Keith - doing the math on squat depth, weight, and stance ..

External Since: Jan 08, 2005 Posts: 2036

Keith, a while back we were discussing the benefits of ATG squatting and
you mentioned (I forget whether it was just opinion or a study you'd
read) that there was a transfer from ATG squatting to using a heavier
weight in combination with less depth - put another way, if your ATG
squat increased, your competition-legal-depth squat would likely
increase, too. If I've misstated that in any way, please correct me. I
believe you mentioned a specific number, something like 10% per inch of
depth or something like that.

When comparing these two, are you talking about using the same stance or
rather using an ideal stance for each type of squat? I find, e.g., that
when I want to squat ATG, I take a narrow stance with feet only slightly
turned out, but when I want to go heavier but for less depth, I use a
wider stance and turn my feet out more to keep them tracking over my
knees properly. I don't think there's a point, but please correct me if
I'm wrong, in trying to take a heavy weight to only competition depth
using a narrow stance.

What I'm trying to do, in at least approximate numbers, is figure
backwards from a competition 2x bodyweight squat, and see what I should
reasonably expect myself to do in ATG squatting if the 2x bodyweight
squat in competition is my goal. I plan on using both styles in my
training with more and more competition style as a meet grows nearer.
BTW, I have to admit that, after years of avoiding squatting, I've
really come to like it, ATG style, although I still don't enjoy training
only to competition depth and in a wider stance very much.

Thanks in advance.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

External Since: Jan 16, 2005 Posts: 331

In article <3fcasbF72is4U1.RemoveThis@individual.net>, "Steve Freides"
<steve.RemoveThis@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> Keith, a while back we were discussing the benefits of ATG squatting and
> you mentioned (I forget whether it was just opinion or a study you'd
> read) that there was a transfer from ATG squatting to using a heavier
> weight in combination with less depth - put another way, if your ATG
> squat increased, your competition-legal-depth squat would likely
> increase, too. If I've misstated that in any way, please correct me. I
> believe you mentioned a specific number, something like 10% per inch of
> depth or something like that.
>
> When comparing these two, are you talking about using the same stance or
> rather using an ideal stance for each type of squat? I find, e.g., that
> when I want to squat ATG, I take a narrow stance with feet only slightly
> turned out, but when I want to go heavier but for less depth, I use a
> wider stance and turn my feet out more to keep them tracking over my
> knees properly. I don't think there's a point, but please correct me if
> I'm wrong, in trying to take a heavy weight to only competition depth
> using a narrow stance.
>
> What I'm trying to do, in at least approximate numbers, is figure
> backwards from a competition 2x bodyweight squat, and see what I should
> reasonably expect myself to do in ATG squatting if the 2x bodyweight
> squat in competition is my goal. I plan on using both styles in my
> training with more and more competition style as a meet grows nearer.
> BTW, I have to admit that, after years of avoiding squatting, I've
> really come to like it, ATG style, although I still don't enjoy training
> only to competition depth and in a wider stance very much.

Obviously there is a great deal of variation among different people, but
powerlifters see between 30-50 lbs per inch of depth. Pragmatically.

Zatsiorsky did a study where he found that doing an isometric leg
extension with a 70 degree angle had a linear increase in strength across
greater angles while doing a 120 degree angle isometric had no strength
increase at smaller angles. Inferentially this would mean a deep squat has
linear increases in strength at semi-squat depth while semi-squats do
little to increase strength in a deep squat. They did isometrics because
that way you couldn't argue that the full ROM was also working the partial
ROM, but not vice versa. Pragmatically Medeydev found similar results with
a full squat.

It's hard to argue that the wider squat is not full depth, since as you go
wider the ability to go deeper is reduced. In both cases I mention above
you could infer that going deep in a narrow stance squat would also
increase strength in a semi-squat done in the same stance. The problem is
that a wide stance squat is a fundamentally different exercise than a
narrow stance squat. The wide stance uses more posterior chain muscles and
less quad. So I'm not sure it is best to train narrow and then go wide
just prior to competition. Having said that, notable squatters like Fred
Hatfield have done just exactly that! If you do follow that approach I
would suggest adding good mornings to your assistance work.

Numbers? Using my own example. My best squat with suit and wraps was 635
lbs using a low bar/wide stance. My best raw squat using a moderate stance
and low bar was 545 - I had tried 555 at Laughlin and didn't lift it, as
you may recall. When I was ready to do the 545-565 last attempt with a
moderate stance and low bar I was doing about 435-455 for singles high
bar/narrow stance ATTG.

So in my case I lost about 20% putting the bar up and the ass down and
bringing the feet together. However, I had years of motor training in the
wide stance squat to fall back upon. It was at that point a much more
'comfortable' motor pattern for me.

So I would estimate that you are looking at somewhere between 15-25% off
with the high bar ATTG narrow stance squat. Put anothe way if you can do
1.75 BW in training consistently I think you'd have a pretty good shot at
2x BW in competition with the wider stance and bringing the bar down and
going to parallel.

HTH.

--
Keith