Hi guys, Quick question for the weightlifters... I've been doing the Stronglifts 5x5 programme, though I've also used Starting Strength resources to help with my lifting technique. Both programmes advocate the low-bar squat. Medhi and Rippetoe say that, although high bar squats are a good exercise, low bar squats will help you get stronger more quickly because you can handle more weight. So what's the point of high bar squats then? Or am I missing something?
they focus on different muscles (posterior chain focus on low-bar, quad focus on high-bar), they have different technique, and high-bar is both less injurious and easier, while low-bar screws up olympic lifting technique due to excessive forwards lean. also, i currently lift more high-bar than low-bar due to both quad-dominant legs and shoulders that became unused to the low-bar position. also, 70sbig.com/blog/2012/01/low-bar-vs-high-bar-squatting/
The blog posted by fish should answer all your questions. I only use low bar squats and give my quads some extra hell with leg presses. Might switch it up in the future to add some front squats instead of leg presses (hate that goddamn machine).
Both are good exercises. Weightlifters will tell you to high bar squat, and say its a more athletic movement, with better carryover to most other sports - with the exception of powerlifting (obviously) and some argue cycling and a few others. Aside from that, the low bar position is harder on the shoulders for most, is not a natural placement, and the sit-back method of squatting lends itself to a shallower squat. I wouldn't trust Mehdi, he basically copied Rippetoe. Rippetoe is pretty god at teaching beginners how to lift but thats basically his specialty. The more upright torso on the high bar squat can be easier on the lumbar spine, the greater depth can help with greater flexibility. Do whichever you like. EDIT: Also, the idea of squatting more in the low bar squat making you 'stronger' is kind of wrong, because it will quickly develop a strong low bar squat. Which won't develop a strong high bar squat.
I do kind of get that, as the most I've ever high bar squatted would be around 70kg (and most of the time I fall back and drop it at this weight) whereas the most I've back squatted is 100kg. That was with a belt, no proper lifting shoes
my numbers were more or less around that too, just over 100kg low-bar and around 75-80kg high bar when i switched. started working high-bar, got up to 120kg and i can more or less match that with low-bar if i'm fresh.
afaik the thing about carryover is that the dominant muscle groups in each are different, and where low-bar is a posterior chain move and high-bar is quad-dominant, low bar uses more quads than high bar does posterior chain, so high bar squats, being quad dominant, will contribute to your low-bar squat more than the other way around.
Thats an interesting way to put it. I do believe there is greater carryover from high to low as opposed to from low to high bar, assuming you did nothing else. Something else to consider is the movement pattern. I've never squatting more than maybe 60 kg low bar (just to show someone how to do it) but I've squatted 190 high bar. I don't know if I'd be able to squat more than like 100 low bar without some serious technique work. So carryover isn't so simple, I don't think.
what this guy said, both are different squats with different movement plains carryover isnt that simple having said that people overthink things sometimes, just squat hard and heavy
Totally agree with icefield. Seriously, unless you are squatting an absolute buttload of weight and are looking to squeeze out every last inch of performance, don't worry about it. There is nothing wrong with high bar squats at all timmyboy, if you're squatting and deadlifting big, your legs are getting a full workout, nuff said.
