Hm, this thread just showed up on my list. Anyhow, this exercise (air squat) is one of my favorite, except I do it with some light weights in hand. The rule is for squats to keep the knees not going over your toes, and I guess I have long legs, because I have trouble doing it that way, I keep falling backwards. So by using some weights in the hands I achieve 3 extra things: 1. Little more weight for the legs. 2. Some extra work for the upper body. 3. Easier to balance the body and not falling backward. I know, using dumbbells counts as equipment, but I think it is better doing it that way...
Haven't tried yet. Been on vacation for the past week with the wife for our anniversary and I just got back.
And now for an update on the updated update. (*Sigh*) It has now been about 3 weeks since I have been doing 2 sets of skater squats per workout for upper legs, twice a week. I'm using a couple of light dumbbells mostly for counterbalance to be able to go down quite low with the working leg but without touching the ground with my non-working leg. So far, so good. In fact, the circumference of my upper leg appears to have grown by about a quarter of an inch, but I'd just as soon attribute that to measurement error/variation. If it should ever get to half an inch, I'll be sure to report. But let's not hold our breath. But here's the thing. Proponents of single sets to failure per exercise suggest that it is better to do a different exercise for the same muscle group rather than 2 sets of the same exercise. Also, I read repeatedly that pistols are more quad-dominant than skaters, and I find it to be a fairly accurate assessment. And so, even though I prefer skaters to pistols, I started doing 2 sets of alternating skaters/pistols yesterday as shown in the Men's Health video I linked earlier in this thread. (Except I use 2 dumbbells at my sides, which I raise as necessary for proper counterbalance, rather than in "goblet" form.) After some reflection, I figure there might be some advantage to a bit of variety, since I do three different push exercises and three different pull exercises for upper body. But rather than do skaters and pistols separately, I like the idea of failing on the skater each time, which I think is the better exercise of the two. I did the alternating skater/pistols yesterday and made sure to fail on the skater each time (by not necessarily alternating if I feel I'll hit failure on the next rep). By using only light dumbbells, I have the necessary counterbalance to go sufficiently slow and low, while keeping tension throughout the movement by not locking the knees at the top, or resting at the bottom for the pistols (which is easy to do). Of course, the non-working leg never touches the ground during the set. By going slow with continuous tension in this manner, I was able to hit failure yesterday on the 13th rep of the first set for each leg and on the 11th rep for the second set. I think I'll stick with this alternating skater/pistol combo until further notice. Two sets to failure for each leg per workout, and one set to failure for calves and all upper body (compound) exercises as noted in an update in another thread, followed by some ~HIIT cardio.
I'm sure your legs will grow with that protocol provided you're taking in sufficient calories. Do you want your legs to get bigger? If so, are you eating above maintenance? I only bringing that up because you can switch up your exercises all you want, but if you're just eating to maintain, it seems like it will be hard to really tell what's working better than anything else in terms of tape measure results.
You're right in the general sense, of course. But I don't know if they'll necessarily grow since I've been working out forever and am 60. To be sure, I'd like for them to be a bit bigger, and I'll train with that intent, but I don't know if that's in the cards at this stage. That's not to suggest that they're especially noteworthy. They're just...okay. (Also, please keep in mind that I'm on the other side of my peak.) As for going into calorie surplus, I get where you're going, but I'm not sure I want to get too adventurous here. I think my metabolism is reasonably high, but it is not quite what it was a decade or more earlier. So I'd best tread carefully here. I'm reminded of something I read and posted a few years ago, written by Richard Winett, a lifelong fitness enthusiast and exercise researcher: "The irony is that through all my training incarnations, I had about the same lean body mass. The only thing required to capitalize on my best assets was to just watch my diet a bit more." https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...d-losing-fat-2015.292625/page-25#post-4166694 And, if I am not mistaken, he wrote this when he was in his 40s! However much I'd like to add a bit more muscle, I'm more concerned about my waistline and making sure that my abs are not drowned out by good intentions taken too far. Priorities, and all that.
P.S. I should point out that I have been eating slightly more in the last month or so. Nothing that you would equate to a "mass-building" diet by any stretch. Even so, although my key measurements have not changed, I did notice a bit of smoothing in my midsection. That won't do. When I was in my prime, I did look a bit like a bodybuilder. Considerably more impressive than average (I've been told over the years), but nowhere near what the pro pharmacists look like, of course. Realistically I can't get there again (otherwise I'd already be there). But here's the thing. You see some older guys who still carry a fair amount of muscle, but you almost never see a noticeably lean older guy. And I'm not talking fat-skinny. I mean athletic-lean. Given the choice, I'd rather aim for athletic-lean (already there, but I'd like to get leaner) than trying in vain to get more muscular again but just getting fatter in the process instead. It's a better look.
I've seen two guys that are older and lean. One I know is in his early seventies and the other mid sixties. The older guy has a every other day routine consisting of a three hour workout which is more of a take your time routine meaning he is resting a good 5 minutes between sets and routines. Always does full body with weights and does a shitload of pushups and pullups. Finishes with a half hour on the bike. The other guy just lifts but he too is there for a couple hours. Can't say what their diets are but it must be clean as hell unless they're genetically gifted. I'd put them both in the very low teens body fat. Just saw the older guy this morning benching 285 smooth as silk for 6 reps. Both about 6 feet tall.