Why do non-powerlifters focus on Squat, Bench and Deadlift when you don't compete in them? Front Squat...

>Yeah but dumbbell bench is harder to progress because you have to go up by 5 lbs per side each time.
It depends on your set up. Some gyms have adjustable dumbbells that can do 1 or 2lbs.
>Front squat has a higher mobility requirement than back squats.
I disagree. I think people say that to get out of them
>RDLs are gay
why?
>mechanically disadvantageous exercises = more difficult to perform more volume or increase intensity
That isn't true at all. The exercises I listed cause less fatigue. If anything it would be easier to add volume
>there's a reason why the exercises you listed are used as assistance movements and not main movements in any half decent program
Because dogma

Front squats are far more fatiguing. why do you think weightlifters use primarily back squats despite reduced specificity to the clean?

What’s RDL? Romanian DL? Straight leg?

>better hypotrophy response
Uhhhhh yeah sauce on that you nigger

>Front squats are far more fatiguing
They're more fatiguing on the back, which is important because of the ridiculous amounts of pulling they do. If you aren't snatching and cleaning every workout it doesn't matter as much
>What’s RDL? Romanian DL? Straight leg?
Romanian
>Uhhhhh yeah sauce on that you nigger
Dumbbells use a longer range of motion than barbells so that one is self explanatory. RDL's take advantage of the eccentric and stretch reflex with deadlift typically does not, so that one is also clear. With Front Squats I wouldn't say that the hypertrophy is necessarily better than Back Squats, but I still believe they're overall better for non-powerlifters, plus they complete the very hinge-dominant RDL

It looks cooler and dumbbells for press movements are gay. How hard is that to understand.

can anyone sauce this for independent verification?

Life is a competition. If you disagree it's because you're losing.

Compounds are the most bang for your buck.

What do you want a source for?
>Compounds are the most bang for your buck.
They are compounds. Compound is something with movement around multiple joints

I like front squats, but the limiting factor tends to be the lifter’s ability to keep their back tight and stay upright, rather than the strength of their legs. It’s telling that even Olympic lifters train high-bar a lot when they’re trying to build their squatting strength. Unlike what thinks as well, volume front squats are an absolute bitch - they’re very unforgiving of any form breakdown, and if you’re doing higher rep sets it’s difficult to take a decent breath, even at the top of the movement.

...

>less injury risk

Citation desperately needed

>volume front squats are an absolute bitch - they’re very unforgiving of any form breakdown, and if you’re doing higher rep sets it’s difficult to take a decent breath, even at the top of the movement.
Again I disagree. I've never had a problem with them and I think like all movements they simple take time to accommodate to. Like I said previously olympic lifters train back squat to take fatigue away from their back because of all the pulling they do. If you aren't pulling with the volume they do it's less important
Lower weights tend to correlate with lower injury risk. It's also more difficult to have bad form on the exercises I listed. For example with hip dominant back squats you can have some very ugly grinding where as for front squats too much form break down will typical result in dropping the bar

>Front squats are far more fatiguing.
they are less fatiguing because the weights being lifted are less then a back squat

Weight is relative, there is no movement that is more injury prone than others. As long as intensity, volume, and frequency are properly programmed then you will have the same risk of injury doing the main 3 as using dumbbells. You really need to get into the bio-psycho-social model of pain and injury before making any of these claims

>Dumbbells use a longer range of motion than barbells so that one is self explanatory.
the heavier you go the less the ROM becomes because the dumbells get huge. You are actually using less ROM on dumbbells because of that

>Weight is relative, there is no movement that is more injury prone than others. As long as intensity, volume, and frequency are properly programmed then you will have the same risk of injury doing the main 3 as using dumbbells. You really need to get into the bio-psycho-social model of pain and injury before making any of these claims
This isn't true at all. Intensity is relative, weight is absolute
>the heavier you go the less the ROM becomes because the dumbells get huge. You are actually using less ROM on dumbbells because of that
uh what? that makes no sense. I mean even if bigger dumbbells mean a bit less rom it's still more than a barbell

based

That doesn't mean you have to squat, bench or deadlift retard

That's not true
youtube.com/watch?v=GzCCq9VdncM

shut up faggot

lmao this is only true if you're a dyel and you aren't regularly lifting heavy and making gains. Have fun lifting "safe" and making zero progress for years until you snap yourself. You'll probably just quit lifting before then anyways.

>shut up faggot

Attached: 22.jpg (1000x800, 127.78K)

>wojackposter
my point is proven

>muh range of motion
if you knew the slightest fucking thing about anatomy you'd know that as soon as your elbows drop below parallel with your torso, the load is placed onto the lats and the pecs do fucking nothing
muh range of motion on the bench is ancient broscience bullshit, the bar doesn't even need to touch your chest before your pecs stop supporting the load

>as soon as your elbows drop below parallel with your torso, the load is placed onto the lats and the pecs do fucking nothing
prove it

>lmao this is only true if you're a dyel and you aren't regularly lifting heavy and making gains.
that has nothing to do with what I said

>my point is proven

Attached: 3.png (647x740, 167.19K)

>The latissimus dorsi is responsible for extension, adduction, transverse extension also known as horizontal abduction, flexion from an extended position, and (medial) internal rotation of the shoulder joint.

And what evidence is there that the pecs do nothing?

Sorry had to step away.
I guess I'm looking for evidence or whatever that the arguments for front vs back, RDL vs diddly, etc, are vigorous. I do not have strong googlefu.
nice digits.

RDL are a hamstring excercise. If you want a strong back, thicc forearms and Joocy traps )as well as all the hamstring benefits RDLs offer) just do regular deadlifts lmao

RDLs work the Glutes as well as the Erectors

Not nearly as much as conventional

Do you have research to back that up?

The more weight you can do on a lift, the easier it is to progress. So you pick the lifts that you can move the most weight on to get the best progressive overload. You can up your back squat 5lbs each time, not your front squat. So whereas your back squat goes up 5lbs each week, you will stall a lot more on the front squat and maybe get 5lbs in a month.

Front squats and DB Bench are great, but I feel like if I only do them and drop back squats and barbell bench, I start losing strength and mass.

>Better hypertrophy response

You would have to be pretty stupid to imply front squats are superior to squats for hypertrophy

Zercher squat, floor press, heavy kb swings. Far superior.

>Significantly greater normalized EMG values were found from the rectus femoris and gluteus maximus (58.57±13.73 and 51.52±6.08 %peak) of the conventional deadlift than those of the Romanian deadlift

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1728869X18301291

>EMG

More valuable support in favor of dls than hearsay and speculation without figures to argue for rdls.

The most important part of the loft for Hypertrophy is the eccentric, which most people don't use in the DL

EMG shows muscle activation.

Muscle activation does not represent how much a muscle will grow by performing a certain lift

So using a muscle less promotes more muscle growth?

No, like I said there are more factors, like the lack of eccentric which is when most of the trauma is caused

user high-bar squats done properly (feet narrow, ATG) are one of the best quad builders around. It's just that people need to drop their ego and accept that they might not be as strong as they thought when they're forced to do a proper mass-building quad-tearing squat.

>user high-bar squats done properly (feet narrow, ATG) are one of the best quad builders around
Not superior to front squats

See when you say things like that, and then don't post a why or how explaining the physiology, nobody believes you.

You need me to explain why front squats hit quads more than back squats? Upright torso forces a greater knee angle