not using their thighs. Now, these lifters may squat with a stance than minimizes the ROM for the thighs and places less emphasis on them, but that doesn't make the squat a poor exercise for that individual, it just means they need to alter their form to take the quads through a greater ROM.

Maybe said weak-legged squatter already uses a narrower stance and takes the legs through a greater ROM. Is he not contracting his quads as hard as possible on his near limit reps in order to lift the weight? Will his body/mind thwart his efforts by somehow not stimulating the thighs to contract maximally in order to accomplish the goal of getting the weight up? Of course not, the body is still going to maximally contract all of the involve muscles (within its momentary capability) to move the load. Those thighs are still going to be providing whatever force they can muster.

You see, those with weak legs whose legs may not respond well to squats are generally not going to respond well to anything. I have never known a bodybuilder to switch from squats to leg presses and have their thighs blow up unless they had some sort of a mental block/were afraid of lifting with a big weight on their back and were more comfortable with leg presses for that reason (and or a muscle imbalance which will be discussed below).

Does that mean squats are ineffective for them? Well, the exercise isn't the problem it is their weak will.

Now, I will also grant that for someone with very poor "core" development leg presses might work better because the lifter does not have to use the muscles of the trunk to aid in the lift (to the same degree). That said, even for a bodybuilder having such a strength imbalance using the leg press to develop the thighs at the expense of the muscles of the torso is not something that should be encouraged. Even a bodybuilder should endeavor to have some functionality to their musculature.

The squat can work for virtually anyone, but it is not the only method of developing good thighs. My point is that I don't agree that leg presses are better for some from a perspective of the exercise alone with respect to developing the thighs.

I will agree that hack squats can be the movement of choice if the bodybuilder wants to build his thighs relative to his hips and glutes. In other words, if he has a big ass and small thighs then while squats may give him large thighs they would also not help his symmetry problem with his big ass. A hack squat or leg press would be a better choice for that individual.

 

[Robboe]

Listen tiny, I did not dance around anything.

"Tiny". How mature.

If anyone moans, here's where th name calling began.

My answers were clear and concise and something that every member could understand, relate to, and actually apply to their training, as always. Speaking with scientific mumbo jumbo is all well and good...and guess what, I can do it too...

Badly, yeah. A lot of the time you spout shit you have no clue about. I vaguely remember the whole 1st and 2nd pass of the liver shit you used to rally about on the forums. In fact, i'm pretty sure there's an entire thread dedicated to it on Avant.

Anyhoo, i only said what i said because there has been numerous occasions in the past where i've asked you to clarify something (or prove it) and you've failed, merely dancing around the questions without answering them properly - Just like you've done here.

If a new poster asks a question, then by all means answer them in a near-baby response. But if someone like Chris of SF asks you a question, the least you can do without insulting their intelligence is answer on a technical level. They thrive on this shit.

 

[Robboe]

I am getting close to banning you...just for the fun of it! How did you get this smart? Can I be you?

I'm pretty sure a few months back Monstar said you "threaten" to abuse your moderator powers all too easy in order to get your way and again dance around answering. Suppose this is an example of it.

 

[Tank316]

"Tiny". How mature

well he didnt lie or bullshit anybody about it, he should have thrown in ''drunk'' as well!!!!
Its plain and simple, you go out on a witch hunt for Eric when he makes a post!!! Now, since you know it all, why bother with it!!! If one frickin person gets results from a post/advice that he has given, then just leave it alone!!!!! Its more then Chris has to offer or yourself! the witch hunt better come to end ..NOW!!!!! If you dont like whats on tv, turn the channel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Du]

Now, since you know it all, why bother with it!!! If one frickin person gets results from a post/advice that he has given, then just leave it alone!!!!! Its more then Chris has to offer or yourself! the witch hunt better come to end ..NOW!!!!! If you dont like whats on tv, turn the channel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good fuckin post. Its about time someone said this.

 

[chris mason]

It is cool that you have such loyalty to the guy Tank, I can appreciate that.

That said, let me ask you a question, if I disagree with something anyone posts on this board should I not type it? Isn't the point of "discussion" boards, to discuss matters?

Interestingly enough, through most of this thread I didn't even disagree with him I only asked him to provide more backing for his opinions.

Speaking of witch hunts, wasn't it a member on this site saying how he and Eric were talking at the Olympia about what a "great guy" (yes, that would be tongue in cheek) I am? If he was telling the truth I suppose I should be flattered. Eric has alwasy stated on this site how I am not worthy of his time or consideration. Interesting...

 

[Tank316]

It is cool that you have such loyalty to the guy Tank, I can appreciate that.

That said, let me ask you a question, if I disagree with something anyone posts on this board should I not type it? Isn't the point of "discussion" boards, to discuss matters?

Interestingly enough, through most of this thread I didn't even disagree with him I only asked him to provide more backing for his opinions.

Speaking of witch hunts, wasn't it a member on this site saying how he and Eric were talking at the Olympia about what a "great guy" (yes, that would be tongue in cheek) I am? If he was telling the truth I suppose I should be flattered. Eric has alwasy stated on this site how I am not worthy of his time or consideration. Interesting...

Chris, your past history with Eric is what this whole crap is all about!!!!
Discussion and debate are one thing, always jumpng on his shit is another! i find it interesting that Maki shows up, why? Witch hunt!?!?!Although i give Maki credit, it seems he has matured! .. Is Eric over at WWB causing shit HELL NO!!!!! From everything i have read when you post, i get NOTHING from it, i'm not being an asshole about it, but trust me Chris, i can be!Eric makes things in a sense''simple'' for members to understand! He has posted his P/RR/Sh training, to which there are a shit load of members who use, and i might add are getting results, if a member has a ? about something to do with the program he takes his time and answers it, he doesnt ''dance around the ?'' he explains it in simple terms, he doesnt say''do it cause i said so either''...if you need to have everything explained to you in technical terms all the time i feel sorry for your wife!
It has been truly a witch hunt from the get go, dont deny it either! I'm sure with all the boards out there, you can can go pick any experts brain with all your knowledge, it will lead to great things in your life..
Its fustrating to watch this shit over and over, debate and discuss all you want, i get nothing from you so could you just please leave!

 

[gopro]

That's debatable, but I suppose.

Let me take a stab. Let's look at the squat. The squat is alternatively named the deep knee bend. Movement takes place at the hip, knee, and ankle joints.

There are many factors which will effect how someone squats, here are just a couple:

-The relative strength of the major involved muscles (how much force can they create).

- The ability of said muscles to express their generated force (this relates to the insertion points of the muscles and the subsequent leverage created).

Now, if someone tends to use more hip and back strength when they squat and less thigh strength then GoPro's assertation is that they are receiving less of a workout for their thighs than if they performed another movement. His rationale is that the thighs are not contracting forcibly enough to promote hypertrophy.

I don't agree with this assertation and here is why. If someone has relatively weak thighs (relative to their glutes, hip flexors, lower back etc.) it doesn't follow that when they squat they are not using their thighs. Now, these lifters may squat with a stance than minimizes the ROM for the thighs and places less emphasis on them, but that doesn't make the squat a poor exercise for that individual, it just means they need to alter their form to take the quads through a greater ROM.

Maybe said weak-legged squatter already uses a narrower stance and takes the legs through a greater ROM. Is he not contracting his quads as hard as possible on his near limit reps in order to lift the weight? Will his body/mind thwart his efforts by somehow not stimulating the thighs to contract maximally in order to accomplish the goal of getting the weight up? Of course not, the body is still going to maximally contract all of the involve muscles (within its momentary capability) to move the load. Those thighs are still going to be providing whatever force they can muster.

You see, those with weak legs whose legs may not respond well to squats are generally not going to respond well to anything. I have never known a bodybuilder to switch from squats to leg presses and have their thighs blow up unless they had some sort of a mental block/were afraid of lifting with a big weight on their back and were more comfortable with leg presses for that reason (and or a muscle imbalance which will be discussed below).

Does that mean squats are ineffective for them? Well, the exercise isn't the problem it is their weak will.

Now, I will also grant that for someone with very poor "core" development leg presses might work better because the lifter does not have to use the muscles of the trunk to aid in the lift (to the same degree). That said, even for a bodybuilder having such a strength imbalance using the leg press to develop the thighs at the expense of the muscles of the torso is not something that should be encouraged. Even a bodybuilder should endeavor to have some functionality to their musculature.

The squat can work for virtually anyone, but it is not the only method of developing good thighs. My point is that I don't agree that leg presses are better for some from a perspective of the exercise alone with respect to developing the thighs.

I will agree that hack squats can be the movement of choice if the bodybuilder wants to build his thighs relative to his hips and glutes. In other words, if he has a big ass and small thighs then while squats may give him large thighs they would also not help his symmetry problem with his big ass. A hack squat or leg press would be a better choice for that individual.

Again, the reason that powerlifters do not develop thighs to the same degree as bodybuilders is mostly b/c of the WAY they squat. If they changed their form to higher bar, more narrow stance, and squatted somewhat more upright, pushing more from the quads then the hips and glutes, they would hypertrophy the thighs more (and of course be able to squat less). Some people cannot change their form because of structural or psychological reasons, or b/c of chronic imjury. This creates a limiting factor which hacks or leg presses might not present. In training myself and many others that even squatted with what seems to be perfect, textbook form, the squat did not produce the same benefit in the quads that hacks or leg presses do. My rear grew way more in proportion to my thighs with squats, and just the opposite happened when hacks became my core movement. Hacks put more tension on my thighs...balancing was not an issue...and the ability to utilize a stance with my feet very close to me, all spelled better quad hypertrophy with little to no extra gluteus involvement. This is the case with many others as well. You also choose to ignore the mental aspect of all of this. Whether you consider it "weak minded" or not, some people are too afraid to push as far on squats as they do on leg presses or even hacks, which makes squats less than optimal. You might say, "well, get over it," but some people cannot, and thus they should go with movements in which they can push further and focus more on what they are doing. And I don't care whether you believe it or not, but the mind/muscle/focus connection DOES have an affect on results...this is something I learned about not only in the trenches, but in the classroom, with my strong backround in psychology (with some specific study in physiological psychology).

The bent row is not the optimal back movement for everyone...the bench press is not the optimal exercise for everyone...the military press is not the optimal delt exercise for everyone...there IS NO SUCH THING! There is nothing MAGICAL about ANY exercise. Each individual has strengths or limitations that make some exercises better than others. Yes, some limiting factors can be worked on, and overcome, which can make a less then optimal exercise become more beneficial, but this is not possible in every case.

 

[gopro]

Tank...you rule brother...

 

[gopro]

I'm pretty sure a few months back Monstar said you "threaten" to abuse your moderator powers all too easy in order to get your way and again dance around answering. Suppose this is an example of it.

You'd have a point if I actually DID ban him, or SF, or Mason...but I did not. Why? B/c I'm not afraid to have anyone around here call me out. Nobody. If I am going to ban someone, which I have yet to do, its b/c I feel they will be a detriment to the board. Personally, I think you are worthless to this board, and you still do your best to drag me down any chance you get, and yet I've let your punk ass stick around when you should be the first to go.

 

[gopro]

"Tiny". How mature.

If anyone moans, here's where th name calling began.



Badly, yeah. A lot of the time you spout shit you have no clue about. I vaguely remember the whole 1st and 2nd pass of the liver shit you used to rally about on the forums. In fact, i'm pretty sure there's an entire thread dedicated to it on Avant.

Anyhoo, i only said what i said because there has been numerous occasions in the past where i've asked you to clarify something (or prove it) and you've failed, merely dancing around the questions without answering them properly - Just like you've done here.

If a new poster asks a question, then by all means answer them in a near-baby response. But if someone like Chris of SF asks you a question, the least you can do without insulting their intelligence is answer on a technical level. They thrive on this shit.

-I knew exactly what I was talking about and did what I did for a reason...and as a result caused changes in the company that I work for...positive changes (oh, and got a raise to boot).
-The ability to use LESS technological terms to get your point across is a skill and is what makes a good writer. Techni-babble can be used by anyone with cut and paste skills, as well as those with a journal or textbook in front of them. Do you know how many so-called experts on the web have turned out to be nothing more than 17 year old kids with good research skills, but with little to no actual knowledge?

Anyway TCD...now that I know your age (I thought you were older), I know you are still a punk kid, and MIGHT learn a bit as you move through life. Why don't you start here and keep quiet.

 

[Arnold]

I think I will close my thread now.