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).
Appetite is largely regulated by endocrine (hormonal) function. There’s plenty of research that supports this. I’m not aware of anything that says the same about work. By the way, I’m not disagreeing that more work is done during full squats. This is actually undeniable. I’m just saying there’s not much justification that it’s a valid reason for dismissing my point that full squats likely have a bigger affect on endocrine output than partials. Also, appetite was only one example I gave…you didn’t address my and many others observations that full depth squats tend to promote increased leanness.
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.
I actually thought you were talking about training stress…not stress in a mechanical sense. I actually think the former is more relevant to the discussion. In any case, you’re likely correct in saying that the body doesn’t distinguish between the type or location of mechanical stress when related to endocrine response. With training stress (somewhat hard to quantify) this is probably not true.
And since I now know you’re speaking of mechanical stress and not training stress, why would we even really be concerned? Especially if we’re looking at it as a benefit?
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.
You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. I’ve already acknowledged the limitations of sEMG. My previous point was that we are obviously limited by the tools of the trade but that we can still reasonably infer some conclusions based off the sEMG (which the research team and I have done). The question remains, what do you have to bring to the table that would refute the results of the previously mentioned study? What research method would alter the results in your favor? In my opinion, it’s not reasonable to complain about research results that are produced with technology that is limited when there isn’t an alternative technology that has lesser limitations.
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.
This is debatable. Why take only one when you have both? What research do you have to support your points even if we take just joint moments?
Your entire argument is based on glute-ham activation and mine is based length-tension relationship through a certain ROM.
Actually my argument was multi-factorial. Glute-ham activation was just one of the points I raised.
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.
Why can’t I? If you can’t understand how this is possible then you need to review Newton’s laws. You could apply more force and it would be manifested by greater acceleration of the athlete-plus-bar system.
How does force output or power equal stress? Load = stress.
No argument there. As I said, I misunderstood you and thought you were talking about training stress and not mechanical stress.
Doesn’t glute-ham activation occur when deadlifting and wouldn’t it be of more benefit to glute-ham activation than the squat?
I think DLs place a greater load on the hams than squats but not the glutes. As the research study cited above indicated, depth is the key to glute activation. The joint angles achieved in a DL simply don’t match those of a deep squat. Also, I tend to use OLs extensively and placing both DLs and OLs in the program would be a little redundant. Finally, the DL doesn’t have an elastic component to it in the same way that squatting does.