Why Mark is wrong about squat Variations

[Marenghi]

Putting a weight on your back and squatting it, is all that anyone is trying to achieve. The finer technicalities might be important to a pro trying to get the last bit of hypertrophic strength adaption, but for normal mortals who just want to be stronger than they were, it's unimportant. All we-in the broader category-wish to do is to improve ourselves. SS isn't aimed at the even narrower category, within an already narrow category, of professionals-it's aimed at those who are interested in adding some sort of fitness routine to their lives. It should be encouraged.

I completely agree with you here. Strength training should be promoted greatly in public education, public health. Its the most effective anti-ageing, or rather: better-aging drug there is, as Greysteel for example puts it.

To have a 'sensible discussion' wasn't the OP intention. Instead it was an attempt to home in on a particular area which could be levered into a wholesale destruction of a product. The same thing I see done to try and bring down companies like Apple and Microsoft.

I dont have the impression that was the OPs intent, to "destroy a product". Personally, Im not interested in such a behavior that counters the efforts to get more people under the bar. It seemed to me that the OP rather had the same meta-goal when positing that different variations would make life easier for some people to train strength. I might be wrong about my impressions, but anyway, thats not what my participation was about in this thread.

I was focussing on the factual argument "high bar vs low bar" and took that on. Because first, if we want to have more people to train, it is not necessary - well, as you said, for a brand that is - to ignore evidence and uphold unnecessary (and incorrect) claims like the general superiority of low bar squats. Quite the contrary: Imo enabling more people to squat comfortably (I mean that in ergonomical terms - squatting heavy is never comfortably) by choosing either of the two variants is a good thing.

And second, apart from that, I did want to talk about what one very well may call "academic" discussion between low bar and high bar (thats exactly the opinion expressed in the articles: that due to the tiny differences between the two, it should be a mere academical discussion), because I think better knowledge in general is a good thing. And you have seen that for example tfranc did try to maintain the arguments for a superiority of the low bar squat in this thread (well, without really arguing factually about the article, in my view), so I think thats a worthy discussion for some to have. Of course, YMMV.

[Marenghi]

Huh. It's almost like low bar has a larger range of motion.

Nah, ROM a) is not a singular, fixed thing (there is distance of the bar traveled, hip ROM, knee ROM and ankle ROM) and b) of course you will realize after a little thought you cant measure it like that... With comparable parameters, HB has a bit more knee extension ROM, LB a bit more hip extension ROM. Read the articles from above already, damnit!

My experience with LB vs HB is LB loosens up by shoulders and elbows more than HB because of the bar position. If you can low bar,, do so. But you have to squat.

Well, some have problems with their shoulders exactly because of that. And of course, that may be a valid argument for *you* to use the low bar squat - like with a similar argument to yours another one could argue that *for him* the high bar is better because "it improves dorsiflexion loosening up the ankle and knee". And for me, both your and his argument is fine, exactly *because* there are simply only some minor trade-offs between the two variants. Thats why I dont think you can uphold "if you can high bar, do so" or "if you can low bar, do so" as a general rule - the whole conclusion of the existing evidence.

[Nockian]

I completely agree with you here. Strength training should be promoted greatly in public education, public health. Its the most effective anti-ageing, or rather: better-aging drug there is, as Greysteel for example puts it.




I dont have the impression that was the OPs intent, to "destroy a product". Personally, Im not interested in such a behavior that counters the efforts to get more people under the bar. It seemed to me that the OP rather had the same meta-goal when positing that different variations would make life easier for some people to train strength. I might be wrong about my impressions, but anyway, thats not what my participation was about in this thread.

I was focussing on the factual argument "high bar vs low bar" and took that on. Because first, if we want to have more people to train, it is not necessary - well, as you said, for a brand that is - to ignore evidence and uphold unnecessary (and incorrect) claims like the general superiority of low bar squats. Quite the contrary: Imo enabling more people to squat comfortably (I mean that in ergonomical terms - squatting heavy is never comfortably) by choosing either of the two variants is a good thing.

And second, apart from that, I did want to talk about what one very well may call "academic" discussion between low bar and high bar (thats exactly the opinion expressed in the articles: that due to the tiny differences between the two, it should be a mere academical discussion), because I think better knowledge in general is a good thing. And you have seen that for example tfranc did try to maintain the arguments for a superiority of the low bar squat in this thread (well, without really arguing factually about the article, in my view), so I think thats a worthy discussion for some to have. Of course, YMMV.

Clearly there is an argument to be had about any technique-it begins with 'is low bar or high bar...' And not 'Mark has it wrong...'. One of these questions discusses the concept, the other is a sideways ad hominem attack on the man. I've seen the same applied thus 'Mr A criticises your book because....how do you respond to that criticism'.

Eventually the OP has come out and bare facedly talked about a cult of SS. A cult needs a a cult figure and an idea. It's a smear and a sideways insult to everyone as weak mindless cult following sheep. The OP doesn't deserve an answer. It's a sneaky, cowardly attack and every sensible attempt to give an answer gives it a legitimacy it should not have. By all means the OP can stand up and criticise Mark and SS as a cult, but he should do so honestly.

[Kyle Martin]

Some one needs to tell the guy on the left to look down more (at his toes).

He's looking at the tramp stamp on the dude squatting in front of him. He can't look away.

[CarteringKat]

Alright, I kept my word and read the thing.

It’s interesting but it doesn’t paint a complete picture. The idea that thoracic strength is the limiting factor in a low bar squat is full of that good ol internet bro science bullshit. It comes from the paradigm of individual muscle groups work in isolation from one another and muscular imbalances and other laughable inventions.

The idea that front squats can improve your back strength better than low bar squats is also completely laughable. If you can front squat 300 lbs, but low bar 500... which is making you stronger? Uh.. it’s not the measly 300 lbs I’ll tell you that much. This is especially true when we look at this in the proper context of training age. Advanced lifted needs extra stress to drive squat progress? High bar squats as an assistance makes sense. But certainly not for novices or even intermediates when they are still most efficiently getting stronger just by squatting.

The other thing the article fails to do is draw a distinction between lifting weight and being strong. Lots and lots of people have lifted a lot of weight with “bad form”. Who cares? It doesn’t matter. They followed the rules of their powerlifting club. That’s not what SS is. SS is designed to make you stronger and lift more weight as a by product, not the other way around.

I think in terms of total stress your 500lbs is going to cause more. This I think is intuitive to everyone here. More weight=more stress. Now this might be my limited experience with literally everything in life, but it seems to me that a 300lbs front squat is damn strong just like a 500lb low bar is damn strong(when talking about the average population of course). Is it possible that different bar positions inflict stress to different degrees? The examples being front and low bar squats here. Obviously more weight is being moved low bar because of the "superior" mechanics. I remember reading in SSBBT that moving more weight does not necessarily equal stronger. I might be reaching here but obviously low bar and front squat are fundamentally different mechanically and it seems to me that given that difference a 300lbs front squat might approximate the stress(albeit differently) than a low bar squat.

Does that even make sense to anyone not in my head? Sometimes I have trouble communicating the ideas the pop up in there effectively.

[Marenghi]

This makes perfect sense, CarteringKat - and youre way further in your thinking on this topic than most board members and even some SS coaches.

Its what I mentioned above that torques (and weight) matter, not just the weight, and what tfranc didnt understand. Imagine doing a front raise with extended elbow and a 20lbs dumbbell vs one with flexed elbow and a 25lbs dumbbell - the weight is higher, but the training effect less with the higher weight! So we need to look at the actual torques (what a physical model tries to do), but more correctly, we additionally have to look at biomechanics and actual empirical measurements to get the most accurate picture. Not "most weight with most muscle mass over longest range of motion moved", because that is, as I mentioned earlier, a problem without one single best solution in the squat (if two of the three factors are highest - the third is not).

You will like the article series I linked above, where this is explained and evidence is provided.

Small notice: Because the front squat is heavily limited by thoracic strength and biomechanically more different to the high bar squat than the low bar is to the high bar back squat, there is a difference in effects: For training leg and hip musculature, the back squat is superior to the front squat (for training thoracic strength, the front squat would be superior - but in a beginner´s program, the deadlift (and keeping the thoracic spine extended in other exercises) does the job).

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Being able to create an adaptation to stress is what makes you stronger. And you force your body to create that adaptation by... lifting 5-10% more weight than last time. .

Da fug? You must be the strongest person in the world, by a wide margin!

[stef]

Double-posted troll-bait.

Closing this thread.

See this one.