Quarter Squats can't improve athletic performance

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

Hi Rip,

I confess I did not read the whole thread, so this might have already been posted, but a team from Frankfurt University published an article on the relation between squat depth and jumping performance.
I think they took three groups, and measured the standing jump og all memebers of each group.
They also measured the performance for the 1/4 squat, the parallel squat and the below-paralle squat.

Then, one group was assigned a program based on 1/4 squats, one a program of parallel squats and the third group a program of below-parallel squats.

After the program, the performances were measured again, for all members of all groups.
the results, if my memory serves me right, were that:

- the group who only trained 1/4 squats, improved their 1/4 squats but not much else
- the group doing below-parallel squats improved in ALL types of squats, AND in the jump, by the biggest margin.

Or, in the words of the authors:

“Our findings therefore contest the concept of superior angle specific transfer effects. Deep front and back squats guarantee performance-enhancing transfer effects of dynamic maximal strength to dynamic speed-strength capacity of hip and knee extensors compared to quarter squats.”



The title of the paper is:

Hartmann - Wirth - Klusemann - dalic - Matuschek & Schmidtbleicher

Influence of squatting depth on jumping performance.


Credit where it's due: I found the article mentioned here:
http://www.accademiaitalianaforza.it...goli-generici/


Hope this helps the debate.


IPB

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

Oh my god, some actually did the experiment. WHo would have thought?

[mangoose]

I forgot where I read this, but I've read that it's best NOT to train for a specific application, by lifting using the same motion or range of motion. Because that trains your body and neural system to perform the motion with a slower velocity (reverse plyometrics, perhaps?). Instead it is better to train the same muscles used in the application with a different motion, or range of motion.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I may have written that.

[mangoose]

I may have written that.

Yes, I thought that was you, but I wasn't sure. Good article!

[hbriem]

I forgot where I read this, but I've read that it's best NOT to train for a specific application, by lifting using the same motion or range of motion. Because that trains your body and neural system to perform the motion with a slower velocity (reverse plyometrics, perhaps?). Instead it is better to train the same muscles used in the application with a different motion, or range of motion.

This was pretty much a truism of exercise physiology/strength and conditioning research back when I was reading up on the subject in the early '90s.

The idea of training weighted versions of standard sport motions had been comprehensively tested and dismantled at that time. It might even be called the main conclusion of exercise science.

And yes, I'm sure Rip has come to the same conclusion through experience.

[tnumrych]

I may have written that.

You have written that in several places and I think Zatsiorsky also wrote something along those lines in Science and Practice of Strength Training. Now that I think of it, Siff may have as well.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yet PT-based "training" still pursues this silliness. Boggles the mind.