Thread: Legpress or Squat?

And there is even a comparison?

Squats all the way!

Nothing can compare to squats,... and I hate squats..!

Depends on what we are arguing. The Vertivcal leg presses will allow you to focus on just using your legs (much more effectivly that the other leg presses machines) which will allow you to handle more weight while taking the rest of your body out of the exercise. The squats are a total body exericise so it may be more difficult to focus on JUST you legs.

That said, I still think squats are the greatest thing you can do. A freind of mine is a strength coach at the University of Colorado and they are big on squats and the olympic lifts there. Some colleges, so he tells me, are against those exercises, claiming they are "to dangerous". So they train their players like bodybuilders. Hypertrophy does shit for you on the field though. Strength and explosivness are were it is at. SQUAT SQUAT SQUAT!

I think the leg press is great and should be a part of you let routine...however, if you can only do one or the other, squats are king.

I would have to go with squats.

Squats is the king of not only leg exercises, but ALL exercises, so there really isnt a comparison.

based on your question of leg development IMO the leg press can be just as effective. it is almost impossible to focus on the eccentric portion of a back squat while keeping perfect form and using big weights...

plain and simple heavy eccentric training builds bigger muscles than heavy concentric training...

Originally Posted by plouffe

A few weeks ago at a MSU football invitation I got into a dispute with one of my coach's about horizantal leg press and squating. He was telling me that horizantal leg press produce the same if not more overall leg devolpment if you were to souly use either one or the other movements? What do you guys think? I kept telling him squats, but I'm still not 100% sure.

I get more leg development out of the leg press...no doubt. You cannot say as a generalization for everyone that squats are superior to leg press, bench presses superior to machine presses, or military presses superior to upright rows. There are too many variables to consider.

I like leg press. Mostly cuz i dont have a spot.

Found a short thread: Posted by: Maki Riddington

Originally posted by Supreme,

I don't think squats are essential.
Let's take a look at the benefits of squats over other exercises of the kind (hack's, leg press, etc)...

Larger hormonal response

More stabilizer activation

Trains lower body through full ROM (assuming you go ATF)

That's all I can think of off the top of my head...

Now, if we were to combine deadlifts and leg press to compensate for the lack of squats...

Deads and squats share statistically equal hormonal effects

Deads involve just about the same amount of stabilizer activation

Leg press trains the lower body in pretty much the same ROM as squats.

The only thing that I can see that makes squats superior here is efficeincy, which isn't a huge deal.

*** "Pretty much the same ROM" needs to be distiguished since the sticking point as Supreme pointed out in another post plays a big factor in Squats. The leg press really does not have a sticking point unless you go through the full ROM which varies between individuals. Therefore it must be distiguished what the full ROM is.

The role the pelvis plays in stabilizing the spine would depend on the ROM carried out in both movements. After a certain point in the Leg Press the pelvis will posteriorly rotate. This is not nessicarily harmful but can be if done excessively.


I know this is off the topic, but which would you consider better: high-velocity reps, or low-velocity reps?

Hmmm, I would think in a high velocity rep you would end up using momentum,so not getting full muscle contration/stimulation.

Originally Posted by kvyd

Hmmm, I would think in a high velocity rep you would end up using momentum,so not getting full muscle contration/stimulation.

I think high velocity reps might impede on form. Personally, I stick with lower velocity. As far as contraction, the slower is the better for me. I do think low-velocity reps stimulate the muscle(s) better. I see lots of people @ the gym incorporating high velocity reps, though. I guess it is depends on preferred training technique of the individual. Dunno!

I think a football coach advocating a leg press over a squat is retarded. For something like bodybuilding, sure, because who cares about functional power or explosiveness. For football (or any sport), though... the leg press is way overrated imo.

Far as i know, squat trains many different muscle groups in the body, while leg press only benefits one area.

"...machines keep the resistance working along one plane only, meaning the muscle has to do things the machine's way or no way at all. With no need to balance and control the resistance, you end up with less muscle."
-Arnold Schwarzenegger

The legpress machine is good but it doesn't come close to a squat. Squats are much more effective.

Jodi...

What would be the ideal set and rep range for squats q/ dumbells ( 2- 10lbs.)? I do 3 sets of 20 going wide and deep on each.

Thanks,
Mars

Yeah, balancing and controlling the weight would incorporate more muscle fibers (i.e., free weights), instead of a controlled movement by the use of a machine.

Originally Posted by madden player

"...machines keep the resistance working along one plane only, meaning the muscle has to do things the machine's way or no way at all. With no need to balance and control the resistance, you end up with less muscle."
-Arnold Schwarzenegger

The legpress machine is good but it doesn't come close to a squat. Squats are much more effective.

For muscular development...completely wrong.

For carryover to sports performance...correct.

Deads and squats share statistically equal hormonal effects

I've heard a lot of bullshit in my day, but this is just golden.

Originally Posted by gopro

For muscular development...completely wrong.

For carryover to sports performance...correct.

Please elaborate. I'm interested!

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

I've heard a lot of bullshit in my day, but this is just golden.

Yeah, I've never heard of that, either. But, you always have to consider the source. I was just posting a thread.

Oh I wasn't mocking you by any means. I was simply pointing out the hilarity of the post you were citing.

Squats cover more of the body than a leg press ever will. There is no core strength requirement with a leg press.

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Oh I wasn't mocking you by any means. I was simply pointing out the hilarity of the post you were citing.

It's cool. I just saw the post, and I had to include it in the thread.

Originally Posted by trHawT

Please elaborate. I'm interested!

For sports performance I believe squats to be superior simply because many more muscles are involved, including the very important stabilizer muscles, as well as balance, and far more focus and coordination is necessary. In addition, whenever you do a movement where you "move you body through space" you will excite the nervous system to a greater degree...and this will be compounded by the "danger" factor of squats. Squats is also a natural movement that takes place in many sports, while leg pressing will not occur anywhere really except for maybe in cage fighting when you might need to push a competitor off of you with your legs.

For bodybuilding, however, you cannot say that squats are superior or that leg presses are superior. Stabilizer muscles and balance has nothing to do with whether you are stimulating the "target" muscle to hypertrophy, which in this case is the quads. In fact, it could be argued that the greater "isolation" of machine movements may allow greater recruitment of the target muscle than movements when many more muscles are forced into play. Some get tons of growth out of squats, but some others, very little. I have been training for the better part of my life and have never gotten more out of a squat workout than a leg press workout.

Originally Posted by gopro

For sports performance I believe squats to be superior simply because many more muscles are involved, including the very important stabilizer muscles, as well as balance, and far more focus and coordination is necessary. In addition, whenever you do a movement where you "move you body through space" you will excite the nervous system to a greater degree...and this will be compounded by the "danger" factor of squats. Squats is also a natural movement that takes place in many sports, while leg pressing will not occur anywhere really except for maybe in cage fighting when you might need to push a competitor off of you with your legs.

For bodybuilding, however, you cannot say that squats are superior or that leg presses are superior. Stabilizer muscles and balance has nothing to do with whether you are stimulating the "target" muscle to hypertrophy, which in this case is the quads. In fact, it could be argued that the greater "isolation" of machine movements may allow greater recruitment of the target muscle than movements when many more muscles are forced into play. Some get tons of growth out of squats, but some others, very little. I have been training for the better part of my life and have never gotten more out of a squat workout than a leg press workout.

very well put GP!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Tank316

very well put GP!!!!!!

Thanks your tankishness!!

Originally Posted by Mudge

Squats cover more of the body than a leg press ever will. There is no core strength requirement with a leg press.

Exactly...Squats add pounds and inches everywhere.