When to belt Up

Degsy

Just got my new Valeo lifting belt today and being a noob to that sort of thing i was wondering what excercises to wear it for.Obviously deadlifting but i've seen other blokes wear belts for benching,is this right?

Hanley

If you've survived this long without it while benching you're probably still gonna be ok

The only time you really see any powerlifters wearing a belt when benching is to keep their shirt in place. If you're taking cues from some of guys in TF you might wanna wear it while you're doing curls!!!

pvt.joker

I've seen a lot of lads use them for squats.

Degsy

Hanley wrote: »

If you've survived this long without it while benching you're probably still gonna be ok

The only time you really see any powerlifters wearing a belt when benching is to keep their shirt in place. If you're taking cues from some of guys in TF you might wanna wear it while you're doing curls!!!

Lollers,and cable crossovers..

aye

Degsy wrote: »

Just got my new Valeo lifting belt today and being a noob to that sort of thing i was wondering what excercises to wear it for.

Military Press, clean and press.

Degsy

aye wrote: »

Military Press, clean and press.

Dont do em!

Al_Fernz

How much of the "bang for your buck" do you lose by wearing a belt? For example - if you're doing military presses with a belt you're going to lose a far bit of core engagement that comes from stabilising the weight.

IMO I can't really see a point for the average lifter to get one. I understand how they work in strength sports, but for those who don't train for this why not leave the belt off and get more strength and muscle growth stimulation from the exercise?

Money Shot

Al_Fernz wrote: »

How much of the "bang for your buck" do you lose by wearing a belt? For example - if you're doing military presses with a belt you're going to lose a far bit of core engagement that comes from stabilising the weight.

IMO I can't really see a point for the average lifter to get one. I understand how they work in strength sports, but for those who don't train for this why not leave the belt off and get more strength and muscle growth stimulation from the exercise?

I agree - using a belt could eventually cause weakness in important stabilising muscles and I also associate it with bad form. Some people who bench with their ass a foot of the bench seem to think that the belt gives them the safety to do this. Also, curling ridiculous weights with a belt swinging like lunatics, and squatting way to forward.

sharkDawg

I agree with the two previous posts, unless you've had previous back injurys I'd return the belt. If its not used correctly you'll do yourself more harm than good, belts often give people a false sense of security and as a result they don't concentrate as much on good form, ending up worse off then when they started.

rubadub

http://stronglifts.com/weight-lifting-belts-to-wear-or-not-to-wear/

the drifter

generally dont use a belt till 80% of my max is reached...

Transform

Money Shot wrote: »

I agree - using a belt could eventually cause weakness in important stabilising muscles and I also associate it with bad form. Some people who bench with their ass a foot of the bench seem to think that the belt gives them the safety to do this. Also, curling ridiculous weights with a belt swinging like lunatics, and squatting way to forward.

Totally agree with not wearing a belt.

I see no need unless you are deadlifting well over twice body weight and even then just for singles and doubles.

Its taken me ages to build up my front sq (110kg) and deadlift (175kg) and trapbar deadlift (190kg) all are done with no belt for reps.

what weights are you pulling at the moment?

Degsy

Transform wrote: »

Totally agree with not wearing a belt.

I see no need unless you are deadlifting well over twice body weight and even then just for singles and doubles.

Its taken me ages to build up my front sq (110kg) and deadlift (175kg) and trapbar deadlift (190kg) all are done with no belt for reps.

what weights are you pulling at the moment?

Deadlifting 165 and thats one rep max.Six weeks a go i couldnt get 140 off the ground.I squatted 90 k for six reps yesterday..

Transform

good numbers and just use the belt for singles only on sq and DL - squat needs a bit of a jump. What height are you?

Hanley

To say a belt is going to make your core weaker is ridiculous. Your core might not get "stronger" when you're using a belt, but every other muscle is. If you're afraid of your core getting "weak" then do core specific work as part of your workout too.

Think about this way, you start squatting 100kg 3x6 beltless in January. You train with a belt for 9 out of the next 12 months and end up squatting 150kg 3x6 with a belt. Do you seriously think your core is still only strong enough to still support 100kg?

As for not using it for military presses to add some core stabilisation into the exercise, I thought military presses were a shoulder exercise? I don't do lateral raises when I'm doing weighed sit ups.... why does the core recieve all this special treatment?

AlphaMale 3OO

Hanley wrote: »

Think about this way, you start squatting 100kg 3x6 beltless in January. You train with a belt for 9 out of the next 12 months and end up squatting 150kg 3x6 with a belt. Do you seriously think your core is still only strong enough to still support 100kg?

I dont think he quite meant it in that extreme. Your core isnt going to get left behind, but the use of an aid may reduce the work that the stabiliser muscles have to get through to shift the load.

Degsy

Transform wrote: »

good numbers and just use the belt for singles only on sq and DL - squat needs a bit of a jump. What height are you?

I'm 5 10"..i've only been squatting ten weeks so its not great.

Transform

Good lifts so power onwards and keep up the training

Al_Fernz

Hanley wrote: »

As for not using it for military presses to add some core stabilisation into the exercise, I thought military presses were a shoulder exercise? I don't do lateral raises when I'm doing weighed sit ups.... why does the core recieve all this special treatment?

All I was saying is that if you're going to be doing the exercise you might as well do it with the belt off and get the full benefit of it being a compound exercise. To use a horribly over-used cliche, get more bang for your buck.

Hanley

Al_Fernz wrote: »

All I was saying is that if you're going to be doing the exercise you might as well do it with the belt off and get the full benefit of it being a compound exercise. To use a horribly over-used cliche, get more bang for your buck.

You would agree wearing a belt on military presses allows you to press more weight?

Al_Fernz

Hanley wrote: »

You would agree wearing a belt on military presses allows you to press more weight?

For sure - and the same for DLs and squats. I'm not saying that that your core gets weak using a belt.

What I am saying is that IMO the benefits of not wearing a belt outweigh the costs.

Hanley

Al_Fernz wrote: »

For sure - and the same for DLs and squats. I'm not saying that that your core gets weak using a belt.

So since we're in agreement on that, explain to me how NOT using a belt when one is available (ie purposely putting yourself in a situation where you are weaker and can use less weight) is more beneficial, or more "bang for your buck" is going to help build the target muscle in a military press? (the shoulders)

It would seem to me that people are trying to create a jack of all trades situation when it comes to some exercises and belt usage. It's not that hard to do some added core stabilisation work as part of your training in addition to heavy compound movements like.

What I am saying is that IMO the benefits of not wearing a belt outweigh the costs.

What are the cots of not wearing a belt? Being able to use less weight I would say...

The benefits? Added core work. BUT why does this take precedence over your shoulders? Like I said, if you want a core workout, do a core workout. Don't take away from big power exercises because people wan to be "functional" and all about the core.

My core strength came from beltless squats and beltless deadlifts. But guess what, that's ALL that I got from them. It wasn't until I started using a belt consistently and doing additional targeted core work after the main exercises that my lifts took off.

Al_Fernz

Hanley wrote: »

So since we're in agreement on that, explain to me how NOT using a belt when one is available (ie purposely putting yourself in a situation where you are weaker and can use less weight) is more beneficial, or more "bang for your buck" is going to help build the target muscle in a military press? (the shoulders)

This thread is getting a bit repetitive. But.....

Doing them beltless still works the target muscle - so it is given lots of stimulus to develop. But you get the added bonus of core stabilization and all that jazz. Therefore killing two birds with one stone bang for buck whatever.

That means that you have worked your core. Therefore meaning you don't necessarily have to do targeted core work. Not everyone can spend 2 hours in a session.

It wasn't until I started using a belt consistently and doing additional targeted core work after the main exercises that my lifts took off.

Fair enough but I'm not talking about strength sports. I'm talking about your average lifter.

Hanley

Al_Fernz wrote: »

This thread is getting a bit repetitive. But.....

Doing them beltless still works the target muscle - so it is given lots of stimulus to develop. But you get the added bonus of core stabilization and all that jazz. Therefore killing two birds with one stone bang for buck whatever.

That means that you have worked your core. Therefore meaning you don't necessarily have to do targeted core work. Not everyone can spend 2 hours in a session.

But wearing a belt doesn't take away the core stabilisation aspect completely. I would argue the same line as you did.

Wearing a belt allows you to press heavier weight with your shoulders while still providing a core workout. To a degree. I would go further and say that since EXTRA weight is being handled, some of the reduced core usage due to the belt has been offset by having to control a greater load.

My core (lol) point in all of this is that military presses are a SHOULDER exercise, thus getting them stronger or bigger should be the focus. By trying to kill two birds with one stone you're merely short changing yourself on both counts.

Targeted core work isn't hard to do. It can quite easily be supersetted with pretty much any isolation exercise and not have a negative impact on your ability to perform it.

DM-BM

Hanley, out of curiosity, what sort of weights were you lifting when you started to use a belt?

Hanley

DM-BM wrote: »

Hanley, out of curiosity, what sort of weights were you lifting when you started to use a belt?

I think I was squatting 120 for 2 or 3, and deadlifting like 130 or 140 for 2 or 3 like 3 or so years ago. I've added 70-90kg onto my belted lifts since then and my beltless lifts are around 160kg x8 squat and 200kg x5 deadlift.

I've done alot of belted and beltless training in that time, but my biggest PR's have come when I spent some time with the belt on.

JJ6000

I dont use a belt and have not done so for many years.

To be honest, I feel a belt hinders my lift. I get zero benefit from a belt and actually feel it throws off my technique & power. Over the years, my core has developed in strength such that it is no longer the weak link in the chain. Isolated core work certainly can not even compare to the kind of stimulation the core gets from very heavy compound movements. THe amount of stimulation your core gets from heavy deadlifting and heavy squatting is FAR superior to the amount of stimulation it would get from specific core-work such as leg-raises etc. So, in my opinion, if you are using a belt on the heavy compund movements involving the core, then you really are essentially robbing your core of the best exercise it can get. Specific core work like leg raises etc Just cant compare to the core-stability that heavy beltelss deadlifts, squats, military presses etc, provide. Your core will probably still get stronger even if you use a belt, but certainly not to the same degree as if you went without one.

I am not against the use of a belt per se....but I think that one certainly does become reliant on it if you consistently use it for compound exercises like DEadlifts/squats. Using it for a max-lift is OK, since in that case you are not concerned with building strength as much as testing your strength and using it as a safety feature.

If your game is simply lifting as much weight as possible (like powerlifting), then fair enough,.....you should probably take every advantage you can get. Personally, however, I place a lot of importance on my strength being transferrable to every day life (like picking up a heavy fridge....lifting the back of a small car for a laugh) and injury prevention. Heavy core work through (beltless) deadlifts, squats etc are essential in this regard as they will stimulate the stabilising force of your core like nothing else. Use of a belt would CERTAINLY be countrproductive from this standpoint.

Degsy

Hanley wrote: »

I think I was squatting 120 for 2 or 3, and deadlifting like 130 or 140 for 2 or 3 like 3 or so years ago. I've added 70-90kg onto my belted lifts since then and my beltless[/i] lifts are around 160kg x8 squat and 200kg x5 deadlift.

I've done alot of belted and beltless training in that time, but my biggest PR's have come when I spent some time with the belt on.

So if i can pull 165 beltless..how much extra can i squeeze out with a belt do you reckon?