When cyclists squat...

[Budarz]

Two things I'd like to know:

1) To the coaches out there (or anyone who knows): When I read diaries of track sprinters doing squats, are they training muscle specificity in the sense that the squats go down to around 90 degrees since they don't need power below that to ride, or do they tend to follow the powerlifting community by going butt to calves? If the latter, why?

2) I understand the argument about cycling performance not correlating well with leg strenght in the gym. My problem is that experience has told me the opposite. At age 16 I had been training and racing road for a few years. The first time I stepped into a gym to work legs I did squats with 315lbs for 10 reps down to around 90 degree bend. I did that weight because my older and larger brother was betting on me not being able to do it. I know I wasn't that strong before cycling. What gives?

 

[labicci]

The last thing cyclists want to do is to damage their knees, and squatting past 90 degrees may put too much stress on the knees.

To be honest I am no expert. Just happen to read some articles before.

L.B.

 

[discobean7]

Following the example of the powerlifting community (i.e. going butt to calves) is an invitation for disaster. At that extreme range of motion the force of your muscle contraction is actually pulling your knee apart. Not to mention that you're squishing your menisci like they were in a garlic press. Never a good idea. There is never a need to go beyond 90 degrees. As you said, on the bike sprinters are not going beyond 90 degrees anyway. I would think doing a focused (but safe) weight training program in the off season to improve your baseline strength followed by specific sprint workouts once the season starts would be the way to go. I'm sure there are some sprinter types out there who could help you more with the specifics of sprint workouts.

 

[Duckwah]

Powerlifters rarely squat below the point where their thighs are parrallel to the ground since thats as far as they need to go to complete a competition lift and you get weaker past 90 degrees.

Olympic weight lifters on the other hand often squat to a full bottom position without any ill effects. Its a matter of technique, load and flexibility.

As for the depth you should squat to I would suggest that for track cycling you don't need to go lower than thighs parrallel.

 

[Aztec]

Duck's got it, Disco doesn't.

Squatting deep isn't a problem. In the lifting circles, there's some belief that squatting shallow puts more force on your knees. Either way, how about doing what's most comfortable/natural? I doubt it matters much which way you do it, so long as you are progressively getting more powerful.

315x10 is way impressive for a newcomer to the weight game.

 

[discobean7]

Sorry guys, I based my recommendations on scientific research not a "belief" in lifting circles. However since we all have well developed cerebral cortices and opposable thumbs we are free to damage our bodies in any way we see fit. For those of us who would like to be "enlightened" here is a link to one of many scientific articles demonstrating my point. Just click on "abstract" and read the results section, that should explain it all. It may also be of interest that my B.S. in exercise science, 3 years of experience as an Exercise Physiologist, and (to date) 2 years of medical school have also been of assistance in making these recommendations. Sorry the link was bad. Just go to
www.ms-se.com then click "search contents" put in an entire article search for "squat depth". The article in question wll come up first. Then read the results section in the abstract.

 

[Budarz]

I appreciate all the info - especially the ms-se article. According to the abstract it seems to be safe to go 100 degrees knee flexion which is roughly horizontal. That seems plenty deep. Since I don't have access to the full journal article, I'm curious if they say anything about the patellar tendon stresses. If anything ever bothers my knees, it's that. Also, I'm still really curious to know what european gorilla-strength track sprinters do in terms of depth??? ANybody out there know?

 

[Aztec]

Sorry Disco, I was intentionally soft in my language. And I'm too lazy to look for the info, but I can assure you that the lifting community -- which lives for squatting -- has plenty of credentials. PhDs abound. Their opinions are just as researched and credible. Squat deep = OK. Sometimes better. Why? Because if you're going deep (with proper form, by the way, not just plopping down any which way) you're going to be using a whole lot less weight.

Anyway, as for what trackies do, I've read interviews in which they've mentioned their squat work (take a look at "No Brakes" for example). Sounds like it's an individual matter. Rory O'Reilly, a kilo guy, once squatted 500 for a rep, but admitted he didn't get full depth. Like I said earlier, it probably doesn't matter what depth so long as you are getting more powerful by doing it. Personally, I say go as deep as you can without breaking good form (i.e., where your back loses its arch and you begin to round or tuck your hips). That keeps the weight lighter and thus beats your back up less than if you pile on the weight and only do quarter/half squats. Qtr/half squats are hard to gauge for depth, too, which will probably lead you to adding more weight, thinking you've gained power, but only just forced you to squat more shallow.

Try posting on the track racing forum on this site.

 

[mfallon]

Originally posted by discobean7
Sorry guys, I based my recommendations on scientific research not a "belief" in lifting circles. However since we all have well developed cerebral cortices and opposable thumbs we are free to damage our bodies in any way we see fit. For those of us who would like to be "enlightened" here is a link to one of many scientific articles demonstrating my point. Just click on "abstract" and read the results section, that should explain it all. It may also be of interest that my B.S. in exercise science, 3 years of experience as an Exercise Physiologist, and (to date) 2 years of medical school have also been of assistance in making these recommendations. Sorry the link was bad. Just go to
www.ms-se.com then click "search contents" put in an entire article search for "squat depth". The article in question wll come up first. Then read the results section in the abstract.

I have to agree unfortunately from practical experience. Before getting into cycling I did weight training for about 10 years and tore up my knees doing full squats below parallel. To this day I cannot put any load on my knees at an angle greater than about 80 degrees without it causing several days of pain. If I wanted to though I could squat all day as long as I don't get too close to parallel (I don't squat anymore though). Also for the record most powerlifters joints are shot by the time they reach middle age. For cycling purposes there is absolutely no reason to squat past parallel since your leg is never at an angle greater than 90 degrees on a bike (or shouldn't be). Of course there is an entire thread on whether or not weight training is benificial to cycling but I'll leave that to the other thread.

Matt

 

[mfallon]

Originally posted by Aztec
Sorry Disco, I was intentionally soft in my language. And I'm too lazy to look for the info, but I can assure you that the lifting community -- which lives for squatting -- has plenty of credentials. PhDs abound. Their opinions are just as researched and credible. Squat deep = OK. Sometimes better. Why? Because if you're going deep (with proper form, by the way, not just plopping down any which way) you're going to be using a whole lot less weight.

Anyway, as for what trackies do, I've read interviews in which they've mentioned their squat work (take a look at "No Brakes" for example). Sounds like it's an individual matter. Rory O'Reilly, a kilo guy, once squatted 500 for a rep, but admitted he didn't get full depth. Like I said earlier, it probably doesn't matter what depth so long as you are getting more powerful by doing it. Personally, I say go as deep as you can without breaking good form (i.e., where your back loses its arch and you begin to round or tuck your hips). That keeps the weight lighter and thus beats your back up less than if you pile on the weight and only do quarter/half squats. Qtr/half squats are hard to gauge for depth, too, which will probably lead you to adding more weight, thinking you've gained power, but only just forced you to squat more shallow.

Try posting on the track racing forum on this site.

Actually in the weight lifting community which varies between weightlifters, powerlifters and bodybuilders have varied opinions on how deep you should squat. I will say that the 10 years I spent in the gym most people squat to around parallel some a little shallower some a little deeper but not that many do a full squat.

Matt

 

[Aztec]

Originally posted by mfallon
Actually in the weight lifting community which varies between weightlifters, powerlifters and bodybuilders have varied opinions on how deep you should squat. I will say that the 10 years I spent in the gym most people squat to around parallel some a little shallower some a little deeper but not that many do a full squat.

Matt

Fair enough, Matt.

I think most people squat short of parallel (most A LOT short) because their ego doesn't let them lighten up the bar to what it takes to go deep.

For the record, I've squatted both deep and shallow over various periods of the last 20 years and have found no knee annoyance from more depth. And I have anything but robust knees. But when going shallow, I have noticed some irritation. Could be the greater weight, could be something biomechanical, who knows?

As for powerlifters and shot joints, remember that they do more than squat, and they do it in great volume (sometimes), and in monster poundages. We can't just say that it was squatting alone that did it.

 

[mfallon]

Originally posted by Aztec
Fair enough, Matt.

I think most people squat short of parallel (most A LOT short) because their ego doesn't let them lighten up the bar to what it takes to go deep.

For the record, I've squatted both deep and shallow over various periods of the last 20 years and have found no knee annoyance from more depth. And I have anything but robust knees. But when going shallow, I have noticed some irritation. Could be the greater weight, could be something biomechanical, who knows?

As for powerlifters and shot joints, remember that they do more than squat, and they do it in great volume (sometimes), and in monster poundages. We can't just say that it was squatting alone that did it.

Your absolutely right about the power lifters. It is most definitely the poundages and not the actual squat. I guess I figured that would be assumed since they are powerlifters. Part of the rehab for my knees which came staight from a sports oriented orthopedic surgeon was doing light partial squats of no less than 20 reps per set to strengthen the joints and connective tissue so squats done right can be beneficial. I wasn't intending to say that squats were bad but that full squats weren't neccessary and that they can damage joints "if" you get too carried away with them.

Matt

 

[lancej]

LA doesn't Squat at all

http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/training

 

[Aztec]

Originally posted by lancej
LA doesn't Squat at all

http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/training

1) Lance's coach says squat.
2) Lance rides road, not track.

 

[discobean7]

What part of: "he and I are not willing to take the risks associated with squats. Lance's squatting technique is nearly flawless, but all things considered, he can get the benefits we're looking for, with less associated risk, from a seated leg press" do you not understand? The only correct statement you have made thus far is "Lance rides road, not track". That is something I can agree with. I'm glad to see there are people out there who subscribe to your line of thinking. In a few years I will gladly collect surgical fees from these people after having swapped out their tired old knees for brand new metal ones. I will try not to say "I told you so" as that would just be mean. Thank you again.

 

[Aztec]

Originally posted by discobean7
What part of: "he and I are not willing to take the risks associated with squats. Lance's squatting technique is nearly flawless, but all things considered, he can get the benefits we're looking for, with less associated risk, from a seated leg press" do you not understand? The only correct statement you have made thus far is "Lance rides road, not track". That is something I can agree with. I'm glad to see there are people out there who subscribe to your line of thinking. In a few years I will gladly collect surgical fees from these people after having swapped out their tired old knees for brand new metal ones. I will try not to say "I told you so" as that would just be mean. Thank you again.

Every thread on weightlifting of any kind goes this same way, doesn't it?

I am coached by CTS, I've read Charmichael's book. Chris says squat. Read his book, speak to some CTS coaches. I don't care if he says LANCE shouldn't squat. The original poster isn't LA (I don't think!).

As for knees wearing out, etc., you must be a nut. Stress on the knees is lower when squatting than leg pressing. Especially those nasty 45 degree seated leg presses. How about those silly leg extensions? The shearing forces there are much higher. Squatting is a natural movement. So long as you do it sanely (i.e., deep enough so that you aren't having to use 600 lbs to make them tough enough), what is the big worry?? BTW, using a Smith machine is NOT doing them sanely.

For the record, I don't think squats are a great help in non-track cycling. Mostly, they just hamper recovery. So, I go against the CTS advice and skip them. I limit leg work to hamstrings/glutes.

 

[beerco]

I know I shouldn't stick my nose in but I will anyway - For a trackie, I think the angle of the squat is less relevant than the degree of hypertrophy you can achieve. Because cycling is different than squatting, the neuromuscular adaptation to the squat will not transfer to on the bike power where the hypertrophy will. Do whichever angle is most comfortable and do stest which get you the biggest muscles!

 

[edd]

When I was a young man in my forties I use to squat pyramids ( 7 set ) of 15, 10, 8, 5, 8, 10, 15 reps 180lbs - 410lbs,

Now I am older and wiser I just squat 85lbs for 2 to 3 minutes, thighs parallel to floor, Mainly for my back and core.

Try one leg squats, with calf extension or step overs.

 

[bengibbs]

You will only damage your knees on a full squat (but to calfs) if you take on too much weight. I think that in doing a full squat, you are exercising more muscles in your legs quicker.

 

[Lasalles]

MAybe doing squats even parallel is bad for your knees.I had a max of around 240kgs and i get pain on and off in my right knee.I felt alot more stress on my lower back etc doing this than what i did if i was doing 150kgs all the way down.