Front Loaded Squats

[Stretch]

I'm kinda new to these, and I love 'em. I never see many people in the gym do squats this way. Not many people in my gym do squats anyway, it's mostly college guys doing curls-for-girls. But is there a reason why they are not more popular?

 

[The13ig13adWolf]

they're scared...

 

[Tough Old Man]

I'm kinda new to these, and I love 'em. I never see many people in the gym do squats this way. Not many people in my gym do squats anyway, it's mostly college guys doing curls-for-girls. But is there a reason why they are not more popular?

I don't think there necessary. If you use these three I think you'll achieve the quads your looking for.

1) Squats
2) Leg Presses
3) Hack Squats.

There's so many others that front just doesn't take space in my log book

 

[The13ig13adWolf]

I don't think there necessary.

i disagree.

 

[BigDyl]

i disagree.

I agree.

 

[cider303]

everytime i do hack squats i end up on my ass

 

[ihateschoolmt]

I don't think there necessary. If you use these three I think you'll achieve the quads your looking for.

1) Squats
2) Leg Presses
3) Hack Squats.

There's so many others that front just doesn't take space in my log book

Front squats>leg press and hack squats.

 

[swordfish]

Front squats>leg press and hack squats.

Agreed. and ATG back squats> front squats and

ATG back squats= king of all exercises.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

Agreed. and ATG back squats> front squats and

ATG back squats= king of all exercises.

I disagree. ATG front squats > ATG back squats, such that ATG front squats are king of all exercises.

I've always felt like I've had a better workout with front squats (no, not the 'pump') and I also added over 20 pounds to my ATG back squat doing front squats exclusively for about six-eight weeks.

It's so much harder to hold the bar in front of you than to just rest it on your back - your wrists are strengthened and your back is used a ton more. It also absolutely forces you to have a perfect posture whereas with back squats you can be a little lazy if you're not careful.

 

[swordfish]

I disagree. ATG front squats > ATG back squats, such that ATG front squats are king of all exercises.

I've always felt like I've had a better workout with front squats (no, not the 'pump') and I also added over 20 pounds to my ATG back squat doing front squats exclusively for about six-eight weeks.

It's so much harder to hold the bar in front of you than to just rest it on your back - your wrists are strengthened and your back is used a ton more. It also absolutely forces you to have a perfect posture whereas with back squats you can be a little lazy if you're not careful.

You can use more weight and the load is shifted from quads to more hams and glutes+ lower back, thus making the ATG back squat- king of all leg exercises. I think that front squats are GREAT, but back squats are that much better, especially when you get the form down and go deep. I'll bet you money that someone that can ATG back squat- 400x10 has bigger legs than someone that can do a front squat of 300x10 simply because the back squats require a little bit more of hams and glutes.

 

[ihateschoolmt]

Front squats work your whole body better. Back squats work your legs better.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

You can use more weight and the load is shifted from quads to more hams and glutes+ lower back, thus making the ATG back squat- king of all leg exercises. I think that front squats are GREAT, but back squats are that much better, especially when you get the form down and go deep. I'll bet you money that someone that can ATG back squat- 400x10 has bigger legs than someone that can do a front squat of 300x10 simply because the back squats require a little bit more of hams and glutes.

I still disagree. The fact that you can use more weight means nothing. You can use even more weight for the leg press than for the back squat, right? So, using that logic, the leg press would be king.

I'm not talking about size though - strictly strength. Of course, if someone can do 100 pounds more for one exercise than the other, you'd expect them ot be bigger. Use equal poundages, though, and the person who can front squat 400 is probably much stronger than the one who can back squat 400. Look at the olympic lifters. Some of them can front squat close to 1,000 and can probably do a raw back squat ATG more than just about any powerlifters. They have some real power, and it's from training the front squat.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

Front squats work your whole body better. Back squats work your legs better.

A succinct and accurate summary of my thoughts that I may have failed to communicate.

 

[P-funk]

front squats are the shiat!!

I rarely ever push max lifts on my back squats anymore. I choose to do all my strength work with my front squat.

 

[Yanick]

who front squats one thousand pounds?

 

[P-funk]

who front squats one thousand pounds?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[The Monkey Man]

I'll bet you money that someone that can ATG back squat- 400x10 has bigger legs than someone that can do a front squat of 300x10

Hey some of that shit you are smoking must be pretty good...

Send me a sample of your crack stones -

 

[BritChick]

I agree.

Me too.

 

[The Monkey Man]

Me too.

You just don't like ATG, schtick -

 

[Nate K]

Front squats are the shit. I tend to try and not worry about the weight with them and go DEEP. I'm getting excited just typing about it.

 

[CowPimp]

I still disagree. The fact that you can use more weight means nothing. You can use even more weight for the leg press than for the back squat, right? So, using that logic, the leg press would be king.

This has come up before, and you have to remember that although you move more mass with the leg press, you don't necessarily move more weight, which are two separate things. Most leg press sleds sit on about a 45 degree angle, or even a bit less. This means that you are really only pushing about 70% of what is actually on the sled (You have to take the cosine of 45 degrees). You also have to consider that you are also moving your bodyweight during a squat, almost all of it.

My take on the front squat vs. back squat debate is that it is a pointless debate. No exercise is better per se; it depends on what your goals are. If you are a powerlifter, then back squats are king. If you are an olympic lifter, then front squats are king. If you are a bodybuilder, then both are useful training tools.

 

[P-funk]

This has come up before, and you have to remember that although you move more mass with the leg press, you don't necessarily move more weight, which are two separate things. Most leg press sleds sit on about a 45 degree angle, or even a bit less. This means that you are really only pushing about 70% of what is actually on the sled (You have to take the cosine of 45 degrees). You also have to consider that you are also moving your bodyweight during a squat, almost all of it.

Also, just to go along with that, you would have to look at the two people squating. Physics will play a role in how much weight (force inches) are actually being moved. Things like femur length, torso length, ROM, where you set the bar, the distance the bar moves etc...will all play into this debate.

 

[Tough Old Man]

Also, just to go along with that, you would have to look at the two people squating. Physics will play a role in how much weight (force inches) are actually being moved. Things like femur length, torso length, ROM, where you set the bar, the distance the bar moves etc...will all play into this debate.

LOL I feel like i need to go back to school after this and re take algebra again

 

[BigDyl]

Me too.

I agree with you and BigBadWolf... perhaps we should get together and discuss other things we agree on... who knows what could happen from there...

 

[BritChick]

You just don't like ATG, schtick -

I do both... just Smith Machine not BB - Patrick's favourite!

 

[Stretch]

they're scared...

It's cool. That leaves the squat rack open for me.

 

[Yanick]

I'm not talking about size though - strictly strength. Of course, if someone can do 100 pounds more for one exercise than the other, you'd expect them ot be bigger. Use equal poundages, though, and the person who can front squat 400 is probably much stronger than the one who can back squat 400. Look at the olympic lifters. Some of them can front squat close to 1,000 and can probably do a raw back squat ATG more than just about any powerlifters. They have some real power, and it's from training the front squat.

your forgetting one big thing though. the guy who can front squat 400 will also be able to back squat a hell of a lot more than 400 lbs. Hell i can back squat ATG, 400x2 but i doubt i would even be able to hold 400lbs in the rack position let alone front squat it!

saying that Oly lifters get all their power from front squatting is just plain ridiculous. Your assuming that every single OL'er in the world just front squats and automatically has a strong back squat, which is just plain wrong, they squat just like anybody else does.

you cannot label exercises as king just because it seems harder to you, fact of the matter is though that i would have to agree with swordfish. in the end even if you can front squat 400, you can still back squat more than 400 because it is just much easier to hold the bar on your back vs your shoulders/clavicle. So yes, back squats will put more weight on your body no matter what, but front squats have their place in training routines and certainly might be better suited for certain sports than others but in the end you want the load to be as great as possible.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

your forgetting one big thing though. the guy who can front squat 400 will also be able to back squat a hell of a lot more than 400 lbs. Hell i can back squat ATG, 400x2 but i doubt i would even be able to hold 400lbs in the rack position let alone front squat it!

saying that Oly lifters get all their power from front squatting is just plain ridiculous. Your assuming that every single OL'er in the world just front squats and automatically has a strong back squat, which is just plain wrong, they squat just like anybody else does.

you cannot label exercises as king just because it seems harder to you, fact of the matter is though that i would have to agree with swordfish. in the end even if you can front squat 400, you can still back squat more than 400 because it is just much easier to hold the bar on your back vs your shoulders/clavicle. So yes, back squats will put more weight on your body no matter what, but front squats have their place in training routines and certainly might be better suited for certain sports than others but in the end you want the load to be as great as possible.

I do see where you're coming from, but, using the same facts, my logic is much different. You see, I'm interested in the exercise that will cause you to work the hardest with the least amount of weight (AKA the exercise that will build the most functional strength to me). This is why I've always stood by the DB bench being better than the BB bench for strength. Sure, you can use more weight for the BB bench, but there's a good reason why you can't use as much with the DBs - it's much more difficult to do a DB bench with the same weight as a BB bench. To me, this makes the DB bench a much more valuable exercise. Now, replace 'BB bench' with 'back squat' and 'DB bench' with 'front squat' and my same logic still applies. Just because there's actually more weight on the bar doesn't mean you actually have to work harder. Therefore, the exercise with which you can use less weight while still needing the same amount of force is the better exercise IMO. Many people disagree with this, but my reasoning is for different reasons than their reasoning usually is. Hopefully I explained my thoughts sufficiently.

P-funk, I thought you said there were some olympic lifters who could do a front squat of close to 1,000 pounds but didn't do them anymore because after that point it didn't help them with their cleans. Maybe I just misremembered.

Oh, and I'm quite sure that someone with a strong front squat (such as an olympic lifter) will also have a strong back squat, especially since you said that in your first paragraph, but seemed to contradict yourself in the next.

 

[swordfish]

BB bench > DB bench.

 

[P-funk]

P-funk, I thought you said there were some olympic lifters who could do a front squat of close to 1,000 pounds but didn't do them anymore because after that point it didn't help them with their cleans. Maybe I just misremembered.

no, I said they back squat near 1000lbs raw but have stopped since there isn't much carry over to the actual lifts like there is when you front squat.