Adarq.org

Quote from: steven-miller on January 25, 2012, 02:53:28 pm

Quote from: Raptor on January 25, 2012, 02:01:09 pm

Well quad dominance is how much load an exercise TENDS to make your body use as far as the quads are concerned.

I do not understand this sentence. Can you explain this? I suppose quad dominance is not the same as potential knee flexion in an exercise?

Yeah, I think you can say that. At least in my version of the definition. So for me personally, that's pretty much the same - the potential of knee flexion and quad loading of a given exercise. Of course it's more a matter of that knee flexion/quad loading actually occuring than the potential of that since that's what we really care about.

While I said that I supposed quad dominance NOT to be the same as potential knee flexion, your post clears things up nevertheless.

If knee flexion was the definition, then I would disagree about jumps being quad dominant as well as jump squats being quad dominant. It would depend on technique used.

Does someone think differently about the "muscle dominance" issue?

Quote from: steven-miller on January 25, 2012, 02:53:28 pm

Quote from: Raptor on January 25, 2012, 02:01:09 pm

Well quad dominance is how much load an exercise TENDS to make your body use as far as the quads are concerned.

I do not understand this sentence. Can you explain this? I suppose quad dominance is not the same as potential knee flexion in an exercise?

Yeah, I think you can say that. At least in my version of the definition. So for me personally, that's pretty much the same - the potential of knee flexion and quad loading of a given exercise. Of course it's more a matter of that knee flexion/quad loading actually occuring than the potential of that since that's what we really care about.

I honestly don't understand the concept of quad dominance in strength training too well either.  In sprinting a common cue is to teach athletes at top speed to "point the knee and get the foot down (ie. Hip extension using the hamstring) rather than lifting the knee and quadricep using hip flexors.  Not sure if this is related?

But in squatting... why do you associate knee flexion with quadricep dominance?  Knee flexion is performed primarily by the hamstrings in everyone.

Yes but in order to extend the knee and straighten back your leg you're going to flex the quad to do it. That's the thing.

Your body, especially in untrained people, will tend to (over)use your quads in everything it does when it comes to leg training. At least in my own experience and what I have observed in people that I have trained. The beginners will always have a bad time calling on the glutes and will always exaggerately bend at the knees when doing squats/deadlifts etc. Sure, one thing is that they have too narrow of a stance initially which is causing this but that's not the issue here.

As an example, when I deadlifted the first time ever years ago, I couldn't even understand the concept of lowering the hips back and keeping the knees stationary (not letting them go forward/down). So when I was deadlifting I was "squatting" down with my knees going forward/down and hips pretty much not doing anything. It was EXTREMELY ugly to see... it was something like a bilateral peterson step-up/sissy squat as far as movement goes.

This same thing will cause knee injuries over time if not immediately and knee "overuse" injuries. Plus the knees going forward takes away tension off the hamstrings so you're missing out on the power of the hamstrings as assistance for the glutes in the extension/hyperextension of the hips. So it does a handful of bad things for you (this quad dominance).

Ohhh, I see you meant knee flexion in the eccentric.  That makes sense.

Are you claiming high-bar squats will cause knee injuries immediately? 
I'll give you that a higher degree of knee flexion will result in the quads being called on... But why is this a bad thing?

In a correct full depth high bar squat you are going to use your hamstrings in the eccentric and if it's full depth there will still be hip extension that you will execute with your hamstrings and glutes... 

So, the high bar squat will work the hamstrings, quads, glutes and lower back.  It's also offers a much better carryover to the front squat and thus the catch position in the clean and the snatch are more similar to high bar squat. 

It's probably the eccentric but heavy high bar squats leave me with only hamstring and glute soreness.  Of course I come from sprinting so I initially had well developed hamstrings and underdeveloped quads. 

If your deadlifting as well and doing low bar squats in an non-quad dominant way... Then do you do direct quad work??

I sorta think there is no such thing as quad dominant people.... just people with weak hamstrings and glutes.  It seems a strange solution to switch to a movement where the quads can hardly be used to remedy weak hamstrings.   Why not just train the hamstrings in knee flexion and hip extension and get them doing the movement well?

Squat-wise I have done nothing but low-bar from 140 kg x 1 up to 200 kg x 5. My quads look pretty similar to kingfish's. So no, I would not say that low-bar squats will cause you to miss out on quad strength. My first real front-squat work-out was 140 kg x 3 with more left in the tank - so low-bar carries over just fine, as will any strength exercise that works hips and legs through a nearly complete ROM.

People always forget how progressing in a given exercise is actually much more important than which variant of the exercise one is performing. And most people will outperform a high-bar progression with a low-bar progression easily, because you can just manage more weight that way, so the ceiling is higher, and you involve more muscle mass. Low-bar squats done correctly are an insanely good exercise for every kind of athlete.

Squat-wise I have done nothing but low-bar from 140 kg x 1 up to 200 kg x 5. My quads look pretty similar to kingfish's. So no, I would not say that low-bar squats will cause you to miss out on quad strength. My first real front-squat work-out was 140 kg x 3 with more left in the tank - so low-bar carries over just fine, as will any strength exercise that works hips and legs through a nearly complete ROM.

People always forget how progressing in a given exercise is actually much more important than which variant of the exercise one is performing. And most people will outperform a high-bar progression with a low-bar progression easily, because you can just manage more weight that way, so the ceiling is higher, and you involve more muscle mass. Low-bar squats done correctly are an insanely good exercise for every kind of athlete.

I'll give you that specificity is pretty overrated and that even if one "looks" more like jumping that's a silly reason to do it with large loads.

Your front squat ratio (assuming ~140kgx 5 since had more in the tank) is 0.7.  Much better than most powerlifters, but I would still expect high bar squatters to have a higher ratio.  Myself I maxed at 315 lbs in the front squat when my back squat max was only 370 lbs.  Still, a couple people don't make an argument.

The main advantage to high bar squats is that they do translate better to olympic lifts.  You just can't catch a clean or snatch without knee flexion.  You just get lower with the high bar squat and if you want to do full olympic lifts then I really can't see why you would avoid high bar squats. 

Besides, the olympic lifts your argument seems pretty solid.  I don't have any REAL reason to dislike low-bar squats......But... I just feel like I have seen many more people have a really impressive low-bar squat while at the same time having poor deadlifts, vertical jumps, speed, etc.  I have no data whatsoever to back this up, it could just be a function of the fact that the low bar squat allows everyone to handle more weight, or maybe because powerlifters do it and they have a propensity to be uncoordinated fat slobs....   But in my experience is less likely someone has a good high bar squat and is terrible at everything else.  Really, I try and get everyone to at least BE ABLE to do both.  ie. If you can't squat a couple plates high bar and low bar somethings wrong.  Once you can do that, then I guess it doesn't really matter which you favor. 

I'm also very suspicious of the term low bar squat.  I've never seen you squat but since I know your an athlete concerned about your vertical I'm sure your low bar squat has a somewhat narrow stance, has some knee flexion, and probably has decent depth.  It might be that this kind of low bar squat has a lot of benefits, but powerlifting has created somewhat of a perversion of the low bar squat. 

For example heres a low bar squat that I bet would translate pretty well to athleticism:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivhv5znPg0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivhv5znPg0</a>

This one not so much:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UikcjCBN34Q" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UikcjCBN34Q</a>


 

^ yes.. steven has a rare low bar that looks like a folding accordion ~ torso and shin angles are in sync.  most people who do it like that at my gym will almost always have the buttwink, or will not be able to go hams to calves..

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L-eOdl0LUM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L-eOdl0LUM</a>

People always forget how progressing in a given exercise is actually much more important than which variant of the exercise one is performing.

There you go. The correct formula is [correct form deep squat + progressive overloading = win] , everything else is useless overanalyzing.

Your front squat ratio (assuming ~140kgx 5 since had more in the tank) is 0.7.  Much better than most powerlifters, but I would still expect high bar squatters to have a higher ratio.  Myself I maxed at 315 lbs in the front squat when my back squat max was only 370 lbs.  Still, a couple people don't make an argument.

As you said, a couple of people don't make a solid argument. But I also want to add that you cannot compare those ratios like that since everyone lifts more weight with a low-bar squat. So you would have to correct the 370 lbs by multiplying it with a factor >1 that takes this into account. But only comparing ratios, measured at one date, are an invalid indicator of transfer anyways (yeah, I realize I started it).

The main advantage to high bar squats is that they do translate better to olympic lifts.  You just can't catch a clean or snatch without knee flexion.  You just get lower with the high bar squat and if you want to do full olympic lifts then I really can't see why you would avoid high bar squats. 

Olympic lifters have to front squat. That is what makes their catch strong enough for the full lifts. Doing high-bar squats in addition is not necessary and one can argue that they would be better off with the squat variant that is more balanced (more hamstring and low-back involvement) and that makes them stronger faster. Low-bar squats have a higher similarity with the back angle at the starting position as well compared to high-bar.