[quote]DanRC wrote:
The closer you can get your hips to your ankles, the better your squat will feel, and look. This promotes an upright torso which in turn distributes the load evenly across the back and core, while protecting the spine. This stable position allows for the legs to do the work, which is the PURPOSE of the squat.
Ask yourself whats more inspiring to watch…a 105kg+ man with a wide stance, low bar and barely squatting 400-500kg to parallel position? Or a 85kg man with a shoulder width stance, bar resting on top the trapezius, and then squatting 280kg as I first described?
Apples and Oranges, maybe… but IMO the squat is an athletic movement, and should never be altered that is no longer such.
Above parallel should be titled something other than a squat…like 'torso bending hip pusher backers"
[/quote]
I don’t think the argument you’re making is the one everyone else was discussing, but good job coming off pretty narrow minded with your first post.
For the record, as someone who weighs 106kg (and squats below parallel, low bar with a slightly wider than shoulder width stance), I’d much prefer the “form whored” (paraphrasing) 500kg squat thanks. Your example is ridiculous, I’m pretty sure most 105+ lifters would struggle to even unrack 1100lbs, whereas a triple body weight squat in the middleweights, while impressive, is nowhere near unheard of.
A few people reading this thread might appreciate the fact that Pwnisher has a Q and A thread on here, have a search for “Pwnisher, how do you train?”. Not that the discussion in here isn’t interesting, just thinking you’ll appreciate the resource and it’ll save him a load of typing.
Just to be the voice of decent, there are good reasons to squat deep too. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I currently take all my squats to where my butt is literally only a couple inches off the ground. That allows me to challenge myself while using a weight small enough that it doesn?t hurt my back. Also if you are squatting with a narrow stance, it?s the below parallel part that does the most to work your hamstrings. They are all just tools in the toolbox.
The only thing I’d caution with the shallower squatting is to be honest with your depth. There are a lot of people that hit “PRs” by not going as deep.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just to be the voice of decent, there are good reasons to squat deep too. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.
[/quote]
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
No idea honestly. I’ve never done a “full” squat in my life (assuming by that you mean an olympic style ATG squat). My knees only seem to feel pain when I front squat, which is one of the reasons I don’t do them.[/quote]
Based on what you’ve said, what makes you feel that squatting ‘above depth’ is superior for you to that of squatting below?
And wouldn’t knee pain, during any style of knee flexion, be a sign of something otherwise?
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
Based on what you’ve said, what makes you feel that squatting ‘above depth’ is superior for you to that of squatting below?
And wouldn’t knee pain, during any style of knee flexion, be a sign of something otherwise?[/quote]
Results. Again though, I am saying it is superior for me, not a universalism.
And I am sure knee pain during any style of flexion is a sign of something, as opposed to a sign of nothing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They are all just tools in the toolbox.
[/quote]
This is such an awesome point, and something a lot of folks don’t understand. I see a lot of trainees that seem to think that you have to decide at one point in your training how you will do a movement for the rest of your life, draw a line in the sand, and never look back. They will manipulate volume, intensity, frequency, rest periods, etc etc, but never the movement itself to elicit change.
Squatting in a variety of depths accomplishes a variety of goals, and depending on your goal, certain depths work better than others.
Depends on your goals and, sometimes, your program. Right now I am doing CTs layers program where all of the lifts are done bottom-up from pins. It is counter productive for me to try to get set up properly under the bar if it is set lower than about 3/4 depth. Last year I did GVT for 6 weeks and did some ATG squatting then. So, for me it just depends.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The only thing I’d caution with the shallower squatting is to be honest with your depth. There are a lot of people that hit “PRs” by not going as deep.
[/quote]
…Exactly. As long as you’re actually doing what you think you’re doing; and you have a (valid) reason for doing what you’re doing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The only thing I’d caution with the shallower squatting is to be honest with your depth. There are a lot of people that hit “PRs” by not going as deep.
[/quote]
…Exactly. As long as you’re actually doing what you think you’re doing; and you have a (valid) reason for doing what you’re doing.[/quote]
I think there should be a disclaimer that “ego squatters” aren’t part of the discussion everytime squat depth is brought up. Reason being the mental image of these guys has the tendency to bring about emotional responses instead of rational ones.
Yes, there are always going to be clowns with sticks for legs loading the bar with 4 plates and doing 1 inch knee bends. That doesn’t mean a serious trainee has to go ATG in retaliation or to differentiate himself from them.
I personally don’t give a shit about them unless they spend too much time in the rack, and I suggest others not get affected by them either.
Unless, of course, they start curling in the rack after that…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Pavel Tsatouline is also a proponent of squatting above parallel from what I remember (At least from a ROM progression stand point anyway). [/quote]
That is extremely hard to believe.
I’ve seen many, many workshops by him… I didn’t really feel that he would advocate such a thing.
EDIT
Ah, perhaps I read it wrong.
He does incorporate shallow squats for seniors or for those who are beginners.
But in the end, the eventual goal is the third world (asian) squat depth.
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
Based on what you’ve said, what makes you feel that squatting ‘above depth’ is superior for you to that of squatting below?
And wouldn’t knee pain, during any style of knee flexion, be a sign of something otherwise?[/quote]
Results. Again though, I am saying it is superior for me, not a universalism.
And I am sure knee pain during any style of flexion is a sign of something, as opposed to a sign of nothing. [/quote]
Agreed, and your results speak for them self.
What I’m asking is how could you be so sure that the half squats are superior when you haven’t given full squats a go?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I currently take all my squats to where my butt is literally only a couple inches off the ground. That allows me to challenge myself while using a weight small enough that it doesn?t hurt my back.
[/quote]
that’s the exact same reason I squat deep as well. My lower body sessions are always designed to keep spinal loading as minimal as possible. Front squatting deep with pre-exhausted quad and hams every time for me.
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
Based on what you’ve said, what makes you feel that squatting ‘above depth’ is superior for you to that of squatting below?
And wouldn’t knee pain, during any style of knee flexion, be a sign of something otherwise?[/quote]
Results. Again though, I am saying it is superior for me, not a universalism.
And I am sure knee pain during any style of flexion is a sign of something, as opposed to a sign of nothing. [/quote]
Agreed, and your results speak for them self.
What I’m asking is how could you be so sure that the half squats are superior when you haven’t given full squats a go?
[/quote]
I’ve never needed to do a full squat to reach my goals before. If the need every arises, I will give them a go, but to me it seems foolish to abandon a working approach in order to try out a different one.
I find it odd that you feel that I think of half squats as superior. I believe you are the only one that has used this word choice actually. I simply use what works, and what I have found to work for me is squats in a variety of ranges above powerlifting legal (from slightly above to substantially, and not just the half squat exclusively).
Allow me to posit my own question: if my method is working, why would I want to squat lower?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I currently take all my squats to where my butt is literally only a couple inches off the ground. That allows me to challenge myself while using a weight small enough that it doesn?t hurt my back.
[/quote]
that’s the exact same reason I squat deep as well. My lower body sessions are always designed to keep spinal loading as minimal as possible. Front squatting deep with pre-exhausted quad and hams every time for me.[/quote]
I moved my high rep squat work to the end of my heaviest training day for a similar approach/reason. Dante from DC and John Meadows were a big influence in that regard.
As a results orientate lifter, have you ever done a atg squat and found it didn’t work or just said no from the get go and always used a parallel or higher squat?
I have never been put in a situation where I needed to do one to reach my goals. It is not a conscious decision denial of the lift, the situation simply hasn’t come up yet.
I imagine every single poster here has a far longer list of movements they have not done versus ones they have. It would be nearly impossible to be the case otherwise. The ox lift and top down deadlifts both have my eye as being great lifts, but at present I have no need to employ them. As soon as I do, I will.