Used a lifting belt for the first time

[deadshot138]

I bought an Elite FTS powerlifting belt for relatively cheap and gave it a whirl while squatting. I was able to squat heavier and for more reps than without it.

My question is, why wouldn’t people want to use a belt all the time? It’s not like a belt springs your knees or hips open like other gear, so I’m hard pressed to call it cheating. People are leaving gains on the table by allowing their back strength to dictate the weights they squat. I’ll never squat above 90% without a belt again.

 

[JimRussel]

Train without belt >>>>> lift more with belt.

 

[Oblivian]

Train without belt >>>>> lift more with belt.

Can you explain? I know a lot of coaches advocate belt use especially at higher %s. The idea being that most lifters can use heavier weight with a belt and thus see more strength gains. Couple that with it being allowed in competition anyways.

 

[gspieler]

I bought an Elite FTS powerlifting belt for relatively cheap and gave it a whirl while squatting. I was able to squat heavier and for more reps than without it.

My question is, why wouldn’t people want to use a belt all the time? It’s not like a belt springs your knees or hips open like other gear, so I’m hard pressed to call it cheating. People are leaving gains on the table by allowing their back strength to dictate the weights they squat. I’ll never squat above 90% without a belt again.

For some reason, this seems to be a pretty polarizing topic in the lifting community. Some swear by it; others denounce. The truth is, it's not likely to make appreciable differences in your strength gains or athletic performance, whether you use one or not.

There doesn't seem to be much difference in muscle activation(including spinal erectors) in emg stidies, and the act of simply wearing a belt isn't altering the movement bio mechanically enough to be able to deem "unnatural", "non-functional", etc. Of course you can still make the argument it becomes a crutch; but that's completely subjective. In short: wear one if you want to; don't wear one if you don't want to. Personally, I lift raw 99% of the time, but am considering belting up for the heaviest squat/DL sets.

 

[deadshot138]

No belt I can triple 500 on the squat, I hit 507.5 for 5 with the belt. Wouldn’t it make sense that since I can do more work with more weight, I should wear a belt for my heaviest sets? I know the concern of imbalances comes to mind. If my back caves before my legs do and I make my legs stronger while using the belt as a crutch, the discrepancy will only increase. That and I’m a hobbyist at best, no hope for competing so the weights and how i lift them I guess don’t matter much in the long run.

 

[gspieler]

No belt I can triple 500 on the squat, I hit 507.5 for 5 with the belt. Wouldn’t it make sense that since I can do more work with more weight, I should wear a belt for my heaviest sets? I know the concern of imbalances comes to mind. If my back caves before my legs do and I make my legs stronger while using the belt as a crutch, the discrepancy will only increase. That and I’m a hobbyist at best, no hope for competing so the weights and how i lift them I guess don’t matter much in the long run.

In theory, if you can squat more belted, it may help marginally more to increase strength in your hip/knee extensors. And when I say marginally, I mean like ~1%. Also consider that belts havent really been shown to reduce the risk of injury, and that there doesnt appear to be a significant difference in activation of stabilizer muscles. It appears to come down to simply matter of preference. Its like how folks will argue endlessly about low-bar vs high-bar squat. Ultimately, it doesnt matter which one youre doing, but just that you are squatting. This is particularly true if you are a hobbyist.

 

[DoomPatrol]

For some reason, this seems to be a pretty polarizing topic in the lifting community. Some swear by it; others denounce. The truth is, it's not likely to make appreciable differences in your strength gains or athletic performance, whether you use one or not.

There doesn't seem to be much difference in muscle activation(including spinal erectors) in emg stidies, and the act of simply wearing a belt isn't altering the movement bio mechanically enough to be able to deem "unnatural", "non-functional", etc. Of course you can still make the argument it becomes a crutch; but that's completely subjective. In short: wear one if you want to; don't wear one if you don't want to. Personally, I lift raw 99% of the time, but am considering belting up for the heaviest squat/DL sets.

I absolutely squat and deadlift more with my belt than without. My personal preference is to have it around my lower back and bellybutton just tight enough to when I take a deep breath I can push my abs against it really hard. I don't like it to be too tight.

I've found that the best use of the belt is when you get to heavier weights. It's just safer with a belt and there's no point in letting your core hold you back from hitting heavier weights. They are allowed in raw competitions and you still strengthen your core.

I usually go beltless until I'm at my bodyweight. So I'll warm up with 135lbs and 225lbs beltless, but as I get into 275lbs and above, the belt goes on.

My core is still getting good work and my back stays safe. If you want to be macho and never use a belt then go for it. I don't think the risk is worth going without a belt if you're really pushing the weight hard.

 

[deadshot138]

I’ve seen the rule of thumb as 90% and above you can or should slap the belt on. For me, running Wendlers, I’m just going to throw it on for my top set of that day, whether it’s 5+, 3+ or 1+

 

[Oblivian]

I’ve seen the rule of thumb as 90% and above you can or should slap the belt on. For me, running Wendlers, I’m just going to throw it on for my top set of that day, whether it’s 5+, 3+ or 1+

There really is no rule of thumb. I've read and heard lifters that belt up early. Their logic being that competition allows it, so why not always use it and get be as proficient as possible with it? Your core is still getting work. Others do it on all working sets. Some only do it on top sets. Some use it on max effort days but not on speed/hypertrophy days. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

 

[cincymma79]

I’ve seen the rule of thumb as 90% and above you can or should slap the belt on. For me, running Wendlers, I’m just going to throw it on for my top set of that day, whether it’s 5+, 3+ or 1+

that's about what i do. 90%ish

 

[gspieler]

I absolutely squat and deadlift more with my belt than without. My personal preference is to have it around my lower back and bellybutton just tight enough to when I take a deep breath I can push my abs against it really hard. I don't like it to be too tight.

I've found that the best use of the belt is when you get to heavier weights. It's just safer with a belt and there's no point in letting your core hold you back from hitting heavier weights. They are allowed in raw competitions and you still strengthen your core.

I usually go beltless until I'm at my bodyweight. So I'll warm up with 135lbs and 225lbs beltless, but as I get into 275lbs and above, the belt goes on.

My core is still getting good work and my back stays safe. If you want to be macho and never use a belt then go for it. I don't think the risk is worth going without a belt if you're really pushing the weight hard.

AFAIK, there is no research that supports lifting belted is any safer. I don't think the argument for using a belt isn't that it makes for a safer lift, but rather allows you to use heavier weights which might translate to greater strength/hypertrophy gains.

 

[DoomPatrol]

AFAIK, there is no research that supports lifting belted is any safer. I don't think the argument for using a belt isn't that it makes for a safer lift, but rather allows you to use heavier weights which might translate to greater strength/hypertrophy gains.

A lifting belt helps keep your back from bending in a manner that causes injury, which is common sense. There's also been several studies that prove belts improve intraabdominal pressure by up to 15%. IAP is incredibly important for safety.

It increases performance by making your core more stable. Having an unstable core is how people typically get hurt.

 

[JauntyAngle]

I bought an Elite FTS powerlifting belt for relatively cheap and gave it a whirl while squatting. I was able to squat heavier and for more reps than without it.

My question is, why wouldn’t people want to use a belt all the time? It’s not like a belt springs your knees or hips open like other gear, so I’m hard pressed to call it cheating. People are leaving gains on the table by allowing their back strength to dictate the weights they squat. I’ll never squat above 90% without a belt again.

Greg Nuckols writeup:

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-belt-bible/

My summary of his piece:

* Probably complete your lift faster/reach peak force faster
* Probably complete more reps
* Probably increase hamstring activation and have no negative effects on other muscular activation
* No real evidence on training effect or safety

He concludes lifters should do most of their training with a belt.

 

[JimRussel]

Can you explain? I know a lot of coaches advocate belt use especially at higher %s. The idea being that most lifters can use heavier weight with a belt and thus see more strength gains. Couple that with it being allowed in competition anyways.

If you compete in powerlifting, it totally depends on your training plan. Certain exercises might be done without a belt on purpose.

The biggest thing I had in mind with that post was bracing. If you can learn to brace your core effectively under load without a belt, you'll get more out of one when you do put it on.

My core is still getting good work and my back stays safe. If you want to be macho and never use a belt then go for it. I don't think the risk is worth going without a belt if you're really pushing the weight hard.

It's not really a "macho" thing. Some lifters, even at the elite level, prefer to lift without a belt. Konstantinovs doesn't deadlift with a belt because he doesn't like it. Some guys who pull sumo don't use a belt because it gets in the way. Though not as many, some guys even squat exclusively without a belt

There really is no rule of thumb. I've read and heard lifters that belt up early. Their logic being that competition allows it, so why not always use it and get be as proficient as possible with it? Your core is still getting work. Others do it on all working sets. Some only do it on top sets. Some use it on max effort days but not on speed/hypertrophy days. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.

Again, setting is key. At meets, I put my belt on for 1 plate on the squat and deadlift. I'm just trying to save my back and get a feel for my belt that day.

Or, during meet prep. I'm not necessarily trying to get a whole let stronger. Just trying to peak for meet day. I want to be as nice to my body as possible and minimize the fatigue and damage I'm doing, especially as the weights get heavier closer to the meet. I also just want to move everything as fast as possible, and a belt helps with that.

A lifting belt helps keep your back from bending in a manner that causes injury, which is common sense. There's also been several studies that prove belts improve intraabdominal pressure by up to 15%. IAP is incredibly important for safety.

It increases performance by making your core more stable. Having an unstable core is how people typically get hurt.

But if you can improve your core stability under load without a belt, it'll probably help when you do put it on.

 

[deadshot138]

Putting a belt on taught me how to brace. Used to take chest breaths but now I push into the belt with a big air (and food and fat) baby before beginning each rep