Low Bar vs. High Bar

[Rory]

I've come across a pretty interesting "article" on the superiority of the low bar squat vs the high bar back squat. I thought I would post it here to spark some discussion.

For all those who use the high bar squat in your training, you should take a look at this post by Mark Rippetoe, which I'll post after this intro. He makes a damn good case why the high bar should be pretty much thrown out of your repertoire.

My opinion is that I generally completely agree with him. Except one point: I can see competitive Oly lifters using it occasionally, but for the general strength enthusiast, I don't see a use. Maybe it has a more specific role in a throwers training, I don't know.

The post is below

[Rory]

But this is beside my primary point of argument: I maintain that high-bar squats have a limited usefulness, for several reasons. I use the low-bar squat as the primary exercise for developing hip drive, the active recruitment of the muscles of the posterior chain. The hamstrings, adductors, and glutes in a low-bar squat act directly to open the hip angle out of the bottom. In a front squat the hamstrings are shortened by the acute knee angle and open hip angle into a position of almost complete contraction, and cannot be used to make the hips extend since they are already contracted. The extremely vertical back angle is maintained by the glutes and the contracted hamstrings, which function as the primary extensors of the hip in the absence of hamstring involvement. This means that there is little hamstring in a front squat and lots of hamstring in a low-bar back squat. And a high-bar back squat is intermediate between the two. I specifically want there to be lots of hamstring involvement in the squat, especially for Olympic weightlifters, most of whom refuse to/are not allowed to deadlift heavy and thereby get their hamstring work. If all your squat work -- front squats when you clean and when you do them out of the rack, and high-bar back squats -- omits heavy hamstring involvement, your posterior chain gets inadequate training. And this can be costly on a 3rd attempt clean.

So, I want there to be shear stress on the back so that the muscles that control intervertebral position get strong. I want active use of the hamstrings, so that they get strong too. And this is why I like the low-bar back squat. If we're front squatting when we clean and when we front squat, what earthly reason would there be to make our back squats more like an exercise we're already doing, an exercise that leaves out a muscle group that is very important when we pull? And since low-bar squats allow more weight to be used, thus producing a more acute strength and hormone response, and since the reason Olympic lifters and all of us back squat is to get stronger (it's obviously not a contested lift in a weightlifting meet), it makes more sense to do them in the way that allows the use of the most weight. And this may be the most important point: the shorter second lever arm may compensate for the longer first lever arm, but more weight can be lifted low-bar than high-bar or front squat because there are more muscles and more muscle mass involved in the movement, and that's why we squat anyway. The front squat is specific to that movement in weightlifting, and the low-bar back squat is specific to posterior chain development and strength, and the high-bar squat is neither.

And this:

I think the safest position is the low-bar squat, especially for a novice, due to the fact that the shorter second lever arm is always in operation because of bar placement while the first lever arm is volitional because of conscious control of the back angle. This will be used by weightlifting coaches as evidence that the high-bar position is better because it necessarily involves more positional control. But again, we are squatting for strength, not squat control practice. If you want to squat with a form that requires a lot of attention paid to back angle, you front squat.

FSs are the perfect compliment to BSs in many ways, among them the fact that a correct front squat emphasizes the upper back while the low-bar back squat works the lower lumbar muscles as discussed earlier. In fact, front squats work the upper back so well that lots of people doing barbell rows would be better off with rock-solid front squats. But I really can't see an argument for the use of an intermediate technique which essentially bastardizes both of the other two. Either you want to do a squat with lighter weights that forces you to hold a position used in weightlifting, in which case you front squat, or you want to squat with heavy weights to get as many muscles as strong as possible, so you low-bar back squat.

[Roger Crazy Wolf]

So I watched some video via youtube of Mark Rippetoe teaching the squat to some people because I wasn't exactly sure what he was talking about. He seems to be saying that if you let your knees go forward it takes the stress off the hamstrings and here I agree. In one video he was trying to get the student to focus on pushing the hips up instead of coming out of the hole with the chest up, going as far to tell him to look down before he started to squat and not to worry about his back angle. I have seen this method before, called the good morning squat; not something I would personally teach. If I am reading the article correctly he seems to be saying that the greater the angle between your hips and back the more the hamstrings are involved (like dead lifts) and the high bar squat doesn't allow for this angle. I watched some video of Olympic lifters doing back squats (high bar) and when the form is correct, the knees never come forward, there's an angle between hips and back and the hips are driven up and not forward ... I'm not sure what Rippetoe is arguing. When I was taught the high bar back squat the first thing you do is stick your ass out automatically creating that angle between your hips and back. Your entire upper body is not bent forward because you need to keep correct alignment of the bar (shoulders), hips and ankles; to do this takes a certain amount of flexibility and strength.

Putting the bar lower on your back gets the weight closer to the axis of rotation meaning more weight can be handled. Doing this has a price, called shear force created at the joint of your spine and hips. As I have gotten older I have learned to avoid shear forces as they create havoc on the joints. One thing I did notice about Rippetoe's teaching of the squat is that he doesn't stress taking the weight all the way into the hole, past parallel. Your knees' weakest position is at 90 degrees therefore you should spend as little time as possible in this position. Going down, blow past parallel until you bottom out, coming up accelerate past parallel and then start to put the brakes on as you come to the top. If you can't do this with rock solid technique, lower the weight before you get hurt.

In the end, put the bar where you want. As long as you don't use parallel as your turn around point and you don't break form you'll get stronger and you won't get hurt. If I were to do low bar squats I would load the bar with as much weight as I could handle for a 1/4 squat position while still being able to keep my low back arched. If you read the Yessis article he concludes that glute/ham activation is determined by the arch in the low back, not the bar position on your back.

Links to articles (professional and non-professional) about squatting:

http://www.alwyncosgrove.com/leg-training-myths.html
http://www.exrx.net/ExInfo/Squats.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/90/1/012009/jpconf7_90_012009.pdf?request-id=9c62ef2d-b7b8-41e2-b12d-9ff5091130b9
http://www.elitefts.com/documents/proper_squat_tech.htm

[Rory]

The point of Rip's article, I think, is that he is saying the High Bar squat is not very useful. The reason is because its a bastardization of the front squat and low bar squat.

With the Front squat you get almost no activation from the hamstrings as the back angle is almost ninety degrees. This of course forces your quads to do most of the pushing, and your upper back to stabilize the weight from falling forward. This is a usefull exercise because of this.

The low bar back squat activates the hamstrings much more, in fact the hamstrings do much of the work as do the hips because of the muted back angle. You can also load the low bar with much more weight, making the hormonal response greater, and therefore getting better gains out of the exercise.

Why use the High Bar? If you need to work on midline stabilization and quad strength, then front squat. If you need to work on general squat strength, pelvic girdle stabilization and hip strength, hamstring strength etc, do low bar back squats.

As I said before, I think the only justification for a High Bar is Oly lifters working on specificity for the Oly lifts.

Roger, I think you bring up a good point with the depth of the squat...

[JoshOrtegon]

take into account i deal high school and college athletes (male and female) for the purpose of improving sports performance. I have also read a lot of what Rip talks about and take it with a grain of salf (do not care much for what i have seen him discuss on oly lifting) but i am open minded...

also, this article does not "specifically" refer to the "low bar" but the PL squat...

http://www.athletesarena.com/AboutUs/TheTeam/JoshOrtegon/JoshsBlog/tabid/179/EntryID/107/Default.aspx

[Rory]

Read the article, thought it was great. Well written with a good case for both kinds of squats.

What kind of squat do you teach your students and why, if you don't mind my asking?

[JoshOrtegon]

1. Teach the Deep Squat Pattern- Many of our kids dysfunctional to to lack of learning proper movement patterns from early specialization so we teach the deep squat pattern. see www.functionalmovement.com i got exposed to gray cook a long time ago and have always used some of his stuff

2. Overhead Squat- Cant do it wrong.

3. Front Squat or Back Squat- I like the front squat first on "newbies" because you cant over load them and they have a bail out for safety. If there is felxibility issues, I teach the back squat with a ball or box and teach the "hip hinge" similar to a kettebell swing. Try squating against a wall with your nose and feet about an inch away from the way. I will then progress them to more olympic style squat. Like i said in the article, the lower bar "PL" squat is great to teach beginners to sit back as opposed to down.

i used to be a nazi about "Olympic" only but i have found that all styles are useful at some point with certain people. I used to ask a mentor of mine questions about do's and don'ts of training and his answer was always "maybe, depends on person"....i think there are a lot of "training nazi's" who believe "my way is the best and only way"...these people get a lot of press but i think their ego has made them poor teachers even if they are smart. If you have the knowledge to help a lot of people but you are just a jerk about it then who will call upon deaf ears!

i just posted another BLOG...kind of a rant, check it out:
http://www.athletesarena.com/AboutUs/TheTeam/JoshOrtegon/JoshsBlog/tabid/179/EntryID/115/Default.aspx

[Pingleton]

The basic logic behind Mark's position seems fairly reasonable on its face. However, why not take his argument one step further and drop back squats altogether and focus on lifts that are even more specific to the development of the posterior chain, such as Snatch-Grip Deadlifts, Romanian Deadlifts, and Good Mornings, while relying on front squats for quad development? I understand that less weight can be used in these lifts relative to low bar back squats, but I am not sure how significant this is, particularly when risk of injury and lack of sports specificity is taken into account.

Furthermore, from a practical perspective, I must say that performing rock bottom front squats (and Olympic squats) DO work the hamstrings to a reasonable degree. I do not wish to get into an argument on this point involving biomechanics, but I do not think I am the only person who holds this belief.

For the record, I am a huge fan of front squats done ATG, just below parallel, and to a bench either 1-2" above parallel or even at half-squat depth. I used to do Olympic-style back squats very regularly, but now only perform them occasionally for variety. Significantly, I have NEVER seriously trained using low-bar wide-stance squats, although I believe I am well-versed in the mechanics of the lift.

I am very interested in getting anyone's feedback on these comments. Many thanks in advance.

Peter.

[JoshOrtegon]

Peter-
I'll buy that for a dollar!! I agree that for some athletes that may be a great route! many athletes we see have to be progressed into even learning the squat pattern but still need to develop posterior chain. as far as "less weight", many kids and even college athletes we see have been over-loaded in their brief history of training and load is not what they need. they need to get back to develop proper patterns of movement (stepping, lunging, squating and twisting) without load.

On front squat, we use a lot of combos between front squats and single leg work as well as teaching proper oly pulls from the ground, hang or blocks. we find that help to develop posterior chain as well as be a bit more specific to sports performance.

appreciate your input
The basic logic behind Mark's position seems fairly reasonable on its face. However, why not take his argument one step further and drop back squats altogether and focus on lifts that are even more specific to the development of the posterior chain, such as Snatch-Grip Deadlifts, Romanian Deadlifts, and Good Mornings, while relying on front squats for quad development? I understand that less weight can be used in these lifts relative to low bar back squats, but I am not sure how significant this is, particularly when risk of injury and lack of sports specificity is taken into account.

Furthermore, from a practical perspective, I must say that performing rock bottom front squats (and Olympic squats) DO work the hamstrings to a reasonable degree. I do not wish to get into an argument on this point involving biomechanics, but I do not think I am the only person who holds this belief.

For the record, I am a huge fan of front squats done ATG, just below parallel, and to a bench either 1-2" above parallel or even at half-squat depth. I used to do Olympic-style back squats very regularly, but now only perform them occasionally for variety. Significantly, I have NEVER seriously trained using low-bar wide-stance squats, although I believe I am well-versed in the mechanics of the lift.

I am very interested in getting anyone's feedback on these comments. Many thanks in advance.

Peter.