starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Incorrect moment diagram in squat article?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    9

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    How do you figure? Are you suggesting the forces across the patella are independent of the load on the barbell? The quads exert the same force getting off the privy as in a #405 lbbs?
    If you consider the foot to be its own linkage attached to the shank by the ankle, then the normal force and its resulting moment would be applied on the foot and the shank would only experience internal moments which was my interpretation of the diagram.That's why this diagram is confusing. It considers the foot and shank to be one single rigid link -- thereby allowing the normal force to produce an external moment on the knee.

    Of course the forces across the patellar are dependent on the load, but those are internal forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    If the lifter was sitting and leaned over with a barbell on his back, yes; he is standing, however.

    Newton always governs; the moments sum to zero at this snapshot in time.

    The hip, knee, and ankle joints are not hinges in this case. Because the lifter is trying to move the barbell in space in a controlled manner, there is moment across each joint down to ground.

    Remove the back segment and load the femur directly, which is what the drawing above does. The load from the barbell is transmitted down the back, through the hip, and into the femur, producing the moment at the knee as denoted.

    Do the free body and moment diagrams and you’ll see how it all works out.
    Well that's just blatantly wrong. The moments most definitely do not sum to zero. Besides I don't even know what you mean by sum? Across a single joint? Because you cannot sum moments across different axes.

    Even across a single joint it's obvious there is a net moment --> there's a non-zero angular acceleration and M = I * alpha.




    Everything that I'm reading in these replies is worse than the original diagram -- which is only correct under the assumption the shank and the foot form a rigid linkage and these assumptions are not clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by jhoyda View Post
    Start here:Engineering Statics — Open Learning Initiative

    You don't need an account to review the material.
    This is kinematics not statics.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Draw the diagram correctly for us.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Draw the diagram correctly for us.

    I would draw it like this: diagram.jpg

    Your diagram isn't wrong, just confusing.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Of course the forces across the patellar are dependent on the load, but those are internal forces.
    Exactly, an internal moment across the knee joint caused by the external force of the loaded barbell...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    2,285

    Default

    For those of us with a shitty understanding of physics, is the OP saying that because regardless of where on the back the bar sits, the only force known to the femur is whatever force exerted at he hip joint? Therefore (according to the OP), there is no moment arm on the femur other than the forces of the hip joint (or knee joint, looking at it fronm the other side)? Im trying to follow this discussion....

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by me80iq View Post
    This is kinematics not statics.
    Oh really?

    What happens out of the hole? The hips and knees begin to extend, shortening the distance of each from the vertical line centered over the mid-foot. A reduction in distance results in a reduction of moment.

    Of what use is studying these transient cases in which the moment is less than the maximum that occurs at the very bottom of the squat?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Atlantic Beach, FL
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by me80iq View Post
    This is kinematics not statics.
    No, it's not...we are concerned with the Forces / Torque / Moments present during an instant in time, which is what the diagram is illustrating.

    Kinematics: the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.

    Statics: the branch of mechanics that is concerned with the analysis of loads (force and torque, or "moment") acting on physical systems that do not experience an acceleration (a=0), but rather, are in static equilibrium with their environment.

    Dynamics: the branch of mechanics concerned with the study of forces and their effects on motion. (a does not = 0)

    You might find this hard to believe, but a number of us SSCs have backgrounds in Engineering or Physics. This material has been scrubbed, discussed, argued over, etc.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by me80iq View Post
    Your diagram isn't wrong, just confusing.
    Ah. I thought you said it was "incorrect." English, definitions, synonyms, etc. Yours is, of course, much more clear.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    So, for the edification of the layman (such as myself)... the descriptor provided in the diagram is statics. What would it be if you calculated the moment, leverage, torque and compression on each joint for a period or instance of the movement?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Who cares, David? The diagram is designed to show you that moment force is calculated from the gravity vector, that there are 2 points of rotation on either end of the thigh and the shank, and that there are therefore 2 moment arms on each of these segments, the lengths of which can be manipulated by your position/technique to variously affect the muscle groups that operate the moment arms. Does it do that? I didn't write an engineering book because I'm not that smart. I was trying to illustrate a concept. Did I succeed?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •