Leg curling vs. squatting

On 2 Nov 2006 19:04:39 -0800, "Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson wrote:
>> Then you need to put some fucking weight on the bar.
>
>And how much would you suggest John, given that you have no idea what
>I'm squatting?
>
>Just because I'm not squatting as much as you doesn't mean I'm wussing
>out. So, respectfully, fuck off.
>
>FWIW, my best squat was a few years ago, 2 sets of 3 @ 220kg, all below
>parallel. For various reasons I've had a lot of time off since then,
>and am working on bringing my squat weight back up. At the moment I'm
>at 2 reps @ 180kg. I know I have more strength there; I've just got to
>work on the technique - including confidence since I'm used to having a
>spotter behind me and now I'm training alone at home. (I never used to
>go to 4 plates without a spotter).

So I'm guessing Keith is right and you aren't even hitting parallel.

>
>One problem I'm working on is that I drop too fast, ie not enough
>control on the descent, and recently I've found that doing some
>partials is helping. Two weeks ago I deliberately did 5 half reps on 4
>plates (180kg), then 2 sets of 2 "full" reps at that weight. (The week
>before that I only managed 2 singles). Working to a lesser controlled
>depth is helping me reach "full" depth with more control instead of
>dropping like a sack of spuds. ("Full" depth meaning my normal depth
>btw). I'm confident that with a bit of time working on technique I'll
>be back up to 5-6 reps @ 180kg.

That doesn't make any sense either. If you aren't going ATG, there
are muscle groups that have to stop the weight, namely, your
hamstrings (among others). If you are dropping that fast, your
hammies are really going to bear the brunt of that force.

>
>Btw I finished off squats that workout with 2 sets of 8 pause reps @
>140kg (ie pause at the bottom of each rep).
>
>Interestingly I felt pain in my quads a lot more in the half reps than
>the full reps. Strange.

Strange that you are even feeling pain. You shouldn't feel any pain
in any muscles while lifting unless it's your first couple of warm up
sets and even then, that is a bad thing.

>
>I don't know if that classifies as some fucking weight on the bar or
>not. But no hamstring DOMS, ever. Only quads.
>

Perhaps you work them often enough where you don't get doms.

In article <1162516087.489377.149950@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
"Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote:

> Hobbes wrote:
> > You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
> >
> > If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and down
> > to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
> >
> > Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
> > partial squats.
>
> Define partial...
>
> I call a partial squat anything less than parallel, but it sounds to me
> like you'd call partial anything less than attg?
>
> I squat below parallel, but yes I could go deeper, ie until my
> hamstrings and calves are squashed together... which is probably going
> about 2-3" further. Maybe next week I'll try full attg squats and see
> how I go, but I'm still willing to bet my hamstrings are worked nowhere
> near as hard as when I train them separately.
>
> Stance width is probably 1.5 times shoulder width, maybe slightly more
> - am working on going wider to maybe 2x shoulder width.
>
As a powerlifter I've seen many people claim they are going to parallel
and define parallel to the top of the leg - which is about a half squat.

A full squat is ATTG. A full wide stance squat is different though.
Basically it is going as low as you can.

--
Keith

In article <12clk21m8sfe3hismhs5g6hspiviopitl8@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Pete wrote:
> >> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>From what I read hamstrings are worked with hip movement. The hips
> >> >>don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
> >> >>work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
> >>
> >> > Both work the hamstrings. Hamstrings are two-joint "bi-articulate"
> >> > muscles, with attachments above the hip joint and below the knee.
> >> > They both flex the knee and extend the hip. Leg curls and any hip
> >> > extension exercise will both work the hams. Squats work a lot more
> >> > muscle groups, though.
> >>
> >> Agreed!
> >>
> >> John, do you really think it matters at what end the hams are shortened?
> >
> >I don't think it's so much "which end" as the complexity of the
> >movement. I suspect that a lot more motor units are recruited, and
> >firing frequency and patterns are higher and more complex, when
> >attempting to stabilize a heavy, complex movement like the back squat,
> >as opposed to an isolated single-joint movement like leg curls. By the
> >same token, you would probably find the same thing to be true when
> >comparing back squats to reverse hypers.
> >
> >This, of course, is theory. I can't find any EMG studies that directly
> >support that theory.
>
> OK. Now I have found an EMG study. And my theory fails ... big time.
>
> Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
> semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
> respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
> 35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
> ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).
>
> http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
>
> That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> activation of the motor units.

Easy to argue with those numbers.

They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
requiring motor skills like the squat.

Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
weightlifters.

--
Keith

In article <454b0052$0$36891$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>
> > That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> > activation of the motor units.
>
> > [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
> > small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
> HA !!!
>
> I have been saying this for almost a decade!
>
> ----
> Pete
>
>
>

As I posted in another thread

Easy to argue with those numbers.

They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
requiring motor skills like the squat.

Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
weightlifters.

And I quote from the study:

"None of the subjects had previously participated in regular resistance
training of the lower extremities."

In other words - no freakin' motor skills and they are not going to be
able to recruit motor units in a difficult compound exercise like the
squat, are they?

Now try and do an EMG on someone like Dimas and see what happens?

--
Keith

In article
<khobman800-A488E2.07455203112006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <12clk21m8sfe3hismhs5g6hspiviopitl8@4ax.com>,
> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > OK. Now I have found an EMG study. And my theory fails ... big time.
> >
> > Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
> > semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
> > respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
> > 35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
> > ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).
> >
> > http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
> >
> > That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> > activation of the motor units.
>
> Easy to argue with those numbers.
>
> They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
> done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
> skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
> isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
> requiring motor skills like the squat.
>
> Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
> weightlifters.

Damn John - did you look at the study?

Not only are they completely novice lifters they have them doing a half
squat. 100 degrees at the knee and 90 at the hip? Give me a break!

That study simply can't be used for experienced weightlifters. All it
really tells you is that newbies would be better off doing isolation
movements during their first workout if their goal for that workout is
motor unit activation. And if they have a choice of one silly-ass squat
technique. What kind of newbie would have that goal for the first
workout?

I'd love to see EMG analysis of someone like Coan or Dimas - you can bet
activation levels would be different.

--
Keith

Dnia 2006-11-03 Hobbes napisa³(a):
> In article <454b0052$0$36891$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>>
>> > That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
>> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
>> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
>> > activation of the motor units.
>>
>> > [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> > small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>>
>> HA !!!
>>
>> I have been saying this for almost a decade!
>
> As I posted in another thread
>
> Easy to argue with those numbers.
>
> They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
> done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
> skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
> isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
> requiring motor skills like the squat.
>
> Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
> weightlifters.
>
> And I quote from the study:
>
> "None of the subjects had previously participated in regular resistance
> training of the lower extremities."
>
> In other words - no freakin' motor skills and they are not going to be
> able to recruit motor units in a difficult compound exercise like the
> squat, are they?
>
> Now try and do an EMG on someone like Dimas and see what happens?

I thought about it too, but I suspect that 5 reps done with 10RM would
show similar tendencies also for experienced lifters. Also, besides
motor skills, in a compound exercise there exist possibility of weak
links. How come those guys got fatigued enough to not be able to
perform 11 reps if they don't activate prime movers? I can imagine
that some other muscles (maybe lower back, maybe glutes) got fatigued
to a point of failure.

I'm sure that my glutes are sore after yesterday's stepups.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-03 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
>> I don't think that it defies any dogma. First, squats are quad
>> dominant exercise, so there is nothing strange that quad dominant
>> exercise would activate hams to lower extent than ham isolation
>> exercise.
>
> Depends how you perform them.
>
> In my case, both quads and glutes are equally dominant. For a lot of PLers,
> glutes are dominant.
>
> With the right build, quads can be dominant. Front squats are probly best if
> you want the knee joint to be dominant.

Right. But I'm pretty sure that they used high bar squats. Not a
single newbie I taught squatting was able to perform low bar, wideish
stance powerlifting style squats.

>> However, even for quads isolation exercises were better.
>
> Leg presses with the feet in the middle of the sledge are also very good for
> quads.
> I am willing to bet that in the study John posted, the glutes were dominant
> because the feet were placed relatively high on the sledge.

Possible.

>> And I'm not surprised, because with the protocol used open chain exercises
>> would
>> always appear to be better. They used 5 repetitions at 10RM. With
>> closed chain exercises you must keep some balance and can't put "all
>> you got" into 5 reps.
>
> Strange...
> Somebody around here has been saying that all along.

Do you have any problems with making your squats intense enough? If
not, it's moot point. But newbies have problems with intense squatting.
Before they learn how to do it, they fail for strangest reasons, like
lack of flexibility, balance, skill and bad form due to huge weaknesses
in important places.

It's even more pronounced with one-legged movements. Every movement
with high skill requirements takes time to become effective.

>> With open chain exercises you can. If they
>> performed jump squats or leg pres throws it might look a bit different.
>
> If doesnt count. Sorry.

Depends what you want to see. I see, that jump or throw is
open-endish, so if you do not put conscious effort into "pacing" yourself
through a set, your early reps will be "stronger" than your last ones.
With close-chain movement you have to make very similar effort in every
rep, as long as your form does not brake and tempo is more or less
constant.

[...]
>> Anyway, what I spotted was that at hight knee joint angles squats
>> activated vastus medialis best, so if you want this teardrop above the
>> knee, squat.
>
> No matter what study they show, i will still do squats, hacks, leg presses,
> extensions and curls. And calf raises.
> But not in one session. And i do each exercise for a reason.
>
> I will be the first to admit that if i was forced to pick one exercise, i
> would squat.

So you are equally dogmatic as most of mfw-ers.

> They hit the adductors harder than the other exercises. Its so
> fucking cool when the feet are a feet apart and half of the upper legs touch
> each other.
>
> Hacks are like front squats, dominant at the knee. Leg presses can be
> dominant at the hip or knee.
>
> The other exercises speak for themselves.

I wouldn't do knee extensions and curls even if I had full access to
various equipments, but not because I believe them to be worthless.
Depending on the design of a machine and technique of execution, I
believe that they may give some reasonable mass gains.

I would avoid them because they produce strength gains "wrong" way.
Who needs strong extensors with nearly straight leg? Who need strong
flextors with leg almost totally curled? I have limited energy and
recovery ability so I'd choose something which gives both mass and
strength gains which I can use.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-03 Hobbes napisa³(a):
> In article
><khobman800-A488E2.07455203112006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Easy to argue with those numbers.
>>
>> They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
>> done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
>> skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
>> isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
>> requiring motor skills like the squat.
>>
>> Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
>> weightlifters.
>
> Damn John - did you look at the study?
>
> Not only are they completely novice lifters they have them doing a half
> squat. 100 degrees at the knee and 90 at the hip? Give me a break!

It's not so bad for newbies. If you have a group of them and want
consistency, that's what you'll have to do. Some of them could go
lower, but if some couldn't then your data would be really hard to
interpret.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

In article <eifm5e$j0n$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-11-03 Hobbes napisa³(a):
> > In article
> ><khobman800-A488E2.07455203112006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Easy to argue with those numbers.
> >>
> >> They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
> >> done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
> >> skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
> >> isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
> >> requiring motor skills like the squat.
> >>
> >> Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
> >> weightlifters.
> >
> > Damn John - did you look at the study?
> >
> > Not only are they completely novice lifters they have them doing a half
> > squat. 100 degrees at the knee and 90 at the hip? Give me a break!
>
> It's not so bad for newbies. If you have a group of them and want
> consistency, that's what you'll have to do. Some of them could go
> lower, but if some couldn't then your data would be really hard to
> interpret.

Point is - yet another useless study for people that actually train with
weights. You can't extrapolate data from novices to experienced lifters.

--
Keith

Pete wrote:
> I use a pretty long ROM, about 3 feet, and use the lower back as a prime
> mover. ONE of the prime movers.
> Going forward also helps to transfer more stress to the lattisimus.

Yes, you get a nice stretch. I do them the same way most of the time.

> With the cable, 130 is a bigass pull, Stu. There are Pros who use a lot less.
> There is a Nabba Mr. Universe in my gym who doesnt go over 85-90.

*shrug* I dunno what to say Pete. I've seen guys at my (former) gym
using 85-100 all the time.

> How much do you use for DB rows, pulldowns, wide and narrow, and barbell
> rows?

DB rows - at the moment 40kg cos that's the heaviest DB I have. I used
to use 60kg in the gym (heaviest they had).
Pulldowns - wide - best is 120kg. Narrow (close grip) last night was
95kg. But that's leaning back (fixed angle, not cheating, pulling to
the chest).
Barbell rows - it's been a long time since I did them regularly.
Usually did them after deadlifts. I expect I'd use 120kg without much
problem. Have done 8 reps on 140kg before but that was a few years ago
and I know my form went out badly on the last 2 reps.

> Whats your bodyweight?

Dunno. Somewhere between 105-110 at the moment.

> DB rows about 60. Sometimes 120 for cable rows. On a good day. The stack
> goes up 105 and i attach a 10-25 plate.
>
> The cable row is at a dead point of the camera, so the owner doesnt
> notice...
>
> About 5-10 sets of 8.

Yeah well I don't think I could do 120 for 5-10 sets of 8.
Last night, after chins... cable row "warmup" 8 @ 100kg, then 8 @ 120,
and 2 x 8 @ 130.

Thing is, I never considered that to be strong.

Unless we're talking about completely different exercises....
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...SeatedRow.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...SeatedRow.html

Last night was the wide grip variety. Well, I actually used a tricep
bar which is about 18" long and has the EZ bend in it (closest I have
to a suitable straight bar). But I know I can do the same weight with
the close grip one. (At least, I used the close grip one at 120kg last
time... last night was the first time with 130kg).

> I could use a LOT more doing barbell or T-bar rows, using momentum. But i
> wont.

Like I said, I never considered that I was that strong on cable row...
hence my original comment. I bet you can out row me with T-bar or
barbell rows no problem.


Stu

Hobbes wrote:
> As a powerlifter I've seen many people claim they are going to parallel
> and define parallel to the top of the leg - which is about a half squat.
>
> A full squat is ATTG. A full wide stance squat is different though.
> Basically it is going as low as you can.

Ok... so you define a full squat the same as exrx, as this:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...FullSquat.html

And you're calling this:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...s/BBSquat.html
a half squat?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above "half" squat a pass
in powerlifting?


Stu

Stu wrote:
> Hobbes wrote:
>> As a powerlifter I've seen many people claim they are going to
>> parallel and define parallel to the top of the leg - which is about
>> a half squat.
>>
>> A full squat is ATTG. A full wide stance squat is different though.
>> Basically it is going as low as you can.
>
> Ok... so you define a full squat the same as exrx, as this:
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...FullSquat.html
>
> And you're calling this:
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...s/BBSquat.html
> a half squat?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above "half" squat a
> pass in powerlifting?
>
>
> Stu

I believe you're correct on all accounts !!


--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

In article <1162569110.538271.131270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
"Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote:

> Hobbes wrote:
> > As a powerlifter I've seen many people claim they are going to parallel
> > and define parallel to the top of the leg - which is about a half squat.
> >
> > A full squat is ATTG. A full wide stance squat is different though.
> > Basically it is going as low as you can.
>
> Ok... so you define a full squat the same as exrx, as this:
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...FullSquat.html
>
> And you're calling this:
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...s/BBSquat.html
> a half squat?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above "half" squat a pass
> in powerlifting?

Depends on the federation. In the WPC and some others that would pass.
In the IPF and it's affilliates - not quite - he'd have to drop a little
more.

To be passed in IPF (including the CPU where I lift) the joint at the
hip has to be lower than the joint at the knee. This is defined as below
parallel, but would be considered very low by most gym squatters.

John Hanson recently published a video of a USAPL squat - heavy and to
correct depth.

http://www.usapowerliftingforum.com/.../lance905_2.rm

In this squat he hits the necessary depth pretty much right on the
money. As you can see your point is valid. To an olympic lifter that is
a 'half' squat. To a powerlifter that is a full squat.

If you go to the end of Chakarov's workout he does a back squat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco

Now. That is a full squat.

:^)

--
Keith

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Pete wrote:

> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>
>> That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's hard
>> to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are* better
>> than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of activation
>> of the motor units.

Hang on - do we think squats are a ham exercise? I thought it was
primarily the quads and glutes working there; the hams come in, but in a
sort of stabilising role - Lombard's paradox and all that.

I thought official mfw advice was straight-leg or Romanian deadlifts for
hams. And for some reason, we dislike good mornings, BICBW.

>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
> HA !!!
>
> I have been saying this for almost a decade!

You have said a lot of things; statistically speaking, some were bound to
be right.

tom

--
The sun just came out, I can't believe it

Pete <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>> That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
>> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
>> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
>> activation of the motor units.
>
>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
> HA !!!
> I have been saying this for almost a decade!

Pete, I'm with you on this one. As documented, against my will, by
mighty g00g13 archives, the two kinds of isolationist exercises that
pass my fastidious selection are leg curls and calf raises.

Dnia 2006-11-03 Hobbes napisa³(a):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco
>
> Now. That is a full squat.
>
>:^)

Really impressive.

I hate those Olympians. They make it look so easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVB_rQFSsEg
Pyrros Dimas workout.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Bully wrote:
>
> Ah, a rugby fan?
>

Nope... sorry, not really a fan of any sports... :-)

Stu

John Hanson wrote:
> So I'm guessing Keith is right and you aren't even hitting parallel.

Wrong.

> That doesn't make any sense either. If you aren't going ATG, there
> are muscle groups that have to stop the weight, namely, your
> hamstrings (among others). If you are dropping that fast, your
> hammies are really going to bear the brunt of that force.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't find that. Maybe I'm
actually stopping from my hyooj hamstrings hitting my even hyoojer
calves. ;-)

I find squats hit my quads and not my hamstrings. I don't feel it in
the glutes either (only feel glutes on 45' leg press). The muscles
stopping the weight are my quads.

Maybe I've got a huge hamstring / quad imbalance. Or maybe I'm a freak.
Or maybe it's you. Either way who the fuck cares. You do your squats
for hamstring development and I'll do my hamstrings separately.

> Strange that you are even feeling pain. You shouldn't feel any pain
> in any muscles while lifting unless it's your first couple of warm up
> sets and even then, that is a bad thing.

Ok pain as in muscle under tension type pain. Not bad pain. Maybe I
should have just said I felt my quads work more on the half reps. (Btw
I'm calling a half rep halfway to my usual depth of the, apparently
highly contentious, just below parallel)

> Perhaps you work them often enough where you don't get doms.

Or rmaybe they're too strong for me to feel in squats. Or I'm a freak.
I can live with either.


FWIW - next week I'll try attg squats. I might also see if I can record
a clip on my crappy digital camera of my normal depth, so I can see for
myself.


Stu

Hobbes wrote:
> To be passed in IPF (including the CPU where I lift) the joint at the
> hip has to be lower than the joint at the knee. This is defined as below

I see...

> parallel, but would be considered very low by most gym squatters.

I'll have to record and check my depth, but I was always told (by lots
of people in the gym) that I squat very low. I'm convinced I squatted
lower than some of the shorter guys (in terms of height of bar from the
ground) and they were going to parallel...

> John Hanson recently published a video of a USAPL squat - heavy and to
> correct depth.
[snip]
> In this squat he hits the necessary depth pretty much right on the
> money. As you can see your point is valid. To an olympic lifter that is
> a 'half' squat. To a powerlifter that is a full squat.

Nice weight... So what do YOU call this. So far I'm under the
impression you'd be calling it a half squat cos it's not ATTG. Not like
the first exrx.net link I posted. No offence intended to John of course
- that's a great squat. I'm just trying to clarify how exactly you (and
John) propose I should be squatting... because when I squat to that
depth I do not get any DOMS in my hamstrings. Or even feel them during
the workout. (AFAIK anyway. Maybe the feeling is just overshadowed by
my quads)

I consider that video a "full" squat, and going to half that depth is a
half squat.
Then you've got ATTG squats which are a different beast... no such
thing as a half ATTG.


> If you go to the end of Chakarov's workout he does a back squat.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco

Sorry can't access youtube on this computer.


Stu

John Hanson wrote:
> Perhaps you work them often enough where you don't get doms.

Oh, I also meant to say that I usually get kickarse DOMS from my
hamstring workout.

I do hamstrings two days after squats, and I would expect that if I had
any DOMS from the squats, I'd feel it as soon as I started training.
No, when I lie down on the bench to do leg curls, the only thing that
hurts from DOMS is my quads against the bench.. can be bloody painful
when doing heavy leg curls.


Stu

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-03 Hobbes napisa³(a):
> > In article <454b0052$0$36891$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> > "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
> >>
> >> > That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> >> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> >> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> >> > activation of the motor units.
> >>
> >> > [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only bya
> >> > small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
> >>
> >> HA !!!
> >>
> >> I have been saying this for almost a decade!
> >
> > As I posted in another thread
> >
> > Easy to argue with those numbers.
> >
> > They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
> > done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
> > skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
> > isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
> > requiring motor skills like the squat.
> >
> > Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
> > weightlifters.
> >
> > And I quote from the study:
> >
> > "None of the subjects had previously participated in regular resistance
> > training of the lower extremities."
> >
> > In other words - no freakin' motor skills and they are not going to be
> > able to recruit motor units in a difficult compound exercise like the
> > squat, are they?
> >
> > Now try and do an EMG on someone like Dimas and see what happens?
>
> I thought about it too, but I suspect that 5 reps done with 10RM would
> show similar tendencies also for experienced lifters. Also, besides
> motor skills, in a compound exercise there exist possibility of weak
> links. How come those guys got fatigued enough to not be able to
> perform 11 reps if they don't activate prime movers? I can imagine
> that some other muscles (maybe lower back, maybe glutes) got fatigued
> to a point of failure.

Although I admit I didn't read the article word for word, and I don't
have it in front of me right now, I seem to recall they tested both the
5 reps at 10RM, plus MVCs. The subjects may not have been trained, but
those numbers are so far away from the classic MFW dogma that I'm
having serious doubts about what has always been presumed. It would
take enormous re-patterning to reverse the numbers, which is what dogma
has always described.

In article <1162574859.516240.195360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
"Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote:

> Hobbes wrote:
> > To be passed in IPF (including the CPU where I lift) the joint at the
> > hip has to be lower than the joint at the knee. This is defined as below
>
> I see...
>
> > parallel, but would be considered very low by most gym squatters.
>
> I'll have to record and check my depth, but I was always told (by lots
> of people in the gym) that I squat very low. I'm convinced I squatted
> lower than some of the shorter guys (in terms of height of bar from the
> ground) and they were going to parallel...
>
> > John Hanson recently published a video of a USAPL squat - heavy and to
> > correct depth.
> [snip]
> > In this squat he hits the necessary depth pretty much right on the
> > money. As you can see your point is valid. To an olympic lifter that is
> > a 'half' squat. To a powerlifter that is a full squat.
>
> Nice weight... So what do YOU call this. So far I'm under the
> impression you'd be calling it a half squat cos it's not ATTG. Not like
> the first exrx.net link I posted. No offence intended to John of course
> - that's a great squat. I'm just trying to clarify how exactly you (and
> John) propose I should be squatting... because when I squat to that
> depth I do not get any DOMS in my hamstrings. Or even feel them during
> the workout. (AFAIK anyway. Maybe the feeling is just overshadowed by
> my quads)

NOW that I'm an elitist olympic style weightlifting snob I'll call it a
HALF-SQUAT!

:^)

When I was a powerlifter I'd call it a full squat.

HTH.

Seriously - I agree with you. It doesn't matter. Every individual is
different. You may have to do specific exercises for you hamstrings. I
don't even think in terms of muscles - I train athletes and prefer to
address movement, speed, strength and endurance. I'd very rarely have
anyone doing a hamstring curl. Or a bicep curl, for that matter. If I
was a bodybuilder I'm sure it would be a staple of training.
>
> I consider that video a "full" squat, and going to half that depth is a
> half squat.
> Then you've got ATTG squats which are a different beast... no such
> thing as a half ATTG.
>
>
> > If you go to the end of Chakarov's workout he does a back squat.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco
>
> Sorry can't access youtube on this computer.


Too bad. Quite a squat.

--
Keith

In article <1162576501.232759.158450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> > Dnia 2006-11-03 Hobbes napisa³(a):
> > > In article <454b0052$0$36891$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> > > "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
> > >>
> > >> > That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> > >> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> > >> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> > >> > activation of the motor units.
> > >>
> > >> > [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
> > >> > small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
> > >>
> > >> HA !!!
> > >>
> > >> I have been saying this for almost a decade!
> > >
> > > As I posted in another thread
> > >
> > > Easy to argue with those numbers.
> > >
> > > They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
> > > done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
> > > skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
> > > isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
> > > requiring motor skills like the squat.
> > >
> > > Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
> > > weightlifters.
> > >
> > > And I quote from the study:
> > >
> > > "None of the subjects had previously participated in regular resistance
> > > training of the lower extremities."
> > >
> > > In other words - no freakin' motor skills and they are not going to be
> > > able to recruit motor units in a difficult compound exercise like the
> > > squat, are they?
> > >
> > > Now try and do an EMG on someone like Dimas and see what happens?
> >
> > I thought about it too, but I suspect that 5 reps done with 10RM would
> > show similar tendencies also for experienced lifters. Also, besides
> > motor skills, in a compound exercise there exist possibility of weak
> > links. How come those guys got fatigued enough to not be able to
> > perform 11 reps if they don't activate prime movers? I can imagine
> > that some other muscles (maybe lower back, maybe glutes) got fatigued
> > to a point of failure.
>
> Although I admit I didn't read the article word for word, and I don't
> have it in front of me right now, I seem to recall they tested both the
> 5 reps at 10RM, plus MVCs. The subjects may not have been trained, but
> those numbers are so far away from the classic MFW dogma that I'm
> having serious doubts about what has always been presumed. It would
> take enormous re-patterning to reverse the numbers, which is what dogma
> has always described.
>

I wasn't trying to defend MFW dogma - as John knows I have little
interest in hypertrophy type of training. But I was saying the study was
easy to refute, simply because it was on novices. I'm sure John shares
some of my frustration at the studies of novice athletes which are
supposed to guide elite athletes.

Most coaches, especially in sports like track and field, have a
jaundiced view of sports science simply because of studies like this.
They are pretty much useless for elite athletes.

The reality is as John says. In someone like Coan or Dimas there _is_
enormous re-patterning. Heckm there is enormous re-patterning after 6-8
weeks of training - hence newbie gains.

--
Keith

Dnia 2006-11-03 JMW napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>
>> I thought about it too, but I suspect that 5 reps done with 10RM would
>> show similar tendencies also for experienced lifters. Also, besides
>> motor skills, in a compound exercise there exist possibility of weak
>> links. How come those guys got fatigued enough to not be able to
>> perform 11 reps if they don't activate prime movers? I can imagine
>> that some other muscles (maybe lower back, maybe glutes) got fatigued
>> to a point of failure.
>
> Although I admit I didn't read the article word for word, and I don't
> have it in front of me right now, I seem to recall they tested both the
> 5 reps at 10RM, plus MVCs.

MVIC, which I assume to mean Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction,
and which was used as a baseline for percentages.

> The subjects may not have been trained, but
> those numbers are so far away from the classic MFW dogma that I'm
> having serious doubts about what has always been presumed. It would
> take enormous re-patterning to reverse the numbers, which is what dogma
> has always described.

If the dogma stated that one is not able to recruit muscles in
isolation exercises, it fell as it should, because it's stupid.
However, I do not remember this kind of dogma.

Regarding effectiveness of exercises in producing mass and strength
gains, I do not think that any dogma could be felled with this study.
Even some stupid ones could still hold their ground. You see, if
subjects didn't recruit prime movers in squats and leg presses, why
they failed at 11th rep? If you buy into the numbers so much, they
should have fairly fresh muscles at the moment they terminated a set.
So why they terminated it?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-03 JMW napisa³(a):
> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >>
> >> I thought about it too, but I suspect that 5 reps done with 10RM would
> >> show similar tendencies also for experienced lifters. Also, besides
> >> motor skills, in a compound exercise there exist possibility of weak
> >> links. How come those guys got fatigued enough to not be able to
> >> perform 11 reps if they don't activate prime movers? I can imagine
> >> that some other muscles (maybe lower back, maybe glutes) got fatigued
> >> to a point of failure.
> >
> > Although I admit I didn't read the article word for word, and I don't
> > have it in front of me right now, I seem to recall they tested both the
> > 5 reps at 10RM, plus MVCs.
>
> MVIC, which I assume to mean Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction,
> and which was used as a baseline for percentages.
>
> > The subjects may not have been trained, but
> > those numbers are so far away from the classic MFW dogma that I'm
> > having serious doubts about what has always been presumed. It would
> > take enormous re-patterning to reverse the numbers, which is what dogma
> > has always described.
>
> If the dogma stated that one is not able to recruit muscles in
> isolation exercises, it fell as it should, because it's stupid.
> However, I do not remember this kind of dogma.
>
> Regarding effectiveness of exercises in producing mass and strength
> gains, I do not think that any dogma could be felled with this study.
> Even some stupid ones could still hold their ground. You see, if
> subjects didn't recruit prime movers in squats and leg presses, why
> they failed at 11th rep? If you buy into the numbers so much, they
> should have fairly fresh muscles at the moment they terminated a set.
> So why they terminated it?

I don't know if it's just because English is not your first language,
or if your thought process is just jumbled. I sure as hell can't tell
what you're talking about. But it's probably just that you've strayed
from the original issue. Look back to original subject header. The
issue was "Leg curling vs. squatting." Kris Hogg wanted to why there
was more DOMS with squatting than leg curls. I just assumed that was
due to more hamstring activation in squats. This study runs counter to
that notion, and the difference was astounding. Granted, this study
involves novices. But I suspect that I may find that the situation is
not completely reversed even in trained persons, and I will be
searching that issue.

Now, as to the DOMS, that's a totally different issue. It's well
accepted that DOMS arises from myofiber damage during eccentric
movement, particularly fast, forceful eccentrics (e.g., plyometrics).
It's really not a fiber activation issue. And you're likely to get a
lot more myofiber damage from the quick drop and "bounce" at the bottom
of the squat than you will during a smooth concentric and eccentric
from a Nautilus leg curl machine.

Does that clarify the subject matter?

Dnia 2006-11-03 JMW napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-11-03 JMW napisa³(a):
>>
>> > The subjects may not have been trained, but
>> > those numbers are so far away from the classic MFW dogma that I'm
>> > having serious doubts about what has always been presumed. It would
>> > take enormous re-patterning to reverse the numbers, which is what dogma
>> > has always described.
>>
>> If the dogma stated that one is not able to recruit muscles in
>> isolation exercises, it fell as it should, because it's stupid.
>> However, I do not remember this kind of dogma.
>>
>> Regarding effectiveness of exercises in producing mass and strength
>> gains, I do not think that any dogma could be felled with this study.
>> Even some stupid ones could still hold their ground. You see, if
>> subjects didn't recruit prime movers in squats and leg presses, why
>> they failed at 11th rep? If you buy into the numbers so much, they
>> should have fairly fresh muscles at the moment they terminated a set.
>> So why they terminated it?
>
> I don't know if it's just because English is not your first language,
> or if your thought process is just jumbled. I sure as hell can't tell
> what you're talking about. But it's probably just that you've strayed
> from the original issue. Look back to original subject header. The
> issue was "Leg curling vs. squatting." Kris Hogg wanted to why there
> was more DOMS with squatting than leg curls. I just assumed that was
> due to more hamstring activation in squats.

Depending how he does them and depending which kind of curl machine
he uses, it might be the case. Or something else we do not know or
understand.

> This study runs counter to
> that notion, and the difference was astounding.

So, why subjects failed at 11th rep? Squats obviously do not recruit
neither hams nor quads to any extent. Why then they couldn't perform
11th rep? Really, try to answer this question.

> Granted, this study
> involves novices. But I suspect that I may find that the situation is
> not completely reversed even in trained persons, and I will be
> searching that issue.

In case you'll find anything, I'll be glad to take a look.

> Now, as to the DOMS, that's a totally different issue. It's well
> accepted that DOMS arises from myofiber damage during eccentric
> movement, particularly fast, forceful eccentrics (e.g., plyometrics).
> It's really not a fiber activation issue. And you're likely to get a
> lot more myofiber damage from the quick drop and "bounce" at the bottom
> of the squat than you will during a smooth concentric and eccentric
> from a Nautilus leg curl machine.
>
> Does that clarify the subject matter?

I guess that stone lifting is perfectly DOMS free exercise. The same
goes for deadlift. Good to know. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Hobbes wrote:
> In article <1162574859.516240.195360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
> "Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> Hobbes wrote:
>>> To be passed in IPF (including the CPU where I lift) the joint at
>>> the hip has to be lower than the joint at the knee. This is defined
>>> as below
>>
>> I see...
>>
>>> parallel, but would be considered very low by most gym squatters.
>>
>> I'll have to record and check my depth, but I was always told (by
>> lots of people in the gym) that I squat very low. I'm convinced I
>> squatted lower than some of the shorter guys (in terms of height of
>> bar from the ground) and they were going to parallel...
>>
>>> John Hanson recently published a video of a USAPL squat - heavy and
>>> to correct depth.
>> [snip]
>>> In this squat he hits the necessary depth pretty much right on the
>>> money. As you can see your point is valid. To an olympic lifter
>>> that is a 'half' squat. To a powerlifter that is a full squat.
>>
>> Nice weight... So what do YOU call this. So far I'm under the
>> impression you'd be calling it a half squat cos it's not ATTG. Not
>> like the first exrx.net link I posted. No offence intended to John
>> of course - that's a great squat. I'm just trying to clarify how
>> exactly you (and John) propose I should be squatting... because when
>> I squat to that depth I do not get any DOMS in my hamstrings. Or
>> even feel them during the workout. (AFAIK anyway. Maybe the feeling
>> is just overshadowed by my quads)
>
> NOW that I'm an elitist olympic style weightlifting snob I'll call it
> a HALF-SQUAT!
>
> :^)
>
> When I was a powerlifter I'd call it a full squat.
>
> HTH.
>
> Seriously - I agree with you. It doesn't matter. Every individual is
> different. You may have to do specific exercises for you hamstrings. I
> don't even think in terms of muscles - I train athletes and prefer to
> address movement, speed, strength and endurance. I'd very rarely have
> anyone doing a hamstring curl. Or a bicep curl, for that matter. If I
> was a bodybuilder I'm sure it would be a staple of training.
>>
>> I consider that video a "full" squat, and going to half that depth
>> is a half squat.
>> Then you've got ATTG squats which are a different beast... no such
>> thing as a half ATTG.
>>
>>
>>> If you go to the end of Chakarov's workout he does a back squat.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco
>>
>> Sorry can't access youtube on this computer.
>
>
> Too bad. Quite a squat.

Them's real squats. I was interested to see the "kick" halfway back up. I do
the same [only with a lesser weight ATM]. What is it that causes that???

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss