Drug use between the sports is night and day, just like with bodybuilding. Sure, a lot of elites use various substances, but they are heavily restricted in the kinds, amounts, and times they can/do use. Powerlifters who are never tested in any sort of fashion have a much different set of circumstances. Equipment makes a HUGE difference.
The use of PED’s and equipment are not the reason powerlifters normally don’t squat deep. That’s why your argument is weak. Yes PED’s assist all athletes that use them, and yes you can lift more with equipment. How does this support the notion that powerlifters know less about the development of explosive posterior chain strength and power than other athletes, many of whom also use PED’s?
Why aren’t there tons of olympic lifters, who are going deeper and without equipment, getting the same rate of injuries in a much more complex activity?
What rate? Can you quote a study, not a report by some coach, that documents the rate of injury in Oly lifters vs powerlifters? Also, keep in mind that most top Oly lifters are in their 20’s, maybe 30’s. Many top powerlifters are in their 40’s, and no PED’s and equipment can’t explain that difference.
You just said you want anecdotal and empirical now you say it is crap.
I said anecdotal evidence is not the best type of evidence. Empirical evidence, well documented and reported, is the best. That lacking, however, one can look at all the available evidence, even if it is not necessarily documented in scientific form, and can draw general conclusions. That doesn’t mean you can use evidence such as…“it’s always worked for me” to prove your point. I repeat what I said before…good empirical scientific data lacking, my suggestion is to eumulate what seems to work best for those whose primary goal is developing the skill or trait you are working on. The speed coaches know speed, powerlifters know power, Oly lifters and shot putters know explosive strength, bodybuilders know mass building, distance runners know aerobic conditioning etc., etc.
You say there are no studies showing the wide stances specifically cause problems (though the vast majority tend to use a wider stance and the injuries powerlifters face is well documented in literature)...
Well documented? Could you please cite at least one scientific study that documents an increase in injuries among powerlifters who squat wide vs powerlifters who squat with normal to narrow stance?
Also, if power is the issue, shouldn’t we look at olympic lifters or throwers?
Again, Davan, read the posts more carefully. In an earlier post I already mentioned drawing information from both Oly lifters and shot putters. And one more time, this was not intended to be a discussion of squat stance. We routinely vary our stance from wide to medium to narrow stance, just as we vary our depth from a few inches below parallel to a few inches above parallel. The discussion was about squat depth, and whether or not ATG squats have been shown, with any level of confidence, to be more effective than parallel squats in producing functional strength and power for athletes such as sprinters and football players.
Davan, I truly don’t mean to anatagonize you or argue just to argue. But I often hear coaches and athletes sing praises of the benefits of ATG squats, but don’t really have any evidence to support their beliefs. What I do see among these same people is a disdain for powerlifters. I want to use the best methods to get the best results. If you, or anyone, can show me actual documented evidence that ATG squats, or narrow squats, work better than powerlifting squats for developing functional strength for sprinters and football players, I will be the biggest supporter of narrow stance, ATG squats you have ever seen.
First off, let me say that I have nothing against powerlifting (although I don’t like the current use of suits in the sport) and I use every type of squat imaginable (varying depth, stance, and tempo). I just want to add that the original argument regarding powerlifters was started because they were held up as the standard for power development (at least as I read it). I think an argument could be made for doing that for STRENGTH development but certainly not POWER development. Despite the name of the sport and the use of ‘speed’ in their training, the training of power lifters is really focused on strength development with a sprinkling of low-end power development. Even most of the power development work that is done in powerlifting has very lower power outputs compared to other activities like OLing, jumping, sprinting, etc. Can their training be valuable…heck yeah. Should it be regarded as the gold standard for power development…almost certainly not.
The angular momentum about the hip is slowed before ground contact, therefore the foot, shank, and leg are being decelerated before ground contact. Speed here would actually inhibit leg stiffness during ground contact as rapidly occurring changes in muscle-tendon lengths cannot produce as much force as one’s near resting states. My point about length-tension relationship remains valid from this point of view.
Angular momentum would decrease because the moment arm decreases as the leg straightens and comes under the hips. It’s likely not a direct result of the foot slowing down as you suggest. Mann’s data over the past 20 years also corroborates this. In fact, it’s his data on elite sprinters that says that one of the defining characteristics of better sprinters is that they have greater negative / backward foot speed relative to the ground.
Did I not previously state that it’s more likely to produce more work with a greater ROM in a previous post??? Also, is it really necessary to do more work?
A different matter altogether is each of those articles you posted support not going with full ROM in squats because of stress on the knee joint. If you wish to supplement an argument it’s typically not best to use studies were the conclusion validates the person you are trying to contradict. Both suggest never going beyond 90-135 degrees which was my point with 1/2 squats and never having to go beyond parallel which is typically slightly less than 135 degrees.
I don’t think it’s wise to ignore work performed since it directly affects power.
I do think you need both emg and joint data to make an educated opinion about what is going, but joint data alone is more valuable than emg data alone.
I’m not going to agree or refute this point as it’s a matter of opinion, but I will ask AGAIN…show me the JOINT DATA that supports your point. You keep coming back to the research. I’ve shown you some to support my point and asked you to show me some to refute mine. You have yet to do so.
I believe if the athlete’s hip joint is low in a starting position for deadlifts, they must have gluteal activation. Hamstring activation alone probably wouldn’t be enough to move a slightly heavy bar, even back extensors and hamstrings would have a hard time producing the hip extension needed for a quality lift.
Perhaps in a good lift, but anyone that’s seen the DLs put in the Hall of Fame over at another site would know that when motivated and not appropriately supervised, athletes can pull a heck of a lot of weight with their back extensors.
I switched from a deadlift/squat on same day routine for my athletes and by chance happened to see better results at the time of transition from 1/2 to 1/4’s over the previous season. (i believe posted about this 2 years ago) In that time I was also taking a pretty good biomechanics course were we discussed the validity of specific range of motions to the length-tension relationship. That point cannot be refuted, it’s transference to specific range of motions between to unrelated activities no doubt has some serious issues to overcome and even trying to study it would be hard to control variables.
It’s transferrence of strength in that specific activity in that specific range of motion. Your talking point has been addressed and refuted by several issues:
1. It is easily possible to develop just as much or more power in the last 40 degrees of knee and hip extension when using a deep squat with lower loads than a 1/2 or 1/4 squat with supra-maximal loads.
2. The leg moves through a much larger range of motion than what you are stating while in the swing phase.
3. The leg is actively accelerated toward the ground. This is supported by both kinetic and kinematic data.
4. Transfer of strength is strength is specific to the activity that it is trained in. In my opinion, joint angle specificity is the least of my concerns (behind motoro unit recruitment, muscle actions, speed of movement, contraction type, etc.)
Just that you are doing a greater amount of physical work and more stress should lead to a greater endocrine response and greater metabolic changes within the body.
Are you know using stress as a term related to training load or are you talking about mechanical stress. If it’s the latter, I’m not aware of anything (research or otherwise) to indicate that mechanical stress is linked to endocrine response. If this were the case, people could just sleep with a 100 lb plate on their chest.
As far as newton’s law goes the starting point of the 1/4 squat is at a point when the bar has already been accelerated during a full rom squat. at 45 degrees of knee flexion in a full rom squat, the angular acceleration about the knee is either decelerating, or is at or approaching zero acceleration, where as in a 1/4 squat it is just beginning acceleration. The force output at 45 degrees of flexion in the knee has to be higher in the 1/4 squat.
So? How does this affect the argument? If anything it seems like you’re supporting my argument. As you said previously to Winnesota: “If you wish to supplement an argument it’s typically not best to use studies were the conclusion validates the person you are trying to contradict.“
Which do you believe has a greater elastic component 1/2,1/4,full,3/4(parallel) or are they all similar. I believe the elastic component of the lift changes with greater elasticity elicited at the hip and ankle in 1/4 to almost exclusively at the knee in 3/4 and beyond.
To the nature of the human body and varying length-tension relationships, muscle pennations, insertion points, etc. the elastic contributions of any activity are joint, angle, and speed of movement specific.
Comparing sprinters and olympic lifters who stop earlier than powerlifters is ridiculous and ignores some basic facts in the different sports. First, elite sprinters are pro athletes, as are the elite olympic lifters (particularly foreign). Powerlifting is still an amateur sport. When sprinters retire, they generally don’t compete as it has been their job for years. The nature of the sport does not allow for improvement beyond a certain age, even with chemical and technological improvements like you see with powerlifting. People simply lose the elastic ability. Similar to olympic lifting where power lose power as they age and again, they start to taper off with age—not to mention both of these sports face much more stringent testing policies than powerlifting, which has absolutely none, just like bodybuilding. With powerlifting, people peak much later as there is much less need for elastic and explosive strength that tends to taper off and eventually plummet with age. Look at the records for the sprints in the master’s groups if you want to have “proof” of this compared to powerlifting age group records.
Back to the point of why powerlifting (specifically, equipped powerlifting wtih super heavyweights like is being referred to) is a very incomplete picture on strength development as it relates to anything beyond powerlifting for that group.
Since Star61 is too lazy to do any searching on his own and has provided nothing to this thread, here is a bit of analysis that is out there:
1. Characteristics Between Power Lifters, Olympic Lifters, and Sprinters
JEFFREY M. MCBRIDE1, 2, TRAVIS TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE1, ALLAN DAVIE1, and ROBERT U. NEWTON1
School of Exercise Science and Sport Management, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, NSW, Australia, 2480., 2. *Jeff McBride is now at the Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Travis Triplett is now at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 149 Mitchell Hall, La Crosse, WI 54601. —Compares power outputs and other similarities/differences between the groups. Supports the position that proponents of olympic lifting have used for some time.
2. “Retrospective injury survey of competitive Oceania powerlifters: A technical report for the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and their member
federations” Prepared by
Justin Keogh, Associate Professor Patria Hume and Simon Pearson
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand
Division of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology
—This one explains that while injury rates are reported “lower” in powerlifting versus other sports (including track and field), that is only analyzing injuries during competition, not during training, which is likely to be higher based on their analysis. Goes into depth of how virtually every powerlifter in every gender, age, and level has serious injuries (more than one injury a year that forces a cessation of training a year, on average).
3. Hoffman, Jr, J Cooper, M Wendell, and J Kang. “Comparison of Olympic Vs. Traditional Power Lifting Training Programs in Football Players.“ 18 (2004): 129-135. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18 (2004).
—Just what the title says. The Olympic lifting group had significantly better results.
4. Hamill, B.P., Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 8(1);53-57.1994.
—Powerlifting is shown to have a high rate of injury than olympic lifting (I will say it was also shown to be lower than T&F;, with the same variables at play as the Oceanic one as well).
To address another point, there actually are 2 studies out there that Rippetoe’s suggestion that higher squats are more dangerous to the knee is based on. I know I’ve seen them but couldn’t seem to dig them up so I didn’t quote them.
I have to say no, and most likely I probably won’t read it, because book’s aren’t subjected to same scientific or professional scrutiny and peer review as articles in scientific and professional journals. That doesn’t mean I won’t read or reference books ever, but their use to someone such as myself is they are 5 years behind research by the time they are published.
Many coaches would actually state that it’s the research that is behind the applied knowledge of coaches. As a member of both fields I don’t think it’s fair to say that either is ‘ahead’ or ‘behind.‘ If you look at the LEADERS in both fields you’ll quickly see that both tend to run in parallel. Also, what you’re citing as a strength of research (peer reviewed process) is also one of it’s weaknesses. I’ve heard of articles taking 5 years to get reviewed, edited, and published from the date of initial submission. While this generally ensures a higher quality, it has the potential to slow the knowledge gathering and acquisition process. Compare that to knowledge acquisition of the collective body of the coaching field (which has been around much longer than the sports science field and thus has a HUGE head start) can gather because they are not subject to the stringent proofing process.
The angular momentum about the hip is slowed before ground contact, therefore the foot, shank, and leg are being decelerated before ground contact. Speed here would actually inhibit leg stiffness during ground contact as rapidly occurring changes in muscle-tendon lengths cannot produce as much force as one’s near resting states. My point about length-tension relationship remains valid from this point of view.
Angular momentum would decrease because the moment arm decreases as the leg straightens and comes under the hips. It’s likely not a direct result of the foot slowing down as you suggest. Mann’s data over the past 20 years also corroborates this. In fact, it’s his data on elite sprinters that says that one of the defining characteristics of better sprinters is that they have greater negative / backward foot speed relative to the ground.
deceleration doesn’t mean there is not any backwards speed, just it’s reducing and having greater backwards speed doesn’t suggest it is not decelerating as well. I can’t feasibly see a generating of greater leg stiffness with a leg that is moving at 3 joints that is still moving at significant speeds. The cross bridges in the muscles just don’t support force output with rapidly changing lengths in muscles which has to occur with extension of both hip and knee joints prior to ground contact, but the subsequent movements of those joints at ground contact require the greatest force generating capabilities to maintain enough leg stiffness to maintain speed and the ROM at ground contact is minimal. It shouldn’t be surprising that faster athletes can develop more force at a greater lengthening speed less faster athletes.
I already discussed that transference directly to sprinting is likely minimal for squatting. Most adaptations from squatting still need to be trained specifically into the skill of sprinting, likely suggesting a lag, this is a motor control/learning problem not strength problem. Granted I cannot provide research and I just don’t have the time gather all my sources that led to believe this, but I can speculate on this.
As far as a EMG and joint data study, just look to the Wiemann NSE Study from 1995, I know it’s old and joint data is semi positional in a qualitative sense, but EMG data suggests a greater role for hamstrings than gluteals.
Comparing sprinters and olympic lifters who stop earlier than powerlifters is ridiculous…Powerlifting is still an amateur sport.
This, again, is an extremely weak argument with no actual data, just your opinion. Oly lifters are professional, and powerlifters are amateur? That is ridiculous. And even if it were true, how does this support your argument that ATG squats produce better results than parallel squats? It’s not even on topic.
Since Star61 is too lazy to do any searching on his own and has provided nothing to this thread, here is a bit of analysis that is out there:
Why do you make this personal? Why do you attack me personally because you disagree with me? Are you that insecure? Try taking a slightly more professional approach to your exchanges.
1. Characteristics Between Power Lifters, Olympic Lifters, and Sprinters
JEFFREY M. MCBRIDE1, 2, TRAVIS TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE1, ALLAN DAVIE1, and ROBERT U. NEWTON1
—Compares power outputs and other similarities/differences between the groups. Supports the position that proponents of olympic lifting have used for some time.
Power output during the rep does not necessarily translate to better functional strength or power. As CF has pointed out many times, a 60m sprint produces more power output than any gym lift. It’s not the power output recorded during the execise, but the effect it has on the desired training goal. And even if the power output experienced during the pull phase of a clean or snatch was higher than that experienced during a power squat, how would that support your claim that ATG squats are better than parallel squats? It’s not even on topic.
2. “Retrospective injury survey of competitive Oceania powerlifters: A technical report for the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and their member
federations” Prepared by
Justin Keogh, Associate Professor Patria Hume and Simon Pearson
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand
Division of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology
—This one explains that while injury rates are reported “lower” in powerlifting versus other sports (including track and field), that is only analyzing injuries during competition, not during training, which is likely to be higher based on their analysis.
In other words, the empirical data doesn’t show what we want to prove, that powerlifting has higher injury potential than other sports during competition, in fact it shows the opposite. But our biased opinion is that it is likely to be more dangerous anyway. We don’t have any data to prove it, but it’s what we want to believe.
Goes into depth of how virtually every powerlifter in every gender, age, and level has serious injuries (more than one injury a year that forces a cessation of training a year, on average)
This is garbage and you know it. Use common sense…if this were true then more than half of all powerlifters would be unavailabe each year due to injury. You lift for part of a year, then you take a year off due to injury. Bull. Almost every athlete in almost every sport, at some time in their career, has at least one injury that may impede competition for a period, even up to a year. But almost every athlete having such an injury every year???? There is absolutely no validity to that statement. And even if it were true, how does this support your claim that ATG squats are better than parallel squats? Not even on topic.
3. Hoffman, Jr, J Cooper, M Wendell, and J Kang. “Comparison of Olympic Vs. Traditional Power Lifting Training Programs in Football Players.“ 18 (2004): 129-135. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18 (2004). —Just what the title says.
The Olympic lifting group had significantly better results.
Again Davan, you stray from the topic of discussion. Are ATG squats better than parallel squats. The training effect sprinter look for in Oly lifts comes from the explosive pull phase of the clean, not the ATG that follows. In fact, most sprinters, including those on this forum, do not use max weight during their cleans and do not go ATG during a power clean. This study is not even on topic. But, let’s pretend it is and see the significant results showing Oly lifts are better than powerlifting, and I quote, “No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation,(i.e., after we really fiddled with some statistical manipulations in a vain attempt to find some little bit of evidence supporting our claims) OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in ΔVJ than PL.“ No statistically different results in anything except vertical jump. And even this has nothing to do with ATG squats, it has to do with the explosive pull phase of the clean. I like the clean, and would have suggested cleans to anyone wanting to improve their vertical. Not as good as box jumps and depth drops and jumps, but certainly useful. Not on topic.
4. Hamill, B.P., Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 8(1);53-57.1994.
—Powerlifting is shown to have a high rate of injury than olympic lifting
Are you not reading the studies you quote, or are you hoping nobody else does? This entire report stresses how safe all forms of weightlifting are. And it does not say powerlifting is more dangerous than Oly lifting anywhere. The conclusions actually state, and I quote, “Weightlifting, under conditions of adequate supervision, is at least as safe as weight training.“ And one final time, what does this have to do with proving ATG squats are better than parallel squats?
First off, let me say that I have nothing against powerlifting (although I don’t like the current use of suits in the sport) and I use every type of squat imaginable (varying depth, stance, and tempo). I just want to add that the original argument regarding powerlifters was started because they were held up as the standard for power development (at least as I read it). I think an argument could be made for doing that for STRENGTH development but certainly not POWER development. Despite the name of the sport and the use of ‘speed’ in their training, the training of power lifters is really focused on strength development with a sprinkling of low-end power development. Even most of the power development work that is done in powerlifting has very lower power outputs compared to other activities like OLing, jumping, sprinting, etc. Can their training be valuable…heck yeah. Should it be regarded as the gold standard for power development…almost certainly not.
Mke, I agree with what you say above, I would not state that power lifters have the market cornered on genrating power output. Actually, the original point of the discussion was supposed to be about the benefits of ATG squatting vs parallel squatting as they relate to explosive starts etc. Also, as I stated in my long post above, ATG squats, to my knowledge have never been statistically shown to be better than parallell squats at improving functional strength and power as they relate to sprinting.
I also agree with your use of varying depths, stances and tempo. I would also include cleans and plyos in the mix. However my point remains that I have seen nothing to convince me that ATG is better than parallel for achieving training the goals that most on this board are after.
han powerlifters is ridiculous…Powerlifting is still an amateur sport.
This, again, is an extremely weak argument with no actual data, just your opinion. Oly lifters are professional, and powerlifters are amateur? That is ridiculous. And even if it were true, how does this support your argument that ATG squats produce better results than parallel squats? It’s not even on topic.
You said that powerlifters compete later into their lives at a high level to justify your position that the sport is safe, so it is necessary to understand the nature of the sport.
Why do you make this personal? Why do you attack me personally because you disagree with me? Are you that insecure? Try taking a slightly more professional approach to your exchanges.
You said stuff cannot be proven and imply it is otherwise and offer no data of any kind.
Power output during the rep does not necessarily translate to better functional strength or power. As CF has pointed out many times, a 60m sprint produces more power output than any gym lift. It’s not the power output recorded during the execise, but the effect it has on the desired training goal. And even if the power output experienced during the pull phase of a clean or snatch was higher than that experienced during a power squat, how would that support your claim that ATG squats are better than parallel squats? It’s not even on topic.
It is quite obvious you didn’t even read the paper—you don’t even know the methods used.
In other words, the empirical data doesn’t show what we want to prove, that powerlifting has higher injury potential than other sports during competition, in fact it shows the opposite. But our biased opinion is that it is likely to be more dangerous anyway. We don’t have any data to prove it, but it’s what we want to believe.
This was conducted by a POWERLIFTING ORGANIZATION looking at THEIR OWN ATHLETES AND DATA. Again, a paper you didn’t read.
This is garbage and you know it. Use common sense…if this were true then more than half of all powerlifters would be unavailabe each year due to injury. You lift for part of a year, then you take a year off due to injury. Bull. Almost every athlete in almost every sport, at some time in their career, has at least one injury that may impede competition for a period, even up to a year. But almost every athlete having such an injury every year???? There is absolutely no validity to that statement. And even if it were true, how does this support your claim that ATG squats are better than parallel squats? Not even on topic.
I may have phrased it awkwardly (they don’t sit out an entire year, but during the year, missing a significant amount of training time). Again, this is analysis by a powerlifting organization on their own athletes.
Again Davan, you stray from the topic of discussion. Are ATG squats better than parallel squats. The training effect sprinter look for in Oly lifts comes from the explosive pull phase of the clean, not the ATG that follows. In fact, most sprinters, including those on this forum, do not use max weight during their cleans and do not go ATG during a power clean. This study is not even on topic. But, let’s pretend it is and see the significant results showing Oly lifts are better than powerlifting, and I quote, “No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation,(i.e., after we really fiddled with some statistical manipulations in a vain attempt to find some little bit of evidence supporting our claims) OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in ΔVJ than PL.“ No statistically different results in anything except vertical jump. And even this has nothing to do with ATG squats, it has to do with the explosive pull phase of the clean. I like the clean, and would have suggested cleans to anyone wanting to improve their vertical. Not as good as box jumps and depth drops and jumps, but certainly useful. Not on topic.
You don’t understand statistics at all. Furthermore, the topic is on because we are in general talking about improving performance and power output—you said just pure strength. This indicates there are certainly other things to consider.
Are you not reading the studies you quote, or are you hoping nobody else does?
The irony in this statement.
This entire report stresses how safe all forms of weightlifting are. And it does not say powerlifting is more dangerous than Oly lifting anywhere.
Look at the rates of injuries in the report. Powerlifting is almost double olympic lifting per 100 hours in this data.
You said that powerlifters compete later into their lives at a high level to justify your position that the sport is safe, so it is necessary to understand the nature of the sport.
False. I mentioned that many powerlifters compete well into their 40’s to counter your baseless contention that a wide squat stance “...tear(s) up their pelvis and surrounding connective tissue…“. If your statement regarding such injuries were true, that squatting wide did this kind of damage, lifters couldn’t compete at that age or for that number of years. Ironically, the research you posted, while being completely off topic, contradicts your own contentions about the safety of powerlifting style squats. The research finds all weightlifting to be safe if properly supervised. And this still has nothing to do with whether or not ATG squats can be shown, statistically, to be better than parallel squats.
It is quite obvious you didn’t even read the paper—you don’t even know the methods used.
I’ve read the paper several times and reread it today. The conclusions you suggested aren’t stated in the paper. Also keep in mind that just because data is presented in a paper, all the contentions and opinions stated by the author may not be addressed by the data. You have to seperate opinions of the authors, even if they seem reasonable, from the actual conclusions everyone can draw by examining the data presented.
You said stuff cannot be proven and imply it is otherwise and offer no data of any kind.
When did I say that? I have said several times, very clearly, there is no empirical data that I am aware of that compares the advantages of deep squatting to parallel squatting. If a well designed study did that, then yes, while not proving conclusively, it would go a long way in making me believe one is better than the other. Can you point me to such a study? I want to believe, one way or the other.
This was conducted by a POWERLIFTING ORGANIZATION looking at THEIR OWN ATHLETES AND DATA. Again, a paper you didn’t read.
I did read it, just before I posted. Was I incorrect in my interpretation of what I read? Or did you mistate the conclusions drawn by the authors?
I may have phrased it awkwardly (they don’t sit out an entire year, but during the year, missing a significant amount of training time). Again, this is analysis by a powerlifting organization on their own athletes.
That changes things a little, doesn’t it? Don’t Oly lifters ever become injured and have to sit out a spell? And importantly, and more to the point of our discussion, do the authors in any way suggest that if only they could get powerlifters to go ATG then these injuries wouldn’t have taken place and their results would have been dramatically improved? If not, how is this germaine to our discussion?
You don’t understand statistics at all. Furthermore, the topic is on because we are in general talking about improving performance and power output—you said just pure strength. This indicates there are certainly other things to consider.
First, you have given no reference to any data or study that clearly suggests ATG squats, even in a general sense, are better than PL squats in improving performance and power output. Not one data point. Second, did I not correctly quote the study (which I must have read in order to quote it) that said there were no significant differences in improvement except in vertical jump? As far as understanding statistics, I have around 30 hours of Calculus and around 24 hours of statistics, including Calculus based statistics, while working toward a Ph.D. in Petrology and Geochemistry. I’ve also spent years, on a daily basis, using multivariate statistics including log-linear analysis, factor analysis etc. in my position as a research scientist at a major oil company. As a scientist, I also understand the difference between a causal correlation and a casual correlation. I can also recognize statements which are actually supported by the empirical data presented from a hypothesis the author believes, but cannot prove, that the data suggests. Do you have a background in statistics?
Look at the rates of injuries in the report. Powerlifting is almost double olympic lifting per 100 hours in this data.
First, your report cites numbers taken from several different studies. Data taken from different data sets collected from different study groups can’t be compared directly without careful consideration of the populations studied as well as the design of the studies. Second, even if I grant you that the numbers can be compared directly, the papers do conclude that all types of weightlifting are safe, don’t they? And all of that stillhas no bearing on the discussion of whether ATG squats are more beneficial than parallel squats. If you want to continue this discussion, let’s take one thing and focus on that. Please cite a study, in a refereed journal using empirical data that the authors themselves collected, that directly compares performance benefits of ATG squats to parallel squats. Let’s focus on that, since that was the primary point of contention in this thread.
deceleration doesn’t mean there is not any backwards speed, just it’s reducing and having greater backwards speed doesn’t suggest it is not decelerating as well.
You’re right on the first point but I’m not aware of any research which suggests this is the case in sprinting. It’s been observed in walking but I’ve never seen anything of the sort for running or sprinting. Do you have anything that points to this being the case. AND….even if it (slight deceleration prior to contact) were true (which I don’t think is the case), there’s obviously still rapid active hip extension from the ‘high knee’ position down towards the ground through a much larger range of motion than any deceleration zone prior to touchdown. This one is supported by both EMG and kinematic joint data. In fact, these two studies (STUDY 1 and STUDY 2) suggests that hamstring activity is actually HIGHER just prior to ground contact and that it serves a beneficial effect of increasing leg stiffness. While this doesn’t necessarily mean there can’t be deceleration, it sure would be paradoxical if there were.
I can’t feasibly see a generating of greater leg stiffness with a leg that is moving at 3 joints that is still moving at significant speeds. The cross bridges in the muscles just don’t support force output with rapidly changing lengths in muscles which has to occur with extension of both hip and knee joints prior to ground contact, but the subsequent movements of those joints at ground contact require the greatest force generating capabilities to maintain enough leg stiffness to maintain speed and the ROM at ground contact is minimal.
There’s rapid hip flexion prior to contact but the knee is at it’s peak extension prior to touchdown. Can’t really see where you’re going with this.
As far as a EMG and joint data study, just look to the Wiemann NSE Study from 1995, I know it’s old and joint data is semi positional in a qualitative sense, but EMG data suggests a greater role for hamstrings than gluteals.
More recent research using muscle modeling techniques and / or EMG analysis suggests that the hamstring acts as a power transfer muscle that helps to efficiently transfer power generated by the glutes. There’s also this study that indicates that activation is about the same:
Jönhagen S, Ericson MO, Németh G, Eriksson E. (1996). Amplitude and timing of electromyographic activity during sprinting. Scand J Med Sci Sports.;6(1):15-21.
The aim of this study was to make descriptive analyses of the muscle activities in the lower extremity during maximal sprinting. Nine healthy sprinters were examined during maximal sprinting using telemetric electromyography (EMG). Seven muscles of the lower extremities were investigated: biceps femoris, medial hamstrings (semimembranosus and semitendinosus), rectus femoris, gluteus maximus, tibialis anterior, lateral gastrocnemius and medial gastrocnemius. The recorded EMG levels during running were expressed as percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contractions (%max EMG). For each muscle, the normalized EMG was plotted during the whole running stride cycle and is presented for each muscle. The reason for using this method is to show that it is possible to compare different muscle activities in a runner as well as to make comparisons between runners. Lateral and medial hamstrings and gluteus maximus showed similar activities with peak levels of EMG during foot-strike. Rectus femoris had a two-peak activity, with one peak at the middle of the stance phase and the other during the swing phase. The tibialis anterior also showed a two-peak activity, but with the peaks at the beginning of the swing phase and just before foot-strike. The highest activities of the medial and lateral gastrocnemius occurred just before toe-off.
