The Original Online BODYBUILDING SUPPLEMENTS FORUM. Advanced Techniques. Pro Tips & Insights. The Best Advice!

Cliff notes

Same results with less pressure on knees with bar held in front of your shoulders

https://www.ergo-log.com/frontsquat.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19002072


For your leg muscles it makes no difference whether you bring the bar down behind your neck or let it rest at the front of your torso on your shoulders when doing squats. Sports scientists at the University of Florida discovered this when they compared the effects of the traditional back-squat with those of the front-squat
In gyms you often hear that the front-squat is lighter on your lower back and isolates the quads, or that one way of doing squats is better than the other for the gluteus or the hamstrings. Until now, however, studies have been inconclusive. Before burying another piece of bro-science for good, the researchers decided to examine the differences between the two exercises one last time.

The researchers got 9 men and 6 women, all of whom had been doing weight training for at least one year, to perform the regular squat once and the front-squat once. Electrodes were attached to the subjects’ muscles so the researchers could measure how hard the muscles were working. They found no difference between the back and the front-squat.

The researchers also used cameras to record the amount of pressure caused in the joints by the exercises. The results showed that the front-squat caused 18 percent less pressure on the knee joint than the back-squat did.

So for athletes with knee-joint problems the front-squat is better than the back-squat. The same goes for athletes who have reduced flexibility in their shoulder joint and find it difficult to hold the bar while doing regular squats. But if you don’t have these problems there’s no reason to pick one variant over the other. The effect is the same.

Hammerin' Hank drops another knowledge bomb.

Just another reason we value you here so much man. Thank you again for your contributions. Can't say it enough!

Very interesting. Personally I have always found front squats much more taxing.

Well it's a given that X amount of force must be generated by SOME muscles to get that weight up. The question is WHICH muscles, how far, etc... So how do they do all that with ONE squat?

MANY have said that squats were better than leg presses because, although the same X amount of force rule comes into play, there are stabilizer muscles, and the fact that the upper body and even the arms must be involved somewhat. I assume you agree THERE because, if you didn't, you would think doing squats would be kind of stupid. They are harder on the back, less controlled, and aren't as fun. Then again, that is the point. All those OTHER muscles get involved.

Hey, I'm just playing devil's advocate!

Steve

The real value in squats vs leg presses is this: NMA or neuro muscular activation.

We all know if you plug leg press poundage #'s x reps x sets/time you get BIG #'s. Far bigger than the squat. But we also know from practical experience squats grow bigger legs. Why?

Because the body and the weight move through space simulateously.

Same reason chin ups beat pulldowns, etc.. In simple terms, your brain perceives greater danger if you go down with that bar on your back and don't come back up.

In addition, axial loading (up and down) conveys a greater overall stress than any other variation (45 degree leg sled, hack squat etc). That's the real reason why squats/DL's are king.

There is an art and a science to lifting. If you're just plugging #'s into total tonnage equations, it doesn't tell the whole story. What you've just seen is the art. I wish the picture was clearer, but this much we know: Squats/DL's and other movements where the body and weights move through space simultaneously are best..

Hope that helps..