Front Squat Vs Regualr Squat

[Unforgiven969]

What will I lack if I don't hit the front squat?

[chazzy1864]

Front squats are quad dominant. You figure out what you will or will not be lacking.

[Unforgiven969]

Front squats are quad dominant. You figure out what you will or will not be lacking.

and regular squats are not quad dominant?

[nick.grohall]

If you squat, you'll see the benefit from it. As far as quad development, you'll get that from your presses. Just vary your foot positions. Leg extensions are just to etch in details. Squats are king. I do back and front.

[andrewmc]

and regular squats are not quad dominant?

Back squats hit your glutes and hamstrings much more. A lot of people don't feel comfortable with the bar position in front squats but you get used to it just like back squats.

[kanis999]

Rippetoe and many powerlifters insist that the low bar back squat hits the most muscle fibers. The front squat will hit more quad and glute fibers, but the low bar back squat performed properly will effectively hit the quads, glutes, hamstrings, and adductors.

Quads are like the the chest and biceps of the legs. Everyone prioritizes them because they are what you see in the mirror. Be sure to give your hamstrings and adductors some lovin too.

[xpin2winx]

regular squat is better for overall leg development. You can use alot more weight and its more natural to have a heavy object on your back compared to your delts. Front squats arent even necessary, i would stick to back squats and leg presses.

its like comparing reverse grip bench to regular bench.

yea, reverse grip might stress the upper part of your chest more but the lack of weight will hinder growth.

[chazzy1864]

and regular squats are not quad dominant?

Depends on your type of squat.

PLer style is more ham dominant.
Oly style is more quad dominant.

Depending on your routine will depend which exercises you pick and choose. There are some people who feel the front squat is superior for a bodybuilder than the back squat, due to the quad dominance (since quads are a key focus of a BBer).

If you squat low bar w/ a wider stance, I'd suggest you have front squat in your routine, to balance out the work. If you squat high bar with a narrower stance, then use your judgement on if you want it or not.

[sharpieblet]

this is good to know...i low bar squat, probably with more of a wider stance...guess i should throw in some front squats :/

[thomasDB]

Switch it up between both from time to time. I just finished 4 weeks of front squats and I'm now going on a 4 weeks of back squats then I might change it up again. Do what feels comfortable to you and what you feel works your legs the best.

[miamibodybuilder]

well the main difference between the two types of squats is that front squats really hits the quads more than the back which hits quads, glutes, hams. will you lack anything? depends on you and your body man. i do front squats every other week, but i do back squats every single workout. maybe you can try that and see if it works for you. unless you have an injury that doesnt allow you to perform any type of squats, you should definitely have them somewhere in your routine. theres a reason why they're called the king of leg exercises.

[Engineer_Guy]

regular squat is better for overall leg development. You can use alot more weight and its more natural to have a heavy object on your back compared to your delts. Front squats arent even necessary, i would stick to back squats and leg presses.

I completely disagree. How is it "natural" to squat with a heavy object on your back? If anything I find front squatting feels more "natural" to me than back squatting. Whatever that means, I try not to say things like that. I usually find that people who make any claim to a form of squatting being "natural" are simply trying to make up reasons to support their preferred style of squatting.

There are only two benefits to back squatting over front squatting.
1. Loading more weight due to improved leverage via the bar position. This is basically the only reason Olympic lifters even use back squats.
2. Being able to place more emphasis on the hamstrings (though not everyone back squats this way).

The advantage of front squatting is that most people can front squat deep without trouble. Front squatting does not put strain on the lower back. This is highly beneficial to many athletes and non-athletes alike.

Most people cannot back squat deep without rounding their lower back. Many people cannot even back squat past parallel without going through extensive mobility work and adjusting their form to great extents. A spinal erector strain is not an uncommon injury for those who back squat frequently at higher intensities.

Doing full front squats will work your hips, glutes, and quads. Throw in RDL's and deadlifts and you've got an very balanced workload on the legs and back.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying if someone wants to use front squats as their exclusive form of squatting I think that is perfectly acceptable.

[RevSpunkwater]

Front squats are a waste of time, not to mention a little unsafe. If you don't feel you're getting enough quad work from regular squats, do Smith Machine squats.

[thomasDB]

Front squats are a waste of time, not to mention a little unsafe. If you don't feel you're getting enough quad work from regular squats, do Smith Machine squats.

^^dont listent to that. Front squats are useful if you want more quads involvement.

[RevSpunkwater]

Really, you won't lack anything if you don't hit the front squat. A regular squat done properly hits your quads, glutes, and hamstrings, and to a lesser extent your calves, so front squats are unnecessary. Not to mention, in a regular squat you're not precariously balancing a barbell in what's probably the most awkward position I've ever seen. Using a Smith Machine for squats helps take a lot of focus off your lower back.

[netopia]

Front squats are a waste of time, not to mention a little unsafe. If you don't feel you're getting enough quad work from regular squats, do Smith Machine squats.

You are an idiot of the highest order

[RevSpunkwater]

You are an idiot of the highest order

You could present me an argument why I'm wrong. It'd be a little more tactful than calling someone an idiot.

[netopia]

You could present me an argument why I'm wrong. It'd be a little more tactful than calling someone an idiot.

Front squats are not anymore dangerous than regular squats, if anything it could be argued they are safer because they generaly use less weight than a back squat.

Calling them a waste of time is plain ignorance, they are a great exercise and for certain goals are more effective than back squats.

Smith machine squats on the other hand are a far from optimal exercise.

Also apolagies for not being more constructive in my original post.

[ProfessorBro]

powerlifting squats (low bar) will almost not even engage the quads..

my hams have become as sick as my quads used to be, and my quads look fking small now. this is after a while of only low bar

[ProfessorBro]

Front squats are a waste of time, not to mention a little unsafe. If you don't feel you're getting enough quad work from regular squats, do Smith Machine squats.

all reds are red for a reason lol

[thomasDB]

all reds are red for a reason lol

Exactly what I thought when I read his comments..and smithmachine squats over front squats lulz

[justin36253]

Front squats are also typically easier to recover from as opposed to back squats, due to the fact that you aren't hammering your posterior chain quite as hard. I have no idea if that is relevant to what you were thinking at all

[Unforgiven969]

any one ever have a problem with there knee buckling when squatting like maybe have you right knee wants to shot out or something I know that probably doesnt make sense

[allergic2rice]

I completely disagree. How is it "natural" to squat with a heavy object on your back? If anything I find front squatting feels more "natural" to me than back squatting. Whatever that means, I try not to say things like that. I usually find that people who make any claim to a form of squatting being "natural" are simply trying to make up reasons to support their preferred style of squatting.

There are only two benefits to back squatting over front squatting.
1. Loading more weight due to improved leverage via the bar position. This is basically the only reason Olympic lifters even use back squats.
2. Being able to place more emphasis on the hamstrings (though not everyone back squats this way).

The advantage of front squatting is that most people can front squat deep without trouble. Front squatting does not put strain on the lower back. This is highly beneficial to many athletes and non-athletes alike.

Most people cannot back squat deep without rounding their lower back. Many people cannot even back squat past parallel without going through extensive mobility work and adjusting their form to great extents. A spinal erector strain is not an uncommon injury for those who back squat frequently at higher intensities.

Doing full front squats will work your hips, glutes, and quads. Throw in RDL's and deadlifts and you've got an very balanced workload on the legs and back.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying if someone wants to use front squats as their exclusive form of squatting I think that is perfectly acceptable.

eh? squatting is not natural?
it's one of the most basic primal movements of the human body.

powerlifting squats (low bar) will almost not even engage the quads..

my hams have become as sick as my quads used to be, and my quads look fking small now. this is after a while of only low bar

i don't know about the first statement...a squat is still a squat, and the quads will be blasted both ways

[Unforgiven969]

a squat is still a squat,

This makes total sense to me

[Tyciol]

all reds are red for a reason lol

The only uniform reason is that they've been negged by people. It says nothing about whether or not the negs were legitimately deserved.

In this case it is, but I've seen lots of sensible people in the red who probably just pissed off the wrong person.

eh? squatting is not natural? It's one of the most basic primal movements of the human body.

You're arguing a straw man. What he said was:

How is it "natural" to squat with a heavy object on your back?

BW squats may be a primal movement, but squatting with heavy loads on your back may not be.

I'm sure we'll all look to Milo of Croton or whatever squatting with the calf across his shoulders, but even ancient greeks is relatively recent in terms of human evolution. Humans can certainly carry or lift things on their back, but whether or not it's something primal as opposed to necessary is something else.

[allergic2rice]

The only uniform reason is that they've been negged by people. It says nothing about whether or not the negs were legitimately deserved.

In this case it is, but I've seen lots of sensible people in the red who probably just pissed off the wrong person.


You're arguing a straw man. What he said was:
BW squats may be a primal movement, but squatting with heavy loads on your back may not be.

I'm sure we'll all look to Milo of Croton or whatever squatting with the calf across his shoulders, but even ancient greeks is relatively recent in terms of human evolution. Humans can certainly carry or lift things on their back, but whether or not it's something primal as opposed to necessary is something else.

so? squatting is natural, but squatting with extra weight isn't? wtf?
also, by his definition a front squat would be no different than the back squat in terms of "naturalness" or whatever the f*ck

[chazzy1864]

so? squatting is natural, but squatting with extra weight isn't? wtf?
also, by his definition a front squat would be no different than the back squat in terms of "naturalness" or whatever the f*ck

Why are you arguing his point that he even felt was stupid in the first place:

How is it "natural" to squat with a heavy object on your back? If anything I find front squatting feels more "natural" to me than back squatting. Whatever that means, I try not to say things like that. I usually find that people who make any claim to a form of squatting being "natural" are simply trying to make up reasons to support their preferred style of squatting.

+ I agree with EG. A PLer type squat reduces a lot of quad work. Sure, they'll get worked, but the PC is emphasized and if you're relying on that form of squat for quad development, you'll probably end up with lagging parts.

[Farley1324]

I believe a heavy back squat is all that you need.

However, a low bar back squat + front squats is a great combination.

[MyronLatsBrah]

Squats > Front Squat.

More muscles are engaged, that's about it.

However, squats put an immense amount of pressure on your spine, which i is why i only do front squats.

But if i could i would do regular squats.