[quote]steel_12 wrote:
Hanley wrote:
steel_12 wrote:
wide stance will make u lift more weight,
Bullshit.
i was just saying for me, i can lift more wide stance than narrow stance.[/quote]
Then why did you say, it will make YOU (as in another person), lift more weight? when it probably won’t.
[quote]steel_12 wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
A bit of consistency would be nice. In your previous post you said the following;
“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.”
So which is it??
If squatting with a wide stance and sitting back a lot puts more pressure on the posterior chain, surely a similar effect occurs using an olympic stance if you dip significantly below parallel (which squatting narrow allows me to do, unlike using a wider stance)?
I find this especially true with front squats. Since they re not a competition lift I tend to go pretty deep and my glutes and hamstrings really feel it afterwards.
Am I way off base there?
[quote]Dave284 wrote:
If squatting with a wide stance and sitting back a lot puts more pressure on the posterior chain, surely a similar effect occurs using an olympic stance if you dip significantly below parallel (which squatting narrow allows me to do, unlike using a wider stance)?
I find this especially true with front squats. Since they re not a competition lift I tend to go pretty deep and my glutes and hamstrings really feel it afterwards.
Am I way off base there?
[/quote]
No, not at all. Everyone talks aobut squatting wide for the PC. People need to start squatting deep and they’ll feel it too.
I’m not sure if its just me, but if I go as low as possible I NEVER fail down there either. If I miss I ll miss just above parallel.
I always felt limited by my back in closer stance stuff, and never felt the vicious hamstring soreness I got from wider stance. That said, quad and glutes always got hammered hard from closer stance back squats and front squats. And I always go to within 12" or less of the ground. Roughly 1/2" to 2" under parallel most of the time.
Higher is a different story, and I can see how you wouldn’t get more hamstring out of the wide stance if you don’t “bury” them reasonably deep. Or use too light a weight. But I think that’s a battle to get most people to do regardless of stance.
[quote]Luca Brasi wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Gotta chime in here since I’ve had a hip resurfacing. Nope, there is no reason to believe that squatting correctly wide or narrow will chew up your hips.
It is possible he was doing something weird, but it is much more likely it was just natural, i.e., his hips were genetically predisposed to it. If you are northern European extraction, there is a higher incidence of hip arthritis.
In my case, I got it because I ran long distance for years and had a very, very small defect in the hip geometry. This is the most common mode of failure for athletes who are under 50.
I’m saying this because good squatting form will build up the muscles and will protect the hip joint, so people with hip arthritis should try and do whatever strength training they can reasonably (see you physical therapist if there is a question).
– jj
one question while we are talking bout squatting, my coach says for me to squat narrower because ill blow my knee out lol, is this true? ive never had knee pain via squatting in fact it improved when i squatted more and stopped doing plyos/jumping and running because thats where the impact is. Anyone give me their two cents here? (even a penny will do lol)
Um what he thinks squatting wider will blow out your knee? That is retarded, he is probably a football coach. A hip break squat is less pressure on the knee then a close stance knee break. More pressure doesn’t mean bad also btw.
[quote]shizen wrote:
Um what he thinks squatting wider will blow out your knee? That is retarded, he is probably a football coach. A hip break squat is less pressure on the knee then a close stance knee break. More pressure doesn’t mean bad also btw. [/quote]
I can see the reasoning behind it tbh. If your knees drift in with a wide stance (as most peoples do) then tere’s alot more pressure and alot more chance of something exploding than if you were close stance.
thanks guys and yes shizen he is a football coach which is why i ignored him till i asked onhere, hanley i can assure u i keep my knees is one position, ive worked on that and make it a point of my squats, it actaully helps me if i keep them out somehow i get more levage from it, thanks boys this is a great thread
[quote]Hanley wrote:
shizen wrote:
Um what he thinks squatting wider will blow out your knee? That is retarded, he is probably a football coach. A hip break squat is less pressure on the knee then a close stance knee break. More pressure doesn’t mean bad also btw.
I can see the reasoning behind it tbh. If your knees drift in with a wide stance (as most peoples do) then tere’s alot more pressure and alot more chance of something exploding than if you were close stance.[/quote]
hmm good point, when my younger sister was first learning how to squat her knees came inward on a set and she got some inflammation around it. Took a couple days to heal, luckily the weight was so light the damage was minimal. She nows has the hang of it and has a stance that works well for her. But I could definitely see some stupid football kids trying to squat more weight then they can handle, having their knees boo inward a lot which could break their leg even.
[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]
Just my 2 cents, but box squats are more geared towards the posterior chain, correct? If so, then box squatting with a wider-than shoulder width stance would most effectively hit the post. chain, which is what you would want if you had to run fast or jump high. The post. chain is much more of a factor in running, cutting, jumping ect. than the quads are, if I’m not terribly mistaken. Just my thoughts on it.
[quote]Kulturkampf wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but box squats are more geared towards the posterior chain, correct? If so, then box squatting with a wider-than shoulder width stance would most effectively hit the post. chain, which is what you would want if you had to run fast or jump high. The post. chain is much more of a factor in running, cutting, jumping ect. than the quads are, if I’m not terribly mistaken. Just my thoughts on it.
[/quote]
Well, the fact is that the posterior chain is generally underdeveloped so improving it results in better mechanics and power output with running etc. Your quads, adductors and even calves need to be strong for athletic performance, and you shouldn’t really do posterior chain work to the exclusion of everything else if you want to be good athletically.
That, aside from the whole power to weight ratio thing, is part of the reason powerlifters don’t all reach the level you’d expect with verticals, sprints etc.
[quote]Kulturkampf wrote:Just my 2 cents, but box squats are more geared towards the posterior chain, correct? If so, then box squatting with a wider-than shoulder width stance would most effectively hit the post. chain, which is what you would want if you had to run fast or jump high. The post. chain is much more of a factor in running, cutting, jumping ect. than the quads are, if I’m not terribly mistaken. Just my thoughts on it.
[/quote]
It’s true that wide-stance squats hit the posterior chain more than a shoulder-width squat OF THE SAME DEPTH, however posterior chain activation increases much more with depth (I squatted last night and I can barely sit down today), and is involved to a great extent in a full squat regardless of stance width. The difference here is that in a full squat, the muscles will be strengthened throughout a greater range of motion, and there will be less weight on your back, which is important to me. In my opinion, if two exercises produce the same training effect, but one uses less weight, that one is better. Like Louie Simmons says, get the most out of an exercise, don’t let the exercise get the most out of you.
All I’m saying is that I think a full squat (not necessarily close stance, but it probably will be for most people) is better for most people looking for leg strength, especially from the standpoint of cost:benefit, but if the squat is not just a means to an end for you, then wide stance squats may be more appropriate.
I agree that narrow stance squats give me more bang for my buck. Up until recently I thought that box squatting was a better idea (especially in season) due to the shorter recovery time, however I feel narrow stance squats just as much in my posterior chain.
On Tuesday I did some wide box squats. They felt GREAT! My hammies got kicked into overdrive and, I’m not sure if it’s from the wide stance, but immediately afterward I finally was able to do a full GHR rep on the floor! I did 5 sets of 10!
This is amazing to me considering I was never able to control myself going down, and I’d never been able to reach the floor without pushing back up.
Seemed to be a common theme amongst the comments that depth is more important than stance width in 1)getting bigger, 2)getting stronger and 3) activating PC.
I agree, go deep (just below parallel), use a stance that allows you to use good form and go heavier and DO NOT let the knees drift in (arc in) on the acsent if you have a relatively wide stance. It has seemed to me that I can squat more going and inch or 2 below paralell rather than cutting at paralell.
This may be because I get more PC into it or because I get a better rebound or because I’m not a very good squatter.
I have had some experience with power squats and know first hand some current world class powerlifters all of whom use a stance of at least shoulder width, three of these men are over 40 and have been lifting for decades.
They all use the box during training and compliment their squat stance with wide stance accessory training. Of course variety is very important.