Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:34:34 PM

Title: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:34:34 PM
.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: galeniko on March 18, 2014, 03:36:38 PM
fuck, those are brutal legs.

well done man.

however, theres bit dishonesty there, you did squats for years before :D
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:38:04 PM
fuck, those are brutal legs.

well done man.

however, theres bit dishonesty there, you did squats for years before :D
yeah but if squats were so spectacular i would have regressed after stopping them

havent squatted for like 2 yrs

just leg pressing and some light hacks


i just watched RC videos again

i'm totally psyched up to get huge ;D
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Melkor on March 18, 2014, 03:42:51 PM
Maybe squats are necessary for people not using? (Genuine question).

Congrats on the wheels all the same
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:44:09 PM
Maybe squats are necessary for people not using? (Genuine question).

Congrats on the wheels all the same
without steroids it's better to do some other sport
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: JasonH on March 18, 2014, 03:47:34 PM
Good legs man, nice shape and condition  8)
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:48:20 PM
i hope i can get 18" arms in 2014
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: oldtimer1 on March 18, 2014, 03:48:47 PM
I find with squats my sprinting speed when up. With leg press I noticed nothing. I speculate that leg press is a fantastic thigh exercise. Your legs work in conjunction with your glutes that draws your femur back as you jump or sprint. That's where squats come in. It hits the glute muscle harder than leg presses.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:51:06 PM
I find with squats my sprinting speed when up. With leg press I noticed nothing. I speculate that leg press is a fantastic thigh exercise. Your legs work in conjunction with your glutes that draws your femur back as you jump or sprint. That's where squats come in. It hits the glute muscle harder than leg presses.
running fast is more hamstrings, glutes, psoas

no ???
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Lustral on March 18, 2014, 03:54:00 PM
Good legs. I stopped squatting just over a year ago, was constantly getting knee and hip injuries. I only persisted squatting in the bloody minded belief that "you have to squat". Legs were always best body part, big and well separated so it was stupid persistence/

Now I just do lunges, legs still big but more separation and more importantly no injuries.

I miss squatting 5 plates plus for reps though. Still in the process of changing my mindset from heavy is better but getting there. Took Galeniko's advice on Rack DLs, dropped weight a lot, increased ROM and now lower back is burning.

Among the race bait threads, pics of asses and conspiracy theories there is some great BB advice on here  ;D
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Melkor on March 18, 2014, 03:54:34 PM
without steroids it's better to do some other sport

Yeah but if strength is your primary goal (not overly concerned with maintaining ridiculously low bodyfat) surely steroids aren't essential? Obviously they would make a world of difference in terms of gains but there are and have been some amazingly strong individuals who have never used drugs (and have not had to look like fat slobs in the process).
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 03:57:31 PM
Yeah but if strength is your primary goal (not overly concerned with maintaining ridiculously low bodyfat) surely steroids aren't essential? Obviously they would make a world of difference in terms of gains but there are and have been some amazingly strong individuals who have never used drugs (and have not had to look like fat slobs in the process).

you can get pretty strong at squats and deads if you are a fat bloated pig without sterons


Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Wolfox on March 18, 2014, 03:58:10 PM
Shows years of muscle built with a2g high bar squats and front squats as supposed proof squats are not necessary.  ::)
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Coach is Back! on March 18, 2014, 04:01:08 PM
.

Good legs, But here's the thing. you seem to always post up bodyparts and not a full shot. Makes me wonder how you would look in a line up.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 04:02:16 PM
Good legs, But here's the thing. you seem to always post up bodyparts and not a full shot. Makes me wonder how you would look in a line up.
oh brother
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Coach is Back! on March 18, 2014, 04:03:11 PM
running fast is more hamstrings, glutes, psoas

no ???

Squats don't hit those? (psoas excluded)
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Coach is Back! on March 18, 2014, 04:03:41 PM
oh brother

Oh brother what?
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: galeniko on March 18, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
those legs arent just"good legs"they are fantastic.

they are the equivalent to my arms ;D


btw i do squat, with exactly 220lbs.

all the ppl who now think damn thats light thats weak blabla, you are invited, to come ibiza and try to "Hang" during a leg training, same depth squats, same speed, then we will talk :D

Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 04:04:21 PM
Squats don't hit those? (psoas excluded)
i never had soreness in hams from squats

only in quads, sometimes glutes
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Wolfox on March 18, 2014, 04:04:50 PM
Also, your legs look smaller than they did from the photos you posted years ago on one of your previous accounts.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: galeniko on March 18, 2014, 04:05:11 PM
i never had soreness in hams from squats


hm weird, i do, evry single time
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Coach is Back! on March 18, 2014, 04:06:50 PM
Also, your legs look smaller than they did from the photos you posted years ago on one of your previous accounts.

From the last show, I had a low grade MCL/ACL tear and torn meniscus. It was painful to train legs but I did anyway.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Wolfox on March 18, 2014, 04:08:26 PM
hm weird, i do, evry single time

Halo squats olympic weightlifting style. High bar... body as vertical as possible. Hits the quads and glutes most. also hams but less so than with low bar.

Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 04:10:02 PM
Also, your legs look smaller than they did from the photos you posted years ago on one of your previous accounts.
hell no
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Wolfox on March 18, 2014, 04:11:00 PM
hell no

Maybe you need to post a better pic because from the one you posted above they look smaller than before.

Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: dan18 on March 18, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
.
That is not you hold a sign with your get big name next to the leg shot
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Wolfox on March 18, 2014, 04:12:40 PM
From the last show, I had a low grade MCL/ACL tear and torn meniscus. It was painful to train legs but I did anyway.

That comment was for Halo.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: ismoseppo on March 18, 2014, 04:17:56 PM
is this some magical picture you guys are seeing?
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 04:18:33 PM
That is not you hold a sign with your get big name next to the leg shot
no. ;D
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Melkor on March 18, 2014, 04:18:53 PM
you can get pretty strong at squats and deads if you are a fat bloated pig without sterons




I don't get it - are you saying that guy in the video is a fat bloated pig? Ive squatted over 200 kg and I would guess my bodyfat is between 10 and 15%? Surely not a fat bloated pig (10 - 15% bodyfat is carried a lot better on somebody with a decent amount of muscle mass compared to the average joe public)
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: the trainer on March 18, 2014, 04:19:05 PM
.

bullshit, if a person legs are lagging then squats and lunges are the best to gain size, if you have squat for years and have a foundation then you can get by on other other leg exercises, at the end of the day squat is king no other way around, do you see ronnie doing light hack squats, think about that for a second.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 04:21:17 PM
I don't get it - are you saying that guy in the video is a fat bloated pig? Ive squatted over 200 kg and I would guess my bodyfat is between 10 and 15%? Surely not a fat bloated pig (10 - 15% bodyfat is carried a lot better on somebody with a decent amount of muscle mass compared to the average joe public)
yes

105kg of blubber
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: dan18 on March 18, 2014, 04:21:47 PM
no. ;D
yea thats what i thought doesnt match your narro upper body but it was a good try
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: anabolichalo on March 18, 2014, 04:25:49 PM
yea thats what i thought doesnt match your narro upper body but it was a good try
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=396275.0;attach=431132;image)
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: visualizeperfection on March 18, 2014, 04:29:07 PM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=396275.0;attach=431132;image)

phil heath just calling out all the "haters"
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: dan18 on March 18, 2014, 04:35:40 PM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=396275.0;attach=431132;image)
no hate those legs are good mine are pretty close but there still not yours thats all im saying if they were you would post like i said.
HELL if those were mine i would.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Wolfox on March 18, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
Shows years of muscle built with a2g high bar squats and front squats as supposed proof squats are not necessary.  ::)

Since it went unquoted, I figured I'd do the honors.

/thread
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: V Man on March 18, 2014, 05:29:58 PM
Squats are not as "essential" as most lifters tend shove down your throat. Squats are great for building a base in a beginner to intermediate but once you reach a certain level, squats are not gonna build your quads anymore. Why? Because squats are a terrible quad ISOLATION movement. Squatting involves glutes, hams, calves, lower back, along with quads. All those muscles being worked puts a huge demand for oxygen in the body. So usually what happens is your cardio fails before your quads actually do. IMO leg press Isolates the quads much better.

But I'm talking strictly from a bodybuilding point of view. Of course if your goals are different then it's a different story.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Lustral on March 18, 2014, 05:38:41 PM
Squats are not as "essential" as most lifters tend shove down your throat. Squats are great for building a base in a beginner to intermediate but once you reach a certain level, squats are not gonna build your quads anymore. Why? Because squats are a terrible quad ISOLATION movement. Squatting involves glutes, hams, calves, lower back, along with quads. All those muscles being worked puts a huge demand for oxygen in the body. So usually what happens is your cardio fails before your quads actually do. IMO leg press Isolates the quads much better.

But I'm talking strictly from a bodybuilding point of view. Of course if your goals are different then it's a different story.

I dunno, squats burned the shit out of my quads and glutes but it can easily become an ego lift and that's the rub. Couldn't walk for 5 days after a good workout but when it injures you fuck it.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: V Man on March 18, 2014, 05:45:37 PM
I dunno, squats burned the shit out of my quads and glutes but it can easily become an ego lift and that's the rub. Couldn't walk for 5 days after a good workout but when it injures you fuck it.

Absolutely...my legs will burn and be sore from squats as well.....but not to the same degree as the leg press. The burn I get on leg press is so intense it feels like it's on the verge of cramping.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: B_B_C on March 18, 2014, 05:48:20 PM
another thread for those unwilling to work hard in the gym
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: ProudVirgin69 on March 18, 2014, 09:25:29 PM
another thread for those unwilling to work hard in the gym

Work smarter, not harder
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: C-BuZz on March 18, 2014, 09:29:01 PM
I see no pics
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: visualizeperfection on March 18, 2014, 09:29:26 PM
another thread for those unwilling to work hard in the gym

or those fags that prefer better looking legs without the back issues or thickening up the waist.
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: Natural Beast on March 19, 2014, 12:35:56 AM
everytime he opens a thread and posts a pic i cant see the fuckin pic.. where is it? what a fuckin retard...
Title: Re: proof squats are not necessary
Post by: visualizeperfection on March 19, 2014, 12:52:39 AM
everytime he opens a thread and posts a pic i cant see the fuckin pic.. where is it? what a fuckin retard...
he only has the pictures up for a few minutes I think.

I think he takes them down.