"Reaching out and back with the knees" cue from the front squat video

[blowdpanis]

I thought this was kind of an interesting cue that I don't remember reading in SS or elsewhere. Rip says it ~7:something in when talking about what to do with the knees in the low bar back squat (in contrast to the front squat).

Intuitively it would seem to me that this cue would cause somebody to minimize the shin angle, which isn't necessarily our goal in the squat (even a low bar squat, e.g. people who get their knees forward too late), but it does seem to result in a nice looking squat, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. Actually, one of the main things it seems to do is to automagically get your weight on your heels, even in the absence of a heels cue.

Anybody else try to put this into practice?

[MikeC1]

He very likely means "reach back [with the hips] and out with the knees." I can't remember how much the book explains to reach back with the hips, but "knees out" is something that's repeated about 5 billion times.

[blowdpanis]

He very likely means "reach back [with the hips] and out with the knees." I can't remember how much the book explains to reach back with the hips, but "knees out" is something that's repeated about 5 billion times.

I've heard "reach back with the hips and out with the knees" a whole bunch, certainly. I bring this cue up mainly because it seems to be the opposite of what he's suggesting for the front squat. I.e. if in a front squat the goal is to get the knees out and forward, the (low bar) back squat has you doing the opposite - getting your knees out and back.

I would imagine it's just another way of cue-ing the same thing as hips back. I.e. if knees out and forward drags your hips forward, as per the goal in an upright front squat, knees out and back would tend to bring the hips back. For some reason, this seems to make more intuitive sense to my brain than doing one thing with my knees and another with my hips.

[Briks42]

Blowdpanis,

If that cue works for you, definitely use it. One thing I've learned is that different people respond to different cues. No matter what the words used in the cue are, if they result in you using proper form, its a good cue for you.

[blowdpanis]

Blowdpanis,

If that cue works for you, definitely use it. One thing I've learned is that different people respond to different cues. No matter what the words used in the cue are, if they result in you using proper form, its a good cue for you.

Agreed fully, I was just curious if anybody else had heard of describing knee movement in this manner as a cue. I know Rip has tweaked his descriptions of stuff since SS in his seminars based on putting a lot more people through the teaching process, so I thought somebody who has been to one might be able to chime in.

[Carnivroar]

No, I actually like my knees all the way forward. I do a sort of high-bar'ish low-bar squat.

[LudwigVan]

I've never heard this cue and don't think it makes a lot of sense, as knees can't really "reach back." I know Rip doesn't advocate vertical shins in the squat, so the knees must necessarily move forward. But if it helps you to think about, you should use it.

[blowdpanis]

I've never heard this cue and don't think it makes a lot of sense, as knees can't really "reach back." I know Rip doesn't advocate vertical shins in the squat, so the knees must necessarily move forward. But if it helps you to think about, you should use it.

I guess what's interesting to me about it is that a lot of our cues for the knees are actually cues for the hips. I.e. the knees don't go "out," either, that's just a way of telling our hips to do the right thing, as the knee is just a hinge joint. As a rule, people seem to do better when concentrating on as little as possible to automatically make a movement correct. In this case, I found it kind of interesting to just have people think about their knees, as opposed to their knees and their hips. In reality, it's just a way of "feeling" the hips doing what they should be doing, reaching out/back. However, it's also entirely possible Rip just meant reach back with the hips/out with the knees. I just found it an interesting contrasting cue to his advice on the front squat, where he very clearly means reaching out and forward with the knees (though the knees aren't actually doing either again, that's your hips), and given the squat continuum of low bar -- high bar -- front squat, there was a certain logic to the direction of "reaching" with the knees (i.e. hips) being opposite for front and low bar squatting.

That said, I'd invite people to stand up and think about it / try it out. No, you can't reach back with the knees, but "thinking" about it has you go back into the hips as the knees go out, by the same logic that you can think "knees out" and get abduction/external rotation at the hip.

[LudwigVan]

I.e. the knees don't go "out," either, that's just a way of telling our hips to do the right thing, as the knee is just a hinge joint.

I wouldn't really agree with that, though. When you transversally abduct the hips, the knees do indeed go out. It's true that the knee joint isn't responsible for the motion, and in that sense I agree that indirect cues like that can be useful, but the description is still accurate. But saying "knees back" when the knee is in fact traveling forward is different. But any cue can certainly be useful in the right context -- and useless in the wrong one.

[blowdpanis]

I wouldn't really agree with that, though. When you transversally abduct the hips, the knees do indeed go out. It's true that the knee joint isn't responsible for the motion, and in that sense I agree that indirect cues like that can be useful, but the description is still accurate. But saying "knees back" when the knee is in fact traveling forward is different. But any cue can certainly be useful in the right context -- and useless in the wrong one.

This is a fair point.