The squat and the hamstring

[Espen Lund]

Hi,

First of all, thank you very much for all the great content you put out there for us. I would probably have been doing bicep curls for sets of 12 if I hadnt come across your book.

My question:

The article below seems to disagree with you on the hamstring involvement in the squat. It is saying that the force from the hamstring is creating a moment about the knee joint that is working against the moment caused by the quads. This is, at least to my basic knowledge of mechanics, correct. Therefore, the author says that you should reduce the hamstring involvement at the bottom of the squat so you make it easier for the quads. So, basically, as vertical back as possible at the bottom of the squat.

I've tried to look for answers to this on the net with out luck. So the only answer I can come up with is this:

The increased moment arm to the knee joint by having a more vertical back adds more work to the quads than letting the hamstring act with greater force.

Am I thinking in the right lines? Are there other arguments for this?

Here's the article:

Link removed.

[Mark Rippetoe]

What about the moment arm at the hips? Are we bodybuilders, "doing quads"? Who do you know that front squats more than he squats? Why would you intentionally squat without a major posterior chain muscle group? This has been addressed before, and is no more interesting now.

[Bill Coyne]

You'll find the most thorough discussion of this topic here.

[unruhschuh]

I have said it before here:

Most theories put out by Rip are useful to explain why something works, but they are not suited to predict which exercise works better in the long run. He probably knew long before he thought up his theory about the involvement of the hamstrings in the low bar squat that it works best from experience.

Noone is able to measure the precise moments and forces during the squat, and even if we did, it probably wouldn't help much.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Most theories put out by Rip are useful to explain why something works, but they are not suited to predict which exercise works better in the long run.

Explain.

He probably knew long before he thought up his theory about the involvement of the hamstrings in the low bar squat that it works best from experience.

He did?

Noone is able to measure the precise moments and forces during the squat, and even if we did, it probably wouldn't help much.

As Rip has said many times.

[Kent Berry]

....Are we bodybuilders, "doing quads"?....

Though you removed the OP's link, I have to believe this is the source of the confusion. I recently read an old interview with Dorian Yates. He explained that since he had once tweaked his back doing barbell squats and they had never really done anything for his quads anyway, he preferred Smith Machine squats. Despite his accomplishments, he apparently didn't understand that squats are a hip and posterior chain movement.

[unruhschuh]

Most theories put out by Rip are useful to explain why something works, but they are not suited to predict which exercise works better in the long run.

Explain.

Let's assume we know everything about physiology. We know how to get strong, i.e. we have to lift progressively heavier weights. What we don't know, is which exercises to use and we have never done any of them. Now we are presented with the front squat (FS), the high bar back squat (HBBS) and the low bar back squat (LBBS), together with precise informations, which muscles contribute to the movement to what extent in each of them. We are also handed your principles:

1. The most muscle mass is used

2. over the longest effective ROM

3. so that the heaviest weights can be used

4. to get stronger.

If we were supposed to do only one of the squat variants and nothing else, we would probably select the HBBS, since it scores highest on all of the points. But once we introduce the Deadlift one could argue, that using the FS would work best in combination with the deadlift, since they complement each other. Sounds very reasonable and is logical. And wrong. How do we know? Did the theory predict this? We know this from experience.

Also press vs. push press: This to me is even more nuanced, as described in the other thread.

So if someone asks: "The push press uses more weight, so why do we use the press in SS?" We can try to explain why, but in the end: "We have tried them both and the press works better." actually trumps everything. Don't get me wrong, I think there is real value in finding out why, but we also have to consider the limitations of the theory.

I also don't think that we will someday find 4-5 new exercises, that according to your theory should work better than Squat, Deadlift, Bench, Press and Power Clean, and actually do. This would be the kind of prediction, that I think is not possible.

He probably knew long before he thought up his theory about the involvement of the hamstrings in the low bar squat that it works best from experience.

He did?

Did you? I would guess that it was a progress, where experience informed theory and vice versa.

It is a human trait to constantly ask "why?" and make up theories as we stumble through the world. This is how people came up with astrology, homeopathy, Rips theory of strength training, Newton's laws, general relativity and quantum physics. Some of them are more useful than others in predicting outcomes and some of them are wrong. Rips theory of strength training is not as wrong as astrology, but not as useful in predicting outcomes as Newton's laws.

astrology cannot explain anything and cannot make any predictions.
Rips theory of strength training can explain many things and make minor predictions.
Newton's law can explain many things and make very good predictions (as long as the scale is neither too small nor too large).

This turned out longer than I expected, and really is common sense anyway, one might expect. Then again, these questions come up repeatedly.

[Espen Lund]

What about the moment arm at the hips? Are we bodybuilders, "doing quads"? Who do you know that front squats more than he squats? Why would you intentionally squat without a major posterior chain muscle group? This has been addressed before, and is no more interesting now.

So thank you for your reply. I think my intent has been misunderstood, perhaps because english is not my mother language. So some things out of the way: `

1. I have read the SS book several times. I can't see this specific topic being discussed there. If so, please refer me to what page.
2. I am not trying to "disprove" the SS squat. I have squated enough to feel the difference between the various forms, and I do believe myself that the hamstring is getting worked.

Short backstory: I was discussing the squat with a friend who tends to slam his ass into his legs and drive his knees forward in the bottom of the squat. So I told him by not doing so, you would involve the hamstrings more. I know there are other reasons as well, but that is off topic. He says that "research has shown" that the hamstring is not that much used in the squat, and referred me to strengththeory.com where Greg N have several articles about the hamstring being the most overrated muscle in the squat.

What I am trying to do, is to get help with explaining to my friend why it is more mechanical efficient to involve the hamstrings more even tho more force from the hamstrings will make it harder for the knees to extend. What I can think of, is that the alternative, i.e. knees forward, is making it even harder for the quads to overcome equilibrium about the knee joint than "extra" hamstring force. Is this right, or are there other factors as well?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Let's assume we know everything about physiology. We know how to get strong, i.e. we have to lift progressively heavier weights. What we don't know, is which exercises to use and we have never done any of them. Now we are presented with the front squat (FS), the high bar back squat (HBBS) and the low bar back squat (LBBS), together with precise informations, which muscles contribute to the movement to what extent in each of them. We are also handed your principles:

1. The most muscle mass is used

2. over the longest effective ROM

3. so that the heaviest weights can be used

4. to get stronger.

If we were supposed to do only one of the squat variants and nothing else, we would probably select the HBBS, since it scores highest on all of the points. But once we introduce the Deadlift one could argue, that using the FS would work best in combination with the deadlift, since they complement each other. Sounds very reasonable and is logical. And wrong. How do we know? Did the theory predict this? We know this from experience.

Also press vs. push press: This to me is even more nuanced, as described in the other thread.

So if someone asks: "The push press uses more weight, so why do we use the press in SS?" We can try to explain why, but in the end: "We have tried them both and the press works better." actually trumps everything. Don't get me wrong, I think there is real value in finding out why, but we also have to consider the limitations of the theory.

I also don't think that we will someday find 4-5 new exercises, that according to your theory should work better than Squat, Deadlift, Bench, Press and Power Clean, and actually do. This would be the kind of prediction, that I think is not possible.




Did you? I would guess that it was a progress, where experience informed theory and vice versa.

It is a human trait to constantly ask "why?" and make up theories as we stumble through the world. This is how people came up with astrology, homeopathy, Rips theory of strength training, Newton's laws, general relativity and quantum physics. Some of them are more useful than others in predicting outcomes and some of them are wrong. Rips theory of strength training is not as wrong as astrology, but not as useful in predicting outcomes as Newton's laws.

astrology cannot explain anything and cannot make any predictions.
Rips theory of strength training can explain many things and make minor predictions.
Newton's law can explain many things and make very good predictions (as long as the scale is neither too small nor too large).

This turned out longer than I expected, and really is common sense anyway, one might expect. Then again, these questions come up repeatedly.

Maybe you're right.

I have read the SS book several times. I can't see this specific topic being discussed there. If so, please refer me to what page.

Perhaps we left it out. You're looking at the 3rd edition, right?

[jbackos]

About a year and a half ago I slightly strained my left hamstring going too deep on good mornings. The week after that, feeling good at the bottom of the third rep of a set of 5 squats, I felt a pop in my left hamstring.

If the hamstring did nothing in the squat, then logic says it wouldn't have popped right ? Since that happened, I read the type of stuff quoted in this thread and laugh my ass off.