Newbie squat form check after 10% reset

[Nicholas Laureys]

. My goal is 10 lbs/month until I'm around 230, then reassess from there (which will probably be when my NLP is over anyway). I have no aversion to gaining bodyfat and I know it does help you lift more to some extent, I just don't want to go crazy and turn into a slob (like I did the last time I got up to 230!)

You're 5'11" and consider a BW of 230 to be a "slob"? There may be some misnomers in your head about what a non-slob, strong body looks like, and a misunderstanding of how how your numbers could go up in proportion to BW gains. There's a guy over in the testimonials thread who went from a lean runner's body to a bit of a belly, but had such gains under the bar that the weight gain was wholly inconsequential to him, probably an *advantage*, TBH....hold on....here it is:
My Imperfect, Successful NLP - Final Results

[j410s]

This is all complete bullshit. The bow-shape? The fucking "core"? You're making this up as you go, when we've already made it up for you.

Casey, look at what happens between rep 2 and 3. Look at your chest, and what it does to your knees. Note the change in bar speed. See what you're doing? If you lift your chest, hamstring tension drops, and the load goes to the quads and adductors. As we've said many times, stay in your hips. Stay In Your Hips. If you drive through the middle with the same back angle, the speed doesn't drop and knees don't cave.

Look, fine, you're the expert and owner. I'm not here to doubt you I'm simply making an observation and understand you are extremely confrontational. Let me explain what my "bullshit" is about.

If the person under load is lifting too much weight the body will compensate. I don't need to go find an NIH study to convince you because I think you of all people understand this best. The core stabilizes the weight over the center of the feet. A weak core will cause the weight to walk over the toes in one direction or the other and the body compensates by diving back. "stay in your hips" in saying literally the same thing. Your core must remain tight. Many ego lifters crutch on a weight belt and a valsalva rather than possessing the core strength required for a lift. You cannot have one without the other. Stabilization originates in the core.

The "bow shape in the knee" exists and if you didn't see his knees nearly touching on rep 2-3 you're actually blind. This is yet another compensatory action that is a result of weak glutes and very typical of ego-lifting. There two ways to achieve maximal contraction of the quads and adductors. Your way, the correct way, with a wider stance and feet at 30 degrees. The other way is to stand too close, which causes the knees to buckle under the load. What physically happens during the knees buckling, rip? The quads and adductors have found the path of least resistance to achieve maximal contraction (at the cost of the lifters ACL). This isn't "bullshit". I don't need to draw a diagram for you. The application of force over a lever (the knee) can occur correctly or incorrectly. In the incorrect form the knees must buckle to provide the resistance. I'm not in the interest of drawing out the force diagrams especially because I'm positive at this point you're just going to troll me further.

In otherwords, as if by magic, my "bullshit" has reached the conclusion that OP is lifting too heavy and moved up too fast. It sounds like you're saying the same thing. Defaulting to bullying rather than correction isn't the most effective tactic. You deserve ample respect for the books you've written, but reverence in the face of being a dick is not deserved.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Look, fine, you're the expert and owner. I'm not here to doubt you I'm simply making an observation and understand you are extremely confrontational. Let me explain what my "bullshit" is about.

If the person under load is lifting too much weight the body will compensate. I don't need to go find an NIH study to convince you because I think you of all people understand this best. The core stabilizes the weight over the center of the feet. A weak core will cause the weight to walk over the toes in one direction or the other and the body compensates by diving back. "stay in your hips" in saying literally the same thing. Your core must remain tight. Many ego lifters crutch on a weight belt and a valsalva rather than possessing the core strength required for a lift. You cannot have one without the other. Stabilization originates in the core.

The "bow shape in the knee" exists and if you didn't see his knees nearly touching on rep 2-3 you're actually blind. This is yet another compensatory action that is a result of weak glutes and very typical of ego-lifting. There two ways to achieve maximal contraction of the quads and adductors. Your way, the correct way, with a wider stance and feet at 30 degrees. The other way is to stand too close, which causes the knees to buckle under the load. What physically happens during the knees buckling, rip? The quads and adductors have found the path of least resistance to achieve maximal contraction (at the cost of the lifters ACL). This isn't "bullshit". I don't need to draw a diagram for you. The application of force over a lever (the knee) can occur correctly or incorrectly. In the incorrect form the knees must buckle to provide the resistance. I'm not in the interest of drawing out the force diagrams especially because I'm positive at this point you're just going to troll me further.

In otherwords, as if by magic, my "bullshit" has reached the conclusion that OP is lifting too heavy and moved up too fast. It sounds like you're saying the same thing. Defaulting to bullying rather than correction isn't the most effective tactic. You deserve ample respect for the books you've written, but reverence in the face of being a dick is not deserved.

This is still bullshit. I doubt it will ever be anything else. And I'm not being confrontational for the sake of pissing you off. You have come here to post your own expertise in response to a question for me, and you are wrong. Happens in this industry quite a bit. You are simply making a series of incorrect observations with supreme confidence. Write your own book, and send me a copy.

[Satch12879]

Look, fine, you're the expert and owner. I'm not here to doubt you I'm simply making an observation and understand you are extremely confrontational. Let me explain what my "bullshit" is about.

If the person under load is lifting too much weight the body will compensate. I don't need to go find an NIH study to convince you because I think you of all people understand this best. The core stabilizes the weight over the center of the feet. A weak core will cause the weight to walk over the toes in one direction or the other and the body compensates by diving back. "stay in your hips" in saying literally the same thing. Your core must remain tight. Many ego lifters crutch on a weight belt and a valsalva rather than possessing the core strength required for a lift. You cannot have one without the other. Stabilization originates in the core.

The "bow shape in the knee" exists and if you didn't see his knees nearly touching on rep 2-3 you're actually blind. This is yet another compensatory action that is a result of weak glutes and very typical of ego-lifting. There two ways to achieve maximal contraction of the quads and adductors. Your way, the correct way, with a wider stance and feet at 30 degrees. The other way is to stand too close, which causes the knees to buckle under the load. What physically happens during the knees buckling, rip? The quads and adductors have found the path of least resistance to achieve maximal contraction (at the cost of the lifters ACL). This isn't "bullshit". I don't need to draw a diagram for you. The application of force over a lever (the knee) can occur correctly or incorrectly. In the incorrect form the knees must buckle to provide the resistance. I'm not in the interest of drawing out the force diagrams especially because I'm positive at this point you're just going to troll me further.

In otherwords, as if by magic, my "bullshit" has reached the conclusion that OP is lifting too heavy and moved up too fast. It sounds like you're saying the same thing. Defaulting to bullying rather than correction isn't the most effective tactic. You deserve ample respect for the books you've written, but reverence in the face of being a dick is not deserved.

Did you not say in the thread about your not post-tensioned garage slab you are not squatting “bar bending weight yet?” Ergo, should you be speaking with such confidence particularly when your premises are incorrect?

[Casey Trop]

Toes.jpg

Here's a pic of my normal stance. Should they be pointed out more than that?

As mentioned the biggest (and most dangerous) is your knees are buckling. When this happens with me I will usually deload on the next day's sets and try to find the point where my knees don't buckle because it implies a weakness in gluteal strength. If you think physically what is happening with your tendons and legs your knees bow because the bow-shape is generally capable of holding more weight due to the force distribution. You can tell this lack of gluteal strength is likely the reason because it becomes more pronounced (you actually do it at the bottom and the top of one of the reps) as the reps increase.

You're also falling forward (hips are going backwards). This could imply a general lack of core strength. Have you tried lifting without a belt? 225 is not a whole lot of weight on your frame. You should be able to do it without a belt. It may make it more obvious the core is the problem.

If I had to guess you're actually squatting less than 225 for reps. Maybe 20 pounds less. Give 205 a shot and form check to be sure you can do it without rocking back with your hips or bowing your knees. Then experiment with adding more weight until you reach the bowing point, and dial it back.

If I had to guess, I probably wouldn't be able to get 1 rep with 225 without a belt. Usually 185 is about where I put it on. I know a belt is beneficial overall, but I think the one I have is a bit overkill...13mm thick and 4" wide.

Rip gave you all the technical advice you need.
My advice is, get a 3 inch belt and gain 40lbs as quickly as you can. If you are actually eating 4500kcal a day and only doing the NLP we should see you gain 20lbs in the next 4 weeks, at least. If you are not, eat 5000kcal

Thanks, I'm going to look into smaller belts. I've felt in the past that this belt is a bit overkill and a bit of a crutch for what we're doing here. Guess I just needed to hear it from someone else! And it sounds like the consensus is that I need to eat more as well.

You're 5'11" and consider a BW of 230 to be a "slob"? There may be some misnomers in your head about what a non-slob, strong body looks like, and a misunderstanding of how how your numbers could go up in proportion to BW gains. There's a guy over in the testimonials thread who went from a lean runner's body to a bit of a belly, but had such gains under the bar that the weight gain was wholly inconsequential to him, probably an *advantage*, TBH....hold on....here it is:
My Imperfect, Successful NLP - Final Results

No, I don't think 230 would be slob-level at all! I'm just thinking of *me* when I was 230 in the past. I was absolutely stronger at that weight, but I gained a disproportionate amount of fat during that "bulk" and I'm just trying to keep things cleaner and *slower* this time. My inner fat kid has no problem at all shoveling ice cream and pizza down as an excuse to gain weight.

This is all complete bullshit. The bow-shape? The fucking "core"? You're making this up as you go, when we've already made it up for you.

Casey, look at what happens between rep 2 and 3. Look at your chest, and what it does to your knees. Note the change in bar speed. See what you're doing? If you lift your chest, hamstring tension drops, and the load goes to the quads and adductors. As we've said many times, stay in your hips. Stay In Your Hips. If you drive through the middle with the same back angle, the speed doesn't drop and knees don't cave.

Thanks Rip. Are you referring to the front view or rear view video? To my untrained eyes, it looks like I was keeping my chest and hips rising at the same rate during the ascents, except for the reps where my hips shot up/back first.

Should I just focus on driving the hips up and accept my chest falling slightly if that's what it takes to get good hip drive?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Just out of curiosity, have you read the book?

[Casey Trop]

Just out of curiosity, have you read the book?

Hah, sorry, I was in a bit of a rush when I replied and that question came out really stupid...

Yes, I own the book and have read it and frequently re-skim it during workouts. I try to think about all the cues you mention, like a chain pulling my hips up, pushing a hand on my sacrum up, keeping the weight over the center of the foot, etc. But it seems like no matter how much I think about it before/during the set, my hips always shoot up faster than my chest with heavy weights.

Is it possible that I'm trying to drive my hips TOO much?

And do you think there's any merit to the argument that I've been using my belt as a crutch? There's a fairly large discrepancy between what I can lift with vs. without the belt.

[j410s]

This is still bullshit. I doubt it will ever be anything else. And I'm not being confrontational for the sake of pissing you off. You have come here to post your own expertise in response to a question for me, and you are wrong. Happens in this industry quite a bit. You are simply making a series of incorrect observations with supreme confidence. Write your own book, and send me a copy.

Did you not say in the thread about your not post-tensioned garage slab you are not squatting “bar bending weight yet?” Ergo, should you be speaking with such confidence particularly when your premises are incorrect?

Then I'm wrong. Though I will stand and say that not being at bar bending weight does not disqualify someone from knowing something.

If either of you would kindly tell me where I am wrong with some anatomical explanation as to why I would be happy to not call anyone an asshole.

I'm more than willing to be corrected, but when you shark attack me like a D.I. and then piss off to another thread instead of using this as an opportunity to correct someone who is apparently obviously wrong it's hard to not get pissed. I hope you can understand this. It's quite simple. Instead of using bullshit terms like "stay in the hips" (are we doing tai chi or powerlifting?) I would appreciate an explanation I can tie back to the SS book I have with pages I've beat to death referring to. I've literally asked you for an explanation or a correction twice now Mark. I understand you get a lot of idiots saying shit and I am now one of them but it would fucking wonderful if you could break character for a minute and help.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Hah, sorry, I was in a bit of a rush when I replied and that question came out really stupid...

Yes, I own the book and have read it and frequently re-skim it during workouts. I try to think about all the cues you mention, like a chain pulling my hips up, pushing a hand on my sacrum up, keeping the weight over the center of the foot, etc. But it seems like no matter how much I think about it before/during the set, my hips always shoot up faster than my chest with heavy weights.

Is it possible that I'm trying to drive my hips TOO much?

And do you think there's any merit to the argument that I've been using my belt as a crutch? There's a fairly large discrepancy between what I can lift with vs. without the belt.

This lifting-the-chest-instead-of-the-hips thing has been rather thoroughly discussed on this board and lots of other places. I'm tight on time right now, so I'll ask Satch to help you with it. As for the belt deficit, I seriously doubt that at 225 it's as bad as you say, because 225 is just not that heavy. Use the belt for your last warmup and the work sets, like it says in the book.

The Belt and the Deadlift | Mark Rippetoe

Then I'm wrong. Though I will stand and say that not being at bar bending weight does not disqualify someone from knowing something.

If either of you would kindly tell me where I am wrong with some anatomical explanation as to why I would be happy to not call anyone an asshole.

I'm more than willing to be corrected, but when you shark attack me like a D.I. and then piss off to another thread instead of using this as an opportunity to correct someone who is apparently obviously wrong it's hard to not get pissed. I hope you can understand this. It's quite simple. Instead of using bullshit terms like "stay in the hips" (are we doing tai chi or powerlifting?) I would appreciate an explanation I can tie back to the SS book I have with pages I've beat to death referring to. I've literally asked you for an explanation or a correction twice now Mark. I understand you get a lot of idiots saying shit and I am now one of them but it would fucking wonderful if you could break character for a minute and help.

Do I owe you money, or something?

[francesco.decaro]

As mentioned the biggest (and most dangerous) is your knees are buckling. When this happens with me I will usually deload on the next day's sets and try to find the point where my knees don't buckle because it implies a weakness in gluteal strength. If you think physically what is happening with your tendons and legs your knees bow because the bow-shape is generally capable of holding more weight due to the force distribution. You can tell this lack of gluteal strength is likely the reason because it becomes more pronounced (you actually do it at the bottom and the top of one of the reps) as the reps increase.

You're also falling forward (hips are going backwards). This could imply a general lack of core strength. Have you tried lifting without a belt? 225 is not a whole lot of weight on your frame. You should be able to do it without a belt. It may make it more obvious the core is the problem.


If I had to guess you're actually squatting less than 225 for reps. Maybe 20 pounds less. Give 205 a shot and form check to be sure you can do it without rocking back with your hips or bowing your knees. Then experiment with adding more weight until you reach the bowing point, and dial it back.

You are talking about stopping strength gains for the sake of "correcting imbalances". This is functional training talk. Which is bullshit that Rip has discussed years ago and has a very simple answer for. I think the reason you are not being taken seriously is because you are taking yourself too seriously and acting like an expert at this, hence the "go write your own book" comment.
Deloading has its place in a strength program, just not for the reasons you explained.
My guess is, unless you change your mind, a year from now you won't be squatting more than 250lbs.