Today in the "online fitness community" Today in the "online fitness community"

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Today in the "online fitness community"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    841

    Default Today in the "online fitness community"

    I don't think I need to tell anyone here just how backwards, contrived, ridiculous etc etc the "online fitness community" is. Rather, I think I stand to learn a lot about this from people on this forum. However, today I found this gem floating around through the channels. Someone liked a post that shared this video and it showed up on my Facebook feed. Ladies and gentlemen, it gets more excessive every day:

    Link removed: We are not in the habit of feeding page views to the members of the "online fitness community."

    This is apparently called a "barbell rolling squat". You perform this squat variation by placing the plates on the bar against a wall behind you and then squatting down without having the plates lose contact with the wall. The idea is to "get jacked quads" and you'd perform this movement if you "don't feel regular squats a TON in their quads" (direct quotes from the FB post). Of course, to keep the plates touching the wall behind you and still get depth with this narrow stance (narrower than shoulder width and toes pointed forward), you have to place your feet out in front of you. In short, this is a squat you see performed in the smith machine, but without the smith machine.

    Yes, you heard that right. Fitness gurus and "online coaches" (as coach Niki put it in the recent podcast) have found a way to peddle squatting in the smith machine to audiences that mostly steer clear of smith machines. According to Mr. Gentilcore, the person who recommended this squat variation to him is none other than Greg Nuckols; a person many believe to be a strong and knowledgeable fitness guru. The FB post by both Nuckols and Mr. Gentilcore have, of course, received nothing but support. In this way, we have come full circle. Making fun of the smith machine and the people who use it is still a laudible pastime, but the "rolling squat" and those who perform it receive nothing but praise and admiration, regardless of the fact that they've literally reinvented the smith machine.

    Other than my short diatribe above, I'm speechless. I know I shouldn't expect better-and I'm not saying I'm only now disappointed-but they find new ways to make themselves look stupid every day, it seems, and it baffles me every time.

    Not entirely unrelated as a question: why is it people find it more reasonable to tack on multiple squat variations to "fix premature rising of the hips in the squat" instead of just lowering the weight and using good form? Because it's easier if they don't have to work hard and variation in lifts performed is fun?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    38,416

    Default

    Your last question is the reason I approved this post. The entire basis of the Corrective Exercise phenomenon is that an assistance exercise that supposedly emphasizes the allegedly "weak" or "not-'firing' " portion of a basic movement's kinetic chain will strengthen that piece of kinetic chain so that the basic movement can be performed correctly. This is in lieu of backing the basic movement off to a weight that can be executed correctly with that component of the kinetic chain included in the movement, and then coaching the movement correctly so that the lifter can actually learn to maintain correct technique at a heavy weight, and so that the weak piece of the kinetic chain strengthens within the movement pattern in which it has to function, which was the problem in the first place. Because, of course, not coaching is easier. Discuss.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Land of Shadows...
    Posts
    5,015

    Default

    I'm going to try these Saturday, will report.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Olympia, Washington.
    Posts
    70

    Default

    This is actually brilliant. Instead of a coach being responsible for teaching how to squat properly, now the trainee is responsible for not doing enough corrective exercises.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Vista, CA
    Posts
    1,955

    Default

    I see this mechanic all the time. A coach shifts someone to a goblet squat or trap bar deadlift and commends themselves on social media about how much better (more vertical) their client's back position looks in the new exercise (Of course it's straighter and more vertical! You made it easier!) After a period of entertainment programming gets the client marginally stronger than they were before, they go back to the bar, look a little bit better, and voila! Problem solved! Of course it only took a sessions/weeks/months of 'owning the movement'... and it'll go back to hell when the weight progresses up to 'heavy' again because they were never coached how to fight for a solid back position under a heavy load... requiring a new cycle of accessory work to make up for 'imbalances'... but it sounds sophisticated and sells well.

    Even worse is the the 'spray and pray/plug and play' coach approach:
    1) Equip yourself with a virtual armory of options and try them all until you find the one that looks 'good enough' without having to coach it.
    2) Make a case to the client (and on social media) that Insert-Variant-Here (pistols, split squats, trap bar DL, etc.) is actually better than squats/deadlifts/bench/press/chins/etc. for... reasons.
    3) Profit.

    It's better than nothing, I guess, and the client will get stronger, but it's an exercise in cowardice: "when the coaching gets tough... abort."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    ...This is in lieu of backing the basic movement off to a weight that can be executed correctly with that component of the kinetic chain included in the movement, and then coaching the movement correctly so that the lifter can actually learn to maintain correct technique at a heavy weight, and so that the weak piece of the kinetic chain strengthens within the movement pattern in which it has to function, which was the problem in the first place. Because, of course, not coaching is easier. Discuss.
    Oft-repeated in this community. For good reason.

    And the way I see it, to make an observation in passing, is that it's a Systems-level approach.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    633

    Default

    Novelty. It is very difficult to make 5 main lifts and a couple of accessory lifts "sexy." It is very hard to stand out from the crowd when your only focus is on progressive increases in weight on these main lifts. Gotta expand your market. Get published. Attract new clients. Come up with a new way to fuckaround while assigning some deceptively meaningless description about weak points, firing, core stability and lagging body parts and, well, you're the new thing. Problem is novelty always wears off.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    4,005

    Default

    If we wanted to "work the quads" more, aside from the entire chain of thought that led up to this question being stupid, why not just front squat? As a bonus, you can actually use some decently heavy weight, and not piss off the gym owner by wrecking his walls.

    As an aside, I don't think you can actually change the contribution of the quads to the squat, only the hips. You can certainly change the ROM of the quads, but it's probably close enough not to matter. So even worrying about this in the first place is stupid.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    325

    Default

    My money is on the phenomenon that everyone wants to appear "creative", and find new ways to leave their mark on the way people train. This is then done by coming up with a ridiculous movement pattern and a subsequent explanation of why it's the real deal.

    I'm not sure how it is in the US, but up here most fitness folks actually do know better. You still see and hear them "coaching" either ridiculous movements or use of machines, because that is what their clientele has come to expect after seeing all that weird stuff online and on tv. To me -- and I am biased due to my silly infatuation with running -- this is more pernicious than the whole cardio-obsession.

    My regular gym is closed this week so I've been to the community gym with the old geezers up there. No fitness folks there. Giants, I tell you. A man of 80 was busting my balls for using straps, laughing. But when I countered with a quip or another he said in earnest that he was just joking and turned out he used to be an olympic lifter in the 50s/60s. The smith machine there has a large warning sign: "NEVER HOLD YOUR BREATH WHEN EXERCISING". Never seen one of these old men touch that thing. All of them deadlift and bench press all the time.

    What happened in between?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    38,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiedemies View Post
    What happened in between?
    Nautilus, and Arthur Jones.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •