Author Topic: Squat depth  (Read 7571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14619
  • Respect: +2539
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Squat depth
« on: September 24, 2012, 05:23:59 pm »
+2
http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2012/08/29/squat-depth/

A similar article to the bilateral deficit one ^^

Quote
The researchers note that a recent study by Hartmann (2012) found that partial squats were not effective at improving vertical jump performance, while parallel squats were effective. They also note that models have suggested that the knee extensors are more important in vertical jumping than the hip extensors, although other studies have suggested that this may depend on the actual jumping strategies of the athlete. Some athletes have been reported to use a hip-dominant jumping strategy while others have been found to use a knee-dominant strategy.

Also

Quote
What did the researchers conclude?

The researchers concluded that:

Load had a more pronounced effect than squat depth on the force required from the ankle plantar-flexors

So load is mainly what dictates how hard the ankle-plantar flexors are working in comparison with their maximum possible force output. Going deeper makes little difference to how hard the ankle-plantar flexors have to work.

Depth was a more significant factor than load for the force required of the knee extensors.

So depth is mainly what dictates how hard the knee extensors (quadriceps) have to work. Adding more weight to the bar makes much less difference. This could be part of the reason that Olympic lifters have large quadriceps in comparison to other strength athletes, because they of all athletes have to squat deep and depth makes more difference to the quadriceps than load.

The force required from the hip extensors was influenced by both barbell load and squat depth.

So both depth and loading influence how hard the hip extensors have to work. Partial squats are therefore putting much more emphasis on the hip extensors and much less on the quadriceps, since depth is key for the knee extensors.

Both depth and load should be considered as variables in using squats depending on which muscle groups are to be strengthened.

So this means that the knee extensors can be strengthened most effectively by deep squats and can be performed with lighter loads. However, the hip extensors and ankle plantar-flexors can be trained using heavier loads with smaller ranges of motion, as these muscle groups are less sensitive to depth.

And additional notes regarding the viewers of this forum:

Quote
For athletes

Athletes wanting to develop vertical jump height, who have a knee-dominant jumping strategy, should squat deeper in order to maximize the stress on the quadriceps. Athletes wanting to develop hip extension power for sprinting and other movements could use partial squats for this purpose, although there are many other suitable hip extension exercises.

Additionally, athletes should be aware that, for all its great benefits, the squat does not use the leg muscles to their maximum capabilities, even at very high percentages of 1RM. This suggests that athletes should make use of a variety of exercises to develop the leg musculature to their full extent.

***
For physique competitors

Individuals looking to improve their quadriceps size should employ deeper but lighter squats.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 05:47:30 pm by Raptor »
Current PR status:

All time squat: 165 kg/Old age squat: 130 kg
All time deadlift: 184 kg/Old age deadlift: 140 kg
All time bench: 85 kg/Old age bench: 70kgx5reps
All time hip thrust (same as old age hip thrust): 160kgx5reps

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9112
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2012, 09:24:24 pm »
+1
forgive me but I seem to have forgotten how to use google scholar, aka i cant find anything.

IMO, there's too much conflicting data out there for us to really care. I've read numerous studies showing drastic increases in glute activity as depth increases with only minimal increases in quad activity, from ~90 degrees and below.. which would only make sense to me.. though, all of this depends on so many intricate differences in squat technique, ie bar position, torso position, shin angle with the floor etc... if your knee drifts very far forward as you hit "ATGbro", it's going to be an insane amount of quad contribution... if your shin is completely vertical, quad contribution is going to be very minimal while you're trying to get out of the hole -> it cannot anatomically contribute more than glutes given the line of pull and weakness at that ROM.

none of this even matters to me though.. pick your tool, based on what feels most comfortable in terms of aches & pains, then go with it 100%.. if squatting ATG hurts your hip, well, fix your hip or squat slightly above parallel.. if ATG feels fine, go with it 100%.

increasing your half squat X % is going to increase your deep squat Y %, and vice versa.. If your half squatting isn't improving your deep squatting, then you're doing it wrong (probably squatting way too high). Your deep squat should obviously improve your half, but, to the extent of focusing on half squatting primarily? usually not.

I tried to find the video of me going 315 x 1 for decent speed singles below parallel at like 148-150.. it was a night video.. maybe i didn't upload it, but i remember i uploaded pics.. anyway, the point being: I hadn't squatted deep for pretty much a year, then after achieving 405 x 1 half, a few days later I felt like playing with below parallel squats and they felt really strong, 2xBW singles easy without ever focusing on them exclusively.

The issue of EMG is still a 'debate', so to is the effect of squatting in general at improving vertical jump. Conflicting material is everywhere. Some studies say squatting doesn't improve CMJ, some do. Some say going half is optimal, some don't.

The real meat of the issue is getting relatively stronger and being able to display that strength in a specific amount of time... so basically, Relative Power.

Studies like the one you just posted always bug me, especially when you consider the deep squatting 'cult' and their "agenda".



The comment about quad size is equally annoying.

Do people with 'strong quad genetics' gravitate towards olympic lifting, or is it vice versa? Obviously people with strong quad genetics are going to do better at olympic lifting naturally. Why are we to credit their quad size to deep squatting when they spend countless time jumping with weight, catching weight, and pressing weight overhead in a variety of manners such as split jerk & squat jerk.

Professional body builders have bigger quads, let's credit leg extensions.



for the record, since im back to posting alot, im not anti deep squat whatsoever.. Again, pick your tool (half or deep) and improve it as much as humanly possible.

pC




x'd out before linking source:

Quote



LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2012, 09:36:52 pm »
+1

 Damn Raptor youre on a roll today with the studies  :strong:
Relax.

scoobychau

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Respect: +399
    • View Profile
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2012, 09:55:13 pm »
+2

for the record, since im back to posting alot, im not anti deep squat whatsoever.. Again, pick your tool (half or deep) and improve it as much as humanly possible.

pC



Adarq.org will be once again in hyper mode! Great!
BIY - believe in yourself
Born 1980
190 lbs
Reach 7'5" (89")
2 legs leap 28"@06, 33"@11, 34.5"@2012, 37"@2013
Ankle Surgery - Dec 14, 07
Dunk Goal - Nov 11, 2012 (Daughter's 1 yrs old Bdays)

~SACRIFICE~
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER HAD...
YOU MUST BE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING
YOU'VE NEVER DONE! (by Thomas Jefferson)

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9112
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2012, 10:26:29 pm »
0

for the record, since im back to posting alot, im not anti deep squat whatsoever.. Again, pick your tool (half or deep) and improve it as much as humanly possible.

pC



Adarq.org will be once again in hyper mode! Great!

anger fuel 2.0

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14619
  • Respect: +2539
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2012, 06:34:12 am »
0
I agree with what you said Andrew. It's still interesting to read these studies though.
Current PR status:

All time squat: 165 kg/Old age squat: 130 kg
All time deadlift: 184 kg/Old age deadlift: 140 kg
All time bench: 85 kg/Old age bench: 70kgx5reps
All time hip thrust (same as old age hip thrust): 160kgx5reps

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9112
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2012, 10:33:26 am »
+2
I agree with what you said Andrew.

coo


Quote
It's still interesting to read these studies though.

True but it can become a little distracting reading conflicting studies year after year, imho.

pC

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12979
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +8042
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2012, 11:12:55 am »
+2
I agree with what you said Andrew.

coo


Quote
It's still interesting to read these studies though.

True but it can become a little distracting reading conflicting studies year after year, imho.

pC

true, not to mention the fact the the studies are usually very small, with a very specific population, e.g., "untrained men ages 18-22" or "elite female collegiate volleyball players." they're interesting but should almost never be seen as prescriptive.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3060
  • Respect: +1060
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2012, 12:00:05 pm »
0
i just recently switched to ATG squatting and i gotta say... felt no soreness whatsoever in my hamstrings (but did when i was going parallel), a little more in glutes, and a lot more in quads.


did they mention what kinda squat was performed? high bar i assume.

It's all highly dependent on the individual imo. Just pick one and go go go :headbang:
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6059
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2012, 06:12:36 am »
0
Not sure if allready hyperlinked in the forum , kellyb's latest article is about squat depth:

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/squatdepth.html
Target training paces (min/km), calculated from 5K PR 22:49 :
Easy run : 5:48
Tempo run : 4:50
VO2-max run :4:21
Speed form run : 4:02

---

it's the biggest trick in the run game.. go slow to go fast. it doesn't make sense until it smacks you in the face and you're like ....... wtf?

hennas87

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • dayum
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
    • my band
    • Email
Re: Squat depth
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2012, 05:37:27 pm »
0
ATG squat is most comfortable for me and I almost exclusively feel it in my quads, kinda weird. have seen more results with deep squats though (maybe because if i go all the way down I can't cheat and have a short range of motion like i sometimes do with half squats when lifting heavy)
boomshakala