[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Look, everyone here is thinking it but I suppose I’ll be the one to go ahead and say it.
What are your shits like?[/quote]
HA! Yeah, for the history of all my health experiments I get that a lot… All beef shits are dark, small in size, and wet.
[/quote]
“health experiments”
Interesting choice of words.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Just because I’ve done box squats before in a different methodology with a different diet doesn’t mean it won’t work now.
[/quote]
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
You’re asking me to prove my own strength? I can do it, but I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results. I only weigh 175-180 right now, and I have a 405 tested max, to depth, on video. As recently as last night I worked up to a single at 385, followed by sets of 8 at 295, all full depth. I’ve performed a set of 30 squats with 225 on the bar, also to full depth. Do you really think I’m going to have a problem half-squatting 185 for 50 reps? My gym doesn’t have plyo boxes, but if you can get me a height for the box you used, I can stack aerobic steps to the correct height. I’m 5’10, and I think you said you were 6’0, so the box height should be fine. Or I can set the steps 2 inches lower if you’d prefer.
Fair enough on the response regarding your own maxes, I’m sure you’ll be able to post vids of these later on. I wouldn’t expect these to be tested in the midst of your experiment.[/quote]
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. I’ll get the height. If that’s easy for you do a good old breathing set around 50 reps and I’d love to get your feedback on what you think of the intensity in respect to other techniques.
I could potentially work in a set of max effort. Maybe at the 1 month mark and the end for a better measure of progress.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
My question becomes then, when is it appropriate to work in box squats, leg press, and other more limited ROM movements?
[/quote]
Gee, that almost sounds like doing a normal weightlifting program instead of The Predator Program ™, so I’m not sure there’s any place for those in your program.
Honestly, it’s kind of funny that you would embark on this sideways program based entirely around sets of breathing squats and then fall back on principles from Westside because “Louie and the boys don’t do them for no reason.”
Louie and the boys do box squats because box squats are really, really good for people training for a powerlifting meet in which they’ll be squatting in a suit. Other people do box squats for varying reasons; I did them quite a bit when I was playing football because I thought the explosion out of the hole was a great simulator of coming out of a stance (sidebar: you seem to equate “box squats” with a specific depth. Wrong, Batman. Box squats can be done to high boxes, medium boxes, low boxes, shoe boxes…there is not one magical depth that is “box depth”).
There is nothing inherently wrong with doing box squats or partial ROM…except that when your entire program is doing sets of breathing squats and nothing else…I don’t even know what we’re talking about any more.
[/quote]
This is a great response as to the purpose of box squats. OP, I think you mentioned earlier that you did Westside-style lifting for awhile. You should be well aware that most of their lifters compete in multi-ply. They use the box squat as a training device for getting the most leverage out of their suits. This doesn’t seem to be particularly useful for your own training purposes. And you’re not REALLY performing box squats anyway. You’re using the box more as a depth marker than anything else. a tape measure would have sufficed.
It’s also disappointing that your response to the purpose/benefit of a box squat was ‘leg strength’. You go into so much detail on other things, but when trying to justify a movement that seems integral to your programming, this is all you’ve got? ActivitiesGuy demonstrated a much better understanding of the movement. Also, if ‘leg strength’ was actually the sole benefit you derived from the box squats, I would contend that ‘more leg strength’ can be achieved through a greater range of motion.
In the interest of efficient programming, if I’m only going to perform 1 squat-based movement per session, and I have a limited number of sessions available to me throughout the week/month I would want to perform the one that elicits more strength enhancement. Training economy has value, particularly when you only get to eat once every 3 days.
Which cup is mine again?
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
You’re asking me to prove my own strength? I can do it, but I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results. I only weigh 175-180 right now, and I have a 405 tested max, to depth, on video. As recently as last night I worked up to a single at 385, followed by sets of 8 at 295, all full depth. I’ve performed a set of 30 squats with 225 on the bar, also to full depth. Do you really think I’m going to have a problem half-squatting 185 for 50 reps? My gym doesn’t have plyo boxes, but if you can get me a height for the box you used, I can stack aerobic steps to the correct height. I’m 5’10, and I think you said you were 6’0, so the box height should be fine. Or I can set the steps 2 inches lower if you’d prefer.
Fair enough on the response regarding your own maxes, I’m sure you’ll be able to post vids of these later on. I wouldn’t expect these to be tested in the midst of your experiment.[/quote]
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. I’ll get the height. If that’s easy for you do a good old breathing set around 50 reps and I’d love to get your feedback on what you think of the intensity in respect to other techniques.
I could potentially work in a set of max effort. Maybe at the 1 month mark and the end for a better measure of progress.
[/quote]
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]flipcollar wrote:
It’s also disappointing that your response to the purpose/benefit of a box squat was ‘leg strength’. You go into so much detail on other things, but when trying to justify a movement that seems integral to your programming, this is all you’ve got?[/quote]
I’m not going into detail because squat depth and technique is a raging debate. Plus I’ve already said I’ll switch up to full depth as of now. I had a mindset that thought it would be beneficial to do otherwise, points were made, I’m going to switch.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
It’s not lazy thinking it’s lazy writing. I know a lot more of the reasons but I don’t want to hash out over all those details.[/quote]
Can you explain why your previous training and diet plans didn’t work for you? What, exactly, were the reasons you didn’t have success with them?
And I’m trying to establish that you’re hacking something together instead of taking a more thoughtful approach. You’re not doing a particularly good job at addressing the cardiovascular endurance side of things; you’re not doing a good job at building the neural patterns for deep squats with good form. There are better tools to do both of those.
I didn’t say it won’t work, but it’s not a very… how do I say it… effective use of the tool.
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]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.