Exercise Discussion

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm no expert either, but my brother is quite proficient and has been studying this subject for about a decade (and he's a qualified fitness instructor), so I've been basically using his method. He's big on the use of what he calls "power movements": big movements that involve your whole body or move your whole body, like dips, chin-ups, deadlifts, squats, etc. He says the biggest problem with the wannabes is that they do too much muscle-isolation work, so they become very good at certain movements but they're not balanced. As he puts it, the world is full of prettyboys who do tons of benchpresses and bicep curls, and that's pretty much the only thing they can do. No back, no legs, no balance. His mantra is that the isolation stuff is strictly for fine-tuning, not for building muscle in any quantity, and he can rattle off lists of big names in fitness and body-building who will say pretty much the exact same thing.

I am not english so I do not know what "dips, chin-ups, deadlifts, squats, etc" are, any help? I am trying to get some better tone myself, but all the equipment I got is a pair of weights wich I work the biceps/triceps and other areas, I have noticed I have gotten some better cruves though, my shoulders and such are also straigher and more defined, but this is all a very limited area really, in addition to that I do some occasional pushups and I go biking, usually 10km or so a time, 1-3 times a week.

[BoredShirtless]

I am not english so I do not know what "dips, chin-ups, deadlifts, squats, etc" are, any help?

Dips:


Chin-ups:


Straight leg deadlift:


Squats:

[Colonel Olrik]

I am trying to get some better tone myself, but all the equipment I got is a pair of weights wich I work the biceps/triceps and other areas, I have noticed I have gotten some better cruves though, my shoulders and such are also straigher and more defined, but this is all a very limited area really, in addition to that I do some occasional pushups and I go biking, usually 10km or so a time, 1-3 times a week.

You're not exercising all your body muscles. Although you may feel you're getting better, you're not compensating. You definitely need to do back, torso and legs. Specially since you're using weights, you have the potential to injure yourself severely. You'd be much better if you go to a proper gymn.

And keep on Biking

[His Divine Shadow]

You're not exercising all your body muscles. Although you may feel you're getting better, you're not compensating. You definitely need to do back, torso and legs. Specially since you're using weights, you have the potential to injure yourself severely. You'd be much better if you go to a proper gymn.

And keep on Biking

Well I think my leg muscles are getting the workout they need from the biking, also there's no gym whatsoever here to speak about, the city is 70km away, I can't really start going there.
I'm doing situps now and then too ofcourse.

[BoredShirtless]

I am trying to get some better tone myself, but all the equipment I got is a pair of weights wich I work the biceps/triceps and other areas, I have noticed I have gotten some better cruves though, my shoulders and such are also straigher and more defined, but this is all a very limited area really, in addition to that I do some occasional pushups and I go biking, usually 10km or so a time, 1-3 times a week.

You're not exercising all your body muscles. Although you may feel you're getting better, you're not compensating. You definitely need to do back, torso and legs. Specially since you're using weights, you have the potential to injure yourself severely. You'd be much better if you go to a proper gymn.

And keep on Biking

No, for tone, biking is a distant second to running. HDS, run every morning [slowly building up to 10km. You should do this in about 50 minutes], pushups and situps every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That's it.

[seanrobertson]

A quick note on that illustration of the squat:

It's not near deep enough.

When you squat, you should do full "ass to the floor" squats to derive the most benefits. They're hard to master, and you need to do them in a power rack, but squatting to below parallel is responsible for more muscular, strong thighs than any other single movement.

People who squat ATF (or ass to ankles, anyway) won't move the same kind of weights that half-squatters sometimes do; squatting 400 lbs. in the full squat is, IMO, a true feat of strength.

Just as a means of comparison, I know from experience that I can do half-squats with 585, and half-range leg presses with over 1,300 lbs. (The machine couldn't carry any more weight.)

But FULL range, I've only squatted 365x8 and leg pressed 945x6. That's still okay, but the bigger nos. are totally misleading, as you can see.

When people tell you they can squat or leg press a ton, always try to verify that their ROM--range of motion--is as full as possible. It's usually a quarter or half-rep bullshit.

[His Divine Shadow]

No, for tone, biking is a distant second to running. HDS, run every morning [slowly building up to 10km. You should do this in about 50 minutes], pushups and situps every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That's it.

I used to run when I was classes 3-5 in school, a loong time ago :p
The problem with mornings is that I have less dexterity and will to live than a zombie.

[His Divine Shadow]

When people tell you they can squat or leg press a ton, always try to verify that their ROM--range of motion--is as full as possible. It's usually a quarter or half-rep bullshit.

You know, I once push-started my car when I forgot the headlights on(d'oh!), it weighs 1.2 tons, does that count?

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, for tone, biking is a distant second to running. HDS, run every morning [slowly building up to 10km. You should do this in about 50 minutes], pushups and situps every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That's it.

I used to run when I was classes 3-5 in school, a loong time ago :p
The problem with mornings is that I have less dexterity and will to live than a zombie.

I've found a quick job does wonders for energy and waking you up...or for me in sunny Florida, a nice swim.

[BoredShirtless]

A quick note on that illustration of the squat:

It's not near deep enough.

If you want strength and great legs, half squat.
If you want strength and thunder thighs, full squat. But you need flawless technique, and it's probably not worth it. Retired weight lifter friend of mine has a permanatly fucked up back thanks to full squats [he HAD flawless technique].

So unless you're a weight lifter or body builder, half squats are good enough, and much more forgiving on the body.

[seanrobertson]

If you want strength and great legs, half squat.

?

Half-squatting is inferior to the full squat for those purposes. You'll find no one that advocates them for "great legs."

If you want strength and thunder thighs, full squat.

What is the difference between great legs and "thunder thighs"?

Never, ever avoid proper form because it might "make you too big." That's total b.s. Most people could work all their lives and NEVER be "too big." Their genes simply do not allow it. To date I've yet to meet a natural trainer who was truly convinced they were "too big," as in carrying too much LBM.

But you need flawless technique, and it's probably not worth it. Retired weight lifter friend of mine has a permanatly fucked up back thanks to full squats [he HAD flawless technique].

You could just as easily injure yourself with the greater poundages of a half-squat, and the movement also fosters SEVERE imbalances in the lower body. I've certainly seen more injuries from half-squats than ATF, including lower back injuries, torn quads and bum knees.

The full squat in and of itself is no more or less dangerous. I know I was never injured doing them.

So unless you're a weight lifter or body builder, half squats are good enough, and much more forgiving on the body.

No, they're not. Shorter ROM equals more poundage; and more weight = more pressure on the spine and knees. It doesn't give as high an order of work to the hips, glutes--where ALL of your power comes from--or hamstrings.

Half-reps are never the answer. They're not safer, and they're not remotely as productive as a full ROM. I didn't get to where I am now by fudging on such things.

[Master of Ossus]

No, for tone, biking is a distant second to running. HDS, run every morning [slowly building up to 10km. You should do this in about 50 minutes], pushups and situps every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That's it.

You should be running five minute kilometers? I usually run 5:45 miles.

[BoredShirtless]

No, for tone, biking is a distant second to running. HDS, run every morning [slowly building up to 10km. You should do this in about 50 minutes], pushups and situps every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That's it.

You should be running five minute kilometers? I usually run 5:45 miles.

That's pretty good. Running's great isn't it, it gives you a great natural high. For those who don't run: just do it! You won't regret it...

[seanrobertson]

That's pretty good. Running's great isn't it, it gives you a great natural high. For those who don't run: just do it! You won't regret it...

It's great cardio. I wish it wasn't so damn hot here. When this perpetual offseason of mine ends I NEED some good roadwork. I'm not a big fan of running for years on end, as it's not real easy on the hipsters and knees itself, but it could easily be cycled on and off with swimming and biking to avoid that.

And incidentally, I'm sorry if I was being a dick about the squatting thing. You did Dennis a service in providing those illustrations.

[BoredShirtless]

If you want strength and great legs, half squat.

?

Half-squatting is inferior to the full squat for those purposes. You'll find no one that advocates them for "great legs."

Clearly our definition of "great legs" is not the same. Please don't make sweeping assumptions, I CAN find people who agree that "great legs" can be had through half squats.

If you want strength and thunder thighs, full squat.

What is the difference between great legs and "thunder thighs"?

Great legs are legs which are big and in proportion. Thunder thighs are those you find on weight lifters and body builders: huge! Although saying that, the size of your legs is much more related to the number of reps, sets and the weight you squat [half or full].

Never, ever avoid proper form because it might "make you too big." That's total b.s.

Hang on a second. Half squats ARE proper and legitimate. The once mighty North Sydney Bears [National Rugby League, Australia] used to do them. These guys are professional sportsmen, earning huge amounts of money: they get trained by the best fitness coaches money can buy.

There's a fucking duck quaking outside my office, hahaha!!

Most people could work all their lives and NEVER be "too big." Their genes simply do not allow it. To date I've yet to meet a natural trainer who was truly convinced they were "too big," as in carrying too much LBM.

Red herring, my point was you can achieve strength and great legs by half squating.

But you need flawless technique, and it's probably not worth it. Retired weight lifter friend of mine has a permanatly fucked up back thanks to full squats [he HAD flawless technique].

You could just as easily injure yourself with the greater poundages of a half-squat,

No way. Firstly, full squats are very hard to do right. Combine this with the extra stress on the knees created by the greater bend, it's easier to injure yourself with the lesser weight of a full squat as opposed to the slightly greater weight of a half squat IMO.

and the movement also fosters SEVERE imbalances in the lower body.

What do you mean it "fosters" severe imbalances?

I've certainly seen more injuries from half-squats than ATF, including lower back injuries, torn quads and bum knees.

Stupidity and weights do not mix. If you're going to put on so much more weight [because it's a half squat] then your body can handle, then of course you're going to injure yourself.

But if a person does it right, half squats ARE safer, and at the same time will give you strong, well defined legs.

The full squat in and of itself is no more or less dangerous.

Wrong. You're placing more pressure on your knees and hip flexors. It also requires a more precise technique to avoid injuries. The full squat is more dangereous for sure.

I know I was never injured doing them.

Good for you, but that's besides the point.

So unless you're a weight lifter or body builder, half squats are good enough, and much more forgiving on the body.

No, they're not. Shorter ROM equals more poundage;

That depends on what you're trying to achieve.

and more weight = more pressure on the spine and knees. It doesn't give as high an order of work to the hips, glutes--where ALL of your power comes from--or hamstrings.

Like I said, if you're anything but a weight lifter or body builder, half squats are plenty good enough.

Half-reps are never the answer. They're not safer, and they're not remotely as productive as a full ROM. I didn't get to where I am now by fudging on such things.

Congratulations. Once again, half squats are legitimate and good enough for 99% of the population.

[BoredShirtless]

That's pretty good. Running's great isn't it, it gives you a great natural high. For those who don't run: just do it! You won't regret it...

It's great cardio. I wish it wasn't so damn hot here. When this perpetual offseason of mine ends I NEED some good roadwork. I'm not a big fan of running for years on end, as it's not real easy on the hipsters and knees itself, but it could easily be cycled on and off with swimming and biking to avoid that.

I go through 2 weeks of hell when summer starts before my body gets used to the heat. Now, regarding your knee and hip problems, can I make a wee suggestion...

And incidentally, I'm sorry if I was being a dick about the squatting thing. You did Dennis a service in providing those illustrations.

I wasn't offended by anything you wrote.

[Master of Ossus]

5:45 pretty good eh? Then I guess I'm god at sub 4:20

Well, how far do you run? I do that over 13 miles.

[Darth Wong]

Hang on a second. Half squats ARE proper and legitimate. The once mighty North Sydney Bears [National Rugby League, Australia] used to do them. These guys are professional sportsmen, earning huge amounts of money: they get trained by the best fitness coaches money can buy.

Is it really necessary to invoke competing appeals to authority? What kind of argument can one have when one simply says "so and so does it, therefore it's good?" Couldn't one simply list athletes who don't do it, and draw the opposite conclusion? This kind of debate method goes nowhere.

Red herring, my point was you can achieve strength and great legs by half squating.

The fact that something can work does not mean that it's as good or better than another method which also works. I don't see how this statement is relevant to anything under discussion.

No way. Firstly, full squats are very hard to do right. Combine this with the extra stress on the knees created by the greater bend, it's easier to injure yourself with the lesser weight of a full squat as opposed to the slightly greater weight of a half squat IMO.

That's an interesting claim. Could you please explain how we can evaluate and compare the stresses on the relevant joints imposed by half-squats as opposed to full squats? Mechanically, stress analysis of this scenario would require more knowledge of the workings of a human knee joint than I possess. Does anyone have actual statistics on the injuries caused by squats and half-squats?

Personally, I haven't been doing any kind of squats at all, simply because I know I'm not a serious athlete (my goal is only to get in shape, not to become a bodybuilder), and squats position the weight high relative to your body while forcing you into an uncomfortable and somewhat unnatural position, so there is a fair bit less margin for error IMO. I find deadlifts to be a simpler movement (particularly with the trap bar that my brother has, which is diamond-shaped so you can stand in the middle and keep the weight centred below your body axis), with less catastrophic failure modes. And of course, my brother keeps an eye on me when I do these deadlifts.

Stupidity and weights do not mix. If you're going to put on so much more weight [because it's a half squat] then your body can handle, then of course you're going to injure yourself.

But if a person does it right, half squats ARE safer, and at the same time will give you strong, well defined legs.

The whole point of half-squats is to use significantly larger weights, is it not? If one uses only marginally more weight (or no more weight) with the half-squat, then could one not get the same benefit with a much smaller weight on the full squat, thus greatly reducing the load placed on your shoulders and back?

Obviously, a half-squat would be safer than a full squat with the same weight, but I don't see why anyone would be comparing them that way. Ultimate safety would be to avoid both and sit on your couch watching TV

[seanrobertson]

Clearly our definition of "great legs" is not the same. Please don't make sweeping assumptions, I CAN find people who agree that "great legs" can be had through half squats.

Since you aren't offended, let me proceed

This is long, so watch out.

You might be able to find people with "great legs" as a result of half squats, though I would beg that said greatness be quantified in some manner.

Could they get better results with full squats? You seem to think yes, but at risk of greater injury. We'll touch on that in a minute.

Great legs are legs which are big and in proportion. Thunder thighs are those you find on weight lifters and body builders: huge!

How big is "huge"?

My thighs, a weak point for me, are 27", measured relaxed midway between the knee and the hips. I therefore probably qualify as having thunder thighs according to some people's definition thereof. But me? I'm not one of those bigorexia guys, yet I hardly think they're anywhere near huge.

I am fairly genetically gifted, and in fairness I probably could probably build large thighs doing anything so long as the intensity of effort was up there. However, I know I always experienced much greater results when I did ass-to-the-floor, super-deep squats.

Now, I want to invoke some appeals to authority; if you want to skip over them, that's okay. I do consider the totality of these guys' experience important, but I only cite individual names so you can verify that I'm not pulling this out of my ass:

Bodybuilders:

Off the top of my head, search for Tom Platz, Mike Francois, Paul Demayo, Ronnie Coleman, Mike Morris, John Sherman. All of them would tell you deeeep squats are the way to go.

Literally all Olympic lifters do full squats--look up Marc Henry for starters. I'm sure there's a picture of him doing one somewhere online.

All champion powerlifters train to at least squat to parallel--look up "champion powerlifters," starting with Ed Coan, "Captain Kirk," Bill Kazmeier, Paul Anderson or "Dr. Squat" Fred Hatfield himself.

Most "squatters" in the NFL do full squats--ask someone serious about lifting like, say, Shannon Sharpe. Or in the event that he's unavailable, do another internet search

And there are PLENTY of athletic directors who firmly believe in the full squat, too:

Bill Starr, Strength and Conditioning Coach at John Hopkins University;

Dr. Ken Leistner, legendary trainer of such football stars as the massive Kevin Tolbert;

Matt Brzycki, currently Coordinator of Recreational Fitness and Wellness Programs at Princeton University, who co-authored a book with the coach of the Boston Celtics and was assistant strength & conditioning coach at Rutgers in '84-'90.

Those are only guys with whom I'm very familiar. I know Dr. Ken and Brzycki a little bit personally, nice guys. (Not that it is relevant, but it IS impressive: in his mid fifties, Dr. Ken weighs about 160 and can squat 405x23 ATF.) I've heard about and read so much of Starr's stuff that I feel like I know him. They're ALL big full squat advocates.

The following schools are all confirmed to use full squats in their athletic programs, so their athletic directors must favor the movement as well. Again, this is simply to illustrate that I can find far more competent people who advocate full squats, not that any one group makes ATFing "divine" or the like:

The University of Kentucky
U of Michigan
U of South Carolina (Columbia, I think--the article didn't say)
Penn State
Villanova
U of Toledo
The U.S. Military Academy
Providence College
Western Kentucky
U of Cincinnati

I'm sure plenty of others do as well; that's all I can scrap together from one quick Google search.

In professional sports:
NFL--
Pittsburgh Steelers
Minnesota Vikings
Cincinnati Bengals
San Diego Chargers
Anaheim Rams
Philadelphia Eagles
Arizona Cardinals
Washington Redskins
Carolina Panthers
Hockey--
Pittsburgh Penguins (Stanley Cup Winners)
Baseball--
Detroit Tigers.

Quite a list, huh? I'll stop. You get the idea.

I have to wonder, would ALL of those teams, programs, coaches and individuals not give a shit about potential injuries?

Would they ALL be so stupid as to emphasize something so dangerous, especially when you maintain that a safe alternative exists with a simple alteration of ROM?

I rather doubt it. Too much money is on the line for these guys...these are organizations that are VERY hard on their players for putting themselves in harm's way off the field. I live next door to the Panthers, and I can't tell you how often I've heard accounts of them restricting their players' movements.

Though I wouldn't take the authority argument on its own, that's simply too much collective experience for me to ignore. 2 or 3 out of 10 could be wrong, but 10 out of 10 indicates a trend. 98 out of 100 are definitely onto something.

And that 98 is saying that they believe full squats are the way to go. They don't recognize an injury factor; an injured team doesn't play, and when you don't play, you don't go to the Superbowl or sell as many tickets. Doltish as some of them might be, taken as a whole they simply have enough empirical evidence to conclude that full squatting isn't hurting their linemen.

Although saying that, the size of your legs is much more related to the number of reps, sets and the weight you squat [half or full].

Well, yeah...to an extent. At the risk of digression, I'll say I'm of the school that a single set to concentric failure is far more productive than 10 sets at 50%, a'la the sprinter vs. distance runners' comparative musculature analogy.

The distance runner does more overall work, but the sprinter works far harder/unit time. The body can only stand a very finite amount of such work...anyone who's done a breathing set of 20 rep squats or deadlifts won't be able to do a second, equivalent set that day or, circular as it might sound, they didn't work hard enough. And the body also has a limited reserve w/ which to recover from such a bout, so while slightly more work might yield somewhat greater gains, it does so at the cost of longer recovery (see Selye's GAS, where failure to recover is entering the exhaustion stage).

Intensity of effort is the key. You could do 100 sets of 20 reps with .5 lbs and short of an act of God, you won't stimulate the kind of growth from one failure set of 8 reps. gH won't change that. Steroids can't change even that.

For our purposes, we should assume that the workload is otherwise identical, ignoring the ROM of course.

Hang on a second. Half squats ARE proper and legitimate. The once mighty North Sydney Bears [National Rugby League, Australia] used to do them. These guys are professional sportsmen, earning huge amounts of money: they get trained by the best fitness coaches money can buy.

That's IT?!

Their coach--one guy!, railing against the majority, some of whom I cited above--thought half squats were okay for their purposes, which I would argue have nothing to do with "great legs"...therefore, half squats are unilaterally legit?

There's a difference between efficient training for the masses and what ONE coach thinks about sports-specific training.

And coaches ain't gods, either. Taken alone, one could very easily be wrong. Maybe that team was successful, but there are plenty more teams that have players of comparable health (i.e., injury-free) and strength who do full squats. That's the reason why I went to such pains to give you a long list of verifiable full squatters.

Red herring, my point was you can achieve strength and great legs by half squating.

Hmmm, no: from what I can tell I didn't change the subject on you. So I think you mean "straw man," something of which I'd only be guilty because you left me speculating as to what "great legs" vs. "thunder thighs" meant. (Note: traditionally, "thunder thighs" means big, FAT thighs.)

In other words, I was wondering just what does that mean, and why would someone want to half-squat to get there?

That makes no sense to me. Would you do half a ROM w/ curls if you only wanted "good" but not "huge" biceps? Would you do half a bench press ROM if you wanted a great, but not truly giant pair of pecs?

No. And I can assure you, the injury potential for the aforementioned two exercises is at LEAST as great as with squatting, half reps or not.

No way. Firstly, full squats are very hard to do right.

I never thought so. For whom are they so difficult? I've seen kids in the Special Olympics do full squats, one of whom was reported to be so severely retarded that he couldn't dress himself.

So, would you care to elaborate as to why you think this is the case? I did them right with 365 for 8, ass to heels, and was rather safe the entire time. Following some very simple guidelines, such as focusing on a single spot of the wall, made the movement VERY natural to me, after only a year or so's experience with the lift. Staying tight, "sitting back as if into a chair," and keeping that head up and focused did the trick. It'd work for anyone because I'm actually NOT a very good squatter; at the outset, I was far too inflexible in the lower legs. I just worked at it, and it fell before me after much hard work.

Besides, I think "difficult form" simply underscores the importance of learning the movement from a competent teacher, NOT the injury potential of a lift done properly. No one should initiate a half, quarter, or full squat without proper guidance.

Combine this with the extra stress on the knees created by the greater bend,

That's a myth.

Please visit this website:

http://www.stumptuous.com/learnsquat.html

Krista wrote this with a lot of input from nationally-ranked powerlifters like Jason Burnell--more people with tons of experience, but she also penned it with an eye toward published studies. See her "myth no. one," which addresses full squats and knee health.

it's easier to injure yourself with the lesser weight of a full squat as opposed to the slightly greater weight of a half squat IMO.

Slightly greater?

It's a LOT greater.

I already noted that, after doing two sets of ass-to-the-floor squats to total failure with 365--more poundage than you'll likely see from 95% of all gym rats in that form, incidentally--I could STILL do some geniune half-reps with 585.

If I was fresh, I would've probably been half-squatting SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS for a few reps. (Total failure, wherein you're crashing on the power rack's pins on your final rep, takes a lot outta ya.)

Let me tell you, that kind of crazy-ass weight on your back has a VERY definite effect on your knees and back--far moreso than 365-405 ever had on me. You can FEEL that massive weight compressing your spine. Walking out with it is scary in and of itself.

Yet, if I wanted to improve the muscularity of my thighs, I'd need to use something that did such a thing to my knees and back--probably at least 495 for very high reps. Anything less and I'd be pumping away for many minutes on end. A hard sprint would yield more thigh growth than that.

What do you mean it "fosters" severe imbalances?

As in it offers a higher order of stimulation for the quads but at the expense of hamstrings, glutes, and hips (not to mention flexibility). Over time, even if one does glute-ham raises, leg curls and the like, that kind of imbalance is going to manifest itself.

Remember, the exercise itself just initiates the growth mechanism. It's not the end itself; otherwise, we could be squatting and growing all day long, until our thighs were as big around as our shoulders. An exercise urges or "fosters" growth; it doesn't yield growth right there on the spot itself.

Stupidity and weights do not mix. If you're going to put on so much more weight [because it's a half squat] then your body can handle, then of course you're going to injure yourself.

Straw Man.

I didn't say that the lifters were stupid, or that they put on too much weight. I just said they were injured, as in hurt given the inherent difficulties of doing half-squats in a productive manner. They could've done that warming up with a very light weight, after all; injuries aren't simply a function of weight on the bar.

Besides, why don't you apply this "stupidity and weights don't mix" logic to full squats? That reasoning should hold when you're speaking of people who do full squats in an injurious manner, as well. They're ALSO being stupid, because I sure as hell had no trouble getting the exercise down-pat. Neither did mongoloid kids who competed in the Special Olympics.

It's not THAT hard to do.

But if a person does it right, half squats ARE safer, and at the same time will give you strong, well defined legs.

You mean quads. They don't do near as much work for the hamstrings, hips and glutes. They leave the erectors comparatively underworked as well. They don't do jack for your flexibility, and they're an inferior quad movement to deep squatting.

What do you define as "doing it right," though? I'm curious. You've got to work the movement hard, and at some point that calls for a certain amount of resistance...that's simply inescapable. Someone who feels progression is irrelevant had better work hard to prove it, because no one in all of strength training would concur.

And inasmuch as definition is concerned, that's a function of bodyfat. You can't "cut bones"; so, yes, you need a little muscle. But you can stimulate "a little muscle" with proper squats, and then some, faster, giving the hamstrings, glutes, hips, and lower back a nice reason to grow as well.

Wrong. You're placing more pressure on your knees and hip flexors.

Prove it. Cite a study. I say this is a myth, and Krista's site addresses it rather well. I should've summarized it but this is incredibly long as-is.

It also requires a more precise technique to avoid injuries. The full squat is more dangereous for sure.

Though this is based in an old myth, I'll ask again: where is your proof? You have one "weight lifter" friend who was injured doing them. I'll assume that is not a massive false cause attribution on his part, blaming the movement itself when he could've made some kind of mistake.

One guy ain't proof. Your own experience, which I will guess is limited to toning the thighs given your descriptor of "thunder thighs" and calling bodybuilders "body builders," is undoubtedly less than my own. I say that because I've watched closely over the past 11 years and I've yet to see a SINGLE PERSON injured by full squats.

I have, however, seen people hurt while doing half squats.

You say it's more dangerous? I have a lot of experience that says otherwise. We really need a study to clear this up.

Good for you, but that's besides the point.

I appreciate that but no, it's not beside the point:

You cited one example of a guy who you say got hurt doing them, right?

I cite a counterexample--me--AND the observation that I've seen half-squatters get hurt before.

Your one observation loses out to a greater bulk thereof, no pun intended.

That depends on what you're trying to achieve.

Strength and muscle?

In the context of results, what we're trying to achieve is all but the same. Look at it this way:

If you want to GROW, even a LITTLE bit, and you're not a beginner, you MUST apply progressive overload.

This means you must add weight or reps when you train; you don't grow my playing around well short of your maximum. I don't care if you're just trying to add .25 lbs. of muscle to your thighs or not--there's no difference. Progression beyond a certain untrained state requires a certain order of work, or else you're literally spinning your wheels.

And that progressive overload means that at SOME POINT, you WILL be using far more poundage in a half squat than you'd ever be able to full squat. That's more pressure on the knees and back and, by your own reasoning, means it's less safe.

Now, if we ARE strictly talking about beginners, I still say that the full squat is most useful because it involves more muscles. But that's the one case in which I'd probably approve of half squats as one of the lower body's "heavy" movements...not because it's safer or near as productive, but because ANY stimulus is considerable to a beginner's untrained musculature and nervous system.

Like I said, if you're anything but a weight lifter or body builder, half squats are plenty good enough.

Why?

You've said this plenty of times, but I haven't seen any studies or even testimonials as to the effectiveness of half squats. You offered some hearsay about your buddy's injury, but have yet to come up with even a skinny fitness model who says, "My quads were built Half Squat Style! (tm)"

Indeed, I know of no one with decent squatting ability or with muscular thighs who eschews full squats altogether--muscular, like great, being somewhat nebulous. Let's arbitrarily say a muscular-ass pair of thighs belongs to anyone capable of ATFing three wheels for a single.

But I digress, again. I think halfies are better than nothing, but that doesn't make them at all efficient, and a half ROM doesn't mean that it yields "half the results" or the like.

I say non-bodybuilders, powerlifters, Olympic lifters and the like should STILL train as a strength athlete would. This "I only want great legs, not big ones" stuff STILL requires that you bust ass in the gym unless you have truly one in a million genetics and were born with huge legs.

After the initial beginner's gains, most people will have to work their asses off in that squat rack if they REALLY want awesome legs, and I'm not thinking of huge, sweeping quads either. I'm thinking of just good, athletic legs and a strong lower body.

And doing far lighter half squats, if that's what you're suggesting, won't get the job done. To increase the intensity of effort, they'll have to increase the weight at some point--you can only do so many reps before you reach a point of vastly diminishing returns, more aerobic work than anaerobic.

And that means more time must be spent on the glutes, hams, hips and lower back, and that means even MORE precious resources are consumed in trying to recover from an ever-greater volume of work.

Congratulations. Once again, half squats are legitimate and good enough for 99% of the population.

If you mean 99% of the lifting population, I would like to see some nos. to corroborate that because everywhere I look, I see people advocating full squats. Most people are too chicken to do them because they'll leave you breathing like a steam engine and are just a bitch in general, but even those wimps know deep down that the deep squat is what they should do if they had the guts. (I'm thinking of "lightbulb"-type bodybuilders, the guys with shitty lower bodies and fairly decent upper body musculature.)

I simply think there are too many reasons to go ahead and do the proper, full squat. Consider it a rough summary of my points above.

1--Risk of injury isn't as great as you think. Injuries even among massive squatters are quite low. So, where is the proof of full squat dangers? Even if we pretend that everyone has been crazy in doing them for over a century now, surely there must be a few studies to corroborate this danger, right?

2--The movement is far more productive in terms of growth stimulation. The myotatic reflex ("prestretch") at the bottom, the greater range of motion, and avoidance of the top third near lockout, which involves very little muscular action, all require the quads to work harder; but the full squat also hits the rest of the lower body very hard, much moreso than the half squat ever could.

3--Because the movement is efficient, a few sets of it represent a full lower-body workout...done properly, and without greater risk of injury, as few as ONE set of squats to total concentric failure could leave you staggering out of the gym, puking in the parking lot, and witnessing measurably bigger thighs some time thereafter.

This is good for two reasons:

1), you've given the entire lower body a routing. You don't need to do, and indeed could NOT do, lots of leg curls after such a session--not without resting for hours on end. Your stimulus, therefore, consumes a minimum of "reserves" such that you'll be ready for a leg workout again all the sooner. The more frequently you can train and still grow, the FASTER you will grow.

2), you've kept the total amount of work down, which is good in the context of your entirebody and most importantly your CNS. This means that it'll not only be easier for your quads and hams to recover from this bout, as with no. 1, but your tricepsand areas not directly trained will get a green light to go again sooner, as well.

4--The exercise isn't actually that hard to learn. Practice it until you've got it. Abiding by some simple rules, it's easy.

5--It's easier to quantify your efforts in a full squat. A half squat can be of varied depth--eyeballing your descent is rather difficult when you've got enough weight on there to do your legs any good. Dropping a couple inches of depth even on a few reps could artificially boost your performance markedly, when in fact you've not gotten stronger at all.

Progression is fundamental, and to progress you must have some idea of your current abilities. A half squat makes this fuzzy...are you really stronger, or are you stuck at the same weight for the same no. of reps? As a result, might you be overtrained and need a break? Or do you push on and potentially dig a deeper hole?

The full squat removes such ambiguities. Planning out your training is therefore much simpler.

6--The weights utilized in full squats are never as prodigous as those employed in half squats and thus are, in one sense, potentially safer (just as a full squat's greater pressure on the knees is potentially more dangerous, though that's not proven).

Half-squatters are the bunch far more likely to get "weak in the knees" or have trouble unracking the weight, walking it out, re-racking it, etc., because they invariably must go for that heavier poundage. They're the ones likely to get injured before they actually start the exercise itself!

7--No one, save perhaps one sports team, truly advocates half squats to the exclusion of full squats. The vast majority of all sports medicine specialists, trainers worth a damn, and solid sports programs have their athletes do full squats. Are these injury-conscious, performance-seeking people all wrong?

[seanrobertson]

I go through 2 weeks of hell when summer starts before my body gets used to the heat. Now, regarding your knee and hip problems, can I make a wee suggestion...

Heh, I didn't mean mine I meant that, for people in general, running can be rather bad for the hip and knee joints--all high-impact forms of cardio are prone to do this.

But to incur such damage I think that's something you have to do frequently for decades on end. And I do think it's indispensible insofar as good cardio is concerned.

As with most things, you have to make a trade-off at some point. I'm not suggesting a true False Dichotomy; I'm say, rather, that even something as awesome as running isn't a totally black or white/good and bad issue. It's a shade of Navy Aggressor Gray

[Howedar]

5:45 pretty good eh? Then I guess I'm god at sub 4:20

Well, how far do you run? I do that over 13 miles.

You run 13 5:45 miles back to back?

[BoredShirtless]

Hang on a second. Half squats ARE proper and legitimate. The once mighty North Sydney Bears [National Rugby League, Australia] used to do them. These guys are professional sportsmen, earning huge amounts of money: they get trained by the best fitness coaches money can buy.

Is it really necessary to invoke competing appeals to authority?

That's called supporting evidence. If my argument was ONLY the above, then it'd be an Appeal to Authority.

What kind of argument can one have when one simply says "so and so does it, therefore it's good?" Couldn't one simply list athletes who don't do it, and draw the opposite conclusion? This kind of debate method goes nowhere.

If I can give an example showing professional athletes doing half squats, that example will go a long way to support my argument that half squats ARE a legitimate exercise technique for building great strength.

Red herring, my point was you can achieve strength and great legs by half squating.

The fact that something can work does not mean that it's as good or better than another method which also works. I don't see how this statement is relevant to anything under discussion.

It's relevant because Sean and I were arguing whether half squats can build great legs. Sean going of on a tangent on how people can never be "big enough" is a red herring.

No way. Firstly, full squats are very hard to do right. Combine this with the extra stress on the knees created by the greater bend, it's easier to injure yourself with the lesser weight of a full squat as opposed to the slightly greater weight of a half squat IMO.

That's an interesting claim. Could you please explain how we can evaluate and compare the stresses on the relevant joints imposed by half-squats as opposed to full squats?

No, I don't know enough to do a satisfactory analysis. However, my opinion is built on growing up with a friend who represented Australia in weight lifting, and the years I spent playing rugby at high school and uni.

Mechanically, stress analysis of this scenario would require more knowledge of the workings of a human knee joint than I possess. Does anyone have actual statistics on the injuries caused by squats and half-squats?

No, but I'm curious and will look around for some stats. I'll take this chance to define what a full squat and half squat is, make sure we're all speaking the same language:
Half squat - Your thighs are parallel to the floor.
Full squat - Your arse is practically touching the floor.

Personally, I haven't been doing any kind of squats at all, simply because I know I'm not a serious athlete (my goal is only to get in shape, not to become a bodybuilder),

Squats will get you in shape faster then any other one exercise. You shouldn't think of squats as a body builders only exercise because they aren't. Squats work the abs, back, butt and legs. Nothing compares.

and squats position the weight high relative to your body while forcing you into an uncomfortable and somewhat unnatural position, so there is a fair bit less margin for error IMO.

It's not so bad if you stop bending your knees when your thighs are parallel to the floor.

Stupidity and weights do not mix. If you're going to put on so much more weight [because it's a half squat] then your body can handle, then of course you're going to injure yourself.

But if a person does it right, half squats ARE safer, and at the same time will give you strong, well defined legs.

The whole point of half-squats is to use significantly larger weights, is it not?

No, it isn't. If you have tight hip flexors, half squats is all you CAN do. Same with crook knees.

If one uses only marginally more weight (or no more weight) with the half-squat, then could one not get the same benefit with a much smaller weight on the full squat, thus greatly reducing the load placed on your shoulders and back?

That's not relevant. Once again:
- You can achieve great legs and strength using half squats.

Do you agree with this, yes or no?

Obviously, a half-squat would be safer than a full squat with the same weight, but I don't see why anyone would be comparing them that way. Ultimate safety would be to avoid both and sit on your couch watching TV

I question your definition of safety, sitting on your arse will leave you open to an even bigger danger: heart attacks!

[BoredShirtless]

5:45 pretty good eh? Then I guess I'm god at sub 4:20

Well, how far do you run? I do that over 13 miles.

You run 13 5:45 miles back to back?

Yeah sure he could.

[BoredShirtless]

Jesus Sean! That post is huge, I'll answer it when I have more time

[seanrobertson]

Crap. Accidental double-post.

But hey, BS, I told you it'd be long, man! Take your time in replying if you go that route. I'm not in a big hurry.