The Squat Thread

[adarqui]

nice

ya that's all i could find too: 'skelic index' = SHR

shit i need to do some measurements ill brb..

My SHR is 50,5%. Long legs...
Here comes the half-squat fiesta!

where did you get the "anything under 50 = very long legs"? can't find it. Or is that data from some other reference?

[adarqui]

PLEASE PARTICIPATE, POST YOUR SHR : Here

I got:

SHR = (sitting height / standing height) * 100 = (37 / 73) * 100 = 50.7

[zgin]

sitting height=37
standing height=72
shr=51.3
squatting parallel is difficult

[ARowe]

standing height 67"   

sitting height 34"

SHR 50.75

squatting below parallel ain't no thang

[adarqui]

from allstarNZ on TVS:

SHR: 50.7 (36/71)*100
Squatting deep: Easy, some minor lower back rounding when VERY deep.


(expletive), EXACTLY the same SHR as you adarqui haha.

[adarqui]

so far the tally is:
--------------------
50.75 (arowe)
51.3 (zgin)
50.7 (adarq)
50.75 (allstar)
50.5 (vag)
51.5 (tychver)
47.8 (rip)
47 (jumper5000)
49.4 (miles)
51.136 (Volleybel)
55.9 (mattyg55)
51.39 (nba8340)
49.5 (raptor)

[vag]

where did you get the "anything under 50 = very long legs"? can't find it. Or is that data from some other reference?

I made it up , observing/analyzing the global data chart in that pdf , the 18yo and 20+yo collumns.
It seems average is between 51 and 54.
Also it says in the same paragraph "Mean
SHR for populations of adults varies from minimum values, i.e., relatively longest legs, for Australian
Aborigines (SHR = 47.3 for men and 48.1 for women) to the maximum SHR values, i.e., relatively
shortest legs, for Guatemala Maya men and Peruvian women ( SHR = 54.6 and 55.8 )."

So there you go , values vary from 47 to 55 , average ~52,5 , so 50 is between average and longest legs existing.


Also , my analytical data :
Sitting height = 36,4''
Standing height = 72''
Squatting deep: its all ok until ~210lbs ( ~75% 1RM ) , above that i have serious trouble getting out of the hole, im allready uncomfortable at parallel...

[adarqui]

Tychver SHR = 51.5 (35/68)

[adarqui]

rip:

47.8

Lower back rounds around parallel :/





jumper5000:


(35/74)=.47x100= 47

medium difficulty or med-hard.






miles:

SHR: 49.4
Squatting deep: Easy







volleybel:

SHR: 51.136
Squatting deep: good, easy. No lower back rounding, maybe overarching a bit with higher weights..

[nba8340]

SHR = (37/72)*100=51.39%
 squatting deep hard

[mattyg35]

Sitting Height = 37.5"
Standing Height = 67"
SHR = 55.9

[adarqui]

from raptor:

For me is 90/182 x 100 = 49.45

Squatting deep is irrelevant because there are too many other factors at stake for that.

[adarqui]

so far the tally is:
--------------------
50.75 (arowe)
51.3 (zgin)
50.7 (adarq)
50.75 (allstar)
50.5 (vag)
51.5 (tychver)
47.8 (rip)
47 (jumper5000)
49.4 (miles)
51.136 (Volleybel)
55.9 (mattyg55)
51.39 (nba8340)
49.5 (raptor)
52.1 (kingfish)






mattyg55, how is 'deep squatting' while maintaining neutral/arched spine, easy/difficult?

[mattyg35]

No trouble at all. I can fire my glutes very well. Arch or flat isn't difficult.

[adarqui]

No trouble at all. I can fire my glutes very well. Arch or flat isn't difficult.

k cool..

our hypothesis is that a lower SHR (<51) increases the chances that deep squatting will be difficult & half squatting more effective...

another hypothesis was created: most people with SHR of 50-51 are obsessed with vert because, they are naturally able to jump at an "ok" level, but not near someone who would have an SHR of < 50

another hypothesis was then created: most people obsessed with running vert have an SHR of < 51, that you will not find many over 53 in the "vert addict game", because these people would be more obsessed with lifting in general.

or I could be completely talking out of my ass

but that data is pretty cool so far.

pc