Topic: Squat Proportions

[fitz5487]

Hi Guys!

My training is going well after some good advice from here before... and I'm back for some more!

I was wondering what kind of proportion my lift amounts should be to my squats.

I know Snatch is usually proportionate to C+J, but was wondering how they should relate to my squat 1RM.

And also I'm interested in finding out what overhead squat and front squat should/could be in proportion to my back-squat. What is other peoples (as a % if possible)? Is this consistent amongst everyone?

Cheers guys!

Lee

[Arturo Gómez]

A personal variation is very great, because our anatomys and techniques in different exercises are quite different.
By, for the individual case, is possible to make a linear regretion for example C+J x squat. Is possible make with excel, if you want, you  may post the historic data. As in the following model
month  squat   c +j
january 150      100
february 160      105
march     155      100
.....
as many as possible

[Matt Erdman]

Squat will typically be 125-135% of the C&J.

Front squat will typically be 110-120% of the C&J.

The overhead squat isn't typically trained, or at least not as intensively, so it will be hard to get figures on that.

[Mike Frost]

Lee,

funny you posted this thread cuz I was about to post one challenging lifters and coaches about "reserve strength"...

I'm far from an expert, but 1 thing I can say to you is alot of gyms get their lifters squatting to frequently(IMO) watch youtube and look at some of the great American clubs, LOL they produce enormous back squats, yet their lifters don't even qualify for international meets(while in some cases out squatting Olympic level lifters), why? IMO 1 reason is they focus way to much on as far as Im concerned Powerlifting i.e. squat, clean dead, even press ect.

The squats are an assistence lift(and should be treated as such), some guys will tell you different numbers, personally Matt's 110-120% on front sounds about right. The general rule of thumb is whatever you can front squat for 3 reps is what you can stand up with in a max clean attempt. 

The Back squat is the main snatch assistence(but has some carry over to c&j) myself I treat the BS as my snatch assistence, so I usually hit numbers roughly what Matt listed 125-135% example. I clean and jerk 120 I back squat 150 afterwards for triples where my best BS currently is 185. I choose to not max alot as gyms like say Average Broz do everyday. because when u exceed 95%+ your form goes, and whats the point other then lifting a huge weight. Therefore I prefer doubles, triples and even 5's as frenquently performed at California Strength(maybe Jared Enderton can touch on this) this way my form stays great, FS my rack stays high back straight good posture ect. when u max on back squat it looks like like a powerlift and IMO doesnt at all mirror standing up in a snatch.

Overhead squat as I understand is considered more of a beginner exercise, however I perform them occasionally because I have problems getting low in the catch portion of the snatch, my plan is as soon as I drop down with huge weights I will drop the OHS from my repotoire(hopefully coach lets me lol) but everywhere I've read posts online alot of guys say(roughly) your best OHS will be your best snatch, or maybe its 105% of your best snatch. Myself, my best OHS is coincidently my best snatch. But again most of the top clubs and lifters in the world to my knowledge don't perform overhead squats, the Chinese do but then again many squat jerk.

I know of 2 really good articles you should read, I'll try to find them for you. 1 is a study conducted by Bulgarian coaches about FS vs BS their conclusion as I recall said the BS has the most carry-over to the lifts snatch and c&j.....the other was an essay written by Glen Pendlay about reserve strength, and I thought he was spot on!

Morale of the story, if your BS and FS are exceeding the lifts by huge amounts, spend alot more time doing the lifts, because their so technical specifically the snatch. Squat exactly what you need and go back to the lifts. Often times in international meets its the monsters with the huge amount of reserve strength who often bomb out and don't live up to their expectations.

good luck

PS: I was in no way doubting Mr.Broz and the folks at Average Broz gym, just using that as an example. IMO their lifters BS are out of sync, as their to high eg. Pat Mendes snatch 207kg clean 245kg maybe 250??BS 363kg+ ......to me thats insane and I wonder if Pats BS was 325 would the O lifts be say 5kg plus probably yes, because alot more time would be spent on them hence more PR's!!!


 

[Mike Frost]

Here are some articles for you to read.

Here's the one by Glenn....

http://glennpendlay.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/strength-and-weightlifting/

Here's the Bulgarian vs Soviet article
http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/farticles007.html

[fitz5487]

Wow, great articles! Thanks! I'm glad you showed me this because I never even really thought of the concept of 'reserve strength'.

Thanks for the advice guys. Really cleared that up!

[Arturo Gómez]

These point are very confuse in the actual and past sport.
It is not well defined "back squat". For example, 20 cms of difference in the place of the bar, make it a "neck exercise" or a "leg exercise". Anatomys are very different, so risks of injuries and individual perception of exercise.
Objectives and lifes of the athletes are different.
The logica employed is not strictly, is a "fuzzy logica". Examples and more examples, opinions, but not much scientific and rigourous information. In the discurses are confused the concepts of "necessary" and "sufficient". And not well defined "convenient".
A experimental design implies control of several variables, sofisticated sampling and statistical treatment of data.
I think these opinion -in both senses - as conjectures, legitim, valid, but conjectures, referencies, not absolutes trues. A basis for experiment and for investigate.

[Matt Erdman]

These point are very confuse in the actual and past sport.
It is not well defined "back squat". For example, 20 cms of difference in the place of the bar, make it a "neck exercise" or a "leg exercise". Anatomys are very different, so risks of injuries and individual perception of exercise.
Objectives and lifes of the athletes are different.
The logica employed is not strictly, is a "fuzzy logica". Examples and more examples, opinions, but not much scientific and rigourous information. In the discurses are confused the concepts of "necessary" and "sufficient". And not well defined "convenient".
A experimental design implies control of several variables, sofisticated sampling and statistical treatment of data.
I think these opinion -in both senses - as conjectures, legitim, valid, but conjectures, referencies, not absolutes trues. A basis for experiment and for investigate.

Articles from this author are typically this way. Some science and some speculation. They will leave you with things to think about, but rarely something concrete to be applied.