Am I going too low on my squats?

[GrantMeThePower]

I read the squat chapter in Starting Strength and as I'm doing the squats as he says I can't help but wonder if i'm really going TOO low.

I'm basically lowering myself as far as i can, hips below knees until it "bounces". My ass doesn't literally touch the ground, but I couldn't get much further down.

This is clearly much harder than those when the hammy is parrallel to the ground, which results in hips still being above the knees

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[Deeko]

Hard to say without a video, but chances are you are not going too low.

 

[dealmaster00]

There is nothing wrong with going too low, but you have to be careful that your lower back doesn't round. The lower you go the higher the chance your back rounds. Take a video and review your form to make sure nothing dangerous is going on.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
I'm basically lowering myself as far as i can, hips below knees until it "bounces".

Are you bouncing off your hamstrings (ie, because they stretch out) or because your ass hits your calves? The former is what you want, the latter is probably too low.

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
This is clearly much harder than those when the hammy is parrallel to the ground, which results in hips still being above the knees

"Below parallel" is defined as your hip joint going below your knee joint. For most people, this happens when the top of the thigh is parallel to the ground, NOT the hamstrings. As you correctly noted, getting your hamstrings parallel to the ground is NOT a below parallel squat and you should definitely be going deeper.

At any rate, the general advice is to squat as low as you possibly can while still maintaining a proper lumbar arch. Minimum depth you should aim for is "below parallel" as I defined above. Going deeper than that is beneficial as it'll build more strength (due to the longer ROM), but don't do it by sacrificing your back tightness and arch.

 

[EvilYoda]

Avoid the butt wink!

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: dealmaster00
There is nothing wrong with going too low, but you have to be careful that your lower back doesn't round. The lower you go the higher the chance your back rounds. Take a video and review your form to make sure nothing dangerous is going on.

This.

Go as low as you can without your lower back rounding. If your lower back rounds before breaking parallel, your form needs work.

To see what it looks like since most people don't even realize they do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8CWv8UPAI

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I would like to take the time to ask what the experienced members who advocate ATG (ass-to-grass/ground) squats some thinks. Personally, I go slightly below parallel because that's really all my glutes will let me do at this point. However, if you understand the knee joint, you realize that there are glide components (rotational and anterior-posterior) required to complete the movement. As you approach an ATG squat, you increase the sheer force, increasing the force involved in the glide, and therefore increasing the force required by the connective tissue to keep everything together. I understand that if you increase the weight you use gradually, most of the force will be dissipated onto the muscles. However, many people I know who do ATG squats are always pushing the weights more quickly than seems healthy for this adaption. I think that if you go about it in the wrong manner, ATG squats could be not so good for the knees. Then again, if you do squats with improper form, it will be not so good for the knees. So my question is: do you think that the bad reputation of ATG squats is due to people increasing the weight too quickly, poor form, the ROM of ATG squats themselves, or something else? I have my opinions, but I'm just looking for some interesting feedback here.

EDIT: Uh, excessive typo's correction.

 

[presidentender]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I would like to take the time to ask what the experienced member who advocate ATG (ass-to-grass/ground) squats some things. Personally, I go slightly below parallel because that's really all my glutes will let me do at this point. However, if you understand the knee joint, you realize that there are glide components (rotational and anterior-posterior) required to complete the movement. As you approach an ATG squat, you increase the sheer force, increasing the force involved in the glide, and therefore increasing the force required by the connective tissue to keep everything together. I understand that if you increase the weight you use gradually, most of the force will be dissipated onto the muscles. However, many people I know who do ATG squats are always pushing the weights more quickly than seems healthy for this adaption. I think that if you go about it in the wrong manner, ATG squats could be not so good for the knees. Then again, if you do squats with improper form, it will be not so good for the knees. So my question is: do you think that the bad reputation of ATG squats is due to people increasing the weight too quickly, poor form, the ROM of ATG squats themselves, or something else? I have my opinions, but I'm just looking for some interesting feedback here.

I'm a fan of ATG, but I didn't start that way, and I don't move much weight relative to parallels. ATG targets the glutes nicely, but if I add much weight, I feel it in the connective tissues around my knees instead of my muscles. Noobs should probably stick to parallel squats.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I would like to take the time to ask what the experienced member who advocate ATG (ass-to-grass/ground) squats some things. Personally, I go slightly below parallel because that's really all my glutes will let me do at this point. However, if you understand the knee joint, you realize that there are glide components (rotational and anterior-posterior) required to complete the movement. As you approach an ATG squat, you increase the sheer force, increasing the force involved in the glide, and therefore increasing the force required by the connective tissue to keep everything together. I understand that if you increase the weight you use gradually, most of the force will be dissipated onto the muscles. However, many people I know who do ATG squats are always pushing the weights more quickly than seems healthy for this adaption. I think that if you go about it in the wrong manner, ATG squats could be not so good for the knees. Then again, if you do squats with improper form, it will be not so good for the knees. So my question is: do you think that the bad reputation of ATG squats is due to people increasing the weight too quickly, poor form, the ROM of ATG squats themselves, or something else? I have my opinions, but I'm just looking for some interesting feedback here.

I think the key issues are as follows:

1. An increased ROM on an exercise typically makes the exercise more effective by involving more muscles and more muscle fibers. If you could ignore the limitations of injuries & flexibility, then for general strength training the maximal ROM of the ATG squat would probably be preferable.

2. However, you obviously can't just ignore injuries & flexibility. To ensure safety during the squat, you must maintain a proper back arch and should keep all your muscles - especially the glutes, spinal erectors, hamstrings and adductors - very tight. It's worth noting that you can't properly engage the hamstrings and adductors, and consequently can't keep your knees safe, unless you go below parallel. It's also important to keep the knees/thighs directly over the feet as seen from above, to keep the heels flat on the floor, maintain a neutral head/neck position, and so on.

3. Putting the above two together, you should use the maximum depth in your squat that still allows you to maintain proper form. Most people can't even break parallel while maintaining proper form, let alone go significantly below parallel. In fact, I'd guess that 99% of trainees could not maintain proper form for an ATG squat - to get that deep, they'd end up relaxing their lower back, loosening their hamstrings, coming up on the toes, and so on. Since there is little question that sacrificing form and risking injury for depth is a bad idea, for most people attempting an ATG squat is NOT desirable.

4. That's why my recommendation is always to go as low as you can while maintaining proper form, as most people can build up the flexibility and technique to do a slightly below parallel squat, but not a whole lot more. For those few rare people that can actually go deeper with proper form, as long as they build up to it gradually, I suspect that the injury potential is quite low. However, I must admit that although I've seen research indicating that below parallel is clearly safer than above parallel, I haven't read any research comparing below parallel squats to ATG squats. Still, many olympic weightlifters perform ATG squats regularly and I'm not aware of them having an epidemic of knee problems - even though the catch & squat portion of a clean/snatch is probably much faster and more violent than a regular squat - so I doubt there's much to worry about. I suspect that even if going deeper in a squat increases the stresses on the knee, those connective tissues adapt to it during training in the same way muscles, bones, and the nervous system do.

 

[polarmystery]

Why would you go beyond parallel? You may be strong enough, but you increase the force on your knees drastically. Might as well kiss them goodbye while you're at it 😕

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Why would you go beyond parallel? You may be strong enough, but you increase the force on your knees drastically. Might as well kiss them goodbye while you're at it 😕

When I squat low I feel it much more in my ass and top of my thighs more than knees

my knees never feel close to too much pressure ever

the only way I can see that happening is if your back does round

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: dealmaster00
There is nothing wrong with going too low, but you have to be careful that your lower back doesn't round. The lower you go the higher the chance your back rounds. Take a video and review your form to make sure nothing dangerous is going on.

This.

Go as low as you can without your lower back rounding. If your lower back rounds before breaking parallel, your form needs work.

To see what it looks like since most people don't even realize they do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8CWv8UPAI

Wow this guy is awesome I love his vids very easy to understand.

Jeff

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Why would you go beyond parallel? You may be strong enough, but you increase the force on your knees drastically. Might as well kiss them goodbye while you're at it 😕

That's not quite true. That's why I asked for some experienced opinions. The glide component of the knee can be controlled through gradual strengthening of the surrounding tissue (both connective and muscular). If these have accommodated sufficiently over a long enough period of time, I have no doubt that the ATG squat would be more beneficial for overall strength. However, I do have a potential problem with what I consider hyperflexibility, where you lose some elastic strength due to this kind of effect. Therefore, you essentially HAVE to complete the large ROM to get any kind of drive. That, to me, is a downfall of ATG. Again I find that the middle road is the one to take - below parallel, however not ATG.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Why would you go beyond parallel? You may be strong enough, but you increase the force on your knees drastically. Might as well kiss them goodbye while you're at it 😕

That's just not true. http://www.alwyncosgrove.com/leg-training-myths.html

The knee is biomechanically least stable at 90 deg. Stopping at parallel is worse than going deep, as far as the knees go.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: brikis98
I think the key issues are as follows:

1. An increased ROM on an exercise typically makes the exercise more effective by involving more muscles and more muscle fibers. If you could ignore the limitations of injuries & flexibility, then for general strength training the maximal ROM of the ATG squat would probably be preferable.

2. However, you obviously can't just ignore injuries & flexibility. To ensure safety during the squat, you must maintain a proper back arch and should keep all your muscles - especially the glutes, spinal erectors, hamstrings and adductors - very tight. It's worth noting that you can't properly engage the hamstrings and adductors, and consequently can't keep your knees safe, unless you go below parallel. It's also important to keep the knees/thighs directly over the feet as seen from above, to keep the heels flat on the floor, maintain a neutral head/neck position, and so on.

3. Putting the above two together, you should use the maximum depth in your squat that still allows you to maintain proper form. Most people can't even break parallel while maintaining proper form, let alone go significantly below parallel. In fact, I'd guess that 99% of trainees could not maintain proper form for an ATG squat - to get that deep, they'd end up relaxing their lower back, loosening their hamstrings, coming up on the toes, and so on. Since there is little question that sacrificing form and risking injury for depth is a bad idea, for most people attempting an ATG squat is NOT desirable.

4. That's why my recommendation is always to go as low as you can while maintaining proper form, as most people can build up the flexibility and technique to do a slightly below parallel squat, but not a whole lot more. For those few rare people that can actually go deeper with proper form, as long as they build up to it gradually, I suspect that the injury potential is quite low. However, I must admit that although I've seen research indicating that below parallel is clearly safer than above parallel, I haven't read any research comparing below parallel squats to ATG squats. Still, many olympic weightlifters perform ATG squats regularly and I'm not aware of them having an epidemic of knee problems - even though the catch & squat portion of a clean/snatch is probably much faster and more violent than a regular squat - so I doubt there's much to worry about. I suspect that even if going deeper in a squat increases the stresses on the knee, those connective tissues adapt to it during training in the same way muscles, bones, and the nervous system do.

I agree to a large extent with this. I feel that ATG squats are not for inexperienced lifters and would not suggest them to someone who hadn't seriously been lifting with good form for at least a year. Even then, I would suggest a slow increase in weight. Olympic lifters are good examples for this, thank you. I was trying to think up something that would qualify as an equivalent comparison.

To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't want to suggest ATG to most athletes because I feel their goals might conflict to some extent with what ATG brings. ATG brings a greater ROM for greater overall workout, but like I said in my previous post, I would worry about hyperflexibility. For example, I would never have a volleyball player do ATG squats. Why? Because the time it would take to get their butt to the ground would negate the explosiveness and extra height to some extent. The natural elastic effect of muscles, I would feel, would be more beneficial and therefore I would train them in a slightly below parallel squat.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't want to suggest ATG to most athletes because I feel their goals might conflict to some extent with what ATG brings. ATG brings a greater ROM for greater overall workout, but like I said in my previous post, I would worry about hyperflexibility. For example, I would never have a volleyball player do ATG squats. Why? Because the time it would take to get their butt to the ground would negate the explosiveness and extra height to some extent. The natural elastic effect of muscles, I would feel, would be more beneficial and therefore I would train them in a slightly below parallel squat.

I feel like this is important, ATG may not work with many athletes because the dedication required. I remember seeing studies of explosive vs rebound strength (I'm not sure I'm getting those terms correct) Have you guys run across anything like this?

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't want to suggest ATG to most athletes because I feel their goals might conflict to some extent with what ATG brings. ATG brings a greater ROM for greater overall workout, but like I said in my previous post, I would worry about hyperflexibility. For example, I would never have a volleyball player do ATG squats. Why? Because the time it would take to get their butt to the ground would negate the explosiveness and extra height to some extent. The natural elastic effect of muscles, I would feel, would be more beneficial and therefore I would train them in a slightly below parallel squat.

I'm not convinced that the flexibility necessary for an ATG squat would be detrimental to sports performance. Again, I must refer to olympic weight lifters: many of these guys who routinely squat ATG can jump insanely high, many of them (even the shorter ones) apparently able to dunk. They also make for incredibly fast sprinters. Now, obviously it helps that they are specifically training for explosive power, but it still shows that athletic performance does not have to suffer from more flexibility. I do agree that it's possible to become too flexible and degrade your performance, but I doubt deep squatting is likely to cause that. The need to generate strength over the longer ROM of an ATG squat is probably only going to help performance over a shorter ROM, not hurt it. This is quite different than increasing your flexibility through, for example, static stretching, where no strength is actually developed in the longer ROM and potentially does make you weaker. And again, I must reiterate the point that most people just don't have the flexibility for a proper ATG squat, so in the vast majority of cases, it's not an issue to be too concerned with.

 

[Eric62]

I always do my first two sets of Squats off of a 16" box. This puts me 2" below parallel (I'm 6'6"). I don't see any point in going deeper - as I compete and you don't get extra credit for extra depth.
If you're hams are so thick that they bounce off of your calves then that would probably be OK. Mine aren't and if I attempt to bounce at the bottom it only stretches out the tendons and ligaments in the knee - causing joint instability. Last year I micro teared my right ACL forcing myself too deep in the Squat - at a relatively light weight (4 plates / light 2 meter knee wraps). So (at least for me) there are negative consequences from going to deep.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Eric62
I always do my first two sets of Squats off of a 16" box. This puts me 2" below parallel (I'm 6'6"). I don't see any point in going deeper - as I compete and you don't get extra credit for extra depth.
If you're hams are so thick that they bounce off of your calves then that would probably be OK. Mine aren't and if I attempt to bounce at the bottom it only stretches out the tendons and ligaments in the knee - causing joint instability. Last year I micro teared my right ACL forcing myself too deep in the Squat - at a relatively light weight (4 plates / light 2 meter knee wraps). So (at least for me) there are negative consequences from going to deep.

:laugh:

I go as deep as I can, it has helped my knees in the past

Edit: I think that a strength imbalance was my problem, as opposed to your tendons/ligaments

 

[gramboh]

For the OP, try to video yourself and review the footage if you can. I've never seen anyone flexible enough to do a true ATG olympic lifting style back squat without prior training experience (or gymnast or something else I guess). I thought I was doing it until I saw that I was compromising my back the last few inches.