Mike Boyle: Death of Squatting and the weak transducer

Patto

So Squats are dead... I think he is onto something but I'm not sure I'll be abandoning the front or back squat. Other than "squats are king man" What's the counter arguement here?


From Mike Boyle:
Depending who you talk to this week I am a genius or just an idiot. I posted a video clip called earlier called The Death of Squatting.

The clip is the talk of the internet forums. I just want to take a moment to clarify. As I said last week, I did not make this decision on a whim.
I have watched between 1-2 million squats so I did not come to this conclusion quickly or easily.

I have been thinking about this concept for years.
Look at the definition of the word transducer below:

Transducer- An element or device which receives information in the form of one quantity and converts it to information in the form of the same or another quantity

The conclusion I arrived at is that the back is a poor transducer. The back actually prevents the legs from being fully worked in the vast majority of the population. The act of squatting terminates when the lumbar spine can no longer effectively bear or transfer load. I have watched thousands (maybe millions) of squats and rarely have I seen the legs fail. It is always the back. As a result, single leg work just makes sense.
Take a minute and read and check out the video clip Death of Squatting if you haven’t already done so.

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


We haven’t stopped doing bilateral exercises or, lifting heavy weights. We still Trap Bar Deadlift and Olympic lift. I also think that bilateral exercise is crucial for beginners. I like the Trap Bar because it a hybrid. It is almost a squat with the weight in the hands. You get upper back development ala deadlifts but, more of squat mechanics. I dislike conventional deadlifts as most lifters have difficulty doing it well.
The Trap Bar makes it simple. I like simple more than conventional.

However, if you have experienced athletes and you want to keep them healthy and get them strong consider the Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat.


To your success,

Mike Boyle
www.FunctionalStrengthCoach3.com

spiral

if as he says the back is the weak link not the legs then how the F"$k is anyone going to Trapbar deadlift heavy or Olympic Lift heavy and not encounter the same problem

What a load of bull****

Roper

It's almost like he's trying to sell something...

I think Boyle's stuff from a few years back is good, and he's obviously a really knowledgable and good guy but the articles on his site are just about making him distinct from other coaches.

Patto

spiral wrote: »

if as he says the back is the weak link not the legs then how the F"$k is anyone going to Trapbar deadlift heavy or Olympic Lift heavy and not encounter the same problem

What a load of bull****

I've trap bar deadlifted 220Kg, my max back squat is 140kg at a push. There is something to this.

d'Oracle

Just out of curiosity, Roper.

Do you see anything wrong with him equating 115lb for one leg with a back squat of 230lb?

Roper

d'Oracle wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, Roper.

Do you see anything wrong with him equating 115lb for one leg with a back squat of 230lb?

Absolutely yes. Jim Wendler, who knows a thing or two about squatting, was talking about this last Sunday as well. I'll leave his opinion within the 4 walls of the gym but for myself yes.

Firstly, I'm not convinced of the benefits of heavily weighted unilateral work. It's not that I don't think it will make you stronger or weaker, but it's a cost/benefit thing. How much more beneficial is a one leg squat versus the dangers of being on one leg during a weighted exercise, and how long will it take a guy to get strong enough to do a reasonable weight. Against that, how safe is the standard squat and how long to the benefits?

Also I think it's very easy to take an exercise and say "well I can do that, so surely I can do this". There are giant gaps in his logic. Firstly, since he's the functional guy de rigeur at the moment, if the lower back is the limiting factor in the squat, then what benefit can there be to taking one link of the posterior chain out of the exercise? I bet you could make that entire video again and call it "why to only use the leg press" or "why isolation machines are better for legs".

d'Oracle

Cheers, it set off a few alarm bells from the get go.

Also anybody, I have been lead to believe that the squat builds back and hip strength as much as leg strength. Surely then:

1) Its acceptable to have the back limit the squat.
2) He is missing the point in trying to make it a purely leg exercise.

?

Patto

Leave the fact that this guys is blatently trying to create a fuss and sell his wares aside. And leave aside who he is and who says what.

Can anyone expain the mechanics of why you can't squat twice what you can single leg squat. When it comes to bench pressing everyone can barbell press more than twice what they can do per dumpbell. Is he right saying the low back is a weak transducer or is there more to this?

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

Can anyone expain the mechanics of why you can't squat twice what you can single leg squat. When it comes to bench pressing everyone can barbell press more than twice what they can do per dumpbell? Is he right saying the low back is a weak transducer or is there more to this?

I absolutely fail to see how the lower back, or any of the back for that matter, can be described as a transducer. It is, at no point during the squat, transferring energy from one form to another.

Also what I suspected, and roper confirmed, is that they are totally different exercises and are not equatable.

justsomebloke

d'Oracle wrote: »

2) He is missing the point in trying to make it a purely leg exercise.

He's not trying to make it a leg exercise, however as the squat is a leg exercise he is trying to make the LEGS the limiting factor and not the back.

For me I'm a bit iffy on it, especially without seeing the range of moment and technique the people are using as it sounds like a slightly b@stardised bulgarian that they are doing.

Also would leg press not be a better way of targeting leg press if you are that pushed, yes you aren't getting the benefits of the compound movement but you are taking out more restrictions then 1 legged squat and have a easier movement for people to preform

Roper

Well it wouldn't surprise me that Boyle's guys couldn't squat twice what they single since they only do single work, right ?

Strength is neural and mechanical. Percieved load throughout the body matters.

Patto

d'Oracle wrote: »

I absolutely fail to see how the lower back, or any of the back for that matter, can be described as a transducer. It is, at no point during the squat, transferring energy from one form to another.

Forget about his choice of language, can anyone explain this?

Patto

Roper wrote: »

Well it wouldn't surprise me that Boyle's guys couldn't squat twice what they single since they only do single work, right ?

Strength is neural and mechanical. Percieved load throughout the body matters.

But the question is can anyone squat twice what they can single leg squat. I know I can't, nowhere near.

Roper

Thought I just did? The neural component?

Patto

Roper wrote: »

Thought I just did? The neural component?

Please expand, that is like answering "the god component" to the question why is the world round?

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

But the question is can anyone squat twice what they can single leg squat. I know I can't, nowhere near.

How bout this one.

The Conventional squat is not two split squats.
Its a squat.

It requires more energy as it uses more muscle.

Patto

d'Oracle wrote: »

How bout this one.

The Conventional squat is not two split squats.
Its a squat.

It requires more energy as it uses more muscle.

Apply the same logic to the bench press, different result, why?

Roper

Patto wrote: »

Apply the same logic to the bench press, different result, why?

They're two different things so don't equate them.

Firstly, why can you 1 legged squat more than two- loading (the neural component). There is more loading through the whole body with the squat than there is on the single leg variation.

Secondly, the bench is mostly the same as the dumbell bench. The squat is not as similar to the 1 legged squat.

Patto

Roper wrote: »

There is more loading through the whole body with the squat than there is on the single leg variation.

Of course! Then we are back where we started. That loading through the whole body is the limiting factor. What is the weakest link? Isn't he right saying its the low back?

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

Of course! Then we are back where we started. That loading through the whole body is the limiting factor. What is the weakest link? Isn't he right saying its the low back?

Yes.
But that is basically where the rightness stops, as far as I can gather.

Roper

Patto wrote: »

Of course! Then we are back where we started. That loading through the whole body is the limiting factor. What is the weakest link? Isn't he right saying its the low back?

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean ANY of what he's saying adds up. Grip on the deadlift is a limiting factor. Does that mean we attach hooks to our necks and lift that way?

S&C isn't all that complicated or sexy.

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

I've trap bar deadlifted 220Kg, my max back squat is 140kg at a push. There is something to this.

What?

"I can deadlift x amount in, I can do y in a totally different exercise.
There is something to dropping the other exercise as it has been proven that athletes can lift over half as much in a third, vastly different exercise than they can in the second exercise......."

No offence, but I'm not sure what you are arguing.
You don't need to be an expert to spot the holes here.
About the only thing he has concluded with any traceable logic is that the back is often the limiting factor in a heavy squat. Which is NOTHING new at all.

Patto

d'Oracle wrote: »

What?

"I can deadlift x amount in, I can do y in a totally different exercise.
There is something to dropping the other exercise as it has been proven that athletes can lift over half as much in a third, vastly different exercise than they can in the second exercise......."

No offence, but I'm not sure what you are arguing.
You don't need to be an expert to spot the holes here.
About the only thing he has concluded with any traceable logic is that the back is often the limiting factor in a heavy squat. Which is NOTHING new at all.

Read back on my posts, I never suggested dropping the squats. That's Mike Boyle's arguement. I'm not supporting any side of this arguement. I'm looking for an explanation.

If I can TB deadlift 180kg for 5 or back squat 110kg for 5. Then according to Mike Boyle the TB deadift is the better leg exercise, is that fair to say?

spiral

no its an easier exercise , same as a leg press is easier than squatting , does that make it better ?

Some people are built to squat more than others , some are built to deadlift more and some have not been taught how to squat properly . However almost everyone will be able to TB deadlift substantially more than they can squat when they start weight training.
TB deadlift has a smaller ROM than even a parallel squat .
Squatting can be very technique dependent , TB deadlift less so and while you may have deadlifted 220 on the TB was your back horribly rounded doing it ?

Also any kind of squat and any kind of deadlift are whole body compund exercises not leg exercises.

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

If I can TB deadlift 180kg for 5 or back squat 110kg for 5. Then according to Mike Boyle the TB deadift is the better leg exercise, is that fair to say?

I would say no.

As they are different exercises.

The isometrics are different as the bar is supported in different ways for a start.
But what do I know......

Patto

spiral wrote: »

no its an easier exercise , same as a leg press is easier than squatting , does that make it better ?

Some people are built to squat more than others , some are built to deadlift more and some have not been taught how to squat properly . However almost everyone will be able to TB deadlift substantially more than they can squat when they start weight training.
TB deadlift has a smaller ROM than even a parallel squat .
Squatting can be very technique dependent , TB deadlift less so and while you may have deadlifted 220 on the TB was your back horribly rounded doing it ?

Also any kind of squat and any kind of deadlift are whole body compund exercises not leg exercises.

For the record my squating technicque is better than my deadlifting technique and yes I'm build to deadlift rather than squat due to my height and my long levers. The Trap bar deadlift is also more quad dominant than a standard deadlift making it more like a squat.

Back to Mike Boyle, wouldn't he argue that, that's the beauty of the TB deadlift, the fact that its so easy to get right, so easy to put a big load on your legs, those few inches ROM don't expain the difference in load. If I were to put 220 on my back I wouldn't get to a quarter squat, why? Its not becuase my legs are too weak is it?

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

The Trap bar deadlift is also more quad dominant than a standard deadlift making it more like a squat.

What sort of squat do you do?

A low bar back squat isn't really quad dominant at all.

Transform

Roper wrote: »

It's almost like he's trying to sell something...

I think Boyle's stuff from a few years back is good, and he's obviously a really knowledgable and good guy but the articles on his site are just about making him distinct from other coaches.

totally agree

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

The Trap bar deadlift is also more quad dominant than a standard deadlift making it more like a squat.

What sort of squat do you do?

A low bar back squat isn't really quad dominant at all.

Patto wrote: »

If I were to put 220 on my back I wouldn't get to a quarter squat, why? Its not becuase my legs are too weak is it?

Surely that depends on where how you fail?

spiral

Patto I wasnt trying to comment on your technique per se just trying to point out that a lot of people can get the weight up with a TB Deadlift in a very much less than optimal manner.

Which brings me to my next point its not so easy to get right its easier , there is still technique involved.There are people lifting big weights with Trapbars with horrible rounding of their backs. I would agree that its easier to put a bigger load on your body (not just your legs) with a TB , this is mainly because gripstrength is less of an issue with the handle placement.

Perhaps you cant squat 220 because you havent pushed your squat hard enough ? Not that I can squat 220 either BTW or anywhere near it
I can guarantee you that if you could squat 220 you would have no problem TB deadlifting it , but the reverse isnt true

Hanley

Patto wrote: »

For the record my squating technicque is better than my deadlifting technique and yes I'm build to deadlift rather than squat due to my height and my long levers. The Trap bar deadlift is also more quad dominant than a standard deadlift making it more like a squat.

Back to Mike Boyle, wouldn't he argue that, that's the beauty of the TB deadlift, the fact that its so easy to get right, so easy to put a big load on your legs, those few inches ROM don't expain the difference in load. If I were to put 220 on my back I wouldn't get to a quarter squat, why? Its not becuase my legs are too weak is it?

I hate myself for even entering into this argument, but you're missing a key point. You've got to go down before you come up on the squats AND you have to walk it out, that's going to take up a lot more energy than just bending over and picking a bar up. Does that make it an inferior exercise? Of course not.

Just because you can use more weight on an exercise doesn't make it more effective. If I was to do a leg press with the same ROM as a trap bar deadlift I bet I'd use substantially more, and I'd trap bar DL alot more than I'd squat. So are we now saying leg presses are better than squats?

Transform

Patto wrote: »

Of course! Then we are back where we started. That loading through the whole body is the limiting factor. What is the weakest link? Isn't he right saying its the low back?

i would say from what i have seen that in a trap bar dL guys will get the glutes firing a good bit more than someone being shy about going low enough on a squat - also are we talking the same weights on a trap bar DL in a high or low handle position as there is a big difference.

finally like its been said before there can be horrible technique on regular deadlifts to pull a big weight where as you will not get away with that on a squat

overall, i put lots of various leg exercies into the programs i write as the squat is not the complete picture when it comes to leg work especially when clients have weak areas that they need help with which will in turn bring up their squat

Patto

d'Oracle wrote: »

What sort of squat do you do?

A low bar back squat isn't really quad dominant at all.

It deends, sometimes Front sometimes Back and always overhead to warm up, almost always below parallel.

Its still more quad dominant than a deadlift due to the position of the load relative to your centre of gravity.

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

Its still more quad dominant than a deadlift due to the position of the load relative to your centre of gravity.

I'm out.

Patto

For the record, Mike Boyle's opinion goes against my intuition as well.

5x5 Heavy squats or 5x5 Deadlifts.

Which gives you worse low back doms?

I'd say the deadlifts.

Which gives you worse glute doms?

I'd say the squats even though my deadlift load would be much higher.

And Mike Boyle says the squat is the low back exercise.

As I said earlier, I'm just looking for an explanation.

I think it does illistrate two good points.
1. The trap bar deadlift is a decent leg exercise.
2. Single leg work is bloody important.

And I won't be giving up the squats anytime soon.

Patto

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm out.

Sorry my friend, its the engineer in me.

rubadub

d'Oracle wrote: »

Do you see anything wrong with him equating 115lb for one leg with a back squat of 230lb?

The other leg is still assisting. A true one leg squat would be a weighted pistol squat, I doubt anybody can do pistols with half their back squat weight. An (imperfect) analogy would be 1 arm chins and 1 hand chins these being the one hand chin

I could do about 7 of those but not a single proper 1 arm chin, I cannot do a pistol squat either. It is incorrect to equate the pistol since it requires stability, I cannot think of any exercise where you could equate things like this.

d'Oracle wrote: »

I absolutely fail to see how the lower back, or any of the back for that matter, can be described as a transducer.

Makes him sound like a boffin to the ignorant, and an idiot to the rest.

Roper wrote: »

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean ANY of what he's saying adds up. Grip on the deadlift is a limiting factor. Does that mean we attach hooks to our necks and lift that way?

I have seen devices like this.

People use straps to overcome the grip. People do hip belt squats (which I read some find much harder). One valid reason is people recovering from injury going easy on a certain musclegroup. I have done hip belt squats, I get worse doms from lower weight back squats if that means anything. I have done various isometric squats, and 1 leg iso squats and feel I can exert enormous pressure on my legs. With straps going over the back and/or a hip belt at the same time. Some people use straps for chinups too, I do for 1 arm shrugs.

spiral wrote: »

TB deadlift has a smaller ROM than even a parallel squat.

It doesn't have to be, you can flip the bar or stand on a platform.

spiral wrote: »

Also any kind of squat and any kind of deadlift are whole body compund exercises not leg exercises.

+1

d'Oracle

Patto wrote: »

Sorry my friend, its the engineer in me.

Don't be.

I just don't see any point in continuing in the conversation, we are not comparing like with like and there is no point in me quoting literature which would as we might not be talking about the same thing.

Incidentally, I am also an engineer.

Edwardius

rubadub wrote: »

A true one leg squat would be a weighted pistol squat, I doubt anybody can do pistols with half their back squat weight.

Well if you weigh 80 and squat 120 and assume your legs are weightless (ok humour me!), the total shifted by two legs is 200kg, i.e. 100kg per leg.

If you were to pistol squat 0.5x1rm you'd have 80+60=140kg to squat with one leg. So to shift the same weight per leg as the 120 back squat, you'd have to do a 20kg pistol, not a 60kg one, so it's not really comparing like with like. Even if your legs weighed 20kg apiece you'd be moving between 120 and 140kg per leg with the 0.5x1rm pistol (assuming some part of the leg is not lifted during the exercise) as opposed to 60-100 per leg with the normal squat (same assumption).

What's interesting about Boyle's statement is... everyone knows about unilateral movements. If they were better than bilateral ones, why wouldn't all the rugby teams etc be using them? Would a back squat get your legs "strong enough" in tandem with trunk strength and a single leg squat cause them to become disproportionally strong thereby to injuries? (also, keeping the lumbar curve is tough, even for unweighted pistols and some funny things happen to the knees). Couple this with the (apparently) quad dominant trap bar deadlift and you'd seem to be looking at less than optimal lower back strength (The TBDL is fairly upright isn't it?).
This is all speculation though, Has he actually made anyone better at anything using these methods? Has anyone took a lump of time off their 40 yard dash using these methods?

weightlifter

Patto wrote: »

Other than "squats are king man" What's the counter arguement here?

There are so many reasons to counter argue against this...

First of all, the pehnomenon of bilateral deficit... you can’t just compare 115lbs on SL exercise to 230lbs on two legged exercise. This phenomenon is also seen in jumping. The mechanical output, per leg, in double leg jumping is not as high as in single leg jumping. There are a number of reasons for this. But primarily you have to realise that in single leg "sprinter's squats" the muscles of the working leg are not the only muscles beings used. There will be activation and slight contribution from the working musculature of the opposite leg, opposite glutes etc etc. So relatively speaking you are using more relative muscle mass beyond just a "single leg". You can't just take the squat score and half it.

Secondly, the point of the lower back being the limiting factor... in many case, yes it is. But isn’t this a benefit of squatting? Training the full kinetic chain. From top to bottom. Training the ability to maintain a strong core to transfer strength from the legs through. So let's say you have a weak lower back. You do a **** load of leg pressing. Guess what, your lumbar back is still piss weak and now your leg strength is even more out of kilter with your back strength. What happens? More back problems probably. Squatting is not just a leg strength exercise. It trains leg strength, lumbar stability, hip mobility, hip extension, mental fortitude. Who cares if you are not quite fatiguing your quads properly?

So what your athletes can lift more total weight on SL exercises. I can leg press more than I can squat and I never train the leg press. Does that mean I should dump the squat in favour of the leg press? This is a leg exercise, where the lumbar spine is not a limiting factor. That doesn’t mean that it is superior.

Squatting is the true functional exercise. If you cant squat 140kg because your lumbar spine can’t handle it... then you shouldnt be lifting it. You work on your body position, your lumbar strength, your mobility and you try to overcome your limitations, not ignore them.

ALso, from a safety point of view, how do you train to failure with a single leg barbell Bulgarian squat (or sprinter's squat or whatever the cool kids call them) ? How do you fail a 200kg step up?

From a coaching point of view, everyone can squat! It just takes time and good coaching. Lumbar weakness and poor hip mobility shouldn’t be ignored. Boyle is right about this limiting many people’s ability to squat. But this just means as coaches we must be aware of this issue and address it. It seems to me that many of Boyle's controversial points are often a bit of a mask for either poor coaching (but I have no idea about his hands on coaching abilities) or a lack of time to coach (often the case in very popular USA S&C gyms). For example in his earlier texts he advocates using close grip snatch as a replacement for cleans. He states it is easier on the wrists and shoulders than cleaning and snatching respectively and that it gives the same benefits. This is absurd. It is easier on UNHEALTHY wrists and shoulders but again this is avoiding the problem rather than addressing the problem. (I also think it is a coaching cop out)

Unilateral work is massively important. I am not arguing that. But it should be in addition to squatting or deadlifting. Not in place of.

A big thing for me is the double benefit of squatting (especially front squat) as the strength it develops transfers to other exercises such as cleans. If you are a technically proficient cleaner, then when you make your squat stronger, you are also making your clean stronger. But Boyle does not seem to put any importance in these exercises (see functional training for sport book and his use of close grip snatch etc.).

Finally, as Roper alluded to in an early post, beware of those selling something. In a way we are all giving Boyle exactly what he wants. Publicity. we can't ignore the possibility that some (certainly not all) of this is driven for web promotion and increased publicity and sales. No one is completely impartial and in the same way on internet fitness forums etc we must be wary of those running their own businesses, gyms etc as there will always be an underlying motive of their own.

Also, I haven't read the full thread so apologies if I am covering old ground.

Brian?

I can't argue the technicalities of what Boyle says at all, but it seems off to me. He's basically saying that we should stop squatting as its not the best leg excercise, but I don't squat to only train my legs. Nor are squats the only leg excercise I do. Squats are the best full body excercise a person can do, so I'll be doing them for some time yet.

His use of transducer also annoyed me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transducer
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transducer

Last time I checked people are transducer free.

Roper

weightlifter that is a quality, quality post. I've read the Boyle text you're on about with the close grip snatch. I showed it to someone and they tried to be polite and say "maybe the diagram is wrong"

Patto

weightlifter wrote: »

Finally, as Roper alluded to in an early post, beware of those selling something. In a way we are all giving Boyle exactly what he wants. Publicity. we can't ignore the possibility that some (certainly not all) of this is driven for web promotion and increased publicity and sales. No one is completely impartial and in the same way on internet fitness forums etc we must be wary of those running their own businesses, gyms etc as there will always be an underlying motive of their own.

Also, I haven't read the full thread so apologies if I am covering old ground.

Cheers weightlifter, thanks for bringing this back to the question I asked to begin with. I pretty much agree with all of that. Nice point about the jump.

And yeah, you are right about the publicity, what can I say... It was a slow Friday in work.

Racing Flat

Patto wrote: »

But the question is can anyone squat twice what they can single leg squat. I know I can't, nowhere near.

Does a crude but simple mathematical explanation explain it?

Squat = 2 legs + 1 back doing the lifting = 3 lifters
Single leg squat = 1 leg + 1 back doing the lifting = 2 lifters

When squatting you're lifting with 3/3 lifters, when single leg squatting you're lifting with 2/3 lifters...So you should be able to single leg squat two-thirds (as opposed to a half as you have above) of what you could fully squat.

weightlifter

Roper wrote: »

weightlifter that is a quality, quality post. I've read the Boyle text you're on about with the close grip snatch. I showed it to someone and they tried to be polite and say "maybe the diagram is wrong"

You know there is some really good, simple information in the "designing strength facilities" book. Simple things like balancing vert. puch/pull and horizontal push/pull exercises in programs and addressing over lumbar extension and poor hip extension in athletes. BUT I find I almost find it hard to appreciate his good writings when some of his other writings are just bogus. The close grip snatch thing, is almost so ridiculous that I think I must be missing something.

Despite my name, I am not too dogmatic in the application of weightlifting movements to athletes I work with. If an adult athlete has some serious wrist and lat flexibility issues that stops them from cleaning proficiently, I don't necessarily think they should be stripped back to "no load" training until they can clean (its a time vs rewards issue). But I fail to see how a close grip snatch can replace a clean from any biomechnical/force production point of view and I certainly don't see how it could be any safer. Surely it is less safe: there will be more swinging of the bar, you can't really lose the weight behind and you wont be able to ride a heavier weight down to a lower squat position. Anyway, I digress...

weightlifter

Racing Flat wrote: »

Does a crude but simple mathematical explanation explain it?

Squat = 2 legs + 1 back doing the lifting = 3 lifters
Single leg squat = 1 leg + 1 back doing the lifting = 2 lifters

When squatting you're lifting with 3/3 lifters, when single leg squatting you're lifting with 2/3 lifters...So you should be able to single leg squat two-thirds (as opposed to a half as you have above) of what you could fully squat.

Pretty much. That was what I was getting at in my post when I said:

primarily you have to realise that in single leg "sprinter's squats" the muscles of the working leg are not the only muscles beings used. There will be activation and slight contribution from the working musculature of the opposite leg, opposite glutes etc etc.

Lower back muscles were some of those include in my etc etcs!

Roper

weightlifter wrote: »

Despite my name, I am not too dogmatic in the application of weightlifting movements to athletes I work with. If an adult athlete has some serious wrist and lat flexibility issues that stops them from cleaning proficiently, I don't necessarily think they should be stripped back to "no load" training until they can clean (its a time vs rewards issue). But I fail to see how a close grip snatch can replace a clean from any biomechnical/force production point of view and I certainly don't see how it could be any safer. Surely it is less safe: there will be more swinging of the bar, you can't really lose the weight behind and you wont be able to ride a heavier weight down to a lower squat position. Anyway, I digress...

It was baffling to me too. I defy anyone to find me a person who can't overhead squat in the snatch grip but can with a clean grip. I can't remember now and I'm not going out to the garage to get the book; was it a clean grip power snatch or full snatch or something else? Was it in Functional Training? I had to buy it for a course and I hated it. Lots of Reebok products and whoever else was giving him a few quid.

Anyway, he's trying to carve a niche for himself and he'll probably do well selling whatever it is he's selling.

weightlifter

Roper wrote: »

It was baffling to me too. I defy anyone to find me a person who can't overhead squat in the snatch grip but can with a clean grip. I can't remember now and I'm not going out to the garage to get the book; was it a clean grip power snatch or full snatch or something else? Was it in Functional Training? I had to buy it for a course and I hated it. Lots of Reebok products and whoever else was giving him a few quid.

Anyway, he's trying to carve a niche for himself and he'll probably do well selling whatever it is he's selling.

It was a clean grip, power snatch, so in his defence I don't think he was suggesting people catch in the full squat position. And yes, I remember it from functional training (which I also hated) but there is some good information in "designing strength programmes and facilities". Its just a challenge to seperate the good from the nonesense.

empirix

personally i think squats are bad for the joints and well bad for the back - over the long term, a lot of people use the leg press as substitute for squatting, i am one of them, although i am not convinced about the pressure on the back using this machine either, so what can ya do!

d'Oracle

empirix wrote: »

personally i think squats are bad for the joints and well bad for the back - over the long term, a lot of people use the leg press as substitute for squatting, i am one of them, although i am not convinced about the pressure on the back using this machine either, so what can ya do!

A leg press is not a substitute for a squat.

A lot of people may do it, but that doesn't mean they are right.

The_Kew_Tour

Roper wrote: »

It's almost like he's trying to sell something...

I think Boyle's stuff from a few years back is good, and he's obviously a really knowledgable and good guy but the articles on his site are just about making him distinct from other coaches.

totally agree with that