90 Degree Knees

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Concept hijacked from another thread:
Then drop straight down, keeping your back straight, until your knees are bent almost 90 degrees. You don't want to go past 90 degrees or it could damage your knees.

It seems to me that this has been the industry standard for some time, backed by a least some research.

Our coaches, however, are firm believers in full range of motion. As such, many of their workouts involve deep squats (butt down to the heels) followed by explosive leaps into the air. Many, many, many of them...often going the length of a fencing strip and back, repeatedly.

Input from the exercise/medical gurus out there: is this practice of multiple, hyper-deep knee bend squats and jumps potentially harmful to developing fencers in the 10-18 year old range?

[Jarentz]

The only advice I can consider, which is from weight-training
(such as squats and leg presses ect.) is never bend your knees past the point where they are parallel to the floor, 90 degrees.
Since I'm nearly twice the age of those kids in the footwork class I shy away from stuff like that.

[Craig]

http://www.activepain.com/additional_info_knee.html

This deals with mainly saying "If you have knee pain, don't do deep knee bends/squats."

The 90 degree rule is really for knee position at the end of a lunge. If you let it go past 90 degrees at the end of a lunge, then there is an increased risk of injury.

That is differnet than doing a deep squat and then a proper lunge where the squat is more controlled.

Here is another resourse on the knees:
http://my.webmd.com/content/healthwise/96/23928.htm

Disclaimer: I'm not a medical professional. Your milage may vary. etc.

[Toecutter]

Ooh, hey, I posted that!

Anyway, I'm generally overly cautious when it comes to my knees and other joints. I see too many older guys at my gym who just can't fence for long anymore because their knees are destroyed. I'd rather learn to fence with slightly more shallow lunges than not be able to fence at all when I get past 40. My father wrestled in highschool and college, and it absolutely wrecked one of his knees. After several surgeries, it's functional enough for him to run marathons, but it still bothers him sometimes.

[star00girl]

I always want to save my knees but I find that I do very deep lunges during a bout. I know I'm gonna bust them one day but i really cant help it, my leg just sorta snaps into a lunge that way.

[MyraTrue]

You know, I'd say, "ARE YOU CRAZY?", very politely, to anyone asking me to do that. I don't know how it would effect knees for someone who's knees work to begin with. (But I played rugby, and had to quit because my knees had been destroyed.) I know how hard those are on my knees, and when you have to use the rail to walk at the end of the day at my age, you dread when 30 comes.

I guess thats my way of saying, "I wouldn't advise it myself."

[adidas33k]

You wouldn't catch me doing those. I blew out my knee in high school and it's no fun. I'm not a professional or anything but when I was doing my rehab, my trainers had my do squats, but only box squats. For those that don't know, with those you only go down until you rear touches a box. That keeps you from going past that 90 degree mark. Anything deeper than that will put lots of stress on the knees. I don't think I missed out on anything either by not going lower. When I got better I was the strongest on my team and I had full range of motion. In my non-medical opinion, there's no real reason to put that kinda stress on the knees, when there are other exercises out there that will do the job.

-Oh and one more clause, I was playing goalie for a soccer team during all of the above, but have found that the exercises I did then carry over to fencing-

[Talysen]

Proper stretching will handle your range of motion.

What you're describing is plyometrics and doing what you're describing is going too deep. I haven't seen squat jumps described or pictured going past 90 degrees. Even done correctly plyometrics can be very stressfull exercises on the body and can take considerable amounts of time to recover. I'd do a search on the subject and get a good idea of the pros and cons of it and ensure it's being done correctly. If you have a personal trainer friend or someone who knows one it wouldn't be a bad thing to ask about. I'd think someone on this board would have some type of experience with this type of workout that could shed some light on it...

But hey, what do I know. I'm not a doc and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[cowpaste]

So basically you people are saying that deep lunges are bad for me? I'm not talking about weight lifting now...I just mean while fencing.

[Talysen]

No, deep lunges are fine when needed, there's just no point in adding additional stress in addition to them. I think I'd be pushing my luck doing lunges along with the exercises before it.

I'll stick to stretching good before hand and save my workouts for days I'm not fencing.

[corinna2u]

Capt Slo-Mo,

Are we talking...jumps that make them look like frogs?

If so, I for one, agree with your coaches. A lot of research done has shown that if you are not 'overweight' for your size, then your body is designed to move its own weight through its full joint mobility without damage.

That said. If more than 5 pounds overweight...problems. If adding weight, such as ankle weights or dumb bells...problems. And, if the bones going into the joints are not lined up correctly...problems. Scarring in the joints...problems. Being a couch potato and than a weekend warrior...problems. Not building up to higher number reps with correct form...problems.

The good side to it: when done correctly...by going through the full range of motion, when your kids over lunge to get that needed point, they will have at least an 80% less chance of 'blowing' their knee because they would have strengthen all the little support muscles and ligaments.

Kudos to your coaches, not seen much in the US.

And for those who will have the opposite opinion...know this, I have spent many, many hours of research on the conditioning and maintaining of the knee...my mother had both of her knees replaced in her late 40s...I never want to go through that or any kind of knee surgery.

[Inquartata]

The problem with research, though, is that it only seems to be as good as the last study. Alcohol is bad for you, no, it's good for you, no, it's bad again, etc. High carbs is best, no, low carbs, no, high, no, low... With bench presses, don't lower the bar so far that your upper arms go below horizontal, no, wait, that's the only way to get any benefit from it, no wait...

Same with the knee thing.

I've given up on it all. I just do what feels most comfortable for me. I'll listen to the physiologists when they actually manage to maintain a consensus for two years running.

[Peach]

Yup. In the last thirty years I have heard more dang twaddle asserted as Eternal Truth in the sports physiology & training field, only to hear it contradicted equally firmly the next year (or at the same time).

[corinna2u]

It is obvious neither of you read the research...just the press release on that research. It is the press that switches...it keeps you reading their garbage to see if they maintain it for two years.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Yessss....the press sits in their tiny cubicles, manufacturing confusing and sometimes contradictory studies. They couldn't possibly be just reporting that the latest issue of the AMA has a peer-reviewed study rebuking previous studies.

Here's the problem...I can find lots of recommendations that hyper-bending the knee be avoided, and even some clinical description of how the kneecap can be damaged by being pulled excessively tightly to the joint in a full squat or hurdler's stretch or the like...but nothing so far that would allow me to print it out and give it to the coach.

Otherwise, it's tough to get around the "I did it when I was a fencer, and my knees are fine" stance the coaches sometimes have, without appearing to be a hysterical, interfering parent.

[corinna2u]

You miss what I say.

Here is an example: Protein drinks for body-builders. They have been touted for quite awhile.

Do you know how they work? They work as irritant to the muscle. The muscle then swells. Therefore it looks bigger.

So when the press finally decides that they want to report that piece of information. They will take the latest study and spout it as new information. As leading research. Seemingly new and contradictory. But it won't be new and it won't be contradictory. The press will just make it seem that way.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by corinna2u

Here is an example: Protein drinks for body-builders. They have been touted for quite awhile.

Do you know how they work? They work as irritant to the muscle. The muscle then swells. Therefore it looks bigger.

Eh?

The muscles increase in size because they are exercised. They don't "swell" just because you drink a protein shake.

[corinna2u]

They don't "swell" just because you drink a protein shake.

Actually they do, some of the swelling is from the type of protein and how it reacts in the body, some of the swelling is from the sodium content, and some is from the additives which are thrown in for the express purpose of making the muscles swell...read the research.

Look I am not trying to get in a p.ssing war...the point I was making was that one of the reasons there seems to be sooo much contradictory information is because the WAY it is put out by the press. Nothing more, nothing less.

[corinna2u]

Capt Slo-Mo...instead of you trying to find the research you are looking for...you might try asking your coach to produce research that supports his coaching method. Done the right way, maybe it will open up a channel for you to voice your concerns.

Just a thought...but obviously you have categorized me in with mango/octavia by your last post.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by corinna2u
Just a thought...but obviously you have categorized me in with mango/octavia by your last post.

Really? As far as I can tell, you are possessed of but a single personality!
Now, as to your attitudes towards the mainstream media...did a news car run over one of your pets? You seem to have a rather jaundiced view of how the media work.

Originally posted by corinna2u
So when the press finally decides that they want to report that piece of information. They will take the latest study and spout it as new information.

After more than 2 decades in the news business...I can assure you that there is no secret vault under the CBS corporate offices where a star chamber convenes.
Such as:

Newsman 1: "We've sat on this ground breaking survey for 5 years now...think its time to release it?
Newsman 2: "It's perfect...we just reported a contradictory study three weeks ago."
Newsman 3: "They'll be soooooo confused, they'll never be able to make up the minds!
Newsmen 1,2,3: "Bwa-ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha hah ha!"
Newsman 4: "Now, about this report proving the moon landings were filmed on a set in New Mexico...."
Newsmen 1-4: (in Unison) "We report...you decide!" (high fives all around, break for manicures)

News is a highly perishable commodity. If a study in the Lancet says one thing, and a study in the journal of the AMA says another...do you expect the media to ignore one so there is a uniformity of information?