Rippetoe's Squat Form

Transform · 20-02-2009 08:24PM

Look guys over and over i have said starting strength sounds 100% better than the usual split style programs or just 15 exercises in one session that i have seen been given out so lets leave it at that - what i have a problem with is people sending readers else where when the info should be HERE.

Chunky monkey - fair cop!! Its still a good squat though.

on reading SS - i really have higher priorities than reading another book on getting started on weights, sorry. rather read pubmed, or such sites.

Finally on the 99% of peoples goals being fat loss and increased fitness and strength - this is what i see week in week out and MY stats back this up.

How many people do i use heavy squats with every week - out of 30-35 sesssions possibly about 2-3. Deadlifts/lunges/step ups are another matter though - easier to teach and less risk of injuring a client.

Mikel · 20-02-2009 08:30PM

corribdude wrote: »

Tiger Woods isn't an expert golfer? Michael Phelps isn't a expert swimmer? I never said they were expert coaches, I was just making the point that age isn't a factor when you are deciding if some is an expert in their field as someone said Transform couldn't be an expert in his at a mere 32 years of age.

But they're not expert COACHES
Transform declared himself an expert at COACHING

kevpants wrote:

The thing about Rippetoe is he's not a great coach so the argument is invalid. Who's he ever coached? About a million average lifters. Who else?

I don't think that follows, there's a world of difference between me and elite level athletes like that guy Hanley posted videos of, a different animal to the rest of us.
I would rather a guy who was good at coaching 'average' lifters myself.

Anyway, what has any of this have to do with technique?

Roper · 20-02-2009 08:41PM

Transform wrote: »

Look guys over and over i have said starting strength sounds 100% better than the usual split style programs or just 15 exercises in one session that i have seen been given out so lets leave it at that - what i have a problem with is people sending readers else where when the info should be HERE.

I think this site has some good info and some terrible info. If people followed the stickies that would be great but they don't. There's some advice dispensed on this site that would make me cry if I cared enough. Want to lose weight? Do a powerlifting programme. Want to get better at running? Do a powerlifting programme. Want to be a better climber? Powerlifting. Currently the majority of the more vocal (typal?? Meh.) posters are involved in powerlifting or similar, so the advice tends towards that. In a years time, it could be all endurance athletes who would all say go cycle for an hour a night that's how I'm in great shape. It's only representative of the people who post.

on reading SS - i really have higher priorities than reading another book on getting started on weights, sorry. rather read pubmed, or such sites.

Smashing, and do so. But in saying that, you must accept that you lose the right to criticise the book or compare it to others if you haven't read it. That was my point, not that SS is the bible of lifting.

Finally on the 99% of peoples goals being fat loss and increased fitness and strength - this is what i see week in week out and MY stats back this up.

Your stats would be reflective of your clientelle, just as my stats would be reflective of mine. My experience doesn't tally with yours (I would say mostly performance) just as an Olympic lifting coach would say most people want to get better at C&Jing. You must remember that as a personal trainer, your clientelle are far more likely to have those goals than just pure strength or sporting performance.

How many people do i use heavy squats with every week - out of 30-35 sesssions possibly about 2-3. Deadlifts/lunges/step ups are another matter though - easier to teach and less risk of injuring a client.

Exactly. Which is why I'm against the "how to squat" sticky. There are better, simpler, safer exercises that give the same results. The squat on this forum anyway is held up as some sort of holy grail of exercise which in the non-powerlifting world it just isn't. It's a tool, a really useful one and one fo the core lifts, but just one of them.

Roper · 20-02-2009 08:45PM

corribdude wrote: »

Tiger Woods isn't an expert golfer? Michael Phelps isn't a expert swimmer? I never said they were expert coaches, I was just making the point that age isn't a factor when you are deciding if some is an expert in their field as someone said Transform couldn't be an expert in his at a mere 32 years of age.

Look I've never met nor worked with Transform and it's certainly not for me to say who is an expert or who isn't. I do find it surprising that anyone would hold themselves up to be an expert but that's up to him and I'm sure he's confident that he is, even at 32. Myself, I'm only 30 so I'm not there yet

.

Transform · 20-02-2009 11:45PM

I totally agree with all of what you said.

When you look at it - the majority of people (not totaly lack of percentages there) want to look better and have more energy. Now there are MANY ways to attain this goal and i continue to use what has worked for my clients thus far.

I don't really think squats are the holy grail as you said just another tool but i do think its good to be able to, as a guy, put up some good numbers in order to get in great shape as no-one i have trained with ever looked great and did not have good numbers on some form of squat or deadlift.

PeakOutput · 21-02-2009 12:05AM

is he doing anything seriously dangerous that could easily injure him?

edit; if this was an average person from the board looking for a rating on his squat out of ten what would you give him? 1 being stop immedietely and start with no weights as you are going to seriously injure yourself

kevpants · 21-02-2009 01:13AM

Mikel wrote: »

I don't think that follows, there's a world of difference between me and elite level athletes like that guy Hanley posted videos of, a different animal to the rest of us.
I would rather a guy who was good at coaching 'average' lifters myself.

Have to disagree. You and I are exactly the same animal as Konstantinovs. He's just stronger. An elite coach knows how to get to an elite level.

PeakOutput · 21-02-2009 01:21AM

kevpants wrote: »

Have to disagree. You and I are exactly the same animal as Konstantinovs. He's just stronger. An elite coach knows how to get to an elite level.

i hope i can word this properly bear with me

is an elite coach better than rippetoe because he can take a monority who have reached their peak with 'regular' coaches and get them better or is someone who can take any average person from scratch, get them interested in lifting(or any sport) bring them on greatly in the fundamentals and in such a way that they stick with it unlike most people who start working out, a better coach. after all the second guy is going to affect way way more people than the first guy and without the first guy the elite coach isnt going to have very many people making their way threw to his level

i know what im trying to say in my head lol sorry if it isnt that clear

DM-BM · 21-02-2009 01:22AM

kevpants wrote: »

Have to disagree. You and I are exactly the same animal as Konstantinovs. He's just stronger. An elite coach knows how to get to an elite level.

Are you seriously saying that you think coaching is the only difference between being elite or not ?

Mikel · 21-02-2009 01:16PM

kevpants wrote: »

Have to disagree. You and I are exactly the same animal as Konstantinovs. He's just stronger. An elite coach knows how to get to an elite level.

He's not 'just stronger'
If you had his coach could you replicate what he did?

His body can do things you can only dream of.
The job of a coach of an elite level athlete like him or Michael Pelps, Michael Johnson, Ian Thorpe and the like is to eke out the last tiny percentage of performance out of someone who is already at an elite level and probably approaching their genetic potential.

No comparison with taking Joe Bloggs from untrained and uncoordinated to squatting 150kg safely.
Completely different things.

kevpants · 21-02-2009 02:04PM

DM-BM wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that you think coaching is the only difference between being elite or not ?

No I was countering the argument that average coaches are better for average athletes. Elite coaches are better for ALL atheletes. Why would you want to work with some guy with limited knowledge when someone who knows what it takes is available.

Mikel wrote: »

He's not 'just stronger'
If you had his coach could you replicate what he did?

He is just stronger. Seems like we're eeking towards the genetics excuse again. Just waiting for someone to say he has a genetic advantage so we can all feel comfortable with never getting anywhere near an elite level in anything.

Mikel wrote: »

His body can do things you can only dream of.
The job of a coach of an elite level athlete like him or Michael Pelps, Michael Johnson, Ian Thorpe and the like is to eke out the last tiny percentage of performance out of someone who is already at an elite level and probably approaching their genetic potential.

No comparison with taking Joe Bloggs from untrained and uncoordinated to squatting 150kg safely.
Completely different things.

I'm baffled by this. He can do things I can only dream of? God now we really are in full blown genetics excuse territory. People should do themselves a favour and forget about genetics. Elite athletes don't care about genetics, just 2nd rate ones who never made the grade. You think he doesn't dream of lifting heavier than he does?

And now you're arguing elite coaches are only good for that last few %? So they don't know anything else about their sports bar the last 1 or 2 %?

You're actually saying an average coach is better for an average lifter because then everyones at the same level? Unbelievable.

DM-BM · 21-02-2009 02:27PM

I believe, that genetics should NEVER be used as an excuse not to push yourself more, or try harder in whatever it is you want to achieve, but to say that we are all the same geneticly, is a bit much.

PeakOutput · 21-02-2009 02:39PM

kevpants wrote: »

And now you're arguing elite coaches are only good for that last few %? So they don't know anything else about their sports bar the last 1 or 2 %?

thats not what i meant and you know it

a person can be a great coach without having coached elite athletes and the average coaches all over the world are jsut as important as the people who coach the elite athletes

Mikel · 21-02-2009 03:10PM

kevpants wrote: »

He is just stronger. Seems like we're eeking towards the genetics excuse again. Just waiting for someone to say he has a genetic advantage so we can all feel comfortable with never getting anywhere near an elite level in anything

Right, cos we could all reach the elite level if we would just work hard enough right?

kevpants wrote:

I'm baffled by this. He can do things I can only dream of? God now we really are in full blown genetics excuse territory. People should do themselves a favour and forget about genetics. Elite athletes don't care about genetics, just 2nd rate ones who never made the grade. You think he doesn't dream of lifting heavier than he does?

Who says they should care about them?
I could just as well say 'elite athletes don't care about Newton's Laws'
Doesn't mean they don't have an effect.

And of course he dreams about lifting heavier... what's that got to do with anything?

Genetics is not an excuse, it just a recognition that some are more gifted than others, bell shaped curve and all that.

Alternatively, maybe you're right and if I got the right coaching and worked hard enough I could out sprint Usain Bolt.

There's not settling for excuses, and then there's refusing to stare facts in the face.

kevpants wrote:

And now you're arguing elite coaches are only good for that last few %? So they don't know anything else about their sports bar the last 1 or 2 %?

No I wasn't arguing that.

kevpants wrote:

You're actually saying an average coach is better for an average lifter because then everyones at the same level? Unbelievable

No I'm not saying that either.

Mikel · 21-02-2009 03:14PM

Incidentally, 5 pages of a thread critiquing his squat form and not one of the supposed experts has given the reason why his spine shouldn't be neutral and why he shouldn't 'hip drive' the way he does.
Interesting.

d-gal · 21-02-2009 03:39PM

Mikel I really don't know if your a CrossFit cult guy or you just like insulting people but I'll just give 1 or 2 simple points.
Rip's form is sh!t, plain and simple. He doesn't even have the flexibility to go below parallel yet he still does it
When looking towards the floor...if you bend your neck to look down, your upper and lower back will want to follow. Rounding your lower back puts tremendous risk of injury to the spinal discs.
The hip drive sh!t again causes increased risk because to initiate this movement your torso has to become more horizontal and it increase pressure on the lumbar spine and spinal discs.
It's not worth the risk for more emphasis on the posterior chain, lot more safer beneficial exercises

Mikel · 21-02-2009 04:11PM

1. No I'm not a 'Crossfit cult guy', I don't even do Crossfit, but it's interesting that asking people to back up their criticisms with some form of logic or biomechanical principles or any kind of rationale beyond 'it's sh!t' gets you labelled as being in a cult

2. Who did I insult? Is calling someone a 'Crossfit cult guy' not an insult?

3. He doesn't advocate bending your neck, he advocates keeping it neutral

4.

d-gal wrote:

The hip drive sh!t again causes increased risk because to initiate this movement your torso has to become more horizontal and it increase pressure on the lumbar spine and spinal discs.
It's not worth the risk for more emphasis on the posterior chain, lot more safer beneficial exercises

Well at last someone is addressing what he's doing.

kevpants · 21-02-2009 06:34PM

Mikel wrote: »

Incidentally, 5 pages of a thread critiquing his squat form and not one of the supposed experts has given the reason why his spine shouldn't be neutral and why he shouldn't 'hip drive' the way he does.
Interesting.

What!?

A few posters did. I said myself I lost all my heavy squats forward because my hips were coming up faster than the bar. Hip drive ends up with the lifter having to do a Good Morning at the top. Hardly the most efficient method. Hip drive would be grand if the bar was sitting on your hips but it's not, it's sitting at the tob of a big long bendy thing called your back.

As for the neutral spine, that's Rippetie's excuse for looking down. Neutral spine means nothing, it's one of his catch phrases like hip drive. Head up helps with chest up which helps jeep your core solid which is what is keeping your back andgle and making sure the bar moves up when you push up.

Those reasons ok?

kevpants · 21-02-2009 06:49PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

thats not what i meant and you know it

a person can be a great coach without having coached elite athletes and the average coaches all over the world are jsut as important as the people who coach the elite athletes

You're rolling back now. The argument was average coaches for average lifters and I countered that if you can get a coach who has coached at the very top you're better off. Several posters then stated you're better off with a coach at the same level as you. To me this doesn't make sense.

Mikel wrote: »

Right, cos we could all reach the elite level if we would just work hard enough right?

Right. At least we agree on one thing :pac:

Seriously though. What's stopping you? No one on this planet is at 100% of their genetic potential. You can only get stronger. Every extra % you manage is up to you.

Mikel wrote: »

Who says they should care about them?
I could just as well say 'elite athletes don't care about Newton's Laws'
Doesn't mean they don't have an effect.

My point was they don't make excuses. The old genetics card is only played by the losers.

Mikel wrote: »

Genetics is not an excuse, it just a recognition that some are more gifted than others, bell shaped curve and all that.

Bell shaped curve of excuses!:D

Just to point out, Konstantinovs in that other thread is at a genetic disadvantage deadlifting. Very long back. Explain that one?

Mikel wrote: »

Alternatively, maybe you're right and if I got the right coaching and worked hard enough I could out sprint Usain Bolt.

There's not settling for excuses, and then there's refusing to stare facts in the face.

Maybe not. But you'd be faster than you would be if you decided from the start that you were already bet.

I'll leave you with this. Some of powerliftings REAL experts on genetics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCGsfs0IPFE

blackgold>> · 21-02-2009 07:20PM

Question for the people who don't agree with mark rippetoe.
What type of squats do you do?
bodybuilding style squat?
powerlifting style squat?

BossArky · 21-02-2009 08:52PM

Anyone else think it is odd that he is not using clips on the bar to keep the plates in place? I would have thought that he as a coach would recognise the need to keep the plates locked tightly to prevent uneven loading. He mentions uneven loading a few times in Starting Strength, for both bench and squat.

In SS his squat advice is to pick a spot on the ground approximately 5 to 6 feet in front of you. In his squat vid it looks more like he is looking at a stop about 1 or 2 feet in front of him. Looking down at the ground like this tends to round the back slightly which is dangerous with a weight across your upper back.

Re hip drive, in SS mentions that driving with the hips should be done in such a way that the angle of the back is kept constant. You shouldn't just drive with the hips and keep the shoulders in the same position.

brianthebard · 21-02-2009 11:37PM

kevpants wrote: »

What!?

A few posters did. I said myself I lost all my heavy squats forward because my hips were coming up faster than the bar. Hip drive ends up with the lifter having to do a Good Morning at the top. Hardly the most efficient method. Hip drive would be grand if the bar was sitting on your hips but it's not, it's sitting at the tob of a big long bendy thing called your back.

As for the neutral spine, that's Rippetie's excuse for looking down. Neutral spine means nothing, it's one of his catch phrases like hip drive. Head up helps with chest up which helps jeep your core solid which is what is keeping your back andgle and making sure the bar moves up when you push up.

Those reasons ok?

So once you are ready to move up out of the hole, what would be the correct way to do it? Do the hips move first? Does the chest push back? this thread is starting to confuse me a bit tbh.

Roper · 21-02-2009 11:55PM

kevpants wrote: »

As for the neutral spine, that's Rippetie's excuse for looking down. Neutral spine means nothing, it's one of his catch phrases like hip drive. Head up helps with chest up which helps jeep your core solid which is what is keeping your back andgle and making sure the bar moves up when you push up.

Actually neutral spine means quite a bit when it comes to training, but there much better ways to coach it than to say look at the floor in front of you and it generally refers to the lumbar spine, not the cervical spine as Ripptoe suggests. In fact I'd go so far as to say that in my experience, not getting your head up in squats or deads will lead to a tilt in the lumbar spine.

I gave my copy of the book away a few months ago which is a shame now because I'd like to go back and have a look at it.

DM-BM · 22-02-2009 12:14AM

kevpants wrote: »

I said myself I lost all my heavy squats forward because my hips were coming up faster than the bar.

So you failed to implement the squat technique in SS, and failed to keep your chest up, and that means it's sh!t?

kevpants wrote: »

Hip drive ends up with the lifter having to do a Good Morning at the top.

Not if you keep your upper back locked, your chest up, and don't let your hips rise faster than the bar.

kevpants · 22-02-2009 11:55AM

DM-BM wrote: »

Not if you keep your upper back locked, your chest up, and don't let your hips rise faster than the bar.

So a squat then yeah?

That's what you're describing. I agree you're bang on with how you should squat. But then what the feck is hip drive?

kevpants · 22-02-2009 12:06PM

brianthebard wrote: »

So once you are ready to move up out of the hole, what would be the correct way to do it? Do the hips move first? Does the chest push back? this thread is starting to confuse me a bit tbh.

That's the thing. Rippetoe's technique would seem to suggest your hips move first which is gonna end up with you losing it forward. But that would be going against his other rule which is that your back angle should stay solid. That begs the same question, what is hip drive? I just think there are a lot of contradictions in his rules and then when you see him putting it in place it all looks wrong. I know he's old but you'd expect his technique to be bang on, it isn't.

EDIT: Can the Rip fans explain this so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yha2XAc2qu8

For one, don't keep your chest up???? WTF!

Secondly. Show me the "hip drive " in Rips set of 10 compared to the guy who was apparently doing it all wrong in the above video.

DM-BM · 22-02-2009 12:23PM

kevpants wrote: »

So a squat then yeah?

That's what you're describing. I agree you're bang on with how you should squat. But then what the feck is hip drive?

Well, my understanding of it is, hip drive is basically when you concentrate on driving your hips up out of the bottom of the squat, as opposed to trying to lead with your chest, or drive your feet through the ground.

keeping your head in a position, where you can focus on a spot 5 or 6 feet in front of you can help with this, but i don't believe its essential, when you know what hip drive feels like.

If you concenrtate on hip drive and neglect to keep your back tight and your chest up, regardless of head position, your either going to be shoved forward and loose it or have to good morning it.

The whole movement needs to be balanced, and done in a way that the angle of your back stays as constant as possible. Focusing only on driving your hips and neglecting your back, will result in a mess.

kevpants · 22-02-2009 12:53PM

DM-BM wrote: »

Well, my understanding of it is, hip drive is basically when you concentrate on driving your hips up out of the bottom of the squat, as opposed to trying to lead with your chest, or drive your feet through the ground.

keeping your head in a position, where you can focus on a spot 5 or 6 feet in front of you can help with this, but i don't believe its essential, when you know what hip drive feels like.

If you concenrtate on hip drive and neglect to keep your back tight and your chest up, regardless of head position, your either going to be shoved forward and loose it or have to good morning it.

The whole movement needs to be balanced, and done in a way that the angle of your back stays as constant as possible. Focusing only on driving your hips and neglecting your back, will result in a mess.

That just sounds like its all in the mind then?

I mean he says concentrate on driving with the hips, but keep your chest up. But don't concentrate on keeping your chest up.

Killme00 · 22-02-2009 01:05PM

I shouldnt have read this thread, very confused now about squat technique.

DM-BM · 22-02-2009 01:12PM

kevpants wrote: »

That's the thing. Rippetoe's technique would seem to suggest your hips move first which is gonna end up with you losing it forward. But that would be going against his other rule which is that your back angle should stay solid. That begs the same question, what is hip drive? I just think there are a lot of contradictions in his rules and then when you see him putting it in place it all looks wrong.

But you won't lose it forward if you keep your upper back locked and your chest up, but there is a big difference between keeping your chest up while driving with your hips and leading with your chest.
If you get the balance right,while your hips may move fractionally before your chest, it shouldn't be enough to shove you forward.

kevpants wrote: »

I know he's old but you'd expect his technique to be bang on, it isn't.

Look we can all have opinions on his squats, but lets not mix up his form with his teaching. They are not a perfect example of how to squat the way he teaches in starting strength, and i don't believe that is enough of a reason to dismiss the technique in starting strength.

EDIT: Can the Rip fans explain this so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yha2XAc2qu8

kevpants wrote: »

For one, don't keep your chest up???? WTF!

kevpants wrote: »

I think he believes that when some one tries to squat for the first time they have a tendency to lead with the chest, so he tries to teach them what hip drive is by enitially exagerating it. Hence the "don't keep your chest up" while he is pushing on his back.

When he has the guy with a bar on his back, he does tell him to keep his chest up, but again it's about balancing hip drive and your back angle.

kevpants wrote: »

Secondly. Show me the "hip drive " in Rips set of 10 compared to the guy who was apparently doing it all wrong in the above video.

I don't know how to show it to you , if you can't see it.
In the video above, the first few squats that guy does he seems to lead with his chest and doesn't drive his hips.

In Rips set of ten, it does look to me, that he is trying to drive his hips up. Now they are not perfectb ut hip drive is present.

Rippetoe's Squat Form

Comments