So it occured to me that my squat technique is confused and im just clueless!
I use the smith machine, and I do it similar to this:
http://www.exrx.net/AnimatedEx/GluteusMaximus/SMGluteSquat.gif
For my feet atleast, just a little less away from the bar, but when I go down I definately don't hit that 90 degree bend anymore, because ive had quiet a few people telling me it will give me knee injuries.

Basic question, feet in the right place?And how far down should I be going?

Thanks

There are many variances of a squat and this is one of them. From the vid it looks like a narrow stance smith machine squat. Her toes are pointing directly in front of her not at an outward angle. She also appears to be going parallel. She is using mostly quads by having her feet so far forward of the bar.

Who are the people telling you going to parallel will give you knee injuries? Were your knees bothering you?

Why the smith machine for squats? Do you ever use a free bar?

How tall are you?

Nah, I didn't tell anybody my kness were giving me occasional problems, but they fact is they are *slightly*
Only ever a smith machine, i train alone and there's no squat rack.
6"3 for my height :)

Nah, I didn't tell anybody my kness were giving me occasional problems, but they fact is they are *slightly*
Only ever a smith machine, i train alone and there's no squat rack.
6"3 for my height :)

What about front squats? A rack isn't required for safety as much with them, as it's kind of hard to get pinned from the front. Just drop it it you get in trouble.

I'd suspect locking yourself into a controlled movement pattern on a smith that might not fit your biomechanical structure could in theory be worse than free squats. Plus you miss out on a lot of stabilization muscle activation.

Not that smiths are evil, I just wouldn't do them as a sole way of doing squats.

I use a Smith for squats quite frequently.

The farther ahead of the bar your feet are, the more you will hit the Quads.

The more you bring your feet to the bar, the more the back will be involved.

I generally go about 90 dgrs. leg bend. You DO NOT stop at the bottom of the rep. As you go down you should alreday be thinking about coming up. Go down and immediately come back up WITHOUT BOUNCING.

But I do them Dan John style (check video....it's here on the site somewhere), with my feet a little bit wider than shoulders with toes pointed about 10 dgrs L+R from straight ahead.

If you have knee problems a 1/4 squat is sufficient to activate the quad muscle fibers without pressuring the knees.

However this move will not activate much Ham/Glute fiber so you'll need to do an extra ex for same.

Make sure your knees are not pronating inward or outward when you squat.

Do not suck in your gut. Let your gut be tensed and firm but not sucked in.

Inhale on way down and exhale on way up.

I've had a left knee prob in the past and I find the wider Dan John stance to be far easier on the knees than having feet shoulder width or narrower.

I do not like the way she is doing them in the video and I personally would never do them that way unless I was targetting Vastus Lateralis or Rectus Femoris and if I was I'd be using far less weight than I would for an all-out Squat.


IMO she's doing the classic Knee-killer, regardless of whether it's done on a Smith or otherwise.

But you can see she's got her feet way ahead of the bar and her back is almost vertical (almost like a Wall squat...which puts heavy emphasis on the quads but little else.)

She could be trying to emphasize her Quads...a Smith is good for this.

But if they're holding this vid up as perfect form for an all-round Smith squat they're off in la-la land.

exhale on way up.


I don't know if you max or not, but watch exhaling on the way up, it can change the mechanics of the lift and throw you forward/off. Not really a big deal unless it's close to maximal.

What about front squats? A rack isn't required for safety as much with them, as it's kind of hard to get pinned from the front. Just drop it it you get in trouble.

I'd suspect locking yourself into a controlled movement pattern on a smith that might not fit your biomechanical structure could in theory be worse than free squats. Plus you miss out on a lot of stabilization muscle activation.

Not that smiths are evil, I just wouldn't do them as a sole way of doing squats.

He could also try Bulgarians.

I believe Zen has posted quite a bit about squat depth -- and from what I remember, parallel is fine, but A2G may cause problems for some.

He could also try Bulgarians.

True. That's an excellent option, as are lunges, etc. They don't load the back and abdominals as much as a front squat, but for legs they're excellent.

A mix is probably good. Some single leg work, some front squats.

I have a different opinion. I believe the farther you extend your feet, the more you'll activate the glutes and hamstrings. Although I no longer use a smith machine too often for legs, if I wanted to target my quads, I would keep my feet directly under my hips for squats, or perform sissy squats by holding the bar against my chest. I'd make sure, however, that my knees were well warmed up with squats/leg presses beforehand. For exagerated hamstring/glute tie in involvement, try doing reverse lunges on the smithy with the lead leg extended far in front.

He could also try Bulgarians.

I believe Zen has posted quite a bit about squat depth -- and from what I remember, parallel is fine, but A2G may cause problems for some.

I thought
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1767210
was interesting.

Bid_D.....when I exhale on the way up, it's a "controlled' exhale.

That is, I don't "whoosh" out the air immediately upon ascent. I sort of gradually whistle it out so that it I've still got some air at the top of the lift.

I see Mastover's point....if you put your feet far enough ahead you can actually reach a point where your back/glutes are doing a lot of the work. Sort of like a rope/waterski squat where you're leaning back about 10 degrees or so.

I like to be where the feet are just far enough ahead on the Smith that as I go down the knees don't go past the toes and the back (while "straight" and not curved forward) takes some of the weight as I break at the hips. However the back "angle"does not go too far forward as I'm "sitting" into the squat.

As a result I get a balanced lift....where no single muscle group is doing it all.

Update.....

Ever being one to check out other people's advice I immediately went downstairs to my gym to see if I could get greater glute/ham involvement by having my feet much farther forward on the Smith than normal.

I found this was not so...the emphasis is greater quad stress.

So then I tried a rope squat where the rope is anchored to the wall about midchest height and I leaned back about 10 degrees.

Because there's no fixed bar on the rope move, the back is involved more....but I still couldn't elicit any great glute activity.

The Smith squat that I do normally...where the back of my heel is about 3 to 4 inches in front of the bar generates far more glute/ham involvement.

So I stand by my original statement.

• Keeping your knees behind your toes when squatting or lunging is a little better for your knees, but much, much worse for your hips and lower back.

• For strength and joint health, using the full range of motion on squats is more beneficial than squatting to parallel.

Sorry for the late reply, college work keeps me on my toes. :nod:
Hmm, so I guess that goes against every single thing I've ever been told, by anybody when it comes to squats:blank: So for now, take a bit of weight off, squat to parralel, keeping feet forward(Not as much as in the first picture I posted) and see how my knees go?
Ta :)

Sorry for the late reply, college work keeps me on my toes. :nod:
Hmm, so I guess that goes against every single thing I've ever been told, by anybody when it comes to squats:blank: So for now, take a bit of weight off, squat to parralel, keeping feet forward(Not as much as in the first picture I posted) and see how my knees go?
Ta :)

Read this (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do;jsessionid=9D7AE9F0FF7C1FF77BCBA482 492D572F.hydra?id=1767210).

Watch this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529481301858251744&q=dan+john+squat&total=2&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0).

Sorry for the late reply, college work keeps me on my toes. :nod:
Hmm, so I guess that goes against every single thing I've ever been told, by anybody when it comes to squats:blank: So for now, take a bit of weight off, squat to parralel, keeping feet forward(Not as much as in the first picture I posted) and see how my knees go?
Ta :)

Use whatever weight makes sense.

Do not often squat past parallel if you want your original knees in later life.

Place your feet so that your knees track without lateral motion.

Read this (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do;jsessionid=9D7AE9F0FF7C1FF77BCBA482 492D572F.hydra?id=1767210).

But don't stop there. Then read the real research yourself. Stuff like this:

For athletes with healthy knees, performing the parallel squat is recommended over the deep squat, because injury potential to the menisci and cruciate and collateral ligaments may increase with the deep squat. The squat does not compromise knee stability, and can enhance stability if performed correctly. Finally, the squat can be effective in developing hip, knee, and ankle musculature, because moderate to high quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius activity were produced during the squat. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11194098&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Now this is not the only point on which Cosgrove is more or less directly contradicted by careful studies, (in fact there are two of them - that parallel squats compromise knee stability and that deep squats are preferable) but it is enough to point out although he gives the impression of being scientifically informed, by leaving out consideration of the most accurate recent biomechanical analysis of the squat, he's not firing on all cylinders.

By the way it's almost obvious that Cosgrove has missed what is going on in the squat from his introduction of the "drawer test" into the discussion. Why is the knee less mobile when fully flexed? Because you have loaded up the ligaments and tendons with extra forces, which have been carefully measured. Yet he maintains the opposite.

I won't be trusting that guy with my knees.

I'm not going to get into an argument :) But Cosgrove was pointing to this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11390050&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):

CONCLUSIONS: Squatting from 70 degrees to 110 degrees of knee flexion had little effect on patellofemoral joint kinetics. The relative constancy of the patellofemoral joint reaction force and joint stress appeared to be related to a consistent knee extensor moment produced across the three squatting depths. RELEVANCE: The results of this study do not support the premise that squatting to 110 degrees places greater stress on the patellofemoral joint than squatting to 70 degrees. These findings may have implications with respect to the safe design of athletic training regimens and rehabilitation programs.

It was based on study of female college athletes.

I think we can agree it's controversial.

I'm not going to get into an argument :) But Cosgrove was pointing to this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11390050&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):

It was based on study of female college athletes.

I think we can agree it's controversial.

And the Salem and Powers study used only five subjects, I don't know whether that is a fatal flaw since I don't know how much variability there is from one healthy knee to the next.

The Duke (Krzyzewski lab) stuff is not really from only one study. They have done several; and they used ten experienced male lifters in at least one of them. Another on squats they did with 39 lifters at a national powerlifting championship. As far as I know, they are the go to guys for squat information. I actually had an e-mail exchange with one of the principal authors of those studies on this quesiton, and he basically stands with the recommendation of the parallel squat.

You can say it's controversial, but it looks to me more like some people just didn't get the memo yet.

And the Salem and Powers study used only five subjects, I don't know whether that is a fatal flaw since I don't know how much variability there is from one healthy knee to the next.

The Duke (Krzyzewski lab) stuff is not really from only one study. They have done several; and they used ten experienced male lifters in at least one of them. Another on squats they did with 39 lifters at a national powerlifting championship. As far as I know, they are the go to guys for squat information. I actually had an e-mail exchange with one of the principal authors of those studies on this quesiton, and he basically stands with the recommendation of the parallel squat.

You can say it's controversial, but it looks to me more like some people just didn't get the memo yet.
You could email Cosgrove with this information.

You could email Cosgrove with this information.

I expect if he dips into the literature on squatting he can't have missed it.