Squat 3x Per Week Misconception

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
mr popular wrote:
That’s because I haven’t been training seriously for 4 years. lol

Well, you are doing that now. Wouldn’t be surprised if, over the course of the next 4 years, you went up to 260+, provided that no major set-backs occur (injury, military, whatever).

[/quote]

Thanks for the offer to help, if I ever get stuck or can’t catch up a lagging bodypart you’ll see me in your thread.

I’ve already had a major setback with a separated shoulder about a year ago, but being 260+ in the next few years is still the goal I am working towards.

62

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
SS is simply, easy to implement, usually comes with a description and instructions on some of the basic lifts, some basic dieting advice… It’s nice to point beginners that way if you’re sick of explaining stuff to them.

And that’s about it imo…

If I could go back in time, I’d probably squat twice a week unless I wanted to bring my legs up compared to the rest of me…

[/quote]

Squatting 2x a week is the best thing I ever did. I did it for years as a very early intermediate all the way to my present state, and I believe it seriously enhanced my overall physique through systemic stress. Very BIG thanks goes to the WSB beginner’s template for getting me started along those lines. So much better than once a week.

63

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
My offer to mr.popular goes for you as well if you like… Since you’re now training with a split, I may be able to give you a few pointers.

[/quote]

Thanks. You’ll be hearing from me soon. Right now I’m stuck lifting three days a week, but hopefully after Christmas I’ll be able to go back to a five day routine.

Also, my goals are more strength-oriented at the moment and I’m making good progress toward them. I’ll probably start training more for size once I get my 3/4/5 plate goals accomplished. I’m kinda reluctant to change things too much right now.

64

I was stuck at 250kg 1RM for 18months, the only was I could get over it was to squat every 2nd day.
I would do a quick warm up, then a set of eight reps, and a set of 3 reps.
Very low volume, so much so, that 48hours was easy enough to recover from.
Each workout I added 1.25kg plate each side of the bar.

I started relatively light, 160kg for first set, and 220 for 2nd.
Within a very short period of time I managed to not only pass 250x1, but do 4 reps with 260kg, 10kg more than my 1RM only 5-6 weeks earlier.
Why did it work? I think the frequent squatting conditioned me to the fear of a heavy weight.

When I was squatting every 5 days, the fear/pain was but a distant memory, but when your hitting the rack every two days, and succeeding at your sets, fear dissolves.
Sure it wouldnt continue forever, but it sure as hell is a nice short term boost.
I believe “overtraining” is the most overused term in bodybuilding.
Our training, compared to other athletes is a fking walk in the park.

I train an ex world champ kickboxer, when he was prepping, he’d run either a half marathon every morning, or 50x100m sprints, a weights session mid day, and 2+ hours hard sparring every night…for 12 weeks.
If anyone thinks a 45-60min workout 4-6 days a week is going to lead to over training, they need to harden up a little :wink:

65

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Although I think there is a part of the program where your body is trained three times a week, I don’t believe any of the BBB guys are actually back squatting heavy three times a week.

And again, no one ever said there is anything wrong with squatting more often if all you care about is squatting, but for BODYBUILDING it is not a useful idea.

Sweet mother…

The guys over at Intense Muscle have SS posted as an appropriate newbie template, and it is.

The whole point of the graph Elano posted is that you train your muscles as often as you can while still allowing them to recover fully. The stronger you get, the more you must periodize your routine so that you can train your muscles as often as possible but still recover fully. Hence, beginners can squat 3x/week because they can recover fully from lifting small poundages with only a full day of rest in between.

Intermediates need a different template (the Texas Method, etc) because they can’t squat 3x/week - their muscles can’t recover from lifting those poundages with only one full day of rest in between. They need a heavy day and a volume day, or whatever the template calls for (Max effort/dynamic effort, etc).

Rippetoe’s SS program is great. If you use it and eat a calorie surplus, you will gain weight. It will only work while you’re a beginner, hence the name “Starting Strength.”

Please stop creating a dichotomy between powerlifters and bodybuilders. A good chunk of the really successful bodybuilders started off in powerlifting (Arnold, Franco, Ronnie Coleman, etc). There’s a reason those guys get the biggest; they get the strongest.

Most beginning and intermediate bodybuilders would do well to start off in powerlifting. Learning how to add weight to a heavy deadlift takes you a lot further than dicking around in the gym, talking on your cell phone, making no progress for many years, and then trying gear because you have not learned how to gain weight naturally.

Show me the small man who squats 405 for reps. I’ve yet to see one. I do see a lot of small men in gyms, but I also see them moving small weight. The biggest guys on this forum move big weight.

[/quote]

Two places I can think of to see small men who can squat 405 for reps: any powerlifting meet, and the video of Dr. Ken squatting 405 for 23 reps at age 53, 170lbs.

I was at a PL meet this past August and saw a guy who had to be every bit of 45 years old, couldn’t have weighed more than 185lbs., and he squatted 530lbs. without a grimace.

Big doesn’t mean strong. Strong doesn’t mean big.

66

You can do an exercise much more often if the total volume is low. I’m not sure why people don’t understand this. I’ve gotten amazing strength gains from squatting 5 times per week, of course I was only doing 2 sets of 5 each day.

I guess typical gym rat bodybuilders assume that every workout has to be high volume balls to the wall 10 sets of 8 can’t walk afterwards. Obviously you can’t do squats that way 3 times per week.

edit - wow, am I a lurker or what! This is my first post since I registered 4 years ago! lol!!!

67

I’ve been following Tsatsouline’s PTP program. I’ve followed it in the past with great success and have been back on it for three weeks, entering my fourth week.

I do the exact same workout, 4-5 times a week, periodized on an 8 workout cycle. Yesterday’s numbers:

Overhead press 150 x 5, 135 x 5

Squat 345 x5

Deadlift 410 x 5

Palms Up Lat Pulldown (because I’m too fat to do chin ups) 210 x5, 190 x5

This is all done with zero warm up sets, except for squats I do 1-2 warm ups to get the snap/crackle/pops out of the way. After 8 progressive workouts, I drop back and start over at a slightly higher weight. Couldn’t get more basic or simple.

Now, I agree, this is definietly NOT for the BB’s, at least not for a bulking phase. But I am a guy with almost no athletic background (3 years of HS football, 2nd string, no lifting at all) who started lifting 2&1/2 years ago. I have a medium bone structure. I’m a ecto/endo morph, i.e. skinny-fat guy with no physical advantages at all. I’m 6’4", 268, guessing around 20% body fat, with long arms and legs, which helps with the deadlifting, but nothing else.

I don’t count protien intake anymore (I found no difference with my progress from taking in 300 grams/day and now guessing around 60-100 grams/day), don’t take any supplements, and have never touched steroids. None of this is to say “I’m some kind of bad ass”, it’s to show that I am as average as they get, but have been able to pack on some decent muscle and make a hell of a lot of strength gains(my only goal) while training in ways that are completely counter to the mainstream.

The PTP plan will not make you huge quick, but it eliminates soreness almost completely, which allows for much more practical, usable strength, turns the muscle you do have into iron, and doesn’t leave you feeling drained from CNS fatigue. Probably the best thing about this training is that it ingrains a neuromuscular control that is unreal. After a month of squatting 4-5 times a week, the movement is almost second nature which = perfect form = better lifts = more weight = more strength = ability to cause greater hypertrophy (if that’s your thing).

Sorry, this went way long and was not intended to be a commercial for Pavel’s PTP program, but just to illustrate that in some people’s training, squatting 3 times a week is low volume.

68

[quote]pocrowe5 wrote:
Yesterday’s numbers:
Overhead press 150 x 5, 135 x 5
Squat 345 x5
Deadlift 410 x 5
Palms Up Lat Pulldown (because I’m too fat to do chin ups) 210 x5, 190 x5

Now, I agree, this is definietly NOT for the BB’s, at least not for a bulking phase. But I am a guy with almost no athletic background (3 years of HS football, 2nd string, no lifting at all) who started lifting 2&1/2 years ago. I have a medium bone structure. I’m a ecto/endo morph, i.e. skinny-fat guy with no physical advantages at all. I’m 6’4", 268, guessing around 20% body fat, with long arms and legs, which helps with the deadlifting, but nothing else.

The PTP plan will not make you huge quick, but it eliminates soreness almost completely, which allows for much more practical, usable strength, turns the muscle you do have into iron, and doesn’t leave you feeling drained from CNS fatigue. Probably the best thing about this training is that it ingrains a neuromuscular control that is unreal. After a month of squatting 4-5 times a week, the movement is almost second nature which = perfect form = better lifts = more weight = more strength = ability to cause greater hypertrophy (if that’s your thing).
[/quote]

No offense, but those are definitely not impressive numbers for 2.5 years of lifting.

I’ve been lifting for a year and a half and I can match your OHP and pullup/pulldown numbers. I’m also very close to your DL and squat numbers… at a body weight of 205.

Again, not dick measuring. It’s just that your argument in favor of total body workouts isn’t very compelling.

69

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
pocrowe5 wrote:
Yesterday’s numbers:
Overhead press 150 x 5, 135 x 5
Squat 345 x5
Deadlift 410 x 5
Palms Up Lat Pulldown (because I’m too fat to do chin ups) 210 x5, 190 x5

Now, I agree, this is definietly NOT for the BB’s, at least not for a bulking phase. But I am a guy with almost no athletic background (3 years of HS football, 2nd string, no lifting at all) who started lifting 2&1/2 years ago. I have a medium bone structure. I’m a ecto/endo morph, i.e. skinny-fat guy with no physical advantages at all. I’m 6’4", 268, guessing around 20% body fat, with long arms and legs, which helps with the deadlifting, but nothing else.

The PTP plan will not make you huge quick, but it eliminates soreness almost completely, which allows for much more practical, usable strength, turns the muscle you do have into iron, and doesn’t leave you feeling drained from CNS fatigue. Probably the best thing about this training is that it ingrains a neuromuscular control that is unreal. After a month of squatting 4-5 times a week, the movement is almost second nature which = perfect form = better lifts = more weight = more strength = ability to cause greater hypertrophy (if that’s your thing).

No offense, but those are definitely not impressive numbers for 2.5 years of lifting.

I’ve been lifting for a year and a half and I can match your OHP and pullup/pulldown numbers. I’m also very close to your DL and squat numbers… at a body weight of 205.

Again, not dick measuring. It’s just that your argument in favor of total body workouts isn’t very compelling.[/quote]

Hey, no argument about not having impressive numbers. But, in my defense, I’ve had zero coaching, went back and forth from BB to powerlifting simply because I didn’t know what I was doing, and am more genetically predisposed to basketball than lifting. I didn’t start working the overhead press until this past April because I was using the common, wide grip BB form, and would injure my shoulder every time I went over 100 lbs. This year I brought the grip to shoulder width, keep the elbows tucked (turns out this was the old Olympic form) and have steadily progressed since.

Yeah, I do believe in the phrase, “Never listen to a guy who lifts less than you”, but if you look at the pre-steroid era strongmen like Louis Cyr, Arhtur Saxon, Sandow, Goerner(sp?), Bob Peoples, they all trained like this. Low volume (usually sets and always reps), full body workouts. Some suggested 2-3 times per week, some said 6 or even 7, but they all said don’t go to failure, don’t use high reps, don’t do a ton of sets. In fact, I have never read of anyone before 1950 doing more than one set with thier top weight for the day.

I’ve got nothing against steroids or the folks that use them. It’s just not the choice for me at this point in my life. But when I talk training, I talk about what works for people like me. Normal guys who work full time jobs, have families, can’t/won’t spend money on supplements or enormous grocery bills but who still want uncommon strength. I don’t care about being ripped or having 20 inch biceps. I want to press body weight. I want to deadlift 700. I want to squat 500. I will do whatever I can to get there, but I’ve had to find a way to train for it that also allows me to be able to move the next day.

And, for the record, my best deadlift is 505 for 2 reps, no straps, wraps, or belt. Had to sneak that in there. He he.

Anyway, good talk. See you out there.

70

[quote]pocrowe5 wrote:
JayPierce wrote:
pocrowe5 wrote:
Yesterday’s numbers:
Overhead press 150 x 5, 135 x 5
Squat 345 x5
Deadlift 410 x 5
Palms Up Lat Pulldown (because I’m too fat to do chin ups) 210 x5, 190 x5

Now, I agree, this is definietly NOT for the BB’s, at least not for a bulking phase. But I am a guy with almost no athletic background (3 years of HS football, 2nd string, no lifting at all) who started lifting 2&1/2 years ago. I have a medium bone structure. I’m a ecto/endo morph, i.e. skinny-fat guy with no physical advantages at all. I’m 6’4", 268, guessing around 20% body fat, with long arms and legs, which helps with the deadlifting, but nothing else.

The PTP plan will not make you huge quick, but it eliminates soreness almost completely, which allows for much more practical, usable strength, turns the muscle you do have into iron, and doesn’t leave you feeling drained from CNS fatigue. Probably the best thing about this training is that it ingrains a neuromuscular control that is unreal. After a month of squatting 4-5 times a week, the movement is almost second nature which = perfect form = better lifts = more weight = more strength = ability to cause greater hypertrophy (if that’s your thing).

No offense, but those are definitely not impressive numbers for 2.5 years of lifting.

I’ve been lifting for a year and a half and I can match your OHP and pullup/pulldown numbers. I’m also very close to your DL and squat numbers… at a body weight of 205.

Again, not dick measuring. It’s just that your argument in favor of total body workouts isn’t very compelling.

Hey, no argument about not having impressive numbers. But, in my defense, I’ve had zero coaching, went back and forth from BB to powerlifting simply because I didn’t know what I was doing, and am more genetically predisposed to basketball than lifting. I didn’t start working the overhead press until this past April because I was using the common, wide grip BB form, and would injure my shoulder every time I went over 100 lbs. This year I brought the grip to shoulder width, keep the elbows tucked (turns out this was the old Olympic form) and have steadily progressed since.

Yeah, I do believe in the phrase, “Never listen to a guy who lifts less than you”, but if you look at the pre-steroid era strongmen like Louis Cyr, Arhtur Saxon, Sandow, Goerner(sp?), Bob Peoples, they all trained like this. Low volume (usually sets and always reps), full body workouts. Some suggested 2-3 times per week, some said 6 or even 7, but they all said don’t go to failure, don’t use high reps, don’t do a ton of sets. In fact, I have never read of anyone before 1950 doing more than one set with thier top weight for the day.

I’ve got nothing against steroids or the folks that use them. It’s just not the choice for me at this point in my life. But when I talk training, I talk about what works for people like me. Normal guys who work full time jobs, have families, can’t/won’t spend money on supplements or enormous grocery bills but who still want uncommon strength. I don’t care about being ripped or having 20 inch biceps. I want to press body weight. I want to deadlift 700. I want to squat 500. I will do whatever I can to get there, but I’ve had to find a way to train for it that also allows me to be able to move the next day.

And, for the record, my best deadlift is 505 for 2 reps, no straps, wraps, or belt. Had to sneak that in there. He he.

Anyway, good talk. See you out there.[/quote]

Why do these guys always come out of the woodwork when we’re trying to have a discussion about bodybuilding? As though any of that shit is relevant in the least?

Are you as genetically gifted as any of those “old time” guys you listed there? Do you realize they were freaks during their time?

Do you realize you sound like a fool when you correlate all of the great modern day physiques and training styles to anabolic steroids? Where do you guys keep reading this bullshit?

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.

71

[quote]mr popular wrote:

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.[/quote]

UM… unless you are trying to bring up certain body parts. At that point training everything equally isn’t always the best. Specialization (including squatting) has a place in BBing.

72

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
mr popular wrote:

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.

UM… unless you are trying to bring up certain body parts. At that point training everything equally isn’t always the best. Specialization (including squatting) has a place in BBing.

[/quote]

Duh?

73

[quote]mr popular wrote:

Why do these guys always come out of the woodwork when we’re trying to have a discussion about bodybuilding? As though any of that shit is relevant in the least?

Are you as genetically gifted as any of those “old time” guys you listed there? Do you realize they were freaks during their time?

Do you realize you sound like a fool when you correlate all of the great modern day physiques and training styles to anabolic steroids? Where do you guys keep reading this bullshit?

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.[/quote]

This is more a discussion on weight training in general and not specicially bodybuilding however it is arguable that this style training applies to that as well. This was originally posted in the GAL forum but moved here by the mods.

The old guys got big and strong on splits and full body routines, I don’t think it’s fair to say one is better than the other. Different goals might have faster routes to get there. Personally I don’t think there is any faster way to get your squat up than squatting 3x per week.

On the flip side, if you want huge guns you will prob need an “arm day” where you spend the workout hitting the different heads of the bis and tris. Not everyone is interested in going up on stage. Ed Coan is jacked and he said he doesn’t even train biceps because “They’re ordiments on a christmas tree.”

Also I don’t see how a full body program like the Texas Method can be tuned to the lowest common denominator, You lift as much as YOU can. The object is to add more weight while keeping the reps and sets fixed. Nothing magical about it and there aren’t any genetic freaks promoting it. The method is tried and true though and if you could increase all your major lifts 5 lbs per week wouldn’t you want to?

The goal is to get as strong as possible as fast as possible. If your a newb, add 5 lbs to your bench 2 times per week, that’s like 50 pounds in less than 2 months. If you’re an intermedite lifter, add 5 lbs to the bar every week, that’s like 40 pounds in 2 months can’t beat that. If you’re advance, add 5 lbs every month or whever you can. That’s like 50 lbs in a year. The goal is to increase weight as often as you can.

As for not producing any results, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

74

[quote]mr popular wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mr popular wrote:

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.

UM… unless you are trying to bring up certain body parts. At that point training everything equally isn’t always the best. Specialization (including squatting) has a place in BBing.

Duh?[/quote]

so… you are admitting high frequency squatting has a place in bbing?

75

[quote]elano wrote:
mr popular wrote:

Why do these guys always come out of the woodwork when we’re trying to have a discussion about bodybuilding? As though any of that shit is relevant in the least?

Are you as genetically gifted as any of those “old time” guys you listed there? Do you realize they were freaks during their time?

Do you realize you sound like a fool when you correlate all of the great modern day physiques and training styles to anabolic steroids? Where do you guys keep reading this bullshit?

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results. [/quote]

This is more a discussion on weight training in general and not specicially bodybuilding however it is arguable that this style training applies to that as well. This was originally posted in the GAL forum but moved here by the mods.

The old guys got big and strong on splits and full body routines, I don’t think it’s fair to say one is better than the other. Different goals might have faster routes to get there. Personally I don’t think there is any faster way to get your squat up than squatting 3x per week.

On the flip side, if you want huge guns you will prob need an “arm day” where you spend the workout hitting the different heads of the bis and tris. Not everyone is interested in going up on stage. Ed Coan is jacked and he said he doesn’t even train biceps because “They’re ordiments on a christmas tree.”

Also I don’t see how a full body program like the Texas Method can be tuned to the lowest common denominator, You lift as much as YOU can. The object is to add more weight while keeping the reps and sets fixed. Nothing magical about it and there aren’t any genetic freaks promoting it. The method is tried and true though and if you could increase all your major lifts 5 lbs per week wouldn’t you want to?

The goal is to get as strong as possible as fast as possible. If your a newb, add 5 lbs to your bench 2 times per week, that’s like 50 pounds in less than 2 months. If you’re an intermedite lifter, add 5 lbs to the bar every week, that’s like 40 pounds in 2 months can’t beat that. If you’re advance, add 5 lbs every month or whever you can. That’s like 50 lbs in a year. The goal is to increase weight as often as you can.

76

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
mr popular wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mr popular wrote:

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.

UM… unless you are trying to bring up certain body parts. At that point training everything equally isn’t always the best. Specialization (including squatting) has a place in BBing.

Duh?

so… you are admitting high frequency squatting has a place in bbing?[/quote]

If the squat works best for building your thighs, and you really need to bring your legs up, and you can handle the strain of it, then of course of you COULD squat very often - but that doesn’t mean this justifies any of the routines being touted in this thread.

There was a point in time where Kevin Levrone really wanted to bring up his legs so he squatted every other day to do so.

Does that mean all beginners and intermediates should be squatting three times a week and neglecting all the smaller muscle groups?

It’s usually a good idea to train a bodypart you want to bring up more often than the rest, but I don’t see why a beginner would ever need to do it. Starting Strength is a leg specialization program that, unfortunately, is also terrible for making the legs look better.

77

[quote]mr popular wrote:
If the squat works best for building your thighs, and you really need to bring your legs up, and you can handle the strain of it, then of course of you COULD squat very often - but that doesn’t mean this justifies any of the routines being touted in this thread.

There was a point in time where Kevin Levrone really wanted to bring up his legs so he squatted every other day to do so.

Does that mean all beginners and intermediates should be squatting three times a week and neglecting all the smaller muscle groups?

It’s usually a good idea to train a bodypart you want to bring up more often than the rest, but I don’t see why a beginner would ever need to do it. Starting Strength is a leg specialization program that, unfortunately, is also terrible for making the legs look better.[/quote]

What are these smaller muscle groups that are getting neglected? You mean biceps and calves? Well just do some sets of curls after chinups and some calf raises after power cleans, it’s not rocket science.

Also what is your proof that squat based programs are “terrible for making the legs look better”?

The fact that SS is a squat based program doesn’t make it leg specialization program either. Just as much emphasis is placed on pressing/bench pressing and power cleans/deadlifts.

78

[quote]elano wrote:
mr popular wrote:
If the squat works best for building your thighs, and you really need to bring your legs up, and you can handle the strain of it, then of course of you COULD squat very often - but that doesn’t mean this justifies any of the routines being touted in this thread.

There was a point in time where Kevin Levrone really wanted to bring up his legs so he squatted every other day to do so.

Does that mean all beginners and intermediates should be squatting three times a week and neglecting all the smaller muscle groups?

It’s usually a good idea to train a bodypart you want to bring up more often than the rest, but I don’t see why a beginner would ever need to do it. Starting Strength is a leg specialization program that, unfortunately, is also terrible for making the legs look better.

What are these smaller muscle groups that are getting neglected? You mean biceps and calves? Well just do some sets of curls after chinups and some calf raises after power cleans, it’s not rocket science.

Also what is your proof that squat based programs are “terrible for making the legs look better”?

The fact that SS is a squat based program doesn’t make it leg specialization program either. Just as much emphasis is placed on pressing/bench pressing and power cleans/deadlifts. [/quote]

Biceps, calves, rear and lateral delts, traps… quads and hamstrings don’t get enough direct work to grow very much, chest may or may not grow depending on how you do the exercises, same thing with triceps.

The proof that its terrible for making the legs look better is that… people rarely develop their legs well from the program. Duh.

And I have never seen someone NOT stall out at very low numbers on their bench press and deadlift, compared to their squat, doing Starting Strength.

For the millionth time, where’s the beef? Where are all these fantastic results where people are getting bigger and stronger than they would with a normal training program? Please show me.

79

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
mr popular wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mr popular wrote:

Also, I would strongly echo what MODOK is saying about doing as much as you can. However, I think for some people it needs to be spelled out that doing as much as you can doesn’t mean sacrificing a lot of important stuff to focus on one thing (in this case the squat).

No one has ever said you CAN’T squat every other day… and if you can still train the rest of your body equally and make progress without neglecting anything then keep doing it (I doubt anyone in this thread is that gifted).

The problem with these programs is that so many things need to be sacrificed just to make a routine that everybody with average or poor genetics can squat three times a week with… it is tailored to the lowest common denominator, based on the success of the most genetically gifted, and fueled by hyperbole and nut hugging while producing very little results.

UM… unless you are trying to bring up certain body parts. At that point training everything equally isn’t always the best. Specialization (including squatting) has a place in BBing.

Duh?

so… you are admitting high frequency squatting has a place in bbing?[/quote]

Already been said/discussed DD… You’re a little late to the party, hence his reaction :slight_smile:
This thread is apparently about beginner-training anyway… Or something like that.

80

[quote]mr popular wrote:
elano wrote:
mr popular wrote:
If the squat works best for building your thighs, and you really need to bring your legs up, and you can handle the strain of it, then of course of you COULD squat very often - but that doesn’t mean this justifies any of the routines being touted in this thread.

There was a point in time where Kevin Levrone really wanted to bring up his legs so he squatted every other day to do so.

Does that mean all beginners and intermediates should be squatting three times a week and neglecting all the smaller muscle groups?

It’s usually a good idea to train a bodypart you want to bring up more often than the rest, but I don’t see why a beginner would ever need to do it. Starting Strength is a leg specialization program that, unfortunately, is also terrible for making the legs look better.

What are these smaller muscle groups that are getting neglected? You mean biceps and calves? Well just do some sets of curls after chinups and some calf raises after power cleans, it’s not rocket science.

Also what is your proof that squat based programs are “terrible for making the legs look better”?

The fact that SS is a squat based program doesn’t make it leg specialization program either. Just as much emphasis is placed on pressing/bench pressing and power cleans/deadlifts.

Biceps, calves, rear and lateral delts, traps… quads and hamstrings don’t get enough direct work to grow very much, chest may or may not grow depending on how you do the exercises, same thing with triceps.

The proof that its terrible for making the legs look better is that… people rarely develop their legs well from the program. Duh.

And I have never seen someone NOT stall out at very low numbers on their bench press and deadlift, compared to their squat, doing Starting Strength.

For the millionth time, where’s the beef? Where are all these fantastic results where people are getting bigger and stronger than they would with a normal training program? Please show me.[/quote]

See, I agree with you in that I dislike Starting Strength for pure beginners.

But the way I read this OP initially, we were talking about the concept of frequent squatting, NOT a particular program (like Starting Strength). It was used as an example, but as far as I am aware it is not what this thread is about. I think if you are going to argue against frequent squatting you need to argue against the concept in general and not Starting Strength in particular.

However, this is where we disagree. I think frequent squatting CAN be recovered from within the context of a larger program, and you seem to think that it is next to impossible to recover from without devote the mass of your program to squatting and around squatting, while also leaving body parts untrained.

I’ll reiterate: the middle squat “workout” on Elano’s hypothetical 3x a week program he outlined in the OPs is basically a warm-up. I could do it at the start of a friggin’ bench session. Almost all intelligent people who program frequent squatting will do something similar, in concept at least. The numbers/%s may vary but the idea is the same.