Mechanics for strong squat opposed strong deadlift

[Carlsongee]

You went from 225 down to 185 and you’re wondering why you aren’t making progress with your squat? Dude you lost 40 pounds. What did you think was going to happen?



You answered your own question when you said you made the most gains in the first 6 months and got your weight up. If you think some fancy programming change is the answer, you’ve forgotten all the lessons SS was supposed to teach you. You need to eat like you’re serious about lifting. That’s how your squat will go up. What good is programming when you aren’t even giving your body the fuel to help it maximize the work you’re putting in.

the point is that I gained 40 lbs and didn't gain strength except 40 lbs on my squat over the 6 months of Texas
Method.
Yes I've lost the weight again, and kept the gains that I made... now I have the opportunity to do a second long term bulk, but this time I want to do it properly which is the reason for me posting... I've done plenty of reading and bought the book... I'm not afraid of gaining weight, I do what's necessary.

[Sean Herbison]

I feel like I've been doing something wrong this whole time or I'm missing something
...
Perhaps its my form, but then surely I would make progress over 3+ years in spite of a little leverage issues.

Could be your programming, could be your form, or it could just be your proportions. Look at DirtyRed, he can squat a truck, but he hasn't had near the same success in bench or deadlift. It's largely based on how he's built.

Can you offer programming advice please?

Not without knowing more about what you've been doing.

If you wanted to be at the most competitive weight class for your height, you'd be targeting weighing 240 pounds.

Not necessarily. The top competitors at his height might be around there, but that doesn't mean that's where he's most competitive. If he can only get up to, say, 97.5 kg/215 lbs before any additional weight is 90% fat, then he's probably most competitive as a 93 kg or 105 kg lifter. That's not to say he'll be his strongest there, but he'd probably have his highest Wilks. Though even hitting your highest Wilks score doesn't necessarily mean you'll be your most competitive, since it depends how strong the competitors who show up may be.

For example, the best strongman at my height is Eddie Hall at 410 lbs. If I were 410 lbs, I would be a tub of lard, and probably not noticeably stronger than I'd be at 350.

none of this is to say he should stay at the weight he's at, whether to maximize his competitive advantage or for other reasons, just that he personally may not be most competitive at 240 lbs. But then again, he may. Hard to say without even seeing him.

at 100 kg I'm with the super heavyweights and there is no way I belong there...

100 kg is super heavy weight in a lot of sports.

It's not, really. The guy who weighs 100 kg might be the heaviest guy there, but the term "super heavyweight" specifically refers to the top, unlimited weight class, and only in certain sports. The ones I know that use the term are powerlifting (+120/+140), Olympic lifting (+105), and MMA (+120). Boxing and Judo have unlimited classes at 100 kg, but that class is referred to as "heavyweight" in those sports. So, I might be missing one, but I don't know of a weight class sport that actually refers to someone over 100 kg as a super heavyweight.

It is clear that any sport that favours a higher power to weight ratio favours a lower BF%. Such sports include rowing, boxing and powerlifting.
It's very rare to see any competitive athlete in these Power/Weight sports over 10% BF. So we can say that 10% BF is a good body fat for the sports listed to be maximise your advantage.

1)True-ish. 2) Dependent on 1, so true-ish. 3) False. 4) Dependent on 3, so also false.

Most guys in drug tested sports will not be below 10%. There are exceptions, obviously, but it's not the norm, especially for guys over ~90kg.

1.) I haven't taken my bone density measurements with anything scientific, but made the conclusion via observation. I could be wrong, though I doubt it.

You could do a DEXA scan if you're like. But how much muscle your frame can hold is more about your bone structure/size, rather than bone density. Not that bone density doesn't matter, but that will change with training, unlike your overall bone structure.

[Bigbrother24]

2.) 100 kg is super heavy weight in a lot of sports. It is clear that any sport that favours a higher power to weight ratio favours a lower BF%. Such sports include rowing, boxing and powerlifting.
It's very rare to see any competitive athlete in these Power/Weight sports over 10% BF. So we can say that 10% BF is a good body fat for the sports listed to be maximise your advantage.

Someone at a proposed 98 kg and in the competitive BF% of 10%, ages 25 and 5'11, white, would put them in a FFMI of 26-27 (still attainable naturally(for the .01%)).
Well, well... You're right (of course). I should be A LOT heavier... but I'm not the .01%.

Mate, unless you have a 145-150kg bench you currently don't even qualify for nationals in both US or UK. Even if you want to go full optimal you're still about 10kgs light for a sub 450 wilks guy at 5'11.

This by the way is not even going by guys like Boris Sheiko or Marty Gallagher who tell you that a guy like you should be SHW. But you seem to have fallen for the abs meme.

[BitPlayer]

I'm 5'11" and struggle with the squat as well. That being said, I can tell by the comments above that you have some body dysmorphia issues.

When I weighed 185, I looked sickley. You should probably weigh more like 225-240 and be stronger.

My guess is your body image issues coupled with a lack of proper programming are hindering your progress with the squat (you need both more volume and frequency squatting than you do with the deadlift). Additionally, you probably need to add another 50-100 pounds to your pull to get your squat where it should be/where you want it to be.

There is no magic that replaces hard work.

It's one thing to want to put on muscle to get your squat up, but to claim anyone under 6 foot *needs* to be that heavy or they look sickley is laughable, it's heavier and shorter than Andre Ward. And claiming not wanting to be that heavy (which would make them nearly obese by BMI) is body dysmorphia is just flat out messed up.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Nearly obese by BMI???? This is laughable.

[quikky]

the point is that I gained 40 lbs and didn't gain strength except 40 lbs on my squat over the 6 months of Texas
Method.
Yes I've lost the weight again, and kept the gains that I made... now I have the opportunity to do a second long term bulk, but this time I want to do it properly which is the reason for me posting... I've done plenty of reading and bought the book... I'm not afraid of gaining weight, I do what's necessary.

Sean's advice above is excellent.

Your next step, assuming you want to get help on this forum, would be to post your current programming for review in the appropriate forum, and a squat form check in the SSC Q&A forum to ensure you're not doing one-legged jumping Hungarian squats.

If what you say is accurate in regards to 40/40 gain on Texas Method, my money would be that TM-style programming is simply really bad for you. I wouldn't blindly put on another 40lb while again doing TM in hopes that it works out better the second time around.

[Mark Rippetoe]

All this pointless argument aside, Carlson, your training is fucked up. Both your technique and your programming are fucked up. If you are really interested in getting strong, just break down and hire an SSC, either from the people at Starting Strength Coaches Association or from Starting Strength Online Coaching.

[crookedfinger]

It's one thing to want to put on muscle to get your squat up, but to claim anyone under 6 foot *needs* to be that heavy or they look sickley is laughable, it's heavier and shorter than Andre Ward. And claiming not wanting to be that heavy (which would make them nearly obese by BMI) is body dysmorphia is just flat out messed up.

First, I said I looked sickly at 185, I didn't say you needed to weigh at least 225-240 to not look sickly. I specifically said you should probably weigh at least 225-240 and be stronger. The implied message was to meet your strength goals. But yes, I do believe you have some body dysmorphia issues. That said, my opinion is worth zero, so feel free to discard.

Second, this whole BMI thing is a bit of a red herring. My Dr has no concerns about my BMI and he never brings it up. As a matter of fact, I have actually been told that BMI "doesn't apply" to me "due to the obvious large amounts of muscle mass that I have."

Finally, the problems have been identified in this thread: You would benefit from:

-improved programming around your squat
-possible form corrections via a coach
-gaining some amount of weight via increased lean mass and yes, gasp, fat

You can argue all of these if you would like, but you asked for the assistance/input. Will your squat ever equal your deadlift? Probably not. Can you squat 450x5 at some point? Absolutely. The question is are you willing to do what it takes?

[Brodie Butland]

It's one thing to want to put on muscle to get your squat up, but to claim anyone under 6 foot *needs* to be that heavy or they look sickley is laughable, it's heavier and shorter than Andre Ward. And claiming not wanting to be that heavy (which would make them nearly obese by BMI) is body dysmorphia is just flat out messed up.

Actually, 225 at 5'11" is obese on the BMI scale, not nearly obese (31.4 BMI).

This is me at 225, at 5'11". On a scale of sloppy fat ass to Jabba the Hut, where would you say I fall solely based on appearance? It's practically a miracle I can bend over to tie my shoes. Maybe I should lose 40 lbs?

[BitPlayer]

Nearly obese by BMI???? This is laughable.

It is though if you caclulate it. Now I'm well aware of the issues with BMI, so I was only meaning it to point out that it is a high bodyweight for his height. And like I said claiming if someone doesn't want to be that heavy has body dysmorphia is just wrong.