Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Varies from person to person,I would start using a belt when ur form starts to deteriorate, for me that's around 170kg, though I do have a mate that does 300+ 1RM and he starts to use one at 180kg, wouldn't hurt to start using it after ur warm up set.

I'm talkin bout deadlifts btw

Edited by GTR_JOEY

Yea, weight belt plus chain and caribean clip is what I have always used for chin ups. I bought a belt for $15 from hart sport and $3 of chain, $6 for the clip from bunnings. I've never used it for dead lifts or squats though, lol. But I guess the option is there if I need it.

Was talking about a belt to support ya core, sorry stopped reading the thread properly lol

It is debatable. Some lifters do some don't.

I've seen plenty of people do 250KG without a belt, others have been injured at some point and now only do heavy sets with a belt.

However, even those using belts do most of their sets without the belt as it can cause weakness in some muscles.

I've never tried using a belt.

the way i see it, the less "protection" gear you use the better. teach your body to be independent (if that even makes any sense) your body will probably get too attached to it and before you know it you can't complete a formed set without having a belt etc on

could be wrong, either way not gonna look at it any differently

Generally if u practice good technique on lighter weights and slowly pile up the weight over a long period of time u will be a lot less prone to back injury.

The down fall of many lifters starting out is they go too hard too early and thats when injury can occur.

Some_cs_Student: u dont need to wear a belt to lift 250kg, though alot of lifters would recommend a belt at that weight, that would include a lot of big power lifters.

You should try wearing one at some stage, i was appose to it for a long time untill i gave it ago and i felt alot more comfortable lifting while wearing one. (whether it is placebo effect or not). You may like it, ya never know.

R-spec: I agree that you should teach your body to be independant. Thats why i generally dont like to use equipment such as smith machines and hand straps. Though i think that using a belt is a different story as it is generally used to prevent injury as apose to machines that can restrict the natural movement of the body and cause injury.

Thats my opinion anyway

I used a belt for my 5th set of squats/deads when I was doing a 5x5 program....Was squatting around 150x5 and deadlifting 160x5. Didn't really use the belt on any of the other 4 sets which were building up to the heaviest weight, but they were usually around 120/130/140 etc

Basically used the belt on the 5th set until I progressed past that weight, which would mean the previous weeks best would be the 4th set, and the 5th set would go up 5+ kg..

yep fair enough, as the body gets fatigued technique starts to go out the window. That would be the time to use a belt.

Best bet is to listen to ur body, either that or get ur spotter to watch ur form.

sorry haven't read whole topic but in regards to deadlifts, for the people who experience lower back issues/discomfort, especially taller guys who require larger/longer ROM when performing that exercise, barbell v-bar rows do an excellent job of adding thickness without putting as much stress on ur discs like deadlifts.. just a thought :)

sorry haven't read whole topic but in regards to deadlifts, for the people who experience lower back issues/discomfort, especially taller guys who require larger/longer ROM when performing that exercise, barbell v-bar rows do an excellent job of adding thickness without putting as much stress on ur discs like deadlifts.. just a thought :)

Agreed...seated row is also good at this depending on your action/ROM. As a tall person with a history of lower back injury, I cop a lot of strain from deadlifts...I avoid them because they scare me, but would like to get into them if I could avoid the strain.

seated row technique is debated... I treat it like I would do a standing barbell row or T bar row and lock my lower back in and don't move it... I've seen a lot of guys reaching right forward and rounding their back... I've always found that technique a little dubious

I think you'd be safer doing deadlifts with correct technique, locking your lower back in and avoiding rounding... you don't need to be a hero and go super heavy

friggin good mornings are a killer too... I find it works my abs really hard as they try and stabilize your core

I lock my lower back in personally, i.e. static position with chest out and shoulders pulled back, that's definitely the safest way...I have seen some big guys do the full rowing motion with 250 pounds and no issues though...would destroy my little back lol.

My issue with deadlifts, and it's probably because I'm not flexible enough or am doing it with the wrong technique, but my knees seem to stick out too far in front, which forces me to round the back a little / lean forward to clear my knees...even when I'm leaning back and rolling the bar up my shins. Hard to explain, but the exercise definitely doesn't feel right.

Yeah I've seen guys do that rounded back row with the whole weight stack and they seem fine with it... I won't be trying it though

I get that issue, I sometimes scrape my knees on the way up... I guess you should concentrate on straightening your legs first... then pulling back... I concentrate on thrusting my hips forward and leaning backwards as I come up... you can always try the variations, stiff leg, Romanian or even just rack pulls

TBH I really hate doing deads, I did them yesterday and today I struggled to tie my shoes...I just do them because I know its a bit of a weakness because I spend all day sat on my ass

Might have to get one of you Melbournians to show me how to do them properly in case it is the wrong technique...it's not really that I feel a great deal of strain, I'm just worried the strain I'm getting is a joint thing and not just muscle strain. Had it drilled into me as a child not to lift with my back, so am scared I will get injured because I may not be doing it right.

Another reason I'm scared is because I had an underlying back issue not that long ago. Until recently I had a terrible working posture...basically slouched on a chair all day and it started to screw with my lower back when doing behind neck military press. I used to bend over slowly and I could feel my lower back creaking like a rusty door...wasn't mega painful, but very offputting. Definitely feels better these days, now that I'm sitting up perfectly straight at work.

<cut>

My issue with deadlifts, and it's probably because I'm not flexible enough or am doing it with the wrong technique, but my knees seem to stick out too far in front, which forces me to round the back a little / lean forward to clear my knees...even when I'm leaning back and rolling the bar up my shins. Hard to explain, but the exercise definitely doesn't feel right.

Some upper back arching is ok, lower back rounding is not ok. Your technique sounds wrong...what's your stance like (width wise)?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...