EDIT
BoredShirtless wrote:
I interpret the above as a retraction of:
"You'll find no one that advocates them for "great legs.""
Do you agree?
Red Herring nitpick. You know I mean that full squats are superior, for whatever your goal might be. You said they're not because they're more dangerous.
Well,
prove it. It's a wife's tale. I've cited a top expert who says as much.
Ok. My definition of great legs:
That's still very hard for me to quantify.
This is all evidence you can submit to support your argument.
No, I've got quite a bit in the wings. You saw a little of it from guys like Dr. Siff in that follow-up post.
I know that, that's why I said "So unless you're a weight lifter or body builder, half squats are good enough, and much more forgiving on the body."
And you have not PROVEN that they're more forgiving.
I say they're NOT more injury-prone. I also maintain that you should ALWAYS train hard, no matter what your goals are.
Indeed, most people are going to HAVE to train extremely hard to get those "great tennis legs" you just put up.
Wait, I'm getting confused. You claimed:
"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. "
Isn't thighs parallel a "half-rep bullshit"? Wouldn't that mean these powerlifters are using "bullshit" training methods?
NO. I took a lot of time to demonstrate what "half squatting" actually is. See my other post.
wrote:
Two things:
1. Yes, of course they give a shit about injuries.
2. Does your list change the fact that it's more dangerous to do a full squat? No, it doesn't.
Of course it does.
You
really think they'd emphasize something so dangerous, especially when half squats would make a viable substitute?
No. That contradicts your first statement; they can't give a shit about injuries AND do full squats IF there is proof that the latter are dangerous.
Since there is no proof, it's a moot point.
Safer alternative.
Please, do not nitpick. You know perfectly well what I mean.
Yes they do. They recognise the potential for injury and make sure their athletes do it right.
Checkmate.
"Doing it right" means full squats because
that is what they do.
Full squats ARE more dangerous. The fact these athletes are performing a more dangerous exercise SAFELY, doesn't change the fact a full squat is more dangerous than a half squat.
You keep saying they're more dangerous, and you've yet to offer a shred of proof. Dr. Mel Siff, who is more qualified than us both, says they're not--that it's a myth.
That's right, because they're doing it right.
False dilemma.
Either they do it right and don't get injured, or they do it wrong and get injured.
You were saying that the full squat was INHERENTLY dangerous...NOT that it was a simple matter of screwing up form. Remember all that talk about back injuries in SPITE of perfect form, and all that pressure on the knees that you said was so dangerous?
Snip interesting, but nonetheless irrelevant, information.
You posted evidence which said powerlifters half squat. Isn't that enough to make it a legit technique? Add the Mighty Bears, and it's case closed!
Heh, nice try
You are simply confused about what constitutes a half squat, bro. Squatting to parallel is deeper. Every resource I checked said this.
Yeah you did, you went off on how people can never be "too big". That's a tangent to the argument that half squats can give you great legs.
I never said any such a thing. You're straw-manning me a second time about this.
I said:
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.
You took this out of context. I was addressing your comment that someone should do full squats if they wanted "thunder thighs," and half squats if they wanted "merely great" thighs.
Your comment indicates that a harder order of work would yield bigger thighs. I agree. However, implicit in your reasoning was the naive fear of becoming "too big"--that is, building thighs much
larger than your desired tennis legs.
You misunderstood what I was saying, thinking I meant that "people can never be big ENOUGH." No. I meant that an anxiety over getting "too big" is ridiculous; one in perhaps 10 million men might have the genes to build Mr. Olympia-caliber thighs.
Anyone short of that will have to bust ass pretty hard for every scrap of growth they get. Thus, to get "great" thighs, you're
still going to work very hard.
If that was not the case, then millions of pansy gym-goers in the United States would have thighs comparable to that tennis player's. (They clearly do not. They need to work harder.)
Oh come on. Thunder thighs in this context clearly refers to massive thigh muscles, stop being obtuse.
That's fair. I was nitpicking.
Sean, debate rages in the medical and sporting community on full versus half squats.
Where? Can you show me some of this? You know it would support your position, but you are holding back.
I don't see a similar debate with respect to curls, so I think this is a bad analogy.
And you're kidding yourself if you think the injury potential of a curl is even on the same PLANET as that of a full squat.
You missed my point *groan*.
I wasn't talking about
injury potential, though I noticed you've conspicuously ignored the bench press example, which IS responsible for more dramatic injuries than could ever be attributable to full squatting (pec tears, anyone?).
Let me go about this another way...
Why would you do half reps of squats, but not bench presses? Curls? Deadlifts?
It's always a Kodak moment when a regular Joe pulls off a correct full squat. I repeat, a Regular Joe. Do you agree with me here?
Yes and no.
For a regular Joe who's studied the movement and has practiced it with very light weights, we'll probably see a pretty picture, yes.
For a regular Joe who simply dives in without learning a few simple rules, who does not practice, etc. will have a shitty-looking squat, deep, to parallel, or half. He won't know where to place the bar (high traps, or low traps?), he'll have trouble deciding how much back rounding is acceptable, he won't know what to do with his head--you name it.
But then, I did stress the importance of a oompetent instructor, not only for squats but pretty much everything else.
I really do commend you, full squats are easily the hardest exercise to get right. I hope you don't "bounce" or relax on your lowest point, that's a very sure way of fucking your knees.
I'm of the Mike Mentzer/Arthur Jones school, originally, which instilled in me the need to execute every rep in clean form. You can certainly get away with faster reps, but I like slow negatives and reduction of momentum. So I didn't bounce out of the hole, no, which I would concur is a bad idea.
You see? Look how much effort you had to put in to do them right. It took you a year before you were comfortable.
Do you agree with me that a half squat is easier then a full squat, same weight?
Well, I was comfortable before I ever drilled the weights hard--it took me a year to get to that point, not to feel sure I was doing it right. If I indicated otherwise that's my fault/not what I meant to say.
And yes, I definitely think with the same load, half squats are easier. I know this from personal experience. But...
If you do, you surely must agree that a full squat is more dangerous. The POTENTIAL for injury is GREATER with a full squat.
Simply because it's harder?
No. I can't agree there. Injury isn't limited to trying to handle more weight than one should. With lighter loads, the ability to generate great amounts of force--more force than is necessary to move a weight--is accountable for a tremendous no. of injuries.
Look at it this way. Let's say you're military pressing 100 lbs., and it's a pretty light load. As such, you can press it overhead VERY rapidly, in a split-second for that first rep anyway.
What are you subjecting your joints to when you move this weight very rapidly? The force involved is actually far greater than 100 lbs.
It's not a myth. From the Departments of Anatomy and Kinesiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0431.htm
Quote from the article:
"Although the parallel and deep squats produce equivalent amounts of muscle activation, the parallel exercise is better for athletes who have suffered from knee problems,
since it produces less strain on the knees"
Leap in logic. Potential strain doesn't mean "injury." And note the context, here: people with "knee problems."
Here's a good one:
"Surprisingly, there was no difference in muscular activity between the parallel and deep squats, even though coaches tend to recommend the latter."
Muscular activity in WHAT? The entire lower body, or just the quads?
You need show the conditions of that test. Doing something like 50% of 1 RM will yield different results than slapping 80%/1RM on the bar.
And again, we have "coaches tend to recommend the full squat." I guess they simply don't care about the health of their players' knees, putting them at risk in spite of the fact that a test says half squats are just as good
Yep, it's easier to do more weight with a half squat.
No, no--you said it was a little easier or somesuch. I'm saying it's so much easier that it requires you to lift far too much overall weight than is good for your spine, lower back and knees. Heaven forbid someone should take those to failure outside of a power rack...
Wait. That already happened:
I gotta say something here: if you feel your spine compressing, STOP!!
Well, yeah, sure
But eventually, if you want to stimulate more thigh growth with those half squats, you're gonna have to approach that kind of nutty-ass weight. You can only do so many reps--only slow individual reps so down to reduce momentum, only do so many tricks to keep from slapping on that extra poundage.
It's unavoidable. But most people would never reach that point with full squatting. The weight'd get heavy, to be sure, and they'd certainly FEEL it on their backs, but the load would be much more managable than any equivalently intense 1/2 squat.
I've never heard of any imbalances caused by half squats. Can you provide some evidence please?
Since I know very few people that do them--mind you, who can still do them--it's hard to offer even anecdotal evidence to this end.
However, this shouldn't be necessary. It is common knowledge that the greater the depth of your squat, the more of your lower body you'll recruit.
You yourself seemed to subscribe to this idea; e.g., "if you want thunder thighs, full squat."
Half squats give the quads the highest order of work. The hamstrings and erectors, most importantly, are comparatively VERY underworked. Most I [used to] see half-squatting were lax in hitting SLDL and the like to make up for this deficit, so the halfies left their development somewhat half-assed--especially so next to what they'd had if they'd full squatted hard instead.
???
Hey, you asked me why I said "fostered." Training isn't slamming growth onto you on the spot; it's fostering or encouraging it. You stimulate, recover, and only then grow--classic Selye general adaptation syndrome.
Ah. In a productive manner. Stop me if I'm wrong, but you define "productive" as equivalence. Or in other words, add weight to the half squat until the benifits are equal.
Hmm...depends. What do you mean by "equivalent"? Equivalent effort put into both?
Without my last words right above yours this is very difficult to keep track of.
That's fine.
But this isn't a road test Sean. I was under the impression that we're debating whether:
1. Half squats can give you great legs.
2. Half squats are legitimate.
Hmm, more than that. I said (3) full squats would be a quicker route to great legs. You said they're pretty much for bodybuilders and are dangerous. I added a potential no. 4 by noting that what's good for BBers is good for everyone, and I noted the risk factor inherent to 1/2 squats as well (5).
Compared to quantum mechanics? No, piss easy. Compared to other exercies? It's the HARDEST.
Next to other exercises, yes--not physics.
I don't think it's necessarily the hardest, but even if we assumed that was true, why would that be a big deal? Next to other physical things--learning to hit a baseball, shooting baskets, swinging a golf club--it's a cinch. People can master it, hardest exercise or not, and need only start out slowly and under supervision.
It took you a year to get right, any other exercise you do which required that much time?
I worded that all wrong. I meant that, once I was comfortable with the lift and had that checklist of things in order, I was able to consistently hit PRs for a year, culminating in my all-time best set for 8 reps.
Aiming for infinite progression is a prerequisite to strength training now? What about maintaing your current level? I'm happy with my level of strength, and have no desire to lift any more.
I didn't say infinite, but progression, yes. If you're happy with your current level, that's a different story; but that's also somewhat of a red herring in this topic, given that we're talking about people who are
going after great or thunder-thighed legs. They don't have them
yet.
Bro...did you read this site?
"Early studies suggested deep knee bends with weights (squats) were hazardous to the ligamentuous structures of the knee. In contrast,
later studies conclude squats improve knee stability if the lifting technique does not place rotarary stresses on the knee (Fleck and Falkel, 1986)."
In other words, with proper form, it's safe. I ALWAYS assumed that we were talking about full squats in proper form;
anythingperformed improperly has the potential for knee injury.
I'll ignore the fact that this website was flat-out wrong concerning who was the first man to squat over 800 lbs. (to which they credit Hatfield, who was the first to squat over 1,000 lbs. in a sanctioned event).
Let's look at more of that site, shall we?
"Kreighbaum explains how a deep squat can be performed little chance of injury to the knee."
WHA?
Little chance of injury?
There's more.
"Kreighbaum conclude the deep squat is of little danger to the knees unless these variables and factors are disregarded"; i.e., body's center of gravity of the body system is keep forward of the altered center of rotation, and avoiding resting or rebounding off of the calves.
The latter two constitute terrible form, the sort that would be spotted and nixed right away by any competent instructor.
You'll note that the article does NOT go on to advocate half squats, as you do; instead, it maintains that the trainee must work on his flexibility until he can do full squats in good form and/or elevate the ankles on a board or platform, if only temporarily.
...How does that hurt my position again? Since I never advocated shitty form, nor do I maintain that it's so impossible to get good at doing the lift in proper form, I don't see where this source is hurting me.
With respects, I think you very selectively quoted from that site and are grasping at straws to demonstrate the full squat's dangers: NO ONE says it's perfectly safe if it's done in a shit manner.
This is NOT a myth. A full squat IS more dangerous! It took you a YEAR to perfect for shits sake.
Agh.
As I said, I garbled my meaning. But I think you are still jumping to conclusions, even based on what I said.
I said it took me a year or so to feel as if the movement was
natural.
I wasn't simply speaking of comfort vis-a-vis "good form," I also meant that it took a long time to feel right with
a lot of weight on my back.
Great! So what's your point?
You know my point.
You told me that you had proof full squats were dangerous.
Now you're back-peddling, citing sources that say they're dangerous
only if you employ bad form.
They placed more weight on the bar didn't they?
Yes, they did. If they hadn't, I imagine they would've been repping out for quite a long time. It wouldn't have done much to improve the muscularity of their legs.
How was that Swedish study? It was ok for me, you?
See above.
When I compare the risks of full versus half, I do so with EQUAL WEIGHT. Why don't you?
Because that is not how it is performed IN THE REAL WORLD, my man.
You make "spinning your wheels" sound like it's a bad thing. Why?
Forgive me, my capable sparring partner.
It's an expression we use in the U.S. that means "wasting one's time," like when a car's wheels spin in mud but it doesn't go anywhere.
Right. So if you're striving for "infinite progression", do full squats, not halves.
You know as well as I do that infinite progression isn't feasible. It'd be rad but it's unrealistic.
I maintain that the average man will have to work rather hard to build a pair of legs like those in the picture you provided. A "little" progression won't do it.
I see that half squats are now legit for beginners.
Why not decrease the weight and make them do full squats? It's safer after all, and much more productive...
Did you read what I said?
...not because it's safer or near as productive, but because ANY stimulus is considerable to a beginner's untrained musculature and nervous system.
There are more factors in play than what's best for the beginner's BODY. You have to go easy on him at first for psychological reasons. Full squats of even fairly low intensity would probably make most avg. trainees puke--a rather discouraging prospect.
No: I want them to stay with the program. I want to teach them immaculate form, too, but it's important that they're a repeat customerfirst so to speak. After all, without consistency, perfect form won't do them jack.
The problem I have with your entire argument is you've limited yourself to analysing squats under the following conditions:
1. How to get as much bulk and strength as possible
2. Infinite progression
I think one is relevant because people are going to have to work their asses off to get just a little size and strength. 2 more or less is, though I certainly don't think one can progress forever.
Most people don't train like that. Rugby players don't train like that. They aim for as much strength as possible, but with as little bulk [4 sets of 8 or 5 sets of 5]. More bulk needs more oxygen, and that equals less endurance.
Really?
I could point you to a thread in which 5x5 is a highly touted bodybuilding regimen. I myself don't like it much--I'm a low-volume freak--but I can't argue with some of those guys' results.
I gotta cut this short. My apologies.
Progression is fundamental
NOT for everyone Sean.
I definitely think so.
We're talking about progression insofar as people who want to build bigger, stronger legs, not former rugby players who already have strong, muscular legs, as you probably do, and are content to maintain said muscularity/strength.
Do you realise you turned this into a competition between full versus half, but not once tried to seriously say half squats are illegit or won't produce great legs?
I think we both encouraged the competition between those styles from the outset, but if you think I didn't say half squats were "illegit," I suppose it depends on what you mean by "illegit." I certainly didn't rave about their comparative ability to hammer the entire lower body as well as full squats do.
I don't have a terrific problem in saying that half squats can produce some leg size and strength. Squatting to parallel, which I still consider MUCH deeper than a half squat (hence probably half of our confusion), is definitely worthwhile in that regard. Parallel-squatting has built its share of what you'd call "thunder thighs."
At the beginning, and now, I am concerned with the fact that full squats can get you there quicker, with lighter weight, and yield more gains in flexibility as well though, yes, the movement will take some extra practice...and, yes, early on, the eager trainee's enthusiasm should be restrained, and the poundages should only be edged up slowly as he/she demonstrates a mastery of the exercise.
In the sense that half squats are easier to learn and productive in their own right, I already admitted that they could be very useful to the less enthusiastic beginners. And I even suppose that, while the full squat is mastered, the guy who's ready to lift hard might be allowed to do full squats somewhat intensively.
That's what I used to do when I was a personal trainer, anyway, before my beliefs started conflicting with my certifiers'.
I've delayed it too long; I have to go now. I like you and enjoy the challenge but I'm feeling stale with this discussion--more than squats than I ever hoped to discuss in a couple of days' span (EDIT: but I wind up sticking around for awhile longer anyway. This is the NEXT to last post 'til then!)
