Box squats

[Jeff LC]

I (since I can't speak for them) would assume they would say that utilizing the stretch reflex isn't essential for getting the benefits of squatting. I don't know if that is a true statement or not; they are strong dudes who seem to be doing something right.

depends what you define as the "benefits of squatting". Here, it is define singularly as a method to get strong.

utilizing the stretch reflex is essential for lifting as much weight as you can. And lifting as much weight as you can is essential for getting as strong as you can. So if the intended benefit of the squat is to increase strength as much as possible, then yes, the stretch reflex is essential for getting that benefit, because it allows you to lift the most weight which is what makes strenght.

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

What is hard is to deny the simple logic here. Box squats are performed at about 75% of the RM for unpaused squats, because of the removal of the stretch reflex. One cannot achieve 95% of his strength potential by doing an exercise that permits only 75% of his potential force production. GF or not, you cannot get as strong on box squats as you can with squats, because you cannot squat as much weight using them.

But if one can always squat more than they can box squat, as their box squat increases, so does the regular squat. A GF who can 1RM 600 pounds on the box, and is skilled enough at using the stretch reflex is going to be able to go the rack and regular squat significantly more without the box. It's not completely unreasonable to hypothesize that doing box squats for genetic outliers can make them very, very strong, nearly as strong as if they used the SS squat.

[atw_abn]

But, they gave it as a reason for why they don't need to squat, which seems to imply that indeed they are saying that, no?

Like, "we don't regular squat because nothing in our jobs utilizes the stretch reflex from a normal squat".. that means that the fact they don't utilize that percise movement in their jobs is the reason why they don't think they should need to do the exercise. You're not squatting to practice the stretch reflex.. but their opinion seems to imply that they believe that, and since they don't need that practice, they therefore don't need to squat.

The point is just that it's the best way to lift heavier and get stronger. The stretch reflex is part of what allows that to be the case; it is not the thing we are practicing. It's the mechanism by which we practice it.

I've talked with these guys (as of this morning) and this is what I got from them:

1. The motion of squatting is important.

2. Full ROM squatting is important.

3. They believe box squatting is easier to recover from and less likely to result in injuries than the squatting method described in SS.

4. They believe box squatting gets them strong enough to accomplish the strength requirements of their job.

5. They believe it is possible that squats as described in SS would allow more weight to be moved, but that it would negatively affect their ability to train other necessary conditioning requirements and that the benefit would not justify the potential risk of injury. And they don't care how much they squat as much as how well they perform at their jobs.

Not sure I agree 100% with all of this. I also don't think it's necessarily true that they are all genetic freaks. I know for sure that they don't care what anyone on this board thinks about the subject either.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'd have to agree with their analysis, whether they care or not.

[atw_abn]

I'd have to agree with their analysis, whether they care or not.

Just to clarify, I mean that they aren't interested in debating the subject, not that they are jerks.

I appreciate everyone's input. Needless to say, I haven't been converted. I'll just keep squatting and not owrry about a box

[atw_abn]

Just to clarify, I mean that they aren't interested in debating the subject, not that they are jerks.

I appreciate everyone's input. Needless to say, I haven't been converted. I'll just keep squatting and not owrry about a box

*Edit: worry, not owrry

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Just to clarify, I mean that they aren't interested in debating the subject, not that they are jerks.

I appreciate everyone's input. Needless to say, I haven't been converted. I'll just keep squatting and not owrry about a box

Sounds like they know what they are doing and are meeting their goals. I thought this discussion stopped being about them and more about the general concept of getting stronger pretty quickly after the thread began.

[Mark Rippetoe]

That was my assumption.

[Jeff LC]

I've talked with these guys (as of this morning) and this is what I got from them:

1. The motion of squatting is important.

2. Full ROM squatting is important.

3. They believe box squatting is easier to recover from and less likely to result in injuries than the squatting method described in SS.

4. They believe box squatting gets them strong enough to accomplish the strength requirements of their job.

5. They believe it is possible that squats as described in SS would allow more weight to be moved, but that it would negatively affect their ability to train other necessary conditioning requirements and that the benefit would not justify the potential risk of injury. And they don't care how much they squat as much as how well they perform at their jobs.

Not sure I agree 100% with all of this. I also don't think it's necessarily true that they are all genetic freaks. I know for sure that they don't care what anyone on this board thinks about the subject either.

well, there you have it. The point of this book, this program, this board, and this community, is not to get "strong enough" to adequately perform job duties. It is to get stronger, continuously. And then get stronger after that.

[Jeff LC]

I've talked with these guys (as of this morning) and this is what I got from them:

1. The motion of squatting is important.

2. Full ROM squatting is important.

3. They believe box squatting is easier to recover from and less likely to result in injuries than the squatting method described in SS.

4. They believe box squatting gets them strong enough to accomplish the strength requirements of their job.

5. They believe it is possible that squats as described in SS would allow more weight to be moved, but that it would negatively affect their ability to train other necessary conditioning requirements and that the benefit would not justify the potential risk of injury. And they don't care how much they squat as much as how well they perform at their jobs.

Not sure I agree 100% with all of this. I also don't think it's necessarily true that they are all genetic freaks. I know for sure that they don't care what anyone on this board thinks about the subject either.

So above, you said "they don't think it is necessary for them to do what is required at their jobs" and someone said "that is not why we squat.." you said "i didn't say that, and i don't think they would say that either"..

But, per their arguments you listed above, that is, in fact, exactly why they squat. But that's not why we squat. So, problem solved