That’s exactly what im argueing against here, because in a normal full squat we are limited by what weight we would be able to do the bottom rom with. Therefor it would make sense to strengthen the top most strongest rom of the squat by doing partials at the strongest rom instead of the weakest rom.
There should be one of two “Y’s” in consideration:
- The “Y” of hypertrophy to increase the volume of the muscle
- The “Y” of strength to increase in various lifts.
Hypertrophy needs working from the stretched position to assure adequate stimulation.
Strength increase in various lifts requires that you strengthen the portion of the lift where you are the weakest. This is a no brainer. If you are strong near the lockout and missing the lift at the mid point, why bother strengthening the lockout. There are a multitude of muscles that are working to squat a weight. The percentage of their involvement in the lift varies throughout the full range of motion of the squat.
No one focuses of the “Y” of increasing the strength of the muscle near its fully contracted position. If that was your “Y”, what is it that you hope to result.
1 Like
#1 hypertrophy comes from intensity of effort not mechanical tension…
will add more points later you are so wrong with what you’ve laid out and im only responding to ensure future readers don’t buy into what you’re saying
You are making a huge sacrifice. The readers are fortunate to have such an accomplished bodybuilder as you to guide them in the correct direction so that they don’t waste their time and effort like I had done my three decades of competing.
5 Likes
So the study that suggests long length partials (the opposite that you’re arguing for) may be just as effective or more effective than full ROM reps, also very clearly shows short length partials as less effective as both.
Do you believe that extreme stretches, KAATSU or BFR training work?
If you do, then it’s through the same pathways that these work - that partial ROM reps are effective, but only if using the lengthened portion of the ROM.
2 Likes
There is a trend of folks coming in with a question so they can answer it for all of us. Is this the thing in the world now, too, or just on this site?
5 Likes
I think this is an undefinable term and therefore meaningless. Is it another way of saying working hard?
1 Like
It’s all over social media, BUT the best information and research cherry-pickers come to this forum to hone their craft!
4 Likes
You really aren’t even reading what I write?
I never said we can lift more in the bottom of a squat over the top. of course we can ‘lift’ more in the top. I’m trying to tell you to think about ‘why’ we can lift more in the top position. It’s leverage factors. If you think simple leverage factors are scientific babble, it makes me wonder if you paid attention at all in high school.
As we rise in a squat, the femur is resting more and more on the end of the tibia and the lever arm is effectively becoming shorter and shorter, THAT is why we can lift more load near the top of the squat. It REQUIRES more load when the leverages are that favorable to put the same load on the muscles in that position.
Not even going to bother arguing about mechanical tension as that is very well established.
2 Likes
180 is standing upright
120 is the top part of the squat with legs bent a bit, like a top range quarter squat
90 degrees is a parallel squat
Muscle Activation Differs between Three Different Knee Joint-Angle Positions during a Maximal Isometric Back Squat Exercise
In conclusion, knee position alters muscles activation of the quadriceps and gluteus maximus muscles. An isometric back squat at 90° generates the highest overall muscle activation, yet an isometric back squat at 140° (near the top range) generates the lowest overall muscle activation
1 Like
the study is flawed because conventional exercise already is limited by what you can handle in the lengthened partial range of motion, while providing little resistance at the maximally contractions position therefor those muscles are left understimulated. This is not the case with Chins, as they are hardest at the maximally contracted position top, same with leg extensions, it is hardest at the contracted position.
intensity of effort is defined within the term. what do you mean undefinable? do you lack comprehension skills?
By chance, do you have any background or class work in mechanical engineering?
3 Likes
If your concern was growing quads and didn’t care how any of the rest of your body developed and that you could only choose one leg exercise out of a choice of just two exercises: the barbell squat or leg extensions, which one would you choose?
- The leg extension that allows maximum resistance through the final ROM.
- The squat that offers very little resistance through the final ROM.
It isn’t defined within the term. Define intensity, then define effort. As it stands, it reads like a term made up of two words that need context to give it a sense of meaning. In short, it’s a subjective term which will have different interpretations from different people.
I can’t believe we’re 95 posts in, and still haven’t even managed to define the question properly.
Are partial squats more effective for what? The question only makes sense if you define a goal.
5 Likes
Looking at his responses, do you really expect something resembling any sense other than nonsense? In order to not lose faith in humanity, I’m assuming he’s trolling because the alternative is, he somehow managed to figure out the internet in spite of having the IQ of a lobotomized hamster.
3 Likes
no do you
for thigh size, squats, for those really cool frontal thigh cuts , leg extensions.
i am being very specific. upper portion partial Belt squat. not barbell squat which would be limited but what weight your lower back can handle, this is a completely heavier than your normal squat weight and in fact heavier than your max deadlift weight, thus would be more stimulating for your leg growth.