I coach high school football and track coach, and I am currently working on our summer strength program. I want to get all of the athletes doing proper squats, but I am going to have a hard time convincing them and the other coaches that we need to squat lower. Many of the kids are convinced that they can squat 400-500 lbs, and they are going to throw a fit when they have to start over at 135 to do it properly.
I have been reading these forums for years and I know the great benefits of proper squats, but I need some ammo to convince everyone else. I am all over the net right now looking for articles. I would appreciate any help you guys can give me. I am looking for any articles, journal articles, or any other sources that I can use. When my athletes or fellow coaches resist this I want to have a full arsenal of info. to throw at them.
Also, I have a quick question. Can you squat too low? This would be from a safety/injury standpoint and from an athletic development standpoint. I think the answer is no for both, but I want to be sure.
Actually it depends, from a pure starting strength standpoint in a low squat such as experienced by linemen in football and sprinters (sort of in the sprint start) a low squat routine is needed. Often for sprinters, IMHO it’s only needed early in acceleration development when you are still developing acceleration at less than 20m on a regular basis. As for Football linemen, it would need to be targeted more often in overall training. I prefer 1/2 and 1/4 squats mostly as the overall strength of the muscles at the particular muscles lengths involved in maximal velocity in sprinting, the jump plant/take off in jumping, and block/release in throwing are often worked through even less ROM than 1/2 and 1/4 squats. You have to remember you are not training powerlifters, but athletes whose particular demands at certain events/tasks cannot be specifically worked in the weight room. If you are doing parallel squats that is typically enough for athletic development.
Common Sense tells me why would you not doing an exercise through the full range of motion unless there is a prior injury.
Olympic weightlifters have been doing ATG for eons yet for the most part you see very little knee injury in that sport. If it does happen it is when lifts are taken to the max.
Common sense tells me that I fail to see how full rom squats benefit anything but strength through the full ROM. For a powerlifter yes, but for a track athlete it’s unnecessary.
As far as number of motor units recruited, you can do this without even doing a squat and have the athlete stabilize a heavy load just off the squat rack and rerack it after stabilizing it.
Most of the time a very large portion of Hip/knee/ankle ROM is unsupported in track unlike in weightlifting were it’s always supported. Therefore I can achieve specific strength, better flexibility and more specific range motion and mobility in joints through Mach, dynamic flexibility, hurdle mobility, and sprinting/throwing/jumping. If you want great weightlifters then fine do full range of motion, but something my kids may do 2-3 days per week will on have ancillary and supplementary effects to begin with so you might as well work them in the weight room through ranges of motion that are supported for the activities they are participating in the first place.
I don’t buy a lot of the endocrine response garbage, the endocrine system responds to stress and full range vs 1/4 doesn’t squats doesn’t change the overall stress, the percentage of maximum weight that the ROM can handle is the stress. If I put 400lbs safely on a kids back and he does 1/4 squats, he is going recruit larger and more motor neurons to just stabilize the weight than if I put 135lbs on his back and he does a full squat. I am interested in the length-tension relationship of the muscle at certain ranges of motion, not the full range.
Thanks for the replies. The last two years we have done box squats that are above parallel and we also deadlift. So, we do get lifts with higher weight and a shorter ROM. At first I didn’t really push low squats because I thought being able to do more weight was more important than the benefits of going lower.
However, after reading some comments on this site and some articles about muscle activation I decided that low squats were better. The main reason was that deeper squats create greater activation in the glutes and hams. Also, it seemed like there would be benefits in hip and ankle flexibility.
So, would a mix of different depths work best? I was planning to do a combo of deep squats and more explosive box squats through a shorter range of motion.
Common sense tells me that I fail to see how full rom squats benefit anything but strength through the full ROM. For a powerlifter yes, but for a track athlete it’s unnecessary.
As far as number of motor units recruited, you can do this without even doing a squat and have the athlete stabilize a heavy load just off the squat rack and rerack it after stabilizing it.
Most of the time a very large portion of Hip/knee/ankle ROM is unsupported in track unlike in weightlifting were it’s always supported. Therefore I can achieve specific strength, better flexibility and more specific range motion and mobility in joints through Mach, dynamic flexibility, hurdle mobility, and sprinting/throwing/jumping. If you want great weightlifters then fine do full range of motion, but something my kids may do 2-3 days per week will on have ancillary and supplementary effects to begin with so you might as well work them in the weight room through ranges of motion that are supported for the activities they are participating in the first place.
I don’t buy a lot of the endocrine response garbage, the endocrine system responds to stress and full range vs 1/4 doesn’t squats doesn’t change the overall stress, the percentage of maximum weight that the ROM can handle is the stress. If I put 400lbs safely on a kids back and he does 1/4 squats, he is going recruit larger and more motor neurons to just stabilize the weight than if I put 135lbs on his back and he does a full squat. I am interested in the length-tension relationship of the muscle at certain ranges of motion, not the full range.
Post the EMGs showing that 1/4 squats give you the same gluteal and hamstring activation as deep squats because the info is against you right now.
Common sense tells me that I fail to see how full rom squats benefit anything but strength through the full ROM. For a powerlifter yes, but for a track athlete it’s unnecessary.
I disagree on several levels. I think full squats are beneficial for a variety of reasons (greater glute-ham activation, increased lumbo-pelvic hip mobility, improved strength through the entire range of motion that the hip and knee operates, albiet not in support, during the sprint cycle, improved endocrine response, etc.). In my opinion the logic of overloading only the ROM that is in support during sprinting is flawed. First of all, strength gains are a general quality in my opinion and trying to make things too specific in the weight room often leads to lessened results and increases in overuse injuries. Second, even though the leg is not in contact with the ground when the hip is fully flexed, the hip extensors are still actively producing force. This becomes very obvious when you look at the hip extension moment, hip extension angular velocity, power transfers, etc. So even if joint ROM specificity was crucial…it would be important to do full ROM squats. Finally, doing full ROM squats with lesser loads doesn’t necessitate that the force outputs of the athlete are lower. In fact, I’m pretty certain that if you took an individual with full and 1/4 squat maxes of 400 and 600 lbs respectively that you would get higher peak force outputs (as generated by a force platform) if you did a full ROM squat with 65-80% of squat max and volitionally high speed demand than if you did 600 lb 1/4 squats with volitionally high speed demand. That’s because as I’ve pointed out before, load does not equal force output and certainly doesn’t equate to power.
As far as number of motor units recruited, you can do this without even doing a squat and have the athlete stabilize a heavy load just off the squat rack and rerack it after stabilizing it.
I’d like to see this one backed up by some research. I don’t doubt that low back extensor activation would be off the charts with supra-maximal 1/4 squats but I doubt you’d get much out of the glute and hams…certainly not what you’d get from the lower end positions of a full ROM squat.
I don’t buy a lot of the endocrine response garbage, the endocrine system responds to stress and full range vs 1/4 doesn’t squats doesn’t change the overall stress, the percentage of maximum weight that the ROM can handle is the stress.
I think this is only somewhat true. The first part is debatable but I can say at least anecdotally any time we do deep squats, especially in rep ranges of 5-8, that we lean up quite a bit and appetites go through the rough. On the latter point, I already addressed the falacy of load equaling stress.
If I put 400lbs safely on a kids back and he does 1/4 squats, he is going recruit larger and more motor neurons to just stabilize the weight than if I put 135lbs on his back and he does a full squat.
This isn’t a fair example. Anyone who can safely 1/4 squat 400 should be able to squat more than 135. I could flip it and say a kid would get more activation if I had him full squat with 225 then if I had him 1/4 squat at 230. Let’s compare apples to apples. I think if we do that, the stabilization argument goes out the window.
The only thing an sEMG shows is that an area of neurons is active, nothing else.
What would you suggest then? Needle EMG? This has it’s limitations too. And what’s the issue with neurons being active? Can’t we safely infer that the muscle activity is higher when the motor neurons are firing hotter?
To the best of my knowledge there’s only one study examining the affects of squat depth on muscle activity so I’m not going to say it’s a closed case issue but a quick study of the anatomy involved and tons of anecdotal reporting (i.e.- getting sore in the hams and glutes when squat depth increases) is enough to at least make me take a side on this one. What do you have to suggest otherwise?
The abstract of the study I mentioned above is here:
Caterisano A, Moss RF, Pellinger TK, Woodruff K, Lewis VC, Booth W, Khadra T. (200). The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond Res. 16(3):428-32.
The purpose of this study was to measure the relative contributions of 4 hip and thigh muscles while performing squats at 3 depths. Ten experienced lifters performed randomized trials of squats at partial, parallel, and full depths, using 100-125% of body weight as resistance. Electromyographic (EMG) surface electrodes were placed on the vastus medialis (VMO), the vastus lateralis, (VL), the biceps femoris (BF), and the gluteus maximus (GM). EMG data were quantified by integration and expressed as a percentage of the total electrical activity of the 4 muscles. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests indicated a significant difference (p < 0.001*, p = 0.056**) in the relative contribution of the GM during the concentric phases among the partial- (16.9%*), parallel- (28.0%**), and full-depth (35.4%*) squats. There were no significant differences between the relative contributions of the BF, the VMO, and the VL at different squatting depths during this phase. The results suggest that the GM, rather than the BF, the VMO, or the VL, becomes more active in concentric contraction as squat depth increases.
Thanks for the article Mike. Too bad there isn’t more research on the subject.
One thing I noticed was that deep squats translated to heavier box squats (slightly above parallel) for my athletes, but higher squats did not seem to translate to heavier deep squats.
I had two athletes this winter that I had doing near full squats. We really focused on deep squats for the first month of winter training. When we started doing box squats I was suprised with how much weight they could move and how fast they could move it. Both were full squating around 225 for reps but could blast through 315 to 350 on box squat.
I don’t buy a lot of the endocrine response garbage, the endocrine system responds to stress and full range vs 1/4 doesn’t squats doesn’t change the overall stress, the percentage of maximum weight that the ROM can handle is the stress.
Actually, stress increases with depth.
Patellofemoral joint kinetics while squatting with and without an external load.
Wallace DA, Salem GJ, Salinas R, Powers CM.
Department of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90089-9006, USA.
STUDY DESIGN: Single-group repeated measures design. OBJECTIVE: To quantify patellofemoral joint reaction forces and stress while squatting with and without an external load. BACKGROUND: Although squatting exercises in the rehabilitation setting are often executed to a relatively shallow depth in order to avoid the higher joint forces associated with increased knee flexion, objective criteria for ranges of motion have not been established. Methods and Measures: Fifteen healthy adults performed single-repetition squats to 90 degrees of knee flexion without an external load and with an external load (35% of the subject’s body weight [BW]). Anthropometric data, three-dimensional kinematics, and ground reaction forces were used to calculate knee extensor moments (inverse dynamics approach), while a biomechanical model of the patellofemoral joint was used to quantify the patellofemoral joint reaction forces and patellofemoral joint stress. Data were analyzed during the eccentric (0-90 degrees) and concentric (90-0 degrees phases of the squat maneuver. RESULTS: In both conditions, knee extensor moments, patellofemoral joint reaction forces, and patellofemoral joint stress increased significantly with greater knee flexion angles (P < 0.05). Peak patellofemoral joint force and stress was observed at 90 degrees of knee flexion. Patellofemoral joint stress at 45 degrees, 60 degrees, 75 degrees, and 90 degrees of knee flexion during the eccentric phase, and at 75 degrees and 90 degrees during the concentric phase, was significantly greater in the loaded trials versus the unloaded trials. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that during squatting, patellofemoral joint stress increases as the knee flexion angle increases, and that the addition of external resistance further increases patellofemoral joint stress. These findings suggest that in order to limit patellofemoral joint stress during squatting activities, clinicians should consider limiting terminal joint flexion angles and resistance loads.
Also, peak posterior forces are generated between 90 and 150 degrees.
You bring up valid points, but increased appetite probably has more to do with energy output and work than anything (I would say full ROM squats probably do more work). However, the body makes no distinction between the type or location of stress when related to endocrine response. You are right that stress doesn’t equal power or strength, but I wasn’t relating stress to power or strength only to mass upon the shoulders, where that stress is distributed depends completely on the joint moments. Yes, as you go deeper the gluteals come into play more and changes in joint moments point this out, but you cannot say a specific muscle is firing hotter with sEMG, only the area of location of the sEMG is hotter, but not the why. Several things affect the values obtained by an sEMG electrode, one is location, two is the muscles in the vicinity which can produce crosstalk and signal cancellation, and three is the length of the electrode synapse. The value of the information provided by an electrode is when a certain group of muscles is active, but information about joint moments after that activation is more important as it gives an idea of why the activation is occurring, either producing an acceleration or deceleration of the limb/body segment.
Your entire argument is based on glute-ham activation and mine is based length-tension relationship through a certain ROM. I would agree if you want glute-ham activation with squats you want fuller deeper squats, but I don’t want as much glute-ham activation. Certainly you cannot claim that a full squat with lighter loads of will produce a higher force output through the same segment of a 1/4 squat, which would be the last 1/4 of full squat.
How does force output or power equal stress? Load = stress.
My example of 400 down to 135 was based on jruffing’s example.
I haven’t had problems with overuse injuries nor did performance suffer with these routines. My athletes were fresher and able to produce higher quality performances even when working through meets. Maybe, I’m wrong and they would have produced better performances the other way.
Doesn’t glute-ham activation occur when deadlifting and wouldn’t it be of more benefit to glute-ham activation than the squat? The original question pertains to squatting and not deadlifting or an overall routine. Other people went off on the tangent of glute-ham activation and I went another direction.
I don’t buy a lot of the endocrine response garbage, the endocrine system responds to stress and full range vs 1/4 doesn’t squats doesn’t change the overall stress, the percentage of maximum weight that the ROM can handle is the stress.
Actually, stress increases with depth.
Patellofemoral joint kinetics while squatting with and without an external load.
Wallace DA, Salem GJ, Salinas R, Powers CM.
Department of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90089-9006, USA.
STUDY DESIGN: Single-group repeated measures design. OBJECTIVE: To quantify patellofemoral joint reaction forces and stress while squatting with and without an external load. BACKGROUND: Although squatting exercises in the rehabilitation setting are often executed to a relatively shallow depth in order to avoid the higher joint forces associated with increased knee flexion, objective criteria for ranges of motion have not been established. Methods and Measures: Fifteen healthy adults performed single-repetition squats to 90 degrees of knee flexion without an external load and with an external load (35% of the subject’s body weight [BW]). Anthropometric data, three-dimensional kinematics, and ground reaction forces were used to calculate knee extensor moments (inverse dynamics approach), while a biomechanical model of the patellofemoral joint was used to quantify the patellofemoral joint reaction forces and patellofemoral joint stress. Data were analyzed during the eccentric (0-90 degrees) and concentric (90-0 degrees phases of the squat maneuver. RESULTS: In both conditions, knee extensor moments, patellofemoral joint reaction forces, and patellofemoral joint stress increased significantly with greater knee flexion angles (P < 0.05). Peak patellofemoral joint force and stress was observed at 90 degrees of knee flexion. Patellofemoral joint stress at 45 degrees, 60 degrees, 75 degrees, and 90 degrees of knee flexion during the eccentric phase, and at 75 degrees and 90 degrees during the concentric phase, was significantly greater in the loaded trials versus the unloaded trials. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that during squatting, patellofemoral joint stress increases as the knee flexion angle increases, and that the addition of external resistance further increases patellofemoral joint stress. These findings suggest that in order to limit patellofemoral joint stress during squatting activities, clinicians should consider limiting terminal joint flexion angles and resistance loads.
Also, peak posterior forces are generated between 90 and 150 degrees.
This article discusses stress relating only to joint moments at the knee and not the entire system and it also stresses in its conclusion limiting terminal joint flexion (ie less of it, albeit the article is geared towards clinicians and not S&C;work).
If your article is referencing peak posterior force data, you might want to put that reference on display as well. I would certainly agree with loads of the same mass that peak posterior forces would be higher the deeper the squat, but I am not discussing the external loads of the same mass am I?
Please be critical of what of you read in research journals before you post about it and pay attention to the audience and what it states. Also, be mindful I am relating stress to external load and not stress at joint moments as that is an entirely different subject and thread. Also, please don’t take out of context my posts and if you are going to be critical with them as least relate them to my points of reference and not one of a different point of reference.
jruffing’s “example” wasn’t really an example of actual load differences. He was talking about reeducating athletes on how to squat and going back down to 135 and learning to do it correctly. Obviously, you wouldn’t jump into maximal loads at a different depth—if I deep squat 300 for my work sets, I’m not going to jump up to 500 without some education on 1/4 squats.
Again, your concern with the length-tension relationship ignores that the leg is being accelerated to the ground at much greater ranges of motion and you’re only look at what’s happening once the foot is on the ground.
It goes without saying that most younger and less gifted athletes do not have adequate glute and hamstring development, so anything that ignores that even more simply doesn’t make sense to me. Not to say you need to do ATG squats, but 1/4 squats w/o some sort of compensation really makes no sense to me.
I’d also question using deadlifts alone to get your glute/ham development as most of the people who tend to 1/4 squat also tend to make abortions on deadlifts as well and use mostly the lower back.
I kind of agree about younger gifted athletes, but they also don’t have strong backs either and both strong back extensors and glutes are needed and I don’t find it a benefit to work them together as the overall stress from squats and deadlifts on the same day produce slower and more fatigued athletes who take longer to recover than differing days.
Certainly working deadlifts and 1/4 squats on the same day will produce deadlifts with mostly back extension because of neural recruitment, but on opposing days they produce wonderful results. The point of this thread is not this, but working full ROM squats and I find more value in not working the full ROM in squats.
