Tom Platz used to go ass to grass…but it’s not like he knew anything about gaining size in his legs…
I would like to try to clarify something. Squats are too at least parallel. If you aren’t getting to parallel you are doing knee bends. The Title is “squat” technique.
I have no problem with people doing knee bends, I myself use them for overloads. But I do have a problem when people confuse the 2.
People that do knee bends generally claim those numbers for their squat, not many that claim to knee bend 500 lbs.
I would also refute the claim that a squat is more dangerous or bad for you. As stated previously you have to use a ton more weight on knee bends than on squats. I’ve seen people doing 500 lbs. knee bends that can’t squat 225. Which do you think is more dangerous?
If you honestly don’t see the value in squatting vs. knee bends, fine, but the I’m not built to squat excuse gets old. Unless there is a legit injury (which I would normally think to also prevent the use of knee bends) you are just lazy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I do have a problem when people confuse the 2.
People that do knee bends generally claim those numbers for their squat, not many that claim to knee bend 500 lbs.[/quote]
I’d love to meet the guy who proudly claimed he knee bends/quarter squats 405…hah, that’d be great.
The worst part about this statement is that its true. I’ve seen guys with 4 plates (doing quarter squats in the smith machine…of course) who couldn’t handle 2 plates like you mentioned.
Plain and simple truth.
Not like this:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Those were perfect bb squats as far as I’m concerned.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Also, there isn’t much difference between a true parallel squat and an ATG squat. If one is actually going to true parallel (where the hip joint is parallel to the top of the knee), then there’s nothing wrong with that.
The problem comes when people interpret parallel to mean when the knee joint is at 90 degrees. Which ends up resulting in a very high squat/knee bend/quarter squat.
I’d also agree that except for people who have knee replacements or some other orthopedic injury that limits their range of motion, I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t squat to at least parallel (and the vast majority can get to ATG during their first session trying). Usually their previous inability stems from poor technique, not a true lack of mobility. That and of course ego, as they would have to decrease the amount of weight that they use.
Here’s Branch Warren going over his philosophy about building the legs, notice his comments about squatting:
wasnt Branch also a powerlifter? im sure anyone whos sport involved squatting that deep wouldnt just let go of it.
i just dont think its worth it to go from 300lbs to 135 lbs just so you can get an extra 2-5 inches lower.
that and how much does branch really care about form? i mean im sure youve seen his other videos. maybe he uses full ROM on the squat, but thats probaly the ONLY exercise he does that with from what ive seen of him.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
wasnt Branch also a powerlifter? im sure anyone whos sport involved squatting that deep wouldnt just let go of it.
[/quote]
The thing is though, that powerlifters are usually not big proponents of either the “high rack” position, nor going ATG. Powerlifters prefer the “low rack” position and only going to parallel. Their style of squatting is primarily a posterior chain exercise (mostly hip flexion/extension) and isn’t really designed to build massive quads.
So for powerlifting purposes only going to parallel would make sense. But from a BB’ing perspective where one is trying to really hit the quads, staying more upright and going deeper is a more effective method.
If you are talking about going from a true parallel to an ATG squat (which might be 2 inches, might be less), then it’s not going to mean that you have to use 50% of your previous weight. If you are talking about going from a “parallel” squat (where the knees barely even reach a 90 degree angle) to an ATG squat, then yeah that might mean using a decent amount less weight.
And like someone else said earlier, if you are using the quarter squats as a supramaximal overload exercise along with full ROM squats, then they can certainly be beneficial.
But, if you say have to drop from 300 to 200 lbs in order to at least get to true parallel, and then build back up to 300 lbs at that depth, you will see a noticeable improvement in leg size as a result.
[quote]
that and how much does branch really care about form? i mean im sure youve seen his other videos. maybe he uses full ROM on the squat, but thats probaly the ONLY exercise he does that with from what ive seen of him.[/quote]
Well, you are right that I see him not using a full ROM in a lot of exercises. But, he is using the ROM which is most effective for him for growth. Like the bottom half of bench for the chest, or the bottom half of shoulder presses for the shoulders, etc… If one were only going to use a partial ROM on squats their best bet would be from the bottom up until about the depth that most people squat to.
Like this vid of Ronnie front squatting:
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
wasnt Branch also a powerlifter? im sure anyone whos sport involved squatting that deep wouldnt just let go of it.
i just dont think its worth it to go from 300lbs to 135 lbs just so you can get an extra 2-5 inches lower.
that and how much does branch really care about form? i mean im sure youve seen his other videos. maybe he uses full ROM on the squat, but thats probaly the ONLY exercise he does that with from what ive seen of him.[/quote]
But why do you have to drop so much weight to make depth? Because the leverages are very different at different points in the ROM. You for some reason think that a max weight on a knee bend is more stimulating than a max weight on a squat, and its just not so. I can do more weigh on a 1 inch knee bend than a 1 foot one, does that mean I’m working the muscle harder on the 1 inch knee bend? No, your logic is a little convoluted. It sounds more like an ego issue to me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
wasnt Branch also a powerlifter? im sure anyone whos sport involved squatting that deep wouldnt just let go of it.
i just dont think its worth it to go from 300lbs to 135 lbs just so you can get an extra 2-5 inches lower.
that and how much does branch really care about form? i mean im sure youve seen his other videos. maybe he uses full ROM on the squat, but thats probaly the ONLY exercise he does that with from what ive seen of him.
But why do you have to drop so much weight to make depth? Because the leverages are very different at different points in the ROM. You for some reason think that a max weight on a knee bend is more stimulating than a max weight on a squat, and its just not so. I can do more weigh on a 1 inch knee bend than a 1 foot one, does that mean I’m working the muscle harder on the 1 inch knee bend? No, your logic is a little convoluted. It sounds more like an ego issue to me.[/quote]
Thinks about “Power Factor Training”. cringes
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
wasnt Branch also a powerlifter? im sure anyone whos sport involved squatting that deep wouldnt just let go of it.
i just dont think its worth it to go from 300lbs to 135 lbs just so you can get an extra 2-5 inches lower.
that and how much does branch really care about form? i mean im sure youve seen his other videos. maybe he uses full ROM on the squat, but thats probaly the ONLY exercise he does that with from what ive seen of him.
But why do you have to drop so much weight to make depth? Because the leverages are very different at different points in the ROM. You for some reason think that a max weight on a knee bend is more stimulating than a max weight on a squat, and its just not so. I can do more weigh on a 1 inch knee bend than a 1 foot one, does that mean I’m working the muscle harder on the 1 inch knee bend? No, your logic is a little convoluted. It sounds more like an ego issue to me.[/quote]
Or general laziness or pussiness, as I mentioned earlier. It sounds more like that guy is trying to justify why he shouldn’t be doing A2G squats, instead of listening to reasons why he should be doing them.
Let those who want to listen listen, but everyone else will hear whatever they want to.
im telling you what happens for me. im very very scrupulous about my squat form. im always worrying am i going deep enough am i going deep enough? the problem is when i get to that depth everyone on here thinks is the ONLY way to promote leg size, i have to drop the weight tremendously because of mobility problems.
i currently use a bench at my gym to box squat on. it may be an inch or so above parralel. i did 315x5 or so last time. it makes more sense from the rest of my lift numbers that thats what i should be squatting. if i were to squat as low as the person in the first video i would have to use significantly less weight, even if it was 2 plates for 5, i can bench more than that. if it gets to that point its fairly obvious the problem isnt musculature, it has something to do with mobility.
it has nothing to do with ego. if anything the issue of ego belongs to the people who think its rudimentary that you must squat ATG in order to achieve size. its nothing more than brainwashing. the same brainwashing that has 60% of this site thinking they can make size gains while staying 9% bodyfat, the same brainwashing that has everyone on here thinking they need to do olympic lifts and chinups. its also the same mentality that has these people thinking theyre superior in the gym because they do these things. how far into the rabbit hole do you really want to go?
i wanted to share this too.
its the very first part, watch the 2 videos.
so to everyone acting like 1 inch doesnt make a difference…well guess what; apparently it does.
Ok. I’ll admit it. My reluctance to squat ATG is completely ego related.
HOWEVER, I do go to true parallel … and my legs have been growing doing so, so that’s ok with me. And I also don’t walk around claiming big numbers for my squat… if somebody asks me what I squat… I say that I only squat to parallel… or I say that I don’t know what my max is.
I’m scared to go all the way to the bottom. I don’t want to fall over backwards with anything but my own bodyweight.
Basically: I’m a pussy. 
I have found from teaching clients, that if mobility is an issue at all with squats, it is more likely going to be a lack of mobility in the thoracic spine and shoulders that is preventing proper form on full squats, not hip mobility.
I can teach most people how to squat correctly in about 15 mins, the biggest factor in people who have difficulty squating is usually poor body awareness and balance.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i wanted to share this too.
its the very first part, watch the 2 videos.
so to everyone acting like 1 inch doesnt make a difference…well guess what; apparently it does.[/quote]
I’d prefer to look like the picture on page 2 than the guy in the first 2 videos.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i currently use a bench at my gym to box squat on. it may be an inch or so above parralel. i did 315x5 or so last time. it makes more sense from the rest of my lift numbers that thats what i should be squatting. if i were to squat as low as the person in the first video i would have to use significantly less weight, even if it was 2 plates for 5, i can bench more than that. if it gets to that point its fairly obvious the problem isnt musculature, it has something to do with mobility.
[/quote]
Again, I’m saying that you don’t need to go to ATG depth, true parallel is deep enough. I prefer ATG, and feel it works better for me, but it’s better to stop at parallel if you truly don’t have the mobility to go that deep without hurting yourself.
Let me ask you this though, you mentioned bench. Do you use a full ROM on bench? Meaning that you bring the bar all the way down and touch your chest with it?
I hear people bitching about how that’s bad for your shoulders and see lots of people doing what look like rack lockouts minus the rack, then claiming those numbers for their bench.
I’m not saying that describes you, but why if you know the importance of using a full ROM (or at least the most effective ROM for chest development) on bench would you not want to do it on squats?
Are there any boxes or benches of different heights at your gym? You could try gradually decreasing the box/bench heights until you reached parallel (or lower). I really doubt that a couple of inches is going to make a 100lb difference though. It could just be that your form changes with or without the box.
Also, box squat form tends to be more of a powerlifting style squat from what I’ve seen of it.
Here’s a video to illustrate what I mean:
Notice how he really focuses on sitting back and down. Lots of hip flexion, very powerlifting style. Lots of glute/hamstring involvement, relatively little quads.
Now here’s more of a BB’ing squat:
Notice how he sits more down than back and stays more upright. This places more emphasis on the quads (and really spreads the load over the entire lower body).
Note: I tried to use videos with relatively the same weight and sized individuals to show that it wasn’t the amount of weight that was altering the form.
For some pure squatting enjoyment, here’s a couple vids of some guys squatting big weight, deep, for multiple reps.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i wanted to share this too.
its the very first part, watch the 2 videos.
so to everyone acting like 1 inch doesnt make a difference…well guess what; apparently it does.[/quote]
The problem in the first video was that the kid was too close to the wall. His knees hit the wall and were not allowed to naturally continue to drift forward, thus artificially limiting their ROM and causing the lower spine to have to take up the slack.
If that kid were allowed to naturally squat without the wall impeding his ROM, he would likely have been able to get into a good ATG position without the spinal rounding.
Hence the problem with all of those poorly done studies on squats and how supposedly it’s bad for your knees to go below parallel. The testing procedures are flawed and don’t take into account individual variation.
The second video is just someone who either doesn’t have the kinesthetic awareness to know how to keep an arch, or just isn’t paying attention to doing so.
I’d also agree with DD that I’d rather look like Draper than any of the people in Cressey’s vids, and Draper is shown there squatting ATG.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
im telling you what happens for me. im very very scrupulous about my squat form. im always worrying am i going deep enough am i going deep enough? the problem is when i get to that depth everyone on here thinks is the ONLY way to promote leg size, i have to drop the weight tremendously because of mobility problems.
i currently use a bench at my gym to box squat on. it may be an inch or so above parralel. i did 315x5 or so last time. it makes more sense from the rest of my lift numbers that thats what i should be squatting. if i were to squat as low as the person in the first video i would have to use significantly less weight, even if it was 2 plates for 5, i can bench more than that. if it gets to that point its fairly obvious the problem isnt musculature, it has something to do with mobility.
it has nothing to do with ego. if anything the issue of ego belongs to the people who think its rudimentary that you must squat ATG in order to achieve size. its nothing more than brainwashing. the same brainwashing that has 60% of this site thinking they can make size gains while staying 9% bodyfat, the same brainwashing that has everyone on here thinking they need to do olympic lifts and chinups. its also the same mentality that has these people thinking theyre superior in the gym because they do these things. how far into the rabbit hole do you really want to go?[/quote]
Your obviuously young, and can’t think past today.
Having enough mobility to squat correctly means, you will be squatting and making gains much longer in your bodybuilding career. Many bodybuilders use partial lifts to make quick muscular gains but this doesn’t mean they are not strong in the full squat.
It’s not about just packing on muscle, it’s about being able to keep packing on muscle. Increasing imbalances and decreasing flexibility leads to increased aging.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i currently use a bench at my gym to box squat on. it may be an inch or so above parralel. i did 315x5 or so last time. it makes more sense from the rest of my lift numbers that thats what i should be squatting. if i were to squat as low as the person in the first video i would have to use significantly less weight, even if it was 2 plates for 5, i can bench more than that. if it gets to that point its fairly obvious the problem isnt musculature, it has something to do with mobility.
Again, I’m saying that you don’t need to go to ATG depth, true parallel is deep enough. I prefer ATG, and feel it works better for me, but it’s better to stop at parallel if you truly don’t have the mobility to go that deep without hurting yourself.
Let me ask you this though, you mentioned bench. Do you use a full ROM on bench? Meaning that you bring the bar all the way down and touch your chest with it?
I hear people bitching about how that’s bad for your shoulders and see lots of people doing what look like rack lockouts minus the rack, then claiming those numbers for their bench.
I’m not saying that describes you, but why if you know the importance of using a full ROM (or at least the most effective ROM for chest development) on bench would you not want to do it on squats?
Are there any boxes or benches of different heights at your gym? You could try gradually decreasing the box/bench heights until you reached parallel (or lower). I really doubt that a couple of inches is going to make a 100lb difference though. It could just be that your form changes with or without the box.
Also, box squat form tends to be more of a powerlifting style squat from what I’ve seen of it.
Here’s a video to illustrate what I mean:
Notice how he really focuses on sitting back and down. Lots of hip flexion, very powerlifting style. Lots of glute/hamstring involvement, relatively little quads.
Now here’s more of a BB’ing squat:
Notice how he sits more down than back and stays more upright. This places more emphasis on the quads (and really spreads the load over the entire lower body).
Note: I tried to use videos with relatively the same weight and sized individuals to show that it wasn’t the amount of weight that was altering the form.
For some pure squatting enjoyment, here’s a couple vids of some guys squatting big weight, deep, for multiple reps.
[/quote]
I tend to get down to the depth where my elbows just tag my knees. I think it’s a good point for me to check myself on my depth.
so what about those bodybuilders who dont even squat? i wonder how they got big legs.
if you really think squatting atg is the only way to get quad size you need to log off for a while and stop getting spoon fed by this site.
i do it about the same depth as the guy in the first video. are you saying i wont gain quad size from that? keep in mind i do them at the beginning of my workout because i start my workouts with heavier weights and progess to lighter ones. the intent is to get the hardnened muscle look but also incorporate basic hypertrophy principles. so i start heavy, do moderate reps, then do my pump. its been working so far.
also, i came back from a 1-week hiatus a few weeks ago. i kept my leg workout almost identical except i added box squats. and instead of doing 3 sets of 20 on the leg press i do 1 set which is 10 reps then i drop the weight and do another 10 reps. i also emphasized going slower on the leg ext’s.
now, after that revised workout i got the most intense leg DOMS ive ever gotten. hell most severe doms ive gotten for ANY muscle group. the only dramatic change was adding box squats. i changed the leg-press up but i added LESS work to it. i will also add that the following week, doing the same workout i got zero DOMS. so im actually kind of perplexed.
my point is, how would i get DOMS that bad if these were ineffective? its not the doms like oh, this is a new stimulus so youll feel something. no, this was like tapping into unused resources, like my legs got beat with a meathammer then used for a soccer ball in brazil.
to anyone calling me a pussy, you can suck my dick. i train my fucking ass off. i bet i train harder than anyone one of you fucks. i dont care if the weight falls, ive dropped weight off my back before. ive got stuck, its part of the game. you really think the reason i dont do it is because im afraid? youre a fucking idiot.