Need help in defence of deep squats.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Good points, gentlemen, but let me add:

tyciol: I would disagree that the knees are more vulnerable and weak in the deep squat position, for the reasons that I kick to death in SS:BBT. The bottom of a squat is a much safer place for the knees to be than stuck somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 way down like the PTs all seem to think is the best place.

galapogos: Even though the studies you cite can easily be interpreted to absolve deep squats of responsibility for knee problems, the actual situation may remain incorrectly investigated. It is impossible to tell from these abstracts --and may in fact be impossible to determine be reading the full paper, I've seen it many times -- exactly how the "squats" used in the study were performed. If the investigators were unfamiliar with correct squat technique and failed to instruct the test subjects in proper use of the posterior chain and its effects on the distribution of forces between knees, hips, and lower back at the bottom of the squat, they STILL did not get a correct picture of the forces on the knee in a properly performed squat. How many times have you seen an academic ex.phys. guy teach correct squat technique? And might that not have a significant bearing on the results of his study?

The full squat is a perfectly natural position for the leg to occupy. That's why there's a joint in the middle of it, and why humans have been occupying this position, both unloaded and loaded, for millions of years. Much longer, in fact, than quasi-intellectual morons have been telling us that it's "bad" for the knees.

I'd actually enjoy, just one time, a detailed explanation of what exactly it is that deep squats are supposed to do that destroys the knees, and how exactly this works. Anybody ever had that explained to them in detail? I never have, and I'll bet you haven't either.

[galapogos]

Good point. I hadn't thought about that. I guess unless the study is supervised by a good strength & conditioning coach who has experience teaching the lifts properly, and/or we are able to see pictures of the squat being performed in the study, it would be hard to tell. Still, I think the leg extension part of the study would be valid, since it's kinda hard to perform a leg extension wrongly, or should I say correctly?

[Tuesday]

You can talk about whether or not your femur is parallel to the floor, which is why it makes sense to think about the hip joint and the top of the knee forming a line. The thighs are a big chunk of meet on top of the femur, so talking about them being parallel to the floor seems strange to me. When is a irregularly-shaped hunk of meat parallel to the floor? When some made-up tangent line to the top of the thigh is parallel? If so, why not just say that?

I didn't say that because the distinction isn't relevant here. Worrying about the convolutions of manifolds is unnecessary when all you need is a rough estimation of parallel.

I don't understand what you mean since to me squat strength levels are evaluated using a correct, deep squat, and an advanced athlete squatting his 1RM of 600lbs is not using less weight "relative to his strength levels."

I'm referring to the various depths defined in the study you linked to. You wanting to define squat depth in a correct and reasonable way is part of what's confusing you.

Let me rephrase the other part. Someone who can full squat 300 lbs will be able to parallel squat more than 300 lbs without actually being any stronger simply because they reduced the range of motion and improved leverage. Therefore the idea that a full squat necessarily produces greater shear force than a less-deep squat is bunk, because an athlete who full squats 300 lbs won't switch to 300 lb parallel squats, but rather might use 375 lb and put that much more shear force on the knee.

[JPOD]

Wow, sorry I have not had a chance to get in here and catch up on this thread! I actually was not sure if it would be addressed as when I thought about it later, I was worried I may have come across as immature in my question. I definitely have your book and am always learning alot from you Mark. After years of wasted effort, I really do feel I am making some great gains thanks to you. Thats why I was adamant to point out your valuable resources to these guys, as I felt they were steering new trainees wrong. Unfortunately I got the boot from the site from my efforts, so I guess you were correct in the first place. Can't really make people see what they don't want to. Also, thanks to everyone who has replied here. There is alot of good info and points of view that I am going to buckle down and read! All the best folks!