I'm planning on purchasing a fitted suit for weddings and some other fancy things I'm going to this year. I am nearing the end of my Starting Strenght Linear Progression with plans to transition into the Texas Method. I was wondering: how many years (or months) do you think I might get out of the suit before it doesn't fit anymore? I figured maybe you've seen enough folks through the Texas Method to possibly make an educated guess.
You'll need an "Olympic" sized suit, with a 10" drop (the difference in inches between the coat size and the pants waist size). Buy a size larger than you wear, have it altered down to fit, and it can be let out to the original size when you get there. Take the waist slack up with your belt. Buy a nice dress belt.
Keep in mind too – a given fitted suit should allow you at least 10 lbs either way. So you will still get some use from it even if you put on a little weight.
I wrote all of this off the top of my head; let me know if anything is unclear or inconsistent.
What's up with this EMG activity studies contradicting any biomechanical analysis??? For example, a study published by NSCA claiming hamstrings get worked the same in front squat and the squat. I know you addressed this topic here on forums and on t-nation, but it would be interesting to see you talk about that in a podcast perhaps. I know NSCA is BS, but many people read their studies and tell us their claims are scientifically proven. This has to stop.
The reason you see a lot of these studies that show similar EMG activity between exercise variations is because they are generally requiring the participants to work at or near their maximum in the given exercises. Because of this, all of the involved musculature is working at or near their maximum. This is why a max FS and max BS will show similar EMG activity across all of the lower extremity musculature. However, what gets lost on the authors of these studies is that the varying joint angles between exercises is the key to the differences seen in the loads that you are able to use.
They don't seem to understand that a 400 pound 1RM BS requires more total force generation and thus produces a greater overall strengthening effect than a 300 pound 1RM FS despite the fact that EMG activity is similar between the two. You can back squat more weight because of the joint angles that must be assumed in order to correctly perform it allows for the involved musculature to produce more total force than a front squat does, not because it will necessarily show greater EMG activity because in both cases the musculature is working at their maximum capacity in that particular movement pattern.
I'm sure they are NOT doing a SS Low Bar Back Squat and then comparing to a front squat.
Probably NSCA doing high bar squats for the back squat, then comparing that to their shitty looking torso-hunched-over-toes-facing-forwards-front-squats (which mechanically look like the high bar squat they just performed).
Add in the fussy-ness and +/- error factor of those EMG sensors . . . not surprising the same-ness of the hamstring involvement.
This is a good point. There was a study published recently that compared EMG activity in the FS and BS where they literally used a stopper so that all subjects across both conditions only flexed their knees to 90 degrees. If you are performing two different movement patterns how does it makes sense to artificially make them more similar? This is typical when the involved researchers have no practical experience in the field.
Many of the studies on "squats" that I have read provide very little description of the type of squat that was used in the study (bar placement, depth, joint angles, etc.) which would all be very relevant in any discussion of EMG activity across different movement patterns
Highlights from the StartingStrength Community. Browse archives.