Why ATG Squats

S

soflsun

New Member
Since being off for about 3 months, and now back at the forum...I am noticing a stronger emphasis on ATG squats than before my time off.  This seems to be the gold standard now.  I was wondering why and what are the added risks/rewards.

Powerlifters only have to break parallel...they are strong.  So is it for strength?

Front squats seem to focus more on the quads.  So is it for mass?

Also, is anyone's ass really touching the ground?  I would topple over and I don't seem to be that flexible.  Please help me understand the benefits of squatting this way.  Thanks.
 
As low as you can without losing form IMO, but below parallel so the glutes & hams come into play taking some of the strain off the knees when reversing the momentum. I am an advocate of Rippetoe's squat technique as outlined in Starting Strength.
 
Ass to grass doesn't mean that your ass actually touches the ground. It would mean squatting further than parallel when you ass hits your calves.

"Ass to calves" doesn't rhyme though...
 
<div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 08 2008,01:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As low as you can without losing form IMO, but below parallel so the glutes &amp; hams come into play taking some of the strain off the knees when reversing the momentum. I am an advocate of Rippetoe's squat technique as outlined in Starting Strength.</div>
these get hit harder and stretch further.

i sometimes wonder wether atg squats are worse for the knees being at the bottom of a heavy lift, but have to say i havent noticed any problems yet.

just dont round your back at the bottom or you will be in trouble.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 08 2008,11:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">just dont round your back at the bottom or you will be in trouble.</div>
wise words
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 08 2008,12:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 08 2008,01:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As low as you can without losing form IMO, but below parallel so  the glutes &amp; hams come into play taking some of the strain off the knees when reversing the momentum. I am an advocate of Rippetoe's squat technique as outlined in Starting Strength.</div>
these get hit harder and stretch further.

   i sometimes wonder wether atg squats are worse for the knees being at the bottom of a heavy lift, but have to say i havent noticed any problems yet.

just dont round your back at the bottom or you will be in trouble.</div>
Squats should be an entire leg exercise imo, not just a quad builder. Form is everything - and should be with all lifts, but especially the unforgiving ones.

Glutes / hams are major muscles, and their assistance with stopping &amp; reversing the momentum of the movement in comparison to their reduced involvement when stopping at parallel with regards to the forces applied to the knees has to preserve the knees long term.

There are added benefits also that the weight / force on the spine will be more in line with the bodies ability to handle it in comparison to partial ROM which allows much heavier loads to be used.

I need to qualify this again by saying that I am repeating Rippetoe, but I am a believer and have not been convinced by anything to the contrary at this point.
 
Agreed. There's a bit of a learning curve, but not really; it's more like strengthening the hams, and leg curls just won't do it. Staying tight all the way down and up is mega-important too. Big air, big lift.
 
Yes, actually pushing yourself all the way to thighs touching calves isn't necessary and can be as bad for your knees as above-parallel squats.

The point is to go below parallel as low as YOUR flexibility and anthropometry allows. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.
 
<div>
(nipponbiki @ Apr. 09 2008,10:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, actually pushing yourself all the way to thighs touching calves isn't necessary and can be as bad for your knees as above-parallel squats.

The point is to go below parallel as low as YOUR flexibility and anthropometry allows. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.</div>
Can you explain why thighs on calves can be as bad for your knees as parallel squatting? Is this only if form breaks down, ie inadequate flexibility to maintain the correct alignments?
 
From what I understand it has something to do with the pivot point of the bones. When flesh and muscle make contact it creates a resistance behind the joint that puts shearing forces at the knee. The more you &quot;sit&quot; on your calves the more forces pulling the knee joint apart. At body weight this probably isnt an issue, but with 400lbs on your back there could be a bit of a problem.
 
<div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 09 2008,20:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(nipponbiki @ Apr. 09 2008,10:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, actually pushing yourself all the way to thighs touching calves isn't necessary and can be as bad for your knees as above-parallel squats.

The point is to go below parallel as low as YOUR flexibility and anthropometry allows. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.</div>
Can you explain why thighs on calves can be as bad for your knees as parallel squatting? Is this only if form breaks down, ie inadequate flexibility to maintain the correct alignments?</div>
simple. the fact that going to parallel brings u to aound 90 degrees and atg brings you to around 150 degrees depending on morphology, your knees are under stress over a greater distance than with parallel.

the actual difference in stresses at a given point dont add upto much of a difference between the two as far as im aware. then again i can go much heavier with parallel than atg, about a hundred pounds or so more.

and squats are an entire leg exercise? ya think?
 
My lowered squats are now equal to my old parallel. I don't sit on my calves for the reasons Colby mentioned, but go low as is comfortably possible as Nippon mentioned. It's a matter of training IMO, and getting the hams up to speed; something they were lacking in parallell movements, having not stretched far enough to be activated. As Icars said, it's supposed to be a whole leg exersize, and I believe that if you train the whole leg, the whole lift eventually gets stronger than it could otherwise.
It sure doesn't feel like it at first, though.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 10 2008,11:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 09 2008,20:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(nipponbiki @ Apr. 09 2008,10:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, actually pushing yourself all the way to thighs touching calves isn't necessary and can be as bad for your knees as above-parallel squats.
</div>
Can you explain why thighs on calves can be as bad for your knees as parallel squatting? Is this only if form breaks down, ie inadequate flexibility to maintain the correct alignments?</div>
simple. the fact that going to parallel brings u to aound 90 degrees and atg brings you to around 150 degrees depending on morphology, your knees are under stress over a greater distance than with parallel.

the actual difference in stresses at a given point dont add upto much of a difference between the two as far as im aware. then again i can go much heavier with parallel than atg, about a hundred pounds or so more.

and squats are an entire leg exercise? ya think?</div>
Rippetoe would disagree with you. According to him, in a partial squat, described as &quot;where hips do not drop below level with the top of the patella&quot; stress is placed on the knees and quads without stressing glutes and hams. This fails to provide a full stretch for the hams, &amp; &quot;most of the force against the tibia is forward, from the quads &amp; their attachment to the front of the tibia below the knee. This produces an anterior shear, a forward directed sliding force on the knee, with the tibia being pulled forward from the patella tendon without a balancing pull from the opposing hamstrings.&quot;

Conversely, with deep squatting, the tension of the ham stretch pulls the tibia backwards balancing the forward pulling force produced by the quads, removing the shear from the knees that occurs with parallel or above squatting.  

Maybe not so simple - ya think?
 
<div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 10 2008,12:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

Conversely, with deep squatting, the tension of the ham stretch pulls the tibia backwards balancing the forward pulling force produced by the quads, removing the shear from the knees that occurs with parallel or above squatting.  

Maybe not so simple - ya think?</div>
Even so, Rippetoe advises against truly low ATG-style squats because (according to him) to get that low, you have to relax the hams, meaning no &quot;hamstring bounce&quot; out of the hole. Which is a huge no-no as far as Rippetoe is concerned. He's very specific that the bounce should come from the hamstrings.

Plus, every time someone squats without bouncing off their hamstrings, Rip drowns a puppy in milk.
 
<div>
(Robert B @ Apr. 10 2008,12:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Even so, Rippetoe advises against truly low ATG-style squats because (according to him) to get that low, you have to relax the hams, meaning no &quot;hamstring bounce&quot; out of the hole. Which is a huge no-no as far as Rippetoe is concerned. He's very specific that the bounce should come from the hamstrings.

Plus, every time someone squats without bouncing off their hamstrings, Rip drowns a puppy in milk.</div>
Thanks mate - that has answered my question.
 
<div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 10 2008,12:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 10 2008,11:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(DanOz @ Apr. 09 2008,20:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(nipponbiki @ Apr. 09 2008,10:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, actually pushing yourself all the way to thighs touching calves isn't necessary and can be as bad for your knees as above-parallel squats.
</div>
Can you explain why thighs on calves can be as bad for your knees as parallel squatting? Is this only if form breaks down, ie inadequate flexibility to maintain the correct alignments?</div>
simple. the fact that going to parallel brings u to aound 90 degrees and atg brings you to around 150 degrees depending on morphology, your knees are under stress over a greater distance than with parallel.

the actual difference in stresses at a given point dont add upto much of a difference between the two as far as im aware. then again i can go much heavier with parallel than atg, about a hundred pounds or so more.

and squats are an entire leg exercise? ya think?</div>
Rippetoe would disagree with you. According to him, in a partial squat, described as &quot;where hips do not drop below level with the top of the patella&quot; stress is placed on the knees and quads without stressing glutes and hams. This fails to provide a full stretch for the hams, &amp; &quot;most of the force against the tibia is forward, from the quads &amp; their attachment to the front of the tibia below the knee. This produces an anterior shear, a forward directed sliding force on the knee, with the tibia being pulled forward from the patella tendon without a balancing pull from the opposing hamstrings.&quot;

Conversely, with deep squatting, the tension of the ham stretch pulls the tibia backwards balancing the forward pulling force produced by the quads, removing the shear from the knees that occurs with parallel or above squatting.

Maybe not so simple - ya think?</div>
this is the reason i use atg in my workouts.

so my original statement withstanding as far as the distance/period the knees are exposed to high tension. this doesnt mean you are going to damage the knees more by going atg it was just a simple answer to your Q. ok maybe too simple.

it all depends on your physiology and the weight you are using. imo its important to keep the tension as constant as possible, to work the whole leg efficiently. too low and you will lose tension in the hams as was stated above ,not low enough and you just dont bring the whole leg into the lift.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 11 2008,06:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">this is the reason i use atg in my workouts.

so my original statement withstanding as far as the distance/period the knees are exposed to high tension. this doesnt mean you are going to damage the knees more by going atg it was just a simple answer to your Q. ok maybe too simple.

it all depends on your physiology and the weight you are using. imo its important to keep the tension as constant as possible, to work the whole leg efficiently. too low and you will lose tension in the hams as was stated above ,not low enough and you just dont bring the whole leg into the lift.</div>
That was what I was after - not sure I agree about the weight being a factor, but I got my answer regarding the reason butt to calves was a problem - relaxation of the hams and its effects.

Cheers.
 
I was going to start a thread on actual squat depth vs. perceived squat depth, but then I ran across this thread. From observing the very few people that squat at the 2 gyms where I workout and from my own personal experience, I've come to the conclusion that most people THINK they are squatting much deeper than they actually are. A legal ( in PL terms) below parallel squat is actually a pretty damn deep squat. I'm convinced that if I were to ask one of the people that I see doing 1/4 or 1/3 squats that they would say they are doing parallel squats even though they aren't even close to parallel. They wouldn't be lying, because they probably feel that they are squatting to parallel. I've also noticed that the 2 guys that I've observed who do squat relatively deep start out going below parallel with lower weights, but they tend to go less and less deep as the weight increases until they are not even getting to parallel with heavier weights. I'm very familiar with all of the above because I used to do the same thing.

When I started doing HST last Sept. I set the safety pins in the power rack to a depth that I thought was as deep as I could squat and squatted until the bar tapped the pins. That way I would consistently squat to the same depth. After a 2 week SD I did my squats and couldn't believe how difficult they were. 2 days later I had DOMS in my legs so bad I could hardly walk. Since I didn't have serious DOMS in any other body part I couldn't figure out what was wrong. On the next squat workout I figured it out. I had inadvertently set the safety pins 1 notch lower than I had in the 1st HST cycle. I measured it and the distance between the holes was 3.5 inches. In other words, I squatted 3.5 inches lower than what I thought I was capable of squatting. I continued to squat to this new depth, but I had to reduce the weight considerably which was a real blow to my ego, but I've been making consistent progress. I have increased my 5RM from 185 lbs to 215 lbs at a bodyweight of around 163lbs. I know that's pretty puny weight, but the important thing is that I'm progressing at a fairly good rate while squatting to a respectable and consistent depth.

I apologize for being so long winded. Getting back to the original post - I have my doubts about people claiming to squat ATG. Getting below parallel is plenty difficult and few people even do that.
 
I never go below parallel. There is no need for it unless you are a powerlifter.
I have read pages of rippetoe's beliefs about it, but do not agree.
There are much better ways to work the hamstrings than ATG squatting. And squatting shallower allows more load on the Quadriceps, this has been demonstrated in research. ATG squatting targets mainly the glutes. If your goal is a huge ass then do ATG squats.

So, imo, ATG squats are NOT ideal for bodybuilding.
If you want huge thighs do one exercise for quads, like front squats, hack squats, or half squats, and then do one for hamstrings like Romanian deadlifts. Finish 'em off with some isos if you feel like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top