We have millions of years of evolution that created a knee designed to bend deeply so we could get low and pick up stuff like killed prey, rocks, and building materials, or step onto higher surfaces.
The "squats are bad" crowd are some of the least logical exercisers on earth. Up there with the "always have a neutral spine" people as well.
Since anecdotal evidence is allowed. I recently stopped training at a reasonably high level and I'm focusing more on lifting for a bit, trying something new. My entire body feels 10x better. Way fewer aches and pains in my hips and ankles.
How old are you? I squatted just fine in my 20s and 30s. Now I'm 42, and my knees gave out. Be careful.
45. We all degrade with time, but knees don't just "give out" like that, as in, they don't suddenly become weakened when you hit a certain age for no reason. It's a slow ride with many factors. You just either didn't take care of them very well OR have unlucky genetics OR you did some sudden acute damage to them due to too much weight/bad form.
Probably too much running and not enough strength and mobility. Seems to be the case with most older runners.
Lifting should be part of your overall periodization. If you are this sore doing squats, then I recommend more squats! Soon you won't be so sore. But, it's summer, and (assuming this is the off season for you), now is the time to be doing this. You can cut out squats completely (in favor of e.g. bodyweight lunges) when you start thinking about racing again. If you have races coming up, then maybe consider stopping for now and then hitting the gym later.
Finally, if you are doing additional lifts for your anterior chain (e.g. a deadlift), then you might consider front squats instead as an alternative to traditional back squats.
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.
Don't come crying to me when you hurt your knees from squatting.
Did you even read the study you shared?
To summarize, it states, "Squatting causes stress on the knees and can contribute to patellofemoral pain syndrome."
1) Duh, yes. Might as well say, "Running causes stress on the achilles and can contribute to achilles tendonitis." What's that old fun fact? A professional sprinter can exert 3xBW on one leg while at max speed? Something like that. Better not ever try to run remotely fast, lest you overload your achilles tendon.
2) It's focusing on one specific knee injury. There's a million different ways you can hurt your knee
2.1) It's focused on squatting as a factor contributing to the injury. It is not focused on squatting as a factor that can prevent injury. BUT, it alludes to that, "Studies in rehabilitation have shown that bodybuilding physical activity, with protocols of exercises to strengthen the hips and quadriceps muscles, together with work tasks, are protective factors in decreasing PFPS incidence" If you go and read the first study, they have people doing, gasp, squats, as a part of the rehab plan.
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.
We are talking about if the work you are doing is specific to your race. Building some aerobic capacity is very specific to 800m running. Squatting large weights? Not really. How much do you think the guy who goes from 600lb squats to 800lb squats improves their 800m time? Basically 0.
There are benefits to general strength especially for weaker people. But they aren’t worth messing up 4 days of training for. But it is also insanely likely our OP is just suffering from soreness from a new activity. Is anyone that sore from lifting after 48 hours after doing it for a couple months? Not in my experience.
Unless you have a career in professional running at stake and need to concern yourself with the 2% detriment to your middle or long distance race performance that might come from the additional muscle mass or interference effect from weight training while also training for your event, how could anyone possibly argue against doing some weight training 2 or 3 times per week for the overall health benefits? You will reduce your long term injury risk from all causes (whether running related or just picking something heavy up off the ground), you will delay your descent into frailty as you get older, and if you are a man, your T levels will benefit.
Keep it simple, just adopt a basic linear progression protocol that features a few easy to learn lifts, like Stronglifts 5x5, Greyskull, or Starting Strength (minus Mark Rippashart's insistence on eating like a pig to milk an additional 5 pounds out of your max squat). Start out with just the bar, and add 2.5 lb or 5 lb every time you lift. Then when your lifts plateau, just maintain -- don't start eating a pound of ground beef a day or drinking a gallon of milk a day.
I am sore for about 5 to 6 days after I barbell squat. The first three days it’s tough to even sit down on the toilet. This really disrupts my other training and daily life.
Crazy thing is, I do only four sets, two warm up and two working. I think last week I did 4×170. So I’m not especially strong. It wouldn’t seem like I’m over training. Maybe it just affects me different.
Do any of you run into the same problem with squatting? Is it worth it to you, or did you replace the squat with something else? I find that it has made me much stronger and more athletic. It is certainly balanced out my physique a little. But the exercises so disruptive. I’m wondering if it’s worth it.
Discus.
How long have you been squatting for? Also what distance are you training for? If you’re doing super heavy low rep sets this is generally going to take a lot more time to recover from than higher rep sets. Would only recommend 4 x 170 for sprinters
We are talking about if the work you are doing is specific to your race. Building some aerobic capacity is very specific to 800m running. Squatting large weights? Not really. How much do you think the guy who goes from 600lb squats to 800lb squats improves their 800m time? Basically 0.
There are benefits to general strength especially for weaker people. But they aren’t worth messing up 4 days of training for. But it is also insanely likely our OP is just suffering from soreness from a new activity. Is anyone that sore from lifting after 48 hours after doing it for a couple months? Not in my experience.
The answer, as usual, is depends. And we agree more than I think you realize we agree.
How much would a runner have to gain going from a 600lb to squat to an 800lbs squat? Well, maaaybe some sprinter can half squat 600lbs. They'd pretty much gain nothing there by getting that up to 200, agreed.
How much would a total weakling beanpole gain by going from not even being able to squat to parallel with the bar with half-decent form to being able to hit a few reps at their bodyweight? They stand to gain tons of power and strength which can turn into lots of speed. You start to see diminishing returns in terms of MaxV somewhere around 2-2.5xBW.
How much faster could David Rudisha have ran if he did an extra 50 miles per week of easy mileage? Well, he probably would have run slower because he was wasting his energy on less-specific exercises.
No, OP should not be sore for 4 days after lifting if they've been lifting for a little bit. Being really sore for a few days after your first few sessions of any new training modality is pretty typical.
If you are having that kind of soreness after squats then that tells me you don't squat very often. If you take months off or weeks off between any heavy lifting movement you're going to be exceptionally sore after.
I lift all the time and can run the day after, the day off, the day before, etc. with no issues.
I am sore for about 5 to 6 days after I barbell squat. The first three days it’s tough to even sit down on the toilet. This really disrupts my other training and daily life.
Crazy thing is, I do only four sets, two warm up and two working. I think last week I did 4×170. So I’m not especially strong. It wouldn’t seem like I’m over training. Maybe it just affects me different.
Do any of you run into the same problem with squatting? Is it worth it to you, or did you replace the squat with something else? I find that it has made me much stronger and more athletic. It is certainly balanced out my physique a little. But the exercises so disruptive. I’m wondering if it’s worth it.
Discus.
How long have you been squatting for? Also what distance are you training for? If you’re doing super heavy low rep sets this is generally going to take a lot more time to recover from than higher rep sets. Would only recommend 4 x 170 for sprinters
Higher rep sets will take more time to recover from.
How long have you been squatting for? Also what distance are you training for? If you’re doing super heavy low rep sets this is generally going to take a lot more time to recover from than higher rep sets. Would only recommend 4 x 170 for sprinters
Higher rep sets will take more time to recover from.
Alan
Incorrect. Heavy lifting will create more micro tears in the muscle and greater DOMS. This gives that typical feeling of difficulty walking down stairs, sitting down etc. Higher rep sets will create greater muscle fatigue but will not last for several days like DOMS.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
Higher rep sets will take more time to recover from.
Alan
Incorrect. Heavy lifting will create more micro tears in the muscle and greater DOMS. This gives that typical feeling of difficulty walking down stairs, sitting down etc. Higher rep sets will create greater muscle fatigue but will not last for several days like DOMS.
Half dozen of one, six of the other situation.
Higher load, lower rep will be much more taxing on your CNS.
It should go without saying that doing more volume of anything, i.e. high rep, lower load, can cause more overall stress and require more energy, therefore requiring more recovery time.
Who's going to recover faster? The guy who just ran the 100m or the guy who just ran the marathon? One is maximum effort for 10s. The other is submaximal effort for 2 hours.
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.
My goodness so much wrong with this post.
1.) "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."
You fundamentally misunderstand the point of squatting to parallel. You squat to 90 degrees because that is where all the muscle mass of the knee extensors, the hip extensors, and the spinal stabilizers are working at their optimum capacity. The term in lifting is called "effective range of motion." General strength translates to running strength (think - speed/power development, "core" work, and injury prevention). Why would you CHOOSE to neglect training certain muscles in your legs? With that said, there is a time and place for half/quarter squats, which is demonstrated with the videos of the sprinters doing them posted earlier in this thread. There are also so good reasons why some people prefer to do ATG, but nevertheless, the statement quoted above is incredibly short sighted, ignorant of basic lifting principles, or both. It's like saying "why should I do any rep longer than a mile when I'm only training for the mile."
2.) "What I'm saying is that there are better exercises for the legs for runners than squats." This is highly, highly questionable, and other than because they are easier/more accessible. I don't think it's true. My guess people are so resistant to squatting is because it's SCARY. Nothing wrong with the lifts mentioned, but squatting is better.
3.) "There are lots of other leg exercises, so these aren't the only ones to consider."
True, but squatting is a full-body lift, not just the legs. There is a reason why there is a debate between the back squat and deadlift as to which is considered "The King of Lifts." It activates everything in your lower body - all the leg muscles, glutes, abs, and lower/middle back. In of itself, it is a far superior lift than the other exercises you lifted above.
4.) "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."
If done properly (like all things), there is very little risk in squatting - it is a fundamental movement pattern. Studies continuously show this. The dark truth is you are far more likely to get injured from RUNNING than you are from lifting weights.
Lifting should be part of your overall periodization. If you are this sore doing squats, then I recommend more squats! Soon you won't be so sore. But, it's summer, and (assuming this is the off season for you), now is the time to be doing this. You can cut out squats completely (in favor of e.g. bodyweight lunges) when you start thinking about racing again. If you have races coming up, then maybe consider stopping for now and then hitting the gym later.
Finally, if you are doing additional lifts for your anterior chain (e.g. a deadlift), then you might consider front squats instead as an alternative to traditional back squats.
I like what you wrote except your comment about the anterior chain. Deadlifts work the posterior chain.
1.) "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."
You fundamentally misunderstand the point of squatting to parallel. You squat to 90 degrees because that is where all the muscle mass of the knee extensors, the hip extensors, and the spinal stabilizers are working at their optimum capacity. The term in lifting is called "effective range of motion." General strength translates to running strength (think - speed/power development, "core" work, and injury prevention). Why would you CHOOSE to neglect training certain muscles in your legs? With that said, there is a time and place for half/quarter squats, which is demonstrated with the videos of the sprinters doing them posted earlier in this thread. There are also so good reasons why some people prefer to do ATG, but nevertheless, the statement quoted above is incredibly short sighted, ignorant of basic lifting principles, or both. It's like saying "why should I do any rep longer than a mile when I'm only training for the mile."
2.) "What I'm saying is that there are better exercises for the legs for runners than squats." This is highly, highly questionable, and other than because they are easier/more accessible. I don't think it's true. My guess people are so resistant to squatting is because it's SCARY. Nothing wrong with the lifts mentioned, but squatting is better.
3.) "There are lots of other leg exercises, so these aren't the only ones to consider."
True, but squatting is a full-body lift, not just the legs. There is a reason why there is a debate between the back squat and deadlift as to which is considered "The King of Lifts." It activates everything in your lower body - all the leg muscles, glutes, abs, and lower/middle back. In of itself, it is a far superior lift than the other exercises you lifted above.
4.) "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."
If done properly (like all things), there is very little risk in squatting - it is a fundamental movement pattern. Studies continuously show this. The dark truth is you are far more likely to get injured from RUNNING than you are from lifting weights.
1.) "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."
You fundamentally misunderstand the point of squatting to parallel. You squat to 90 degrees because that is where all the muscle mass of the knee extensors, the hip extensors, and the spinal stabilizers are working at their optimum capacity. The term in lifting is called "effective range of motion." General strength translates to running strength (think - speed/power development, "core" work, and injury prevention). Why would you CHOOSE to neglect training certain muscles in your legs? With that said, there is a time and place for half/quarter squats, which is demonstrated with the videos of the sprinters doing them posted earlier in this thread. There are also so good reasons why some people prefer to do ATG, but nevertheless, the statement quoted above is incredibly short sighted, ignorant of basic lifting principles, or both. It's like saying "why should I do any rep longer than a mile when I'm only training for the mile."
2.) "What I'm saying is that there are better exercises for the legs for runners than squats." This is highly, highly questionable, and other than because they are easier/more accessible. I don't think it's true. My guess people are so resistant to squatting is because it's SCARY. Nothing wrong with the lifts mentioned, but squatting is better.
3.) "There are lots of other leg exercises, so these aren't the only ones to consider."
True, but squatting is a full-body lift, not just the legs. There is a reason why there is a debate between the back squat and deadlift as to which is considered "The King of Lifts." It activates everything in your lower body - all the leg muscles, glutes, abs, and lower/middle back. In of itself, it is a far superior lift than the other exercises you lifted above.
4.) "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."
If done properly (like all things), there is very little risk in squatting - it is a fundamental movement pattern. Studies continuously show this. The dark truth is you are far more likely to get injured from RUNNING than you are from lifting weights.
^ this guy squats
Hell yeah I do! And everyone should (and run, too).
I suck at barbell squats, and I’ve done a lot of (armchair) research into why that is. And I think it’s because it’s so easy to do this lift wrong. If you are restricted in any mobility in your lower body, or if you have a muscle imbalance anywhere, the squat will quickly expose it. And if you don’t address that restriction/weakness, you’ll get hurt sooner rather than later.
IMO, single leg lifts are much better for sport performance. The downside is that they take twice as long (for example, 3x10 single leg squats takes twice as long as 3x10 back squat). If your goal is general strength and/or aesthetics, then you can get a great pump on leg press, hack squat, and other leg-specific machines.
If you want to attack the squat and hit some big numbers, you have to a. Do it consistently, b. Know your unique physical limitations, and c. Thoroughly mobilize/stabilize before each squat session.