Who uses belts and straps? (Deadlifts)

[Hardartery]

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

For the same reason as in any supportive gear, using an artifial brace to lift more means you are less able to deal with an action that in any way takes you outside of the assistance of that support gear. The way you brace against a belt also leaves you less able to adjust whie maintaining pressure to make the lift. Assuming a stiff belt, not one of those velcro underbelt things.

[Allentown]

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

For the same reason as in any supportive gear, using an artifial brace to lift more means you are less able to deal with an action that in any way takes you outside of the assistance of that support gear. The way you brace against a belt also leaves you less able to adjust whie maintaining pressure to make the lift. Assuming a stiff belt, not one of those velcro underbelt things.

Why on earth would you think that a misgrooved squat takes you out of the "assistance" of the belt?

And don't bring up suits or shirts, no one but you here is talking about squat suits or bench shirts.

[quikky]

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.

Everything you described is accomplished by warming up so I am not sure what stretching brings into the equation. What does stretching uniquely do that simply warming up for your lift does not?

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.

That doesn't really invalidate what I said. If you use the suits and shirts correctly, they store elastic energy and lift some of the weight for you. How is this inaccurate? Yeah, you have to use them correctly, and need some practice doing so, but at the end of the day what I described is what they do.

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.

My claim is actually the opposite, i.e. the belt does not stabilize your spine, your muscles do. You seem to be saying the same thing above but this contradicts your earlier claim of the belt reducing the work your muscles do and thereby weakening them. The belt just helps get more out of what your muscles are actually doing already.

In terms of spine stabilization being beneficial, let's clarify what this means. In my mind, I am talking about your spine simply staying rigid. It could be in a flexed position, it could be neutral or even extended, that's less important. Key part is it is rigid, i.e. it maintains that position throughout the lift. I claim this is desirable because in exercises where your lower body is producing the force while the upper body is connected to the resistance, i.e. lifts like squats and deadlifts, a rigid spine makes for a more efficient transfer of force. Rigid things transfer force better than flexible things. Contracting muscles around the spine make the spine rigid. A belt makes their contraction produce more intra-abdominal pressure and causes more rigidity, kind of like a tire that's been pumped to a higher pressure - a bit less give.

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.

The underlined is again what you never seem to explain: how does a belt create weak links? Why would you need more core work if you always use a belt when the belt does not limit your core work compared to lifting beltless? I think we are going in circles here so I likely won't be responding further unless you can explain this position better.

[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.

Everything you described is accomplished by warming up so I am not sure what stretching brings into the equation. What does stretching uniquely do that simply warming up for your lift does not?

That doesn't really invalidate what I said. If you use the suits and shirts correctly, they store elastic energy and lift some of the weight for you. How is this inaccurate? Yeah, you have to use them correctly, and need some practice doing so, but at the end of the day what I described is what they do.

My claim is actually the opposite, i.e. the belt does not stabilize your spine, your muscles do. You seem to be saying the same thing above but this contradicts your earlier claim of the belt reducing the work your muscles do and thereby weakening them. The belt just helps get more out of what your muscles are actually doing already.

In terms of spine stabilization being beneficial, let's clarify what this means. In my mind, I am talking about your spine simply staying rigid. It could be in a flexed position, it could be neutral or even extended, that's less important. Key part is it is rigid, i.e. it maintains that position throughout the lift. I claim this is desirable because in exercises where your lower body is producing the force while the upper body is connected to the resistance, i.e. lifts like squats and deadlifts, a rigid spine makes for a more efficient transfer of force. Rigid things transfer force better than flexible things. Contracting muscles around the spine make the spine rigid. A belt makes their contraction produce more intra-abdominal pressure and causes more rigidity, kind of like a tire that's been pumped to a higher pressure - a bit less give.

The underlined is again what you never seem to explain: how does a belt create weak links? Why would you need more core work if you always use a belt when the belt does not limit your core work compared to lifting beltless? I think we are going in circles here so I likely won't be responding further unless you can explain this position better.

I'll start with the end. The belt creates weak links by limiting development of the core, especially in relation to the other musculature. Which I thought was pretty clear, but I apologize if it was not.
As to Suits and shirts, my point is that they also create pressure and add to whatever other Valsalvic pressure you are creating. They are performing a function similar to the belt is addition to providing some elastic help. Even the open back ones, they increase the pressure on the descent instead of the whole time that you are wearing them.
In relation to the spine, it doesn't really matter if it has some flex. Force application is going to be mitigated by compression more than flexion. I know there is great concern about things like butt wink in some circles, but it really doesn't matter. There are some great squatters with a butt wink at the bottom or a side wiggle in a maximal squat. O-lifters at the very least exhibit very obvious side to side flexion during lifts as the load shifts to the stronger side on maximal attempts. It's not affecting force application for the spin to flex a little. I am not aware of any muscles actually wrapping around the spin in normal physiology, the contraction of the support muscles is about maintaining internal pressure throughout the movement, which you control with your mouth and airway functioning as the relief valve. I stand by the assertion that using a belt all of the time is forming reliance on a belt and in the end is counter productive to progress and the development of your support muscles. Wearing a belt all the time is asking for a back problem.
Warming up gets blood to the muscles and gets them ready to lift, theoretically. Stretching activates things more thouroughly at a neural level and stimulates more thorough recruitment of the muscle fibres. Depending on how you stretch. I get much more from stretching than warmups. I work up in weight for some lifts, for others I just go straight in at the work weight, I am not a big believer in warmups and feel that most people greatly overdo them. And I'm saying that at almost 50 years old, lifting since 14 or 15 years old, no serious injuries ever and certainly not in training at the gym.

[Hardartery]

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

For the same reason as in any supportive gear, using an artifial brace to lift more means you are less able to deal with an action that in any way takes you outside of the assistance of that support gear. The way you brace against a belt also leaves you less able to adjust whie maintaining pressure to make the lift. Assuming a stiff belt, not one of those velcro underbelt things.

Why on earth would you think that a misgrooved squat takes you out of the "assistance" of the belt?

And don't bring up suits or shirts, no one but you here is talking about squat suits or bench shirts.

I'll bring up shirts and suits if I feel like it, I don't really care if using them to make my point suits you or not. My statement is based on experience. As in, being in the gym and at contests and witnessing injuries. Anything that helps you lift more than you could otherwise be lifting without it is exposing you to greater risk for injury in the event that it doesn't go right. If you can't squat a weight without a belt that you are using while wearing a belt, getting out of line can easily place load on a support structure in a way that it cannot handle it. I have seen plenty of back injuries, mostly minor, happen while a belt is being worn. I have not seen that in guys that do a lot of training without the belt. It's an obvious bit of building a base that lifters neglect at their own risk and to their own detriment. If you want to always wear a belt, go ahead. I won't make fun of you at the gym or ridicule you, and you are under no obligation to agree with me or even give my opinion serious consideration. You could do a little better than the petty sniping though. Offer a valid counter argument f you want to disagree.

[Wilhelm]

I must be incorrectly not not using a belt.

I wear it literally every single squat and deadlift rep, from empty bar to top singles.
5 years of my total going up every meet, and no injuries. (knock on wood)

I almost have to think it's load management keeping me from certain doom.

[Hardartery]

I must be incorrectly not not using a belt.

I wear it literally every single squat and deadlift rep, from empty bar to top singles.
5 years of my total going up every meet, and no injuries. (knock on wood)

I almost have to think it's load management keeping me from certain doom.

Everyone is different. I'm not saying an injury is guaranteed or anything, and it is possible that everything I have heard and seen and read over the years has mislead me - and a lot of other people. I hope no one gets an injury either way. At this point in my life it is unlikely that my numbers will ever again be what they were, I have no expectation of hitting an 850 squat again, but it's something everyone should at lesat think about. It's not the personal trainers and gym bros that believe this way, it's the high level athletes and trainers.

[Wilhelm]

I like all my reps to be as much the same as possible.
If i wear a belt for it in a meet, i wear a belt for it in training.

And since the muscle activation limitation thing is literally bullshit, i see no reason to do otherwise.

Now saving a belt for heavier work for psychological reasons is a perfectly legitimate reason to go beltlesss, but if someone prefers to use a belt all the time, there is no physiological reason not to.

[Hardartery]

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, up front I want to say that I am not ripping you Wilhelm, and that in my opinion you seem like a really nice guy and I would not want to offend you in any way. Seriously, not trying to attack you and I find you quite likeable as a person. That statement you quoted is qualified, if not contradicted, quite a bit in this article. It is notable the author states that he reccomends a minimum percentage of beltless lifting, so he clearly does not feel that it is better to always wear a belt. And for full disclosure, I own a lever belt, I have experimented extensively with it, and never lift with a belt now - primarily because I personally lift LESS weight while wearing it. Which would be why the beltless lifters mentioned with bewilderment by the author likely lift beltless.

"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."

"Finally, another study utilizing deadlifts with 12rm (70-75% 1rm) loads in Division 1-A"
LOL. That is an extremey broad generalization. I couldn't do 12 reps with 70RM in any lift. That's just laughable to state bradly as a metric. Never mind that the only thing they measure was Spinal Erectors, which have nothing to do with my point or the discussion. Probably the least relevant muscles in the area when discussing core strength.

"So, wearing a belt probably increases rectus abdominis activation slightly and decreases external oblique activation slightly, relative to deadlifting beltless."

Um, obviously. You don't brace the same in a belt as without, the abs push out against the belt, the serratus aren't and are also less necessary to maintain pressure.

"Two studies in well-trained lifters (lifting 8rm loads or 90% 1rm loads) found no significant differences in external oblique activation."

Again, this is a ridiculous generalization. I couldn't do 8 reps with 90% in any universe in any way. No chance at all. I doubt that I am all that unique.

" There have been quite a few studies conducted in industrial workers who regularly have to lift and move heavy objects. They tend to find no effect or small benefit, although some suggest that the main benefit is decreased risk of re-injury in people who had been previously injured, with no benefit to people who had never had a back injury, or even an increased injury risk when they stopped using a belt.

Dr. Stuart McGill, a (or the) foremost expert on spinal biomechanics, recommends against the use of a belt in most cases, even for lifters. He states that to get the maximum effect out of a belt, it requires spinal flexion to take advantage of “elastic recoil of a bent torso that is stiffened with a belt. However, if a neutral spine is preserved throughout the lift, this effect is minimal. In other words, to obtain the maximal effect from a belt, the lifter must lift poorly and in a way that exposed the back to a much higher risk of injury!”."

My point. McGill is an authority of note.

"These differences in bracing patterns could potentially lead to different long-term training adaptations and affect deep muscles that would be nearly impossible to pick up with EMG (unlike surface muscles such as the rectus abdominis or external oblique)."

Yep.

"Another instance would be if there’s a very large discrepancy between your belted and beltless maxes (more than 10-15%). This could indicate that you’re using a belt as a crutch, masking poor intrinsic stabilization."

The author does qualify this condition as being "Very rare" in his experience.

" I do certainly agree that people should also get comfortable lifting and bracing without a belt. Again, I’m not aware of any injury data regarding belt usage in strength sports, but it seems very likely that developing and maintaining solid intrinsic stabilization patterns under load will be a good thing for spine health in the long run. However, “people should also get comfortable squatting and deadlifting beltless” and “people should never squat and deadlift with a belt until they achieve (insert arbitrary standard here)” are entirely different sentiments. "
"Personally, I’d recommend training 70/30 or 80/20 beltless your first few months in the gym, gradually transitioning to the opposite ratio as you become more experienced."

I find nothinf whatsoever to disagree with in this part, I am not saying no one should ever use a belt.

Key Point #3 from the beginning of the article:
"3) There are still instances that it’s better to train beltless, but you should probably use a belt for the bulk of your training"

[SnakePlissken]

I use a 3" belt on all my working sets and start using straps when I get close to working weight. Only time I mix grip is my first set of a triple or lower and I mix grip on the warmups for those

[Busa]

Just in response to the OP's questions:

If I am unable to DOH the rep (which for me currently is any volume 315 lbs+) then I use straps. I never mix grip or hook grip--these skills are not relevant for me.

I belt up on my last warmup set and for my intensity working sets, to allow me to lift heavier weights. For lighter volume stuff, I sometimes forego the belt.