I've a couple of posts in draft that I will get up soon - an update / reflection on Dry January and some thoughts on the scheduling benefits of short workouts if your life is busy. Before that though, I am pointing to something else. However, I wanted to highlight something that is coming this weekend that I've been involved in. Amber Rogers (Gokaleo and author of Taking Up Space ) has been pulling together a bundle of books from various authors with a common theme, one that I've been pushing here recently. Keep it simple, avoid the hype, be patient, be consistent and flee the gurus. I've talked before about how we get obsessed with pushing for more and more, when enough is OK. I've given my view that so much of the health and fitness internet world is more like a gnostic religion than something that will benefit your life. There are other voices out there saying similar things and I'll be pointing to a bundle of books later this week ...
Comments
Also in that same video he overhead press 95 lbs (at most) for 5 reps. (How his body stayed erect wasn't explained.) Skinny chefs, weak exercise gurus ...
Hans: Interesting. Are the women carrying on their head muscular? I think something else is in play, more in the balancing side. And, is it known how their necks and backs do later in life? My general point being, doing something once or for years and getting away with it, doesn't erase wear and tear.
Chuck: I'm pretty careful not to "advocate" anything, other than more awareness of actual, not muscle magazine, biomechanics. If I remember correctly, later in the presentation, I say, "if you are going to squat, be aware of these aspects" with regard to the knees, spine, etc. You may have to buy Anthony's videos to find out;)
Another general comment, if it's not clear in the video. I explain what I do and the reasons behind it. If that works for you, great. If you think it's BS or that I don't have enough muscle, "apparently the material doesn't work for you, best of luck with your training".
I also think it's perfectly valid to take the attitude "if it's not a problem, it's not a problem." I.e. if you like to squat or deadlift, and you are having no problems, by all means, continue. If at some point problems develop, the answer might be in the biomechanics. I've had a number of people rip me major holes over the years, who came back to me months later to say, whoops, I see your point.
Thanks to Anthony for providing so much video, free, I might add.
Bill
Also, you keep saying "biomechanics" the why psychics talk about "quantum mechanics." I'm open to actual mechanical arguments that the leg press produces less compressive and/or shear force on the spine. But you didn't even begin to address the solid mechanics of the rigid spine in either exercise. I then went elsewhere to find more and I didn't. I'm sure you do somewhere, but I don't cross paywalls without some indication of what's on the other side. Any links that go deeper into the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Thanks for clearing that up.
"I don't cross paywalls" is a great line. Almost as good as "I don't feed the trolls".
BTW, you didn't answer Chuck's question. And you didn't backup your young Jedi who fell asleep or something during a speech by the "world's leader in biomechanics."
There is plenty more material out there in the public domain form Bill if you want to investigate further:
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2010/06/congruent-chin.html
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/congruent-exercise-interview-with-bill_18.html
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/movement-arm-exercise.html
Also check the comments on those posts.....
Regarding Chuck's question, Bill answered by saying he doesn't advocate anything. Really? because I'm pretty sure in the video he said the leg press was as effective as the squat and less dangerous. If that isn't advocacy, I don't know what is. Also, Anthony understood the question and thought he remembered Bill addressing it. Then Bill dodged it. The whole thing is just bizarre.
So, fitting exercises into those two categories, I would suggest least stress to most: Nitro leg press, hip belt squat, then all the others, depending on how much lean there is, more lean = more stress.
1) More lean doesn't necessarily mean more stress. Compare a front and back squat. The back squatters lean more because the bar is closer to the sacrum, but that closer distance may be enough to make the moment arm (horizontal distance between the bar and sacrum) shorter despite the more acute angle. Of course all of this is highly individualized based on the lifter's relative abilities in the different squats, anthropometry etc.
2) Spinal stress is a good thing (to a point) IF you can maintain your arch. The ability to resist flexion is important for everyone. It's not like all the fashionable "core" exercises don't stress the spine.
3) Unilateral squats (I assume that's what you meant by "two dumbbells") will always be low stress just because the weight is so much lower, assuming something close to good form.
4) I assume kettlebell squats are similar to goblet squats. These are basically just front squats with less weight. If you're talking about doing them one-handed like a snatch, that seems like a horrible idea.
5) The smith machine should be renamed the really expensive inverted row bar. The only reason to use one is to make up for bad form. I've heard these are the top lawsuit generator in gyms, and that would certainly make sense.
6) Dr. Hatfield (Dr. Squat) believes the safety squat is the safest, possibly because he invented it IIRC. I think Stuart McGill is also a fan. They're especially good if your shoulders are immobile or often sore/injured/at-risk because of baseball, golf, etc.
2. Ability to resist flexion, yes...just not with hundreds of pounds on top. The core exercises have you doing that with bodyweight.
3&4&5&6. Agree.
5. Horror stories, ie accidents causing quadriplegia, when bottom stops aren't used. If this is your only option, you have to set the bottom stops and make sure it is sturdy.
Well high bar and low bar squats have the same torque despite the different back angle and different weights. With regard to front squats, I used that as an easy visual to make a broader point. You're correct in general, but have you ever seen a weightlifter transition to powerlifting?
2) I said "up to a point." The musculature supports much of the weight, but at some point you're playing with fire because of the compression even with perfect form, which nobody has on really heavy maxes. Living up to your potential at anything involves sacrifice, and I'd argue that there's very few gym goers who will ever have to worry about crossing that line.
5) Yes. Use the bottom stops (or better yet, a power rack) and don't collar the weights. It's amazing how reckless some people are with weights on their back or above their neck.
If the bar is high, more individual vertabrae will have moment arms to the weight, when the lean over happens. If the bar is low, fewer will have moment arms, but there are still axes and moments created between the bar and each vertabrae. If the weight is heavier in the low bar, more torque is placed on fewer discs.
Not like a femur, which is a single beam to the hip joint; the spine is multiple joints to the hip joint.
What do you mean by "don't collar the weights"? assume you mean on a smith. So someone else can slide them off quickly?
My BS is in mechanical engineering.
"If the bar is high, more individual vertabrae will have moment arms to the weight"
The moment arm at the top of the thoracic is too small to be meaningful. This is why almost nobody has upper back pain.
"If the bar is low, fewer will have moment arms, but there are still axes and moments created between the bar and each vertabrae."
Well of course there's moments (and axes, huh?) around each vertebra. I don't know what your point is.
"If the weight is heavier in the low bar, more torque is placed on fewer discs."
You're just assuming a conclusion. There's isn't more torque if the shorter moment arm makes up for the weight (which it does).
"Not like a femur, which is a single beam to the hip joint; the spine is multiple joints to the hip joint."
As long as they're both static, it doesn't matter if one if is made of jello and the other of Chuck Norris. Couples in static equilibrium are what they are.
Don't collar the weights means don't put a collar on the weights. There's 10 or so stories every year about some guy dying while benching alone that could have been prevented if he had been a little lazier with the collars. Why many globos encourage this is beyond me.
I finally watched the video. You're comparison to a table top is beyond stupid. Have you seen a crane? They're more "like a pyramid" than the spine. If you had even a basic understanding of static mechanics, the reason would be obvious. But you don't so you think of moments as finite objects to be counted and ... axes, seriously WTF?
As to the machine stuff, you're shilling a multi-thousand dollar machine in the thread where you advocate leg pressing over squatting, and you have the nerve to say that I'm only good at training machines. Hey, I'm all about free enterprise. Leech every dollar you can off the HIT faithful, but be aware of what's going to happen when you wander outside the Amway, I mean HIT, community.
It must be very gratifying sniping anonymously. Even if you were right...and the engineering faculty who reviewed this would disagree (yes, I know, you'll have some insult coming)...are you serious? You have all the answers, yet you hide behind a keyboard and don't even use a name? You don't put material of your own out? Congratulations on contributing to Chris' board. You've added a lot.
Feel free to add a final condescending speech to finish the thread off.