Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said squatting 200+lbs is best for optimal health.
But I'm not going to lift 2lb weights and walk on the treadmill and call myself a fit and feminine woman. If you like that workout routine then cool. But that's not something I'm interested in, weight lifting or not.
And the squatting would be in addition to my current routine. I'm even willing to take breaks from Pilates to focus on the weight lifting for a short period of time.
If you don't like squatting then it is perfectly fine or reasonable. If you don't like women with muscle then that's perfectly fine. If you don't like weights then that's perfectly fine. If you don't find the appearance of fit women (note: I'm not talking about becoming a bodybuilder) then fine. And if you think it's a pathetic or weak # then that's fine as well.
But as I said I'm doing it for me. There is no rule saying that squatting must be done in order to be healthy. I never said that. I said it's a personal goal.
And I'm not exactly sure how that contributes to my question.
I never said squatting 200+lbs is best for optimal health.
But I'm not going to lift 2lb weights and walk on the treadmill and call myself a fit and feminine woman. If you like that workout routine then cool. But that's not something I'm interested in, weight lifting or not.
And the squatting would be in addition to my current routine. I'm even willing to take breaks from Pilates to focus on the weight lifting for a short period of time.
If you don't like squatting then it is perfectly fine or reasonable. If you don't like women with muscle then that's perfectly fine. If you don't like weights then that's perfectly fine. If you don't find the appearance of fit women (note: I'm not talking about becoming a bodybuilder) then fine. And if you think it's a pathetic or weak # then that's fine as well.
But as I said I'm doing it for me. There is no rule saying that squatting must be done in order to be healthy. I never said that. I said it's a personal goal.
And I'm not exactly sure how that contributes to my question.
Anyway, thank you to those who responded.
If you can already squat 150 then 200 isn't much of a stretch. It's good to have goals
I am a male and trying to get back in form in my 40's. I can barely squat 90 lbs with good form and decent reps. This thread makes me feel bad but I will keep at it.
I am a male and trying to get back in form in my 40's. I can barely squat 90 lbs with good form and decent reps. This thread makes me feel bad but I will keep at it.
Don't feel bad!
Everyone has to start somewhere. It will get easier and soon you'll be lifting more than 90 lbs. But I don't think most people could even lift 90 lbs if they tried.
I've always felt that it's easier for a woman to squat heavy as opposed to benching heavy (when compared to a similarly sized man).
As for the squats, I have never seen a woman squat more than 115 lbs for reps and haven't seen anyone "max out" on the squats since high school. Most of the women that lift seriously at my gym are short, gymnast looking ladies and the medium/stocky softball player types.
I understand the importance of strength training, but you may find that doing a strict, tension controlled pistol squat, especially with your hands interlocked behind your back, is more difficult than squatting 200 lbs.
Additionally, I didn't say that I didn't lift weights, just that I didn't lift them in a conventional fashion, IE, bench press, back squat, deadlift.
However, I do use kettlebells, and you may find, depending on your goals, that a kettlebell swing will accomplish more for you than the back squat, especially when you also do pistol squats.
This is especially true if your main concern is your glutes. I believe you'll find that kettlebell swings are great for glute development and overall athleticism.
I think you may be underestimating calisthenics. You can build a tremendous amount of strength with calisthenics, as well as an aesthetically pleasing body. Just think about the amount of effort it takes to accomplish a one arm push up or headstand/handstand push ups.
Strength is a CNS response, so you have to learn to use tension to activate your muscle fibers. You'll find that with practice and dedication, you can become incredibly strong without the use of external weights.
Personally, I like to add certain kettlebell movements to my work out for conditioning and to develop hip power, but calisthenics alone are capable of building an athletic body.
I prefer that combination to conventional weights because I believe it's safer, and better for your joints.
I'm sorry but there's no way that kettleball swings rival heavy squats in terms of strength development. That's just laughable. In terms of pure strength development nothing rivals heavy free weight lifting at low reps. That's just the way it is. And how is doing a pistol squat more difficult that squatting 200 pounds? That simply doesn't make sense. No squat using just your body weight is more difficult than squatting 200 pounds.
If lightening strikes a line in the ground and you're holding the phone, your arm may tense so hard that in snaps the bone in half.
Strength is a CNS response. You can use tension and muscular control to make a movement much more difficult than it would be if you neglected to do so.
For example, if you grip the pull up bar and concentrate on tensing your lats, you can make a pull up much harder than if your merely flailing yourself up there as many people tend to do. That translates into a greater strength gain and you can test it by doing assisted one armed pull ups or one arm pull ups and noticing your strength has risen.
Also, while you say it's laughable, that doesn't support the research being done.
Yes, that's all well and good. It doesn't refute anything I've said though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Apparently, you don't believe it's possible to use heavier weight with kettlebells. First of all, a kettlebell swing is more comparable to a deadlift rather than a squat. If you're swinging over 100 lbs, you're using a fraction of the weight you would use when you deadlift; however, you're receiving perhaps, even better athletic benefits, and it will directly translate into how much weight you can lift off the floor.
The point is, you're using a fraction of the weight you need to use for a maximal deadlift, but your gaining better athletic benefits.
Saying that you get better 'athletic benefits' is subjective. Doing heavy deadlifts will activate more muscles and give you more pure strength gains than swinging a 100 pound kettleball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Assuming you're a 200 lb man, I would easily wager to say that a one legged squat or a "pistol squat" is much more difficult than lifting 200 lbs on a bar. There are powerlifters who can lift 500 lbs that can't get one decent pistol squat.
Can you do a pistol squat? Have you tried one?
Pistol squats are more about balance and flexibility than strength. The woman in this video can do them better than I can but I'm much stronger will far more muscle mass. You're not going to develop great strength or build much muscle doing those. lol
The thing with bodyweight is that there is no room for being lazy. It requires more effort because many of the movements also test your balance and your control as well as requiring degrees of tension for maximum results.
And just like you vary the weight to work through periodization, you have to also vary the tension. It's mind-body control.
Perhaps you should try some of these exercises before you discount them. I agree that back squatting is a great test of strength; however, some forward thinking strength scientists that build athletes are using different techniques such as the rear-leg elevated squat or "Belgian squat," or Accelerating Isokinetic machines developed by the Russians.
Sport Science is evolving. Not everyone believes that lifting maximal weight adequately addresses the needs of athletes, especially elite athletes.
If your goal is to squat heavyweight for the sake of squatting heavy weight, then by all means, squat heavyweight.
If you plan on becoming a better athlete, then perhaps that isn't the optimal way to achieve that goal.
And if your goal is longevity, maybe 3 to 5 or even 6 hundred lbs on your back twice a week for reps isn't the best thing you can do in the long run for your spine and your knees. I am happy that there are forward thinking trainers and sports scientists that find ways to develop athletes without wearing them down.
I'm all for balance and flexibility training. It's just a different sort of training than strength training. I'm a believer that old fashioned free weight training will give you the greatest strength gains. I squat or deadlift twice a week with no joint or back issues. In fact, my back and joints seem stronger than ever because of it. If you use poor form or lift more weight than you can handle then of course it's not good for you. Anyway, to each his own. I'll stick with my method and you stick with yours. It really depends on your goals.
I understand the importance of strength training, but you may find that doing a strict, tension controlled pistol squat, especially with your hands interlocked behind your back, is more difficult than squatting 200 lbs.
Additionally, I didn't say that I didn't lift weights, just that I didn't lift them in a conventional fashion, IE, bench press, back squat, deadlift.
However, I do use kettlebells, and you may find, depending on your goals, that a kettlebell swing will accomplish more for you than the back squat, especially when you also do pistol squats.
This is especially true if your main concern is your glutes. I believe you'll find that kettlebell swings are great for glute development and overall athleticism.
I think you may be underestimating calisthenics. You can build a tremendous amount of strength with calisthenics, as well as an aesthetically pleasing body. Just think about the amount of effort it takes to accomplish a one arm push up or headstand/handstand push ups.
Strength is a CNS response, so you have to learn to use tension to activate your muscle fibers. You'll find that with practice and dedication, you can become incredibly strong without the use of external weights.
Personally, I like to add certain kettlebell movements to my work out for conditioning and to develop hip power, but calisthenics alone are capable of building an athletic body.
I prefer that combination to conventional weights because I believe it's safer, and better for your joints.
My post is addressing several different posters.
This question is not about whether a person thinks weight lifting is better or calisthenics or better. I already said I do pilates and I absolutely love it.
And to say a pistol squat does not work strength is very narrow minded. You admitted that you can use tension to enhance your pull up strength, but you refuse to admit that it applies to the lower body?
If you absolutely do not believe it applies, then you may lack the mentality and the know how to generate tension; however, you CAN add weight to pistols also, and I can assure that a pistol squat with what is referred to as "the beast" is not merely a "balance and flexibility" style of training. It is absolutely strength training.
Somehow you manged to miss that the point of posting the video was to show that pistol squats don't require much strength at all. Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this conversation. Oh, and I'm sorry that your joints aren't up to the task of heavy lifting anymore. Not everyone can handle it.
Also, while you say it's laughable, that doesn't support the research being done.
Please, show me this research being done, and show it being done by those who actually are in the field of strength training, not some toothpick writing for Mens Health magazine or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Apparently, you don't believe it's possible to use heavier weight with kettlebells. First of all, a kettlebell swing is more comparable to a deadlift rather than a squat. If you're swinging over 100 lbs, you're using a fraction of the weight you would use when you deadlift; however, you're receiving perhaps, even better athletic benefits, and it will directly translate into how much weight you can lift off the floor.
Kettlebell is not comparable to neither. You have no idea how to compare the athletic benefits as you have no idea what benefit someone is looking for. If some is looking to dead lift the max they can, kettlbells are not going to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
The point is, you're using a fraction of the weight you need to use for a maximal deadlift, but your gaining better athletic benefits.
Please describe this :better athletic benefit". You have no idea what you are tlkaing about, if you did, you would not such an absurd term that means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Assuming you're a 200 lb man, I would easily wager to say that a one legged squat or a "pistol squat" is much more difficult than lifting 200 lbs on a bar. There are powerlifters who can lift 500 lbs that can't get one decent pistol squat.
Pistol squatting has more to do with balance and flexibility, not strength. A powerlifter cannot do one because he did not practice it. Give him four weeks and he will do them just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Can you do a pistol squat? Have you tried one?
Many people do them, very common in gyms like BJJ and muay thai, lifters do them either, so you can get off your pretentious hype regarding them as numerous lifters do pistol squats, they are great for keeping in shape when cannot get to the gym.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
The thing with bodyweight is that there is no room for being lazy. It requires more effort because many of the movements also test your balance and your control as well as requiring degrees of tension for maximum results.
Yea, and having twice your body weight hovering over your chest is being lazy? Doing a dead lift 2.5x your body weight is being lazy? I lvoe how you think lifters are lazy, and it is even more absurd that you think none of them engage in body weight training, I assure you, about every legit lifter engages in body weight training, most use it as a good warm up before they start their lifting, or do it on a non-lift day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Perhaps you should try some of these exercises before you discount them. I agree that back squatting is a great test of strength; however, some forward thinking strength scientists that build athletes are using different techniques such as the rear-leg elevated squat or "Belgian squat," or Accelerating Isokinetic machines developed by the Russians.
You do realize all of these little different techniques are just accessories for the squat, or for people who have issues with the squat like mobility or injuries? You think no one in the lifting world ever does different variations? You really have no idea...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
Sport Science is evolving. Not everyone believes that lifting maximal weight adequately addresses the needs of athletes, especially elite athletes.
Yes, every athlete from tennis to football lift weights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
If you plan on becoming a better athlete, then perhaps that isn't the optimal way to achieve that goal.
Again, every athlete ranging from tennis, to swimming, to basketball, to football, lift weights. Goodness, you ever went to college even? Ever hit the gym and see the different athletic groups there hitting the weights? Are you at all, or ever have been, involved in any sports and a competitive level? You make way too many false assumptions to even be taken seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments
And if your goal is longevity, maybe 3 to 5 or even 6 hundred lbs on your back twice a week for reps isn't the best thing you can do in the long run for your spine and your knees. I am happy that there are forward thinking trainers and sports scientists that find ways to develop athletes without wearing them down.
You have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about. You just come up with some baseless BS and preach it like it is the truth. You remind me of this other poster (are you him?) that started BS like this once, a few posters put him in his place. //www.city-data.com/forum/exerc...ybuilders.html
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
