PDA

View Full Version : Squats, depth? form?


Anthony Papadopoulos
12-16-2005, 07:19 AM
are those squats below parallel or just parallel?
any tips on form?
http://s28.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=23QLO7JKCHF8Z128SXP2DMDGCQ

file is opened with latest version of quicktime

Anthony Bainbridge
12-16-2005, 08:23 AM
They look above parallel, but it's hard to say for sure from that angle.

The crease of your hip has to be at or below the top of your knee to be considered parallel in the IPF.

As for form, in this particular video, I think the lockout is too forceful and it almost looks like he's close to hyperextending his knees. It also looks like the weight is pretty unstable, which probably means weak core. Other than that, it looks pretty decent.

Jerry Hill
12-16-2005, 07:20 PM
Those squats look pretty good to me - he is using bands that will cause instability - is it on a smith machine?

Anthony Bainbridge
12-16-2005, 07:40 PM
It's not a smith machine, it's a power rack. But you're right about the bands - I completely missed those. I take back my comment on being unstable.

Still above parallel though. :p

Anthony Bainbridge
12-17-2005, 09:48 AM
Hmm, I was wrong. Those aren't bands, it's a smith machine that slides forward/backwards.

If that's the case, I'll stand by my original comment - a bit too close to hyperextension on the lockout and the weight looks unstable.

Adam C Lautenschlager
12-21-2005, 09:53 PM
Speaking of squatting form and depth, I'm confused about what seems to be an "unspoken standard" here in Crossfit land. What I'm referring to is squatting (during Thrusters, Tabatas, BW squats etc.) onto a Dynamax. I personally don't engage in that practice, not only because I don't have a Dynamax, but I feel it might limit ROM; and I'm 6'2" and not very flexible. I think especially for shorter athletes it may even limit ROM to paralell, or above, which isn't really acceptable if we're going for maximum benefit from this hugely functional exercise. I understand if you're going for a PR on "Tabata something else" or "Cindy" it's good to have a widely accepted standard, but only if it's a good standard.

Whaddaya think?






All views and opinions expressed herein subject to change, author cannot be held liable for misuse of information.
:proud:

Ben Krey
12-22-2005, 04:25 PM
I think the squats could certainly be a little lower, but all in all, pretty good form.
Trying to keep the upper body more upright would help I think. I couldn't see the position of the bar or feet. It would be interesting to see at more of an oblique angle with no cage.

As for what you said, Adam, I think you are pretty acurate regarding getting maximum benefit. I always thought of the Dynamax thing as a progression on the way toward rock bottom-ness.
Anthony, I see what you mean about the knee thing, but I do like how he gets full hip ext. at the top.
Idunno, don't listen to me, lol.

Anthony Papadopoulos
12-22-2005, 05:24 PM
i think those are deeper but those are triples... because i couldn't get any deeper... my *** was hitting my calves...
http://s61.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2H0MCBGC9E7DT0Y8TUTR07Y096

(148kg 2x3reps @ 69kg bw,1.75m).
i keep my torso very tight. i am not unstable at all i think.... i am contracting my TVA as hard as i can . i am also trying to be as more upright as possible. check it out.

Anthony Bainbridge
12-26-2005, 01:05 PM
Anthony, I think your depth looks better in this video. Good stuff!