Fuckarounditis

[Goosey]

I'm a confessed squataholic, but I still also know squatting is not a requirement and can be very counter productive for some.

 

[IRON TANKS]

I hope you break parallel. And for your information, a full ROM will always be better for power development regardless of what ROM you need the power in. As a cyclist I have a very, very small ROM when partaking in my sport and yet powersnatches are pretty much the best exercise I can do. Doing an ass to grass back squat will produce far more power than a parallel squat with 20% more weight

I go just below parallel. If that works for you, that's good - but ass to grass served me no purpose in kickboxing and wrestling. I'll try and dig up the study which had part mention of function, been quite a few years now since I finished my degree.

My professor of neuroscience and biomechanics had been training martial artists for 20 years - when I showed him my program he specifically suggested using the heaviest weight in the range of motion I use for maximum explosiveness and functionality. I tried it, and never looked back. From a functional perspective, it has served me much better than ATG squats. My take downs are much better.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Totally agree with your point re: dogmatism. A lot of people read about something or come up with an idea and just stick to it flat out and argue it to be true whether they see the benefit in other peoples points of view or not.

"You MUST do full barbell squats and deads to get big/strong/lean/muscly" is a ridiculous statement as it can never be proven, but it's controversial/inflamatory enough to get people reading the blog, spread the link, start discussion and get people defending/argung against it.

A statement such as "If you aren't progressing maybe try squats and deads" is hard to argue against but doesn't stimulate much though or get page clicks.

Great post and I totally agree.

I found it a hilarious generalization and he did make some good points, but I certainly don't agree with all of them. I've not done Barbell Squats, Deadlifts or Barbell Bench for 10 years!

Martin's condition is insane especially considering he maintains that level all year round.

 

[jzpowahz]

Good read.

If it gets a few people off bosu balls and under the bar then it's an effective article IMO.

 

[0ni]

Good luck proving such a broad statement...

A 100kg atg squat moving at 8 inches per second produces a force of 20.32 newtons

A 120kg parallel squat moving at 4 inches per second produces a force of 12.192 newtons

Lets say the parallel squat has a ROM of 12 inches, and the atg squat is 24 inches. That's 0.3048m for parallel and 0.6096 for atg

Time to complete the parallel lift is 3 seconds and 3 seconds for atg

Total power output for parallel squat: 4.064w
Total power output for atg squat: 6.773w

More accurate calculations could be made if you filmed the lift next to a meter stick but you're welcome!

 

[IRON TANKS]

A 100kg atg squat moving at 8 inches per second produces a force of 20.32 newtons

A 120kg parallel squat moving at 4 inches per second produces a force of 12.192 newtons

Lets say the parallel squat has a ROM of 12 inches, and the atg squat is 24 inches. That's 0.3048m for parallel and 0.6096 for atg

Time to complete the parallel lift is 3 seconds and 3 seconds for atg

Total power output for parallel squat: 4.064w
Total power output for atg squat: 6.773w

More accurate calculations could be made if you filmed the lift next to a meter stick but you're welcome!

These are hypotheticals and arbitrary numbers.

What about 100kg atg at 8" and 140 para at 6"/sec. Fact of the matter is you can generally squat a lot more weight with the latter, and safer mind you (particularly when it's not controlled - as you fatigue, if you're trying to do atg squats explosively at the very bottom where there is a slight rounding of the back.. you run the risk of problems). This is not to say there are no risks involved with para/just below para squatting. Your knees take a bit of a hit. Each to their own - stick with what works for you best, but definitely experiment!

 

[0ni]

These are hypotheticals and arbitrary numbers.

What about 100kg atg at 8" and 140 para at 6"/sec. Fact of the matter is you can generally squat a lot more weight with the latter, and safer mind you (particularly when it's not controlled - as you fatigue, if you're trying to do atg squats explosively at the very bottom where there is a slight rounding of the back.. you run the risk of problems). This is not to say there are no risks involved with para/just below para squatting. Your knees take a bit of a hit. Each to their own - stick with what works for you best, but definitely experiment!

The a2g squat still comes out on top, and I said that atg would produce more power than 20% more at parallel, 140kg is 40% more!

If you videoed your 2 maxes next to a meter stick and did the calculations, I can pretty much guarantee that the a2g squat will produce more power
But tbh if you want max force production do power snatches or parallel box squats with 60% of your max

 

[Hirdy]

A 100kg atg squat moving at 8 inches per second produces a force of 20.32 newtons

A 120kg parallel squat moving at 4 inches per second produces a force of 12.192 newtons

Lets say the parallel squat has a ROM of 12 inches, and the atg squat is 24 inches. That's 0.3048m for parallel and 0.6096 for atg

Time to complete the parallel lift is 3 seconds and 3 seconds for atg

Total power output for parallel squat: 4.064w
Total power output for atg squat: 6.773w

More accurate calculations could be made if you filmed the lift next to a meter stick but you're welcome!

Huh? you said this:

Originally Posted by 0ni
And for your information, a full ROM will always be better for power development regardless of what ROM you need the power in.

How does what you said above prove that using one specific (max) range of motion will develop power in a limited ROM?

I'm sure Bruce Lee's "One Inch Punch" would be more powerfull if it travelled further in the same time or he had a bigger back swing but it woudn't be a One Inch Punch then wouldn't it?

Just because a full-backswing/deep squat might be more powerful doesn't count for much if your practical application doesn't allow for a full back swing.

 

[adamklam]

maybe look at it this way

atg squat = GPP - builds greater overall strength - not necessarily where you wanted

reduced rom squat = SPP - builds specific strength in the ROM needed for the chosen sport/activity.

pick one which is relevant to you.

 

[0ni]

Huh? you said this:



How does what you said above prove that using one specific (max) range of motion will develop power in a limited ROM?

I'm sure Bruce Lee's "One Inch Punch" would be more powerfull if it travelled further in the same time or he had a bigger back swing but it woudn't be a One Inch Punch then wouldn't it?

Just because a full-backswing/deep squat might be more powerful doesn't count for much if your practical application doesn't allow for a full back swing.

I hope you're trolling, if you carried on reading then you would see I wrote "Doing an ass to grass back squat will produce far more power than a parallel squat with 20% more weight" in the same paragraph

Yes, Bruce Lee could punch with a lot more power than his one inch punch... don't see what the point in that argument is.. a squat is still a squat whether it's parallel or atg

Training with full ROM squats will increase your parallel squat far faster than training with parallel squats

 

[Hirdy]

Not trolling dude, maybe I wasn't being clear.

Adamklam put it nicely...

Minchia uses leg power for take-downs.

I agree he would have more power if when he performed a take-down he had the time/opportunity to quickly go ATG and "spring" at his opponent, but he pretty much has to exert force from a static position, or with only minimal bend/bounce in his knees (depth) due to his opponent not giving him enough time.

Therefore Im arguing he would benefit from training that specific range of motion.

Another example would be a batsmen (cricket) not having time to take a full backswing. Wouldn't it be beneficial for him to train that limited range of motion for power too?

 

[0ni]

Not trolling dude, maybe I wasn't being clear.

Adamklam put it nicely...

Minchia uses leg power for take-downs.

I agree he would have more power if when he performed a take-down he had the time/opportunity to quickly go ATG and "spring" at his opponent, but he pretty much has to exert force from a static position, or with only minimal bend/bounce in his knees (depth) due to his opponent not giving him enough time.

Therefore Im arguing he would benefit from training that specific range of motion.

Another example would be a batsmen (cricket) not having time to take a full backswing. Wouldn't it be beneficial for him to train that limited range of motion for power too?

Nah you have the wrong idea... A full range of motion will increase power throughout the entire range of motion, more so than shortening the reps.

Test your vertical jump height. Carry on squatting how you were for a month then test it again to see how much it increases. Then spend a month doing full ROM squats and retest your vertical jump. I'm willing to bet a fair bit of money that your vertical jump will increase the most after the month of ass to grass

 

[MaxBrenner]

As long as you don't -

You're "training the core"...and it involves a Swiss Ball, Bosu Ball or something else that makes you look like an idiot.

You're afraid of "bulky muscles" and use terms like "toning."

Are you still warming up? I can't tell. What's that? You're already done and I can take the bench?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kav2ndhc6h8&feature=relmfu]Bosu Ball Exercises : Bosu Ball Exercises: Squat Bicep Curls - YouTube[/ame]

You will be ok

 

[0ni]

Parallel Squats vs. Full Squats - Discuss Fitness
Squats: Full (Ass to Floor) vs. Parallel

 

[IRON TANKS]

The a2g squat still comes out on top, and I said that atg would produce more power than 20% more at parallel, 140kg is 40% more!

If you videoed your 2 maxes next to a meter stick and did the calculations, I can pretty much guarantee that the a2g squat will produce more power
But tbh if you want max force production do power snatches or parallel box squats with 60% of your max

Of course I did, 20% is very modest when you're not traveling to the floor

You can handle a lot more weight explosively with parallel than atg, for me anyway - as I had a slight rounding of the back during the lowest portion of the atg squat. "Bouncing" out of an atg squat when you get towards your final reps and fatigue sets in was more of a risk to my lumbar than the risks associated with just below parallel squatting. Not to mention, the increase in weight I can handle doing the latter has helped. I'm not against atg squats, but for me - ~parallel works better. There's an individual component as much of a theoretical and biomechanical one. Try all variations, and pick which works better for you.