T Nation

The Predator Program

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I’ve seen breathing sets described in different ways. You have a link to explain exactly what this would entail? You and LoRez seem to be the only guys on here doing these.[/quote]

For consistency just do them like I do them. I try to limit breaks between 5 - 15 seconds. Group the reps however you like. I personally go for as many as I can until my concentric speed starts to slow down.

If this is a wrong way to do breathing sets yes please inform me, but we need a consistent application of technique.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
You might be able to get away with hammering screws into wood for awhile, but you’ll need a screwdriver to get it in a chunk of steel.[/quote]

Fuck I love variations of that quote.

I get what you’re saying LoRez, but for now instead of casting doubts on my prior efforts or thought processes let’s roll with improving this one.

Again, I’m convinced to switch to full depth now but I’m not going to be convinced to ditch this experiment for a conventional program so that’s futile.

Wait wut? You get breaks on breathing squats??

[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
I get what you’re saying LoRez, but for now instead of casting doubts on my prior efforts or thought processes let’s roll with improving this one.
[/quote]

Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that your prior efforts and thought processes might teach you something and help you “roll with improving” this program?

For example: if you failed to progress on a prior program, and we learn that in said prior program you were squatting to poor depth, we have learned that you might progress better in your experiment by squatting to better depth.

You’re happy to go into wacky pseudoscience at great length when it supports your experiment, but whenever someone asks you a simple question about prior training, you brush it off. He’s not asking you because you’re wrong; he’s trying to get you to think a bit more analytically instead of writing off other programs with vague statements like “I didn’t get the results I was looking for” (and then, oddly enough, going back and referencing things from those other programs for support when questioned about the utility of an exercise like the box squat and leg press).

[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
It’s not that I want you to prove your strength to me, just I want you to try it. Just like there are big differences between full depth and box depth there are big differences between a set of 30 and a set of 50. I can take criticism when it’s just, but I want you to try it and see if you really think a beginning lifter could do that in a couple months. If you do and still say the same thing fine.
[/quote]

Is this the relevant time to point out I did a set of 30 deep squats with bodyweight 3 months into lifting? And got it on video?

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
It’s not that I want you to prove your strength to me, just I want you to try it. Just like there are big differences between full depth and box depth there are big differences between a set of 30 and a set of 50. I can take criticism when it’s just, but I want you to try it and see if you really think a beginning lifter could do that in a couple months. If you do and still say the same thing fine.
[/quote]

Is this the relevant time to point out I did a set of 30 deep squats with bodyweight 3 months into lifting? And got it on video?

Yes.

My opinion is that 30 deep squats at bodyweight likely translates well to 50 half squats at the same weight, based on my own experiences with the difficulty/effort required to perform each.

I also wanted to throw this out there: I don’t believe these 30-50 rep sets are an effective tool for building the squat if they’re not used in conjunction with significantly lower-rep sets, the latter being more of a focus than the former. I consider anything over 20 reps of any type of squat to be much more of a conditioning tool. CT’s article yesterday highlights this fact well. If we assume my actual max is 405, then working with my bodyweight on my back is going to equate to about 40-45% of my max. A load like this is best used for building speed and explosive power. But in this context, that benefit is nil, because the reps are high, placing me in a significantly fatigued state for a good portion of the reps.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Is this the relevant time to point out I did a set of 30 deep squats with bodyweight 3 months into lifting? And got it on video?
[/quote]

Those were full squats not deep squats. And the squat mornings get a lot more pronounced after the 10th rep.

[quote]PureNsanity wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Is this the relevant time to point out I did a set of 30 deep squats with bodyweight 3 months into lifting? And got it on video?
[/quote]

Those were full squats not deep squats. And the squat mornings get a lot more pronounced after the 10th rep.
[/quote]

Oh wow. I just… I don’t even. Wow.

[quote]PureNsanity wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Is this the relevant time to point out I did a set of 30 deep squats with bodyweight 3 months into lifting? And got it on video?
[/quote]

Those were full squats not deep squats. And the squat mornings get a lot more pronounced after the 10th rep.
[/quote]

It was also after 3 months of training.
And it was the first time he ever shot a video of a squat session, so I imagine he learned quite a bit from it.
The point of sharing this was to show you that the lifting accomplishments in your video can more or less be easily be attained by a beginner, which I earlier defined as anyone with less than a year of training. Since this example was shot at 3 months, I think it’s a pretty good example. Do you disagree?

What is the difference between a “full squat” and a “deep squat”?

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
What is the difference between a “full squat” and a “deep squat”?[/quote]

I imagine he’s making a distinction between ‘ATG’ and simply breaking parallel, so basically breaking parallel by a few more inches. It’s a funny distinction to be making regarding a video shot 3 months into someone’s lifting career. There’s also a much bigger gap between the half squats of his video and Lorez’s full squat, versus Lorez’s full squat and what he would consider a deep squat, in terms of required strength/flexibility.

I also don’t see why he makes the distinction between a squat and a squat-morning. You move the weight from point A to point B, and back again, for the desired number of reps. I don’t get the concept of ‘style-pointing’ someone, particularly since we started out talking about predators in the wild. A kill’s a kill, I don’t think a lion’s getting style-pointed for how he gets it done. The training effect of a ‘squat-morning’ is still greater than the training effect of a half squat at the same weight.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
What is the difference between a “full squat” and a “deep squat”?[/quote]

I imagine he’s making a distinction between ‘ATG’ and simply breaking parallel, so basically breaking parallel by a few more inches. It’s a funny distinction to be making regarding a video shot 3 months into someone’s lifting career. There’s also a much bigger gap between the half squats of his video and Lorez’s full squat, versus Lorez’s full squat and what he would consider a deep squat, in terms of required strength/flexibility.

I also don’t see why he makes the distinction between a squat and a squat-morning. You move the weight from point A to point B, and back again, for the desired number of reps. I don’t get the concept of ‘style-pointing’ someone, particularly since we started out talking about predators in the wild. A kill’s a kill, I don’t think a lion’s getting style-pointed for how he gets it done. The training effect of a ‘squat-morning’ is still greater than the training effect of a half squat at the same weight.[/quote]

Thanks for writing that. My words were failing me.

I only used “deep squats” to contrast with the lack of depth of those box squats… which really weren’t even box squats… but I don’t really want to go there.

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that your prior efforts and thought processes might teach you something and help you “roll with improving” this program?
[/quote]

It’s a great point and yes I do. If I want to include specifics I mean that’s a lot of years of lifting to cover.

So with HST, Westside, and GVT in each case I got stronger and saw gains but from an aesthetic standpoint I didn’t see corresponding improvements. My PRs were after about a year of Westside training and I got 295/365/415 bench/squat/deadlift. My squat depth was lacking at this point in time.

I had a 3 year hiatus and became a weak, overweight 193 lbs. I hit the gym again for about 2 years without any specific methodology and got down to around 160 lbs. My lifts were pretty weak at this point though. If I remember correctly I went to about 205/245/325.

Over the next year I was going back and forth between Westside and GVT again. I got my lifts back up to 225/295/375.

The next couple years my health experiments started. For the first six months I was using a lot of Westside principles I was limiting my exercise to 3 hours a week for the most part. I continued to use GVT and high volume strategies and got my baseline weight up to 170 lbs the first year.

Any help?

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
What is the difference between a “full squat” and a “deep squat”?[/quote]

I imagine he’s making a distinction between ‘ATG’ and simply breaking parallel, so basically breaking parallel by a few more inches. It’s a funny distinction to be making regarding a video shot 3 months into someone’s lifting career. There’s also a much bigger gap between the half squats of his video and Lorez’s full squat, versus Lorez’s full squat and what he would consider a deep squat, in terms of required strength/flexibility.

I also don’t see why he makes the distinction between a squat and a squat-morning. You move the weight from point A to point B, and back again, for the desired number of reps. I don’t get the concept of ‘style-pointing’ someone, particularly since we started out talking about predators in the wild. A kill’s a kill, I don’t think a lion’s getting style-pointed for how he gets it done. The training effect of a ‘squat-morning’ is still greater than the training effect of a half squat at the same weight.[/quote]

Thanks for writing that. My words were failing me.

I only used “deep squats” to contrast with the lack of depth of those box squats… which really weren’t even box squats… but I don’t really want to go there.[/quote]

Yes that’s what I’m distinguishing. And I never claimed that the video portrayed full depth. Nor did I say it was an actual box squat because I’m doing touch and gos.

I’m not fooling myself over the technique I used, however I was using it purposely. Everyone disagreed with that logic and now I’m going deep.

But in my opinion, and I’m probably biased, 30 full squat mornings aren’t on par with 50 box depth squats.

[quote]PureNsanity wrote:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that your prior efforts and thought processes might teach you something and help you “roll with improving” this program?
[/quote]

It’s a great point and yes I do. If I want to include specifics I mean that’s a lot of years of lifting to cover.

So with HST, Westside, and GVT in each case I got stronger and saw gains but from an aesthetic standpoint I didn’t see corresponding improvements. My PRs were after about a year of Westside training and I got 295/365/415 bench/squat/deadlift. My squat depth was lacking at this point in time.

I had a 3 year hiatus and became a weak, overweight 193 lbs. I hit the gym again for about 2 years without any specific methodology and got down to around 160 lbs. My lifts were pretty weak at this point though. If I remember correctly I went to about 205/245/325.

Over the next year I was going back and forth between Westside and GVT again. I got my lifts back up to 225/295/375.

The next couple years my health experiments started. For the first six months I was using a lot of Westside principles I was limiting my exercise to 3 hours a week for the most part. I continued to use GVT and high volume strategies and got my baseline weight up to 170 lbs the first year.

Any help?
[/quote]

A few things stick out here.

One is that you mentioned aesthetics here, and unless I missed something, this is the first time you’ve mentioned aesthetic goals in this thread. If that was the biggest pitfall of the Strength-oriented training protocols you followed, then does that mean you currently have aesthetic goals apart from performance? Also, you mentioned limiting yourself to 3 hours of exercise per week. Do you mean 3 hours of strength training per week, or exercise, period?

Predators do not care what they look like.

I actually never even mentioned performance goals… My experiment goals are to see what happens. My personal goals are a mix of both aesthetic and strength - I don’t want to neglect either.

Previously when I stagnated in strength I felt it was in part because my muscle size wasn’t changing significantly.

During 8 months of my diet experiments over the last 2 years I limited myself to 3 hours of exercise per week.

Currently though I only have about 3 hours a week to exercise. I would love to spend more time in the gym and I know it’s a limiting factor. If I could spend 12 hours a week in the gym I would in a heartbeat. It’s also part of the purpose for this experiment - it’s a minimal time commitment program.

No offense, but the program described in the OP sounds pretty retarded for a multitude of reasons already discussed at length in the thread. You want to do 50 rep squat sets after not eating for two days? Plus 50 rep cleans and chest flies…

You also seem to be confused as to what your goals actually are. You talk about losing weight but youre also not satisfied with your strength gains or aesthetic development. There are 100’s of programs on this site that would be better suited, even though it’s near impossible to accomplish all 3 at once. My advice: Pick one goal, let the other two become secondary (for now) and KISS.

This experiment has no performance goals it’s merely meant for observation. The weight loss is an observation from what both theory and experimentation on similar eating patterns. It’s an experiment not the ends to my means.

All in all this hasn’t turned into a flame fest… so that’s an accomplishment in itself.

RE: the training… whatever.
One thing to think about, and I’m not TOO familiar w/ the program, is just taking an EDT approach to the 50 reps. So, instead of breathers, I believe you just set an amount of time, weight, and reps… playing with the different variables for different effects. This would also help address some of the other energy system work alluded to earlier.

PS- I just stuffed my face with processed carbs for 6 hours and feel like I’m going to puke.