Hey sirrah do you have any substantive thoughts? Why do top runners squat, and squat well, but the exercise is superfluous in your view? I’m open to anything but prefer to know your reasoning.
Don't squat. Not applicable to running improvement.
Why not? I note that some of the fastest people in the world can squat, huge amounts of weight, double or triple their body weight. Are the two not connected?
All of my advice/thoughts here are based on improving max velocity, not necessarily running economy.
Squatting in and of itself likely won't make you sprint faster except for the initial drive phase. Speed is a function of power and technique. Power is force over time. Squatting works on the force part of the equation, but without the time part, it's not incredibly helpful for sprinting. Think about this. The strongest power lifters, with "power" lifting being a misnomer, can squat close to 1,000lbs. None of those guys are remotely fast because they only move big weight slowly. The best weightlifters, as in Olympic lifters, are all extremely fast athletes. They may not be great runners, but their speed and coordination is certainly something that has transfer to running.
Squatting has its place in a well-rounded training program for runners. Typically you should do your primary explosive exercise first though. A basic plan for a day in the gym is something like this
* Power movement (e.g. power cleans/snatches/split jerks). 4–10 sets of 1–3 reps.
* Strength movement (e.g. back squats, single leg squats, front squats). 2-5 sets of 3-5 reps
* Any accessories you like to do (pullups, planks, back extension, etc.). Usually higher rep ranges like 3x12
Why not? I note that some of the fastest people in the world can squat, huge amounts of weight, double or triple their body weight. Are the two not connected?
In my non-coaching, but lots of running, experience, exercises should be running-specific. As a runner, the only time you would ever put force into the legs while the knee is bent 90 degrees is when sprinters come out of the blocks.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying "never do squats." What I'm saying is that there are better exercises for the legs for runners than squats. In my opinion, these are mostly one leg exercises, like Bulgarian squats, skater squats (aka curtsy squats), lunges, and 1 leg press on the leg press machine. Note: the Bulgarian squat can be done with the back mostly vertical to work the quads or with the back at an angle so your upper body moves diagonally forward and back as you go up and down. That works the glutes.
There are lots of other leg exercises so these aren't the only ones to consider. I'm listing these because I know what they are called and they are part of my regular leg routine.
In short, the risk (of injury) vs the reward of the squat FOR RUNNERS isn't as good as the risk/benefit of other leg exercises.
NOTE: If you're a sprinter, then, yes, you should squat, but if you've been doing them long enough to see a change in your physique, as you say you have, then you shouldn't be doing them so hard you're wiped out for 5-6 days. Reduce the weight.
Thank you those are really good thoughts. Why should sprinters definitely squat?
In my non-coaching, but lots of running, experience, exercises should be running-specific.
Are you going to provide an argument for this extremely controversial statement or are you just going to pretend that this is some self-evident truth? Should we also not do any core work that doesn't replicate the running stance? Should we not do pullups/pushups? Should we not do olympic lifts? Should we not foam roll or stretch? Because none of those things are running specific. Your statement also goes against what many (most?) professional runners do - which is a lot of non-running-specific work. They squat, they deadlift, they plank, they do nordic curls, they do the olympic lifts. We already do enough running-specific training when we - you guessed it - run.
In my non-coaching, but lots of running, experience, exercises should be running-specific.
Are you going to provide an argument for this extremely controversial statement or are you just going to pretend that this is some self-evident truth? Should we also not do any core work that doesn't replicate the running stance? Should we not do pullups/pushups? Should we not do olympic lifts? Should we not foam roll or stretch? Because none of those things are running specific. Your statement also goes against what many (most?) professional runners do - which is a lot of non-running-specific work. They squat, they deadlift, they plank, they do nordic curls, they do the olympic lifts. We already do enough running-specific training when we - you guessed it - run.
I second this. Specificity is always a silly argument. I think the easiest way to prove it's nonsense is to ask, "Why does an 800m runner do a substantial volume of easy running? It's obviously not very specific to their goal paces and efforts?" Turns out it still helps a lot.
Are you going to provide an argument for this extremely controversial statement or are you just going to pretend that this is some self-evident truth? Should we also not do any core work that doesn't replicate the running stance? Should we not do pullups/pushups? Should we not do olympic lifts? Should we not foam roll or stretch? Because none of those things are running specific. Your statement also goes against what many (most?) professional runners do - which is a lot of non-running-specific work. They squat, they deadlift, they plank, they do nordic curls, they do the olympic lifts. We already do enough running-specific training when we - you guessed it - run.
I second this. Specificity is always a silly argument. I think the easiest way to prove it's nonsense is to ask, "Why does an 800m runner do a substantial volume of easy running? It's obviously not very specific to their goal paces and efforts?" Turns out it still helps a lot.
Perhaps we should train like 1500 meter runners did in the 1920s? Run 1500 meter all out 3 times per week.
I second this. Specificity is always a silly argument. I think the easiest way to prove it's nonsense is to ask, "Why does an 800m runner do a substantial volume of easy running? It's obviously not very specific to their goal paces and efforts?" Turns out it still helps a lot.
Perhaps we should train like 1500 meter runners did in the 1920s? Run 1500 meter all out 3 times per week.
I was a 400 runner before I moved up to middle distances. My dad would always ask, "Why don't you just run one hard 400 in practice and call it a day?"
Perhaps we should train like 1500 meter runners did in the 1920s? Run 1500 meter all out 3 times per week.
I was a 400 runner before I moved up to middle distances. My dad would always ask, "Why don't you just run one hard 400 in practice and call it a day?"
it's like how easy it is to set a world record... all you do is run 100m at WR 1500m pace, then every day run one more meter at that pace... eventually you will be the WR holder!
Are you going to provide an argument for this extremely controversial statement or are you just going to pretend that this is some self-evident truth? Should we also not do any core work that doesn't replicate the running stance? Should we not do pullups/pushups? Should we not do olympic lifts? Should we not foam roll or stretch? Because none of those things are running specific. Your statement also goes against what many (most?) professional runners do - which is a lot of non-running-specific work. They squat, they deadlift, they plank, they do nordic curls, they do the olympic lifts. We already do enough running-specific training when we - you guessed it - run.
I second this. Specificity is always a silly argument. I think the easiest way to prove it's nonsense is to ask, "Why does an 800m runner do a substantial volume of easy running? It's obviously not very specific to their goal paces and efforts?" Turns out it still helps a lot.
You dont think building the aerobic system is specific for the 800m? I got to disagree…
I second this. Specificity is always a silly argument. I think the easiest way to prove it's nonsense is to ask, "Why does an 800m runner do a substantial volume of easy running? It's obviously not very specific to their goal paces and efforts?" Turns out it still helps a lot.
You dont think building the aerobic system is specific for the 800m? I got to disagree…
That's not the argument. We're talking specificity of the exercise, not the specificity of the physiological adaptation.
Fisky's argument is, "Squatting is not specific and therefore not helpful because you don't enter a squatting position while running longer distances."
If you take that same logic you can say, "Running 7:30/mile is not specific to the 800 because at no point during that race is my form similar to my 7:30/mile form."
There's degrees of specific. In regards to the 800, running 20–30 minutes of threshold is more specific than running easy 7:30 miles. Running 16x400@5k is more specific than that threshold. Running 10x200 is more specific than those 400s. And running 3x400 is about as specific as you can get.
Of course you must build your aerobic system. And easy runs are often a critical component. But you can't go and do a bunch of easy runs and then say, "Getting stronger, more explosive, and coordinated is not specific enough for me!" That's just contradictory.
Why not? I note that some of the fastest people in the world can squat, huge amounts of weight, double or triple their body weight. Are the two not connected?
In my non-coaching, but lots of running, experience, exercises should be running-specific. As a runner, the only time you would ever put force into the legs while the knee is bent 90 degrees is when sprinters come out of the blocks.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying "never do squats." What I'm saying is that there are better exercises for the legs for runners than squats. In my opinion, these are mostly one leg exercises, like Bulgarian squats, skater squats (aka curtsy squats), lunges, and 1 leg press on the leg press machine. Note: the Bulgarian squat can be done with the back mostly vertical to work the quads or with the back at an angle so your upper body moves diagonally forward and back as you go up and down. That works the glutes.
There are lots of other leg exercises so these aren't the only ones to consider. I'm listing these because I know what they are called and they are part of my regular leg routine.
In short, the risk (of injury) vs the reward of the squat FOR RUNNERS isn't as good as the risk/benefit of other leg exercises.
NOTE: If you're a sprinter, then, yes, you should squat, but if you've been doing them long enough to see a change in your physique, as you say you have, then you shouldn't be doing them so hard you're wiped out for 5-6 days. Reduce the weight.
As someone who recently hurt his knees from squatting, I agree with fisky. It's not worth the injury risk.
As someone who recently hurt his knees from squatting, I agree with fisky. It's not worth the injury risk.
Squatting has less injury risk than running. What kind of argument is this? Should we avoid hills because people hurt their hamstring on them? Should we not do speedwork because my dear friend Billy got injured while doing it?
As someone who recently hurt his knees from squatting, I agree with fisky. It's not worth the injury risk.
You do realize that competitive distance running is way more injurious than competitive weightlifting?
Squatting, lunging, pulling, hinging, and pressing are extremely fundamental human movements. If you hurt yourself squatting and your weight is moderate and your form is halfway decent, that's likely more of a reflection of your body's lack of mobility, strength, and resiliency than the movement of squatting.
This is not to say that, "Everyone must squat or you will never achieve maximal running performance." But arguing that it's not specific enough or too dangerous are really just nonsense reasons that people come up with. You might as well just say, "I hurt myself doing strides on an easy day, so doing strides on an easy day is not worth it." Lifting is one of the many tools you can use in your training. So is easy running. So are strides. So are drills. Etc.
As someone who recently hurt his knees from squatting, I agree with fisky. It's not worth the injury risk.
Squatting has less injury risk than running. What kind of argument is this? Should we avoid hills because people hurt their hamstring on them? Should we not do speedwork because my dear friend Billy got injured while doing it?
As someone who recently hurt his knees from squatting, I agree with fisky. It's not worth the injury risk.
Squatting has less injury risk than running. What kind of argument is this? Should we avoid hills because people hurt their hamstring on them? Should we not do speedwork because my dear friend Billy got injured while doing it?
After analysing the included works, it was concluded that all squat exercises can cause tension overload in the knee, especially with a knee flexion between 60° and 90° degrees.
After a long recovery from a torn meniscus and patellar tendonitis due to inactivity, my PT has set a squatting milestone before I ramp up running again. The plan is comfortable 4 sets of 20 reps, deep squats with my body weight added to the bar. I'm close now and my knees are raring to go.
Squatting has less injury risk than running. What kind of argument is this? Should we avoid hills because people hurt their hamstring on them? Should we not do speedwork because my dear friend Billy got injured while doing it?
After analysing the included works, it was concluded that all squat exercises can cause tension overload in the knee, especially with a knee flexion between 60° and 90° degrees.