SHould you use a weightligting belt? Let's quote the experts

[Joshua Naterman]

There was confusion in another thread about weightlifting belts.

We will start here:

Slizzard,

I'm not really interested in carrying forth a discussion on weightlifting belts on a gymnastic forum, but Mark Rippetoe, Louie Simmons/Westside, Jim Wendler & Dave Tate/Elite FTS, John Broz, the 70's Big guys, that Russian mutant and arguably the strongest human on the planet Konstantinov — ridiculously Strong Humans, most of whom who more importantly have trained other humans to become stronger — either use, advocate (or even sell) belts.

I want to make sure everyone sees this so I have replicated it here at the top.

Training secrets

He explains that intra-abdominal pressure is very important and a belt should be used sparingly. He only uses it lifting maximum weights. He doesn't feel a belt adds anything to his deadlift. He feels sumo lifters benefit more from a belt and that for conventional deadlifters it's only necessary for stability and a little assistance at the start of the lift.

He doesn't use straps in training and doesn't have any problems pulling weight off the floor. In the rack he's pulled 500kg (1100lbs) and held onto it for 8 seconds.

Additionally, your assertion that a belt forces the abs to relax is false, when in fact a correctly tightened belt allows the abs to contract harder, among other benefits like augmenting the Vasalva maneuver. Which, since you don't understand how they function, makes me wonder if you've ever in fact used a belt and are perhaps getting these suggestions from a CSCS manual.

best,

jason

I was not clear in my original post, plus it was somewhat off topic. I said that you should never, EVER use a weight belt for normal training and that the only time you should consider it is when maxing.

Here, at last, is a proper forum for this discussion!

If you don't want to read past this line, know that I have successfully used replicated peer-reviewed studies, direct quotes from lifters in question, and biomecanical knowledge to back up my original statements. Belts should only be used for maxes. Not only from my mouth but also from the mouth of one of Jason's chief witnesses.

Only read on if you have time, interest, or you just like seeing logic and properly sourced information used well.

Here I address a few of Jason's claims, one of which is shown to be *almost* completely false, since he claims Konstantinov uses a belt regularly. Konstantinov says himself that he NEVER deadlifts with a belt and that belts should ONLY BE USED FOR MAX ATTEMPTS! GEEZ... Where have I heard that before... You can check the quotes at the end of this very long post, mostly long from the quotes, for both the link and the full text.

Jason maintains that belts are a good idea to use, though he has not said anything specific on WHEN and under what circumstances a belt should be used, which I would like to know his opinion on.

Jason's claim is that my assertation that belts should only be used with near-max or max attempts, meaning within 5% of your max( I do say 10% for some people at first, since they may take some time to build their body correctly to where they only "need" the belt on 95%+ of max) is not true and not what many top trainers claim is good, including one of the strongest men on the planet, Konstantinov. You can go see the quote near the end to see what Konstantinov himself says about belts. I'll give you a surprise sneak peak! It's almost exactly what I said. Max only. Not even at 95%! He's even stricter than me, though I personally say max only for my training as well, if I ever even use a belt again.

Jason has claimed that many accomplished trainers and one of the most famous powerlifters of our time, Konstantin Konstantinov, recommend and/or use belts. Konstantinov recommends that a belt never be used unless you are maxing. He never deadlifts with one, and he only uses the belt for maxes ONLY, presumably only in other lifts.

Eric Cressey has said a couple of smart things about belts. key: wear them to win, not to train. I include this not only because it is exactly what I say, but also because Erik is another well-respected coach.

Aha! I have found Rippetoe's opinion: Be prepared, it's pretty much again exactly what I say.

http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/Equipment#Belts":2uxq90gv]The only time I wear a belt is when I'm going for a heavy max of 5 or less and for the last warm-up set leading up to my max. 90% of the time I don't wear a belt for squats nor deadlifts. Rule of thumb: If it feels really heavy, wear a belt. If you are self aware enough to know that you back/abs are stong enough not to need a belt, don't wear a belt. It really comes down to preference. Beginners need not wear a belt for the greater part of their training.

That is down near the bottom of the page. 5 reps = 90%+ of max. Exactly what I recommend. I wonder if the last witness, Louie Simmons, has some secret thunderbolt to strike me down with?

NO!

http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/newdeep/louie8.htm":2uxq90gv]My view on a lifting belt is that it is a training aid. Many times people over use their belts and become dependent on them as

well as not learning how to use their core. Over using a belt will also lead to the development of a weaker core.

Before anyone else quotes Louie simmons, keep this in mind. This is a direct quote from Tnation, the article is titled "Mad Monk of Powerlifting"

NM: What is your stance on the use of steroids?

LS: The dangers are way overrated. It's corticoid steroids that they inject football players with every day that will kill you! Personally, I've done anabolic steroids straight for the last 28 years.

NM: Do you cycle?

LS: No, I stay on. I don't believe in periodization in training, either. I use mostly anabolics like Equipoise and Laurabolin until it's time for a competition, and then I do the harder androgens. I do not take Anadrol. I've never had any problems. I know guys who take much more than I do, to the point where you can call it abuse, and they don't seem to have any problems, either. There's no possible way I can train the way I do without taking anabolics, but the same techniques of training apply even if you're natural. I've also used the andro products and find that they give a greater boost in aggression than steroids! At least temporarily. I use them right before training.

He says the same techniques apply, and that's true, but the metabolism is so completely altered by steroids that you'd have to have a completely different schedule. SImmons' training techniques are solid, but keep in mind he is a long-time steroid user. All I can say is... sigh, at least he's HONEST about it!

Jason also claims they sell belts, but come on... Some hookers sell condoms but that don't mean they use them. Know what I mean? What people sell has absolutely nothing to do with how they train. They sell things to make money.

To be fair: as has been stated and will continue to be stated, the belts are good for maxing and possible near-max(95%+) efforts. Not required, but not a bad idea either.

I maintain that belts are a terrible idea for all sets that are not within 5-10% of your max squat, deadlift, clean, snatch, or any other exercise you choose to wear a belt during. There are only three circumstances in which I would even consider a belt:

1) Lifting within 5% of my max. For people who are just starting to use a belt, they should probably consider within 10% of their max as their belt-wearing range. I personally say that unless you're going for your previous max or better, you should not be touching a belt.

2) When volume is so tremendously high and specialized that the amount of work done by the lower back is simply too much to recover from, and so the belt is used more, but not all the time, as a means to offset some of this fatigue.This can happen in a Bulgarian/Russian program, during which the lifters are squatting 3-14 times a week AND doing many clean pulls, snatch pulls, cleans, snatches, etc. There is SO MUCH work done by the lower back that maximal strength gets impeded by fatigue and training as a whole can suffer. I don't think one person here is performing such a routine. John Broz's athletes and any other team who follows this routine will seriously be the only people in this circumstance.

3) A competition. Aside from being required in all classes that I am aware of, it's stupid to not protect your back when you know you are not the one selecting the final lifts. You HAVE to hit what that other guy hits, or you lose, regardless of your ability, so many times people try even when they KNOW they can't do it. I am sure that many times that belt is not just the difference between a failed lift and a successful lift, but also between injury and just another miss.That is definitely a situation where safety comes first. That situation shouldn't ever come up in training, since everything is modulated so carefully!

EVEN under those first two circumstances, consider this:

Weightlifting belts do little to improve performance, concluded researchers at the Albany Medical Center in Albany, N.Y., after comparing the progress of 50 weightlifters, half of whom wore weightlifting belts.

All the men followed the same program, and their results were essentially the same. But there was an important difference: The men who did not use the weightlifting belt had better abdominal and back strength.

These results echo a previous study that found little to support the use of these belts.

While an individual may be able to lift about 20 percent more weight when they wear a back belt, this does not translate to 20 percent more protection for the spine.

Furthermore, other studies have found that the constant use of back belts leads to reliance as torso and back muscles begin to atrophy over time.

Only power lifters or those who lift extremely heavy weights appear to benefit from the use of weightlifting belts. But even these individuals would be better off doing their daily training without the aid of a belt.

Source: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Annual Meeting, New Orleans, La.

There is also this, straight off of PubMed:

BACKGROUND DATA: In weightlifting, a back belt has been reported to enhance intraabdominal pressure (IAP) and to reduce back muscle EMG and spinal compression forces.

Belts force your back to flex less. I still haven't found anything one way or the other concerning abs, but consider this: The belt does the job of the transversus abdominus, internal obliques, and intercostals, which are the primary compressors of the abdomen during lifting. The diaphram and air pressure in the lungs actually presses the internal organs against the belt. I have felt the difference and while abdominal pressure is greater my percieved effort in my abdomen is far less. I will see about getting a short study done at GA State in the physiology lab or at least get good EMG data on the abdominal musculature with and without a belt, both stiff leather and the velcro belts, just to hit the whole spectrum.

Anyhow, my point is that without the belt our pressure comes from internal obliques, intercostals and transversus abdominus pressing against the pressure exerted by the lung sacs and the diaphram. With the belt, the internal obliques and transversus abdominus do not have anywhere near as much work to do. In addition to this, the belt is not a stretchable object, unlike the muscles, so the diaphram can exert more pressure against the belt and therefore produce more Intra-Abdominal Pressure(IAP). This is why I would love for you to share the data that shows the increased EMG activity of the abdominals. I have already provided the EMG data that shows the lower back muscles are inhibited, just as I had claimed.

SO I looked up valsalva and while I didn't know the official name for it, I know exactly what you're talking about. The main thing the belt does for the abs is prevent hernias in people who have not strengthened their cores sufficiently. I have been able to find no evidence, nor have I ever heard of any, that indicates an increase in abdominal contraction. Where can I find that? I would love to read about it.

I understand far more than I apparently communicate. Anyone who has met me in person, and by this point there are quite a few on the board, can tell you that have no interest in anything but learning. I have accomplished far more already than the vast majority of humans my size ever will, and I have just made even more leaps forward. Namely a 5+ second full lay human flag. Not bad for 230 lbs and not even training for it. Abdominal strength like that, and like what you get with the body lever holds, and like what you get with 75+lb inverted situps for 10+ reps, is what you need to safely perform maximal lifts without a belt. My body is designed to do it and so is yours. It is not my fault if most people do not develop that ability.

I have yet to meet a man my size who has front squatted 505 to nearly parallel for 8 reps even on a smith machine. I did that on a rocking ship 40 feet from the bow on a 609 foot ship. I was 205 lbs. I have curled my bodyweight before on a straight barbell. I have done end-ROM bench presses with 725 lbs. You don't get to be able to do things like that without understanding a few things.

Most importantly, you need to click here: http://www.ironsport.dk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=608

for Konstantinov's background and training. I'll post the highlights here so you don't need to wander. I like wandering, so I've done it for you and everyone else here.

Training secrets

He explains that intra-abdominal pressure is very important and a belt should be used sparingly. He only uses it lifting maximum weights. He doesn't feel a belt adds anything to his deadlift. He feels sumo lifters benefit more from a belt and that for conventional deadlifters it's only necessary for stability and a little assistance at the start of the lift.

He doesn't use straps in training and doesn't have any problems pulling weight off the floor. In the rack he's pulled 500kg (1100lbs) and held onto it for 8 seconds.

Here's the rest in normal size:

Background

He was born in 1978 in the small town of Liepaya in Latvia. Parents were normal people with no background in sports.

Started in sports at the age of six with gymnastics, and later spent a few years doing wrestling and judo. By 11 he was already quite strong and could do 42 chin-ups.

At 15 he began lifting weights at the gym, initially doing bodybuilding training, but always lifted with the intention of getting stronger. Was already 6ft tall, 160lbs, and deadlifting 475.

At 17 he started training as a powerlifter, getting most of his training and nutrition information from magazines.

Started competing in 1997 and went on to set over 100 Latvian records. He is the national champion in all 3 power lifts and has the biggest total.

In 2002 as a junior he lifted a total of 2210lbs, a world and European record at the time, and he also set a junior WR with a 860lb (360kg) deadlift.

Later that year he recorded 2295lb total in Helsinki (WPC) setting a world and European record in the bench press with 596lbs.

In 2003 in the world championships (GPC) in Austria he was the overall champion setting two world records in the deadlift: 884 followed by 897lbs.

In 2004 won the GPC "World cup" in Slovakia in the 275 class.

In 2005 he totaled 2317 in the IPF and went on to set a WR deadlifting 906 (411kg, no suit) in the 275 class, beating a record held since 1982 by 1kg.

In 2006 he focused exclusively on the deadlift and at the Latvian nationals (WPC-IPF) pulled 948 @ 275 to break his 2005 WR by 19kg (this time in a Metal DL suit) after tokens in the squat and bench press.

His main goal is to beat Andy Bolton's world record (which at the time of the interview was 971).

Training

He has recently given a lot more attention to rest and recovery which he believes is extremely important at his level so he trains more intuitively. He trains the deadlift 2x every 9-12 days, but it all depends on how he's feeling, so if he's feeling slightly fatigued he prefers to rest another day or two before deadlifting again.

His main assistance exercise is pulling off 3-4" blocks (8-10cm).

The overall volume of his deadlift training is very high, going up to 20 sets.

He splits his deadlift workouts in half with 20-30 minutes rest between them. Rest times on work sets are typically 3-5 minutes.

He trains without straps or a belt.

From a recent training session:

Deadlifts from the floor

260 x 5

350 x 5

440 x 3

530 x 1

620 x 1

705 x 1

795 x 1

860 x 4

Rest 30 minutes

Pulling off blocks

375 x 5

485 x 5

660 x 1

750 x 5

815 x 5

Hyperextensions on a 45° bench with 60kg (132lbs) for 2 sets of 20 reps

Reverse hyperextensions with 50-70kg (110-155lbs) for 2 sets of 15-20 reps

Biceps: 2 x 20

Presses: 6 x 15-25

Speed work:

5 x 5 Oly squats with knee wraps

8-10 single speed pulls from the floor with bands that add 130kg of tension to the lockout. He increments his speed work by 5kg (11lbs) each workout. His last speed pull session involved 240kg for 10 singles with 130kg of band tension.

Technique

He explains that while he pulls with a rounded back, it is only his upper back (from the chest up) that is rounded and it stays this way throughout the entire lift. It allows him to lift the maximum amount of weight for his proportions. He said he deadlifted with a straight back and more leg drive years ago but it would not allow him to lift more than 340kg (750).

The biggest influence on his deadlift training has been Ano Turtiainen of Finland, who has given him a lot of advice on his form.

Early on he took his deadlift from 340kg (750) to 390kg (860) in 7 months without increasing his body weight with his technique and training based on US methods, and reached 407kg (895) at a body weight of 118kg. This is where progress stalled and he had to look at other methods.

He now uses a combination of speed work and higher volume training with 75-90% of his max, assistance exercises, and "Westside" training methods. His current training methods have allowed him to take his deadlift to 430kg (948).

At his last competition he did not know how much he could lift but having since analyzed his performance he believes it is not his limit. He wants to go to the United States in 2007 to break the world record.

Training secrets

He explains that intra-abdominal pressure is very important and a belt should be used sparingly. He only uses it lifting maximum weights. He doesn't feel a belt adds anything to his deadlift. He feels sumo lifters benefit more from a belt and that for conventional deadlifters it's only necessary for stability and a little assistance at the start of the lift.

He doesn't use straps in training and doesn't have any problems pulling weight off the floor. In the rack he's pulled 500kg (1100lbs) and held onto it for 8 seconds.

The psychological side of lifting is of great importance to him. Before record attempts, he gets into a state of extreme mental excitation. To lift maximal weights he lifts quickly and aggressively. He puts fear out of his mind. There is no thinking of limits or barriers.

Recently he has excluded powerlifting squats from his training and only squats Olympic style which he feels is better for developing the legs and hip muscles. He also trains the posterior chain with other exercises.

[Amebix138]

You wrote alot and unfortunately I did not read it all. I got to the part where it was written in a study that belts cause muscle atrophy over time. The abs dont switch off when you wear a belt, so that seems a little bullshit.

I also think, if I understand you correctly, your understanding of what a belt does for you is a little flawed as evidenced by:

Belts force your back to flex less. I still haven't found anything one way or the other concerning abs, but consider this: The belt does the job of the transversus abdominus, internal obliques, and intercostals, which are the primary compressors of the abdomen during lifting. The diaphram and air pressure in the lungs actually presses the internal organs against the belt. I have felt the difference and while abdominal pressure is greater my percieved effort in my abdomen is far less. I will see about getting a short study done at GA State in the physiology lab or at least get good EMG data on the abdominal musculature with and without a belt, both stiff leather and the velcro belts, just to hit the whole spectrum.

Anyhow, my point is that without the belt our pressure comes from internal obliques, intercostals and transversus abdominus pressing against the pressure exerted by the lung sacs and the diaphram. With the belt, the internal obliques and transversus abdominus do not have anywhere near as much work to do. In addition to this, the belt is not a stretchable object, unlike the muscles, so the diaphram can exert more pressure against the belt and therefore produce more Intra-Abdominal Pressure(IAP). This is why I would love for you to share the data that shows the increased EMG activity of the abdominals. I have already provided the EMG data that shows the lower back muscles are inhibited, just as I had claimed.

With the belt, the pressure all stills comes from the abdominal musculature. They just have something to push against so they can contract harder. The belt doesn't apply much if any actual external assistance, by that I mean the belt doesn't physically hold you in place.

And interestingly, I have a study showing lower back muscle activation is improved with a belt: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n26876124/

I'd also like to post a few 70's big posts:

http://www.70sbig.com/?p=884

http://www.70sbig.com/?p=1594

http://www.70sbig.com/?p=891

[John Sapinoso]

this is an interesting thread, this is what most caught my eye:

Some hookers sell condoms but that don't mean they use them

[Cole Dano]

this is an interesting thread, this is what most caught my eye:

Some hookers sell condoms but that don't mean they use them

Quote of the week!!!!!!

btw- i'm happy to admit i don't know squat (pardon the pun) about lifting but this seems fairly self-evident to me. Strange Jason had to make it personal by calling your own experience into question in such a manner, that's not the ethos of this forum.

[Chris Hansen]

With the belt, the pressure all stills comes from the abdominal musculature. They just have something to push against so they can contract harder.

I've never used a belt so this is something I don't really understand. When your abs push against a belt so they can contract harder, isn't that the opposite of what you'd do without a belt?

[peer]

thumbs up , No Belt, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYDjt_OpqkM

[Joshua Naterman]

With the belt, the pressure all stills comes from the abdominal musculature. They just have something to push against so they can contract harder.

I've never used a belt so this is something I don't really understand. When your abs push against a belt so they can contract harder, isn't that the opposite of what you'd do without a belt?

You are both right, though what Amebix is saying is only half-way accurate. The emphasis of which muscles are working changes when wearing a belt. Transversus abdominus is the most affected. It's sole job is to do exactly what the weight belt s doing: Create a wall against which the diaphram and lungs can push the internal organs to create intra-abdominal pressure. That is why the transversus muscle fibers run horizontally and are underneath the other muscles. It has to remain flexed and stiff in order to provide a barrier against which the lungs and diaphram, and some of the intercostals can create air pressure by compressing the lung air volume against the diaphram, which in turn presses against the internal organs, which in turn press agaist the transversus abdominus.

When a belt is present, it takes over a large portion of the transversus abdominus's job. THe belt can provide far more resistance than almost anyone's transversus can, which means the intercostals can squeeze the lungs harder since there is no neural feedback from transversus limiting the intercostal contraction, which means the diaphram pushes the internal organs against the abdominal wall and therefore the belt harder than normal, which finally leads to more intra-abdominal pressure.

This won't matter much to the lifter who only cares about competition. However, for everyday random tasks, as The Hansenator has said, the contractions used to create pressure are different. Over time, this leads to neural imprinting. Now, if you ONLY use your belt for those maximal sets, and stay beltless for everything under 95% of max, you will learn how to be very good with both unbelted AND belted lifting, and for a competitor that's key. You will literally learn two different skills at the same time, and build the muscle mass necessary to accomplish both. There will still be a slight disadvantage when lifting beltless maximally, such as in an emergency situation, but I don't think that's enough to worry about too much.

That same emergency situation encountered by someone who uses a belt for everything 75% and above, which is pretty much everything you'd do in the gym, is far more likely to end up in severe injury. Even everyday activities like pulling a 50lb bag of dog food out of the trunk, tend to hurt people who depend on weight belts for stability and pressure. I've seen and heard about it all the time. So have most of you, I'd bet.

The most important thing is that the body develops the proper musculature and learns how to provide support under near-maximal loads without assistance, because the chances of you having that powerlifting belt on when your girlfriend or child trips towards the road and you have to catch them is just about 0%. I suppose you could always wear it, or at least wear it when you carry your groceries, but I think that's going to invite a lot of ridicule, as it darn well should.

[Joshua Naterman]

this is an interesting thread, this is what most caught my eye:

Some hookers sell condoms but that don't mean they use them

Quote of the week!!!!!!

btw- i'm happy to admit i don't know squat (pardon the pun) about lifting but this seems fairly self-evident to me. Strange Jason had to make it personal by calling your own experience into question in such a manner, that's not the ethos of this forum.

I don't mind lol! After everything I went through on my ship, I honestly don't get bothered by much of anything anymore.

Jason's statement seems strange at first, but if you think about it he seems to truly believe that a belt should be a regular part of training, and with that belief along with a fairly large amount of practical and correct knowledge about many things physical, I can see him wondering about where my opinions come from. I was somewhat mis-quoted, which makes me think I didn't do a good job of explaining myself. I hope to have corrected that here.

Perhaps now that I have quoted not only the most successful coaches in the business but also replicated research and medical opnion that ALL say the exact same thing I said in the beginning, he will consider revising his opinion, but perhaps not. A false belief is no less right than a true belief. The only difference is in accuracy according to the latest body of research and practice. Neither opinion has moral superiority.

[Joshua Naterman]

You wrote alot and unfortunately I did not read it all. I got to the part where it was written in a study that belts cause muscle atrophy over time. The abs dont switch off when you wear a belt, so that seems a little bullshit.

I also think, if I understand you correctly, your understanding of what a belt does for you is a little flawed as evidenced by:

Belts force your back to flex less. I still haven't found anything one way or the other concerning abs, but consider this: The belt does the job of the transversus abdominus, internal obliques, and intercostals, which are the primary compressors of the abdomen during lifting. The diaphram and air pressure in the lungs actually presses the internal organs against the belt. I have felt the difference and while abdominal pressure is greater my percieved effort in my abdomen is far less. I will see about getting a short study done at GA State in the physiology lab or at least get good EMG data on the abdominal musculature with and without a belt, both stiff leather and the velcro belts, just to hit the whole spectrum.

Anyhow, my point is that without the belt our pressure comes from internal obliques, intercostals and transversus abdominus pressing against the pressure exerted by the lung sacs and the diaphram. With the belt, the internal obliques and transversus abdominus do not have anywhere near as much work to do. In addition to this, the belt is not a stretchable object, unlike the muscles, so the diaphram can exert more pressure against the belt and therefore produce more Intra-Abdominal Pressure(IAP). This is why I would love for you to share the data that shows the increased EMG activity of the abdominals. I have already provided the EMG data that shows the lower back muscles are inhibited, just as I had claimed.

With the belt, the pressure all stills comes from the abdominal musculature. They just have something to push against so they can contract harder. The belt doesn't apply much if any actual external assistance, by that I mean the belt doesn't physically hold you in place.

And interestingly, I have a study showing lower back muscle activation is improved with a belt: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n26876124/

I'd also like to post a few 70's big posts:

http://www.70sbig.com/?p=884

http://www.70sbig.com/?p=1594

http://www.70sbig.com/?p=891

I didn't say the abs switched off. I said that the muscles responsible for creating the wall against which the intercostals compress the lungs (and through the diaphram the internal organs) have to work far less, as is actually partially claimed by your referenced article, which claims the obliques, which are our lateral stabilizers for the upper body and spine, work less with the belt on.

There are many conflicting EMG reports, and a lot of this has to do with how the EMG is calibrated initially. I don't have access to the actual referenced study that the article bases its information on so I can't say what the methods are, unfortunately.

I WILL say this: That is an article from FLEX magazine, which is for bodybuilders and NOT strength/power/speed/movement in general athletes, and is owned by Joe Weider, easily the dirtiest business man in modern fitness.

Do you really want to take his word against the experience of many of the great lifters and athletes of our time AND their coaches, along with the medical profession in general, AND almost the entire field of applied kinesiology? Weider has accomplished next to nothing athletically. His gift is business and propoganda. I would personally never reference him or his publications unless I followed his source and found that it was supported the largest body of research.

Do you really want to take a bodybuilding article and try to apply it to sport when every trainer on earth worth his salt knows that bodybuilding methods are almost always the exact opposite of what a performance athlete should be doing?

I also never said atrophy. You can do a search of this thread and this sentence along with any quote of your post will be the only place you find either "atrophy" or "abs switch off." I said that they do not work as hard, and that neural learning of different contraction patterns will cause the lifter to have retarded progress in un-supported lifting ability, along with far less hypertrophy in the abdominal musculature responsible for creating unsupported intra-abdominal pressure.

Now, your provided 3 posts:

First post: This is flawed in many ways. First off, there is no qualification for when to use the belt and when not to. The second thing I see that is a major problem is the writer's attitude. He claims that the case for not wearing a belt is completely illogical. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the word "logic." I say this for two reasons: One, there is a massive body of research, along with the experience of most of our current great athletes and coaches that supports the statement: "Only wear a belt with near-max and max attempts" and also because in America we are not required to take courses in Logic. That is why we as a people make so many mistakes and are fooled so easily by politicians.

Most likely, the author is not worried about being super clear because the issue simply hasn't been raised as to what rep ranges and intensities he uses the belt with. He seems to be a pretty cool guy overall, so I am looking forward to hearing from him.

Yes... I have sent an e-mail to Justin, one of the two people listed on the contact page, asking for clarification. I will post his reply. It may be contradictory to what every other quoted coach is recommending, I don't know. Hopefully we will know in a few days!

I will say this: He HATES Bodybuilding workouts. He LOVES the power/strength style of training. This implies that his work sets are mostly low reps and high intensity. He recommends that you wear your belt somewat loosely on the last warm up, and only tighten the belt all the way for the work sets. If, as I suspect, his work sets are mostly in the 5 rep and under range, then he believes exactly as Mark Rippetoe, Louie Simmons, and Konstantinov do. Considering that he learned how to wear a belt from Rippetoe, the odds are good that he has a similar opinion.

[Amebix138]

The atrophy comment was in reference to the study you referenced:

While an individual may be able to lift about 20 percent more weight when they wear a back belt, this does not translate to 20 percent more protection for the spine.

Furthermore, other studies have found that the constant use of back belts leads to reliance as torso and back muscles begin to atrophy over time.

My computer is pretty buggered so I cant verify myself, but the first link I posted got the information in it from a study from a strength and conditioning journal. I've never heard of Weider running one of those, so I dont think the information is really coming from him or his organization.

I'll be reading with interest your e-mail conversation with Justin.

[Joshua Naterman]

Ah! Good eye! I missed that. Owned. I think that atrophy is a bit of a stretch, unless the lifter previously had massive development before starting the belt all the time thing.

If you look at page 2, it's the source list. The article is from Flex magazine, which twists words to its own ends and like many other Weider propaganda machines it seems to have fairly little concern for giving any issue an honest representation. That's obviously not the bell of doom, but it certainly casts a LARGE shadow of doubt and uncertainty in my mind as to the accuracy of what was written versus the actual study itself.

The Flex article references the study, but I don't have access to the full text yet so I don't know how much the information was twisted or what the parameters of the study were. If it's on Galileo I'll check it out, because that really is quite interesting.

CONSTANT, and by constant I mean every single set, regardless of intensity, use of a belt will absolutely be bad news for a lifter!

I too am looking forward to my conversation with Justin! It will be good to know his opinion, regardless of what it is.

[ASForum]

Does one need a belt or need to use it for anything from the BtGB... i.e. Killroy70 style workout?

[Coach Sommer]

Does one need a belt or need to use it for anything from the BtGB... i.e. Killroy70 style workout?

No.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Razz]

Back lever can be quite tough on your lower back without a belt ok that was cheesy :roll:

[Joshua Naterman]

LOL! Nothin' but chedda'.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even think about belts during GB work, much less use them.

[Joshua Naterman]

Ok, here's my correspondance with Justin! There's a lot to read through, this will be long.

The basics are that he tends to wear his belt somewhat loose for his last warm up set and wears it at his preferred tightness for all work sets. He believes very strongly that using a belt PROPERLY(meaning that you wear it correctly, which many people do not, including myself in the past from what I have learned) is beneficial for both belted and unbelted strength. Lifting with the belt is a learned skill, as is lifting un-belted. So, if you want to be really good at both, you'll have to practice both! One other thing that Justin said is that he doesn't wear is belt at any pre-determined time. He puts it on when he feels he needs it, so if he's tired he'll put it on earlier than if he's feeling super-duper.

It's also important to keep in mind that he IS an Olympic lifter. The nature of the lifts themselves builds tremendous back and hip strength, so that plays some small part in his belted progress, but it appears that in his experience wearing a belt helps powerlifters increase belted and unbelted strength as well. One thing he DID say is that if you specifically want to be strong without a belt, you're going to have to work at that specifically. That is pretty common sense, but it's good to point that out.

The emails:

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Joshua Naterman

I have read all your posts that I know of regarding lifting belts, and I only have one question: What is your recommendation for the rep ranges/intensities that the belt be worn with?

I noticed you referenced Konstantin Konstantinov, and he only wears a belt when he is maxing. I have noticed that Westside Barbell and Mark Rippetoe both seem to be recommending that a belt be worn only when doing 5 reps or less, which puts the lifter pretty squarely in the 90% of max or higher intensity level.

Do you have a similar recommendation or do you recommend something different, like wearing a belt even when you're doing 10 reps? I am honestly not familiar with anything approaching specifics, as all I have seen in the posts and subsequent replies is that the belt be work tight forwork sets and somewhat loosely for the last warm up.

Simply put, I am asking you what your personal take is on when the belt should be worn during lifting. I have seen a lot of general information but nothing specific. I have noticed that you hate BB style workouts and have gravitated towards Olympic lifting and power/strength training in general. I don't like to assume things that I know nothing about, so even though this imlies your work sets are fairly high intensity and low rep in nature, could you please tell me what your work sets are for deadlift, squat, and front squat, in terms of reps per set and some sort of intensity approximation?

Just so you know exactly what this is about, I am currently having a discussion with an online friend about when it would be appropriate to don the belt, if at all, and you are an influential person within the exercise world. We have the information from Louie Simmons and Mark Rippetoe, which basically states that you should only wear a belt when performing 5 reps or less, which is basically 90%+ of max and max attempts. Konstantinov is even stricter. Even with this information, your posts are being construed as evidence to the contrary, and I am simply asking for clarification. There is no right or wrong here, I am simply asking your opinion on the matter.

Thank you in advance for reading my e-mail.

Respectfully,

Fmr GM3 Joshua Naterman.

From: Justin Lascek

To: Joshua Naterman

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 9:03:49 AM

Subject: Re: An intelligent question about lifting belts.

Hey Joshua,

Since you've read the articles, you understand the benefits of using the belt. These benefits are prevalent whether near maximal attempts are being done or even lighter stuff around 70 or 80% for reps.

As a side note, I don't hate bodybuilding workouts, it's just stupid when people use those as a method to become larger. Isolation exercises are used by boydbuilders for shaping, not growth.

Anyway, I don't know where it'd documented that Rip said above 90%, because he uses it very much before then on himself. In any case, I use mine around 225 or 315 (max is somewhere above 500). The point is that it's good to warm-up with the belt when things are getting a little bit heavy so that you're used to the belt by the time you're at your work set weight (whatever that may be). This is very important for a novice. For me, not so much. I don't do any work sets without the belt because A) we are aware of the benefits and not taking advantage of them is ignorant, and B) I use the lifts to get stronger for the Olympic lifts, so by not wearing my belt I could potentially be more susceptible to injury, not to mention potentially weaker.

If you're doing sets of 10, then just put the belt on whenever. When I did 385x10, I wore it either at 225 or 315, just like normal. When I did my first squat day a few weeks after nationals (and first squat workout in at least a month), I did 315 for sets of ten, and I wore my belt on those. There's no formula -- if my back feels tired, I wear it on 135. Sometimes I might not put it on at 315, but I always have it on for anything heavier than that.

I would say that if you make your belt very, very tight for sets of 10, it makes it harder to breathe, so I wore mine less tight (not loose though). These are all things you learn as you get experienced, so you probably would have figured it out anyway.

Let me know if you need clarification.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Joshua Naterman wrote:

Wow, I'll have to go find the link for Mark's exact recommendation. He's more on the side of 85% and up. It's on the Starting Strength WIki Q&A http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/Equipment#Belts but I am starting to think that the information on that page has nothing to do with Rip's personal opinion. You know, I hate wikis sometimes. I know that on the SS forums he talks about putting on a belt once the weight gets heavy, like during work sets, but I have not seen specific guidelines for that.

I suppose that it's hard to put specific guidelines out there since not everyone fits inside a neat little mold however careful you are to make it all-inclusive.

I can honestly say that I have lifted raw my whole life with the exception of a few months where my raw strength went WAY down when I started using my belt for my work sets, but I am starting to think I was using it wrong. Go figure lol! Still, I've had no trouble squatting 350 ATG or DL'ing 510 for a double in the past completely raw. I think that somewhere down the line I will start using a belt for heavier sets again, because I think it's important to have personal experience with doing something the right way before I really make a decision on what the effects are. I am no longer convinced that I used my belt right the whole time.

Do you find that your raw lifts are fairly good as well as your belted lifts, or do you even bother lifting raw? I don't mean that as a leading question. I'm honestly curious. The way I see it, I would think that most lifters aren't concerned with their unbelted lifts since they have to wear a belt during competition anyways. Is that accurate according to your experience?

How tight is the belt worn with olympic lifts in comparison with squatting or deadlifting? Is there a difference, or do you valsalva and then go just a little tighter? My apologies if that was covered in the blog posts, I have done quite a bit of reading recently and it is hard to remember everything.

Two final questions: It seems to me that the very nature of Olympic lifting develops back and core strength to a very high degree, and because of this development wearing the belt with "lower" intensities like 70-80% wouldn't lead to weakness in an Olympic lifter and could actually be necessary to maintain training intensity, since everything appears to be so lower-back dependant during the pulls. Do you think that a pure powerlifter should focus slightly more on unbelted lifting to ensure he/she would have a strong and stable core/lower back, but still use the belt for heavy work sets, or do you think they will still be fine lifting primarily belted? There is a lot of talk about lifters being very dependant on their belts, and I am curious as to what your personal beliefs regarding that is.

For me, and this is obviously a personal choice, I prefer to know that I can exert maximal force in an uncontrolled condition where I won't have support equipment, so I personally wouldn't use a belt for anything over 5 reps, and I like to know what my unbelted 2-3 rep max is, meaning the max that I can safely handle with perfect form for 2-3 reps, so in the past I have tested this 1-3 times per month to make sure I am making gains there. It seems to me that a true unbelted 1RM would be a bit stupid and unnecessarily risky. Do you feel that this opinion on when to use a belt would negatively affect my unbelted lifting ability? I suppose that's a strange question, but I am curious about what your answer will be. I suppose that in the end I won't know for sure until I find out on my own, but I am curious as to whether your experience thus far has given you any insight into my question.

I'm sorry it took me so long to write back, I started this 4 days ago I think! Life can be busy. Thank you for taking the time to correspond with me!

Respectfully,

Joshua.

From: Justin Lascek

To: Joshua Naterman

Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:28:47 PM

Subject: Re: An intelligent question about lifting belts.

1. The SS Wiki isn't run by Rip, so it isn't as useful as his word or what is in the books.

2. And you are correct, there can't be a universal rule for everyone regarding when they should put their belt on. There are too many factors that would go into it.

3. You talk about "raw lifting" as if it doesn't include a belt. Raw simply means without supportive gear, and belts are not worn on any joints therefore they don't act as an ergonomic aid.

4. I don't wear a belt when I snatch, but I wear one when I clean and jerk. It isn't the same belth, though. It's a velcro belt. If you hold your breath, you are performing the vasalva anyway -- it just means your are increasing the pressure in your abdominal/thoracic cavity. It isn't something that you have to think about.

5. When I am pulling (clean, deadlift, etc.), I don't wear the velcro belt as tight as I would wear my suede belt when squatting or pressing. This is a personal preference though and is dependent on body dimensions. My friend Chris wears his suede belt the same on all the lifts.

6. The way you talk about wearing a belt makes it sound like the belt isn't beneficial. I gave the argument how it is acutely and chronically. If someone is used to handling their heavier weights with a belt on, they would have to get adapted to doing it without a belt. Neurologically the lifter would have to learn how to do the heavier weights without their belt. The chronic effect of wearing a belt will increase their overall strength (belted or unbelted), but the acute benefits of a belt would usually mean that their belted lift would be higher than their unbelted lift. This would be individualized as well and again be dependent on anthropometry and body dimension.

7. I'm not sure what it is that you're asking in the last paragraph. Regardless, wearing a belt in your training is going to make you stronger than had you not worn it, even for your unbelted stuff. If you were someone who had a job that demanded exceptional physical exertion (infantryman, construction, whatever), then your unbelted strength would still be higher had you worn the belt throughout training because of the chronic benefits of wearing one.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Joshua Naterman wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to write back!

You're right, when I talk about "raw lifting" I mean no belt or anything. I know that in competition, belts are required even in raw category. As a somewhat petty note, I don't think that it can properly be said that belts don't act as an ergonomic(or ergogenic) aid since they allow lifters to lift more than without the belt. Anything that enhances performance mechanically is an ergonomic/ergogenic aid. I know that's nitpicking, sorry. I definitely think I understand why belts are required even in "raw" categories: safety. I can't even imagine how many people would get hurt trying to lift beyond their maxes without a belt! A whole lot, I know that.

Belts actually aren't required in raw competition. My friend Brent deadlifted without one at nationals.

There is a lot of criticism against using gear, and small percentage of criticism is even aimed at wearing a belt. What I meant in the last e-mail was that supportive gear is worn around the hips and the knees (thick suits and long, stiff wraps) to aid in the movement of that joint whereas the belt does not aid in the movement of any joint, but just reinforces the structural stability of the trunk. Those of us that prefer raw lifting see this as the most important point; the difference between aiding the movement and aiding stability.

Why don't you wear a belt with the snatch? I'm not familiar with Olympic lifting beyond basic terminology. I'm not proficient at snatch or clean&jerk.

I can't wear a belt when I snatch. Even if I wear a velcro belt, the bar hits the belt on the way up because I have such a vertical pull. That's actually a good thing because I'm not looping the bar at all. But, squatting a snatch up is so insignificant compared to my back squat that it really isn't necessary anyway (back squat of above 500, snatch around 300).

In reference to 6, my personal experience has definitely made me wary of belts, but I am more and more thinking that I wasn't using them correctly! I know there's always a transition when learning to work with heavy weight unbelted.

That's a valid point. Belts can be detrimental if worn too tight and ineffective if worn too loose. They can also be worn too low or high and this won't help much and can be more of an irritation. On top of that, a person may have weird body dimensions that prevents them from wearing a certain kind of belt or an average belt that an average person can use.

My last paragraph was confusing, I guess. I feel like you gave a good answer though. In your experience, wearing a belt leads to greater unbelted strength as well as belted strength when compared to purely unbelted lifting. That is what I was asking for, so thank you! Once I'm back in proper lifting shape I'll be giving belts another go. I'll need to get a good stiff leather belt.

It is important to note that if you're just lifting recreationally, a belt may not be entirely necessary. But if you're lifting to improve strength, it will be a useful tool in your pursuit of strength.

Thank you for your time, Justin! I do appreciate it!

No problem. You're never a bother, so if I can help and answer some questions, I will. If I can't figure it out, I'll look for someone who can.

Re: An intelligent question about lifting belts.

...

From:

Joshua Naterman

...

View Contact

To: Justin Lascek

No kidding! I thought belts were required. I had read somewhere that at one of the championship meets the guy who won in squat single lift (I believe) wore his belt really loose because he wasn't allowed to just not wear one and he didn't use a belt in training. I thought it was strange that a belt was required, but as I saw different organizations all classify "raw" as"belt only" I thought that meant they all required them.

I see where you're coming from with the belt vs gear issue.

I definitely don't lift "recreationally" lol! My plan right now is to build my athletic abilities to very high levels within the general strength/power sport spectrum. I'm not talking about fine motor skills like throwing a curve ball, but more gross motor skills such as simply throwing with lots of force, punching hard, high vert(35"+), long standing broad jump(10 feet or better), fast-ish 40 (4.5-4.7), as well as a number of gymnastic skills. I'm actually doing quite well, and my goal is to eventually get a broad-spectrum training manual into middle and high schools so that coaches can work with what they have, all the way down to just bodyweight work if they have to, and still build excellent athletes while not pushing past the biological limitations of kids at various levels of physical maturity. I feel like being able to develop these abilities in myself and then in clients are both very important parts of the process, because without that practical experience I think that it will be A) very hard to write a book that actually covers many of the eventualities that trainees will run into in different situations and B) it will be hard to get taken seriously if I do not do it myself, and then train others to the same level. At the moment my lifting is crap, because I haven't lifted in forever. My squat's probably right around 300 ATG, deadlift is around 450, and I don't know what my sprints are. I'm broad jumping between 8 and 9 feet, but my form's not the best. My clean is crap too, I pretty much just do a stand-up clean. I haven't learned the drop because cleans were always something I just played with when I was younger. So, I clean 225-250 lbs. All the other weights are in lbs too. My bench is in the low 300's, probably like exactly 300 lol! So I'm not doing too hot, but that's because I've spent the last 8 months recovering from my own stupidity in gymnastics training. I'm doing well now though! Anyhow, that's what I'm about. This belt issue is interesting to me because anything that can enhance my training should be used, as long as it's not steroids or pro-steroid/prohormone.

I figure I'll spend the rest of this year lifting with no belt, to get back into the swing of things and then to serve as something of a control period, and then I'll add in belted work and see what happens. I'll be getting a good belt from EliteFTS since I see them mentioned all the time as the best belts.

End of e-mail chain, so far.

[Amebix138]

Informative, thanks Slizzardman.

[Joshua Naterman]

You da man!