Putting the Squat Exercise Controversy To Rest by Dr. Ken Leistner
On April 22, 2000, I agreed to allow my training partners to videotape one of
my workouts. This was done for two purposes, both I believed, to be
worthwhile. First and foremost, my children were anxious to have a tape of my
training session, something to add to the family collection, something to
remember me by in future years. It would be meaningful for them because it
would have captured me doing something I enjoy, perhaps more than other
things I do. It was also an opportunity to help raise needed funds for the
Lakeview Youth Federation. LYF has been my "other work" for over twenty five
years. A group of dedicated adults, almost all with a "street related"
background, spend a lot of time funding, organizing, sponsoring, and
directing educational, cultural, and athletic programs that benefit the young
people in the community. We pay for college scholarships, books, and clothing
for deserving students; send children to summer camp; organize food and
clothing collections during the holiday seasons; direct the largest indoor
high school track meet in the United States every year; and plow any profits
directly back into the community. We even started and funded the Little
League baseball program in the late 1970s. Charles Nanton, LYF founder and
president, thought we could hawk the tape and add money to the coffers.
Unfortunately, a legal problem involving music copyright law prevented us
from selling the tape although I have given a number of them as gifts. The
editor of the cyberpump site asked if he could show a clip of the deep knee
bend. It was to be done without the music of course, which also negated my
many curses and comments so that one would not truly understand how very hard
the set was for me, as was the entire workout. We agreed, however, that it
would probably be enjoyable for his site visitors. It has produced a
firestorm of controversy that is not at all understandable to those dedicated
coaches and trainees that are not part of the so called HIT community,
slightly understandable to those like me who realize that there are some who
have wedded their understanding of training to a very narrow interpretation
of exercise performance, and a source of humor for most who know me and who
have trained with me. While no one is owded an explanation, there are many
who see me as a public figure and who are influenced as such, thus, this
attempt at clarification, one that should put the matter to rest.
My definition of what has been termed High Intensity Training is quite simple
and has been published numerous time. If you train hard enough to stimulate
changes in your physiology, you will have to train very hard, so hard that
you will then have to limit frequency and volume of training. This is a more
concise summary than some I have used previously, but it serves the purpose.
Its hard training with the emphasis on the effort put forth in each set,
taking a weight you have achieved a certain number of reps with last time and
forcing yourself to get more, this next time. You then get enough recovery
time to benefit from that session and approach the next one. Rep speed HAS
NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that definition. If your definition
however, involves rep speed, that's fine with me except, and this is a major
exception, it first needs to include the provisio that one is training "all
out" or we will not agree on the definition of hard or high intensity
training. To maximize the potential of each rep, one should create tension in
the muscle. Despite widespread misunderstanding of this point, this does not
mean one uses a specific or particular speed of movement. It means, in my
opinion, that you move so that you don't become injured and create tension in
the muscle. Relative to potential limb speed, even an Olympic lifter cannot
move a loaded barbell "fast". If your definition of proper training includes
the admonition that nothing move, including one's eyelids other than the
working body part, it may or may not be realistic and it may or may not be
productive. The emphasis has just been shifted from "hard, all out work" to
something else and in my opinion, the quality of the workout has just
suffered. I will repeat what was noted in a previous issue of the Hard
Training Newsletter: for decades if not a century of strength training, rep
speed or cadence was a NON FACTOR, a NON CONSIDERATION. Yet many many men,
without the use of drugs, became tremendously strong and well muscled.
In our
early days at Nautilus, the emphasis was on some of the hardest work one
could imagine, work that brought almost all of the involved trainees to their
physical limit each session, and to the point of vomiting and illness. We all
grew stronger and benefitted. If one is using a machine, it is certainly
easier to "control" the resistance than it is with a barbell or dumbell and
in fact, this is one of the supposed disadvantages cited by those who don't
agree with the use of machines in the training of competitive athletes. With
a barbell, one has to accommodate for their own leverage factors and bodily
proportions. One has to be able to stabilize their body and its position
under load. One has to find what is safe technique for them. I prefer that
all dumbbell pressing overhead be done with palms facing each other to reduce
rotation of the humerus during the movement. I have some trainees who cannot
comfortably do that, or safely do that due to their proportions or the way in
which their muscles attach from origin to insertion.
I believe too that one has to squat if they can, as it is the most difficult
and demanding exercise one can do. If this is so, it also becomes the most
potentially productive exercise one can do. I don't believe one can squat
"slowly". One can and should squat "rhythmically" with enough body lean and
movement to maximize their leverages and maintain what is for them, a safe
position and this is what they should do. This is what I do when I squat,
especially when I squat heavily. Remember, one DOES NOT EVER SQUAT "UPRIGHT".
There must be some body lean (without rounding the back) so that the hips are
behind the bar, the upper body and lower body are aligned so that the
resistance can be counterbalanced, and most importantly, so that the hips
"have some place to go" as they are driven forward as one comes out of the
bottom position. If one tries to stay literally upright, the hips cannot be
moved forward and one cannot then squat with a weight that will stimulate
changes in their body.
Anyone versed in orthopedics will state that you NEVER PAUSE ON THE BOTTOM
POSITION OF A SQUAT with a loaded barbell. The so called pause squat done by
powerlifters is ill advised as this places forces on the collateral ligaments
that can be dangerous. Recoiling under load, at very fast speeds can also be
potentially damaging if there is no attempt to keep the muscles in the
buttocks and thighs "tight". If one goes to the bottom position without first
properly "setting" or aligning their bodyparts and does so quickly, there is
potential for injury. I squat the way trainees have been squatting since the
beginning of the century; under control, tight abs, butt, thighs, and low
back. If you watch a skilled Olympic lifter squat clean and come off the
bottom, that is an example of recoil and as much as I don't like that kind of
training, the injuries they get are often not caused by that maneuver.
Thus, the criticisms of my squat focused on two major points; I supposedly
went 'too fast" which I will disagree with because I went fast enough to make
it safe for me, and I paused between reps. Now, I did not rack the bar
between reps, I stood with the weight and attempted to force air into my
lungs. If you are squatting with a weight that DOES NOT FORCE YOU TO BREATHE
HEAVILY BETWEEN REPS, you are not squatting in a demanding manner and thus,
in my opinion, are not squatting productively. You are supposed to breathe
between reps, you are supposed to need to breathe between reps, and do so
while holding your body position.
This episode is an example of taking one aspect of training and emphasizing
it to the extent that you have now altered the entire activity. I won't pat
myself on the back but I'm smart enough and I've been around the game long
enough to know that few would want to squat 407x23 nor would they train hard
and consistently enough to actually be able to. For me, its a natural
extension of my forty years of training and a repeat of something I've done
numerous times in the past. The tried and true emphasis on hard work, remains
effective for the average trainee. It works for those with differing
philosophies. If your definition of productive training includes anything
other than an emphasis on hard work, you are selling yourself short.
My definition of what has been termed High Intensity Training is quite simple
and has been published numerous time. If you train hard enough to stimulate
changes in your physiology, you will have to train very hard, so hard that
you will then have to limit frequency and volume of training. This is a more
concise summary than some I have used previously, but it serves the purpose.
Its hard training with the emphasis on the effort put forth in each set,
taking a weight you have achieved a certain number of reps with last time and
forcing yourself to get more, this next time. You then get enough recovery
time to benefit from that session and approach the next one. Rep speed HAS
NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that definition. If your definition
however, involves rep speed, that's fine with me except, and this is a major
exception, it first needs to include the provisio that one is training "all
out" or we will not agree on the definition of hard or high intensity
training. To maximize the potential of each rep, one should create tension in
the muscle. Despite widespread misunderstanding of this point, this does not
mean one uses a specific or particular speed of movement. It means, in my
opinion, that you move so that you don't become injured and create tension in
the muscle. Relative to potential limb speed, even an Olympic lifter cannot
move a loaded barbell "fast". If your definition of proper training includes
the admonition that nothing move, including one's eyelids other than the
working body part, it may or may not be realistic and it may or may not be
productive. The emphasis has just been shifted from "hard, all out work" to
something else and in my opinion, the quality of the workout has just
suffered. I will repeat what was noted in a previous issue of the Hard
Training Newsletter: for decades if not a century of strength training, rep
speed or cadence was a NON FACTOR, a NON CONSIDERATION. Yet many many men,
without the use of drugs, became tremendously strong and well muscled.
