Specificity for non-barbell sports

[Mark Jamsek]

Hi, Mark. I've recently completed my ASCA Strength & Conditioning level 1 accreditation and am now undertaking coaching of club level football as part of the practicum requirements to advance to level 2.

In some of the resource material provided I came across this:

Another practical example of the principle of specificity
in the selection of exercises, is the use of the squat
exercise by track and field athletes. This exercise is
very popular for many athletes in sport dominated by
lower body strength and power, however often the
actual depth of the squat is a cause of controversy. The
load used during a full squat tends to be limited by the
force generation capabilities of the body between the
knee angles of approximately 95 to 115 degrees
(McLaughlin et al, 1977). Once through this region,
which is commonly referred to as the ‘sticking region,
the lift is relatively easily completed, in fact towards the
end of the exercise, with approximate knee angles of
140 to 180 degrees, the forces applied by the lifter
against the bar are reduced, as the bar simply coasts to
the final position. However, the force-generating capac-
ity of the body over this range of motion (140 to 180
degrees) is at least one and one half times as great as
that produced at the more flexed position (95 to 115
degrees). Consequently, during the top range of motion
of the full squat the leg and hip extensor musculature
are not overloaded to anything like their full potential.
However, it is during this range of motion (knee angles
of 140 to 180 degrees) that most athletes need to
produce high force levels in their events Consequently
to maximise their training gains, most athletes should
perform a half squat motion, preferably in a power rack,
with substantially more weight than they can use for a
full squat. Therefore, based on the force profiles
involved in the movements, full squats can be
considered non-specific to the leg action of many
athletic events, while half-squats, with substantially
more load than used in full squats, can be considered
to be more specific. As an aside to this discussion on
specificity, it should be noted that the performance of
heavily loaded deep full squats can stretch the cruciate
ligaments of the knee joint making this joint unstable-
Hence their use in training should be fairly limited.

This somewhat contradicts my possibly flawed understanding of a couple things. First the forces on the knee joint, but also the reduced force production over the whole range of motion. I don't know if my understanding is wrong, or if their data is outdated.

I'm not certain if I should program half-squats into the program for these athletes. Bearing in mind these guys aren't professionals, and most can TnG/bounce (ass off the) bench more than, or as much as, they can full-squat.

I know you have a really good understanding of biomechanics and dynamic correspondence so I have a few questions:

1. Should I have high-bar or low-bar squats as the primary squat movement? (We have a lot of posterior chain development through a variety of pulls--deadlifts, clean high pulls, RDL, cleans, snatch grip SLDL--and GHD)
2. Should I include half-squats at the expense of full-squats?
3. Should full-squats be the primary movement with half-squats secondary or even supplemental, or the inverse?
4. Or are jump squats, and skill set work sufficient to address the components of speed-strength in the mimicry of movement on the field?

I also need to submit an article on a topic of my choice as part of the requirements for level 2 accreditation. With the relative infancy of sports science and the controversy surrounding this topic in particular I think it would make a good article: Barbell specificity in competition mimicry.

I understand you have a very strong opinion on this subject, and I would like to cite some of your research in my article, with your permission of course. You're a leading coach in the field of strength training and have decades of experience with a variety of athletes. If you could elaborate and explain your position, which contrasts much of the (outdated) data available, it would help me better articulate the inefficacy of barbell specificity in competition mimicry, and hopefully allow me to convince some of the coaches I'm working with to make some programming adjustments. Given the obstinate disposition of most coaches I'm sure you're aware of how this can be quite difficult.

I appreciate your time, and look forward to your future publications.

[Mark Rippetoe]

As an aside to this discussion on
specificity, it should be noted that the performance of
heavily loaded deep full squats can stretch the cruciate
ligaments of the knee joint making this joint unstable-
Hence their use in training should be fairly limited.

This, and every other question in this post, has been dealt with in detail in the book and on this board enough times that it pisses me off that you have posted it here. The half-squat shit is old research and has been refuted many times, even in the exercise "science" literature. So,

http://startingstrength.com/resource...030#post529030

Use the SEARCH FUNCTION. Don't just jump in here without doing YOUR PART of the job, if you want to know more about what we do.

[JM3]

It was funner when you were a dick for no reason instead of legit reasons, now I just look on in embarrased silence...

[Mark Jamsek]

I've searched the forum for your posts regarding half-, and full-squats for athletic performance--the snippet you quoted being peripheral and all but irrelevant to my post or the entire abstract I quoted--and found many posts unspecific to my questions posed. I understand your position is that strength is general, regardless of its application in athletic performance, and in any of the number of the search results returned I haven't come across your narrative of low-bar, parallel squats translating to better athletic performance for footballers. I'm familiar with the conflicting data--including what you alluded to with the snippet quoted, which I already mentioned--and that coaches select whichever study supports their opinion. I was interested in your experience with training athletes, footballers in particular, and any data you'd accumulated over the years to support your opinion. Fmax is higher with the heavier load in the top range of motion with half-squats, which more accurately mimics on-field performance, so I've been told. Yet I've read you state that not training the range of motion doesn't strengthen the range of motion regardless of the muscular contraction undergoing the same contractile process. Is the compromise of reduced strength in the least used range of motion for more force production in the most used motor pattern in competition worthwhile? Are other compensatory movements combined with half-squats more conducive? Many pro-level coaches believe so.

I'll continue reading through the search results and try different parameters, but I thought a quicker approach would be to ask you for an explanation of your belief instead of sifting through the many unrelated posts, and a few, I've just read, from yourself of the same nature as your response in this thread. If I'd known you were so irascible I wouldn't have asked. At least you can make another, "Was I actually rude? You get to decide." thread. Cheer up, it's not all that bad.

he half-squat shit is old research and has been refuted many times, even in the exercise "science" literature.

So half-squats for sprinters, running backs, prop forwards, and athletes in general have been "refuted many times" in the "exercise science literature"? Professional athletes and coaches have eliminated it from their programs? I better notify the ACSA. Thanks.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'll continue reading through the search results and try different parameters, but I thought a quicker approach would be to ask you for an explanation of your belief instead of sifting through the many unrelated posts, and a few, I've just read, from yourself of the same nature as your response in this thread.

Yes, it would be quicker if I did it for you. Perhaps you could start by reading the book, and then reading Sully's ExSci lit review for 2013.

So half-squats for sprinters, running backs, prop forwards, and athletes in general have been "refuted many times" in the "exercise science literature"? Professional athletes and coaches have eliminated it from their programs?

The two are unfortunately unrelated.

[Mark Jamsek]

Yeah, it would. You should see how many different results are returned and how many threads are filled with meandering chatter.

I don't know who Sully is, or where to source his/her review. I just recalled reading your opinion either in one of your books or on this forum in a discussion on sprinters, and I found your strength training resources beneficial so decided your input on this would be too. If you could link me to Sully's review, and these studies you prize proving the inefficacy of partial squats for athletes which coaches seem to ignore that would be helpful, and appreciated. There is a lot of poor research, perhaps you're aware of more pertinent, controlled studies than I am. Anecdote seems to indicate pretty high performance levels with such poor training protocols.

I was anticipating your narrative of low-bar, parallel squat translating to improved athleticism superior to partial squats for my article in particular. Regarding the coaching I think I'll program high-bar squats as the primary movement with posterior development targeted by other movements.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yeah, it would. You should see how many different results are returned and how many threads are filled with meandering chatter.

Kind of like this one, eh?

I don't know who Sully is, or where to source his/her review. I just recalled reading your opinion either in one of your books or on this forum in a discussion on sprinters, and I found your strength training resources beneficial so decided your input on this would be too. If you could link me to Sully's review, and these studies you prize proving the inefficacy of partial squats for athletes which coaches seem to ignore that would be helpful, and appreciated. There is a lot of poor research, perhaps you're aware of more pertinent, controlled studies than I am.

The future of the industry is in the hands of lazy kids like this. You don't know who Sully is because you are waiting for someone to tell you. Search the goddamn forum. Start with the ARTICLES. SULLIVAN.

Anecdote seems to indicate pretty high performance levels with such poor training protocols.

No. Anecdote correlates high performance levels with exceptional genetics IN SPITE OF poor training protocols, as you will see once you have read more from non-academic sources, like this one, which you claim to respect highly but have not yet read for some reason that escapes me.

I was anticipating your narrative of low-bar, parallel squat translating to improved athleticism superior to partial squats for my article in particular. Regarding the coaching I think I'll program high-bar squats as the primary movement with posterior development targeted by other movements.

Squats -- of any type -- do not build athleticism. They build strength, with contributes to an athlete's performance.

[Mark Jamsek]

Kind of like this one, eh?

I wouldn't have thought someone your age, with your experience would indulge in such wasteful banter when you could have articulated your position in half the time.

The future of the industry is in the hands of lazy kids like this. You don't know who Sully is because you are waiting for someone to tell you. Search the goddamn forum. Start with the ARTICLES. SULLIVAN.

I'm not a kid, nor lazy. Quite the opposite of both presumptions. And yeah, that's sort of what happens when someone references an unknown, non-authority on a subject of discussion. You cite your source; usually full name. Even well known professors and coaches such as Dr Mel Siff and Charlie Francis aren't normally referred to informally as "Mel" or "Charles" when referenced. I should have guessed your source was another forum member, albeit an MD. How many elite athletes has he coached? Studies conducted? I thought you were referencing some authority on exercise science. Not some pal who jumped on the SS bandwagon to fight the good fight.

No. Anecdote correlates high performance levels with exceptional genetics IN SPITE OF poor training protocols, as you will see once you have read more from non-academic sources, like this one, which you claim to respect highly but have not yet read for some reason that escapes me.

I see. It's genetics that separate the professional athletes from the rest of us. Despite the data suggesting that the best of the elite athletes normally don't have the best 40 yard dash, max squat or bench, or highest CMJ, and often those that do aren't even mentioned with the elite, and sometimes don't even make it pro. All the improvements in world records across a variety of sports of different disciplines are because our genetics are somehow improving, not because of the advance in exercise science, training modalities and programming. The Soviets just got lucky when incorporating plyometrics and sport-specific mimicry with resistance training when they left the US for dead. Sounds about right. So all a coach has to do is read this forum, ignore the scientific literature and they'll elicit better performances from their athletes? I need to make some phone calls, the press has to hear this.

Squats -- of any type -- do not build athleticism. They build strength, with contributes to an athlete's performance.

I'm not sure if you read this after you wrote it. Squats improve athletic performance. You just said it. If they didn't contribute to improved performance, what are you advocating improving strength for? Size?

Athleticism depends on the physical qualities of speed, strength and endurance; the different energy systems: anaerobic (ATP/CP & lactic) and aerobic with dominance depending on the sport. Speed-strength and all its components: starting strength; explosive strength; and reactive strength being the dominant strength quality, which effects speed.

We can disregard the energy systems, to a point, in the context of this thread and focus on speed-strength. Which I gather you believe is most efficiently obtained--in regards to hip musculature--through the low-bar, parallel squat-not partials. Yet partials produce higher Fmax and sport mimicry. Both factors which directly influence on-field performance.

Hence, squatting--like any specific resistance exercise--is a tool implemented to improve athletic performance. You place your squat above partials, where data and empirical evidence suggest otherwise. Poor data? Perhaps. Out of context observations? Maybe. Genetics? Right. How many coincidences? A few.

I'm not in disagreement with you. In fact a lot of your postulations are congruent with my beliefs. I only made the thread in order to request an explanation of your belief. If you can't articulate your years of experience and observations, or simply don't want to, that's fine. Resorting to ad hominem and making presumptuous remarks in an effort to achieve...nothing, is somewhat immature, yet resembles that of bitterness too. You seem really defensive, unhappy, and unable to provide any conclusive evidence of what you believe.

Surely with genetics being the predicating factor phenotyping at least would have such data to demonstrate the prevalence of certain gene expressions resulting in superior athleticism. And where is the data suggesting that elite athletes with unfavourable genetics performing optimal training modalities still come up short against genetically predisposed athletes who follow suboptimal training programs? Or are hypotheses enough without proof these days?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I really couldn't care less if partials proved as useless as Crossfit and paleo eating to get stacked and ripped. And if low-bar, parallel squats actually are the holy grail for improving an integral component of athleticism. But to discredit so many great coaches, and decades of results with continued record breaking performances with the coaching you disregard needs backing, which I'm asking for, but you can't provide.

Anyway, you've proved about as useful as you believe partials to be in eliciting performance improvement for athletes. I'm sorry I had the bright idea of questioning a strength coach on strength training for athletic performance. Crazy, right. I'm sure that research is just around the corner now. How long have you voiced your postulations for now? Any day, Mark. Any day now. Keep your head up. Elite athletes will be ringing your cell in no time.

[JM3]

Hey Mark. Ill give you 100 bucks if youll write my science paper for me. Lets start with a question i couldnt find anywhere on the binding of your book : " are high bar half squats good for building athleticism not predicated on strength?"
bear in mind- Im not talking about advanced trainees.

Geez, you mad bro?

[Mark Jamsek]

The whole premise is on force production through a sport specific range of motion, hence strength is the predicate, albeit in a motor pattern more conducive to on-field performance (don't forgot the SAID principle and the neural component of biomechanic efficiency). I'm not sure what your intentions are, but if you're really interested I'll forward you a copy of my article when it's finished. Only it's actually about the inefficacy of specificity in competition mimicry, which comports with Mark's belief.

Here's an idea: Build your leg and back strength up with leg presses, GHD, and GMs. All testable methods capable of displaying improvements in strength. And all trainable movements working the same muscle groups used in the low-bar squat. Do this for 5 weeks, and do not perform your low-bar comp. squat during this time. Then test your 1RM low-bar squat. Tell me what happened.

I'll speak to you in 5 weeks. Perhaps by then Mark has managed to articulate something more than,

History tells us what works in the gym, and everything else walks down the road with a carrot in its ass.

Which is remarkably ironic.

Yes, I'm infuriated. Very mad. My BP must have spiked to 220.