Author Topic: Joint by joint vert (Read 21282 times)

LanceSTS · « **Reply #15 on:** August 11, 2012, 08:03:36 pm »

Im referring to the direction of force through the feet and ground, driving the shoulders, chest, and head upwards, in the high bar squat, vs driving the hips up via the lb. Think about jumping, you will see which one has more similar force vectors.

This is what makes the difference imo, in some lb squats, you see a similar line of push that you would in a vertical leap, in others you see an almost identical line to a deadlift. The reason the front squat gives more similarity to the vert is for this reason imo, you literally cant make it a deadlift, or you lose the bar.

LanceSTS · « **Reply #16 on:** August 11, 2012, 08:07:09 pm »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCh4bm-lE2c" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCh4bm-lE2c</a>

compare that to your squat Steven, and I think you will understand what I am referring to more clearly.

Raptor · « **Reply #17 on:** August 11, 2012, 08:19:30 pm »

I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.

LanceSTS · « **Reply #18 on:** August 11, 2012, 08:25:39 pm »

I gotta go train, Ill be on later though to read your replies.

deadlift= broad jump- horizontal force vector

front squat= vertical jump - vertical force vector

vertical---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------horizontal

front squat........................ high bar squat............................... low bar squat................... deadlift

**the way these exercises are performed can alter their position for each individual. the deadlift can go more vertical, the high bar squat more towards hfv, etc.

LanceSTS · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2012, 08:27:20 pm »

Quote from: Raptor on August 11, 2012, 08:19:30 pm

I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.

Right, and its a GREAT FUCKING EXERCISE, its just not the ONLY way, or single optimal way for EVERYONE. I have a ton of athletes low bar, and if youre a one leg jumper, its a good idea anyway.

steven-miller · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2012, 09:59:44 pm »

Quote from: LanceSTS on August 11, 2012, 08:03:36 pm

Im referring to the direction of force through the feet and ground, driving the shoulders, chest, and head upwards, in the high bar squat, vs driving the hips up via the lb. Think about jumping, you will see which one has more similar force vectors.

This is what makes the difference imo, in some lb squats, you see a similar line of push that you would in a vertical leap, in others you see an almost identical line to a deadlift. The reason the front squat gives more similarity to the vert is for this reason imo, you literally cant make it a deadlift, or you lose the bar.

Now we have three different arguments IMO.

1) Does the HBBS build quad strength quicker than the LBBS?

2) Is the HBBS more similar to a vertical jump?

3) Is the HBBS a better exercise to build a vertical jump since it is perhaps more specific to it?

Regarding 1) I have made my point and stand by it. I do not think that there is a substantial difference between the two movements regarding quad involvement and I certainly do not think they allow strength in the quadriceps to be build quicker.

Regarding 2) I don't know to be honest. They are both very different. So, maybe.

Regarding 3) I do not think so. While the HBBS might be more similar to a jump compared to a LBBS, they are both so different that specificity is hardly relevant here. They both are supposed to build strength and whichever squat variant accomplishes this better will IMO be better suited.

Quote from: LanceSTS on August 11, 2012, 08:25:39 pm

deadlift= broad jump- horizontal force vector

front squat= vertical jump - vertical force vector

vertical---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------horizontal

front squat........................ high bar squat............................... low bar squat................... deadlift

**the way these exercises are performed can alter their position for each individual. the deadlift can go more vertical, the high bar squat more towards hfv, etc.

I still do not get what you mean with that. In the deadlift the bar gets pulled up and the center of mass of the lifter also goes up, not forward. The same applies to the LBBS and the other squat variants as well. Where is there a horizontal force vector? I could do a very explosive deadlift and jump straight up, not forward. I guess I misunderstand what you are trying to imply.

Quote from: LanceSTS on August 11, 2012, 08:27:20 pm

Quote from: Raptor on August 11, 2012, 08:19:30 pm
I personally squat low bar due to knee issues but I do put a ton of quad involvement in the squat. So I'm somewhere in the middleground.

Right, and its a GREAT FUCKING EXERCISE, its just not the ONLY way, or single optimal way for EVERYONE. I have a ton of athletes low bar, and if youre a one leg jumper, its a good idea anyway.

Just to get this out of the way, I do not have to be right here. If there is a reason why the LBBS would not be optimally suited for strength training to increase the VJ, I am interested to know why.

pelham32 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2012, 10:11:08 pm »

I understand how the front squat can be the most similar to the vertical jump from a force vector stand point, but how can it be optimal loading for the quadriceps compared to HB and LB? I mean would using the front squat be taking the long route for strength?

LanceSTS · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2012, 10:38:54 pm »

@ Steven, think of the force vectors as knee extension and hip extension.

I dont think with the way YOU squat low bar, you would notice a difference in vert training. Very minimal at best since youre already so upright. I have seen it happen that, someone switches to a more knee driven squatting style, and gets a much higher correlation to vertical jump, olympic lifts, and 10yd sprints.

What I can say from seeing this every day, is that if I see a guy squatting deep and upright, a very high squat relative to his bodyweight, I can put the bank on it that he will jump well in the standing vert, start well in the 40, and if hes not already good at the olympic lifts I can get him there easily.

I can NOT make this statement with guys coming in who have been low bar squatting, and have a high squat #, but not nearly in the same manner. If you test the front squat, many times these guys will have much less success there, and the first group I referenced will be much closer to their squat. The only thing withstanding that they are able to hold the rack position, and this is easy to teach and get around.

The bottom line is that a heavy squat done deep and upright means that the LEGS are strong. If the LEGS are strong, the athlete will nearly always jump well. If the low back is strong, this doesnt mean the same thing. This is also why its hard to correlate vj with the deadlift.

LanceSTS · « **Reply #23 on:** August 11, 2012, 10:44:17 pm »

Quote from: pelham32 on August 11, 2012, 10:11:08 pm

I understand how the front squat can be the most similar to the vertical jump from a force vector stand point, but how can it be optimal loading for the quadriceps compared to HB and LB? I mean would using the front squat be taking the long route for strength?

The problem with using primarily the front squat is that the limiting factor with most outside o lifting becomes the rack position and not the strength of the legs. This can be from core strength or simply general flexibility, but it keeps people from loading the legs as hard as they could if holding the load wasnt the limiting factor.

The other issue is that a lot of jumpers already have minor knee issues or use them excessively, and the front squat takes a pretty nice toll on the knees in these cases.

If neither of those apply to you, front squats are fine as your primary lift. The only way I would use them as a primary is if someone had been squatting in a way that neglected the quads, and needed to drastically build strength in a more upright position to help their athleticism.

Raptor · « **Reply #24 on:** August 12, 2012, 07:32:53 am »

Maybe the low bar squat is "superior" (in lack of a better term) because men usually have overactive quads and strong quads to begin with, so doing low bar squats makes the posterior chain slowly catch up with the quads and balance stuff.

But then again - it depends on so many factors. LB does allow more weight though, but it's important how that weight is driven up.

steven-miller · « **Reply #25 on:** August 12, 2012, 08:24:22 am »

Quote from: LanceSTS on August 11, 2012, 10:38:54 pm

@ Steven, think of the force vectors as knee extension and hip extension.

I dont think with the way YOU squat low bar, you would notice a difference in vert training. Very minimal at best since youre already so upright. I have seen it happen that, someone switches to a more knee driven squatting style, and gets a much higher correlation to vertical jump, olympic lifts, and 10yd sprints.

What I can say from seeing this every day, is that if I see a guy squatting deep and upright, a very high squat relative to his bodyweight, I can put the bank on it that he will jump well in the standing vert, start well in the 40, and if hes not already good at the olympic lifts I can get him there easily.

I can NOT make this statement with guys coming in who have been low bar squatting, and have a high squat #, but not nearly in the same manner. If you test the front squat, many times these guys will have much less success there, and the first group I referenced will be much closer to their squat. The only thing withstanding that they are able to hold the rack position, and this is easy to teach and get around.

Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.

Quote from: LanceSTS on August 11, 2012, 10:38:54 pm

The bottom line is that a heavy squat done deep and upright means that the LEGS are strong. If the LEGS are strong, the athlete will nearly always jump well. If the low back is strong, this doesnt mean the same thing. This is also why its hard to correlate vj with the deadlift.

You don't stand up from a properly performed LBBS with 110% of what you can HBBS and have weak leg involvement. The knee extensors work just as hard as in the LBBS as in his sibling and the hip muscles work harder. The lower back muscles will have to fire more as well, but they do not extend the hips and knees.

entropy · « **Reply #26 on:** August 12, 2012, 09:30:04 am »

Quote from: steven-miller on August 12, 2012, 08:24:22 am

Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.

I think this is an example of cognitive dissonance. The SS thinking in line with the rest of the S&C world was "specificity: frequent practice of things or similar things we wish to become better at", then somewhere along the way, when Crossfit and SS philosophy were aligned it manifested in the slogan "Specificity is for insects"; now suddenly becoming better at LBBS and deadlifts (which SS considers GENERAL exercises) was better not just for the average gym rat but elite weightlifters seeking Olympic medals. And this is when SS jumped the shark and become the one hammer solution to any training problem or situation.

steven-miller · « **Reply #27 on:** August 12, 2012, 11:15:07 am »

Quote from: entropy on August 12, 2012, 09:30:04 am

Quote from: steven-miller on August 12, 2012, 08:24:22 am
Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.

I think this is an example of cognitive dissonance. The SS thinking in line with the rest of the S&C world was "specificity: frequent practice of things or similar things we wish to become better at", then somewhere along the way, when Crossfit and SS philosophy were aligned it manifested in the slogan "Specificity is for insects"; now suddenly becoming better at LBBS and deadlifts (which SS considers GENERAL exercises) was better not just for the average gym rat but elite weightlifters seeking Olympic medals. And this is when SS jumped the shark and become the one hammer solution to any training problem or situation.

SS is claimed by nobody to be the best solution to any training problem. It is a beginner program. It is limited to this population.
What is fascinating though is that many beginners fail to recognize themselves as such. They then get into arguments on the Internet saying specificity was key to success although, as beginners, they are not in a position to know.

My take is that specificity is important for non-novices, while it is a pretty shallow concept when you don't squat shit. Some adaptations are in fact of a general nature. Lower body strength developed via squats is such a thing. It qualifies as "general" because it has implications for a plethora of rather dissimilar acts. When I first started doing powersnatches (PS) my best LBBS was 185 kg x 5. I believe it took me a handful of sessions to go up to 85 kg in the PS with the shittiest technique ever seen. Those 5 sessions were not what made me stronger, I just learned the new movement. General strength, developed before in many months of training, allowed this weight to be lifted. That is what "general" does and means.

And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.

LanceSTS · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2012, 11:17:59 am »

Quote from: steven-miller on August 12, 2012, 08:24:22 am

Correlation is not causation. Just because a high-bar squat correlates to a larger degree with the VJ does NOT mean that it is a better way to train the VJ. It merely means that similar things are similar. If the goal is to increase lower body strength, one selects the tool that does this best. When all the muscles in the system get stronger, the athlete has the capacity to perform better. Making him do that can is a function of practice and of the additional work, e.g. RFD, plyos, etc., the athlete does when "enough" strength has been increased.

If you have common sense, you may also draw certain conclusions based on the evidence youve seen. When there is a direct fucking line linking a strength exercise with a power event, it really does give you some evidence that strength exercise may be a good way to train for it.

Also, most people can low bar squat more than they can high bar, RIGHT NOW. What does that tell you? That its making you stronger since the weight is heavier? bullshit. You can also deadlift more than you can squat, so a deadlift makes you stronger too right? Youre putting yourself in a position thats EASIER to lift the weight.

Quote

You don't stand up from a properly performed LBBS with 110% of what you can HBBS and have weak leg involvement. The knee extensors work just as hard as in the LBBS as in his sibling and the hip muscles work harder

That depends on what you call proper, and fucking LOL @ sibling. You also are merely repeating Rippetoe horseshit with the last line again, even if there were studies to prove it, it would have to be quantified into different lever lengths/height/etc. The hips have to work pretty damn hard in a full olympic squat, the low back can compensate for weak glutes more easily in the low bar squat. Watch the last 3 reps of Rippetoes squat in the video I linked.

Quote

. The lower back muscles will have to fire more as well, but they do not extend the hips and knees.

They can damn sure do a majority of the work first though. Look how many deadlifters get away with very little leg contribution. Once you get that load moving UP, its pretty easy to straighten out those legs.

entropy · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2012, 12:26:27 pm »

Quote from: steven-miller on August 12, 2012, 11:15:07 am

And here is another fact: training the powersnatch solely for the same amount of time that I trained the squats would not have resulted in me powersnatching 85 kg - not even close. That is what "specific" gets you when "general" is not there.

But you're not including the time it took you to build up a 185x5 squat first? If you go back to when you STARTED squatting and started working on your powersnatch then, while squatting too, would it take you AS LONG to snatch 85kg? I don't know the answer to that question but would be interested in hearing whether you think it would take longer than the time it took to work up to a 185x5kg squat + 6 days of working on the powersnatch.Btw you probably know that there is a difference of opinion here because there are those in the other camp ("olympic lifting IS strength training") would disagree that it would necessarily take much longer.

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: Joint by joint vert (Read 21282 times)

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

Raptor

Re: Joint by joint vert

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

steven-miller

Re: Joint by joint vert

pelham32

Re: Joint by joint vert

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

Raptor

Re: Joint by joint vert

steven-miller

Re: Joint by joint vert

entropy

Re: Joint by joint vert

steven-miller

Re: Joint by joint vert

LanceSTS

Re: Joint by joint vert

entropy

Re: Joint by joint vert