Low Bar Squat Critique

[Cheesepuff]

If you want to engage the most muscle mass over the longest range of motion, including the stretch reflex then you want to low bar squat.
If you engage more muscle mass and lift more weight you build more strength.
He is free to "not like it", and make silly posts. But no compelling case was made.

It's not like the quads are smoking a cigarette during a low bar squat, they are worked in balance with the posterior chain, a much stronger combination.

Strength is NOT whatever he want it to be to justify what he wants to do.

[Gerald Boggs]

I figure the primary purpose of criticizing Rip's methodology is to increase traffic to one's web sites. That's why I haven't visited the site, that and since Rip's methodology has worked for me, no reason to go looking elsewhere for information.

[Travis Reid]

The problem here, as is typical of many criticisms of Starting Strength, is that it discusses lifts in terms of “part development.” We are told in this critique that low bar squats are bad because it “comes at the expense of leg development.”

So let’s start with first principles—what the blue bloody hell does this even mean? Do the quads not have to extend the knee in a low bar squat? Do the hamstrings not have to perform their primarily isometric function? Do the adductors go quiet on a low bar squat but are destroyed, bro, on a high bar? As a general matter I pay no attention to claims if they don’t bother to define their terms in a way that I can understand.

As Starting Strength makes clear, we don’t care about “doing insert-body-part-or-muscle-group-here.” We care about maximizing our force production as an entire unit because that’s how we interact with our world. If that’s not your goal, then fine, do something else—but that’s our goal and why we program the way we do.

Love this post Brodie!

[Matt James]

A funny quote from another article on his website:

I wonder if that writer has actually slept with a woman.

Many living, breathing women prefer a muscular guy with a little belly. I'm not going to argue with them.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Probably not with a woman.

[PizzaDad]

I have an 880 lb box blade that needs to be massaged a bit to get it on the back of my tractor sometimes. I don't know what my quads look like when I'm pulling on it, but I am stronger than I was before LP. Next time I need to hook up one of the heavy implements on the farm, I'm gonna strip down and oil up first. I'll report back to let you know how that works.

[cshadyp]

According to his website, he's an ectomorph that did the Starting Strength program and got fat. His genetics are not good, so he can't get the physique he wants that will attract women.

[Michael Wolf]

According to his website, he's an ectomorph that did the Starting Strength program and got fat. His genetics are not good, so he can't get the physique he wants that will attract women.

Ya I was going to say I'm pretty sure the guy who runs that site is a weak little turd who didn't implement the program properly, ate like gangbusters and ignored the obvious feedback the mirror was giving him, and then got mad at Rip and now hates him forever and proselytizes against him at every opportunity using bro-speak.

Sad!

[k_kws]

It was slow at work and I was browsing their site out of morbid curiosity. The whole thing is absolutely depressing to look at.

Though I did come across this which made me chuckle:

Not Even Mark Rippetoe Had Those Stats Naturally
Rippetoe is a legendary man in the strength world. His best numbers are:
SQ: 622lbs/282.72kg (equipped)
BP: 396lbs/180kg
DL: 633lbs/287.72kg
The lifts were done in the 220lbs category... In case you are wondering, Rippetoe was not natty.

[Justin Smale]

I've fallen down the NattyorNot rabbit hole for the spectacle of watching the car crash that it is. He's basically BroScience without the humour.