Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:35:47 AM

Title: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:35:47 AM
for i feel it is true what they say but wonder why


when you squat with 100kg you can somehow make it feel like pure quadriceps


when you squat with 140kg or something to the same depth it actually feels like still quads but also hips and back


therefor what is the point of heavy squats for quads


and why is this
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Ropo on December 25, 2013, 02:41:49 AM
for i feel it is true what they say but wonder why


when you squat with 100kg you can somehow make it feel like pure quadriceps


when you squat with 140kg or something to the same depth it actually feels like still quads but also hips and back


therefor what is the point of heavy squats for quads


and why is this

Dear dumb ass fuck, are you really mentally handicapped or something? When you do something like squats, what is your weakest link in that range of motion? Quads, which are able to press thousand pounds in leg press, or hips and back? You have more strength in your legs than you have your back and gluteus, because you don't train them properly. There is old thumb rule about the matter, which says that you must be able to do same reps of good morning with half of your squat weights, than you do squats with full weight. Like 20 reps with 140kg squat = 20 reps of 70kg good mornings. That way you can maintain balance between these muscles, and hips and back isn't the weakest link in your squat. Therefor the point is that if you do it right, squats are best exercise for quads, and if you do it like a moron, it is waste of time.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: calfzilla on December 25, 2013, 02:59:18 AM
Galeniko does NOT do squats.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: deceiver on December 25, 2013, 03:00:21 AM
Muscle recruitment has NOTHING, ZERO to do with what you "feel".
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: jr on December 25, 2013, 03:01:33 AM
Maybe your form is changes with the heavier weight, or the heavier weight stresses the glutes and lower back to a greater degree,

Like when barbell curling light weight it feels  all biceps, but when the weight gets really heavy you start to cheat and use more lower back.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: calfzilla on December 25, 2013, 03:03:20 AM
Maybe your form is changes with the heavier weight, or the heavier weight stresses the glutes and lower back to a greater degree,

Like when barbell curling light weight its all biceps, but when the weight gets really heavy you start to cheat and use lower back.

Interesting point.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 03:11:30 AM
Muscle recruitment has NOTHING, ZERO to do with what you "feel".
if this is true then the "mind muscle connection" is BS?
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: deceiver on December 25, 2013, 03:20:40 AM
if this is true then the "mind muscle connection" is BS?

Yes, it is. Your mind sends neural signals to the muscle all the same regardless of what your desire is. Your feelings may be an indicator of something but if your form remains the same then well, it doesn't matter what you feel.

When it comes to form your #1 priority should be joint safety.



 - hip back, then knees
 - torso straight
 - deep but no bouncing at the bottom

Perfect squats.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: falco on December 25, 2013, 04:57:07 AM
Limb lenght in proportion to spinal cord lenght also play a big roll in the tecnique execution.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Julio Ceasar on December 25, 2013, 06:12:22 AM



Perfect squats.

Perfekt form...

Ed Coen have ugly ass squats...but the world strongest...so. What is perfekt form?

What does perfekt form lead to? Bigger muscles -  NO. Less inguries - NO. Look good - YES.....so waht is perfekt form anbd what does it do? Straigt back need more quad power. Bent back need more back and ass power. Strong and thick quads lock better than big ass and back, so I guess u should be trying to keep your back stright!
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 06:15:54 AM
Yes, it is. Your mind sends neural signals to the muscle all the same regardless of what your desire is. Your feelings may be an indicator of something but if your form remains the same then well, it doesn't matter what you feel.

When it comes to form your #1 priority should be joint safety.



 - hip back, then knees
 - torso straight
 - deep but no bouncing at the bottom

Perfect squats.
world class weightlifters generally have better skeleton for squats
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: macos on December 25, 2013, 06:24:37 AM
What would thw Ronni Coleama training protocollookl like.
Quads- size+raw power
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 06:30:14 AM
What would thw Ronni Coleama training protocollookl like.
Quads- size+raw power
well if he's a cuban (i think yes?)

then cuban champions train twice a day on monday wednesday friday, and once a day tuesday thursday saturday

sunday off


total of 9 times a week


more details in the weightlifting encyclopedia of arthur dresler
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: affeman on December 25, 2013, 06:30:21 AM
Muscle recruitment has NOTHING, ZERO to do with what you "feel".

Yeah, give Kai some advice on how to "recruite" muscle properly

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T8dDqYBSsHU/T-HnP7xUSKI/AAAAAAAAEts/K_TXrVTa8aI/s640/kai+greene+%287%29.jpg)
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 06:31:43 AM
Yeah, give Kai some advice on how to "recruite" muscle properly

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T8dDqYBSsHU/T-HnP7xUSKI/AAAAAAAAEts/K_TXrVTa8aI/s640/kai+greene+%287%29.jpg)
kai greene talks and talks and talks


but his actual training is good old lifting heavy ass weights
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 06:38:03 AM
Once and for all: squat is a basic for bodybuilding, which means that you need to learn to squat in the beginning of your bodybuilding carreer, when you are more focused on power-bodybuilding.

Learn optimal form (perfect form sometimes can't be achieved due to specific built) and go as heavy as possible for at least 8 reps (you're still not a powerlifter).

Once you maxed out on that, you're ready to start juicing. Once you start juicing, squat little by little will move towards the end of your workout, finally to disappear. An advanced bodybuilder stimulates his quads with hack squats. Heavy juicing + heavy squats = big obliques and glutes.

And yeah, Ronnie used to squat real heavy in the beginning of his carreer when power-bodybuilding, and with fake weights for photoshoots later in his carreer.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: TommyBoy on December 25, 2013, 07:21:48 AM
Anabolichalo, I like you for the pure comedy you bring to these forums BUT

you represent the reason why bodybuilders have a bad rep. Juicing up before even knowing how to train. I'm not saying tap out your natural genetic potential (the older I get the more I think this is a line of pure BS), but FFS learn how to train/diet first.

Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: HonestBob on December 25, 2013, 08:00:35 AM
Yes, it is. Your mind sends neural signals to the muscle all the same regardless of what your desire is. Your feelings may be an indicator of something but if your form remains the same then well, it doesn't matter what you feel.



Erm no.  Neural drive is something that can be trained (therefore "all the same regardless of desire" is way off base) and the the better high threshold motor unit recruitment the more fibers get involved leading to better hypertrophy. 

And of course you "feel it" more. 
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 08:20:22 AM
Your feelings may be an indicator of something but if your form remains the same then well, it doesn't matter what you feel.


Yup
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 08:22:04 AM
I trained fairly regularly with an IFBB pro (he competed in the Olympia in the late '90s), and while he was not known for his legs they were pretty amazing IMO (no homo).

He would squat twice a week and do about five working sets. His form was absolutely perfect. He would slowly squat all the way to the bottom, and then slowly come back up to just before lockout. He never did less than 15-20 reps per set and sometimes he would do double that, always with perfect form. As far as weight, I honestly cannot remember him doing so much as two plates (225). From what I recall, he would max out at something like 185 pounds. After squats he would go on and do leg extensions, hacks, etc., also with perfect form and relatively light weight.

Biomechanically, he was short with short limbs so he had the ideal physique for squatting but he spent a ton of time stretching his thighs and hams and could easily touch the floor with the palms of his hands while keeping his knees locked. I was in school at the time but he had the luxury of training full time and would get to the gym at least 45 minutes before me just to stretch.

How much did he grow during this period?

Most bodybuilders are maintaining 95% of the time.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: galeniko on December 25, 2013, 09:06:50 AM
careful, abolhalo has been olympic style lifter, he knows pretty well what and how :D

van b: my legs ,quads,grew better with the exact style cholo4life has desribed than with heavy squats.

i do not see how squats are any superior in building quads than curls are.

some have good build for heay squats ,most will gain only injuries long term from that.

ofc using 2 plates in the way cholo describes will give better gains thn using 1 plate.

we have powerlifters in the gym who i seen sqaut 7oolbs, piss poor legs, mine look a million times better, then we have some ppl who barely squat and they have pro cards,or on the way to earn one.

i remember myself wonderin about it years ago how can that kind of trining give them such legs, but theres a consistent pattern
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Ropo on December 25, 2013, 09:20:35 AM
Muscle recruitment has NOTHING, ZERO to do with what you "feel".

Of course not..http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBFullSquat.html (http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBFullSquat.html).. Still, beside the quads, you use tons of weaker muscles to do the squat, so it matters. Stupid fucks tends to go around this fact by using all kind of lifting belts etc. crap, but if your mid section has strength, you will not need them.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: galeniko on December 25, 2013, 09:26:09 AM
Of course not..http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBFullSquat.html (http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBFullSquat.html).. Still, beside the quads, you use tons of weaker muscles to do the squat, so it matters. Stupid fucks tends to go around this fact by using all kind of lifting belts etc. crap, but if your mid section has strength, you will not need them.
this cant be argues. a strong mid section will also have maxed out oblique muscles, they have great amount of receptors for meany, esp on steroids.

this is the one reason why i refuse to do heavy squats.

well that, and they not needed for my kind of development, which isnt going to win the mr o, but is better than some nat competitors here.
its a fair enough deal to me :D
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Hulkotron on December 25, 2013, 09:27:08 AM
Maybe your form is changes with the heavier weight, or the heavier weight stresses the glutes and lower back to a greater degree,

Like when barbell curling light weight it feels  all biceps, but when the weight gets really heavy you start to cheat and use more lower back.

Yes good point

I just do walking lunges and SLDL these days.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: galeniko on December 25, 2013, 09:31:23 AM
Anabolichalo, I like you for the pure comedy you bring to these forums BUT

you represent the reason why bodybuilders have a bad rep. Juicing up before even knowing how to train. I'm not saying tap out your natural genetic potential (the older I get the more I think this is a line of pure BS), but FFS learn how to train/diet first.


hey hey.

there was a huge trap in this thread with the warning label" careful huge trap" and you walked right into it nonetheless.

ahalo been olyimpic lifting for very long, has very very good legs, knows his squats, and trained naturaly for years and years before going on mere trt kinda cycle.

he also knows full well how to diet, have you seen the pics?hes very much lean.

@hulkotron, yeah the post you quated points it out perfectly
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: oldtimer1 on December 25, 2013, 09:33:20 AM
The glutes function is to bring your femur back in relation to your hip. It is a big muscle. When you deadlift, squat, leg press, stiff leg, back extension you can't complete the lift with the glute muscle working.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Mawse on December 25, 2013, 10:31:24 AM
Drugs determine leg size more than training voodoo .

All you can do is minimize chance of injury to the back, knees and load the muscle as much as possible.

I do high bar squats with 225-315 MAX for several sets of 8-10 slow reps. I take two -three seconds to lower, pause for a beat the squeeze back up. No explosion makes it much easier on the back and limits how much weight you can use, which is a good thing.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Disgusted on December 25, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
Maybe your form is changes with the heavier weight, or the heavier weight stresses the glutes and lower back to a greater degree,

Like when barbell curling light weight it feels  all biceps, but when the weight gets really heavy you start to cheat and use more lower back.

This. Good observation.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: tommywishbone on December 25, 2013, 10:48:14 AM
Anabolic, we can't answer this question for you. We can only tell you what and why things work for us. Weider called it "Instinctive training." I know, I know he didn't think of that by himself.  :D   Bobdybuilding, BODYBUILDING is not science. You will find out what works for you and that is what you will do.

A few ideas to consider for your squats:

-Slightly closer that normal foot spacing
-Never lock anything out
-No sets less than 10 reps
-Wear a belt but only snug not pulled super tight

Send me a postcard when you get the girls.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 10:53:55 AM
this cant be argues. a strong mid section will also have maxed out oblique muscles, they have great amount of receptors for meany, esp on steroids.

this is the one reason why i refuse to do heavy squats.

well that, and they not needed for my kind of development, which isnt going to win the mr o, but is better than some nat competitors here.
its a fair enough deal to me :D

Very very very true. If you're a bodybuilder, once you start juicing you have to be carefull not to stimulate the obliques too much, they grow like weed!

Squatting is for natural bodybuilders and for powerlifters who don't care about how they look.

No bodybuilder ever needs to put more then 315lb on the bar for ATG squats. Once you've reached that weight, climb in reps.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: flinstones1 on December 25, 2013, 11:27:55 AM
Dear dumb ass fuck, are you really mentally handicapped or something? When you do something like squats, what is your weakest link in that range of motion? Quads, which are able to press thousand pounds in leg press, or hips and back? You have more strength in your legs than you have your back and gluteus, because you don't train them properly. There is old thumb rule about the matter, which says that you must be able to do same reps of good morning with half of your squat weights, than you do squats with full weight. Like 20 reps with 140kg squat = 20 reps of 70kg good mornings. That way you can maintain balance between these muscles, and hips and back isn't the weakest link in your squat. Therefor the point is that if you do it right, squats are best exercise for quads, and if you do it like a moron, it is waste of time.

False.  the glutes and hamstrings have a much greater potential for force production than the quads. It's the reason powerlifters squat with a wide stance.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: ProudVirgin69 on December 25, 2013, 11:30:11 AM
False.  the glutes and hamstrings have a much greater potential for force production than the quads. It's the reason powerlifters squat with a wide stance.

Well that, and it decreases the range of motion.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 11:38:57 AM
No bodybuilder ever needs to put more then 315lb on the bar for ATG squats. Once you've reached that weight, climb in reps.

Hypothetical question here. If Tom Platz never went above 315 would he have had exactly the same
leg development? Were all those 40 reps sets with 405 in vain? Were all those yearly tapers to low rep maxes useless?

was all this for nothing?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8rNWjftHCXs/USVWqL2j01I/AAAAAAAAPZ8/TFgThThVbnc/s1600/Tom+Platz+squat.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildinguniverse.com/images/platz/platz2.jpg)
(http://www.ironmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tom-Platz-Squatting-towel.jpg)(http://beastmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Untitled1.jpg)


Another thing I wondered. Remember how Levrone used to have quads, when he was still able
go crazy heavy on squats? Why did they regress when he had to squat "light" only after his back injury? I presume he could still do lots of leg presses, unlimited extensions, and the light squats.
Is it possible the lack of squatting had something to with him not being able to keep building the quads... could it have something to do with the legs actually starting to regress?

And if 315 is the max you should use on squats, it stands to reason you'd need no more than maybe 180lbs on benches for example.

An extremely old Aceto quote just popped into my mind. :D Went something like, I have good quads and I can squat a house, I can't press much and my upper body lags.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: flinstones1 on December 25, 2013, 11:48:39 AM
Van what would happen if I took 5 grams of testosterone every week for a year? do you think a 500lb bench press would be possible for a guy benching 385-400 ish?
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Roger Bacon on December 25, 2013, 11:51:36 AM
I did squats like Coleman today and it killed!!!!

No lockout, limited range of motion, keeping tension on the muscles.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: flinstones1 on December 25, 2013, 11:55:09 AM
did platz use gh?
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
Van what would happen if I took 5 grams of testosterone every week for a year? do you think a 500lb bench press would be possible for a guy benching 385-400 ish?

I think it would take a lot of work, and constantly having a plan on how you plan to progress
on the lift, strengthening weak points, working on technique, and most importantly avoiding injury.
Benching is dangerous, especially if you try to gain over 100lbs on the lift in a year. :D

It might be possible, if you have it in you in the first place.

did platz use gh?

Not in any meaningful dose at least. You have to wonder how his legs would have looked on the peptides.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 12:05:26 PM
Hypothetical question here. If Tom Platz never went above 315 would he have had exactly the same
leg development? Were all those 40 reps sets with 405 in vain? Were all those yearly tapers to low rep maxes useless?

was all this for nothing?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8rNWjftHCXs/USVWqL2j01I/AAAAAAAAPZ8/TFgThThVbnc/s1600/Tom+Platz+squat.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildinguniverse.com/images/platz/platz2.jpg)
(http://www.ironmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tom-Platz-Squatting-towel.jpg)(http://beastmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Untitled1.jpg)


Another thing I wondered. Remember how Levrone used to have quads, when he was still able
go crazy heavy on squats? Why did they regress when he had to squat "light" only after his back injury? I presume he could still do lots of leg presses, unlimited extensions, and the light squats.
Is it possible the lack of squatting had something to with him not being able to keep building the quads... could it have something to do with the legs actually starting to regress?

An extremely old Aceto quote just popped into my mind. :D Went something like, I have good quads and I can squat a house, I can't press much and my upper body lags.


If we all knew our body at the moment we started training, that would have spared us from a lot of unnecessary trouble. We all have done things that weren't really necessary.

I'm absolutely convinced that Tom Platz could have developed exactly the same quads if for one reason or another he wouldn't have had access to more plates then to load 315 on the bar.

A guy like Platz is perfectly built to further expand his quads only by doing hack squats.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: galeniko on December 25, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Well that, and it decreases the range of motion.
thats why i close my legs to very narrow stance.knee on knee.gives full rep.

this ofc puts my" small" weight used in other perspective :D

@kohl, yes if everyone had as many receptors in arms as they have in obliques, wed all lok phenomenal ;D
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 12:13:46 PM


A guy like Platz is perfectly built to further expand his quads only by doing hack squats.

But these would never have to heavy either right? What is the max weight anyone would need on these in your opinion?

Regradless whether anyone needs "heavy" weights, nearly every pro goes heavier than the 315lbs example, or equivalent on other exercises, even the ones who preach the "load doesn't matter" mantra, like Milos or whoever.

I have trained extremely light on many exercises for years due to injuries, but when I load the bar heavy sometimes in my foolishness I experience an immediate size increase effect, even the soreness in my body is different... you just can't tap your potential for growth merely by "exhaustion" training IMO... maybe come close, but it's not the same. Like I said, even most of the pros are merely maintaining their size, you hardly have to train to maintain. Many preach how good their "mind-muscle connection" is nowadays and how good lighter weights work, yet they have stayed the same size for a decade.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: ProudVirgin69 on December 25, 2013, 12:16:12 PM
But these would never have to heavy either right? What is the max weight anyone would need on these in your opinion?

Regradless whether anyone needs "heavy" weights, nearly every pro goes heavier than the 315lbs example, or equivalent on other exercises, even the ones who preach the "load doesn't matter" mantra, like Milos or whoever.

Yeah but not many go beyond 405. Jay Cutler has had the best quads of the last decade and he never went over 405
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
Yeah but not many go beyond 405. Jay Cutler has had the best quads of the last decade and he never went over 405

Sure, but Jay has basically just blowed up the body with hormones periodically, to different degrees depending on the time of year. He already built all he "needs" and there is no use risking injury.
I'm not against light training, the positives have to be weighed against the negatives.

But if we isolate the training aspect, keeping everything else the same, the higher the load the higher the hypertrophy response. NO ONE really believes otherwise. Otherwise we would never move the pin on the weight stack beyond warmups... we would never need to leave the house because we could get very pumped doing frog squats in the front yard.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 12:36:38 PM
But these would never have to heavy either right? What is the max weight anyone would need on these in your opinion?

Regradless whether anyone needs "heavy" weights, nearly every pro goes heavier than the 315lbs example, or equivalent on other exercises, even the ones who preach the "load doesn't matter" mantra, like Milos or whoever.

I have trained extremely light on many exercises for years due to injuries, but when I load the bar heavy sometimes in my foolishness I experience an immediate size increase effect, even the soreness in my body is different... you just can't tap your potential for growth merely by "exhaustion" training IMO... maybe come close, but it's not the same. Like I said, even most of the pros are merely maintaining their size, you hardly have to train to maintain. Many preach how good their "mind-muscle connection" is nowadays and how good lighter weights work, yet they have stayed the same size for a decade.

I know many pro's. Typically they can hack a lot heavier then they can squat. That's how you recognize an advanced bodybuilder. Squat on a certain moment becomes more a glute and obliques exercise then a quad exercise. Quads however have an enormous potential of development, and most people can not maximize this by doing squats (people who are perfectly built for squats can). An advanced bodybuilder who has developed his quads above squat level, is able to hack more then he can squat.

Most advanced bodybuilders will need 4 plates each side to fully work them. Some stronger guys who prefer to stay lower in reps will go to 5 plates. But that's a personal choice, I personally don't believe that there's a benefit in doing minus 12 reps for quads, but some just like the feeling so if the knees allow it, why not. I see more and more advanced guys sticking to 20 reps. Then 4 plates each side is plenty. And then I'm talking about maximum needed weights for top physiques! A gymrat can already get decent quads on one plate per side!

Quads, as calves and delts, can be built on relatively light weights with (very) high reps.
All other muscles respond well to 8-15 reps.

Remember I talk about bodybuilding on juice after some years of natural powerbuilding.

The more juice you take, the more you should stimulate instead of shock the muscles.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2013, 12:50:53 PM
Hacks are great for quads, but unfortunately murder the knees for many.
Somewhat big chance of ripping the quad off the bone too (like Milos).

How many here can hack consistently with no knee issues at all?

I recently mentioned to my training partner that hacks were probably the best quad exercise.
He wants bigger quads but he says he will never do them, they always kill his knees even with light weights. He's fine with squats and different leg presses.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
careful, abolhalo has been olympic style lifter, he knows pretty well what and how :D

van b: my legs ,quads,grew better with the exact style cholo4life has desribed than with heavy squats.

i do not see how squats are any superior in building quads than curls are.

some have good build for heay squats ,most will gain only injuries long term from that.

ofc using 2 plates in the way cholo describes will give better gains thn using 1 plate.

we have powerlifters in the gym who i seen sqaut 7oolbs, piss poor legs, mine look a million times better, then we have some ppl who barely squat and they have pro cards,or on the way to earn one.

i remember myself wonderin about it years ago how can that kind of trining give them such legs, but theres a consistent pattern
pretty much but because i question things not just believe i know it all

that's why ppl think i dont know shit


oh well
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:29:27 PM
Once and for all: squat is a basic for bodybuilding, which means that you need to learn to squat in the beginning of your bodybuilding carreer, when you are more focused on power-bodybuilding.

Learn optimal form (perfect form sometimes can't be achieved due to specific built) and go as heavy as possible for at least 8 reps (you're still not a powerlifter).

Once you maxed out on that, you're ready to start juicing. Once you start juicing, squat little by little will move towards the end of your workout, finally to disappear. An advanced bodybuilder stimulates his quads with hack squats. Heavy juicing + heavy squats = big obliques and glutes.

And yeah, Ronnie used to squat real heavy in the beginning of his carreer when power-bodybuilding, and with fake weights for photoshoots later in his carreer.
i am actually doing everything right then according to your theory

5x170kg olympic squat at 85kg natural no belt no nothingness

since roiding up i said fuck squats and just do leg presses 300kg for sets of 20

i also thought ronnie lifted fake weights but everyone mocked me
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: flinstones1 on December 25, 2013, 01:30:01 PM

If we all knew our body at the moment we started training, that would have spared us from a lot of unnecessary trouble. We all have done things that weren't really necessary.

I'm absolutely convinced that Tom Platz could have developed exactly the same quads if for one reason or another he wouldn't have had access to more plates then to load 315 on the bar.

A guy like Platz is perfectly built to further expand his quads only by doing hack squats.

 ::)
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 01:33:51 PM
i am actually doing everything right then according to your theory

5x170kg olympic squat at 85kg natural no belt no nothingness

since roiding up i said fuck squats and just do leg presses 300kg for sets of 20

i also thought ronnie lifted fake weights but everyone mocked me


You're pretty strong. Built a good foundation before juicing. That will be rewarded later in your lifting carreer and life in general.

Do hack squats for sets of 20 (if your knees allow it).
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: flinstones1 on December 25, 2013, 01:34:20 PM
black women love big asses on guys...just sayin.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Hulkotron on December 25, 2013, 01:35:36 PM
frog squats in the front yard.

Falcon Principles
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:35:46 PM

You're pretty strong. Built a good foundation before juicing. That will be rewarded later in your lifting carreer and life in general.

Do hack squats for sets of 20 (if your knees allow it).
should i do both leg press AND hack squat or alternate workouts?

which do i do first, how many sets

thanks
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:37:06 PM
black women love big asses on guys...just sayin.
they love big arms, big cocks, full heads of hair, shiny premium cars, big bank accounts


like any other woman


big ass, uhm no that's black MEN
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Roger Bacon on December 25, 2013, 01:38:05 PM
This talk of pros squatting light is so liberating.... Maybe I'm not a pussy
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Teutonic Knight on December 25, 2013, 01:45:33 PM
they love big arms, big cocks, full heads of hair, shiny premium cars, big bank accounts


like any other woman


big ass, uhm no that's black MEN

how about naming those 'hunting' grounds  ;D ' or should I guess Monte Carlo,Chelsea,Shangai Starbuck,Santa Monicas promenade,............
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 01:49:48 PM
should i do both leg press AND hack squat or alternate workouts?

which do i do first, how many sets

thanks


Leg press first and hack squat after that is a perfect match.

If your knees can stand it, you can do hacks alone. If so, warm up thoroughly.

Training total around 100 reps for quads.

Don't be afraid to do drop sets once and a while.

No set of 5 rep squats can give your quads a beating like a high rep drop set on LP or Hack.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 01:57:00 PM

Leg press first and hack squat after that is a perfect match.

If your knees can stand it, you can do hacks alone. If so, warm up thoroughly.

Training total around 100 reps for quads.

Don't be afraid to do drop sets once and a while.

No set of 5 rep squats can give your quads a beating like a high rep drop set on LP or Hack.
and what about hamstrings


do them first? if they are behind quad development?


and what exercise

thanks
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: galeniko on December 25, 2013, 01:58:50 PM
This talk of pros squatting light is so liberating.... Maybe I'm not a pussy
dont worry, ust bc its not very heavy, doesnt mean it isnt very intense,its in fact relatively very heavy.

that said, if one has the drugs and can do 4plates each side in the fashion that mawse described, they wil have olympia stage or npc heavyweight ready legs size.

us mere mortals can be happy if we get something like i have :D

Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 02:02:11 PM
most importantly

thigh dominant physique looks bad


they need to be decent and seperated


but not distract from the upper body
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: galeniko on December 25, 2013, 02:07:26 PM
most importantly

thigh dominant physique looks bad


they need to be decent and seperated


but not distract from the upper body
yeah when the hamstrings pop out backward from side perspective is ok and good.

but when the tight dwarfe thwe quads from teh front perspective this suck,i try to avoid developing that look at all cost
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
and what about hamstrings


do them first? if they are behind quad development?


and what exercise

thanks


If they lag behind do them first.

If they are ahead, do them last.

If you have knee issues, do first leg curls, then leg press, then the rest of your quad training and then do the RDL part of your ham workout.

Hams = RDL and all kinds of curls (lying, standing, seated). Keep it simple. Never understood that silly exercise hype (glute ham raises and all that stuff that in 25 years I have never seen done by an advanced bodybuilder).
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: anabolichalo on December 25, 2013, 02:25:54 PM
ôk so something like

4-5 set leg curl

4 set leg press

4 set hack squat

4 set stiff leg
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: kohl on December 25, 2013, 02:39:31 PM
ôk so something like

4-5 set leg curl

4 set leg press

4 set hack squat

4 set stiff leg


Basically yes, looks good to me.

Don't be afraid to do dropsets on the leg curls also, works really well.

RDL don't go too heavy, it's typically an exercise where you can develop an excellent muscle-mind connection. Dennis Wolf doesn't need more then two plates each side on this, and Kai only one! Look at those guys hams!! Stay with 12 reps for hams.

Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: ProudVirgin69 on December 25, 2013, 02:47:08 PM
ôk so something like

4-5 set leg curl

4 set leg press

4 set hack squat

4 set stiff leg

Do your stifflegged deadlifts with dumbbells...otherwise, looks pretty good.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: TommyBoy on December 25, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
" careful huge trap"


Wait, this is a WHYI thread now?
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: ESFitness on December 26, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
Dear dumb ass fuck, are you really mentally handicapped or something? When you do something like squats, what is your weakest link in that range of motion? Quads, which are able to press thousand pounds in leg press, or hips and back? You have more strength in your legs than you have your back and gluteus, because you don't train them properly. There is old thumb rule about the matter, which says that you must be able to do same reps of good morning with half of your squat weights, than you do squats with full weight. Like 20 reps with 140kg squat = 20 reps of 70kg good mornings. That way you can maintain balance between these muscles, and hips and back isn't the weakest link in your squat. Therefor the point is that if you do it right, squats are best exercise for quads, and if you do it like a moron, it is waste of time.

that's not accurate.

if that were true, champion, world record squatters would use a high-bar,narrow stance for squats to "turn off" the hips/glutes/hams..

but, they don't... they use a wide stance and initate the movement (with a low bar) to DE-EMPHASIZE the quads and focus on the hips and glutes.

hips/glutes/hamps are FAR SUPRIOR strength-wise than quads.

quads are the weak link.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: deceiver on December 26, 2013, 02:42:35 AM
that's not accurate.

if that were true, champion, world record squatters would use a high-bar,narrow stance for squats to "turn off" the hips/glutes/hams..

but, they don't... they use a wide stance and initate the movement (with a low bar) to DE-EMPHASIZE the quads and focus on the hips and glutes.

hips/glutes/hamps are FAR SUPRIOR strength-wise than quads.

quads are the weak link.

Well, you're wrong and right. Wide stance works for some, mostly for equipped lifters.



This is world record squat in IPF. 400kg, stance is wide but not ultra wide. This is best raw squat in the history (of IPF)

The reason why olympic lifters do not have best squat in the world is that they don't (can't) use as much PEDs as everyone else. They just use dianabol and test because they are tested extensively.

In gold soviet era when everyone abused PEDs:

http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/news/nv005.html

Quote
B.C. What strength exercises do you favor?
Taranenko: The back squat is the most important strength exercise. I usually squat every day, sometimes more than once-a-day. My best back squat is 380 kg (837 lbs). But this is with a two-second pause at the bottom.

http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/farticles004.html

Quote
The author witnessed the Soviet superheavyweight Aslanbek Yenaldiev pinned with a 240 kg clean at the 1979 Spartakiade. He tried bouncing 6 - 8 times but was physically unable to recover form the squat. He was the "champion squatter" among the soviet lifters with a 455 kg back squat (23).

Many soviets could squat well over 400kg with narrow-medium stance and high bar.



300kg atg squat @ 82.5kg... No powerlifters can beat that.

The reasons why powerlifters use low bar are:

 - low bar uses just a little bit less quads and more hams and lower back. hams are fast-twitch dominant, quads are 50-50, glutes are slow twitch dominant.
 - best powerlifters are naturally strong in deadlift, low bar has greater carry-over from deads than high bar
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: dj181 on December 26, 2013, 02:49:20 AM
most importantly

thigh dominant physique looks bad


they need to be decent and seperated


but not distract from the upper body

agreed

and bigass wheels with narrowass shoulders is the absolute worst combo

and btw, deceiver knows what he's talking about

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9xMMhjxmSVI/UHIEHds4-tI/AAAAAAAALAs/wRPMExIClBU/s1600/177740_3557690296919_1888709014_o.jpg)
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: Ropo on December 26, 2013, 06:13:05 AM
that's not accurate.

if that were true, champion, world record squatters would use a high-bar,narrow stance for squats to "turn off" the hips/glutes/hams..

but, they don't... they use a wide stance and initate the movement (with a low bar) to DE-EMPHASIZE the quads and focus on the hips and glutes.

hips/glutes/hamps are FAR SUPRIOR strength-wise than quads.

quads are the weak link.

So, you are some how unable to understand, that champions and world record squatters doesn't have same problems as getbig asshats and fucking imbeciles has? Champions has include correct muscle balance in their training routines as the first thing after their childhood, and dumbfucks like anabholico doesn't even know the meaning of the word. Have you ever seen the guy starting the rise from squat, and his torso doesn't seem to be rising in same synch with his ass? Like this asshole here:

Not enough strength in midsection to do it right, so his lower back is weakest link.
Title: Re: galeniko etc theory on squats, can someone explain biomechanics behind it?
Post by: nasht5 on December 26, 2013, 06:20:16 AM
for i feel it is true what they say but wonder why


when you squat with 100kg you can somehow make it feel like pure quadriceps


when you squat with 140kg or something to the same depth it actually feels like still quads but also hips and back


therefor what is the point of heavy squats for quads


and why is this

you wouldn't understand.