Love for Squats Comes and Goes

Training
61

[quote]Yogi wrote:
The squat is a basic movement pattern that everyone should train, however the actual back squat isn’t always necessarily the best way to do that.

Lot of people out there with horrendous mobility can’t back squat worth a damn but they can front squat, goblet squat, split squat etc etc etc.

So yes, while everyone should train a squat movement pattern, blanket statements like “everyone should squat” are just annoying.[/quote]

Fair enough. I think we all agree.

Speaking for myself, when someone says “everyone should squat”, I interpret it as “everyone should train a squat movement pattern.”

63

[quote]Yogi wrote:
The squat is a basic movement pattern that everyone should train, however the actual back squat isn’t always necessarily the best way to do that.

Lot of people out there with horrendous mobility can’t back squat worth a damn but they can front squat, goblet squat, split squat etc etc etc.

So yes, while everyone should train a squat movement pattern, blanket statements like “everyone should squat” are just annoying.[/quote]

This is my opinion down to a T.

People who want to get out of chairs and off toilets when they’re older would be well served practising the squat pattern in some way (for most people, I would suggest goblet squats are enough)

People who want to pick stuff up from the floor when they’re older would be well served practising the hinge pattern in some form.

64

[quote]pushharder wrote:
(Don’t think I could can Zerchers though, Chris. Baddest ass exercise in the galaxy. Why is it I don’t care for the bar on my back but love it in the crook of my arms?)[/quote]
It’s because deep down, you’re a lover, not a fighter. Caressing the barbell so close to your beating heart feels most natural, as though it were the ear of a satisfied lover.

As for the rest of the confusion, I probably should’ve clarified that nobody has to back squat, but at the time of my earlier post, I thought that was presumed to be the exercise in question.

Barbell back squats (and the immediate variations - low bar, high bar, whatever) are not mandatory for anybody, or literally any body, except for competitive powerlifters. But I agree that the general “squatting” movement pattern is a basic human movement and must be addressed in training.

I also agree that the barbell back squat is a top notch exercise… but… the particular squatting exercise used always needs to suit the lifter’s current physical capabilities and goals, not some old school macho line about how “[back] squats are the undisputed king of lifts” that sounds cool and hardcore, but is actually a bit unrealistic.

[quote]mbdix wrote:
But, there is one exercise that does accomplish those benefits with one movement. The squat. It increases, power, strength, hypertrophy, speed, balance, mobility, flexibility, toughness, cardio vascular health, and overall well being.[/quote]
There are several exercises that can deliver all of those benefits. Power cleans, clean and push press, wide-grip deadlifts, one-arm high pulls, swings, and kettlebell snatches, off the top of my head.

65

I personally plan to ditch the back squat for awhile after my meet this weekend, because of the wear and tear on my elbows over the past 6 months of heavy/frequent back squatting. I’ll likely replace it with the hack squat machine, which I find to be a perfectly suitable replacement for back squatting for most people’s goals. I’ll eventually throw front squats into the rotation, and probably get a bar on my back again around August or September, depending on how my elbows heal. I don’t believe these substitutions will cause me to lose any strength or proficiency in the back squat.

66

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I personally plan to ditch the back squat for awhile after my meet this weekend, because of the wear and tear on my elbows over the past 6 months of heavy/frequent back squatting. I’ll likely replace it with the hack squat machine, which I find to be a perfectly suitable replacement for back squatting for most people’s goals. I’ll eventually throw front squats into the rotation, and probably get a bar on my back again around August or September, depending on how my elbows heal. I don’t believe these substitutions will cause me to lose any strength or proficiency in the back squat.[/quote]

Any chance of getting a safety squat bar? I cannot vouch for that thing enough.

67

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I personally plan to ditch the back squat for awhile after my meet this weekend, because of the wear and tear on my elbows over the past 6 months of heavy/frequent back squatting. I’ll likely replace it with the hack squat machine, which I find to be a perfectly suitable replacement for back squatting for most people’s goals. I’ll eventually throw front squats into the rotation, and probably get a bar on my back again around August or September, depending on how my elbows heal. I don’t believe these substitutions will cause me to lose any strength or proficiency in the back squat.[/quote]

Any chance of getting a safety squat bar? I cannot vouch for that thing enough.
[/quote]

what brand do you use?

I suppose there’s a chance… I’d have to convince the gym owner to let me store it there, and I’d probably have to be ok with other people using it. But it’s possible.

68

I just have the TDS/New York Barbells model. Very barebones, but gets the job done. I tried out an Elitefts one once and it was awesome. I’m sure the Rogue one is slick too.

70

Just answering to the OP:

I found my love for all lifts comes and goes, specially with the squat. I have huge problems with back squatting ATM and I personally dread front squats, I still do them both. Lifting is hard.

If you’re really feeling unmotivated and dread your squat sessions for a long period of time, it is OK to have a break from the movement. Just remember that occasional frustration/anxiety/whatever will come to you with every movement you train.

Like everybody here said - if you’re not competing, it is not crucial what type of squat you do. I would say FS and BS are the best options for strength, but everything works.

71

I suppose I’ll be the controversial one and say that I don’t believe a squat must be addressed in one’s training program in all cases. These days, it’s actually the lift I’ll prioritize the least, and should I need to cut something from the program, it tends to be the first to go.

72

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I suppose I’ll be the controversial one and say that I don’t believe a squat must be addressed in one’s training program in all cases. These days, it’s actually the lift I’ll prioritize the least, and should I need to cut something from the program, it tends to be the first to go.[/quote]

Actually man I don’t see this as all that controversial. You have a very specific reason for training, and there’s only so much time in the week.

73

Different routines for the in-season and the off-season?

Strongman, squat off-season during general strength time. Prepare for individual events in season.

PL, power-squat in season. Build up some quads and give yourself a little break off-season.

74

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I suppose I’ll be the controversial one and say that I don’t believe a squat must be addressed in one’s training program in all cases. These days, it’s actually the lift I’ll prioritize the least, and should I need to cut something from the program, it tends to be the first to go.[/quote]

So is it your opinion that a posterior chain movement (say deadlifts) is enough? Just wondering. This only applies if by squat you mean “the general squat movement pattern.”

75

[quote]Aopocetx wrote:
So is it your opinion that a posterior chain movement (say deadlifts) is enough? Just wondering. This only applies if by squat you mean “the general squat movement pattern.” [/quote]

Enough for what?

The issue I take with any statement regarding “everyone should do X” is that it presupposes a false hypothetical imperative. Unless we know what a trainee’s goals are, we cannot say what should and should not be done.

76

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
The issue I take with any statement regarding “everyone should do X” is that it presupposes a false hypothetical imperative. Unless we know what a trainee’s goals are, we cannot say what should and should not be done.[/quote]
There’s no “false hypothetical imperative” if/when the most basic purpose for training is to build and/or maintain a healthy body. Strength, power, muscle size, and fat loss aside, being healthy and having the entire body functioning properly is, or ideally “should be”, the base-undercurrent of all training.

It’s why we tell 200-pound guys it’s not okay to have a 275-pound bench while they struggle to squat 185. At extreme or high-level competition, there’s obviously more leeway and a better argument can be made for relatively-but-intentionally-imbalanced training.

But for the overwhelming majority of people, a well-designed training program will include training for the upper body and the lower body, and part of that lower body training will include some kind of squat.

As was said, the “squatting motion” is a basic human movement pattern and should play some part in training whether the person is a baseball player, a strongman, a teenager, or an 80-year old. Whether back squats, goblet squats, reverse lunges, or unweighted box squats are the particular exercise used is much more reliant on the individual lifter’s situation (condition, goal, etc.).

77

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
There’s no “false hypothetical imperative” if/when the most basic purpose for training is to build and/or maintain a healthy body. Strength, power, muscle size, and fat loss aside, being healthy and having the entire body functioning properly is, or ideally “should be”, the base-undercurrent of all training. [/quote]

This is what I talk about though. Unless that is stated, we cannot operate under the premise that it is the reason for training.

I cannot say I agree with your premise that this is what should be the base undercurrent of all training, and I believe it is why I take issue with this statement.

78

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
There’s no “false hypothetical imperative” if/when the most basic purpose for training is to build and/or maintain a healthy body. Strength, power, muscle size, and fat loss aside, being healthy and having the entire body functioning properly is, or ideally “should be”, the base-undercurrent of all training. [/quote]
This is what I talk about though. Unless that is stated, we cannot operate under the premise that it is the reason for training.

I cannot say I agree with your premise that this is what should be the base undercurrent of all training, and I believe it is why I take issue with this statement.[/quote]
Fair enough. Then we have different fundamental approaches to training. I generally treat it as unspoken and assume that “healthy” is an underlying goal, it sounds like you prefer it to actually be an intentional and acknowledged goal. There are certainly more than a few ways to train, so, no prob.

79

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Fair enough. Then we have different fundamental approaches to training. I generally treat it as unspoken and assume that “healthy” is an underlying goal, it sounds like you prefer it to actually be an intentional and acknowledged goal. There are certainly more than a few ways to train, so, no prob.[/quote]

Exactly. I do find your philosophy is far more prevalent than mine on the discussion of training, so it’s not an unreasonable assumption. It has caused me to run into some funny roadblocks whenever I give advice and someone responds “Isn’t that dangerous” and I go “Yeah…did you not want that?” Haha.

80

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Fair enough. Then we have different fundamental approaches to training. I generally treat it as unspoken and assume that “healthy” is an underlying goal, it sounds like you prefer it to actually be an intentional and acknowledged goal. There are certainly more than a few ways to train, so, no prob.[/quote]

Exactly. I do find your philosophy is far more prevalent than mine on the discussion of training, so it’s not an unreasonable assumption. It has caused me to run into some funny roadblocks whenever I give advice and someone responds “Isn’t that dangerous” and I go “Yeah…did you not want that?” Haha.[/quote]

I love what both of you are saying, because you’re both essentially right. I have plenty of people ask me if what I’m doing training-wise is ‘healthy’. And by the more prevalent definitions, it’s probably not. Most casual gym-goers, and even many more serious trainees/athletes, subscribe to the general view of what health is supposed to mean.

By my definition, what I do is healthy, mostly because it keeps me relatively sane. But it would be disingenuous of me to say I want to squat 600 lbs because it will improve what are usually accepted as markers of good healthy (ie blood pressure, mobility, general levels of energy, a lack of pain in the body, whatever).

I do things that I know will cause me pain. I do things that raise my blood pressure. Squats destroy my elbows. Plenty of things that run counter to what most people are looking to accomplish by going to the gym.

It’s basically the difference between the training at, say Metroflex gym, versus the training at Lifetime Fitness. Goals at the former are more clearly defined, and less ‘health’ oriented. Goals at the latter are essentially the opposite. The average commercial gym patron likely needs to lose belly fat, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, wants to look less awful without clothes, etc. The metroflex lifter is taking drugs that might kill him, and lifting weights that may break him.

In general, I assume posters on a website with the tagline “the intelligent and relentless pursuit of muscle” are more like the metroflex lifter. This may or may not be the case.

Cliff notes: different strokes for different folks.