So, did a new leg exercise today. Not sure what the right forum for it is. Anyway, I’m sure it’s something someone else invented a long time ago, but it was new to me and I’d suggest giving it a try.
It’s pretty simple, just a goblet squat, only instead of holding the DB up against your chest, you hold it sideways (one hand on each end the way you would hold a box) and let your arms hang down in front of you.
Start off with the DB in between your legs, sit into a full squat position, get your fingers under it, and stand up. Repeat to desired effect.
This feels a lot more natural to me than other leg exercises because its almost impossible to lean forward or have my weight on the balls of my feet instead of the heels. With a squat the weight is pushing you forward, with a deadlift it’s pulling you forward because you have to be behind the bar. Keeping the weight between your feet avoids either.
Also, I can wait a second or two in the bottom position (like a box squat), with no stress on the muscles at this point. It seems to really hit the glutes, and equally work the quads/hamstrings.
Has anyone else done this? What did you think of it?
If you haven’t, give it a try next leg day and let me know how it went.
[quote]Nerraw Siclar wrote:
Sounds like a good idea to me.(but what do I know) Always looking for new ways to hit legs due to back and joint pain. Thanks for sharing.[/quote]
Anytime Just be sure to keep your chest up, virtually zero stress on the lower back.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, the legs naturally open up as you squat down (since your arms are in between them), making it almost hard to use your adductors for the lift. [/quote]
??
care to explain what you mean.
And does the low stress on your back have anything to do with the fact that you used a dumbell and not a 350+ lb barbell?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, the legs naturally open up as you squat down (since your arms are in between them), making it almost hard to use your adductors for the lift. [/quote]
??
care to explain what you mean.
[/quote]
Give it a try. Stand up, squat down and reach like you’re picking up a DB from between your feet (perpendicular to your body). Your arms will be very close to or touching the inside of your legs, and your knees will probably come out a bit.
[quote]
And does the low stress on your back have anything to do with the fact that you used a dumbell and not a 350+ lb barbell? [/quote]
That’s a good point. I’m sure heavier weight would put more stress on the back, but it’s sort of like the difference between a regular deadlift (pulling with weight in front of you) vs trap bar deadlift (pulling with weight under/directly to side of you).
No I meant how can you say that your adductors arent doing work. If you said squatting with a narrow stance took them out I’d agree 100% but squatting with feet outside shoulder width will absolutely recruit the adductors. It sounds like youve discovered the proper squat technique for hip, knee, and lower back health. Pushing the knees out as you come out of the hole is encouraged for most people looking for a big squat.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
No I meant how can you say that your adductors arent doing work. If you said squatting with a narrow stance took them out I’d agree 100% but squatting with feet outside shoulder width will absolutely recruit the adductors. It sounds like youve discovered the proper squat technique for hip, knee, and lower back health. Pushing the knees out as you come out of the hole is encouraged for most people looking for a big squat. [/quote]
I don’t think the adductors are taken out of the picture entirely, they just don’t act as primary movers. My feet were about shoulder width, maybe a tiny bit wider.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
No I meant how can you say that your adductors arent doing work. If you said squatting with a narrow stance took them out I’d agree 100% but squatting with feet outside shoulder width will absolutely recruit the adductors.
It sounds like youve discovered the proper squat technique for hip, knee, and lower back health. Pushing the knees out as you come out of the hole is encouraged for most people looking for a big squat. [/quote]
I don’t think the adductors are taken out of the picture entirely, they just don’t act as primary movers. My feet were about shoulder width, maybe a tiny bit wider.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
No I meant how can you say that your adductors arent doing work. If you said squatting with a narrow stance took them out I’d agree 100% but squatting with feet outside shoulder width will absolutely recruit the adductors.
It sounds like youve discovered the proper squat technique for hip, knee, and lower back health. Pushing the knees out as you come out of the hole is encouraged for most people looking for a big squat. [/quote]
I don’t think the adductors are taken out of the picture entirely, they just don’t act as primary movers. My feet were about shoulder width, maybe a tiny bit wider.
[/quote]
When would the adductors ever be primary movers?
Im done here. This is pointless
[/quote]
When people start falling forward in the squat? When they transfer their weight to the balls of their feet instead of the heels, and mainly use the hamstrings/adductors/lower back?
Not to slam your exercise, but I don’t see how one can hold enough weight that way and stress the lower body enough to produce results. A 150lb db would be hard to hold and you can prolly rep out 225 with ease. Good idea though.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
No I meant how can you say that your adductors arent doing work. If you said squatting with a narrow stance took them out I’d agree 100% but squatting with feet outside shoulder width will absolutely recruit the adductors.
It sounds like youve discovered the proper squat technique for hip, knee, and lower back health. Pushing the knees out as you come out of the hole is encouraged for most people looking for a big squat. [/quote]
I don’t think the adductors are taken out of the picture entirely, they just don’t act as primary movers. My feet were about shoulder width, maybe a tiny bit wider.
[/quote]
When would the adductors ever be primary movers?
Im done here. This is pointless
[/quote]
When people start falling forward in the squat? When they transfer their weight to the balls of their feet instead of the heels, and mainly use the hamstrings/adductors/lower back?[/quote]
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Not to slam your exercise, but I don’t see how one can hold enough weight that way and stress the lower body enough to produce results. A 150lb db would be hard to hold and you can prolly rep out 225 with ease. Good idea though.[/quote]
Yeah I was thinking about that. The exercise may be better suited for teaching someone proper form, not an advanced technique for someone already in the game.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
No I meant how can you say that your adductors arent doing work. If you said squatting with a narrow stance took them out I’d agree 100% but squatting with feet outside shoulder width will absolutely recruit the adductors.
It sounds like youve discovered the proper squat technique for hip, knee, and lower back health. Pushing the knees out as you come out of the hole is encouraged for most people looking for a big squat. [/quote]
I don’t think the adductors are taken out of the picture entirely, they just don’t act as primary movers. My feet were about shoulder width, maybe a tiny bit wider.
[/quote]
When would the adductors ever be primary movers?
Im done here. This is pointless
[/quote]
When people start falling forward in the squat? When they transfer their weight to the balls of their feet instead of the heels, and mainly use the hamstrings/adductors/lower back?[/quote]
No.[/quote]
Well, that was fucking helpful.
Perhaps I should just reply with “Yes.” Because, really, who elaborates their points enough to have a discussion?
When you sqauat with the heels up, as in standing on the balls of your feet, your quads will be recruited more, particulary your rectus femoris, as you have to flex your hips and extend your knees to get back to your heels. Just try it.
[quote]Lock wrote:
When you sqauat with the heels up, as in standing on the balls of your feet, your quads will be recruited more, particulary your rectus femoris, as you have to flex your hips and extend your knees to get back to your heels. Just try it.[/quote]
[quote]Lock wrote:
When you sqauat with the heels up, as in standing on the balls of your feet, your quads will be recruited more, particulary your rectus femoris, as you have to flex your hips and extend your knees to get back to your heels. Just try it.[/quote]
This is true, provided you elevate the heels. But if you don’t, and you push through the balls of your feet, the hips shoot up, and the knees buckle inward because you start using your lower back/hamstrings/adductors to lift the weight. This is why everyone says to drive through the heels.
Now, this is just speculation on my part, but I think elevating the heels recruits the quads more because they can come out further (as you said) because most people have chronically tight/immobile calves/ankle joints. I also speculate that this is why people develop knee problems from squatting - the knees are forced to try to compensate for the immobility of the ankle.
I gotta admit, as a guy who treats soft tissue injuries, this interests me, but as a guy surfing a bodybulding forum - I don’t really give a flying fuck.
[quote]Lock wrote:
I gotta admit, as a guy who treats soft tissue injuries, this interests me, but as a guy surfing a bodybulding forum - I don’t really give a flying fuck.[/quote]
Yeah, I didn’t really know where this went. The mods put it in here. It’s not exactly bodybuilding, but its not powerlifting or combat or SAMA either. Perhaps beginners would have been more appropriate?
Sounds like a belt squat or a “Magic Circle” squat (for any readers of the old Iron Man magazine)… except you can’t use as much weight - your odd grip would be a big limitation. And holding the dumbbell pulls you forward more than hanging the weights from a belt would.
It’s not totally wack or anything. People also do dummbell squats with two dumbells. Your goblet variation isn’t bad, if somebody’s not ready for big weights, or can’t hold a bar behind their head for some reason, etc.
I don’t predict it take the weight training world by storm, or anything like that. You found a movement you like, cool.
Just be sure to keep your chest up, virtually zero stress on the lower back.
You found a movement you like, cool.