5 ms·

I'd still recommend learning to squat under load. I'm fine under my own body weight. Put a bar on my back and problems show themselves again.

freeloop3 9y ago
As the article states: > At best, we might undertake ［squatting］ during Crossfit, pilates or while lifting at the gym, but only partially and often with weights (a repetitive maneuver that’s hard to imagine being useful 2.5 million years ago) I kind of go along with that. Squatting with a bar on your back is a weird maneuver.
- sudhirj 9y ago
  Squats under load are pretty fundamental. Carrying a killed deer on your back, or stone, clay, or a mate or a child all require effective loaded squats.
  - freeloop3 9y ago
    Where is the rest of the movement, then? Why not pick a big bag of sand and place it on your back, walk around with it, and set it back down again? Wouldn't our ancestors carry far less, maybe max 90kg, then people do today? It doesnt make sense to brutally punish your joints with much more than that for part of that action and completely ignore the other part of it.
    - sethammons 9y ago
      Sandbag carries and farmer walks do just that :). As for the idea that you are brutally punishing your joints, I don't believe that to be the case. Controlled squats vs running? Yeah, controlled squats will be way better on the knee. I do weighted exercises regularly and have a marketed reduction in joint pain from before. A barbell squat with good form will not put undue stress on the knee joint and builds muscle that supports it. For me, the added muscle also removed my lower back pain. This also comes with the caveat that you need to stretch and mobilize too.
    - NoGravitas 9y ago
      “Studies have shown that an ant can carry one hundred times its own weight, but there is no known limit to the lifting power of the average tiny eighty-year-old Spanish peasant grandmother.” ― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
cerebrum 9y ago
Safe alternative: hip belt squat. Don't load your back/spine. Google it.
- dpark 9y ago
  Yes, take the back entirely out of the exercise. That will definitely help with strengthening the back.
  - cerebrum 9y ago
    There are safer exercises for strengthening the back. Squats are good for the legs.
    - dpark 9y ago
      Squats are awesome for the back and quite safe unless done very improperly. If you can’t squat the weight safely, it’s too much for your legs anyway. You have an imbalance, by definition, if the weight that is appropriate for your legs is enough to put your back at risk.
      - cerebrum 9y ago
        Legs are stronger than your back. So a good load for the legs will probably be too much for the back. Also there is only a limited amount of repeated compression that the vertebral discs can handle.
        dpark 9y ago
        > Legs are stronger than your back. So a good load for the legs will probably be too much for the back. Well, yes and no. In unnatural movements like the hip belt “squat” where you have no range of motion and have almost created an isolation movement, sure. In more natural movements like a lunge or squat, where the muscles must work together and you use reasonable range of motion, not necessarily true. It’s more commonly the legs that fail in a squat. You do realize that the glutes and hamstrings are part of the legs, right? They execute the hip hinge that makes bending at the hips possible. When you take the back out of a squat, you largely remove these as well. > Also there is only a limited amount of repeated compression that the vertebral discs can handle. This is a definite “citation needed” sort of claim. The spine produces synovial fluid and heals like the rest of the joints. Obviously there are limits to how much it can heal, but that applies to every joint and consistently studies indicate better joint health among strength training individuals. A few dozen squats a week is definitely not the maximum the spine can handle.
rodolphoarruda 9y ago
In case you are travelling and cannot bring the bar with you ;-) a good alternative is the "prisoner squat". Place both hands behind you head crossing your fingers. With elbows out as much as you can do the squat like prisoners do it, veeery sloooowly, start with 4 x 12.
- mattferderer 9y ago
  I would also recommend "Wall Sits". Very similar.
NoGravitas 9y ago
In traditional calisthenics, there is a progression beyond a simple squat with your body weight. Uneven squats, half one-leg squats, assisted one-leg squats, all leading up to one-leg squats.
- mr_overalls 9y ago
  I'm also a big believer in calisthenics and bodyweight progression, but it's worth noting that pistol squats and several other advanced bodyweight squats can strengthen your quads and glutes very well, but end up teaching you a different movement pattern from a biomechanically-sound (i.e. straight-spined) squat. It's basically impossible to avoid tucking the pelvis and rounding the spine when doing a pistol. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NvOuty_Fnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NvOuty_Fnc Edit: Shrimp squats are an exception, I suppose.
mattferderer 9y ago
If it's your back your worried about, I would recommend deadlifts over squats. They're much easier to do from a technique standpoint & have less risk. Also squats are more for leg strength. Deadlifts are great for your back and also work several other muscles, including your legs. Squats are great for building leg strength but have a high risk of back & knee injury under heavy loads if done incorrectly. Even if you do them correctly, a heavy load might force you to lean forward which can damage your back. There are much safer lifts for those of us who aren't experts, such as hex bar squats.
- dpark 9y ago
  > Even if you do them correctly, a heavy load might force you to lean forward which can damage your back. Leaning forward damages your back? Then why are you suggesting deadlifts? Squats are not hard to do correctly. Risk of injury is probably not higher than deadlifts. And squats work more than just legs. They do work the legs hard, but they also work the back. Front squats will also work the upper back quite a bit.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
    Why not both? Plus other mobility and cardio work. It's all beneficial in various ways.
    - dpark 9y ago
      Of course do both. I was not advocating otherwise. :)
  - mattferderer 9y ago
    It appears "leaning forward" was not a great phrase to use. I meant to say it may force you to lean forward an additional amount into a bad position where you need to lean backwards to correct it. This is where hurting your back would occur. I agree, front squats are great! But I personally feel squats do minimal to back muscles.
    - 9y ago

freeloop3 9y ago

As the article states: > At best, we might undertake ［squatting］ during Crossfit, pilates or while lifting at the gym, but only partially and often with weights (a repetitive maneuver that’s hard to imagine being useful 2.5 million years ago) I kind of go along with that. Squatting with a bar on your back is a weird maneuver.

sudhirj 9y ago
Squats under load are pretty fundamental. Carrying a killed deer on your back, or stone, clay, or a mate or a child all require effective loaded squats.
- freeloop3 9y ago
  Where is the rest of the movement, then? Why not pick a big bag of sand and place it on your back, walk around with it, and set it back down again? Wouldn't our ancestors carry far less, maybe max 90kg, then people do today? It doesnt make sense to brutally punish your joints with much more than that for part of that action and completely ignore the other part of it.
  - sethammons 9y ago
    Sandbag carries and farmer walks do just that :). As for the idea that you are brutally punishing your joints, I don't believe that to be the case. Controlled squats vs running? Yeah, controlled squats will be way better on the knee. I do weighted exercises regularly and have a marketed reduction in joint pain from before. A barbell squat with good form will not put undue stress on the knee joint and builds muscle that supports it. For me, the added muscle also removed my lower back pain. This also comes with the caveat that you need to stretch and mobilize too.
  - NoGravitas 9y ago
    “Studies have shown that an ant can carry one hundred times its own weight, but there is no known limit to the lifting power of the average tiny eighty-year-old Spanish peasant grandmother.” ― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

cerebrum 9y ago

Safe alternative: hip belt squat. Don't load your back/spine. Google it.

dpark 9y ago
Yes, take the back entirely out of the exercise. That will definitely help with strengthening the back.
- cerebrum 9y ago
  There are safer exercises for strengthening the back. Squats are good for the legs.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Squats are awesome for the back and quite safe unless done very improperly. If you can’t squat the weight safely, it’s too much for your legs anyway. You have an imbalance, by definition, if the weight that is appropriate for your legs is enough to put your back at risk.
    - cerebrum 9y ago
      Legs are stronger than your back. So a good load for the legs will probably be too much for the back. Also there is only a limited amount of repeated compression that the vertebral discs can handle.
      - dpark 9y ago
        > Legs are stronger than your back. So a good load for the legs will probably be too much for the back. Well, yes and no. In unnatural movements like the hip belt “squat” where you have no range of motion and have almost created an isolation movement, sure. In more natural movements like a lunge or squat, where the muscles must work together and you use reasonable range of motion, not necessarily true. It’s more commonly the legs that fail in a squat. You do realize that the glutes and hamstrings are part of the legs, right? They execute the hip hinge that makes bending at the hips possible. When you take the back out of a squat, you largely remove these as well. > Also there is only a limited amount of repeated compression that the vertebral discs can handle. This is a definite “citation needed” sort of claim. The spine produces synovial fluid and heals like the rest of the joints. Obviously there are limits to how much it can heal, but that applies to every joint and consistently studies indicate better joint health among strength training individuals. A few dozen squats a week is definitely not the maximum the spine can handle.

rodolphoarruda 9y ago

In case you are travelling and cannot bring the bar with you ;-) a good alternative is the "prisoner squat". Place both hands behind you head crossing your fingers. With elbows out as much as you can do the squat like prisoners do it, veeery sloooowly, start with 4 x 12.

mattferderer 9y ago
I would also recommend "Wall Sits". Very similar.

NoGravitas 9y ago

In traditional calisthenics, there is a progression beyond a simple squat with your body weight. Uneven squats, half one-leg squats, assisted one-leg squats, all leading up to one-leg squats.

mr_overalls 9y ago
I'm also a big believer in calisthenics and bodyweight progression, but it's worth noting that pistol squats and several other advanced bodyweight squats can strengthen your quads and glutes very well, but end up teaching you a different movement pattern from a biomechanically-sound (i.e. straight-spined) squat. It's basically impossible to avoid tucking the pelvis and rounding the spine when doing a pistol. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NvOuty_Fnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NvOuty_Fnc Edit: Shrimp squats are an exception, I suppose.

mattferderer 9y ago

If it's your back your worried about, I would recommend deadlifts over squats. They're much easier to do from a technique standpoint & have less risk. Also squats are more for leg strength. Deadlifts are great for your back and also work several other muscles, including your legs. Squats are great for building leg strength but have a high risk of back & knee injury under heavy loads if done incorrectly. Even if you do them correctly, a heavy load might force you to lean forward which can damage your back. There are much safer lifts for those of us who aren't experts, such as hex bar squats.

dpark 9y ago
> Even if you do them correctly, a heavy load might force you to lean forward which can damage your back. Leaning forward damages your back? Then why are you suggesting deadlifts? Squats are not hard to do correctly. Risk of injury is probably not higher than deadlifts. And squats work more than just legs. They do work the legs hard, but they also work the back. Front squats will also work the upper back quite a bit.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  Why not both? Plus other mobility and cardio work. It's all beneficial in various ways.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Of course do both. I was not advocating otherwise. :)
- mattferderer 9y ago
  It appears "leaning forward" was not a great phrase to use. I meant to say it may force you to lean forward an additional amount into a bad position where you need to lean backwards to correct it. This is where hurting your back would occur. I agree, front squats are great! But I personally feel squats do minimal to back muscles.
  - 9y ago