"The Butt Wink has 3 advantages: Increased recruitment of the Vastus Medialis Dynamic contraction of the lumbar Erector Spinae Reduced compression of the lumbar spine http://www.strengthsensei.com/the-butt-wink-has-its-advantages/
I don't see how #3 is a benefit? The lumbar spine is designed to withstand compression force. It's shearing force that is the issue, which I would argue is increased with a butt wink. I also don't really see the benefit of dynamically contracting the erector spinae during a squat. Finally, a source on increased VMO activation with a butt wink would be nice. It seems he's basing that off the increased knee flexion angle, but that has nothing to do with the butt wink itself it's just that those individuals are unable to achieve that degree of knee flexion without butt winking during the squat. I don't think the butt wink is all that harmful as long as it's not severe, but I don't really see how any of these things listed are true advantages. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can come along and explain it better.
Some individuals are able to withstand, and adapt to, some degree of loaded spinal flexion (However, if the spine is flexed under load, it'd ideally be held in that position. Least ideal would be quickly moving into and out of flexion under load). So for some people a small amount posterior tilt of the pelvis while squatting deep may not be something to worry about. However, the only way of knowing whether this applies to a particular individual is to do it long enough, and see if something starts hurting. I've seen seen studies that either show the Vastus Medialis Oblique (VMO) is either similarly active regardless of squat depth, or most active near full extension of the knee (Hence the TKE exercise being used to specifically target the VMO), but never that recruitment increases with depth. So I think the claim that a deeper squat trains the VMO better needs some sort of evidence or explanation.
Increased recruitment of the Vastus Medialis my ass. If you're squatting regularly your VM is receiving more than enough training stimuli. If I allow any degree, no matter how small, of butt wink when I'm squatting, my lower-back is seriously fucked for days to come. That is proof enough for me.
Tosa, i'm unsure of what your professional background is but you have a sound mind for anatomy/phys and function/dysfunction. I'm pretty much in full agreement with you. I think its possible they didn't explain the depth portion properly. At least, i hope so. VMO, VL, VI are best targeted with a flexed hip position to take a fair amount of the strength out of rectus femoris (in rehab we will have people perform TKE/knee extensions with a slightly flexed hip to accommodate this focus). It's possible that by increasing depth of a squat, hip angle changes and forces more recruitment. If they are basing this off knee angle, they would be incorrect. Much like miaou said, it's likely getting enough from squats and other quad dominant exercises. Side note: patellar tracking syndrome, focusing on VMO firing is moot. Just get the muscle strong. Butt wink doesn't bother me so long as it's minor. But from a lot of the things i've seen on butt wink its anthropometrics of the individual.
That's very interesting about a flexed hip position being used to reduce the contribution of the rectus femoris to knee extension. It's never something I really thought about, but it makes complete sense.
I actually learned it from a bodybuilder before therapists taught me it in workplace and classroom. Great for rehab or body building, not sure how much a strength athlete would make use of it since generally, their quads are strong all around and don't need to look pretty.
Tosa, depending on how one of my classes goes and the book involved, i may recommend it to you if i feel it would be of use.
Functional anatomy. It basically entails how to utilize the body in manners similar to the ways above, or avoid certain movements while still being able to use certain muscles to exercise them.
"Functional" can be a perfectly good word with serious application- basically, analyzing what something is in terms of what it is for. It's only in the realm of uninformed or semi-informed S&C approaches and theories where it is really worth disliking.
To be specific, I mostly don't like how in the context of S&C, I have to ask what someone means by "functional", because there are multiple definitions floating around. That people - usually using something like "the functional training means training for everyday life" definition - turn it into hoodoo voodoo, is mostly beside the point. For example, I don't mind the word plyometrics, even though most people do it wrong, and most articles on it are utterly terrible.
