I think it should be pointed out that sometimes, going ATG isn't as healthy as going to parallel-not in the aspect of leaving the knee in a vulnerable position, as we've already found in the past to be bogus, and have supported with scientific research, but if you don't have the flexibility. For example, with myself, once i hit a little bit below parallel, my butt drops and my lower back rounds under. For me, thats going too far. So, for now, i just go to parallel, and a little bit lower. Then again, i'm not that flexible as i'd like to be. So, as i work on my flexability, i'll be able to go deeper into my squat while being able to keep my back straight.
That's what has been pointed out to me by the strength and conditioning guy at our school and it made sense as i would watch my form in a mirror. At the same point, my low back would go from having a nice, natural arch to dipping under and rounding. So, i began to focus on feeling for that point and stopping just before i reached it. My goal for the winter is to gain more flexibility, so i'll be able to not only squat deeper but also to help my agility and speed, and the like.
__________________
"Rust on a nail builds tetanus. Rust on a barbell builds character, strength, and attitude." -EC
"Don't spend your life wishing. Spend it doing." -FishrCutB8
"You're a mutant, like a snake with two heads or a cat shy one nipple. Be thankful that your mutation is helpful." - LD
Don't you cheat by raising your heels on a couple of plates? Resolves the flexibilty thing rightly.
ATG also fully exploits the glutes which doesn't happen going to parallel.
If you take the time to build up to it by patiently lowering the weight and concentrating on the form -you will quickly be rewarded by a far superior range of motion.
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable. -- Sidney J. Harris
Originally posted by Kevin T.: I think it should be pointed out that sometimes, going ATG isn't as healthy as going to parallel-not in the aspect of leaving the knee in a vulnerable position, as we've already found in the past to be bogus, and have supported with scientific research, but if you don't have the flexibility. For example, with myself, once i hit a little bit below parallel, my butt drops and my lower back rounds under. For me, thats going too far. So, for now, i just go to parallel, and a little bit lower. Then again, i'm not that flexible as i'd like to be. So, as i work on my flexability, i'll be able to go deeper into my squat while being able to keep my back straight.
That's what has been pointed out to me by the strength and conditioning guy at our school and it made sense as i would watch my form in a mirror. At the same point, my low back would go from having a nice, natural arch to dipping under and rounding. So, i began to focus on feeling for that point and stopping just before i reached it. My goal for the winter is to gain more flexibility, so i'll be able to not only squat deeper but also to help my agility and speed, and the like.
If you are having that problem, you are doing too much weight. Drop the weight and keep the form and you will do fine.
For an example, I am 197lbs 6'1" and I can only squat 145 3x5 ATG. When I was doing sumo squats I was doing 175.
Originally posted by gymrat: Kaiser (I think) posted a great link on this matter a few weeks back..... can't find it...
Kaiser, if you're out there reading this can you post that link again?
I was about to say that I haven't posted anything useful in years. [img]smile.gif[/img]
One of the caveats I will provide that may the the lone exception to the 'full is better than the parallel squat' position is if you have a mitigating knee condition. In my case, I am missing meniscus and it hurts and cuases injury if I go too far past parallel. So while it may be true most of the time, there is always the occassional exception to the rule. I want anybody with knee issues to consider this since I tried for quite a while to do full squats with no pain and it just didn't happen.
This exact same subject was raised over at MH a few years back, and here's Adam Campbell's response (at least I believe it was Adam):
I'm in a hurry so this probably won't make sense
Stopping at 90 degrees is where the knee is the most unstable. This is actually the joint angle where physical therapists test for instability.
Anything that stops at parallel stresses the knee joint more than full squats.
The partial squat is an overload technique - approx 6 inches of range or so - not even approaching parallel.
The full squat is recommended all the time.
The partial squat is not a squat gone wrong (in fact it's not even a squat per se due to the very small joint angle)- it is a separate technique designed to overload the top part of the squat lockout.
The incorrect squatting method is to change direction at the weakest joint angle -90 degrees. Go as low as possible.
Taken from t-mag:
"Squatting to parallel (i.e. legs bent 90 degrees) not only makes the exercise less effective, but additionally increases the risk of injury. First of all, by not squatting the full range of motion, one does not maintain proper lumbosacral bodymechanics. When performing the squat movement, the sacrum undergoes a process known as nutation (i.e. it tilts forward, relative to the two ilia on either side of it). At approximately 90 degrees of knee bend, the sacrum tilts back in a process known as counternutation. These two functions, nutation and counternutation, essentially describe the movement, albeit small, at the sacroiliac (SI) joint. However, proper SI joint mechanics help to ensure optimal functioning of the rest of the spine. For example, some literature links SI dysfunction with lower back pain in up to 80% of cases. In our chiropractic clinic, one of the tests we use to determine proper pelvis/SI joint function is the full squat.
In order to perform a full squat, flexibility and range of motion must be maintained in the lumbar spine and SI joint, as well as in such muscles as the iliopsoas, hip external rotators, piriformis, gemelli, etc. If the patient cannot squat past 90 degrees of knee bend without their heels raising, or their body bending excessively forward at the waist, but can squat all the way to the floor while holding onto something, we know there are some muscle imbalances in regard to the pelvis/lumbosacral region (e.g. iliopsoas, external hip rotators, erector spinae, etc.) as opposed to a knee or foot/ankle dysfunction. Additionally, since the hip joint is considered by many authors, including your friend/sometimes foe Paul Chek, as the "steering mechanism for the leg," improper pelvis/hip/lumbosacral mechanics could manifest down the kinetic chain as chronic or recurring knee/ankle problems. Thus, regular performance of the full squat offers a "screen" for the athlete of his/her lumbosacral/pelvic flexibility which may prevent injury or muscle imbalances long before they become chronic.
Parallel squats also may be potentially damaging to the knee joint. The original data on full squats causing ligament laxity were obtained in an uncontrolled manner. Recent attempts to replicate these studies have not shown any increased laxity or increase in knee pain/dysfunction from doing full squats as opposed to parallel squats. Furthermore, ask any orthopedic surgeon at what degree of knee bend one performs the Drawer test—at 90 degrees. Why? Because, in this position, the knee joint is the most unstable. And if you were trying to assess the integrity of the cruciate ligaments you would want the least amount of interference from other structures as possible. Bend the knee to full flexion and see how much the tibia moves on the femur anteriorly or posteriorly. Very little. However, do the same test at 90 degrees of flexion and you'll get considerably more movement. Therefore, you can imagine how much force is on the knee ligaments if the athlete is descending with a weight on their shoulders and then at 90 degrees—the most unstable point—reversing the momentum and accelerating in the exact opposite direction. Couple this with the fact that most, if not everyone, are capable of squatting considerably more weight to the parallel position than the full squat position, and you have set your body up for muscular imbalances, yet again."
Hope that makes sense.
The take home advice:
Squat as deep as possible - work on increasing your range if you can't get below 90 degrees.
To overload the top of the squat - the lockout - you can use partial reps - 1/4 or so of your range. Do not confuse a partial squat assistance exercise, with just not squatting deep enough (I know that sounds like I'm writing in Martian).
AC
__________________
Gifted SmartAss Master Class Graduate
And at that time I took exception with the claim of "The full squat is recommended all the time." Here's why: he is only adressing stability problems. Not everyone who has knee issues is suffering from stability problems. My knees are perfectly stable and my ligaments are strong and uninjured. But some, as I do, may suffer from meniscus (cushioning) issues that make the movement of the knee joint past a certain point generate bone on bone where you are not receiving any cushioning - not even from any remaining meniscus or articular cartilage. And the same may be true for many suffering from OA of the knees.
Anyone who claims that anything is the best 'all of the time' is making such a large blanket statement that there will always be exceptions to their claim. Perhaps there aren't many people who fit into the category I do, but the fact it nothing hold true 'all of the time' when it comes to training because individuals and their situations are too diverse. Of course, for those with healthy knees and no reason, other than muscular or form imbalances, the post above would probably apply.
In spinning class, when we are doing some particular exercise out of the saddle, the good instructors will always point out contraindications to the exercise and warn the participants not to do it if they have that issue. Nobody in the class may have the limiting issue, but it is always good to point it out because if you don't, you could injure someone even more. I think the same holds true with advice here. So many people read the forum that when it comes to safety issues, I like to err on the side of caution by noting the exceptions.
quote:Originally posted by Kevin T.: I think it should be pointed out that sometimes, going ATG isn't as healthy as going to parallel-not in the aspect of leaving the knee in a vulnerable position, as we've already found in the past to be bogus, and have supported with scientific research, but if you don't have the flexibility. For example, with myself, once i hit a little bit below parallel, my butt drops and my lower back rounds under. For me, thats going too far. So, for now, i just go to parallel, and a little bit lower. Then again, i'm not that flexible as i'd like to be. So, as i work on my flexability, i'll be able to go deeper into my squat while being able to keep my back straight.
That's what has been pointed out to me by the strength and conditioning guy at our school and it made sense as i would watch my form in a mirror. At the same point, my low back would go from having a nice, natural arch to dipping under and rounding. So, i began to focus on feeling for that point and stopping just before i reached it. My goal for the winter is to gain more flexibility, so i'll be able to not only squat deeper but also to help my agility and speed, and the like.
If you are having that problem, you are doing too much weight. Drop the weight and keep the form and you will do fine.
For an example, I am 197lbs 6'1" and I can only squat 145 3x5 ATG. When I was doing sumo squats I was doing 175. [/quote]It can also be because the hamstrings and glutes are too tight so they pull the pelvis in and force the rounding.
Danny
__________________
Limitations are for people who have them.
Originally posted by Kaiser: And at that time I took exception with the claim of "The full squat is recommended all the time." Here's why: he is only adressing stability problems. Not everyone who has knee issues is suffering from stability problems. My knees are perfectly stable and my ligaments are strong and uninjured. But some, as I do, may suffer from meniscus (cushioning) issues that make the movement of the knee joint past a certain point generate bone on bone where you are not receiving any cushioning - not even from any remaining meniscus or articular cartilage. And the same may be true for many suffering from OA of the knees.
Anyone who claims that anything is the best 'all of the time' is making such a large blanket statement that there will always be exceptions to their claim. Perhaps there aren't many people who fit into the category I do, but the fact it nothing hold true 'all of the time' when it comes to training because individuals and their situations are too diverse. Of course, for those with healthy knees and no reason, other than muscular or form imbalances, the post above would probably apply.
In spinning class, when we are doing some particular exercise out of the saddle, the good instructors will always point out contraindications to the exercise and warn the participants not to do it if they have that issue. Nobody in the class may have the limiting issue, but it is always good to point it out because if you don't, you could injure someone even more. I think the same holds true with advice here. So many people read the forum that when it comes to safety issues, I like to err on the side of caution by noting the exceptions.
And, I also believe that other additions to that thread in response to that particular post were to do full squats if and only if you have perfectly healthy knees.
__________________
Gifted SmartAss Master Class Graduate
Does this thinking carry over to front squats or any other kind of squat? (For example I think it would next to impossible to do a Zercher that way) but some squats such as a front squat could be ATG.
__________________
Peter
After all, diamonds are a girl's best friend…
quote:Originally posted by Kevin T.: I think it should be pointed out that sometimes, going ATG isn't as healthy as going to parallel-not in the aspect of leaving the knee in a vulnerable position, as we've already found in the past to be bogus, and have supported with scientific research, but if you don't have the flexibility. For example, with myself, once i hit a little bit below parallel, my butt drops and my lower back rounds under. For me, thats going too far. So, for now, i just go to parallel, and a little bit lower. Then again, i'm not that flexible as i'd like to be. So, as i work on my flexability, i'll be able to go deeper into my squat while being able to keep my back straight.
That's what has been pointed out to me by the strength and conditioning guy at our school and it made sense as i would watch my form in a mirror. At the same point, my low back would go from having a nice, natural arch to dipping under and rounding. So, i began to focus on feeling for that point and stopping just before i reached it. My goal for the winter is to gain more flexibility, so i'll be able to not only squat deeper but also to help my agility and speed, and the like.
If you are having that problem, you are doing too much weight. Drop the weight and keep the form and you will do fine.
For an example, I am 197lbs 6'1" and I can only squat 145 3x5 ATG. When I was doing sumo squats I was doing 175. [/quote]It can also be because the hamstrings and glutes are too tight so they pull the pelvis in and force the rounding.
Danny [/quote]Yup Danny hit it right on the head for me. My hamstrings and glutes are really tight and it hurts my squatting. Now, one of my main focuses is flexibility. By baseball season, my goal is to loosen up the hamstrings and glutes and be a lot more flexible. Then, i should be able to go ass to grass with no problem. I think i should also note that the rounding occurs with normal body weight squats too, so it's not that load that is forcing the rounding, it's just cause i'm too tight in the hamstrings and glutes.
__________________
"Rust on a nail builds tetanus. Rust on a barbell builds character, strength, and attitude." -EC
"Don't spend your life wishing. Spend it doing." -FishrCutB8
"You're a mutant, like a snake with two heads or a cat shy one nipple. Be thankful that your mutation is helpful." - LD
Aren't parallel and 90 degree squats 2 completely different things? The parallel squat is significantly deeper than the 90 degree squat :/
My knees are at at least 110 degrees when I reach parallel.
By the way: is there a chance knee instability problems could happen as a result of squatting only to parallel? This is the exact same problem I have and I can't go beyond parallel because of flexibility issues (I'm not sure if it's the ankles or the glutes and hams.. or both? )
And if someone does have knee stability probs would it be dangerous to squat if he simply can't get past parallel with good form? ;o
Originally posted by DKing: Kev, what are you doing right now for flexibility?
Danny
This weakness was just pointed out to me a few weeks ago and since i hadnt squatted since the summer, i hadn't really noticed it. Now, i'm researching stretching and flexibility and trying to develop a program. Any suggestions?
thanks [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
"Rust on a nail builds tetanus. Rust on a barbell builds character, strength, and attitude." -EC
"Don't spend your life wishing. Spend it doing." -FishrCutB8
"You're a mutant, like a snake with two heads or a cat shy one nipple. Be thankful that your mutation is helpful." - LD
I don't mean to hijack this thread with another dumb newbie question, but as I read on another thread, squats also helps to increase the size of your abs and obliques. From what I understand, if you exercise your obliques too much you could compromise the 6 pack looks as well as you may also increase waist width. Sorry if I'm not making any sense.
Now, to the question: ATG vs Parallel if you want to avoid working the obliques too much?
__________________ We are only human so long as our thoughts are humane
Buk's just give'n you crap NYGUY [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Squats work just about every muscle in your body. That's why it's a fav among most of us here. But your abs really work mostly as stabilizers for your body when doing squats. You are NOT going to compromise your six-pack by doing squats. In fact, squats help develop EVERY "large" muscle to some extent. Reason? Your quads are one of the largest muscles in your body. By working them and thus building muscle it raises your testosterone levels and it causes your body to burn more fat when you're NOT working out.
In all, squats are king. The only real exercise that is close is deadlifts which also involve numerous muscles (groups) and have just about the same benefits as squats.
I guess, what I'm trying to say is DON'T ever be afraid to do squats (of some type) for fear of compromising your abdominals.
If you've got more questions, just ask. We're here to help newbs!
*edit* leg extensions do have their place. I don't do them very often but as a finishing movement or shaping exercise (if you're into bodybuilding). link to read another link to read
GR, you're the man. Today was the first time I really tried to work hard on my legs. I did 3x8 sets of full squats (I don't know if I'm doing it wrong but I go down to the point where my harmstrings touches my calves). I'm still a little shy to do deadlifts so I did straight leg deadlifts. It's not even about the weight, it's about form, I don't know, I tried it and maybe I was doing it right but I was concerned.
Will full squats get my glutes as hard as this?
I'll just link the picture and you open at your own risk. picture
Edited to say that I'm not into bodybuilding but I have a lot to go before I have the body I want.
Gymrat left out cleans, presses, and snatches as exercises that involve a lot of muscles and provide similar amounts of benifit. An exercise has prime movers, assistance(secondary) muscles, and stabilizers - my definitions, not necessarily right or accepted, but good enough for discussion. In the squat the prime movers are the quads, glutes and hamstrings; these are going to see the most development. Squats are not going to cause your waistline to blowup, without having a much more dramatic impact on the prime movers.
My suggestion is to train heavy compounds for function and mass. Some people even at a very low body fat are going to have thicker wasits than others. IF that is you, be happy with it; a thick strong midsection is not a bad thing. A disporportionatly weak(relative to legs, and back) midsection is bad. The 6 pack will be there, but some people don't have a narrow waistline; but if it isn't due to fat, it is a look of strength and power.
Hey Buk, I was thinking about compiling a complete list of compound and isolated exercises. I know the difference but I hear a lot of disagreement as I browse the net.
__________________ We are only human so long as our thoughts are humane
ha! The page couldn't be displayed but I see it was a link to the IFBB so I'm certain it was a pic of some 'roider. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Well, full squats will get you some leg developement but maybe not quite like that. ha! You have to be doing some serious lifting, serious eating and serious juice.
I'm going to be attempting a NATURAL bb show sometime next year so I'm really working my legs and if you check my training log you'll see I'm eating like a horse.
Check out those links I posted in the my other reply. Don't just do one type of squat, work a variety for the best benefit.
Buk is exactly right! Cleans, snatches, presses are EXCELLENT multi-joint compounds that work so many muscles and have great benefits. Thanks for adding that buk! I should have included 'em for sure! Cleans and presses will kick your ass! Trust me... you'll know you've worked out when you're done with 'em. whew! 'Course at my old gym people would look at me like I was nuts doing them. ha!
nyguy - you lost me on your statement of "disagreement as you browse the net" about compounds vs. isos. Not that I'm questioning you - not at all..... but I don't see how anyone could disagree about what is compound and what isn't. An exercise is compound if it involves more than one joint aka multi-joint exercises. Bench press, squat, bb rows, dead lifts, etc.
Give us more of an example of where you found this disagreement. I'm curious. [img]smile.gif[/img]
GR, it was an article on a minor website that I can't even find anymore, saying that bench press was an isolated exercise. It was a while ago and you know how such information can confuse a newbie trying to learn a lot in such a short period of time. I guess that such basic principle (multi-joint exercises = compound) is pretty obvious. I feel a little stupid now.
__________________ We are only human so long as our thoughts are humane
Don't dare feel stupid! With so much to learn and remember when you're starting out, it's easy to get things confused. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I tell you what, you're definitely heading in the right direction and this forum is invaluable for folks trying to learn. That's what we're here for. I learn something new everyday.
Really, don't feel stupid, we've all been there. [img]smile.gif[/img]
)
An exercise is compound if it involves more than one joint aka multi-joint exercises. Bench press, squat, bb rows, dead lifts, etc. 
Linear Mode
