I agree that unilateral exercises are generally safer. But what about training for maximal strength? Taking a split squat 1rm just seems like a bad idea, no?
Join date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 234
Nice articles this run through Nate.
One minor quip though.
"hip flexors, lasts, and pecs", not sure what a "last" is myself. This is apparently a magazine now gentleman, you can't let Microsoft Word be your editor. I mean, what do you think this is, a website?
Really like the new format, keep up the good work.
Join date: Mar 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 3883
I don't feel that Mike Boyle has made a good enough case against the squat. In terms of safety, take a look at this video of Boyle's favorite squat alternative, the RFESS a/k/a Bulgarian squat:
This does not look safe at all. The kid has some decent weight on there, but he is outside of the rack. Obviously, this could easily be solved by having him work inside the rack. The second issue I have with the Bulgarian squat is balance. Perhaps I'm just uncoordinated, but I find balancing tricky for the Bulgarian squat. Not so for step ups or walking lunges. Even inside a squat rack, losing your balance in that particular position can do some damage.
In terms of the low back being the limiter in squats, I now understand what Boyle means - that even a fairly strong back can "limit" the amount of weight an athlete can use for the squat. I again bring up the issue of balance. Perhaps Boyle's athletes have gotten really good at doing the Bulgarian squat, but personally, I cannot use a lot of weight in this exercise because I might just fall over. If you're going to use a single-leg movement as a squat substitute, wouldn't the step up have been a better choice?
It's not that I'm trying to be a meathead here. I just don't see that Boyle has made a case for replacing the squat with the Bulgarian squat from either a safety or strength perspective.
Join date: Jul 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 589
MikeTheBear wrote:
I just don't see that Boyle has made a case for replacing the squat with the Bulgarian squat from either a safety or strength perspective.
+1
If a person isn't built for squats, or gets injured because of improper squatting technique, they won't recommend the squat. But ask somebody else, who is actually performing it correctly and has reaped the benefits, if they want to substitute the regular barbell squat.
I get where Boyle is coming from, he works with athletes who are banged up from their sports, he only has 8-12 weeks to make them stronger, faster, injury resistant etc, so spending time teaching them how to squat, adding weight blah blah is less time efficient than getting them to do single leg squats.
What irks the shit out of me is how he seems to be implying that if someone can back squat 400lbs, then they do 250lb split squat for 5 reps (after training the split squat for 6 weeks) that they're now much stronger. No they're not, because they're not on one leg. Sure, they're getting some leg work, there's less load on there backs, but to say the back leg is contributing nothing is ridiculous. If he really thinks so, I'd like to see his athletes take their back leg off the bench and still perform the move.
Single leg work is important, but saying people shouldn't squat is just being controversial for the sake of being controversial.
The reason MB is criticized isn't so much that he's controversial, it's more because he's visible. There are many strength coaches out there doing things that are both controversial and idiotic. But since they don't have a website, dvds, e-books, podcasts, etc...nobody really cares. MB is a public figure in a sense and that makes him a target.
The whole squat controversy isn't really a controversy. I think this is just part of the over-reaction / under-reaction to the squat. The over-reaction was the NSCA mindset that everybody should be squatting. This is the beginning of the under-reaction. After a while it will become squatting is okay, just don't neglect single leg strength. A sound program will devote equal time to driving up the values of both. I think the bilateral deficit is really what it's about.
MB has recently made it public that he's moving to a bigger facility, one that will enable his athletes to extend the length of acceleration development runs, which really is a good thing. The problem here is that he's made a point of telling coaches that focusing primarily on 0-20 is all they need to do. To his credit, he's admitted that anything longer in his facility and they smash into a wall. But should this be the cornerstone of a philosophy? Faster athletes need a longer "runway" to accelerate to top speed so this approach has certainly hurt the faster guys.
I end all my sessions with conditioning. TMUSCLE readers aren't doing enough of it, either. If you're comfortable, or are doing long, slow cardio you can pretty much conclude it's a waste of time. Any young, fit guy should finish his conditioning and have to lie on the floor thinking, "God, that was awful."
Do you do your conditioning work immediately after your strength-training for convenience sake (the client is already there) or for another reason?
Join date: May 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 138
I like Mike Boyle, he's not afraid to stir-the-pot and step on some peoples toes. That being said you don't have to take everything he says as gospel, I mean come on you guys should be better educated than that. I read what everyone says, Boyle, Robertson, Cressey, Smitty, Ferruggia, Cook, Tate, McGill, etc.
Following what one person says like it's the holy word is crazy. You have to look at what the majority of these athletes are that these guys are training, for Boyle it's primarily hockey players. How many times do hockey players have to transmit all their power through both legs simultaneously? I'm no hockey expert but I am going to say probably not a whole hell of a lot.
So take it easy on him, last time I checked none of you guys were writing articles for T-Nation or any other magazine, and you probably aren't training NFL prospects either.
Join date: Mar 2005
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 2615
Any young, fit guy should finish his conditioning and have to lie on the floor thinking, "God, that was awful."
/\
This.
Clean grip snatch? ugh. As a hockey player who has broken both his thumbs, I have had no problems learning to front squat and the clean "shelf" position. I don't understand what's so hard about it. Anyhow, I think the "scoop" is an important part of the snatch anyways. You don't get it so much in the clean. Oh well, fairly minor though.
It's always nice to hear what experts in the industry have to say, despite whatever it may be. Good to see different perspectives and get some food for thought.
armygrunt82 wrote:
I like Mike Boyle, he's not afraid to stir-the-pot and step on some peoples toes. That being said you don't have to take everything he says as gospel, I mean come on you guys should be better educated than that. I read what everyone says, Boyle, Robertson, Cressey, Smitty, Ferruggia, Cook, Tate, McGill, etc.
Following what one person says like it's the holy word is crazy. You have to look at what the majority of these athletes are that these guys are training, for Boyle it's primarily hockey players. How many times do hockey players have to transmit all their power through both legs simultaneously? I'm no hockey expert but I am going to say probably not a whole hell of a lot.
So take it easy on him, last time I checked none of you guys were writing articles for T-Nation or any other magazine, and you probably aren't training NFL prospects either.
If we remove the whole squat thing, what else is controversial??? This is all about moving product and creating the illusion of creating a controversy is what helps move product.
Speaking of hockey, in Functional Strength Coach III, MB uses the results from the 2009 Boston University Hockey team( 2009 NCAA Champs, 32-9 record, etc...) to provide evidence of the effectiveness of his program. The funny thing about this is that he usually says "we've been doing this for a long time" or "we made this change years ago" when discussing the evolution of his program. If that's the case, why pick 2009 as the only year to provide supporting evidence?
This past year, BU got off to a horrendous start, ended up struggling to stay around .500 all year, and finished the season something like 18-17-4. They go from champs to also rans in one year and the release of FSC III was sandwiched in between. What do we make of this?
Join date: May 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 138
ELP wrote:
armygrunt82 wrote:
I like Mike Boyle, he's not afraid to stir-the-pot and step on some peoples toes. That being said you don't have to take everything he says as gospel, I mean come on you guys should be better educated than that. I read what everyone says, Boyle, Robertson, Cressey, Smitty, Ferruggia, Cook, Tate, McGill, etc.
Following what one person says like it's the holy word is crazy. You have to look at what the majority of these athletes are that these guys are training, for Boyle it's primarily hockey players. How many times do hockey players have to transmit all their power through both legs simultaneously? I'm no hockey expert but I am going to say probably not a whole hell of a lot.
So take it easy on him, last time I checked none of you guys were writing articles for T-Nation or any other magazine, and you probably aren't training NFL prospects either.
If we remove the whole squat thing, what else is controversial??? This is all about moving product and creating the illusion of creating a controversy is what helps move product.
Speaking of hockey, in Functional Strength Coach III, MB uses the results from the 2009 Boston University Hockey team( 2009 NCAA Champs, 32-9 record, etc...) to provide evidence of the effectiveness of his program. The funny thing about this is that he usually says "we've been doing this for a long time" or "we made this change years ago" when discussing the evolution of his program. If that's the case, why pick 2009 as the only year to provide supporting evidence?
This past year, BU got off to a horrendous start, ended up struggling to stay around .500 all year, and finished the season something like 18-17-4. They go from champs to also rans in one year and the release of FSC III was sandwiched in between. What do we make of this?
I agree, in business it's all about moving product. They found something "controversial" that no one else in the biz was saying and ran with it. I think there are many industry professionals that are probably guilty of this.
As far as the hockey performance of BU, I have no comment, I don't follow hockey, never played it, never trained a hockey player, and probably never will. I am however of the opinion that you can't blame a shitty season totally on the strength and conditioning program, just like you can't say that they won the national championship because of it either. It's just a piece of the pie.
Join date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 383
hockechamp14 wrote:
Clean grip snatch? ugh. As a hockey player who has broken both his thumbs, I have had no problems learning to front squat and the clean "shelf" position. I don't understand what's so hard about it. Anyhow, I think the "scoop" is an important part of the snatch anyways. You don't get it so much in the clean. Oh well, fairly minor though.
Snatch requires more speed and so works more on the fast end of the force spectrum (which contrasts maximal work).
MikeTheBear:
As to the BSS, you might try fiddling with the height of the trailing leg (different box heights). Some heights will make it easier, others more difficult. I'm rather short so a standard bench height makes the exercise exceedingly awkward.
Yes balance is an issue, but I personally find it much harder to do a step up than a BSS in regards to balance and positioning. Also, you do become more accustomed to lifting on one leg over time. It's less "balance" (static stability) and more about maintaining lateral tension in your legs and actively correcting instability (dynamic stability).
Also, regarding the bilateral deficit, try doing Single leg RDLs with a barbell. No trailing leg contribution to muck things up. I understand your point is that calculating the per leg load when going from squat to BSS isn't an exact doubling (i.e. 250 BSS does not mean 500 squat) because of the trailing leg, but the bilateral deficit can be quite significant anyways. Just choose the correct measure.
And no, this is not an argument against squats, just merely bringing up some positives of the BSS.
Join date: Mar 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 3883
boomerlu wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
Clean grip snatch? ugh. As a hockey player who has broken both his thumbs, I have had no problems learning to front squat and the clean "shelf" position. I don't understand what's so hard about it. Anyhow, I think the "scoop" is an important part of the snatch anyways. You don't get it so much in the clean. Oh well, fairly minor though.
Snatch requires more speed and so works more on the fast end of the force spectrum (which contrasts maximal work).
MikeTheBear:
As to the BSS, you might try fiddling with the height of the trailing leg (different box heights). Some heights will make it easier, others more difficult. I'm rather short so a standard bench height makes the exercise exceedingly awkward.
Yes balance is an issue, but I personally find it much harder to do a step up than a BSS in regards to balance and positioning. Also, you do become more accustomed to lifting on one leg over time. It's less "balance" (static stability) and more about maintaining lateral tension in your legs and actively correcting instability (dynamic stability).
Also, regarding the bilateral deficit, try doing Single leg RDLs with a barbell. No trailing leg contribution to muck things up. I understand your point is that calculating the per leg load when going from squat to BSS isn't an exact doubling (i.e. 250 BSS does not mean 500 squat) because of the trailing leg, but the bilateral deficit can be quite significant anyways. Just choose the correct measure.
And no, this is not an argument against squats, just merely bringing up some positives of the BSS.
Boomer, thanks for the tips. I didn't mean to imply that I thought the BSS was a bad exercise. I agree that single leg work is important for athletes, it should definitely be done, and the BSS is a fine exercise. My point was that I don't feel that MB has made a convincing argument that you should replace the squat with the BSS. I say, do BOTH.
Join date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 383
MikeTheBear wrote:
Boomer, thanks for the tips. I didn't mean to imply that I thought the BSS was a bad exercise. I agree that single leg work is important for athletes, it should definitely be done, and the BSS is a fine exercise. My point was that I don't feel that MB has made a convincing argument that you should replace the squat with the BSS. I say, do BOTH.
Certainly, I didn't take you as bashing the exercise. But just like the squat, if you take some time to refine the BSS, you can somewhat reduce the negatives associated with it.
As far as strength/safety perspective, I think his point is... you can cut your spinal loading in half (safer) but get a better taining effect on your legs (because of the bilateral deficit). And THAT certainly makes sense to me.
And I agree with you, the best approach is to incorporate both unilateral and bilateral movements for legs.
One interesthing thing about the squat that I've noticed on thinking about it and reviewing some of Mark Rippetoe's work is that biomechanically, if you are going past parallel, your hips should fall faster than your shoulders on the eccentric once you are past parallel, otherwise you will lose balance.
The reverse is also true. On the concenctric, your hips should rise faster than your shoulders until you hit parallel. The sticking point, based on this analysis, is parallel, which is the point where your low back and hips take the most torque.
Obviously there is some wiggle room as all this is based on the assumption that you want the barbell's weight exactly over mid-foot. This doesn't need to be true to extreme precision in the real world.
In seeing first hand the athletes that Mike trains, the idea behind this method works very well in the practical aspects of his training. Many of the athletes that he see's that come through BU or MBSC are limited by their lower back. We see these athletes who are unable to back squat 400 perform 10-14 reps of 215 on one leg.
This is fairly consistent among most the athletes that come in, furthermore the idea of a bilateral deficit is nothing new, i learned this in Kin 100 during my freshman year of college. So if you can train athletes to support more weight on one-leg making it more specific and beneficial to the sport that is being trained for by forcing them to dynamically stabilize while producing high force why wouldn't we?
As for this being more unsafe then a back squat i'd have to disagree. I understand the set up does appear unsafe standing on one leg with the back leg hanging behind you seemingly being a sitting duck for the barbell to crush. That being said, speaking from experience working at a facility where you see 100's of athletes coming through everyday, ranging from 13-professional, all of which are performing RFESS I have never seen an accident with this exercise.
Unlike traditional bilateral squatting with RFEESS it is nearly impossible to load an excessive load on the the shoulders or front squat position and get into the proper position without realizing there is an obvious problem. I believe by combining common sense and good coaching this can be a very safe and effective exercise.
I still bilateral front squat because I like to and also do RFEESS but i'm also not an athlete. The point is he's actually training athletes, he actually getting results with this.
MikeTheBear wrote:
I don't feel that Mike Boyle has made a good enough case against the squat. In terms of safety, take a look at this video of Boyle's favorite squat alternative, the RFESS a/k/a Bulgarian squat:
This does not look safe at all. The kid has some decent weight on there, but he is outside of the rack. Obviously, this could easily be solved by having him work inside the rack. The second issue I have with the Bulgarian squat is balance. Perhaps I'm just uncoordinated, but I find balancing tricky for the Bulgarian squat. Not so for step ups or walking lunges. Even inside a squat rack, losing your balance in that particular position can do some damage.
In terms of the low back being the limiter in squats, I now understand what Boyle means - that even a fairly strong back can "limit" the amount of weight an athlete can use for the squat. I again bring up the issue of balance. Perhaps Boyle's athletes have gotten really good at doing the Bulgarian squat, but personally, I cannot use a lot of weight in this exercise because I might just fall over. If you're going to use a single-leg movement as a squat substitute, wouldn't the step up have been a better choice?
It's not that I'm trying to be a meathead here. I just don't see that Boyle has made a case for replacing the squat with the Bulgarian squat from either a safety or strength perspective.
Join date: Mar 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 3883
jinsanity wrote:
please share your thoughts on tgu's
I feel like I'm stepping into a trap, but here goes.
First, to be fair, I'll say that I've tried TGUs and they were a tough movement. But they were "tough" mainly from a shoulder stability standpoint. I didn't feel my core being worked crazy hard as is claimed as one of the benefits of TGUs. Second, it's perhaps ironic that TGUs regained popularity due to the rise of kettlebells and I happen to be a huge kettlebell fan. I guess that unlike the members of the Kettlebell Kult, I can think for myself.
A few months back there was an article here on the TGU. Christian Thibaudeau wrote the following reply which sums up my thoughts exactly:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote a few months ago:
I hesitated to post this because, for some reason my opinion does seem to influence how something is received.
As a strength history afficionado I really find lifts such as the TGU, bent press, two hands anyhow, one arm deadlift, etc. impressive. However I don't feel like the investment in these movements is time well spent for most gym rats. I'm not saying that they are useless, but I'm saying that the gains you'll get aren't proportional to the energy invested in mastering the lift.
The same benefits can be attained by using simpler, more effective exercises.
If you are already squatting and deadlifting 600, bench pressing 400, shoulder pressing 275, cleaning 315, snatching 250 and doing pull-ups with at least 45lbs and you want a new challenge, sure!
But I find that a lot of people resort to these type of lifts to get some sense of accomplishment when they can't get it from becoming super strong or very muscular. It's kinda like they are thinking 'I might not bench press 450, or have 20'' muscular arms like the brute over there, but he sure as hell can't hang with me on the TGU'.
I want to say that I have nothing against that lift, I that I DO find it impressive when done with lots of weight. But it should be done for the right reason by someone who has build a strong foundation to begin with.
I also admire Arthur Saxon's 400lbs bent press, Louis Cyr's 550lbs 1 finger deadlift and Goerner's 600lbs plus 1 arm deadlift. But that doesn't mean that I include these lifts in any programs I'm designing.
And my opinion has nothing to do with functional vs. non-functional training bullsh*t. Any training can be functional and I like any type of training. It's more about if I find that a lift can help me (that's the first criteria) and if the amount of energy and time spent on the movement is worth the gains I'll get (that's the second criteria).
But maybe I'm wrong, it's been known to happen before!
Let me say that I think certain populations can benefit from the TGU. A person who has been sedentary for many years and wants to start a weight training program can benefit from the intramuscular coordination that the TGU can build. For similar reasons, someone who has been using mostly machines and isolation movements and wants a more "athletic" program can benefit from the TGU. I don't dispute that the TGU is a full-body lift that can help build coordination which then leads to athleticism. But if your weight training program already includes squats, deadlifts, presses, and variations of the Olympic lifts, you're going to build way more strength and coordination than you would by doing TGUs. However, if you're not doing these lifts, then perhaps you need to do TGUs to fill in the deficiency in your program.
