i would say shoulder width stance is best considering you are most balanced there.
wider or narrower stances will focus more on different angles of your quads making them work harder. IMO stick to med stance unless you want to iso. different heads of the quads.
[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
i would say shoulder width stance is best considering you are most balanced there.
wider or narrower stances will focus more on different angles of your quads making them work harder. IMO stick to med stance unless you want to iso. different heads of the quads. [/quote]
if u go wide i feel it more in the outside of my quads which is why ive been noticing a nice size imporvement on the outside of my quads, but i still feel it way more in my glutes than anything else and as a result my pants are shrinking on me:( *my mom thinks im a fat ass and wants me to weigh 205 at 6’ 4’’ and wont buy me bigger pants lol
[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
i would say shoulder width stance is best considering you are most balanced there.
wider or narrower stances will focus more on different angles of your quads making them work harder. IMO stick to med stance unless you want to iso. different heads of the quads. [/quote]
Im pretty sure most powerlifters in the strength forum don’t care about what angle of the quad gets hit as long as you hit a new PR…
I do squat wider then shoulders width but not ridiculously wider, only a couple of inches…
Also squatting for raw and single ply will be different then squatting 2-ply with a monolift.
Like you may see many guys doing, especially in raw and single ply events, you take a closer stance and divebomb in competitions, instead of lowering slower like you would with a wider stance and gear. Though this may not work for all, divebombing can help you get a rebound out of the hole, which may make a difference for some.
Remember wide stance does not mean you basically do a split like the BEAST Chuck V.
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I can move a ton of weight in a quarter squat. Will it make my full squat go up? No.
I think some T-Nation coaches would disagree.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1939228
[/quote]
If you’re referring to the ROM progression it talks about in there, fine, but that’s not the same thing. In that you eventually go all the way down. Do only quarter squats for 6 weeks, and then test your full squat. Unless you weren’t squatting at all during the previous period, it will not have moved.
[quote]masonator wrote:Narrow stance is not a deficit. Narrow stance emphasizes quads, while wide emphasizes more glute/hams(a MUCH larger muscle group). I am not saying oly style is not a good accessory movement, because they are.
However, I am saying wider squats (if you can lift more this style) are more efficient at building strength. Your box squat comment is contradictory: Box squatting (in my opinion, the most useful style for strength) is meant to be done WIDE. So how is Oly squatting better again?
[/quote]
Every time I do narrow stance squats, my glutes and hamstrings kill me the next day. (By the way, since when are the glutes and hamstrings MUCH larger than the quads? The quads are a huge muscle group.) Wide squats do recruit the adductors to a greater degree, and can be a valuable movement for this reason, but the majority of the hip and thigh musculature is strengthened most efficiently with a full range of motion which the full squat provides. If you are a powerlifter, by all means squat wide, but powerlifters are not the most athletic population in the world. If you look at any other group of athletes who need great leg strength, but don’t compete in a specific lift, they generally use the Olympic squat and/or front squat. There are no sprinters, jumpers, throwers, etc. who squat like they do at Westside.
Box squatting is done in order to eliminate the SSC; it has nothing to do with stance width. Westside squats wide anyway, so they squat wide on the box, but the box does not require a wide stance. Louie Simmons himself has talked about people squatting on very low boxes with a shoulder width stance.
The fact is, I’ve seen plenty of people who could squat big weights until they went to parallel. Then they crumble. A full squat is even harder. So if all you need to do is hit depth, don’t worry about it, but if you need to run fast or jump high, a full squat will serve you better.
I’m curious what you think is wide, since almost every lifter in ipf is a little over shoulder width and they squat low-Also the examples of multi ply don’t hold since there lifts are first of all most are not below parallel and the gear allows them to do that-. Most bodies are not build for under shoulder width squats, olympic lifters are slight exception since they are recruited for that sport in most countries and built with that body style.
Your logic that everyone should do very narrow stance is the exact reason I see people squatting can’t even get close to parallel without ridiculously horrible form.
Well I had a quick morning training session yesterday. Finally got the balls to do some wide stance. I did 5x5 at 60% of my 1RM. It felt weird (obviously because I’d never done them before). Felt nothing going on in my quads, not much in my hams either. I felt it the most on my hips. My hips were a bit sore for the rest of the day.
I do however get the feeling that the more wide stance you do, the better your posture will be. For some reason yesterday I felt as if I was walking better overall.
[quote]Luca Brasi wrote:
Well I had a quick morning training session yesterday. Finally got the balls to do some wide stance. I did 5x5 at 60% of my 1RM. It felt weird (obviously because I’d never done them before). Felt nothing going on in my quads, not much in my hams either. I felt it the most on my hips. My hips were a bit sore for the rest of the day.
I do however get the feeling that the more wide stance you do, the better your posture will be. For some reason yesterday I felt as if I was walking better overall.[/quote]
hmmm, no feeling in the glutes? thats where i feel my wide stance and in my upper hams, when i arch my back nice i do feel like it improves my posture. first time i switched to wide stance it felt so weird and i thought i would never hit parallel but i kept at them and now im going below parallel with them (this morning i had to move my safety pins down again because i was hitting them) and although i go slightly deeper i keep getting stronger and stronger so i suggest if u want more weight just keep at it
[quote]Luca Brasi wrote:
Well I had a quick morning training session yesterday. Finally got the balls to do some wide stance. I did 5x5 at 60% of my 1RM. It felt weird (obviously because I’d never done them before). Felt nothing going on in my quads, not much in my hams either. I felt it the most on my hips. My hips were a bit sore for the rest of the day.
I do however get the feeling that the more wide stance you do, the better your posture will be. For some reason yesterday I felt as if I was walking better overall.[/quote]
If you’re not feeling wide stance in your glutes and hams then something is wrong. You might have motor control issues in that area.
I know that the day after I do wide stance squat work, even with loose briefs on, my upper hams and glutes tend to be brutally sore.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
masonator wrote:Narrow stance is not a deficit. Narrow stance emphasizes quads, while wide emphasizes more glute/hams(a MUCH larger muscle group). I am not saying oly style is not a good accessory movement, because they are.
However, I am saying wider squats (if you can lift more this style) are more efficient at building strength. Your box squat comment is contradictory: Box squatting (in my opinion, the most useful style for strength) is meant to be done WIDE. So how is Oly squatting better again?
Every time I do narrow stance squats, my glutes and hamstrings kill me the next day. (By the way, since when are the glutes and hamstrings MUCH larger than the quads? The quads are a huge muscle group.) Wide squats do recruit the adductors to a greater degree, and can be a valuable movement for this reason, but the majority of the hip and thigh musculature is strengthened most efficiently with a full range of motion which the full squat provides. If you are a powerlifter, by all means squat wide, but powerlifters are not the most athletic population in the world. If you look at any other group of athletes who need great leg strength, but don’t compete in a specific lift, they generally use the Olympic squat and/or front squat. There are no sprinters, jumpers, throwers, etc. who squat like they do at Westside.
Box squatting is done in order to eliminate the SSC; it has nothing to do with stance width. Westside squats wide anyway, so they squat wide on the box, but the box does not require a wide stance. Louie Simmons himself has talked about people squatting on very low boxes with a shoulder width stance.
The fact is, I’ve seen plenty of people who could squat big weights until they went to parallel. Then they crumble. A full squat is even harder. So if all you need to do is hit depth, don’t worry about it, but if you need to run fast or jump high, a full squat will serve you better.
[/quote]
In terms of practicality for an athlete, I agree with you that wide-stance squats are not the best all-around choice, but they do have their place.
[quote]shizen wrote:
I’m curious what you think is wide, since almost every lifter in ipf is a little over shoulder width and they squat low-Also the examples of multi ply don’t hold since there lifts are first of all most are not below parallel and the gear allows them to do that-. Most bodies are not build for under shoulder width squats, olympic lifters are slight exception since they are recruited for that sport in most countries and built with that body style.
Your logic that everyone should do very narrow stance is the exact reason I see people squatting can’t even get close to parallel without ridiculously horrible form.
[/quote]
I don’t think they should do “very narrow” squats. In my opinion depth is the primary concern. If you can get low with a wide stance, go for it, only most people I’ve seen can’t.
If you dont have great groin flexibility, hitting depth with a wide stance can do more harm than good in my view. I found that using a high box and working down the height gradually helped to loosen out my groin nicely.
I think I remember an article on the Westside site in which Louie says that this technique works as a form of PNF.
[quote]Luca Brasi wrote:
Ok, quick info. Been training less than a year, about 9 months to be exact. My 1RM is 315lbs. I use a traditional stance.
Lately, since I’m more into PL than bodybuilding, I’ve been considering doing wide stance. I hear how you can benefit from it and what not.
But I also have heard horror stories of just how taxing it can be on your hips. I read of one older powerlifter who had hip replacement after 20 years of doing strictly wide-stance.
So I guess this is geared more for people who have been into PL for at least a decade. Just how bad are wide stance squats? Also, what do you feel the benefits are of wide vs conventional?
Thanks and sorry if I sound like a n00b.[/quote]
I suggest continued use of Bodybuilding and/or Olympic style squats in your repertoire. I recommend for 6-8weeks (periodically) going with a pure PL style squat with a stance that feels comfortable. After some success with this…each time you do a cycle of PL Squats, widen the stance by a few inches…until you reach a stance that fits your body type. Some do better with wide, some don’t. Some of the BEST PL’s I am aware of would only do PL style squats about 6 weeks out from competition.
The rest of the year only Oly style squats were used. PL style squats put a large amount of stress on portions of the body. This stress should not be present year round. Also, their posterior chain is much stronger proportionally. This is because many other lifts should be in your tool bag besides squatting one version or another. There are a multitude of squatting variations and deadlift variations…glute ham raises, rev. hypers, etc. etc.
As some seemed to have mentioned here. Use some variation…be smart about training. Don’t be a Method Whore!
[quote]Hanley wrote:
Luca Brasi wrote:
Well I had a quick morning training session yesterday. Finally got the balls to do some wide stance. I did 5x5 at 60% of my 1RM. It felt weird (obviously because I’d never done them before). Felt nothing going on in my quads, not much in my hams either. I felt it the most on my hips. My hips were a bit sore for the rest of the day.
I do however get the feeling that the more wide stance you do, the better your posture will be. For some reason yesterday I felt as if I was walking better overall.
If you’re not feeling wide stance in your glutes and hams then something is wrong. You might have motor control issues in that area.
I know that the day after I do wide stance squat work, even with loose briefs on, my upper hams and glutes tend to be brutally sore.[/quote]
What I meant by that is that those areas don’t feel sore. My hips were sore. I’ll do them again tomorrow and notice if I feel them on my glutes and hams.
Also, the thought of starting higher and progressively working below parallel sounds good. Thanks to who posted that.
narrow stance work the quads and core more, with less glute involvment. wide stance will make u lift more weight, but for me they dont work the quads a lot, but more glutes. if u want thicker more defined quads and hams, and a more aesthetic looking lower body do narrow stance.
[quote]steel_12 wrote:
wide stance will make u lift more weight,[/quote]
Bullshit.
haha yeah I hate the logic that ‘yeah If I went wider I would squat 100lbs more’ this is wrong. Try it and you’ll see if your not built for it you will probably lift less and not even hit parallel.
Squatting is simple, just get into a stance your comfortable and strong in and squat to full depth. If you do this you will get the full benefits of the squat.
[quote]steel_12 wrote:
if u want thicker more defined quads and hams, and a more aesthetic looking lower body do narrow stance.[/quote]
Wide stance, in particular with a pause on a box, will give you thicker hamstrings than narrow. Since you use them more than in a narrow stance. Besides, if you want more quads, why not front squat, hack squat, leg press, leg extension, step up, cycle, sprint or jump…instead of trying to make squats more quad dominant?
I mean, if you use heavy weight and go to depth, surely you’re getting enough quad work that you wouldn’t need to do too much extra work to get good development there? Like 10 sets of wide stance squats + 3 sets of leg press would yield a lot more total leg development than the same with narrow stance.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
steel_12 wrote:
wide stance will make u lift more weight,
Bullshit.
[/quote]
i was just saying for me, i can lift more wide stance than narrow stance.
[quote]smokotime wrote:
steel_12 wrote:
if u want thicker more defined quads and hams, and a more aesthetic looking lower body do narrow stance.
Wide stance, in particular with a pause on a box, will give you thicker hamstrings than narrow. Since you use them more than in a narrow stance. Besides, if you want more quads, why not front squat, hack squat, leg press, leg extension, step up, cycle, sprint or jump…instead of trying to make squats more quad dominant?
I mean, if you use heavy weight and go to depth, surely you’re getting enough quad work that you wouldn’t need to do too much extra work to get good development there? Like 10 sets of wide stance squats + 3 sets of leg press would yield a lot more total leg development than the same with narrow stance.[/quote]
i agree with u that u need to do other movements for total leg development. front squats,hack squats, leg presses, sprinting r all very good.I was saying, that when i back squat, i do it narrow stance because for me it is harder, targets the quads and hams more than wide stance, and i also feel my abs working more to stabilise the weight than wide stance.