Відео

brother, what are you even yapping about. He's talking about the teardrop muscles that surround the top of the knee, which have been proven to grow larger and stronger when exposed to full depth squats or quad extensions that utilise the most stretch for the muscle. Also, most people who squat to parallel heavily rely on glutes, hips, and low back, making it even more inefficient for building the muscles that surround the knee. As someone who used to squat to parallel but now squat full depth, my quads have doubled in size, and I've developed more muscle around the knee, muscles that I've never even seen on my body before. For reference, I parallel squatted for 3 or 4 years and have so far full squatted for not even 2 years yet. Also, brother, you said muscles in the knee, which, if you're referring to the knee tendon, then sure both put load into the knee tendon, which helps develop tendon strength but that's not what this guy is referring to.

@@gm1799 @gm1799 you mean the VMO? Mate. What you just stated is exactly what I am talking about. I am an exercise physiologist. I am aware of the benefits of a deep squat vs squatting not to full depth. People do use their back muscles and glutes in a squat but, again that is irrelevant to the point of the video and also impossible to avoid as the squat is a compound movement using several muscle groups. The difference shown in this video the difference is the depth. The issue I took was to his statement that '"if you don't squat to full depth you do not develop the muscles around the knee." This is a blatantly false statement and causes increased elitism in the fitness space. Yes there are more benefits in squat to depth in but, a squat of any depth will still induce muscle growth. As for your statement that the VMO the "teardrop" muscle you are referring too. Some evidence including your own does suggest it will grow bigger and get stronger if you can access a deeper range of motion. however, that is not my argument and I would like to see the evidence you are referring to in regard to a study on 90 vs 90 degrees + in relation to VMO development as to my knowledge that is definitely not a proven fact. I am simply stating that there are still benefits and a persons leg muscles will grow no matter the squat depth this is including the VMO. In summary: yes full depth is good but, any depth is also good. There is more than one way to exercise and people that are physiologically unable to access a range of motion need to know squatting to any depth will develop all of your knee extensors including the VMO. Here is one source on muscle activation I can find more if you would like. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4967668/

@@jimmydevron5480 If I train most people, then the end goal is full depth squat. If they can't get full depth squat, then I need to train them in whatever angle they can reach. The issue is that for more efficiency in building the muscle, then more range of motion is needed. The full squat is better for this and more bang for your buck than having to do a squat to a 90 and then have to add exercises to help build muscle through stretched position. If training an athlete, then I would likely apply 90 or less squat angle dependant on the sport as I know that I can train their stretch through single leg exercises, which offer benefits to balance and stability. It is all subjective in practice, but for most normal people, we should promote full range squats and control over that range. In older clients, I'd likely attempt to get them good at goblet squats to a box at full depth while also adding full range leg press if the goal is to get healthier and build muscle. In relation to developing muscle, doing full range squats is much superior even just factoring for time under tension, then likely I will add rdl or deadlifts to develop the backside muscles. The full range squat literally develops more strength, stability, balance, control, and muscle than a 90-degree squat, but I will say that it has its time and place. This guys channel is for crossfit anyway, so full range squat supports the sport and supports the olympic lifts in the sport better than a shorter range squat and is technically safer squat for the sport as it develops the mobility needed.

@@jimmydevron5480 Also, muscle activation doesn't mean much to me for muscle building. Technically, at the top of a bench Press, the bottom of the bench Press, and if I paused at the middle of the bench Press, then the same muscles are being activated the whole way through. This is cool for strength, but the main growth of the muscles activated are where the stretch is, which will be with the bar resting against the chest and the muscles in their stretched position. Sure, you can build strength doing stuff like Pin Press, where you don't go to the bottom and get stronger in the press out, but we can both probably agree that you won't build as much muscle doing that as doing full range of motion. It is the same with squat.

@@jimmydevron5480 I will still like your comments as I see you are actually trying to make a fair argument, and I agree that smaller range squats are getting a bad reputation considering their benefits to building strength, but I must differ with you in the effects on muscle growth. I used to probably agree with you until I did full range squats myself and realised what I've been missing out on in terms of muscle growth.

What shoes are you wearing?