There are several tangents deserving of their own thread from this original post. Going in reverse order.... 'the mirrors'...
The problem I think people encounter with mirrors is that they are sending back data to you regarding the frontal plane (side to side movement, abd-adduction) where not a great deal is happening in a squat, and many problems here are often traced back to problems in the below...
Far more important is what's happening in the sagittal plane (forwards and backwards, flexion-extension). Squatters who are looking for performance know how important sitting back in your squat and utilizing the glute ham chain is. A front on mirror is not going to help with this and a side on one is obviously problematic.
The necessary skill to develop with all lifting is your 'sixth sense', your proprioception or balance. That is, the awareness of your body in space. Many lifters would probably solve their movement flaws if they 'turned off' the visual information coming in and started 'feeling' where their body is in space.
Squatting onto a box is the popular tool for coaching this fundamental movement that engages the most efficient prime movers of the squat in the best sequence. As a lifter gains proprioceptive skill they will be better able to diagnose flaws in their own lifting; also they will be able to correct subtle flaws that their coach or training partner may detect. That way a lifting que like 'more hip drive' or 'their was too much lumbar curve for that depth' can be fixed.
Regarding the standardization of lifting reps....
There is always three questions you can ask in a given movement..... and a fourth is an obvious corollary that follows.
* How much weight?
* How far did you move it?
* How long did it take?
The corollary is how much rest was there?
Nobody ever asks how far did you bench? Or long did you squat for?
Imagine what the world of lifting would turn into if just for some reason nobody ever squatted more than 120kg. That at some point 120kg was the most anyone ever put on the bar and to put more on would be treated with the same looks you would get if you just super glued a deck chair to your car roof. That world of the 120kg squat would then follow with people boasting that their squat lifting distance was 11000 inches or something.... every gym would have some sort of monitoring device for calculating and measuring barbell stroke length and so on and so on.
So the importance of PTC's original post is that somewhere the line has to be drawn in the sand about what is and what isn't a given lift. PL federations and competitions obviously go to great detail in establishing their rule criteria. All lifters should do the same in their training in order to test if their training is actually working or not. The answers to the above three questions must be quantifiable or else the ability to compare notes with other lifters in cyberspace is meaningless.
The problem I think people encounter with mirrors is that they are sending back data to you regarding the frontal plane (side to side movement, abd-adduction) where not a great deal is happening in a squat, and many problems here are often traced back to problems in the below...
Far more important is what's happening in the sagittal plane (forwards and backwards, flexion-extension). Squatters who are looking for performance know how important sitting back in your squat and utilizing the glute ham chain is. A front on mirror is not going to help with this and a side on one is obviously problematic.
The necessary skill to develop with all lifting is your 'sixth sense', your proprioception or balance. That is, the awareness of your body in space. Many lifters would probably solve their movement flaws if they 'turned off' the visual information coming in and started 'feeling' where their body is in space.
Squatting onto a box is the popular tool for coaching this fundamental movement that engages the most efficient prime movers of the squat in the best sequence. As a lifter gains proprioceptive skill they will be better able to diagnose flaws in their own lifting; also they will be able to correct subtle flaws that their coach or training partner may detect. That way a lifting que like 'more hip drive' or 'their was too much lumbar curve for that depth' can be fixed.
Regarding the standardization of lifting reps....
There is always three questions you can ask in a given movement..... and a fourth is an obvious corollary that follows.
* How much weight?
* How far did you move it?
* How long did it take?
The corollary is how much rest was there?
Nobody ever asks how far did you bench? Or long did you squat for?
Imagine what the world of lifting would turn into if just for some reason nobody ever squatted more than 120kg. That at some point 120kg was the most anyone ever put on the bar and to put more on would be treated with the same looks you would get if you just super glued a deck chair to your car roof. That world of the 120kg squat would then follow with people boasting that their squat lifting distance was 11000 inches or something.... every gym would have some sort of monitoring device for calculating and measuring barbell stroke length and so on and so on.
So the importance of PTC's original post is that somewhere the line has to be drawn in the sand about what is and what isn't a given lift. PL federations and competitions obviously go to great detail in establishing their rule criteria. All lifters should do the same in their training in order to test if their training is actually working or not. The answers to the above three questions must be quantifiable or else the ability to compare notes with other lifters in cyberspace is meaningless.
