Do they specify what is a full and what is a partial?
The part speaking of the study just says full (deep back squats were just the authors words)
I'm partially with you on varying up the training, but the raised heels is not one of them. This changes the biomechanics of the lift and may do more harm than good depending on the individual person.
There's a lot of bad information here. Saying deep squats are inherently bad for the knees is erroneous. Also, you're always shifting muscle activation with the squat in the entire hip and thigh region (the erectors and traps as well to a lesser extent). Finally, no to Smith anything.
Thats your opinion, as the above is mine. It does not make it bad information (ie facts). I'd like you to specifically point out how anything said is bad with examples of whats better/correct/etc. If you're going to call someone out stand by your position with some documentation.
The problem is that most people have no idea how to properly squat and wear improper shoes for squats. There's far too much knee flexion and not enough movement at the hips to drop into the proper position. Look at Oly lifters and PL'ers that compete in the IPF/USAPL. They go full ROM and knee problems are seldom an issue because of proper biomechanics in their squat.
Are Deep Squats a Safe and Viable Exercise?
Why would you pick that review? It directly shoots down your statement of deep squats being bad for the knees. You're now attempting to red herring the discussion by bringing up weight and applicability of specific squats. The great irony is that the review that YOU posted extolls deeps squats for athletic performance.
Did you happen to miss the line I said Now the study goes on the say full squats aren't all bad. Sure, fine I can see some benefit to them if your knees can take it. then I go on to say why most knees A.) Fail before they get to the bennies of it and B.) dont help most people because its at working a portion they'll never use. What part of that do you not understand? Its a exercise thats was poor to begin with that has several variations that are far better. Are you still doing "good mornings" too? Behind the neck press? We've moved on 1920s strongman, maybe you and your curly handlebar moustache should join us ^_^
I guess you didn't read the part saying that full squats are better for athletic development, the injury risk is overstated, and is actually beneficial for muscular development/activity? You're now suggesting that the GM should be scrapped? The good morning is without a doubt one of the, if not the, best developers to the entire PC.
Debunking erroneous misinformation is never something to scoff at.
No scoffing here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23604798/
The OP never mentioned if he was doing partial/shallow squats and then switched to ATG, or if he was doing below parallel squats and then switched to ATG. Either way, below parallel will recruit more glute and will allow your hips to take the brunt of the load instead of your knees.
Are we talking about building strength or muscle? What I laid out worked for me.
Both. Define "work."
Continual gains in the size and definition of my quadriceps, hamstrings and glutes. Strength is ok; I deadlift both sumo and stiff leg two and a half my body weight, I squat the same.
A heel raised squat aka Oly-style squat changes the emphasis of the lift and, therefore, the biomechanics of the lift. I have zero qualms with changing stance widths and bar positioning, but heels raised should only be done if biomechanically compromised (e.g. lack of ankle mobility) or a high-bar, raw squatter. That, and too much of a raise will increase the amount of sheer on the knee itself. You can get plenty of variety from changing the aforementioned width and bar placement. I like box squats, but with a caveat. You need someone to teach you how to properly box squat as opposed to just squatting to a box. Most have the same motor pattern on the box squat as a free-squat and that is not correct. The proper box squat is performed by keeping the shins as vertical as possible and sitting into the box while maintaining a tight arch.
Wow,.. just wow.
Ok if you say so Mr Know it all. Debunking would of course require something called facts which you continue to neglect. I respect your opinion, however absurd, but I do not appreciate your trying to brow beat others with assertions when they are little more than opinions, mostly dated borderlining myth. But ok, good for you and your ankles to arse approach.
Please, explain why you think the GM is so bad. Biomechanically speaking, a properly executed GM is almost identical to a SLDL with different bar positioning. Are those bad as well?
You were just talking trash on heel raised squats; an old school exercise. And now you're suggesting good mornings? There is a reason people stopped doing good mornings its too easy to **** up your back. I have not met a personal trainer who would recommend good mornings. Look at Bruce Lee he had a great core and he threw out his back doing good mornings.
I was refuting the merits of changing up heel positioning for no reason. Like I said, unless you're an Oly lifter or biomechanically compromised (e.g. tight calves, immobile ankles, long torso to an extent), there's no point in doing a heel raised squat just for ****s and giggles.
Fair enough. Louie Simmons is one of the best strength coaches. But there are others who don't recommend GMs. In Mark Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" he recommends a lot of strength and power exercises with no mention of the GM.
I certainly agree the GM has it's place in PC training, but I found when I was a trainer and strength coach the majority of my clients/players received more benefits from RDL's and SLDL's as far as increases in strength and flexibilty. The change in center of gravity seemed to make a large difference in the effectiveness, and also translated to increases in squat and deadlift strength. This is my own personal experience though and mostly anecdotal.
According to Rip, it's covered, but not sure which edition since there have been several of them.
The change in leverage does indeed make the lift different in terms of muscle activation. From a coordination standpoint, the SLDL/RDL (and hypers) are much easier to teach and learn. I start teaching the GM with bands as they present a smaller challenge psychologically and they're also less taxing to the CNS.
I just did a quick search and, according to him on his forum, it's covered at some point.
What's ironic in this discussion is that I am a parallel squatter, but see the merits in both styles. My contention has been the moronic and archaic belief that ATG is bad on the knees when the literature does not support that statement.
How's your program look? Maybe that's something to consider too.
You think so?
Haha love this
This was my point, there are much better options in the variety of positions we now know. Just as with the insane GM talk, no one with an ounce of snese does these anymore because they're dangerous except done extremely accurately and theres better options. But nnoooo the purist say "arse to ankles or die infidel", even though many backs and knees have been blown out on these highly overrated exercises.
You're ridiculous with your statements. ANYTHING can be dangerous when done improperly and I love how the stats and science have refuted your statements and you still, arrogantly, refuse to acknowledge it.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | MENT or Tren for bigger flaccid penis? | Anabolics | 69 | |
| S | Hunt for a bigger ween (Evomuse Hung Log) | Supplement Logs | 37 | |
| R | Looking to get bigger and shredded | Peptide/Research | 7 | |
|
Will Wellness Be Bigger Than Bikini? | IronMag Labs | 0 | |
|
Needs bigger Legs | Powerlifting/Strongman | 12 |