Thread: Wide stance vs Narrow stance squats

I think both squats have their place. I have my clients do box squats all over the place, which is generally done with a more powerlifting style. I find it great to help iron out technique issues with a free squat. However, I think more narrow squats are also a valuable tool. There isn't any good reason to use one at the exclusion of the other.in my opinion, save for special circumstances.

I agree with Cow from the perspective of variation. Variety is good in that it allows for harder training more often without the normally concurrent CNS burnout.

Narrow squats will tend to build the quads more readily in most trainees while a wider stance may not prove quite as effective specifically relative to the quads.

Chris

What you need to do is go down slightly less than parallel with a shoulder width or even closer stance to allow the glutes and quads to do the work, turning the squat into a leverage movement is ridiculous considering the fact that there are exercises much better suited to target the hamstrings (such as romanian deadlifts for one). The only thing you are doing by going wide is setting yourself up for hip problems (Ed Coan has just had a hip replacement) it is also why all these weight junkies need to use protective gear such as briefs to save their hips and at what cost? to lift more weight? do the right thing and go lighter and narrow like i said in order to truly strengthen yourself where it counts and perhaps end up looking like tom platz and saving yourself from a nasty injury.



Just make sure you force your knees out throughout the lift in order to prevent buckling because whether you go wide or narrow that can be dangerous on your knees.

Great post you're just about 4 years late.