Usefulness of Lower Body Isolations

[SnakePlissken]

I've been going back through old logs of mine going all the way through when I did the Texas Method and have realized a strong correlation that when I focused on just squatting and/or ab work on the side that my squat always went up, but that doing lower body isolation work even leading into a peak has never raised my 1RM. Not stating that lower body isolations are useless, but I'm wondering what other people's thoughts and experiences are with this.

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat. I also had an RPE gain from 10-8 on my max squat from doing the Texas Method and then doing the original Bridge from BBM.

Personally I think I'm going to nix a lot of my lower body isolation work and bring planks and ab wheels back into the equation.

TLDR; lower body isolations don't have strong carry over to heavy squatting

[dw]

I've been going back through old logs of mine going all the way through when I did the Texas Method and have realized a strong correlation that when I focused on just squatting and/or ab work on the side that my squat always went up, but that doing lower body isolation work even leading into a peak has never raised my 1RM. Not stating that lower body isolations are useless, but I'm wondering what other people's thoughts and experiences are with this.

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat. I also had an RPE gain from 10-8 on my max squat from doing the Texas Method and then doing the original Bridge from BBM.

Personally I think I'm going to nix a lot of my lower body isolation work and bring planks and ab wheels back into the equation.

TLDR; lower body isolations don't have strong carry over to heavy squatting

Well their only direct purpose is hypertrophy right? Are you using them for that purpose in a bulking cycle? If so it's possible they're just junk volume.

Also are you progressing on the isolation movements themselves? If not I would take that as an indicator that they are not causing any hypertrophy.

[mgil]

Specificity is needed for ultimate strength display. Squatting more helps you squat more and all that.

I wouldn’t expect isolation work to lead to big 1RM squat numbers, rather maybe allowing you to lift more consistently.

[quikky]

Also are you progressing on the isolation movements themselves? If not I would take that as an indicator that they are not causing any hypertrophy.

+1.

I think a lot of people treat these movements as just stuff to throw in after their main lifts, without really trying to push them. If you were doing X weight for Y reps on leg extensions last year, and this year you're still doing the same, there is going to be zero hypertrophy.

[Hardartery]

I've been going back through old logs of mine going all the way through when I did the Texas Method and have realized a strong correlation that when I focused on just squatting and/or ab work on the side that my squat always went up, but that doing lower body isolation work even leading into a peak has never raised my 1RM. Not stating that lower body isolations are useless, but I'm wondering what other people's thoughts and experiences are with this.

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat. I also had an RPE gain from 10-8 on my max squat from doing the Texas Method and then doing the original Bridge from BBM.

Personally I think I'm going to nix a lot of my lower body isolation work and bring planks and ab wheels back into the equation.

TLDR; lower body isolations don't have strong carry over to heavy squatting

If your goal is improved 1RM on Squat, and ab work helps that but other isolatoin work does not, the math is pretty simple. Pursuit of absolute strength is about addressing weaknesses while maintaining strengths. If quads are a strength, isolation work will do absolutely nothing for you when performed for quads. If the goal is hypertrophy, then it is honestly more about reps than weight in large part. Plenty of guys get plenty big using relatively light weights in isolation movements, it's about structuring the volume more than adding weight. Bigger is bigger, stronger is stronger, bigger is not some magic elixir for stronger. The magic elixir for stronger is called Tren, LOL. If a weak core holds you back, it really doesn't matter how stronger the other links in the chain are.
****edited to add: You might benefit in particular from Overhead Squats, based on what you stated, far more than any iso work at the moment.

[ChasingCurls69]

I think it's something that will vary between individuals a little more than the usual amount of "it depends." For a corgi-mode adonis who gets more quad stimulus than back stimulus on squats, leg extensions might not add much and reduce specificity. For someone who is pretty leaned over and accumulates more back fatigue squatting, or even more hip extensor fatigue from belt squats, then I am more inclined to give them isolation work.

With respect to the rectus femoris not getting worked by squats due to it's biarticulate stuff, I've always wondered if someone who only squatted with no leg extensions would have that be extra smol even if they had a fantastic response to squats alone for strength and the rest of the quads' hypertrophy.

[OrderInChaos]

I've been going back through old logs of mine going all the way through when I did the Texas Method and have realized a strong correlation that when I focused on just squatting and/or ab work on the side that my squat always went up, but that doing lower body isolation work even leading into a peak has never raised my 1RM. Not stating that lower body isolations are useless, but I'm wondering what other people's thoughts and experiences are with this.

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat. I also had an RPE gain from 10-8 on my max squat from doing the Texas Method and then doing the original Bridge from BBM.

Personally I think I'm going to nix a lot of my lower body isolation work and bring planks and ab wheels back into the equation.

TLDR; lower body isolations don't have strong carry over to heavy squatting

I think I’ve seen more direct benefit from ham curls than leg extensions, as lower isolations go. I still think it’s modest - the function is more about adding a little bit of tolerable volume after toasting the hams via RDLs, or using them as like activation/warmup for the main lifts.

Unilateral and other squat variants that force quad intensity (heel elevated platz HBBS, RFESS, etc) have had insane direct carry over to my standard ass squat. Accessory stuff like step ups and Goblet squats for much higher volume in METCONs has been nice for work capacity and volume tolerance.

Other than leg press/hack squats, I don’t think there’s a huge advantage to isolations - unless the goal is straight up swole legs. Also not a bad addition for rehab or prehab or whatever; I had GM-Squat issues and way underdeveloped quads for years and the leg press and extensions definitely helped get me out of that mess, but the real powerhouse solution was a conservative rep progression static load approach to HBBS that Testiclaw sent me.

Circular rambling to say: I think variants of squats that target your weak points and unilateral work are way more meaningful than isolations, unless pure bodybuilding mass is the goal.

[Hanley]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

[AlanMackey]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Wouldn’t that be detrimental? I always thought isolation work was mainly injury prevention, not Crossfitesque stuff.

[SnakePlissken]

Thanks everyone for the responses. I think it sounds like most everyone agrees lower body fluff work really doesn't do a whole lot unless you're looking to be a body builder. I think I mainly have been doing it with the idea that it would help prevent injury too which maybe it has, but at this point I think it mainly takes away from my focus on days when I should just be squatting and/or pulling.

To @Hanley's comment. I think this sounds very valid if getting huge is your goal, but in my case I think it would detract even more from wanting to just squat. Maybe the lesson is it's junk volume unless you make it 'not junk volume'

[DCR]

I think getting huge could well play a part in that goal. “Bigger isn’t necessarily stronger” is true, but overused. Bigger usually is stronger, particularly for squats and bench (presuming one’s interest is in max poundage and not in percentage of bodyweight).

[Hanley]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Wouldn’t that be detrimental? I always thought isolation work was mainly injury prevention, not Crossfitesque stuff.

Shouldn't be detrimental at all. It's hypertrophy work (the setup I've described is a big hellish quasi-myorep scheme).

I'd be surprised if your quads and ass didn't blow up using this routine.

[Hanley]

I think this sounds very valid if getting huge is your goal, but in my case I think it would detract even more from wanting to just squat. Maybe the lesson is it's junk volume unless you make it 'not junk volume'

I guess I don't understand your goal.

[Renascent]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Do reverse lunges generally include an additional hypertrophy or performance advantage that forward lunges do not?

[Hanley]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Do reverse lunges generally include an additional hypertrophy or performance advantage that forward lunges do not?

I think there's way less shock to the forward knee. Hypertrophy is probably the same at matched volume.

[Renascent]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Do reverse lunges generally include an additional hypertrophy or performance advantage that forward lunges do not?

I think there's way less shock to the forward knee. Hypertrophy is probably the same at matched volume.

Thanks!

[quikky]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Do reverse lunges generally include an additional hypertrophy or performance advantage that forward lunges do not?

I think there's way less shock to the forward knee. Hypertrophy is probably the same at matched volume.

Why not do Bulgarian squats with a more flexed knee angle (for quad emphasis)? I find them better and more consistent for quads than lunges.

[Hanley]

I don't know if I'm just doing them wrong or what, but the closest accessory that has ever been part of a good squat gain was landmine belt squats which is just another version of a squat

I'm guessing you're doing them wrong.

On your deadlift days (after the deads), try doing 100 reverse lunges (50 each leg) at 115-135. Use variable rep sets to RPE "absolutely fucking horrid burn". Your interest "rest" is a held plank.

The fluff work can/should be pretty goddamned hard.

Do reverse lunges generally include an additional hypertrophy or performance advantage that forward lunges do not?

I think there's way less shock to the forward knee. Hypertrophy is probably the same at matched volume.

Why not do Bulgarian squats with a more flexed knee angle (for quad emphasis)? I find them better and more consistent for quads than lunges.

They're kind of annoying to set up with a barbell.

[SnakePlissken]

I think this sounds very valid if getting huge is your goal, but in my case I think it would detract even more from wanting to just squat. Maybe the lesson is it's junk volume unless you make it 'not junk volume'

I guess I don't understand your goal.

My main goal has been to get my 1RM numbers up on the big 4 lifts; squat included.

As for things like lunges, I used to do them a lot, but I have some gnarly bunions and can't bend my foot like that much without getting chronic pain. I remember wanting to try step ups a while back, but just don't have any good blocks to step up on unless I stacked all my deadlift blocks into a 9" step which maybe isn't so bad now that I'm typing this out.

[Hanley]

but just don't have any good blocks to step up on unless I stacked all my deadlift blocks into a 9" step which maybe isn't so bad now that I'm typing this out.

Hmmm. Good excuse to get a fancy yeti or similar cooler (that's what I use for step ups).