In the article "Keys to Jonathan Edwards's Success," the author mentions that Edwards peaked at 235kg for the half squat before discarding the exercise in 1994. Can anyone confirm what "half" means in this case? I'm having a hard time believing that he could do 517lbs for the parallel squat.
Ummm... JE is a dope user.
Half squat means 90 degrees at the knee.
Full squat is 'thighs parallel' and much deeper.
World record for a FULL squat, which is maybe one third (?) harder, in the under-74kg class, is 365kg.
National standard middle distance runners can often squat/deadlift twice bodyweight. I know a 50-year-old sprinter who is quite skinny and can deadlift 2.5x bodyweight. World class sprinters/jumpers can do 3x, which is about where Jonathan Edwards is.
The ability to jump further than almost anyone in the world would be expected to go along with very high strength levels.
So, given that he triple-jumped further than anyone in the world, this squat is not surprising.
Thanks - that's enough confirmation for me. Even though I've been squatting for 15 years, it never dawned on me that knee flexion for a femur-parallel squat is about 110 degrees. Talk about dense.
eurodonkey wrote:
Half squat means 90 degrees at the knee.
Full squat is 'thighs parallel' and much deeper.
World record for a FULL squat, which is maybe one third (?) harder, in the under-74kg class, is 365kg.
National standard middle distance runners can often squat/deadlift twice bodyweight. I know a 50-year-old sprinter who is quite skinny and can deadlift 2.5x bodyweight. World class sprinters/jumpers can do 3x, which is about where Jonathan Edwards is.
The ability to jump further than almost anyone in the world would be expected to go along with very high strength levels.
So, given that he triple-jumped further than anyone in the world, this squat is not surprising.
It's totally believable for a 90-degree squat.
I still do over 400 for parallel squats at 180-185 body weight.
And 90-degree squats are WAY easier than parallel squats for most people, but that depends on individual physiology.
What I'm curious about is why he discarded the exercise--for me, I definitely notice the difference in the first 5 steps of the sprints.
Now, I don't know if it's a positive difference, but I DO notice a difference!! It just feels better, more positive, more controlled, like the envelope is greater.
Sprintgeezer, why do sprinters specifically do half squats and not deeper ones?
Most strength coaches seem to argue that fuller+deeper is better for your joints and stability, and puts less stress on your back as you don't need such a heavy weight. And of course Mike Boyle and the functional folks argue that split-leg (Bulgarian) squats are more running-like and let you load the legs even harder while sparing the back.
I, too, wonder why he gave up the exercise, and what he put in its place.
Non sequitur:
Edwards produced one of the best quotes of recent years: "Just because something is unpalatable does not mean that it is not true."
kanny wrote:
In the article "Keys to Jonathan Edwards's Success," the author mentions that Edwards peaked at 235kg for the half squat before discarding the exercise in 1994. Can anyone confirm what "half" means in this case? I'm having a hard time believing that he could do 517lbs for the parallel squat.
That's no surprise at all to me. I did 35 half squats with 170 kg and I could have done quite a few more. I'm not fast. Jonathan Edwards has run 10.4 for 100m much much quicker than me.
he used to bench 250/260 !!!
I have poor flexibility and I'd fall backwards before my thighs were parallel with the ground :/
eurodonkey--
The ultimate answer to your question is from the realm of psychology rather than physiology.
Sprinters aren't primarily runners--they are strength/power athletes first, runners second. As such, they like to think of themselves as unbelievably explosive and strong. A person can do vastly greater weight for half squats than for full squats, which is often much better for the ego--and sprinters are ALL about ego!
The other answer is that strength training is different from sprint training. Many serious strength athletes use wraps when training heavy. Full squats are much tougher on your joints than half squats, and wraps are used to aid stability and prevent injury--and they work well, if used properly.
Using them properly is a real pain in the butt, and is only worthwhile if you have somebody else who can wrap you up. You are then restricted from doing other things while the wraps are on, and taking them off and re-wrapping constantly is a big pain.
So you won't typically see sprinters using wraps, for example, when squatting. Without wraps, full or parallel squats are more likely to injure the athlete than are half-squats.
There is also the argument that half-squats more accurately reflect the range of force production in running. While that may be true, parallel squats develop hip stability much more than do half-squats, and that hip stability is very important in sprinting, especially in the first half of the race.
"Stress" on the back is a funny thing--you WANT to stress the back to a certain extent, so that your body can adapt and get stronger. For some, the back is the limiting factor when starting out squatting. Regardless of whether one does half or parallel squats, the loading on the back should be carefully considered--however, it is most often related to squatting form rather than to the weight used (although these can be conflated--that is, a lot of weight can be squatted, but after a certain point form will be adversely affected, meaning that there is an increased chance for injury even though the squat can be completed).
Split-leg squats are OK, but IMHO emphasize the negative over the positive. Step-ups onto a box or bench are better, and can use a barbell to good effect. Failure at split-leg squats can be horrible, but failure at loaded step-ups is much more forgiving--you just won't be able to complete the rep. Loaded step-ups are totally under-rated for sprinting, IMHO. I myself don't do them enough, and do parallel squats instead. There's just something more impressive to sprinters about putting lots of weight on the bar, picking it up on your back, and watching the Olympic bar flex. Again, that sort of thing is more about ego and strength than sprinting, but it is the reality for many.
One final thing about squats--there is a HUGE difference between FULL squats and PARALLEL squats. Full squats are analogous to what you see an olympic weightlifter do in the clean-and-jerk--your butt down near your heels, for instance. I have done them in training just to see what would happen, and after a couple of cycles, I could actually feel my joints degrading, I swear! Of course, I don't use wraps. Think of the mechanics of the knee joint, and you will understand why even parallel squats are infinitely easier on your body than full squats.
The upshot is that, when it comes to squats, Olympic lifters are animals, whereas sprinters are mostly narcissists who are trying to seem really strong while avoiding injury (me!).
Sprintgeezer, thanks very much for this! Fascinating. We need you on the other strength thread that kicked off yesterday with my name in it, BTW...
If we distance types are in the gym, we tend to make sure NOBODY is looking before we lift, so there are less ego issues ;-)
I agree with you on step-ups. The main issue is to eliminate pushoff with the back leg.
The points about failing with split-leg stuff (esp. Bulgarians) go away if you are sufficiently puny that you can load up to your limit with two dumbells or kettlebells. Same with step-ups. This also gives you some of the upper body benefits of loaded carries. 2x20kg is plenty for me this month, and I could get up to 2x40kg in my gym. Mike Boyle conditions linebackers, and he uses some brand of weighted vest that lets you add another 40kg once his two big kettlebells aren't tiring you enough. He doesn't let any of his athletes put barbells on their backs.
A lot of track and field strength coaches seem to think the same way: front squats, deadlifts, but no bars on your back.
..
J.O. you did 35 parallel squats with 170KG in the past?
Sounds like something a man with a vivid imagination would say.
Bob Wildes wrote:
J.O. you did 35 parallel squats with 170KG in the past?
No, he said he did 35 half squats. Not sure if that was one set though ;-)
The vest is a good idea if you're dead-set on split squats, but I fail to see the advantage over loaded step-ups. Also, the vest that I tried really affected my breathing adversely.
The thing about the bar on your front or back...the squat is a huge movement, and involves a wide range of muscle groups. Let's say you do a parallel squat with a particular form, and increase the weights up to the point where your form changes--you have now identified the weak link related to the particular form you are using, based on how that form has changed.
Everybody is different in their areas of relative strength, and in the particular range of muscle contraction/joint angle at which they exhibit the most strength. For me personally, the quads are the weak spot, and in my experience, front squats tend to load the quads more. My back, hips, and butt are WAY strong compared to my quads, and I have no problems at all putting weights onto my back--I don't actually want to develop any more quad strength than I already have, I'd rather have it in my core than in my inferior heads--but for many people it is the back that is the weak link, and putting weights on your back, and as a result arching your back (which often results), can load the back tremendously.
I argue that you should have a proportionally stronger back, because your back is used no matter what you are doing, whereas your quads are less important. As an example, I do huge parallel squads, deadlifts, and leg presses, and have never, ever had a back problem, and I'm just about 45 yrs old. Much of that is luck, but if my back were my weak link, I think that I would work it preferentially, unless it was somehow injury-prone.
Front squats are favored by the olympic lifters I know, as they are a much better simulation of the olympic lifts, and because avoiding injury after failure is supposedly easier. The following is one of my favorite youtube vids ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkSN3f-a3Ok
OK, he was on roids, but so what, they all are. He does front squats a bit more than parallel, maybe full given the size of his musculature impinging on his range of motion. Absolutely incredible. FRONT squats, no wraps, with plenty of power to spare. Absolutely incredible.
Another thing some people try to do is jump-squats--basically double-legged jumping in place, loaded with weights. I have done them, and they are interesting. I did half-squats with one plate (135), and jumped in the air as high as I could, exerting as much force as reasonably possible throughout the ground contact time, for a bunch of reps. The tricky thing is the landing part, and I'm not sure what benefit jump-squats give you over simple double-legged jumping, both vertical and for distance, and box-jumping.
David Hemery liked to do 3 sets of 10 step ups on an 18 inch
high bench with a bar on his shoulders equal to his bodyweight which was at least as much as 171 pounds at times.
Later when he was training for the decathlon he did half squats with as much as three times his bodyweight. I don't know if his idea of a half squat is a parallel squat or what most people would call a quarter squat ( half way between parallel and the standing position.
David Hemery liked to do 3 sets of 10 step ups on an 18 inch
high bench with a bar on his shoulders equal to his bodyweight which was at least as much as 171 pounds at times.
Later when he was training for the decathlon he did half squats with as much as three times his bodyweight. I don't know if his idea of a half squat is a parallel squat or what most people would call a quarter squat ( half way between parallel and the standing position.
Johnathan is a suspected dope head.
Last month I was talking to an sports science researcher and he told me something interesting about jump squats.
Apparently someone did a study a long time back - 1930s or so - comparing strength and power, and they picked 'jump squats' as something easy to measure. Set the pins so you can go down to 90 degrees at the knee, set a light weight - say 20-30% of your squat max at that range - and measure the time/speed, and you can calculate power. Since that time, they have been enshrined as something you do in sports science departments and studies: half squats = max strength training, jump squats = power training. He said he didn't know anyone who did them in real life, but that you should expect them to pop up in academic studies (especially people like Bompa) when power is discussed.
I'm with you on just jumping. We used to do that stuff (bunny hops etc) in the mud on sunday mornings between endurance reps, either on the flat or up a 1-in-3 short grass bank. There was a little guy there named Seb, who pops up on the TV a lot organising next year's shindig. His bunny hops were just spectacular to behold...
Nothing like PEDs of course.