Squat Depth

[Ronin]

As the weight gets heavier, I'm more inclined to stay within the rack, which means I can only get to parallel (maybe an inch below) before the bar starts bouncing off the rack Sometimes it sucks to be short.

Obviously front squats are different as I'm more upright, so can get a bit lower. Still on occasion I drop too fast and hit the rack before I bottom out :grin:

If you are taller than 2ft you should be able to pull the safety bars out and put them low enough that the bar doesn't touch them.

I had them on the 3rd from lowest setting, got stuck at the bottom and had to do a front roll just to get the bar on the safety rack. I wouldn't be able to fit my head under the bar on the lowest setting. I suppose it depends on the gym you use but Unipol's cage is fully adjustable.

Let's see you pull one of these fuckers apart

[nate225]

PLers don't do full squats because they are pussies. They train around the rules in their federation. I don't think a2g squating is the only way to squat but it annoys me when people claim to squat atg and in reality it is a bit past parallel. Just as it would annoy powerlifters when someone like Big Cliff claims he can bench 605lb.

Excuse me?!

Correct though that they train around federation rules - you be a dipshit not to!

[Jigga]

As the weight gets heavier, I'm more inclined to stay within the rack, which means I can only get to parallel (maybe an inch below) before the bar starts bouncing off the rack Sometimes it sucks to be short.

Obviously front squats are different as I'm more upright, so can get a bit lower. Still on occasion I drop too fast and hit the rack before I bottom out :grin:

If you are taller than 2ft you should be able to pull the safety bars out and put them low enough that the bar doesn't touch them.

I had them on the 3rd from lowest setting, got stuck at the bottom and had to do a front roll just to get the bar on the safety rack. I wouldn't be able to fit my head under the bar on the lowest setting. I suppose it depends on the gym you use but Unipol's cage is fully adjustable.

Let's see you pull one of these fuckers apart

I hate that design. One size fits all folks

PLers don't do full squats because they are pussies. They train around the rules in their federation. I don't think a2g squating is the only way to squat but it annoys me when people claim to squat atg and in reality it is a bit past parallel. Just as it would annoy powerlifters when someone like Big Cliff claims he can bench 605lb.

Excuse me?!

Correct though that they train around federation rules - you be a dipshit not to!

You know what I meant - PLers don't not do full squats because ther aren't not, not pussies.

[Dr Squat]

PLers don't do full squats because they are pussies.

Lol. Add this one to quote of the year.

[Jigga]

PLers don't do full squats because they are pussies.

Lol. Add this one to quote of the year.

See above.

[Dr Squat]

You know what I meant - PLers don't not do full squats because ther aren't not, not pussies.

That clears that up. :-s

[HarryB]

Well we all want growth but it's one of those things. Some guys can grow doing partials and some can't even when they do everything right. We don't all have to ass to ankles squats to grow. I find it pretty easy going because I am only a short guy but someone 6' plus.. that's a different story!

[Dr Squat]

Well we all want growth but it's one of those things. Some guys can grow doing partials and some can't even when they do everything right. We don't all have to ass to ankles squats to grow. I find it pretty easy going because I am only a short guy but someone 6' plus.. that's a different story!

Mate, think about those clowns who load the bar up and do quarter squats. I don't think their legs are going to grow.

[Jigga]

Well we all want growth but it's one of those things. Some guys can grow doing partials and some can't even when they do everything right. We don't all have to ass to ankles squats to grow. I find it pretty easy going because I am only a short guy but someone 6' plus.. that's a different story!

Mate, think about those clowns who load the bar up and do quarter squats. I don't think their legs are going to grow.

So 1 = 1/2 > 1/4 for leg development? Not being a smartass just interested in your reasoning.

[Dr Squat]

Well we all want growth but it's one of those things. Some guys can grow doing partials and some can't even when they do everything right. We don't all have to ass to ankles squats to grow. I find it pretty easy going because I am only a short guy but someone 6' plus.. that's a different story!

Mate, think about those clowns who load the bar up and do quarter squats. I don't think their legs are going to grow.

So 1 = 1/2 > 1/4 for leg development? Not being a smartass just interested in your reasoning.

Not sure what this means? If you are interested in full leg development then I think you need to squat deep, as in full squat. Look at Platz, Coleman etc. These guys got/get right into the hole.

It's an interesting debate. I used to have a view that parallel high bar squats were the ticket. But having discussed with a number of people and thought about it, I have changed my view. Surely squatting deep is the way to go. Full ROM has got to be better for leg development.

The other issue is that it is not easy. Tall guys find it hard, people with sore backs and old powerlifters have to train the body. This means lot of time under the bar. Start on 1 plate and get the form right. Perfect practice makes perfect. The danger is that we sacrifice form for weight.

[ali g]

I guess unless you are competing in powerlifting it is down to individual comfort. If you don't want to work too hard and think that 1/4 reps is the go then who are we to say that's the wrong thing.

It's not a contest after all lol

I suppose it depends if you want your legs to grow?

ok, from a girls point of view...

i really didnt get 'legs' for bodybuilding until i was a power lifter.

until i was squatting to depth, heavy loads, i never had the glute, hamstring or quad development that i have now.

many women bodybuilders/shapers that i have met tend to think that if they do squats (in particular deep squats) that they will get a big butt - where in fact they will help develop nice full glute muscles - you get a big butt by sitting on it too much and eating too much crap! Theres a big difference when you're standing up on stage wearing a little bit of fabric covering not much at all :pfft:

deadlifting (heavy, not woosie stuff) is another exercise that will help develop the depth in the muscles that will help the bodybuilding physique.

This is purely only from my experience, having competed in both sports at the same time for a few years.

Just my 5 cents worth

[Jigga]

Mate, think about those clowns who load the bar up and do quarter squats. I don't think their legs are going to grow.

So 1 = 1/2 > 1/4 for leg development? Not being a smartass just interested in your reasoning.

Not sure what this means? If you are interested in full leg development then I think you need to squat deep, as in full squat. Look at Platz, Coleman etc. These guys got/get right into the hole.

It's an interesting debate. I used to have a view that parallel high bar squats were the ticket. But having discussed with a number of people and thought about it, I have changed my view. Surely squatting deep is the way to go. Full ROM has got to be better for leg development.

The other issue is that it is not easy. Tall guys find it hard, people with sore backs and old powerlifters have to train the body. This means lot of time under the bar. Start on 1 plate and get the form right. Perfect practice makes perfect. The danger is that we sacrifice form for weight.

I was asking whether you thought full squats were equivalent to parallel but 1/4 squats were completely inferior to the other two. I like your training philosophies.

[Dr Squat]

When I was a powerlifter (long time ago) I used to sail close to the wind with my squats. There are a band of referees in NZ who love looking for reasons not to give white lights. My marginal squat depth probably didn't help. The fact that I never had depth problems overseas has not left me bitter. Not that bitter...

Anyway, my point is that you need to leave the referees in now doubt. Your first lift needs to be "well below parallel". This means you need to train below parallel. I used to cut it fine in training if I am honest and it is then difficult on the day to get it right.

Just a thought for the powerlifters.

[nate225]

When I was a powerlifter (long time ago) I used to sail close to the wind with my squats. There are a band of referees in NZ who love looking for reasons not to give white lights. My marginal squat depth probably didn't help. The fact that I never had depth problems overseas has not left me bitter. Not that bitter...

Anyway, my point is that you need to leave the referees in now doubt. Your first lift needs to be "well below parallel". This means you need to train below parallel. I used to cut it fine in training if I am honest and it is then difficult on the day to get it right.

Just a thought for the powerlifters.

Fry tells me you still cut it fine! :pfft: :grin:

But absolutely agree with you having had the same problem from time to time. Train as you plan to compete.

[Dr Squat]

I was asking whether you thought full squats were equivalent to parallel but 1/4 squats were completely inferior to the other two. I like your training philosophies.

Full squats are full squats. I think you guys call them arse to the grass. Picture your hamstrings sitting on your calves.

Quads has been a tricky one for me. I have a thick back, massively wide wait, big arse and okay hams. The problem is I don't have quads. That's because I am strong in that range from parallel and above. Unless you are gifted, your quads don't grow in that range.

It's also squat style. A 350 kg box squat doesn't require a lot of quad. It uses alot of back, hip, glute and waist.

[Gasp]

I guess unless you are competing in powerlifting it is down to individual comfort. If you don't want to work too hard and think that 1/4 reps is the go then who are we to say that's the wrong thing.

It's not a contest after all lol

I suppose it depends if you want your legs to grow?

agreed..this partial squat thing with some people is odd. Nobody will ever convince me that you can get bigger gains by loading up a bar and doing 1/4s rather than stripping it and doing full ROM.

Its a totally wasted work-out

I had a word with some young guys a few weeks ago and queried why they would drive all the way to the gym then do 1/4 squats. Its like driving all the way to a night-club and then having a wank.

Since that conversation these guys have made huge progress (in the gym, not the nightclub) and say there is far more purpose to their work-out now.

[Dr Squat]

Fry tells me you still cut it fine! :pfft: :grin:

But absolutely agree with you having had the same problem from time to time. Train as you plan to compete.

It's the old story of do as I say, not as I do!

[funkyfly]

Not sure what this means? If you are interested in full leg development then I think you need to squat deep, as in full squat. Look at Platz, Coleman etc. These guys got/get right into the hole.

It's an interesting debate. I used to have a view that parallel high bar squats were the ticket. But having discussed with a number of people and thought about it, I have changed my view. Surely squatting deep is the way to go. Full ROM has got to be better for leg development.

The other issue is that it is not easy. Tall guys find it hard, people with sore backs and old powerlifters have to train the body. This means lot of time under the bar. Start on 1 plate and get the form right. Perfect practice makes perfect. The danger is that we sacrifice form for weight.

You cant simply pick out great bodybuilders and state they got their awesome wheels because of the way they did squats, because theres another bunch of guys with great legs who got them from doing it differently.

Ronnie said "Squat heavy" but Chris Cormier said...........

"I used to squat heavy until I realized that didn't work best for me

and the potential for injury was too great. I'm still learning, always

trying to refine what works best for my legs. What works best when

you're 20 might not be best when you're 30. Keep changing to keep

growing."--Chris Cormier

And Tom Platz whom you mention actually said... "Go slightly below parallel, and do not bounce in the bottom position"

So judging from what Chris and Tom said you dont have to go heavy, and you dont have to go deep.

[nate225]

I had a word with some young guys a few weeks ago and queried why they would drive all the way to the gym then do 1/4 squats. Its like driving all the way to a night-club and then having a wank.Since that conversation these guys have made huge progress (in the gym, not the nightclub) and say there is far more purpose to their work-out now.

This is pure gold - quote of the month for sure! :clap:

[nate225]

Not sure what this means? If you are interested in full leg development then I think you need to squat deep, as in full squat. Look at Platz, Coleman etc. These guys got/get right into the hole.

It's an interesting debate. I used to have a view that parallel high bar squats were the ticket. But having discussed with a number of people and thought about it, I have changed my view. Surely squatting deep is the way to go. Full ROM has got to be better for leg development.

The other issue is that it is not easy. Tall guys find it hard, people with sore backs and old powerlifters have to train the body. This means lot of time under the bar. Start on 1 plate and get the form right. Perfect practice makes perfect. The danger is that we sacrifice form for weight.

You cant simply pick out great bodybuilders and state they got their awesome wheels because of the way they did squats, because theres another bunch of guys with great legs who got them from doing it differently.

Ronnie said "Squat heavy" but Chris Cormier said...........

"I used to squat heavy until I realized that didn't work best for me

and the potential for injury was too great. I'm still learning, always

trying to refine what works best for my legs. What works best when

you're 20 might not be best when you're 30. Keep changing to keep

growing."--Chris Cormier

And Tom Platz whom you mention actually said... "Go slightly below parallel, and do not bounce in the bottom position"

So judging from what Chris and Tom said you dont have to go heavy, and you dont have to go deep.

You're not advocating high & light I hope! :pfft: :grin:

[Dr Squat]

agreed..this partial squat thing with some people is odd. Nobody will ever convince me that you can get bigger gains by loading up a bar and doing 1/4s rather than stripping it and doing full ROM.

Its a totally wasted work-out

I had a word with some young guys a few weeks ago and queried why they would drive all the way to the gym then do 1/4 squats. Its like driving all the way to a night-club and then having a wank.

Since that conversation these guys have made huge progress (in the gym, not the nightclub) and say there is far more purpose to their work-out now.

Classic.

High bar, deep squatting is like learning to walk again for me. It is going to take a long time. But I take heart from how other bodyparts have responded to "proper" ROM training. For example shoulders. But it is humbling to be doing reps with 100 kg when you can parallel box squat a fair bit more.

[PeterDolan]

Greatest legs of all time = Full ROM squats

If you want good legs then do any ROM you want.

If you want great legs bring yo ass all the way down to touch your calves! If you're too much of a pussy to want to go that deep, get some bigger fucking calves and you wont have too

I don't understand why this is even a discussion. You wouldn't do a half bench press or a half military press so why would you do a half squat? :think: probably cause it's harder?

[Dr Squat]

You cant simply pick out great bodybuilders and state they got their awesome wheels because of the way they did squats, because theres another bunch of guys with great legs who got them from doing it differently.

Ronnie said "Squat heavy" but Chris Cormier said...........

"I used to squat heavy until I realized that didn't work best for me

and the potential for injury was too great. I'm still learning, always

trying to refine what works best for my legs. What works best when

you're 20 might not be best when you're 30. Keep changing to keep

growing."--Chris Cormier

And Tom Platz whom you mention actually said... "Go slightly below parallel, and do not bounce in the bottom position"

So judging from what Chris and Tom said you dont have to go heavy, and you dont have to go deep.

What I am saying (as it's just my opinion) is that you give yourself a far greater chance of building a quality set of legs if you do full squats as your core movement.

These are just names. We could go back and forth all day with names of people who are for and against squats. I would say that most reasonable bodybuilders would have built their foundation with squats. Again, just my perception.

[funkyfly]

Not sure what this means? If you are interested in full leg development then I think you need to squat deep, as in full squat. Look at Platz, Coleman etc. These guys got/get right into the hole.

It's an interesting debate. I used to have a view that parallel high bar squats were the ticket. But having discussed with a number of people and thought about it, I have changed my view. Surely squatting deep is the way to go. Full ROM has got to be better for leg development.

The other issue is that it is not easy. Tall guys find it hard, people with sore backs and old powerlifters have to train the body. This means lot of time under the bar. Start on 1 plate and get the form right. Perfect practice makes perfect. The danger is that we sacrifice form for weight.

You cant simply pick out great bodybuilders and state they got their awesome wheels because of the way they did squats, because theres another bunch of guys with great legs who got them from doing it differently.

Ronnie said "Squat heavy" but Chris Cormier said...........

"I used to squat heavy until I realized that didn't work best for me

and the potential for injury was too great. I'm still learning, always

trying to refine what works best for my legs. What works best when

you're 20 might not be best when you're 30. Keep changing to keep

growing."--Chris Cormier

And Tom Platz whom you mention actually said... "Go slightly below parallel, and do not bounce in the bottom position"

So judging from what Chris and Tom said you dont have to go heavy, and you dont have to go deep.

You're not advocating high & light I hope! :pfft: :grin:

Heh, not unless you are happy with your current leg size.

Ive been going to about parallel for a year and ive made awesome gains in quad size, i know from personal experience that you dont need to go A2G to gain leg size, but im not that stupid to think A2G wouldnt help me grow either.

But at 6'1" with long legs heavy back squats put a lot of pressure on my knees and lower back.

[Dr Squat]

I don't understand why this is even a discussion. You wouldn't do a half bench press or a half military press so why would you do a half squat? :think: probably cause it's harder?

This is classic Dolan. The little bodybuilder is like the little half back who stands back and wait until the stoush is all on and then throws a couple of jabs!

Plenty of people do half bench presses too mate.