Squat depth

I just finished reading this article:

TESTOSTERONE NATION - Leg Training Myths Exposed

Comments anyone.

[F_Mac]

Just finished reading it.............from my experiences I would have to agree with what has been said. Squatting to full depth is actually way easier on my knees than going to parallel.

[maverick]

Ditto, I haven't squatted any other way than a2g in over half a year. The article just re-affirms everything i already believed. I'm a big fan of Alwyn Cosgrove... very simple and extermely solid info.

[.V.]

Great article. And yeah I'm still convinced that squatting to full depth even with light weights is better than any half squat thing we may choose instead.

Sure, there may be some reason for some to do paralell..for example a powerlifter at a comp. But for most of us...most of the time...do the numbers in our gym really matter as much as results. And by results I do mean getting truly stronger with full ROM, getting bigger, and improving flexability.

[maverick]

Plus, there are those of use who enjoy fullbody workouts and like to do it with just a few heavy hitters. Not like an HST workout, more like a 5x5. I know I for one feel like if I do a few sets of heavy, deep squats, that's all my legs need. My quads, hams, hips, and glutes all get lit up. I don't get the same effect out of parallel squats.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by .V.

Great article. And yeah I'm still convinced that squatting to full depth even with light weights is better than any half squat thing we may choose instead.

I just wanted to post an agreement to your assessment and support your thoughts. I feel much safer actually doing a full range than a hack, and perhaps because I'm short and have very flexible ankles, I have no problem hunkering down very low like that.

Given your height, too, it's nice to see you've found a way to do full range. I know the taller you are, the tougher it generally gets.