Do you think squatting 3x bodyweight would give someone a big advantage in sports?

[BoyWonderUSA]

Srs question

[Afrozac]

Depending on how fast you can move it, then hell yes!

Depending on your sport, single leg strength could be more important although.

[krakkerz]

Srs question

Maybe. But the law of diminishing returns happens at some point. At some point, you begin increasing the time to get stronger and reduce the time spent on sport skills, which are more important.

With that said, 3x bodyweight is probably achievable for a lot of guys.

[NewbieX2]

Depending on how fast you can move it, then hell yes!

Depending on your sport, single leg strength could be more important although.

Maybe. But the law of diminishing returns happens at some point. At some point, you begin increasing the time to get stronger and reduce the time spent on sport skills, which are more important.

With that said, 3x bodyweight is probably achievable for a lot of guys.

Both of these. Strength alone isn't going to cut it, unfortunately. You have to be able to recruit a decent amount of that strength quickly for it to make a difference on the field. Things happen fast, and you don't have 3-5 seconds to build up to max levels of force. And like Krakkerz said, eventually it's not worth trying to increase the strength as much because you're taking time away from other things.

[Shihab0]

Depends on how fast you can produce the force. for example, if you have 2 athletes of the same weight, athlete 1 can squat 300 pounds but can only produce 180 pounds of force in 0.8 seconds, and athlete 2 can squat 240 pounds but can produce 200 pounds of force in 0.8 seconds, athlete 2 will be more explosive, run faster and jump higher

[thenewguy23]

No, being good at the sport will. You don't squat on a field or the court so it won't give you a big advantage

[vsportsguy]

Highly dependent on the sport and the athlete. American football is an example where you'd want to see high squat numbers.

[Floider]

Advantage is relative to whom you are competing. Being stronger than the people you are competing against gives you an advantage in almost every sport.

But there a lot of other factors:

1.) The more physical contact there is in the sport the more being stronger has an impact because it makes strength a deciding factor in the outcome rather than a secondary factor. I.e. strength matters more in football than it does in baseball or tennis.

2.) There is a diminishing returns on strength but I would think a 3x BW squat is somewhere around where that really kicks in. To go back to football take a lineman. Strong legs are very important but at some point you never get a chance to apply maximum strength because of leverage (the person your blocking isn't loaded onto your shoulders in a nice way).

3.) Strength is a big advantage when it doesn't come at the detriment of other qualities important to the sport (most obvious is speed). If squatting 3x your body weight means you are slow/get tired easy because of the mass it takes to do that then the disadvantages could easily out weight the advantages.

[Get-n-fit]

Like everyone else said, it depends on the sport. Doing heavy squats at low reps =strength, it can come in handy when you need to use all that power explosively. However, it can really hurt you when you need endurance. Big muscles use a lot of blood and oxygen at a fast rate and wear out quickly. The best comparison I can think of is sprint cyclists vs long distance cyclists. Do an image search and you'll see the massive difference in their quads bc they need their muscles to function in a very specific way.

[101pro]

In my experience the point of diminishing returns is somewhere in the 2.5-2.75 x bw squat range. I have worked at the division 1 and professional levels. I would say for most of the athletes I have worked with it was closer to 2.5x bw. Freaks saw it pushed to 2.75. Not that we ever stopped strength training, just the overall loads were decreased. Guys would continue to get stronger but we weren't as aggressive with the strength portion because the carryover was less.

[palehorsem4n]

With that said, 3x bodyweight is probably achievable for a lot of guys.

Not sure if srs...

OP, Force = Mass*Acceleration

[NewbieX2]

In my experience the point of diminishing returns is somewhere in the 2.5-2.75 x bw squat range. I have worked at the division 1 and professional levels. I would say for most of the athletes I have worked with it was closer to 2.5x bw. Freaks saw it pushed to 2.75. Not that we ever stopped strength training, just the overall loads were decreased. Guys would continue to get stronger but we weren't as aggressive with the strength portion because the carryover was less.

I could see this being the case. I'm at 2.63x bw and the effort I have to put into workouts to make progress now is just crazy. If I were playing a sport then I would definitely spend less time and energy squatting and more on skill development.

[ectobruh]

I could see this being the case. I'm at 2.63x bw and the effort I have to put into workouts to make progress now is just crazy. If I were playing a sport then I would definitely spend less time and energy squatting and more on skill development.

you might as well since most of the guys on any sport are on the gear. i would think maybe explosive strength as far as pushing, good stability, preventing you from being knocked over easily

[krakkerz]

Not sure if srs...

OP, Force = Mass*Acceleration

I know a number of circa 100kg atletes with around a 300kg squat. I said some - not most. So yes. Serious.

[palehorsem4n]

With that said, 3x bodyweight is probably achievable for a lot of guys.

I know a number of circa 100kg atletes with around a 300kg squat. I said some - not most. So yes. Serious.

No, you said "a lot". And it's not.

[WildChild8819]

No, you said "a lot". And it's not.

U mad you got s hit genetics brah?

[NewbieX2]

No, you said "a lot". And it's not.

Take it easy, mate. It looks like he just slipped up on his wording. I'm sure he didn't have any malicious intent. just a mistake.

[krakkerz]

No, you said "a lot". And it's not.

OK, so I said a lot. What is a lot? 100? 200? I don't want to have argument about semantics so let me clarify a little since you have to take everything at face value. This is perhaps what I should have written.

"There is a law of diminishing returns that tends to show itself at some point. For most, that will happen before you get to 3x bodyweight. However, there are quite a few people with natural squatting strength who will get to this point without reaching those diminished returns."

Satisfied now?