I noted that Scientific Muscle is getting good results with parallel squats and Bryan has said in an earlier post that they are probably better for hypertrophy. I am thinking of mixing (alternating) parallel and ATG squats in my next (third) cycle -- anyone tried something like this or have some informed opinion on how well this might work? One down side I can see is that it will be hard to mix in dead lifts if I am already alternating two different kinds of squats.
Mixing Parallel and ATG Squats?
- Thread starter Ruthenian
- Start date
I think as long as you go to at least parallel you will get good results. However, I do feel that the hams, glutes and adductors get worked harder doing ATG.
Why not do ATG on Mondays, Deads on Weds and Parallel on Fridays?
One thing that I found once I switched to ATG squatting was that my lower back became relatively stronger as the loads had to be lighter to get the same reps out. Now that my poundages are back up to where they were when I was only going to parallel, I feel much better able to keep my back upright and tight for all sets and reps.
I feel that deads hit my quads with heavier loads more like a parallel squat would so I'm happy doing ATG the rest of the time.
I'd be interested to know how you get on mixing the two.
Why not do ATG on Mondays, Deads on Weds and Parallel on Fridays?
One thing that I found once I switched to ATG squatting was that my lower back became relatively stronger as the loads had to be lighter to get the same reps out. Now that my poundages are back up to where they were when I was only going to parallel, I feel much better able to keep my back upright and tight for all sets and reps.
I feel that deads hit my quads with heavier loads more like a parallel squat would so I'm happy doing ATG the rest of the time.
I'd be interested to know how you get on mixing the two.
<div>
(Ruthenian @ Dec. 07 2006,05:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I noted that Scientific Muscle is getting good results with parallel squats and Brian has said in an earlier post that they are probably better for hypertrophy. I am thinking of mixing (alternating) parallel and ATG squats in my next (third) cycle -- anyone tried something like this or have some informed opinion on how well this might work? One down side I can see is that it will be hard to mix in dead lifts if I am already alternating two different kinds of squats.</div>
they are better for quads but for overall leg development a2g are the best.
"study from natural bbing fed
The BNBF Squatting Experiment: Does squatting involve the same amount of muscular activation as leg press or hack squatting?
In order to establish the most effective resistance exercise for quadricep development the BNBF sanctioned a scientific investigation, collaborating with Napier Universities sports science research department. The investigation was prompted by varying opinions on the optimal resistance exercise to induce muscular hypertrophy in the quadriceps of body builders. Many body builders and trained coaches believe that conventional squatting is ineffective at producing large quantities of muscular hypertrophy when compared to such exercises as hack squatting and leg pressing. In order to establish whether these views had any scientific grounding, a series of controlled experiments were undertaken in a private resistance training facility.
Three trained body builders with at least five years resistance training experience were recruited for this micro study. Each of the subjects had refrained from leg training 2 days prior to the commencement of the experimental protocols to ensure neuromuscular fatigue and myofibril damage had no influence on results. The testing was separated into three phases, squatting, leg press and hack squatting conducted in randomised order to eliminate any potential influence of fatigue on the results as previously stated. The exercises were as follows; wide and normal stance squatting at 3/4 depth and 90 degrees (parallel), wide and close stance leg press and finally close and wide stance hack squats. Each subject performed 3 repetitions of each exercise at 90% of there 1 repetition maximal established 1 week prior to the testing session. Five minutes recovery was given between trials.
Muscular electromyography was used to measure muscular activation during each trial in millivolts. A four channel EMG was attached to the Vastus Medialis, Rectus Femoris and Vastus Lateralis of the right quadriceps and also the Biceps Femoris of the Hamstrings. The average of the three repetitions was taken as the result for each exercise. After the completion of the testing the results were collated and subsequently analysed.
The results demonstrated that shallow ¾ squatting (68º knee flexion), both wide and shallow stances, produced the greatest amount of quadriceps stimulation. Shallow squatting elicited 20% more muscular activation throughout the three quadricep muscles measured compared to full 90º squats. This is likely due to the constant load applied to the quadriceps during shallow squats. During full squats the load is assisted by the gluteus and hamstring muscles during the concentric drive phase of the action which reduces the load and subsequent activation of the quadriceps. This was evident from the EMG results, with the Biceps Femoris muscle being stimulated 50% more during full squats compared to shallow squats.
Hack squatting and leg press both produced similar muscular activation patterns for those measured during close and wide stances. However quadriceps activation was 30% and 15% less when compared with shallow squatting and normal squatting respectively. Biceps Femoris activation however was significantly reduced during leg press compared with all other exercises. Activation of the Biceps Femoris muscle was 18%, 200% and 450% greater for hack squatting, shallow squats and full squats respectively compared with leg press.
These results suggests that leg press isolates the quadriceps muscles better than squatting or hack squatting. However in relative terms, squatting shallow and to a lesser extent full squatting, produces more muscular activation of the quadriceps in relation to the relative load applied compared to any of the other exercises tested. Squatting also utilised more of the biceps femoris (hamstring muscle) than leg press or hack squatting as previously stated. This translates into a more complete utilisation of the leg muscles during each contraction. Also full (90º) squats elicits the utilisation of the gluteuls which again provides a more complete leg workout compared to hack squatting or leg press. Therefore squatting should provide more muscular stimulation and subsequent development compared to other exercises. A greater level of muscular activation results in a larger percentage of the muscle fibres being utilised during the activity allowing for more muscular damage to result. As the body is an over compensatory system, if enough recovery is given the body will not only repair the myofibril damage but muscle hypertrophy will result. If this form of training is continued with a constant progression of the imposed load, the result will be larger stronger muscles which is the ultimate goal of the body builder.
Accordingly squatting to 68º and 90º of knee flexion should produced greater gains in muscle mass and strength in the quadriceps compared with leg press and hack squats.
However squatting below parallel will noticeably shift the implied load away from the quadriceps and induce greater activity within the hamstrings and gluteuls. This may reduce quadricep development. However squatting below 90 degrees will shift the emphasis from hamstrings to gluteals. Accordingly squatting to 85º will likely induce the optimal ratio between quadricep and hamstring / gluteul development in one exercise and result in greater overall leg development compared to leg press or hack squats. Therefore squatting, preferably to 85º should be an essential part of any bodybuilders leg workouts.
Written by Scott Macrae,BNBF Scientific development officer."
Bsc Honours Sports Science.
(Ruthenian @ Dec. 07 2006,05:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I noted that Scientific Muscle is getting good results with parallel squats and Brian has said in an earlier post that they are probably better for hypertrophy. I am thinking of mixing (alternating) parallel and ATG squats in my next (third) cycle -- anyone tried something like this or have some informed opinion on how well this might work? One down side I can see is that it will be hard to mix in dead lifts if I am already alternating two different kinds of squats.</div>
they are better for quads but for overall leg development a2g are the best.
"study from natural bbing fed
The BNBF Squatting Experiment: Does squatting involve the same amount of muscular activation as leg press or hack squatting?
In order to establish the most effective resistance exercise for quadricep development the BNBF sanctioned a scientific investigation, collaborating with Napier Universities sports science research department. The investigation was prompted by varying opinions on the optimal resistance exercise to induce muscular hypertrophy in the quadriceps of body builders. Many body builders and trained coaches believe that conventional squatting is ineffective at producing large quantities of muscular hypertrophy when compared to such exercises as hack squatting and leg pressing. In order to establish whether these views had any scientific grounding, a series of controlled experiments were undertaken in a private resistance training facility.
Three trained body builders with at least five years resistance training experience were recruited for this micro study. Each of the subjects had refrained from leg training 2 days prior to the commencement of the experimental protocols to ensure neuromuscular fatigue and myofibril damage had no influence on results. The testing was separated into three phases, squatting, leg press and hack squatting conducted in randomised order to eliminate any potential influence of fatigue on the results as previously stated. The exercises were as follows; wide and normal stance squatting at 3/4 depth and 90 degrees (parallel), wide and close stance leg press and finally close and wide stance hack squats. Each subject performed 3 repetitions of each exercise at 90% of there 1 repetition maximal established 1 week prior to the testing session. Five minutes recovery was given between trials.
Muscular electromyography was used to measure muscular activation during each trial in millivolts. A four channel EMG was attached to the Vastus Medialis, Rectus Femoris and Vastus Lateralis of the right quadriceps and also the Biceps Femoris of the Hamstrings. The average of the three repetitions was taken as the result for each exercise. After the completion of the testing the results were collated and subsequently analysed.
The results demonstrated that shallow ¾ squatting (68º knee flexion), both wide and shallow stances, produced the greatest amount of quadriceps stimulation. Shallow squatting elicited 20% more muscular activation throughout the three quadricep muscles measured compared to full 90º squats. This is likely due to the constant load applied to the quadriceps during shallow squats. During full squats the load is assisted by the gluteus and hamstring muscles during the concentric drive phase of the action which reduces the load and subsequent activation of the quadriceps. This was evident from the EMG results, with the Biceps Femoris muscle being stimulated 50% more during full squats compared to shallow squats.
Hack squatting and leg press both produced similar muscular activation patterns for those measured during close and wide stances. However quadriceps activation was 30% and 15% less when compared with shallow squatting and normal squatting respectively. Biceps Femoris activation however was significantly reduced during leg press compared with all other exercises. Activation of the Biceps Femoris muscle was 18%, 200% and 450% greater for hack squatting, shallow squats and full squats respectively compared with leg press.
These results suggests that leg press isolates the quadriceps muscles better than squatting or hack squatting. However in relative terms, squatting shallow and to a lesser extent full squatting, produces more muscular activation of the quadriceps in relation to the relative load applied compared to any of the other exercises tested. Squatting also utilised more of the biceps femoris (hamstring muscle) than leg press or hack squatting as previously stated. This translates into a more complete utilisation of the leg muscles during each contraction. Also full (90º) squats elicits the utilisation of the gluteuls which again provides a more complete leg workout compared to hack squatting or leg press. Therefore squatting should provide more muscular stimulation and subsequent development compared to other exercises. A greater level of muscular activation results in a larger percentage of the muscle fibres being utilised during the activity allowing for more muscular damage to result. As the body is an over compensatory system, if enough recovery is given the body will not only repair the myofibril damage but muscle hypertrophy will result. If this form of training is continued with a constant progression of the imposed load, the result will be larger stronger muscles which is the ultimate goal of the body builder.
Accordingly squatting to 68º and 90º of knee flexion should produced greater gains in muscle mass and strength in the quadriceps compared with leg press and hack squats.
However squatting below parallel will noticeably shift the implied load away from the quadriceps and induce greater activity within the hamstrings and gluteuls. This may reduce quadricep development. However squatting below 90 degrees will shift the emphasis from hamstrings to gluteals. Accordingly squatting to 85º will likely induce the optimal ratio between quadricep and hamstring / gluteul development in one exercise and result in greater overall leg development compared to leg press or hack squats. Therefore squatting, preferably to 85º should be an essential part of any bodybuilders leg workouts.
Written by Scott Macrae,BNBF Scientific development officer."
Bsc Honours Sports Science.
bgates1654
New Member
If you can do more weight parallel than A2G maybe it might be a good idea to do parallel squats after your 5RM and continue incrementing since its hard to do negatives with squats.
Peak_Power
New Member
My quads are way out of proportion to my hams because of a lifetime of paralell squats and uphill cycling.
So I'll prob never do paralell squats again, I just love the feeling in my gluts that a2g gives me (that sounds kinda sick doesn't it
).
I should note in my course and at most gyms I worked at I got taught that you should never go below paralell for squats. Then they complain that people's posture is bad because of weak hams/gluts! Same deal with Bent Over Row for back. OMG how people are miseducated!
So I'll prob never do paralell squats again, I just love the feeling in my gluts that a2g gives me (that sounds kinda sick doesn't it
I should note in my course and at most gyms I worked at I got taught that you should never go below paralell for squats. Then they complain that people's posture is bad because of weak hams/gluts! Same deal with Bent Over Row for back. OMG how people are miseducated!
My thinking on this was that by alternating you could get some of the benefits of both types of squat. A somewhat similar approach for hams was very successful for my last HST cycle: alternating RDLs and leg curls, along with the ATG squats, produced by far the most ham development I have been able to elicit. Compared to the old days when I made the mistake of doing only leg curls, the strenth gains were truly astonishing. Squat loads went up, too, but not as appreciably. I intend to stay with these exercises as well, so I do not think that uneven leg development will be a problem. Anyway, I only started doing squats my last cycle and my loads are truly pathetic compared to some of the folks on this board - it can only get better whatever I do!
stevejones
Member
<div>
(Ruthenian @ Dec. 07 2006,00:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I noted that Scientific Muscle is getting good results with parallel squats and Brian has said in an earlier post that they are probably better for hypertrophy. I am thinking of mixing (alternating) parallel and ATG squats in my next (third) cycle -- anyone tried something like this or have some informed opinion on how well this might work? One down side I can see is that it will be hard to mix in dead lifts if I am already alternating two different kinds of squats.</div>
Yeah, I found what scientific said to be pretty interesting. My knees used to give me some problems when I was going parallel, but now I think that might have been because I was not completely stopping and shifting gears too quickly like he said. However, if you go slowly then you have to cut the weight and I don't like to do that. You also have to cut the weight when you go ATG though, so I guess the bottom line is that I don't have the discipline to stop slowly at parallel and have to go ATG instead. Speaking of bottoms, my ass is HUGE from ATG squats. It's really frikken big. I wish my chest could grow like that. Just my luck.
(Ruthenian @ Dec. 07 2006,00:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I noted that Scientific Muscle is getting good results with parallel squats and Brian has said in an earlier post that they are probably better for hypertrophy. I am thinking of mixing (alternating) parallel and ATG squats in my next (third) cycle -- anyone tried something like this or have some informed opinion on how well this might work? One down side I can see is that it will be hard to mix in dead lifts if I am already alternating two different kinds of squats.</div>
Yeah, I found what scientific said to be pretty interesting. My knees used to give me some problems when I was going parallel, but now I think that might have been because I was not completely stopping and shifting gears too quickly like he said. However, if you go slowly then you have to cut the weight and I don't like to do that. You also have to cut the weight when you go ATG though, so I guess the bottom line is that I don't have the discipline to stop slowly at parallel and have to go ATG instead. Speaking of bottoms, my ass is HUGE from ATG squats. It's really frikken big. I wish my chest could grow like that. Just my luck.
scientific muscle
New Member
stevejones' big ass....
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Speaking of bottoms, my ass is HUGE from ATG squats.</div>
That's just hilarious, Steve Jone's big ass
Changing subject:
Here's what I do, ATG squats is a learning vcurve and a ego diminisher big time as the weight you lift is much less initially.
I do ATG squats until I can't get up any longer from them after which I proceed to box squats, box enables me to get to 90 degree angle or slightly below.
I do this every workout, until I know I cannot ATG a certain weight then switch. Seems to work fine.
My wifey says my legs are getting too big, I guess I'll stop after one more inch all round!
That's just hilarious, Steve Jone's big ass
Changing subject:
Here's what I do, ATG squats is a learning vcurve and a ego diminisher big time as the weight you lift is much less initially.
I do ATG squats until I can't get up any longer from them after which I proceed to box squats, box enables me to get to 90 degree angle or slightly below.
I do this every workout, until I know I cannot ATG a certain weight then switch. Seems to work fine.
My wifey says my legs are getting too big, I guess I'll stop after one more inch all round!
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nice idea, do you keep the weight constant?</div>
No, Style, I like to ramp up, start with 50, then 70, then 90, at which point I switch to box squats, then 100, 120, 130, 140.
My best in squats ATG was 100 kg, whilst in box squats is 140 Kg, box squats too saves your knees, as you don't use them to reverse the motion, but rather "plonk" your ass on the box then use the quads to get off.
No, Style, I like to ramp up, start with 50, then 70, then 90, at which point I switch to box squats, then 100, 120, 130, 140.
My best in squats ATG was 100 kg, whilst in box squats is 140 Kg, box squats too saves your knees, as you don't use them to reverse the motion, but rather "plonk" your ass on the box then use the quads to get off.
...speaking of ideas; how about squat negatives in a rack? When I build my rack I may try using two bars, and taking an overloaded bar from the top, lowering myself to a safety bar set at my ATG point or an inch or two above. Then crawl out from under it and put another bar on the top; then just slide the plates off the bottom bar and put them on the top bar for the next "rep".
A lot of work, but perhaps a way to do them without a partner.
Another thought for using a partner would be using a weight you can lift and having him/her push down on the bar in the descent, rather than helping you lift an overload. You'd really have to trust this person though.
Of course I haven't tried these things yet. Do not attempt this at home until Leige does it first -
A lot of work, but perhaps a way to do them without a partner.
Another thought for using a partner would be using a weight you can lift and having him/her push down on the bar in the descent, rather than helping you lift an overload. You'd really have to trust this person though.
Of course I haven't tried these things yet. Do not attempt this at home until Leige does it first -
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
I really fail to see any benefit of negative squats.
Box it instead.
Box it instead.
The nice thing about the parallels, of course, is that you get to push bigger loads. I actually do mine as touch-and-go box squats so I can't cheat the angle. However, I was on a cut last cycle and had to deload on the parallels early due to some strength losses after a weekend cold when I didn't eat enough.
I gotta say, though, that I like the feel of getting down into a deep squat a lot better. Not sure how I will run the next cycle.
I gotta say, though, that I like the feel of getting down into a deep squat a lot better. Not sure how I will run the next cycle.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I noted that Scientific Muscle is getting good results with parallel squats and Brian has said in an earlier post that they are probably better for hypertrophy.</div>
Didn't Sci post a thread now that says he wasn't gettting results from squats and is dropping them? Or was that Joe? Can't remember.
I recall a method some years back where you would do something called a 1-1/2 squat. A full squat followed by a 1/2 (parallel) squat would be one rep. That way you'd put more work on the quads, but retain the benefits of ATG. I also think there was another name for them, but can't remember that either. Maybe I need to increase my fish oil intake; I'm forgetting a lot lately!
Didn't Sci post a thread now that says he wasn't gettting results from squats and is dropping them? Or was that Joe? Can't remember.
I recall a method some years back where you would do something called a 1-1/2 squat. A full squat followed by a 1/2 (parallel) squat would be one rep. That way you'd put more work on the quads, but retain the benefits of ATG. I also think there was another name for them, but can't remember that either. Maybe I need to increase my fish oil intake; I'm forgetting a lot lately!