Non Standard Workouts

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » July 23rd, 2005, 8:08 am

Weight Free Squats En Masse Yesterday I was "locked away" on the countryside without running shoes, erg or other cardio equipment. Since my training had been lacking the last couple of weeks I felt I could not let that day go by without doing some excercise. This is what I did, without access to any training equipment or having to bother with going outside even. 350 squats to parallell in 8 minutes. It worked up a good heart rate and I think it has a low non muscular impact if you can keep your lower back and knees safe. I encountered no problems using proper technique but we are all different. The quads took a good muscular beating and they are very sore today, but it was the first time trying this work out so that is natural. How do you feel about this as a regular cross training excercise? Perhaps instead of running or cycling, or as an excercise for low budgets or for those unwilling to be seen at a gym or in the running track. I am very positive about this excercise and even recommended it to some people before I had tried it myself, having just thought about it. Off course, the specific numbers can be altered and split into sets or intervals to suite specific needs, wishes and capacities.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 23rd, 2005, 11:32 am

Hi Carl, 350 in 8 minutes is quite a good rate. That's 44 per minute. I used to do squats on rare occasions, a few hundred at a time. It is interesting you brought this up as I was just thinking to try them again. What do you feel the differences are between doing 1/2 (parallel) squats and full squats?

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » July 23rd, 2005, 11:47 am

Hi John, I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle (just like it does with higher weight, but that's no problem here) and as you get tired and try to keep the rate up, the risk with deep squats will be increased further as you might tend to rely on other tissues than muscle to bounce up. This will also be counterproductive to oxygen demand, which was my goal. A full squat will probably still cost more oxygen than a parallell, but the intensity might be lower due to the extra time. With the parallell squat you can really push the rate up without worrying about more than muscles being broken (and super compensated).

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 23rd, 2005, 12:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jul 23 2005, 10:47 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi John, I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle . . .. </td></tr></table> No, that is an urban myth. In fact, the shearing forces on the knee are greater at "parallel" than in the full squat position. The contrary position is based on a very old and now discredited study of people who already had knee injuries. Healthy knees are fully capable of full range squats with no adverse effects. Porkchop

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » July 23rd, 2005, 1:54 pm

Hi Porkchop, Reference? I think one need to be very detailed in what one means when claiming the risk for injury does not increase with angle. No matter, statistically speaking, if for some people the risk of injury increases with the angle, those with bad knees, and those with bad technique, the risk of injury does increase with the angle for the average person as well. Therefore this is the advice I give when anyone might read it and I don't know the specifics. Also, no matter what reference you will pull up, it will surely say that no bouncing should be done at the bottom. Since I believe the body will try to find the least oxygen demanding way after a few minutes of squatting, deep squats will be bad since bouncing is a part of oxygen saving. The body (and the mind) works in this way in most activities and to work against it takes alot mental concentration, there is no need for this in aerobic squating. With parallel swuats, you can't escape oxygen demand and risk injury in doing so. For strength training I think deep squats are great though, if you have healthy knees, good technique and lessen the weight slightly in relation to parallell squats. In free weight squats en masse you can't lower the weight though, and the speed of the "catch" at the bottom is much higher than in heavy squats and therefore the risk of the fatigued muscles not being able to catch up fast enough is higher, which may lead to injury. For aerobic training, deep squats just don't seem attractive enough to recommend.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 23rd, 2005, 2:08 pm

I agree as regards the speed of doing them. There is no way to do full squats effectively at 44 repetitions per minute. To the contrary they are usually done very slowly. The heavier the weight the more slowly they are done. I read that Javier Sotomayor, who has high jumped over 8 feet, does heavy squats with 660 pounds. This has been verified (though not by c2) However they are 1/4 to 1/2 squats at the most. And he is quite lean. <a href='http://www.goldengala.it/images/Sotomayorbis.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.goldengala.it/images/Sotomayorbis.jpg</a> <a href='http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multim ... pt22/4.jpg' target='_blank'>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multim ... 2/4.jpg</a>

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 23rd, 2005, 4:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jul 23 2005, 12:54 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Porkchop, Reference? I think one need to be very detailed in what one means when claiming the risk for injury does not increase with angle. </td></tr></table> Carl Henrik: Go online and do some research. You might start with the old Weightsnet site (www.weightsnet.com). You could also run some seaches at at www.crossfit.com, www.t-nation.com, www.stumptuous.com, www.ruggedmag.com, or just about any other weightlifting or bodybuilding site. This subject has been discussed and researched to death. My personal experience: I've been squatting ass-to-grass for decades -- I'm doing just fine, thank you. Have fun. Porkchop

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » July 23rd, 2005, 6:31 pm

Porkchop Sorry, you seem to have confused the standard few reps, low speed, heavy squatting with the workout I have described here. You can't extract the movement from the situation. You should read some of your own references: <a href='http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;js ... ?id=603563' target='_blank'>http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;js ... 563</a> specifically it says injuries are more prone when: When that exercise is performed with poor technique [tends to happen when tired] When that exercise is performed with excessive loading [as type 2 fibres drop the weight and speed may turn excessive for deep squats when oxygen is sparse] Or check out the tabata squat that is similar in high speeds and prolonged fatigue. These are also done to parallel. Another example is plyometric squat jumps. There are two versions. one in wich you immediately jump up again, and one where you go to parallell and explosively jump up. I found nothing about plyometrics jumps from the bottom. No one does the explosive quick turn at full stretch of the muscle. Perhaps they feel this would be beging for injuries. What you originally cited "I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle..." should be read in it's context. For slow strength training I have long done deep squats with no problems. But this thread was not and is not about strength training squats.

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 23rd, 2005, 8:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jul 23 2005, 05:31 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Porkchop Sorry, you seem to have confused the standard few reps, low speed, heavy squatting with the workout I have described here. You can't extract the movement from the situation. You should read some of your own references: <a href='http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;js ... ?id=603563' target='_blank'>http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;js ... 563</a> specifically it says injuries are more prone when: When that exercise is performed with poor technique [tends to happen when tired] When that exercise is performed with excessive loading [as type 2 fibres drop the weight and speed may turn excessive for deep squats when oxygen is sparse] Or check out the tabata squat that is similar in high speeds and prolonged fatigue. These are also done to parallel. Another example is plyometric squat jumps. There are two versions. one in wich you immediately jump up again, and one where you go to parallell and explosively jump up. I found nothing about plyometrics jumps from the bottom. No one does the explosive quick turn at full stretch of the muscle. Perhaps they feel this would be beging for injuries. What you originally cited "I have not tried full squats, but generally speaking the risk of injury increases with the angle..." should be read in it's context. For slow strength training I have long done deep squats with no problems. But this thread was not and is not about strength training squats. </td></tr></table> No. Carl Henrik, I'm not confused -- you are. Obviously, you can hurt yourself when you exceed your personal capacity -- that can happen with any exercise movement at any speed. That's not a function of the exercise, it's a function of your overuse or misuse of the exercise. You have to work up to it; once you do, then there is no problem squatting deep at speed. You'll never be able to do something you never try. As it happens, I do explosive plyometric jump squats from the bottom a couple times a week. At the moment, I follow Mark Verstegen's Core Performance program, which utilizes a number of plyometric movements, fast jump squats being one. I have done weighted jump squats the same way (using a barbell). I haven't Tabataed them, though, but that sounds interesting. By the way, the term, "Tabata squat," does not refer to a movement, but rather to a protocol. Virtually any exercise (including erging) can be done using the Tabata protocol, which consists of 20 seconds of very hard, near-maximum-effort, fast exercise (e.g., sprinting, squats, pushups, etc) and 10 seconds of rest repeated a total of eight cycles. Dr. Tabata's original study in Japan utilized subjects on a treadmill for 6 to 10 or 11 cycles. Most users of the Tabata protocol, however, now utilize eight cycles as a standard. If you take a look at the Crossfit website, the Tabata squat demonstration goes well below parallel, although they do not go all the way to the bottom. That medicine ball you see is to be touched but not used for bouncing up. If you bounce off the ball, it is removed. You are simply limiting yourself. Clearly, you won't be able to do as many repetitions of full squats as you can half squats, but getting more reps does not mean you are getting a more intense workout. It has been demonstrated that the shearing forces on knee are equal or greater (depends on the study} when a weighted squat is stopped at parallel. Why should it be any different with rapid bodyweight squats? The forces follow the same paths -- if mass is less, but speed is greater, there is the potential to develop similar forces. If you are afraid of overstressing your hamstrings at the bottom of the squat, that argues for more work out of the bottom position to strengthen the hamstrings. Porkchop

[old] Yoda1 · Post by **[old] Yoda1** » July 24th, 2005, 12:27 pm

Porkchop, For an old guy you said that very well. I'm in full agreement with you. Yoda

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 24th, 2005, 1:05 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Yoda1 @ Jul 24 2005, 11:27 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Porkchop, For an old guy you said that very well. I'm in full agreement with you. Yoda </td></tr></table> Yoda, Thanks -- I think? Porkchop

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 24th, 2005, 2:02 pm

Chop, I have to agree with Carl on this. Certainly full squats are more difficult, IF you are doing the same number in the same amount of time. However, Carl is doing his parallel squats at the rate of 44 per minute, which is an excellent exercise and provides a lot of benefits that you're not getting with yours. Also note Javier Sotomayor does 1/4 squats with 660 pounds, and has jumped over 8 feet in the high jump! Check it out. That's the typical height of a ceiling, which means he jumped OVER the height of a ceiling. Are you trying to say he would have done better doing full squats??? Not likely. I do agree that fewer full squats are more of a strength exercise, but rowing is a power exercise, hence in this regard, the probability of the 44 rpm parallels being a much better exercise.

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » July 24th, 2005, 2:35 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 24 2005, 01:02 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Chop, I have to agree with Carl on this. Certainly full squats are more difficult, IF you are doing the same number in the same amount of time. However, Carl is doing his parallel squats at the rate of 44 per minute, which is an excellent exercise and provides a lot of benefits that you're not getting with yours. Also note Javier Sotomayor does 1/4 squats with 660 pounds, and has jumped over 8 feet in the high jump! Check it out. That's the typical height of a ceiling, which means he jumped OVER the height of a ceiling. Are you trying to say he would have done better doing full squats??? Not likely. I do agree that fewer full squats are more of a strength exercise, but rowing is a power exercise, hence in this regard, the probability of the 44 rpm parallels being a much better exercise. </td></tr></table> I really shouldn't do this , but -- You missed the point, John. The issue under discussion is whether full squats under any conditions are likely to cause injury -- not a discussion of the benefits of fractional squats. CH says he stops at parallel because he is concerned about injury. We'll never know how high Sotomayer could jump if he did full squats, because he doesn't do them (apparently). I maintiain, however, that using common-sense loading and speed parameters, he would not injure his knees by doing full squats. In any case, it is well-known that Olympic lifters, many of whom squat deep in the Olympic lifts have astonishing vertical leaps. Whether such vertical leaping ability could be transferred to the high jump is beyond my expertise, because the high jump involves techical skills beyond merely jumping vertically. So, your guess is as good as mine, John. In terms of applicablility to erging, the relative angle of the knee at the catch is well past the "parallel" position of the squat, so if you are trying to replicate the power application of erging in your bodyweight squats, then I suggest going far lower than parallel is the best method. Porkchop

[old] tditmar · Post by **[old] tditmar** » July 24th, 2005, 5:44 pm

At 5'9" and 385, Olympic lifter Shane Hamman has a vertical leap of over 42", equal to that of David Thompson (who is listed at anywhere from 42-44",) and bettering that of Michael Jordan at 42". I would say that is pretty impressive. Here is a very interesting article on O-lifting <a href='http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-olympic-lifting.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-oly ... ing.asp</a>

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 24th, 2005, 8:05 pm

Chop, I have to agree with Carl again, as it's you who has missed the point. The title of the thread is "Non Standard Workouts, What do you think about these?. Then Carl asked, "How do you feel about this as a regular cross training excercise?. He also stated "I think it has a low non muscular impact if you can keep your lower back and knees safe". This is all on the very first post so it is amazing that you missed it! In my mid 20's I did a full squat with 386 pounds, butt grazing the floor, and 5 sets of 5 with 310 at a body weight of 146 pounds. And we used to chuckle at the body builders doing 1/2 squats with 135. However I have to agree the 1/2 squats are indeed much safer than full ones. I didn't check at the time but really doubt my vertical jump was all that high. However I will agree that taking an average of those with powerful full squats is probably going to yield a higher vertical jump than an average person. The SAME is true, however, if you take those who are proficient at 1/2 squats. For example, power lifters invariably do 1/2 squats in training as well as their competitions, and some of them also have excellent vertical jumps. I don't know any of them though who could jump over an 8 foot bar, as Javier Sotomayor has done, and he does only 1/4 squats. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>We'll never know how high Sotomayer could jump if he did full squats, because he doesn't do them (apparently). </td></tr></table> Yeah we do know. He wouldn't have been nearly as good. Take a look at the high jump sometime and you'll notice the leg doesn't bend all that much for the jump, surely not close to 1/2 way, and certainly not anywhere in the position of a full squat. The article has a number of mistakes. For example it says that Olympic lifters can outrun and out jump Olympic high jumpers and sprinters!!!! What a crock! If they could do that then they would but they don't. I trained with national class Olympic lifters for a year or two and, while some of them also ran sprints, they were nowhere in the vicinity of the speed of serious sprinters. Also the program at the end of the article is more like a body building routine, and is certainly not one for serious Olympic weightlifting training.

Concept2 Forum

Non Standard Workouts

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training