2005

Picture of a smith machine, should be freeweight?

Oh god, come on, of all the squat info in all the world, knowing that the bulk of people squat freeweight, you gotta include a picture some shadow squatting on a smith machine (which is controversial, due to its ROM) at the top of the article? Sometimes wikipedia comes up short. --66.92.166.251 11:40, 16 September 2005

Agreed, we need a picture of a person doing a freeweight squat, somewhere near the parallel point of the lift. StrengthCoach 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is with the current picture? Should this article have an image of an unusual squat machine? Squats aren't usually done on machines at all and moreover even the caption acknowledges that's an "unusual" machine. This picture detracts from the article quality. A picture at the outset of an article shouldn't portray some inconsequential deviation from the genuine exercise. Also, that guy is FUGLY and clearly needs to get off his skinny ass and do some REAL squats! User:24.83.169.36 21:27, 26 November 2006

2006

Typical max squats

Does anyone know what would a typical max for squat for a 135 lb, 17 year old male be? --Gusiman 02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be quite difficult to find, and largely irrelevant. Are you concerned that you may have weak legs? What are you training your legs for? Needs are better to know, for example, some peopel say you should be able to squat your bodyweight or double your bodyweight before training plyometrics (not sure of the accuracy there though) Tyciol 06:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it would be interesting to know, I am 135lbs and max 206, and I am not an athlete or anything, basketball maybe, I am working on my vertical jump and my hang time, and I know that squatting can help me there. I also leg press 400, so I dont think my legs are weak...are they?--Gusiman 01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you have a wiki account now :) Your legs seem to have respectable strength. In addition to squatting, you might also want to pursue a plyometrics routine, which is more suited to transforming the muscle and strength you develope in squatting to the explosive kind needed for leaping. Tyciol 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research

I am trying to research thets (if there are any) of performing squats in plie (externally rotating the hips in a wide stance.) This exercise is performed regularly in ballet. Doesn't it work certain muscles that are not worked in a parallel traditional squat? Wouldn't it be a good thing to do some squats in turn-out? or no? mm User:128.97.145.81 19:18, 9 August 2006‎

The muscles worked are the same, however the emphasis on different parts of the quads and among the muscles used in the movement changes. You might look through some of Christian Thibaudeau's articles on the internet -- he's frequently recommended "frog stance" style squatting for bodybuilding purposes: [1] 24.166.65.230 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plie would be doing a squat with 90 degrees of external rotation at each hip. There would certainly be some benefits to doing it this way (just like, conversely, I think there might be some to internally rotating the knees to point inward too...). However while one could attain fitness and flexibility benefits, neither would be ideal for supporting external loads. The plie would essentially have many of the benefits of the sumo squat (just like people do sumo deadlifts). The main problem is that you need very good front/back balance because rather than shifting back and forth between the front and back of the foot, you go between the insides (front) and outsides (back), so there's a lot less room to stabilize and I'd imagine a large risk of falling. The range of motion would also be rather compromised for many people, unless you raise the heels (hindu plie?). Tyciol (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The torso is not relatively upright

There's a difference between keeping your back neutral, and keeping it upright. Especially in powerlifting squats, where you break at the hip first, and reach for an unexistant chair behind you with a wide stance, you need to lean forward keeping back neutral to maintain your center of gravity over your feet. If you do not so, and keep your knees over your toes, you'll topple backward. Look here for a full description by Louie Simmons, of Westside fame. Olympic squats are more upright; you break 'at the knee', and go down, instead of down and backwards. They are harder on your knees. User:201.221.23.60 03:00, 29 October 2006‎

"relatively upright" refers to the position of the torso in space. Compare the position of the torso during a squat with that of a good morning; in a squat, the torso remains "relatively upright" while in the good morning it does not. The use of a powerlifting vs. Olympic set-up changes the degree to which the torso is upright but does not change the fact that it remains "relatively upright" in each squat variation.

In addition, I completely agree with the statement that "there's a difference between keeping your back neutral, and keeping it upright" as the two have nothing to do with each other. As described, "upright" refers to a position in space. "Neutral," on the hand, refers to posture and is completely independent of "upright." The posture referred to by the word "neutral" is the maintenance of the spine's proper lordic curve -- not allowing the lower back to "round" or arch excessively. At the bottom of a good morning, for example, the back should remain neutral despite the fact that the torso is not upright. 164.107.243.81 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this. Now there's a statement: "The torso leans forward to maintain balance. It acts as a supporting structure, unlike its role in the deadlift." The problem is, thatn the deadlift the torso is still a supporting structure. The difference is deadlifts tend to have more forward lean due to the position of the bar. Squats tend to be relatively more upright (powerlifting low-back styles excepted maybe) so they use the bone's support structure with the muscles stabilizing over that moreso than the deadlift which is heavily erector spinae and lat-intensive. Tyciol (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

"The hindu squat is a squat done without weight where the heels are raised and the weight is placed on the toes."

So is there weight or isn't there?Alex Klotz 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second use of "weight" seems to refer to the weight of the body, while the first use refers to an external load. 164.107.243.81 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe saying 'body's weight' would help to clarify potential future confusion with this. That said, hindu squats can be done weighted too, though usually with something lighter, as they are less stable and more suited for weighted vests/neck weights, mainly since arm movement seems to be a component of this, though one could do them without arm movement too. Tyciol (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert reasons

For 97203414 as well as its edit 97205759, I reverted the article to a previous version because of the changes to the movement section and personal comments strewn throughout the article. The movement section describes the general movement performed during a squat, not the exact execution. There are plenty of guides available on the internet on how to squat if the reader would like to find one. Experts are completely divided on how a squat should be properly performed and the variation between individuals is great. This is complicated even further by the the various styles -- powerlifting vs. Olympic vs. athletic, etc. Because of this disagreement, it is not appropriate for the encyclopedia to force one method on the reader.

I also reverted the description of the front squat in the Variants section. The section made the claim that the Olympic grip is "better" than the bodybuilding grip. This is NOT a neutral POV and does not belong in this encylopedia. If the original editor wishes to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the different front squat grips, he should do so in a front squat article from a NPOV.

As I see it, the focus of this page should be for a reader to be able to use it to identify the general movement of a squat and then the various types of squats. Additionally, it should provide an overview of the division between experts on how to safely perform a squat, mention the commonly available safety equipment, and make note of the use of depth increasing aids.

As far as edits, I reverted to the Westside description of a box squat. Any box squat is meant to momentarily kill the stretch reflex by resting the body on the box as well as, at least, partially unweight the legs. When the box is merely touched, it is being used as a depth gauge. A squat with a depth gauge is not a box squat.

Finally, in the leg press addendum to the Variants section, I removed the part about using the duck press on the leg press. This is redundant because the note already specifies that the reader should try the leg press. As well, as far as I know, the duck press specifically is not a common recommendation for use in lieu of a squat. This should be referenced if it is to be included. 24.166.65.230 21:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007

World record

The world record section gets a lot of attention and reverts IIRC, rather than continually go back and forth, how 'bout a discussion of what should go here? There are probably numerous different kinds of world records, unassisted, assisted, official, unofficial, verified, not, etc. All need some sort of attribution. The section I pasted from the main page is below, I've added some tags and re-worded some stuff. WLU 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr Thienna Ho from Vietnam performed 5,135 sumo squats in one hour". What's the background to that? Is it impressive? And what's a "sumo squat"? 5,135 in one hour implies one every 0.7 seconds, so these "squats" can only have been a body-weight squat. That sounds only slightly harder than running fast for one hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.135.113 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008

Other information section

"There are several types of squats. For weightlifting as the crucial exercise sometimes referred to as 'bread and Butter exercise', squats are performed specifically to suit weightlifting (Note this also includes front and back squats). For powerlifting, squats can be performed in any way to lift the most weight as possible. For weightlifting, the aim is not to squat the most, but to do heavy squats, that is relevant to assisting your weightlifting. For Powerlifting, powerlifters use a range of styles to make the lift, in any way as a 'back Squat'."

This is poorly written and superfluous. At the beginning of the article, it's already said that the squat is a competitive lift in powerlifting and an essential movement in weightlifting. That "there are several types of squats" is more than obvious on account of the long list of variants at the end of the article. A discussion of the adaptation of the movement to suit the needs of each sport is better suited in the articles on each sport. The last two sentences also try to make a differentiation between weightlifting and powerlifting squats, but ultimately say the same thing. There is no one style completely relevant to assisting weightlifting just as there is no one style to compete in powerlifting. Finally, it's misleading to say squats cannot be performed in "any way to lift the most weight as possible" in powerlifting. There are specific rules that govern how they are to be performed in order to standardize and enable judging.

Ultimately, I don't think it's appropriate to differentiate between powerlifting and weightlifting squats in this article. To do so unnecessarily qualifies the essential question of this encyclopedia article -- what is a squat? It creates an open-ended qualification that this article will be unable to resolve: what is a squat... in the context of powerlifting? in the context of weightlifting? in the context of strongman? in the context of athletic development? in the context of bodybuilding? in the context of recreation? in the context of rehabilitation? etc. – 24.93.230.13 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExRx vs WebMD

If links to theExRx articles, written by experts, are deleted on the basis of not being reliable, then so should the link to the WebMD article. The portion of the WebMD article regarding the safety of Smith machine Squats is entirely conjecture, and doesn't cite any research to support the claim that Smith machine Squats are unsafe. 203.173.16.199 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebMD is considered a reliable source, while EXRX is not. That's why. WLU (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ipse dixit. 203.173.16.199 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, ExRx is written by four experts. WebMD has a full staff (and apparently awards). WLU (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Four relevant experts is not enough for you? (Peer review, on the other hand, could be an issue, but WebMD has the same problem. The WebMD article was reviewed by an MD, not an exercise physiologist.) 203.173.16.199 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further further points - links are evaluated based on their individual merits, not based on a comparison. WebMD's appropriateness has no effect on the inappropriateness of EXRX. In addition, the WebMD was inappropriate because it was not about squats exclusively, I've used it as a footnote instead. WLU (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, WebMD is not appropriate as a source at all. The conclusion that the Smith machine may lead to joint problems is based entirely on the conjecture of one relevant expert (Joseph M. Warpeha, MA, exercise physiologist), and has no factual basis (the WebMD article doesn't cite any research to support this claim). Essentially, it's just a pop-magazine article dressed up in a lab coat. 203.173.16.199 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExRx is reliable enough, we aren't going to rely on a sole reference in any case. WebMD is fine to cite but not to rely on totally. It is mostly a compilation of various papers, which are not necessarily correct. Tyciol (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur -Lurkmolsner (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

The photo in the article is quite ridiculous. Why the man wear a pyjamas and slippers? And why he is in a bedroom? Maybe he is doing squat before bed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.242.191 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about posting pictures of the various squats? It's impossible to visualize simply from the descriptions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk • contribs)

It shouldn't be impossible. All the squats listed, with the exception of the Sissy and Hindu squat, are performed in exactly the same manner. The only differences are cosmetic, such as stance width, equipment (barbell, dumbbell, etc.), and where the weight is loaded on the body. These are all noted clearly. -- 24.166.65.230 01:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the original poster - picture speaks a thousand words, have some pity on the uninitiated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.24.222 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remove this ridiculous picture. 24.84.40.102 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009

Raw

What is a 'raw squat? 'Unequipped' with what ? BasiSupeGa (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this might refer to a squat without powerlifting assistance gear such as knee wraps or squat suit. These are stretchy clothing worn for powerlifting competitions to stabilize the joints and assist the muscles in the weakest stretched positions to get out of the whole. They also use the 'raw' term for stuff like bench shirts for bench pressing. I'm not sure if they use gear for deadlifts. Tyciol (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knee wraps and a belt are still permitted in raw squatting. Equipped means using a squat suit. Dmccormac (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working section

The world record for the assisted squat is 1220 lb (553.4 kg), performed by Mike Miller, though he did not fully complete the lift.^[1] Though Miller requested this squat be stricken from the record books as he did not feel he went to the correct depth, the American Powerlifting Federation kept the record. It is widely accepted^[who?] that Andy Bolton now holds the all time squat record with a lift of 1213 lbs (550.5 kg).‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} The unassisted squat world record holder is former WWE wrestler Mark Henry, recorded on July 16, 1995.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

^ Monster Muscle Online

What kind of crap record is "ming-xue 864kg for 6 reps in a kevlar suit to insufficient depth"? We might as well start adding marvel comic characters speculative squat numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.113.189 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But ming-xue is not a marvel characters??? Please sorry for bad engrish . what means speculative? I taking squat numbers from Mandarin greatest world records book 2002. published in songhua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.126.47 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Miller?

I was just wondering, I saw a youtube vid where he's supposedly lifting 1220, does anyone know if he's listed under any official records? Tyciol (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squatting below parallel

Going to parallel is about the point where your knee requires the most muscle to stabilize itself, going below shifts the weight to your upper leg, which is actually safer, so I took out the part that says the lower you squat the more risk of injury. Do not put that sentence back in UNLESS you get a citation. 71.64.105.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There is little research to substantiate the claim that proper full squatting increases any risk of injury. Dr. Karl Klein seems to have proposed the idea while at University of Texas in the early 1960's, he concluded full squatting increases ligament laxity and recommended against it. Meyers used similar methodology on the MCL in 1971 and found the opposite, that full and parallel squatting decreased laxity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.45.117 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions without citations are not useful for adjusting the main page. Please provide reliable sources to substantiate these points, otherwise this is an opinion versus a statement sourced to a book published by Human Kinetics (publisher), a reliable publisher. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disconnect between practical, in the gym application and the scientific literature, but there it is at least theorized that squatting below parallel should be avoided.[biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise]. However, in the book "Practical Programming for Strength Training," a joint effort to bridge the gap between on the ground experience and scientific adacemics, authors Mark Rippetoe, CSCS and Lon Kilgore PhD advocate squatting for the full range of motion. There is really no good evidence for either side: the "it's safe" camp overly anecdotal and the "it's dangerous" camp is overly theoretical. I'd recommend we leave it out entirely until someone can source actual experimental data.-Lurkmolsner (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Monster Muscle Online

[1]