Random Fitness Questions

The Reddit write up is good. Convinces me Deep Water is a bonkers program that probably only suits a minority of really experienced lifters. I’ve got no doubt it builds an amazing work capacity more than anything else. But so many pitfalls...

Two hours for the squat day, I’m not surprised! I’d be divorced.

The way I was initially shown to do dips emphasised range of motion. One of the guiding principles in our training at that time was about moving the load through as great a range of motion as possible. Why? Because **** you, that's why... It was CrossFit in the 00s.

No one actually looked at what happened with shoulder rotation after a certain point, or even thought what the tissues that we were actually trying to work with dips were in the first place.

To be honest I think most people would be better served being quite strict about not bending past 90 degrees, and to really take their time on the descent. Ask yourself, if you sag really deep, what are you feeling, and do your ligaments and tendons feel A1 or not? And why do it anyway, if the goal is to use them as an upper body mass builder, and going that deep takes the strain off the main tissues you're trying to work?

Cill94 wrote: »

I’d contend that bigger range of motion = more muscle gained. The problem is people not appropriately progressing the range of motion.

For hypertrophy, I don’t think so, once the shoulder rolls forward to compensate for going too deep, and the joint is compromised, you are getting very little by way of trade off for that. Work hard in the active range of motion, no need to exceed it.

Worth saying though that could be talking at cross purposes because deep can still mean deep within active range of motion ... it’s not a half dip. You can say go deep but insist on no sagging.

Well, welcome back everyone... My first post on the new forum. I'm sure the migration was necessary but think I preferred the old forum for some reason. The 'drop down' menus at the top were very handy and they're gone for me now. Finding things seems to involve several more clicks now.

I'm not sure that after a week away anyone gives a flying **** about continuing the discussion about dips, but I will make a few more comments anyway since I think it's a better topic than some that come along.

I'm not hugely into studies/literature but yes I'd tend to agree that the overall takeaway is that full ROM is advantageous for hypertrophy in general terms. But when you get down into the weeds and look at exercise selection, specific muscles and how they interact with joints, and what we know is the main driver of hypertrophy (mechanical tension), then I'm inclined to believe those who say that for optimal hypertrophy there is a value in looking at mechanical differences in people, in exercises, in muscle groups / joints.

The problem with 'active ROM' versus 'full ROM' is that the former is a term that always needs to be defined. I would define it as the full range of motion where you are effectively and safely loading a muscle with mechanical tension, and where the primary muscle you are trying to train is primarily what is under tension.

On dips maximal tension is around the 90 degree point with full elbow and shoulder flexion. After that a significant amount of the tension is transferred onto ligaments and tendons, and if I bring myself to a true bottom position in terms of ROM I feel like I start to depend on the passive strength of my shoulder structure to a degree that seems pointless. Based on previous experience, yes I can go that deep into flexion and come out of it, but from a hypertrophy point of view there is little if any reward.

If we take away the language of 'active ROM' I guess I would say that people should use a full ROM but keep in mind that if hypertrophy is the goal then keep the muscles they are trying to train as the prime mover.

Several years ago I never would have thought in terms of trying to make what bodybuilders call a "mind muscle" connection, or to plan training in terms of muscle groups, but for hypertrophy I think it has its place. Identify what you are trying to hypertrophy, maximally mechanically load it and move onto the next thing. The caveat is always that this is if hypertrophy is the focus.

I would say that drilling down into this means that programming needs to include enough isolation work to succeed for hypertrophy. The value of compound movements is undeniable in terms of the systemic effect they have on the whole body, and for strength building purposes, but for hypertrophy you have to start isolating.

As a single workout, the set up there is suboptimal, but to be honest any one workout is not so important, it's what the broader programming looks like.

If you are working up to a max double there, then yes, the warm-up sets there are too extensive. But ask yourself what the point is of working up to a max double - where do you go next time? What is actually driving adaptation and going to increase your max?

(In some programmes there might be a separate day with quite heavy volume with the same lift, that's an approach... Or perhaps there is a lot of assistance and accessories designed to bring up the lift... etc)

If you are not really sure then I would agree with the lads that it may be worth considering following something established and well laid out. A lot of popular programs are mentioned in the thread below.

My person preference would be for people to run a 'linear progress' program like Starting Strength or Greyskull LP, and then next step would be something like 5/3/1 or Westside For Skinny Bastards.

Full ROM, good tempo and being in being in proximity to failure is more important than a specific number… 12+ sounds fine. Agree quite high reps are better for calves as for some other muscle groups for accessory work for hypertrophy.

With a movement like this you want stability and to be able to just focus on the muscle being worked. Tottering about to any degree, or resisting it, if I’m charitable, might be en vogue for an athlete into functional training, but for someone focused on hypertrophy it’s counter productive. If there is an element of instability or a grip work element going on then yeah, it’s not optimal. Holding on to the bar with your fingers doesn’t sound like that was ideal for the highest quality set you could do for your calves.

I have done barbell calf raises before and I used straps. The balance element I addressed by putting my back to an upright on a rack. For added ROM I used a bumper on the ground.

Personal view, let your warm up and sub 85% deadlifts be minus straps and then after that if you want to do grip work just do grip work, don’t take away from performance of other movements unless you’re really stuck for time.

Regarding the "grinding the tendons" behind your knees... You're going to have to make a call on this yourself. People report pain and discomfort with a variety of movements. Sometime's it due to incorrect execution, sometimes it's just a bad fit for their body type and roster of injuries. With a leg curl most machines are pretty adjustable, it should be possible to properly set it up for you.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with training using isolation movements, and particularly machines like the leg curl, but if you're doing a number of sets to failure then they can be pretty ... Impactful. I don't want to say painful, because people associate pain with injury in the gym, and that's usually correct, but a max effort set on a leg curl or a leg extension probably will feel pretty intense, particularly if you're doing them properly and really extending the negative.... Which is why some bodybuilders will talk about pushing into the pain zone to illicit progress (Dorian Yates has talked a lot about this over the years, particular as he is a high intensity training advocate).

In terms of whether leg curls are a 'good' movement to perform - yes, by any metric, they're a staple of a lot of programs for good reason.

I think the idea of "athletic carry over" is a a bit of questionable idea, as I've seen people performing wacky movements that achieve very little in the name of doing something they think has a more direct carry over to their sport. But for the sake of argument if someone is an athlete or wants to train like that then leg curls still have a place. You can do your compound lower body lifts first, say squat as a main movement and you do RDL for assistance, or whatever it is, and then you can move on to things like leg presses, leg extensions leg curls and to get further volume without beating the **** out of yourself and particularly your back (For example, you mention RDLs - a good assistance movement but can't slot in a high volume of them as an accessory without a price). This is the way all many of my lower body days are. A novice on a linear progression doesn't need to do this, but if someone has been training for a while then it's pretty smart I think.

If you were focused on hypertrophy / physique then isolation movements like machine movements like leg curls would be even more valuable. The fact that it is an isolation movement specifically targeting the hamstrings is precisely why it might be of more value to you, if hamstrings are a focus, than a deadlift variant that involves a variety of others.

Very easily used for particularly protocols like rest/pause, drop sets and so on also, can't do them safely for the lower body with free weights very easily.