Mythbusting the fitness files

Not strictly an article as I just wrote it but the best option I could think of.

I hope this will be useful to some. I know for many it may be the stuff of nightmares but it's supposed to be an introduction to reality.

Fitness or the appearance of fitness is a massive industry with billions spent on it every year. As with anything where there’s money to be made there are myths around that need serious busting. I will post a few and I hope others will join me by adding to the list, and of course correct me where I'm wrong. Obviously this barely scratches the surface.

Weight loss the more the better
This is not saying don't lose weight. If you are as wide at the waist as you are high and have body fat % in the 90s not doing something about it could be fatal.
However too many people assume weight loss is about fast results, losing a pound or 2 a day. Losing 2 pounds of fat in a day means burning 7,000 calories more than you have eaten, it's not impossible but it is extremely unlikely unless you are into ultra-marathons.
If you lose weight at the rate of 2 pounds a day, much of this will be water, and the body will redress the balance helping you find some of the weight you lost. This is not failure, if you have been losing fat during that time, don’t give up.
1 or 2 pounds fat loss a week is not shameful it's incredible. This is a level you can maintain for a long time and as long as you are sensible after the fat has gone it won't come back. So if you are looking to go from the Greenpeace poster model to the stick insect look, requiring loss of 200 pounds, you can only succeed if keeping it as a long term goal, which will take between 2 and 4 years.

Muscles are for men
There are two types of major body tissue that give you shape, muscle and fat, both are essential. If you don't want your body to look lose and flabby, you need muscle on your frame. The most feminine of curves are found on women with some muscle and usually a covering of fat to add curve. Even the tiny supermodels need to train and have muscle to maintain poise and posture, not having so would make them look like bags of empty skin.
What is deemed feminine is also subject to debate, some women and men see this as the straight up and down figure, others the figure 8, others more pear shaped, the list goes on. If you are wanting a look to please another, ask them what they like and if you are happy with it that’s the way to go. If not go for what pleases you and be happy with it.

Carbs are bad m’kay
If you eat a ton of sugar a day, you will get diabetes, risk losing your teeth and likely have an interesting temper and shape to go with it.
Here’s some news.
Carbohydrate doesn’t mean sugar, it refers to everything from glucose to starch.
Everything in the human animal has evolved for a diet high in complex carbohydrates, aka starch, to such an extent the body uses how much carbohydrate comes into the body as one factor in setting your metabolic rate.
If you eat too much carbohydrate, it will get turned into fat, the same can be said for any protein the body can convert and of course excess fat you eat had a head start. Of the three main types of food carbohydrate is the one most readily used for most activities. Overeating is overeating, if you consume more than you use you will put on weight, this may be what you want, but may not.
In summary carbs can be bad for you in large volumes or if all sugars. If you eat a sensible balanced diet for a human being with complex carbs as a large part you will be fine. If you need to lose weight removing all carbs is not something you can do long term and can be very detrimental for your health. Rather than cutting out, simply cut down on everything.

Massive protein = Massive muscles
Because of course muscle is made of protein isn’t it? No actually it isn’t. Most of your muscle is water, so think of it less like a bunch of steel rods more as a bunch of incredibly tough water balloons, the sort that fortunately don’t tend to burst on impact.
The irony of the fact muscle is mostly water is that any excess protein that cannot be converted to fat is disposed of along with some excess water in your urine.
Yes you need protein, but the western diet contains proportionately more of it than we need. We eat very meat rich diets compared to our body design, the clue is in the massive canine teeth we don’t have.
When it comes to dealing with training and growth we need energy to train, protein to repair damage a comparatively little for growth, and here’s the big one, energy to fuel the repair process. The balance doesn’t shift much, you need more protein than someone sitting on their posterior all of the time but your energy demands are also higher so the percentage increase in protein need is not much different to increase in need for carbs, fats and trace foods.
The key here as anywhere regarding nutrition is balance. Don’t eliminate protein but don’t expect it to have the instant ability to convert you to Adonis either. If you are looking to gain mass I generally advise you have a little more protein than you absolutely need, the fat some of this will be converted to should burn away with your training if not excessive, and better to be sure there was enough. However if 50% of your calorific intake is protein, that will be why the love handles aren’t disappearing.

No pain no gain
All right a bit of hierocracy here, considering I genuinely don’t feel happy unless I ache every time I have trained, and after a few decades I really should have grown out of that.
Truth is that training till it hurts is generally ill advised unless you really feel the need to push yourself to the limits. Fitness, especially health related fitness, shouldn’t be painful, it should be challenging overload not debilitating overdo.
Pain is a warning that you have damaged something, and much as exercise is the process of damaging the muscle to an acceptable level, pain is not the advised level.
If you haven’t exercised in many years you don’t even want moderate intensity, you want the lowest you can find. Once you have grown used to this then, if you want to, you can increase the intensity of your workout, but this is not crucial. If your chosen pursuit is an evening walk with the dog, you are enjoying it, and it is keeping you healthy, that is fine and the dog will think you’re great.
If you start out at a level too intense you will stop, your body will make sure of it to avoid major injury.
If you start out steady and get hooked and want to see how far you can push yourself, be warned that way lies madness, and welcome to the asylum.

Being fit means no vices
If your body is a temple, and you are happy worshipping it, that is great and keep it up. Many are of the impression everyone fit is exactly that way, never quite figured why.
I used to be a marathon runner and remember speaking to another who openly admitted the training was simply his way of keeping the beer belly away. I have never seen people so slim drink as much beer since stopping real distance running. Obviously these weren’t top class Olympiads but most of us aren’t so that’s no big deal.
For me fitness is a vice, I don’t need to train as I do, I just love it. I eat chocolate and other junk when I feel the need. I don’t drink because I don’t like the effect, coffee or tea because they taste awful.
The most hilarious that I have encountered is the non-fornication. Most people I know who train where at least partly wanting to make them more appealing and improve their chances of this vice. It is also the other common activity known to release endorphins so people enjoying one generally appreciate the other.
If you think that attending a 30 minute spinning class once a week will undo damage from drinking 5 beers a night with a plate of fried food the size or Everest, the news isn’t good. If you want to simply enjoy a few vices within manageable limits, training will help you to do this with less risk, it all comes down to balance.
 
Your point on "non-fornication" reminded me of a recentish thread on another forum where a guy decided he was going to start training to improve his body to improve his marriage and in particular the sex-life between he and his wife. Okay, so far so good, I guess (although perhaps not dealing with any deeper issues in the marriage). He then went on to say that he was going to refuse to have sex with his wife for the next month for the sake of training. At this point, basically everyone on the forum gave him no less than one raised eyebrow. So, there are problems with a lack of sex, and the solution is to refuse to have sex? Not sure I get this guy's line of reasoning. I've also seen several guys go on strikes from sex and masturbation because they think deprivation will give them more testosterone (they also tend to report back that the strike lasted about 3 hours). I abstain from sex for spiritual and relational reasons (that's a whole other off-topic discussion), but I'm pretty sure my strength isn't any higher because of it...not even my grip strength :laughing2:

On "no pain no gain," I always assumed that this meant physical pain, but it turns out that a horrifically high number of people think that eating healthy or exercising at all constitutes a difficult, unpleasant, painful experience. Drinking water instead of coke = pain. Walking the dog = pain. Eating meat and vegetables when neither the meat nor the vegetables have been deep-fried = pain. For them, I guess there's some real truth to the mantra of no pain no gain. For those of us who enjoy moving about leisurely and eating food that our great grandparents would have recognised as food, being generally fit and healthy doesn't need to be a painful experience at all.
 
I don't have a six pack = I am fat
This one is an absolute classic. being genetically very lean and slim I can usually pose up a 6 with relative ease, the rest of the time they are hidden, because having a visible 6 doesn't make me better at lifting, running etc. so I don't care. In the past I did and they were visible for many years without fancy breathing etc. but I was weaker back then.
If there is a two foot layer of blubber between your skin and your abdominal wall you probably have a bit more excess than healthy. However the obsession has gone mad, to the extent women and men almost consider themselves failures if there is anything more than a tissue thin layer between skin and muscle.
Women in particular need to be very careful here. Fat is used to protect and having a small pocket of fat covering the hip girdle is often there to look after your reproductive organs. Male design is more ludicrous meaning ours are external with no protection, any man declaring they never regretted this fact is either lying, lucky or needs to learn.
Your percentage body fat measurement will tell you, roughly, if you are in the ideal range or not. The standard measures are not brilliantly accurate, if I use stand on scales the percentage is usually at least 1.5 times that shown if I use hand grip measures, large dose of salt required. Unless you happen to have ready and regular access to an MRI machine, that is the best option.
Being below healthy body fat levels (subjective to body type etc.) is something you can do if careful or just for short term, dieting for shows etc. but there are fatalities every year from people taking this too far. So next time you are looking at a small smear of fat covering your abs from perfect view you may want to be thankful that this and other fat around your body is keeping you alive, yes shocking as it seems this stuff is healthy in the right quantities.
 
Fitness = Endurance

Across the general population, most people seem to think that being fit means being able to run 8km. Now, if running 8k is what you need to do to get through life without strife, then yeah, that's what it means to be fit. To be fit is basically to be able to perform tasks. Fitness covers strength, speed, flexibility/mobility, skill, and yes, endurance. It isn't just one of these things. Depending on what tasks your life entails, the emphasis between these various areas of fitness will sway. The fitness required to be an olympic weightlifter is very different to the fitness required to row a boat, which is different to the fitness required to play hockey, which is different to the fitness required to be a gymnast. Is a weightlifter more fit than a gymnast, or vice versa? Yes and no. Both are fit to do what they do, neither is likely fit to do what the other one does.

I want to look fit

Continuing with the logic of what I just wrote above about different kinds of fitness, it should stand to reason is that there is no single look that comes with being "fit." Fitness comes in all shapes and sizes. To be fit does not mean having a low bodyfat, nor does it exclude having a low bodyfat. Fitness does not mean having lots of muscle, nor does it exclude having lots of muscle. Fitness does not mean looking good naked, nor does it exclude looking good naked.

This guy is fit:
sumo-wrestler1.jpg


So is this guy:
Ngigi.JPG


So is this girl:
aerial-silk.jpg


And so is this girl:
51178230.jpg
 
Ok More mythbusting time, prompted by a relative newbie who was honest enough to admit he doesn't know a lot about fitness and smart enough to ask for help. It is easy to critisise people like this when the more seasoned of us are garnished with knowledge and experience, but we have all heard stupid declarations like this before.

X exercise is bad for you.
I have heard this about running, bad for the knees, deadlifts, bad for the back, cycling bad for the sperm count, weight trainng is bad for children, Morris dancing, just plain bad idea. The more observant will notice I left one with genuine research backing it up in there, this was deliberate.
Running, one of the few activities we where designed for, distance varies but we are built for bipedal motion and if we do it properly with no prior injuries and close to sensible weight there is no harm in running. If you cannot run more than 100 metres it doesn't make you unfit, just better for sprints, if you like marathons you are insane, but I won't need to tell you that.
Deadlifts, good morning and so many other things have been stated as bad for the back, because they put pressure on it or there is risk if doing it wrong. Training is putting pressure on the body, that is the whole point and banning an exercise in case you do it wrong is barmy. I doubt many of us will not have woken up with a pain from sleeping awkwardly, but it doesn't mean we should ban sleep.
Cycling sperm count reduction. Heat at the crotch literally reduces sperm count in men. This is a fact, there is proof, it can reduce healthy sperm by up to a third, which may seem terrifying if it weren't for one thing. Sperm is produced by the million and only around 5% of what we produce is in prime condition anyway. The difference between 3.3% in peak of health and 5% is not worth worrying about. So yes this is genuine, and no it isn't something to worry about, keep things in perspective.
Weight trainng is bad for children. Long held misconception based on the effects of hard labour on chinese children. I thought this was a joke but the sources have been fully revealled and that was it. 1RM work is not good for growing bones but carefully monitored progress is fine and rather than stunting growth or causing injury it actually encourages healthy growth and prevents many common injuries. So never mind the teething rings get them some dumbbells to chew on.
Morris dancers, if I have to tell you you don't understand enough.

There are undoubtedly exercises out there that aren't good for your health, and as a man who has on numerous occasions been dangling from a cliff by a few fingertips I speak with goood authority here. The probelm is that trying to be totally safe will often backfire on you. I have damaged a lot of my body, yet others my age who avoided things they were told was risky are gettign back issues, knee problems etc. They haven't broken or otherwise suddenly injured them as I have with many things but they suffer in ways I don't, hardly seems fair.
The issue is that if you don't push things they don't strengthen. Running puts pressure on the knees, as well as the hips, ankles, even spine due to impact, but the body will repair the damage and strengthen these areas if you keep doing it at a level you can maintain. Deadlifts, squats etc. put pressure on the back, includng the compressible discs, regular sensible level of this has been shown to improve disc health and stop the shrinking less active people encounter with age.
Cycling is great for those of us happy to display our wares in technicolour yawn coloured lycra and very good for cardio health. Yes Boris Johnson looked a prat on the London bikes, but he's good at that, yes most of us cycling can look like prats too, but if you've never looked stupid before it's about time you tried it.
Weight training can take many forms and finding the one that you enjoy and is safe for you can take time and effort, it is worth it regardless of your age. Be sensible and don't rush it.
Defending Morris dancing, tough one. I suppose if clacking sticks and ringing bells is the most enjoyable way for you to exercise I shouldn't critisise, but please don't do it near me, I hate the sight and sound of it.

In conclusion little is bad for you if done under control and within your limits, even Morris dancing if out of arms reach. By all means listen to what people say as warnings, but think for yourself too and ideally do some research. We should all reserve the right to be wrong. Knowing everything would be so boring, there would be nothing left to learn.
 
If cycling causes you to lose 30% of the sub-par sperm, we should all cycle to give our babies the best chance by eliminating the worst seeds. If it kills 30% indiscriminately, well then I hope it also kills 30% evenly.

X Athlete is Buff and Ripped, Therefore Training in Their Sport Will Make Me Buff and Ripped

marathon_sprinter.jpg


This picture is a prime example of this myth, used to denigrate one form of exercise and praise another. Thing is, it's very deceptive. If we were to look at the superficial facts and the sentiment, we would assume that aerobic cardio makes you skinny and weak, and sprinting makes you big and strong.

Problem is, that's not looking at the full picture. For starters, the marathon runner needs to be able to run many miles, which demands different training and elicits different results from the gym bunny who does 20 min on the treadmill, 20 min on the stair master and 20 min on the rower every time she goes to the gym. Furthermore, the sprinter does not just sprint to get that body. When a sport requires high force output, it's almost an invariable fact that the athletes who excel in that sport do rigorous strength and hypertrophy training, in order to develop the muscle fibres required for their sport and to develop the neural factors for maximal force output and power.
 
I remember watching John Regis doing a lap of honour after he broke a sprinting record and took gold. Commentators were giving him grief because he was visibly struggling to complete a circuit 4 times as long as the race he'd just won, as if somehow he should have left a bit in the tank for this. Laughing at his lack of stamina after he'dwon a race where the top 4 were sub 10 seconds for the hundred is crazy.
By contrast a marathon runner would do this with ease even after all they have given, partly because they are mental, and also because they can recover on the move more easily.

Tennis is another example. The championship women who first made herself unbeatable by training like the men was Martina Navratalova. No-one could get close against her power and she dominated for years. I would here guys saying she looked like a bloke as they ogled others and would then say tennis made women hot, totally forgetting who was the best. In top level sport the sport money is made by those who train totally for the sport alone ignoring image, the ad money is made by those willing to keep an eye on the aesthetic too, so the best at the sport aren't always the most profitable.
 
If only there were money to be made in powerlifting, I'd totally cash in on my winning smile and sexy sideburns.

Sideburns are sexy, right?
 
Affects of iron

This one is constantly under debate and I expect some of the truth I put here to be proven myth in time as our understanding changes.

Women are often scared that being within a foot of a barbell will make them look like Arnie.
Parents have been scared that having children working with any weights will damage their growth and mess them up for life.
Men think there there are never too many dumbell curls and having biceps makes you fit.

Ladies please if that were true and gaining massive muscles was that easy there wouldn't be as many men on these types of boards asking advice on how to bulk up.
Both genders produce both sets of sexual hormones but unless you arevery unusual the chances of you being gifted with enough testosterone to match the gains of a man naturally are very slim.

Parents can relax this has been disproven. Unless truly irresponsible lifting styles and weight ranges are used your child will grow to their intended height, have 'normal' puberty (whatever that is) and grow up without many of the risks of joint conditions etc. we are plagued by now.

Gents, there are approximately 650 skeletal muscles in the human body, working two main sets on each upper arm doesn't make you fit, just uneven and ridiculed by many.

What iron does.
Enables you to put the body under strain in predictable, repeatable and controlled manner. If you are wanting the same intensity that you had lifting 50kg deadlift for 10 last week, do it again this week, alternatively going for a 5 mile run can be varied by weather and so many things.
There is a good reason that physios etc. use weighted training for recovery, it is very controlled and people focus more because they percieve risk. Ask someone to lift their arms in a linear fashion and they will get sloppy put a 1 kg dumbell in either hand suddenly they are paying attention, it really is that noticeable on many.

Intensity of iron.
Whatever you want it to be, lifting everything you can for 1 rep is a massively intense part of strength training, moderate ranges can be good for building or defining, real light weights lifted for variety of movements over long duration (20 minutes plus) without breaks we have cardio. This is why lifting iron doesn't automatically make you bulky. If in dought have a look at the aerobic kits and you will find a lot of them have hand weights in them, that's still pumping iron.

Dangers of iron
Besides it's deeply misunderstood nature, there are many dangers in use of iron as with any activity.
The biggest one, mainly on the guys, ego. If there is someone in the gym lifting more than you it doesn't mean you should try to match them if it is out of your league. The other person could be female, smaller etc. but the chances are they are simply more used to the movement and risking the safety of yourself and others will not impress anyone. This is not purely the case with men but more common, treat it with respect, it is more likely to hurt you than vice versa.
Uneven training. Years of working chest shoulders and arms, or legs bums and tums, ooh aren't we getting gender prejudiced here, will leave you with back problems and a range of other things. If you don't work everything you leave dangerous weaknesses and they'll come back to haunt you sooner than you expect.
Too much, too young, or too out of practice, to injured or anything else. Yes it's impressive to see several hundred kilos being lifted on a bar and I would love to be stronger so aim to do this often. Doing this while your bones haven't fully finished growing, or you haven't moved a weight for decades, or you've just had a plaster cast removed after breaking your legs etc. will break you badly and possibly permanently.

Training with iron can often help you gain what you want, and may be able to do most of the necessary if you choose the right stuff.
Lifting the 1kg dumbells with daisys on the ends will not make you look like Mr Olympia, but it is stil pumping iron.

Iron is your friend, but as with any worthwhile friend it needs to be treated with respect.
 
Quick fix is all I need

Get in shape in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 90 days, I have even seen the promises saying 10 days or a week.
Bikini body in a fortnight, not sure I want to wear a bikini but considering I have seen them in up to size 22, this is not a great claim anyway.
Build a bigger chest with this workout routine and supplement plan.
Get a six pack in 8 weeks. Nice how exactly are you planning to get rid of 180 pounds of fat in 56 days?

The last of these is the real crux of the matter all of the claims can be totally true or false based on your starting point. Genetically scrawny people like me can easily get a six pack back in 8 weeks, but building a bigger chest would take me ages, guess that bikini body is right out the window then.

If you are in regular training and have good state of health, fitness and no injuries these systems can be a great way to achieve short term gains and look a bit more impressive on holiday, wedding day etc. This is what they need to be viewed as. Some of them are safe to continue long term, many aren't. The insanity workout system is a prime example, 90 days of trimming down and tightening up with diet, circuits and cardio, and if you have the fitness required to do the workouts in the first place you will look better at the end than the start. If you were to keep doing this back to back there would come a point when trimming down became catabolism or cannibalism as an old friend of mine called it, you would literally eat your own lean mass to maintain energy. This doesn't make insanity a bad idea just go into it knowing that at the end you will need to be eating more if training at that level or find a different set of workouts.
The part that is often missing from the wonder workout model pictures is a decent realistic before and after shot, when the workout appears to have given someone an oiled tan, different posture and more flattering clothes it's hard to take it seriously.

There are of course even more dangerous style of missing the before picture altogether and just showing the image of perfection. This often persuades many who have never trained to give it a go, with disaterous results. Quick fix workouts will often say they are for those used to regular exercise, somewhere, but this is often not made clear, and is where insanity wins a few brownie points. If you want to drop to a size 10 in 2 weeks, or get 15 inch guns in a month, you would need to be a small size 12 now or have 14.75inch arms today. If your goal is to weigh under 140 pounds and you are currently over 500, that will take more than a few weeks or months unless you are willing to spend a lot of money on surgical hoovering. Adding 10 pounds of lean muscle will take a good while too, and the chances are if you are a beginner looking desperately for that, you are like I was at the start, built like a collection of twigs so need to double any standard estimates.
Where this becomes dangerous is that people will try the quick fix, get part way through or do well on it then go back to doing nothing as they did before. A while later they will notice themselves reverting back and do another one and repeat until they are in seriously bad health and their body doesn't know what to expect next. Shocking your body is something you hear a lot in exercise circles and it refers to mixing up your workouts not doing nothing then flat out intermittently.

There are a lot of longer term success stories too, and they can be truly inspirational. Stories of people losing 300 pounds on weight watchers or going from beanpole to body-builder. I have witnessed a few and one sticks in my mind, most of all because I thought he was a guaranteed two week wonder and was way off. He walked in either as wide or wider than he was tall, barely able to pedal a recumbant bike without sounding as if he was going to die, everything he did looked ten times harder or more than you could imagine any average person finding it. Months went by and he was still there, range of activies increased, girth decreased along with visible difficulty with movement. The only times I saw him in there for the first year or more he was training and focussed so I left him to it, I did eventually get to speak to him when he was chilling out in the spa and congratulated his success. After more than 18 months of total commitment, in which only 3 days had been off program, he'd lost over half his original bodyweight and started working toward building up some muscle to replace the fat he had lost. Something I hadn't even considered until speaking to him was the cost difference in lifestyles, he was attending a health club, having one PT session a week, obviously training a lot outside that, compared to the eating out, drinking etc. he had been used to was saving over £200 a month. He was going to use this to remove the surplus skin that hadn't fully shrunk down when he was happy with the size of his midsection. He was pleasantly suprised at how well it had shrunk back naturally but it would need help to look tidy.
The thing he had in common with all of the greatest success stories was patience. He was totally out of condition and shape, having been receiving severe health warnings for over 5 years and accepted that nearly 3 decades of abuse would take at least a few years to put right. When it comes to getting into the shape of your dreams if you are miles from it, the tortoise will beat the hare every time. it requires the right mix of impatience in the individual sessions and patience with long term results.

If you work on a long term target and hit it the next fun part is what to do next. One idea of course is to try one of the quick fix programs now that you can and see what it does, the other is set new targets, people without a goal in mind are more likely to gradually stop training. Even if your goal is just to try a new exercise every cycle and perfect it, that will keep you going.

There are a number here who will tell you that supplements are the mark of a serious trainer. Something I find very interesting as I have watched many obsessed with them fall by the wayside while I continue to go on getting fitter in various ways. Even now when time is at a premium I am able to have a diet free of magic powders, because I read some real books by professional nutritionists instead of adverts in magazines. If you need something to mentally help you take a supplement, I do it with a daily multivit that I know I likely don't need as is proven when I forget them for a while and feel no different, it makes me feel better to know the trace dietary requirements are covered. If you do so however do it with care, if you supplement something that is already excessive in your diet that can become a problem. If you eat 3 pounds of prime beef a day and 2 dozen eggs, the protein shakes are more than a step too far even if you are injecting so much testosterone, growth hormone etc. the holes never heal.
Serious trainers, train seriously and eat and drink well. Their love or loathing of powder and pills makes no difference. We have been around for several million years, and our bodies are incredibly good at getting what it needs from this old fashioned stuff called food. It's such good stuff and our bodies are so good with digesting it themselves that they only release the amounts it can process from the stomach. So in actual fact pre-digested food is less likely to be absorbed than the more simple and substantially cheaper normal stuff. Think of the gut like a hose with a load of holes in it, watering the plants beneath, you want the water to have all come out before it gets to the drain at the end and is wasted, so you set the tap to the level you need, dumping more water will mean the plants get nothing more but the drains do.

If anyone reading this thinks I haven't made any of these mistakes, get real. I drank protein til it came out of my rear, literally, tried various workouts promising massive arms, shoulders, calves etc. The reason I know it's all bull is because I did some reading and found out what really happens when training without engaging the brain first, compared to knowing what you are doing. This is why I can bust many of the myths, and still get things wrong.
 
Last edited:
Squatting below parallel is bad for your knees

This one is perpetuated a lot in gyms, people say it all the time, I've only ever heard one person justify it in a logical manner. The logical points given were:

- As the calves make contact with the hamstrings, they provide a deforming force against the hamstrings, causing the knee joint to move out of normal alignment.
- A lot of people lack the control to safely use that range of motion.
- Certain pre-existing knee injuries can be exacerbated by deep squatting.

The last of those three reasons doesn't apply to people whose knees are healthy. The second reason doesn't mean that squatting below parallel is bad for the knees, it means that squatting badly below parallel is bad for the knees, but squatting badly is bad for the knees regardless of depth. The first reason has some merit, but it also depends on control and active tightness, among other factors. Lazy squatting is usually more an issue here than deep squatting.

So, squatting below parallel can be dangerous, but contrary to the myth, it isn't inherently dangerous.



Squatting above parallel is bad for your knees

This one is mostly perpetuated by wannabe/amateur powerlifters on the interwebz. The argument is that the deeper you squat, the greater the tension on the thigh muscles (especially hamstrings -- no one seems to even mention quadriceps here) via the stretch strength reflex, and below parallel the forces are transferred to your hips instead of your knees. I don't know if the latter point has much merit or not, but the former assumes things that are not inherently true about deep squats and things that are even less true about shallow squats.

So, with hamstring tightness at the bottom being an issue, it needs to be said that the deeper you squat does not necessitate greater hamstring tightness, and in fact often causes less hamstring tightness. That's because hamstring tightness and contractile power is based on both hip and knee range of motion. The point about hamstrings getting tighter and more powerful the deeper you go looks only at hip movement, forgetting that as the knees bend in the eccentric, they take the slack out of the hamstrings. This is why front squats, which are super deep, also contain next to no hamstring work; and why Romanian deadlifts, in which the knees barely bend and the hips most certainly don't go below the knees, are such a powerful hamstring exercise.

On the other side of things, the guys perpetuating this myth do so by taking ATG squat technique and simply cutting off the bottom half of the movement, which results in there being very little tension in the thigh muscles at the point of turnaround from eccentric to concentric. Problem is, that's not how you squat above parallel. The higher you want your bum to be from the floor at the bottom of your squat, the more you sit back and keep your shins parallel; the closer your want your bum to be from the floor at the bottom, the more upright you remain and the more you let your knees drift forwards. The more upright you are and the more your knees move forwards, the less you'll use your hamstrings; the more you sit back and prevent your shins from coming forwards, the greater the ROM at the hips compared to the knees, causing greater stretch on the hamstrings, causing more tightness and allowing more power from the posterior chain. So, if getting more hamstring work into the exercise makes it better for your knees, then squatting above parallel properly should logically be good for your knees.
 
Squat depth

Parellel is my usual aim, because it's what is needed for powerlifting and that is what I measure myself against, cos I'm like that. I don't tend to go lower except on supporting work, but that is because I saw it as wasted effort when training to compete, and haven't got out of that habit many years later.

Reality is the parellel argument is almost totally moot as unless you are wanting to compete or have injuries to worry about the exact point to which you squat is not dramatically important.
There is a change in the way the knee works as it crosses right angle, more pressure goes onto the tendon connecting the knee cap to the shin below this than above, something I found out that scared me a bit, until I realised how strong this could be made.

Different muscles are more and less active at different heights, if most of what you are doing is shoving your buttocks backwards and forwards with minimal knee bend there is more glute than thigh work, all the way down with heels flat to the floor and butt on heels gets everything but dependant on technique you could be putting more stress through back or legs, etc.

Squats are a great exercise, they work virtually everything. If you are most comfortable going bum on heels and happy with it, go for it. If you are happiest going to right angles, what many consider half squats, these are safe and will work you out, so still good. Putting three tonne on the bar and moving an inch down and back is not a squat in most peoples book but if you are well insured go ahead with this too.
 
Last edited:
I have a Personal Trainer, so shouldn't I get results no matter what I do?

I don't know how people get ideas like this, but there are plenty of people out there who think that giving $45 to a PT twice a week means that they don't need to adjust the other 167 hours of their weeks in order to see big improvements in their bodies. I don't know what to say to this, but it's something I genuinely can't relate with. When I was 17, I used to get singing lessons once a week. The really shocking thing about that is that I got all sorts of crazy ideas, like that I should actually run scales of lip, tongue, soft palate and nasal drills all week long and practice singing. Over the course of a year, I went from terrible to bad -- a marked improvement -- and I've gotten better at singing over the years since then. At the same time, I got guitar lessons, but I didn't practice much (because it was hard), and so I never got from terrible to bad, I just stayed terrible, and have been completely unsurprised by those results ever since. I don't understand why people expect to treat fitness the way I treated guitar and yet get the results I got with singing. This is especially true when people have body composition goals.
 
Fitness or healthy lifestyle = Expensive

Inspired somewhat by the PT post from Goldie, (like the way in revenge hs's started referring to me as oldie).

There are a lot of people who think paying more for fitness means better results. The use of PTs is a classic, people think spending money on one to watch them train means they will autoamatically do better than someone who doesn't. This is not a dig against PTs, remember I was one years ago. There is however a major thing no PT can automatically give you and that is absolute motivation, they can help motivate you but when it comes down to it if you aren't really into it there is a limit to what they can do with you.
Someone paying out for a PT is getting knowledge and guidance, something those of us not using them get from books, conversation, or trial and error, PT is quicker and more effective, when they are good ones, and most are. However if you are increasing your lifts at 1% a month with a PT and someone else is increasing at 2.5% a month without because they have learned what they are doing the money isn't making your training more effective than their detirmination and knowledge.

Similar thing with supplements. I have bought this branded powder and that branded pill, so I am a hardcore trainer. Very nice and that may well be so but not for the reason given. Supplements are more expensive than food, unless you live on truffles and caviar, but paying more for your diet doesn't mean getting more quality nutrients or better results and definately doesn't mean you train harder.
Spending time learning about nutrition while recoverign from your workouts will soon teach you how easy good diet can be, if you aim for 95%+ of perfection rather than trying to be milligram perfect. This means you can then focus more on just training like hell than worrying because you took your exclusive blend amino acid table 15 seconds late.
Again there is no rule against spending money on supplements, but remember they don't make you a better gym rat than the rest of us gnawing on real food.

Expensive gyms. When looking around recently for a gym for my wife and son to join up with we knew the seriou sbudget gyms would be no good as there would be nothing for my son. This brought us down to 3 choices, one wasn't great for him either so down to 2, one was twice the price of the other, and I am not exageratting so down to one. The real clincher was that even though the more expensive gym had more facilities, those were additional money, so the double price was like for like. Basically we would have been paying to park up next to more Audis and BMWs rather than Fords and Volkwagens, the places had virtually the same stuff each being slightly stronger than the other in some ways.
The budget gym craze has exploded here in the last few years and I think it's great. You can train in air conditioned places that have a range of kit for less than I used to be training in a roid pit nearly 2 decades ago. Some are better than others, I looked at a few and realised the free weight section was a bit of an embarassment to them, and more of a pointless exercise when I could have deadlifted all of their stock, but others were quite impressive. Many have PTs there if you need them, and if you want no frills training they are great.

Kit is a similar thing. I am not going to compete at lifting agin so disc size wasn't important to me. Subsequently I got some simple iron discs that are perfect weight and cheaper. If I was going to compete this wouldn't be good enough, simple as, but otherwise iron is iron, brand is nothing. Bars etc. can be different, as many aren't simply one lump of metal when going olympic, so use your sense.
Some things are worth investing in, running shoes that are well suited to you etc. but if you buy a cotton t-shirt without a logo and one with there is a good chance the second one will be basically the same and not make you train any better. I go for a run in shoes worth more than I paid for all of my shorts, socks and vests combined, because as long as the other stuff is working that's enough.

Healthy food is so expensive. I really do get fed up of hearing this from people so evidently unaware of the world outside McDs and Iceland (UK supermarket chain specialising in the worst ready meals you can imagine).
If you by a ready meal that says healthy option it will cost more than one that doesn't, and you will have totally missed the point of healthy eating. Cooking can be very technical and difficult, my sister and one of her friends stayed at my place one time and were proud of themselve when as they said, 'We cooked' evidence was, breadcrumbs, knife with butter on it, and black stuff at the bottom of my pan with some tomato sauce around the edges, they'd 'cooked' beans on toast, the toaster had dealt with the toast and they'd burnt the beans, but everyone learns somewhere. However if you just want the basics and Mum did let you into the kitchen it's not rocket science, and the basic ingredients aren't expensive. Pasta, rice, potatoes, oats, milk, frozen veg (even mixes), eggs, meat, milk, fruit, simple and often a lot cheaper to throw together than one take away burger meal to feed a small family. Obviously if you want nicer stuff the price goes up a bit, but trust me it's worth it to have food that tastes really nice.

Pricing can go a long way in decision making but many miss out on the value side of things. These are based on what I could do in the city closest to me.
Local budget gym, 24 hour access £17 a month
Extra food, £25 a month
Lifting clothing, I am tight and wear stuff to death so around £5 a year tops.
Running shoes £60 a year
Annual cost (17+25)*12+60+5=569
Weekly £14.78

Now consider a pint in the pub costs around £2.50, a meal at McD is likely around £6, so for the cost of a burger meal and a few pints I can keep fit for the week.
Fitness is not as expensive as the less healthy lifestyle, and if you aren't sad and boring training at home like me it gets you out too.
 
It's always baffled me when people say that healthy food is so expensive, because unhealthy food is usually made of what used to be healthy food until someone was hired to prepare it by butchering it of all it's worth, and food that's been prepared by someone else is always more expensive than food that you've prepared yourself. SubWay stores and local kebab shops really cash in with the idea that people would pay more for "healthy" (especially when "healthy" to the average person means low calories/low carb, because obviously carbs and calories are the devil (there's another myth for you, kiddos)) by charging extra to make your sub/kebab into a salad, achieved by removing the bread from the meal. An extra $1.50 to have the same thing, sans bread, is not my idea of a good deal.

In the same way, it baffles me that people reach adulthood without learning to cook. "I am a strong, independent...I can't actually feed myself and if you're in my care you'll probably die of malnutrition." I have a friend who's living with his parents again for the time being, but he spent about 2 years living away from them (6-12 months of that time living overseas, no less), and still the only thing that I can confirm he knows how to prepare is baked beans, and even then...well, I've had his baked beans, and they're questionable, too. IMO, if you don't know how to put meat or vegetables in, on or around a source of heat and end up with something that you would eat even if you had other options, you're not ready to walk out the front door. A homemade sandwich that's just bread, butter and some spread will cost you less than a dollar. If instead of spread and butter it has meat and vegetables on it, it might cost you more than a dollar, but it's unlikely to exceed $2-3 unless you're going high class with the ingredients. Go somewhere and buy a sandwich, and it'll cost you $5-10 for a fairly mediocre sandwich, more than $10 for a high class sandwich. As a general rule of thumb, if something has been prepared for you, divide the cost by 3, and that's about how much it would probably cost you to make it yourself.
 
Genetics rule what activities you can do.

There are a number of people will declare they can't do x, y or z because they aren't built for it etc. and much as there is truth to this if you want to be winning gold at the olympics, that it pretty much it.
If your life will not be complete without being the worlds best at something I am afraid you are unlikely to enjoy it much anyway. That's not genetics it's statistics.

You can compete and have fun doing so regardless of coming first or last, in my experience losing taught me more most of the time anyway. If you aren't the type of person who can handle losing there is no need to compete to enjoy an activity.
To demonstrate how little genetics limit what you can do there is a former sumo wrestler who has run marathons. His times were slower than some of us would walk the distance but that is not the point, he is sure proof that if you really want to do something you can.
I have seen some success stories on these boards and they are great, people who have lost or gained a good deal of weight achieved for a sport etc. The one thing all of them will have encountered at some point is the feeling that what they wanted was impossible, then carried on regardless.

Genetics will define how far you can go down a given road, but not if you can travel it. It will define how long it can take you to get set distances down the road you choose but only you can decide if that is worth the wait.

Many are in a hurry and this is enforced by false quick fix promises as I have stated before. Reality is very different and you will need to consider how your nature will effect the timescales and what you will be able to achieve, then of course try to beat both, if you are a bit mental.
There is some good news here too. Most of us overestimate how much we are limited and it feels really good to do better than you expected. Being old or middle aged dependant on your viewpoint, I am able to look back on targets I set myself and realise how far past them I have now gone, during these moments of back patting I feel really good about myself, then usually set myself more difficult targets for the future.

Gentics will limit you, fact, your mind will limit you more, also a fact. If you really want to achieve something you can, perserverance and patience will pay off, and by the time your geneetics put the brakes on you will be doing really well anyway. If you love it and it's something you body is suited to like a blue whale is to flying and it's not harming your health, keep doing it and let no-one tell you otherwise.
 
Had I never begun weight training, I'd either be a very skinny man at about 50kg, or I'd have gotten fat and I'd still have the muscle mass of a ~50kg man (I guess I'd have a little more, since you need more muscle to carry around excess fat). Getting to what the internet tells me are still only beginner levels of strength has taken me close to a decade. Pretty sure my genetics are not in favour of me powerlifting, and yet here I am about to compete in my second meet. You can do all sorts of things when you stop worrying about genetics getting in the way.

Muscle Mass Makes You Slower

The first time I heard this was from a drunk man at a family friend's 21st when I was 12. He made a lot of sense. He was also wrong. There are a few different lines of reasoning that people use to come to this conclusion, such as:

1. Bodybuilders train in a slow, controlled fashion in order to build muscle.
2a. This slow and controlled training does not build speed.
2b. Bodybuilders have big muscles.
3. Therefore, building muscle mass makes you slow.

or...

1. Muscle mass is heavy and occupies space.
2a. Velocity is the speed at which an object moves through space.
2b. It is hard to move heavy objects quickly, and the heavier a target object is, the more it slows you down.
3. Therefore, building muscle makes you slow.

Seems logical enough, but this reasoning is misleading at best.

In reality, the lengthening and shortening of muscles is what creates movement of the skeleton, which gives us the following reasoning:
1. The greater the muscle mass, the greater the force output potential.
2. The greater the force output, the greater the power potential.
3. The greater the power, the greater the speed potential.
4. Specific training beyond pure muscular hypertrophy is required to fully extend increases in muscle mass over to the following areas of fitness.
5a. Therefore increased muscle mass does not necessitate any of the follow-on outcomes (force output, power, speed), and so it is possible to be both big and slow.
5b. However, while increased muscle mass does not necessitate greater speed, it can enable greater speed potential.
 
Back
Top