Scientifically: How do we know that squats are not bad for the knees?

[dtarrence]

Hey Rip, I'm currently in the process of trying to prove that deep, low bar squats are not bad for the knees. In SSBBT3 you go over this in the knees section of the squat chapter, stating that the hamstrings and quads balance each other out in a way that doesn't put shear force on the knee joint. But HOW do we know this to be the case? What are some good scientific studies I can read that show that the ratio of contractile strength between the quads, hams, gastrocnemius, and other small muscles involved balance in this way?

[Mark Rippetoe]

There are no such studies that I know of. Equally important question: Do you know of any studies that demonstrate conclusively that jumping out of a 10th floor window results in rapid deceleration injuries? HOW do we KNOW for a fact that it does? Without the studies?

[whale]

Science has became a meme on the internets. I just read a facebook post why everyone should do hip thrusts because Bret "the science guy" Contreras showed that hip thrusts are superior to squats based on surface EMG voltages.

These guys call themselves "scientifically driven" coaches and seems like their business model is making them decent money.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Analysis of the load on the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. - PubMed - NCBI

[Daniel Cavallari]

Through observation of reality, which also happens to be a big part of science, as it turns out.

[David A. Rowe]

Analysis of the load on the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. - PubMed - NCBI

Sully,

Has there ever been talk of a SSDB of articles/studies and biobliographic information made browsable/searchable and properly tagged? Because I would pay for this service. Subscription. Especially if SSCA and the science board had inputs/notes/conclusions associated with each.

[Matthew_888]

Hey Rip, I'm currently in the process of trying to prove that deep, low bar squats are not bad for the knees. In SSBBT3 you go over this in the knees section of the squat chapter, stating that the hamstrings and quads balance each other out in a way that doesn't put shear force on the knee joint. But HOW do we know this to be the case? What are some good scientific studies I can read that show that the ratio of contractile strength between the quads, hams, gastrocnemius, and other small muscles involved balance in this way?

Do you have any data that may indicates that the deep, low bar squats might be bad for the knees?

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Sully,

Has there ever been talk of a SSDB of articles/studies and biobliographic information made browsable/searchable and properly tagged? Because I would pay for this service. Subscription. Especially if SSCA and the science board had inputs/notes/conclusions associated with each.

I don't know if there's ever been talk of it, but I have often thought it is something I would really like to do. It would be useful.

The actual implementation would be a challenge.

You know. In all my spare time.

[dtarrence]

Analysis of the load on the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. - PubMed - NCBI

Thanks Dr. Sullivan,

after reading the abstract im definitely going to find a way to read the whole thing. I'm ultimately interested in deriving a biomechanical model for the purpose of comparing all knee, hip, and back angles with the resulting forces on the knee joint. I'm a physicist, so Im talking full blown free body diagrams, Newton's Laws, etc.

There are no such studies that I know of. Equally important question: Do you know of any studies that demonstrate conclusively that jumping out of a 10th floor window results in rapid deceleration injuries? HOW do we KNOW for a fact that it does? Without the studies?

Am I to infer that your referring to the fact that we simply know from experience that these things are so? That's fine. But I want to know WHY. I'm annoying like that.
Thanks for the reply.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I understand that you want to know why. I do too. But in the absence of peer-reviewed papers published in journals that make any sense at all, you're limited to a non-literature-based approach. Like I was. And I think the resulting explanation is pretty good. The ACSM hasn't refuted it.