PDA

View Full Version : Paul Chek on Belts


Steve Freides
November 27th 04, 02:53 AM
I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.

http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

John Hanson
November 27th 04, 03:09 AM
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:53:08 -0500, "Steve Freides"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
>you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>
>http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>

I would never compete without a belt. I like it fairly tight for
squats and bench and fairly loose for deadlifts. I'm sure I get a few
extra pound because of it. Having said that, I don't wear one much in
the gym.

Lyle McDonald
November 27th 04, 03:33 AM
Steve Freides wrote:

> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>
> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16

I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend to
be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your abs
and low back.

From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
DL properly using a belt.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
November 27th 04, 03:39 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
>> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>
>> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>
>
> I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend to
> be overused.

wow, what an absolutely ****ty sentence structure. Trying again:

I don't think that most here will disagree with Chek's assertion that
belts tend to be overused in the weight room.

Ok, that's better.

Lyle

Training without one will force you to strengthen your abs
> and low back.
>
> From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
> DL properly using a belt.
>
> Lyle
>

Bob Mann
November 27th 04, 04:10 AM
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:33:17 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
>> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>
>> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>
>I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend to
>be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your abs
>and low back.
>
> From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
>DL properly using a belt.
>
>Lyle

There is also the idea that you train as you lift and you will lift
more.
Rickey Dale Crain believes in wearing the belt after warm ups. Loose
at first and then tighter as you go heavier.
It's probably okay to not wear one for lighter work but why risk
injury if you don't have to?
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 04:56 AM
In article >, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>
> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16

Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which was
well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to activate
the transverse abdominals and belt usage.

Chek retreated PDQ.

Steve Freides
November 27th 04, 05:00 AM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > wrote:
>
>> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
>> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>
>> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>
> Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which was
> well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
> activate
> the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
>
> Chek retreated PDQ.

Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides
November 27th 04, 05:16 AM
"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:33:17 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>>> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>>> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
>>> If
>>> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>>> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>>
>>> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>>
>>I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend
>>to
>>be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your
>>abs
>>and low back.
>>
>> From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
>>DL properly using a belt.
>>
>>Lyle
>
> There is also the idea that you train as you lift and you will lift
> more.
> Rickey Dale Crain believes in wearing the belt after warm ups. Loose
> at first and then tighter as you go heavier.
> It's probably okay to not wear one for lighter work but why risk
> injury if you don't have to?

It all depends on why you're lifting weights in the first place. If
your goal is the maximum amount of weight, you use all the gear you can.
And the continuum, well, continues to people who lift using a belt but
no other gear, and then on to people like me who want to be able to do
it barefoot in a pair of gym shorts. I got into this to help my back
and my goal is to be as strong and as flexible as I can make myself - I
couldn't give a rat's ass about whether a belt gets me extra pounds or
not. Injury prevention is the name of the game for me but, from where I
sit, injury prevention is the reason I don't want to wear a belt.

One of the things I find fascinating in training the DL is how sometimes
my weak point is my legs and their ability to push the floor away, and
sometimes it's my back and its ability to stay straight while the weight
is trying to bend it. For a long while now, my legs have been the weak
point and if a DL was going to fail, it just didn't get off the ground
but neither did I get hurt. The pendulum has recently swung the other
way for me and I've surpassed my old PR's while also tweaking my back.
That I now need to challenge my back to resist the pull of an even
heavier weight is exactly why I'm here. If I end up plateau-ing because
my back can't handle the load my legs can, that's just more motivation
to make my back stronger.

By the way, I've been meaning to compliment you on that sig - wipe your
ass with an owl - I like that. :)

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

> --
> Bob Mann
> Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 01:48 PM
In article >, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
> >> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
> >> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> >> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
> >>
> >> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
> >
> > Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which was
> > well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
> > activate
> > the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
> >
> > Chek retreated PDQ.
>
> Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.


You'd have to join the Supertraining group on Yahoo and then check the archives.

Chek has basically taken concepts which apply to rehab from severe injury
and tried to apply them to healthy athletes. That doesn't always work.
According to Siff (and Tate and pretty much everyone else who has lifted
heavy) there was no need to consciously try and recruit the transverse
abdominals. Then Chek mentioned sucking in the abs to stabilize the spine
during heavy squats.

That was pretty much the end. I don't see much point in doing a search
myself. Chek has very little credibility IMO.

Steve Freides
November 27th 04, 02:51 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple
>> >> of
>> >> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
>> >> If
>> >> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>> >> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>> >
>> > Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which
>> > was
>> > well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
>> > activate
>> > the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
>> >
>> > Chek retreated PDQ.
>>
>> Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.
>
>
> You'd have to join the Supertraining group on Yahoo and then check the
> archives.
>
> Chek has basically taken concepts which apply to rehab from severe
> injury
> and tried to apply them to healthy athletes. That doesn't always work.
> According to Siff (and Tate and pretty much everyone else who has
> lifted
> heavy) there was no need to consciously try and recruit the transverse
> abdominals. Then Chek mentioned sucking in the abs to stabilize the
> spine
> during heavy squats.
>
> That was pretty much the end. I don't see much point in doing a search
> myself. Chek has very little credibility IMO.

I don't know much about him - I was just surprised, if he really got his
head handed to him about that article, that he left it up on his site.
Looking over his site, it does seem to be a physical therapy approach,
or at least to have started that way.

Doesn't he sell a medicine-ball-on-a-string thing, a "Tornado" or
something like that? I've heard good things about that for
strengthening the midsection - yeah, here we go, a video of that -
http://www.chekinstitute.com/video/Horizontal.MPG The site says he's no
longer selling the ball on a string for "manufacturing reasons"....

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 03:15 PM
In article >, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple
> >> >> of
> >> >> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
> >> >> If
> >> >> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> >> >> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
> >> >
> >> > Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which
> >> > was
> >> > well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
> >> > activate
> >> > the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
> >> >
> >> > Chek retreated PDQ.
> >>
> >> Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.
> >
> >
> > You'd have to join the Supertraining group on Yahoo and then check the
> > archives.
> >
> > Chek has basically taken concepts which apply to rehab from severe
> > injury
> > and tried to apply them to healthy athletes. That doesn't always work.
> > According to Siff (and Tate and pretty much everyone else who has
> > lifted
> > heavy) there was no need to consciously try and recruit the transverse
> > abdominals. Then Chek mentioned sucking in the abs to stabilize the
> > spine
> > during heavy squats.
> >
> > That was pretty much the end. I don't see much point in doing a search
> > myself. Chek has very little credibility IMO.
>
> I don't know much about him - I was just surprised, if he really got his
> head handed to him about that article, that he left it up on his site.
> Looking over his site, it does seem to be a physical therapy approach,
> or at least to have started that way.

He basically withdrew participation on the on the now defunct Weights2
list at that point.

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 03:32 PM
In article >, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple
> >> >> of
> >> >> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
> >> >> If
> >> >> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> >> >> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
> >> >
> >> > Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which
> >> > was
> >> > well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
> >> > activate
> >> > the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
> >> >
> >> > Chek retreated PDQ.
> >>
> >> Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.
> >
> >
> > You'd have to join the Supertraining group on Yahoo and then check the
> > archives.
> >
> > Chek has basically taken concepts which apply to rehab from severe
> > injury
> > and tried to apply them to healthy athletes. That doesn't always work.
> > According to Siff (and Tate and pretty much everyone else who has
> > lifted
> > heavy) there was no need to consciously try and recruit the transverse
> > abdominals. Then Chek mentioned sucking in the abs to stabilize the
> > spine
> > during heavy squats.
> >
> > That was pretty much the end. I don't see much point in doing a search
> > myself. Chek has very little credibility IMO.
>
> I don't know much about him - I was just surprised, if he really got his
> head handed to him about that article, that he left it up on his site.
> Looking over his site, it does seem to be a physical therapy approach,
> or at least to have started that way.
>
> Doesn't he sell a medicine-ball-on-a-string thing, a "Tornado" or
> something like that? I've heard good things about that for
> strengthening the midsection - yeah, here we go, a video of that -
> http://www.chekinstitute.com/video/Horizontal.MPG The site says he's no
> longer selling the ball on a string for "manufacturing reasons"....

Here is one of Siff's responses to Chek's article.

-----

From: [email protected]
Date: Mon Sep 18, 2000 5:29 am
Subject: BELTLESS BELIEFS

Several folk have requested that I review a few articles that Paul Chek wrote
for Testosterone magazine on "How to be Back Strong and Beltless", as
published on the following webpages:

< http://t-mag.com/html/body_121back.html >
< http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_122back.html >

He has not submitted Part 3 of this series, so, if he is still working on it,
it will be interesting to see if my review influences what he submits. These
two article already suggest that he has taken some of our earlier criticisms
to heart, because he is now admitting in this series that breath holding does
indeed stabilise the trunk.

HOW TO BE BACK STRONG & BELTLESS

PART 1

<<Regardless of your opinion about the origin of man, if you believe in God,
you have to wonder why he didn't provide weight belts as standard-issue
equipment. On second thought, maybe he did, and we just don't know how to use
them correctly.>>

*** Exactly the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and it is
entirely spurious. We might even have said that we should have retained a
hairy cover all over our bodies to protect us from the sun and other extremes
of climate. Why we should have evolved to lose something that protects us
from our environment is anyone's guess. A remark like that has been used by
Luddites, the Amish folk, the Taliban and others who reject many
technological advances on a similar basis.

<<Today, our understanding of the stabilizer system is at an all time high,
thanks to the works of people like Richardson, Jull, Hodges, Hydes, Vleeming,
Snidjers and Gracovetsky. >>

*** This is misleading, because no theory of spinal function has been
regarded as pre-eminent over any others. In fact, there is even more
disagreement over spinal function than there has ever been. The number of
theories about spinal action may be at an all-time high, but our
understanding is certainly not yet at an all-time high. It is still highly
theoretical and by no means definitive, though it is very exciting to try and
decode some of the complex biomathematical models (which Chek, unfortunately
is not trained to be able to do).

<<As you are likely aware, when lifting a heavy object or exerting yourself
to throw or move an object such as in work or sports, it is natural to hold
the breath. Holding the breath under load is associated with increased
tension in the diaphragm. ...

Practical experimentation in the gym will show that the trunk is stiffer
when filling the lungs as opposed to not filling the lungs with
inhalation....>>

***These remarks are most revealing, because Chek has constantly disagreed
with me and several others (in several Internet exchanges that still exist in
the archives of several user groups) on breath holding as a perfectly natural
concomitant to spinal stabilisation. He has always been vigorously opposed to
breath holding to stabilise the spine. Instead he has placed an exaggerated
emphasis on "pulling the abs in" and trying to voluntarily activate
transversus abdominis (TVA) during all stages of squatting and lifting. It ap
pears as if our criticism of his views may have caused him to change his mind.

<<More recently, it has been shown that IAP does provide a stiffening effect
on the lumbar spine, but that IAP is most effective at stabilizing the spine
when applied in concert with co-activation of the erector spinae muscles.....

Although, as suggested by Gracovetsky, we can not rely on muscles alone
because mathematical modeling shows that Olympic athletes would not be strong
enough to lift the loads they currently are lifting during competition. We
must look to the fascial system of the body for a missing link, the hydraulic
amplifier effect...

It has also been suggested that IAP does not stabilize the spine. Standing
firmly against the notion that IAP provides any significant stabilizing
mechanism for the spine are Gracovetsky and Bogduk.....>>

***Note well that the models of Gracovetsky and others whom he mentions,
though compelling in some respects, are by no means unopposed by other
theorists and researchers, especially some of the world's most erudite
biomechanists. What Chek has done is a commendable cut-and-paste collage job
of information from various sources, but he has failed to go beyond a
literature retrieval stage of the literature review. A true review retrieves
the necessary information, then compares and analyses it, then, if the author
has specific scientific or research skills, he offers his own views and
models. Anyone can cut and paste from books, articles and Medline, but not
anyone can intelligently analyse the material and go beyond the obvious.

<<The hydraulic amplifier effect, originally theorized by Gracovetsky to
increase the strength of the back muscles, was later proven mathematically to
increase the strength of the back muscles by 30%.... The hydraulic amplifier
mechanism is composed of the TLF (thoracolumbar fasciae) surrounding the back
muscles to create a relatively stable cylinder.... >>

***While Chek has given a reasonable summary of how some of the trunk
musculature can act like an hydraulic lift, he has not shown that he
understands the significance of the "amplifier" part of the spinal model.
This is a very significant omission, because a knowledge of the dynamic
process of mechanical amplification (including amplifier "gain" and feedback
control) is vital to an understanding of lifting, stabilising and injury.

<<What modern researchers have been able to do is more clearly define two
major stabilizer systems of the body, the inner unit and the outer unit. The
stabilizer system considered as our "God-given weight belt" is the inner
unit.....

The Inner Unit serves to stiffen the axial skeleton in preparation for work.
The Inner Unit muscles are A) Transversus Abdominis and the posterior
fibers of obliquus internus, B) Diaphragm, C) Deep Multifidus,
D) Pelvic floor musculature....

The outer unit consists of many muscles such as the obliquus externus,
obliquus internus, erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, gluteus maximus,
adductors and hamstrings working in concert with the inner unit musculature
and fascial systems. .....

A simplified version of the inner/outer unit systems, seen in Figure 9,
depicts a pirate ship's mast as a human spinal column. While the inner unit
muscles are responsible for developing and maintaining segmental
stiffness, the bigger muscles, shown here as guide wires, are responsible for
creating movement. >>

***The accompanying figure depicted the spine as a system of guy wires
supporting the mast of a ship. Significantly, this model excludes any
transverse members on the sails or the fact that the hull, like the rest of
the human body, does not provide a stable base. This incomplete spinal model
allows us to understand in part why it is nowadays so fashionable to talk
about "core stabilisation". The latter misleading concept is based upon a
system which excludes the role of peripheral stabilisation (of which I have
written elsewhere) and the systems nature of motor control. One of the
problems with models and analogies is that, in attempts to simplify complex
processes, they can omit details which can lead to some very defective
conclusions.

Division of the muscles of the trunk into "inner" and "outer" systems, while
often being convenient for the sake of simplifying the complexity of the
spine, sometimes proves to be a rather limiting model of trunk functioning.
Interestingly, Chek, while sketching this model in a superficially
attractive way, has not explained if this mast and guy rope depiction of the
spine or Gracovetsky's model constitutes a frame, truss or machine (recalling
that frames are designed to support loads, whereas machines are designed to
transmit or amplify forces or couples).

Chek, in previous discussions, has always evaded my attempts to make him
understand the difference between moments, couples, force couples and related
mechanical concepts with some entirely irrelevant personal retorts. This
latest article makes it very apparent that he really should have attended to
this deficit in his knowledge base. He might then have come across
biomechanical models of the spine which rely on a systems theoretical
approach which does not regard the spine a system of guy ropes and rigid
members and which do not implicate the fasciae in the role suggested by
Gracovetsky and others.

Other models regard the spine as a cantilever system, while yet others
examine the spine as a suspension system. In these models, there is no
necessity to divide the muscles into inner and outer units, but as an entire
system which stabilises the spine in terms of the least energy principle.

By selecting only one favourite model of the spine, he has been biased to
make some misleading and unjustified conclusions and applications in the rest
of his material, especially the practical applications.

PART 2

<<Lahad et al concluded that sufficient evidence was unavailable to recommend
the use of mechanical back supports for the prevention of back pain. In
another study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, prophylactic use of back belts for healthy workers was not
recommended because of a lack of scientific evidence promoting their
benefit. There are also many other studies indicating belt use provides no
significant improvement in performance or reduction in the user's chance of
injury. >>

***Virtually all of the studies that Chek quotes to condemn the use of a belt
are drawn from the world of manual labour or research studies with average
volunteers in which belts are worn for prolonged periods. It is
scientifically invalid to extrapolate such findings from the setting of
CHRONIC belt usage to the setting of occasional ACUTE belt usage for very
heavy or maximal competitive lifting.

<<Davis' Law is demonstrated and well known by physical therapists who treat
neurological injuries; stimulating the surface of the body produces
stimulation of the muscles served by the same nerve root. Therefore,
repeatedly "pushing outward" against the belt, which is encouraged by the
belt through sensory-motor stimulus, is likely to develop and perpetuate
faulty recruitment patterns. >>

***This statement that superficial methods of kineasthetic manipulation
perpetuates faulty motor patterns (see Siff & Verkhoshansky "Supertraining"
1999, Ch 8) is entirely one of personal opinion and not supported by any
quoted research. On the contrary, PNF and neurodevelopmental methods in
physiotherapy rely heavily on manual contacts and touch to teach correct
optimal motor patterns. It is not the stimulation of the surface of the skin
which may elicit faulty patterns, but the inappropriate use of such
stimulation. This sort of remark is grossly misleading and inaccurate, as
any experienced physical therapist and neurologist will tell us.

<<If belts really did improve trunk stability, then the lifter would be able
to use them for a given period of time, remove the belt and experience
improved performance when lifting; THIS IS NOT THE CASE! .....

If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to take
the belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or
"position sense" while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; I
have never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upon
their belt, making the belt more of a crutch than a training device. >>

***Once again, the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and the
new skintight swimming and cycling outfits which, besides reducing
aerodynamic drag, apparently enhance proprioceptive sensitivity and muscle
activation. Anyway, many lifters who wear belts for maximal lifts have shown
that they are quite capable of lifting the same loads without belts, but
choose to wear belts for attempting new maximal lifts because they consider
that belts may offer enhanced safety under those extreme conditions. It is
very common for athletes in the most demanding situations to use specific
protective or 'ergogenic' devices, so why would this be so reprehensible for
competitive lifters?

Remember that the lifting of maximal loads is not undertaken every day or
even every week, but only on occasional maximal training days or training
competitions that are weeks or months apart. As I have written many times
before, it is the manner and duration of belt wearing that may deem it
inappropriate, not simply because belts "weaken" everyone under all
circumstances.

<<The only way to restore function of the deep abdominal wall is to use
various forms of biofeedback (described below).....

It is very valuable to use other extroceptive (sic) stimuli, such as athletic
tape to improve kinesthetic awareness. As the patient learns, the need for
tape is reduced, and eventually the tape is eliminated. String is also used
as a form of biofeedback during movement training and is particularly useful
in restoration of deep abdominal wall function during functional movement
training.>>

***Here we have a fascinating contradiction! Chek spent a great deal of
space in denouncing the value of a lightly worn belt as a mode of offering
mechanical feedback, but here he is extolling the virtues of using
inextensible tape (a la Jenny McConnell taping etc) to play the same role.

Let us repeat what he said earlier:

<<If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to take
the belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or
"position sense" while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; I
have never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upon
their belt, making the belt more of a crutch than a training device. >>

So, the use of belts ruins proprioception, but the use of taping does not!
Any jury presented with this blatantly contradictory information would
dismiss his evidence as being unreliable, because he is clearly admitting
that devices like tape (and, by implication, certain types of belt) CAN
improve kinaesthetic awareness. The device being used may be different, but
the underlying principle remains the same. CASE CLOSED!

***Finally, let us reinforce the case a little more strongly - Chek even
quotes the following reference which supports the use of belts. Is this not
another contradiction?

<< 35. Cholewicki J., Juluru K., Radebold A., Panjabi M.M., Magill S.M.
Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or
increased intra-abdominal pressure. Eur Spine J 1999;8(5): 388-95. >>

So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps, then just do
so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one cannot
lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop a very
strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that sometimes it
may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given situation.
What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates another
item of dogma in the strength training world.


Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA

Steve Freides
November 27th 04, 04:49 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > wrote:

Quoting Mel Siff:

> So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps, then
> just do
> so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one
> cannot
> lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop
> a very
> strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that
> sometimes it
> may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given
> situation.
> What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates
> another
> item of dogma in the strength training world.
>
>
> Dr Mel C Siff
> Denver, USA

Thanks, Keith. My take on the entire conversation is the Siff
disagrees with Chek more on the fine points than on the major issues -
both are saying that one can stabilize the spine and increase the safety
and/or poundage moved by properly working the midsection while lifting,
and that, at least for people new to lifting or those who don't
otherwise know better, is the most important point, IMHO.

Siff's final paragraph states things very well.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 05:23 PM
In article >, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > wrote:
>
> Quoting Mel Siff:
>
> > So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps, then
> > just do
> > so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one
> > cannot
> > lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop
> > a very
> > strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that
> > sometimes it
> > may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given
> > situation.
> > What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates
> > another
> > item of dogma in the strength training world.
> >
> >
> > Dr Mel C Siff
> > Denver, USA
>
> Thanks, Keith. My take on the entire conversation is the Siff
> disagrees with Chek more on the fine points than on the major issues -
> both are saying that one can stabilize the spine and increase the safety
> and/or poundage moved by properly working the midsection while lifting,
> and that, at least for people new to lifting or those who don't
> otherwise know better, is the most important point, IMHO.
>
> Siff's final paragraph states things very well.

Your take isn't correct. There were a long series of arguments with Chek
maintaining the best way to stabilize the spine was to suck in the abs. He
argued it for months. He called Dave Tate and Tom McCullough
'dump-trucks'. Then he basically disappeared and came up with the articles
Siff was responding to above. Without any explanation he changed his
opinion to creating intra-abdominal pressure to stabilize the spine. So
after a disagreement on major issues it would appear that Chek is now very
inconsistent with his advice. On the one hand he still appears to believe
sucking in the abs is the best way to stabilize the spine. He talks about
creating a strong set of abs by not using a belt and didn't respond to a
study showing greater abdominal activation while using a belt. And thrown
into that works is his opinion on involuntarily contracting the transverse
abdominals. How do you do that while creating intra-abdominal pressure?

As for new people - they can learn to develop technique before addressing
maximal weights. About as simple as it gets. If you want to develop
yourself to address maximal strength I'd advise _not_ going the Chek
route. Which does all that trendy squatting on swiss balls stuff.

ATP
November 27th 04, 05:35 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
> > >> >> If
> > >> >> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> > >> >> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
> > >> >
> > >> > Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which
> > >> > was
> > >> > well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
> > >> > activate
> > >> > the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
> > >> >
> > >> > Chek retreated PDQ.
> > >>
> > >> Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.
> > >
> > >
> > > You'd have to join the Supertraining group on Yahoo and then check the
> > > archives.
> > >
> > > Chek has basically taken concepts which apply to rehab from severe
> > > injury
> > > and tried to apply them to healthy athletes. That doesn't always work.
> > > According to Siff (and Tate and pretty much everyone else who has
> > > lifted
> > > heavy) there was no need to consciously try and recruit the transverse
> > > abdominals. Then Chek mentioned sucking in the abs to stabilize the
> > > spine
> > > during heavy squats.
> > >
> > > That was pretty much the end. I don't see much point in doing a search
> > > myself. Chek has very little credibility IMO.
> >
> > I don't know much about him - I was just surprised, if he really got his
> > head handed to him about that article, that he left it up on his site.
> > Looking over his site, it does seem to be a physical therapy approach,
> > or at least to have started that way.
> >
> > Doesn't he sell a medicine-ball-on-a-string thing, a "Tornado" or
> > something like that? I've heard good things about that for
> > strengthening the midsection - yeah, here we go, a video of that -
> > http://www.chekinstitute.com/video/Horizontal.MPG The site says he's no
> > longer selling the ball on a string for "manufacturing reasons"....
>
> Here is one of Siff's responses to Chek's article.
>
> -----
>
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon Sep 18, 2000 5:29 am
> Subject: BELTLESS BELIEFS
>
> Several folk have requested that I review a few articles that Paul Chek
wrote
> for Testosterone magazine on "How to be Back Strong and Beltless", as
> published on the following webpages:
>
> < http://t-mag.com/html/body_121back.html >
> < http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_122back.html >
>
> He has not submitted Part 3 of this series, so, if he is still working on
it,
> it will be interesting to see if my review influences what he submits.
These
> two article already suggest that he has taken some of our earlier
criticisms
> to heart, because he is now admitting in this series that breath holding
does
> indeed stabilise the trunk.
>
> HOW TO BE BACK STRONG & BELTLESS
>
> PART 1
>
> <<Regardless of your opinion about the origin of man, if you believe in
God,
> you have to wonder why he didn't provide weight belts as standard-issue
> equipment. On second thought, maybe he did, and we just don't know how to
use
> them correctly.>>
>
> *** Exactly the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and it
is
> entirely spurious. We might even have said that we should have retained a
> hairy cover all over our bodies to protect us from the sun and other
extremes
> of climate.

I've done that.. with the exception of my forehead

Adam Fahy
November 27th 04, 05:43 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:

> He basically withdrew participation on the on the now defunct Weights2
> list at that point.

I wish there were full archives for *that* list somewhere on the net...


-Adam

Steve Freides
November 27th 04, 05:45 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Mel Siff:
>>
>> > So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps,
>> > then
>> > just do
>> > so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that
>> > one
>> > cannot
>> > lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot
>> > develop
>> > a very
>> > strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that
>> > sometimes it
>> > may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given
>> > situation.
>> > What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates
>> > another
>> > item of dogma in the strength training world.
>> >
>> >
>> > Dr Mel C Siff
>> > Denver, USA
>>
>> Thanks, Keith. My take on the entire conversation is the Siff
>> disagrees with Chek more on the fine points than on the major
>> issues -
>> both are saying that one can stabilize the spine and increase the
>> safety
>> and/or poundage moved by properly working the midsection while
>> lifting,
>> and that, at least for people new to lifting or those who don't
>> otherwise know better, is the most important point, IMHO.
>>
>> Siff's final paragraph states things very well.
>
> Your take isn't correct. There were a long series of arguments with
> Chek
> maintaining the best way to stabilize the spine was to suck in the
> abs. He
> argued it for months. He called Dave Tate and Tom McCullough
> 'dump-trucks'. Then he basically disappeared and came up with the
> articles
> Siff was responding to above. Without any explanation he changed his
> opinion to creating intra-abdominal pressure to stabilize the spine.
> So
> after a disagreement on major issues it would appear that Chek is now
> very
> inconsistent with his advice. On the one hand he still appears to
> believe
> sucking in the abs is the best way to stabilize the spine. He talks
> about
> creating a strong set of abs by not using a belt and didn't respond to
> a
> study showing greater abdominal activation while using a belt. And
> thrown
> into that works is his opinion on involuntarily contracting the
> transverse
> abdominals. How do you do that while creating intra-abdominal
> pressure?

OK, fair enough. Having missed the beginning and therefore having only
read Chek after he'd already changed at least some of his positions, the
whole business doesn't sound as extreme as you're making it out to be -
but you were there and I wasn't, so your point stands. If Chek is
inconsistent and sometimes wrong, he's not a good source for this stuff.

> As for new people - they can learn to develop technique before
> addressing
> maximal weights. About as simple as it gets. If you want to develop
> yourself to address maximal strength I'd advise _not_ going the Chek
> route. Which does all that trendy squatting on swiss balls stuff.

I see _so_ much stuff on a Swiss ball at my Y, and for the life of me I
cannot figure out what the hell people are doing - things like rolling
themselves up and down a wall with the thing behind them.

Let's ask you this question - if you're training someone new, at what
point would you suggest a belt? Would you consider "maximal" whatever
their current max was, or would you have them lift beltless until, say,
a 2x bodyweight DL or squat or similarly 'heavy' lift? I suppose one
answer is that you wouldn't be testing their max for quite a while, and
I agree with that, but the point remains - if you've got a trainee who,
for whatever reason, has been lifting for a few years and has maxed out
at, say 1.75 x bodyweight, would you advise a belt?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 05:46 PM
In article >, "ATP"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
> > > >> >> If
> > > >> >> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> > > >> >> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Dave Tate and Mel Siff bacically ripped Chek an new asshole, which
> > > >> > was
> > > >> > well deserved, because of his comments on sucking in the abs to
> > > >> > activate
> > > >> > the transverse abdominals and belt usage.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Chek retreated PDQ.
> > > >>
> > > >> Got any links? I'd like to see those conversations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You'd have to join the Supertraining group on Yahoo and then check the
> > > > archives.
> > > >
> > > > Chek has basically taken concepts which apply to rehab from severe
> > > > injury
> > > > and tried to apply them to healthy athletes. That doesn't always work.
> > > > According to Siff (and Tate and pretty much everyone else who has
> > > > lifted
> > > > heavy) there was no need to consciously try and recruit the transverse
> > > > abdominals. Then Chek mentioned sucking in the abs to stabilize the
> > > > spine
> > > > during heavy squats.
> > > >
> > > > That was pretty much the end. I don't see much point in doing a search
> > > > myself. Chek has very little credibility IMO.
> > >
> > > I don't know much about him - I was just surprised, if he really got his
> > > head handed to him about that article, that he left it up on his site.
> > > Looking over his site, it does seem to be a physical therapy approach,
> > > or at least to have started that way.
> > >
> > > Doesn't he sell a medicine-ball-on-a-string thing, a "Tornado" or
> > > something like that? I've heard good things about that for
> > > strengthening the midsection - yeah, here we go, a video of that -
> > > http://www.chekinstitute.com/video/Horizontal.MPG The site says he's no
> > > longer selling the ball on a string for "manufacturing reasons"....
> >
> > Here is one of Siff's responses to Chek's article.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > From: [email protected]
> > Date: Mon Sep 18, 2000 5:29 am
> > Subject: BELTLESS BELIEFS
> >
> > Several folk have requested that I review a few articles that Paul Chek
> wrote
> > for Testosterone magazine on "How to be Back Strong and Beltless", as
> > published on the following webpages:
> >
> > < http://t-mag.com/html/body_121back.html >
> > < http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_122back.html >
> >
> > He has not submitted Part 3 of this series, so, if he is still working on
> it,
> > it will be interesting to see if my review influences what he submits.
> These
> > two article already suggest that he has taken some of our earlier
> criticisms
> > to heart, because he is now admitting in this series that breath holding
> does
> > indeed stabilise the trunk.
> >
> > HOW TO BE BACK STRONG & BELTLESS
> >
> > PART 1
> >
> > <<Regardless of your opinion about the origin of man, if you believe in
> God,
> > you have to wonder why he didn't provide weight belts as standard-issue
> > equipment. On second thought, maybe he did, and we just don't know how to
> use
> > them correctly.>>
> >
> > *** Exactly the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and it
> is
> > entirely spurious. We might even have said that we should have retained a
> > hairy cover all over our bodies to protect us from the sun and other
> extremes
> > of climate.
>
> I've done that.. with the exception of my forehead

I thought Lyle was the hairiest denizen of MFW. And even his nose and
forehead are pretty much hair-free - I think.

Keith Hobman
November 27th 04, 05:56 PM
In article >, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Steve Freides"
> >> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> Quoting Mel Siff:
> >>
> >> > So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps,
> >> > then
> >> > just do
> >> > so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that
> >> > one
> >> > cannot
> >> > lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot
> >> > develop
> >> > a very
> >> > strong trunk without using a belt - I am simply stressing that
> >> > sometimes it
> >> > may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given
> >> > situation.
> >> > What I oppose is any blanket or "allness" statement which creates
> >> > another
> >> > item of dogma in the strength training world.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dr Mel C Siff
> >> > Denver, USA
> >>
> >> Thanks, Keith. My take on the entire conversation is the Siff
> >> disagrees with Chek more on the fine points than on the major
> >> issues -
> >> both are saying that one can stabilize the spine and increase the
> >> safety
> >> and/or poundage moved by properly working the midsection while
> >> lifting,
> >> and that, at least for people new to lifting or those who don't
> >> otherwise know better, is the most important point, IMHO.
> >>
> >> Siff's final paragraph states things very well.
> >
> > Your take isn't correct. There were a long series of arguments with
> > Chek
> > maintaining the best way to stabilize the spine was to suck in the
> > abs. He
> > argued it for months. He called Dave Tate and Tom McCullough
> > 'dump-trucks'. Then he basically disappeared and came up with the
> > articles
> > Siff was responding to above. Without any explanation he changed his
> > opinion to creating intra-abdominal pressure to stabilize the spine.
> > So
> > after a disagreement on major issues it would appear that Chek is now
> > very
> > inconsistent with his advice. On the one hand he still appears to
> > believe
> > sucking in the abs is the best way to stabilize the spine. He talks
> > about
> > creating a strong set of abs by not using a belt and didn't respond to
> > a
> > study showing greater abdominal activation while using a belt. And
> > thrown
> > into that works is his opinion on involuntarily contracting the
> > transverse
> > abdominals. How do you do that while creating intra-abdominal
> > pressure?
>
> OK, fair enough. Having missed the beginning and therefore having only
> read Chek after he'd already changed at least some of his positions, the
> whole business doesn't sound as extreme as you're making it out to be -
> but you were there and I wasn't, so your point stands. If Chek is
> inconsistent and sometimes wrong, he's not a good source for this stuff.
>
> > As for new people - they can learn to develop technique before
> > addressing
> > maximal weights. About as simple as it gets. If you want to develop
> > yourself to address maximal strength I'd advise _not_ going the Chek
> > route. Which does all that trendy squatting on swiss balls stuff.
>
> I see _so_ much stuff on a Swiss ball at my Y, and for the life of me I
> cannot figure out what the hell people are doing - things like rolling
> themselves up and down a wall with the thing behind them.
>
> Let's ask you this question - if you're training someone new, at what
> point would you suggest a belt? Would you consider "maximal" whatever
> their current max was, or would you have them lift beltless until, say,
> a 2x bodyweight DL or squat or similarly 'heavy' lift? I suppose one
> answer is that you wouldn't be testing their max for quite a while, and
> I agree with that, but the point remains - if you've got a trainee who,
> for whatever reason, has been lifting for a few years and has maxed out
> at, say 1.75 x bodyweight, would you advise a belt?

Good question.

I don't think you are going to see a set-point in terms of weight
lifted/body weight ratios.

I would go by what is happening in their lower back. If a person has no
intention of ever competing in powerlifting I really don't see much point
in maximal singles in the squat or deadlift. With the wrestlers I train we
don't pull max singles - Viola being an exception because she had already
been doing max singles for years and wanted to see if she was getting
stronger.

If the person is keeping the lower back flat and showing good technique I
wouldn't advocate a belt. If they are having trouble keeping it flat AND
it appears IAP is going to help I'd start them using the belt as
proprioceptive aid to creating IAP. So some people I may have using a belt
within weeks of starting lifting and others may never use one.

If the person has already purchased a belt and likes to use it I wouldn't
consider that a problem either. The belt isn't really much of an issue
with me. Flat back in the squat is.

Bob Mann
November 27th 04, 10:46 PM
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:16:45 -0500, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

>"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:33:17 -0700, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>>> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>>>> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
>>>> If
>>>> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>>>> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>>>
>>>I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend
>>>to
>>>be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your
>>>abs
>>>and low back.
>>>
>>> From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
>>>DL properly using a belt.
>>>
>>>Lyle
>>
>> There is also the idea that you train as you lift and you will lift
>> more.
>> Rickey Dale Crain believes in wearing the belt after warm ups. Loose
>> at first and then tighter as you go heavier.
>> It's probably okay to not wear one for lighter work but why risk
>> injury if you don't have to?
>
>It all depends on why you're lifting weights in the first place. If
>your goal is the maximum amount of weight, you use all the gear you can.
>And the continuum, well, continues to people who lift using a belt but
>no other gear, and then on to people like me who want to be able to do
>it barefoot in a pair of gym shorts. I got into this to help my back
>and my goal is to be as strong and as flexible as I can make myself - I
>couldn't give a rat's ass about whether a belt gets me extra pounds or
>not. Injury prevention is the name of the game for me but, from where I
>sit, injury prevention is the reason I don't want to wear a belt.
>
>One of the things I find fascinating in training the DL is how sometimes
>my weak point is my legs and their ability to push the floor away, and
>sometimes it's my back and its ability to stay straight while the weight
>is trying to bend it. For a long while now, my legs have been the weak
>point and if a DL was going to fail, it just didn't get off the ground
>but neither did I get hurt. The pendulum has recently swung the other
>way for me and I've surpassed my old PR's while also tweaking my back.
>That I now need to challenge my back to resist the pull of an even
>heavier weight is exactly why I'm here. If I end up plateau-ing because
>my back can't handle the load my legs can, that's just more motivation
>to make my back stronger.
>
>By the way, I've been meaning to compliment you on that sig - wipe your
>ass with an owl - I like that. :)
>
I agree with everything you said, especially the last part. ;-)

--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Lyle McDonald
November 28th 04, 09:02 PM
Bob Mann wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:33:17 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>>>years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
>>>you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>>>discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>>
>>>http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>>
>>I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend to
>>be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your abs
>>and low back.
>>
>>From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
>>DL properly using a belt.
>>
>>Lyle
>
>
> There is also the idea that you train as you lift and you will lift
> more.

???

> Rickey Dale Crain believes in wearing the belt after warm ups. Loose
> at first and then tighter as you go heavier.
> It's probably okay to not wear one for lighter work but why risk
> injury if you don't have to?

I know some coaches only advocate using a belt when lifts above some
certain %1RM are used.

Lyle

Bob Mann
November 28th 04, 10:30 PM
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:02:47 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Bob Mann wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:33:17 -0700, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
>>>>years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy. If
>>>>you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
>>>>discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
>>>
>>>I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend to
>>>be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your abs
>>>and low back.
>>>
>>>From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
>>>DL properly using a belt.
>>>
>>>Lyle
>>
>>
>> There is also the idea that you train as you lift and you will lift
>> more.
>
>???

Didn't come out very well did it.
The idea is that if you going to perform your contest lifts with a
belt you should train with a belt as well.
It changes your form enough to throw you off if you are not ready for
it.
Sure, go without for lighter work but anything over 50% would be
better with a belt imho.
>
>> Rickey Dale Crain believes in wearing the belt after warm ups. Loose
>> at first and then tighter as you go heavier.
>> It's probably okay to not wear one for lighter work but why risk
>> injury if you don't have to?
>
>I know some coaches only advocate using a belt when lifts above some
>certain %1RM are used.
>
>Lyle

True, but RDC is one of the top lifters ever so his opinion does carry
some (ahem) weight.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Robert Schuh
November 29th 04, 07:01 AM
Steve Freides wrote:

> "Bob Mann" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:33:17 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Steve Freides wrote:
> >>
> >>> I googled this article and found it mentioned on a.s.w. a couple of
> >>> years ago but never on here so I thought I'd post a link - enjoy.
> >>> If
> >>> you don't feel like reading the article, the jist of it is that he
> >>> discusses corsets and weight lifting belts as, well, bad.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=16
> >>
> >>I don't think that most here will generally disagree that belts tend
> >>to
> >>be overused. Training without one will force you to strengthen your
> >>abs
> >>and low back.
> >>
> >> From a PL competition standpoint, you will lift more in the squat and
> >>DL properly using a belt.
> >>
> >>Lyle
> >
> > There is also the idea that you train as you lift and you will lift
> > more.
> > Rickey Dale Crain believes in wearing the belt after warm ups. Loose
> > at first and then tighter as you go heavier.
> > It's probably okay to not wear one for lighter work but why risk
> > injury if you don't have to?
>
> It all depends on why you're lifting weights in the first place. If
> your goal is the maximum amount of weight, you use all the gear you can.
> And the continuum, well, continues to people who lift using a belt but
> no other gear, and then on to people like me who want to be able to do
> it barefoot in a pair of gym shorts. I got into this to help my back
> and my goal is to be as strong and as flexible as I can make myself - I
> couldn't give a rat's ass about whether a belt gets me extra pounds or
> not. Injury prevention is the name of the game for me but, from where I
> sit, injury prevention is the reason I don't want to wear a belt.
>
> One of the things I find fascinating in training the DL is how sometimes
> my weak point is my legs and their ability to push the floor away, and
> sometimes it's my back and its ability to stay straight while the weight
> is trying to bend it. For a long while now, my legs have been the weak
> point and if a DL was going to fail, it just didn't get off the ground
> but neither did I get hurt. The pendulum has recently swung the other
> way for me and I've surpassed my old PR's while also tweaking my back.
> That I now need to challenge my back to resist the pull of an even
> heavier weight is exactly why I'm here. If I end up plateau-ing because
> my back can't handle the load my legs can, that's just more motivation
> to make my back stronger.
>
> By the way, I've been meaning to compliment you on that sig - wipe your
> ass with an owl - I like that. :)
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
> > --
> > Bob Mann
> > Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Steve,
I think that you are still missing the point. You are a skinny, weak, ugly
and pathetic troll. Why do you continue with your diatribe?


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche