no more back squat??

[Ryan Largay]

http://www.functionalstrengthcoach3.com/squats.html

Some of you may have seen this, I strongly disagree. I think the squat is one of the best lifts, if not THE best lift one could do. It got me heated listening to it. Thought i would share.

[Andy Ruse]

The guy has to say something controversial in order to get noticed. If he can't distinguish himself, he can't make much money as a strength coach.

I think it's interesting that the legs can be loaded so much unilaterally. However, he's making a huge mistake in assuming that the squat is merely a leg movement. It's a total body movement. Strength athletes don't squat just to get strong legs, they squat to get strong all over.

[Brandon Smith]

I saw that a couple of days ago too Ryan. Totally disagree with him, squats have been a staple of almost every strength program for good reason. Unless you have a physical limitation that prohibits back squats, I can't think of a reason why someone should not include them in their program. I was real surprised since I'd always heard real positive things about Mike Boyle's program since it's right down the street from me....

[Darin Heltemes]

I think it's pretty obvious that his overlooking, or is bias to, the fact that he's testing a single leg movement that uses a different form (and almost certainly depth) than a normal squat and then makes the assumption that you should be able to do double the weight for the same number of reps using a normal two-legged parallel squat.

[CharlesDMickey]

Originally Posted by Andy Ruse

However, he's making a huge mistake in assuming that the squat is merely a leg movement. It's a total body movement. Strength athletes don't squat just to get strong legs, they squat to get strong all over.

Completely agree.

Who cares how strong your legs are if you back and mid section are weak? Why separate into - this is leg work/back work/shoulder work. Shoot man, that’s how modern bodybuilding was started.

The body does not function as separate units. Nowhere on the field, court or life do you have the option of just working a specific part of your body. Even putting a box onto a high shelf requires every muscle in the body so train the body as one unit.

What's next? The limiting factor of chins might be biceps - so no more chins? Is the limiting factor in bench or OH press is triceps? - now what?

That being said I am a big advocate of unilateral training as aux work. But it will take more than the anecdotal evidence of what young freshman athletes can do to convince me. I'm still going with the advantage of the heavy skeletal loading of the full squat. The physiological response of BIG weights just cannot be duplicated by more reps.

[Billy Wolt]

so who is going to test his theory?

personally, my low back strength is the reason why i get so much more out of a belt.

[Patrick McGuffin]

"There is no conceivable way any of them could squat 230 for 15, I dont even think they could get 5.... so what does that tell you?"


Um it tells me that you need to have them squat and if your athletes are that weak you need to be replaced with a better coach...

This guy is ridiculous his premise is you can move more weight if you do X instead of Y... to bad X doesn't translate to being a better athlete while Y does.

[Cody Brant]

I think I will refute this guys theory with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nppzGV1U8y8


haha hm

[Brandon Campbell]

Hmm, so what your saying is, i should do back squats, and then do split squats after gotcha...wait no your not!

this guy is dumb, if low back is the limiting factor! increase low back strength to provide stability to increase leg drive.

So to him i say sir you are retarded! please leave the soapbox and we will replace you with someone of more intelligence, and without man boobs.


oh and, my best back squat was 620, my best split squat utilizing a one leg standing lunge style was 315x4 needless to say one leg doing most the work was almost half of what my max squat is.

Now the biggest flaw in his stupid ramblings, the loading of muscles by weight training is not linear in the amount of force production that should be expected. Meaning, X weight with one arm will not equal 2(X) with two arms. Because The force production curve of muscles is decreasing exponentially as load increases.

This means that 100lbs with one leg can not and will not equal 200lbs with two legs. Because the load of 200lbs although theorectically split in half between each leg does not act the same way when the load is applied. In order to move the weight the force production has to be greater then the load being applied. This is how it becomes a decreasing exponetial function. the amount of force over 100lbs required to move the weight up with one leg is exponetially less then the amount of force required to move 200lbs with two legs. meaning each leg in theory when doing a 200lb squat is not doing 100lbs but actually doing anywhere from 110-125 lbs depending on the amount of acceleration during the movement.

One leg lifting 100lbs really only has to create 105ish lbs of force to move the weight at the same speed as a 200lbs two legged squat. Fancy physics equations and constants explain this, i dont have time to track them down but mr strength coach obviously has not had any biomechanical education.

this is also the same reason as to why 1rm calculators get increasing more inaccurate as the weight is lowered and reps increase.

[Paul Neuhaus]

I really don't see how squatting will make my biceps bigger.....