Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by Overtures, Mar 17, 2017.
Feel free to link the study that correlates 1rm in the squat to better health biometrics.
Feel free to show me anything, anywhere that advocates "weaker is better."
Uh...yeah...have fun with your strawmen and false equivalences there, bra.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/~chalmers/PDFs/Benefits of strength training for enduance athletes.pdf
...and so on.
Go take your "weakness is better" shit somewhere else. I bet you're so weak you need help holding up your protest sign.
Deadlifts, spend a month doing sumo deadlifts, then switch to conventional, you'll feel strong as an ox by summer. i know this through personal experience i'm 31 and only started lifting last year
Here's a counterpoint: Crossfit.
If you can, squat while increasing the intensity or volume each workout. If it causes actual pain past normal muscle fatigue and effort, don't do it.
You can try lunges where you take the step backwards and reset instead of stepping forward and resetting. That alleviates some of the force from the knees.
Any type of deadlift can help with the lower back pain. Again, if it causes any pain past normal workout discomfort, don't do it.
Yeah, that's a giant strawman argument. Those studies are comparing sedentary vs active, which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. I advocated just being active,while the other poster attached the prereq that you have to actively geing trying get stronger in order to be "healthy". Someone who already possesses adequate strength for activities of daily living, sports, etc, does not need to get stronger to maintain good health markers.
That's not true. I purposely picked studies that advocate intense, heavy lifting. Not just pissing away time in the gym. None of this "just move your body" watered-down crap. Progressive lifting, heavy weights, a program that increases the maximum a person can lift.
That's what has a positive impact on health. Mobility, strength, posture, balance, flexibility, all improve.
If you have what you think is a better alternative, post up your practice of it in your workout log so we can see your progress.
Also, is there anyone here looking for the minimum they can do to maintain their already adequate level of health and fitness? Certainly not the thread starter. The guy is in crisis. He wants out of the mess he's in, and presumably he'd like an efficient route to get there.
That's what I've suggested, and what you have not.
From what I understand squatting progressively heavier has very positive effect on brain health. The progression is a central component.
"My lower back always hurts just bending over, my legs are weak as fuck, and my joints pop just getting out of bed. "
doesnt sound like he possesses adequate strength for anything.
Really the answer is to get educated and listen to good advice and your body. Nobody can just tell you how to do it over the Internet.
You have to become an expert in yourself or pay someone else with the skills to do it for you.
What's your background? That's incredibly limited way of looking at things. You posted a few studies in regards to geriatric (elderly) patients and OA (osteoathritis), which I guess you didn't read. This is from the first study you posted:
"The authors stated in the text that their original intent had been to have people exercising at an intensity of 80% of 1repetition maximum (1RM), but they found in pilot testing that 7/10 subjects were unable to complete the exercises at this intensity because of pain. Therefore, high intensity training was conducted at 60% of 1RM with 3 sets of 8 repetitions and low intensity training was set at 10% 1RM with 10 sets of 15 repetitions. After 8 weeks of training, both exercise groups had significantly reduced pain and improved function compared to the control group, but there were no significant differences in these outcomes between the high and low intensity training groups. No adverse events were reported."
I work with this patient group on the daily atm and it's not as simple as you make it out to be. While progressive overload is definitely the way to go, it's not heavy in the sense that you think heavy is. Also, trust me, the majority of elderly patients, especially with new hips and knees, cannot squat with a barbell. You have to work from a completely lower level. Some of them can't event move their limbs against gravity and wont achieve full ROM (bone spurs, alloplastic, metal). You work with what you have and improve what you can and that takes a lot of work.
The second study you posted is post stroke patients and yes they used 80% RM, which is fine, but they used leg extension machines and leg curls, no squats. Another important thing is that the control group did nothing at all.
The third one was not based on RM, but rather 30-40-50kg of 11 reps for 3 sets in a leg press and leg extension machine. The patient group was hemiplegic stroke victims, who improved their isokinetic strength (obviously) and got a slight increase in stride and 10-m walk test. There wasn't even a control group. Surely hemiplegics will improve after a stroke with a lot of different exercises programs.
The first article lists reasons like "you'll get toned" and "you'll feel confident", and while it does advocate lifting very heavy when it goes into something "scientific" (it doesn't reference the study and one study is barely anything) it also has this to say:
"Results of a second power workout that used light weights (30 percent of the 1RM) and explosive movements found that higher threshold of motor units were recruited earlier in the movement (....) Doing jump squats, Olympic lifts, or plyometric push-ups stimulates the brain and corresponding motor units more than slow speed squats, overhead presses, or even push ups even if they are trained to failure" And it then talks about using different training modalities.
I'm not going to go through more of the articles. Everyone who gave you a pat on the back hasn't read them or the studies, and neither have you. There is no doubt that progressive overload and strength training is something everyone should do one way or the other, and that squatting is one of the best exercises, but claiming that "just squat, and squat heavy" is somehow the most important thing in the world and improves all health parameters is straight up bullshit. Having good form, keeping pain free, using progressive overload over time, keeping active and finding the right exercise choices matters more. If there's no reason for you not to squat very heavy, and that's your goal, then you defintely should do it.
As for the TS: Yeah just start working out your lower body. Squat variations, deadlift varations, lunge variations, leg curls, leg press, BW stuff are all good choices. Work on form and keep loading more over time. Keep it around the 70-90% range for the compounds when you get it down. There's plenty of good exercise templates out there for the lower body.
Ah, the resident doctor is in the house! The man who can't pass by a forbidden injury thread without making it his own, prescribing courses of treatment over the internet for strangers he's never seen or spoken to, let alone examined.
Please let me know what kind of credentials suggest it's a good idea to do that? And once you do, please let me know how it makes any sense to do it here, where it it expressly forbidden. Are you special?
And yet, your wordy response, the type of which you seemingly always have time to provide, includes the fact that you agree with me:
"While progressive overload is definitely the way to go..."
...except for where you try to think you're inside my head:
" it's not heavy in the sense that you think heavy is."
Heavy, for your information, just means challenging, and progressive. Meaning you don't pick a weight that isn't challenging and stick to it. That's all. I don't define heavy before now. Heavy by the numbers means different things to different people, like when I say heavy squats versus when you say heavy squats.
The articles are five minutes of scanning -- and I found some with old people, some with young, some with females, some with athletes -- I found stuff that the fool I was arguing with said didn't exist. Many of the articles are a direct refutation of his point, and all of them are at least supportive of mine. I don't give a shit about your academic nitpicking. I'm not trying to impress you, doctor. You're just here to constantly try to whip out your presumably newly-minted, fresh-out-of-the-college-books learnin', and it's tiresome. I have over thirty years of experience in sport, competition, and training, and I'm still getting stronger. You? Nothing I'm impressed with. Take your textbook crap and apply it to yourself for a while, come back once you're strong.
And quit bumping forbidden injury threads. Go to medhelp or studentdoctor if you want to dispense medical advice. It doesn't belong here.
Dude, 30 isn't old at all. You're still in your physical prime at that age. You're old and achy feeling because you don't do shit. Your lower back probably hurts because you sit down all the time and don't stretch. Your joints ache because you probably have a shitty diet and are inflamed.
What physical activity are you doing for exercise and what type of diet do you have?
First of all, I've never "prescribed" any treatment to anyone that would be consideren unethical, or dangerous. I've asked a few questions and told them to go see a doctor or a physio, and that a majority of the time you can't help someone over the internet. Giving advice to someone when it's reponsible is not the same thing, and you wouldn't know the difference. You don't have to worry about that, I know what I'm doing and I would never give dangerous advice to anyone.
And no, the articles didn't support your point. I find it pretty ironic that you go "heavy, squat heavy" and claim that it's always the healthiest choice, then when @gspieler tries to reason with you and provide a little context, the first study you post is a direct contradiction to what you said. 1) they tried 80% of 1RM and 7/10 couldn't continue because of pain, 2) they changed the "heavy" group to 60% of 1RM, 3) there was no difference in improvements of function (which both groups improved) from the 60% group to the 10% group. You didn't even read the study, or any of the other ones.
The point is that while squatting heavy is good for various things, it has to be taken into context and it's not something that necessarily improves other health markers more than training with lower intensity and using other exercises would. That's just reality.
You have 30 years of experience doing what exactly? I'm taking a degree, I'm out there actually working with people of all ages and with all kinds of ailments seeing what holds up in the real world and what doesn't, I've trained Karate, boxing, MT and MMA and had sanctioned fights in three of those, I'm strength training, I've rehabbed my own injuries (replaced ACL), I'm learning from people who are a thousand times smarter than you. You can keep regurgitating your dogma. The real world out there involves context.
The reason why it sounds like I agree with you, to you, is because you're too thickheaded to realise that the world is not black and white and that some of what you say can have merit while other things can be horseshit. You haven't found the holy grail, you're not as smart as you think and you don't know as much about training as you think you do.
I thought in the year of our lord 2017 that we would all know that in order to get stronger you need to lift heavy (relative to the lifter) for whatever your set and rep programming is. Isn't that the point of lifting weights? The OP's post seems to indicate that his knees and back are weak, so in order to get them stronger, lifting heavy would be the way to do it. If it causes sharp or excruciating pain, I would assume something else is up that would require something much more extreme, such as surgery.
Separate names with a comma.