The belt's effect on the bottom of the low bar squat

[Gary Gibson]

City, this is because using the belt made your abs bigger and stronger and thus your ability to generate intra-abdominal pressure increased. Thus you are now better able to support the weight that used to give you trouble and some pain.

[Jake Galgon]

This happens NOT because your quads are weak and trying to avoid work, but because your hamstrings are too weak to hold the back angle by extending your hips against the resistance of the weight.

Not that I'm convinced you're wrong, but what's the argument that it's hamstring weakness rather than quad weakness? I remember reading an anecdote about how big-quadded guys stay buried in too-heavy front squats and posterior-biased guys dump them forward.

I've got a big posterior chain bias if the dl/squat/front squat ratios (or even visible muscle size) are any sort of measure, and losing back angle is one of the biggest problems for me on heavy squats. The hamstrings have to do more work eventually if the back angle flattens, no?

[Gary Gibson]

Not that I'm convinced you're wrong, but what's the argument that it's hamstring weakness rather than quad weakness? I remember reading an anecdote about how big-quadded guys stay buried in too-heavy front squats and posterior-biased guys dump them forward.

I've got a big posterior chain bias if the dl/squat/front squat ratios (or even visible muscle size) are any sort of measure, and losing back angle is one of the biggest problems for me on heavy squats. The hamstrings have to do more work eventually if the back angle flattens, no?

I used to say the same thing and then disagreed with Rip when he said hamstrings were the root. It's in SS and I've come to see why it is so.

It's easier for the hamstrings to do a good morning than it is for them to hold the back angle. Remember: even thought the back angle remains constant, the hips are actually opening up which is a function of the hamstrings. When the hip angle fails to open under the resistance from the bar, the hamstrings have failed to do their job.

[Raskolnikov]

I used to say the same thing and then disagreed with Rip when he said hamstrings were the root. It's in SS and I've come to see why it is so.

It's easier for the hamstrings to do a good morning than it is for them to hold the back angle. Remember: even thought the back angle remains constant, the hips are actually opening up which is a function of the hamstrings. When the hip angle fails to open under the resistance from the bar, the hamstrings have failed to do their job.

Might it be an either/or situation? Shooting the hips up without actually lifting the bar does put the quads in a more advantageous position, so I'm having trouble imagining what effect weak quads would have on a squat if not that. So maybe it's both: whether it's weak quads or weak hamstrings, getting the hips high without having to actually lift any weight enables the body to better compensate for a relative weakness.

[Jake Galgon]

I'm having trouble imagining what effect weak quads would have on a squat if not that.

Yeah, exactly. If someone halved your quad strength and asked you to squat, you'd basically have to good-morning the bar down, move your ass down to legal and then up again without actually moving the bar, and then good-morning it back up.

So maybe it's both: whether it's weak quads or weak hamstrings, getting the hips high without having to actually lift any weight enables the body to better compensate for a relative weakness.

Seems odd that either imbalance would have the SAME effect, since it should be transferring some of the load from one muscle group to the other, no?

[Raskolnikov]

Seems odd that either imbalance would have the SAME effect, since it should be transferring some of the load from one muscle group to the other, no?

I agree, it does seem counterintuitive; but, if Gary's analysis is correct, then it might just be that the hip and knee angles attained by shooting your hips up place both muscle groups in an advantageous position. I don't really know what the fuck I'm talking about, though -- just thinking out loud...

[OITW]

I remember reading an anecdote about how big-quadded guys stay buried in too-heavy front squats and posterior-biased guys dump them forward.

Not to quibble, but if IIRC, that was talking about lifters losing the C&J (or perhaps the snatch, my memory is foggy), that lifters trained in the low-bar squat seemed to have a more difficult time adjusting to keeping the bar and rising out of the deep clean. This was a post in one of the interminable Crossfit threads (2005?) about whether a low bar back squat was going to be helpful to Oly lifters, and Everett argued against it because the posterior chain doesn't play as strongly in contemporary Oly technique, while Rippetoe eventually dropped a single post explaining why he thought stronger was better and why the emphasis on technique over strength was why our US oly lifters weren't bringing home medals. Pendlay dropped a comment to the effect that strong is good, but the transition to the more quad-based Oly lifts is often very difficult for those trained in the powerlifting low-bar squat.

However, Pendlay was emphatic on one point: when asked in a follow-on comment whether someone should substitute a front squat or high-bar squat for the low-bar squat in SS, Pendlay said absolutely not, if you're going to do SS, then do SS.

And we know why. SS is to build strength, you can do the other squats when you've got the strength and are ready to specialize.

[Raskolnikov]

OITW, I'm not sure your point has anything to do with this discussion. Pendlay's post compared two athletes: one quad dominant, the other posterior chain dominant. The posterior chain dominant athlete was, according to Pendlay, quite a bit stronger than the quad dominant athlete; however, because the posterior chain dominant athlete tried to shift heavy loads to his posterior chain when the weight got too heavy, he would dump heavy cleans forward (as happens when you shoot the hips up with a load in the rack position). The quad dominant lifter, on the other hand, would get berried straight down in the hole (i.e., he would maintain a vertical back angle) when he missed.

No one is arguing about the merits of the low bar back squat; we are simply discussing the root cause of the hips shooting up in the absence of vertical bar movement: is it because of weak quads or weak hamstrings?

[OITW]

OITW, I'm not sure your point has anything to do with this discussion.... No one is arguing about the merits of the low bar back squat; we are simply discussing the root cause of the hips shooting up in the absence of vertical bar movement: is it because of weak quads or weak hamstrings?

IIRC, that is a theme of Everett's as well, that SS and Crossfit overemphasize the posterior chain to the quads. Jake's question was whether the failure to extend the hip to come out of the hole was a quad failure or a hamstring failure. That question was argued to death in the thread from which the Pendlay quote was drawn, back when there were a lot of strong lifters in Crossfit like Gant. Pendlay did not take a side in that argument, only noting that there is a challenge in the transition from PL to Oly, implying that weaker quads were part of the challenge. I didn't want Jake's invocation of Pendlay to imply that Pendlay a) advocated the weak quad argument for failure to extend the hip, or b) that Pendlay had any disagreement with SS and the low-bar squat. Pendlay may agree entirely with Everett in this argument, but he didn't state as much in that thread.

BTW, I know that Jake wasn't making that implication, either, but other readers might.

[drecar]

[QUOTE=Gary Gibson;94650]This happens NOT because your quads are weak and trying to avoid work, but because your hamstrings are too weak to hold the back angle by extending your hips against the resistance of the weight.

This means you can get away with leaning over so much that the barbell goes beyond the midfoot when the barbell is relatively light and thus do a good morning. When the barbell is really heavy, then you will lose it forward if you don't keep it balanced over the midfoot.

QUOTE]

thanks for sharing your wisdom Gary. recently i posted a form check which was declared as being good but my back angle changes in some of the reps. im wondering how to correct for this when my hamstrings are weak and tired?