Author Topic: Interesting article from a greedy hack  (Read 831 times)

Offline Matt Erdman

  • Global Moderator
  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
I haven't spoken to my wife in years. I didn't want to interrupt her. - Rodney Dangerfield

Offline ViKtoricus

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 193
  • On a journey towards human excellence.
"Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit."   -Robert Greene

Offline Shaun Le Conte

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Interesting article from a greedy hack (you jest, OP)
« Reply #2 on: Aug 06, 2011, 03:59 AM »
Provocative title to your post, Matt - reminds me of our earlier discussion. I've changed my tune since then.

I cry inside when I see someone like him say how important squatting is to weightlifting results (since I can't do them), but aside from that lets examine what he wrote in the article.

He says maximum singles are too dangerous, and then recommends a maximum double instead to test a max. A double so heavy that your "spleen touches the back of your left eyeball". To me, this is equally dangerous - the danger comes from that last rep and the weight is only slightly lighter. Why not just go for the single and use spotters?

I would like to see his 1997 article that he referenced - the average lifter at the level of a triple bodyweight in that study had 28 squat sessions  a month. Whew!

Regarding his recommendations, nearly all of them except for the "Chinese method" involve squatting all out, for multiple sets of a few repetitions, up to several times a week depending on your level.

Personally I don't think I could ever handle such training which explains why I squat no more than double bodyweight. I would have to use more of a cycling method that Pavel Tsatsouline tends to recommend. Eventually I could do the frequency, if many of the sessions are at a moderate intensity and I "leave some in the tank" each set.


Parole lachée ne revient jamais
http://canlift.blogspot.com <-- now back to 1960

Offline Matt Erdman

  • Global Moderator
  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
Re: Interesting article from a greedy hack
« Reply #3 on: Aug 06, 2011, 08:34 AM »
Yeah, I was being sarcastic.  :)wink

I'm not sure what the big deal with a 1RM is. Though personally I don't get much training effect from, so I rarely do them. What is the difference between failing a 1RM and failing the second rep of a 2RM? I don't know. At least with a double you can rack it if the first rep is a real grinder.

I liked the chart showing squat frequency to the relative weight lifted.

His listed programs are meant to be done every 5 days or twice a week at most. He takes a "go big or go home" approach until the person gets close to the 3x mark. When squatting exceeds 2 days a week, I'm sure he would recommend medium and light days as well. I have done well with his recommendations, but after a couple times through I started getting worn out.. Even with the lower frequency. So after hitting one of his programs for 6 workouts (3-4 weeks), it can help to do something a little less intense for a cycle.

By the way Shaun, Poliquin is a big fan of SN deadlifts standing on plates or a platform. If you keep your butt down, it will really hammer the legs.
I haven't spoken to my wife in years. I didn't want to interrupt her. - Rodney Dangerfield

Offline Chris Ⓐ LeRoux

  • MS, CSCS, Exempt from USAW bureaucrats
  • Administrator
  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tread On Me At Dire Risk
Re: Interesting article from a greedy hack
« Reply #4 on: Aug 06, 2011, 08:36 AM »
I agree with the hack that heavy doubles in the back squat are safer than heavy singles.
"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

Offline Arturo Gómez

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: Interesting article from a greedy hack
« Reply #5 on: Aug 06, 2011, 02:54 PM »
I think that many of the comparison are not rigourous. The biomechanical of the squat have a big variability, so in many cases are different exercises.
In other order, for safety in squat the most significant is put the bar in a lower position (like powerlifters), but this is a sin for some weighlifitng coaches, and squats turns a neck exercise

Offline eli

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 27
Re: Interesting article from a greedy hack
« Reply #6 on: Aug 06, 2011, 04:05 PM »
He writes that the top eight lifters do 350-380 percent of their weight, but apparently Botev did only 3.36 ?? Why confuse like this when he is just conjecturing the data anyway.  He could have just specified that the top lifters do 300-400% or something like that.  He then says Guenchev (the 67.5kg athlete) did 404%, which is probably accurate because Guenchev clean and jerked 75% of that.  He then presents a chart suggesting that Guenchev would have squatted twice as frequently as Botev, which is probably not the case.  Chart is not very useful since it would have to include bodyweight or weight class as another variable.  For example, to achieve 350% bodyweight squat as a 94kg lifter would certainly require more squat training than to squat 350% bodyweight a 62kg lifter.

Offline eli

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 27
Re: Interesting article from a greedy hack
« Reply #7 on: Aug 06, 2011, 04:54 PM »
Hi Shaun, it's not necessary to go all out in the training reps like he suggests.   You just need to do quality volume at a reasonably high average intensity.  If you always leave a rep or two in the tank, consider adding in the occasional set of stop squats to train force development at slower velocities.