Squat depth
- Thread starter HST_Rihad
- Start date
- Status
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Yes, English isn't my native language (or the one spoken where I live), but in this sentence: "If that means barely moving through a full range of motion"
Interesting why he would distinguish such mode of exercise if it was still done in full ROM? Makes no sense to me.
That's why I understood it as hardly moving even through a portion of the full ROM.
"Barely moving" also means "hardly any movement" so who's right? I guess I am, because once again it would make no sense to tag this poetic description along what is still a perfectly full ROM.
Interesting why he would distinguish such mode of exercise if it was still done in full ROM? Makes no sense to me.
That's why I understood it as hardly moving even through a portion of the full ROM.
"Barely moving" also means "hardly any movement" so who's right? I guess I am, because once again it would make no sense to tag this poetic description along what is still a perfectly full ROM.
Last edited:
The word "through" modifies the meaning of "barely moving", ie, not moving much at all, to just being able to complete a full range of motion. Bryan did not insert the work "even" in his sentence, you did to try and force it to support your position. You are in no position to redefine the North American dialect of the English language.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sci
Well-Known Member
There may indeed be some merit to performing the extra-heavy partial in addition to full ROM leg work. The heavy lockouts could add some strain possibly. However, I would make the full ROM leg press your main focus, as the quadriceps actually get more of the load when the knees are bent and the quads are stretched. As we've discussed before, the load on the bar does not always equal the load on the muscles, because of lever arm physics. 200 kg being pressed in a lockout does not put anywhere near the force of load on the quadriceps as 200 kg in a leg press where the knees go past 90 degrees. As the knees bend, more of the load is applied to the muscles, due to the increased angle of the levers. ( leg bones being the levers of course )
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Sci, a guy on another forum linked to this great video of Dorian Yates performing full ROM leg presses.
The thing is, he took steroids. When taking steroids you can boast excellent form & depth and still grow like bubbles. Naturals need to fight their way through. But you're right in that one should only supplement proper form exercise with partials, which I actually do, only the other way around: first I do the heavier partials 292kg/644lbs, then 240kg/529lbs 10 reps full ROM leg presses.
The thing is, he took steroids. When taking steroids you can boast excellent form & depth and still grow like bubbles. Naturals need to fight their way through. But you're right in that one should only supplement proper form exercise with partials, which I actually do, only the other way around: first I do the heavier partials 292kg/644lbs, then 240kg/529lbs 10 reps full ROM leg presses.
Guys, this is pathetic. Had I been already at my genetic limits you would think my ideas are all great and stuff. Well it just so happens I'm not there yet. Patience, I will get you there
No. They're scientifically flawed.
By calling us pathetic, and applying your previous standards, aren't you acknowledging that you've lost the intellectual debate?
What's most amusing is that you still think you're 'won', so to speak.
I'm sure you're capable of using partials to induce hypertrophy, given enough load. You're also able to iceskate uphill, given enough effort. Neither of those is the optimal way to achieve your goal though.
Just use full ROM, stopping being such a wuss and move the weight already.
If you're going to do heavy partials, at least use a legitimate ROM that brings you closer to doing a negative etc.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Right or wrong about what, exactly? About partials being effective for muscle growth? Can't tell you right now. But assuming the instilled dogma that strength = mass, getting stronger in a lift (and partials do bring up my full ROM weights) will help me gain more muscle in the long run. That's if partials don't bring any mass gains by themselves, which is improbable, especially when coupled with higher-rep full ROM metabolic work.
Easily, with less load, and I do those anyway before increasing the loads enough to require switching to doing partials.
I'll look into inclining the upper platform more, just the way Mr. Yates uses it in the video. That may have something to do with easing going into full ROM, or it may not. We'll see.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Ah, I see. But calling the situation pathetic isn't with regard to me losing the battle or anything, but with regard to you wanting to sanction, moderate or ban me
So it's probably you following the standards when losing 
Strength does not equal mass. If that were true, mass would have to equal strength and I know a lot of massive fat weak people. I also know many very strong oly lifters who do not look very massive. Again, you have a basic misunderstanding of HST and weightlifting in general.
However, your idea of putting your weight sled at 90 degrees is a good one. Or, to the other extreme, and one that would really impress us with your strength gains, is to put it at zero degrees and claim a 2000 kg leg lift. Maybe 3000 kg with a partial.
However, your idea of putting your weight sled at 90 degrees is a good one. Or, to the other extreme, and one that would really impress us with your strength gains, is to put it at zero degrees and claim a 2000 kg leg lift. Maybe 3000 kg with a partial.
Last edited by a moderator:
HST_Rihad
Active Member
I've always thought so, and still do
But the dogma is, strength equals mass. Let me play that game for a bit, by increasing my strength a bit. At least every self-respecting male should strive to achieve BW*1.5 for bench, BW*2 for squats, BW*2.5 for deads. Gaining in strength is necessary for a natural to put on mass, as they say.nativetroutbum
Member
Mass does not equal strength. Seems like you are again confusing correlation with causation.
nativetroutbum
Member
Again, you are confusing correlation and causation.
...A guy I saw walking down the street had big shoulders; therefore, I should walk down the street to get big shoulders.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
I'm not, I've always wanted to reach my mass potential without reaching my strength potential. And I'll keep doing that. HST is great for bringing new size gains without gaining in strength from cycle to cycle - proved.
Sci
Well-Known Member
Proper leg presses, more load applied to the quads when the knees bend more:
http://youtu.be/Gm0rnFJ2ONQ
http://youtu.be/Gm0rnFJ2ONQ
You have just said above that mass does not equal strength, Ergo, strength does not equal mass.
HST is based on, among other things, progressive load, both within a cycle and from cycle to cycle. You do not just repeat each cycle with the same weights you used in the previous cycle. Please show me where it is "proved" that HST is great for bringing new size gains without gaining in strength from cycle to cycle
And why would anyone purposely want to reach their mass potential but not want to reach their strength potential? Who wants to be big and weak? And how does that fit in with your other erroneous statement that "increased tension is as important as micro trauma?" You cannot increase tension without getting stronger.
And you continue to say, "Gaining in strength is necessary for a natural to put on mass, as they say." How do explain fat weak people? You explain it by the simple fact that mass and strength are not equal. Can they be? Yes, sometimes but rarely.
Yes, I agree. You are a very confused boy. Now run along and catch that short yellow school bus that dropped you off here.
Last edited by a moderator:
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Yes, sure. What I meant was, weighing 165 lbs, there does not seem to be a need to squat 330, bench 250, or lift 415 to reach your muscularity potential. I've seen my girth sizes increase with none to minimal strength progression cycle after cycle. Clearly some of that was fat as dictated by my p-ratio. But truth be told, HST allows you to do that.
My chest size progression:
Mar'13 82kg/181lbx5 (30% incline) 110cm/43.3"
---
May'12 87kg/192lbx5 108cm/42.5"
Mar'12 85kg/187lbx5 107.5cm/42.3"
Jan'12 82kg/180lbx5 107cm/42.1"
Dec'11 82kg/180lbx5 106cm/41.7"
Oct'11 82kg/180lbx4 105cm/41.3"
Jul'11 80kg/176lbx5 104cm/40.9"
May'11 80kg/176lbx4 102cm/40.1
As you can see strength progression was quite modest, but size gains were relatively speaking quite noticeable.
Thigh & biceps size progression was similar.
You mean fat fat? Does one need to go to the gym for that? Simply overeating is enough, gym or not.
If you eat garbage and work out like a partial loving pussy, you get fat without any strength gains. I suspect that is what happened to you. Read Totz's chapter on nutrition and try it again.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
That's definitely what I don't want to do, the bulk/cut cycle of staying fat almost the entire year. Out of all his pics in his book there isn't a single one where you can see any of his abs. I'm not saying I'm already lean, but I will be. Strength gains is something I really am not after. It's just this 300kg leg press that I need to reach to kill a bug inside me I like the fact that with HST you can gain mass without having to gain too much strength (and increase risk of injury etc), thanks to SD and the linear progression.
I like the fact that with HST you can gain mass without having to gain too much strength (and increase risk of injury etc), thanks to SD and the linear progression.- Status