Bigger legs-ass to grass or regular squats?

[tcslick]

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.

True, but some exercises take a lot more technique and some exercises are inherently more dangerous to do than others. For an example a preacher curl is a lot less technical than a power clean. A sit up is a lot less dangerous than a GM. Are there other lower back exercises that can be done that are less dangerous than a GM? Absolutely.

 

[Sean1332]

True, but some exercises take a lot more technique and some exercises are inherently more dangerous to do than others. For an example a preacher curl is a lot less technical than a power clean. A sit up is a lot less dangerous than a GM. Are there other lower back exercises that can be done that are less dangerous than a GM? Absolutely.

You're comparing sit-ups to good mornings?

And a good morning isn't a "lower back exercise". It involves your entire posterior chain. If someone is doing it, and it's dangerous, then they're doing something wrong. Solution: Lower the amount of weight, and use correct form. That can be said for literally anything.

 

[Rodja]

True, but some exercises take a lot more technique and some exercises are inherently more dangerous to do than others. For an example a preacher curl is a lot less technical than a power clean. A sit up is a lot less dangerous than a GM. Are there other lower back exercises that can be done that are less dangerous than a GM? Absolutely.

Nobody is saying that there's isn't injury potential. However, that applies to every compound lift out there and is amplified with atrocious technique and biomechanics. How many cite bad shoulders because of benching with improper technique? How many people bitch about their knees because of terrible squat technique? How many people can actually perform a proper deadlift? Also, saying that the GM is for the back is extremely myopic. It's just as much for the hams and glutes as the erectors. Throw in a SSB and you get more upper back activation.

 

[tcslick]

You're comparing sit-ups to good mornings?

And a good morning isn't a "lower back exercise". It involves your entire posterior chain. If someone is doing it, and it's dangerous, then they're doing something wrong. Solution: Lower the amount of weight, and use correct form. That can be said for literally anything.

I wasn't insinuating that they were both back exercises. I was using them both as examples of a safe exercise and one that is more technical/not as a safe

 

[Sean1332]

I wasn't insinuating that they were both back exercises. I was using them both as examples of a safe exercise and one that is more technical/not as a safe

No I got ya.

Just because something is technical though, doesn't mean it's dangerous. It's dangerous when it's executed incorrectly.

 

[tcslick]

You're comparing sit-ups to good mornings?

And a good morning isn't a "lower back exercise". It involves your entire posterior chain. If someone is doing it, and it's dangerous, then they're doing something wrong. Solution: Lower the amount of weight, and use correct form. That can be said for literally anything.

Nobody is saying that there's isn't injury potential. However, that applies to every compound lift out there and is amplified with atrocious technique and biomechanics. How many cite bad shoulders because of benching with improper technique? How many people bitch about their knees because of terrible squat technique? How many people can actually perform a proper deadlift? Also, saying that the GM is for the back is extremely myopic. It's just as much for the hams and glutes as the erectors. Throw in a SSB and you get more upper back activation.

Sure GMs work a lot more than the lower back. And deadlifts work many muscles groups but I do them on back day. All of these compounding lifts will work a lot of muscle groups. But from my understanding many people who do GMs do them for back development.

 

[tcslick]

Yeah I agree

 

[Sean1332]

Sure GMs work a lot more than the lower back. And deadlifts work many muscles groups but I do them on back day. All of these compounding lifts will work a lot of muscle groups. But from my understanding many people who do GMs do them for back development.

I do them for glute/hamstring mainly

 

[Sean1332]

Invalid Link Removed

From Eric Cressey, who trains all athletes. I've personally been to his facility, and was recommended amongst various things: to do below parallel squats, and good mornings.

References are cited in the article if you feel like reading more in depth.

Salem and Powers (2001) looked at patellofemoral joint kinetics in female collegiate athletes at three different depths: 70 degrees (above parallel), 90 degrees (at parallel), and 110 degrees (below parallel) of knee flexion. The researchers found that "Peak knee extensor moment, patellofemoral joint reaction force and patellofemoral joint stress did not vary significantly between the three squatting trials (2);" there was no support for the idea that squatting below parallel increases stress on the patellofemoral joint.

Finally, it's important to remember that while a full range-of-motion squat will offer noticeable carryover to top-end strength, 1/4 squats will not yield strength increases in the lower positions. Effectively, you get more bang for your training buck by squatting deep, which is one reason why this modality is the best option for those purely interested in looking good nekkid.

Granted he brings up the point that GM's aren't for everyone. But that's because not everyone will do them correctly.

Read some literature by Louie Simmons and you'll realize how awesome GMs can be...when done correctly (like anything else)

 

[Rodja]

Sure GMs work a lot more than the lower back. And deadlifts work many muscles groups but I do them on back day. All of these compounding lifts will work a lot of muscle groups. But from my understanding many people who do GMs do them for back development.

I have a huge contention with anyone that pigeonholes deadlifts as a "back" exercise. To expand, I hate this viewpoint that lifts like this are approached as muscles instead of movements. Deadlifts are not for back just as squats are not for quads. They're movements that should be treated as such and engage the entire body. IME, it's this approach that leads to an improper mental approach and, subsequently, bad technique. Most of the people that use GMs do not train muscularly; they train based on movements and improving these movements view properly picked assistance lifts.

 

[tcslick]

I have a huge contention with anyone that pigeonholes deadlifts as a "back" exercise. To expand, I hate this viewpoint that lifts like this are approached as muscles instead of movements. Deadlifts are not for back just as squats are not for quads. They're movements that should be treated as such and engage the entire body. IME, it's this approach that leads to an improper mental approach and, subsequently, bad technique. Most of the people that use GMs do not train muscularly; they train based on movements and improving these movements view properly picked assistance lifts.

Sure but if your program is laid out like man BBs where you work a major muscle group and the ancillary muscle group then you have to pick a day to do these compounding lifts. I choose leg day to do squats and back day to do deads unless I am doing stiff leg deads then I do them on leg day.

 

[Rodja]

Sure but if your program is laid out like man BBs where you work a major muscle group and the ancillary muscle group then you have to pick a day to do these compounding lifts. I choose leg day to do squats and back day to do deads unless I am doing stiff leg deads then I do them on leg day.

Or you could base your training around lifts that engage and require the most muscle groups, which will also induce the most metabolic stress and adaptation (which is what you want). After that, fill in the gaps. The biggest mistake that occurs these days is the belief that you need a day to train arms.

Here's another great aspect of training movements: increased frequency. The fastest and most efficient way to increase hypertrophy (myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic) is with increased frequency.

 

[sheepdog.tx]

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.

I love how childish and personal you're making this. I can find a stack of papers and columns supporting anything as can you, that means little to nothing. The science of the paper I gave discusses in granular detail the tremendous stress this puts on the knee. I even gave you a paper showing this and pointed out what benefits a full squat might bring overtime (albiet largely useless for this community). You comically parrot what I said like you sooo busted me, when it was very clear from my response I addressed that as poor reward vs the risk.

The proof is in the decades of experience many lifters have seen that show these movements have very little reward for the risk. If you want to work harder instead of smarter, blow out a knee or a disc you go right ahead junior. Its your body to waste, but the OP asked an opinion and it was given. If you want to get all butthurt that your deep approach is the reason you squat half your bodyweight you go right ahead, I really could care less as this topic was never about you.

With that said you comment all you want, I'm done with your agenda. Continue to make an ass of yourself if you so desire, but I think you've completed that task most handily for the moment.

 

[tcslick]

Or you could base your training around lifts that engage and require the most muscle groups, which will also induce the most metabolic stress and adaptation (which is what you want). After that, fill in the gaps. The biggest mistake that occurs these days is the belief that you need a day to train arms.

Here's another great aspect of training movements: increased frequency. The fastest and most efficient way to increase hypertrophy (myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic) is with increased frequency.

I'm not reinventing the wheel here.. And I agree a day devoted to arms has never been part of my program. But if others have a workout program where they do that and it works for them, go right ahead.

 

[Rodja]

I love how childish and personal you're making this. I can find a stack of papers and columns supporting anything as can you, that means little to nothing. The science of the paper I gave discusses in granular detail the tremendous stress this puts on the knee. I even gave you a paper showing this and pointed out what benefits a full squat might bring overtime (albiet largely useless for this community). You comically parrot what I said like you sooo busted me, when it was very clear from my response I addressed that as poor reward vs the risk.

The proof is in the decades of experience many lifters have seen that show these movements have very little reward for the risk. If you want to work harder instead of smarter, blow out a knee or a disc you go right ahead junior. Its your body to waste, but the OP asked an opinion and it was given. If you want to get all butthurt that your deep approach is the reason you squat half your bodyweight you go right ahead, I really could care less as this topic was never about you.

With that said you comment all you want, I'm done with your agenda. Continue to make an ass of yourself if you so desire, but I think you've completed that task most handily for the moment.

Where are these stack of papers? Are they going to be like the one that YOU posted that refuted your position of the dangers to the knees of deep squats? Where are these lifters that are completely decrepit? All I hear coming from you are baseless claims and a classic slippery slope fallacy.

I'm a 600+lb squatter (633 competition) with a Master's degree in this field. I have just a wee bit of both knowledge and experience with training and evidence-based claims. Can you say the same?