Thread: opinion on squatting

I think heavy and parallel. To me that is a full squat. A lot of people don't go down all the way to parallel, though.

Selecting the proper rep ranges for your program

Originally Posted by MDR

I think heavy and parallel. To me that is a full squat. A lot of people don't go down all the way to parallel, though.

+1


I personally like heavy @ -2" below parallel & use box to accomplish this. I'm not sold on the whole theory of hams to the calves, I believe that's going to trash your knees over the long run. Especially with any kind of weight on the bar. Heavy @ or just below parallel is where it's at.JMO

Originally Posted by MyK 3.0

Selecting the proper rep ranges for your program

thats a useful thread, but my question was more pertaining to full range of motion or stopping half way

IMO it really depends on what you want out of your squatting. I think that full range squats where the hams touch the calves are better for muscle development because of the extra range of motion, but you will have to use lighter weights. Plus, I don't like to bother with "feeling parallel" or trying to guess whether I hit parallel on my squat. I know when I'm in the hole when my hams hit my calves. It just makes things simpler.

Obviously olympic lifters do full squats while powerlifters typically do low-bar squats to parallel. That's because these exercises have are effective in their sport.

So if you're an athlete, look at what positions you encounter during your sport and try squatting that way. For example, basketball players are frequently jumping from a narrow base so IMO they should squat with a narrow base. A lineman in football is often in a squatting position with a wide base, so they should squat with a wide base.

Isn't the whole point of body building to break through barriers and not limit yourself? With that in mind, why would you limit yourself on exercise selection? You don't have to choose one OR the other. Do one for a while then, when your body adapts to that, switch over and do the other for as long as it's effective.

Going to low..calves to hams can really put a strain on your spine, causing you to collapse inwards. I think parallel or right below parallel is just about right.

Originally Posted by Vpower

Going to low..calves to hams can really put a strain on your spine, causing you to collapse inwards. I think parallel or right below parallel is just about right.

How does it put a strain on your spine?

Originally Posted by gtbmed

IMO it really depends on what you want out of your squatting. I think that full range squats where the hams touch the calves are better for muscle development because of the extra range of motion, but you will have to use lighter weights. Plus, I don't like to bother with "feeling parallel" or trying to guess whether I hit parallel on my squat. I know when I'm in the hole when my hams hit my calves. It just makes things simpler.

Obviously olympic lifters do full squats while powerlifters typically do low-bar squats to parallel. That's because these exercises have are effective in their sport.

So if you're an athlete, look at what positions you encounter during your sport and try squatting that way. For example, basketball players are frequently jumping from a narrow base so IMO they should squat with a narrow base. A lineman in football is often in a squatting position with a wide base, so they should squat with a wide base.

Interesting points-good post.

Originally Posted by Vpower

Going to low..calves to hams can really put a strain on your spine, causing you to collapse inwards. I think parallel or right below parallel is just about right.

How deep you squat has nothing to do with pressure on the spine. And a full squat is actually less damaging to your knees than to parallel. That being side I always squat low bar 10-20 degrees below parallel, feels more natural to me and I like going heavy.

Originally Posted by Vpower

Going to low..calves to hams can really put a strain on your spine, causing you to collapse inwards. I think parallel or right below parallel is just about right.

I'm not quite sure on the whole spine thing? But the collapsing inward is probably accredited to poor form or overloading the bar.

Let me clarify..the heavier the weight is and the lower you go..the more inclined your back is going to round/body will go concave..causing some issues with spine

Originally Posted by Vpower

Let me clarify..the heavier the weight is and the lower you go..the more inclined your back is going to round/body will go concave..causing some issues with spine

That has nothing to do with how low you go. It's simply poor form, either because the weight is too heavy or the person just never learned how to spuat properly.

+1 to ALBOB.

If your back is rounding you're either too inflexible to go that deep, or too weak to use that weight, or both.

Just because you can't do it properly doesn't mean it isn't safe for somebody who can.

I think this image best demonstrates proper squat depth. The credit for the image goes to Starting Strength / The Aasgard Company. One can argue the semantics of describing that depth all day, but frankly, it comes down to getting to that position. I think one would be extremely hard pressed (aside from asking Mike Boyle, his creditability is waning a bit but that's a different story) to find a reliable source to indicate a depth outside of this image. If a load is to heavy to allow the lifter to achieve that position, a lighter load is needed. If one is squatting higher than that depth with the bar not placed in the proper location on the traps, it is not a proper squat --- a modifier such a "quarter" or "half" or "high bar position" would have to be placed before the word "squat" to properly describe whatever the hell the lifter is doing.

Originally Posted by Marat

I think this image best demonstrates proper squat depth. The credit for the image goes to Starting Strength / The Aasgard Company. One can argue the semantics of describing that depth all day, but frankly, it comes down to getting to that position. I think one would be extremely hard pressed (aside from asking Mike Boyle, his creditability is waning a bit but that's a different story) to find a reliable source to indicate a depth outside of this image. If a load is to heavy to allow the lifter to achieve that position, a lighter load is needed. If one is squatting higher than that depth with the bar not placed in the proper location on the traps, it is not a proper squat --- a modifier such a "quarter" or "half" or "high bar position" would have to be placed before the word "squat" to properly describe whatever the hell the lifter is doing.

Very nice description and visual. This shows exactly what I consider to be proper squat depth. Reps for a great post.

Originally Posted by MDR

Very nice description and visual. This shows exactly what I consider to be proper squat depth. Reps for a great post.

i def like that picture too... i also think bar positioning has a lot to do with form... i really think a lot of people sit the bar way to high on their back... almost on their necks.. this causes the weight to be forward pass the knees which really cant hurt form... as you increase weight..

Honestly, I go lower than the Rip squat and I keep my torso more upright with the bar a bit higher on my traps.

To me this is a full squat:




Anything less is something else.

It all looks good to me.