Why Mark is wrong about squat Variations

[A Schenck]

BODY POSITION should be the talking point. Whether its safety bar squat, front squat, low bar squat, or anything else you can imagine, the only thing that should be of any importance is the body position of that lifter throughout the movement. I argue that low bar squat is not a superior variation to all other forms some individuals might benefit from other variations where they can achieve superior body position...
My point is that this happy medium is not ALWAYS the low bar position, which SS argues.

Cool... Please define a squat model based on body position that is appropriate for a novice trainee interested in general strength. That's the hill you've choose to fight on, so give us a definition to play with. How do you think we should judge correct body position when coaching?

[catkeson]

Marenghi

Thank you. Your argument makes sense. After all even plate height is arbitrary. if 45lb plates had been designed to have a smaller diameter then all our norms would be different. Great points about the deadlift.

A SChenck
No A SCHenck that's not my hill. I don't train novices, nor am I a novice. I'm just pointing out that starting strength is wrong in stating that low bar squats are the superior variation in all cases. It was my impression that starting strength was a book intended to reflect the truth, but you are implying that it is designed for practicality. If that is the case, then we can all agree that SS must be oversimplified in some regards and that I am probably right about my point.

I don't have to define a squat model. It is enough to say that some people will benefit from a high bar position. That is all that is necessary to disprove SS since it claims that everyone should be using the low bar variation.

[Fulcrum]

The lower the bar, the shorter the effective torso length which leads to more horizontal back angle requiring more hip mobility and increased strain on the back etc. At some point the bar will be too low. If the bar can be too low and it can be too high (front squat), then there must be some happy medium in the middle. My point is that this happy medium is not ALWAYS the low bar position, which SS argues.

The lever is shorter but the angle is greater, its a wash.

The hip mobility thing could be a thing, but barely.

High bar is tricky with long femurs.

[Marenghi]

Marenghi

Thank you. Your argument makes sense. After all even plate height is arbitrary. if 45lb plates had been designed to have a smaller diameter then all our norms would be different. Great points about the deadlift.

Of course, its completely arbitrary. If you dont compete, both training and measuring your progress with an arbitrary setup is not necessary.

That reminds me of the popular flexibility test of reaching the ground with your fingers and straight legs. Well, that measures arm and leg length as well as hip and hamstring flexibility. And thats why surgeons dont do it - they measure hip flexion directly. Why should you restrict yourself then to an arbitrary measurement and training of hip flexion and extension in the deadlift?

[Satch12879]

I'd read up on what an ad hominem fallacy actually is: There is a big difference between arguing against a point and arguing against the person making the point. Please read your comment again and use your brain to try and figure out which of the two you did. After that, look up the definition of ad hominem so you can learn from your mistakes.

Hilarious. I, as well as others, did argue against the point.

"We received no follow up on any corrections you received, particularly from a SSC. And now you return thinking you've made some conceptual breakthrough, which is just your advocacy for the so-called "high bar" squat."

I made a follow up to appease you. I told you about my numbers, technique, and health. None of this has anything to do with my point (again general vs personal argument) but since you have a hard time with this concept I decided to give you a personal follow up anyway. Pointless rhetoric aside, I am not advocating the "so-called high bar squat" (why can't you just say high bar squat?). I am stating that bar position should not be the starting place for any squat discussion, BODY POSITION should be the talking point. Whether its safety bar squat, front squat, low bar squat, or anything else you can imagine, the only thing that should be of any importance is the body position of that lifter throughout the movement. I argue that low bar squat is not a superior variation to all other forms some individuals might benefit from other variations where they can achieve superior body position.

Again, my point stands. We don't know you from Adam, and we don't know your history other than you were doing the movement incorrectly, aggravated a past injury, and then never gave anyone a response after you were offered notes on how to fix your form issues. This is a refrain that has been heard many times before around here. But the point is, you blame the movement, which has been performed by thousands of people without issue and many with the same symptoms that you claimed.

Now, as that has been dispensed with, would you mind defining what a "superior body position" is? You keep stating this but never defining what you mean. It's making it hard for you to successfully argue your point beyond mere assertion. The SS model of the squat defines several markers, including, but not limited to bar position on the back, position of the center of mass in relation to the middle of the foot, back angle relative to ground, shin angle relative to ground, knee position relative to the toes, location of knees in relation to the feet, position of the femurs, spinal position, etc. All of these add up to recruit the most muscle mass over the greatest effective range of motion to move the most weight to get the trainee stronger. What do you have other than a vague notion of superior body position?

"As for your argument, it's essentially that different anthropometries produce different diagnostic angles across individuals. That's not a new idea. Moreover, this inescapable and completely recognized fact means that there is no one set of "body positions" that applies to everyone. Back angle is different. Shin angle and knee position is different"
YES you are so close! All this stuff is different, so why is SS advocating the SAME variation for ALL lifters. You are so close to understanding my point. Sleep on it tonight and get back to me tomorrow.

Do you understand what a model is? Do you understand what the SS analysis of the lift says? Do you know the anatomical guide markers that are used in performing and coaching the movements? There are enough variation between the three form of squats that differences in anthropometries can't discount. And I'm done with this conversation today.

"Getting the bar lower on your back? It probably would help, but it can't be done anatomically. Kirk Karwosky said as much, i.e., if he could get the bar lower on his back, he expected his squat number to go up."
I think you are trying to say that lower is always better, which is not the case. The lower the bar, the shorter the effective torso length which leads to more horizontal back angle requiring more hip mobility and increased strain on the back etc. At some point the bar will be too low. If the bar can be too low and it can be too high (front squat), then there must be some happy medium in the middle. My point is that this happy medium is not ALWAYS the low bar position, which SS argues.

Why is any of this a problem? A lower bar position on the back means a smaller moment against the hips that has to be overcome by the lifter. This means that a greater weight could be lifted, not accounting for engagement of any musculature. Hip mobility is not an issue as people do good mornings all the time with a hugely horizontal back without problem. Stress on the back is a desired effect that is trained for, incrementally loaded, and adapted to, if not the lift isn't successful. By the way, strain is a measure of relative deformation of a rigid body. I'd recommend a good mechanics text. The position of the bar, as stated, is limited by anatomical considerations.

No A SCHenck that's not my hill. I don't train novices, nor am I a novice. I'm just pointing out that starting strength is wrong in stating that low bar squats are the superior variation in all cases.

Pointing out but not supporting that assertion with any kind of analysis.

It was my impression that starting strength was a book intended to reflect the truth, but you are implying that it is designed for practicality.

It's a technical manual, nothing more, nothing less.

If that is the case, then we can all agree that SS must be oversimplified in some regards and that I am probably right about my point.

No. You don't get to throw your arms up in the air and say, "ha ha! I'm right."

I don't have to define a squat model.

Yes you do.

It is enough to say that some people will benefit from a high bar position. That is all that is necessary to disprove SS since it claims that everyone should be using the low bar variation.

This is called "begging the question." You use a conclusion as a premise with which to argue a claim.

Can a long femured lifter stay balanced over midfoot with the bar resting in the low bar position?

Indeed. Joe.

[A Schenck]

that's not my hill.

Makes sense why you keep saying that body position is the only discussion point that matters.

I'm just pointing out that starting strength is wrong in stating that low bar squats are the superior variation in all cases.

Do they? Hasn't Rip told people it was ok in the Q&A before? Was I imagining coaches at the SS seminar I attended having people do high bar? Don't SS coaches program Front Squats as an accessory for intermediate/advanced lifters all the time?

It was my impression that starting strength was a book intended to reflect the truth, but you are implying that it is designed for practicality.

what?

I don't have to define a squat model.

Cool

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Jesus, those arguments dont make more sense when the 500th disciple blindly repeats them:
- High and low bar are not that much different to start with. Inform yourself about actual evidence, not theoretical mumbo-jumbo: High Bar and Low Bar Squatting 2.0 - Strengtheory

- Low bar gets a lil bit more hip extension and isometric low back; high bar a lil bit more quad ROM (and often extension).

- There is no exercise that "trains the most muscle mass over the greates ROM with the highest weight" because, as several here on the forum have already pointed out, thats a multi-goal optimization problem that doesnt have a single "best" solution (in this case a low bar squat). And we dont need one to start with: Because we have multiple exercises for overlapping movements and muscle groups in our training program. It depends on your goals, rest of your exercise choices and so on which combination is a good one.

So either low bar or high bar is fine, depending on the lifter, the rest of the exercises and goals (btw, I squat mostly low bar, if you wanted to take this personally).

The important thing is a good exercise selection AND THEN proper programming with progressive overload. SS does this excellently, as does any good training program. Lets stop inventing reasons for a highly specific design for merely brand preservation reasons. See also the current, in my opinion unnecessary, fork between SS and Barbell Medicine. ...That said, preservation of a homogenous, highly fixed content - even if doesnt have logical reasons - often is successful from a managerial point of view: The most dogmatic religions are the most successful ones - and Apple generates a lot of bucks, too.

WOW, someone else who recognizes that the SS brand has reached quasi cult status and that the follows are conditioned to mercilessly attack anyone who avers anything that could do the slightest bit of damage to the brand. Strong lifts is "garbage" because it uses the rows instead of the clean, despite the row having a greater capacity to add strength and mass, and despite the fact that over time, 5 X 5 is titrated to 5 X 3 and then 3 X 3 before intermediate programming comes into play. Don't low bar back squat and you're a pussy. Want to add a set of curls? you're not go ahead and add it but you shall be forever condemned because "you're not doing the fucking program". Do the program as written, but only squat 2X/week instead of 3? Blasphemy; you'll never get strong (when in reality, it may just take ~a month or 6 weeks longer than squatting 3X a week to reach intermediate; why would a 30 year old desk jockey care about this? But to suggest that some people MAY be better off high bar squatting? Unthinkable..cardinal sin violation!!!

[tfranc]

Body position is indeed what matters, but what your missing is that the best body position allows for the most muscle mass used (not balanced, no such thing), used across a full range of motion. The body position of a guy who can’t deadlift with his shoulders above or parallel to his back has to default in a more sumo-like position. He does it because he can’t get into the position to recruit the most muscle mass effectively. It doesn’t work like that with the squat. The low bar position always.. always puts the lifter in the most ideal position to drive with the hips - the most powerful cue you can master with squatting - and recruits the most muscle mass most effectively in doing so. High bar does not do that. Ever.

[tfranc]

Body position is indeed what matters, but what your missing is that the best body position allows for the most muscle mass used (not balanced, no such thing), used across a full range of motion. The body position of a guy who can’t deadlift with his shoulders above or parallel to his back has to default in a more sumo-like position. He does it because he can’t get into the position to recruit the most muscle mass effectively. It doesn’t work like that with the squat. The low bar position always.. always puts the lifter in the most ideal position to drive with the hips - the most powerful cue you can master with squatting - and recruits the most muscle mass most effectively in doing so. High bar does not do that. Ever.

So while your “we do this like this when this happens with A but not B” argument makes sense on a level of pure inquery, it does not make sense in practice. We don’t lift sumo unless we have to, and even then it’s not ideal, but we have to keep deadlifting.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

Indeed. Joe.

Well then, case closed. Lock it.

I do find the argument interesting. "Rippetoe's squat model is wrong because there can be no one-size fits all bar position. Instead, it must be a one size fits all torso angle!"

The model claims that the bar placement creates the ideal torso angle to best manage the knee/hip relationship with a vertical bar path. It's a teachable, repeatable, and coachable movement.