Reply With QuoteGosh, the guy is a PT, after all. Maybe there's something to this.
Member
Partials.... Is there ever a need/benefit to them?
So I go to the gym with my work buddy and his PT. I do my version of SS NLP, they do standard gym stuff. Occasionally, the PT drops in some odd stuff that I would consider BS (deficit DLs when they aren't even doing normal DLs, Front Squats after about 10 sets so Back Squats etc.) but I keep myself to myself and let them get on with it.
The PT has an instagram physique and weighs about 180 at around 10% BF. Today, I saw him squat 297 high bar, ATG for a single (this was after doing 10 sets of leg extensions and curls and then a load of build up sets of squats). He has been "training" a long time but he's pretty much keto and refuses to eat so is obviously limiting his strength. My buddy is a firm novice and has frankly terrible numbers for his size.
The PT has introduced partial squats into his own routine. He sets the pins so that the depth is to about a 90 degree knee flexion when doing a high bar squat. Today, I saw him do sets of 5 of pretty solid partials at 350, 375, and the 395. Honestly, as silly as I thought the exercise was, I was impressed that he could even un-rack 395 and do the 5 partials.
I know that for more advanced trainees, you've recommended halting DL and rack pulls. Now, I've stated firmly to my buddy that these partials are BS and totally unnecessary for my buddy (5RM of about 225 at 240lbs) but for the PT and/or advanced lifters, is this type of squat variation prescribed?
(I've just realised that if it is, it is probably in the grey book but hey, I've written it now.....)
TMPHBITEU
Gosh, the guy is a PT, after all. Maybe there's something to this.
Member
This 90 degrees of knee flexion bullshit has recently become popular among the gym NPCs.
I believe a couple of ex fizz papers came out on the topic and were summarily misinterpreted by midwit Ph.Ds and Youtubers.
It is one of the most profound displays of ignorance of human physiology I have seen in a while.
Member
I'll blame Joel Seedman.Originally Posted by Yngvi
✓ Member
You should not be impressed with the level of strenth the PT is displaying.
That is not an advanced lifter. He would probably benefit from doing the Novice linear progression properly.
Member
Well this is exactly my understanding of the situation. The SS NLP is pretty clear in its direction and that can come across as dogmatic* but I'm often surprised at the amount of flexibility and nuance that comes out in intermediate and advanced training, and even novice training given certain individual constraints.
*Which I absolutely understand as a novice needs to just shut up and do the program. To mis-quote a recent SS Radio podcast "you haven't earned the right to do anything else yet"
Honestly, the stuff he comes out with that my buddy (and business partner) gobbles up is painful. They are both from a Crossfit background, which really doesn't help.
I listen to the SS Radio podcast every night, and it makes me laugh as they pretty much do all of the stupid shit that you mention. Some notable examples are:
"Pre-exhausting the muscles"
Volume, volume, volume
Pyramid and back off sets
3 sets of 8-12
"Leg day"
Every isolation exercise going
Keto/No carb
No rest days (even has a t-shirt with that on)
So anyway.... it sounds like I'd be correct in assuming these partials are silly bullshit, even for more seasoned trainees?
Member
It's all traceable back to one guy: Dr. Joel Seedman (PhD), who honestly has probably done more to help than to harm based on just how transparently full of shit he is. He has big reach on various short form video platforms and each one is accompanied by time-cube style rants about the "90 degree regime" he now trains under. Anyone who takes him seriously deserves whatever they get: the man is obviously a crackpot. I think ex. Phys programs often use "90 degrees" as their criteria for a "full squat", but this is probably more to do with not wanting to have to teach their study participants how to squat than with any actual opinion about the movement (since a 90 degree squat is basically what everyone is capable of executing when walking in the door)
The problem with partial squats is that, at the position of greatest "jerk" (change in acceleration), the forces on the knee are not balanced. As you move into the bottom of the partial squat, the forces on the knees change from the slightly mitigated forces opposed by knee extensors (applied by the weight pressing you down) to forces moving in the exact opposite direction, which causes a shear between the origin and attachment levers the muscle is connected to (the femur and the tibia). In a normal squat, those forces coincide with rapidly increasing forces from other muscles (the stretched adductors and glutes) such that the net shearing force between the femur and the tibia is very small, if not zero. The hamstrings, while not in a different position, are almost certainly not going to be engaged properly unless the trainee is working very carefully to ensure they are (and if they don't know how to full squat, they aren't).
It's a bit hysterical to glean from this that partial squats are "bad for your knees", but they aren't particularly GOOD for them, and your connective tissue doesn't really adapt to that kind of stress. The changing roles of the muscles at each point in the lift mean abbreviating the range of motion of the squat effectively transforms the lift in a way that isn't particularly helpful.
As an idle aside, it seems like your friend and his trainer are subject to the peculiar misperception that depth on the squat is somehow an adjustable parameter. An ATG squat is the "best range of motion" you can achieve. That's "good technique". So of course, a quarter squat is only a little worse. You'll "work on depth" to get from a quarter 395 squat to a full 395 squat. Obviously.
Posting Permissions