Squat and hamstring

[squat_till_u_die]

There is a study published that tells us that moving hips forward and letting quads and glutes do the job may be a better strategy for lifting more weight. This is all due to hamstring knee flexion function that counteracts torque developed by the quads. Are you aware of the study?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am not, and I will remain unaware of it. There is not enough time to deal with every illogical premise that has ever been published.

[buttermilk]

It's a funny how these things play out. Ten years ago no one was talking about quad work because it was fashionable to heap on p-chain assistance. Now many of the same people, and plenty of newcomers who would have been in the same position are suddenly focused on quad dominant variations and want to shift the knees forward again. People like Nuckols have made examples of great PL squats with upright torsos and a lot of knee extensor action. The Crossfit movement has probably had the largest influence here by popularizing Olympic weightlifting.

The squat that you teach, Rip, has to be the easiest and safest to learn as a novice, but I don't think there's a meaningful difference in athletic transfer from squat variations unless there's a specific context that's very nearby (such as front squats for WL or low bar for PL). Otherwise I think you'd have just as much problem trying to match squat style to athlete with a given set of limb lenths. For instance why not move the bar even further down for someone who has a very long tibias and torso and short femurs since they are effectively doing a high bar squat with a normal person's proportions? And why isn't Aasgard or SOMEONE selling low bar harnesses already? Maybe we could talk to dean and see if he can put something together if he doesn't already have enough work from this website alone.

Anyway just a thought Rip!

[Shaun]

There is a study published that tells us that moving hips forward and letting quads and glutes do the job may be a better strategy for lifting more weight. This is all due to hamstring knee flexion function that counteracts torque developed by the quads. Are you aware of the study?

Doesn't sound like they have found the solution to Lombard's Paradox yet. Assuming the study says what you say it says.

[Tony1214]

Think before you just trust what any study says, first their is no such thing as torque(turning force) in the human body, crank shafts yes! Knees that happen to be hinge joints not so much. In the full depth squat witch is characterized by the depth hips being lower than patella, the hips flex and decend into the hole, the opposite of decend is to ascend yes??? So with out a study or lengthy article with big words I need a thasoris for, I can use my criticlle thinking skills and assume if the hips decend into the whole, the most efficient way to come out of the hole is for them to ascend or other wise come straight up..yes???? For squats that limit the amount of knee flexion and over exaggerate the amount of hip flexion on a side note these style of squats are usely high, then yes pushing the hips foward would make more sense since depth is not the issue. In a bellow parallel squat the hips coming up out of the hole is the only way one can come up. If you push you hips forward your knees will go forward if your knees go forward the knee angle closes and shortens the hamstring, inhibiting its ability to maintain back angle and thus making it much harder for the hips to drive up out of the whole, but make not mistake that is the only way you will be able come up, all you do by pushing the hips forward is make it much harder than it should be. Hope this helps

[chrisd]

In a bellow parallel squat the hips coming up out of the hole is the only way one can come up. If you push you hips forward your knees will go forward if your knees go forward the knee angle closes and shortens the hamstring, inhibiting its ability to maintain back angle and thus making it much harder for the hips to drive up out of the whole, but make not mistake that is the only way you will be able come up, all you do by pushing the hips forward is make it much harder than it should be. Hope this helps

I can visualise a movement pattern where this is not the case. If you were to squat with hips descending and going backwards and then at the bottom of the squat, open the knees even further, the hips would move forwards without the knees moving forward. Balance would need to be maintained by making the torso more upright. In the extreme case, the hips could be fully opened to that the femurs were both in a vertical plane.

Whether anyone could or should do this would be a matter for discussion.

The ultimate test to see if a particular strategy enables you to lift more weight is surely to see if you can lift more weight using that strategy.

hamstring knee flexion function that counteracts torque developed by the quads.

Does this mean that the hamstrings muscles pull one way and the quads pull the other ? Bearing in minds that the quads act as hip flexors as well as leg extensors, it seems that it might be better to rely on the role of hamstrings as hip extensors in concert with the glutes and just let the quads follows along straightening the knees as needed. This ignores a stack of other muscles that also come along for the ride.


Is it possible to cite the actual study ?

[Goatamon]

The squat that you teach, Rip, has to be the easiest and safest to learn as a novice!

Safest, I'd agree. Easiest? I don't think so, or at least that hasn't been the case for me. Low bar seems considerably more technical than the front squat or high bar.


I wonder if this study is related to the "hips under bar" technique that a lot of people use when front squatting? By this, I mean the technique by which once you get some ways above parallel, you "sweep" your hips forward to get them under the bar better. Personally, this absolutely works wonders for me in the front squat, but not really in the back squat.

[OCG]

It is an interesting hypothesis, and, having watched many squats where people try and drive the torso too upright out of the hole, one that disagrees with reality and observation.

Firstly, driving the chest too much changes the back angle and requires the torso to rotate around the bar so that it can keep moving in a straight line. Fine in theory, but I've yet to see anyone manage it without throwing the bar path off somewhat. Secondly, whilst the lockout is stronger (pointlessly so considering that it's already the easiest part of the movement) there is a noticeable slow in bar speed as the lifter is coming out of the hole until they have achieved a more upright position. Not so detrimental with even moderately heavy weights, but for a near 1RM attempt might easily cause a missed attempt.

[Brodie Butland]

I'm curious to hear Dr. Been's take on the study.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Safest, I'd agree. Easiest? I don't think so, or at least that hasn't been the case for me. Low bar seems considerably more technical than the front squat or high bar.

The version of the squat we teach is the most complex of the lifts, to teach and learn. This is demonstrated at every seminar.