Does squatting really exercise the hamstrings optimally?

[Will Morris]

Anectdotal evidence says this; Training for 10 years and breaking the body up into individual muscles / muscle groups and training 3-4 exercises for multiple sets with the rep range being "optimal for hypertrophy 8-12 reps" did not produce nearly the gain in size that less than one year of the SS method of squatting has produced.

Three months into the program, an entire wardrobe of pants had to be donated to goodwill because my ass and thighs wouldn't fit into them anymore. My quads are not as drastically larger as my hamstrings, hips, and glutes are. In lieu of scientific data, the anectdotal evidence supports the claim that my glutes and hamstrings get as much work as they need to get big and powerful through the use of primarily the SS method of squatting.

[bruce]

I should stop backing up my point(s) because of lack of experience and understanding of the mechanism involved. But mainly I'd like to know:
1. how much the hamstrings do work compared to the quads and gluteus muscles in squats (because the hip and the knees are extended at the same time in the positive phase thus simultaneously shorthened and lengthened the hams), and
2. how effective squat is in training the hamstrings compared to say, hip extension exercises when your knees are hold static (i.e good mornings, hyperextensions, etc.).

Thanks again!

1. Surely it doesn't matter? As others have already suggested, the hamstrings will work as hard as they need to depending on a number of factors, e.g. weight on the bar, technique, bar position, depth, anthropometry, etc. But they will work, and Rip has done a pretty good job of explaining why they work harder in the low bar squat.

2. If there is some imbalance between quad and hamstring strength, e.g. because you do a quad-dominant sport such as skiing, then I can see an argument for isolating the hamstrings from an injury-prevention point of view. I guess when training for sports where injuries commonly occur during forceful eccentric contractions then, if indeed the hamstrings work is predominantly isometric during the squat, perhaps some heavy eccentric 'isolation' work would be worthwhile. If you are simply training to squat then the squat itself will be an effective hamstring workout, without forgetting the benefits of targeted assistance work. If you are training for looks then, again, isolation may be necessary. So, as Stef already said, 'what for' are the key missing words.

[MDR2]

Rip,

Considering the quads are pulling the tibia (which is the distal end of the hamstrings) away from the pelvis and the hamstrings work is mainly isometric, would it be reasonable to say that the quads are partially responsible for hip extension through there effect on the hamstrings/tibia?

[Mark Rippetoe]

My point is that in squats VS leg presses or knee extensions, the quads' contribution is significant in all of them, do the same applies to the hams in squatting VS other hip extension exercises? Perhaps the answer if yes if I look at powerlifters who are famous for their posterior chain strength.

Training can be for function or appearance, but I'm afraid if the hams needs to be supplemented if you're just squatting. As for me myself, I'm a beginner olympic lifter.

Sorry if my tone sounds like I doubt you but actually I just want to know more. Afterall your advice have always been helpful to me. And people with a lot of experience like you should instantly know if they have strong hams from squatting (and I should listen), but unfortunately I'm not one of them.

I need to ask: have you read BBT?

Rip,

Considering the quads are pulling the tibia (which is the distal end of the hamstrings) away from the pelvis and the hamstrings work is mainly isometric, would it be reasonable to say that the quads are partially responsible for hip extension through there effect on the hamstrings/tibia?

You can extend the knee with the quad using this function, but it ceases to operate with significant weight and at significant depth. Good point though.

[Paperclip]

Couldn't one also make a similar argument that squats don't optimally work the quads, as the rectus femoris is also in a situation of being stretched at one end (the knee) and slackened at the other (the hip)?

I never knew that there's a part of the quads that's biarticulate, thanks!

If you are simply training to squat then the squat itself will be an effective hamstring workout, without forgetting the benefits of targeted assistance work. If you are training for looks then, again, isolation may be necessary. So, as Stef already said, 'what for' are the key missing words.

I'm a beginner weightlifter. Usually I add good mornings or hyperextensions to my program but that's also before I realize how the hams function. The reason I add hip extension exercises is that because I'm afraid that weightlifting training is too quad dominant.

But what I do is also not the main reason I make this thread. It is to understand how the hams function (and how hard) when we squat. I think perhaps it's slowly becoming a moot point.

I need to ask: have you read BBT?

Nope, just SS 2nd ed. Why, Rip?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Just curious.

[Paperclip]

Just curious.

I just remembered that SS is called SS:BBT. Was that some kind of trap question?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Might have been.

[TomF]

The original post asked if the squat really exercised the hamstrings optimally.

An obvious response to the original post would have been to ask ... exercise the hamstrings optimally to do what? To do what we normally expect of hamstrings, like lifting heavy things, propelling a person in a particular direction or (with variations) develop explosive power? Yup. And develop the capacities in direct proportion to the part the hamstrings play with other muscle groups, to do those things.

But they won't develop ballet-dancer flexibility. And if your goal is physique competition, you might eventually want to add some isolation exercises. Squats will still be bloody useful, but not sufficient for those out-of-the-ordinary goals.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Quite good, Tom. You got me on this point.