ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Problems With Squat Illustrations
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2016
- In this video, Tom touches on why some of the illustrations we see are not always reliable.
Trainer to the Trainers®, Tom Purvis (tompurvis.com) from the Resistance Training Specialist Program (RTS)
For live courses and in-depth exploration of exercise mechanics, you can visit RTS at www.RTS123.com
*a PTDC admin may respond to comments, but the Instructor in video will not, so please keep that in mind before you comment!!!*
How can anyone argue and disagree with physics and mechanics? A lot of "online" personal trainers that don't understand geometry and angles getting offended... I love this channel and what I like the most is that this is science and not what people think it is good or not. Thank you for the great explanations!
Hey Luigi, thanks for the comment!
This is great, I would beat myself up because my squats were not the "perfect" squat but I really think that my body structure (long legs) requires me to adjust my squat to what I can do. Wide legged stance works best for me despite being constantly told by trainers to narrow my stance, which affects my squat.
Jennifer Ayers same here!
I'm legit sitting here crying bc I just left training and feel like I'll never squat "right". Idk if it's my body (long femurs, metal rod it right femur and pins in left ankle) or after two years is it something I just can't learn to do :(
Tom, I could listen to you all day! Love your videos, just wish you'd do more of them.
Yes please
Great channel and lots of fantastic information.
God I hate this picture and its everywhere in the fitness-industry.
It's scary how rarely you meet someone who knows this simple and logic understanding about the human body.
Your body.
Your range of motion.
Your goal.
So simple it hurts my eyes.
Can you please do a video on rear foot elevated split squats (Bulgarian split squats)? thank you so much for all the free information !
In this video on sports vs fitness, no one pointed out how the photo came from a snickers commercial and thought that was relevant in the discussion. th-cam.com/video/aNAOEgbYcJU/w-d-xo.html
But when our vids have a photo or example from another exercise source, it seems that many people are quick to defend or discuss the original source and it's use, instead of the video itself.
Please explore the discussion and points made in the video, and discuss that. Anything else is a "snickers argument". -admin
We get it.
You have to acknowledge the irony, though:
A video complaining about people taking squat pictures out of context and making inaccurate generalizations about squats...
By taking a squat picture out of context and making an inaccurate generalization about a representation of the squat.
In his defense, though, at least he's *talking* about anthropometry. Most organizations just throw their hands up and say "do what works for you..."
+CJ Gotcher well, that's not what the video is about, so ....
PersonalTrainingdotcom great video. So what are some alternative viewpoints you have do you have a video explaining them or how low you should go based upon your structure instead of just parallel
i’m sold but is there a video where it shows the correct way because i still don’t know lol
Your channel is fucken gold. Pardon the fuck.
Lol
Hey Tom,
Just a curious question...
Whats your thought on the low-bar squats that Mark Rippetoe advocates? The idea that squat should be more horizontal then vertical to activate more the posterior chain and may be healthier for the back.
(However, don't quote me on the reasons why it is better since I might misrepresent his work.)
Would love to hear your take on this.
Thank you!
I love your philosophy.
Awesome content as always Tom! Could you make a video discussing how center of gravity is affected by weight lifted with a barbell on squats and deadlifts?
My assumptions would be more weight forces you to squat more upright, as your center of gravity, just as on the illustratuion you showed in the video, will shift from your stomach area towards where the bar is alligned, as it becomes significantly greater than your bodyweight. Whereas in the deadlift, I'd figure you would want to "sit back" and pull with your hips higher/shins more vertical as the weight increases relative to your bodyweight as well, since if you don't, well you would pretty much fall forward right?
Please tell if I'm understanding this correctly or if I've misunderstood any of it. Thanks!
How rare is it to have the torso, femur, and floor to knee length be almost identical? Mine is are like this and i find almost all squat positions okay but im not strong in any of them. My squat is 150kg lighter than my deadlift and is very inconsistent. Some days they go well others not whereas my deadlifts are pretty consistent. Less margin of error
The video is well worth your time. I appreciate learning different perspectives and he raises some interesting questions, but he does fail to address some of the counter arguments. Arguably the squat is important as we all have to poop - this is more critical than walking. So the human animal needs to squat to some extent, simply for a basic body function. Because he's now arguing against the prevailing theory, I wish he'd provided a more comprehensive answer, even though he goes on and on. It interesting how he says something about how others have a 'god complex' when he comes across this way too. Anyways - my two cents.
Squatting with one's unloaded body and squatting with the addition of [sometimes gargantuan amounts of] load are two different things with potentially very different applied force scenarios and repercussions. The whole world of people found some way to squat in order to defecate prior to the invention of the western toilet. That doesn't mean it's a great idea to add load and do it for increased "fitness."
Love the part about sound bites, That's so true. Maybe if we start teaching philosophy to our kids the next generations will understand what it means to objectify.
mechanics context!!!!
That illustration was taken from Startimg Strength Basic Barbell Training 3rd Edition. Could you please explain to me why you failed to include the other 2-3 illustrations on that page that displayed various squats in individuals with different segment lengths? Or the part where the author explains the very concept that you claim was not addressed. Did you read the book?
Normally its not worth commenting ... but dude... if you watched the video and actually listened without the intent to defend your guru, you would have your own answer.
+Pete Brown he should have addressed the issue first rather than attack the illustration. The negativity projected onto our illustration of the squat made me not want to watch it. If he wants to hold our attention then he should paint a complete picture of what he is doing and not half ass it.
Ok. Here is my point. In watching the video he clearly states that this picture was at the bottom of an article on squatting that he mentions he thinks was titled how low should we go, since you mention Starting Strength is a book I am going to assume (unless it was also an article titled how low...blah blah blah.) (I typically try not to assume but in an effort to keep this brief) that you think either
1. he went and got this image from the book and made up the article part (kinda silly given that pics are circulated in articles all the time and squatting is a popular topic, cant recall the number of times I have seen that stupid baby squatting pic)
2. you think that regardless of where it came from he should have known that it originated in your book.
Both miss the point.
Referencing that the book had two other pics.... relatively worthless information if you listened to the what he said about finding the picture at the bottom of an article ... not ... a book called starting strength.
I personally do not care either way. But... your first statement of the pictures origin does a poor job of illustrating what your actual problem is with the video.
+Pete Brown then he didn't do a great job researching the topic he is discussing.
+Pete Brown objective fact have nothing to do with emotions. That image came from a published textbook and he did not cite the source he was discrediting. Poor preparation on his part.
I don't think the guy in the illustration would fall over backward. Look how far his head is in front of his toes. You can find Starting Strength videos of real people using that same posture in the low bar squat.
The point here is that this illustration doesn't apply to everyone (and probably not to many people at all). It may indeed represent some people, but we would have to compare their proportions, weight distribution, and position during squats with various amounts of weight to know either way. The fact that some people *might* be able to accomplish an exercise a certain way doesn't mean that it's a good guideline for the general public -- especially when most people seeing such a guideline probably aren't aware of the countless mechanical and physiological considerations that affect how someone might perform the exercise.
Of course everyone's squat will look different depending on individual anthropometry, but the illustration is still a useful reference. It doesn't give people with different proportions a distorted concept of what a squat's supposed to look like.
I'm not so sure. I would argue that it *does* give a distorted concept to people if it's not presented with the caveat that only people built a certain way will be able to achieve that depth and those angles. If the person presenting it is competent enough to explain that, then fair enough.
But often, images like that one are shared without any sort of rational context (and often are posted alongside some nonsensical "advice" or "rules" that only make matters worse for people who are already confused).
So without the accompaniment of an explanation of context, the image may well be more misleading than helpful. There's no such thing as "proper form" from a universal perspective, and the usefulness of any image like this is quite limited since a person will have to experiment with their own body anyway.
Just my interpretation of things.
It's just a diagram to illustrate the relationship between mid-foot vertical bar alignment and back angle, which is something that must be maintained across all squatting styles in order to keep the system in balance. I don't see how someone could be horribly mislead by that.
+Dale G. The assumption that a certain back angle MUST be maintained to keep things "in balance" is not supported by any observations or calculations that I've made. It just seems like yet another arbitrary rule that people pick because it looks/sounds nice. I physically cannot achieve such an angle due to my proportions. I am anything but "in balance" if I try to force my back to be parallel to my shins or any other such nonsense. I'll simply fall over. There are countless "right" ways to perform a squat, all of which are determined by the structure, current capabilities, and goals of the individual.
So yes, the diagram is misleading. One could even call it moronic. With respect, I think it might be a good idea to study human structure and variation a bit more in order to see just how illogical it is to use templates like this in the first place. Very few people can achieve the "ideal" (whoever decided it was ideal is beyond me) positions/orientations in this image. It is asinine to suggest that this picture is something that people should strive for, especially when you know zilch about what people might be looking at this image in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that picture is from Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" and that's THE way to squat.
WTF? It's an illustration. No single illustration can represent all body types. The illustration is part of a series indicating certain elements in the squat. It's probably not drawn to scale. The cylinder in his hand represents a 28-29mm barbell. Does this really need to be explained to you? The reason 450mm barbell plates are not shown is for clarity. I've seen some ok information here, but this a troll.
Perhaps you should point out that no one should squat nude, and without shoes, and how silly this representation of a squat is.
You're sitting there with a model on your desk. Does that represent everyone, or even anyone?
The illustration shows the mathematical relationships between the knee angle and the hip angle with that of the back angle. Essentially, 'knee angle' + 'hip angle' = 'back angle'
That has nothing to do with biomechanics, that's simple geometry.
I have no idea what the article said or how the illustration was described, but as an illustration there are facts that are clearly conveyed that you seem to have not grasped in your effort to come up with content for your lecture
If a person has a spine, femurs and tibias then to some extent it applies to them. If you don't realize that this simple geometry matters in biomechanics then who has a poor grasp of this stuff, hm?
i’m sold but is there a video where it shows the correct way because i still don’t know lol