freebirdmac
10-08-2010, 01:57 PM
I've been trying to diagnose my squat = groin pull problem for a long time. Three groin pulls worth :eek: All along I believed the problem was weak adductors and whenever I did do them, I stayed away from wide stance.
Two interesting things have greatly altered my thinking. First, I was talking to Hammer and he patiently listened to my woes. We talked about flexibility and form. Both were ruled out as an issue. Then he said something that really surprised me. He said the problem stemmed from my hams lagging behind my quads. Wut? At my weight I though doing RDL's at 165# and kneeling one-leg ham curls at 70# meant my hams were keeping up.
The next coincidental thing that happened was a side journey into magnesium and zinc for increasing free test in men. Weird huh? Thanks MacTech! But in reading an article on the subject I saw a link to a couple of studies on squats. One showing that squats do little to strengthen the adductors. Wut?
The first study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20651607 was a follow up to an earlier study on squat stance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10188748. What these studies show is that deeper rom activates the quads more (duh), stance has statistically no effect on the quads or adductors, adductors fire at a significantly lower level relative to quads, and that the wider stance activates the glutes and hams more, but not the adductors. Of course a heavier load generates more response than a lighter load. The conclusion of the first linked article was if you want to build to adductors, get on the adductor machine. The conclusion of the second linked article was that no matter which part of the quad you want to build, you get more bang for your buck doing wide stance squats and firing the hams and glutes better along the way. Oh and load was far more important than stance.
So what's up with this common thought that wide stance squats are good for building the inner thighs (adductors). When we feel the adductors engage more in wide stance are we really realizing weakness in the hams and or glutes. Since the adductors fire similarly with all 3 foot positions, weak hams and glutes (relative to quads) put an undue burden on the adductors? And in my case, shoulder width squats may involve less hams and glutes but adductor pain still points to a weakness in the hams and maybe glutes?
And why don't I have this same issue doing Smith squats? Because it fires the hams/glutes less, just enough less so that I don't have adductor issues when using the Smith?
Summaries of these reports, and easier to read/access are http://www.ergo-log.com/squatsadductors.html and http://www.ergo-log.com/squatfeetapart.html
I'm grateful to Hammer for pointing me in a completely different direction. I'm interested in hearing more thoughts, ideas, suggestions. Is my logic flawed?
Two interesting things have greatly altered my thinking. First, I was talking to Hammer and he patiently listened to my woes. We talked about flexibility and form. Both were ruled out as an issue. Then he said something that really surprised me. He said the problem stemmed from my hams lagging behind my quads. Wut? At my weight I though doing RDL's at 165# and kneeling one-leg ham curls at 70# meant my hams were keeping up.
The next coincidental thing that happened was a side journey into magnesium and zinc for increasing free test in men. Weird huh? Thanks MacTech! But in reading an article on the subject I saw a link to a couple of studies on squats. One showing that squats do little to strengthen the adductors. Wut?
The first study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20651607 was a follow up to an earlier study on squat stance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10188748. What these studies show is that deeper rom activates the quads more (duh), stance has statistically no effect on the quads or adductors, adductors fire at a significantly lower level relative to quads, and that the wider stance activates the glutes and hams more, but not the adductors. Of course a heavier load generates more response than a lighter load. The conclusion of the first linked article was if you want to build to adductors, get on the adductor machine. The conclusion of the second linked article was that no matter which part of the quad you want to build, you get more bang for your buck doing wide stance squats and firing the hams and glutes better along the way. Oh and load was far more important than stance.
So what's up with this common thought that wide stance squats are good for building the inner thighs (adductors). When we feel the adductors engage more in wide stance are we really realizing weakness in the hams and or glutes. Since the adductors fire similarly with all 3 foot positions, weak hams and glutes (relative to quads) put an undue burden on the adductors? And in my case, shoulder width squats may involve less hams and glutes but adductor pain still points to a weakness in the hams and maybe glutes?
And why don't I have this same issue doing Smith squats? Because it fires the hams/glutes less, just enough less so that I don't have adductor issues when using the Smith?
Summaries of these reports, and easier to read/access are http://www.ergo-log.com/squatsadductors.html and http://www.ergo-log.com/squatfeetapart.html
I'm grateful to Hammer for pointing me in a completely different direction. I'm interested in hearing more thoughts, ideas, suggestions. Is my logic flawed?