Now here's a great article

[Cody]

And, just as a general note, I'm here for a productive discussion, which I'm assuming will be quite a short one, as there are, I'm pretty sure, minimal points of disagreement that ultimately have little to do with empirical evidence (on either side) and more to do with our own experiences as athletes and coaches.

So, just to start this on reasonable footing, I'm not saying HB or FS are better than LB ("the low bar squat is the least limited by back strength, meaning it can be loaded heavier yet for leg and hip musculature development. Also, since it’s how most powerlifters compete, it should obviously be included in your training routine because it’s highly specific sports practice."), simply that they have different uses and different limiters.

And we don't disagree about the strongest position, just how/when/why to get there (either out of purpose - which I can certainly understand at the point of teaching amateurs to get comfortable in that position - or out of necessity - very very few top lifters I've talked to, though they wind up in that position, get there purposefully; they generally try to sit into the position that gives them the biggest rebound, and then try to get their hips forward and chest up as fast a possible coming out of the hole) - and that's the piece of the discussion that has little chance of being productive because it's the one based primarily on opinion and experience (and a discussion based on subjective grounds rarely goes anywhere).

Well, I for one am glad to see you posting again - you're obviously an intelligent fella and you don't really do any grade-school drama, so good on ya.

Alright, so Chad (a beast, go JTS) was "trying to stay upright," but as a cue. Imagine if he literally stayed with a perfectly vertical torso the entire squat- that would obviously not be possible. How would you address my comment that your torso angle is simply an artifact of keeping the bar over your mid-foot as you progress through the squat, and not that the low back just can't keep you upright?

[Josh K]

These advantages are, incidentally, two disadvantages for weightlifting where strength through a long ROM is necessary, and upper back strength is paramount. Simply put, if your upper back is weak enough that squatting high bar significantly limits your performance, then the answer isn’t to low bar squat to strengthen your legs and hips more (which are clearly disproportionately strong already), but rather to high bar squat or (even better) front squat more to strengthen your back, which is the weak link. Once that’s shored up, the low bar squat is essentially just a high bar squat (similar weight with similar demands of the knee and hip extensors – refer again to Figure 1) through a shorter ROM that is less specific to the sport (catching lifts as upright as possible).

.

But front squats are already training that long, specific range of motion and position (more specifically than high bar), and are better for upper back strength development. So why do high bar which is worse for both of those, and doesn't develop leg and hip strength as well as low bar? You could even argue that low bar is more specific than high bar since it more closely resembles the pull, and sometimes even the snatch recovery.

You talk about someone being 'disproportionately strong', but I don't think there is such a thing as being too strong anywhere. Being stronger is simply going to help, full stop. But wouldn't doing front squats and high bar result in a disproportionately strong upper back? Wouldn't doing two movements at opposite ends of the spectrum be more 'balanced', and result in the best of both worlds?

[Tennisgolfboll]

Well, I for one am glad to see you posting again - you're obviously an intelligent fella and you don't really do any grade-school drama, so good on ya.

Alright, so Chad (a beast, go JTS) was "trying to stay upright," but as a cue. Imagine if he literally stayed with a perfectly vertical torso the entire squat- that would obviously not be possible. How would you address my comment that your torso angle is simply an artifact of keeping the bar over your mid-foot as you progress through the squat, and not that the low back just can't keep you upright?

I am also glad to see different views posted. And someone with a background like that is really nice to have on the forum.

But i feel this discussion about lifting, the whole low bar vs high bar is not my cup of tea. (high bar for Olympic, shoulder issues or whatever seems fine to me, low bar is how i squat and i like it but i dont think it matters much at all)

kudos to meshuggah for keeping up some good topics. He had one about different squat variations he started, i think, that had alot of interesting posts in it.

[Bryan Dobson]

I enjoy different viewpoints and I often learn and put to use information from many sources. If you want consensus join a cult.

I can squat much more low bar but that doesn't mean I am married to it exclusively for training.

[Nate7out]

Greg, I liked the article and it is an interesting theory.

In your article you state:

1) In the squat, even with 90% loads, demands of the movement don’t get particularly close to the maximum hip extension torque you’re capable of producing.

This is accompanied by the two charts. Wouldn't this be an argument in favor of the low bar squat - the hip extensors get more of a training effect because of the higher loads used. Maybe you already said that:

Finally, the low bar squat is the least limited by back strength, meaning it can be loaded heavier yet for leg and hip musculature development.

Also it is probably an even better argument in favor of training the deadlift.

In the starting strength model of the squat, you move your knees forward to a certain point (about even with the toes) and then fix them in place for approximately 1/2-2/3 the downward and then 1/2-2/3 the upward portion of the squat. Do you not agree with this idea? The idea of a fixed knee position. To me it seems like you are saying that at light loads you might stay more upright with knees more forward and that at heavy loads you will drift knees further back and lean forward more out of necessity. Do you not want to determine the movement pattern and strive to consistently hit that same pattern?

I think the starting strength method comes from here(but I am no expert or SS coach):

1) Teach a squat with increased forward lean since that is the position people will wind up in anyways with heavy loads.

and also that this position allows you to move the heaviest loads and work the most muscle mass through the longest range of motion. High bar would be slightly longer ROM with less load and less work for hip extensors and adductors. Trade offs.

I like the low bar squat, and I like the hips back method. I find that if I try to get my hips forward and chest up early I end up overextending my lumbar spine but if I stay with hip drive I keep a neutral spine better. Because of back conditions I have, I like to stay with the hip drive. Also I have a long torso and short femurs so I am pretty upright with LBBS anyway.

Lastly, these two items seem to be contradictory:

Extending this principle a bit further, the high bar squat shifts the weight forward a few inches as well, making it a sort of midpoint between the low bar squat and the front squat – you can squat more low bar because it’s easier for your back.

For this reason, a more “hip-dominant” squat allows for the total muscular force (linear) of the system to be distributed more efficiently, resulting in more total extension torque (angular). However, that statement comes with the caveat that the more reliant you are on hip extensor torque, the more apt you are to be limited by back strength because it necessitates greater forward lean.

For me I am not ever increasing my forward lean as the load increases. My knee position is constant and my back angle is constant. Of course, I am not perfect, but I strive for these things and they do vary a bit. If they vary too much I miss the lift.

Thanks for the food for thought.

[gnuckols]

torso angle is simply an artifact of keeping the bar over your mid-foot as you progress through the squat, and not that the low back just can't keep you upright?

The point was never that the low back can't keep you upright (the more upright you are, the easier it is on your lower back), but rather than cuing can affect what position you wind up in. And I'm not sure I'd call that an artifact of keeping the bar over mid-foot.

See link. All of these are with the bar at the same height and over the foot, but with shifts in hip and knee position (http://imgur.com/bOLF2o3). Keeping the bar over your foot ensures you don't fall on your face/butt, but doesn't really dictate form in any huge way.

So why do high bar which is worse for both of those, and doesn't develop leg and hip strength as well as low bar?

Because, in the case of weightlifters, there's a very very miniscule difference in high bar and low bar performance anyways. I can't claim to have any objective data, but I know quite a few WLers turned PLers, and a few who compete in both sports with WL being their primary sport. Even after practicing low bar and becoming proficient with it, I can't think of a single one that has a high bar/low bar spread of more than 5%, and a lot of them just stick with high bar because they lift the same with both bar positions and high bar is just more comfortable for them. i.e. the recommendation that low bar develops leg and hip strength better was predicated on the notion that there's a non-negligible spread between your high bar and low bar squats, which tends to be true for PLers but not WLs (because of the amount of upper back work they do).

You could even argue that low bar is more specific than high bar since it more closely resembles the pull, and sometimes even the snatch recovery.

You could argue that, but I'm not sure why you would. If a lifter has a weak pull, they do pulls. If they have issues with the snatch recovery (which is almost never limited by leg strength anyways), they'll do overhead squat or snatch balances.

but I don't think there is such a thing as being too strong anywhere.

There's where PL and WL diverge. In PL, it doesn't really matter how a lift looks, as long as it meets the rules. If something's disproportionately strong, you can play to your strengths and still crush lifts. However, if something's disproportionately strong on a WLer, it can throw off positioning and timing.

Wouldn't doing two movements at opposite ends of the spectrum be more 'balanced'

Yes. And that's the high bar squat and front squat. The front squat is a bit harder on the upper back than either of the lifts (mainly because you can load it heavier than a clean), and the high bar squat is a bit easier. The LB is skewed so far in the legs/hips > back direction that isn't simply a less specific tool for that job.

the whole low bar vs high bar is not my cup of tea.

Nor is it mine. It's not an either/or. It's a question of what purpose they serve and when/what/for whom they're most appropriate.

To me it seems like you are saying that at light loads you might stay more upright with knees more forward and that at heavy loads you will drift knees further back and lean forward more out of necessity. Do you not want to determine the movement pattern and strive to consistently hit that same pattern?

Yes (to the first statement). As to the second statement - that's the piece that I see as more a matter of opinion/experience. There are several potential ways to come at that with a motor learning rationale. However, based on my understanding, motor patterns are generalizable and have carryover through joint angles within ~15 degrees of those being trained, and neither technique will have a swing of more than 15 degrees at any joint, so I see no problem with training with a pattern that's similar to the one you'll move max loads with, vs. exactly like the one you'll move max loads with; and assuming you're not only training with super light loads and way far away from failure, you ARE still getting practice in that specific pattern as heavier loads and reps closer to failure dictate it (like I said, it's more about intent/cuing than what actually happens kinematically). (I hope that more or less covers the rest of the issues you raised in that post)

[Eric K]

Thanks for posting.

Greg, I hope you continue to post. There can be good discussion on here occasionally.

[Bryan Dobson]

Just finished reading this.

I saw a couple of nuggets in the article that have learned along the way. Hamstring activation for hip extension is actually something I have found useful in my training.

[John Hanley]

The observation that the thoracic extensors are the limiting factor for "getting into the hips" or optimizing hip-extensor contribution during a squat strikes me as spot on. Has to be right.

Beyond that claim, things get messier.

[Meshuggah]

http://www.strengtheory.com/squat-me...-the-red-pill/