When you squat, you want your feet as straight as possible, not turned out.
This go for both high and low bar squat, but particularly important for low bar wide squats.
When you squat, your knees generally have to move out in order to prevent your thighs from obstructing your torso. It's normally recommended that your toes be turned out slightly so that they will be in line with where your knees have to go. When you say you want your feet as straight as possible, are you saying they should be parallel to each other? If so, do you feel that this should be the case regardless of where your knees are going?
Lets not forget that this is an olympic weightlifter, lifting for sport. I dont really see a need for this type of squat in regular training,
What is "regular training?" In any case, this may be an extreme example, but it's also a good example of a good, full, front squat.
I think we need to clear up what a partial squat is.
A partial squat would be well above parallel, you seem to be alluding that 2" under is a "partial".
No. I'm calling squats above parallel "partial" squats. I'm not saying that if your testes don't touch the floor it doesn't count.
Not quite true.
Depth will be limited by flexibly.
We have many guys at PTC that squat low bar, wide stance, shins vertical, that can squat 4" under parallel. It comes down to flexibly, mobility and levers.
That wide stance alters things considerably. Show me someone who squats with a neutral (shoulder-width) stance with shins vertical who can productively go below parallel in that stance, and I'll consider that I may be in error.
Its not a partial, its low bar.
Your torso wont be going down between your thighs if you squat high, exactly the same as it if you squatted high bar high.
Turning out of the feet shoudl be avoided.
I've deliberately not discussed powerlifting style squats in here because they fall somewhere in the middle between the two extremes. Discussing PL squatting techniques only complicates the matter. What I'm discussing here is not a parallel low bar squat or anything that would merit white lights in an honest PL comp. Some of the same technique points apply and the torso positions are quite similar, but the partial squat I'm discussing here is not a parallel squat.
Incorrect, but I think Ive covered it.
You've assumed that I'm talking about low bar parallel squats, which, again, I'm not. I can see why you'd think that, and it ay be my fault for not being clear enough in my writing, but making that assumption does mean we're having two different conversations.
That is a partial.
If she sat back further, she would make depth, keep her shins straight, and mobilty/flecibilty permitting, have no "butt wink" or rounding of the spine.
Her stance is fairly wide, so you may be right, in which case I've really just used a bad picture to demonstrate my point. I can do wide stance squats, keep my shins roughly vertical and hit parallel or below -- like I said above, that wide stance makes it a whole 'nuther story. However, if you had a shoulder-width stance, I remain convinced thus far that you'll never safely or productively break parallel without your knees coming forwards to enable it, which is actually opposite to sitting back.
Where have you read this?
Read it? I've done it and experienced it for myself. I've had literally 100+ peers do it and experience it for themself. Like I said above, a wide stance changes things dramatically. Use a narrower stance, keep your knees back and it probably won't be a lack of flexibility that limits depth.
I feel that low bar, shin vertical, full squat (2" under parallel) is the most efficient way to squat. You recruit the hamstrings and glutes, in my opinion, so much more.
Levers are always going to play a role, but if your squatting for athletic performance, powerlifting, general fitness training, low bar back squats is where its at.
One thing I'm definitely not trying to say here is that partial squats are equal to or greater than parallel squats or ATG squats, in fact I didn't write this to say what's best one way or the other. I just wanted to shed some light on the other side of the fence. Like I said originally, if you know how to do a full squat and then just cut the range of motion in half, that's not a good way to do partial squats, and if you know how to do partial squats in a way that will involve a lot of hamstring work, and then just try to go lower without properly adjusting for it, that's not a good way to break parallel.
Hope this doesnt come across as being a smartarse. Just throwing my 2c in.
Likewise, I hope I'm not coming across as a tool in this response. As I said earlier, I think what I've tried writing in the original post, and what you've interpreted from it, are two different things. If we were comparing low bar parallel squats to high bar ATG squats, I'd probably agree with most of what you've posted.