We hear a lot of confusion when we tell people we don't recommend that our clients do Back Squats. This video will cover some of the main reasons we feel they're a poor choice - as well as some of the exercises you should do instead.
What's your stance on utilizing a front squat harness to perform unilateral split squats, in regards to return on investment for ease of progressively increasing load vs. spinal compression load and/or over taxing the lumbar muscular to the point where there could be structural issues, vs. If one was using say dumbbells or an open trap bar? Also, do feel that the back squat has any merit , if used sparingly with subjectively lighter heights and efforts, to help build resiliency, (aka "toughen up the spine), in regards to spinal compression..... similar to a intelligently programed Jefferson Curl does with spinal flexion...more or less like the law of accommodation, .or am I just off iny thinking pattern and comparison?
There are no sacred cows in building strength. Although I would probably have them do front squats if they could get into front rack positioning after a little while of goblet squats, and farmers squats. Progressive overload means those two variations will eventually wed the barbell, If they are doing 20 reps of goblet squats, they might find their arms are the limiting factor after a couple of months of consistent training and progress.
I much prefer the front squat, especially since it can be executed directly after a power clean. Why does Rippetoe recommended it in Starting Strength, though?
y247 Agreed on the "accessible" part, since nobody does it in my gym except me. But does it really make you stronger? I think Olympic lifters are pretty damn strong for their weight classes!
@@khmak9387 accessibility due to not having to get into the front rack position which some people just aren’t built to do. And yes the back squat makes you stronger than the front squat. That’s why Olympic lifters back squat also.
Olympic lifters do mostly front squats and overhead squats whilst the back squat is seen as accessory as it’s not they movement they compete in. They train clean and jerk and snatch, which have a front squat and overhead squat. So back squat takes a back seat.
The problem with squats is that only the **proper, anterior-chain**-driven form/technique will actually allow you to lift the most weight (plus most safely too), which in turn simultaneously makes it among the **least functional** exercises out there because most folks use their posterior chains vastly more for actually lifting/moving stuff up and down...
It is literally a less efficient use of time and effort to do unilateral work. And no you cannot do more than 50% of a bilateral 1RM with unilateral work. This is because of the stability factor of bilateral movement. This certification has to be one of the worst in the industry and that says something
Why do you say it is a less efficient use of time and effort? In regards to your claim on the bilateral deficit, the studies that we refer to were initially performed on a leg press, but have been since been backed up by force plate data on any number of exercises. I would recommend taking a look at Alex Natera's research. Fairly illuminating stuff. For real world examples, both Ben Bruno and Max Shank have videos out there with some very impressive numbers on single leg lower body work.
It's better to build strenght with 70% efficiency for 10 years without injuries than at 100% and get thrown off track by injuries until one injury scars you for life. And 1RM are BS ways of rating your fitness as they are dependant on CNS pattern efficiency, carb loading and artificial specification in training. You will loose so much training aspects you could focus on when focusing on getting your deadlift to 600lbs and risk destroying your body on the way
@@HauptmannGallenstein where was training for 1RM stated in my comment? What I said is that you cannot do half of the weight you can use on a bilateral exercise. Whether that’s 1RM, 5RM or 10RM is irrelevant. To say that unilateral movements are superior to bilateral barbell movements in regard to efficiency of time and effort is just wrong. Some unilateral work has its place but to over emphasize its benefits is just laughable really.
@@Polar_Bear_Pete lol functional. If you have asymmetrical bilateral movement patterns you either don’t know what you’re doing or if it’s someone you’re coaching you’re a shit coach
The spine, like your muscles, adapt to the stress you place on it. The bones become more dense from resistance training. They’re not beams in a building that break down due to stress. Provided you don’t overdo it too quick, back squats are the best exercise for almost anyone. Bad take.
Spine is like a suspension and has a certain strain rating. People are not designed to carry like 315lbs on their backs. And no ,your spine develops to a certain age ,pass that there is no magical enhancement of the spinal disks. Heavt back squats are one of the most pointless exercises.
@@aleksandararabadzhiev3742 no the spine is not like a suspension, or any other inanimate structure. The spine, like most of the body, adapts to stress. There are many cases of older people (ie. people over 60) who squat over 300lb and have the bone density of a healthy 30 year old. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You’re just absolutely wrong on all points you’re trying to make. 1. Stress on back from compression: this is not a bad or dangerous thing. Human beings are not fragile. We get bigger and stronger bones and muscles by handling heavier loads. The spine is no different 2. Mobility issues: if you cannot teach someone how to squat you are just a shit strength coach. 95+% of people can hit depth on a squat. 3. Not the most efficient way to train legs: it is literally the most efficient leg movement
