Squats--1/2 way down or butt to ground? See pic
Options
Replies
-
HappyCampr1 wrote: »I think I'll quit working on my dorsifelxion and hip mobility now, lol. After reading strong curves, I got the impression that I should be doing ATG squats. And, reading here, that would make sense because he's the glute guy. But, I've been working on mobility for a several months now. I can do 8-10 squat to stands for a couple sets, (
http://youtu.be/ExZwvdgAe6g ) but my weight shifts to the left side to spare my right knee. It's a tad more difficult if you let go of your feet like I do and let your body actually rest at the bottom. Parallel doesn't bother it, but I've had to work hard to get to ATG range of motion and I'm just using body weight. I can't imagine how long it would take me to get to the point I could carry weight on my shoulders doing this. I think the hack squat machine is working my quads more than anything else I'm doing right now (although I did do some goblet squats yesterday). It would be nice to work my way up to actual squats without feeling like a failure because I'm having issues going ATG.
Whether you decide to squat ATG you should still work for proper mobility in hips and ankles. Main reason is because impingement of those joints are often what cause pain felt in knees and low back. There is tons of research out there about how cultures that squat regularly for daily activities have much less instance of chronic back and knee pain as societies that use western toilets and sit in 90 degree chairs for hours at a time.0 -
XavierNusum wrote: »I'm really assuming she's talking about the guy with 4 or 5 plates on a bar barely unhinging the hips. People who are taking the time to lift at a weight that promotes using good form don't fall into that category.
Hitting parallel and stopping at parallel isn't a half squat. Pretty substantial difference between hitting parallel and those who are ego lifting.
This:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsFC_2mFZg0
is not
This:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_GsNXF_Rzc 0 -
XavierNusum wrote: »There are people who squat shallow because they don't know better or don't realize that's what they are doing.
There are well educated lifters who squat shallow for good reasons and they get good results.
The parallel squat is standard developed by powerlifters for powerlifters. It's not necessarily best.
For many, deep squats are useless for quad activation. ATG squats deload the quads and they lag in development.
Olympic weightlifters often use very shallow squats in their training. ATG squats are only specific to one sport, Olympic weightlifting.
Most sports benefit more from partial range of motion.
Are you sure about this???
From Greg Everett Owner & Coach of Catalyst Athletics
Depth
The depth of an Olympic squat should not even be a topic of discussion, but because there has been and continues to be discussion among coaches and athletes in sports outside of weightlifting, it warrants at least clarification: proper depth is full depth; full depth means full depth. That is, full depth is not parallel, nor is it breaking parallel—it is squatting to the lowest position possible without surgical alteration of body parts while maintaining correct posture. To simplify, we want to close the knee joint maximally while maintaining a correctly arched back.
Full article: catalystathletics.com/article/20/The-Olympic-Weightlifting-Squat/
That's an opinion piece. Full depth depends on the sport, the person, and the goals. A powerlifter should rarely if ever train below the parallel breaking point, which would be full depth for them. They don't need to. Bodybuilders use a wide variety of depths for various reasons.
I'm certain that dropping below 90 degrees deloads the quads.
I am very positive that Olympic lifters frequently use partial squats in their training.0 -
That's an opinion piece. Full depth depends on the sport, the person, and the goals. A powerlifter should rarely if ever train below the parallel breaking point, which would be full depth for them. They don't need to. Bodybuilders use a wide variety of depths for various reasons.
I'm certain that dropping below 90 degrees deloads the quads.
I am very positive that Olympic lifters frequently use partial squats in their training.
I agree it's an opinion piece, but it's one by a qualified Olympic lifting coach who is very well known and respected in the sport. I also agree depth is sport dependent and Oly lifting is a sport that requires full depth. I've watched tons of training videos from the Catalyst team and no one does partial squats, parallel or above parallel squats. If for no other reason than needing to become comfortable in the bottom position or receiving position for cleans and snatches.0 -
XavierNusum wrote: »
That's an opinion piece. Full depth depends on the sport, the person, and the goals. A powerlifter should rarely if ever train below the parallel breaking point, which would be full depth for them. They don't need to. Bodybuilders use a wide variety of depths for various reasons.
I'm certain that dropping below 90 degrees deloads the quads.
I am very positive that Olympic lifters frequently use partial squats in their training.
I agree it's an opinion piece, but it's one by a qualified Olympic lifting coach who is very well known and respected in the sport. I also agree depth is sport dependent and Oly lifting is a sport that requires full depth. I've watched tons of training videos from the Catalyst team and no one does partial squats, parallel or above parallel squats. If for no other reason than needing to become comfortable in the bottom position or receiving position for cleans and snatches.
I've seen training for Olympic lifters that overloaded the top and bottom of the squat for partials. These practices were more than just publicity training videos. It's sort of like rack pulls for deadlifts and board press for bench press in powerlifters.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »XavierNusum wrote: »I'm really assuming she's talking about the guy with 4 or 5 plates on a bar barely unhinging the hips. People who are taking the time to lift at a weight that promotes using good form don't fall into that category.
Hitting parallel and stopping at parallel isn't a half squat. Pretty substantial difference between hitting parallel and those who are ego lifting.
This:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsFC_2mFZg0
is not
This:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_GsNXF_Rzc
This is it right here. I agree 100% Not to mention I think Chad Wesley Smith is going deeper than parallel it's just hard to tell because he's so freaking massive! lol
0 -
I can't find the post now, but someone replied to one of my replies re knee issues. I have a new one and am doing body weight only. Just wanted to share that keeping my shins as straight as possible, and doing movements that facilitate that, = being pain-free
want to give a special shout out to partial skater squats, which apparently work quads and hams almost equally, and to bodyweight single leg RDLs, of course. Also for hams, the SHELC is not *too* bad when glute ham raises just aren't happening bc of pressure on kneecap and you are bored of back extensions.0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »I can't find the post now, but someone replied to one of my replies re knee issues. I have a new one and am doing body weight only. Just wanted to share that keeping my shins as straight as possible, and doing movements that facilitate that, = being pain-free
want to give a special shout out to partial skater squats, which apparently work quads and hams almost equally, and to bodyweight single leg RDLs, of course. Also for hams, the SHELC is not *too* bad when glute ham raises just aren't happening bc of pressure on kneecap and you are bored of back extensions.
I try the skater squats, but I think I'm leaning too far forward. I like them, so I try them anyway. The thing that feels best on my knee so far is single leg box dips. I like those too, if I can get the 18" box at my gym. It's not always available. Off to google SHELC...
Ah, it's often that way, can't do the one thing you need, sucks when there aren't many alternatives. I'm not sure I'm up for the box dips but am keen to try, so thanks for that!
Yeah, re shelc thing, I hadn't seen it called anything else - think I prefer yours
For the skater squats, re tracking, I'm usually in front of mirrors, which helps, and I try to remember to use my hams and drive through the back of my foot. Sometimes I use a stick to be sure. But I think it comes down to "does it feel good" (or at least, does it not hurt) and that's what matters in the end0 -
In terms of what's best to do in terms of breaking parallel, would this be any different for bodyweight squats?0
-
Read a recent study that notes there ARE indication of long term or short term injury or deterioration issues that can occur from going too far past parallel, as well as no additional activation of the muscle groups as well.
Summary:Overall, the squat exercise provides
substantial and well-researched bene-
fits. However, when considering the
value of the deep squat, the risks
appear to outweigh many of the
potential benefits. Most significantly,
patellofemoral injury does appear to be
associated with deep knee flexion,
which can predispose individuals to
osteoarthritic changes in the articular
cartilage beneath the patella. Also, it is
important to note that electromyo-
graphic activity across studies have
indicated that peak muscle activity in
the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gas-
trocnemius fall within the range of the
parallel squat and do not increase
beyond parallel of flexion. This sug-
gests that squatting below parallel will
not increase muscle activation. Finally,
consider what is functional for the
individual and the sport, if deep
squatting is not part of normal func-
tioning, it may not be contributing to
sport performance via specificity.
Are Deep Squats a Safe and Viable Exercise?
Brad Schoenfeld, MSc, and Mary Williams, MA
Exercise Science Department, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York; and Athletic Training Education Program, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas
Several have been talking about the better results going below parallel and totally missed this post - which was sadly put up right at the time of the d-bag post which was stupidly distracting.0 -
Read a recent study that notes there ARE indication of long term or short term injury or deterioration issues that can occur from going too far past parallel, as well as no additional activation of the muscle groups as well.
Summary:Overall, the squat exercise provides
substantial and well-researched bene-
fits. However, when considering the
value of the deep squat, the risks
appear to outweigh many of the
potential benefits. Most significantly,
patellofemoral injury does appear to be
associated with deep knee flexion,
which can predispose individuals to
osteoarthritic changes in the articular
cartilage beneath the patella. Also, it is
important to note that electromyo-
graphic activity across studies have
indicated that peak muscle activity in
the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gas-
trocnemius fall within the range of the
parallel squat and do not increase
beyond parallel of flexion. This sug-
gests that squatting below parallel will
not increase muscle activation. Finally,
consider what is functional for the
individual and the sport, if deep
squatting is not part of normal func-
tioning, it may not be contributing to
sport performance via specificity.
Are Deep Squats a Safe and Viable Exercise?
Brad Schoenfeld, MSc, and Mary Williams, MA
Exercise Science Department, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York; and Athletic Training Education Program, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas
Several have been talking about the better results going below parallel and totally missed this post - which was sadly put up right at the time of the d-bag post which was stupidly distracting.
See below:0 -
Read a recent study that notes there ARE indication of long term or short term injury or deterioration issues that can occur from going too far past parallel, as well as no additional activation of the muscle groups as well.
Summary:Overall, the squat exercise provides
substantial and well-researched bene-
fits. However, when considering the
value of the deep squat, the risks
appear to outweigh many of the
potential benefits. Most significantly,
patellofemoral injury does appear to be
associated with deep knee flexion,
which can predispose individuals to
osteoarthritic changes in the articular
cartilage beneath the patella. Also, it is
important to note that electromyo-
graphic activity across studies have
indicated that peak muscle activity in
the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gas-
trocnemius fall within the range of the
parallel squat and do not increase
beyond parallel of flexion. This sug-
gests that squatting below parallel will
not increase muscle activation. Finally,
consider what is functional for the
individual and the sport, if deep
squatting is not part of normal func-
tioning, it may not be contributing to
sport performance via specificity.
Are Deep Squats a Safe and Viable Exercise?
Brad Schoenfeld, MSc, and Mary Williams, MA
Exercise Science Department, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York; and Athletic Training Education Program, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas
From a Schoenfeld review:
http://vbschools.net/moodle/pluginfile.php/7251/mod_resource/content/0/Squatting article.pdf
page 3,500 first highlighted section:Some practitioners have cautioned against performing
deep squats, citing an increased potential for injury to soft
tissue structures in the knee during high flexion (32). These
concerns, however, appear largely unwarranted. Although
it is true that shear forces tend to increase with increasing
knee angles, forces on the ACL and PCL actually decrease at
high flexion
second highlighted section:
- my italicsBecause compressive forces peak at high degrees of knee
flexion (13), the greatest risk of injury during deep squatting
would appear to be to be to the menisci and articular
cartilage, which are placed under increased stress at high
flexion angles (16,36). Unfortunately, currently, no guidelines
exist to determine at what magnitude of force injury occurs.
There also may be a susceptibility to patellofemoral degeneration
given the high amount of patellofemoral stress that
arises from contact of underside of the patella with articulating
aspect of femur during high flexion (17). This can lead to
disorders such as chondromolacia, osteoarthritis, and osteochondritis.
It is therefore essential to consider an individual’s
pathologic condition in determining optimal squat depth.
Finally:
- my italicsMuscular forces at the knee are largely produced by the
quadriceps. Quadriceps activity tends to peak at approximately
80 to 90 of flexion (20,74), remaining relatively constant
thereafter. This suggests that squatting past 90 might not
result in further enhancements in quadriceps development.
So.
1) Increasing knee angles increase shear, but these decrease at high flexion.
2) The squatter's menisci and cartilage are placed at higher stress in a deep squat.
3) Quad activation peaks at 90º, but i does not drop away after that, it remains constant. So travelling to the bottom of a squat does not continue to increase the quad activation, however that quad will be activated for longer.
From the conclusion of the review:This translates into reduced patellofemoral compression
and ACL strain in the low bar squat. However, values do not
come close to exceeding the strength threshold of these
structures in either bar position. Thus, unless contraindicated
by an existing injury, both positions are suitable for the
majority of lifters.
Gullett et al. (23) studied differences in kinetics between
front squats and back squats. Front squats were found to
produce significantly lower maximal joint compressive forces
at the knee as well as reduced lumbar stress as compared with
back squats, with little difference noted in shear forces. This
was accomplished without compromising muscle activity in
the quadriceps and hamstrings. This suggests that front
squats may be a better alternative than back squats for those
with ligament or meniscal injuries. What is more, the front
squat may isolate the quadriceps to a greater degree than the
back squat, making it a viable choice for those seeking to
optimize development of the frontal thighs in comparison
with the gluteals.
and:
- my italicsLow bar back squats tend to produce greater hip extensor
torque and less knee extensor torque compared with high
bar back squats. However, the magnitude of forces for both
movements are well tolerated by the associated joint
structures, making either position suitable for the majority
of lifters (75). The front squat produces significantly lower
knee compression and lumbar stress in comparison with
back squats, making it a viable alternative for those
suffering from various knee and back ailments (22). Front
squats also can be particularly beneficial for those
competing in weight lifting events because it is an essential
component in performance of the clean.
0 -
NightShiftMedic wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Karen_libert wrote: »I do a life of both. I keep a parallel squat for my heavy day and go light doing atg with a thruster. My ultimate aim is to do Olympic lifts so I'm working on the flexibility in my hips but my shoulders are not playing ball.
As long as you bring your booty back and round and you're fully engaged they're both working for you
That's a good goal. If your goal is Oly lifting though, you should focus on the Front Squat more than anything.
I would say that focusing on the front squat more than anything is not good advice for an amateur lifter. The back squat allows more weight to be used. More weight will get you stronger faster. All other things equal, a stronger oly lifter will have better lifts than a weaker oly lifter. Now, I'm not saying don't do and get good at front squats, because you'll have to, just don't make them the priority right away. Get stronger first.NightShiftMedic wrote: »As above, but with the bold part that I added. Obviously your body shape and mechanics are critical, but so are what you are trying to achieve.
The weightlifter is going to go much deeper than the powerlifter, who will most likely be deeper than the sprinter. Who knows what the bodybuilder is doing, probably somewhere over there on the leg press machine!
Point being, whilst you laugh at that guy doing quarter squats, he may be a sprinter and this is the optimal way for him to train. Why would the powerlifter bother going below parallel if that's all they need to get a white light? Why would the weightlifter squat in anyway that doesn't allow an upright torso, which he needs for carry over to his lift? The bodybuilder and bikini girl don't care that you are laughing at their squats, because their glutes and hams look better than yours.
Train in a way that is efficient for your goal, body type and avoids injury. If someone else is doing something different, it's not a zero sum game - you can both be right (or wrong!).
I can't say I agree with the bolded part. This implies that strength training is sport specific. Most things I've read have lead me to believe that while conditioning is sport specific, strength is not. I.e. if you're a sprinter, get strong across the full range of motion (squats to just below parallel) and then actually sprint to improve your sprinting.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I think I get what you are saying, but I think it is being misapplied. Strength training itself is not sport specific, but just being strong won't necessarily help you in your sport.
So the sprinter can get stronger through doing full squats, but strength is not just what he needs, he needs power (i.e ability to apply force quickly), by keeping the squat shallower, he can move more weight and do it faster (even if it was the same weight and faster, it would be more powerful). If he goes deeper, he may get stronger,but the movement will slow down.
He also needs that power in a certain range (ever see a runner drive from a leg bent even close to 90 degrees - would be fun to watch, kind of like a lunge race, but not efficient!), if he can train to generate a high amount strength and power through that range, why would he want to train generate less strength and power through a lower range. So in essence, he isn't training his sprint motion, that is as you rightly say, done on the track. However, he is training strength and power through a useful range. He will then use the strength and power from this range in conditioning sessions on the track to apply to print technique during a technical track session.
Of course, in most sprint programs full squats are done also, but quarter squats are definitely a tool that is used.
Same with weightlifting, a lifter may actually be working on their jerk dip, but to an outsider it may look like a squat with minimal range of motion. Again the weightlifter will most likely full squat too, but the smaller range has a valid purpose.
If I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, let me know, always happy to discuss this stuff.
0 -
NightShiftMedic wrote: »I did read your comment quite thoroughly, and just re-read it, and I stand by my own. My views come from an old-ish article from the late Bill Starr. I'll see if I can find the link to it. We may have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.
Edit: Found it here: "They Don't Award Form Points in Olympic Weightlifting" by Bill Starr.
(Edited for typos and added the link)
Very interesting you picked this article. Starr and Rippetoe both know a lot about producing strong athletes, but not about producing good weightlifters.
If you follow the US weightlifting scene (Disclaimer: I'm not actually American), this is a big thing, because Starr and Rippetoe claim the US would be much better on the world stage if the athletes stopped messing around with technique, and just got stronger. Even going to far as to say they should use the low bar squat to move more weight.
The first problem is, a lot of the US athletes are actually able to squat more than higher ranked athletes from other countries already. The other athletes have bigger competition lifts though - more efficient, can lift more through sound technique, exactly what Starr and Rippetoe advise against. Of course it helps that most Kazakhs, Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc. start lifting before there teen years, when most Americans start as teens, so much more time to refine motor skills and patterns and at a time when the body is developing and more receptive to doing this.
At lower weights, you can out muscle the weight through brute strength and get away with inferior technique. When the weight gets heavier relative to the athlete (2x bodyweight and more), the ability to do this is greatly reduced, and so technique and efficiency come into it, especially as the bulk of the lift (ignoring the recovery from the catch) happens in less than a second, so no time to grind it out with brute strength.
The second problem is that a greater amount lifted doesn't mean more strength. Take the low bar squat as the example, this generally provides favourable leverage's, so you can lift more. If your goal is to squat as much as possible this makes sense, squat in the way that lets you squat as much as possible. However as soon as you go back to the unfavourable leverage, the amount you can move is reduced. No problem if you only care about the squat, but if your sport is to pull a bar with an upright torso and then either catch it on your shoulders or overhead, you need to use the position of unfavourable leverage. If you have trained low bar, effectively all your strength gains from the lower bar position are gone, because you were not actually stronger, just able to move more by being in a different position, and using different muscles.
Slightly off topic, but hopefully interesting none the less.
On the topic of average trainers, in some cases, I think front squats would actually be beneficial, as they would have to build up back and core strength to be able to stay upright, and would likely be able to squat deeper due to the CofG position (same effect as from goblet squats). With a back squat, people can get in all kinds of mess with the back rounding and leaning forward like a good morning, just to try and get lower, which then brings potential for injuries into play. Do this with a front squat and you just dump the bar. Again, I wouldn't say average athletes should exclusively do this, but its a good weapon in the arsenal.
EDIT: Also since in the article they are talking about the history of weightlifting, you have to remember that comparing the era from when the press was also a lift and the bar wasn't allowed to touch the body, to now when the press is not a lift and the bar can touch the body changes the requirements in strength and technique.0 -
I can't say I agree with the bolded part. This implies that strength training is sport specific. Most things I've read have lead me to believe that while conditioning is sport specific, strength is not. I.e. if you're a sprinter, get strong across the full range of motion (squats to just below parallel) and then actually sprint to improve your sprinting.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I think I get what you are saying, but I think it is being misapplied. Strength training itself is not sport specific, but just being strong won't necessarily help you in your sport.
So the sprinter can get stronger through doing full squats, but strength is not just what he needs, he needs power (i.e ability to apply force quickly), by keeping the squat shallower, he can move more weight and do it faster (even if it was the same weight and faster, it would be more powerful). If he goes deeper, he may get stronger,but the movement will slow down.
He also needs that power in a certain range (ever see a runner drive from a leg bent even close to 90 degrees - would be fun to watch, kind of like a lunge race, but not efficient!), if he can train to generate a high amount strength and power through that range, why would he want to train generate less strength and power through a lower range. So in essence, he isn't training his sprint motion, that is as you rightly say, done on the track. However, he is training strength and power through a useful range. He will then use the strength and power from this range in conditioning sessions on the track to apply to print technique during a technical track session.
Of course, in most sprint programs full squats are done also, but quarter squats are definitely a tool that is used.
Same with weightlifting, a lifter may actually be working on their jerk dip, but to an outsider it may look like a squat with minimal range of motion. Again the weightlifter will most likely full squat too, but the smaller range has a valid purpose.
If I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, let me know, always happy to discuss this stuff.
I see where you're going with this line of thought. Full squats are done for sure with sprinters like you said. I've also seen instances of doing dynamic effort (focus on power) deadlifts to help develop that starting power you mentioned above. I think the NASE has discussed this before. Quarter squats in of them self aren't really a tool for developing power unless the loading is appropriate for developing power. I would be more inclined to use a loaded squat jump with probably a 40% load then just a quarter squat to work on power development. A squat jump doesn't go full depth (quarter squat more or less) because the amortization phase in plyometrics / ballistics needs to be brief.0 -
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I think I get what you are saying, but I think it is being misapplied. Strength training itself is not sport specific, but just being strong won't necessarily help you in your sport.
So the sprinter can get stronger through doing full squats, but strength is not just what he needs, he needs power (i.e ability to apply force quickly), by keeping the squat shallower, he can move more weight and do it faster (even if it was the same weight and faster, it would be more powerful). If he goes deeper, he may get stronger,but the movement will slow down.
He also needs that power in a certain range (ever see a runner drive from a leg bent even close to 90 degrees - would be fun to watch, kind of like a lunge race, but not efficient!), if he can train to generate a high amount strength and power through that range, why would he want to train generate less strength and power through a lower range. So in essence, he isn't training his sprint motion, that is as you rightly say, done on the track. However, he is training strength and power through a useful range. He will then use the strength and power from this range in conditioning sessions on the track to apply to print technique during a technical track session.
Of course, in most sprint programs full squats are done also, but quarter squats are definitely a tool that is used.
Same with weightlifting, a lifter may actually be working on their jerk dip, but to an outsider it may look like a squat with minimal range of motion. Again the weightlifter will most likely full squat too, but the smaller range has a valid purpose.
If I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, let me know, always happy to discuss this stuff.
I totally agree with your statement above, in bold. I missed the fact that you never said don't do full squats. I read quickly and assumed that you were saying only do quarter squats. My bad! My argument is from the point that full ROM squats will more efficiently build lower body and core strength than quarter squats.
Because just being strong won't help you in your sport (unless your sport is powerlifting) I think it's always beneficial to work on strength and the other elements that are important to your sport. For sprinters, maybe things like quarter squats, or squat jumps, or power cleans. For grapplers that would definitely be technique. For soccer players, sprinting and footwork, and other things. For some this might mean training for strength in the off season and then sport specific stuff during the competition season with stuff to maintain the strength gains from off season. It's all relative!
Good discussion! I'm enjoying this.
0 -
With a back squat, people can get in all kinds of mess with the back rounding and leaning forward like a good morning, just to try and get lower, which then brings potential for injuries into play.
^^This to me is a coaching issue, or a trainee getting a little overzealous and using too much weight, which presumably would be nipped in the bud by a competent coach. Of course, not every aspiring athlete has access to a competent strength coach.
You make some interesting points about the importance of form which I do agree with. My take away point from Starr's article wasn't to ignore form, but that oly lifters shouldn't give up strength training to work exclusively on form. You're absolutely right, form is extremely important. You're also right in the point that there may indeed be other factors besides strength and form that are holding American oly lifters back. We're starting to get outside of my area of familiarity. I need to go back and read my history.0 -
NightShiftMedic wrote: »With a back squat, people can get in all kinds of mess with the back rounding and leaning forward like a good morning, just to try and get lower, which then brings potential for injuries into play.
^^This to me is a coaching issue, or a trainee getting a little overzealous and using too much weight, which presumably would be nipped in the bud by a competent coach. Of course, not every aspiring athlete has access to a competent strength coach.
You make some interesting points about the importance of form which I do agree with. My take away point from Starr's article wasn't to ignore form, but that oly lifters shouldn't give up strength training to work exclusively on form. You're absolutely right, form is extremely important. You're also right in the point that there may indeed be other factors besides strength and form that are holding American oly lifters back. We're starting to get outside of my area of familiarity. I need to go back and read my history.
When it comes to training athletes specifically, form must be paramount; the last thing you want to do as a S&C is get your athletes injured. In some cases of back rounding and form fail, aside from too much load a S&C must be able to evaluate their athlete to determine where they need to develop strength. If their upper back is rounding, for example, then they must also consider that the athlete's upper back is weak and needs some work. The Lats in particular help support running posture, so it seems like that's something that should be at top-of-mind for an S&C.
An athlete's off-season training must be complete and address, strength & core stabilization, strength endurance, maximal strength, and power. Athletes aren't your every-day gym rat. They have very quick ballistic movements that could be coming off the blocks, 3-point stance into a run block, light jog into a sprint for the ball, golf swing, etc. Then they must be able to move their own bodies efficiently and maintain performance for a long period of time. Intelligent training is very important here and then in-season training should be kept very basic, low volume, low frequency.
I think one thing about Core training that gets horribly misrepresented is that deadlifting and squats are all you need to improve the Core musculature and that's only partially correct. If you first think about what really makes the Core muscles...
Core Stabilizers: Transversus Abdominus (TrA), Spinal Erectors, Longissimus, Multifidus
Core Movement: Rectus Abdominus (RA), Inner / Outter Obliques, Quadratus Lumborum, Latissimus, Psoas, Glutes
The Squat and Deadlift at 70%+ intensity have show to be probably the best at developing all the Core muscles of the back, but not so much of the anterior basically. It's similar to not-as-good as compared to more isolated exercises like Planks, Ab Wheel, etc. Their benefit to the Psoas and Glutes goes without saying. Some additional work should be done for the TrA, RA, and Obliques, and Lats. One study I read last semester suggests that Overhead athletes (pitchers, QB's, etc.) with poor development of the TrA have more shoulder injuries. Including one or two exercise to focus on the TrA and other anterior Core muscles is important.
We almost need a different thread to discuss athletic / performance training; it's a monster in of itself.
0 -
NightShiftMedic wrote: »With a back squat, people can get in all kinds of mess with the back rounding and leaning forward like a good morning, just to try and get lower, which then brings potential for injuries into play.
^^This to me is a coaching issue, or a trainee getting a little overzealous and using too much weight, which presumably would be nipped in the bud by a competent coach. Of course, not every aspiring athlete has access to a competent strength coach.
You make some interesting points about the importance of form which I do agree with. My take away point from Starr's article wasn't to ignore form, but that oly lifters shouldn't give up strength training to work exclusively on form. You're absolutely right, form is extremely important. You're also right in the point that there may indeed be other factors besides strength and form that are holding American oly lifters back. We're starting to get outside of my area of familiarity. I need to go back and read my history.
It can be a coaching or ego issue with the weight, but it can also be related to an individuals physiology. I guess adaptations to physiology come down to coaching, but like you said given that some people can't or won't get a coach, it can be easier just to use a less risky exercise in these instances.
Regarding the strength thing, I agree strength is needed, but Rippetoe and Starr speak like current weightlifters don't have or train for strength. These guys are all squatting 200kg+ as a minimum, and still working to improve. Whilst this mark itself isn't elite, it's not what is holding them back.
The other key factor is efficiency, if a lifter can squat 200kg but only clean 150kg, he is only operating at 75% efficiency. If he trains his squat hard and adds 10kg, he only adds 7.5kg to his clean to get to 157.5kg.
If he gains 5% in his clean efficiency, his clean goes up to 160kg, if at the same time he has increased his squat 4kg (because he didn't solely focus on strength), his clean actually becomes 163kg - keeping it whole, because you can only increase by a minimum of 1kg in competition.
Anyway, glad you find it interesting, it's always cool to discuss this stuff.0 -
I prefer ATG low bar Squats. Hi bar puts a lot of stress on my lower back (from rocking foward, my poor form) and the ATG uses lower weight to work the muscle well, further reducing the stress on my lower back.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions