squat form

[MurderousCrow]

Thought of this thread when I came across this article:

http://www.jtsstrength.com/articles/2014/08/20/10-...

OP it explains the points I was trying to make more clearly, and the guy is a LOT more qualified to speak on the subject than me In particular see point 8 in the article, and from about 3:30 in the '3 common mistakes...' video embedded within. The entire video is good though, it breaks down the whole setup and execution, definitely gave me some things to take away and try.

[TheBALDpuma]

UKSCA SnC coach, MSc in SnC here...

Not easy to assess without at least a video tbh.

Based on your good morning description - First thought would be that your hips rise faster than your shoudlers, therefore putting you in a more "good morning" like position. This can be becuase you're trying to pull the weight rather than push it up - basically you're relying on lower back and hamstring strength to lift the weight not your quads. So I'd want to strenghten them up (qauds) with either quad focused squatting (as Murderouscrow said he was doing goblet squats - this is the most basic kind of quad focused squat) or quad focused stuff like split squats. The goblet squat has the other benefit of installing a more upright motor program for your squat.

Box squats are good in their own right, but can often mess up a motor pattern in a non "expert" squatter. They can be useful for people who don't sit back into their squat, but that doesn't sounds like the problem here.

As far as Rippletoe goes - he's too much of a bell end to take seriously in my opinion. Flat out refuses to accept that a high bar squat might be better than low bar for an olympic lifter for example.

[HootersGsy]

Thanks MurderousCrow.

TheBALDPuma - thanks, I've just done a few bodyweight squats trying to pay attention to push vs. pull and do notice a difference if I'm thinking about pushing through the movement vs whatever I do naturally. My natural inclination seems to be to put the weight towards the ball of my foot so going to have to train myself out of that as well. Just read up on the form for a goblet squat so I'll give those a go when I'm next in the gym, I can see why they'd be good for developing good form.

[didelydoo]

HootersGsy said:

Thanks MurderousCrow.

TheBALDPuma - thanks, I've just done a few bodyweight squats trying to pay attention to push vs. pull and do notice a difference if I'm thinking about pushing through the movement vs whatever I do naturally. My natural inclination seems to be to put the weight towards the ball of my foot so going to have to train myself out of that as well. Just read up on the form for a goblet squat so I'll give those a go when I'm next in the gym, I can see why they'd be good for developing good form.

Do you squat high or low bar?

[HootersGsy]

didelydoo said:

Do you squat high or low bar?

Low bar.

[didelydoo]

HootersGsy said:

Low bar.

I'd switch to high- I honestly can't think of a single benefit of Lowbar squatting other than better leverages if you aim to shift maximal weight (eg you plan to compete). High bar is more natural, will build bigger legs, is a much more 'athletic' movement and is much kinder to your posture. Low bar gets you in horrible positions, gives you a big arse, but not much quads, and will give you a pelvic tilt if you're not careful.

Add to that high bar looks much prettier, and your on a winner

If I could restart, I'd never have started out Lowbar, and stayed Highbar instead.

[HootersGsy]

didelydoo said:

I'd switch to high- I honestly can't think of a single benefit of Lowbar squatting other than better leverages if you aim to shift maximal weight (eg you plan to compete). High bar is more natural, will build bigger legs, is a much more 'athletic' movement and is much kinder to your posture. Low bar gets you in horrible positions, gives you a big arse, but not much quads, and will give you a pelvic tilt if you're not careful.

Add to that high bar looks much prettier, and your on a winner

If I could restart, I'd never have started out Lowbar, and stayed Highbar instead.

That's an interesting view, everything I've read would suggest the opposite!

[didelydoo]

HootersGsy said:

That's an interesting view, everything I've read would suggest the opposite!

The only people who squat lowbar are powerlifters, and a handful of strongmen (and people who follow Ripptoe) Mainly because it makes it easier and allows them to lift maximal loads as that's the aim.

Edit to add- fighters, sprinters, throwers, weightlifters, body builders- all squat with a higher bar as it has more carry over to athletic performance and leg muscle building.

Edited by didelydoo on Monday 24th August 16:27

Edited by didelydoo on Monday 24th August 16:28

Edited by didelydoo on Monday 24th August 16:28

[MurderousCrow]

didelydoo said:

The only people who squat lowbar are powerlifters, and a handful of strongmen (and people who follow Ripptoe) Mainly because it makes it easier and allows them to lift maximal loads as that's the aim.

Edit to add- fighters, sprinters, throwers, weightlifters, body builders- all squat with a higher bar as it has more carry over to athletic performance and leg muscle building.

As the OP said that's an interesting perspective, as it almost seems to invert the Rippetoe approach 'there's no squat except the low-bar squat'. I'd say given the wide variety of human segment lengths, anatomical differences, neural patterns and areas of tightness / laxity, most (amateur) trainees should probably aim for a rounded approach to all the basic functional movements. High and low bar clearly each have their advantages, as do good mornings, GHRs, front squats, power cleans, goblet squats and so on. Along with this should be a determined and focused approach to addressing tight areas with tools such as SMR, stretching and massage, and (re)learning appropriate motor patterns for effective movement. Caveat: I'm no sort of great lifter. Even so my job requires a working understanding of injury and its effect on human movement (and vice versa). Weakness and tightness are responsible for many ills.

In defence of the low-bar squat it allows recruitment of one hell of a lot of muscle, which in itself has been shown to positively alter the body's natural anabolic hormone profile post-exercise. And it may also be a little kinder on the knees (than the high-bar squat) for new trainees, perhaps by allowing easier conscious avoidance of valgus stress, esp. coming up out of the hole.

Luke

Edited as I'd buggered the quotes up

Edited by MurderousCrow on Monday 24th August 20:31

[_bryan_]

MurderousCrow said:

In defence of the low-bar squat it allows recruitment of one hell of a lot of muscle, which in itself has been shown to positively alter the body's natural anabolic hormone profile post-exercise. And it may also be a little kinder on the knees (than the high-bar squat) for new trainees, perhaps by allowing easier conscious avoidance of valgus stress, esp. coming up out of the hole.

Please show me a study that shows low bar squats produce better GH levels than high bar squats, the difference will be minute if any. I'm completely with Didley on this one high bar>low bar imo. I too started out low bar, funnily enough after reading rippetoes stuff, but soon swapped to high bar after learning about the greater carryover to all sorts of other movements and sports. Low bar has no place in anyone other than a powerlifters training. I would argue you get a better development of the lower body through a combination of high bar squats and deadlifts than you would low bar and deadlifts.

[MurderousCrow]

_bryan_ said:

MurderousCrow said:

In defence of the low-bar squat it allows recruitment of one hell of a lot of muscle, which in itself has been shown to positively alter the body's natural anabolic hormone profile post-exercise. And it may also be a little kinder on the knees (than the high-bar squat) for new trainees, perhaps by allowing easier conscious avoidance of valgus stress, esp. coming up out of the hole.

Please show me a study that shows low bar squats produce better GH levels than high bar squats, the difference will be minute if any. I'm completely with Didley on this one high bar>low bar imo. I too started out low bar, funnily enough after reading rippetoes stuff, but soon swapped to high bar after learning about the greater carryover to all sorts of other movements and sports. Low bar has no place in anyone other than a powerlifters training. I would argue you get a better development of the lower body through a combination of high bar squats and deadlifts than you would low bar and deadlifts.

The point I made is twofold, Bryan. I didn't say the low bar squat produced better GH levels than high bar; you're using a straw man, and it reads as if you're being deliberately argumentative. Hope that's not the case, as I'm just contributing to a discussion. What I did suggest was that:

- given the low bar squat recruits a lot of muscle which *in itself* produces positive effects on *overall* anabolic hormone profile (not only GH)

- and further that it may well be easier for beginners to avoid knee stress with this movement

It may be beneficial for recreational lifters to use this movement.

As it's not coming across, let me clarify: I'm not a die-hard advocate of the low-bar squat - feel free to re-read my post. As I said, a rounded approach to functional movement is likely to reap optimal results for amateur / recreational trainees - and this should also include mobility work.

In terms of functional carryover I think it's pretty clear that powerlifting movements will be useful development tools for many people; they mimic activities of daily life, lifting heavy things from the floor, getting up from a seated position, pushing things away from yourself. In terms of sport-specific movement I accept your point: the high-bar squat probably has better carryover for many sports. Thinking about it, the front squat probably has just as much carryover. Even so, I'm talking about functional & corrective training for a recreational trainee, so the paradigm is different. Powerlifting movements are both compound in nature and safe to execute with proper form; as such they offer an accessible route into much higher levels of strength with low risk of injury (compared with most recreational sports).

As to the difference between low-bar and high-bar, the point you make re: GH levels can be turned into a similar point regarding your opinion on muscular development. Do you have studies? Probably not. It's likely to be a minute difference when looking at large sample sizes. I'd suggest that an individual athlete working with a skilled coach will be able to work out which squat form is best *for them* in light of their current training status, segment lengths, power vs strength predisposition, goals, injury status... And so on.

Edited by MurderousCrow on Tuesday 25th August 07:52

[MurderousCrow]

An (admittedly old, 1996) study which corroborates what I'm saying. It's not perfect as it's a small study relating to elite national-level athletes. Even so, the essentials of the physics involved should transfer to us mortals. Firstly, increased recruitment / muscular activity in the low-bar squat (powerlifters) vs. high-bar (weightlifters):

'The powerlifters showed higher EMG activity than the weightlifters for all investigated muscles, although the difference was significant only for the rectus femoris. The powerlifters were heavier and lifted heavier loads, but this could be the explanation to the higher muscular activity. EMG activity, however, was normalized in relation to a reference contraction with the same relative external load, which might indicate that the low-bar squat actually is advantageous from a muscular recruitment point of view...'

Second point regarding knees: the authors wanted to 'calculate one force component in the knee that would reflect the magnitudes of the forces in the knee during squatting... The mean peak compression force (at the patello-femoral joint) for the weightlifters was 4700 N (SD ± 590) and for the powerlifters 3300 N (SD ± 1700)'. This in spite of the high-bar weightlifters utilising much lower weights. They go on: 'Although the powerlifters were heavier and lifted heavier loads than the weightlifters, they showed the lowest moment of force (at the knee) both for the parallel and the deep squats...'

Third point, regarding activation of the quads (and thus potential for subsequent growth) in the two varieties of squat:

'In a previous study(32), we showed that the quadriceps muscle activity is the same for these two different types of squats...'

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/1996/02...

Luke

Edited by MurderousCrow on Tuesday 25th August 10:15

[_bryan_]

I'm sorry, but both of them studies mean absolutely nothing as they both use different types of athlete. It needs to be the same athlete for the study to be conclusive.

[MurderousCrow]

_bryan_ said:

I'm sorry, but both of them studies mean absolutely nothing as they both use different types of athlete. It needs to be the same athlete for the study to be conclusive.

There's only one study mentioned. Read it, dude. The reasoning for not making the athletes perform the other type of squat is explained. I could probably find more studies to refute your opinion but it's not why I'm posting, and I really cannae be ersed. Suffice it to say that in the absence of a meaningful response (conflicting data), your opinion carries less weight than this study, which was carried out by a respected team using quality methodology.

Edited for grammar.

Edited by MurderousCrow on Tuesday 25th August 19:55

ETA: I'm not sure if you realise how thoroughly you're undermining your own point with the above 'different types of athlete.' Two groups, each (presumably) squatting in that given style for a number of years (they had all progressed to elite level). The powerlifters moved MORE weight, but their knee forces were substantially lower. Their EMG readings were higher, even when each group was normalised against a 65% of 1rm load. Those facts, if you're willing to invest some thought, speak for themselves.

I can't quite believe I've been drawn into an internet debate over squat form - it's so cliched it's almost untrue. Nevertheless you and the other guy have been pretty opinionated against the low-bar squat, with all sorts of (unsubstantiated, unreferenced) claims about its lack of efficacy and safety. It's as bad as the anti-high-bar brigade, equally opinionated and completely failing to take account of the fact that there are wide variations in capability, preferences and aims when people train; put simply (forgive me, it seems necessary) some movements are more suitable than others, at different times and at different phases of training... things can change according to a wide variety of circumstances. Stop with the dogmatic thinking.

Edited by MurderousCrow on Tuesday 25th August 21:51

[_bryan_]

MurderousCrow said:

ETA: I'm not sure if you realise how thoroughly you're undermining your own point with the above 'different types of athlete.' Two groups, each (presumably) squatting in that given style for a number of years (they had all progressed to elite level). The powerlifters moved MORE weight, but their knee forces were substantially lower. Their EMG readings were higher, even when each group was normalised against a 65% of 1rm load. Those facts, if you're willing to invest some thought, speak for themselves.

I can't quite believe I've been drawn into an internet debate over squat form - it's so cliched it's almost untrue. Nevertheless you and the other guy have been pretty opinionated against the low-bar squat, with all sorts of (unsubstantiated, unreferenced) claims about its lack of efficacy and safety.

I'm not at all bothered about the knee forces, there are other movements that place much more stress on the knees than either. I simply asked you to show me a study that showed greater GH release from a low bar squat to a high bar. The study you showed had TWO different groups doing TWO different movements, it needs to be ONE group or ONE person doing BOTH movements to show any real accuracy.

And as far as our unsubstantiated "opinions" are concerned (which are also the opinions of many different sports coaches worldwide)...We are not against the low bar squat, like we both said we both started with it. We simply prefer the high bar for an all round athlete. If you plan on competing in powerlifting, fine, low bar. If you want to perform a variety of sports, high bar simply due to the greater range of motion it works the muscles through. As didley said, it's a more natural squat, if you were to squat down with no weight and just sit there, the bottom position would be very similar to a high bar squat.

You seem to be getting a little worked up by what started out quite light hearted.

[MurderousCrow]

_bryan_ said:

I'm not at all bothered about the knee forces, there are other movements that place much more stress on the knees than either. I simply asked you to show me a study that showed greater GH release from a low bar squat to a high bar. The study you showed had TWO different groups doing TWO different movements, it needs to be ONE group or ONE person doing BOTH movements to show any real accuracy.

And as far as our unsubstantiated "opinions" are concerned (which are also the opinions of many different sports coaches worldwide)...We are not against the low bar squat, like we both said we both started with it. We simply prefer the high bar for an all round athlete. If you plan on competing in powerlifting, fine, low bar. If you want to perform a variety of sports, high bar simply due to the greater range of motion it works the muscles through. As didley said, it's a more natural squat, if you were to squat down with no weight and just sit there, the bottom position would be very similar to a high bar squat.

You seem to be getting a little worked up by what started out quite light hearted.

Ok, thanks for a more comprehensive reply. The GH is a straw man as you must know: it's not the only anabolic hormone by a long way. I explained such a study is unlikely to exist (and if it did it wouldn't prove or disprove the point you thought you were making, as GH is not the only required hormone for muscular hypertrophy. Google acromegaly. I was actually thinking more about the effects of large muscle group compound exercises on circulating TST). It wasn't the point I was making anyway, the point was twofold which you seem to be unwilling to accept. I'm not writing it down again

It's also clear your previous replies were dogmatically 'against' the movement 'Low bar has no place in anyone other than a powerlifters training'. Your pal made similar unref'd statements (pelvic tilt? Really?). Neither of you account for its benefits, yet you both admit it played a part in your own development as lifters. The study referenced above shows some of those benefits. Knee forces are relevant because beginners and recreational lifters have a huge tendency to place valgus stress on the joint during squatting movement by allowing the knees to collapse inward (especially when tired), and it follows that a lower-stress activity which allows equally great strength development may be beneficial for this group.

ETA, couldn't help myself

And there is no 'greater' ROM in the high bar squat (or at least very little. The bar travels a very similar distance with each movement). What is gained in increased ROM at the knee with a high-bar squat, is lost at the hip and vice versa. This is the very nature of the difference between the two: the fact you aren't aware of that speaks volumes. As to the other points you make vis-a-vis the high-bar squat's increased carryover to many sports, well I've said that myself.

Anyway, I've given what I can to the discussion, hope someone finds it useful. OP, good luck.

Grammar.

Edited by MurderousCrow on Wednesday 26th August 08:27

[HootersGsy]

Thanks for the comments and varying views. Always interesting to read!

Followed some of the points here in the gym yesterday and now aching in new places. Overall form looked and felt much better but still went too far forward a couple of times so going to drop the weight back further and build up again, bearing in mind to push through the heels and not let my hips come up faster than my shoulders.

[didelydoo]

HootersGsy said:

Thanks for the comments and varying views. Always interesting to read!

Followed some of the points here in the gym yesterday and now aching in new places. Overall form looked and felt much better but still went too far forward a couple of times so going to drop the weight back further and build up again, bearing in mind to push through the heels and not let my hips come up faster than my shoulders.

Get loads of volume in until it's second nature, then slowly add weight ensuring you keep the same form - have fun

[MurderousCrow]

didelydoo said:

Get loads of volume in until it's second nature, then slowly add weight ensuring you keep the same form - have fun

Solid advice, that. Adding weight is addictive, and it's tempting to do it even when you know your form isn't right. Lots of volume at lighter weights will get the motor programming right. And focus on screwing the toes outward in descent and ascent...

[Halb]

OP.

http://www.strengtheory.com/its-time-to-end-this-n...