Gamechanger: Gain 30, Pull 500.

Lol said:
Mainly due to O-shoes adding an extra inch or so to height bar lifted? How much do you think being belted helps you?
Click to expand...

Mainly the belt, the shoes are a factor, but I think the belt is the main factor. I didn't realize how much the belt helps until I tried to do them belt less, I definitely felt weaker in my lower spinal area without the belt. I've done belted pulls in Olympic shoes and it wasn't a big deal.
 
Last edited:
I think I am going to lighten the load a bit with the rack pulls, make them more like Romanian deads, and do them with normal HST loading, volume and frequency. Also, I am going to do them along with the barbell rows every workout, I forgot what a great back exercise BB rows are.
This should hypertrophy the posterior chain well, without overtraining my erectors as the heavy rack pulls are prone to do.
 
Sci said:
Mainly the belt, the shoes are a factor, but I think the belt is the main factor. I didn't realize how much the belt helps until I tried to do them belt less, I definitely felt weaker in my lower spinal area without the belt. I've done belted pulls in Olympic shoes and it wasn't a big deal.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Try belt-less rack pulls in your regular deadlift shoes for a set and then belted for a set. I personally find that O-shoes make a noticeable difference to what I can pull off the floor.
 
Lol said:
Interesting. Try belt-less rack pulls in your regular deadlift shoes for a set and then belted for a set. I personally find that O-shoes make a noticeable difference to what I can pull off the floor.
Click to expand...

How so?

Also, belt means you lift more? Yay/nay? Wouldn't that be taking away some of the load (tension) from the muscles involved?
 
I honestly don't know if it was the belt, or the fact that I wasn't fully recovered from my last rack pull session, plus wearing oly shoes.
My erectors always take a long time to recover from heavy loads, thus I am going to work them with more HST programming, which should allow greater recovery with sub max loading, etc.

I do think the belt allows better stability of the lower spine. Pushing against the belt with the abdominals stiffens up the area, and probably does take some of the load off the erectors.
 
Shoes of whatever variety always absolutely effect my deads and rack pulls. I can pretty much only lift in chucks, wrestling shoes or without shoes or it screws the lift up. Soft soled shoes, sneakers or running shoes easily subtract 100 lbs + from what I can manage during the lift when I'm going for a max single or triple. Obviously I'm talking about when working at loads closer to maximal, for warmups they do not make as much of a difference, regardless, feet flat and stable is definitely essential for proper deadlifting. I haven't tried other very flat shoes like vibrams, etc, but I'm sure they would work well for deadlifting as well.
 
Yeah, I might get some chucks soon. The oly shoes are Werksan's which have a hard wooden heel, so the sole is very hard, but the heel is elevated which isn't ideal for deads obviously.
 
With regards to the belt, it's hard for me to give advice as I've never used them, but I would think you'd be better off limiting it to when your erectors are greatly fatigued and for maximal work, whether 10 RM, 5 RM or pushing for a single. I'm thinking like even during normal sets, avoid using it until erector fatigue is getting in the way, then belt up so you can continue without the erectors holding you back.

But again, I'm mostly just pulling that out of my ass since I really have little idea how belts help or anything.
 
Agreed, I am going to continue without it for awhile, except for during max attempts.
 
Nice shoes. Are they as flat-soled as chuck's?


In other news, arms still growing. I always seem to grow fastest during the 5s. Measured right arm 16.5" cold, 17" pumped. Personal record.
 

Attachments

  • image-1960526018.jpg
    image-1960526018.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 25
I really like the Olympic shoes for leg pressing or squatting. I wore them for the leg press. They are ok for Romanians or straight leg deads too. But regular deads are much better done in flat soles.

I think I might try barbell squats again. I've been working the leg press sled for like a year. But now that I've got the footlift, I should be able to squat properly.
 
Sci said:
Nice shoes. Are they as flat-soled as chuck's?
Click to expand...

From what I recall about chucks, they are equally flat to the Rhinos, but chucks have much more cushion. The Rhinos have a very thin insole and then a hard rubber outer sole that is about 1/4 inch thick.

What am I missing by not using OLY shoes for squatting? Looks like Oly shoes put your foot in a toe-downward position with the elevated heel. I suppose that makes getting all the way into the hole easier since the natural tendency is to go up on your toes as you go down all the way? (Sorta like a baseball catcher.)
 
What am I missing by not using OLY shoes for squatting? Looks like Oly shoes put your foot in a toe-downward position with the elevated heel. I suppose that makes getting all the way into the hole easier since the natural tendency is to go up on your toes as you go down all the way? (Sorta like a baseball catcher.)
Click to expand...
Squatting in O-shoes reduces the amount of ankle flexibility required for a deep squat. Particularly good for front squats as they allow for a pretty much vertical torso in a rock bottom position.
 
AlexAustralia said:
How so?

Also, belt means you lift more? Yay/nay? Wouldn't that be taking away some of the load (tension) from the muscles involved?
Click to expand...

As a thought/my $.02 on the belt issue...

Belts don't "take away" from the stimulation of the prime movers. You could technically argue they do the opposite. I mean, does your core "lift" the weight in a squat or deadlift? At least in principle, no, the spinal position remains neutral while the prime movers (some combination of the hip and knee extensors) do the work. This is completely different compared to something like a squat suit or bench shirt, in both of those cases the elastic energy is being stored in the material itself, but no such relationship with the belt exists, it can't store elastic energy in that way (obviously).

So the fact that you can lift heavier with a belt pretty much translates directly to the prime movers actually being capable of moving more weight. How? Well the weak link in a squat or a deadlift isn't just the prime movers, the "core" acts to transmit the force produced from the lower body to the bar via a rigid midsection. A belt allows your abs to brace against something, and indeed, research has shown that ab activity is actually HIGHER with a belt. It's actually a little more complicated than this, as it's not just the ab bracing but the whole midsection "filling" against the belt and creating, in effect, an artificially larger midsection. The net effect = increased intra-abdominal/intra-thoracic pressure and consequently a more stable midsection. A more stable midsection = prime movers capable of generating more force. Interestingly, some other activity wearing a belt might be a little lower (e.g. obliques), however.

So what's the downside of belt use? Some people (e.g. Mark Rippetoe, Jim Wendler, the 70's Big guys) don't think there really is one, that belted strength will transfer pretty directly to unbelted strength. Here is a propaganda piece on the topic:

http://70sbig.com/blog/2012/07/belts-redux/

My concern is that a belt, while not exactly a crutch, does actually change the nature of midline stabilization (i.e. stabilizing the core), i.e. alters the recruitment pattern. In terms of what might "transfer to real life" better, obviously not wearing a belt is more similar to that. There are some people in the strength game that I respect greatly (e.g. John Broz) who feel like the belt is a crutch, and don't train their lifters to use one. Here's Mendes' legendary beltless, 800 lb high bar squat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK7m6I5m6gY

A lot of people will be like "LOL BUT HE GOT POPPED USING HGH." Yah, everyone who uses HGH magically gets an 800 lb high bar squat k thx cya bai.

It's honestly a fairly hypothetical argument, and I can see both sides of the debate.

edit: some clarification on the technical stuff.
 
Last edited:
nativetroutbum said:
From what I recall about chucks, they are equally flat to the Rhinos, but chucks have much more cushion. The Rhinos have a very thin insole and then a hard rubber outer sole that is about 1/4 inch thick.

What am I missing by not using OLY shoes for squatting? Looks like Oly shoes put your foot in a toe-downward position with the elevated heel. I suppose that makes getting all the way into the hole easier since the natural tendency is to go up on your toes as you go down all the way? (Sorta like a baseball catcher.)
Click to expand...

Some people have a problem shifting their weight to their toes, but if you're already familiar with keeping the weight over midfoot/heels, this really shouldn't be an issue.

The advantage of the oly shoes is that it will change what your bottom position looks like, i.e. it will be comparatively more upright vs. flat shoes. This technically makes the angle of knee flexion greater at the bottom (i.e. knees more forward), but if you logic it out, in a sense, can actually spare the low back a little, since you won't be as bent over. The main argument in favor of using oly shoes is the anecdotal side, i.e. an overwhelming percentage of the world's best high bar squatters (olympic weightlifters in particular, though even a lot of "real" powerlifting federations like the IPF tend to have many members wearing them for low bar squats) have and continue to use olympic weightlifting shoes. They're definitely worth trying at some point if you've never done so.
 
mikeynov said:
As a thought/my $.02 on the belt issue...

Belts don't "take away" from the stimulation of the prime movers. You could technically argue they do the opposite. I mean, does your core "lift" the weight in a squat or deadlift? At least in principle, no, the spinal position remains neutral while the prime movers (some combination of the hip and knee extensors) do the work. This is completely different compared to something like a squat suit or bench shirt, in both of those cases the elastic energy is being stored in the material itself, but no such relationship with the belt exists, it can't store elastic energy in that way (obviously).

So the fact that you can lift heavier with a belt pretty much translates directly to the prime movers actually being capable of moving more weight. How? Well the weak link in a squat or a deadlift isn't just the prime movers, the "core" acts to transmit the force produced from the lower body to the bar via a rigid midsection. A belt allows your abs to brace against something, and indeed, research has shown that ab activity is actually HIGHER with a belt. It's actually a little more complicated than this, as it's not just the ab bracing but the whole midsection "filling" against the belt and creating, in effect, an artificially larger midsection. The net effect = increased intra-abdominal/intra-thoracic pressure and consequently a more stable midsection. A more stable midsection = prime movers capable of generating more force. Interestingly, some other activity wearing a belt might be a little lower (e.g. obliques), however.

So what's the downside of belt use? Some people (e.g. Mark Rippetoe, Jim Wendler, the 70's Big guys) don't think there really is one, that belted strength will transfer pretty directly to unbelted strength. Here is a propaganda piece on the topic:

http://70sbig.com/blog/2012/07/belts-redux/

My concern is that a belt, while not exactly a crutch, does actually change the nature of midline stabilization (i.e. stabilizing the core), i.e. alters the recruitment pattern. In terms of what might "transfer to real life" better, obviously not wearing a belt is more similar to that. There are some people in the strength game that I respect greatly (e.g. John Broz) who feel like the belt is a crutch, and don't train their lifters to use one. Here's Mendes' legendary beltless, 800 lb high bar squat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK7m6I5m6gY

A lot of people will be like "LOL BUT HE GOT POPPED USING HGH." Yah, everyone who uses HGH magically gets an 800 lb high bar squat k thx cya bai.

It's honestly a fairly hypothetical argument, and I can see both sides of the debate.

edit: some clarification on the technical stuff.
Click to expand...

As Sci said, v.informative, cheers mate.




Re: shoes - these are not to be soft-soled then, for deads/rack pulls/squats etc?

I tend to just use my (slightly worn) bball shoes, which obviously have a fair bit of support and cushioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top