I sign up for various updates and emails and all sorts of stuff shows up in my inbox. Today was a link titled The Death of The Squat. It is video of Coach Boyle (a badass for sure) explaining why everyone should stop squatting. I sorta understood some of it but not the big picture. Here is the link for anyone interested. If it makes sense to you, hell, explain it to me. Redirecting...
haha no wayy
[quote]tinman915 wrote:
explaining why everyone should stop squatting. [/quote]
I agree. That’s why I shit standing up 
he said to stop doing the conventional squat and instead do front squats or 1 leg squats so essentialy you are still squatting.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
tinman915 wrote:
explaining why everyone should stop squatting.
I agree. That’s why I shit standing up ;)[/quote]
How’s that working out for ya? lol
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
tinman915 wrote:
explaining why everyone should stop squatting.
I agree. That’s why I shit standing up
How’s that working out for ya? lol [/quote]
Not too bad. I just make sure I’m facing the toilet for a front shit.
I’ve thrown my back out squatting twice in the last three years. Due to factors like my lack of flexibility(which I’ve been working on of late to correct imbalances) and the fact that I have a long torso and stubby femur, which makes me unable to balance the weight properly over my center of movement (from the heel up to the shoulder blade), I’ve switched almost completely over to Single Leg Split Squats. He is right about the lower back being an inhibitor, and there’s been evidence shown on many articles on T-Nation by the authors that single leg training is really beneficial.
I’ve gotten size and strength gains in each plain of motion involved with my legs, increased my vertical by an inch, and have gotten notably more explosive in my running. I can feel the work I’m doing with my quads and glutes much better than when I do a traditional back squat, and there’s much less stress on my lower back. I don’t care about my squat numbers being over 400, I’d rather just have appreciable size and a good amount of power. And I’d also rather keep my back than sacrifice it at the tender age of 22 for some ‘holy grail of lifting’
If this had came from almost anyone other than mike Boyle I’d probably just dismiss it as “cooky talk”. But MB and his collegues know what they are talking about, so I have to at least keep an open mind here.
I see where he is coming from. When training ATHLETES, the goal isn’t to produce a big squat. The goal is to produce a faster, stronger, more injury resistant athlete. Most sports are unilateral in nature, so it sorta makes sense to train more for unilateral strength. This isn’t new, but barbell back squatting for strength has been the traditional standard for so long, and I guess its hard to change how things have been done.
At the same time, if squats have worked for so long, you cant really deny their effectiveness. But, as effective as they may be, there is a huge potential for injury with squatting that is just an unnecessary risk especially for athletes.
ANd from my experience, squats are pretty much limited by low back strength, especially with higher reps. A leg workout with only squats would not be a leg workout for me. I have to have some form of isolation movement or unilateral work to hit my legs fully.
Maybe for us that aren’t athletes, what MB is saying might suggest that we train our legs unilaterally FIRST in a workout. Stuff like heavy lunges, split squats, stepups, single leg press, should be done first in a workout heavier, to strengthen the legs more. Then finish off later in the workout with back squats or front squats. I know I always do this in reverse, so maybe thats something to think about.
I dont know about you guys, but i’d like to have big legs and a small lower back, not the reverse. We’ll have to see where MB takes this, or if he scraps the idea in the end.
Going heavy on unilateral exercises sounds like asking for an injury. Zach even esh, or however you spell his name, wrote an article-response article to this one (basically listing many points as to how a squat is an extremely important exercise to keep in an athlete’s program) and one of his points was that the alternative was to go heavy on unilateral exercises but that would greatly increase the chance of injury.
[quote]ApplCobbler wrote:
I’ve thrown my back out squatting twice in the last three years. Due to factors like my lack of flexibility(which I’ve been working on of late to correct imbalances) and the fact that I have a long torso and stubby femur, which makes me unable to balance the weight properly over my center of movement (from the heel up to the shoulder blade), I’ve switched almost completely over to Single Leg Split Squats. He is right about the lower back being an inhibitor, and there’s been evidence shown on many articles on T-Nation by the authors that single leg training is really beneficial.
I’ve gotten size and strength gains in each plain of motion involved with my legs, increased my vertical by an inch, and have gotten notably more explosive in my running. I can feel the work I’m doing with my quads and glutes much better than when I do a traditional back squat, and there’s much less stress on my lower back. I don’t care about my squat numbers being over 400, I’d rather just have appreciable size and a good amount of power. And I’d also rather keep my back than sacrifice it at the tender age of 22 for some ‘holy grail of lifting’[/quote]
That might be a fine decision - for you. The issue is that Boyle is saying it isn’t beneficial for ANYBODY. And his big reasoning is that his athletes can perform more reps with one leg at a certain weight than 2 with double whatever was used for one.
Split squats are fine. I’ve used them in conjunction with back squats and the certainly helped improve my back squat. And as far as the lower back being a limiting factor, why not focus on strengthening the weak link instead of sidestepping it?
[quote]cueball wrote:
And as far as the lower back being a limiting factor, why not focus on strengthening the weak link instead of sidestepping it?[/quote]
Bingo.
[quote]ApplCobbler wrote:
I’ve thrown my back out squatting twice in the last three years. Due to factors like my lack of flexibility(which I’ve been working on of late to correct imbalances) and the fact that I have a long torso and stubby femur, which makes me unable to balance the weight properly over my center of movement (from the heel up to the shoulder blade), I’ve switched almost completely over to Single Leg Split Squats. He is right about the lower back being an inhibitor, and there’s been evidence shown on many articles on T-Nation by the authors that single leg training is really beneficial.
I’ve gotten size and strength gains in each plain of motion involved with my legs, increased my vertical by an inch, and have gotten notably more explosive in my running. I can feel the work I’m doing with my quads and glutes much better than when I do a traditional back squat, and there’s much less stress on my lower back. I don’t care about my squat numbers being over 400, I’d rather just have appreciable size and a good amount of power. And I’d also rather keep my back than sacrifice it at the tender age of 22 for some ‘holy grail of lifting’[/quote]
x2
The squat was my favourite exercise until my lower back had other ideas. I am getting back into it but for the past three months I ditched it and have gone with sets of heavy lunges. I have made continual progress and can now lunge the load I squatted with at my peak.
[quote]JamesBrawn007 wrote:
ApplCobbler wrote:
I’ve thrown my back out squatting twice in the last three years. Due to factors like my lack of flexibility(which I’ve been working on of late to correct imbalances) and the fact that I have a long torso and stubby femur, which makes me unable to balance the weight properly over my center of movement (from the heel up to the shoulder blade), I’ve switched almost completely over to Single Leg Split Squats. He is right about the lower back being an inhibitor, and there’s been evidence shown on many articles on T-Nation by the authors that single leg training is really beneficial.
I’ve gotten size and strength gains in each plain of motion involved with my legs, increased my vertical by an inch, and have gotten notably more explosive in my running. I can feel the work I’m doing with my quads and glutes much better than when I do a traditional back squat, and there’s much less stress on my lower back. I don’t care about my squat numbers being over 400, I’d rather just have appreciable size and a good amount of power. And I’d also rather keep my back than sacrifice it at the tender age of 22 for some ‘holy grail of lifting’
x2
The squat was my favourite exercise until my lower back had other ideas. I am getting back into it but for the past three months I ditched it and have gone with sets of heavy lunges. I have made continual progress and can now lunge the load I squatted with at my peak. [/quote]
You must not have squatted very much “at your peak”.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
JamesBrawn007 wrote:
ApplCobbler wrote:
I’ve thrown my back out squatting twice in the last three years. Due to factors like my lack of flexibility(which I’ve been working on of late to correct imbalances) and the fact that I have a long torso and stubby femur, which makes me unable to balance the weight properly over my center of movement (from the heel up to the shoulder blade), I’ve switched almost completely over to Single Leg Split Squats. He is right about the lower back being an inhibitor, and there’s been evidence shown on many articles on T-Nation by the authors that single leg training is really beneficial.
I’ve gotten size and strength gains in each plain of motion involved with my legs, increased my vertical by an inch, and have gotten notably more explosive in my running. I can feel the work I’m doing with my quads and glutes much better than when I do a traditional back squat, and there’s much less stress on my lower back. I don’t care about my squat numbers being over 400, I’d rather just have appreciable size and a good amount of power. And I’d also rather keep my back than sacrifice it at the tender age of 22 for some ‘holy grail of lifting’
x2
The squat was my favourite exercise until my lower back had other ideas. I am getting back into it but for the past three months I ditched it and have gone with sets of heavy lunges. I have made continual progress and can now lunge the load I squatted with at my peak.
You must not have squatted very much “at your peak”.[/quote]
No shit lol. Even a weak squat of 315 would be a rediculous lunge.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
cueball wrote:
And as far as the lower back being a limiting factor, why not focus on strengthening the weak link instead of sidestepping it?
Bingo.
[/quote]
Yes, but if the reason you are squatting is to run faster or jump higher, you are really only concerned with leg/hip strength. The weak link is only a weak link for the squat, not for what a lot of these people are training for.
I dunno about going “heavy” on single leg stuff being more risky. Sure, you probably wont be grinding out a 1RM or 3RM on pistols, but then again this isnt the only way to get strong or big.
I think it all comes down to matching your goals with what you are doing in the gym and finding a compromise between risk and reward.
Im sure a lot strength coaches dont have at risk athletes doing barbell bench, but many of these athletes will still get strong and big with good alternatives.
I dont think this will be the end of squatting at all, but maybe at least people will realize that it isn’t an essential lift so much, and that there are alternatives.
**Also, I wonder if MB has most of his athletes do deadlifts. Anybody know?
[quote]dankid wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
cueball wrote:
And as far as the lower back being a limiting factor, why not focus on strengthening the weak link instead of sidestepping it?
Bingo.
Yes, but if the reason you are squatting is to run faster or jump higher, you are really only concerned with leg/hip strength. The weak link is only a weak link for the squat, not for what a lot of these people are training for.
I dunno about going “heavy” on single leg stuff being more risky. Sure, you probably wont be grinding out a 1RM or 3RM on pistols, but then again this isnt the only way to get strong or big.
I think it all comes down to matching your goals with what you are doing in the gym and finding a compromise between risk and reward.
Im sure a lot strength coaches dont have at risk athletes doing barbell bench, but many of these athletes will still get strong and big with good alternatives.
I dont think this will be the end of squatting at all, but maybe at least people will realize that it isn’t an essential lift so much, and that there are alternatives.
**Also, I wonder if MB has most of his athletes do deadlifts. Anybody know?[/quote]
Seeing his attitude toward the squat, if he does, they’re probably trap-bar deads if anything. But idk.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
You must not have squatted very much “at your peak”.[/quote]
Ouccch! That was nasty!
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
No shit lol. Even a weak squat of 315 would be a rediculous lunge.[/quote]
A bit of advice: learn to spell first before attempting to mock others!
Since people recognize that MB trains athletes, then why would the bodybuilding forum really care that he is against back squats? Its no different than when CW says you don’t need direct arm work. Simply a different target audience.