Coach, how is this even possible?/Mike Boyle

[Mark Rippetoe]

10. That merely performing two single-legged squats at once does not double the weight lifted is evidence of shared non-leg musculature between the single leg squat and regular squat. What does a trainee work with a 1LS that wouldn't get worked harder under the increased load of a Sq? a 1LS surely does not provide adequate work to the non-prime mover elements of the anatomy. The 115 lbs is spread over the same supporting musculature as the hypothetical 230 lbs. The supporting musculature that would have been fine at 230 is not at all taxed at 115.

Look, if he's right, how did Karwoski squat 1000x2? By getting his back really strong. Wouldn't this be useful to an athlete?

Can a 700 squatter do 350 one-legged? No. Could Kirk have done 500 one-legged? No. Therefore...

[2) The Answer is Texas]

I'm a complete novice and English isn't my native language. I have minimal experience in training and no experience in coaching. I haven't even completed the whole Squat chapter in SSBBT3. According to Google (read: his own website) this guy is "one of the world's leading strength and conditioning specialists". But some of his statements are defy common sense and even basic physics.

His statements/arguments against the 'conventional' (i.e. 2 legged full) squat are:
1. The lower back is "the weak transducer" / the weakest link in squatting
2. Squats fail because of the weakness of the lower back
3. Squatting is not a lower body exercise but a lower back exercise
4. The lower back stops transferring force to the legs at some point during squats
5. The squat doesn't allow a trainee to get "maximum work capability" for the lower body

Reactions:
Ad 1. This might be true for beginners. They tend to have underdeveloped lower back muscles. But how is this an argument against squatting? If it is weak, it will become stronger as you squat.

Ad 2. Universally? Always, whenever a someone fails a squat, the lower back is to be blamed? This is pure non-sense. Plenty of people fail squats with tight, extended backs. Why would trainees with good programming fail squats by the way?

Ad 3. Not a lower body exercise? What about knee extension + hip extension during squats? The glutes, hamstrings and adductors aren't located at the lower back. I'd even call the squat a whole body exercise - nevermind calling it * just* a lower back exercise.

Ad 4. This is what really got me. A statement like this ignores basic physics. The kinetic chain starts from the floor, to the body and ends at the barbell. How/why would the lower back transfer force to the legs in the first place? And what happens according to him if this non-existing force transfer stops? How does the force miraculously reach the floor according to his weird kinetic chain?

Ad 5. I'm not sure what the concept of "maximum work capability" is, but there is no other exercise that trains as many lower body muscles as the squat. So I'd say that's a pretty good "maximum work capability".

In the rest of the video he seems to discuss how his trainees are more efficient with his 1-legged squat style. I was about to discuss it at length. But at mark 02:25 he mentions that the 1-legged squats are done above parallel. So I'm not going to waste any words on that.

[The_GOAT]

Can a 700 squatter do 350 one-legged? No. Could Kirk have done 500 one-legged? No. Therefore...

... greater loading is allowed over more muscle mass, making squats more useful?

As an addendum, perhaps a single leg squat as he had them perform required less coordination.

[Brian Harlin]

Can a 700 squatter do 350 one-legged? No. Could Kirk have done 500 one-legged? No. Therefore...

Therefore I call bullshit that these young men that can do 15 single leg reps at 115 cannot do 230 for 5. He does not test or prove this, he merely states this as if it is fact.

I would amend that to call further bullshit that they can't do 15 X 230.

[spacediver]

If his premise is true (lower back = bottleneck in 2 legged squat), then wouldn't making the legs stronger than the back can handle be dangerous in an athletic/ real life situation where force is generated by both legs against a resistance?

I also think he is vastly underestimating the amount of help the back leg is providing, as well as the impact of reduced depth (to give him credit, he at least acknowledges these factors, although he then dismisses them as being irrelevant).

4 to 6 weeks of training and they're lifting under 200 pounds. If he really wants to test his premise and approach, then let's see how strong he can develop these one legged squats.

The center of mass is also not the same as in a two legged squat, and likely even shifts throughout the rep. This does not present a stable situation where healthy technique can be developed for this movement. It's also unclear whether the lower back gets any significant work during his one legged squats, assuming the back can remain close to vertical throughout the rep. Isn't this a dangerous thing to ignore when preparing athletes for real life situations?

The inherent asymmetry in a one legged squat does not seem to bode well for healthy transmission of force up the pelvis and spine, and likely creates moment arms that will manifest in nasty ways once any significant weight is used. But then again, it's hard to imagine any significant weight being used in a one legged squat.

[Mark Rippetoe]

If his premise is true (lower back = bottleneck in 2 legged squat), then wouldn't making the legs stronger than the back can handle be dangerous in an athletic/ real life situation where force is generated by both legs against a resistance?

This is quite important.

[Anon321]

Can a 700 squatter do 350 one-legged? No. Could Kirk have done 500 one-legged? No. Therefore...

Pete Rubish does 405 for 5 and he doesn't squat 800. Not that this means anything, it's obvious how much help he gets from the other leg.

405 Pound Bulgarian Split Squats - YouTube

Watch until the end for adductor tear. Why the hell would anyone set the safety catches that much lower than needed?

[CJ Gotcher]

First off, this was Boyle's stand in 2009. Perhaps he's changed his position since then, but as a stand-alone statement, it's worth dismantling. There have been some great comments and insights here already, so I'm going to try to add something that's not already come up.

"The back-limited squat". As it is not an agonist, not only would we see the back fail in flexion as previously mentioned, but at its most direct, failure of the erectors to hold position could only force a failed squat by moving the bar forward of the mid-foot, creating a moment arm that the actual agonists can't handle, not because the back 'doesn't allow you to transfer any more force to your legs' (neurological nonsense). Numerous studies have evaluated the kinematics and EMG of squats and found that the concentric phase of the back squat involves as much or much quad activity as erector activity (Aspe et. al 2014) and plenty of other leg/hip activity to go along with it (Bryanton et. al 2014), but regardless of the research, why would you first assume a stabilizer mostly acting isometrically in every squat when this goes against coaching experience and common sense?

Comparisons between 1-legged squats and back squats: Mr. Boyle not only underestimated the effect of shorter ROM, extensive player practice (still weak) at the movement, and the assistance of the back leg, but the nature of the movement itself: Even in a perfectly performed split squat (back leg doesn't assist, balance stays on the midfoot of the foreleg), the glutes (a major contributing factor) cannot be isolated in their role. Instead of handling half the load with half the muscle, the lifter is handling half the load with more than half: the comparison is invalid from the start.

Execution of the test also left much to be desired. Instead of normalizing for knee angle, he normalized everyone to the same box height and saw no issue with this (claiming that it provided internal reliability even if you can't compare between athletes). However, he cannot even compare an athlete's split squat to his own squat if the depth standard is fudged for the split squat and maintained for the squat.

Validity of 15-rep test and comparison: Training in strength-endurance provides adaptations in that rep range, and tests above about 10 reps start to vary across training backgrounds/populations in their predictive value for absolute 1RM strength (Descorges et. al 2010). I imagine this would be especially true between an exercise they're practiced at (split squats) vice one they're not (squats). Karl made a good point that 15 is well into an aerobic range where 1/2 the weight does not equal 1/2 the required effort, but Mr. Boyle also fails to acknowledge that 15@130 is not even the same total systemic load as 15@260 regardless of the exercise. For the purposes of adaptation, even 30@130 does not provide the same training adaptation. If improving strength (and not just leg strength, a clumsy and false distinction) is the goal, mass matters.

Mr. Boyle admits (though he fails to see this as a confounding factor) that psychology and expected performance made a huge deal in his young athletes and they'd improve by leaps and bounds after seeing someone else hit a milestone. This does not suggest a reliable test of maximal capability.

Anomalies in general: None of his lifters had a serious bilateral strength discrepancy? I've seen it numerous times while working with an East Coast team: many of the lifters, on their first exposure to split squats, would be surprised by the difference in their leg performance (balance? strength? they weren't sure). Did Mr. Boyle's lifters demonstrate such perfect symmetry because they've been practicing it for 4-5 weeks? Or perhaps because they observe their peer group and know what they should be able to do? Either way, I'm skeptical.

What does this even mean: "We gave them a 100% load in the 65-70% range, so we can increase that load by 30% and they'd just be fine."

He seems to be impressed by his athlete's improvements, but the novice effect (since none of them are very strong, apparently) and learning how to do a balance-related lift will drive performance without a need for significant adaptation.

In addition to all the other comments made, almost every sentence in the video contains a false premise or invalid comparison. Sheesh.

[deeprooted]

"I don't think they could back-squat 230 for 5." Yeah, Science! So this is his argument? That he thinks they can't squat that much, so squats are inferior to 1 leg squats?

And he does realize that the distance the bar travels in his 1 leg squat is much shorter than on a back squat, does he?

This guy is quite hilarious actually. You're gonna love the "of course he is..." moments, but not that I want to spoil it:
Fitness Friday: A Refresher On Deadlifts: Fitness Friday: A Refresher On Deadlifts - YouTube

[MBasic]

How in the world do we then deadlift at all? . . . and most of us can dead quite a bit more than we can squat? Esp. novices . ..
(I suppose I should find the his video where he says not to deadlift either)