Squats the story - the Off Topic Thread...

amazingemmet wrote: »

tldr: training arms without squats is more effective then training arms with squats

Thats not how I understood it, but I might have picked it up wrongly, its always like another language reading these studies!

Reading the abstract first I (wrongly) thought one group was only doing arm exercises, and the other did arms and then legs. The ones doing only arms increased arms cross section area by 12%, and the arms & legs group increased 10%. They did not view this as significant though.

Despite vast differences in hormone availability in the immediate postexercise period, we found no differences in the increases in strength or hypertrophy in muscle exercised under low or high hormone conditions after 15 wk of resistance training.

Then reading the full text it seemed there were not 2 groups, all the guys worked out one arm one day (LH) and on another day they worked out the other arm and then the legs after (HH). I thought it would be better to have 2 groups, one doing just arms, and the other arms and then legs.

So all I conclude is there may be no difference doing arm work and then legs straight after, or doing arms & legs on a different day. I still have no idea from the study if leaving out leg work competely is better/worse for arm gains -everybody worked out legs.

They went on to say

We found no additional strength improvements in the arm trained under the HH condition, which is in contrast to a study (10) that is commonly cited

This is "study 10" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2001.110606.x/abstract;jsessionid=3DD92AE1F1F4CC6A3190FC59BFA02E33.d03t02
Now in this study they did have 2 groups, both only trained one arm, but one trained legs straight after that single arm. The guys doing legs & arms did get stronger (the groups with L below).

Isometric strength increased significantly in LAT and LAC by 37% and 10%, respectively, while the 9% and 2% increases in AT and AC, respectively, remained insignificant.

That study is flawed too though, said they tried to match the groups but the leg group were stronger to begin with. I don't see them as being in total contrast as they were so different.

________________________
I found this study very interesting
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18202577
2 groups did unusually light single arm work, 3 sets 10 reps of 50%1RM

Then they did light leg work 3sets 15-30reps 30%1RM, one group did this normally, the other had thighs occluded (think tight knee wraps on the thighs to partially restrict blood flow).

The guys with no restricted blood flow had no gains in arms or legs. The guys with thigh wraps got stronger legs AND arms. Now occlusion is know to increase strength at low intensities, but this was showing it was also effecting the arms which were worked out unrestricted.

p_larkin99 wrote: »

Have a quick question but not sure it warranted a thread of its own....

when doing certain exercises designed to work my chest i can never feel my chest actually working, it never hurts after the exercise etc (apart from when i lean forward when doing dips!) Take benching for example, I feel my arms/shoulders getting sore after a few reps but just nothing really on my chest. Same thing when doing DB flies, presses and even push ups.

Any insight?

try slowing the movement down and really concentrate on using your chest to move the weight.at the top of the movement try to squeeze your pecs together,pause then lower the weight.you should definitely feel it more with the isolation exercises like the flies.on the flat bench press you might be taking the bar down to high on the chest...try to bring it down to your nipples(easier on the shoulders)
you'll probably need to lower the weight to try this but as your form improves you will move back up before you know it.
let us know how you get on.:)

Holy crap thats impressive!What a freak..

He was lifting in the cork open last year. There's a video of him somewhere doing a backflip to celebrate his last snatch. Feckin lunatic!

He had a comment asking him how much he benches, the reply...

"benching's for gays"

I'm not sure which is worse - the squat itself, or some of the comments saying there is nothing wrong with it

http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/18084

Hanley wrote: »

I'm sick of seeing fat c*nts squat 3x bodyweight miles high in an absolute ton of equipment.

It's a f*cking disgrace that he got that lift.

Genunine Question.

To my untrained eye it looked like he "just" got to parallel, it this not the case or is he required to get below parallel for a good lift?