The belt's effect on the bottom of the low bar squat

[Nauticus]

This was discussed once before in the Q&A, I believe, with Rip replying that a belt adds great stability to the bottom/bounce portion of the squat. Most of the discussion about belts here concerns their disputed detriment/benefit to ab/lower back strength, not their effects on form.

I experimented with this myself today. With a near work-set weight, the last 1/3 of the eccentric phase felt pretty bad, lacking a general tightness that is distinct with a belt. There was no "pop" off the hamstrings, and the quads look up much of the work out of the bottom as a result. Even if belts lead to a weaker tummy (must avoid c word), which I am not convinced of, I would recommend compromising this for the form advantages a belt offers. Of course, it's very possible that I've just become accustomed to the belt at heavier weights.

And I took careful notice to add "low bar" to the title. I would speculate that many of the belt-bashers are probably high bar squatters, who benefit much less from a belt as a result of a more upright torso.

[Dastardly]

I am totally sold on the idea of it strengthening some of the abdominal muscles, I am looking into getting my first belt.

But I am concerned about how it affects my low back muscles as they are by far my weak link. I dont want to prevent them getting stronger.

[coldfire]

But I am concerned about how it affects my low back muscles as they are by far my weak link.

It doesn't.

[Gary Gibson]

The more you lean over, the more your abs have to push to generate intra-abdominal pressure to keep your back from rounding as you stand up with the barbell across your back. I addressed this in my article. A very high bar placement means a more vertical spine, i.e. a lot less forward lean and a lot less ab involvement. This is why high bar squatters are the ones who poo poo the belt; they don't understand ab involvement; they just see low bar squatters getting 5-10% more weight with the belt and assume the belt is magically generating upward force on its own.

When you use too much weight in high bar, your hips shoot up (as they will in any squat that's too heavy) and you lose the bar forward; like the front squat, the high bar back squat is pretty unforgiving when you lean too much.

[Malcontent]

When you use too much weight in high bar, your hips shoot up (as they will in any squat that's too heavy) and you lose the bar forward; like the front squat, the high bar back squat is pretty unforgiving when you lean too much.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, I just wanted to ask Gary's opinion on something pseudo-relevant. Gary, considering hips shooting up and forward lean, would you say that as long as you can maintain a solid lumbar arch, by definition forward lean is not too much? I mean, what is your criterion for determining excessive forward lean (in any squat)?

[Gary Gibson]

If your hips are rising faster than the bar is, this means that you are losing the back angle (leaning over more as your hips shoot up and your shoulders and the bar remain in place). This happens NOT because your quads are weak and trying to avoid work, but because your hamstrings are too weak to hold the back angle by extending your hips against the resistance of the weight.

Excessive is a matter of interpretation and of intent. The higher the bar, the less you have to lean to keep it over your midfoot and thus keep the barbell-lifter system in balance. As the barbell gets heavier and represents a greater percentage of the mass of the barbell-lifter system, then the center of mass of this system will increasingly mean the center of mass of the barbell. This means you can get away with leaning over so much that the barbell goes beyond the midfoot when the barbell is relatively light and thus do a good morning. When the barbell is really heavy, then you will lose it forward if you don't keep it balanced over the midfoot.

Again, angle inclination is going to depend where you put the bar on your back. Ideally you will hold that same back angle to the floor throughout the rep. On max reps, the back angle (the angle the back forms with the floor) will degrade a bit because your hamstrings are either too weak or too tired. Initial angle isn't the problem; loss of that angle due to fatigue or weakness is. I have training videos in which I display a 45 degree or so back angle that's held on the first rep, but then come up with my back parallel to the floor on the last rep simply because the increasing fatigue in my hamstrings means they can't hold the back angle.

[LudwigVan]

I mean, what is your criterion for determining excessive forward lean (in any squat)?

Excessive forward lean is when the bar has moved forward of the mid-foot.

[Rorschach]

People claim the belt weakens the abs? Wow.
They should see mine since I've stopped doing situps and started squatting with a belt.
Actually, they can't as they're covered in a healthy layer of fat, but my point still stands.

You also shouldn't be worried about the belt weakening your back, but if you're determined to be neurotic about it, do deadlifts without one, it's not the end of the world.
There's certainly nothing wrong with using a belt on deadlifts, but I don't get nearly as much benefit as on squats, so usually don't bother.
Try out both, see how you find it.

[mcsquared]

Maybe this isnt the right place to ask this qusetion, but I'm gonna ask it anyway. Lately after working out, specifically after squatting, I get a stiffness in my lower back like its been worked pretty hard. Would a belt help? I'm not sure if this is a bad thing, and I'm wondering if I should start using a belt. That being said there have definitely been a lot of other factors that have made me consider switching to a belt for squatting as well.

[Mr.City]

It can't hurt. I had some back problems around 285. I belted up and everything felt better. I recently squatted 285 sans belt and my back felt fine.