CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Exercises
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Exercises Movements, technique & proper execution

Thread Tools
Old 06-02-2005, 09:03 PM   #1
Rob McBee
Affiliate Rob McBee is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 397
Several days ago the WOD had additional info detailing the flaws of hindu squats. One of those flaws was that lifting the heels shifts the load to the quads, neglecting the hamstrings/posterior chain. Does the same thing occur running up hills? The angle seems to force you to run on the balls of the feet so does this load the quads/neglect the hams too?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 10:24 PM   #2
Kalen Meine
Member Kalen Meine is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denver  CO
Posts: 329
Hmm....I ran up a hill just yesterday carrying somebody, and my hams felt it. Granted, they were still feeling a set of KB swings that beat them senseless, but I definitely noticed it. When I picture the angles, I still think that hip extension is more crucial to the movement than knee, but that could just be a mental trick. I wouldn't worry about it in any case- running up hills is obviously functional, and thus whatever adaptation it causes is alright. I mean, people run, and the world has hills. Whatever makes you run up that hill faster, your body will do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 12:18 PM   #3
Russ Greene
Departed Russ Greene is offline
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 637
Running seems to be the opposite of squatting for me, in terms of the heel vs. toe effect. When I run on my heels, I really feel it only in my quads, when I run with shorter strides on my toes the work is divided more evenly, as the hamstrings and calves definitely get more work. Plus running on your toes is faster and more efficient, whether you're running uphill or on a track.

Previously Masquerading as Ross Greenberg
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 01:55 PM   #4
Gary John
Departed Gary John is offline
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 84
OOH,OOH, I know this one. Us old guys sprint uphill because it is easy on the hamstrings. Supposedly, you can't pull a hamstring sprinting uphill. This is very quad dominant. That's why RDLs are the anti-hill sprinting. I better not see a new crossfit workout where you do RDLs and then sprint uphill...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2005, 12:23 PM   #5
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
I think Ross, er, I mean Russ hit on something: Stride length. If you are taking a longer stride you will recruit posterior chain more. Short choppy steps cause one to pogo-stick along off the quads.

IMO long strides w/hill sprints are glute/hamstring intensive.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2005, 01:13 AM   #6
Hone Watson
Member Hone Watson is offline
Hone Watson's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Auckland  New Zealand
Posts: 194
Interesting thoughts on the stride length Robb.

I tend to agree, however Michael Johnson was noted for his short stride length and didn't seem to suffer in glute/ham development.

As far as hindu squats go - I don't think there is any harm in popping out a few hindu squats now and then as an occasional additional exercise. It hasn't effected my standard squat flexibility.
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stutter Stepping during sprints Nick Cruz Exercises 8 06-06-2007 06:01 PM
10 x 100M sprints Jason Naubur Exercises 9 06-04-2007 02:15 PM
Sprints Max Seid Exercises 5 12-17-2006 11:53 PM
Interested in the effects of Hill Sprints Graham Tidey Exercises 23 08-02-2005 01:23 PM
Hill Sprints Robert F. Gutierrez Exercises 3 05-10-2004 06:00 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 AM.

CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.