When analysing the use of the barbell back squat in PFT u eventually (if u train really hard) reach a point that becuz of spinal compression (w/ me its 675lbs) u are unable to effectively exclusively (redundant big words) use 1/4 reps. This doesn’t negate the principles PFT is based on, it just exposes a flaw.
Let the flames begin…>
…what?
Que?
Amazing. You’ve written something that sounds intelligent and stupid at the same time! What should we call it?
[quote]Dbol4Ever wrote:
When analysing the use of the barbell back squat in PFT u eventually (if u train really hard) reach a point that becuz of spinal compression (w/ me its 675lbs) u are unable to effectively exclusively (redundant big words) use 1/4 reps. This doesn’t negate the principles PFT is based on, it just exposes a flaw.
Let the flames begin…>
[/quote]
Um…that’s why he recommends leg presses.
It started out ok…
It has to do with the molecular structure of a dynamazoid. Just multiply everything with the square root of pi cubed and you will have your answer for everything pertaining to this time line.
PFT (power-factor training) is a stupid way to train. Do regular squats.
Contribute more, please. The world needs you.
[quote]Dbol4Ever wrote:
When analysing the use of the barbell back squat in PFT u eventually (if u train really hard) reach a point that becuz of spinal compression (w/ me its 675lbs) u are unable to effectively exclusively (redundant big words) use 1/4 reps. This doesn’t negate the principles PFT is based on, it just exposes a flaw.
Let the flames begin…>
[/quote]
You might wanna rephrase that coz I don’t think most people would understand that.
[quote]conner wrote:
Dbol4Ever wrote:
When analysing the use of the barbell back squat in PFT u eventually (if u train really hard) reach a point that becuz of spinal compression (w/ me its 675lbs) u are unable to effectively exclusively (redundant big words) use 1/4 reps. This doesn’t negate the principles PFT is based on, it just exposes a flaw.
Let the flames begin…>
^Um…that’s why he recommends leg presses.[/quote]
Ummmm, if u train at home (eg. Garage Squatter) and all U have is a barbell, 1200lbs of plates and a power rack the barbell squat is the most productive thing U can do.
[quote]Garage Squatter wrote:
conner wrote:
Dbol4Ever wrote:
When analysing the use of the barbell back squat in PFT u eventually (if u train really hard) reach a point that becuz of spinal compression (w/ me its 675lbs) u are unable to effectively exclusively (redundant big words) use 1/4 reps. This doesn’t negate the principles PFT is based on, it just exposes a flaw.
Let the flames begin…>
^Um…that’s why he recommends leg presses.
Ummmm, if u train at home (eg. Garage Squatter) and all U have is a barbell, 1200lbs of plates and a power rack the barbell squat is the most productive thing U can do.
[/quote]
Deadlifts?
Not if ur squat advantaged (short arms, long torso, short legs). There is no way such a structured person could attain the lbs./min that a deadlift advantaged (long arms, short torso) person could attain.
[quote]Garage Squatter wrote:
Ummmm, if u train at home (eg. Garage Squatter) and all U have is a barbell, 1200lbs of plates and a power rack the barbell squat is the most productive thing U can do.
[/quote]
Well, if you have no other alternative, there’s really no point in complaining, is there?
Not to mention the fact that this is so common sense and has such a lack of appeal on this forum that I can’t imagine what would prompt this threads out-of-left-field creation in the first place.
Someone please explain PFT and why you would use heavy 1/4 squats as opposed to a safer weight with a good range of motion. Are the 1/4 squats the main squat or an accessory?
This is probably an interesting topic if I knew what PFT was.
[quote]Dbol4Ever wrote:
When analysing the use of the barbell back squat in PFT u eventually (if u train really hard) reach a point that becuz of spinal compression (w/ me its 675lbs) u are unable to effectively exclusively (redundant big words) use 1/4 reps. This doesn’t negate the principles PFT is based on, it just exposes a flaw.
Let the flames begin…>
[/quote]
I am curious as to why someone who uses such big words makes use of the words “u” and “becuz”.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Someone please explain PFT and why you would use heavy 1/4 squats as opposed to a safer weight with a good range of motion. Are the 1/4 squats the main squat or an accessory?
This is probably an interesting topic if I knew what PFT was.[/quote]
Published fictional trash. It was a huge print-mercial from a few years ago that belongs side by side with bust-size increasing pills and dick size pills.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Someone please explain PFT and why you would use heavy 1/4 squats as opposed to a safer weight with a good range of motion. Are the 1/4 squats the main squat or an accessory?
This is probably an interesting topic if I knew what PFT was.[/quote]
Power Factor Training (PFT) is the brainchild of Pete Sisco and John Little. The premise behind the name is 2 equations the program employs in order to objectively measure the “quality” of one’s workout- I don’t remember what they are off the top of my head- but I’ll post them a little later if I can find the book.
The program also advocates the use of partials-only training (generally, with a 2-6 inch ROM, sometimes less) for ALL exercises, claiming through some anecdotal evidence and some scientific studies that it is not only just as effective as full ROM training, but, in fact, far superior.
The theory behind it is mechanical load is the ONLY factor one should be concerned with in regards to building muscle/strength, and as partials allow you to use far and away the most load possible (up to hundreds of pounds, depending on ROM), you should stick with them. Apparently, your body either can’t tell the difference between partials and fulls or it just doesn’t care.
Of course, this builds into their next book, Static Contraction Training, in which the say that since you can use EVEN MORE WEIGHT with ISOMETRIC exercises, those are even more superior than partials and result in even more insane muscle/strength gains.
Now, the program itself is sort of HIT: 1-2 sets of one exercise per bodypart, taken to failure (actual rep ranges are determined by finding your “sweet spot”- the point where your reps/weights used gives you the highest Power Factor), with rests between workouts ranging from 1-2 days to 5-6 WEEKS (depending on whether or not your “Power Factor” said your workout was more productive than the last one).
I toss out a few problematic things from the book in the thread “Mathematical Approach to Workouts”.
This thread, by the way, isn’t very interesting- all he’s saying is that there comes a point when your back either can’t hold any more weight (common sense), or you can’t safely do 3 inch partials while supporting the weight (which is why I said the thing about leg presses- the author recommends them in order to get the greatest load possible). Yet, still, this guy says, the principles of the program are sound.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Someone please explain PFT and why you would use heavy 1/4 squats as opposed to a safer weight with a good range of motion. Are the 1/4 squats the main squat or an accessory?
This is probably an interesting topic if I knew what PFT was.
Published fictional trash. It was a huge print-mercial from a few years ago that belongs side by side with bust-size increasing pills and dick size pills.
[/quote]
Thanks. This is why I ask here instead of wasting my time googling it.
The more I analyze full or parallel squats the more I beleive the extreme anabolic effect is at least partially due to the fact that at the bottom position the majority of the internal organs are being compressed by the weighted barbell which could explain the explosion of testosterone production.
This would definitely be a good clinical study and would certainly extend or surpass Sisco’s simple explanation of muscular output.