I've started a new workout that calls for 6 sets of squats 2-5 reps each. In the past I've always pushed too hard typically going to failure or really grinding out reps. I've never been sure how far to push myself or what weight to use within a particular rep range. Seeing as I workout alone I can't watch others to get an idea.

Here's my squats from tonight. Does this look about right?

bPruzNYGxoU

Nope. It does not look too heavy. I'd say you had at least 3 reps left in you on every single set. If you are sticking to that rep scheme, I'd add weight. About 15-20lbs...should be close.

I would recommend wearing a weight belt if you are going to be doing heavy low rep squats.

Also, I would move your spotting bars up a bit for two reasons. 1. It will help you keep better track of how low you go on every rep. 2. Less distance to fall should you fail on a rep.

Also, how long of rest are you taking between sets?

Nope. It does not look too heavy. I'd say you had at least 3 reps left in you on every single set. If you are sticking to that rep scheme, I'd add weight. About 15-20lbs...should be close.

I would recommend wearing a weight belt if you are going to be doing heavy low rep squats.

Also, I would move your spotting bars up a bit for two reasons. 1. It will help you keep better track of how low you go on every rep. 2. Less distance to fall should you fail on a rep.

Also, how long of rest are you taking between sets?

I've had the spotter bars set higher before and I tended to hit them and it would really throw me off. It's not bad when I fail a rep as I generally only fail around the lowest point so it's never far to fall.

Ok, it's good to hear that it's not too heavy. It didn't feel like I had 3 reps left, 1 or 2 maybe.

I've never worn a weight belt before. I don't even know what they are for.

Nope. It does not look too heavy. I'd say you had at least 3 reps left in you on every single set. If you are sticking to that rep scheme, I'd add weight. About 15-20lbs...should be close.
Agreed that it does not look too heavy, but whether he adds weight or not depends on where he is in relation to his tested maximum and what stage of his program he is in. There's no sense in going directly to a RM if he hasn't worked through the weights just below. It just means he'll stall out that much faster.

I would recommend wearing a weight belt if you are going to be doing heavy low rep squats.
This is completely unnecessary.

Also, I would move your spotting bars up a bit [...] Less distance to fall should you fail on a rep.
I've had the spotter bars set higher before and I tended to hit them and it would really throw me off. It's not bad when I fail a rep as I generally only fail around the lowest point so it's never far to fall.
I also agree here -- one hole upward would be a better height.

When you fail, it's not like your body instantly gives out and you collapse. There's still strength -- just not enough to stand back up. So, let yourself do a controlled negative into the bottom position, lightly resting the bar on the safeties. Since you're at a consistent depth that's higher than the next highest setting for your safeties, it makes sense to move them up though. If you used this setting in the past and were hitting the bar, it must be psychological or your depth was different, as your depth was constant here. Just work at it and you should be able to squat with them higher just fine with less risk to your body when you do fail.

If doing that remains a problem though and you can fail a lift just fine at the current height, it's also not a big deal.

Ok, it's good to hear that it's not too heavy. It didn't feel like I had 3 reps left, 1 or 2 maybe.
I'd say you probably had at least three if you really pushed it. There's no need to do that though if you're working progressively and in your target intensity range.

Agreed that it does not look too heavy. Whether you should add weight depends on where is in relation to your tested maximum and what stage of your program you're in.

There is no set progression. I assume it's one of those once-you-are-in-the-rep-range-add-weight programs. In which case, should I add weight now or could I do with a few more reps in the middle sets?

This is completely unnecessary.

ok, I won't worry about this for a while.

Agreed. One hole upward would be the correct height.

I'll try it, but if I bang into it I'll have to set it down again as it's too distracting.

There is no set progression. I assume it's one of those once-you-are-in-the-rep-range-add-weight programs. In which case, should I add weight now or could I do with a few more reps in the middle sets?
What's the target parameter? Just 6 x 2-5? Or does it have more qualifications on it?

What's the target parameter? Just 6 x 2-5? Or does it have more qualifications on it?

Yeah, just 6x2-5. What other qualifications might there be?

I would recommend wearing a weight belt if you are going to be doing heavy low rep squats.

I would avoid using a belt; I have never used one.

Yeah, just 6x2-5. What other qualifications might there be?
I was just thinking that maybe it was like 3x5, 2x3, 1x2 or wave loading or anything else more specific than can be condensed to the description 6 x 2-5.

Anyways, that's a pretty large range from 12 to 30 reps. I don't know what your full program is, but you probably want to stay in the middle of that range for most of your work and probably at or above 80% of your maximum. So, one way to start might be to choose 85% of your maximum and perform 6x2. Next week 6x3, then 6x4, 6x5. After that raise the weight 5-10% and start over. Another way would be to partition 3x5, 2x3, 1x2 assign weights, say 80%, 85%, 90%, and then increment one of those weights each week. Yet, another way could be to pick a total rep target in the 12-30 rep range, a weight at or above 80% of your maximum (inversely correlating volume with intensity), and just perform as many sets as needed to reach that target, terminating each set when your rep speed starts to slow, increasing volume or intensity slightly each week. There's a lot of different ways to go about it if you're just working off a routine without a program to go along with it.

Why all the weight belt hate?

I always use a belt for two lifts, squats and deadlifts. Some will go to extremes and wear them for lifts that do not benefit from a belt.

I know there are two trains of thought in regards to wearing them.

Check out any strength videos of competitions in deadlift or squats, vast majority of guys will wear belts.

Or check out workouts of strongman contest contenders. Once the reps drop below about 5 or 6 reps, they will start using a belt.

Copy and paste this link to read an explanation in favor of it. (I don't know how to properly hyperlink it)

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/strengthening/a/aa060201a.htm

Why all the weight belt hate?

I always use a belt for two lifts, squats and deadlifts. Some will go to extremes and wear them for lifts that do not benefit from a belt.

I know there are two trains of thought in regards to wearing them.

Check out any strength videos of competitions in deadlift or squats, vast majority of guys will wear belts.

Or check out workouts of strongman contest contenders. Once the reps drop below about 5 or 6 reps, they will start using a belt.

Copy and paste this link to read an explanation in favor of it. (I don't know how to properly hyperlink it)

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/strengthening/a/aa060201a.htm

Competitive powerlifters and strongmen also lift weights that many here will never come close to. I don't see much point in wearing a belt at the recreational level. Seems like it would become an unnecessary crutch if you used it when squatting 250 or whatever.

Competitive powerlifters and strongmen also lift weights that many here will never come close to. I don't see much point in wearing a belt at the recreational level. Seems like it would become an unnecessary crutch if you used it when squatting 250 or whatever.
This is my opinion as well.

For testing an aggressive new training maximum, slapping one on might be warranted, but, most of the time, it's just simply not necessary. If your lower back is feeling a bit overworked one day, sure put one on, but, if you're feeling good and strong, just leave it off. If you're in competition though, you sure as hell should put one on, as you're planning to leave absolutely all you got on the platform and all your competitors have one on anyways.

Perhaps, that's bias, but I just can't justify putting a belt on when, from experience, there has never been a need -- no matter how heavy I've gone or how much volume I've put in during a training session. Maybe when I can lift more though, I'll find more merit. I'm certainly not lifting anywhere near elite loads.

I would argue that it is still important.

To a recreational lifter, 250lbs may feel like the same amount of weight as 600lbs (random #) does to a strength athlete. So its not the absolute amount of weight that is important, but the relative "heaviness" of that particular weight for the individual.

I would consider reps under 6 as needing a belt. I could see not using one if your rep range is going to stay around 10-12.

I would argue that it is still important.

To a recreational lifter, 250lbs may feel like the same amount of weight as 600lbs (random #) does to a strength athlete. So its not the absolute amount of weight that is important, but the relative "heaviness" of that particular weight for the individual.
I essentially agree, but would say it's objective load in relation to bodyweight. Feeling has nothing to do with it. The body tends to be strong in certain directions; horizontal or rotary movement of the spine, for example, is much more sensitive than top loading -- maintaining posture becomes that much more critical, as the weight gets heavier. So, I guess where I disagree is a matter of scale.

If you're 300 lbs and lifting 250 lbs, I can't see you needing a belt. If you're 125 lbs, it's a lot different, but still perhaps not needed. From what I've seen, most recreationally athletic men seem to be in the 150-220 lb range, yet I don't see many lifting outside of the 300's in the squat (at least on this forum). Consequently, I still don't see it being very useful for them -- they simply don't squat enough absolutely or relatively. This is not to say that there's some magic relative figure like a 2x bodyweight squat that governs the wearing of a belt, but rather that I don't think most are lifting enough for it to be warranted, even when working quite close to their maximums. In my opinion, if you can't maintain posture under a maximum lift and you're not a competitive lifter, you almost always have no business trying to gut that lift out with assistance, whether that's a belt or, taken to the extreme, a spotter (e.g. the infamous "two man bench press").

I would consider reps under 6 as needing a belt. I could see not using one if your rep range is going to stay around 10-12.
Consider the converse though (or at least the converse of the spirit of your statement). If you spend most of your time in the heavy low reps, it doesn't make sense to belt up for something your body does just about every time you enter the gym.

Also, of course, just because your reps are under 6 doesn't mean you're lifting heavy. I don't think there's much use of belting up for triples if you're just doing speed work at 50 or 60% with a few bands. You addressed that with your original assertion though (i.e. "heavy low rep squats"). ;)

I find wearing a belt is a good mental prompt to brace my abs properly. But yeah, I'd only wear one for big max attempts or if my back wasn't feeling right.

I'll try it, but if I bang into it I'll have to set it down again as it's too distracting.

What about taping towels around the bar if it's the noise that bugs you?

I was just thinking that maybe it was like 3x5, 2x3, 1x2 or wave loading or anything else more specific than can be condensed to the description 6 x 2-5.

Anyways, that's a pretty large range from 12 to 30 reps. I don't know what your full program is, but you probably want to stay in the middle of that range for most of your work and probably at or above 80% of your maximum.

The full program can be found here:
http://www.myprotein.co.uk/your-goals/power-and-strength/?article=training

I thought I'd give it a go because it had some ideas I'd not tried before.

Yet, another way could be to pick a total rep target in the 12-30 rep range, a weight at or above 80% of your maximum (inversely correlating volume with intensity), and just perform as many sets as needed to reach that target, terminating each set when your rep speed starts to slow, increasing volume or intensity slightly each week.

This sounds like what I had in mind and what I actually did yesterday. I'd never intended to reach 6x5 as I think that would be too much. I think I'll just carry on with this method making sure I get around 20-22 reps.


As for the belt, I've never used one and have no idea how it actually benefits the lifts. I've never felt like I needed anything to support me while I llft even when I've gone for maximums.

What about taping towels around the bar if it's the noise that bugs you?

It's not the noise that distracts me, it's the bar wobbling around on my back that puts me off.

Read the sports medicine link I posted. It has an explanation on why you might wear a belt.

Simplified though it helps stabilize the lower back and increases your ability to generate inner abdominal pressure.

A completely non scientific reason...it helps me feel more stable and keeps me better focused on what I'm doing with my abs as I lift heavy/low reps on deadlifts and squats.

Copy and paste this link to read an explanation in favor of it. (I don't know how to properly hyperlink it)

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/strengthening/a/aa060201a.htm

Yeah that stuff is out of date. Both the hoop strengthening and increased inter-abdominal pressure ideas of back support have been tested and aren't the way the back is stabilized. (Read McGill, etc.)

The real reason for the belt hate are the large studies on how belt use increases the risk of injury for occupational as well as sports lifters. You can have all sorts of theories of lifting and back stabilization, but when you see more injuries from people using belts, you can flip over the cards and just say no.

If you're in competition though, you sure as hell should put one on, as you're planning to leave absolutely all you got on the platform and all your competitors have one on anyways.

Dunno about even that. The things about belts that people proposed as explanations for being able to handle heavier weights with the belt - the hoop stress, interabdominal pressure, etc. - none of those showed up in careful studies of how backs actual stabilize under heavy load.

I think the reason you still see them on a lot of athletes is they have become a security blanket.

Time for my favorite squat video!

mvgUT6ef66M

Remember that in addition to being an Olympic gold medalist, and frequently considered the world's strongest man of his time, Vlasov was also a thoughtful man (a bit of an intellectual, actually).

And in Olympic competition he didn't always wear a belt (Tokyo 1964)

ELAKqr0f2PQ

although we know he sometimes did wear a belt in training.

So when I get past Mr. Vlasov there, then I'll worry about if I need a belt.

Dunno about even that. The things about belts that people proposed as explanations for being able to handle heavier weights with the belt - the hoop stress, interabdominal pressure, etc. - none of those showed up in careful studies of how backs actual stabilize under heavy load.
My point is simply that, whether of not it actually helps, if your competitors are wearing one and even one is getting a benefit out of it, as long as you're not at a detriment for wearing one, it makes sense to wear one yourself -- maybe you'll end up being that guy. If it's legal and might help you, psychologically or physically, get to it when everything is on the line.

I don't expand that to training, however, on account of the fact that, as you state, no careful studies have shown significant evidence of those benefits and it is known that chronic use of belts can actually be worse for the back, as you've pointed out quite a few times in the past with the factory workers case study. But, like said, for competition, if it's not a detriment and since it's not absolutely outside the realm of possibility that you could benefit, I believe belting up is probably a good choice when it's legal.

I think the reason you still see them on a lot of athletes is they have become a security blanket.
I don't have anything to say about that because I was speaking specifically about competition (not training), where I don't see it as being problematic.

So when I get past Mr. Vlasov there, then I'll worry about if I need a belt.
Sounds good. You're not competing after all.

My point is simply that, whether of not it actually helps, if your competitors are wearing one and even one is getting a benefit out of it, as long as you're not at a detriment for wearing one, it makes sense to wear one yourself -- maybe you'll end up being that guy. If it's legal and might help you, psychologically or physically, get to it when everything is on the line.

You probably are at some detriment for wearing one from a health point of view. There may be a slight advantage in terms of how much you can lift, although it isnt proved, and there are reasons to suspect there are disadvantages.

Stuart McGill is probably as much an authority on this as there is, and here is his take on why he doesn't prescribe belt use (http://stronglifts.com/files/weight-belts.pdf).

EDIT: Especially the part about "Guidelines for Serious Lifting Athletes"

I'm never one for just believing authorities because they are authorities, so I'm just suggesting people read this as part of their own education.

I put belt use in the same category of excessive static stretching. Something that might on first blush make sense, but after deeper investigation in most situations does not offer any added safety, and might even decrease safety.

And I know what Wooden means when he mentions how bumping the safeties can completely throw off the lift. It can even be a risky thing if it knocks you off balance. I generally probably default to too low on my safeties, too.

You probably are at some detriment for wearing one from a health point of view. There may be a slight advantage in terms of how much you can lift, although it isnt proved, and there are reasons to suspect there are disadvantages.

Stuart McGill is probably as much an authority on this as there is, and here is his take on why he doesn't prescribe belt use (http://stronglifts.com/files/weight-belts.pdf).
McGill ends up confirming "If one must lift a few more pounds, wear a belt" at the end of the Serious Athlete section which is exactly my point. I'm describing a situation where this is the goal. The possibility of injury is not a detriment to the lifter on the competitive platform. It can't be a detriment if the lift goes well. So, it's only a risk and, in my mind, it's a risk outweighed by the benefit of achieving those extra few pounds, especially when it will improve the lifter's standing.

Also, as he states, the belt benefits most when it's used during a "poor" lift and that, when the spine is neutral, there is little benefit. He characterizes a poor lift very specifically -- a rounding and then straightening of the spine. Well, if there's any time when this is likely to happen, it seems like it would be during a maximal lift in competition.

This is pretty armchair though since I haven't competed myself, but I think I've sufficiently explained my opinion and reasoning, so I'll leave it at this now. I should probably reiterate though that I am firmly in the "once in a blue moon if not less or ever" belt wearing camp for the recreational lifter and, for the majority of training, the professional as well -- just so no one gets the wrong idea here.

McGill ends up confirming "If one must lift a few more pounds, wear a belt" at the end of the Serious Athlete section which is exactly my point. I'm describing a situation where this is the goal. The possibility of injury is not a detriment to the lifter on the competitive platform.

I think you are being a bit selective. Here's the whole section:

Guidelines for Serious Lifting Athletes
Much of the occupational evidence has relevance for athletic use of belts. There is no question that belts assist in generating a few more Newton-meters (or foot-pounds) of torque in the torso through elastic recoil of a bent torso that is stiffened with a belt. However, if a neutral spine is preserved throughout the lift this effect is minimal. In other words, to obtain the maximal effect from a belt, the lifter must lift poorly and in a way that exposed the back to a much higher risk of injury! There is no question that belts assist in generating torso stiffness to reduce the risk of spine buckling in extreme heavy lifts. Many athletes working at this edge of the envelope will receive this assist. However, other techniques are employed to maximize the torso stiffness – the lungs are filled to almost the top of tidal volume and the breath is then held. In some tasks, an athlete will only “sip” the air never allowing much air to leave the lungs that would reduce torso stiffness. Belts also increase intra-abdominal pressure which in turn increases the CNS fluid pressure in the spine and, in turn, the brain. This decreases the transmural gradient (the pressure difference between the arterial blood pressure in the brain vessels and the brain itself) which in turn may reduce the risk of aneurysm, or stroke. Others have argued that this effect has detrimental implications for venous return to the heart. I am unaware of any evidence to suggest where the balance lies. There are other counter considerations. Evidence suggests that people change their motor patterns, together with their motion patterns when using a belt. The evidence suggests that these motor control changes can elevate the risk of injury should a belt not be worn in a belt-training athlete. The severity of a back injury may be greater if a belt is worn.
Many people adopt belts in training for one of three reasons:
• They have observed others wearing them and have assumed that it will be a good idea for them to do so.
• Their backs are becoming sore and they believe that a back belt will help.
• They want to lift a few more pounds.
None of these reasons are consistent with the objective of good health. If one must lift a few more pounds, wear a belt. If one wants to groove motor patterns to train for other athletic tasks that demand a stable torso, it is probably better not to wear one. Instead do the work to perfect lifting technique.

Now you're from the tight arch school, and I'm from the neutral spine school, and as you can see from McGill, neither one of us will get noticable additional pounds from using the weight belt. To get the pounds from loading the belt you have to flex the back and let the belt assist your extension.

Just about every competitive clean or snatch I've seen is with a back that is either neutral, or more commonly, arched. This is consistent with the deadlift portion of these lifts being significantly submaximal. So no advantage from belts there.

Squats? Most competitive squats are again arched, the few exceptions being neutral. I'm trying to visualize all the squat examples I can remember and the only maybe case I can think of is that picture of Joe Dube, although it's hard to tell what his spine position was. And of course most modern competitive squats get the added pounds from the suit, not the belt.

Which leaves only the deadlift. There I can think of a couple examples, like Jouko Ahola

-1MgbRluFGQ

and Johnnie Jackson

st8FEFHlInk

and of course Vince Anello

rQD9mHTLFCA

As I understand it, that's what you have to do to cash in a lot of poundage from your belt.

And there are lots of competition deadlifts where there is no apparent loading of the belt. In fact, here is a 4xbodyweight deadlift where it's pretty clear that the guy avoids loading the belt.

CbWErY9sXxQ

Wow... 110 kilos and you handle it damn well.