I always said squatting was bad..

Hanley

....and now I have proof - EXPLODING SPINES!!

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Orthopedics/SportsMedicine/29412#.TrKrxKiin8s.facebook

SteelyDanJalapeno

Doctors said doing a similar type of exercise without weight is much less likely to cause pars stress fractures.

the drifter

Hanley wrote: »

....and now I have proof - EXPLODING SPINES!!

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Orthopedics/SportsMedicine/29412#.TrKrxKiin8s.facebook

was this when you were squatting 300+kg that you were saying it was bad ya?

Hanley

the drifter wrote: »

was this when you were squatting 300+kg that you were saying it was bad ya?

Yah, told everyone else it was bad for them so they wouldn't see how easy it actually was!

squod

sacral slope

lol

J-Fit

I guess there'll be a few people scoffing at that article here but I have to say there is a shift away from the back squat in the interest of spinal health, controversially spearheaded by Mike Boyle who has basically replaced all bilateral squats with unilateral alternatives. The stance has essentially cost him his NCSCA membership. I don't for one minute disagree with that article, I do believe that back squats are a dangerous exercise and having competed several times, it is an exercise close to my heart. No question, a lot of people shouldn't be back squatting, there are a variety of other exercises with better risk/reward ratios.

Hanley

J-Fit wrote: »

I guess there'll be a few people scoffing at that article here but I have to say there is a shift away from the back squat in the interest of spinal health, controversially spearheaded by Mike Boyle who has basically replaced all bilateral squats with unilateral alternatives. The stance has essentially cost him his NCSCA membership. I don't for one minute disagree with that article, I do believe that back squats are a dangerous exercise and having competed several times, it is an exercise close to my heart. No question, a lot of people shouldn't be back squatting, there are a variety of other exercises with better risk/reward ratios.

Isn't Boyle's position that core strength becomes a limiting factor, not leg strength, hence it's replacement? He still loads athletes with front squats or unilateral barbell loaded work, in which the numbers far exceed the ones in the "study".

But yah... if you're squatting like a mong, you'll get hurt eventually.

Edwardius

-Squatting increases the sacral slope
-squatting causes pars fractures
Why didn't they mention the connection, if any, between the sacral slope and pars fractures? It looks like two independent statements. Weirdest article ever.

Wonder if the fractures have anything to do with stuff like you'd see on the "joesaveragestrength" youtube channel.

What happens if you have a pars fracture? Do you die?

I don't really care and I'm too lazy to look it up!

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

Isn't Boyle's position that core strength becomes a limiting factor, not leg strength, hence it's replacement? He still loads athletes with front squats or unilateral barbell loaded work, in which the numbers far exceed the ones in the "study".

But yah... if you're squatting like a mong, you'll get hurt eventually.

Yeah it's one of his takes on it in that he see's it as a low back exercise primarily. The other issue is simply the safety of performing it. Lack of hip/shoulder mobility, compression of the discs between a rock and a hard place in relation to box squatting etc. I'd like to add that I do still back squat and I do think it still has an appropriate place. Also I don't want to come across as a Mike Boyle Zealot or something, "Mike says this, Mike says that" etc. Sometimes he's just over the top in order to form his niche, but is a really experienced coach and I suppose it pays to listen to his advice.

J-Fit

Oh yeah there's one other reason to perform Bulgarians over regular back squats. I have never tested it to any great extent but it seems if you can back squat say 200kg, then you can likely Bulgarian squat 100kg+ on each leg. Essentially known as the "bilateral deficit" because the low back becomes the limiting factor on a back squat.

Hanley

J-Fit wrote: »

Yeah it's one of his takes on it in that he see's it as a low back exercise primarily. The other issue is simply the safety of performing it. Lack of hip/shoulder mobility, compression of the discs between a rock and a hard place in relation to box squatting etc. I'd like to add that I do still back squat and I do think it still has an appropriate place. Also I don't want to come across as a Mike Boyle Zealot or something, "Mike says this, Mike says that" etc. Sometimes he's just over the top in order to form his niche, but is a really experienced coach and I suppose it pays to listen to his advice.

I don't buy the box squat thing. I reckon I've a better idea than 99% of the Irish training population about how to do them and what you're trying to achieve with them, at no point should there be a situation where there's excessive compressive force on your spine as a result of them.

Now if you're a mong and you just slam onto the box, you can expect your spine out your hoop. But if you do them properly it's not an issue.

He's 100% put up a straw man and used it to defeat box squats. I don't like that level of disingenuity.

Hanley

J-Fit wrote: »

Oh yeah there's one other reason to perform Bulgarians over regular back squats. I have never tested it to any great extent but it seems if you can back squat say 200kg, then you can likely Bulgarian squat 100kg+ on each leg. Essentially known as the "bilateral deficit" because the low back becomes the limiting factor on a back squat.

Bollox - also know as "you're using both legs to an extent". Show me someone who can single leg squat anything close to 50% of their max without the other foot being in contact with the floor.

(I know you're just saying what Boyle has said - but it's another one of those things that has been twisted to suit his argument but doesn't actually stack up)

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

I don't buy the box squat thing. I reckon I've a better idea than 99% of the Irish training population about how to do them and what you're trying to achieve with them, at no point should there be a situation where there's excessive compressive force on your spine as a result of them.

Now if you're a mong and you just slam onto the box, you can expect your spine out your hoop. But if you do them properly it's not an issue.

He's 100% put up a straw man and used it to defeat box squats. I don't like that level of disingenuity.

Maybe he has, I don't know either way. If you just touch and go with the box squats they shouldn't really be an issue should they? They are still a back squat however.

Hanley

J-Fit wrote: »

Maybe he has, I don't know either way. If you just touch and go with the box squats they shouldn't really be an issue should they? They are still a back squat however.

If you're just t&g'n box squats, you're not "box squatting", you're depth gauging.

Have you read any of Louie's stuff on it? Or the expansions and beginner articles from Tate/Wendler et al?

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

Bollox - also know as "you're using both legs to an extent". Show me someone who can single leg squat anything close to 50% of their max without the other foot being in contact with the floor.

(I know you're just saying what Boyle has said - but it's another one of those things that has been twisted to suit his argument but doesn't actually stack up)

Again, I've never been interested enough to try it out because I'd use single leg work anyway. You seem to be a member on strengthcoach.com, why not hit up Boyle yourself!?

Hanley

J-Fit wrote: »

Again, I've never been interested enough to try it out because I'd use single leg work anyway. You seem to be a member on strengthcoach.com, why not hit up Boyle yourself!?

I've read enough of his stuff to know that he doesn't consider it a factor so there's no real point reiterating something that's been done already.

I still think single leg stuff is important and good, esp for the athletic population. I just don't like the idea of making up stuff to get people to do it.

This thread's gonnna be a treat for peopel to read back on in the morning!

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

If you're just t&g'n box squats, you're not "box squatting", you're depth gauging.

Have you read any of Louie's stuff on it? Or the expansions and beginner articles from Tate/Wendler et al?

Yes I have but I still personally maintain that if you do anything beyond touch and go you are achieving that "rock and a hard place" stance. I've had enough issues with sciatic nerve etc. over the years to just err on the side of caution and avoid. By no means do I think they should be avoided under all circumstances, as I said above, there's a risk reward to every exercise. Box squats = possibly high risk, very high reward.

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

I've read enough of his stuff to know that he doesn't consider it a factor so there's no real point reiterating something that's been done already.

I still think single leg stuff is important and good, esp for the athletic population. I just don't like the idea of making up stuff to get people to do it.

This thread's gonnna be a treat for peopel to read back on in the morning!

I agree with you 100% about Boyle. Though he denies it, he is a covert salesman, you don't build the type of business he has if you aren't and he's built a lot of myth around certain subjects in S and C.

Hanley

J-Fit wrote: »

Yes I have but I still personally maintain that if you do anything beyond touch and go you are achieving that "rock and a hard place" stance. I've had enough issues with sciatic nerve etc. over the years to just err on the side of caution and avoid. By no means do I think they should be avoided under all circumstances, as I said above, there's a risk reward to every exercise. Box squats = possibly high risk, very high reward.

Yah I tend to disagree under "correct" box squatting technique because the weight/your spine should really be supported by your muscles, but hey, free world!! If ya don't feel confident doing or prescribing them for that reason, deffo to be avoided.

But yah, there's certainly other avenues that can be explored ahead of box squatting if you're so inclined

Mellor

J-Fit wrote: »

Oh yeah there's one other reason to perform Bulgarians over regular back squats. I have never tested it to any great extent but it seems if you can back squat say 200kg, then you can likely Bulgarian squat 100kg+ on each leg. Essentially known as the "bilateral deficit" because the low back becomes the limiting factor on a back squat.

I've only ever done BSS a few times. first time was recent, twice a week for 3 weeks as squat assistance. I've never gone near to my max, but even from 12 rep sets, I am aware that my rear foot is providing some drive