THINGS I BELIEVE AND CAN’T PROVE

* Why are squats sold as so critical to achieving a great physique?  The issue is that people just see the squat as a leg exercise, and, in turn, start down this rabbithole of “you gotta train the legs to make the whole body grow”, you get that whole “can’t fire a cannon out of a canoe” thing, people start talking about leg press: it get really stupid.  What makes the squat (THE squat, as is, barbell on the back, not front squats or zerchers or belt squats or whatever) so effective for achieving an impressive physique is because it places the BODY under load.  Specifically, the spine.  Remember: the body grows as a response to a stimulus/demand placed upon it.  The body experiences trauma of some variety, says “I wanna be ready the next time that happens”, so it adapts and gets stronger.  We do curls, the biceps get stressed, the body grows bigger biceps.  We lateral raises, bigger delts.   But the squat?  Yeah: the legs are being placed under stress and we’re going to get bigger legs, but the whole time that weight is on our backs, our whole BODY is getting stressed.  That can NOT be overstated.  You want bang for your buck, you want “whole body growth”, place your spine under stress for extended periods of time and think about what your body is going to do to respond to THAT demand.  And yeah: you should still directly train the muscles you want to train, no question, but in terms of “if I want to maximize growth”, THAT’S why the squat is sold.

And, of course, Bud took this to it's logical extreme

* In that regard, that’s why Super Squats “works”.  With breathing squats, we’re artificially increasing the duration that the bar is on our backs and placing us under load.  If we just squat until we drop, our legs and lungs become the limiter.  When we add in the breathing element, we can stand there with a very heavy weight for a VERY long time.  They came up with a great way to throw in some progressive overload on top of it all.  But it also means that the squat ITSELF is not magic.  I tested this by doing breathing Good Mornings (I’ll do a larger write up of that) on a day where my leg was hurt and I couldn’t bend it, and it absolutely had the intended training effect.  Ideas are abound about using a trap bar to achieve a similar effect, and I actually do that once a year on Thanksgiving with my stupid high rep high handle pulls.  Some have theorized you could accomplish this with a yoke, not even needing any real concentric/eccentric, and just carrying a heavy load on the spine for long durations.  I think there is some merit there.

 

* Thinking lean gets me lean, and thinking big gets me big.  I have to have my mind correctly vectored in order to get the results I want, and, in turn, I can will the changes I want to see.  And when you are thinking lean, you unconsciously make the “right” decisions.  I will put a thin smear of nutbutter on my celery vs a glob, I’ll leave some food behind on the plate, I’ll get too busy and skip snacks, etc.  And when I think big, I’m never away from food for too long.

 

* Fasted training improves nutrient partitioning once food is re-introduced.

 

* There is a significant genetic component to nutrition that harkens back to ethical heritage.  People from certain regions are genetically predisposed toward being able to better digest certain foods.  I gravitate toward high protein/fats and low carbs naturally.  I am primarily Northern European stock.  My wife is able to better handle carbs but does not eat nearly as much protein: she has some Asian heritage that I believe contributes there.  In turn, people need to stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes when it comes to nutrition.  There are certain overarching guidelines that I think are just swell (Justin Harris “if you can’t grow or hunt it, don’t eat it”), but beyond that, not all things work for all people.

It's my heritage! 

 

* All “programs” are is a method to balance the variables of stimulus and fatigue.  Different programs have different avenues for doing so.  For something like Super Squats, the understanding is that you’ll run the program for 6 weeks, effectively “burn out”, spend 6 weeks doing something opposite (it recommends a 5x5 bulk and power program) and turn return.  Simple periodization.  Others might make use of waving percentages during the training cycle and then implementing a structured deload, ala 5/3/1.  Some rely on RPE and autoregulation.  But all it boils down to is “We need to give you enough stimulus to grow without burying you so heavy in fatigue that you stop growing”.  And once you appreciate THAT, you can train HOWEVER you want…as long as you balance stimulus and fatigue.  The issue is that so many trainees just fixate on the former and not the latter, chasing after the stimulus dragon and never paying any mind to fatigue management.  This is how “milking beginner gains” grows to a zenith of stupidity: at one point, the milking has to stop and we have to recover, but instead dudes will just reset the weight and do the whole thing all over again.

 

* On the above, the “perfect” program is the one that fits your personality.  And just like nutrition: folks run into issues when they try to fit the square peg into the round hole.  They’re told “training 6x a week is optimal, because it means you hit the muscle 2x a week”, which is already goofy, but anyway, they end up taking on these 6x a week programs and just bury themselves in fatigue while also not being able to generate any decent degree of effort WITHIN a single set to cause any sort of growth stimulus.  If these dudes got on a program that fit THEM: they’d grow.  It’s no secret I like Super Squats and Deep Water for growing, and that’s because that style of programming speaks TO ME.  It’s effectively a challenge to overcome, and in the process of doing so, we grow.  Some folks DON’T need that: they need spreadsheets and trackers and gadgets.  Cool: don’t so Super Squats, find YOUR program and grow on it. 

 

* Rest times are a matter of confusing the symptoms for the disease.  “Rest 5 minutes for strength, 60-90 seconds for size”.  No: if you’re lifting VERY heavy loads, you’ll NEED 5 minutes to recover for the next set.  Taking 60% of your 1rm for a set of 3 and resting 5 minutes between sets won’t make you stronger.  Consequently, resting 60-90 seconds doesn’t make your bigger: it gives you more time to get in MORE WORK in a fixed amount of training time.  A dude resting 5 minutes between sets will flat out do less work compared to someone resting 60-90 seconds between sets assuming both have the same amount of training time.

 

* Carbs are in no way essential to getting bigger, stronger, or performing well.  They can absolutely ENHANCE those processes, but we constantly confuse being good with being necessary.  Reference: sleep.

No, shut up, you're being stupid

 

* Oh boy, yes, sleep is the lowest priority for physical transformation.  Gains (of any variety) are made of FOOD.  Without food, there is no gains.  Train as hard as you want, sleep as much as you want: if you don’t have the food in your body, you will not change.  From there, training vectors that food in a certain direction: shifting more toward muscle (and physical improvement at large) vs fat.  Without training, the gains of food are primarily gains of fat.  Sleep is the time when the majority of transformation occurs…but it’s not the ONLY time it’s occurring.  With enough food and hard training, we can transform with minimal sleep.  With maximal sleep and minimal food and training…we will not transform.  SHOULD we get much sleep?  Absolutely.  Is it necessary?  No.

 

* The first thing we do upon waking primes the body for the rest of the day.  We ease into the morning: we craft a body of ease.  We bolt into the morning: we craft a body for action.  I start each day with something physical and a very hearty meal.  I want my body to know that we are a creature of action and we eat to grow.  And sometimes it’s legit just a quick set of push ups or some bodyweight squats, but that goes to show just how little it can be to still have an impact.