223752 Bullies, 3792 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 27
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 12 3 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Emevas is offline
    Emevas's Avatar

    Dysfunctionally Strong

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Minot AFB, ND
    Posts
    6,788

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 5:52pm

    supporting member
     Style: Boxing/Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You see, now you've changed from "useless" to "justify the expense/risk", which are two entirely different arguments. They have a use, in that they can be used as a means to train heavier weights and higher portions of the rep range, much like reverse bands and chains. There's a reason guys like Scott Mendleson, who compete in geared events and train geared lifts, also have some of the highest, if not the highest, raw lifts as well. training in gear will carry over to your raw work, and vise versa.

    As for "the risk", the only risk exists if you try to get 300lbs or something insane out of your triple ply/denim suit. Lifting gear was originally created as a safety measure, and if you stick with single ply and don't try to milk your gear, it can be used as such. It's like saying using a belt is a risk because you can use more weight with it.


    Again, two different arguments, of which I am combating the first one where you made the ascertation that they are useless for anyone not intending to compete. In regards to the second, if you can come by a cheap suit/shirt, and know what you're doing, geared lifting can be a valuable tool in the training aresnal, and a way for someone with bad shoulder/hips to be able to still squat and bench.

    Edit: Holy ****, I just read that article and got a huge laugh, especially that part about "Powerlifting traditionalists" demonizing lifting gear. People have this inane idea that powerlifting was at one point "RAW", when really that's an entirely recent movement. In the heyday of powerlifting, people were stuffing tennis balls under their wraps for more spring and were wearing cut-off jeans 3 sizes too small to get the same effect of a squat suit. Things back then were way more nuts than they are now, because not only was it ugly and amatuerish, it was downright dangerous because of the lack of quality control. Powerlifting has never been about being "RAW", it's always been about lifting the heaviest weight possible.

    And I say this as an aspiring raw competitor.
    Last edited by Emevas; 8/11/2008 5:58pm at .
    "Emevas,
    You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
  2. Sakmongkol is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:20pm


     Style: Muay Thai

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Don't mean to derail but what are you current PR's in bench, squat and deadlift, Emevas?
  3. Emevas is offline
    Emevas's Avatar

    Dysfunctionally Strong

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Minot AFB, ND
    Posts
    6,788

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:27pm

    supporting member
     Style: Boxing/Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Current PRs? I have no idea. I haven't tried for a heavy single in about 6 months. 6 months ago, I had
    Squat-420
    Bench-365
    Deadlift-540

    (Got video of the squat and dead). My squat was really lagging, and I've been focusing on bringing it up with my current program, which is a low volume, abbreviated, high intensity style of training (Pavel's 3-5 Principle basically, with some ideas from McRobert and Westside Barbell mixed in). I'm hoping for a 500lb raw squat before the end of the year. A 400lb bench and 600lb deadlift would also be nice, but I'm not counting on them, haha.
    "Emevas,
    You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
  4. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:29pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    You see, now you've changed from "useless" to "justify the expense/risk", which are two entirely different arguments.
    What I said was "only useful", and I stand by it. Intrinsic to whether something is useful is whether you can do better and/or cheaper with something else.

    Philosophically, all training is a risk-reward proposition first and foremost. Anyone can slap together some progressive resistance routine and say "do this and you'll get better". What differentiates one from another isn't just how quickly you improve - it's how likely regression is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    They have a use, in that they can be used as a means to train heavier weights and higher portions of the rep range, much like reverse bands and chains.
    Bands and chains have a crucial advantage here, in that if and when they break, the load on you decreases. As anyone who's looked up "powerlifting accident" on Youtube can attest to, this is not the case with bench shirts. Granted, the load from a failed band would be asymmetric, but the same goes for most shirt failures.

    Even if the shirt doesn't rupture, you will still be using more weight than you would otherwise be using over a full range of motion, which means that if something else goes wrong (you lose your grip, you pull something, etc.) you're getting more damage done to you by the bar. There's a video of Gene Rychlak failing at a thousand pounds and change out there - he had five spotters and they still couldn't catch the bar before it'd gotten him. You're asking that much more of your spotters.

    Note to the reader: There are also board presses and rack presses, which work the upper end of one's ROM without the non-linear loading of chains and bands (I have no position on whether non-linear loading is a good or bad thing, and it probably depends on one's situation and goals anyways). The rack presses in particular are a good option for safety, in that if your rack's of decent build quality, you aren't going to catch the barbell across the sternum. You can also mix-and-match between the various things - chains and rack, bands, shirt and boards, or even all five if you're feeling really ambitious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    There's a reason guys like Scott Mendleson, who compete in geared events and train geared lifts, also have some of the highest, if not the highest, raw lifts as well. training in gear will carry over to your raw work, and vise versa.
    As far as I'm concerned, it's because they are strong as Hell. And yes, they should see at least some transfer between equipped and unequipped work, but:
    1) In terms of addressing a sticking point in the lower range of the motion, they're unlikely to see more transfer from equipped -> unequipped than from working unequipped to begin with. Training volume is limited by time, energy, and recovery.
    2) In terms of addressing a sticking point in the upper range of the motion, using a bench shirt is riskier and/or more expensive than the options I've outlined.
    3) If you wanted to argue that a bench shirt results in a sort of eccentric loading, there might be something to that, but again, there are better options.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    As for "the risk", the only risk exists if you try to get 300lbs or something insane out of your triple ply/denim suit.
    I don't mean this rhetorically - in the event that someone does decide to use a shirt/suit in their training as indicated, what safety tips do you have for them? (Specific to a shirt - "have a spotter" and "use the dummy bars" should already be well-established)

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    Lifting gear was originally created as a safety measure, and if you stick with single ply and don't try to milk your gear, it can be used as such. It's like saying using a belt is a risk because you can use more weight with it.
    I don't recommend belts, nor do I use them. That said, they don't have some of the disadvantages of other equipment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    if you can come by a cheap suit/shirt, and know what you're doing, geared lifting can be a valuable tool in the training aresnal, and a way for someone with bad shoulder/hips to be able to still squat and bench.
    This probably depends on the nature of the shoulder injury, but using a bench shirt is liable to conceal and promote an imbalance between a weak shoulder and (heavily recruited and thus stronger) tricep. If someone can make it work for them, great, but I'd have recommended that they select exercises that address the weakness rather than work around it if at all possible. Also, as far as I know, bench shirts do not decrease load on bones, cartilage, or ligaments.
  5. ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE is offline
    ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North England
    Posts
    643

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:40pm


     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry-Monkey
    So I started lifting consistently about 5-6 months ago after about a year and a half of sporadic visits to the gym. I got a lot of good advice here and I just wanted to share a recent experience with everyone.

    I read "New rules of lifting" a few months ago and it really changed my outlook, I've been sticking mainly to barbell exercises and weighted pullups and dips and I recently started Stronglift's 5x5.

    Unfortunately I really took one of the "New Rules" very seriously and was adding weight to my squats every session. When I was squatting my bodyweight (~160lbs) I was getting down to parrallel but as I gradually increased weight I was also gradually losing ROM. I ignored this as I was becoming obsessed with increasing my working weight every time I worked out so that two weeks ago I was "squatting" 230lbs but probably only doing half squats. In my mind I knew I was cheating but my ego was not letting me drop the weight to get proper ROM.

    Yesterday I finally cracked and during my warm up sets I told myself that I was going to do ass-to-grass until it became too difficult and then stick to that weight for my work sets. At 205lbs I felt that I couldn't go any heavier without comprimising ROM so I took my rest and started my 5x5. It was incredible. I've never had such a tough and fulfilling squat workout in my life. The usually only go all the way down with an empty bar. Even in my warm up sets I would just go to parrallel, this is my first time doing working sets ass-to-grass and my legs felt like complete jelly afterwards, awesome!

    So moral of the story (which really should have been obvious to me before I tried it): Full ROM squats at 205 lbs >>> half squats at 230 lbs.

    I think the strain and exertion from such a tough squat workout messed with my head because I was supposed to do 1x5 deadlifts afterwards with 255 lbs but I screwed up the mental math and ended up doing 265 lbs, a new PR by 15 lbs!

    Thanks again for your help everyone.
    Oddly similar to me, I started following the 5x5 program, got my squat up to 100kg but started to fail on it and felt a lot of the weight in my back, think I have to try a deload now :(

    I also had my bad form pointed out to me by a gym rat, not sure if he's right or not though as he said that the back should always be completely upright through the entire squat and you shouldn't go past parallel.
  6. Emevas is offline
    Emevas's Avatar

    Dysfunctionally Strong

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Minot AFB, ND
    Posts
    6,788

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:46pm

    supporting member
     Style: Boxing/Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    What I said was "only useful", and I stand by it. Intrinsic to whether something is useful is whether you can do better and/or cheaper with something else.
    Um, once again I must ask "since when". On that note though, what's a better/cheaper way to replicate the benefits of lifting gear that makes lifting gear only useful for competitors? I no of no cheaper way other than lifting gear.

    Bands and chains have a crucial advantage here, in that if and when they break, the load on you decreases.
    How does that work with reverse bands?

    As anyone who's looked up "powerlifting accident" on Youtube can attest to, this is not the case with bench shirts.
    I doubt anyone here is gonna be lifting the kind of weight necessary to blow out a lifting shirt. Again, those incidents happen in powerlifting meets, where people are trying to get the most weight out of their gear. As I already stated, when using gear for safety, you are specifically not using it to add 300lbs to your raw lifts, you are using it as another aspect of your training arsenal.

    Even if the shirt doesn't rupture, you will still be using more weight than you would otherwise be using over a full range of motion
    Why? Why not use your raw max weight for more reps?

    which means that if something else goes wrong (you lose your grip, you pull something, etc.) you're getting more damage done to you by the bar.
    I imagine this is bad in any circumstance. It's not like 300lbs raw hurts any less than 300lbs shirted. Are you arguing that we should not lift heavy weights in general?

    There's a video of Gene Rychlak failing at a thousand pounds and change out there - he had five spotters and they still couldn't catch the bar before it'd gotten him. You're asking that much more of your spotters.
    A simple solution would be to not bench 1000lbs, which I imagine is not a tall order for a lifter here. Again, I'm not suggesting using triple ply kevlar shirts to add 300lbs to your total, I'm talking single ply gear as a safety means for people either prone to injury or already injured, as well as another means to work lockout strength.

    Note to the reader: There are also board presses and rack presses, which work the upper end of one's ROM without the non-linear loading of chains and bands
    Yup, love 'em both. Board pressing is a great exercise.

    1) In terms of addressing a sticking point in the lower range of the motion, they're unlikely to see more transfer from equipped -> unequipped than from working unequipped to begin with.
    This is why I suggest using gear to workout lockout strenght, not strength from the sticking point. DE work is good for that, as are many other training methods.

    Again, I'm not saying to train only using lifting gear, I'm saying to not rule out a training method entirely.

    2) In terms of addressing a sticking point in the upper range of the motion, using a bench shirt is riskier and/or more expensive than the options I've outlined.
    I've addressed the comments on risk, and again, expense is dependent on situation. I have a buddy of mine that could get me a shirt for dirt cheap, if not free. A lot of folks could come by this as well.

    I don't mean this rhetorically - in the event that someone does decide to use a shirt/suit in their training as indicated, what safety tips do you have for them? (Specific to a shirt - "have a spotter" and "use the dummy bars" should already be well-established)
    Don't try to get 300lbs out of your lifting gear. Treat it as safety gear, not as powerlifting gear. Again, would you not want someone using a belt because you can lift more with one than without one?



    I don't recommend belts, nor do I use them. That said, they don't have some of the disadvantages of other equipment.
    Well...this answers my question and saddens me. Had I not been able to use my belt, I would have had to hang my training up for a few months due to a back injury (which amazingly I received lifting without a belt).

    This probably depends on the nature of the shoulder injury, but using a bench shirt is liable to conceal and promote an imbalance between a weak shoulder and (heavily recruited and thus stronger) tricep.
    It's only going to promote a shoulder injury if you exclusively use the bench shirt, which for some reason, whenever I suggest something, people assume I mean inspite of an exercise rather than in addition to. My argument in no way, shape or form is "ALWAYS USE GEAR". It is that gear can be useful to train with. I never suggest using one method exclusively, as that would be stupid.

    If someone can make it work for them, great, but I'd have recommended that they select exercises that address the weakness rather than work around it if at all possible.
    Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm thinking we may mean the same thing and saying it different ways.
    Last edited by Emevas; 8/11/2008 6:49pm at .
    "Emevas,
    You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
  7. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:48pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Slindsay
    I also had my bad form pointed out to me by a gym rat, not sure if he's right or not though as he said that the back should always be completely upright through the entire squat and you shouldn't go past parallel.
    I'd say he's wrong. See: Squat Analysis
  8. Emevas is offline
    Emevas's Avatar

    Dysfunctionally Strong

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Minot AFB, ND
    Posts
    6,788

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 6:51pm

    supporting member
     Style: Boxing/Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Just make sure that you are not rounding your back as a means to go past parallel, as it's what a lot of folks end up doing.
    "Emevas,
    You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
  9. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 7:37pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    People have this inane idea that powerlifting was at one point "RAW", when really that's an entirely recent movement. In the heyday of powerlifting, people were stuffing tennis balls under their wraps for more spring and were wearing cut-off jeans 3 sizes too small to get the same effect of a squat suit.
    How much did these measures affect scores? I ask because current equipment allows significantly weaker lifters to use equipment and achieve bigger scores than stronger unequipped lifters. I suspect that if tennis balls and cut-offs allowed this to happen on a statistically significant basis, the raw movement would have precipitated earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    Um, once again I must ask "since when".
    I apologize for any unclear wording. As far as "since when", the second definition of useful provided here is "of a valuable or productive kind". This was the sense I was using it in, not as the antonym of "useless".

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    On that note though, what's a better/cheaper way to replicate the benefits of lifting gear that makes lifting gear only useful for competitors? I no of no cheaper way other than lifting gear.
    The suggestions I've made for exercises that I've laid out are all either better (less risky), cheaper, or both in the situations that I've considered. If you advance other specific benefits of using a bench shirt, I'll give you my ideas as far as alternatives for those.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    How does that work with reverse bands?
    It doesn't. If a reverse band (from the top of the rack) is used, and the band breaks, the effective weight of the bar increases. However, Hooke's Law ( F = -k * x ) indicates that bands and reverse bands can be made equivalent in non-boundary conditions by appropriate choice of band tension (k), band displacement (x), and weight. I can furnish examples if you'd like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    I doubt anyone here is gonna be lifting the kind of weight necessary to blow out a lifting shirt.
    Wear is a function of weight and use. The number of repetitions necessary to induce failure will certainly go up as weight goes down, probably non-linearly, so avoiding going near the limits of the shirt will reduce the odds of material failure significantly.

    Incidentally, a shirt may wear out and lose elasticity without catastrophic failure. The lifetime on boards, chains and racks are much, much longer. Not sure about bands, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    Why not use your raw max weight for more reps?
    This is basically a question of semantics. The convention I've most commonly encountered is to select the parameters of reps, rest periods, sets, exercises, etc. and then to choose the weight based on those, rather than the other way around. Granted, one could put on a shirt, leave the weight constant, and thereby shift the focus of their workout along the max strength - muscular endurance spectrum, but that implies a shift in goal as well.

    If one holds the rep range constant between unshirted and shirted, what I said will still be generally true:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    you will still be using more weight than you would otherwise be using
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    I imagine this is bad in any circumstance. It's not like 300lbs raw hurts any less than 300lbs shirted. Are you arguing that we should not lift heavy weights in general?
    No, I am not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    I'm talking single ply gear as a safety means for people either prone to injury or already injured
    As I've already said:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    using a bench shirt is liable to conceal and promote an imbalance
    As far as I am concerned, if someone cannot safely do unequipped barbell bench press, regardless of whether this is because of potential or actual injury, they should stop doing any variation on barbell bench press (shirted or unshirted) until their vulnerability/imbalance is corrected. If they have a weak deltoid or rotator cuff, and choose shirted bench, they are worsening the imbalance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    This is why I suggest using gear to workout lockout strenght, not strength from the sticking point.
    If your sticking point is not near your lockout point, I'm not sure why one would choose to focus on working at the lockout point, but that's beside the point. I still have no reason to believe that a bench shirt would provide any benefit at lockout that bands, chains, racks, etc. do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    I've addressed the comments on risk, and again, expense is dependent on situation. I have a buddy of mine that could get me a shirt for dirt cheap, if not free. A lot of folks could come by this as well.
    If you're talking new, that's not a great business model for Titan et al. If you're talking used, see the above comments about shirt failure, and ask yourself how much you know about the shirt you're buying's history.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    I don't recommend belts, nor do I use them. That said, they don't have some of the disadvantages of other equipment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    Well...this answers my question and saddens me. Had I not been able to use my belt, I would have had to hang my training up for a few months due to a back injury (which amazingly I received lifting without a belt).
    All right, mea culpa, "don't recommend" carries a connotation that I didn't mean. I meant it strictly literally - as in, when I give recommendations, "go buy a belt" is not one of them. If you're satisfied that the belt will protect you from delayed recovery/further injury, it makes sense to use it. If uninjured, the question becomes "is this equipment compensating for a weakness or imbalance, and thereby working against its remedy?" And no, I'm not implying an answer to said question. It varies from person to person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    for some reason, whenever I suggest something, people assume I mean inspite of an exercise rather than in addition to
    In this case, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    a way for someone with bad shoulder/hips to be able to still squat and bench.
    Which I interpreted as meaning that they couldn't squat/bench without said equipment.

    In terms of using it to maintain the muscles that aren't injured while rehabilitating the ones that are with other exercises, I suppose it's on you to demonstrate 1) that the equipment will protect the injury better than other related exercises that don't require equipment, and 2) that you're not exacerbating an imbalance between the included muscle groups that will lead to reinjury down the road.
  10. Emevas is offline
    Emevas's Avatar

    Dysfunctionally Strong

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Minot AFB, ND
    Posts
    6,788

    Posted On:
    8/11/2008 8:08pm

    supporting member
     Style: Boxing/Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    How much did these measures affect scores?
    It would be hard to measure, as people were using these measures, not competing without them, so we can't quite say how much they gained from it.

    I ask because current equipment allows significantly weaker lifters to use equipment and achieve bigger scores than stronger unequipped lifters.
    Which is why I'm suggesting not doing this, but instead using it as a safety device. Again, I'm talking single ply, not triple.

    I suspect that if tennis balls and cut-offs allowed this to happen on a statistically significant basis, the raw movement would have precipitated earlier.
    Again, RAW was not the mentality of the day, numbers was. It was the culture of powerlifting. It's only as of recently that people started pitching a fit about it.



    I apologize for any unclear wording. As far as "since when", the second definition of useful provided here is "of a valuable or productive kind".
    And geared lifting is not invaluable and non-productive. Value does not necessarily dictate cost, as the same dictionary will inform you, but can instead refer to benefits gained.

    The suggestions I've made for exercises that I've laid out are all either better (less risky), cheaper, or both in the situations that I've considered.
    But they are also different. They do not directly mimic the effects of geared lifting, in that they do not provide means of structual support, and furthermore, the methods you listed can even be compiled WITH training gear, demonstrating that there is no dichtomoy here. You can have both.

    It doesn't. If a reverse band (from the top of the rack) is used, and the band breaks, the effective weight of the bar increases. However, Hooke's Law ( F = -k * x ) indicates that bands and reverse bands can be made equivalent in non-boundary conditions by appropriate choice of band tension (k), band displacement (x), and weight. I can furnish examples if you'd like.
    Lets not get into the usual physics clowncar that happens in these forums, as it ends up being a 400 post topic with guys like Maverick coming in and crying at the end of it. Be that as it may, if you are adjusting the band tension and displacement so as to avoid having the effective bar weight not become a risk in the case of injury, could not the same be done by my suggestion of not using lifting gear as a means of increasing numbers, but instead as a means of training lockout with a weight you can handle raw?



    Wear is a function of weight and use. The number of repetitions necessary to induce failure will certainly go up as weight goes down, probably non-linearly, so avoiding going near the limits of the shirt will reduce the odds of material failure significantly.
    And given that people are not going to be going near the limits of the gear in their training, they most likely will be aware of a need to get new training gear before it becomes an issue. It would be like suggesting not using boxing gloves because there is a risk that they could lose their padding and your hands could hurt. Yes, it requries a little extra effort and maintainence, but the idea that someone is going to blow out a suit from casual training in an instant is rather far fetched.

    Incidentally, a shirt may wear out and lose elasticity without catastrophic failure. The lifetime on boards, chains and racks are much, much longer. Not sure about bands, though.
    Again, this is a false dichtomoy. In no way am I saying to use gear IN PLACE of bands, chains, boards and racks, but rather IN ADDITION to.

    This is basically a question of semantics. The convention I've most commonly encountered is to select the parameters of reps, rest periods, sets, exercises, etc. and then to choose the weight based on those, rather than the other way around. Granted, one could put on a shirt, leave the weight constant, and thereby shift the focus of their workout along the max strength - muscular endurance spectrum, but that implies a shift in goal as well.
    Not necessarily, but simply a utilization of a different training method for a specific purpose within the goal. One could still train for maximal strength using a raw lift, and then for the sake of hypertrophy or endurance within the same workout (a rather common practice in most powerlifting programs, and seen in a lot of strength training as well) put on the shirt/suit and try for maximal reps. You see this style in Repitition Effort ala Joe DeFranco, and Paul Kelso and other trainers utilizing it in their programs.

    You may actually give it a try in your training. One day I'll train Maximal Effort, and on my second training day, I'll take 50-60% of that weight and try for maximal reps. I combine the total reps, and try to beat that number the next week. It's worked amazingly well with my bench training as well as my grip training.

    If one holds the rep range constant between unshirted and shirted, what I said will still be generally true:
    Which is why I am in no way, shape or form advocating that, nor have I been through out this topic. I suggest using gear as means of training lockout, not in the same method as a powerlifter trains for a heavy single (unless, as you stated, it's the intended purpose of the training).




    No, I am not.
    Then I don't see how it's possible to avoid tragedy of a slipped grip or a missed spot with heavy weight. When Pat Casey was benching 600lbs in a tank top, if he missed the grip or his spotters made an error, he would be just as dead as I would be if I put on a kevlar shirt and tried to hit a 600lb shirted bench. Yes, there is always a risk with lifting heavy weight, but that's why we utilize safety measures. I am not advocating one use a shirt/suit as a means to lift greater than their maximal load for the purposes of training in a non-powerlifting scenario, but stating that it can have use in other forms of training.

    As far as I am concerned, if someone cannot safely do unequipped barbell bench press, regardless of whether this is because of potential or actual injury, they should stop doing any variation on barbell bench press (shirted or unshirted) until their vulnerability/imbalance is corrected. If they have a weak deltoid or rotator cuff, and choose shirted bench, they are worsening the imbalance.
    They are worsening the imbalance only if they chose to soley utilize the shirted bench and take no corrective actions to fix the problem. However, if they are currently undergoing a rehab/prehab routine to fix these problems, I fail to see how utilization of a shirt/suit as a means of alternative training is a bad thing.

    Would you tell someone not to utilize the board press if they had shoulder injuries they were contending with, and desired to still build up their tricep strength? Or straps on a deadlift for someone with torn ligaments in their hands?

    If your sticking point is not near your lockout point, I'm not sure why one would choose to focus on working at the lockout point
    Are you familiar with rack progression training ala Paul Anderson?

    but that's beside the point. I still have no reason to believe that a bench shirt would provide any benefit at lockout that bands, chains, racks, etc. do not.
    Once again, I am not saying to use a bench shirt in spite of those, but in addition to.

    If you're talking new, that's not a great business model for Titan et al. If you're talking used, see the above comments about shirt failure, and ask yourself how much you know about the shirt you're buying's history.
    Guy is a sponsered lifter, and gets a ton of shirts that he won't likely need or want. And yes, again, it requires a little bit of effort on the part of the buyer to be aware of what they're purchasing, but as is the case with any used products. I've purchased a used car before, even though those things weigh 2000+lbs, go over 100MPH, and cause more deaths than firearms. I just made sure to do my research on the vehicle I was buying, and know who I was purchasing from.

    I wouldn't suggest getting something from craigslist unless you know the person, but if you got a training partner that just didn't like a shirt, and you know the history of it, I don't see why one would turn it down.
    Last edited by Emevas; 8/11/2008 8:17pm at .
    "Emevas,
    You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 12 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.