High Bar Squat Carryover

[lebronjames]

Hi guys,

So this is hardly scientific, but it's pretty interesting. I've changed gyms for about a week and a half now (only temporary, back home on a two week break from university), and in this new gym, the low-bar squat is very novel, attracts plenty of unwanted attention because of the more horizontal back angle, and gets a lot of unsolicited advice. This is probably because my normal gym is a university gym, and the new gym is a commerical gym. Thus, I've been high bar squatting exclusively for the past 5 workouts to save myself some grief and also try something new.

Before the switch, my low bar was 115kg (3x5) and the first time I high bar squatted going ATG, it was 100kg (3x5). After five workouts, I'm now at 110kg (3x5). The surprising thing is after my 3 sets of 5 at 110kg, I tested my progress and managed to do a rather comfortable set of 8 low bar at 125kg. The new gym also had a glute-ham raise, which the old one didn't, and I've been doing them as assistance. Really great exercise and I feel as if my hammies are much, much stronger now.

I dunno, but it seems to me as if all the gains on high bar carried over to low bar, but I doubt if I had improved my low-bar squat 10kg that it would have transferred completely over to high bar, given the fact that a 15kg disparity was present at the start.

I did some research on this and Pendlay seems to agree:

1) There is the assumption that high bar squats, done very deep, do not work the posterior chain. I would propose that they do, and the difference between high bar and low bar and the posterior chain is not as large as some would assume it is. My observations at the time were that the longer lever arm created by putting the bar higher on the back was overriding the decreased angle of the back, and making it even harder for my lumbar muscles to maintan a tight back and for my hip extensors to extend the hip. I am not trying to say that HB squats work the posterior chain more than LB squats, I do not personally believe this, I am just making the point that the differences are not as clear cut as some are making them.

2) As I see it, the heart of this argument is really about the carry-over of LB and HB squats to other things, specifically OL. Here are a few general observations about carry-over.

When I was a good LB squatter, that strength did not carry over well to HB or front squats, as evidenced by some of the numbers above. When later in my lifting career, I became a decent HB squatter, it directly and immedietly carried over to being able to do very respectable numbers in the LB squat. My front squat of 550lbX5reps and HB back squat of 606lbsX10 reps, both done without a belt, these sets done about a month apart, allowed me to do several very, very respectable LB squats, and LB box squats with no practice or training on either the LB squat or the LB box squat. My feeling was that strength gained from HB squatting was just more "transferable" to other things than strength gained from LB squatting. Through many conversations with others, and a fair bit of experience coaching ex-powerlifters in the Olympic lifts, I have found that this seems to be quite universal. HB, Olympic style squatting will make you strong at the LB squat, LB squatting with a more bent over stance and less depth will NOT carry over well to the HB, Olympic style squat. I think the carry over from one to another bears considering, because what what we are really talking about here is the carry over from one type of squat or another to a completely different exercise.

I've read all of Rip's article about why low-bar is superior (more posterior chain involvement). But I'm rather interested in what Pendlay says in bold above about the longer second lever arm. The longer the second lever arm, the greater the force magnification, meaning the barbell exerts greater force, leaving the body to exert more force to keep the first lever arm small. I get it when Rippetoe says the hamstrings are contracted at the bottom position of a HBBS, and don't do much as you initially rise from the hole. But the hamstrings sure as hell do a lot of work in keeping the first lever arm small as the knees extend.

Thus if strength is the main goal, wouldn't the fact that the high-bar squat carries over so well to the low-bar squat and not vice versa indicate that the high-bar is somewhat underrated in this respect? Logically then, would not high-bar squatting with an accessory hamstring exercise such as the GHR or GM be a superior approach, providing a better and more balanced coverage of the posterior chain, quads and back muscles?

[steven-miller]

Some thoughts on this.

The weight being handled with LBBS is higher than HBBS. Therefore an increase of 15 kg in one type of squat represents a different percentage of genetic potential regarding this movement than the same 15 kg would for the other type of squat. In other words, 15 kg gained in the HBBS is a slightly higher strength increase compared to the LBBS, which is why some people observe these carryover irregularities.

The important thing to take away regarding the LBBS is however that
- it is a more balanced strength exercise
- it puts less stress on the knees
- it has a higher improvement ceiling, which is why stalling happens later in the progression (compare for example bench-press vs. incline bench-press)

These things are important to consider when looking at the carryover to other activities as well. But there is more. Right now I have to go though.

Later...

[Dastardly]

Dont forget that although pretty much everyone can support much greater loads on their back (and half squat it) with low bar, many people find it extremely awkward to hit legit parallel with low bar.

If you have long femurs/short torso, then combining this with low bar can give you a rather akward squat that is extremely hamstring dominant and doesnt "train" the legs as "thoroughly" as they could be with a high bar squat, which also gives you a more upright posture which allows safer more consistent technique.

If you are one of these people (like myself actually) low bar can be so intense on the hamstrings that you get hamstring tendonitis and knee pain, because the stress os so imbalanced. Its like doing heavy good mornings every day!


This is the case for some people, not everyone.

[lebronjames]

Some thoughts on this.
The weight being handled with LBBS is higher than HBBS. Therefore an increase of 15 kg in one type of squat represents a different percentage of genetic potential regarding this movement than the same 15 kg would for the other type of squat. In other words, 15 kg gained in the HBBS is a slightly higher strength increase compared to the LBBS, which is why some people observe these carryover irregularities.

Wouldn't it then make sense to choose the exercise which produces the greater relative strength increase and has a greater carryover? If a 15kg increase on the HBBS can produce a near equal increase in the LBBS, wouldn't it be better to milk the HBBS for all its worth as a novice, then continue linear progression (LP) with the LBBS? Whereas if you start off LP with the LBBS, you will last longer, but as the carryover of the LBBS to the HBBS is much less, your starting HBBS weight will be considerably lower.

In other words, in terms of bang for your buck, the LBBS develops quad strength to a lesser degree than the HBBS develops hamstring strength. But deadlifts go a pretty fine job of working the hamstrings. Thus a case could be made the HBBS is maybe a superior exercise within SS.

PS. I'm not anti-Rip. I've bought all his books, read all his articles and watched all his videos, plus he saved me from embarking on a split bodybuilding program as a novice, for which I'm eternally grateful.

[Tamara Reynolds]

Dont forget that although pretty much everyone can support much greater loads on their back (and half squat it) with low bar, many people find it extremely awkward to hit legit parallel with low bar.

Find me the person who has trouble breaking parallel on a low bar squat who can then turn around and hit an ATG high bar squat. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I have yet to see it. Anyone I have seen who has problems getting to parallel on a squat has problems with that on low bar, high bar, and front squats.

Shitty mobility is shitty mobility regardless of the type of squat. Shitty proprioception works the same way.

[Mr_Rogers]

If you have long femurs/short torso, then combining this with low bar can give you a rather akward squat that is extremely hamstring dominant and doesnt "train" the legs as "thoroughly" as they could be with a high bar squat, which also gives you a more upright posture which allows safer more consistent technique.

If you are one of these people (like myself actually) low bar can be so intense on the hamstrings that you get hamstring tendonitis and knee pain, because the stress os so imbalanced. Its like doing heavy good mornings every day!

If you have an inconsistent technique then your technique is poor regardless of what type of squat your doing. If you're getting knee pain from the SS-style of low bar squatting then your form is poor. If your doing a good morning instead of a low bar squat your form is poor. It doesn't matter what sort of squat you do if you're doing them incorrectly.

Because of my long femurs every type of squat I do (front, high-bar, low-bar) has a torso angle, it just varies. Rip even explains this in SSBT: 3rd high-bar/front squat section in the back of the book. Hitting proper depth as defined in the book is relatively easy regardless of how you squat even if you're mobility challenged like me.

the LBBS develops quad strength to a lesser degree than the HBBS develops hamstring strength.

I'm curious how this was measured.

NM, looks like it's the bolded part in the OP. Wouldn't that be dependent on an individuals anthromporphy?

[hbriem]

When your max squat is 110-125kg you are still a rank beginner and your progress will be rapid whatever the squat type.

It is not thereby given that a 300kg high bar squat carries over to a 350kg low bar squat immediately, although it should eventually.

The low bar squat is a high-skill movement that requires practice to execute efficiently. The high-bar squat is a simpler and more natural movement, but utilises less of the body's resources and gives lesser results.

[Mr_Rogers]

I'm curious how this was measured.

NM, looks like it's the bolded part in the OP. Wouldn't that be dependent on an individuals anthromporphy?

This was asinine. You went to the seminar and still asked this? Dumbass.

[lebronjames]

When your max squat is 110-125kg you are still a rank beginner and your progress will be rapid whatever the squat type.

But as I have argued above, it appears that high-bar squatting promotes faster combined development of strength in both the quads and posterior chain, compared with the low bar squat.

It is not thereby given that a 300kg high bar squat carries over to a 350kg low bar squat immediately, although it should eventually.

This argument is irrelevant. 300kg is about the maximum back squat of Lu XiaoJun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMBCL...layer_embedded

The low bar squat is a high-skill movement that requires practice to execute efficiently. The high-bar squat is a simpler and more natural movement, but utilises less of the body's resources and gives lesser results.

Wouldn't a lift that has faster recovery and better carryover be superior? My experience thus far has been that high-bar squatting is not particularly taxing and I've felt fresh pretty much every workout, even after deadlift day.

[Immortal_k]