The moment arms that come into existence during a low-bar squat are different- by necessity- to those created in a HBBS or FS. There are unavoidable implications associated with the lengths of these moment arms and where they are reacted out. In one case they are reacted out to greater degree by the largest muscle groups on a human body. In the others, less so. With this information at hand, we can figure out a way for some other squat variant to use more muscle mass than a LBBS.
Moment arms. Physics. Great stuff. And also a lead in to my post.
WARNING: This will be very long. That's why I waited until the weekend to post this. I'll start with an observation that I have made after years of reading about fitness and doing fitness (is that an expression?) Here is that observation: the human body doesn't always respond to training they way we would expect it to respond. I can think of several examples but here is one that many on here can relate to because many of us have read Kenneth Jay's Cardio Code. The basic idea is this: just because you have a high heart rate does NOT mean you are developing cardiovascular fitness. That means the whole idea of "lifting weights faster" as a substitute for traditional forms of cardio is flawed. This is frustrating. I wish it were not true. I wish I could meet all of my fitness needs with weight training. After all, "common sense" says that if my heart is beating fast it must be getting some benefit, right? But it doesn't matter what I want or what I "think" the result should be, even if that result seems to be based on "common sense." The plain fact is that the science shows otherwise. How we "think" the body should response after "lifting weights faster" is not how the body
actually responds.
Let's go back to the front squat. Now, before I start, let me state that I am not trying to make the argument that front squats are the best squat. It is going to sound that way, but that is not the point. Rather, the point will be to illustrate the "physiological paradox" I described above. Let's begin.
As one of the posts on here mentioned, Marty Gallagher, former powerlifter, recommended the front squat as the best type of squat for general athletic training. I recall reading that myself although I cannot seem to find the article where he stated that. Marty is not alone. Here are other coaches who speak very highly of the front squat for general athletic training:
Charles Poliquin: Poliquin has stated that the front squat "
is a true measure of athletic strength. Over the years, I have used the front squat in predictor lifts formulas to assess one’s sport performance. For example, in speed skating the front squat combined to the incline press can establish very accurately your 500 meters skating time. In bobsleigh, knowing how much you can front squat, close grip bench press and power clean can estimate your start time with the sled."
J.V. Askem: Many of you have probably not heard of J.V. Sadly he passed away in 2003 of brain cancer. At the time I was trying to read everything I could about Olympic lifting in an effort to teach myself the lifts and J.V. was one of the few who wrote articles on the lifts. His old articles are still preserved by a lifter in Ontario. J.V. wrote the following concerning front squats: "When incorporating leg exercises into one's training schedule, the FRONT SQUAT is probably the purest test of usable leg strength there is. Unlike the back squat, where a trainee has a tendency to lean forward, and use more of the back sided muscles than might be desired, the front squat keys more on the muscles that straighten the leg, namely the quads." Did you catch that? It is "the purest test of usable leg strength."
Dan John: Not sure where I read this but I recall Dan writing that he liked the front squat better for developing strength using low reps and preferred the back squat for higher reps. His beginner Olympic lifting program only uses front squats.
Ivan Adadjiev and Bulgarian weightlifters: Abadjiev removed back squats from the training of his lifters and had them only do front squats. I realize that what Bulgarian weightlifters do is not the best example of what should be done for general athletic training. For one, they trained for weightlifting and not for general athletic training. They were also elite lifters with great genetics and used drugs. Still, it is a relevant data point.
Chet Morjaria: Chet is not nearly as well known as the coaches above. I came across his articles on Breaking Muscle. Concerning the front squat he wrote: "From an athletic perspective, front squats facilitate awesome core strength and have incredible carry over into other strength movements - not just strength-wise, but in terms of position and mechanics too. I’ve found that when I treat front squats with reverence, they pay me back in kind, and everything from my deadlift to my pull up numbers go up." I mention Chet because, based on the photos of him in his articles, he and I seem to have the same body type. So if front squats did good things for him, perhaps they would do good things for me. I experimented and did only front squats for several weeks. I also noticed that front squats seemed to "improve many things."
So what's going on here? Of the three main barbell squats - high bar, low bar, and front - the front squat is the "weakest" of the three. (I am not counting overhead squats as a "squat" because the amount of weight used would not be enough to contribute significantly to leg strength.) The front squat uses the least amount of weight, and as Rippetoe has mentioned, it uses minimal if any hamstring strength. (What he leaves out, however, is that front squats do rely a lot on the glutes.) Despite all its "weakness," the front squat seems to come out on top among coaches who train athletes. To be fair, the above evidence I mentioned is anecdotal. Other than Poliquin, who supposedly created formulas based on front squat numbers and performance in other athletic tasks (although we can question just how accurate these are), all of the other coaches presented no actual data to support their contentions. It was just their observations. Still, when several respected coaches have the same anecdotal observations, we should take notice.
So I ask again: what's going on here?
If Rippetoe is correct that the low bar squat uses the most muscle mass and, because it uses the most weight, should produce the most strength gain. As result, "common sense" would say that the low bar squat should have the most carryover to general athletic endeavors. And yet it doesn't, at least not according to the coaches I listed above.
There are two explanations for this. The first explanation is that Rippetoe is wrong. The low bar squat does not use "more muscle mass," and the fact that more weight can be used is due only to a leverage advantage and the additional weight will not result in stronger muscles. The second explanation is that Rippetoe is 100% correct, but we have a "physiological paradox" where all the moment arms and angles and whatnot simply do not translate to better athletic performance.
I am willing to accept the second explanation. Even if I concede that Rippetoe is 100% correct, it doesn't matter, and the reason it doesn't matter is that, as J.V. Askem put it, the low bar squat does not produce "usable" leg strength. That doesn't mean it's completely useless. But let's be honest: the low bar squat is not a natural squat. It needs to be taught and for many their first experience with it is discomfort. It is a deadlift with the bar on the back. To lift the most in a PL meet it is absolutely the right technique. And as has been mentioned, it can be very helpful for increasing deadlift strength. But if you want to improve your athletic performance, then maybe, just maybe, you would be better served with the high bar or front squat.