Low Bar Squat Critique Low Bar Squat Critique

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Low Bar Squat Critique

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    46

    Default Low Bar Squat Critique

    I recently came across a blog post on NattyorNot.com.

    Low bar squats are a powerlifting invention that does not offer benefits to a noob. This modification of the original exercise allows you to lift more weight by increasing the stress on the hips at the expense of the quadriceps, but the shift isnít beneficial to the average novice.

    The high bar back squat is a better leg builder, arguably easier to learn and far more shoulder friendly.

    Mark Rippetoe and his army have been doing their best to justify the implementation of the low bar squat through all kinds of maneuvers. One of them would be the assessment that the low bar squat is better than the high bar because it hits the almighty posterior chain harder. This is indeed true Ė one of the fastest ways to grow a big booty is to do low bar squats a.k.a. cheated good mornings. But as I already told you, this comes at the expense of leg development.

    The fans of low bar squats will tell you that the movement gets you stronger faster by allowing you to lift more weight, but that isnít true. You are not getting stronger faster, you are simply doing a squat version that gives you an opportunity to lift more. More weight on the bar does not always equal more strength. If this was the case, doing rack pulls would make deadlifts obsolete.
    Is he right? If not, why?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    38,820

    Default

    Obviously a bodybuilder/physicist.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Fun.

    Gear aside, how does one cheat gravity?

    More weight requires more force production which is equivalent to more strength.

    Also, rack pull ROM != deadlift ROM.

    So, Not.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Illinois-"Chicagoland"
    Posts
    4,064

    Default

    According to that website, I am on steroids. My FFMI is too high to be natural, and the numbers don't lie, bro!

    I think you can find better things to do with your time than read blog posts there.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    61

    Default

    I second Karl's notion, and certainly would refrain from re-posting them here, there or anywhere.

    Although on the contrary, I would be interested in reading the authors explanation of their statement 'More weight on the bar does not always equal more strength', if only for the comedic value.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    46

    Default

    A funny quote from another article on his website:

    What would happen if a fat powerlifter with a big total approved by Mark Rippetoe performs the same soft striptease experiments? The girls will look away in disgust and laugh. Some feminists will probably run and call the police too.

    There is a reason why every man lifting for the girls wants to have low body fat. Females prefer lean warriors over lard bombs. A woman will never say – ”The juicy belly of this fat man turns me on. I want him to hug me so that I can connect to the gracious lard residing under his skin.”

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    104

    Default

    What a refutation. Seems like the sources for their material are youtube comments.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    I hate this bullshit argument. While its true that the further forward the bar moves (i.e. from low bar, to high bar to front squat) the emphasis changes and - perhaps -the hamstrings do LESS work, it is not true that the quads do MORE work; this is noted by the reduction in weight as the bar moves from low bar to front squat.

    The quads do just as much in low bar as they do in front/high bar. Its just that hamstrings and glutes arguably do less.

    Fucking idiots.

    All I do for quads is low bar and my quads are deep, feathered and grainy. Natty or not is a world class pussy.

  9. #9
    Brodie Butland is offline Starting Strength Coach
    Consigliere
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    3,954

    Default

    The problem here, as is typical of many criticisms of Starting Strength, is that it discusses lifts in terms of “part development.” We are told in this critique that low bar squats are bad because it “comes at the expense of leg development.”

    So let’s start with first principles—what the blue bloody hell does this even mean? Do the quads not have to extend the knee in a low bar squat? Do the hamstrings not have to perform their primarily isometric function? Do the adductors go quiet on a low bar squat but are destroyed, bro, on a high bar? As a general matter I pay no attention to claims if they don’t bother to define their terms in a way that I can understand.

    As Starting Strength makes clear, we don’t care about “doing insert-body-part-or-muscle-group-here.” We care about maximizing our force production as an entire unit because that’s how we interact with our world. If that’s not your goal, then fine, do something else—but that’s our goal and why we program the way we do.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Pullman WA
    Posts
    126

    Default

    The same blog post goes on to mention that wrist curls and wrist rollers are the best forearm exercise. And that you should only use a belt if you are injured because it's a crutch that lets you lift more weight.
    I don't know who writes this stuff, but I highly doubt their merit. I also think this person spends too much time analyzing pictures of oily shirtless men.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •