So I bought the Barbell Prescription book and I did like all of the physiology stuff. I couldn't help but skip ahead to the chapter on The Squat. Sure enough, because Mark Rippetoe's company published the book and both authors are SS coaches, the low-bar squat was recommended as the best variant. To be fair, the book did say that for those with extremely tight shoulders or other mobility issues who are "beyond hope" of regaining mobility can do the high-bar squat. This recommendation was followed by a litany of why the high-bar is "inferior."
You all know my stance on this. Consider me "beyond hope" of adopting the low-bar. I guess the book should have added another category: cranky middle-aged guys who refuse to change how they squat. But I am not here to bash the authors about this point. As I said I like the book and am glad I purchased it.
This brings me to my question, and it is a sincere question and I have no intention of saying demeaning comments about Mr. Rippetoe, the authors of the book, or anyone who loves the low-bar squat. My question is this: does the low-bar squat really used "more muscle?" This is the book's main argument about why the low-bar is better. I've read other analyses stating that the two back squat variants use exactly the same amount of muscle mass, it's just that the muscles are used differently. This makes more sense. What says the forum?