James2020 wrote:
mathematics wrote:
Why not do the exercises most specific to your goal? For cycling there's not much reason to go past 90deg. For running there's even less reason. Likewise it's probably better to keep your stance a bit narrower than wider and feet more forward pointing.
If you're training for Olympic lifts you better be squatting past 90 since that's how both of your events start.
Specificity only works to a point. Goal of resistance training is to build strength and hypertrophy. An exercise that optimises these things is likely going to produce a better performance outcome regardless of it looking similar to cycling. Low cadence work is a example of this, it's much more specific to cycling, but arguably less effective. A squat is probably better than single leg work, even though that better reflects cycling.
A deeper squat gets more glute activation. Lots of benefits to that, including potentially balanced out more over developed rectus femorus from lots of cycling.
Deeper squat is also good for maintaining flexibility.
Deeper squat means less weight on the bar, which may decrease risk of injury.
I don't see a good reason to not squat deep. Ime it's mostly down to ego (the less deep you squat the more weight you can put on the bar) or lack of flexibility (in which case you should focus on improving that the have a full range of motion).
Completely correct that you could get too specific, especially for off-season stuff like lifting.
Regardless of depth I would still shy away from the traditional wide stance, feet splayed type squat. It has a ton of activation on the adductor magnus (had to look up that name) which is minimally important to running and cycling.
This might be falling into bro-science territory, but I'd argue a 500lb half squat is better for cycling than a 300lb ATG squat. Yes, there is more glute activation ATG, but it's in the fully stretched state, something you'll never use on the bike. So you're trading performance in the pedal stroke range for performance outside of that range.
Flexibility and risk of injury I'm with you, deeper is better. But for me it's not enough to offset the benefits of heavier, more specific loading.