Squats: Are they REALLY necessary?

[JRT6]

Here's one opinion among the growing numbers that say pure endurance doesn't mean jack shit in real life military:

http://www.havokjournal.com/fitness/military-and-special-operations-fitness/

 

[Daccias]

Well, how can anyone possible argue with evidence-based research like yours? You should probably get this sort of thing peer-reviewed. Or maybe learn why athletes are not always the best people to ask about training and training science.

Oh for shit's sake. This is the reason why I hardly hang out here anymore. You guys love to over-complicate a simple approach. If you want to workout, go workoutout. It's not the complicated workouts which give you the best results. The most basic routine can give you amazing results if you are consistent and work hard. Fuck the sceince, fuck the text books and studies. Talk to the people who are out there doing it, not writing about it. I have. Getting in shape for the fight game is nothing complicated. It's not hard to figure it out. The fundamental exercises we all know about will get the job done. Do you need to lift wieghts ? If you want. But is heay weights essential for a fighter ? No way. If you don't have access to it it's no problem. Hill sprints did more for me than any gym routine.

 

[nonsense1989]

Oh for shit's sake. This is the reason why I hardly hang out here anymore. You guys love to over-complicate a simple approach. If you want to workout, go workoutout. It's not the complicated workouts which give you the best results. The most basic routine can give you amazing results if you are consistent and work hard. Fuck the sceince, fuck the text books and studies. Talk to the people who are out there doing it, not writing about it. I have. Getting in shape for the fight game is nothing complicated. It's not hard to figure it out. The fundamental exercises we all know about will get the job done. Do you need to lift wieghts ? If you want. But is heay weights essential for a fighter ? No way. If you don't have access to it it's no problem. Hill sprints did more for me than any gym routine.

Who , in here has ever, ever, ever suggested that if fighters don't squat, they would get pwn'ed? For all your shit talk, you'd better be some hard ass D1 wrestler, or have at least a few amateur boxing/kickboxing fights.
Otherwise you being here is just as comical as you calling us keyboard warriors. Don't wanna hang out here? sure, you won't be missed

 

[JRT6]

Somewhere around here I mentioned the massive and long regression I took in trying adapt a wide stance squat and Eric suggested just going back to close.

Today I did the close stance for my main lift and then wide squat off a 16" box where I just break parallel but is much easier on my hips. This is likely to be the setup I stick to in my quest to have a new PR after eight years.

I've settled on just doing between 12 and 14" apart and just doing that.

 

[ballhawkdawk]

Oh for shit's sake. This is the reason why I hardly hang out here anymore. You guys love to over-complicate a simple approach. If you want to workout, go workoutout. It's not the complicated workouts which give you the best results. The most basic routine can give you amazing results if you are consistent and work hard. Fuck the sceince, fuck the text books and studies. Talk to the people who are out there doing it, not writing about it. I have. Getting in shape for the fight game is nothing complicated. It's not hard to figure it out. The fundamental exercises we all know about will get the job done. Do you need to lift wieghts ? If you want. But is heay weights essential for a fighter ? No way. If you don't have access to it it's no problem. Hill sprints did more for me than any gym routine.

I once lost 40 lbs. I used a mix of common sense, actual useful diet information, and a bunch of shit that I now realize was horseshit. The trick is that I was dedicated about it and stuck to the plan. With enough drive, anything is attainable. You can be an elite fighter while training less than optimally if you just try hard enough, just like you can lose weight or get strong without things being ideal. It's stupid to not optimize your time if you actually know better, though. If you're an athlete, and spending time in the gym lifting shit is part of what you do to get better at your sport, then the barbell squat is king. Had in been in the position to lose 40 lbs with the knowledge I have now, I'd take a different approach.

The thing about people "out there doing it" is that they also write about it. There are numerous articles written by elite athletes.

Hill sprints may have done more for you than any gym routine, but judging by your tone and disdain for a barbell, you probably had a shitty "gym routine."

 

[Daccias]

I once lost 40 lbs. I used a mix of common sense, actual useful diet information, and a bunch of shit that I now realize was horseshit. The trick is that I was dedicated about it and stuck to the plan. With enough drive, anything is attainable. You can be an elite fighter while training less than optimally if you just try hard enough, just like you can lose weight or get strong without things being ideal. It's stupid to not optimize your time if you actually know better, though. If you're an athlete, and spending time in the gym lifting shit is part of what you do to get better at your sport, then the barbell squat is king. Had in been in the position to lose 40 lbs with the knowledge I have now, I'd take a different approach.

The thing about people "out there doing it" is that they also write about it. There are numerous articles written by elite athletes.

Hill sprints may have done more for you than any gym routine, but judging by your tone and disdain for a barbell, you probably had a shitty "gym routine."

This is the Strength and Conditioning forum. Conditioning as in fitness for the fight game. The original poster stressed he was involeved in the sport of boxing and interested in MMA. His question was are barbell squats essential. My standpoint is no way. They are not essential. If you want to lift weights, fine. My arguement is it is no way essential.

Running and bodyweight exercises have been the staple of a fighters routine for along time. Many generations in fact. Just take a look at Tysons routine. There are many links of them on Google. Outside the gym, he ran. He ran his miles. Inside, he did his sparring, his pad work and of coarse, his floor exercises. I read he did something like 2000 situps and 500 pushups every evening. Amazing stuff. Yet, this is not suprising. His trainer Cuz D'Amato was certainly old-school. Bodyweight drills such as these will certainly give you the ability to fight hard for extended periods of time. As someone training for a fighting art, it is what you need.

 

[Ethan]

Here's the issue with what you're saying.

The stance of those of us who are pro-barbell training is that barbell training is the best and fastest way to increase limit strength and other related qualities and that these qualities being increased is beneficial to the athlete. How this works is explained clearly in the FAQ.

Your stance, although the opinion itself is valid, is backed up using Mike Tyson who is/was a genetic freak and who boxed decades ago. You're not offering any science or anything concrete to show how push ups and sit-ups are better than a properly laid out barbell program.

 

[Eric Brown]

This is the Strength and Conditioning forum. Conditioning as in fitness for the fight game. The original poster stressed he was involeved in the sport of boxing and interested in MMA. His question was are barbell squats essential. My standpoint is no way. They are not essential. If you want to lift weights, fine. My arguement is it is no way essential.

Running and bodyweight exercises have been the staple of a fighters routine for along time. Many generations in fact. Just take a look at Tysons routine. There are many links of them on Google. Outside the gym, he ran. He ran his miles. Inside, he did his sparring, his pad work and of coarse, his floor exercises. I read he did something like 2000 situps and 500 pushups every evening. Amazing stuff. Yet, this is not suprising. His trainer Cuz D'Amato was certainly old-school. Bodyweight drills such as these will certainly give you the ability to fight hard for extended periods of time. As someone training for a fighting art, it is what you need.

Lifting as conditioning has been a staple for a long time too. See, oh, I don't know, ancient Greece.

Never mind, not going to bother, not worth the headache of pointing out to someone else that just because something has been done a certain way for a while that a better one will never come along.

 

[Yecny]

Lifting as conditioning has been a staple for a long time too. See, oh, I don't know, ancient Greece.

Never mind, not going to bother, not worth the headache of pointing out to someone else that just because something has been done a certain way for a while that a better one will never come along.

This reminds me of all the arguments about different eras of sports and which generational talent is the best. While there are always genetic outliers in every generation and people always cite long standing records and such, they fail to acknowledge that the overall athleticism of the entire leagues are much better. And this is due to better training programs. Sure mike tysons training program worked great for him, but if you put 1000 other random people on the same program chances are not a single one of them even reaches 75% of his athleticism.

 

[Daccias]

Here's the issue with what you're saying.

The stance of those of us who are pro-barbell training is that barbell training is the best and fastest way to increase limit strength and other related qualities and that these qualities being increased is beneficial to the athlete. How this works is explained clearly in the FAQ.

Your stance, although the opinion itself is valid, is backed up using Mike Tyson who is/was a genetic freak and who boxed decades ago. You're not offering any science or anything concrete to show how push ups and sit-ups are better than a properly laid out barbell program.

People are very quick to emphasize genetics. Mike Tyson did come from good stock but genetics or no, he was a product of his training routine. Do a Google search on Tysons routine. It is incredible. Outside the gym he ran. Inside he did tons of pad work and sparring. What interested me is that most of his strength training took the form of bodyweight exercises rather than weights. 500 press ups plus 2000 situps a day ? That is impressive. I think with enough hard work and consistancy similar approach would deliver outstanding results. It was not just Mr Tyson though. If you view other great fighters they too use a similar training format.

I was answering the question within the context of the original poster. He stated he had an interest in boxing and martial arts. Especailly Mixed Martial Arts. His question is are Squats essential. My argument is no. Useful ? Yes but far from essential. Lifting heavy weights does increase strength. But it's a type of strength that fades quickly after several rounds of fast-paced fighting. Cardio vascular fitness is a fighters prime source of strength. The second you get puffed and winded, you are dead. It does not matter how much you can lift on a barbell, the second you run out of breath you are finished. This is why I have a preference bodyweight exercises done in high numbers. Yes, I reccommend pushups and situps but I use other bodyweight exercises too. The are many combinations that can be used. I can elaborate further depending on how much more you wish to read.

 

[Ethan]

It's still anecdotal and doesn't really offer any information. Telling me what Mike Tyson does is useless.

 

[Eric Brown]

It's still anecdotal and doesn't really offer any information. Telling me what Mike Tyson does is useless.

So is arguing with people like that.

 

[SexyMahnaz]

It's still anecdotal and doesn't really offer any information. Telling me what Mike Tyson does is useless.

If we frame the question with MMA in mind everything in this thread has been anecdotes/extrapolations, but especially the latter.

Where are the studies showing that the fighter who squats is objectively better than the one who doesn't? There aren't any. It'd be a bitch to study. So we're left with a bunch of thought experiments re: how ability in one area might transfer to ability in another area.

 

[LZD]

People are very quick to emphasize genetics. Mike Tyson did come from good stock but genetics or no, he was a product of his training routine. Do a Google search on Tysons routine. It is incredible. Outside the gym he ran. Inside he did tons of pad work and sparring. What interested me is that most of his strength training took the form of bodyweight exercises rather than weights. 500 press ups plus 2000 situps a day ? That is impressive. I think with enough hard work and consistancy similar approach would deliver outstanding results. It was not just Mr Tyson though. If you view other great fighters they too use a similar training format.

I was answering the question within the context of the original poster. He stated he had an interest in boxing and martial arts. Especailly Mixed Martial Arts. His question is are Squats essential. My argument is no. Useful ? Yes but far from essential. Lifting heavy weights does increase strength. But it's a type of strength that fades quickly after several rounds of fast-paced fighting. Cardio vascular fitness is a fighters prime source of strength. The second you get puffed and winded, you are dead. It does not matter how much you can lift on a barbell, the second you run out of breath you are finished. This is why I have a preference bodyweight exercises done in high numbers. Yes, I reccommend pushups and situps but I use other bodyweight exercises too. The are many combinations that can be used. I can elaborate further depending on how much more you wish to read.

Pushups and situps alone are a terrible way of developing maximal strength.
Alone, they are also a terrible way of developing cardio-vascular endurance.

Whilst I agree with you that there are more important things than maximal strength for a fighter, adhering to a bunch of old boxing propaganda is not the way to go about training. Boxers have always bragged about how many push-ups they do a day because it is something that strikes a chord with everyday vernacular. People know what pushups are.

Check any Tyson training highlight. He is constantly using a barbell. And he had beast numbers in the gym. Is that why he was great? No.

If you want to train a fighter, you need to understand the needs of a fighter, and order them in a hierarchy of sorts.

It might look like this just as an example:

1. Skills.
2. Endurance (many types, aerobic, anaerobic, explosive, repeat explosive etc)
3. Maximum strength



Just because maximum strength comes in as a lower priority than endurance, it doesn't mean that you go about training it with endurance methods. Rofl. That is just inefficient and highly stupid.

You go about training maximum strength in the most efficient way, given the time constraints imposed by the other facets of athleticism you need to train. Any top fighter today trains this way (boxing, kickboxing, MMA, they all lift heavy at some times throughout the year/training camp)

 

[Tosa]

If we frame the question with MMA in mind everything in this thread has been anecdotes/extrapolations, but especially the latter.

Where are the studies showing that the fighter who squats is objectively better than the one who doesn't? There aren't any. It'd be a bitch to study. So we're left with a bunch of thought experiments re: how ability in one area might transfer to ability in another area.

Anecdotes and extrapolation based on logic and science are two entirely different things, shouldn't be lumped together with a slash.

Just because you don't have a study for the exact thing you're concerned with doesn't mean you throw science out the window. Or that a training anecdote, that may or may not be true about how one specific fighter trained, should be mentioned in the same breath as a logical extrapolation of the science.

To give a single example - is there a study concerning strength training reducing the risk of injury in MMA? I don't know, maybe. But I do know that there are a great many studies that show strength training reducing the risk of injury in a great many other sports, including some of the same sorts of injuries that occur in MMA, so it's a very reasonable extrapolation that proper strength training reduces risk of injury in MMA.

Anecdotes, on the other hand, play into an individual's desire for a personal narrative, rather than facts and figures. The human mind has a much more natural grasp of things involving people than it does numbers, graphs, or statistics. So a story of Mike Tyson supposedly spending half an hour doing sit-ups connects with people in a way that exercise physiology and kinesiology explaining why half an hour of sit-ups probably isn't a great way to train doesn't.

 

[SexyMahnaz]

Anecdotes and extrapolation based on logic and science are two entirely different things, shouldn't be lumped together with a slash.

Just because you don't have a study for the exact thing you're concerned with doesn't mean you throw science out the window. Or that a training anecdote, that may or may not be true about how one specific fighter trained, should be mentioned in the same breath as a logical extrapolation of the science.

To give a single example - is there a study concerning strength training reducing the risk of injury in MMA? I don't know, maybe. But I do know that there are a great many studies that show strength training reducing the risk of injury in a great many other sports, including some of the same sorts of injuries that occur in MMA, so it's a very reasonable extrapolation that proper strength training reduces risk of injury in MMA.

Anecdotes, on the other hand, play into an individual's desire for a personal narrative, rather than facts and figures. The human mind has a much more natural grasp of things involving people than it does numbers, graphs, or statistics. So a story of Mike Tyson supposedly spending half an hour doing sit-ups connects with people in a way that exercise physiology and kinesiology explaining why half an hour of sit-ups probably isn't a great way to train doesn't.

Agreed, but the TS says necessary. I take this to mean absolutely required to perform at a high level.

"Squatting is necessary for optimal MMA performance" is a hypothesis, a theory. It's untested. How many theories have been made over the course of human history that seemed reasonable, but when tested did not turn out as expected?

The importance of squatting in MMA seems like reasonable claim to make, but until we can test it it's not fact.

So why do 90% of the posters here treat it as such? The confidence and certainty with which a lot of posters have answered with is misplaced.

BTW - what is actually observable is that a range of training methods have worked for a range of different people.

 

[Tosa]

So why do 90% of the posters here treat it as such? The confidence and certainty with which a lot of posters have answered with is misplaced.

If I were to be so bold as to speak for the majority of posters here, I'd say the sentiment would be more along the lines of "Squatting can be an incredibly beneficial exercise in any strength training program. Strength training, and therefore squats, can contribute to success in any number of athletic endeavours. While they are not, strictly speaking necessary, excluding them, barring injury or degenerative condition, is probably not a good idea."

If the reactions seem harsher than that, it's probably because this debate, and the fact that it's occurring in two of the top threads at the same time, is ridiculous, with trolls or individuals seriously lacking critical thinking skills.

BTW - what is actually observable is that a range of training methods have worked for a range of different people.

However, all these individuals share common biology and anatomy, and compete in the same sport. So we can examine what the common elements of success are, what parts of training are more optimal, less optimal, unnecessary, essential etc. We can also think about how people vary in particular ways, but not others, and interpret all this with a understanding of physiology.

It's not as if training is reinvented anew for each individual because different things work for different people. Because, really, a lot of the same stuff works for different people. Or the same stuff, just adjusted in specific ways to accommodate for individual differences.

 

[SexyMahnaz]

"Squatting can be an incredibly beneficial exercise in any strength training program. Strength training, and therefore squats, can contribute to success in any number of athletic endeavours. While they are not, strictly speaking necessary, excluding them, barring injury or degenerative condition, is probably not a good idea."

Yeah, that's reasonable. Key word though is 'probably'.

However, all these individuals share common biology and anatomy, and compete in the same sport. So we can examine what the common elements of success are, what parts of training are more optimal, less optimal, unnecessary, essential etc. We can also think about how people vary in particular ways, but not others, and interpret all this with a understanding of physiology.

We can, but for basic concepts. Technique, conditioning, and strength are all necessary. This is observable. You couldn't find me a single person that performs at a high level who does not practice all of these. But once we get into specifics there are so many ways to achieve technique/conditioning/strength, so many different ways they're used in a given sport, and so many individual variations ... prescribing such a minute part of training as "absolutely necessary" is just dishonest because there isn't evidence to back it up unless your sport is lifting.

It's not as if training is reinvented anew for each individual because different things work for different people. Because, really, a lot of the same stuff works for different people. Or the same stuff, just adjusted in specific ways to accommodate for individual differences.

The basic paradigms of training aren't reinvented (practicing technique, conditioning, strength training, progressive overload) because there is a wealth of observable evidence that show they're absolutely necessary. Barbell Squatting doesn't fall into this category and individuals will train based on their own personal requirements.

 

[miaou]

Hill sprints did more for me than any gym routine.

Could be that hill sprints are better than weight training, and every single high-level athlete out there putting the work in the gym is wasting their time.

OR, you don't know how to lift and/or suck at life in general.

 

[Badger67]

If hill sprints fixed your problem my only hypothesis has been stated above, or, you lacked intramuscular endurance to a point you couldn't complete your gym routine, or you mentally couldn't complete it. Hill sprints are a good addition for conditioning, but to say it has done more for your gym routine really calls into question what you were doing in the gym in the first place. Do you have a template of it so we might be able to see specifically where you might have gotten this idea?