Should I be using a Lifting belt?

[Quadsweeps Sister]

Actually I have a question for those that wear it constantly. At least at my gym, I've never seen them tighten the belt once, after they initially put it on for the day. Aren't you supposed to wear it tight? I crank mine down, when I do use it, until I'm TIGHT, then suck in air to make everything solid. If you wear it constantly isn't it too loose to be effective?

Not so tight that you could not fill your belly with air. One should work to have a strong core and posterior chain before the belt goes on.

 

[maldorf]

Its not selling yourself short though to build your posterior chain so you can focus more on your own strength rather than thinking the belt is the key to your set of 10 at 405. Have you tried this squat without the belt? Focusing on proper form and staying tight through the squat with a big belly of air? What about all the other exercises that focus on the posterior chain...Good mornings, hypers, pull-thrus, glute-ham, zerchers...etc, are any of these a focus of your workout?

All just questions and food for thought. Your statement about atrophy is not true. If you work your posterior chain you could most likely progress to 405 for 10 without a belt in a short amount of time. However, just because you aren't squatting 405 all the time does not mean your muscle tissue will diminish (unless squat is the only exercise you perform for legs - which I can't imagine is so. ) Something else to consider, muscle tissue enjoys the stimulus, but it also enjoys symmetry and proportion. For example, if you had injured one side (leg) and you work the other leg frequently - the body will compensate and you won't lose as much mass on the non-worked side. Also, nutrition plays a part as well. You can do all the hard work lifting, but without the proper amount of cals nothing changes.

...it just sounded so much in your statement as there was a dependence on the belt - I just wondered. No knocking you - just conversing.

Not overrelying on a belt really. Squats, being the primary exercise I do for leg development, I am going to strive for it to be as intense as possible. There is no other exercise that stimulates growth in the lower body, leg presses dont even come close. Sure I could stop using a belt and work my way back up to 405 for 10, but for what? So that I can say may posterior chain is stronger? Right now my development sure looks pretty symetrical, I dont think it would do anything to improve my appearance. So lets say I do work my way back up to 405 for 10 without a belt, if I slap on my belt I could pile on more weight which is going to stimulate my quads that much more. Nobody can deny that a belt is going to allow you to lift more, and to me that is going to translate into more stimulus on the muscles you are training. Im not doing squats so much to build my abdominals and spinal errectors etc, im doing them for my lower body. Nothing anyone can say is going to convince me that I shouldnt use a belt when doing heavy squats and deadlifts.

 

[maldorf]

I'm With QS S on this - if you HAVE to use the belt in order to hit a certain weight for reps, then there is a weakness/imbalance somewhere.

Why aim for say a set of 10 reps with 355 in the suqat when I could do 10 reps with 405? That decrease in load is going to mean less stimulus to your legs and hence lower rate of growth in the legs.

 

[Quadsweeps Sister]

Not overrelying on a belt really. Squats, being the primary exercise I do for leg development, I am going to strive for it to be as intense as possible. There is no other exercise that stimulates growth in the lower body, leg presses dont even come close. Sure I could stop using a belt and work my way back up to 405 for 10, but for what? So that I can say may posterior chain is stronger? Right now my development sure looks pretty symetrical, I dont think it would do anything to improve my appearance. So lets say I do work my way back up to 405 for 10 without a belt, if I slap on my belt I could pile on more weight which is going to stimulate my quads that much more. Nobody can deny that a belt is going to allow you to lift more, and to me that is going to translate into more stimulus on the muscles you are training. Im not doing squats so much to build my abdominals and spinal errectors etc, im doing them for my lower body. Nothing anyone can say is going to convince me that I shouldnt use a belt when doing heavy squats and deadlifts.

Well.....not so much so you could 'say' your posterior chain is stronger, just so that it 'is'...

I always tried myself to think of the body as a whole, more from an overall athletic level rather than bits and pieces. I guess it came from a lot of years of bodybuilding and then a foray into powerlifting. I was always doing something, biking, triathalon... for me I guess it was the nutrition + weight training + conditioning which would equal an overall level of fitness for me. To only think of my quads and the growth in them was like leaving out many pieces of the puzzle. Why would I want a stronger posterior chain? Well, the hamstrings are the opposite of the quad and the legs as a whole from a pure symmetrical standpoint (and visual) would require the PC work for growth. It is indeed possible to have a nice quadsweep without a nice hamstring in the back.

To be completely honest - the quads are not the muscles responsible for building a stonger squat; it is the hamstrings, hip flexors, glutes and core. The posterior chain so to speak. So in the end - the increase in numbers in your squat will come from this work. Its really not about the belt after all I don't think.

 

[bignate73]

if 405x10 isn't possible without the belt, and the number beltless is considerably lower....there is your weakness. you arent recruiting your core enough.

similar example: seated overhead press and standing overhead press. large disparity between the 2 weights lifted...theres a break in the chain. generally its right in the middle, core.

giving up the belt crutch is the same as those that can't give up using straps. often times the argument is that they don't want one specific bodypart to suffer from a weak grip, weak core...whatever. the body is a unit, works as one and the way to keep it working properly is keep all its pieces working in unison. when they aren't working together they break.

in the raw bench press this is apparent. where the weakness is based on what area of the stalling or sticking points tells what is the problematic/lagging area. the person then assesses the weakness and trains accordingly to strengthen the weak area, essentially strengthening the weak link in the chain. new ones crop up, reassess, retrain, improve, continue. this is true of all compound movements. the more moving parts that are involved to do the work, and the more to learn about on how to improve.

 

[Guinness5.0]

if 405x10 isn't possible without the belt, and the number beltless is considerably lower....there is your weakness. you arent recruiting your core enough.

similar example: seated overhead press and standing overhead press. large disparity between the 2 weights lifted...theres a break in the chain. generally its right in the middle, core.

giving up the belt crutch is the same as those that can't give up using straps. often times the argument is that they don't want one specific bodypart to suffer from a weak grip, weak core...whatever. the body is a unit, works as one and the way to keep it working properly is keep all its pieces working in unison. when they aren't working together they break.

in the raw bench press this is apparent. where the weakness is based on what area of the stalling or sticking points tells what is the problematic/lagging area. the person then assesses the weakness and trains accordingly to strengthen the weak area, essentially strengthening the weak link in the chain. new ones crop up, reassess, retrain, improve, continue. this is true of all compound movements. the more moving parts that are involved to do the work, and the more to learn about on how to improve.

x2. A large disparity between belted and beltless = an imbalance.Always identify and address the weakest point.

I think this is especailly worrisome with sets using reps above limit strength levels (like more thasn 3 reps).

 

[Extra_Strong]

if 405x10 isn't possible without the belt, and the number beltless is considerably lower....there is your weakness. you arent recruiting your core enough.

similar example: seated overhead press and standing overhead press. large disparity between the 2 weights lifted...theres a break in the chain. generally its right in the middle, core.

giving up the belt crutch is the same as those that can't give up using straps. often times the argument is that they don't want one specific bodypart to suffer from a weak grip, weak core...whatever. the body is a unit, works as one and the way to keep it working properly is keep all its pieces working in unison. when they aren't working together they break.

in the raw bench press this is apparent. where the weakness is based on what area of the stalling or sticking points tells what is the problematic/lagging area. the person then assesses the weakness and trains accordingly to strengthen the weak area, essentially strengthening the weak link in the chain. new ones crop up, reassess, retrain, improve, continue. this is true of all compound movements. the more moving parts that are involved to do the work, and the more to learn about on how to improve.

agree agree!!!