Re: Box Squats on narrow box? (was H.S. Football Strength Program)

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

Yeah I think touch and go was part of the original plan of the box squat. I just

can't see the rationale of Box Squats. Ok heres my side, if I use a box I never

create control at the bottom of the movement. I use the box as the support and

not my tendens and muscle.

I feel like you take the hamstring out of it by using the box.

The reason I say is, think of it this way, how many people miss a squat on the

way down most of them. So to me you need to create that strength at the bottom.

I think that holds true for all sports. I feel you lose some of your explosion

without it.

Have I made any sense or just ramble. Let me know.

Lawrence

Haltom City, TX

Clinevell wrote:

> I came across an interesting article at efts that talked about the

> program that Angelo Berardinelli (sp?) is using now. The article

> talked about his use of 8 " wide boxes for box squats. Apparently his

> reason for the narrow box was to discourage users from relaxing on

> the box but instead stay tight. Maybe a " touch and go " use of the

> box?

[Guest guest]

Lawrence,

Lack of control at the bottom is one of the things that I stress

the most (along with sitting back) when teaching the box squat. If

you train to stop yourself on the box rather than letting the box

stop you, you train bottom control and keep yourself safe from spinal

compression injuries on the box.

I think the box is great for teaching someone the proper way to sit

back, however the very reason for this (the box stopping you from

falling backwards) supports your argument. I've tried to teach the

squat with gradually descending box and only lowering the box if the

trainee could maintain control.

I also think the box is great for starting strength because it

deemphasizes stretch reflex with the stop. I believe this (along

with deadlifts) might be more applicable for a lineman firing out of

his stance than regular free squats.

What do you think,

Clinevell

Salem, VA

lawrence gonzales5 <train2415@y...> wrote:

> Yeah I think touch and go was part of the original plan of the box

> squat. I just can't see the rationale of Box Squats. Ok heres my

> side, if I use a box I never create control at the bottom of the

> movement. I use the box as the support and not my tendens and muscle.

>

> I feel like you take the hamstring out of it by using the box.

> The reason I say is, think of it this way, how many people miss a

> squat on the way down most of them. So to me you need to create that

> strength at the bottom. I think that holds true for all sports. I

> feel you lose some of your explosion without it.

[Guest guest]

When I was taught how to do box squats it was to a box that was below parallel

and you stood a good distance from the box. This forced you to really push your

butt back and sit on your heels. Then to sit and relax on the box (taking away

the stretch shortening cycle), then explode up snapping the hips forward. This

really worked on starting strength from well below parallel and worked hip

extension because the feet were a good distance in front of the box. I also do

these one legged while holding a dumbell or kettlebell. This really worked hip

extension. I felt it in my hamstrings and glutes more than with a barbell.

Shane Steinbach

ville, TX

lawrence gonzales5 wrote:

> Yeah I think touch and go was part of the original plan of the box squat. I

> just can't see the rationale of Box Squats. Ok heres my side, if I use a box

> I never create control at the bottom of the movement. I use the box as the

> support and not my tendens and muscle.

>

> I feel like you take the hamstring out of it by using the box.

> The reason I say is, think of it this way, how  many people miss a squat on

> the way down most of them. So to me you need to create that strength at the

> bottom.  I think that holds true for all sports. I feel you lose some of

> your explosion without it.

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

I dont know, I think I see it a little differently. I think by teaching depth

and explosion it creates more power for a lineman. We are talking about depth we

can't forget to mention flexibility in the hams and hips. I just wanted to throw

that in (I know you know that already).

I can see teaching form with the box but to me after that is taught I think you

take it away so you don't learn to rely on it. Now do you have people settle on

the box or just touch and go?

I agree with the deadlifts also, I think its might be the greatest lift of them

all. It can create a stronger body all around. I even use it when training women

for weight loss because it use so much of the body and burns so many calories.

Lawrence

Haltom City TX

Clinevell wrote:

> Lack of control at the bottom is one of the things that I stress

> the most (along with sitting back) when teaching the box squat. If

> you train to stop yourself on the box rather than letting the box

> stop you, you train bottom control and keep yourself safe from spinal

> compression injuries on the box.

>

> I think the box is great for teaching someone the proper way to sit

> back, however the very reason for this (the box stopping you from

> falling backwards) supports your argument. I've tried to teach the

> squat with gradually descending box and only lowering the box if the

> trainee could maintain control.

>

> I also think the box is great for starting strength because it

> deemphasizes stretch reflex with the stop. I believe this (along

> with deadlifts) might be more applicable for a lineman firing out of

> his stance than regular free squats.