[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is a good thread for a number of reasons. One of 'em is to expose the fallacy of posting big squat numbers without posting squat depth.
[/quote]
Good point Push. My numbers go down significantly between parallel and ATG.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is a good thread for a number of reasons. One of 'em is to expose the fallacy of posting big squat numbers without posting squat depth.
I happen to squat ATG or pretty darn close to it but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can squat significantly more if I just go to parallel or slightly above AND I could really squat some sizable numbers, for me anyway, if I did the commonly seen quarter squats that I see 85% of the time when I go to a gym in town.[/quote]
Exactly! Posting a massive number means nothing except if it is quantified. Even then, I venture to guess a lot of people are even above parallel when they claim parallel. I do not mean this a an insult but it is hard to judge yourself when you are doing the exercise. I know when I was squating almost 500lbs if I went below parallel the next stop would have been the floor, then the ER. That is why I would never say I can squat that much when my ATG squat is 100lbs lower.
[quote]rockhuddy wrote:
beans wrote:
For me, ATG squatting recruits much more of my quads…
I’ve found the same thing in my quest for quad development. When I went to parallel, my glutes took over much more of the work than I wanted. I brought my stance in (which helps too) and started dropping ATG and now my quads get hammered.
As for knee stress, the ligaments and tendons in the knee are in their most vulnerable position at parallel, which makes that the least logical position to reverse your momentum.
[/quote]
I totally agree about the knee stress thing too. I had PCL reconstructive surgery on my left knee and that whole experience really drives home the point of where your knees are vulnerable. Going from having a full set of ligemants, to living for 2 years without some, to getting new ones put in, I’ve clearly been able to see that 60-90 deg is a pretty loose range for your knee.
Unfortunately, that’s about the range most people squat to. As soon as you pass 90 deg, your knee gets a lot more stable.
[quote]summa wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
summa wrote:
I… am amazed by some of the lifts people claim. Currently, I am only using around 300lbs pounds for 5 sets of 5 but I go as low as possible. I weigh 240lbs at 6’ and am 34 years old. . 10 years ago I remember squating 495lbs for 8 reps.
When people on this site are saying they are squating 300lbs for reps at a bodyweight of 150lbs I scream “BS!”
!
I don’t really understand where you are going with your post. So you used to be able to squat double your bodyweight for reps, but you doubt others who say they can.
I’m 220 pounds and I can squat double my bodyweight for reps, and that’s with two previous herniated discs, and my legs aren’t big compared to my upper body. Squatting weight can be increased easily in my experience.
So you have small legs and a bad back and can still squat 440lbs for reps?
How low are you going?
Squating weight can be increased easily up to a point if you are new to doing it. My experience is that the legs may be up to the task but the lower back may not be.[/quote]
I have similar thoughts on the lower back issue, ive had a bad back due to hockey. But I also think that deadlifting is a great way to get over that. DLing has helped me tremendously with my back and my overall strength. Its true, Deadlifts and Squats are money.
[quote]mightyjuppe wrote:
summa wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
summa wrote:
I… am amazed by some of the lifts people claim. Currently, I am only using around 300lbs pounds for 5 sets of 5 but I go as low as possible. I weigh 240lbs at 6’ and am 34 years old. . 10 years ago I remember squating 495lbs for 8 reps.
When people on this site are saying they are squating 300lbs for reps at a bodyweight of 150lbs I scream “BS!”
!
I don’t really understand where you are going with your post. So you used to be able to squat double your bodyweight for reps, but you doubt others who say they can.
I’m 220 pounds and I can squat double my bodyweight for reps, and that’s with two previous herniated discs, and my legs aren’t big compared to my upper body. Squatting weight can be increased easily in my experience.
So you have small legs and a bad back and can still squat 440lbs for reps?
How low are you going?
Squating weight can be increased easily up to a point if you are new to doing it. My experience is that the legs may be up to the task but the lower back may not be.
I have similar thoughts on the lower back issue, ive had a bad back due to hockey. But I also think that deadlifting is a great way to get over that. DLing has helped me tremendously with my back and my overall strength. Its true, Deadlifts and Squats are money.[/quote]
I completely agree. I just did a deadlift workout this evening. Not a lot of sets or weight but I did 265lbs for 17 reps. My second and last set was only for 8 reps. I think I hurt my back a little. I deadlift with very little rounding and I actually think more rounding is safer for me. I am not sure why.
My theory is that if someone can deadlift 300lbs 20 times they are in pretty good shape.
When you say Ass to Grass, do you actually touch your ass to the floor? I simply can’t do that with my feet flat on the ground. With my squats, I try to touch my ass to my heels, or I guess just get full contact between my glutes and calves. Often, I will accidentally cheat if I feel like I won’t be able to complete the rep, but I still go below parallel.
[quote]Bigheadboy wrote:
When you say Ass to Grass, do you actually touch your ass to the floor? I simply can’t do that with my feet flat on the ground. With my squats, I try to touch my ass to my heels, or I guess just get full contact between my glutes and calves. Often, I will accidentally cheat if I feel like I won’t be able to complete the rep, but I still go below parallel.[/quote]
Actually touching your ass to the floor would be imposible for most of us. My 13 month old son almost does it when he squats down for what ever reason. Pooping mostly!
ATG is going as low as you can. What stops you is your body.
[quote]Bigheadboy wrote:
When you say Ass to Grass, do you actually touch your ass to the floor? I simply can’t do that with my feet flat on the ground. With my squats, I try to touch my ass to my heels, or I guess just get full contact between my glutes and calves. Often, I will accidentally cheat if I feel like I won’t be able to complete the rep, but I still go below parallel.[/quote]
No, you don’t actually touch your butt to the floor. It’s ass to “grass”, so think some nice lush grass that hasn’t been cut in a while (a few inches long). Is it even possible to touch your butt to the floor like that?
Essentially you’re just going down about as far as you can when your hamstrings and calves are completely touching.
ATG makes me feel good about myself. When I go that low I know that I am putting forth the effort that is required to build a better body. Front squats are my second favorite lift due to the fact that they almost force me to go ATG. My favorite lift is the power clean…trying to switch to the full clean though =>
I’m reviving this thread because of a problem my son is having with his weight room coach at high school.
I’ve taught my boy well. By that I mean he squats below parallel. His doofus of a coach has been warning him not to because “it’s bad for the knees”. Well my son continued to squat the way I taught him. Today the coach caught him and forbade him from going below parallel any more. The coach cited the book, “Bigger, Faster, Stronger” which he claims says that going below parallel will “open the knee joint” and subsequently lead to injury.
Comments?
I’m looking for some ammo that my son can take to his coach to refute this ridiculously antiquated notion.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
I’m reviving this thread because of a problem my son is having with his weight room coach at high school.
I’ve taught my boy well. By that I mean he squats below parallel. His doofus of a coach has been warning him not to because “it’s bad for the knees”. Well my son continued to squat the way I taught him. Today the coach caught him and forbade him from going below parallel any more. The coach cited the book, “Bigger, Faster, Stronger” which he claims says that going below parallel will “open the knee joint” and subsequently lead to injury.
Comments?
I’m looking for some ammo that my son can take to his coach to refute this ridiculously antiquated notion.[/quote]
Here is some ammo. After all, “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Dave Draper going well below parallel(ATG). He also was born in 42’ and I believe is still working out. I have seen photos of Draper at an older age and still looked jacked. Hope it helps.
One more photo of Draper.
[quote]gojira wrote:
“Friends don’t let friends squat high”.
I actually squat on a 12" box, which is well below parallel for me. I am of the belief that squatting high puts extra stress on your knees and that this is where the “squats are bad for your knees” myth comes from. When you go all the way down, the stress is transferred to your glutes, hams and hip flexors when coming out of the hole instead of your knees.
Yes, I think most people lie or perhaps they just don’t know. I would say a good 90% of the people I see squat do not even get to parallel, much less break it. [/quote]
This post also makes perfect sense to me. By not going down to at least parallel, the knee would seem to be under constant stress through out the squat. If you look at Drapers’ photos, you can see his toes are pointed out. In my opinion this allows for a lower squat and at the same time putting less stress on your knees.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
I’m reviving this thread because of a problem my son is having with his weight room coach at high school.
I’ve taught my boy well. By that I mean he squats below parallel. His doofus of a coach has been warning him not to because “it’s bad for the knees”. Well my son continued to squat the way I taught him. Today the coach caught him and forbade him from going below parallel any more. The coach cited the book, “Bigger, Faster, Stronger” which he claims says that going below parallel will “open the knee joint” and subsequently lead to injury.
Comments?
I’m looking for some ammo that my son can take to his coach to refute this ridiculously antiquated notion.[/quote]
Here is an article on risk of knee injuries with different squat techniques. Hope it helps.
I am relatively new to strength training. Today I did 3 sets of 5 @ 171.
Anyway I think that someones flexibility plays a huge role in how low one should go. I can go to parallel but then I’d have to round my lower back, loose my tightness and shift all the weight to my quads which by the way are huge compared to my hammies.
I think the optimal depth is the lowest one where the back is straight and the glutes and hammies are very tight. When I go to this point I get a feeling like when deadlifting: after my workout i feel an inch taller and with a very nice posture. My sprinting really benefits from this.
Why are you so concerned with how much weight someone else is squatting? You’ll drive yourself crazy worrying about all that. This section of T-Nation is the bodybuilding section and not the powerlifting, so I don’t see why you are so concerned with the weight people are using. Just focus on yourself and what works for you. If squatting lighter and with better form grows your quads then do it. It’s not an ego contest.
Um, yeah, way to respond to a 4 year old thread…maybe the OP will respond /
[quote]Fandango wrote:
Why are you so concerned with how much weight someone else is squatting? You’ll drive yourself crazy worrying about all that. This section of T-Nation is the bodybuilding section and not the powerlifting, so I don’t see why you are so concerned with the weight people are using. Just focus on yourself and what works for you. If squatting lighter and with better form grows your quads then do it. It’s not an ego contest.[/quote]
I agree…I know incremental weight increases in exercises is important as a way to gauge progress and stress the muscles but some people can caught up with that the wrong way, lifting too heavy a weight with sloppy form just for the sake of saying they bench xlbs or squat ylbs etc. Leave the ego out of it.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
Um, yeah, way to respond to a 4 year old thread…maybe the OP will respond /[/quote]
Hmm well I came up as new since someone else responded.
[quote]Fandango wrote:
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
Um, yeah, way to respond to a 4 year old thread…maybe the OP will respond /[/quote]
Hmm well I came up as new since someone else responded.[/quote]
And that, sir, is why we pay attention to the first few posts lol.
But seriously, this topic never gets old, and I LOVE watching people claim all sorts of amazing lifts but somehow NEVER having a digital camera or even a camera phone to record these feats of strength with. It’s uncanny I tell you.