Squat depth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old and Grey said:
In my opinion, that is a good example of how not to squat unless you want to be injured!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment.

However, I do think there's a certain truth that isn't acknowledged readily enough, and that is there is defined limit to the amount of load a human back ought to be carrying, for any exercises/activity, and what that guy has on his back is beyond whatever said load is.

Humans aren't designed to lug 2,3,4 times their weight on their back. Perfect form or not.


Ofc, I don't have to worry about that limit for a lllllllllloooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggg a$$'ed time ...
 
Old and Grey said:
In my opinion, that is a good example of how not to squat unless you want to be injured!
Click to expand...
What if it was 100kg rather than 300kg? Would you still feel the same way then, O&G?

This is a quad-dominant back squat (very upright torso) being performed by a highly trained, elite lifter. The guy is going to be pushing boundaries and that's why he may well sustain injury, but it's no more likely to be from back squat training than it is from any other area of his training. All athletes pushing boundaries will get injured from time-to-time. If it's catastrophic then it may mean the end of a career or an extended period of recovery and rehab. However, if the form of squatting in the pic is so likely to get the guy injured, how come he's doing it with 300kg as part of his training? He would surely have given up on it long before he made it to 300kg. It's an accessory lift, after all.

I'm not suggesting this is for everyone; but if you want great quad strength and great flexibility it is something to aspire to. However, the likelihood of making it to 300kg is fairly slim. :)
 
HST_Rihad said:
Why do you believe so, when EMG activity measurements show quite the contrary?
Glutes become more active as squat depth increases.
Quads are more active when done partial, or at most parallel.
Click to expand...
I can assure you that if you cut your quads off you won't be standing up from a deep squat anytime soon.
 
Lol said:
I can assure you that if you cut your quads off you won't be standing up from a deep squat anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Terrific. I can assure you that if you cut your shins out you won't be doing any kind of squat :)

Front squats put more of the load on the quads. But considering less weight that can be handled safely, somewhat partial squats seem more reasonable to hit the thighs as far as load progression goes.
 
Um, what I said was (in ref to the pic):

"This is a quad-dominant back squat (very upright torso)."

I didn't say this applies to every form of back squat.

For overall thigh development, I am now of the opinion that you really should be doing some form of deadlift (to hit your posterior chain) coupled with front squats and/or high-bar back squats. In doing so, you should cover all the major muscle groups (as far as thigh hypertrophy is concerned).

The helpful thing about high-bar back squatting (however deep you go) is that there is much less shear force across the spine because the torso can be more vertically inclined than it can for low-bar back squats or deads. This reduces lower-back fatigue by a helpful amount, thus allowing for more frequent/heavy leg training.
 
Last edited:
Lol said:
For overall thigh development, I am now of the opinion that you really should be doing some form of deadlift (to hit your posterior chain) coupled with front squats and/or high-bar back squats.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The reason is deadlift resembles partial squats as far as depth is concerned. This could also turn out to have some training time economy because traps have already seen their loading.
 
HST_Rihad said:
That depth is still glutes-dominant as per post #43.
Click to expand...

My comment that's about to follow is not in reference to the right/wrong element of this discussion ...


Your already-displayed inability to argue is still going. Referencing a post of yours, that contains contentious and unverified conclusions that are drawn from (also) contentious and unverified data is not an effective way to argue.

You'd be better served explaining the physics of the movement, then referencing the muscles that are involved in this, from a biometric standpoint.

Again, this isn't a critique of right/wrong, but you really don't know how to construct an argument/support a contention.



On the matter of right/wrong and quads involvement, again, it comes down to physics. You can 100% represent this movement accurately with bars and springs. I've done it FFS. Hell, get a modelling program from the internet. Do it in slow motion and measure the muscles from head to head.
 
i think the whole problem with the squat is,its an ego lift everyone wants to lift more than they should.
IMO i prefer as to grass but done correctly,ie start of light get the technique correct then add weight gradually.

agree with o&g do whichever one stops you from getting injured,unless you need to do full squats for comps etc.
 
Totentanz said:
Haven't we already covered why emg data is flawed? You are being disingenuous using that to try to prove some irrelevant point.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with EMG? Isn't this as close to reality as we can get, besides self-inspired beliefs? It simply measures quantitative role of each muscle in a movement.
 
HST_Rihad said:
What's wrong with EMG? Isn't this as close to reality as we can get, besides self-inspired beliefs? It simply measures quantitative role of each muscle in a movement.
Click to expand...

don't play stupid as you have already seen the post from Bryan about why EMG is invalid
 
One very well-known advocate of deep, high-bar squatting that comes to mind (albeit he was a pro-bb'er and hence on the odd carton or two of fruit juice) was Tom Platz. Back in the day, he had the craziest wheels ever seen (granted, not to everyone's taste, then or now). Anecdotally, he built those humongous thighs with heavy squats and deads. His squat form was fantastic, plus he did a lot of them. Go figure? (You can find some video footage of Tom squatting, on YouTube, which back up the stories.)
 
Totentanz said:
don't play stupid as you have already seen the post from Bryan about why EMG is invalid
Click to expand...
Stop being rude as a last measure when losing an argument. This doesn't all of a sudden make you look right. EMG is used by Bryan all over the place in the HST FAQ. It can't be denied that it's an accurate measure of muscle's relative role in a movement at a given moment. The relative read-outs are important, not the absolute ones. So, saying that full squats are quad-dominant just because currently held belief says it is, doesn't make it real.

Lol, I didn't say full squats didn't work your quads... They do just as pull-ups work your biceps.
But partial squats (or deads) can grow thighs just fine, too. Empirical evidence + EMG.
I'll be brave enough to claim that Tom Platz grew his huge legs despite the full squats, not because of them.
 
Last edited:
HST_Rihad said:
What's wrong with EMG? Isn't this as close to reality as we can get, besides self-inspired beliefs? It simply measures quantitative role of each muscle in a movement.
Click to expand...

HST_Rihad said:
Stop being rude as a last measure when losing an argument. This doesn't all of a sudden make you look right. EMG is used by Bryan all over the place in the HST FAQ. It can't be denied that it's an accurate measure of muscle's relative role in a movement at a given moment. The relative read-outs are important, not the absolute ones. So, saying that full squats are quad-dominant just because currently held belief says it is, doesn't make it real.

Lol, I didn't say full squats didn't work your quads... They do just as pull-ups work your biceps.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is premised on the notion that EMG's are accurate beyond mere indication. And they aren't.

Furthermore, accusing someone of losing the argument doesn't make it so. If anything, it's a mere stall tactic.




@Someone with mod powers - can we even just consider ban/reprimand/suspension yet ... ? Every conversation devolves into random quotes, references and accusations that frustration w/idiocy = 'losing an argument'.
 
AlexAustralia said:
@Someone with mod powers - can we even just consider ban/reprimand/suspension yet ... ? Every conversation devolves into random quotes, references and accusations that frustration w/idiocy = 'losing an argument'.
Click to expand...

The only offensive thing about my arguments & references is that they're not what you believe in.
 
There's nothing offensive about the content of your posts. Get this through your head.

The offensive behaviour is in your communication.

No one here is going to lose sleep over you having misguided beliefs. We've tried to help you and point out flaws in your reasoning and evidence. It didn't work. We tried again. Same result. We're over it.

It's your rude manner and dismissive behaviour. When someone explains why you're mistaken, you reply "actually you're mistaken" without any valid evidence.


There's nothing offensive to me (or I suspect, Lol, Totez, Sci, anyone else here) about you not understanding the importance of quads in lower portion of a squat ROM (for instance), but to communicate in the way you did to people with far more proven (not assumed, proven) understanding, knowledge and experience than you ... it just destroys the conversation.

And then when you've lost, and someone is shows their frustration, you engage in complete hubris and accuse them of 'losing the argument', as though that's the reason they're frustrated. People are rude as a response to your rudeness, it has nothing to do with the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top