Member
High bar - Low bar comparison
Hello,
Did anyone review this relatively new study? I'm sure you're aware of it since they used illustrations from the book but you didn't review it at 2015 literature review and I can't seem to find it anywhere on these boards.
http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...19&context=etd
✓ Member
This is not a paper, but is a master's thesis. I have not read it, nor do I know if anyone else here did. Why would you assume that anyone in the Aasgaard Co. would know about this just because they used a figure from the second edition? People use figures from the books all the time without attribution or permission.
Member
Welp, just judging of the end-part where it discusses conclusions drawn, it certainly won't be winning any friends from the SS coaching community...Originally Posted by Tom Campitelli
...And just reading through some of the data done, it isn't even entirely clear if they at least controlled for certain variations like stance width, i.e. they just allowed widths to be different between high bar and low bar, even providing an assumption of a narrow stance for a HBBS and a "variable" stance for LBBS. Meanwhile, they admit to a relative lack of statistical significance of any particular data points, and that the study size is tiny, yet the paper still includes a "practical application" section that says anything other than "get more studies."
So yeah, a HBBS has slightly higher peak power, force, velocity, and vertical displacement at the same weight as a LBBS, i.e. greater intensity... in six participants. Who by the sounds of it were not even chosen from squat-style neutral backgrounds (they mentioned recruiting powerlifters and weightlifters, and allowing 4 weeks to learn both styles.) They admit to the stance of the HBBS being narrow, but by the sounds of it, allowed whoever to have a wider stance with the LBBS, which is a rather massive fucking variable to include in terms of power production (as they admit, there is a reason we don't jump with such a wide stance...) And none of the data was statisticially significant besides, surprise surprise, load has a relationship with all variables.
Oh, and if you actually stop and parse the logic... equal loading is actually a false start. It is true HBBS has greater intensity markers at the same load as a LBBS... contrary to the author's conception, this is because the HBBS, being at a higher relative intensity to its 1rm, has greater imposed demands. A better version would require the accurate assessment of 1rm's of both variants, and then data points based on percentage of 1rm. But no, LBBS load should be based on estimated HBBS 1rm, amirite guiz?
But don't worry guys, the author can still recommend that HBBS be used for all purposes besides a hypertrophy period. Except maybe even then. Of course, LBBS would be better for maximal strength (gee...)
This is a dumpster fire. Fuck this flagrant abuse of statistical analysis to a) make a thesis and b) rather blatantly pursue an agenda.
Starting Strength Coach
While I think I may regret responding to this post, the sample size used in the study is 6 which means that the results could have occurred purely by chance. Additionally, the load used was based on a % the subject's HBBS 1RM which essentially means that the loads used during the LBBS trials were "more sub-maximal" than what was used during the HBBS trials assuming the subject's would most likely have a higher 1RM in the LBBS than the HBBS. I think it would have been a better comparison if the author tested the subject's 1RM in each squat variation and used the loads based off of similar percentages in each position.
Community Organizer (Administrator)
It is a good example of really low-end work you see all the time in low quality programs. It is the sort of thing that should be a pilot experiment or in a write up of high school summer project.
Posting Permissions
