Journey, Not A Destination

Hey steve...well...I'm late...but I still wanted to say I'm sorry for your loss. I also read your post, it was great...and helps me in many ways, but you knew it would, didnt you...thats why you suggest I read it, huh. Thank you.

You're in my prayers!!!
 
Steve, I came across a couple of articles on ATG vs. parallel squats:





I've had no knee problems at all doing ATG, and I feel like it's a more complete exercise, since it recruits so many more muscles. However, I don't want to damage my knees, either.

What do you think?
 
Blah.

Don't get me wrong, there are people who shouldn't go deep. If you have diagnosed knee problems, sure. Or, if you experience pain while going deep, sure.

I don't limit the ROM with other joints, why would I the knees? Would you use partial range of motion on other exercises in a healthy individual without any exercise contraindications? I doubt it.

Not now, but I will try and dig up some studies that I have that show quite the contrary to what you provided. I really need to categorize my research, haha. It is a mess on multiple computers and multiple books.

I have been deep squatting from the get go, and my knees are great. When I trained, all of my clients who were able, did squat deep.

Going deep requires your knees to go past your toes, which thus puts more stress on the joint.

The more time you spend full squating, and thus, with your knees past your toes, the more you teach your nervous system to activate the protective soft tissue around the joint therefore preventing injury. Proprioceptors are a beautiful thing. :)
 
Always so much info on here! Even when I didn't think I needed any today!! LOL;) It's good to see you still posting. Just wanted to say Hi and hang in there!!:)
 
M2M said:
Steve,
Is 15 calories per pound supposed to be maintenance?
Click to expand...

Supposed to be, yes. Actually 14-16. And this is hugely ball-parked. For instance, as I said in your journal, the fact that you have been dieting so long coupled with the fact that you did extreme dieting for a prolonged period of time not too long ago probably translated into a slower than average metabolism, thus lowering your maintenance below the average.
 
Steve said:
Supposed to be, yes. Actually 14-16. And this is hugely ball-parked. For instance, as I said in your journal, the fact that you have been dieting so long coupled with the fact that you did extreme dieting for a prolonged period of time not too long ago probably translated into a slower than average metabolism, thus lowering your maintenance below the average.
Click to expand...

Right - which is why I figured I found my maintenance point vs being on "plateau"
 
HI STEVEO,
Hope your day is going good.........I left a question for ya over on that metabolism thread someone started...........
I read a like a ton of Tom Venuto's articles on his site and i am still a little confused........ i don't wanna buy his book....."burn the fat feed the muscle"...ok whatever..........just the basics please.........man it is easy to become overwhelmed.... ya know!!!! I would love to be like 4% body fat but i don't see that happening anytime soon..........but i don't want to create a metabolism from hell.........already did when i was in my teens i think!!!
ok anyways have a good one bro!!!:D
STAR;)
 
reach4Astar said:
HI STEVEO,
Hope your day is going good.........I left a question for ya over on that metabolism thread someone started...........
I read a like a ton of Tom Venuto's articles on his site and i am still a little confused........ i don't wanna buy his book....."burn the fat feed the muscle"...ok whatever..........just the basics please.........man it is easy to become overwhelmed.... ya know!!!! I would love to be like 4% body fat but i don't see that happening anytime soon..........but i don't want to create a metabolism from hell.........already did when i was in my teens i think!!!
ok anyways have a good one bro!!!:D
STAR;)
Click to expand...

Tom's book is excellent. You can get all the info here for free, but not in a packaged, orderly fashion like his book. I recommend it to many people, often.

That said, your metabolism is going to slow as you diet, and lose weight. There is nothing you can do about it. As long as you are using sane caloric intakes, doing cardio, and lifting weights.... you are doing all that you can do.

I replied to your post in the metabolism thread. Check it out.
 
Steve said:
Tom's book is excellent. You can get all the info here for free, but not in a packaged, orderly fashion like his book. I recommend it to many people, often.

That said, your metabolism is going to slow as you diet, and lose weight. There is nothing you can do about it. As long as you are using sane caloric intakes, doing cardio, and lifting weights.... you are doing all that you can do.

I replied to your post in the metabolism thread. Check it out.
Click to expand...

Well i better order it then;) .............thanks for replying to my post to........so i should just do lifting like 2-3 instead of 3-4 time a week??? I just have a weight bench and do like squats and leg lifts, lunges ect. and such usually 2 sets of 20 for 20 to 30 min at a time is this adaqate?
 
reach4Astar said:
Well i better order it then;) .............thanks for replying to my post to........so i should just do lifting like 2-3 instead of 3-4 time a week??? I just have a weight bench and do like squats and leg lifts, lunges ect. and such usually 2 sets of 20 for 20 to 30 min at a time is this adaqate?
Click to expand...

I highly suggest you read my recent post, which has been stickied in the "weighloss through exercise" section of the website. It is titled "workout."

High rep training is not the answer while dieting. Muscle maintenance is promoted more so by using weights heavy to your relative strength. Thing reps in the 4-6 rep range.
 
Steve said:
I highly suggest you read my recent post, which has been stickied in the "weighloss through exercise" section of the website. It is titled "workout."

High rep training is not the answer while dieting. Muscle maintenance is promoted more so by using weights heavy to your relative strength. Thing reps in the 4-6 rep range.
Click to expand...

wow ok gonna go chek it out.........thanks!
 
TomO said:
Steve, I came across a couple of articles on ATG vs. parallel squats:





I've had no knee problems at all doing ATG, and I feel like it's a more complete exercise, since it recruits so many more muscles. However, I don't want to damage my knees, either.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Here was something that relates nicely to this, Tom. Charles Poliquin, in case you've never heard of him, is a world-renown strength coach. He has a lot of my respect.

According to Charles Poliquin:

Squatting to parallel (legs bent 90 degrees) not only makes the exercise less effective but, additionally, it increases the risk of injury. First of all, by not squatting the full range of motion, one doesn't maintain proper lumbosacral bodymechanics. When performing the squat movement, the sacrum undergoes a process known as nutation (it tilts forward, relative to the two ilia on either side of it). At approximately 90 degrees of knee bend, the sacrum tilts back (a process known as counternutation) and sets the lifter up for lower back pain.

In order to perform a full squat, flexibility and range of motion must be maintained in the lumbar spine and SI joint, as well as in such muscles as the iliopsoas and hip external rotators — piriformis, gemelli, etc. If the lifter can't squat past 90 degrees of knee bend without the heels raising or the body bending excessively forward at the waist, but can squat all the way to the floor while holding onto something, we know that there are some muscle imbalances in regard to the pelvis/lumbosacral region (iliopsoas, external hip rotators, erector spinae) as opposed to a knee or foot/ankle dysfunction.

Additionally, since the hip joint is considered by many authors as the "steering mechanism for the leg," improper pelvis, hip, and lumbosacral mechanics could manifest down the kinetic chain as chronic or recurring knee/ankle problems. Thus, regular performance of the full squat offers a "screen" for the athlete of his or her lumbosacral/pelvic flexibility, which may prevent injury or muscle imbalances long before they become chronic.

Parallel squats also may be potentially damaging to the knee joint. The original data on full squats causing ligament laxity was obtained in an uncontrolled manner. Recent attempts to replicate these studies haven't shown any increased laxity or knee pain/dysfunction from doing full squats as opposed to parallel squats.

Furthermore, ask any orthopedic surgeon at what degree of knee bend does one perform the Drawer test — 90 degrees. Why? Because in this position, the knee joint is the most unstable, and if you were trying to assess the integrity of the cruciate ligaments, you'd want the least amount of interference from other structures as possible. Bend the knee to full flexion. How much does the tibia move on the femur anteriorly or posteriorly? Very little. However, do the same test at 90 degrees of flexion, and you'll get considerably more movement.

Therefore, you can imagine how much force is on the knee ligaments if the athlete is descending with a weight on their shoulders, and then at 90 degrees — the most unstable point — reversing the momentum and accelerating in the exact opposite direction. Couple this with the fact that most, if not everyone, are capable of squatting considerably more weight to the parallel position than the full squat position, and you've set your body up for muscular imbalances, yet again.
 
hi Steve!

I apologize in advance if the answer to my Q is in this thread already, but what are your thoughts on peripheral heart response training?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top