Squatting Question

[afrosamurai04]

I decided I really would like to focus on squats (and legs in general) for a little while and incorporate leg workouts twice a week (I used to do 3x but my legs were too tired by the third workout, so I'm trying twice)...I usually work them Monday (full body workout day; more like a "medium-volume and intensity" leg day) and Friday (a full out leg day).

Anyway, my question is this:
On Mondays, I do lighter weight w/more weights for my squats (3-4x10) and since it's "lighter" I do ATG squats, I do 3-4x6 Box squats as well after, but that's not relevant for my question. Then on Fridays, I go heavier with a 5x5 scheme for squats and go below parallel but not all the way down.

Should I just keep it consistent and either stick with just ATG squats or parallel squats or keep it as is; pretty much Mondays do ATG and Fridays, parallel?

Thanks for any advice

[illriginalized]

ATG. Heavy weight, the last two sets should be within 5 reps. If you're doing light/medium weight.. you should do it for the sake of endurance (high reps, such as 20 reps per set).

Also try to focus on 5 working sets (1 warm up set, 5 real sets) at the very minimum. And don't pussy around with legs... your legs can handle massive weight, just have to put your trust in them.

In addition.. leg days, if you're truly dedicated to your legs.. there's no way you should have the energy to do a full body workout with leg days. If there's anything you want to do as a full body work out, it would be dead lifts.. but again even adding dead lifts on the same day you do legs (especially with squats)... is going to be difficult. Squats and dead lifts are two exercises that should wipe you from your energy.. and definitely soaked in sweat, they're highly intense workouts when dedicated to them.

[ironwill2008]

Should I just keep it consistent and either stick with just ATG squats or parallel squats or keep it as is; pretty much Mondays do ATG and Fridays, parallel?

Don't overcomplicate things. If your goal is mass, going to parallel is deep enough. Adopt a standard depth for both workouts, and then put your effort into progression over time.

[matjusm]

I decided I really would like to focus on squats (and legs in general) for a little while and incorporate leg workouts twice a week (I used to do 3x but my legs were too tired by the third workout, so I'm trying twice)...I usually work them Monday (full body workout day; more like a "medium-volume and intensity" leg day) and Friday (a full out leg day).

Anyway, my question is this:
On Mondays, I do lighter weight w/more weights for my squats (3-4x10) and since it's "lighter" I do ATG squats, I do 3-4x6 Box squats as well after, but that's not relevant for my question. Then on Fridays, I go heavier with a 5x5 scheme for squats and go below parallel but not all the way down.

Should I just keep it consistent and either stick with just ATG squats or parallel squats or keep it as is; pretty much Mondays do ATG and Fridays, parallel?

Thanks for any advice

The difference between ATG depth and "below parallel" is minimal, in fact I'm not sure I can actually identify a point in my own squat where I'm below parallel but not ATG. If you're feeling such a big difference between the two then I suspect your parallel squat is a bit higher than you think it is.

Anyway, I see no reason why one would want to limit the depth of their squat. Just do ATG all the time, if you want to vary loading then do as you say 3x10 on one day and 5x5 on the other but go all the way down.

[Fredo95]

I decided I really would like to focus on squats (and legs in general) for a little while and incorporate leg workouts twice a week (I used to do 3x but my legs were too tired by the third workout, so I'm trying twice)...I usually work them Monday (full body workout day; more like a "medium-volume and intensity" leg day) and Friday (a full out leg day).

Anyway, my question is this:
On Mondays, I do lighter weight w/more weights for my squats (3-4x10) and since it's "lighter" I do ATG squats, I do 3-4x6 Box squats as well after, but that's not relevant for my question. Then on Fridays, I go heavier with a 5x5 scheme for squats and go below parallel but not all the way down.

Should I just keep it consistent and either stick with just ATG squats or parallel squats or keep it as is; pretty much Mondays do ATG and Fridays, parallel?

Thanks for any advice

IMO, always ATG.

[stealthmedia]

In addition.. leg days, if you're truly dedicated to your legs.. there's no way you should have the energy to do a full body workout with leg days. If there's anything you want to do as a full body work out, it would be dead lifts.. but again even adding dead lifts on the same day you do legs (especially with squats)... is going to be difficult. Squats and dead lifts are two exercises that should wipe you from your energy.. and definitely soaked in sweat, they're highly intense workouts when dedicated to them.

Thissss. 2 days ago I had to cram two of my day s together and do deadlifts/legs hypertrophy and then do chest/arms hypertrophy after and I have never felt that tired at the gym. Had to take carbs after legs so I wouldn't die.

[tidnab]

Don't overcomplicate things. If your goal is mass, going to parallel is deep enough. Adopt a standard depth for both workouts, and then put your effort into progression over time.

Why would limiting depth be better for mass? I agree with matjusm here: something is fishy about saying you are going "below parallel" but "not all the way down".

[ironwill2008]

Why would limiting depth be better for mass?

Most guys can squat more weight to parallel than ATG. As far as bodybuilding is concerned, parallel is 'deep' enough.

[tidnab]

Most guys can squat more weight to parallel than ATG. As far as bodybuilding is concerned, parallel is 'deep' enough.

And they can do even more weight by not squatting down at all... I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. You might be right for all I know, but it seems to me your argument is "if you cut ROM to handle more weight, that's better for bodybuilding".

[sharpieblet]

And they can do even more weight by not squatting down at all... I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. You might be right for all I know, but it seems to me your argument is "if you cut ROM to handle more weight, that's better for bodybuilding".

It's not necessary to go down that low to fully develop the legs, so all that extra bit of depth doors for you is give you bragging rights, unless you're actually competing or something. He's not saying going ATG is bad, just unnecessary. And he's correct.

[-Lucifer]

Don't overcomplicate things. If your goal is mass, going to parallel is deep enough. Adopt a standard depth for both workouts, and then put your effort into progression over time.

^^^ Exactly this.

It's your call - go ATG if you have the appropriate flexibility to do so. Do the style you enjoy the most. That being said, a parallel squat will activate everything (posterior chain, quads), so I don't think going ass-to-grass will do something spectacular for you.

[allprocro]

Most guys can squat more weight to parallel than ATG. As far as bodybuilding is concerned, parallel is 'deep' enough.

This is only true cause most cause don't squat deep....if you want dat booty, squat your ass to the floor

[matjusm]

It's not necessary to go down that low to fully develop the legs, so all that extra bit of depth doors for you is give you bragging rights, unless you're actually competing or something. He's not saying going ATG is bad, just unnecessary. And he's correct.

ATG is unnecessary? How is the full development of one's muscles unnecessary? If you look at the legs of Olympic weightlifters who always squat ATG, they are very impressive.

And just because one can use slightly more weight by limiting their ROM doesn't automatically mean that that will make their legs grow so much more.

[sharpieblet]

ATG is unnecessary? How is the full development of one's muscles unnecessary? If you look at the legs of Olympic weightlifters who always squat ATG, they are very impressive.

And just because one can use slightly more weight by limiting their ROM doesn't automatically mean that that will make their legs grow so much more.

That's what I said, yes. It's extremely unlikely that you can look at any pro bodybuilders legs and accurately guess if they squat ATG or not, and that's BC the few inches of difference between ATG and parallel will NOT hinder leg development, especially if you're doing more than just one squat or leg variation.

If you CAN, then I guess you can also look at a bodybuilders back and tell if he does dead lifts or just does rack pulls...

I never said full development wasn't necessary either, but in terms of leg development, we're splitting hairs here.

Squat ATG if you like, I have nothing against it. whether you squat 500 lbs ATG or squat 500 lbs parallel, you're still going to have great development.

[ironwill2008]

but it seems to me your argument is "if you cut ROM to handle more weight, that's better for bodybuilding".

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'll say it again; if the goal is to build a big pair of quads, Squatting to parallel is deep enough.

[lee__d]

Depends, is anything below parallel ATG like in the misc?

Look, a high bar squat, if you can get ATG, great. I say, try getting below parallel and if you're flexibility (eventually) allows it, go ATG.

[afrosamurai04]

Thanks for the responses. I've thankfully been gifted with good flexibility all my life and can go comfortably ATG but was curious if doing one or the other's more beneficial than incorporating both.

I definetely enjoy ATGs more as I feel kinda like a badass doing them even if the weight's pus** weight (10 rep PR is only 155lbs for ATG) and I just like doing Olympic lifts in general, especially the clean. I also feel my hamatrings woprking a little more too. I'm not a 100% sure but I think when I go ATG, my back gets a little sorer than if I were to do parallel squats; is this for anyone else?

Pretty much though, since the difference between those two are minimal, I should just stick with one or the other?

[ironwill2008]

...10 rep PR is only 155lbs...

You need to work on ^^^^ this. If your goal is to build big quads, you're going to have to build your Squat poundage along with the loads you handle with all your other leg exercises.

[Jasonk282]

ATG is unnecessary? How is the full development of one's muscles unnecessary? If you look at the legs of Olympic weightlifters who always squat ATG, they are very impressive.

And just because one can use slightly more weight by limiting their ROM doesn't automatically mean that that will make their legs grow so much more.

As long as your hips break past your thighs you are good and you'll develop just fine.

[tidnab]

It's not necessary to go down that low to fully develop the legs, so all that extra bit of depth doors for you is give you bragging rights, unless you're actually competing or something. He's not saying going ATG is bad, just unnecessary. And he's correct.

It's not necessary to squat at all to develop the legs... I'm just saying, if it's a question of what's "better" for building mass, I don't see how a full depth squat wouldn't be better. If it's a question of what's "enough" -- for someone who can't be bothered to train their bodies to squat full depth and has other things they'd rather worry about -- then that I can agree with.

But I don't see the point of discouraging someone who wants to squat full depth. I don't see how that is in any way an inferior way to squat.

[udt123]

ATG all the way boss

[Jasonk282]

It's not necessary to squat at all to develop the legs... I'm just saying, if it's a question of what's "better" for building mass, I don't see how a full depth squat wouldn't be better. If it's a question of what's "enough" -- for someone who can't be bothered to train their bodies to squat full depth and has other things they'd rather worry about -- then that I can agree with.

But I don't see the point of discouraging someone who wants to squat full depth. I don't see how that is in any way an inferior way to squat.

Whether you squat low or high bar should should always squat to depth. I agree with Tidnab.

IMO there's nothing worse than seeing people load up the bar and then proceed to partial squat it...maybe curls in teh squat rack.

[GinjaNinja85]

Without trying to put words in his mouth, I think the argument that ironwill is making is that if your goal is to build the quads rather than build the squat, there is no need to squat below parallel. Heavier weights will be handled as a result as the hardest part of the squat is coming up out of the hole. This should lead to better quad development.

You can then do hamstring dominant movements like RDLs to supplement.

If you're just squatting for your leg work, I am firmly in the ATG camp. My butt has gotten proper chunky from ATG squats and the missus loves it

[LegosInMyEgos]

You should squat to parallel if your goals are anything besides olympic lifting, and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to be hardcore and/or is stupid.

Squatting to parallel results in greater overall EMG activity of the 3 main muscles involved (glutes,quads,hammies), and allows a far greater load to be utilized during the lift, and the contribution of each of the 3 muscle groups is still very strong on a parallel squat.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/8363135...on+the+EMG.pdf

And ignoring that fact, most people can't go that deep safely anyway.

[-Lucifer]

You should squat to parallel if your goals are anything besides olympic lifting, and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to be hardcore and/or is stupid.

Squatting to parallel results in greater overall EMG activity of the 3 main muscles involved (glutes,quads,hammies), and allows a far greater load to be utilized during the lift, and the contribution of each of the 3 muscle groups is still very strong on a parallel squat.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/8363135...on+the+EMG.pdf

And ignoring that fact, most people can't go that deep safely anyway.

Win.

[tidnab]

You should squat to parallel if your goals are anything besides olympic lifting, and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to be hardcore and/or is stupid.

Squatting to parallel results in greater overall EMG activity of the 3 main muscles involved (glutes,quads,hammies), and allows a far greater load to be utilized during the lift, and the contribution of each of the 3 muscle groups is still very strong on a parallel squat.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/8363135...on+the+EMG.pdf

And ignoring that fact, most people can't go that deep safely anyway.

You're only looking at peak activation during the concentric phase. Mean activation is the same across the different kinds of squats, except glute activation is significantly higher for a fuller squat, as you would expect. Second of all, even for peak activation the difference between parallel and full squats is not statistically significant. Peak activation for the glutes is again higher in a full squat as well.

Edit: Rather than "only Olympic lifters should squat full depth" a more defensible conclusion based on that study would be "if you are only squatting for development of the thigh (which describes a fair number of bodybuilders, TBF) then squatting to parallel is probably sufficient for meeting your goals" (though not necessarily better). However if you care at all about glute development from squats (which not only describes bodybuilders, but athletes as well) then you should squat full depth.

But then again that's almost exactly what I've already been saying in this thread.

[matjusm]

I support full ROM squats. I will let wiser men speak on my behalf, in this case Charles Poliquin:

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Blog/...Advantage.aspx
Squat Training Tips To Use Range Of Motion To Your Advantage

Full range-of motion squats should be a principal exercise in any resistance training program because they produce superior results for the following reasons:

• You will maximally train all the muscles in the lower body with full-range squats. Research shows that deep squats will train the quads better than partial-range squats. Squatting low and using a heavy load is necessary to maximally train the posterior chain.
• You can increase speed and jump height more by using the full-range of motion squat as a fundamental training lift instead of a partial-range, heavier squat
• Occasionally including partial-range training in addition to full-range squats can help you overcome a plateau, but they should not be used at the exclusion of deep squats.
• You will perform more work doing full-range squats, and if you program your squats properly (more sets, fewer reps per set), squats can anchor a body composition/fat loss training program.
• Full-range squats require and support flexibility. Exclusive partial-range training can produce structural imbalances and reduce flexibility.

A recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research provides further insight into the effect of range of motion (ROM) on performance in the squat. The study compared power, force, velocity, and work output during full- and partial-ROM squats with either 5 or 10 reps per set. The 5-set trials used a load of 83 percent of the 1RM, whereas the 10-set trials used a load of 67 percent of the 1RM. Partial-ROM was performed to 120⁰ of knee flexion and the full-ROM squat was performed to a depth in which the hip was parallel to the knee (not a deep squat in which the hamstring covers the calf, but interesting nonetheless).

Results showed that power and force were greatest when squatting in the partial-ROM with the heaviest load. This provides a classic example of how partials can be used for athletes who need to produce maximum force and power output. Peak velocity during the squat was highest in the full-ROM squats with the 67 percent load (10 reps). Researchers suggest athletes in high-speed sports that require running and jumping should use full-ROM squats.

In sports where force and power are the key determining factor, such as rugby or certain positions in football, partial-ROM squats could make up a larger component of training. Still, full-ROM squats ensure structural balance to prevent injury, and could train high force athletes for a quick first step in short sprints.

Take note that partial-ROM training with the lighter 67 percent load (10 reps) should be avoided because it produced the lowest values for all measurements. In addition, work output was greatest in the full-ROM conditions and the full-ROM heavy load (5 reps) trial resulted in 17 percent more work than the full-ROM light load (10 reps) trial. Researchers suggest using full-ROM heavy squats with appropriate reps for more sets if the goal is fat loss or hypertrophy. They call our attention to this approach since it goes against the typical bodybuilding method of using 8 to 12 reps per set.

Although this study focuses on “full-ROM” squats to parallel, healthy trainees should use full-ROM squats to a depth where the hamstring covers the knee. It is a misperception that deep squats are bad for the knee because they put too much shearing force on the knee. Research suggests that the greatest shear force on the knee is at the start of the squat when the lifter initiates the bend of the knee. In addition, an analysis performed on cadavers found that the pressure on the knee decreases as the knee flexion angle increases from parallel to a point where the hip is below the knee.

Then there’s the fact that just because there is shear force on the knee does not mean that the knee cannot handle that force. One of the best ways to supports the knee is to train the musculature that acts on the knee joint. Read more about squats in Six Reasons Everyone Should Do Squats.

Reference
Drinkwater, E., Moore, N., et al. Effects of Changing from Full Range of Motion to Partial Range of Motion on Squat Kinetics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2012. 26(4), 890-896.

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Blog/...r-Results.aspx
Full- or Partial-Range Squats? Full Squats Are Safer and Will Produce Better Results

Train deep, full squats to get the most out of your training and protect your lower back. Despite abundant evidence that full-range of motion squats are better for strengthening the entire lower body musculature than strict partial-range training, many people are still scared to squat all the way down.

A common misconception is that full squats are bad for the knees because they require the knees to travel forward over the toes. There is no evidence that having the knee travel forward over the toe is bad for the knees. Rather, one study suggests that the greatest shear force on the knee is at the start of the squat when the lifter initiates the bend of the knee. In addition, an analysis performed on cadavers found that the pressure on the knee decreases as the knee flexion angle increases from parallel to 120° (the bottom part of the squat that scares many people).

Then there’s the fact that just because there is shear force on the knee does not mean that the knee cannot handle that force. One of the best ways to supports the knee is to train the musculature that acts on the knee joint. This can be done by executing the squat correctly and going all the way down using a fairly heavy load. A new study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research proves this.

Researchers performed a biomechanical analysis to identify the maximum angles of the hip, knee, and ankle during restricted squats and unrestricted squats. In the restricted squat, the knee was not allowed to travel over the toes, whereas in the unrestricted squats, the subjects squatted down as low as possible and the knee was permitted to travel over the toes. Barbell loads of 0, one-quarter, and one-half of body weight were used.

Results showed that it is true that there was greater force on the knee with the full unrestricted squats than the restricted squats, which were performed to slightly above parallel. However, this load on the knee was comparable to the load on the knee that is generated when you walk down the stairs! In fact, having the knee travel over toes is a normal part of human ambulatory motion when going up and down stairs.

Plus, the greatest load on the hip occurred with the restricted squats, which led to a higher load on the lower spine. This is particularly concerning in the case of a restricted squat because restricting the knee’s forward motion may alter the lifter’s center of mass. Displacing the lifter’s center of mass can lead to the dangerous situation of reduced stability, especially when the lifter has a heavy load on their back. Putting the lower back at risk during any exercise is a bad idea since the lumbar spine is easily one of the most vulnerable parts of the body, but it is an especially poor choice when lifting a heavy load.

For best results, unrestricted squats should be trained to a depth that is proper for each trainee. The full squat will optimally train the entire lower body musculature of the glutes, quads, and hamstrings, making it ideal for athletes and the general population. Additionally, full range unrestricted squats have application to daily life activities such as going up and down the stairs.

To read more about the full or partial squat debate, check out the tip Train the Posterior Chain by Squatting Heavier and Deeper.

Reference
Lorenzetti, S., Bulay, T., et al. Comparison of the Angles and Corresponding Moment in the Knee and Hip during Restricted and Unrestricted Squats. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2012. Published Ahead of Print.

[LegosInMyEgos]

You're only looking at peak activation during the concentric phase. Mean activation is the same across the different kinds of squats, except glute activation is significantly higher for a fuller squat, as you would expect. Second of all, even for peak activation the difference between parallel and full squats is not statistically significant. Peak activation for the glutes is again higher in a full squat as well.

Edit: Rather than "only Olympic lifters should squat full depth" a more defensible conclusion based on that study would be "if you are only squatting for development of the thigh (which describes a fair number of bodybuilders, TBF) then squatting to parallel is probably sufficient for meeting your goals" (though not necessarily better). However if you care at all about glute development from squats (which not only describes bodybuilders, but athletes as well) then you should squat full depth.

But then again that's almost exactly what I've already been saying in this thread.

Just to start, it should be noted that the goals of the vast majority on this site is just to get bigger/look better, so I will answer the question assuming that that is the goal of the OP unless he/she explicitly states otherwise.

In all fairness, just as I may have somewhat of bias(to be fair) towards parallel squats, you clearly have a bias towards full squats.

1. When you look at the chart and notice that the glutes are more active during the below parallel portion, you neglect to realize that this activation comes at the expense of the hamstrings and quads. If you look at the graph, a parallel squat creates the most balanced activation of the 3 muscle groups during the lift, which is very important to symmetrical development.

2. A parallel squat will allow for more weight to be used, and it will generally result in a slower negative than going to "ATG depth". This will result in long term better size gains.

3. Specificity of the movement in the sport. A parallel squat much more closely resemble where a lineman in the NFL needs to generate force from. Very few athletic movements resemble a full squat moreso than parallel squat. Since this is the case and we know that carryover of strength is proportional for the distance of the joint angle which it is trained, we can conclude that parallel squats will be better for sports that don't utilize a full squat position.

[tidnab]

Just to start, it should be noted that the goals of the vast majority on this site is just to get bigger/look better, so I will answer the question assuming that that is the goal of the OP unless he/she explicitly states otherwise.

In all fairness, just as I may have somewhat of bias(to be fair) towards parallel squats, you clearly have a bias towards full squats.

Perhaps, but my conclusions from that paper were from a fair reading of its results. You focused only on one set of results and ignored issues of statistical significance. That is not a fair reading, regardless of our respective biases.

1. When you look at the chart and notice that the glutes are more active during the below parallel portion, you neglect to realize that this activation comes at the expense of the hamstrings and quads. If you look at the graph, a parallel squat creates the most balanced activation of the 3 muscle groups during the lift, which is very important to symmetrical development.

There is no graph in that paper. Second of all, you still seem to be talking about peak activation results. Which again 1. aren't the only results and 2. aren't statistically significant.

Next, I don't find the argument that you don't want asymmetric development between thigh muscles and the glutes to be compelling. As I've already said several times, some people will want to utilize squats primarily as a thigh exercise and those people will be just fine stopping at parallel, all else equal. But it would seem from the paper that full squats will give you the same thigh development PLUS more glute development. I fail to see how that wouldn't be a desirable result for at least a significant portion of squatters.

2. A parallel squat will allow for more weight to be used, and it will generally result in a slower negative than going to "ATG depth". This will result in long term better size gains.

And you could use even more weight if you did a partial squat. This argument is really no different from saying you can get better size gains from benches if you don't bring the bar all the way to your chest and use more weight.

3. Specificity of the movement in the sport. A parallel squat much more closely resemble where a lineman in the NFL needs to generate force from. Very few athletic movements resemble a full squat moreso than parallel squat. Since this is the case and we know that carryover of strength is proportional for the distance of the joint angle which it is trained, we can conclude that parallel squats will be better for sports that don't utilize a full squat position.

Athletics in general are glute-dominant. If you are not getting as much glute development as possible from your squats, you need to get that glute development from somewhere else in your training.

As far as being a lineman blocking, it doesn't actually resemble a parallel squat either... if anything it would resemble purely a partial (quarter) squat, so by that reasoning what would be the point of even going to parallel?

[matjusm]

3. Specificity of the movement in the sport. A parallel squat much more closely resemble where a lineman in the NFL needs to generate force from. Very few athletic movements resemble a full squat moreso than parallel squat. Since this is the case and we know that carryover of strength is proportional for the distance of the joint angle which it is trained, we can conclude that parallel squats will be better for sports that don't utilize a full squat position.

First of all nothing you do in the gym will ever be a completely accurate replica of what you do in a sport. Second, deep squats are better:

http://jorgprobst.wordpress.com/2012...atting-debate/

Recently I’ve been reading some articles by German sport scientist and strength guru Dietmar Schmidtbleicher, who has been around since I can remember - a terrifyingly long time.

The debate about how to squat (deep or high, front or back) has been ongoing for just as long, it seems.

Personally, I never deep squatted. Worried about my knees and convinced by the argument that you don’t have to go that low because the knee angles in the discus movement are never that low anyway, I stuck to parallel and quarter squats, and most of these were done with the weight on my back - at least before my back injury.

So you could say I was clearly in the anti-deep squat camp.

Recently, Schmidtbleicher and his colleagues addressed these squatting issues with two well-designed research projects. Three groups of about 20 subjects were assigned evenly according to their performance in the counter-movement jump as measured during the initial testing phase.

The subjects then trained over 10 weeks with either deep front squats, deep back squats, or back squats to 120 degrees. During the first 4 weeks they did 5 sets of 8-10 reps, for weeks 5-8 they did 5 sets of 6-8 reps, and for the last two weeks they did 5 sets of 2-4 reps, always with 5 minutes rest between sets. We’re not told how frequently they trained.

The post-training dynamic maximum strength tests were carried out 3 days after the last training session, the counter-movement jump, drop jump and isometric strength tests were done 7 and again 14 days after the end of the training period.

The results were staggering: The two deep-squatting groups showed statistically highly significant (p ≤ 0.001) improvements in the 1RM for all three squatting variations, whereas the quarter squat group only showed highly significant improvements in the quarter squat, but actually went backwards in the two deep squatting 1RM tests.

Also, both deep squatting groups showed very significant or highly significant improvements on the jumps tests, whereas the quarter squat and control groups showed no statistically significant improvements at all.

So the increase in quarter squat strength could not be transferred to the counter-movement jump and the drop jump, although the maximum knee angles achieved in these jumps are more similar to the quarter squat than the deep squat. In other words, there was no transfer of the more angle-specific, faster type of squat to the jumping exercises.

Judging by the average values achieved by the various groups, the study was conducted with a sports student population rather than performance oriented athletes, but nevertheless, the fact that the results are so clear-cut to me is a good enough indication that deep squats, in particular front squats, are more effective for improving maximum strength as well as power/speed strength, provided you execute the concentric part of the movement as explosively as possible.

These studies only confirm what Schmidtbleicher and others have concluded in previous experiments, and they also explain why my maximum strength and power levels were never as good as they could and should have been.

The results also confirm Peter Lawler’s and Vern Gambetta’s credo that it is crucial to perform exercises over the full range of motion whenever possible.

So in relation to squatting my advice would be to squat deep, and preferably use the safer front squat variety, executed always with correct technique and after warming up properly, of course. Overhead squats are also an excellent squat variation to develop correct technique. I also like to use overhead squats with just a bar as a warm-up.

Sources:

D. Schmidtbleicher et al. (2009) Vergleich unterschiedlicher Kniebeugentechniken zur Entwicklung der Schnellkraft, BISp-Jahrbuch – Forschungsförderung 2008-09, pp.97-102.
P. Lawler (2011) Australian Track & Field Coaches Association 2011 Conference, presentation.
V. Gambetta (2011) Australian Track & Field Coaches Association 2011 Conference, presentation.
V. Gambetta (2006) 2006 en vision ASTYM.