[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Swolle front squatted 405 for 7 reps about 10 inches below parallel…I think it’s safe to say he squats.[/quote]
Oh–I believe that when people asked him about leg training in his thread he said he used the ‘hip sled’ (another term for leg press) as his main exercise. Apologies, I suppose.
Ah–front squats and hip sled. Yeah, my bad.
[quote]Kooopa wrote:
[quote]ChrisWaddle wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]ChrisWaddle wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
It’s because outside this little ego driven world of TNation brosefs, seasoned lifters know that it’s about finding what works and not appealing to some mentality that squatting and deadlifting is necessary just to maintain your mancard. [/quote]
I have found this to be true, I started with squatting and deadlifting and just never really got much out of them.
High rep squatting was certainly better for me than low rep/heavy weight but I just seem to get much better stimulation of leg presses etc.
Deadlifting was probably never the best idea for me anyway as my back is shot to pieces, but I gave it the good old college try and just got back pain from it.[/quote]
you were deadlifting wrong and DEFINITELY squatting wrong…[/quote]
More than likely. I’m tall 6’3, and just never felt right squatting.
[/quote]
lol yeah i bet strongmen who are probably on average taller than you never squat and deadlift cuz “it just doesnt feel right maaan”… please, just admit that either its too exhausting for you or you never bothered fixing technique ever.[/quote]
Dunno why you’re getting on his case, though. It’s not like he owes it to you or to bodybuilding in general to fix his technique on a certain exercise if other exercises are giving him results?
I wanna ask you all this - if squats are so necessary to get big all over, then why is it such a gym cliche to see a guy with a massive upper body, and no lower body?
If squats were needed to put on any size anywhere in the body, then no-one should be getting big upper bodies unless they squat…?
[quote]alternate wrote:
[quote]NikH wrote:
Because big guys in your gym dont need the hormonal advantage of big lifts, they have better supplements[/quote]
Not sure if sarcastic, but, regardless, thought it had already been beaten to death that any exercise that produces an increase in hormone levels (like testosterone), produce such a small and transient spike in the stuff that it may as well be ignored. Some people think that by doing certain exercises they’re may as well be injecting themselves with PED’s - that’s ridiculous.
Anyway, on one of the episodes of the ‘Strength Of Evidence’ podcasts, Bret Contreras reviewed the research and found that Bulgarian split squats produced more testosterone than squats. But it was still negligible in the scheme of things.[/quote]
quote]
So are you saying doing compound lifts 6x a week will produce the same net amount of hormones that you get from doing isolation exercises 6x a week?
Interesting, can I get links to these studies?
Theorizing: if we would be talking about a 3hour hormonal jump which would seem small but thats already 18h higher a week (training 6x a week) and 936h or 39d of increased hormones a year.
However, I still prefer including compound movements as the fiber requirement will be larger and I can still “train my upperbody” on leg day or get some small pump to my chest on arms day etc, and usually isolate the target muscles after a compound movement. Also, feels like a king after doing some OL.
Another funny idea would be to do some bw pushups/squats 0.5h before meals so the nutrition would be better absorbed into the muscles.
[quote]alternate wrote:
If squats were needed to put on any size anywhere in the body, then no-one should be getting big upper bodies unless they squat…?[/quote]
IMO…bobybuilding is like mathematics. The squat, pull, press and row are the fundamentals [like addition and subtraction]. Once the fundamentals are mastered there are many options; but i have never seen an advanced lifter that didn’t have a firm handle on the basics. IMO…even advanced lifters that train differently benefit from re-visiting the fundamentals from time to time.
[quote]alternate wrote:
I wanna ask you all this - if squats are so necessary to get big all over, then why is it such a gym cliche to see a guy with a massive upper body, and no lower body?
[/quote]
Those lifters are to be ridiculed! Half-body development is from half-assed effort.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
It’s because outside this little ego driven world of TNation brosefs, seasoned lifters know that it’s about finding what works and not appealing to some mentality that squatting and deadlifting is necessary just to maintain your mancard. [/quote]
^I think that above post is pure nonsense. Sure: if other things work then fine. But as a relative noobie (I’m defining “noobie” as any of us who are in our 20s and have been lifting for less than a decade), jskrabac, I seriously doubt you’ve given squatting its due to see whether it ‘works.’
As far as the mancard goes, I don’t see why there would be anything wrong with wanting to be a strong guy even if the main goal is aesthetics. And honestly, the thought of training for aesthetics but not even caring about the main implement to getting there (weightlifting) seems like a really dumb way to invest one’s time–at least if it’s something you’re thinking about doing for the next 20-30 years.
I derive a lot of satisfaction out of being able to pick 500 off the floor, even if that’s not very much. It doesn’t have to be an ego-it can just happen to be the case that some of us enjoy lifting weights, with the squat and deadlift being two of the most prominent and physically challenging lifts that people tend to concentrate on.
Regarding the OP, I think the thread is based on a false premise. Most BBers I’ve seen online who maintain logs (e.g., Shelby, Meadows, Norton, etc) squat and deadlift regularly. However, one should bear in mind that “regularly” for them is not that often:
Take someone like Shelby, who hits legs once a week. By his log, he usually uses one major leg movement and then more isolation-type exercises. That might leave him actually squatting once a month because on the other leg days he’s doing some other primary exercise. That doesn’t mean, however, that he’s ‘not squatting.’
The only poster I can think of on here with impressive wheels who does not squat is a poster from about a year ago named ‘Swolle’–but he also deadlifted really heavy (heavy enough to tear his biceps tendon, ruining a prep–in fact).
Those that would point to Stu should bear in mind that Stu is now 38 and spent a lot of his earlier years lifting heavy.
There is one very large 53 year old at my gym (6’, 240 though not as lean anymore) who was larger in his younger days but doesn’t squat anymore. I asked him his views on leg training a few months ago, and he told me basically that he recommends squatting your balls off until you hit your early 30s–around that point, his body started slowing down a bit and the risk of injury made it less worth the gain at that point. But in his younger days he squatted 650 at his peak–now he has very big legs but only does SLDL, ham curls, lunges, etc. As an older guy, he is adamant (take this with a grain of salt, I suppose) that he needed the heavy squats to build that initial mass, but they were not necessary for retaining that mass.
Just his experience, but take it for what it’s worth. And now, someone would look at him and say “Hey! He’s a huge dude, but he doesn’t squat or deadlift!” but be missing the couple of decades he spent under the bar to build that mass in the first place. [/quote]
I like this post, but it makes me think you may have missed some of the point of my post. I never said I don’t squat…I never said I don’t deadlift. I never said they were inferior. I just said it’s silly to feel obligated to do them when you could be making better gains otherwise.
Plus, I think we need to agree on semantics here. What’s your definition of squatting and deadlifting? Serious question… Do hack squats, power squats, smith squats qualify? And for deadlifts, do stiff-leg floor deadlifts or DB RDLs qualify? Variations in each category are HANDS DOWN necessary and so is progressive overload, so we agree there.
Right now I believe BB squats are inferior for ME given my absolutely shitty leverages (ridiculously long femurs relative to torso). I’d like to just ask, what do you consider “paying squats their due?” 10 years of squatting will not fix my bone structure. I don’t need 10 years of chugging away when I understand mechanics. I’ve tried chains, bands, ultra wide stance, narrow stance, safety bar, box squats, pause squats, regular barweight squats, front squats…got these up to 315 for reps even, worked one on one with PLing coaches, 2 times a week, 3 times a week, speed squats, high rep, low rep, 5/3/1 whatever. I just couldn’t progress despite a caloric surplus, and my legs were shit. Watching videos I can’t change that my femurs are enormous relative to my small trunk. Meanwhile, I can jump in a hack machine or smith machine and get the proper stimulation for my entire quad, where my lower back no longer has to be the limiting factor here. Shelby and JM are shorter gents w/ good leverages for squatting, and watching them perform them in videos I can see how they’re really hammering the quads and hams with them.
Anyway, I just want to clarify that I respect what you have to say and typically find your posts very insightful, so I mean no disrespect and have no intention of sparking confrontation…just a discussion.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]alternate wrote:
If squats were needed to put on any size anywhere in the body, then no-one should be getting big upper bodies unless they squat…?[/quote]
IMO…bobybuilding is like mathematics. The squat, pull, press and row are the fundamentals [like addition and subtraction]. Once the fundamentals are mastered there are many options; but i have never seen an advanced lifter that didn’t have a firm handle on the basics. IMO…even advanced lifters that train differently benefit from re-visiting the fundamentals from time to time. [/quote]
Thats a great post, Im not a bb by any means but mastering the basics applies to almost all aspects of life (as I have experienced it) if you want to move beyond the basics. (work, school, school, sports, hobbies etc)
To the OP, if heavy compound lifts help you grow in size or strength then it shouldn’t matter what the bigger fellas are doing. If they do not help you grow in size/strength then you should find out what does. For me, squatting gets me bigger and stronger consistently. Deadlifts, however, leave me feeling like a gorilla kicked my ass for a week or two, so I don’t do much of them anymore…
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]alternate wrote:
If squats were needed to put on any size anywhere in the body, then no-one should be getting big upper bodies unless they squat…?[/quote]
IMO…bobybuilding is like mathematics. The squat, pull, press and row are the fundamentals [like addition and subtraction]. Once the fundamentals are mastered there are many options; but i have never seen an advanced lifter that didn’t have a firm handle on the basics. IMO…even advanced lifters that train differently benefit from re-visiting the fundamentals from time to time. [/quote]
Thats a great post, Im not a bb by any means but mastering the basics applies to almost all aspects of life (as I have experienced it) if you want to move beyond the basics. (work, school, school, sports, hobbies etc)
To the OP, if heavy compound lifts help you grow in size or strength then it shouldn’t matter what the bigger fellas are doing. If they do not help you grow in size/strength then you should find out what does. For me, squatting gets me bigger and stronger consistently. Deadlifts, however, leave me feeling like a gorilla kicked my ass for a week or two, so I don’t do much of them anymore…[/quote]
Same here on the deadlifts. If I get sidelined for over a week because of doing them, it is best for me to find an alternative.
There is a big difference between that and just not doing an exercise because it’s “hard”.
If they have a huge back and don’t deadlift, I personally would focus more on what they ARE doing and less on what they aren’t.
[quote]miked512 wrote:
I know more little guys in the gym that don’t squat or deadlift than big guys. I don’t see why you’d think there would be any type of correlation here.[/quote]
So so true.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Swolle front squatted 405 for 7 reps about 10 inches below parallel…I think it’s safe to say he squats.[/quote]
LOL, yeah swolle squats.
IMO the truth us that most people (big, small, skinny, fat) don’t deadlift and squat in the gym because they are fucking hard exercises.
if someone does squats and deadlifts, but feels them primarily in hamstrings and glutes, vs target muscles like the back and quads, does it make them a pussy if they do leg presses and tbar rows instead so that they actually feel the target muscles? no, theyre doing what works for them. i dont get some of the arguments here that praise squats and deadlifts like theyre the king of all exercises.
yes, ive pulled a 455lbs deadlift and squatted 315lbs for reps regularly and since dropping them and doing exercises where i can feel the target muscle moving, ive progressed much more.
A bit off topic, but as I have gotten older, I have gravitated to front squats. I think the ideal build for back squats is to have a relatively long upper body in comparison to your legs, regardless of height. I have kind of a short upper body and front squats make it easier for me to hit depth.
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
if someone does squats and deadlifts, but feels them primarily in hamstrings and glutes, vs target muscles like the back and quads, does it make them a pussy if they do leg presses and tbar rows instead so that they actually feel the target muscles? no, theyre doing what works for them. i dont get some of the arguments here that praise squats and deadlifts like theyre the king of all exercises.
yes, ive pulled a 455lbs deadlift and squatted 315lbs for reps regularly and since dropping them and doing exercises where i can feel the target muscle moving, ive progressed much more.[/quote]
The question that remains is…if you would be progressing at all without the time spent working the SQ & DL.
I’m certain that there are lifters with wheels that have never squatted and deadlifted, but like big lotto winners, in 27 years of training I have never met one.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
if someone does squats and deadlifts, but feels them primarily in hamstrings and glutes, vs target muscles like the back and quads, does it make them a pussy if they do leg presses and tbar rows instead so that they actually feel the target muscles? no, theyre doing what works for them. i dont get some of the arguments here that praise squats and deadlifts like theyre the king of all exercises.
yes, ive pulled a 455lbs deadlift and squatted 315lbs for reps regularly and since dropping them and doing exercises where i can feel the target muscle moving, ive progressed much more.[/quote]
The question that remains is…if you would be progressing at all without the time spent working the SQ & DL.
I’m certain that there are lifters with wheels that have never squatted and deadlifted, but like big lotto winners, in 27 years of training I have never met one. [/quote]
This thread is asinine.
That’s why I don’t mind imparting my own esoteric take on it.
I think I have a rather unique perspective on this: I had very muscular legs before even touching a barbell (and a tiny upper body in comparison). Of course, I mainly focused on my upper body lifts to correct that asymmetry. Later on in my training career, I was bitten by the tabata bug and incorporated squats as a conditioning tool. I accidentally became exceptionally good at this and this made me tougher. It’s not that I was training or looking like a wuss before, but my training really went to the next level after having spent time ‘under the squat bar’, as it were.
I haven’t been squatting since 2010, the toughness remained, but I sorely miss squats. There’s something to be said for spinal loading as done with squats. It’s also a very self-affirming experience: I know of no other exercise that allowed me to keep going for one more rep, one more rep, one more rep … in between deep breaths, of course.
awesome post ^
Tangential question: what role do you all think genetics play in building big wheels? I feel like discussions about leg aesthetics have often gravitated towards mentioning genetics to a greater degree than other body parts.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
Tangential question: what role do you all think genetics play in building big wheels? I feel like discussions about leg aesthetics have often gravitated towards mentioning genetics to a greater degree than other body parts.[/quote]
Dude, ‘genetics’ is too big a term to be thrown around rather carelessly in such discussions.
I’m not implying that’s what you’re doing, though, but we need a clearer definition of what you mean by that.
1a. Growing/having big muscles (legs, in this case) without a sporting effort?
1b. Requiring very little stimulation to grow muscle tissue?
2. Having great mind-muscle connection before having taken up any sports?
3. Having a superb metabolism (think ‘nutrient partitioning’)?
4. Being sane of mind and very attuned with yourself (discipline, body awareness, high level of confidence in your own abilities etc.)?
5. …
A combination of some or all of the above?
If so, I’d say genetics play a very big role in building legs.
I know I didn’t have access to a car from early childhood while growing up and practically went anywhere by foot or bike. So, maybe all the walking and biking I did had something to do with it.
Also, from an incentive point of view, I wouldn’t underestimate the fact that clear-cut abdominals are regarded as far more attractive and ‘healthy’ as tree-trunk legs. I’m pretty sure we’d have more power houses running around if media favored tree-trunked legs instead of six pack abs.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
awesome post ^
[/quote]
I’m glad (and not surprised) you like it: you walk the walk.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
It’s because outside this little ego driven world of TNation brosefs, seasoned lifters know that it’s about finding what works and not appealing to some mentality that squatting and deadlifting is necessary just to maintain your mancard. [/quote]
^I think that above post is pure nonsense. Sure: if other things work then fine. But as a relative noobie (I’m defining “noobie” as any of us who are in our 20s and have been lifting for less than a decade), jskrabac, I seriously doubt you’ve given squatting its due to see whether it ‘works.’
As far as the mancard goes, I don’t see why there would be anything wrong with wanting to be a strong guy even if the main goal is aesthetics. And honestly, the thought of training for aesthetics but not even caring about the main implement to getting there (weightlifting) seems like a really dumb way to invest one’s time–at least if it’s something you’re thinking about doing for the next 20-30 years.
I derive a lot of satisfaction out of being able to pick 500 off the floor, even if that’s not very much. It doesn’t have to be an ego-it can just happen to be the case that some of us enjoy lifting weights, with the squat and deadlift being two of the most prominent and physically challenging lifts that people tend to concentrate on.
Regarding the OP, I think the thread is based on a false premise. Most BBers I’ve seen online who maintain logs (e.g., Shelby, Meadows, Norton, etc) squat and deadlift regularly. However, one should bear in mind that “regularly” for them is not that often:
Take someone like Shelby, who hits legs once a week. By his log, he usually uses one major leg movement and then more isolation-type exercises. That might leave him actually squatting once a month because on the other leg days he’s doing some other primary exercise. That doesn’t mean, however, that he’s ‘not squatting.’
The only poster I can think of on here with impressive wheels who does not squat is a poster from about a year ago named ‘Swolle’–but he also deadlifted really heavy (heavy enough to tear his biceps tendon, ruining a prep–in fact).
Those that would point to Stu should bear in mind that Stu is now 38 and spent a lot of his earlier years lifting heavy.
There is one very large 53 year old at my gym (6’, 240 though not as lean anymore) who was larger in his younger days but doesn’t squat anymore. I asked him his views on leg training a few months ago, and he told me basically that he recommends squatting your balls off until you hit your early 30s–around that point, his body started slowing down a bit and the risk of injury made it less worth the gain at that point. But in his younger days he squatted 650 at his peak–now he has very big legs but only does SLDL, ham curls, lunges, etc. As an older guy, he is adamant (take this with a grain of salt, I suppose) that he needed the heavy squats to build that initial mass, but they were not necessary for retaining that mass.
Just his experience, but take it for what it’s worth. And now, someone would look at him and say “Hey! He’s a huge dude, but he doesn’t squat or deadlift!” but be missing the couple of decades he spent under the bar to build that mass in the first place. [/quote]
I like this post, but it makes me think you may have missed some of the point of my post. I never said I don’t squat…I never said I don’t deadlift. I never said they were inferior. I just said it’s silly to feel obligated to do them when you could be making better gains otherwise.
Plus, I think we need to agree on semantics here. What’s your definition of squatting and deadlifting? Serious question… Do hack squats, power squats, smith squats qualify? And for deadlifts, do stiff-leg floor deadlifts or DB RDLs qualify? Variations in each category are HANDS DOWN necessary and so is progressive overload, so we agree there.
Right now I believe BB squats are inferior for ME given my absolutely shitty leverages (ridiculously long femurs relative to torso). I’d like to just ask, what do you consider “paying squats their due?” 10 years of squatting will not fix my bone structure. I don’t need 10 years of chugging away when I understand mechanics. I’ve tried chains, bands, ultra wide stance, narrow stance, safety bar, box squats, pause squats, regular barweight squats, front squats…got these up to 315 for reps even, worked one on one with PLing coaches, 2 times a week, 3 times a week, speed squats, high rep, low rep, 5/3/1 whatever. I just couldn’t progress despite a caloric surplus, and my legs were shit. Watching videos I can’t change that my femurs are enormous relative to my small trunk. Meanwhile, I can jump in a hack machine or smith machine and get the proper stimulation for my entire quad, where my lower back no longer has to be the limiting factor here. Shelby and JM are shorter gents w/ good leverages for squatting, and watching them perform them in videos I can see how they’re really hammering the quads and hams with them.
Anyway, I just want to clarify that I respect what you have to say and typically find your posts very insightful, so I mean no disrespect and have no intention of sparking confrontation…just a discussion. [/quote]
x2 Jskrabac knows whats up.