Yes, there are drawbacks. Simply put, you should build your own belt. What you are suggesting is to use a belt like a crutch (for core stability, thoracic control, intra-abdominal pressure, etc), things that are essential to develop yourself for spinal health, safety, and strength activities.

See #5
http://www.funfitnesssolutions.com/exercise_myths.htm

good link, thanks

Anyone know a good coach/trainer in the SF bay area (peninsula - mountain view)? I feel like having someone physically there to help me figure out my form is gonna be the best solution.

Not a gym member yet, but does 24h Fitness allow outside trainers in (with or w/o guest fee)?

Hey, I'm a 22 year old student who is still pretty athletic, but looking to get back into really good athletic shape like I was 3-4 years ago. I'll be spending like 12 hours a week at the gym doing weight lifting, basketball and cardio. I'm looking for some kind of software/website that tracks what lifting exercises I am doing, the reps the weights, can preferably graph progress etc etc. Does anyone know of something that does this, preferably for free?

Also, I used to use muscle milk and no-explode back in HS, been doing a little research, is syntha 6 the best post workout drink I can get now? What about pre? Any other vitamins or supplements I should check out?

Thanks

I hear chocolate milk is pretty hawt.

dd,

Use a log/note book in the gyme, and put it in excel if you want to track em.

See the FAQ for supplement stuff. Cliffsnotes: NOXplode is a waste of money. Syntha-6 tastes goot.

Focus more on your overall eating.

This is basically what I was thinking, wasn't sure if there was any special program I could just get, and I heard xplode was a waste.

Working on my eating a lot more this semester, kinda hard as a broke college student, but I've been doing a lot better. Thanks.

Hm. The pro-belt argument brought forth in the Gear article on ss.com is that giving the abdominal muscles something to push against makes them push harder and therefore develop better. That would have as a consequence that you are actually "building your own belt" more effectively by wearing a belt. This is demonstrated by the fact that you will be able to lift weights (e.g. during warm-up) without a belt that you only lifted with a belt before because then they seem to be easy. By your understanding, that would never happen or would even develop reversly. And i don't like the article behind the link, because it treats wearing a belt like wearing a corsett or anything where the belt's fabric gives the additional stability and is therefore a crutch. That's not the way you should use it anyway even though most people actually seem to think about the belt like that.

Should be wearing a belt. And look at his form. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTQeilNzZRw

The point of a belt is to move as much weight as possible. It does this by allowing us to create more intra-abdominal pressure, thus artificially strengthening one common weak link in the chain of muscles required to perform a lift.

However belts don't do much if anything to reduce loading/compression on the lumbar spine. And since belts allow people to move more weight, when someone does get injured while using a belt it is not surprising that generally the injuries are more severe.

i use my belt when my lower back is going to be too fatigued if i don't use it, so i guess that means i get some extra work from my abs when i wear the belt. i think the whole thing is way overblown and anyone strongly for or against it is strange, because who cares?

Marginal decisions tend to get the most attention because they are the hardest to make, but time is probably better spent focusing on finding large mistakes.

I don't care. I hate belts because Mike Hom advocated one and he's a fagg0t. He's a mongoloid of both orders.

If my only goal was to increase my vertical, what would be best, low or high bar back squat?

On another note... Tried breathing at the top during presses today. On the upside, I got a better "bounce" at the bottom, which made the bar come easier up; on the downside, it was extremely difficult getting enough air in at the top while holding the bar. Decided to go with breathing at the bottom.

They don't allow that. I believe kidcolin lives in sacramento you could see if he would help you out at his gym, his form is basically perfect. You might wanna try asking Rippetoe himself if he can recommend anyone on startingstrength.com's forum as well.

Just have to say this is an excellent choice, whatever the person charges will be hugely worth it.

I use iFitness for my iphone and it does all of these things. I think it was $3 or something.

i would, but that's around a 1.5-2 hr drive for him.

Posting on the ss board is a good idea, though.

ok ive gone through half this thread so far and still am unsure about this question. i am a standard dude 5'11' 155-160 i LOVE to bike with standard/slightly below standard upper body strength i want to basically get a "swimmers body"/more athletic body, 6 packish abs etc but dont want to go crazy at all and be bulky. Would starting strength still be ideal for me? also would biking during my non workout days be detrimental to achieving this?

elf,

to get that hardbody you need to gain muscle, and thus SS is good for you. Gain muscle, then lose whatever fat you've gained in the process. See milesdyson's log for before/after pics of muscles for example.

If you're going to do lots of cardio on off days, a modified version of SS will be necessary. Depends on frequency/intensity/length.

well i hopefully plan on biking basically every off day if i can, i typically bike medium insensity 45 minutes hills/high intensity for 15 minutes standard with maybe 2 to 4 2-hour biking days and 1 or 2 5-6 hour biking days what do you think i should change/modify, i would also like to throw in some rowing(real rowing on water) once spring comes around.

Doing SS 3/times week sounds excessive with that much biking. kyleb can probably chime in with more specific recommendations, I know he's linked to a variant of SS for guys like you in the past (i.e. guys that do lots of other sports besides lifting).

From what I understand, if you have two people of identical body-type*, body-fat% etc., but different height, the smaller one will generally be able to lift weights at a higher % of his body weight than the larger one.

Does anyone have a link to a good discussion on why that is?

* or is it because people of different height rarely have the same body-type?

levers and range of motion I guess

I think the taller person would be better at DL'ing but obv worse at most upper body motions like bench/press and squats