What John and Keith brought up last night was that this is Mike Boyle. How long has he been training people? How much has this guy seen.
Are you f-ing me? Mike is not some guy off the street.
That's correct - he has more experience than pretty much anyone else at training people and been damn successful. He even admits that looking at him you wouldn't think he'd know anything about training, but he's definetly one of the best. And, I think this is the best part, is that he understands that you can go too far with your training, which I think is something possibly lost on some trainers.
__________________ If your dog is fat, you aren't getting enough exercise. -Unknown
I must be a kid, because an adult never squats or deadlifts. LOL
I do think there is some validity to Mike's comments about connective tissue.
Some good thoughts in the article. Alwyn, as always, just about proves his point.
__________________ In Fitness & Friendship, MAHLER
______________________________ __________________________ There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You carry the light with you.
All I know is that me personally wouldnt be where I am now without heavy squats and deads.
You are 19 years old, correct?
You dont qualify in anyway for why Mike has said what he said, so with that said, I hope you continue to do what you are doing. There is no issue with you
"Heavy squats and deadlifts may not be good for you long term." — Mike Boyle
I have no doubt that NROL breakin, fatloss, and strength exercies have done me a lot of good. My squats/deadlifts have gone from 65 pounds to approaching 200 - which is just over my body weight. So far so good. But if my goal is improved body and health there have got to be limits.
Just from my construction experience I know that all materials have certain strength/rigidity/etc characteristics. There is a certain "aura..assumption.. or something I cannot define" that ever higher weights are in order for the compleat lifter.
Lou intimated about certain limits is some lifts, and that he did not lift as much now in those lifts (if I read it correctly). Approaching 67 I want my body to be in good should should I be lucky/unlucky enough to survive to 95. Achieving that goal also means respecting limits in how much I lift.
Wish there was a discussion on this from an academic, scientific point of view. I would like some guidance beyond my own intuition about those limits. By the way, I have a fairly high view of my intuition in this regard, but intuition is not science, it does not represent the thinking of experienced trainers.
Mike is one of my favorites.....there is a reason I had him write the forward to my book. He is one of the greats in S&C and everytime he writes an article for t-mag, I email him and ask him what the hell is is thinking addressing some of these douchebag's comments. I know i would want to kill somebody (especialy some pimple-faced, punk internet kid old who has not been alive as long as I have been training).
I am 40 and I squat. Do I squat 'heavy'? Hmmmm, well that's relative isn't it? If i compare it to my athletes....uh, no. Bottom line is that i have injuries, aches, pains that I never had 5 years ago....and 5 years before that etc. I think it's just common sense isn't it?
I too, do not perform a single back squat with any of my athletes as well.
Oh, and BTW, @ 19 I was benching around 500lbs., power cleaning around 350lbs. and ass-to grass front squatting 500 for triples (really ass-to-grass BTW....). That was 21 years ago.
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
Interesting point Boyle makes, and it makes sense. I'm starting to train an older (than me) friend on Monday, and she has some degenerative disc issues that require some exercise modifications. Nice to hear something like this from someone like Mike, even if it isn't directly supported scientifically.
__________________ No Magic Pill (the log)
My Movember page (yes, I'm slacking on pictures)
1/2 of the stuff we do in this field isn't supported by any type of scientific research. There are also things I did 15 years ago that are just now starting to get attention in university labs.
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
Interesting point Boyle makes, and it makes sense. I'm starting to train an older (than me) friend on Monday, and she has some degenerative disc issues that require some exercise modifications. Nice to hear something like this from someone like Mike, even if it isn't directly supported scientifically.
Thats the thing about people like Mike (and I will throw myself into this too) Mike has been training athletes for over 20 some years, all the science he needs is in the countless experience he has with this all. He has seen the injuries, rehabbed them, talked to the docs, etc... he is not just making this up as he goes. He didnt read this in a book and decide to tell people his "theory". Its based on working with and training 1000's of athletes. For me, I can attest to the same. I have been working in the field for over 16 years, and directly with athletes and their injuries. I have seen the same.
I had a class today where the guy kept harping on "science has proved" this and that. Don't listen to the big guy at the gym, blah blah blah. 90% of what he said was close enough to textbook and right. The other 10% he was either just flat out wrong (confused terminology, or faulty application of principles).
Learning the book stuff is great...assuming you understand what it's saying and how it all fits in, in the grand scheme of things. Learning by doing, or if that's not possible FROM people that do helps out so freaking much.
Any discussion of this excellent article must be carried out while keeping this Boyle quote in mind:
Quote:
Many of the readers are in a constant state of denial. They don't want education, they want validation and reinforcement that what they're already doing is the "best" route.
If I owned a gym I'd have this printed up on plaques and put it on every wall.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Oh, and BTW, @ 19 I was benching around 500lbs., power cleaning around 350lbs. and ass-to grass front squatting 500 for triples (really ass-to-grass BTW....). That was 21 years ago.
Damn DOS!
Frank, I'm with you bud! I just turned 32 (@$#%). My body really started to change and grow, when I started squating and deadlifting heavy. On the other hand, Mike has some good points. I hope to be the guy who is 65, and pulling 500lbs. Time will tell...
I'm "canada" on t-nation and i made a comment on that article.
Basically, when i hit a 2.5x bodyweight deadlift, 2x bodyweight squat i will be totally satisfied with my strength and start to use alot more single limb excercises and different varations of the dead and squat that doesn't allow for the heaviest loads.
eg. Front squats and snatch grip deadlifts.
No way in hell i'm pulling up short on those numbers.
I don't see anything about Boyle's statement that is controversial. "Heavy" is a relative term but. Regardless, placing high loads on a structure that decreases in it's ability to repair over time is bound to lead to an increasingly higher potential for injury.
I don't see anything about Boyle's statement that is controversial. "Heavy" is a relative term but. Regardless, placing high loads on a structure that decreases in it's ability to repair over time is bound to lead to an increasingly higher potential for injury.
Well in my opinion (which as has been discussed on the fitcast.. means diddly squat). 500lbs (or whatever number) is not enough to do any damnage. Your spine gets loaded much heavier then that even riding a rollercoaster. Squats and deads can cause some problems if done incorrrect (or even correcetly) but the loading on the spine shouldnt be one of them.
1/2 of the stuff we do in this field isn't supported by any type of scientific research.
Excellent statement Dos. I'm not trying to be rude to anyone out there but why the hell does everyone need a research study to back it up? Everytime I write an article the majority of questions ask "for research on the topic". That's why I love this statement and why I loved the article, there's just plain flat out things we do that get results but just don't have any science behind it and that is ok. Science tell us some great things about the human body but experience is a great tool and shouldn't be turned down because it doesn't have a number after it.
Well they always say that science is usually 5-10 years behind the practioners in this field.
**Don't you hate that when people say 'they say'? Who the hell are 'they' anyway?! (done in my best Seinfeld impersonation of course)**
__________________
Robert dos Remedios, MA, CSCS,
HCC (Hartman-Cosgrove Certified)
Director of Speed, Strength & Conditioning
College of the Canyons, CA http://www.canyons.edu/departments/pe/strength
"NO CHAMPION HAS EVER ACHIEVED HIS OR HER GOAL WITHOUT SHOWING MORE DEDICATION THAN THE NEXT PERSON; MAKING MORE SACRIFICES THAN THE NEXT PERSON; WORKING HARDER, TRAINING, AND CONDITIONING HIM / HERSELF MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON; ENJOYING HIS / HER FINAL GOAL MORE THAN THE NEXT PERSON"
Well in my opinion (which as has been discussed on the fitcast.. means diddly squat). 500lbs (or whatever number) is not enough to do any damnage. Your spine gets loaded much heavier then that even riding a rollercoaster. Squats and deads can cause some problems if done incorrrect (or even correcetly) but the loading on the spine shouldnt be one of them.
Frank
A. you were never discussed once on the Fitcast
B. I stated that it is fine to have an opinion
C. All I ask is that people that bash people like Mik Boyle take some time to actually 1. read what he wrote (the whole thing) and 2. really think about what someone who has over 25 years in the field says before they make a judgement.
D. Its all about frame of reference. When someone has a large frame of reference, its easier to take their word on something. When someone has a small one, its much harder to.
You, at your age, and with your goals...SHOULD be doing heavy deads and heavy squats. More power to you.
Well in my opinion (which as has been discussed on the fitcast.. means diddly squat). 500lbs (or whatever number) is not enough to do any damnage. Your spine gets loaded much heavier then that even riding a rollercoaster. Squats and deads can cause some problems if done incorrrect (or even correcetly) but the loading on the spine shouldnt be one of them.
I'm not sure, but I think it probably varies from person to person. Talking about you, myself or most people larger I'd say you might be right.
Incidentally, why do you think the spine is loaded with 500 lbs on a roller coaster? Even in a fighter plane pulling several G's there shouldn't be 500 lbs of spinal loading.
1/2 of the stuff we do in this field isn't supported by any type of scientific research. There are also things I did 15 years ago that are just now starting to get attention in university labs.
I still would like to hear what experienced trainers observations regarding the limits which are implicit in Mike's statement. In fact it would be nice if Mike himself expanded on all of this.
I still would like to hear what experienced trainers observations regarding the limits which are implicit in Mike's statement. In fact it would be nice if Mike himself expanded on all of this.
Rob, you frustrate me because you just keep asking this same question over and over from different angles. You want somebody to give specific weight training recommendations based on the age of the client and it can't be done. You will never get an answer to this question because it's the wrong question. The answer has to be specific to an individual. I've said that to you before. There are older trainees with good health who can handle a lot of weight and older trainees who can't for whatever reason. There is no way to give a general guideline or say "people over 60 should never lift more that x pounds."
Can't Prove It
Linear Mode
