BBM Crew hello,
I remember you’ve recommended against Zercher style lifting before (specifically squats).
Wanted to ask- what’s the reasoning behind it?
Thanks as always!
I don’t think they’re terribly useful for training the squat or hypertrophy. I’d be more amenable to them for a strongman competitor.
Hey Jordan,
I think that they are a legit squat variation (with a lot of bad rap, no idea why), even for powerlifters in the context of bigger squat numbers, or hypertrophy.
The angles of the movement are approximately those of a back squat, the bar position forces a good use of the muscles of the torso, and when the forearm pain fades away after a few sessions, it gets pretty comfortable actually (maybe because of a lower center of gravity?). It can also be done with pretty heavy weights if one chooses.
Do I have a good case here?
Not really, no.
For PL- they are very non specific and compromise training time, training resources, etc. without having a very plausible carry over given the relevant joint angles, patterns, etc. So, that seems unlikely.
For hypertrophy- they are even worse given the stress/fatigue ratio (unnecessary) and squats in general aren’t great for much of lower body hypertrophy when performed heavy.
Not really, no- mainly the depth and trunk angle being off.
In a non specific way, but regular squats also use the trunk muscles to a high degree.
Not as heavy as regular squats, so, why?
I don’t think so, no.
To me the main benefit from a powerlifting perspective would be that you could get more leg work in while not putting a load on the spine. If you are going to squat 4X a week and Deadlift 2X a week --that is potentially 6X per week you lower back and spine are accumulating fatigue. Thus it is a little bit like a belt squat except you are going to hit the upper back and core harder. On the other hand its probably more fatiguing than belt squats so if your goal is to get in a little bit more leg volume without driving fatigue too high probably belt squat or leg press is a better option.
I think that the same can be said for many variations of the big 3 regarding angles and patterns, yet they are very commonly used: front squats, belt squats, romanian deadlifts, sumo deadlifts (for a conventional puller) etc. I don’t know if there’s an effective way to determine about the carry over of any lift (within the boundaries of reason) without some trial and error. I feel like there isn’t enough evidence to disqualify them (zerchers) completely just because of an intuition.
They can be used for higher reps (once the pain diminishes). They can also contribute with some extra upper back\arms work that will add to the weekly volume.
From my own experience only, depth is just the same, It’s even easier at times to hit rock bottom. I’d say the lower center of gravity helps with that (less balance issues). My trunk angle is pretty bent over as well (it’s anecdotal but it’s better than nothing). An example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxul2zpUjAY (cheers from Israel btw =)
As stated, I don’t see why they are any less specific in comparison to a front\belt squat etc.
Well, why not? =) It’s for every lifter to find out how heavy can he go after a while, and how the movement integrates and affects his program\numbers\fatigue.
In our gym, most guys tend to be able to lift roughly the same\a bit heavier with them after a few months. We can even define them as an overload event if that’s the case (in the context of an individual seeking to improve his back squat).
Except that Zerchers do load the spine so…
I’m not sure if you just made an account to argue with me about Zercher’s, but I don’t really care enough to continue the conversation past this post.
All of these exercises are more specific than Zercher’s, but not necessarily as specific as each other. RDL’s are fairly specific, whereas the others are much less. Also, there are unique benefits to each of the variants posted, e.g. front squats require a more forward knee position and vertical torso, belt squats let people accumulate leg fatigue without much back fatigue, romanian deadlifts better target the hamstrings, and we don’t use sumo DL for conventional deadlifters in any sort of PL prep. Zercher’s have no unique benefit- they’re just different.
Similarly, I feel there isn’t enough evidence to support their use. Anecdotally, the strongest powerlifters do not use the zercher squat widely.
They do not use the arms or upper back in a concentric/eccentric fashion and thus, no they wouldn’t be good for upper back or arm work. They are limited in similar ways as a front squat is for high reps and there are better options.
Yea the depth is borderline here and the bar hits your legs. Not really a great argument.
That’s not the argument I’m making. FWIW, we don’t really use the f/s a lot in PL unless a lifter prefers it. The belt squat has some unique benefits that the zercher doesn’t, but if someone was geeked out on the zercher squat- go ahead. I really don’t care.
Sure. However, we program from a standpoint of “this should work and we’ll modify from there.” Since I do not expect the zercher to be useful and it has a number of problems with loading, set up, ROM, and fatigue, I don’t start with it.
A single session is unlikely to be an “overload event” though we don’t use that language anymore.
And sure, if you zercher high and aren’t that great at squatting, which seems bad for a powerlifter- your zercher may surpass your back squat. This is a problem if you’re a powerlifter.
Well I didn’t have the intention to argue for the sake of argument (as hinted above). But that’s ok, I won’t prolong the discussion.
Thanks again.
That’s not the argument I’m making. FWIW, we don’t really use the f/s a lot in PL unless a lifter prefers it. The belt squat has some unique benefits that the zercher doesn’t, but if someone was geeked out on the zercher squat- go ahead. I really don’t care.
Yes you are:
All of these exercises are more specific than Zercher’s, but not necessarily as specific as each other. RDL’s are fairly specific, whereas the others are much less. Also, there are unique benefits to each of the variants posted, e.g. front squats require a more forward knee position and vertical torso, belt squats let people accumulate leg fatigue without much back fatigue, romanian deadlifts better target the hamstrings, and we don’t use sumo DL for conventional deadlifters in any sort of PL prep. Zercher’s have no unique benefit- they’re just different.
Which doesn’t make a lot of sense, since the movement pattern of a Zercher’s squat resembles LBBS much more than any of those exercises resemble the low bar squat, or the deadlift (in the case of RDL).
Since I do not expect the zercher to be useful and it has a number of problems with loading, set up, ROM, and fatigue, I don’t start with it.
There is no real problem with ROM, since Zerchers can be done below parallel (which is clear from the video, by the way). You state that the stress/fatigue ratio is worse than for the other variations, but you did not mention how you measure it or even how you know it.
and this:
is kind of funny. This is a legitimate discussion, and you haven’t provided a very compelling argument, yet you are not willing to hear the other side. Exactly the same thing you are blaming the owners of the other board being guilty of.
No it’s not. The primary argument is that it’s quite fatiguing for a non specific exercise with a predicted limited transference when there are other, likely better, exercises available.
I’m not sure you can compare the RDL’s similarity to the DL to Zercher’s and LBBS, and I’d like to hear your argument for how it is more similar.
In any event, there are many more specific exercises available than zerchers, which is why we don’t use them routinely for PL.
Yes there is. They are borderline in the video and the bar hits the thigh. It’s okay to disagree. That said, the ROM problem extends to the joint angles (and thus muscle lengths) significantly different than the lift you want it to transfer to. If you are making the argument that zercher’s have no ROM problem, then neither do HBBS, F/S, or SSB.
We can measure stress via the stress index (Tuscherer, Helms, Frisk), workload proxies (Gabbett, Halson, Drew), or others. The adaptations can only be determined retrospectively and then compared to the stress index, workload, etc.
Since no retrospective data was provided here by the OP (or you), I can only give my opinion based on experience and a theoretical understanding of transference. I couched my prediction appropriately.
Not really. I just don’t care about this enough to argue. We don’t have the retrospective data and it’s basically this conversation:
Me: I don’t think this will work based on what I’ve seen and how I understand things to work, but go ahead if you like.
OP: No, but it works. Agree with me!
You: I’m not convinced and here is a misrepresentation of your argument.
Me: I still don’t care about this particular argument, as there’s no data being presented so…why are we arguing?
I have approved and engaged in the OP’s response posts, which is the exact opposite of “not willing to hear the other side.” That said, you’re welcome to be disappointed that I do not care about this question and still don’t think the zercher squat is a uniquely beneficial exercise for PL. In fairness, I’m not sure any non-competition exercise is uniquely helpful outside of personal preferences. You’ll also notice the continued use of likely, maybe, perhaps, etc. during the conversation. Sorry if that was less clear than I had hoped.
3 Likes