Best Movement for VM (Teardrops)

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
That wasn’t the implication I wanted to show. People have been saying that you need to squat ATG to get that VM optimally stimulated (even sore). While I agree with that, my sore VM got me thinking.

A power snatch doesn’t require any ATG squat. In fact, a 1/10th squat was the lowest I went. What is it about power snatches that stimulate the VM?[/quote]

You do have a point.
I tested this theory today, because I like to test things out, and there does seem be some high recruitment of the VM. Not only that but the recruitment is explosive in nature. I have been wanting to add some Olympic lifts to the old routine I throw these in and see what they do for my VM.

And BTW, soreness is and indicator of fatigue and soreness can be positively correlated with hypertrophy. It is not the overall judge and should not necessarily be a goal, but if a given exercise makes one muscle particularly sore, I’d say that muscle got a good workout and is primed for recovery.

The outspoken critics of the olympic lifts on this thread put forth the idea that olympic lifts have not traditionally been used by successful bodybuilders as a premise to their core argument that oly lifts are essentially useless. I think that this old guard mentality leads to stagnation.

For people that question my credibility on the grounds that I am not a massive, ripped bodybuilder and so therefore I have no credibility I can only say that I cannot sway you with anything but with the knowledge that I have. If you do not respect me for this then so be it! Obviously staying around my competition weight is more important to me than my T-Nation street cred, that is not going to change.

Like I already said, there is far too much emphasis on the endocrinological aspects of building muscle whether it be through sleep, nutrition, HRT, etc. Obviously these factors are huge and they work.

My argument, however, is that there are alternatives to the HIT methodolgy of training that in theory work even better. If you have been reading Chad Waterbury’s articles - a person I presume most bodybuilders respect - and you do not get it, then I will spell it out for you.

According to CW’s principles, you should be using heavy explosive lifts - olympic lifts and their variations - in order to recruit all of the motor units by placing the demand on your nervous systems necessary to innervate your highest velocity HTMUs which compose your muscle fibers. Doing so activates ALL OF YOUR MUSCLE FIBERS according to the Size Principle of neuromuscular adaptation.

Training in this fashion ensures that you are not only exhausting your medium threshold and slow threshold motor units, but also the bigger, faster fibers innervating a great deal of your muscle tissue.

It is fair to say that there needs to be evidence that Chad’s methods need verifiable proof for comparison with the HIT method’s long record of success. I agree! But just to speculate, if most of those olympic lifters out there are truly drug free, as would be suggested by the strict doping standards and rules of the USA Weightlifting Federation, USADA, and WADA then imagine their aesthetics if they were doping and did focus on hypertrophy for long macrocycles in their yearly routine.

You do not need to rely solely on the optimization of anabolic conditions via sleep, nutrition, HRT in conjunction with the repeated effort method in order to provide the conditions necessary for optimal myofibrilliar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Increasing the efficiency of muscular innervations between the central and the peripheral nervous systems reaps huge benefits for bodybuilders. I just thought that more people, even those who do are not drug-free, would be more open to the idea of implementing new training techniques.

I am glad that there are people on this thread that, in spite of having initial doubts, are at least questioning the status quo by using oly lift variations. Lifting moderate-heavy weights explosively is going to be a huge change - it is going to make you sore because you’re recruiting muscle fibers that you haven’t a chance of getting no matter what the weight is, and no matter what the tempo + rep scheme is.

I don’t want to rehijack this thread away from the main point of developing the Vastus Medialis muscles. I just think that it’s worth one more effort to explain why lifting explosively is good and open up some civil discussion on the matter. It’s worth a shot and I hope it’s possible!

My greatest hope is that there are some BBers out there reading this thread that have been using these concepts for a long time, perhaps whom actually use oly lift variations or explosive lifts in reaching hypertrophy goals specifically, and actually have some verifiable proof that these methods work!

[quote]cormac wrote:
The outspoken critics of the olympic lifts on this thread put forth the idea that olympic lifts have not traditionally been used by successful bodybuilders as a premise to their core argument that oly lifts are essentially useless. I think that this old guard mentality leads to stagnation.

For people that question my credibility on the grounds that I am not a massive, ripped bodybuilder and so therefore I have no credibility I can only say that I cannot sway you with anything but with the knowledge that I have. If you do not respect me for this then so be it! Obviously staying around my competition weight is more important to me than my T-Nation street cred, that is not going to change.

Like I already said, there is far too much emphasis on the endocrinological aspects of building muscle whether it be through sleep, nutrition, HRT, etc. Obviously these factors are huge and they work. My argument, however, is that there are alternatives to the HIT methodolgy of training that in theory work even better. If you have been reading Chad Waterbury’s articles - a person I presume most bodybuilders respect - and you do not get it, then I will spell it out for you.

According to CW’s principles, you should be using heavy explosive lifts - olympic lifts and their variations - in order to recruit all of the motor units by placing the demand on your nervous systems necessary to innervate your highest velocity HTMUs which compose your muscle fibers. Doing so activates ALL OF YOUR MUSCLE FIBERS according to the Size Principle of neuromuscular adaptation. Training in this fashion ensures that you are not only exhausting your medium threshold and slow threshold motor units, but also the bigger, faster fibers innervating a great deal of your muscle tissue.

It is fair to say that there needs to be evidence that Chad’s methods need verifiable proof for comparison with the HIT method’s long record of success. I agree! But just to speculate, if most of those olympic lifters out there are truly drug free, as would be suggested by the strict doping standards and rules of the USA Weightlifting Federation, USADA, and WADA then imagine their aesthetics if they were doping and did focus on hypertrophy for long macrocycles in their yearly routine.

You do not need to rely solely on the optimization of anabolic conditions via sleep, nutrition, HRT in conjunction with the repeated effort method in order to provide the conditions necessary for optimal myofibrilliar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Increasing the efficiency of muscular innervations between the central and the peripheral nervous systems reaps huge benefits for bodybuilders. I just thought that more people, even those who do are not drug-free, would be more open to the idea of implementing new training techniques.

I am glad that there are people on this thread that, in spite of having initial doubts, are at least questioning the status quo by using oly lift variations. Lifting moderate-heavy weights explosively is going to be a huge change - it is going to make you sore because you’re recruiting muscle fibers that you haven’t a chance of getting no matter what the weight is, and no matter what the tempo + rep scheme is.[/quote]

Where did anyone say anything about HIT? Just because we arent embracing the olympic lifts for whatever reason means we are embracing HIT? The issue people had with your post is that it is completely impractical. Where did anyone say anything about not lifting weights with the intent to accelerate that weight as fast as possible?

To me, the fact that you associate those who disagree with you as being proponents of HIT, reference the latest and greatest CW articles like they have been handed down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, insinuate that anyone who has succeeded without your methods as being steroid users and meatheads, and are not big but continue to justify your qualification to give advice on the basis of “well, I know a lot of stuff…” are enough to discredit anything you say in my mind.

What is all this bullshit about squatting deep being the answer for teardrops? Squatting deep may be better for size but the teardrop is probably the easiest thing to develop on your quad. Getting a sweep is hard. Striations is really hard. Growing calves is hard. A teardrop can be attained through moderate leanness and parallel squatting.

Doing deep Olympic Backs Squats and doing a few sets of heavy triple squats will make your legs strong as fuck but it won’t give you a tear drop as fast as high-volume leg training will.

Yeah, Olympic weightlifters have awesome leg development but that’s because they’ve been training for a dozen years and their size is just a side effect of their massive strength. In fact, they have pretty small leg size for the strength they possess. If you merely want quad development that LOOKS like Olympic Weightlifters without being as strong as them you might be able to achieve it in three years instead of 12.

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
it won’t give you a tear drop as fast as high-volume leg training will.

[/quote]

This is the only part of your post I had a question about, do you mean high volume as in sets reps or is there a certain combination you think works best? I want you to clarify before I make any assumptions and feel stupid if I’m wrong haha.

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
What is all this bullshit about squatting deep being the answer for teardrops? Squatting deep may be better for size but the teardrop is probably the easiest thing to develop on your quad. Getting a sweep is hard. Striations is really hard. Growing calves is hard. A teardrop can be attained through moderate leanness and parallel squatting.

[/quote]

Squatting deep has worked for me. Everyone is different. For me developing the VM has been a bitch. It takes a lot of focus for me to feel that pat working. Calves aren’t so bad for me. Some guys don’t even need to work theirs out and some guys have a hell of a time developing them.

I’ll agree on the striations and the sweep. Those are hard to develop.

Has anyone mentioned hack squats?

[quote]cormac wrote:
My argument, however, is that there are alternatives to the HIT methodolgy of training that in theory work even better. If you have been reading Chad Waterbury’s articles - a person I presume most bodybuilders respect - and you do not get it, then I will spell it out for you.
[/quote]

You presume wrong. I have never heard of Chad Waterbury outside this site nor have I heard of any respectable bodybuilders who train like he does. I’m sure he’s a great strength and conditioning coach but for bodybuilding he leaves little to be desired.

I like to be proven wrong. So if you can, name me one respectable bodybuilder who uses his method of training.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Where did anyone say anything about not lifting weights with the intent to accelerate that weight as fast as possible?[/quote]

Having the “intent” to accelerate weight as fast as possible is not enough. The weight must be accelerated while in the appropriate regions of the Force-Velocity curve [ http://www.sportsci.com/SPORTSCI/JANUARY/F-V%20CURVE.htm ] in order to develop maximal Rate of Force Development. Simultaneously, optimal bar paths must be followed in accordance with your body levers - there is a biomechanical aspect to be considered.

The reason olympic lifts are necessary, and that lifts categorically described as “speed deadlifts” and “speed bench presses” are not as good, is that the olympic lifts permit absolute maximum maximorum weight to be used in bringing weight from floor to full extension overhead. The high demand for safety by maintaining upright posture throughout execution of the lift, and tension on the entire body with the weight overhead means absolute maximal recruitment through massive ranges of motion. There is a corresponding relationship between full coordination and the highest HTMU innervations.

Put simply, the olympic lifts ensure that the human body’s strongest levers are used through a full ROM, this yields extremely efficient nervous system adaptation, and this yields massive hypertrophy opportunities.

[quote]Hagar wrote:
cormac wrote:
My argument, however, is that there are alternatives to the HIT methodolgy of training that in theory work even better. If you have been reading Chad Waterbury’s articles - a person I presume most bodybuilders respect - and you do not get it, then I will spell it out for you.

You presume wrong. I have never heard of Chad Waterbury outside this site nor have I heard of any respectable bodybuilders who train like he does. I’m sure he’s a great strength and conditioning coach but for bodybuilding he leaves little to be desired.

I like to be proven wrong. So if you can, name me one respectable bodybuilder who uses his method of training.[/quote]

plz to read,

[quote]
cormac Wrote:
My greatest hope is that there are some BBers out there reading this thread that have been using these concepts for a long time, perhaps whom actually use oly lift variations or explosive lifts in reaching hypertrophy goals specifically, and actually have some verifiable proof that these methods work![/quote]

Kthx.

[quote]scottiscool wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
it won’t give you a tear drop as fast as high-volume leg training will.

This is the only part of your post I had a question about, do you mean high volume as in sets reps or is there a certain combination you think works best? I want you to clarify before I make any assumptions and feel stupid if I’m wrong haha. [/quote]

I should have been more specific. High Volume as in more than 6 reps. I would say that a rep range of 12-20 would be ideal for the back squat, and reps above 6 for single leg movements and reps above 15 for the leg press. No more than 4 sets for anything. Hopefully only 1 working set. 2 working sets max. This won’t get your legs as strong as Olympic Weightlifting will but it will get them bigger.

IN POINT OF FACT many Olympic Lifters would in the past, and probably still do, spend a large part of their off season just working on their squat and not doing any true Olympic Lifts. They would do stuff like the 20-rep breathing squat routine and other cool stuff like that. Then once they started lifting their competition lifts again, their numbers would shoot up. So I may be wrong about high-volume leg training - it may also make you as strong as Olympic Weightlifting would. So if you want Teardrop VMs like Oly Lifters and Bodybuilders, you should be doing volume leg workouts.

Hack Squats are only good if they have an enormous foot base so I can put my feet far enough in front of me to not destroy my knees.

And squatting deep is great for leg development but I think the VM gets the most stress when the load is on the knees towards the middle and the top of the movement. Going Deep allows for the quads to get a full stretch but the muscles that are stressed when you’re in the hole are the glutes and the hamstrings (Cause their job is to extend the hip not extend the knee).

Once you’re out of the hole, most of the hip extension has happened and in order to lock out the squat the quads are taking over. This is why people who only quarter and half squat have weak glutes and hamstrings: they’re only using the part of the movement that stresses the quads.

Ok thanks for clarifying, and I agree that higher reps work better for most with legs. I train one heavy set 4-8 and then a back off set of 20 similar to the old breathing squats(there sure as heck was a lot of breathing tonight ha, lack of cardio showed big time). And strength is a relative term, Oly lifters might be better at singles or doubles but get trounced in reps above 10 for instance. The old Fred Hatfield(I know he’s a powerlifter but similar deal) and Tom Platz competition. Hatfield had the higher single and was “stronger” but I’d take Platz’s development anyday.

[quote]cormac wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Where did anyone say anything about not lifting weights with the intent to accelerate that weight as fast as possible?

Having the “intent” to accelerate weight as fast as possible is not enough. The weight must be accelerated while in the appropriate regions of the Force-Velocity curve [ http://www.sportsci.com/SPORTSCI/JANUARY/F-V%20CURVE.htm ] in order to develop maximal Rate of Force Development. Simultaneously, optimal bar paths must be followed in accordance with your body levers - there is a biomechanical aspect to be considered.

The reason olympic lifts are necessary, and that lifts categorically described as “speed deadlifts” and “speed bench presses” are not as good, is that the olympic lifts permit absolute maximum maximorum weight to be used in bringing weight from floor to full extension overhead. The high demand for safety by maintaining upright posture throughout execution of the lift, and tension on the entire body with the weight overhead means absolute maximal recruitment through massive ranges of motion. There is a corresponding relationship between full coordination and the highest HTMU innervations.

Put simply, the olympic lifts ensure that the human body’s strongest levers are used through a full ROM, this yields extremely efficient nervous system adaptation, and this yields massive hypertrophy opportunities.[/quote]

“Speed” movements are used to develop the specific skill of lifting speed. The intent to move the bar as fast as possible should always be present. If you have ever lifted heavy, then you know that the bar is not always moving fast. This, however, does not mean that you are not trying to move it as fast as possible.

If you actually read all of those Chad Waterbury articles you are touting as the word of God, then you would know this. Are you saying that those heavy front and back squats that Olympic lifters do in their training are ineffective?

Your post illustrates the EXACT reason why people are calling you a dipshit for suggesting the olympic lifts for bodybuilders right here:

Obviously the OLY lifts require a great bit of skill and to become proficient in them and reap any hypertrophy benefit while managing to avoid injury, you would need to spend a great deal of time practicing your technique with minimal loads.

He asked how to develop his VMO (best answer: squat deep and squat heavy) and you told him to buy some fancy shoes and spend the next 4 years learning and building up strength in completely new lifts. Now you are trying to champion some noble cause for the reinvention of bodybuilding. This is why people are mocking you.

[quote]cormac wrote:
I like to be proven wrong. So if you can, name me one respectable bodybuilder who uses his method of training.[/quote]

guess you couldn’t answer this

So what. This still means nothing. Out of all the articles I’ve read and all the videos I’ve watched, I still have never seen any respectable bodybuilders training this way or quoting how Chad’s methods have taken them to the next level.

[quote]scottiscool wrote:
Didn’t you start in a squat position to get the snatch off the ground in the first place?

Even if you did them from the hang, you still need to use your quads to straight the leg up in some fashion, the VMO will fire whether you want it to or not. [/quote]

I start from a hang (because I still can’t snatch 135). What I’m trying to bring out is people have been saying that squatting ATG stimulates the VM a lot because the lower position is what gets the VM going the most and that a higher position would get the lateralis more.

However, even with the relatively high position I used using a power snatch, my VM seemed to get more stimulation that any other quad muscles.

[quote]scottiscool wrote:
The old Fred Hatfield(I know he’s a powerlifter but similar deal) and Tom Platz competition. Hatfield had the higher single and was “stronger” but I’d take Platz’s development anyday. [/quote]

Dr. Squat admitted he couldn’t squat 500 for 16 or whatever reps Platz did just as Platz admitted he couldn’t squat 1,000 for a single. For leg training these are your choices

  1. Big Legs - Volume
  2. Strong Legs - Heavy Weight

Sure, if you do volume you’ll get strong legs and if you do heavy weight you’ll get big legs but those are the most efficient means to each end.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

He asked how to develop his VMO (best answer: squat deep and squat heavy) and you told him to buy some fancy shoes and spend the next 4 years learning and building up strength in completely new lifts. Now you are trying to champion some noble cause for the reinvention of bodybuilding. This is why people are mocking you.[/quote]

Well said.

The olympic lifts are cool and all, but it is tiresome to hear about them as the ultimate panacea for athletics and bodybuilding.

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
What is all this bullshit about squatting deep being the answer for teardrops?
[/quote]

Simple, the vastus medialis is maximally stressed at the rock-bottom position of full squats, up to 90 1/4 of knee flexion.

Looking for something else I found this article that specifically applies to the OP:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1198794

Some good exercise variations to help target those deficient muscles in the leg.

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
scottiscool wrote:
Didn’t you start in a squat position to get the snatch off the ground in the first place?

Even if you did them from the hang, you still need to use your quads to straight the leg up in some fashion, the VMO will fire whether you want it to or not.

I start from a hang (because I still can’t snatch 135). What I’m trying to bring out is people have been saying that squatting ATG stimulates the VM a lot because the lower position is what gets the VM going the most and that a higher position would get the lateralis more.

However, even with the relatively high position I used using a power snatch, my VM seemed to get more stimulation that any other quad muscles.[/quote]

In knee movements, generally speaking the VMO is or should be the first muscle to fire. However, from the deep squat position and at the end of the knee’s ROM is when the VMO is the strongest contributor. In between those areas the other knee extensors dominate the movement.

I’m wathcing a Frank McGrath video, and he’s pretty ace.