The bottom half of the movement is utlizing mostly your quads, glutes, and hams. The top portion, roughly from the bottom of the knee to full extension, is your back, specifically your lats. Every back workout I do rack pulls, placing the supports right at knee level. I can really feel my lats being ripped apart. That’s why I would suggest doing rack pulls rather than deads. Then again, it’s all about preference and what you feel works the best. But at your height, I would do rack pulls. You have such a long rage of motion, so setting the supports just below your knees will take a lot of stress away from your legs.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[/quote]
Did yall read the box squat for bodybuilding article? Working up to 2 sets of 2-4… For bodybuilding…
Training maximal strength allows more weight on moderate rep work. Just what I’ve been advocating. Increasing limit strength by working in low near maximal weights is a useful and worthwhile tool in BBing.
CT trumps all. I rest my case.
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Height has a lot to do with this also. I’m 6’7" and off-the-floor always gave me a deep ache in the lumbar region, and it wasn’t DOMS. I am much happier now with rack pulls. Of course, I train mostly for MA so size (while nice) is not my main concern.
What is MA? Is it Martial Arts?
[/quote]
Yep. TKD for many years, gotta keep the strength up.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Did yall read the box squat for bodybuilding article? Working up to 2 sets of 2-4… For bodybuilding…
Training maximal strength allows more weight on moderate rep work. Just what I’ve been advocating. Increasing limit strength by working in low near maximal weights is a useful and worthwhile tool in BBing.
CT trumps all. I rest my case.[/quote]
Did you read the part where they specifically did sets of 2-4 on box squat as a CNS primer and acclimation to the “feel” of higher weight in an advantageous position(high box). They followed it up with higher rep front squats. It wasn’t mentioned that the use was to increase limit strength to make rep work easier, it was to recruit motor units in preparation for an exercise that may not preferentially recruit maximally on it’s own due to the stretch reflex built into the lift.
To make an analogy(albeit not the best one) you’re trying to argue that because a sprinter can run fast, that running long distances would be easy because his body is so used to running fast that running moderately will be a joke and thus he’ll do it fine. Sure, raising your 1rm will make lower weight feel lighter, and you will increase your reps on lower weight, nobody will deny that.
HOWEVER, if you just lift in that rep range anyways, you’ll be adapted to the requirements of that rep range from the get go, and be better at lifting more weight with the demands that it puts on your body(which are different than a maximal lift).
[quote]red04 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Did yall read the box squat for bodybuilding article? Working up to 2 sets of 2-4… For bodybuilding…
Training maximal strength allows more weight on moderate rep work. Just what I’ve been advocating. Increasing limit strength by working in low near maximal weights is a useful and worthwhile tool in BBing.
CT trumps all. I rest my case.
Did you read the part where they specifically did sets of 2-4 on box squat as a CNS primer and acclimation to the “feel” of higher weight in an advantageous position(high box). They followed it up with higher rep front squats. It wasn’t mentioned that the use was to increase limit strength to make rep work easier, it was to recruit motor units in preparation for an exercise that may not preferentially recruit maximally on it’s own due to the stretch reflex built into the lift.
[/quote]
Yes, using the low rep scheme to train your nervous system in order to further you bodybuilding goals, got it. That goes against what CC was recommending.
Yes, you are right. That is a terrible analogy. Training your nervous system to recruit more muscle cells, and use them more efficiently will lead to greater muscle gains in hypertrophy training. Thatâ??s my stance. Someone that incorporates near maximal low rep lifting into their training will grow better than someone who does not.
[quote]
HOWEVER, if you just lift in that rep range anyways, you’ll be adapted to the requirements of that rep range from the get go, and be better at lifting more weight with the demands that it puts on your body(which are different than a maximal lift).[/quote]
Iâ??ve never suggested training exclusively in any rep range. Only that low rep training can be beneficial to a BBer. I donâ??t know any powerlifter that trains exclusively in low rep ranges.
Didn’t the entire argument flare up when you said that your back, which a pro bber inquired about, was built mostly by low rep deadlifts(the only range you ever mention training them in), thus insinuating that low rep work is superior for growth and not just used as a primer for your higher rep work? That is the reason you were using people like Bolton and the supposed size his back would have if he cut to give merit to the suggestion correct?
That was the impression I had of your side of the argument going into the writing of my post, maybe I glanced over a post where this was clarified(I think I actually skipped a page of the discussion on accident looking back at the thread a bit). It came off very much like you were taking a very minimal part of CT’s article(the rep range of the box squat) and trying to give it meaning that it was not meant to have in his writing. With your earlier posts in this thread, combined with the way you took the context of the article, it seemed like you were implying that high box squats in the 2-4 rep range, would be the primary mass builder, not the moderate rep front squats afterwards.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Didn’t the entire argument flare up when you said that your back, which a pro bber inquired about, was built mostly by low rep deadlifts(the only range you ever mention training them in), thus insinuating that low rep work is superior for growth and not just used as a primer for your higher rep work?
[/quote]
Deadlifts do not equal all or my back training. I do train my back with a program built around low rep deads.
I didnâ??t bring up Bolton to support my case. CC brought him up for having an under developed back because of low rep training. I merely refuted that claim.
[quote]
That was the impression I had of your side of the argument going into the writing of my post, maybe I glanced over a post where this was clarified(I think I actually skipped a page of the discussion on accident looking back at the thread a bit). It came off very much like you were taking a very minimal part of CT’s article(the rep range of the box squat) and trying to give it meaning that it was not meant to have in his writing. With your earlier posts in this thread, combined with the way you took the context of the article, it seemed like you were implying that high box squats in the 2-4 rep range, would be the primary mass builder, not the moderate rep front squats afterwards.[/quote]
The program is intended to build muscle as fast as possible for the purposes of bodybuilding. The program features low rep work. The low rep work would not be included if CT didnâ??t think that including it would build muscle faster than moderate rep work alone. You can build muscle faster incorporating low rep work into your training.
Throwing out terms like â??primary mass builderâ?? is both putting words in my mouth and missing the point. The primary mass builder in the program is the synergism between the 2. Not either of the 2 themselves. The only one thing that actually builds mass by itself is food anyway.
I took it CC was saying an optimized program to build muscle as fast as possible, low rep work should not be included. I disagree.
I started doing full rom deads about 3 years ago and my back has been one of my better body parts. I too do many different lifts and hardly ever go over 85% of 1rm. I’m not a powerlifter and at my age I’m only trying to impress myself 
Full range Dead used to be tuff for me and I hated them. I figured if I hated them it was because I needed them the most. After a solid year of good compound lift focus Full ROM deads were and still are my fav.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
red04 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Did yall read the box squat for bodybuilding article? Working up to 2 sets of 2-4… For bodybuilding…
Training maximal strength allows more weight on moderate rep work. Just what I’ve been advocating. Increasing limit strength by working in low near maximal weights is a useful and worthwhile tool in BBing.
CT trumps all. I rest my case.
Did you read the part where they specifically did sets of 2-4 on box squat as a CNS primer and acclimation to the “feel” of higher weight in an advantageous position(high box). They followed it up with higher rep front squats. It wasn’t mentioned that the use was to increase limit strength to make rep work easier, it was to recruit motor units in preparation for an exercise that may not preferentially recruit maximally on it’s own due to the stretch reflex built into the lift.
Yes, using the low rep scheme to train your nervous system in order to further you bodybuilding goals, got it. That goes against what CC was recommending. [/quote] ? I usually do a 4-6 rep set on quad work before a widowmaker, but that’s still moderate stuff I guess… Anyway, CT likes potentiation work, many others don’t give a crap about it and do just as well if not better with their BB clients. It’s just another tool…
Besides, that potentiation stuff is less for “training” your CNS as it is for waking up your nervous system and making it go all out on that more moderate work you do after the potentiation sets.
Don’t take my stance as “either/or” though. What I originally meant was that relying pretty much exclusively on 1-3RM work/ME work or such is not the best idea for maximum size and that it is entirely possible to make good progress working with moderate poundages/in the moderate to high rep ranges if you set your routine up right. That kind of got lost pretty much at the beginning of our argument I think. [quote]
To make an analogy(albeit not the best one) you’re trying to argue that because a sprinter can run fast, that running long distances would be easy because his body is so used to running fast that running moderately will be a joke and thus he’ll do it fine. Sure, raising your 1rm will make lower weight feel lighter, and you will increase your reps on lower weight, nobody will deny that.
Yes, you are right. That is a terrible analogy[/quote] What, no reason given?[quote]. Training your nervous system to recruit more muscle cells, and use them more efficiently will lead to greater muscle gains in hypertrophy training. Thatâ??s my stance. Someone that incorporates near maximal low rep lifting into their training will grow better than someone who does not. [/quote] Uh… That’s a very bold statement to make. Plenty of guys who have never done 1-3 rep stuff grow just fine… Why not, for example, just lift the weight faster to get a nervous-system adaption out of it? Almost all bodybuilders lift at least fairly fast, particularly while they work their way up to their pro card… You yourself said that you thought that nervous system adaption was linked to speed work, didn’t you?
Besides, you originally brought up that you train with stuff like 8 sets of 3… Which is not done with a 3RM and really doesn’t fit the bill of near-maximal work, but is just another spin on hypertrophy/moderate load work, though I didn’t catch that part at first.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I took it CC was saying an optimized program to build muscle as fast as possible, low rep work should not be included. I disagree.
[/quote]
Then we just misunderstood each other, more or less, from the beginning.
Oh well, no harm done.
[quote]JT001225 wrote:
The bottom half of the movement is utlizing mostly your quads, glutes, and hams. The top portion, roughly from the bottom of the knee to full extension, is your back, specifically your lats. Every back workout I do rack pulls, placing the supports right at knee level. I can really feel my lats being ripped apart. [/quote]
how wide is ur grip? i do shoulder width but only feel a little bit in my lats as opposed to lower back. I place the bar at the bottom of my knees