ATG Squats or Parallel?

[amsgator]

Oh my god...are you serious ?

Dont you realise that a ATG squatter squat to parallele and beyond ? And hamstring in a squat movement (both parallele and ATG squat) is a stabilizer...so even if there is a difference, it's insignificant in regard to strength/muscle gains ?

The hamstring is slackened in the ATG bottom squat position, so ATG squat neglect the hamstring hurr durr

You know, the bicep is also shortened for a pull up (supination grip) ? So a pull up neglect the bicep...wtf...

I feel like I'm arguing with a pidgeon lol

I expected someone of your caliber to understand the difference between the shortening during a concentric muscle action (hint: good) and the slackening during an eccentric muscle action (hint: bad). But that appears to be where I went wrong.

I feel bad that you're less intelligent than a pidgeon. Best of luck to you.

[grouchyjarhead]

The hamstrings have to be engaged in a squat to maintain the back angle and to prevent your knee from exploding forward (granted it may be subconscious and may not require "actively trying.")

Of course it's going to be engaged. However, trying to actively engage it is the issue. This is a fantastic article, definitely worth the read.

https://www.strengthandconditioningr...es/hamstrings/

^^Basically the hamstrings don't get much activation during the squat, and a machine leg curl obtains almost three times as much activation than the squat. So squatting for hamstrings is a misguided approach.

Read the articles by Greg Nuckols on why hamstrings are overrated for the squat.

I don't squat to do anything other than squat more weight. I'm not a fan of isolation exercises and am of the opinion that it is better to train your body how you will use your body. For example, when it is possible to produce a hamstrings only contraction other than when on a machine designed specifically to allow such? Since it's not possible, I don't train that way.

Nobody's saying you have to. Squatting to improve your hamstrings is inferior though. All I'm saying is add in some Romanian deadlifts if you're worried about hamstring development. And that's not an isolation exercise.

[amsgator]

Of course it's going to be engaged. However, trying to actively engage it is the issue. This is a fantastic article, definitely worth the read.

https://www.strengthandconditioningr...es/hamstrings/

^^Basically the hamstrings don't get much activation during the squat, and a machine leg curl obtains almost three times as much activation than the squat. So squatting for hamstrings is a misguided approach.

Read the articles by Greg Nuckols on why hamstrings are overrated for the squat.



Nobody's saying you have to. Squatting to improve your hamstrings is inferior though. All I'm saying is add in some Romanian deadlifts if you're worried about hamstring development. And that's not an isolation exercise.

No objection here. I usually do regular DLs though, but YMMV.

[Saintsqc]

I expected someone of your caliber to understand the difference between the shortening during a concentric muscle action (hint: good) and the slackening during an eccentric muscle action (hint: bad). But that appears to be where I went wrong.

I feel bad that you're less intelligent than a pidgeon. Best of luck to you.

Shortening, slackening...call it as you want. My bad if I didnt use the proper terms.

Look, having a "slackened" muscle doesnt mean it is inactive (or neglected). For instance, in a pronation grip (pull up), the bicep "slackened" because of the rotation of the forearm. Same situation as you described with the hamstring in the bottom ATG squat position. Would you say that a pull up neglect the bicep !? Knowing that the biceps is a synergist in a pull up, that would be ****ing retarded.

I understand your point with the slackened hamstring in the bottom position...but you have to understand it is irrelevant in regard to hamstring development when you compare parallele squat vs ATG squat. I dont know how to put it differently. Saying the hamstring is neglected in a ATG squat, but it is not neglected in a parallele squat...is plain ignorant.

[amsgator]

Shortening, slackening...call it as you want. My bad if I didnt use the proper terms.

Look, having a "slackened" muscle doesnt mean it is inactive (or neglected). For instance, in a pronation grip (pull up), the bicep "slackened" because of the rotation of the forearm. Same situation as you described with the hamstring in the bottom ATG squat position. Would you say that a pull up neglect the bicep !? Knowing that the biceps is a synergist in a pull up, that would be ****ing retarded.

I understand your point with the slackened hamstring in the bottom position...but you have to understand it is irrelevant in regard to hamstring development when you compare parallele squat vs ATG squat. I dont know how to put it differently. Saying the hamstring is neglected in a ATG squat, but it is not neglected in a parallele squat...is plain ignorant.

A pull up recruits the biceps less than a chin up. A parallel squats recruits the hamstrings more than an ATG squat. My point exactly. Thank you for finally getting it.

Squatting to proper depth = greater recruitment = more weight lifted = you getting stronger

EDIT: You can squat however you want, no one is going to stop you. But there's a reason the strongest people in the world squat just below parallel.

[Saintsqc]

A pull up recruits the biceps less than a chin up.

No man, thats the thing. At a near maximal effort, the bicep will be fully recruited, even if it is in a disadvantageous position mechanically-wise (slackened). You have a common misconception. It's like people who thinks wide grip pull up will lead to better lat development than medium grip pull up. Having an articulation in a bad or good position doesnt change the tension on the muscle enough to see a concrete difference in term of development.

Squatting to proper depth = greater recruitment = more weight lifted = you getting stronger

Wow, strong misunderstanding of everything

EDIT: You can squat however you want, no one is going to stop you.

I know, but please, stop sharing incorrect information.

But there's a reason the strongest people in the world squat just below parallel.

lol, are you fucking serious !? The reason powerlifters squat just below parallele is because it's the shorter ROM allowed by their sport. They would do 1/16 of squat if they could ! Obviously, an increase in ROM = a decrease in the weight lifted. Also, low bar squat offers a much better leverage at the hips than high bar squat but, at the same time, limits the depth a lifter can go without injuring themselves.


Dude, I dont understand why you're so stubborn. Saying ATG squat neglects the hamstring but parallele squat doesnt is just incorrect. They offer similar stimulation and the difference is irrelevant in term of hamstring development.

[amsgator]

No man, thats the thing. At a near maximal effort, the bicep will be fully recruited, even if it is in a disadvantageous position mechanically-wise (slackened). You have a common misconception. It's like people who thinks wide grip pull up will lead to better lat development than medium grip pull up. Having an articulation in a bad or good position doesnt change the tension on the muscle enough to see a concrete difference in term of development.

By pronating your hands you are shifting the emphasis to other muscles. If you think the biceps muscle during a pull up is producing the same (or more) amount of force as during a chin up you need to check yourself into the mental ward.

lol, are you fucking serious !? The reason powerlifters squat just below parallele is because it's the shorter ROM allowed by their sport. They would do 1/16 of squat if they could ! Obviously, an increase in ROM = a decrease in the weight lifted. Also, low bar squat offers a much better leverage at the hips than high bar squat but, at the same time, limits the depth a lifter can go without injuring themselves.

I had a feeling you'd bite that bullet. An ATG squat is of legal depth. If PLers got stronger doing ATG squats that's what they would be doing, at a minimum during training. Work = force x distance. The extra couple inches of distance (which is measured in meters) of an ATG squat aren't going to result in increased work when the force is reduced. Last I checked we don't get stronger by lifting less weight. On the other hand a 1/16 squat would result in substantially lower work since the distance traveled is so small.

Dude, I dont understand why you're so stubborn. Saying ATG squat neglects the hamstring but parallele squat doesnt is just incorrect. They offer similar stimulation and the difference is irrelevant in term of hamstring development.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand. It's basic physiology (not rocket science) that a loose muscle is not as capable of producing force as a tightened muscle. This is why everyone is told to "get tight" before lifting. If you want to sit there and say that a muscle that does not invoke the stretch reflex, due to it being relaxed, is capable of producing the same amount of force as a muscle under tension I'll just sit here and keep laughing at you.

[Saintsqc]

If you want to sit there and say that a muscle that does not invoke the stretch reflex, due to it being relaxed, is capable of producing the same amount of force as a muscle under tension I'll just sit here and keep laughing at you.

When have I said this ?

You're just changing the object of the argument here.

Your initial statement : "ATG is a good way to neglect your hamstrings."

Meaning of the word neglect : "To pay little attention to, to fail to care to"
In term of bodybuilding/strength training, it would mean not giving enough attention/work for proper development.

Unless you initially meant "Hamstring doesnt produce as much force in an ATG squat than in a parallele squat", you are simply wrong.

Anyway, I think it's enough here. You showed your lack of understanding and there is nothing good getting out of this argument anymore.

[amsgator]

When have I said this ?

You're just changing the object of the argument here.

Your initial statement : "ATG is a good way to neglect your hamstrings."

Meaning of the word neglect : "To pay little attention to, to fail to care to"
In term of bodybuilding/strength training, it would mean not giving enough attention/work for proper development.

Unless you meant "Hamstring doesnt produce as much force in an ATG squat than in a parallele squat", you are simply wrong.

Anyway, I think it's enough here. You showed your lack of understanding and there is nothing good getting out of this argument anymore.

Well let's see...if we are causing the hamstrings to produce less force it's safe to say they won't be as strong as if we caused them to produce more force. So we are purposely causing the hamstrings to be weaker than they could be while causing the quads to produce more of the force necessary to get the bar up. We are therefore neglecting to train the hamstrings as much as we could/should. I suppose we will then complain that we have a quad-hamstrings imbalance. DERP.