I’ve been doing barbell hack squats for a little over a year (hack is around 400ish).
Recently I switched to regular squats and realized my back squats are very weak (I think my hamstrings must be lagging since its the bottom of the movement that is the hardest)
Currently I am doing 3x3 (~ my 4-5RM, did 175 today) and then a set of 10 with 150.
Also doing lying leg curls with 90x8 (3 sets)
Is this effective for catching up on the back squat, what would be the fastest way possible to put on strength and size?
10 lbs a week is a shit ton, at least if you wanna sustain it for more than a few weeks. ever thought about doing smolov? if squats are your sole focus it might be a reasonable idea.
partials might help you at the bottom. how do you squat? ATG? parallel? high/low bar?
If you want to increase your squats like crazy, you should check out Super Squats. It’s an old school program where you do 20 reps of your 10 rep squat max for one set. You squat every workout if you can recover quickly enough and you increase 5 lbs each workout. It’s a 6 week program and if you follow it, your squats will increase incrementally. I began Super Squats with 315 lbs and I’ll be hammering out a set of 405 next Sunday for 20 reps. It’s also known as the Squats and Milk program. It’s old school crazy stuff, but it works. I gained A LOT of strength and mass. Beware: every set of 20 SUCKS and it’s that much more awesome for it.
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
I’ve been doing barbell hack squats for a little over a year (hack is around 400ish).
Recently I switched to regular squats and realized my back squats are very weak (I think my hamstrings must be lagging since its the bottom of the movement that is the hardest)
Currently I am doing 3x3 (~ my 4-5RM, did 175 today) and then a set of 10 with 150.
Also doing lying leg curls with 90x8 (3 sets)
Is this effective for catching up on the back squat, what would be the fastest way possible to put on strength and size?
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
what about doing 3x3 and then 20 rep squats twice a week?
or is that too much
also, i squat parallel
smolov looks decent but my squat #s are so bad it’s probably not aggressive enough
[/quote]
Lol @ Smolov not being aggressive enough. Try it. Just try it. I’ve never had a program more aggressive than Smolov. It WILL put meat on,your squat…or beat you senseless if you dont eat and stretch and foam roll enough. You hVe to make sure all your reps are deep tho, thats the hard trick to it. Can’t cut depth as the weight goes up…thats what gets everybody.
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
what about doing 3x3 and then 20 rep squats twice a week?
or is that too much
also, i squat parallel
smolov looks decent but my squat #s are so bad it’s probably not aggressive enough
[/quote]
Lol @ Smolov not being aggressive enough. Try it. Just try it. I’ve never had a program more aggressive than Smolov. It WILL put meat on,your squat…or beat you senseless if you dont eat and stretch and foam roll enough. You hVe to make sure all your reps are deep tho, thats the hard trick to it. Can’t cut depth as the weight goes up…thats what gets everybody.[/quote]
on the smolov page it says beginners would get better gains doing stronglifts or another program though?
Yes, you can’t even squat 200lbs yet. However, you can hack squat 400lbs and aren’t shirking on the leg curls.
This suggests poor coordination and lack of skill where actual squats are concerned.
Squat 3-4 times a week ramping up to 3x5(don’t go heavy but do progress the weight) and then do 3x10 with good mornings. This is to practice the movement and not get in the way of your other training.
practice the movement and read everything you can find on it. This will serve you better than jumping straight into Smolov
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
what about doing 3x3 and then 20 rep squats twice a week?
or is that too much
also, i squat parallel
smolov looks decent but my squat #s are so bad it’s probably not aggressive enough
[/quote]
Lol @ Smolov not being aggressive enough. Try it. Just try it. I’ve never had a program more aggressive than Smolov. It WILL put meat on,your squat…or beat you senseless if you dont eat and stretch and foam roll enough. You hVe to make sure all your reps are deep tho, thats the hard trick to it. Can’t cut depth as the weight goes up…thats what gets everybody.[/quote]
on the smolov page it says beginners would get better gains doing stronglifts or another program though?
[/quote]
Very true. I was mostly commenting on your “doesn’t look hard enough” reply.
Likely you have no coordination at the actual squat/your technique sucks. If you can legitimately hack squat 400 lbs but not back squat 225, then you need some serious work on your technique
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
what about doing 3x3 and then 20 rep squats twice a week?
or is that too much
also, i squat parallel
smolov looks decent but my squat #s are so bad it’s probably not aggressive enough
[/quote]
Lol @ Smolov not being aggressive enough. Try it. Just try it. I’ve never had a program more aggressive than Smolov. It WILL put meat on,your squat…or beat you senseless if you dont eat and stretch and foam roll enough. You hVe to make sure all your reps are deep tho, thats the hard trick to it. Can’t cut depth as the weight goes up…thats what gets everybody.[/quote]
on the smolov page it says beginners would get better gains doing stronglifts or another program though?
[/quote]
Very true. I was mostly commenting on your “doesn’t look hard enough” reply.
Likely you have no coordination at the actual squat/your technique sucks. If you can legitimately hack squat 400 lbs but not back squat 225, then you need some serious work on your technique[/quote]
yeah, was just saying my squat #'s are so low its probably not a good idea to do smolov
did 175x6 and 155x10 today (was going for 20 but my back was killing me… mustve been good morning-ing the weight a little bit)
still not sure if I would make better gains doing them 2x a week or 3x… has anyone done 20 rep squats 3x a week (seems a little brutal), plus a heavy set(like 4-8)? I remember stalling out on hack squats when I was doing that