Exercise

[Beendare]

."

 

[LostArra]

It has to be something you will not get bored with and stop using.


.

Agree but all of these aerobic/anaerobic machines are just expensive hamster wheels so boredom is always looming.
You can't just ride them. You have to have a plan every time. HIIT workouts are best for me. Short and sweaty.

Zap please turn in your Squat Police card on the ATG thing. Just below parallel is going to give you the most bang for your buck.

 

[*zap*]

ATG with a pause at the bottom..... ...weight is secondary.

The real funny part is that people who are doing baby rep squats think they are actually squatting....

 

[Vandy321]

ATG with a pause at the bottom..... ...weight is secondary.

The real funny part is that people who are doing baby rep squats think they are actually squatting....

this sounds alot like the guy who squats 135 and then critiques every else's form

A video of you squatting 300+ "ATG" would go along way toward credibility

 

[*zap*]

^ form and rom is #1 then comes weight...what good is 300# with a baby squat with 6" rom? If your not even going anywhere close to parallel what good is that exercise?

A person does noyt have to be able to atg 300 to realize that there are an awful lot of people doing baby rep squats that are kidding themselves about what exercise they are doing.

A 300 atg squat is not on my list of things to achieve....not even close to being on it. But I see some 300 baby rep squatters that cold not squat just the bar atg..

 

[BadDogPSD]

The reason I ask is I broke my back and required a few surgeries. Impact weights are out for a bit.

Are you working with a physical therapist?

 

[Vandy321]

^ form and rom is #1 then comes weight...what good is 300# with a baby squat with 6" rom? If your not even going anywhere close to parallel what good is that exercise?

A person does noyt have to be able to atg 300 to realize that there are an awful lot of people doing baby rep squats that are kidding themselves about what exercise they are doing.

A 300 atg squat is not on my list of things to achieve....not even close to being on it. But I see some 300 baby rep squatters that cold not squat just the bar atg..

If you've been squatting long enough to be an expert on the subject, you'd have a 300+ squat, juat saying.

Baby reps or baby weight...both useless for the nuerological adaptation you are after from squats, but baby reps with heavy weight will still provide a greater response than full reps with 90#, it's actually science.

 

[*zap*]

^that all depends on your goals.....not everyone is trying to move as much weight as possible. Someone doing 300 baby rep squat who cannot do a atg bar only squat is not doing better that someone who is squatting light atg. But that is an opinion based on my perception of fitness not yours. More gains are made with below parallel squats is my understanding of the research..

 

[Vandy321]

^that all depends on your goals.....not everyone is trying to move as much weight as possible. Someone doing 300 baby rep squat who cannot do a atg bar only squat is not doing better that someone who is squatting light atg. But that is an opinion based on my perception of fitness not yours. More gains are made with below parallel squats is my understanding of the research..

Devote some time to reading about the neurological adaptations from heavy squats, you may rethink your thinking. Nothing to say lightweight/high rep doesn't have a place, it does, but it doesn nothing for the CNS. And that CNS is hit hard packing out 100# lbs of elk on your back.

 

[def90]

Kettlebells, best bang for the buck. As for cardio, simply walking a mile a day which should take about 20 minutes or so does wonders. Watch Paul Revelia's stuff on youtube about cardio and walking.

 

[mtwarden]

I've always thought a starimaster at home would be nice, but the $4000+ price tag makes it unlikely

a three in one plyo box is about $50 (or less if you build it yourself)

a squat rack/bench and some Oly weights would be a good investment, but not cheap either

 

[*zap*]

Devote some time to reading about the neurological adaptations from heavy squats, you may rethink your thinking. Nothing to say lightweight/high rep doesn't have a place, it does, but it doesn nothing for the CNS. And that CNS is hit hard packing out 100# lbs of elk on your back.

I never said anything about lightweight or high reps. I will stand by my statement that generally speaking form and rom is more important than weight.

 

[Vandy321]

I never said anything about lightweight or high reps. I will stand by my statement that generally speaking form and rom is more important than weight.

That's not what the literature says. Heavy weight is required for neurological adaptation. Even half reps can accomplish this. So those dudes you're making fun of, ironically are most likely getting more benefit from their heavy half ROM than you are going lighter but "ass to ground".

 

[*zap*]

I was not making fun of anyone and I do not agree with you vandy..but I can easily live with that.

Someone doing 300# and half reps will never get to 300# and full reps without doing full reps. The guy doing 150# full reps and adding a little every week can easily get to 300# full reps over time....without doing any half reps. Just takes time and patience.

 

[OOSWLC]

i'm a bit biased here, but a barbell and bumper plates trumps everything else mentioned here.

anything you can get done with a piece of cardio equipment you can get done with a barbell - and if you're training properly, you'll be improving your posture and joint stability incredibly fast. concept2 won't do that.

you can perform cardio movements with light weights, you can get strong with heavy weights. if there was ever a do-it-all piece of equipment it's a barbell.

if you can invest in some bumper plates as well you'll hardly be limiting what you can do as you save up for a squat rack.

 

[OOSWLC]

That's not what the literature says. Heavy weight is required for neurological adaptation. Even half reps can accomplish this. So those dudes you're making fun of, ironically are most likely getting more benefit from their heavy half ROM than you are going lighter but "ass to ground".

this is such a tired argument imo because you have to qualify what you mean by the "benefit" you are receiving from your training...... they are getting *more* neurological adaptation in *less* range of motion. if they are bodybuilders that is beneficial. if you want to see how much weight you can put on a bar and squat above parallel, that is also beneficial.

off the top of my head i can't really think of any other reasons why this argument holds any weight at all.

if you think of "benefit" as "training goal" then... what is your goal?

....to get as strong as you possibly can as long as you don't have to push a weight any farther than +/- 8 inches?
....to compete in a sport that tests the squat? (powerlifting and crossfit are the only ones that i know of here... and they have ROM requirements)
....to play a sport/do an activity that is benefited by the squat? (you'll have a hard time making a compelling argument for the benefit of neuro adaptation with decreased ROM over the overwhelming benefits of full movement for strength and stability).

this always comes up with squatting and bench pressing because people can lift more if they do a shorter ROM. i mean.... duh.

if you want to squat above parallel, go for it all day- but don't fool yourself that you're stronger than the dude who has a more functional movement. you're stronger at squatting high. odds are he's stronger at squatting low. his neurological adaptation below parallel will put yours to shame.


basically, it doesn't matter... let your training goal dictate the way you train.

 

[Vandy321]

this is such a tired argument imo because you have to qualify what you mean by the "benefit" you are receiving from your training...... they are getting *more* neurological adaptation in *less* range of motion. if they are bodybuilders that is beneficial. if you want to see how much weight you can put on a bar and squat above parallel, that is also beneficial.

off the top of my head i can't really think of any other reasons why this argument holds any weight at all.

if you think of "benefit" as "training goal" then... what is your goal?

....to get as strong as you possibly can as long as you don't have to push a weight any farther than +/- 8 inches?
....to compete in a sport that tests the squat? (powerlifting and crossfit are the only ones that i know of here... and they have ROM requirements)
....to play a sport/do an activity that is benefited by the squat? (you'll have a hard time making a compelling argument for the benefit of neuro adaptation with decreased ROM over the overwhelming benefits of full movement for strength and stability).

this always comes up with squatting and bench pressing because people can lift more if they do a shorter ROM. i mean.... duh.

if you want to squat above parallel, go for it all day- but don't fool yourself that you're stronger than the dude who has a more functional movement. you're stronger at squatting high. odds are he's stronger at squatting low. his neurological adaptation below parallel will put yours to shame.


basically, it doesn't matter... let your training goal dictate the way you train.

Neural adaptation is required to get stronger. That is best achieved with heavy weight, that is a scientific fact. We are also talking fitness for hunting, carrying heavy packs, sometimes 100# lbs of meat down a mountain. If you think that is not taxing on an untrained CNS, you are incorrect.

I'm not advocating half reps, I'm advocating heavy weight and the benefit it has (even in half reps) neurologically over lightweight full ROM squats, and yes the 150# range is lightweight for a fully grown adult male, even if zap does not agree. I squat just below parallel, always have, tension is lost if you go ass to ground, and again it's less effective.

But, if it makes someone feel better to do full reps at adult warmup weights while calling someone else's squats baby squats, thats OK too.

 

[OOSWLC]

Neural adaptation is required to get stronger. That is best achieved with heavy weight, that is a scientific fact. We are also talking fitness for hunting, carrying heavy packs, sometimes 100# lbs of meat down a mountain. If you think that is not taxing on an untrained CNS, you are incorrect.

I'm not advocating half reps, I'm advocating heavy weight and the benefit it has (even in half reps) neurologically over lightweight full ROM squats, and yes the 150# range is lightweight for a fully grown adult male, even if zap does not agree.

But, if it makes someone feel better to do full reps at adult warmup weights while calling someone else's squats baby squats, thats OK too.

"heavy" is a relative term, because it is effort based. if you are training "heavy" it means you are pushing your relative strength.

i have been coaching average people and competitive athletes for over 10 years and i find that the 300# line is my marker for "ok, you squat" for men over the age of 16 or so. regardless of bodyweight. that is 300# with full ROM. i don't give a shit about ass to grass. i care about complete and efficient range of motion (which also changes person to person).

the reality is a person that is squatting "heavy" with a full ROM is ABSOLUTELY more prepared for the backcountry than a person who is training "heavier" while sacrificing ROM... because odds are in the backcountry you'll need to be strong below parallel as well as above it. if you never trained it, you're weaker than if you had.

personally the way that i coach the squat is to teach people back squats are for absolute strength, and front squats are for functional ROM. you need to back squat in the way that makes you back squat the most - whether that's high bar, low bar, some sort of hybrid... and i don't care about depth as long as you're hitting parallel. if you're not, you're just fooling yourself/masturbating when you train.

if you prioritize absolute ROM with a back squat - yeah, you'll never squat as much as you could - and i agree 100% that probably isn't the best way to squat because you should be putting as much weight on your back for a squat as you safely can.

if you want ROM - which again, i think you're ******* crazy if you think the backcountry hunter doesn't need that - you can get it from your front squats.

your don't become strong (relatively) in positions you don't train, regardless of your level of neurological adaptation

**editing to add this last line...
i mention the 300# squat, but i didn't finish that thought.... imo if you train the squat to your personal full ROM, regularly, with even a remotely smart approach to training- you will squat way more than you will ever pack out. if your gripe is with the guy squatting ass to grass and not putting weight on the bar - your gripe is with his approach to training (not going "heavy"), not his ROM.

 

[Vandy321]

"heavy" is a relative term, because it is effort based. if you are training "heavy" it means you are pushing your relative strength.

i have been coaching average people and competitive athletes for over 10 years and i find that the 300# line is my marker for "ok, you squat" for men over the age of 16 or so. regardless of bodyweight. that is 300# with full ROM. i don't give a shit about ass to grass. i care about complete and efficient range of motion (which also changes person to person).

the reality is a person that is squatting "heavy" with a full ROM is ABSOLUTELY more prepared for the backcountry than a person who is training "heavier" while sacrificing ROM... because odds are in the backcountry you'll need to be strong below parallel as well as above it. if you never trained it, you're weaker than if you had.

personally the way that i coach the squat is to teach people back squats are for absolute strength, and front squats are for functional ROM. you need to back squat in the way that makes you back squat the most - whether that's high bar, low bar, some sort of hybrid... and i don't care about depth as long as you're hitting parallel. if you're not, you're just fooling yourself/masturbating when you train.

if you prioritize absolute ROM with a back squat - yeah, you'll never squat as much as you could - and i agree 100% that probably isn't the best way to squat because you should be putting as much weight on your back for a squat as you safely can.

if you want ROM - which again, i think you're ******* crazy if you think the backcountry hunter doesn't need that - you can get it from your front squats.

your don't become strong (relatively) in positions you don't train, regardless of your level of neurological adaptation

Find me where I posted half squats are OK? Putting words in my mouth to try and prove a point is worse than squatting 135 and judging people's form.

Yes, kids tend to overload the bar and half ROM a squat because they think it looks cool. My arguement is, that a kid with 90% of his 1RM on his back, even for half reps, is going to gain more from a neural adaptation standpoint than someone with 50% of their 1RM is for full ROM. That is an undeniable fact. But at the same time, it's not condoning half squats either.

 

[OOSWLC]

Find me where I posted half squats are OK? Putting words in my mouth to try and prove a point is worse than squatting 135 and judging people's form.

Yes, kids tend to overload the bar and half ROM a squat because they think it looks cool. My arguement is, that a kid with 90% of his 1RM on his back, even for half reps, is going to gain more from a neural adaptation standpoint than someone with 50% of their 1RM is for full ROM. That is an undeniable fact. But at the same time, it's not condoning half squats either.

lol... ok maybe you're not here championing the half squat but you are literally arguing that it is better and more beneficial for strength training.

...and i'm pointing out why that argument is kinda silly. if you stretch out "neural adaptation" into more words- then your whole argument is that, "you have to increase weights to learn how to recruit more muscle."

that, in itself, has NOTHING to do with range of motion. that has to do with increasing training stimulus.