[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that your prior efforts and thought processes might teach you something and help you “roll with improving” this program?
[/quote]
It’s a great point and yes I do. If I want to include specifics I mean that’s a lot of years of lifting to cover.
So with HST, Westside, and GVT in each case I got stronger and saw gains but from an aesthetic standpoint I didn’t see corresponding improvements. My PRs were after about a year of Westside training and I got 295/365/415 bench/squat/deadlift. My squat depth was lacking at this point in time.
I had a 3 year hiatus and became a weak, overweight 193 lbs. I hit the gym again for about 2 years without any specific methodology and got down to around 160 lbs. My lifts were pretty weak at this point though. If I remember correctly I went to about 205/245/325.
Over the next year I was going back and forth between Westside and GVT again. I got my lifts back up to 225/295/375.
The next couple years my health experiments started. For the first six months I was using a lot of Westside principles I was limiting my exercise to 3 hours a week for the most part. I continued to use GVT and high volume strategies and got my baseline weight up to 170 lbs the first year.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
What is the difference between a “full squat” and a “deep squat”?[/quote]
I imagine he’s making a distinction between ‘ATG’ and simply breaking parallel, so basically breaking parallel by a few more inches. It’s a funny distinction to be making regarding a video shot 3 months into someone’s lifting career. There’s also a much bigger gap between the half squats of his video and Lorez’s full squat, versus Lorez’s full squat and what he would consider a deep squat, in terms of required strength/flexibility.
I also don’t see why he makes the distinction between a squat and a squat-morning. You move the weight from point A to point B, and back again, for the desired number of reps. I don’t get the concept of ‘style-pointing’ someone, particularly since we started out talking about predators in the wild. A kill’s a kill, I don’t think a lion’s getting style-pointed for how he gets it done. The training effect of a ‘squat-morning’ is still greater than the training effect of a half squat at the same weight.[/quote]
Thanks for writing that. My words were failing me.
I only used “deep squats” to contrast with the lack of depth of those box squats… which really weren’t even box squats… but I don’t really want to go there.[/quote]
Yes that’s what I’m distinguishing. And I never claimed that the video portrayed full depth. Nor did I say it was an actual box squat because I’m doing touch and gos.
I’m not fooling myself over the technique I used, however I was using it purposely. Everyone disagreed with that logic and now I’m going deep.
But in my opinion, and I’m probably biased, 30 full squat mornings aren’t on par with 50 box depth squats.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that your prior efforts and thought processes might teach you something and help you “roll with improving” this program?
[/quote]
It’s a great point and yes I do. If I want to include specifics I mean that’s a lot of years of lifting to cover.
So with HST, Westside, and GVT in each case I got stronger and saw gains but from an aesthetic standpoint I didn’t see corresponding improvements. My PRs were after about a year of Westside training and I got 295/365/415 bench/squat/deadlift. My squat depth was lacking at this point in time.
I had a 3 year hiatus and became a weak, overweight 193 lbs. I hit the gym again for about 2 years without any specific methodology and got down to around 160 lbs. My lifts were pretty weak at this point though. If I remember correctly I went to about 205/245/325.
Over the next year I was going back and forth between Westside and GVT again. I got my lifts back up to 225/295/375.
The next couple years my health experiments started. For the first six months I was using a lot of Westside principles I was limiting my exercise to 3 hours a week for the most part. I continued to use GVT and high volume strategies and got my baseline weight up to 170 lbs the first year.
Any help?
[/quote]
A few things stick out here.
One is that you mentioned aesthetics here, and unless I missed something, this is the first time you’ve mentioned aesthetic goals in this thread. If that was the biggest pitfall of the Strength-oriented training protocols you followed, then does that mean you currently have aesthetic goals apart from performance? Also, you mentioned limiting yourself to 3 hours of exercise per week. Do you mean 3 hours of strength training per week, or exercise, period?
I actually never even mentioned performance goals… My experiment goals are to see what happens. My personal goals are a mix of both aesthetic and strength - I don’t want to neglect either.
Previously when I stagnated in strength I felt it was in part because my muscle size wasn’t changing significantly.
During 8 months of my diet experiments over the last 2 years I limited myself to 3 hours of exercise per week.
Currently though I only have about 3 hours a week to exercise. I would love to spend more time in the gym and I know it’s a limiting factor. If I could spend 12 hours a week in the gym I would in a heartbeat. It’s also part of the purpose for this experiment - it’s a minimal time commitment program.
No offense, but the program described in the OP sounds pretty retarded for a multitude of reasons already discussed at length in the thread. You want to do 50 rep squat sets after not eating for two days? Plus 50 rep cleans and chest flies…
You also seem to be confused as to what your goals actually are. You talk about losing weight but youre also not satisfied with your strength gains or aesthetic development. There are 100’s of programs on this site that would be better suited, even though it’s near impossible to accomplish all 3 at once. My advice: Pick one goal, let the other two become secondary (for now) and KISS.
This experiment has no performance goals it’s merely meant for observation. The weight loss is an observation from what both theory and experimentation on similar eating patterns. It’s an experiment not the ends to my means.
All in all this hasn’t turned into a flame fest… so that’s an accomplishment in itself.
RE: the training… whatever.
One thing to think about, and I’m not TOO familiar w/ the program, is just taking an EDT approach to the 50 reps. So, instead of breathers, I believe you just set an amount of time, weight, and reps… playing with the different variables for different effects. This would also help address some of the other energy system work alluded to earlier.
PS- I just stuffed my face with processed carbs for 6 hours and feel like I’m going to puke.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
This experiment has no performance goals it’s merely meant for observation. The weight loss is an observation from what both theory and experimentation on similar eating patterns. It’s an experiment not the ends to my means.[/quote]
If there are no personal goals, and observation is the only purpose, then what’s the value at stake? For any true scientific purpose, case studies are essentially useless. So what’s the end here? See what happens to one individuals who follows a particular set of rules for 90 days? You’ve put a lot of work into this, including the research over the last few years and the amount of work that will be required to get through the next 80-something days. I was of the understanding initially that you wanted this program to do something positive for your physique. These last few posts have left me at a loss.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
If there are no personal goals, and observation is the only purpose, then what’s the value at stake? For any true scientific purpose, case studies are essentially useless. So what’s the end here? See what happens to one individuals who follows a particular set of rules for 90 days? You’ve put a lot of work into this, including the research over the last few years and the amount of work that will be required to get through the next 80-something days. I was of the understanding initially that you wanted this program to do something positive for your physique. These last few posts have left me at a loss.[/quote]
Understood. The focus of my research has mainly been on diet not exercise. This is the first time I’m pairing the two or even including exercise. I maintained exercise yet kept it to a minimum because it’s pretty well accepted exercise is required to be healthy, but I didn’t want results to be contributed more to exercise than diet. It’s also along the same reasons why I cut out seasonings - because some seasonings have a lot of known health benefits.
It is true that part of the scientific process is to establish a thesis; however, my argument is that this creates an inherent bias. It’s why we have double-blind studies. The short message of satori is that if we have preconceived ideas about what to expect our perception will distort reality to see those things. I want to avoid that… My original project is dubbed “The Health Satori Project”.
I’m just looking at nature and trying to follow the example. See what happens along the way…
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
I know I’m not going full depth but again my plan was to work up in weight and deload for full depth. What else in my squat form needs correction?[/quote]
Your right knee goes into a valgus collapse at the beginning of the concentric phase (when going up from the box). I couldn’t see how the left knee was moving because the squat rack was in the way. In all likelihood, the left is doing the same thing.
If you keep this up, you’re significantly increasing your chances of knee issues.
I didn’t see the rest of the workout, although I confess that I did fast forward to the gorging portion.
Each and every one of us has a bit of Don Quixote. When this quest is over, it’s in your best interest to at least be able to walk away relatively unscathed.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
But in my opinion, and I’m probably biased, 30 full squat mornings aren’t on par with 50 box depth squats.[/quote]
I’d disagree, from having spent some time doing partial work and noting how much of a difference the stimulus is (just 2" above parallel is quite a bit easier than parallel). But I’ve never done high-rep partials, so I could be wrong.
When you get that box height measured and posted here, I’d like to try it for myself.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’d disagree, from having spent some time doing partial work and noting how much of a difference the stimulus is (just 2" above parallel is quite a bit easier than parallel). But I’ve never done high-rep partials, so I could be wrong.
When you get that box height measured and posted here, I’d like to try it for myself.[/quote]
First off some of the similarities I do find a bit funny/ironic.
The reason why I have my perspective is that one of my biggest problems with depth when I first start squatting deep was turning everything into a squat morning. I’m ham dominant so it’s my natural tendency… I’ve still got things to work on, but my biggest battle with squats to date was correcting that.
And I do work in both full and deep squats, it’s just I chose not to do it here. There’s a big difference between working out depth for the first time and then trying versus having worked at depth and going back to it.
Another favorite technique is ATG rest-pause sets. Granted when I do that it’s typically multiple sets less than 10 reps.
When I go full I’m typically doing 5x5 oriented routines.
And again part of the reason why I do focus on partials and box squats is because I’m ham dominant. I’m trying to push out appropriately to still activate my hips. Perhaps my impression of what to train to help compensate hip dominance is just askew.
I’m really curious to see how breathing sets full squats go. I was going to get to that in a few weeks, but I’ll find out next week now…
I have some doubts that you are actually “ham dominant,” although I find that implied dichotomy problematic in and of itself. In any event, most people who gravitate toward partial squats are “quad dominant” for a couple reasons, not least of all because they are better at partials in the first place. People tend to gravitate toward what they’re good at. They also like what makes them appear to lift more weight.
[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I have some doubts that you are actually “ham dominant,” although I find that implied dichotomy problematic in and of itself. In any event, most people who gravitate toward partial squats are “quad dominant” for a couple reasons, not least of all because they are better at partials in the first place. People tend to gravitate toward what they’re good at. They also like what makes them appear to lift more weight.[/quote]
I don’t gravitate toward partial squats I work on them to help bring up my lagging quads. If I wanted to focus on strengths I’d just be doing deadlifts all day instead of squats. Three years ago when I started testing max effort again my squat was at 245 lbs and my deadlift was still at 325 lbs.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Can somebody enlighten me why anyone is still responding to this clown?[/quote]
Nope! Can’t really understand it myself.
[/quote]
The workout and meat gorging vid the OP posted showed squatting form that can lead to knee issues. It’s reflex on my part that when someone asks, I’m inclined say something that may prevent injury.
As for the OP’s personal little crusade, the theater of the absurd can be a valuable teaching tool.
You see a troll and that’s okay. I see a guy whom I can use as an example to others who think they can outsmart decades of strength/conditioning knowledge and boatloads of common sense.
OP I think your being seriously naive with your diet and you don’t fully grasp how animals have evolved to suit foods available to them. We rely greatly on bacteria present in our stomachs to digest and produce certain compounds
For instance the proboscis monkey, it cannot eat fruit, in fact high sugar foods are deadly to this primate. Many animals create their own vitamin c etc.
Its incredible complex and thinking a lion is big and strong ill eat like that and become big and strong is ridiculous.
Its incredible complex and thinking a lion is big and strong ill eat like that and become big and strong is ridiculous.
[/quote]
I was in SE Asia sitting with a buddhist monk on a train. It was around lunch time. He offered me some watermelon seeds, which I accepted. I offered him some of what I had (I think it was some sort of pork dumpling, or something).
He declined, because he was vegetarian (I felt dumb), but specifically, he said in his broken english, “Bull, giraffe, only eat grass, very strong. Elephant, only grass, very big.” The monk, however, while happy, was neither big nor strong.