[tooosh]

Surely the whole point of going deeper is to get a tighter hip angle, which will increase hip ROM, and pc activation. Putting plates under heels or using oly shoes raises the heel and allows you to get deeper, but by raising the ankles and closing the knee angle rather than allowing for a tighter hip angle. So really a squat to full depth with ankle elevation is the same as a squat with none, to less depth.
Am I missing anything? Or is this already well known info.

[HFerguson]

(Original post by tooosh)
Surely the whole point of going deeper is to get a tighter hip angle, which will increase hip ROM, and pc activation. Putting plates under heels or using oly shoes raises the heel and allows you to get deeper, but by raising the ankles and closing the knee angle rather than allowing for a tighter hip angle. So really a squat to full depth with ankle elevation is the same as a squat with none, to less depth.
Am I missing anything? Or is this already well known info.

Heel raise doesn't alter how deep the hip and knee are flexed - a full ATG squat is a full ATG squat. Most people can't balance an ATG squat though because they don't have the ankle mobility to dorsiflex enough - so they fall backwards on their arse. This is where oly shoes or plates come in - this decreases the ankle dorsiflexion angle. If you have a heel lift, close the knee angle but keep the hip angle as it is - you'll fall backwards. It's all about line of gravity.

[The Troll Toll]

(Original post by tooosh)
Surely the whole point of going deeper is to get a tighter hip angle, which will increase hip ROM, and pc activation.

Why do you think this? What do you have against full ROM around the knee joint?

[tooosh]

(Original post by HFerguson)
Heel raise doesn't alter how deep the hip and knee are flexed - a full ATG squat is a full ATG squat. Most people can't balance an ATG squat though because they don't have the ankle mobility to dorsiflex enough - so they fall backwards on their arse. This is where oly shoes or plates come in - this decreases the ankle dorsiflexion angle. If you have a heel lift, close the knee angle but keep the hip angle as it is - you'll fall backwards. It's all about line of gravity.

Hmm interesting. I agree that heel lift helps with balance at the bottom. But surely the heel raise also pushes the knees forward slightly, therefore sitting back less and an increased hip angle?

Should probably get back to revision and stop thinking about stuff that doesn't matter..

(Original post by The Troll Toll)
Why do you think this? What do you have against full ROM around the knee joint?

Not sure why I didn't consider that. I guess if you get more knee ROM and at least the same hip ROM then there's only benefits.

[The Troll Toll]

Why are we making this a competition over who can use the longest anatomy words? Who cares if you squat more knee dominant and less hip dominant?

[HFerguson]

(Original post by tooosh)
Hmm interesting. I agree that heel lift helps with balance at the bottom. But surely the heel raise also pushes the knees forward slightly, therefore sitting back less and an increased hip angle?

Should probably get back to revision and stop thinking about stuff that doesn't matter..

Heel raise shouldn't push your knees forward - there's no reason it should, you can still sit back with lifting shoes, and get a better hip flexion angle. Knees in position to the feet is relative to hip angle and torso uprightness. The more upright the torso is in a backsquat, the more the hip will open and the knees shift forward compensatorily - this is a mistake people make with high bar squats and lifting shoes. You don't want your torso as upright as in a front squat - knees past toes gives me patellar tendon pain anyway, you want SOME torso lean, but keeping that chest up for thoracic and global spinal extension. the more the torso lean, the more closed the hip angle and the more the bum sits back into it

[HFerguson]

(Original post by The Troll Toll)
Why are we making this a competition over who can use the longest anatomy words? Who cares if you squat more knee dominant and less hip dominant?

Exactly, at the end of the day, squat in the style that best suits your biomechanics.

[tooosh]

(Original post by HFerguson)
Heel raise shouldn't push your knees forward - there's no reason it should, you can still sit back with lifting shoes, and get a better hip flexion angle. Knees in position to the feet is relative to hip angle and torso uprightness. The more upright the torso is in a backsquat, the more the hip will open and the knees shift forward compensatorily - this is a mistake people make with high bar squats and lifting shoes. You don't want your torso as upright as in a front squat - knees past toes gives me patellar tendon pain anyway, you want SOME torso lean, but keeping that chest up for thoracic and global spinal extension. the more the torso lean, the more closed the hip angle and the more the bum sits back into it

OK I think I've worked it out, cheers. And I don't care which way I squat to this much detail really, the thought just popped into my head.

[tiny hobbit]

(Original post by tooosh)
Surely the whole point of going deeper is to get a tighter hip angle, which will increase hip ROM, and pc activation. Putting plates under heels or using oly shoes raises the heel and allows you to get deeper, but by raising the ankles and closing the knee angle rather than allowing for a tighter hip angle. So really a squat to full depth with ankle elevation is the same as a squat with none, to less depth.
Am I missing anything? Or is this already well known info.

I think it's about safety. If your heels lift up when you squat, you are not in balance and may fall over. If plates under your heels prevent this, they are a good thing.

[SEHughes]

(Original post by tooosh)
.

A raised heel? Cheating? Tell it to Pyrros Dimas.

[The Troll Toll]

(Original post by SEHughes)
A raised heel? Cheating? Tell it to Pyrros Dimas.

Drugs are cheating and I'd tell that to Pyrros Dimas.

[SEHughes]

[NB_ide]

rofl, who gives a ****? None of you will ever have a squat that raises eyebrows in a small university gym so why do you care about "cheating"? Afraid people will say that gut-busting 120 x 3 wasn't strictly legit?

Just lift however feels fun and comfortable.

[tooosh]

(Original post by NB_ide)
rofl, who gives a ****? None of you will ever have a squat that raises eyebrows in a small university gym so why do you care about "cheating"? Afraid people will say that gut-busting 120 x 3 wasn't strictly legit?

Just lift however feels fun and comfortable.

Well I don't know about your uni gym but at mine, everyone except around 10 regulars are scared of depth and anything over 90kg.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by tooosh)
Well I don't know about your uni gym but at mine, everyone except around 10 regulars are scared of depth and anything over 90kg.

****, son - u gon' be such a hero when you squat 95 @ competition depth.

[Illidan_Stormrage]

It actually takes very little to impress people at a uni gym when it comes to squats.

[tooosh]

(Original post by NB_ide)
****, son - u gon' be such a hero when you squat 95 @ competition depth.

Well considering uni gyms are mostly cardio girls and curlbros, and people who train seriously are in the minority...

[SEHughes]

(Original post by alex_tait)
It actually takes very little to impress people at a uni gym when it comes to squats.

True that.

[almosttrue]

I do it so that my feet point forward, if I dont have anything under my heels my toes point out (if i try and point them straight my knees point inwards) which im assuming is not good posture.

[SEHughes]

(Original post by almosttrue)
I do it so that my feet point forward, if I dont have anything under my heels my toes point out (if i try and point them straight my knees point inwards) which im assuming is not good posture.

Your toes will be turned out slightly, say 15-30 degrees. This is normal.