[quote]Hanley wrote:
Thus furthering the case for neural adaptation versus actual strength gain… Always something I wondered abotu exercises like these tbh.[/quote]
By “neural adaptation” I’m going to assume you’re talking about specific strength in the given movement, and by “actual strength gain” I’m going to assume you’re talking about strength that will transfer to a core movement, like the squat or deadlift.
With those assumptions, I don’t really know what you mean by “furthering the case” of one vs. the other. Can you please clarify?
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Hanley wrote:
Thus furthering the case for neural adaptation versus actual strength gain… Always something I wondered abotu exercises like these tbh.
By “neural adaptation” I’m going to assume you’re talking about specific strength in the given movement, and by “actual strength gain” I’m going to assume you’re talking about strength that will transfer to a core movement, like the squat or deadlift.
With those assumptions, I don’t really know what you mean by “furthering the case” of one vs. the other. Can you please clarify? [/quote]
I went from being able to do 10 reps spread over 3 ballbusting sets to 50 reps spread over 4 sets in the course of a few months. My lifts didn’t exactly go through the roof. But- man- I got good at GHRs!
[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
any opinion on the benefits of the “full ROM” GHR as opposed to stopping when torso is parallel to the ground?[/quote]
I also noticed his “full ROM” or swinging in the video. I had to do them that way when I started. Definitely easier. If you have to do them that way to get up go ahead. But as you develop the strength to start from paralell you will make greater strength gains that way.
[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
any opinion on the benefits of the “full ROM” GHR as opposed to stopping when torso is parallel to the ground?[/quote]
The way that guy was doing them in the video he may as well have stopped at parallel. If he narrowed the gap between the foot anchor and the thigh pad, so his knees are much closer too the pad, the full range of motion will be much more useful. Btw, I could easily do 20 the way he is doing them. All that leverage and all that rest on top…
[quote]sluicy wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
FROGGBUSTER wrote:
How good of an assistance exercise is this for back squats? How many sets would you guys recommend?
It’s good. It works the hams/glutes very hard, which people tend to lack strength in or “feeling” these muscles. 3-5 sets of 10-15 should do it.
Which would be me. But I still don’t seem to feel GHRs in my glutes.[/quote]
Sluicy (and anyone else - this is good) try this:
Widen the pads so when your feet are anchored, the front pad is all the way up too your hips when you set up. Now, slide one foot out to the side so it is no longer anchored and do your reps with just one leg at a time. Don’t bother trying to flex your knee, just flex the ass cheek too extend your torso. You will feel this in your glutes.
[quote]on edge wrote:
sluicy wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
FROGGBUSTER wrote:
How good of an assistance exercise is this for back squats? How many sets would you guys recommend?
It’s good. It works the hams/glutes very hard, which people tend to lack strength in or “feeling” these muscles. 3-5 sets of 10-15 should do it.
Which would be me. But I still don’t seem to feel GHRs in my glutes.
Sluicy (and anyone else - this is good) try this:
Widen the pads so when your feet are anchored, the front pad is all the way up too your hips when you set up. Now, slide one foot out to the side so it is no longer anchored and do your reps with just one leg at a time. Don’t bother trying to flex your knee, just flex the ass cheek too extend your torso. You will feel this in your glutes.[/quote]
Holy smokes. I will try this.
Right now I have the pad right in the middle between my hips and knees, is this correct? It feels like I’m cheating with leverage sometimes, if that makes sense, but if I put it closer to my knees, which seems like it would be more difficult, it is quite painful (digs into quads).
Right now I have the pad right in the middle between my hips and knees, is this correct? It feels like I’m cheating with leverage sometimes, if that makes sense, but if I put it closer to my knees, which seems like it would be more difficult, it is quite painful (digs into quads). [/quote]
I think the placement of the pad is dependent on the rep range you want to work in. If middle of the thigh gets you the right reps, stay there. If you want to work in a lower rep range, move closer to the knees, and, of course, for higher reps move toward the hips. Closer to the knees is definitely more painful, especially if your GHR has thin padding like mine does.
[quote]Pinto wrote:
Steel Nation wrote:
Hanley wrote:
Thus furthering the case for neural adaptation versus actual strength gain… Always something I wondered abotu exercises like these tbh.
By “neural adaptation” I’m going to assume you’re talking about specific strength in the given movement, and by “actual strength gain” I’m going to assume you’re talking about strength that will transfer to a core movement, like the squat or deadlift.
With those assumptions, I don’t really know what you mean by “furthering the case” of one vs. the other. Can you please clarify?
I went from being able to do 10 reps spread over 3 ballbusting sets to 50 reps spread over 4 sets in the course of a few months. My lifts didn’t exactly go through the roof. But- man- I got good at GHRs!
[/quote]
That’s my point…
Just seems that people can get real good at GHR’s real fast as their body learns the movement (like anything really) but does this have a positive significant carryover to deadlifting or squatting?
Just seems that people can get real good at GHR’s real fast as their body learns the movement (like anything really) but does this have a positive significant carryover to deadlifting or squatting?[/quote]
FWIW, the guy who could do reps with a blue band around his neck squatted 1003.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
Pinto wrote:
Steel Nation wrote:
Hanley wrote:
Thus furthering the case for neural adaptation versus actual strength gain… Always something I wondered abotu exercises like these tbh.
By “neural adaptation” I’m going to assume you’re talking about specific strength in the given movement, and by “actual strength gain” I’m going to assume you’re talking about strength that will transfer to a core movement, like the squat or deadlift.
With those assumptions, I don’t really know what you mean by “furthering the case” of one vs. the other. Can you please clarify?
I went from being able to do 10 reps spread over 3 ballbusting sets to 50 reps spread over 4 sets in the course of a few months. My lifts didn’t exactly go through the roof. But- man- I got good at GHRs!
That’s my point…
Just seems that people can get real good at GHR’s real fast as their body learns the movement (like anything really) but does this have a positive significant carryover to deadlifting or squatting?[/quote]
I thought that’s what you were saying, but I didn’t want to go off on a tangent if you meant something else entirely.
I think you will get good carryover from GHRs if your hamstrings are a weak point. Otherwise you’ll just get stronger hamstrings.
Good to see there is hope. I thought that I had some decent strong hams/glutes. I do pretty nice reverse hypers with some dope weight. Good to hear its a matter of neural adaptation and practice. Im going to get a bit of frequency going on these in that case.
I can see how the fella in the vid is “gaming” it a bit. I had my knees essentially on the front pad and it was way harder than when i put them behind it a little. And going down to the bottom of the back extension is the real killer. Just going to parallel I tried today and got 17 before i shit myself. But with the back extension to take the tension off I didnt have shit.
[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:
any opinion on the benefits of the “full ROM” GHR as opposed to stopping when torso is parallel to the ground?[/quote]
dont like the full rom. i find most guys use too much swing and rely on low back power and momentum as opposed to a stop and hamstring strength. i think of ghr as a leg curl where you body moves as opposed to your feet; then i focus on the hamstring as opposed to any other muscle.
GHR’s are brutal, being able to 5 (assuming they are good ones) really isn’t bad, a lot of people can barely do one. If you want to make them truly hard but the pad on your knees and not up on your thighs, it makes a world of difference but the stress on the hamstrings and gastroc is killer. I haven’t seen too many people who can do these well.
I’ve only had access to a ghr for a few months now, but they’ve had a great carryover to my squat and dead. I’ve always had hamstring issues and these helped for sure.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
GHR’s are brutal, being able to 5 (assuming they are good ones) really isn’t bad, a lot of people can barely do one. If you want to make them truly hard but the pad on your knees and not up on your thighs, it makes a world of difference but the stress on the hamstrings and gastroc is killer. I haven’t seen too many people who can do these well. [/quote]
I have been playing about with them and noticed that if i keep my knees behind the circular pad i can get a shit ton more done than if they are sort of “on top” of the pad. If they are on top of the pad I dont have shit [maybe 4-5 good ones, full ROM with back ext]. But if i get the knees behind i can do about 12 full ROM and 20 to parallel. HUGE difference in leverage.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
Pinto wrote:
Steel Nation wrote:
Hanley wrote:
Thus furthering the case for neural adaptation versus actual strength gain… Always something I wondered abotu exercises like these tbh.
By “neural adaptation” I’m going to assume you’re talking about specific strength in the given movement, and by “actual strength gain” I’m going to assume you’re talking about strength that will transfer to a core movement, like the squat or deadlift.
With those assumptions, I don’t really know what you mean by “furthering the case” of one vs. the other. Can you please clarify?
I went from being able to do 10 reps spread over 3 ballbusting sets to 50 reps spread over 4 sets in the course of a few months. My lifts didn’t exactly go through the roof. But- man- I got good at GHRs!
That’s my point…
Just seems that people can get real good at GHR’s real fast as their body learns the movement (like anything really) but does this have a positive significant carryover to deadlifting or squatting?[/quote]
Also keep in mind that the GHR is a knee-flexion exercise, although the squat and the deadlift recruit the hammies, they do so in hip-extension. Most people only train hip-extension as assistance so when they start GHRs they will progress really fast (just like everytime you try something for the first time) I think the only carryover from GHRs to squats and deadlifts is the neuromuscular coordination gained, since I included GHRs I “feel” my glutes and hams working harder during squats
Don’t quote me on it, but I recall Dave Tate mentioning something about doing GHRs 4-6 times per week. Personally, I can say that they’ve been nothing short of miraculous for my squat strength.
I’ve just started PLing recently, but I’m already up to about 10-12 with a 25lb plate.
[quote]Kromlic wrote:
Don’t quote me on it, but I recall Dave Tate mentioning something about doing GHRs 4-6 times per week. Personally, I can say that they’ve been nothing short of miraculous for my squat strength.
I’ve just started PLing recently, but I’m already up to about 10-12 with a 25lb plate.[/quote]
Just for some context, what has your squat gone from and to? And how long had it been at that level before you started doing GHRs?