As always, I hope you found the video interesting and informative in some way! (a like, comment, or share truly helps me out :) As a note, I did not include studies that used *only* machines, the data in this video only looks at all the studies (to my knowledge) comparing barbell high bar partial and deep squats. Of course, this is simply because I feel there are likely meaningful differences between machine and barbell squats, such that it's probably not sensible to combine and analyze these data together. Although, one of the studies by Hartmann et al. did compare a smith machine partial squat to a barbell high bar full squat (as briefly noted in the video). Nevertheless, for those interested, below I summarize the findings of the only two studies (again, to my knowledge) that have used machine squats: Weiss et al. (in untrained individuals) found that training machine deep squats produced greater 1RM gains on machine deep squats and machine partial squats versus training only machine partial squats. However, neither of these groups experienced gains in vertical jumping distance. (study link: journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2000/08000/Comparative_Effects_of_Deep_Versus_Shallow_Squat.1.aspx) Pallarés et al. found (in resistance-trained men) that smith machine deep squats produced greater 1RM gains on the smith machine deep, half, and partial squat exercises versus training smith machine half squats and smith machine partial squats. Also, gains in countermovement jump height, 20-yard sprint performance, and Wingate tests were superior for the smith machine deep squats group versus the other two (smith machine half and partial squat) groups. (study link: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31092132/)
When I tried Deep squats with weight and narrow stance, I dropped Half the weight that I lift on normal squats and i felt the difference, Deep Squats not only train your legs but also your gluts, There is a powerlifter Clearance Kennedy and this is the only Guy I see who is naty and he can do 400+ pound deep sitting squat and OMG he is not only strong but also have big legs.
I feel like this might come down to fatigue management. Doing partial range of motion is technically doing less work because the bar path is shorter. This might have allowed athletes to make more progress because it was less stress on the system for them to recover from. There’s also the neurological component of using a heavier load, and so the neurological adaptation may be what drove greater increases in strength.
That's an important consideration, but it is impossible to know with the information given. Since the external work is force times distance, we would need to know the weight used and vertical displacement of the bar. And technically, we would also need to know the acceleration, so things get complicated very quickly. The partial group, using less range but more weight, could have produce similar external work to that of the full range group. All that said, I fully agree with you that is another important aspect to consider.
Great stuff. Love this type of analysis drawing from studies and attempts to mention potential shortcomings. The visuals are also effective. Keep it up!
Great polish, solid information, no fluff, and very entertaining to watch what would normally be especially dry and boring material. This channel is going to become the "Powerhouse of Hypertrophy (and anatomical literacy)" and it deserves every ounce of recognition. Few are creating clear, cogent, and concise presentations. You got a patreon or something?
Thank you so much for your kind words, they truly mean a great deal to me! I do not have a patreon, maybe sometime in the future I'll set it up :) Nevertheless, I appreciate you!
The foot placement will vary based on the shape of the hips, whether they are internally or externally rotated or neutral, if you can't squat deep without the feet turning out you have "celtic" hips
I have considered that doing deep squats and following them up with partial squats as a drop set could be beneficial. There's also the element of speed, how dynamically you push the squat.
Interesting! I have been doing strength training for around 10 months now. I prefer to go as deep as I can when doing squats. A few months ago I saw a physiotherapist well versed in strength training because I felt pain in the left hip muscles. He concluded that I had excellent form when it comes to squats and I could keep doing deep squats if I wanted to. The hip pain was most likely due to overuse, probably because I walk a lot. So I keep doing deep squats but I make sure to not go for a long walk on the day after leg day. It works great for me.
i saw a video from the bioneer on how tendon strength can be achieved by partial reps and after a while your muscles will be to strong for your tendons so in the college athletes the partial reps probably strengthened their tendons so they can utilize more of their muscle
Thanks for the video. Unfortunately "partial squats" are not defined. If you do squats from 0-90 degrees, they are also "partial squats" as if you do them from 65-90 degrees. In the execution, where you start with 0 degrees, the load on the quads is almost zero at that range and the muscles relax almost completely in between the reps. If you use the range of 65-90 degrees of knee joint angle, then the muscles are permanently under tension and it is conceivable that this range is superior to "full squats", since even with full squats you repeatedly go high into the unproductive 0 degree position. It would be interesting to compare how much hypertrophy "partial squats" produce which only move around the 90 degree angle - in contrast to full ROM squats
Every conceivable exercise is more effective with a shorter range of motion. Keeping the worked muscles constantly under tension is the key. Full range of motion incorporates literal rest stops through each rep which defeats the purpose.
Hey man, great content! Just wanted to share a quick thought-I don't think it's entirely accurate to say it's not a squat. It's still a squat, just a partial one. Partial squats can be really useful if you're targeting specific ranges of motion where you might lack strength, or if you're recovering from an injury like a hip or knee injury.
This is only a hypothetical thought on squat depth affecting quad hypertrophy, but one thing that should be taken into consideration is the total hip movement compared to knee movement. Even though 140 degrees is certainly more than 90 degrees (Kubo et al.), there could have been (and probably was) relatively more compensation from the hips to achieve the full depth. That could explain why the glutes and adductors seemed to take over the quads and saw better growth. IF the hip movement was somewhat controlled, and the only variable was the knee movement, I think (speculatively) we would see more growth in the quads, as there are some studies on stretch-mediated hypertrophy in that muscle. 🤔
Awesome video as always, but I think one of your last conclusions may be a bit off. You argued that the body is adaptable because higher cartilage thickness was found in trained individuals vs. untrained ones. While that might be true, we only know for certain that weight lifting and said cartilage thickness seems to correlate. We don't actually know which of those causes the other. Might as well be possible that out of the thousands of people going to the gym only those with thicker cartilages stay injury free and therefore achieve elite level numbers. So it might as well be the other way around. But that's just me nitpicking on a very minor thing. Anyways, LOVE your vids
Thank you! I 100% agree with your statement, I mistakenly assumed a causal relationship when in fact it could just be elite weightlifters tend to be individuals born with higher cartilage thickness. The same might also be said with higher bone mineral density in the lower back region. I haven't fully explored the research in this area, but it is possible there could be long-term evidence demonstrating some causual effect (overloading does produce thicker cartilage and higher bone densities), but the data I provided is not neccessarily sufficient to conclude this (I'll be sure to have a look some time). Thank you for helping me realize this :) As for zercher squats, so long as individual likes it, and there lower muscles are truly the limiting factor, I can't see why it's not an effective hypertrophy movement.
Great video! I would love to see a kind of PPL series or some other split like on Jeff Nippard’s chanel. I know that it is hard to choose just a few exercises but I would love to see what you could add in terms of programming a training split!
Hey dude, that's a really solid suggestion. I'd probably quite enjoy making vids detailing how one could potentially construct a certain training split for hypertrophy. Thank you, I've jotted it down and will most likely get around to making it! :)
Parallel. I used to do ATG but it uses up too much energy and I ended up cutting my reps at almost half of what I could do, and not only that I didnt feel anything, nor my quads or glutes. Parallel squats are a game changer, you can do more reps with more weight, and the mind muscle connection is great
Im not here to argue because we will never find the answer BUT I think ur lying, you never did ATG but in order to make ur point about parallell squats more thoughtful you tell this lie, just my 2 cents
I guess the problem with all these studies is the work isn't the same between the two groups. The group going deeper is doing more work, they are moving the weight over a longer distance compared to the shallower depth group. To have a valid comparison the shallow squat group should be doing more reps so that the total work between the two groups is the same. If you look at the equation for work in physics distance, or displacement, is one of the variables. Frankly this shows how uneducated most researchers in the sport performance area are.
In conclusion, the best squat depth is the one that allows you to hold full muscle contraction throughout the entire movement. This is why people who perfect the squat have a body that allows them to hold muscle tension in both the eccentric and concentric motions. The reason why it seemed that the combination group had better growth is probably because it takes less effort to do partial squats “therefore” hehe allows one to put more energy on the full squat than doing full squats all the time. My opinion is, if your squat looks like two separate movements, you should cut the depth until it looks like one cohesive movement. Not all people can look the same which is why depth is such a controversial topic. Some people just look amazing squatting while others look like well not amazing lol.
I see what you're saying, but I have a few considerations: 1) I think it's impossible to not have contraction throughout the eccentric or concentric phase of any exercise. So long as your moving your joints through a range of motion with load, the muscles are going to be contracting eccentrically (when lengthening) and concentrically (when shortening). 2) I'm not sure what you mean by full muscle contracting, but your muscles will not produce equal contractile force throughout full barbell squat motion regardless (less active force is generated during the eccentric of dynamic exercises, while more active force will be generated during the concentric. Remember, you fail during the concentric phase of the squat, and wherever an individuals sticking point is, that is generally the point where the muscles generate the most contractile force) 3) I see where you're coming from with the less effort with partial squats, hence making full squats feel easier. However, it's worth noting those partial squats would have been carried out with heavier loads, so they were overloaded to a challenging degree. But again, I still unquestionably see how the longer range of motion with full squats would be more challenging regardless of load used. 4) I think how a squat looks is not that overly important. Of course, if you squat looks nothing like a squat, then you've got a problem. But I'd say a more aesthetic squat does not neccessarily mean a more effective strength or hypertrophic stimulus I hope you're see where I'm coming from, feel free to let me know if you think I've got anything mistaken or if you have any disagreements :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for responding and I will better address my statements. 1. What I mean is to properly load the eccentric (not dive bombing) but allowing the muscles to resist the weight as you are descending and utilizing the stretch reflex to allow you to power the concentric portion. If you watch professional Weightlifters you will see them do this exact thing. Squats were made to be a power movement. Hypertrophy is really a side affect. If you want hypertrophy there are way better movements to fulfill that goal. 2. This goes with point one and you can fail on the concentric portion or even the eccentric depending on the muscle contraction effort. People are squatting because others are telling them to for whatever reason. Not everyone is built to squat in a fashion that holding a barbell is practical. Hence why tricks are used such as heeled shoes. 3. If you noticed in your study, the Gluts and abductors were loaded more in the full squat group. Therefore more muscle mass is being used which means more force and more energy exerted. Not to mention distance of moving an object will require more energy wouldn’t you think? 4. This was just my observation from comparing powerlifters vs weightlifters vs bodybuilders. Hypertrophy is all about looks isn’t it? Well of course people will say it’s the size of the muscle but only bodybuilders truly care about hypertrophy. The other sports I’ve including focus on different parameters which are more logically bound. The way a movement looks does determine the ease of that movement. Like why do some people struggle and others look like no effort. We could say this deals with variables such as speed, strength, and level arms etc. I’m saying this to imply that people who do squats are doing so to improve these variables and Hypertrophy is not the main focus. This is only hearsay from bodybuilders who obviously build their muscles by others means not being represented. Also keep in mind, some of biggest legs in bodybuilder were built buy machines and not barbells. Those bodybuilders who did build their legs with squats usually came from a powerlifting or weightlifting background and wasn’t just some average joe trying squats like most newbies are. Hope this clarifies.
As there's no data on it (to my knowledge), I can't be certain. But I think they are very likey great for the quadriceps. Perhaps similarly so to squats, even though you don't typically get full knee flexion in a reverse deadlifts, this might not matter, as the Kubo study indicates 90 degrees of flexion may be sufficient for quad growth, and 90 degrees of knee flexion can be achieved with reverse deadlifts. In so far as glute and adductor growth, I think full squats would probably be better due to the added rom and thus greater stretch.
I hope they compared the rep maxes of the partial reps vs deep reps, I.e. he fact that you can partial squat a good 90 to 180 pounds heavier for the same reps. Hard to think that extra couple hundred pounds wouldn’t get more growth in the area of the partial rep. I’m not advocating partials, just seems unlikely that there wouldn’t be areas in the legs that grow more at the expense of your glutes and adductors.
Full range of motion in any exercise is almost never a good idea unless you're early 20s or on roids. The joint damage is just not worth it and it's so much easier to keep tension on the muscles throughout the movement with less range of motion. 100% of 45+ bodybuilders agree with me.
Saying it's only a good idea on roids is a pretty braindead take. Steroids are known to cause tendon injuries due to muscles progressing faster than tendons. People who avoid full range of motion entirely are far more likely to experience tendon injuries because they never train their tendons to take heavy loads.
i would like to know if these studies used the same weight for partial squats and full range squats. the whole point of partials is that you can do more reps with more weight.
I been doing partial squats for years, I started doing deep squats the last couple months and my mild lower back pain just vanished after 3 years with it…and I didn’t expect that at all.
146 Kg average 1RM doesn't seem so big of a squat, having said that, I guess that is more a proper squat for an average trained person, and as most times studies were made in untrained individuals, doing it in this way rules out any newbie gains, and also rules out any adaptation that might occur in too experienced individuals. I do like the fact that more studies are being made on trained (or fairly trained) individuals, that gives a better picture overall most times.
If my joint goes that far, i go that far. That's for every exercise i do. I don't understand why you would train anything other than full range of motion.
@@HouseofHypertrophy it depends what you are doing it for, it's not needed for quad development, and if you want to target glutes and hamstrings there is better more direct ways in my opinion
Yeah, this was an editing error, haha. I copied over the degree symbol from a prior video that discussed temperatures (a video on cooling your hands between sets), but I forgot to remove to C and just did not notice it :)
Have you thought about making a video on forced reps? I realize there is no Direct research on these maybe you can use indirect research like the research on negative reps
Yep, it's difficult as like you've said, there's no direct research. But, at some point, I'll probably assess if any indirect research could combine to help make an interesting video :)
I think that's a great question. Given there's no data exploring this at the moment, we cannot say anything for certain. However, extrapolating from other data (specifically data showing that training muscles at longer lengths is typically superior for hypertrophy than shorter lengths), I think they would be as effective (if perhaps not even more so) than full squats for quad, glute, and adductor growth. As far as strength or athleticism goes, I'm not entierly sure to be honest. Technically, using a partial squat at long lengths would require you to decelerate more than usual as you would not be locking out the knees, this might not be the best for developing explosiveness (and thus jump and sprint speed). Full squats would enable you to accelerate more powerfully for more of the movement. But again, I could be totally wrong.
My couch did that when he did powerlifting in college. He did it to strengthen the bottom part of the motion since the hardest part of squatting is passing the bottom. He also applied the same principle with bench and deadlift.
But i never understood the adductors, are they part of the quads or are they a seperate muscle group? Because i've heared some people call these "inner quads" as if they're part of the quads. Anyway what about slightly lateral raised framers walks? They are tough as fuck, but can they result in some side delt or rear growth? Or at least some front delt growth?
Adductors are not part of the quads. They are more the groin; inner and inner/back part of the thigh. Bodybuilders might call them the inner quads because they can fill out the look of your thigh thickness on stage, in a lot of quad poses. They are not actually part of the quads. Worth note, the adductor magnus is (sort of) part of the hamstrings. It has two parts and one of then is called the hamstring part, which in addition to performing adduction, also performs hip extension
would not the partial squat leading to improvement in jumping and running be because, simply those movements match tha angles of the partial squat? obviously, no one runs in the position of a deep squaf, and neither do elite jumpers drop into a deep spot position to load for verticals, high or long jumps. my other question is: what about a deep partial? meaning from the bottom up, instead of the top and going partially down? in other videos it is stated that, the affect of a muscle being stretched when under load tends to increase hypertrophy? would not the deep position have the quads stretched? wherever I maybe wrong here, please let me know. just trying to learn and figure things out.
Yep, I agree. Partial range of motion at the top position tend to be more specific to running and jumping. As for deep partials, unfortunatley there's no research looking at this, but I do think they probably would be very good for hypertrophy since the research shows stretch is important for hypertrophy. Hopefully we do get future research looking at this, as I'm very interested to see if deep partials could produce more hypertrophy than a full range of motion
If partial rom is good for squats then it should be good for every muscle and it isn’t well full rom is the whole point it’s basically neglecting part of the muscle but it better it does not make sense
depends on how long your legs are. half squats for more are more likely because of my long legs, sure i can do full squats but not much weight, even with that, my lower back takes a beating. long leg people tend to have that "butt wink" when going too far down vs shorter leg people, that is where the lower spine gets crunched. i have mri's to prove it. great video. thanks.
If your squatting you may as well go all the way down. Is there some reason why people only go down half way? Going half way down is not a squat, it's a sign of weakness.
Squats are easier for shorter people due to the bar path length. Taller people tend to have more issues with squats due to their longer femur bone structure. Shorter femur bones and longer torso have the advantage in squats versus longer femur bones and shorter torso individuals. Taller individuals have to work harder to squat than shorter.
Partial squats useful for two things. One, if you want to emphasize the guad for the purpose of hypertrophy. But that won't increase your squat because when the guad becomes the prime mover you are beyond the stuck point. And they are good for the deadlift because you can put more weight on your back than if you were doing a real squat. And the transition to the deadline can be further enhanced if you were to use the same foot placement and angle at the knee because you can become stronger at a specific joint angle.
I do a full body workout of usually 4 sets per muscle group. Are there any studies discussing any advantage or disadvantage to breaking up the workout so that I'm not doing all 4 sets in a row and am instead doing one set of each muscle group progressively? I.e. one set of chest and then one set of back.. so on until I've hit four sets of each? Thanks again for your videos I've learned so much since I found your channel
I think that's an exteremly interesting question. There is one study to my knowledge somewhat exploring this (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21659889/) they either had subjects perform normal sets (like 3 sets on the leg curl followed by 3 sets on the bench press, etc.) or had them use a circuit format (where they did one set on a leg curl, rested for 35 seconds and then performed 1 set on the bench press, etc. - with multiple rounds to produce simlar total sets performed for each exercise to the subjects performing normal sets). Ultimately, one-rep max gains on the bench press and half squat were similar between both groups, and increases in lean mass were similar between both groups, suggesting both methods are similarly effective. However, it's worth noting lean mass (measured via dexa) isn't the best measure of muscle growth, so this is a limitation. At some point, perhaps even soon, I'll make a video detailing this study, as I think it's quite interesting :) (there are no other similarly designed studies unfortunately though, at least to my knowledge).
@@HouseofHypertrophy thanks for the reply! I think if there's data supporting it, it would be my go to way to workout at home since I have enough equipment to set up mostly everything to work synchronistically. Although I do suppose this technique would be similar in theory to a super-super-etc. set?
Heard something called "butt wink" and not everyone's body is designed for a deep squat, for example I don't feel anything in my legs after doing partial squats, whereas my partner feels pain in his back after he does deep, so he only does parallel squats, which works fine for him, so at the end of the day, it all comes down to your anatomy and whether that particular variation is building your legs or not.
As always, I hope you found the video interesting and informative in some way! (a like, comment, or share truly helps me out :)
As a note, I did not include studies that used *only* machines, the data in this video only looks at all the studies (to my knowledge) comparing barbell high bar partial and deep squats. Of course, this is simply because I feel there are likely meaningful differences between machine and barbell squats, such that it's probably not sensible to combine and analyze these data together.
Although, one of the studies by Hartmann et al. did compare a smith machine partial squat to a barbell high bar full squat (as briefly noted in the video).
Nevertheless, for those interested, below I summarize the findings of the only two studies (again, to my knowledge) that have used machine squats:
Weiss et al. (in untrained individuals) found that training machine deep squats produced greater 1RM gains on machine deep squats and machine partial squats versus training only machine partial squats. However, neither of these groups experienced gains in vertical jumping distance. (study link: journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2000/08000/Comparative_Effects_of_Deep_Versus_Shallow_Squat.1.aspx)
Pallarés et al. found (in resistance-trained men) that smith machine deep squats produced greater 1RM gains on the smith machine deep, half, and partial squat exercises versus training smith machine half squats and smith machine partial squats. Also, gains in countermovement jump height, 20-yard sprint performance, and Wingate tests were superior for the smith machine deep squats group versus the other two (smith machine half and partial squat) groups. (study link: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31092132/)
When I tried Deep squats with weight and narrow stance, I dropped Half the weight that I lift on normal squats and i felt the difference, Deep Squats not only train your legs but also your gluts, There is a powerlifter Clearance Kennedy and this is the only Guy I see who is naty and he can do 400+ pound deep sitting squat and OMG he is not only strong but also have big legs.
I feel like this might come down to fatigue management. Doing partial range of motion is technically doing less work because the bar path is shorter. This might have allowed athletes to make more progress because it was less stress on the system for them to recover from. There’s also the neurological component of using a heavier load, and so the neurological adaptation may be what drove greater increases in strength.
That's a very very good explanation, and potentially is what occured! :)
That's an important consideration, but it is impossible to know with the information given. Since the external work is force times distance, we would need to know the weight used and vertical displacement of the bar. And technically, we would also need to know the acceleration, so things get complicated very quickly. The partial group, using less range but more weight, could have produce similar external work to that of the full range group. All that said, I fully agree with you that is another important aspect to consider.
Man, I love your conclusion-making and comprehensive reviews
Thank you! that's very kind of you :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yeah i love a conclusion-making reviews,and certainly not those guys out there who keep saying "wEll iT dEpEnDS"
Great stuff. Love this type of analysis drawing from studies and attempts to mention potential shortcomings. The visuals are also effective. Keep it up!
Thank you, I'll do my best :)
Great polish, solid information, no fluff, and very entertaining to watch what would normally be especially dry and boring material. This channel is going to become the "Powerhouse of Hypertrophy (and anatomical literacy)" and it deserves every ounce of recognition. Few are creating clear, cogent, and concise presentations. You got a patreon or something?
Thank you so much for your kind words, they truly mean a great deal to me!
I do not have a patreon, maybe sometime in the future I'll set it up :) Nevertheless, I appreciate you!
The foot placement will vary based on the shape of the hips, whether they are internally or externally rotated or neutral, if you can't squat deep without the feet turning out you have "celtic" hips
I have considered that doing deep squats and following them up with partial squats as a drop set could be beneficial. There's also the element of speed, how dynamically you push the squat.
That could be fine!
Interesting! I have been doing strength training for around 10 months now. I prefer to go as deep as I can when doing squats. A few months ago I saw a physiotherapist well versed in strength training because I felt pain in the left hip muscles. He concluded that I had excellent form when it comes to squats and I could keep doing deep squats if I wanted to. The hip pain was most likely due to overuse, probably because I walk a lot. So I keep doing deep squats but I make sure to not go for a long walk on the day after leg day. It works great for me.
Interesting!
Great as always, I hope your channel starts to blow up soon!
Thank you!
i saw a video from the bioneer on how tendon strength can be achieved by partial reps and after a while your muscles will be to strong for your tendons so in the college athletes the partial reps probably strengthened their tendons so they can utilize more of their muscle
Thanks for the video. Unfortunately "partial squats" are not defined. If you do squats from 0-90 degrees, they are also "partial squats" as if you do them from 65-90 degrees. In the execution, where you start with 0 degrees, the load on the quads is almost zero at that range and the muscles relax almost completely in between the reps. If you use the range of 65-90 degrees of knee joint angle, then the muscles are permanently under tension and it is conceivable that this range is superior to "full squats", since even with full squats you repeatedly go high into the unproductive 0 degree position. It would be interesting to compare how much hypertrophy "partial squats" produce which only move around the 90 degree angle - in contrast to full ROM squats
Thanks
Every conceivable exercise is more effective with a shorter range of motion. Keeping the worked muscles constantly under tension is the key. Full range of motion incorporates literal rest stops through each rep which defeats the purpose.
More effective for what? Is what the video asks. Are you talking about hypertrophy? Athleticism? Strength?
I have arthritis and had knee pain few months, doctor told me to sit in deep sqauts position
Hey man, great content! Just wanted to share a quick thought-I don't think it's entirely accurate to say it's not a squat. It's still a squat, just a partial one.
Partial squats can be really useful if you're targeting specific ranges of motion where you might lack strength, or if you're recovering from an injury like a hip or knee injury.
Please make a review or study about pulse reps or x-reps!
This is only a hypothetical thought on squat depth affecting quad hypertrophy, but one thing that should be taken into consideration is the total hip movement compared to knee movement. Even though 140 degrees is certainly more than 90 degrees (Kubo et al.), there could have been (and probably was) relatively more compensation from the hips to achieve the full depth. That could explain why the glutes and adductors seemed to take over the quads and saw better growth.
IF the hip movement was somewhat controlled, and the only variable was the knee movement, I think (speculatively) we would see more growth in the quads, as there are some studies on stretch-mediated hypertrophy in that muscle. 🤔
Awesome video as always, but I think one of your last conclusions may be a bit off. You argued that the body is adaptable because higher cartilage thickness was found in trained individuals vs. untrained ones. While that might be true, we only know for certain that weight lifting and said cartilage thickness seems to correlate. We don't actually know which of those causes the other. Might as well be possible that out of the thousands of people going to the gym only those with thicker cartilages stay injury free and therefore achieve elite level numbers. So it might as well be the other way around. But that's just me nitpicking on a very minor thing. Anyways, LOVE your vids
Thank you! I 100% agree with your statement, I mistakenly assumed a causal relationship when in fact it could just be elite weightlifters tend to be individuals born with higher cartilage thickness. The same might also be said with higher bone mineral density in the lower back region. I haven't fully explored the research in this area, but it is possible there could be long-term evidence demonstrating some causual effect (overloading does produce thicker cartilage and higher bone densities), but the data I provided is not neccessarily sufficient to conclude this (I'll be sure to have a look some time). Thank you for helping me realize this :)
As for zercher squats, so long as individual likes it, and there lower muscles are truly the limiting factor, I can't see why it's not an effective hypertrophy movement.
Great video! I would love to see a kind of PPL series or some other split like on Jeff Nippard’s chanel. I know that it is hard to choose just a few exercises but I would love to see what you could add in terms of programming a training split!
Hey dude, that's a really solid suggestion. I'd probably quite enjoy making vids detailing how one could potentially construct a certain training split for hypertrophy. Thank you, I've jotted it down and will most likely get around to making it! :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy
Feel more on gluteus when u go full rom.half range or partial makes your legs into jelly ..
Mobility is my limiting factor. Beyond 90 my lower back rounds and is effed for the whole week
Parallel. I used to do ATG but it uses up too much energy and I ended up cutting my reps at almost half of what I could do, and not only that I didnt feel anything, nor my quads or glutes. Parallel squats are a game changer, you can do more reps with more weight, and the mind muscle connection is great
Im not here to argue because we will never find the answer BUT I think ur lying, you never did ATG but in order to make ur point about parallell squats more thoughtful you tell this lie, just my 2 cents
@@mifster83 nice argument dyel
Awesome. I’m doing both, top and bottom range.
I guess the problem with all these studies is the work isn't the same between the two groups. The group going deeper is doing more work, they are moving the weight over a longer distance compared to the shallower depth group. To have a valid comparison the shallow squat group should be doing more reps so that the total work between the two groups is the same. If you look at the equation for work in physics distance, or displacement, is one of the variables. Frankly this shows how uneducated most researchers in the sport performance area are.
You have to add more weight for partial squats. Did the studies say if they increased the weight on the barbell for the partial groups?
Partial reps are better than a full range of motion only if you do them in lengthened position.
In conclusion, the best squat depth is the one that allows you to hold full muscle contraction throughout the entire movement. This is why people who perfect the squat have a body that allows them to hold muscle tension in both the eccentric and concentric motions. The reason why it seemed that the combination group had better growth is probably because it takes less effort to do partial squats “therefore” hehe allows one to put more energy on the full squat than doing full squats all the time. My opinion is, if your squat looks like two separate movements, you should cut the depth until it looks like one cohesive movement. Not all people can look the same which is why depth is such a controversial topic. Some people just look amazing squatting while others look like well not amazing lol.
I see what you're saying, but I have a few considerations:
1) I think it's impossible to not have contraction throughout the eccentric or concentric phase of any exercise. So long as your moving your joints through a range of motion with load, the muscles are going to be contracting eccentrically (when lengthening) and concentrically (when shortening).
2) I'm not sure what you mean by full muscle contracting, but your muscles will not produce equal contractile force throughout full barbell squat motion regardless (less active force is generated during the eccentric of dynamic exercises, while more active force will be generated during the concentric. Remember, you fail during the concentric phase of the squat, and wherever an individuals sticking point is, that is generally the point where the muscles generate the most contractile force)
3) I see where you're coming from with the less effort with partial squats, hence making full squats feel easier. However, it's worth noting those partial squats would have been carried out with heavier loads, so they were overloaded to a challenging degree. But again, I still unquestionably see how the longer range of motion with full squats would be more challenging regardless of load used.
4) I think how a squat looks is not that overly important. Of course, if you squat looks nothing like a squat, then you've got a problem. But I'd say a more aesthetic squat does not neccessarily mean a more effective strength or hypertrophic stimulus
I hope you're see where I'm coming from, feel free to let me know if you think I've got anything mistaken or if you have any disagreements :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for responding and I will better address my statements.
1. What I mean is to properly load the eccentric (not dive bombing) but allowing the muscles to resist the weight as you are descending and utilizing the stretch reflex to allow you to power the concentric portion. If you watch professional Weightlifters you will see them do this exact thing. Squats were made to be a power movement. Hypertrophy is really a side affect. If you want hypertrophy there are way better movements to fulfill that goal.
2. This goes with point one and you can fail on the concentric portion or even the eccentric depending on the muscle contraction effort. People are squatting because others are telling them to for whatever reason. Not everyone is built to squat in a fashion that holding a barbell is practical. Hence why tricks are used such as heeled shoes.
3. If you noticed in your study, the Gluts and abductors were loaded more in the full squat group. Therefore more muscle mass is being used which means more force and more energy exerted. Not to mention distance of moving an object will require more energy wouldn’t you think?
4. This was just my observation from comparing powerlifters vs weightlifters vs bodybuilders. Hypertrophy is all about looks isn’t it? Well of course people will say it’s the size of the muscle but only bodybuilders truly care about hypertrophy. The other sports I’ve including focus on different parameters which are more logically bound. The way a movement looks does determine the ease of that movement. Like why do some people struggle and others look like no effort. We could say this deals with variables such as speed, strength, and level arms etc. I’m saying this to imply that people who do squats are doing so to improve these variables and Hypertrophy is not the main focus. This is only hearsay from bodybuilders who obviously build their muscles by others means not being represented. Also keep in mind, some of biggest legs in bodybuilder were built buy machines and not barbells. Those bodybuilders who did build their legs with squats usually came from a powerlifting or weightlifting background and wasn’t just some average joe trying squats like most newbies are. Hope this clarifies.
Thank you for your awesome response! I don't neccessarily agree with all of it (I do agree with much of it), but I 100% respect your comments :)
love these videos
Great to hear! Thank you for checking them out :)
I wonder what your thoughts are on Reverse bar hack squats.or as some call it reverse deadlift vs these range of motions
As there's no data on it (to my knowledge), I can't be certain. But I think they are very likey great for the quadriceps. Perhaps similarly so to squats, even though you don't typically get full knee flexion in a reverse deadlifts, this might not matter, as the Kubo study indicates 90 degrees of flexion may be sufficient for quad growth, and 90 degrees of knee flexion can be achieved with reverse deadlifts. In so far as glute and adductor growth, I think full squats would probably be better due to the added rom and thus greater stretch.
I hope they compared the rep maxes of the partial reps vs deep reps, I.e. he fact that you can partial squat a good 90 to 180 pounds heavier for the same reps. Hard to think that extra couple hundred pounds wouldn’t get more growth in the area of the partial rep. I’m not advocating partials, just seems unlikely that there wouldn’t be areas in the legs that grow more at the expense of your glutes and adductors.
I believe the studies did use rep maxes :)
Full range of motion in any exercise is almost never a good idea unless you're early 20s or on roids. The joint damage is just not worth it and it's so much easier to keep tension on the muscles throughout the movement with less range of motion.
100% of 45+ bodybuilders agree with me.
Saying it's only a good idea on roids is a pretty braindead take. Steroids are known to cause tendon injuries due to muscles progressing faster than tendons. People who avoid full range of motion entirely are far more likely to experience tendon injuries because they never train their tendons to take heavy loads.
there is no evidence for joint damage! listed in the video
i would like to know if these studies used the same weight for partial squats and full range squats. the whole point of partials is that you can do more reps with more weight.
I been doing partial squats for years, I started doing deep squats the last couple months and my mild lower back pain just vanished after 3 years with it…and I didn’t expect that at all.
146 Kg average 1RM doesn't seem so big of a squat, having said that, I guess that is more a proper squat for an average trained person, and as most times studies were made in untrained individuals, doing it in this way rules out any newbie gains, and also rules out any adaptation that might occur in too experienced individuals. I do like the fact that more studies are being made on trained (or fairly trained) individuals, that gives a better picture overall most times.
If my joint goes that far, i go that far. That's for every exercise i do. I don't understand why you would train anything other than full range of motion.
Squat to parralel on squats then do a quad movement with a deep stretch, train the glutes and hamstrings with romainian deadlifts
What's wrong with squatting deeo?
@@HouseofHypertrophy it depends what you are doing it for, it's not needed for quad development, and if you want to target glutes and hamstrings there is better more direct ways in my opinion
Why do the degrees put "C" after it? After all, we are talking about degrees of angles, not temperature!
Yeah, this was an editing error, haha. I copied over the degree symbol from a prior video that discussed temperatures (a video on cooling your hands between sets), but I forgot to remove to C and just did not notice it :)
During deep squats the pelvic bone rotates if I'm not wrong, as a beginner Is that a mistake I'm doing? Or is this how it was supposed to be?
Have you thought about making a video on forced reps? I realize there is no Direct research on these maybe you can use indirect research like the research on negative reps
Yep, it's difficult as like you've said, there's no direct research. But, at some point, I'll probably assess if any indirect research could combine to help make an interesting video :)
But what if they did partial squats at long muscle lenghts?
I think that's a great question. Given there's no data exploring this at the moment, we cannot say anything for certain. However, extrapolating from other data (specifically data showing that training muscles at longer lengths is typically superior for hypertrophy than shorter lengths), I think they would be as effective (if perhaps not even more so) than full squats for quad, glute, and adductor growth.
As far as strength or athleticism goes, I'm not entierly sure to be honest. Technically, using a partial squat at long lengths would require you to decelerate more than usual as you would not be locking out the knees, this might not be the best for developing explosiveness (and thus jump and sprint speed). Full squats would enable you to accelerate more powerfully for more of the movement. But again, I could be totally wrong.
My couch did that when he did powerlifting in college. He did it to strengthen the bottom part of the motion since the hardest part of squatting is passing the bottom. He also applied the same principle with bench and deadlift.
But i never understood the adductors, are they part of the quads or are they a seperate muscle group? Because i've heared some people call these "inner quads" as if they're part of the quads. Anyway what about slightly lateral raised framers walks? They are tough as fuck, but can they result in some side delt or rear growth? Or at least some front delt growth?
Adductors are not part of the quads. They are more the groin; inner and inner/back part of the thigh. Bodybuilders might call them the inner quads because they can fill out the look of your thigh thickness on stage, in a lot of quad poses. They are not actually part of the quads.
Worth note, the adductor magnus is (sort of) part of the hamstrings. It has two parts and one of then is called the hamstring part, which in addition to performing adduction, also performs hip extension
amazing video
would not the partial squat leading to improvement in jumping and running be because, simply those movements match tha angles of the partial squat? obviously, no one runs in the position of a deep squaf, and neither do elite jumpers drop into a deep spot position to load for verticals, high or long jumps.
my other question is: what about a deep partial? meaning from the bottom up, instead of the top and going partially down? in other videos it is stated that, the affect of a muscle being stretched when under load tends to increase hypertrophy? would not the deep position have the quads stretched? wherever I maybe wrong here, please let me know. just trying to learn and figure things out.
Yep, I agree. Partial range of motion at the top position tend to be more specific to running and jumping. As for deep partials, unfortunatley there's no research looking at this, but I do think they probably would be very good for hypertrophy since the research shows stretch is important for hypertrophy. Hopefully we do get future research looking at this, as I'm very interested to see if deep partials could produce more hypertrophy than a full range of motion
@@HouseofHypertrophy thank you for the response
What about ronnie coleman’s squat
Are you biased towards full ROM ? I ask because there are plenty of studies that contradict this one.
If partial rom is good for squats then it should be good for every muscle and it isn’t well full rom is the whole point it’s basically neglecting part of the muscle but it better it does not make sense
Excellent!!
Thank you! :)
I have really bad knee pain whenni go below 60⁰ and I'm just doing partial squats right now idk what else I can do
Kneesovertoesguy
depends on how long your legs are. half squats for more are more likely because of my long legs, sure i can do full squats but not much weight, even with that, my lower back takes a beating. long leg people tend to have that "butt wink" when going too far down vs shorter leg people, that is where the lower spine gets crunched. i have mri's to prove it. great video. thanks.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Anatomy definitely can play a role in determining how an individual chooses to squat.
Just have to find your range of Motion.
I do partials because I want to be able to walk later on in life.
If your squatting you may as well go all the way down. Is there some reason why people only go down half way? Going half way down is not a squat, it's a sign of weakness.
Brother, it is not that serious 😂
Get a life loser 😂
Squats are easier for shorter people due to the bar path length. Taller people tend to have more issues with squats due to their longer femur bone structure. Shorter femur bones and longer torso have the advantage in squats versus longer femur bones and shorter torso individuals. Taller individuals have to work harder to squat than shorter.
3/5 range of motion would benefit taller squatters. Shorter squatters can go all day on full range.
Front Squats would suit taller individuals better or low bar.
Also the studies are misleading to say the least read them in full and you will see
Partial squats useful for two things. One, if you want to emphasize the guad for the purpose of hypertrophy. But that won't increase your squat because when the guad becomes the prime mover you are beyond the stuck point. And they are good for the deadlift because you can put more weight on your back than if you were doing a real squat. And the transition to the deadline can be further enhanced if you were to use the same foot placement and angle at the knee because you can become stronger at a specific joint angle.
"Lets dive in" broke legs lol
liking the comparison videos.
Haha, thank you !
I DO PARTIAL SQUATS BECAUSE I HAVE BAD KNEES
this is not deep squat
I do a full body workout of usually 4 sets per muscle group. Are there any studies discussing any advantage or disadvantage to breaking up the workout so that I'm not doing all 4 sets in a row and am instead doing one set of each muscle group progressively? I.e. one set of chest and then one set of back.. so on until I've hit four sets of each? Thanks again for your videos I've learned so much since I found your channel
I think that's an exteremly interesting question. There is one study to my knowledge somewhat exploring this (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21659889/) they either had subjects perform normal sets (like 3 sets on the leg curl followed by 3 sets on the bench press, etc.) or had them use a circuit format (where they did one set on a leg curl, rested for 35 seconds and then performed 1 set on the bench press, etc. - with multiple rounds to produce simlar total sets performed for each exercise to the subjects performing normal sets). Ultimately, one-rep max gains on the bench press and half squat were similar between both groups, and increases in lean mass were similar between both groups, suggesting both methods are similarly effective. However, it's worth noting lean mass (measured via dexa) isn't the best measure of muscle growth, so this is a limitation. At some point, perhaps even soon, I'll make a video detailing this study, as I think it's quite interesting :) (there are no other similarly designed studies unfortunately though, at least to my knowledge).
@@HouseofHypertrophy thanks for the reply! I think if there's data supporting it, it would be my go to way to workout at home since I have enough equipment to set up mostly everything to work synchronistically. Although I do suppose this technique would be similar in theory to a super-super-etc. set?
For some reason, your comment was marked as spam. So I'm only seeing it now, but yet, I guess in theory it is similar to a super super etc. set :)
This comment contains nine words consisting of at least three symbols.
Deep squats will ruin your lower back and hips
SQUAT, SQUAT, and SQUAT.........
Algorithm
Thank you :)
Absolutely not
If it's not ATG, it's not a squat. Let's just call parallel squats "Invisible Chair for Grandpa".
Heard something called "butt wink" and not everyone's body is designed for a deep squat, for example I don't feel anything in my legs after doing partial squats, whereas my partner feels pain in his back after he does deep, so he only does parallel squats, which works fine for him, so at the end of the day, it all comes down to your anatomy and whether that particular variation is building your legs or not.
@@ozymandias6644 I'm only commenting on semantics.
Clickbait trash