Official WF Health/Workout Thread 2.0

People say that sticking to a gym plan is difficult. Time, life or lazy etc. People say that going to the gym can be a burden. I don't have that problem because of my job. I have to go to work every day. If I'm there I might as well put in an effort that's going to be beneficial. 

Today I was loading 16 gauge sheet metal into a shear. They're only 1/16 of an inch thick, but they're 4 feet wide and 8 feet long. They weigh about 80 pounds each. The order was for 150 sheets. That's over 12,000 pounds I lifted, carried, and manipulated in under 3 hours. I spent the rest of the day at my saw watching it cut steel while I listened to music.

I've been doing this for 15 years and am in way better shape than I was at 25 when I started. Physical labour definitely goes a long way, especially if you can use it as your "gym."  There's no willpower required to go. I have to. I eat whatever I want knowing I'm going to go "hard at the gym" 5 days a week. 

I had 6 Twinkies for breakfast. No lunch. I had 8 hot dogs (and buns) for dinner. It's about 10:30pm right now and I'm probably going to eat another box (6 in a box) of Twinkies.
 

Been staying on track for the last few weeks. Feels good.

I'm 208lbs which is as big as I've ever been. Feeling great man, Sunday was a great leg day, yesterday was a damn good chest/triceps day, and today was an alright ab day. Been feeling great these past couple weeks.

taking a quick look at their nutrition profile, doesn't look like a bad snack as far as calories and macros. a bit high in fat but not too much.

I wouldn't go crazy with them but they're a healthier snack compared to chocolate bars etc. low sugar, not too bad in fat, good amount of protein and a good amount of dietary fiber.

I hear ya, I don't drink often but when I do I drink the bottle. need to cut how often that happens and the amount in half, really wrecks conditioning.

heavy leg day this morning, to the breakfast diner I go

Just wondering people's thoughts/experiences with squat formations? I'm thinking my base needs to be wide because I have a wide frame, the more narrow the stance seems very awkward - not just more difficult. I've seen mixed things out there so some firsthand experience is always appreciated.

The short answer of it is, if it's more comfortable and feels stronger, it's probably the better choice.  

The longer answer:

Depends on a few factors. Hip mobility/pelvic structure, ankle flexibility, depth, bar position.

First things first, unless you're competing in an equipped powerlifting meet (Meaning using a squat suit for rebound) throw away the excessively wide stances you see on youtube. They are not beneficial for anyone not using that gear. 

If you google images of pelvic bone structures, you're going to notice a lot of discrepancy from person to person. This can have a huge impact on what squat stance is going to be most comfortable/preferable.  Thankfully, for the most part this is easy to self diagnose, since the other positions will feel extremely awkward/potentially won't be reachable at all.  As you've already mentioned, you have a pretty wide frame, and the narrower stances feel pretty awkward. Already probably means they're not for you, and that's fine. I'm only 5'8 but I have a wider stance than most would for my squatting all factors considered, because my femurs are very long. We measured in a kin-class once and I was paired up with a 6'2" linebacker, and our femurs measured the same length. His were obviously short for his height, and mine were long for my height. 

Second factor is ankle flexibility.  One restrictive part to either narrow stance or deep squats is hip mobility/structure.  The other big one is ankle flexibility. There is an old wives tale about knees not going over toes while squatting.  It's largely bullcrap.  With a wider stance where you sit back more it's relatively true, but for anyone squatting a more olympic style high-bar narrow squat, the knees are going to track over the toes and it's perfectly fine. Ankle mobility plays a huge factor there. If the ankle mobility isn't there, that's when you start to shred your knees. 

Third factor is going to be depth.  Putting a true ass to grass squat together is going to largely require a narrower stance, within reason.  Once you crack that parallel portion on a narrower stance, you're essentially sitting into your heels, and your ankles dorsi-flex, and your knees track past your toes and you get into what essentially resembles a 'third world squat'. (Just google a picture and you'll see what I mean).  When it comes to a wider stance, unless your hips are very open and mobile, getting quite that low is very difficult.  Conversely, stopping a narrower squat at or just below parallel is I think, more difficult than a wider stance squat.  Wide stance squats allow you to hit parallel and below quicker, but your ass is never touching the floor.  When I was powerlifting, if I absolutely sank a wider stance low-bar squat, I could get my hamstrings to my calves, but my ass would be way above the floor. Compared to using an olympic style high-bar squat, where my ass is almost literally touching the floor when that happens.  Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and I would never say one is strictly superior to another.  It all depends. 

Last factor is bar position.  A higher bar position is generally going to require a narrower stance than a low bar position. With a lower bar position, you typically sit back more with your hips, and your upper body kind of folds over in a way.  You need a wider stance to create a strong base to support this.  Conversely, with a high bar position, you don't sit back enough, and the wider stance makes it too difficult to really sit into your heels with your squat. 

Ultimately your body is going to find the positions within the movement to complete the reps, and there really isn't a lot of difference in terms of torque, muscle activation, etc. If mobility allows, getting below parallel is always going to be superior for building better strength and muscles, but beyond that it's all pretty much preference and genetic factors. Most people can squat about 10% more weight low-bar, but they're not necessarily "stronger" in the sense that they've increased their bodies ability to produce force, etc.  They generate roughly the same amount of torque high-bar and low-bar, the low bar position just allows for better leverages that let them move more weight.  

I realize the tl;dr version is basically go with whatever feels most comfortable, strong, and natural, but that really is the answer. The rest is just an explanation of why the differences exist.  

For reference:  I recommend strongerbyscience.com to anyone looking to learn more about this sort of stuff.  Probably the best free information in existence.  Personally, I'm a former track athlete turned powerlifter, whose squat was my strongest lift by a decent margin. (~556lbs @ ~180lbs bodyweight, compared with a 590 deadlift and 345 bench at my peak) Currently I'm 10+ years into athletics coaching, and 7+years into strength & conditioning coaching, and 17+ years deep in personal experience in the weightroom. 

at the end of the day, absolutely listen to your body, and if you're achieving muscular fatigue/hypertrophy then mission accomplished.

I actually just had a great leg day today, time absolutely flew by