Adarq.org

Performance Area => Crazy Weird Analysis & Stuff :) => Topic started by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 12:32:44 am

Title: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 12:32:44 am
There are different ways of squatting, of course. Some more beneficial to others. Some add more specificity. Some people are against specificity. I dno, post what form of squatting you like and for what, if it's not listed. Comment etc.

I didn't gallery this bball2020, it's kind of pointless, but, if you still want me to do it, I will. The movement is slow enough to pause though, IMO.

Post what you find to be the most effective "style" of squatting, as well as other squatting videos of high level athletes.

peace
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 12:48:57 am
Ok so I'll go first. All of the stuff below is on "squatting for athletic performance", not for a meet.

Firstly, I don't like to force depth for people with long leverages, such as high jumpers/various basketball athletes. However, with these athletes, we do work on depth, especially during the warmup/work up sets. But for someone who is "very strong" yet has "very long femurs", I'm not going to sit there for months and months trying to get them to look like a powerlifter.

I get alot of people asking me how I teach squat form, as do most trainers. I feel that squatting off pins is probably the most effective way to teach the squat.



Really Lanky Athletes

So, for long femur'd high-jumper-build athletes, we'll go as low as possible without rounding. I can't really find any videos of half squats the way I do them, and I deleted (by accident) all of eddie's squat videos, but here's how he would squat:




Here's a video of me doing it, please post some nice half squat videos of high jumpers if you have them:

Half squat, close width, feet neutral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKd87aDtHGA

Not on video, half squat off pins, close width, feet neutral. scratch that. Here's a link to me squatting off pins, significantly above half squat tho: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF-Fp5ZeAwo (after the isos)



Non-lanky athletes

For non-lanky athletes, deep squatting comes alot easier.



Here's Taje doing some, most of the other videos are alot darker. Also, most of his vids are maxes. He keeps his form tight in those videos but their are deviations. When trying to bump up his squat, we'd sacrifice depth temporarily as he built strength under the new weight, then worked his way back down. He also used pin squats to zero-in on his form.

Regular squat:

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

^^ Here taje is squatting 195 for reps. Most of his vids are darker and max attempts, so this is one of the best I got. He's hit 315 @ 150, below parallel.


Pin squat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yq6ZVo0e70






So, two different athletes with two very different builds. I saw no point in holding eddie back trying to turn his squat into some kind of PL-style squat. Due to the close stance, he got massive hamstring /glute recruitment, so did I, so does everyone.

Half squatting can also be done for athletes like taje, as they peak vert. Most of the time spent should be below parallel though.


peace
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: nba8340 on March 19, 2010, 01:37:51 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2BxQt2ZH2Mu make some good points

here's a vid of a female high school volleyball player.  I don't know why they have her squatting so wide, she looks crazy unstable like that i would have her going substantially less wide and making sure she pushed those knees out
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 01:42:13 am
Quote
here's a vid of a female high school volleyball player.  I don't know why they have her squatting so wide, she looks crazy unstable like that i would have her going substantially less wide and making sure she pushed those knees out

ya, especially for females who have wide hips and alot of knee valgus to begin with.. plus the way she's looking up, it's going to cause way too much of an arch in her back.

peace
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: vag on March 19, 2010, 06:09:11 am
That is a very interesting topic , great work again Andrew!
Ive been in this dilemma many times...
I feel much better and stable on the half squat , and i can add weights linearly there.
In deep squats i seem to struggle in the hole , and i cant add weight linearly, it takes about 3 sessions with the same weight until i feel i can really add.
But everyone insisted deep is better so i kept trying to improve deep.
Many times i ended up doing naturally what you mentioned above... going very deep in warmups and gradually decreasing depth as the bar got heavier.

Now what about leg leverages? i have no damn clue how to evaluate those, but im sure you do:
Are there any formulas , or ratio ranges or anything?
My height barefoot is ~72''
Height from toes to middle of knee = ~21,5'' ( 55% of leg height , 29% of total height ).
Height from middle of knee to hip joint = ~18'' ( 45% of leg height , 25% of total height ).
Obviously leg height = ~39,5'' ( 54% of total height. )

Hoping this ( actually not this , your reply to this, LOL ) might help other people too evaluating their leverages.

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 06:42:27 am
That is a very interesting topic , great work again Andrew!
Ive been in this dilemma many times...
I feel much better and stable on the half squat , and i can add weights linearly there.
In deep squats i seem to struggle in the hole , and i cant add weight linearly, it takes about 3 sessions with the same weight until i feel i can really add.
But everyone insisted deep is better so i kept trying to improve deep.
Many times i ended up doing naturally what you mentioned above... going very deep in warmups and gradually decreasing depth as the bar got heavier.

Ya that's why eventually I started half-squatting after seeing eddie's gains, but making sure I hit the walking lunges/stepups very hard. I had to stop doing stepups because my glutes were getting too big, it would aggravate an issue I have in my sacral spine.


Quote
Now what about leg leverages? i have no damn clue how to evaluate those, but im sure you do:
Are there any formulas , or ratio ranges or anything?
My height barefoot is ~72''
Height from toes to middle of knee = ~21,5'' ( 55% of leg height , 29% of total height ).
Height from middle of knee to hip joint = ~18'' ( 45% of leg height , 25% of total height ).
Obviously leg height = ~39,5'' ( 54% of total height. )

Hoping this ( actually not this , your reply to this, LOL ) might help other people too evaluating their leverages.



I actually had data on a few athletes, but I can't find it. I also can't find some high jumper study comparing femur length to tibia length. I am full of fail currently.

I will post my measurements tomorrow.

peace man
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 06:54:39 am
I found some other stuff, but I really want to find that high jump study.

Very good article: Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes


Some general differences:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture105.png)


Nice table of differences:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture106.png)


Bigger calfs in 400m sprinters:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture107.png)


High jumpers vs sprinters:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture108.png)


Nice table comparing white/black sprinters vs long distance runners:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture109.png)


Nice table comparing white/black sprinters vs basketball players:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture110.png)

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture111.png)


Nice table comparing men & women:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture112.png)



Nice table comparing black & white athletes:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture113.png)





Weightlifters & Throwers:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture132.png)







arm leg & leg length of a bunch of events, white vs black:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture134.png)

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture135.png)





obvious, but interesting:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture133.png)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 07:40:27 am
http://www.assembla.com/spaces/talentid2009/documents/cN48bGVKer3OFEeJe5aVNr/download/0926BookinviteSelfSelectionofAthletesintosportsFinal.doc


The crural index is a measure of tibia length in relation to femur length, defined as the height of the tibiale laterale (a) with the subject standing, divided by the trochanterion – tibiale laterale length (b). 

The brachial index is a measure of the length of the forearm in relation to the upper arm and is defined as the radiale – stylion length (c) divided by the acromiale – radiale length (d) . 

The androgyny index is essentially shoulder breadth in relation to pelvic breadth, defined as the biacromial breadth (e) divided by the bicristal breadth (f). 

The skelic index describes leg length in relation to torso length and is defined as the derived total leg length (stature minus sitting height) divided by sitting height.  These ratios are depicted in Figure 2. 



Crural index & long/high jumping:

Table 1. Here we show that while the computed somatotype components describe physique, the crural index (Davenport, 1933) represents an additional discriminant in describing physique variation across our adult sample.  A dominant crural index in classes 2 and 4 illustrates the importance of relative limb length in athletes trained for endurance and strength.  A smaller crural index may be advantageous for general agility, whereas a higher value may determine mechanically advantageous take-off technique in long-jump and high-jump events (Alexander, 1990) and in basketball, in tandem with development of commensurate muscle power to maximise femoral leverage Ackland et al., 1997).




Skeletal ratios
Significant differences in skeletal ratios are found between different types of
athletes even when differences in absolute body size are taken into account.
Marathoners tend to have a high skelic index (ratio of total leg length to
sitting height), that is, relatively longer legs. Distance runners also have a
higher crural index (ratio of lower leg length to upper leg length). Longer legs
reduce stride rate, and relatively shorter thighs mean that the resistance arm
on the upper leg is shorter. The muscle mass of the thigh is moved closer to
the axis of rotation of the leg, reducing the energy cost of locomotion. 



http://lib-ir.lib.sfu.ca/bitstream/1892/7871/1/b16962849.pdf
Anthropometric modelling of the human vertical jump

"A study of the proportions of animals of different species indicates that the
fast runners and jumpers are those that have long distal segments, such as
the horse, kangaroo, and the cat. The thigh segment of these animals is
short, ending before the segment leaves the pelvis or flank area The leg
segment is longer than the thigh; the foot segment is the longest, and the
toes are also quite long The animals described as the best jumpers have a
leg considerably longer than the thigh segment and therefore a large crural
index."




"Ross et al. (1982b) compared female high jumpers from the 1976 Montreal Olympic
Games to a group of Canadian reference females, and found that the high jumpers were
proportionally short in sitting height (in other words, proportionally long in the lower
extremities), and that the tibial length was also proportionally long. This supports the
notion that there is an advantage to having long lower extremities and a larger crural index
for jumping.
"



(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture114.png)

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 19, 2010, 07:42:11 am
If anyone finds anything on skelic/crural index & it's relation to squatting, please post.

I'm going to sleep :)

peace
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: nba8340 on March 20, 2010, 01:16:50 pm
That is a very interesting topic , great work again Andrew!
Ive been in this dilemma many times...
I feel much better and stable on the half squat , and i can add weights linearly there.
In deep squats i seem to struggle in the hole , and i cant add weight linearly, it takes about 3 sessions with the same weight until i feel i can really add.
But everyone insisted deep is better so i kept trying to improve deep.
Many times i ended up doing naturally what you mentioned above... going very deep in warmups and gradually decreasing depth as the bar got heavier.

Ya that's why eventually I started half-squatting after seeing eddie's gains, but making sure I hit the walking lunges/stepups very hard. I had to stop doing stepups because my glutes were getting too big, it would aggravate an issue I have in my sacral spine.
wow, i hope we can all have that problem with the glutes

how do you feel about low vs. high step ups, like which do you like to use, and when, and why.  i feel like the higher the box the more likely it will become more hip flexor/quad movement


Quote
Quote
Now what about leg leverages? i have no damn clue how to evaluate those, but im sure you do:
Are there any formulas , or ratio ranges or anything?
My height barefoot is ~72''
Height from toes to middle of knee = ~21,5'' ( 55% of leg height , 29% of total height ).
Height from middle of knee to hip joint = ~18'' ( 45% of leg height , 25% of total height ).
Obviously leg height = ~39,5'' ( 54% of total height. )

Hoping this ( actually not this , your reply to this, LOL ) might help other people too evaluating their leverages.



I actually had data on a few athletes, but I can't find it. I also can't find some high jumper study comparing femur length to tibia length. I am full of fail currently.

I will post my measurements tomorrow.

peace man
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 20, 2010, 01:39:09 pm
That is a very interesting topic , great work again Andrew!
Ive been in this dilemma many times...
I feel much better and stable on the half squat , and i can add weights linearly there.
In deep squats i seem to struggle in the hole , and i cant add weight linearly, it takes about 3 sessions with the same weight until i feel i can really add.
But everyone insisted deep is better so i kept trying to improve deep.
Many times i ended up doing naturally what you mentioned above... going very deep in warmups and gradually decreasing depth as the bar got heavier.

Ya that's why eventually I started half-squatting after seeing eddie's gains, but making sure I hit the walking lunges/stepups very hard. I had to stop doing stepups because my glutes were getting too big, it would aggravate an issue I have in my sacral spine.
wow, i hope we can all have that problem with the glutes

how do you feel about low vs. high step ups, like which do you like to use, and when, and why.  i feel like the higher the box the more likely it will become more hip flexor/quad movement


Well here are the variations i've used:



Keep in mind, a high stepup for someone who is < 6' might be around 22" though, we're looking at a <90 degree angle.

I implement normal stepups for the most part. In novices, I only implement normal stepups, but for intermediate/advanced, we take advantage of high & low.

In the preparatory phase, you'd use high & normal. As you transition to a peaking phase, you'd use normal & low. Low stepups of course allow for more weight, which can get pretty high for SL jumpers, so you have to be prepared & progress properly.

High stepups are hardly quad/hip flexor dominant though, if form is strict. A high stepup has similar joint angles between the hip & knee as that of a dip squat. The key is to push through the heel, actively pulling back the femur. If you let your femur shift forward, you will be attempting to overuse the quads in the movement.



As far as set/rep ranges, when trying to gain mass in the glutes/hams/quads, I prefer to do stepups using the same leg in a row, not alternating, for about 8 reps each leg. When trying to put on strength, we're looking at same leg OR alternating, using 3-5 reps each leg. When trying to produce alot of power without too much fatigue, I use only alternating stepups, of 1-3 reps each leg, singles would be done for a bunch of sets, max accelerationg of the heavy weight.

peace
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: vag on March 20, 2010, 08:27:31 pm
Finaly , i found a kinda useful article about leg length evaluation:

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/pdf

Long story short:
There is not much global data about leg length ratios.
The only data available is about Sitting Height Ratio (SHR ).
Sitting Height = height from head to buttocks , sitting in a chair.
SHR = ( sitting height / standing height ) * 100.
From what i see in SHR the chart for adlults: 52 to 53 = average , anything under 50 = very long legs , anthing over 55 = very short legs.



Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 20, 2010, 08:32:07 pm
Finaly , i found a kinda useful article about leg length evaluation:

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/pdf

Long story short:
There is not much global data about leg length ratios.
The only data available is about Sitting Height Ratio (SHR ).
Sitting Height = height from head to buttocks , sitting in a chair.
SHR = ( sitting height / standing height ) * 100.
From what i see in SHR the chart for adlults: 52 to 53 = average , anything under 50 = very long legs , anthing over 55 = very short legs.





nice

ya that's all i could find too: 'skelic index' = SHR

shit i need to do some measurements ill brb..
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: vag on March 20, 2010, 08:49:12 pm
nice

ya that's all i could find too: 'skelic index' = SHR

shit i need to do some measurements ill brb..

My SHR is 50,5%. Long legs...
Here comes the half-squat fiesta! :D :D :D
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 20, 2010, 08:51:53 pm
PLEASE PARTICIPATE, POST YOUR SHR : Here (http://www.adarq.org/forum/index.php?topic=547.msg3505#msg3505)

Quote
Sitting Height Ratio (SHR ).
Sitting Height = height from head to buttocks , sitting in a chair.
SHR = ( sitting height / standing height ) * 100.
From what i see in SHR the chart for adlults: 52 to 53 = average , anything under 50 = very long legs , anthing over 55 = very short legs.

LOL

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture116.png)


HOW TO MEASURE SEATED HEIGHT: 90 Degree hip angle

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture120.png)




JUST FOR REFERENCE:

(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture118.png)


(http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo345/adarqui/Picture119.png)





Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 20, 2010, 08:53:04 pm
nice

ya that's all i could find too: 'skelic index' = SHR

shit i need to do some measurements ill brb..

My SHR is 50,5%. Long legs...
Here comes the half-squat fiesta! :D :D :D

where did you get the "anything under 50 = very long legs"? can't find it. Or is that data from some other reference?

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 20, 2010, 09:04:35 pm
PLEASE PARTICIPATE, POST YOUR SHR : Here (http://www.adarq.org/forum/index.php?topic=547.msg3505#msg3505)

I got:

SHR = (sitting height / standing height) * 100 = (37 / 73) * 100 = 50.7

:D
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: zgin on March 20, 2010, 10:29:17 pm
sitting height=37
standing height=72
shr=51.3
squatting parallel is difficult
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: ARowe on March 21, 2010, 01:16:35 am
standing height 67"   :)

sitting height 34"

SHR 50.75

squatting below parallel ain't no thang
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 03:32:09 am
from allstarNZ on TVS:

SHR: 50.7 (36/71)*100
Squatting deep: Easy, some minor lower back rounding when VERY deep.


(expletive), EXACTLY the same SHR as you adarqui haha.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 03:53:25 am
so far the tally is:
--------------------
50.75 (arowe)
51.3 (zgin)
50.7 (adarq)
50.75 (allstar)
50.5 (vag)
51.5 (tychver)
47.8 (rip)
47 (jumper5000)
49.4 (miles)
51.136 (Volleybel)
55.9 (mattyg55)
51.39 (nba8340)
49.5 (raptor)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: vag on March 21, 2010, 06:00:24 am

where did you get the "anything under 50 = very long legs"? can't find it. Or is that data from some other reference?


I made it up , observing/analyzing the global data chart in that pdf , the 18yo and 20+yo collumns.
It seems average is between 51 and 54.
Also it says in the same paragraph "Mean
SHR for populations of adults varies from minimum values, i.e., relatively longest legs, for Australian
Aborigines (SHR = 47.3 for men and 48.1 for women) to the maximum SHR values, i.e., relatively
shortest legs, for Guatemala Maya men and Peruvian women ( SHR = 54.6 and 55.8 )."

So there you go , values vary from 47 to 55 , average ~52,5 , so 50 is between average and longest legs existing.


Also , my analytical data :
Sitting height = 36,4''
Standing height = 72''
Squatting deep: its all ok until ~210lbs ( ~75% 1RM ) , above that i have serious trouble getting out of the hole, im allready uncomfortable at parallel...
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 06:15:29 am
Tychver SHR = 51.5 (35/68)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 12:33:29 pm
rip:

47.8

Lower back rounds around parallel :/





jumper5000:


(35/74)=.47x100= 47

medium difficulty or med-hard.






miles:

SHR: 49.4
Squatting deep: Easy







volleybel:

SHR: 51.136
Squatting deep: good, easy. No lower back rounding, maybe overarching a bit with higher weights..







Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: nba8340 on March 21, 2010, 01:20:11 pm
SHR = (37/72)*100=51.39%
 squatting deep hard
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mattyg35 on March 21, 2010, 01:59:56 pm
Sitting Height = 37.5"
Standing Height = 67"
SHR = 55.9
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 06:23:36 pm
from raptor:

For me is 90/182 x 100 = 49.45

Squatting deep is irrelevant because there are too many other factors at stake for that.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 09:57:51 pm
so far the tally is:
--------------------
50.75 (arowe)
51.3 (zgin)
50.7 (adarq)
50.75 (allstar)
50.5 (vag)
51.5 (tychver)
47.8 (rip)
47 (jumper5000)
49.4 (miles)
51.136 (Volleybel)
55.9 (mattyg55)
51.39 (nba8340)
49.5 (raptor)
52.1 (kingfish)






mattyg55, how is 'deep squatting' while maintaining neutral/arched spine, easy/difficult?
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mattyg35 on March 21, 2010, 11:04:41 pm
No trouble at all. I can fire my glutes very well. Arch or flat isn't difficult.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 11:08:52 pm
No trouble at all. I can fire my glutes very well. Arch or flat isn't difficult.


k cool..

our hypothesis is that a lower SHR (<51) increases the chances that deep squatting will be difficult & half squatting more effective...

another hypothesis was created: most people with SHR of 50-51 are obsessed with vert because, they are naturally able to jump at an "ok" level, but not near someone who would have an SHR of < 50

another hypothesis was then created: most people obsessed with running vert have an SHR of < 51, that you will not find many over 53 in the "vert addict game", because these people would be more obsessed with lifting in general.

or I could be completely talking out of my ass :)

but that data is pretty cool so far.

pc
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mattyg35 on March 21, 2010, 11:40:45 pm
Thats pretty cool stuff.
Makes sense. I like lifting weights. I remember taking a class in HS and it was about people's proportions, 2/3s of the body was to the hip, and 1/3 obviously was for the rest of the body(hip to top of the head). That was supposed to be the 'ideal' figure. Related to women's waist-to-hip ratio, if you know what that is.
But yeah, people with longer legs, IMO, usually have longer achilles as well(just from having longer legs), which afaik makes someone more predisposed to being a natural jumper.
When I look at the Sittting vs Standing measurements, all it is is biomechanics. Lower SHR = longer femurs, right?
So for me, when I squat, my butt doesn't have to deviate from the body's midline as much.
For the lower SHR guys as well. Most people train their strengths too. Human nature, do whats easier(relatively in this instance). Squatting wasn't for that 'type' but like you said they were more 'natural' jumpers.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 21, 2010, 11:52:55 pm
Thats pretty cool stuff.
Makes sense. I like lifting weights. I remember taking a class in HS and it was about people's proportions, 2/3s of the body was to the hip, and 1/3 obviously was for the rest of the body(hip to top of the head). That was supposed to be the 'ideal' figure. Related to women's waist-to-hip ratio, if you know what that is.
But yeah, people with longer legs, IMO, usually have longer achilles as well(just from having longer legs), which afaik makes someone more predisposed to being a natural jumper.
When I look at the Sittting vs Standing measurements, all it is is biomechanics. Lower SHR = longer femurs, right?
So for me, when I squat, my butt doesn't have to deviate from the body's midline as much.
For the lower SHR guys as well. Most people train their strengths too. Human nature, do whats easier(relatively in this instance). Squatting wasn't for that 'type' but like you said they were more 'natural' jumpers.

ya definitely..

as for lower SHR equalling longer femurs, that could be the case, or actually longer tibia's (lower leg). Based on the 2nd chart listed here: http://www.adarq.org/forum/index.php?topic=547.msg3447#msg3447  400m runners has longer tibia's than sprinters & high jumpers had longer thigh lengths (femur). So ya, regardless, SHR is longer legs in general, could be due to femur or tibia.

I think the key beyond just longer legs, is "longer legs in relation to upper body (torso + head)". That is where we're going to see the longer tendons. SHR seems like it can be pretty valuable in this regard.

Those natural limb leverages definitely mold who we are, because as kids, we find certain activities more fun than others, which usually has something to do with our natural leverages & natural physiology. Their are of course outliers but, they are outliers nonetheless. If we took an accurate survey of all the vert-broz on the forums, or basketballers in general, im sure you'd rarely ever find people over 51.

A higher SHR might be better correlated with standing vert though, ie, i've seen a study with asians having on average higher standing verts than blacks and whites. These leverages would also lend themselves more to sports like olympic weightlifting and gymnastics, both of which the "chinese" do very well in.

peace man
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mattyg35 on March 21, 2010, 11:58:43 pm
Thats cool stuff. You're a real scientologist with all of this.
I remember watching a video analysis of Stefan Holm a while ago. It was super interesting, they went all super slow and showed his plant leg and the biomechanics of how he was able to jump so high. Like his tendon was 4x(?) stronger than the average humans, and it could withstand like a half ton of force before it would stretch, something like that. But yeah, it was shitty that I couldn't find it. Have you seen it before? They had one for Asafa Powell too, and he had a Psoas'(I think) that pretty much filled his abdomen it was so big.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2010, 12:10:59 am
Thats cool stuff. You're a real scientologist with all of this.
I remember watching a video analysis of Stefan Holm a while ago. It was super interesting, they went all super slow and showed his plant leg and the biomechanics of how he was able to jump so high. Like his tendon was 4x(?) stronger than the average humans, and it could withstand like a half ton of force before it would stretch, something like that. But yeah, it was shitty that I couldn't find it. Have you seen it before? They had one for Asafa Powell too, and he had a Psoas'(I think) that pretty much filled his abdomen it was so big.

ya i've got the links somewhere, i'll find them.. btw, i have some of those clips in my GALLERIES: High jumpers thread, in this subforum.

ill post a link in a bit to the holm/thomas vid.

holm vs thomas documentary, part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBgdsITpZe8
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2010, 02:34:58 am
from kingfish:

36.5" / 70 = 52.1

i can squat deep without much lowerback rounding IMO.
im the only average build here so far Wink





so far the tally is:
--------------------
50.75 (arowe)
51.3 (zgin)
50.7 (adarq)
50.75 (allstar)
50.5 (vag)
51.5 (tychver)
47.8 (rip)
47 (jumper5000)
49.4 (miles)
51.136 (Volleybel)
55.9 (mattyg55)
51.39 (nba8340)
49.5 (raptor)
52.1 (kingfish)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mattyg35 on March 22, 2010, 07:01:41 am
ya i've got the links somewhere, i'll find them.. btw, i have some of those clips in my GALLERIES: High jumpers thread, in this subforum.

ill post a link in a bit to the holm/thomas vid.

holm vs thomas documentary, part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBgdsITpZe8

That one's super similar to the one I saw.
The one I saw was only Stefan Holm, but the two have the same content.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: vag on March 22, 2010, 07:24:50 am
tally sorted:

47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52,1    (kingfish)
55,9    (mattyg55)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Adam. on March 22, 2010, 11:32:02 am
Uh, maybe I didn't do it right:

Sitting Height: 39.5"
Standing Height: 73"

SHR: 54.1%

I have shit for ankles so that really effects my depth, but I can, after mobility training squat below parallel without rounding though initially it wasn't possible. Also, I tend to get hip pain when I go below parallel which has not been resolved by the repeated advice that it is a hip flexor length issue.

Jump Video Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iae_9qerIuU

Squat Video Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NEqLwPCW-g
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mattyg35 on March 22, 2010, 12:00:32 pm
Also, I tend to get hip pain when I go below parallel which has not been resolved by the repeated advice that it is a hip flexor length issue.

Where do you feel the pain?
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Adam. on March 22, 2010, 12:32:12 pm
When palpated, on the ASIS. During the squat when greater than 90 degrees hip flexion. Wider stance and knees out makes it worse. It seems to be a strain through the connective tissue of the sartorius since it originates in that location, but no one has really been able to diagnose that in particular.

The only thing I have read is that in some people the anterior portion of the greater trochanter can have nodules that press into the soft tissue during deep hip flexion. IDK, currently I'm doing trap bar deads as a way to get squats in without squatting, lol.

A more recent squat video. I bought a pair of oly shoes to get a narrower stance and hopefully stave off some of the hip issues. It seemed to work for a while, but they slowly came creeping back in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs779R-PwNc
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: nba8340 on March 22, 2010, 02:48:56 pm
i had somethign real similar adam, i basically had an adhesion around the vmo/sartorius right above the knee and it was causing my knee pain

some ART and foam rolling should help, that's how mine got out.  I stil have other adhesions around that area, i think it's just a result of the quads/hip flexors being real tight and so when doing squats/etc going deep you the hamstrings are  really lengthened,, like too lengthened and at the same time contracting like crazy and adhesions start to form in the connective tisssue
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Adam. on March 22, 2010, 03:50:48 pm
Like I said above NBA, my hip flexor length is not an issue. I have had a PT when doing work on my ankle say that I have more mobility that normal population for hip extension. As for adhesions, maybe, but I don't think they explain why I get low grade pain during unloaded hip flexion.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2010, 04:37:32 pm
thanks vag.



tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2010, 07:25:32 pm
nishan.a:
91/174 = 52 shr, age 18

squatting deep = very easy (i usually do a hip flexor static stretch first anyway though)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: nba8340 on March 22, 2010, 08:33:15 pm
Like I said above NBA, my hip flexor length is not an issue. I have had a PT when doing work on my ankle say that I have more mobility that normal population for hip extension. As for adhesions, maybe, but I don't think they explain why I get low grade pain during unloaded hip flexion.

maybe not the hip flexor, maybe rectus femoris or other quad muscle?
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2010, 08:54:26 pm
RJ:

(expletive) you guys! Laughing

40 / 72.5 = .552

And squatting is damn easy.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2010, 08:55:18 pm
tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.5    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Adam. on March 24, 2010, 09:52:21 am
tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

You should add a couple of more columns such as current squat weight and maybe svj & rvj numbers.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: LBSS on March 28, 2010, 10:55:57 am
50.7
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on March 29, 2010, 05:43:56 am
50.7

thanks!




tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.5    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: LBSS on March 29, 2010, 01:42:51 pm
50.7

thanks!




tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.7    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

Not that it matters that much, haha.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: LBSS on March 29, 2010, 01:48:56 pm
50.7

thanks!




tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.7    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

Not that it matters that much, haha.

Just looked back at the earlier posts and noticed that 52-53 is supposedly "normal." Lower value = longer legs. However, I've always perceived myself to have somewhat short legs/limbs and a long torso. Other dudes my height seem to have longer legs than I do. Whatever. FWIW squatting deep feels fine until the weights get really high, but at that point I don't think anyone is comfortable.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Flander on November 16, 2010, 08:05:19 am
99,5/187,5=0,5306

Squatting deep is damn ez.

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on November 16, 2010, 03:16:23 pm
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Tam on November 17, 2010, 07:13:45 am
48.6

Squatting deep is damn hard.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: vag on November 17, 2010, 10:15:56 am
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on November 17, 2010, 02:07:15 pm
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!

yup, this data gathering turned out pretty good.. true science! lolol
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: djoe on November 17, 2010, 07:12:09 pm
remind me pls, SHR =  standing height / height?
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on November 17, 2010, 07:19:41 pm
remind me pls, SHR =  standing height / height?


SHR = (sitting height / standing height) * 100 = for example (for me), (37 / 73) * 100 = 50.7

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Flander on November 18, 2010, 02:07:57 am
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!

yup, this data gathering turned out pretty good.. true science! lolol


We should do more of this kinda shit. I love this. So interesting and fun to compare with other people.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: bball2020 on November 18, 2010, 07:05:03 am
good idea

6 inches to 11 inches  :o


lol...
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on November 18, 2010, 05:58:37 pm
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!

yup, this data gathering turned out pretty good.. true science! lolol


We should do more of this kinda shit. I love this. So interesting and fun to compare with other people.

i agree, if everyone had cams, we could create complete profiles, anthropomorphic measurements, and then link that to a performance profile (strength in lifts, speed, jumps etc).. would be fun.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Royal on November 19, 2010, 02:14:38 am
Cool study here, I love doing this type of shit.

34.3/67.5 = 51.111111

Not bad.

That's very weird, I've also always perceived myself as short limbed and my friends tell me that all the time haha.
I find squatting very hard, my weak ankles contribute to this, but I find the going down to strain me. I tend to have to step backward and it's difficult to keep my heels down.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Flander on November 19, 2010, 09:08:52 am
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!

yup, this data gathering turned out pretty good.. true science! lolol


We should do more of this kinda shit. I love this. So interesting and fun to compare with other people.

i agree, if everyone had cams, we could create complete profiles, anthropomorphic measurements, and then link that to a performance profile (strength in lifts, speed, jumps etc).. would be fun.


Im in if you know how to set it up.
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: DamienZ on November 28, 2010, 02:50:09 pm
93/189*100= 49,2 :headbang:
squatting below parallel without rounding after specific warmup  :strong:
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: LoopieMclooperson on January 02, 2011, 02:08:19 am
grave digging......

38.5/70*100= 55.0

too bad long torso doesn't = big ups :ibjumping:

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mj on February 13, 2011, 06:03:44 am
48.0  

Always knew my legs were long. I squat low bar, athletic stance always past paralell. I have to shoot my knees forward though. If I try to PL squat (static knees) I end up folded like a briefcase and lifting with my back  :o My squat is very much like what Mark Ripptoe prescribes. I lift on a wedge board too (too cheap to buy oly shoes)

Below link to a vid of 150kg x 1. Made 160kg recently but no vid.

I've tried oly squats but I just can't get all my junk (legs) out of the way without putting the knees out in the next postcode. Gets dodgy over 110kg and upsets my patellar tendonitis  >:(

http://www.youtube.com/user/Chopperdog1982#p/a/u/1/g7wkVCbtCq0
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: adarqui on February 14, 2011, 04:33:36 am
48.0  

long legs!


Quote
Always knew my legs were long. I squat low bar, athletic stance always past paralell. I have to shoot my knees forward though. If I try to PL squat (static knees) I end up folded like a briefcase and lifting with my back  :o

ya i definitely see how that would happen from the video



Quote
My squat is very much like what Mark Ripptoe prescribes. I lift on a wedge board too (too cheap to buy oly shoes)

Below link to a vid of 150kg x 1. Made 160kg recently but no vid.

I've tried oly squats but I just can't get all my junk (legs) out of the way without putting the knees out in the next postcode. Gets dodgy over 110kg and upsets my patellar tendonitis  >:(

http://www.youtube.com/user/Chopperdog1982#p/a/u/1/g7wkVCbtCq0

i checked side angle, didn't look bad, your hip mobility really kicks in as you hit depth, even with those long legs.. i personally don't recommend rippetoe style squats but people have made great progress on them, such as steven-miller etc..

my recommendation is always, hit "your own unique depth" allowing some knee shift forward + keep a more upright torso, this could be atg, slightly below parallel, or slightly above parallel.. everyone is different, you'd probably have pretty good form on it with slightly above parallel.

if you ever decide to play with it, remember you can use a few squatting styles.. you could:
1. alternate styles per session
2. work up using a deeper depth, then transition into a half depth
3. hit a block of deep then transition into a block of half, block = 4 weeks perhaps

stuff like that.. bottom line, with an SHR of 48, perhaps squatting above parallel would feel really good...

one VERY nice way to squat half, is to pin squat.. pin squats shit all over box squats.. set the pins to your half depth, unrack, lower, pause, reset a bit if you need too, explode up.. pin squats are very useful.

anyway man, good stuff, your chan is very nice you're putting in work.. that quarter squat crap you did was tuff, lockout hold, then pin squat quarter, haha..

pc!
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: mj on February 14, 2011, 04:42:41 pm
Yeah bro dead right, squatting just above paralell feels crazy natural to me. But I did most of my schooling in the 5 x 5 strength world where anything above paralell is homo. So I forced myself to learn the squat they preach.

But the more time I spend around leapers the more I appreciate different means to an end. I'm gonna start looking at a more natural (for me) squat, whatever that looks like.

Farkin long legs  ::) Thanks for the input dude.

Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: Dynamo on February 26, 2011, 11:00:59 am
Finally got around to measuring my SHR:

Seated: 37.5"
Standing: 70"
SHR: 0.536


Squatting's ok
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: DamienZ on February 28, 2011, 05:40:02 am
Measured again... this time i got 47,5
dno how i measured last time lol
Title: Re: The Squat Thread
Post by: gukl on February 28, 2011, 03:17:30 pm
SHR = 47.9

Squatting deep used to be hard but now pretty easy after lots of mobility work, still have a problem with leaning forward too much and good morninging the weight up on heavier sets though