Who uses belts and straps? (Deadlifts)

[Wilhelm]

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-belt-bible/

Tl:dr

"It is very unlikely that squatting and deadlift with a belt “makes your core weak” or hinders gains in torso strength."


Spinal erectors

"So, taken as a whole, wearing a belt when squatting may increase spinal erector EMG activity slightly in untrained subjects or with light loads, but for well-trained people squatting heavy loads, there’s probably no meaningful difference."

[Hardartery]

So...
None?

Fine, I'll simplify. YOUR BACK. Most likely lower. Seriously dude.

If I understand you, your argument is that deadlifting with a belt will allow you to deadlift more weight than you could without a belt, which increases your risk of a spinal erector tear outside the gym.
Or just that always using a belt for deadlifts is insufficient "core" (ab, serrated, erector, etc) work, and lack of core work increases risk of muscle tears outside the gym?

I've "hurt" my "low back" a number of times in my lifting career- I'd put money that we all have. So do people who have never touched a barbell. There are probably as many chiropractors in my state as pediatricians. Pain broadly and low back pain in particular is just a huge cluster of bio-psycho-social minefields. Did you hurt your back deadlifting because of a tear? When did that tear happen? Would it have happened without a belt? Does it just hurt? Does it hurt because you've been hearing people tell you that you're gonna hurt your back for the last 10 years, and that squat was heavy?

All that said, IMO train with a belt or without one. Do some direct ab work, at least a few times a month probably. I might set a goal of pulling 405 DOH & beltless next year, because why not.

Schiek dowel straps and they've been great.

10/10 would recommend.

You are kind of making my point there. I have never had a back injury lifting. Never. I did have a sciatica problem for a while triggered by carrying a washing machine through a tricky porch/doorway situation. It was resolved by stretching and lifting. There are indeed a lot of people with bad backs out there, and for the most part they are people that do not use those muscles outside of when they absolutely have to. And once injured, they never use them unless there is some kind of brace worn or something. And their backs never get better. You might say "In spite of regular visits to the chiro", I would say going to a chiro is probably and additional part of the problem. You are not more likely to get hurt DURING the lift with a belt, you are more likely to get hurt doing something unrelated. I understand Stronger By Science has an opnion, which I haven't listened to yet, so I don't know how I agree or disagree with it. I have been lifting for 35 years off and on, I started working (Masonry/concrete) before I started lifting. I have trained with and discussed training with a lot of guys. After his first appearance at WSM, Geoff Dolan dropped the belt in training for all lighter weights. Most guys that I was around for training avoided the belt for lighter stuff at a minimum. Everyone needs to build their own belt to an extent, and you do that by working the muscles directly. No one has ever been injured by having core muscles too strong, but a lot of injuries come about by being too weak. So, you can wear a belt all of the time and not have direct core work - and be more prone to injury. Or, you can do direct core work and be better all around. Squatting (Especially the Overhead variety), deadlifting, cleans, presses, all of these things will do more to strengthen trunk muscles than the isolation stuff like situps or Turkish getups will. I am not voiving a rare opinion here, it is a common one outside of the bro circles.

Both Licis and Novikov discuss it in this video about Deadlifting. Maybe the way I am saying it comes off wrong in type, but I am echoing a basic tenet of lifting - at least in the Strongman community.

[Hardartery]

What muscles does a belt prevent from engaging whereby its usage leaves them weakened?

It limits engagement of your core muscles, specifically limting you abs and serratus. This leaves you less ables to brace in normal life without the belt and limits the benefits you might receive by using the belt. It's pretty far from new or a unique point of view.

How does a belt limit the engagement of those muscles? Like, physically, what happens?

Physically, you are going to engage those muscles differently. You push against a belt with your muscles to increase pressure during the lift for your Valsalva and thereby effect better bracing. You don't push out without a belt, and there is nothing to simply be a barrier. Your muscles won't do more than they have to to any given action, you aren't going to over-exert and use extra force in the contraction. So, at the point where the belt is maintaining your diaphragm pressure and your mouth is acting as the relief valve, you have limited the exertion of your core at that specific point. So, your core may not get weaker than it currently is, but it's not getting the stimulus to get stronger. You can of course do supplemental work for this, but that's really just inefficient programming. The exception to this idea is if you aren't worried about strength or general physical well-being, but are concerned about a thicker waist affecting your V-taper or something. You brace differently without a belt, and that way of bracing is how you do most of your life.
All of this is kind of a sidetrack from what I was saying initially though. I was commenting that none of us wears supportive gear for safety. We use it to lift more. There are piles of PLers that will argue about the extra safety of shirts and suits and hoe protective it is. BS. I have suits so I can hit a bigger lift at a comp, I don't have them for any other reason. If you weren't in pursuit of increased numbers, you wouldn't need or own a belt or wraps or suits. You would just lift and not worry about it. But we are all competitive to an extentm and if I can get a bigger number by doing something, I will probably give it a go at some point. No one is legitimately wearing a belt for any other reason than increased lifts. And they are lying to themselves if they think otherwise.

[Allentown]

So...
None?

Fine, I'll simplify. YOUR BACK. Most likely lower. Seriously dude.

If I understand you, your argument is that deadlifting with a belt will allow you to deadlift more weight than you could without a belt, which increases your risk of a spinal erector tear outside the gym.
Or just that always using a belt for deadlifts is insufficient "core" (ab, serrated, erector, etc) work, and lack of core work increases risk of muscle tears outside the gym?

I've "hurt" my "low back" a number of times in my lifting career- I'd put money that we all have. So do people who have never touched a barbell. There are probably as many chiropractors in my state as pediatricians. Pain broadly and low back pain in particular is just a huge cluster of bio-psycho-social minefields. Did you hurt your back deadlifting because of a tear? When did that tear happen? Would it have happened without a belt? Does it just hurt? Does it hurt because you've been hearing people tell you that you're gonna hurt your back for the last 10 years, and that squat was heavy?

All that said, IMO train with a belt or without one. Do some direct ab work, at least a few times a month probably. I might set a goal of pulling 405 DOH & beltless next year, because why not.

Schiek dowel straps and they've been great.

10/10 would recommend.

You are kind of making my point there. I have never had a back injury lifting. Never. I did have a sciatica problem for a while triggered by carrying a washing machine through a tricky porch/doorway situation. It was resolved by stretching and lifting. There are indeed a lot of people with bad backs out there, and for the most part they are people that do not use those muscles outside of when they absolutely have to. And once injured, they never use them unless there is some kind of brace worn or something. And their backs never get better. You might say "In spite of regular visits to the chiro", I would say going to a chiro is probably and additional part of the problem. You are not more likely to get hurt DURING the lift with a belt, you are more likely to get hurt doing something unrelated. I understand Stronger By Science has an opnion, which I haven't listened to yet, so I don't know how I agree or disagree with it. I have been lifting for 35 years off and on, I started working (Masonry/concrete) before I started lifting. I have trained with and discussed training with a lot of guys. After his first appearance at WSM, Geoff Dolan dropped the belt in training for all lighter weights. Most guys that I was around for training avoided the belt for lighter stuff at a minimum. Everyone needs to build their own belt to an extent, and you do that by working the muscles directly. No one has ever been injured by having core muscles too strong, but a lot of injuries come about by being too weak. So, you can wear a belt all of the time and not have direct core work - and be more prone to injury. Or, you can do direct core work and be better all around. Squatting (Especially the Overhead variety), deadlifting, cleans, presses, all of these things will do more to strengthen trunk muscles than the isolation stuff like situps or Turkish getups will. I am not voiving a rare opinion here, it is a common one outside of the bro circles.

Both Licis and Novikov discuss it in this video about Deadlifting. Maybe the way I am saying it comes off wrong in type, but I am echoing a basic tenet of lifting - at least in the Strongman community.

The quantity of chiropractors was indicative of the commonplace nature of the issue, and was in no way a suggestion that they help anyone with anything.

And no, humans use their spinal muscles every day. All the time. Unless they are bedridden.

This whole argument is ridiculous- "deadlifting with a belt causes you to injure your back picking up your kid." No. Full stop. Present some studies, because that is an absurd claim.

And Eddie Hall hocks CBD yummies as "essential to his recovery" so sorry, the word of some strongmen isn't valid evidence.

If you were not in pursuit of bigger numbers, you wouldn't deadlift.

Also, no one needs to wear a belt.

[Hardartery]

The quantity of chiropractors was indicative of the commonplace nature of the issue, and was in no way a suggestion that they help anyone with anything.

And no, humans use their spinal muscles every day. All the time. Unless they are bedridden.

This whole argument is ridiculous- "deadlifting with a belt causes you to injure your back picking up your kid." No. Full stop. Present some studies, because that is an absurd claim.

And Eddie Hall hocks CBD yummies as "essential to his recovery" so sorry, the word of some strongmen isn't valid evidence.

If you were not in pursuit of bigger numbers, you wouldn't deadlift.

Also, no one needs to wear a belt.

There are not going to be studies, for very obvious reasons, I'm not Mengele. Using a support when you DON'T need it is going to cause at a minimum stagnation and possibly atrophy. Using a belt all of the time is going to lead to strength imbalance and a good chance that at some point you are going to do something - while not wearing the belt - that your muscles can handle but your core cannot. When that happens, you get injured. Your Golgi reflex should stop you from performing the action, but it won't because your muscles are accustomed to that load or more and so you no longer have that protective reflex. As for people using spinal muscles all of the time, have you seen inside a Walmart lately? I stated that using a belt all of the time is asking for an injury. It is. Using a belt for heavy stuff is not. You don't have to agree with me, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I also didn't limit the conversation to deadlifting, you should leave the belt alone for at least the lower weights on all of the lifts. And it surprise you to discover that there are plenty of people lifting with no interest in getting stronger, and they don't use belts to allow bigger numbers. The vast majority of gym goers are trying to "Tone", or lose weight, and wear a belt because everyone else does, or because they are afraid of injury while lifting comically light weights.

[Hardartery]

The quantity of chiropractors was indicative of the commonplace nature of the issue, and was in no way a suggestion that they help anyone with anything.

And no, humans use their spinal muscles every day. All the time. Unless they are bedridden.

This whole argument is ridiculous- "deadlifting with a belt causes you to injure your back picking up your kid." No. Full stop. Present some studies, because that is an absurd claim.

And Eddie Hall hocks CBD yummies as "essential to his recovery" so sorry, the word of some strongmen isn't valid evidence.

If you were not in pursuit of bigger numbers, you wouldn't deadlift.

Also, no one needs to wear a belt.

Just wanted to mention, I am not an Eddie Hall fan, I actually find him distasteful. That aside, there are a lot of athletes touting SBD for recovery and not all of them are trying to sell it. I don't know if it's beneficial or not. I haven't looked into it and don't plan on playing with it. I referenced the Novikov/Licis video because they are stating information that is not just "Bro science" amongst the Strongman community, but something coming from the rehab places and coaches that they have been using to get to their level.

[Renascent]

Just a few thoughts/questions that came to mind while catching up with this thread. Again, I've no wisdom to impart (anecdotal or otherwise), as I'm not a belted lifter.

I'm getting the impression that, even if one does use a belt on a regular basis, it might be beneficial to pull or squat or press (?) periodically without one, in the same way that some people might perform their warm-up pulls without straps for grip work here or there, or even squat without heels periodically to work on dorsiflexion (or do I have it backwards about the dorsiflexion part?)... Interested to see what others might think about that logic.

I'm of the mind that supplemental core work might not necessarily be a sign of inefficient programming. Considering that the "main" lifts -- where powerlifting is concerned, anyway -- are mostly performed in the sagittal plane and with loads applied axially, can it really be said that your core can be trained "sufficiently" without frontal or transverse movements? I've never really subscribed to the idea that you can get the most bang for your buck using only compound lifts for core work. I'm no strongman, but wouldn't it be beneficial -- beyond the additional time commitments -- to do dedicated gripwork at some point?

And even those commonplace Wal-Mart bodies are using erectors to stand upright, even if said muscles are underdeveloped compared to someone who trains in a particular physical discipline. I'd imagine it would be very hard to walk without some contribution from your lats or glutes -- trained or not -- unless there are some major compensations at play. Even my fellow desk jockeys would find it nearly impossible to do their jobs without using their brachialis, forearms extensors, spinal erectors, hamstrings, gastrocs, etc. to sit and type.

I am curious, though, as to whether or not there are any measurable benefits to bench pressing with a belt? I think that, if I were to use a belt at all, it might be the one lift wherein I couldn't see any benefit to using a belt.

As for the safety aspect, I think the kid who gave me the "warning" was just misinformed, and maybe being a bit dogmatic due to the influences he was leaning into at the time.

[slowmotion]

Re belt and bench, I've sort of wondered about that a bit. I usually put on the belt for bench ( and overhead press ) when I do heavy singles at over 90%, but I think, for me, it is more of a mental thing. A sort of mentally telling myself ( my body/I ) that this is going to be heavy, so wake up. I'm not sure if putting on a belt helps with the lift itself, for bench and OHP.

[Allentown]

Just wanted to mention, I am not an Eddie Hall fan, I actually find him distasteful. That aside, there are a lot of athletes touting SBD for recovery and not all of them are trying to sell it. I don't know if it's beneficial or not.

It's not

I referenced the Novikov/Licis video because they are stating information that is not just "Bro science" amongst the Strongman community, but something coming from the rehab places and coaches that they have been using to get to their level.

Individuals who always do heavy belted work may benefit from a block/some training beltless. Because it's lighter. Not because training with a belt creates deficiencies.

Rehab places and coaches can be wrong too.

I'd need to see data showing someone squatting 245 with a belt is more at risk of a back injury than they would be squatting 225 without a belt.

[Hardartery]

double post

[Hardartery]

Just wanted to mention, I am not an Eddie Hall fan, I actually find him distasteful. That aside, there are a lot of athletes touting SBD for recovery and not all of them are trying to sell it. I don't know if it's beneficial or not.

It's not

I referenced the Novikov/Licis video because they are stating information that is not just "Bro science" amongst the Strongman community, but something coming from the rehab places and coaches that they have been using to get to their level.

Individuals who always do heavy belted work may benefit from a block/some training beltless. Because it's lighter. Not because training with a belt creates deficiencies.

Rehab places and coaches can be wrong too.

I'd need to see data showing someone squatting 245 with a belt is more at risk of a back injury than they would be squatting 225 without a belt.

My argument was not that it makes your back weaker, but that it interferes with making it stronger, which is the real problem for most people. They are taught to avoid avoid doing anything with teir backs for fear of injury - including gym bro "Personal trainers" that insist on the stuff. What people need to do to avoid back problems is stretch and exercise those muscles - not baby them.
If you squat 315 with a belt, and never squat or anything else without a belt, and pick up a sack of potatoes or a kid or whatever and are a little out of position - there's where most people get injured. It's a "Light" weight, but it's not because your core isn't used to dealing with it.

[quikky]

What muscles does a belt prevent from engaging whereby its usage leaves them weakened?

It limits engagement of your core muscles, specifically limting you abs and serratus. This leaves you less ables to brace in normal life without the belt and limits the benefits you might receive by using the belt. It's pretty far from new or a unique point of view.

How does a belt limit the engagement of those muscles? Like, physically, what happens?

Physically, you are going to engage those muscles differently. You push against a belt with your muscles to increase pressure during the lift for your Valsalva and thereby effect better bracing. You don't push out without a belt, and there is nothing to simply be a barrier. Your muscles won't do more than they have to to any given action, you aren't going to over-exert and use extra force in the contraction. So, at the point where the belt is maintaining your diaphragm pressure and your mouth is acting as the relief valve, you have limited the exertion of your core at that specific point. So, your core may not get weaker than it currently is, but it's not getting the stimulus to get stronger.

If I understand you correctly, your position is that because a belt allow for higher intra-abdominal pressure, that this is what allows you to brace harder, and your core muscles thus work less because the artificially high pressure is what keeps your trunk rigid. Is that correct?

If so, my qualm would be that this pressure is only possible because your core muscles are working. Studies measuring core muscle activity show that the abdominals typically work a bit harder, obliques same or a bit less, and erectors are mixed. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest wearing a belt causes any core muscles to be less active any significant amount.

My argument was not that it makes your back weaker, but that it interferes with making it stronger, which is the real problem for most people. They are taught to avoid avoid doing anything with teir backs for fear of injury - including gym bro "Personal trainers" that insist on the stuff. What people need to do to avoid back problems is stretch and exercise those muscles - not baby them.
If you squat 315 with a belt, and never squat or anything else without a belt, and pick up a sack of potatoes or a kid or whatever and are a little out of position - there's where most people get injured. It's a "Light" weight, but it's not because your core isn't used to dealing with it.

Sorry but I am not following how a belt does not make your back weaker but interferes with making it stronger. Interfering with making it stronger = making it weaker relative to what it should be had you not worn a belt. Am I missing something?

I agree with you completely on the fear of injury and babying the back part. Totally a common thing, and, unfortunately, often perpetuated by trainers and other fitness professionals. Disagree on the stretching part though. No evidence stretching is useful outside of subjective feels.

In terms of the squat example, what does position have to do with a belt?

[Wilhelm]

@quikky

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-belt-bible/

Tl:dr

"It is very unlikely that squatting and deadlift with a belt “makes your core weak” or hinders gains in torso strength."


Spinal erectors

"So, taken as a whole, wearing a belt when squatting may increase spinal erector EMG activity slightly in untrained subjects or with light loads, but for well-trained people squatting heavy loads, there’s probably no meaningful difference."

[quikky]

@quikky

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-belt-bible/

Tl:dr

"It is very unlikely that squatting and deadlift with a belt “makes your core weak” or hinders gains in torso strength."


Spinal erectors

"So, taken as a whole, wearing a belt when squatting may increase spinal erector EMG activity slightly in untrained subjects or with light loads, but for well-trained people squatting heavy loads, there’s probably no meaningful difference."

Thanks for the link. Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying above. I have no problem with people using a belt or not, just not sure what Hardartery was saying in terms of muscle development and injury as it seems not backed by studies or even a particularly plausible explanation. However, I will wait for his response because I might not be understanding it.

[Hardartery]

Sorry but I am not following how a belt does not make your back weaker but interferes with making it stronger. Interfering with making it stronger = making it weaker relative to what it should be had you not worn a belt. Am I missing something?

I agree with you completely on the fear of injury and babying the back part. Totally a common thing, and, unfortunately, often perpetuated by trainers and other fitness professionals. Disagree on the stretching part though. No evidence stretching is useful outside of subjective feels.

In terms of the squat example, what does position have to do with a belt?

The way you brace while wearing a belt is, for experienced lifters, quite different than bracing without one. The average guy either cranks it ridiculously tight and thereby prevents core muscle activation almost entirely, and there are others that really wear it just tight enough to not do much except limit the ability to bed where the belt is. Holding the diaphragm pressure on your own is a pretty rigorous workout, letting it push out to the belt at low weight means you aren't really getting much activation at all - you are letting the belt take that strain and then kicking in muscle activation at higher weight. Your muscles are learning that they don'y need to be recruited until you feel something quite heavy relatively speaking. They will get some work, but instead of being the main force with a bump from the belt, the belt frequently becomes the main force with a little assistance from the core muscles at high % load. You really want high activation at any load that increases in intensity with load. I doubt it makes a ton of difference in practice to the average gym lifter, except when they are bitching about their sore back (Which is probably from sitting all day at work) and then blaming the lifting as if they had somehow overdone it.
Stretching matters, you find that out when something needs to be stretched. A tight piriformis causes lots of issues that feel serious and debilitating, when in fact it is a very minor issue easily resolved with some regular stretching. Overly tight hammies can be rough as well. And ask any older guy how it feels to get your hands behind your neck for a squat with a straight bar, stretching matters when you get some miles on, but you don't do it when you are younger because it doesn't seem to make any difference then. It also helps with muscle fibre activation and bigger lifts.
Say you squat down but you miss the groove a little. As an example I have seen in training videos, let's say the bar path ends up slightly behind the heels instead of over the heels or mid-foot. In this instance you aren't transferring your power effeciently to lifting the bar and you are actually fighting a backwards pull from the anterior bar position. You make the lift, but it "Felt" off and much tougher than expected. What happens? Next rep you over-correct and the bar is forward of where you really want it. Now you are fighting doing a Good Morning and suddenly your lower back is annoyed with you. Alternately, you could easily be going for one more rep that you shouldn't, the weak side doesn't push like you want and your body shifts to load the strong side more. Your hips shift on the ascent and you tweak something, like a ligament. Not the end of the world, but your training is jacked for a while and now you have something in your head holding you back later when you are working your way back up. Belts don't work great on if you can't maintain that straight line for the lift, if the force is transferred outside of the footprint of that belt, which does not envelope your entire core, you may have a problem.

[quikky]

The way you brace while wearing a belt is, for experienced lifters, quite different than bracing without one. The average guy either cranks it ridiculously tight and thereby prevents core muscle activation almost entirely, and there are others that really wear it just tight enough to not do much except limit the ability to bed where the belt is.

Using a belt improperly makes it not work properly, of course.

Holding the diaphragm pressure on your own is a pretty rigorous workout, letting it push out to the belt at low weight means you aren't really getting much activation at all - you are letting the belt take that strain and then kicking in muscle activation at higher weight. Your muscles are learning that they don'y need to be recruited until you feel something quite heavy relatively speaking. They will get some work, but instead of being the main force with a bump from the belt, the belt frequently becomes the main force with a little assistance from the core muscles at high % load. You really want high activation at any load that increases in intensity with load.

I am struggling to understand what you're saying here. Why would your muscles not activate with low weight and how do they then "learn" not to later? Your muscles' activation is relative to the load, right? Lighter load = less activation, higher load = more activation. I don't understand how a belt comes into this, or how it prevents muscle activation, or what it has to do with load or injuries.

Stretching matters, you find that out when something needs to be stretched. A tight piriformis causes lots of issues that feel serious and debilitating, when in fact it is a very minor issue easily resolved with some regular stretching. Overly tight hammies can be rough as well. And ask any older guy how it feels to get your hands behind your neck for a squat with a straight bar, stretching matters when you get some miles on, but you don't do it when you are younger because it doesn't seem to make any difference then.

Stretching to get into position, I totally get. Stretching to alleviate pain, or for preventative measures I think is not very supported by evidence. Do you have anything to link that supports this idea?

It also helps with muscle fibre activation and bigger lifts.

What? Wasn't stretching actually shown to do the opposite, with the potential explanation being that it reduces the stretch reflex? Do you have any evidence to support this as well?

Say you squat down but you miss the groove a little. As an example I have seen in training videos, let's say the bar path ends up slightly behind the heels instead of over the heels or mid-foot. In this instance you aren't transferring your power effeciently to lifting the bar and you are actually fighting a backwards pull from the anterior bar position. You make the lift, but it "Felt" off and much tougher than expected. What happens? Next rep you over-correct and the bar is forward of where you really want it. Now you are fighting doing a Good Morning and suddenly your lower back is annoyed with you. Alternately, you could easily be going for one more rep that you shouldn't, the weak side doesn't push like you want and your body shifts to load the strong side more. Your hips shift on the ascent and you tweak something, like a ligament. Not the end of the world, but your training is jacked for a while and now you have something in your head holding you back later when you are working your way back up. Belts don't work great on if you can't maintain that straight line for the lift, if the force is transferred outside of the footprint of that belt, which does not envelope your entire core, you may have a problem.

I am not sure how mis-grooving a lift makes belts bad.

I have to be honest, aside from the specifics I asked about, I do not understand your overall point. I still do not see how a properly used belt prevents muscles from activating, when the evidence does not support this, or how a belt might make it more injurious for someone to lift light things outside the gym.

[Hardartery]

I am struggling to understand what you're saying here. Why would your muscles not activate with low weight and how do they then "learn" not to later? Your muscles' activation is relative to the load, right? Lighter load = less activation, higher load = more activation. I don't understand how a belt comes into this, or how it prevents muscle activation, or what it has to do with load or injuries.

Fibre recruitment is a learned thing past normal basic natural needs. Most newbie gains from strength come from learning technique and how to use their muscles. Muscles do what they are taught to do. Nobody walks up to a bar for the first time and lifts 100% of what he is capable of. To illustrate, have you ever seen a kid "Flexing" his muscles? This usually involves bending his elbows and making a face, but no actual tension in the muscles because they don't really perform that type of contraction naturally. You have to learn to use them. Visualization works becomes it helps form pathways ib your brain linked to the muscles to execute the thing that you visualize. You can literally work technique without leaving you own headspace. Your muscles do what they learn to do, and if that means that you don't need them until a given perceived exertion, they will absolutely not fire until you hit that exertion level.

Stretching to get into position, I totally get. Stretching to alleviate pain, or for preventative measures I think is not very supported by evidence. Do you have anything to link that supports this idea?

I can point to me, and I am sure thousands of other guys. I am certain that there are guys on this forum that have used stretching to alleviate pain. It's a basic thing involved in all athletics. When things hurt, it usually involves something being too tight, either in response to something else being injured or bad mechanics of something that you are doing. My piriformis pulled a few of my lumbar vertebrae out of alignment, my disk was paper thin on one side (Saw the X-ray) and quite fat on the other. Doctors were useless, chiro's were useless (Except for showing me the X-ray), I was living with constant sciatica pain. Piriformis stretches hurt like hell, but gave me instant relief and keeping them up for a while - combined with glucosamine - eliminated the problem completely. I no longer have an impingement or misalignment. A lot of physiotherapy is just stretching the jacked up stuff until things function correctly, whether it be through specific exercises or or actual direct stretches.

What? Wasn't stretching actually shown to do the opposite, with the potential explanation being that it reduces the stretch reflex? Do you have any evidence to support this as well?

Stretching is considered counterproductive in Powerlifting if you want to reduce your ROM to achieve greater lifts. This is something done at a cost. Future (And mabe present) pain and discomfort and decreased function in real life, non-PL movements. Specifically PL. If you watch any other sport, even the Strength sports like Stronman, Highland Games, Weightlifting, etc.. they ALL perform some form of stretching during warmups, and sometimes after lifting. Decreased ROM is perceived to be a positive by many PLers, that doesn't mean that it is. I watched Licis go through his routine before Leg Day - it's all no weight stretching and mobility stuff designed to improve fibre recruitment before lifting. He went from hip damage after being hit by a car to winning the recent Rogue show and his DL now is better than before he got hurt. That isn't an accident, and it isn't drugs (I know someone is going to make that argument, but we really have to assume that drugs are a constant not a new thing).

I am not sure how mis-grooving a lift makes belts bad.

I have to be honest, aside from the specifics I asked about, I do not understand your overall point. I still do not see how a properly used belt prevents muscles from activating, when the evidence does not support this, or how a belt might make it more injurious for someone to lift light things outside the gym.

Misgrooving a lift doesn't make belts bad. And I don't think belts are bad, just over-used. Misgrooving places the force outside of where you have trained it, which is dangerous if your core cannot accomodate the variance. I am saying that using a belt ALL of the time is a problem, just like always wearing a suit or a Bench shirt is a bad idea. Even the Westside guys train Raw most of the time, even though they will never actually compete that way. You are only as strong as your weakest link. I can train my grip by doing my lower weight sets DOH, and using a thick bar or an Axle in training. Or I can do separate grip training. I know which one is more effecient and easier to do, and it's not the extra training.

[quikky]

Fibre recruitment is a learned thing past normal basic natural needs. Most newbie gains from strength come from learning technique and how to use their muscles. Muscles do what they are taught to do. Nobody walks up to a bar for the first time and lifts 100% of what he is capable of. To illustrate, have you ever seen a kid "Flexing" his muscles? This usually involves bending his elbows and making a face, but no actual tension in the muscles because they don't really perform that type of contraction naturally. You have to learn to use them. Visualization works becomes it helps form pathways ib your brain linked to the muscles to execute the thing that you visualize. You can literally work technique without leaving you own headspace. Your muscles do what they learn to do, and if that means that you don't need them until a given perceived exertion, they will absolutely not fire until you hit that exertion level.

You still have not explained how wearing a belt will cause these muscles to not fire, or to fire less any significant amount. I have not seen evidence presented suggesting this is the case, nor have I heard a plausible explanation.

Stretching is considered counterproductive in Powerlifting if you want to reduce your ROM to achieve greater lifts. This is something done at a cost. Future (And mabe present) pain and discomfort and decreased function in real life, non-PL movements. Specifically PL. If you watch any other sport, even the Strength sports like Stronman, Highland Games, Weightlifting, etc.. they ALL perform some form of stretching during warmups, and sometimes after lifting. Decreased ROM is perceived to be a positive by many PLers, that doesn't mean that it is. I watched Licis go through his routine before Leg Day - it's all no weight stretching and mobility stuff designed to improve fibre recruitment before lifting. He went from hip damage after being hit by a car to winning the recent Rogue show and his DL now is better than before he got hurt. That isn't an accident, and it isn't drugs (I know someone is going to make that argument, but we really have to assume that drugs are a constant not a new thing).

It also helps with muscle fibre activation and bigger lifts.

How does stretching lead to improved muscle activation/bigger lifts? Like, I stretch my pecs, and then my pecs activate more when doing my bench press workout? Why? How?

Misgrooving a lift doesn't make belts bad. And I don't think belts are bad, just over-used. Misgrooving places the force outside of where you have trained it, which is dangerous if your core cannot accomodate the variance. I am saying that using a belt ALL of the time is a problem, just like always wearing a suit or a Bench shirt is a bad idea. Even the Westside guys train Raw most of the time, even though they will never actually compete that way. You are only as strong as your weakest link. I can train my grip by doing my lower weight sets DOH, and using a thick bar or an Axle in training. Or I can do separate grip training. I know which one is more effecient and easier to do, and it's not the extra training.

Suits or bench shirts are not like a belt. They store elastic energy and actually actively move a portion of the weight for you. A belt is purely static, there is no stored energy. It does not lift anything for you. A belt allows what you do anyways, i.e. engage your core muscles to stabilize your spine, to work a bit better since the same contractions (more or less) produce more intra-abdominal pressure. Maybe this is wrong but I am yet to hear anything to counter this. I sound like a broken record at this point: how does a belt prevent any muscles from working/activating? I have not seen a plausible explanation or any evidence suggesting this is really the case.

[Allentown]

Why would misgrooving in a belt be any more dangerous than misgrooving without one?
Do you have evidence to support your claims?

[Hardartery]

How does stretching lead to improved muscle activation/bigger lifts? Like, I stretch my pecs, and then my pecs activate more when doing my bench press workout? Why? How?

Suits or bench shirts are not like a belt. They store elastic energy and actually actively move a portion of the weight for you. A belt is purely static, there is no stored energy. It does not lift anything for you. A belt allows what you do anyways, i.e. engage your core muscles to stabilize your spine, to work a bit better since the same contractions (more or less) produce more intra-abdominal pressure. Maybe this is wrong but I am yet to hear anything to counter this. I sound like a broken record at this point: how does a belt prevent any muscles from working/activating? I have not seen a plausible explanation or any evidence suggesting this is really the case.

First of all, it depends on what you do for the stretch to an extent, but essentially yes. Stretching increases bloodflow to the area and gets the muscles doing something - like warming up does. It's a bit like you are waking them up. If they are tight, they are not going to want to do much. There's a stretch in that Novikov/Licis video where he stands on one foot, sticks the other one out behind him and reaches out in front and then rotates the non-supporting hip towards the floor and then towards the sky back and forth. You can feel the whole posterior chain come to life when you do it and the DL's or Squats that you do afterwards actually go a lot better. Try it and see for yourself. There are a lot of stretches that look stupid and pointless, but they work to get everything firing - I expect probably more effective in old guys than young ones.

Your understanding of shirts and suits is inaccurate. There is an element of stored energy from the eccentric, but it requires compression of at least some part of your body to achieve that and you have to learn to use it. It's not like anyone can slap on a suit get an instant bump in total, you might actually lift less initially. The standard PL belt is different in that it is not elastic, but you are and you are providing the compression by pushing against it (Assuming you are a push against the belt guy and not a crank it tighter until I pass out guy). What actual evidence do you have that it stabilises the spine in any way? I would argue that spine stabilisation is in no way an important or desired feature, it's just a thing everyone likes to claim happens. Your spine is being stabilised by the muscles around it, the belt helps boost diaphragm pressure to use for your Valsalva maneuver. It could be argued that the Valsalva effects some spine stabilisation, but that isn't the point of doing it. Your internal pressure is necessary to exert yourself for the lift, if the weight is of any significance. You are going to generate the amount of pressure that you need, which means that you will have the quantity of fibre and neural recruitment necessary to perform the lift. You are not going to recruit maximally until you are lifting maximally, so your fibre recruitment doesn't kick in fully until you are at a lift that you can barely make or that you cannot make. The boost that you get from a belt in overall diaphragm pressure is what it is, the belt being non-elastic, so your limiting factor is core strength. Your core strength + belt pressure = maximal pressure. This is, theoretically, greater than your core strength alone and thus increases your lift by way of increased pressure. Using a belt then artificailly increases your ability to lift and allows you to train your other muscles at a greater weight and thus develop better, but it creates a weak link in that you are going to reach a point at which you can no longer create greater pressure to accomodate the needs of your surrounding musculature. If you ALWAYS lift with a belt, you are avoiding direct core work, and core strength increases should have a direct carryover to your belt assisted abilities. If you only train Bench in a bench shirt, at some point your chest becomes your limiting factor because it gets less stimulus from work while other things are getting ever increasing stimulus through increased resistance from increased weight. That's the same as always lifting with a belt. At some point, you will have to add additional core work to progress. That could come from adding assistance or simply foregoing the belt at lower weights. Your base strength level in your core also has much greater value in real life, it's good to be able to carry groceries or schlepp kids or whatever without having your back feel taxed, because that's when most injuries really happen - when you have overworked your core muscles with menial crap and they are tired and you step wrong or reach a little too far to pick something up. Most guys are not going to get hurt at the gym where they are warmed up, braced, and everything is controlled. Lots of guys lift while always wearing a belt, most guys that have had an injury and had to rehab do not lift that way anymore. So I don't have a study, but I do know what happens in real life with real athletes. There's nothing wrong with a belt, but I don't think it's a good idea to always wear one.