I think we're all but there looking at one measure. Our goal is to go lower.
Back | Free Weight | Legs | Squats
 |
 |
Nancy and I (Bud) performed another squat depth analysis to mark our 80% 1RM attempts (ipod compatible Quicktime, 12 MB; Streaming Google flash video). We both hit just about parallel, a little above or below. We're measuring parallel against the cross bar you see in the picture strip at the left.
To help readers make their own assessment, we've drawn one yellow line on the crossbar and another mid-thigh demonstrating where we think the bone is. One measure of parallel uses the imputed position of the bone. The other looks at the top of the thighs. By the top of the thighs measure, we're way off. By the mid-thigh measure, we're just about there. Our goal is to go lower.
We discuss a little bit our strategy at the beginning of the analysis. We do lot of loosening and then some low weight practice runs. We're doing better than we did on our first 1RM attempts. We'll see if we can get it down some more.
Comments (11)
You're gradually getting lower - nice one. The only comment I'd make is that it's more common for powerlifters to go by the 'top of thighs' measurement (the thigh at the hip must be lower than the thigh at the knee).
Have you ascertained just how much of this getting lower is due to the weight, and how much is due to inflexibility? Can you break parallel in a bodyweight squat?
Posted by Scott | July 12, 2006 12:30 AM
Posted on July 12, 2006 00:30
Interestingly, I think weight helps. I have a harder time getting down at bodyweight. So, stretching is the issue, at least up to a certain weight.
Posted by Bud Gibson | July 12, 2006 6:39 AM
Posted on July 12, 2006 06:39
Your stance also plays a big part here. A narrow stance is easier for most people.
Posted by Scott | July 12, 2006 8:29 AM
Posted on July 12, 2006 08:29
Well, I think stance depends on how you are wired. I think a narrow stance would work for Nancy given her performance in other exercises. I seem incapable of a narrow stance.
Let me say that balance winds up being an issue.
Posted by Bud Gibson | July 12, 2006 8:41 AM
Posted on July 12, 2006 08:41
Scott, for me the issue is not the flexibility but rather the length of my torso which then transfers alot of the weight thru my low back. I have been working on core strength (a weak area for me) since we began the periiodization program and that in addition to just squatting more has made a big difference for me.
Posted by nancy | July 12, 2006 9:27 PM
Posted on July 12, 2006 21:27
Bud, I'm with you on the narrow stance : too narrow and balance plays a big part. I generally use a slightly-wider-than-shoulder-width stance (not quite sumo).
Nancy, I imagine that having a long torso means there's even more quad involement (and less hamstring work) than usual. Do you use a lower bar placement to counterract this, or simply do more hamstring work to compensate?
Posted by Scott | July 13, 2006 6:59 AM
Posted on July 13, 2006 06:59
Sott, you're absolutely right about the quad involvment. This program has includes good hamstring work that I believe for now is adequate. I find a lower bar placement uncomfortable for me
Posted by nancy | July 13, 2006 8:55 AM
Posted on July 13, 2006 08:55
both of you are at least 4inches too high
just lighten the weight and get to proper depth
Posted by Tom | July 28, 2006 5:26 PM
Posted on July 28, 2006 17:26
Tom, I agree there needs to be more depth, although I suspect 2 inches would get me to parallel.
I don't think the weight's the issue so much as the flexibility. A number of people have suggested front squats.
I think it's ankles as much as hips for me.
Posted by Bud Gibson | July 28, 2006 8:17 PM
Posted on July 28, 2006 20:17
You are both at least 2" or more too high. You also fold like an Accordian ( the further you decend the further your knees go foward and down ). Concentrate on squatting your torso between your legs, instead of folding down.
Good quality video's
Posted by Jamie | July 30, 2006 1:15 AM
Posted on July 30, 2006 01:15
Jamie, thanks for the advice. This is all very helpful. Believe it or not, I may take a shot at this on the Smith to focus on the depth element while getting the balance out of the equation.
Posted by Bud Gibson | July 30, 2006 8:45 AM
Posted on July 30, 2006 08:45