File :-(, x, )
Squatz Anonymous
So I got in a huge shitstorm today with a couple people in one of my classes when I was talking about squats. I maintained that the full squat, with hamstrings touching calves, is best and is not dangerous; they all said that going any further than parallel could lead to hip or knee injury. Everything I've read leads me to believe I'm right, however, they were all athletes and I'm just starting lifting weights and am a bit of a nerd. What's right, /fit/?
>> Anonymous
Dr. Anonymous and everything I've ever read says going past parallel is perfectly safe and is in fact safer than not.
>> Anonymous
Kill them.
>> Anonymous
Full squats are better for the knees than half squats. Even then you need to do them very slow and maintain a perfect form.
>> CrossFitter !!B/qKSvIDE0V
>>70796
It's dangerous if you let your low back round (a hamstring flexibility issue). As long as you keep your lumbar arch, your doing ace.

Read the squat chapter of Starting Strength for some good info.
>> Anonymous
My reading indicates that a full squat is ok, but if you relax your muscles when you reach your calves it's bad for the knees (ie simply resting/sitting on your calves). If you keep your quads and hipflexor tight through the whole movement then going past parallel is ok.
>> Anonymous
The knees are weakest at 90°, that's why one should go below that.
While going low, you stretch your glutes and adductores like a spring, which takes stress from the knees.
When you stop at 90° you'll need to work with your knees to get up. Shitsux.
So, work with your ass.
>> Anonymous
those people are fucking idiots and learnt everything they know from weightlifting for dummies. kill them.

>>71150
yeah, it's one position when the shearing force will be at it's maximum. monkeys, all of them.