I've actually had a possibly dumb concern about this lately. My deadlift numbers are way, way higher than my squat numbers, and I am kind of worried that I'm leaving my quads out too much if I squat low bar instead of high bar. As I understand, low bar is more posterior chain, which already gets really heavy work from my DL, but the squat is my only exercise that involves the quads, which get more work from high bar or front squat. I just figured maybe for agonist/antagonist reasons I shouldn't have such a disproportionate distribution. On the other hand, I don't know if that's a retarded concern to have, and I also have knee issues, which I understand low bar is better for.
To Troll.
I just figured you'd been around long to know better than to make a thread like this.
KiwiTricker said:Personally, my front squat was at its highest when my low bar back squat was also at its highest- but that's anecdotal evidence coming just from one source.
Fixed. No need to thank me, Cratos.:icon_lol:
Cratos:
Why do you rag on Front Squats? Is it because you cant squat as much using fronts? Serious question.
He isn't man enough for them.Cratos:
Why do you rag on Front Squats? Is it because you cant squat as much using fronts? Serious question.
He isn't man enough for them.
Tbh, I can see how somebody could plausibly argue that the high-bar squat is a a bit closer to dynamic movements where you propel your body through space and there might be slightly more beneficial to get stronger with it, considering there generally tends to be a slightly greater speed/SSC component to it and the torso is more upright and there is less stress on the lower back and spinal erectors in general.
Having said that, suggesting that getting stronger in the low-bar squat has "no transfer to anything athletic" or that it is an "ego lift" is stupid beyond reason.