There was quite a bit of faulty logic with that article, so much so I don't know that I have the time to break it all down.
"However, the fact that deep squats have been shown to be safer and more effective than parallel squats can be attributed to one factor – faulty research and flawed application of practical training methods"
The irony in the above quote is hilarious considering he doesn't even cite a single research paper to back up his claims. This is, in essence, his opinion. So, I'll share my opinion.
He makes the assumption that going ATG requires you to relax into it. I feel like that is easily fixed...don't relax into it.
Getting down ATG with a neutral spine really depends on the body type. Some of us can squat all the way down with a neutral spine. Others, due to our body proportions and the way our hips are formed, will not be able to go as deep with a neutral spine. So, if you can't go ATG w/ a neutral spine, only practice loaded squats to a depth you can maintain a neutral spine with. Heck my 3 year old has a great looking ATG squat, but his spine is definitely not in neutral at the bottom, it is slightly flexed. Poor kid, he must have my genes
So I partially agree with him in the sense that not everybody should be loading a squat ATG. But, I do think we should all "own a good deep knee bend", as Al Ciampa once said to me.
Let's take a look at another of his arguments: "The ideal squat ends around parallel. This puts sarcomeres in a position to produce the most tension and force." Okay, well, you could use his argument to justify not going through a complete range of motion with ANY exercise: bicep curls-nope I only do them halfway. Pullups? I only go partway down. A poor argument.
The assumption that we are doing more mobility work due to ATG squats is pretty weak. I think we are doing more mobility work because as a society we tend to sit around and stiffen up. Plus, there is a general growing interest in self care for aches and pains and a lot of physios talking about mobility work on the web.
I do agree with him that this whole "move like a baby" thing sometimes gets out of hand. A baby and an adult have different bodies. So, though we can learn and apply some valuable things from certain ways a baby moves, we shouldn't necessarily extrapolate that to mean adults should move the
exact same way.
Another: "Performing mobility work to become more mobile seems logical. However, this can be the very factor that limits mobility. Overdoing it on mobility exercises, stretching, and soft tissue work can desensitize muscle spindles, allowing the lifter to perform movements such as squats with excessive ROM. This leads to localized chronic inflammation, which over time is the very thing that limits mobility and range of motion."
Some bold claims!! Now, to be fair, you can desensitize a muscle spindle by statically stretching it. But, this effect only lasts a few hours generally. This is why we no longer recommend static stretching before exercise or sport. It decreases power output. So static stretching is no good before activity but he doesn't say just static stretching he says mobility work, which is a much broader term. Would it lead to the effects he postulates of destabilizing joints enough to cause "chronic inflammation" and tighten people up? Far fetched. The only way I can see his argument really working is if you were to do enough mobility work (and it would have to be a lot) to make your ligaments and tissues truly lax (it's called plastic deformation), and then load your joints beyond your ability to stabilize, which yes, could cause some joint damage down the line. This is more of a concern in my mind with people who have various connective tissue diseases like Marfans or ehlers danlos syndrome, or females who have the dancer body type and are already super flexible but feel the need to do 2 hours of yoga a day but they cant do 5 one legged quarter squats with proper form.
To be fair: "The single biggest problem with a majority of squat patterns isn't mobility, but lack of stability, tightness, and motor control. As the lifter gains stability, his body naturally begins to perform the movement pattern with the ideal range of motion. In other words, gain stability first and optimal mobility naturally follows, not the other way around. The last thing you want to do is gain ROM that you can't stabilize."
That is a decent argument. I agree with a lot of it. It is also my opinion that mobility work is
sometimes overrated (but define mobility work). People often lack motor control. A little straight mobility work (say stretching) can be good for people, but once they learn to move more and move better they just need to keep moving more and moving better, not doing 30 minutes of stretching. A hypomobility can lead to an instability elsewhere. And an instability can lead to a hypomobility elsewhere. It can happen both ways. And, not all mobility work is created equal. This is why moves like the prying goblet squat and arm bar are so great: it involves learning a motor pattern, stabilizing, and loosening up the hips or t spine dynamically all at the same time-multiple birds with one stone. This is also why hamstring stretching often doesn't work very well-tight hamstrings are often driven neurologically by a weak "core." So, you have to choose your "mobility" work wisely for it to be truly effective.
Well, I hope that made some sense. I did get a little carried away.