Adarq.org

Not exactly what I said, I posted examples of squats, to show examples of squats that train the LEGS more, and that would correlate more to athletic movement, driven from the LEGS.

Sorry for the misrepresentation.

It would definitely matter, depending on the goal though, it may not matter nearly as much as progressing another exercise.  If you wanted to improve your jerk, would you choose bench press as your primary, or the push press/press?

The comparison does not really apply. The bench-press would not suffice because it leaves out muscles that are important for the jerk. The same is not true for the LBBS and say a VJ.

Quote

Why do you think the HBBS will elicit more glute activation? Look at the picture with the two squats I posted before. Would you not agree that even performed to this height the LBBS shows a similar amount of hip flexion as the HBBS? Does this not mean that the glutes extend over the same ROM but with more weight on the back and a bigger moment arm applied (provided that one squats HB with the bar over mid-foot)?

thats why I gave the depth disclaimer.  The glutes are working the hardest in the very bottom of the squat,  the longer lever arm of the high bar squat with the added depth will make the glutes work harder in this range of motion, and I dont agree that the glutes have to work very hard at any other point, they are at a leverage advantage after that, higher up in the range of motion.  Muscles work the hardest, in the stretch.

I agree that the glutes work the hardest when they are stretched. That is precisely what happens in the LBBS as the hips move back (contrary to the HBBS, where they move down, stretching the glutes as well).
So they get stretched in both types of the squat, but the LBBS has the longer moment arm AND heavier weight. The longer lever arm of the HBBS is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the LBBS has the torso more horizontal since the hips move back to a larger degree than in the HBBS. Provided that the barbell is located over the middle of the foot in both types of squat, this generates a larger moment arm for the LBBS. And larger moment arm +  more weight equals more torque at the fulcrum.

This is my opinion, and my experience with both squat styles.  If you switch from low bar to high bar, one of the most common occurrences is extremely sore glutes, why do you think this is?

Probably because the hamstrings get left out and the glutes do the work alone that otherwise gets distributed to a bigger amount of muscle mass (muscle mass that therefore gets trained).

[edited out]http://i.imgur.com/SHsQ3.jpg[/edited out]

Thats the thing, its not abnormal, for a low bar squat.  It is however not optimal if strengthening the LEGS , and driving the squat from the LEGS is the goal.  The squat of the bobsled athlete I linked, and your own squat are not "typical" low bar squats, and are much more useful for athletic training, in my opinion.

I also did not make the picture here however it was shown as an example with lumbar flexion, and I do not know how to undo the captions.  

A still picture does not portray "back movement". Watch the video and tell me where the back moves and how much.
I will tell you what I see. If there is movement in the spine during this set of squats it is marginal. It is much too insignificant to take away substantial work from the legs. Because if the segments of the spine do not move in relation to each other, no work could have been done via the muscles that move these segments.

You do understand that I completely disagree with that right?  Everything that makes your squat different, than what Rip is saying need be done, is what makes it more transferable to athletic events outside of powerlifting.  If you lean over more, drive your hips up more, etc. etc., I would bet money you start getting less and less transfer out of your squat to your olympic lifts, and jumps.  

You think the inclusion of the hamstrings in the squat is making me a worse athlete? Or staying tight during the whole lift instead of relaxing muscles at the low end of the ROM? I don't.

Quote

You apparently think Rip's low vertical, tested at some unknown point in time, is a function of his squat technique. You think that if he high-bar squatted 540 ATG he would have jumped higher?

YES.  I do not think he could squat NEAR 540 atg with a high bar position though, if he gained the LEG strength to do so, I most definitely think he would have jumped noticeably higher, and increased his horrid numbers on his olympic lifts.  Of course he would not jump "great" until he practiced it much much more, and the same with the lifts, but with that type of LEG strength at his weight, he would have increased those numbers most definitely.

One last time, in absence of an excentric and concentric contraction of the back muscles the only thing that moves a weight in the squat are the legs. I have never, in my whole life, seen a squat that uses the muscles of the back as prime movers - neither high-bar nor low-bar. With all due respect, this theory of yours is ridiculous.

Quote

I don't. Whatever the technique, the mechanisms that make progress happen in every strength exercise can be assumed to be the same. Muscles grow, bones grow, tissue adapts, the nervous system adapts and so on. If someone starts out to LBBS 150 and increases that to 600 than these adaptations took place and they are more or less the same adaptations that the progress from HBBSing 135 to 540 would have lead to.

 No.  If someone takes their rack pull from 300 to 400, the same adaptations that take place moving the clean pull from 300 to 400 DO NOT take place.  Not even close.

Except that I do not talk about rack pulls and clean pulls. When the LBBS improves substantially, the legs got stronger. If the HBBS improves significantly, the legs got stronger. Therefore both have accomplished the same unless you want to imply that magic suddenly made the higher weight on the bar performable. If magic is not available the question becomes which squat style lets you make quicker progress...

Quote

So if you are of the opinion that Rip's squat style is what lead to him only jumping 22 inches and snatching 82.5, then you would have to make a damn good argument how that is the case.

No, I dont think he cared.  I still think he doesnt care, Steven, and he doesnt have any reason to.  He trains newb lifters and recreational lifters.  Asking him about olympic lifts and sports training is like asking your plumber how to fly an airplane.

I never got so valuable training advice from a plumber, nor from anyone here. I guess that makes me a "newb lifter" or "recreational lifter". Fine with me.

the guy in the video has a 40+ inch svj, squats 550 or so, powercleans close to 400.   you have a ~37 inch vj, powerclean over 300.  

rippetoe squatted more that both of you, had an actual olympic lifter as a coach, power cleaned 275, and vj 22 inches.  You two have strong LEGS, he has a strong lower back.

I am choosing not to evaluate the qualification of a coach based on his athletic achievements. Instead I like to listen to the information presented and come to my own conclusions. If Harvey suddenly became smart I would probably listen to him as well.

Quote from: steven-miller on August 12, 2012, 11:15:07 am

And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.

But you're not including the time it took you to build up a 185x5 squat first? If you go back to when you STARTED squatting and started working on your powersnatch then, while squatting too, would it take you AS LONG to snatch 85kg? I don't know the answer to that question but would be interested in hearing whether you think it would take longer than the time it took to work up to a 185x5kg squat + 6 days of working on the powersnatch.Btw you probably know that there is a difference of opinion here because there are those in the other camp ("olympic lifting IS strength training") would disagree that it would necessarily take much longer.

I was actually talking about all the time spent effectively to reach 185 kg x 5. In this time I would certainly not have made 85 kg in the PS doing only the PS alone.
I am also aware of the disagreement and Lance linked to Pendlay's statement a number of times on this site. My stance is that one might call Olympic lifting strength training the same way as you can call unweighted pistols strength training. It gets you stronger if you really do them a lot, but eventually you won't progress anymore, so it happens to be an inefficient and ineffective use of resources. In this statement I exclude elite lifters since I am not yet entitled to an opinion about the effects of the two lifts done with higher absolute resistance than I am capable of producing right now. But for everyone else I do feel entitled to say that doing the olympic lifts does not increase strength nearly as quickly and to a much lesser degree than heavy squats and pulls.
And I see the consequences of this rather undebatable truth every fucking week that I go to the gym to train with weightlifters. There are guys that have done this for years and the vast majority of work they do is in the two lifts. Remember what I said about the 5 sessions to 85? That is the time it took to powersnatch more than anybody there could full snatch back then. That is why strength is a general adaptation and why it can best be produced with heavy resistance, most certainly for novices.

Quote from: steven-miller on August 12, 2012, 08:24:22 am

Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.

I think this is an example of cognitive dissonance. The SS thinking in line with the rest of the S&C world was "specificity: frequent practice of things or similar things we wish to become better at", then somewhere along the way, when Crossfit and SS philosophy were aligned it manifested in the slogan "Specificity is for insects"; now suddenly becoming better at LBBS and deadlifts (which SS considers GENERAL exercises) was better not just for the average gym rat but elite weightlifters seeking Olympic medals. And this is when SS jumped the shark and become the one hammer solution to any training problem or situation.

SS is claimed by nobody to be the best solution to any training problem. It is a beginner program. It is limited to this population.
What is fascinating though is that many beginners fail to recognize themselves as such. They then get into arguments on the Internet saying specificity was key to success although, as beginners, they are not in a position to know.

My take is that specificity is important for non-novices, while it is a pretty shallow concept when you don't squat shit. Some adaptations are in fact of a general nature. Lower body strength developed via squats is such a thing. It qualifies as "general" because it has implications for a plethora of rather dissimilar acts. When I first started doing powersnatches (PS) my best LBBS was 185 kg x 5. I believe it took me a handful of sessions to go up to 85 kg in the PS with the shittiest technique ever seen. Those 5 sessions were not what made me stronger, I just learned the new movement. General strength, developed before in many months of training, allowed this weight to be lifted. That is what "general" does and means.

And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.

 Im referring to the direction of force through the feet and ground, driving the shoulders, chest, and head upwards, in the high bar squat, vs driving the hips up via the lb.  Think about jumping, you will see which one has more similar force vectors.

This is what makes the difference imo, in some lb squats, you see a similar line of push that you would in a vertical leap, in others you see an almost identical line to a deadlift.   The reason the front squat gives more similarity to the vert is for this reason imo, you literally cant make it a deadlift, or you lose the bar.

Now we have three different arguments IMO.

1) Does the HBBS build quad strength quicker than the LBBS?

2) Is the HBBS more similar to a vertical jump?

3) Is the HBBS a better exercise to build a vertical jump since it is perhaps more specific to it?

Regarding 1) I have made my point and stand by it. I do not think that there is a substantial difference between the two movements regarding quad involvement and I certainly do not think they allow strength in the quadriceps to be build quicker.

Regarding 2) I don't know to be honest. They are both very different. So, maybe.

Regarding 3) I do not think so. While the HBBS might be more similar to a jump compared to a LBBS, they are both so different that specificity is hardly relevant here. They both are supposed to build strength and whichever squat variant accomplishes this better will IMO be better suited.

deadlift= broad jump- horizontal force vector

front squat= vertical jump - vertical force vector

vertical---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------horizontal

front squat........................ high bar squat............................... low bar squat................... deadlift


**the way these exercises are performed can alter their position for each individual. the deadlift can go more vertical, the high  bar squat more towards hfv, etc.  

I still do not get what you mean with that. In the deadlift the bar gets pulled up and the center of mass of the lifter also goes up, not forward. The same applies to the LBBS and the other squat variants as well. Where is there a horizontal force vector? I could do a very explosive deadlift and jump straight up, not forward. I guess I misunderstand what you are trying to imply.

Quote from: Raptor on August 11, 2012, 08:19:30 pm

I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.

Right, and its a GREAT FUCKING EXERCISE, its  just not the ONLY way, or single optimal way for EVERYONE.  I have a ton of athletes low  bar, and if youre a one leg jumper, its a good idea anyway.

Just to get this out of the way, I do not have to be right here. If there is a reason why the LBBS would not be optimally suited for strength training to increase the VJ, I am interested to know why.

Maybe you look too simplistic on things Steven. You can say stuff like "the quads can't do this or can't do that" but the question is - are they supposed to do the majority of work?

What I mean is that if you can't "reach" your glutes and make them work in the squat the quads will overload a ton and try to compensate the lack of glute drive by working more, and they will fail and you might end up thinking "oh, I have weak quads, look at them fail", when in reality they weren't supposed to get overloaded like that in the first place if the glutes were to actually do their job.

So you gotta take that into account as well - sometimes the failure of a group of muscles is a direct effect of the weakness of another group of muscles.

So which muscle group do YOU think is most likely to fail in a LBBS vs. HBBS?

That's pretty much true, one can get by with nothing but squats and zero ankle extensor or hip dominant work, but I think a 3 exercise regimen is more optimal. In my experience if people just do squats without supplemental hip extensor work they often become overly quad dominant over time. That might not happen if they focused on low bar squats though.

If we take the notion we're trying to strengthen the 3 power producing muscle groups cotributing to the vert as quickly as possible, I prefer a high bar squat and hip extension movement vs a low bar squat. A high bar squat is going to inherently have more quad activation and will built quad strength quicker. A front squat is even better, but it's kinda a pain in the ass.  

I see what you're saying though and you make a valid point.

My squat example was really just to provide an illustration of why I believe that imbalances go away over time if you progressively overload an exercise utilizing mechanics that stress the over- and underdeveloped muscle groups to a similar degree. I share your opinion that ankle work and other exercises should be incorporated as well.

What I do not understand is your philosophy regarding the high-bar squat. You say that training it increases quad strength faster compared to low-bar *. This inevitably leads to comparatively weaker hips, which has to be compensated for via another exercise, that is primarily a hip extension movement. So you end up with two movements that favor either knee or hip extensors. In a low-bar squat you would instead use both muscle groups to a similar degree and get them stronger simultaneously and prevent imbalances from the start.


* I do not think this to be true. I find it more likely that HB squats just leave the hip extensors weaker. While I agree that the quads have to do a larger percentage of the work in the HB squat, the load that can be managed in this style is inferior to the LB variant. And since the knee joints can be worked over a similar ROM in both squat styles, it seems to me that the LB squat is better for VJ training as well. That is unless reality shows us that properly coached trainees' progress is faster for the HB vs. the LB squat over a meaningful time interval such as 4 months. I do not know whether this is the case, but it would be very, very surprising considering the universally observable phenomenon that exercises that allow for more weight to be used have a higher growth potential and are less prone to external and internal disturbances.