In the May 2008 issue of The Performance Menu, Greg Everett wrote an article addressing the arguments made by Mark Rippetoe as to why weightlifters should train with the low-bar back squat instead of the Olympic or high-bar back squat. 10 years later and this debate still rages in various discussion fora and the YouTube comments section. Fortunately, since Greg published his first article in 2008, there has actually been some research on this issue, so I decided to revisit this issue.
 
Is This Issue Important?
 
Having read all of the “epic threads” debating the issue with mostly bro science, my goal was to find some hard data. As I began researching and writing, I quickly realized it would take some time. So why bother? After all, a weightlifter who uses the low-bar back squat in training won’t exactly create a distortion in the space-time continuum that could lead to the discovery of time travel (although if that were true, that would be a valid reason for a weightlifter to use the low-bar back squat).
 
Here is my reasoning. I care about the sport, and I want new athletes, experienced athletes, and coaches to have access to good information. I realize that for those entrenched in the low-bar back squat camp, this article won’t help. For those in the high-bar back squat camp, I hope this article provides some additional insight. For those confused souls in the middle, I hope this article can clear up that confusion quickly so that your time is better spent focusing on training rather than internet debates, and that such training is productive and not sub-optimal. And for you coaches who stumble upon a new lifter who says he read something from somewhere saying that weightlifting coaches are idiots for not using the low-bar back squat, give the new lifter a copy of this article. It should save you some time.
 
Disclaimer
 
I am a lawyer by profession, which means I can’t write something without adding in a qualifier or disclaimer. I am not here to criticize Mark Rippetoe and his Starting Strength program as a general strength program to get novices of any age gain size, strength, or both. From what I understand, it works very well for that. I wish I had this information when I began lifting as a teenager in the 80s. I am also not saying that the strength gained from the low-bar back squat would have zero transfer to the strength needed for weightlifting. My disagreement is with Rippetoe’s claim that the low-bar back squat is the superior squat for gaining strength and that weightlifters should abandon the high-bar back squat in favor of the low-bar back squat.
 
The Argument
 
The argument for the low-bar back squat goes like this: the low-bar back squat allows the use of more weight than the high-bar back squat. Using more weight will allow the development of more strength. Weightlifters need to get stronger. Therefore, weightlifters should use the low-bar back squat.
 
This is a compelling argument. In fact, when I began researching this issue, I actually approached it with somewhat of an open mind. As a masters lifter with a demanding job, training time is precious as is recovery ability. If I could find a legal (i.e., without the use of performance enhancing drugs) way to get stronger faster, sign me up. If the low-bar back squat could get me stronger in less time, why not try it?
 
The response to this argument from the weightlifting community has focused on qualitative differences. We seemed to accept, at least tacitly, that the low-bar back squat could potentially develop more strength because it used more weight. The counterargument was that the high-bar back squat was more specific to weightlifting because it allowed a deeper squat position with a vertical torso – the position that we see in clean and snatch recoveries. Former powerlifters turned weightlifters wrote about the difficulty they had adjusting to the upright position in the clean recovery. After years of leaning forward in the low-bar back squat, they tended to dump the bar when recovering from heavy cleans. Honestly, this qualitative factor was enough for me. I am a masters lifter who began the sport at the age of 32. 19 years later and my technique could generously be called okay. Getting to this level was hard-fought, and if there was any chance that the low-bar back squat could mess up my hard-won-barely-okay technique, that was enough not to even try it. However, I was still interested in digging deeper into this issue.
 
The Low-bar Back Squat Lets You Lift More Weight
 
This has been the rallying cry of all of the low-bar back squat proponents: you can lift more weight with the low-bar back squat, so naturally, you gain more strength. End of story. Only an idiot would say that more weight would not result in greater strength gains. Well, I guess I’m that idiot.
 
How much more weight are we talking about? Generally, lifters can use about 5 to 10 percent more weight with the low-bar back squat than the high-bar back squat. I have read estimates as high as 15 percent and as low as two and a half percent. These two extremes were likely determined by the experience of the lifters involved, so using five to 10 percent as a general guide is probably fair. Interestingly, Greg Nuckols, a powerlifter who has devoted several articles to the mechanics of the squat which include two detailed articles on the low-bar back squat vs. the high-bar back squat debate, has observed anecdotally that weightlifters who convert to powerlifting tend to have very small differences between their high-bar back squat and low-bar back squat, and sometimes almost none at all. So, we are not dealing with a huge increase in weight, and for an experienced weightlifter, possibly none at all. But still, more weight is more weight, right?
 
The next question is what allows a lifter to use more weight with the low-bar back squat. Before getting to that, let’s discuss how our muscles work. Our muscles don’t care about weight. They produce torque. Greg Nuckols gives the following example: “Imagine someone hung a 25-pound plate from a rope and hung the rope around your wrist. How long do you think you could hold your arm straight out in front of you before the weight started pulling it down? Now imagine someone hung the same 25-pound plate from a rope, and hung the rope around your upper arm, just above your elbow. How much easier would it be to keep your arm extended straight in front of you?” With the low-bar back squat, the bar is placed two to three inches lower on the back, which immediately creates a leverage advantage. This allows a lifter to lift more weight by applying the same amount of torque. This was confirmed in a study:
 
Previous research has shown that as load is increased, there is a resulting increase in the[vertical force] produced that is proportionate to the increase in load. With this in mind, it was expected that the results of this study would show that the [group of experienced powerlifters] had the ability to generate greater [vertical force] levels during the LBBS, because of the larger loads typically lifted. However, this did not occur. Instead, no significant differences were observed between the [group of experienced powerlifters] and [group of experienced weightlifters] groups, and only small effects were observed for [vertical force].
 
Muscles don’t care about weight; they only respond to tension (i.e., torque). Saying that the low-bar back squat leads to greater strength gains because you can use more weight is like saying that attaching a weight to your upper arm leads to more strength gains than attaching a weight to your wrist because you can use more weight with the upper arm attachment. This makes sense if you look at why the low-bar back squat is used in the first place—because it allows powerlifters to lift more weight in competition. Muscles grow and get stronger in response to the tension they generate. Tension is created by the amount of torque the muscles must produce—more torque means more tension. Therefore, if two exercises require the muscles to produce similar amounts of torque, it follows that the two exercises will produce similar results in terms of strength gain and muscle growth regardless of how much weight is used. So, for the additional weight in the low-bar back squat to have a greater effect on strength, the muscles must produce more overall torque. If that’s the case, then why bother using the low-bar back squat? If using more weight requires more torque, then there would be no advantage in using the low-bar back squat in competition.
 
Does the Low-bar Back Squat Really Use More Muscle Mass?
 
Proponents of the low-bar back squat tend to gloss over the two issues discussed above: that we’re not talking about a significant increase in weight, and that favorable leverages allow more weight to be lifted with the same amount of force. Undaunted in their defense of the superiority of the low-bar back squat, they state that the reason more weight can be lifted with the low-bar back squat is that it allows access to more muscle mass. Specifically, they argue that the low-bar back squat uses the hamstrings and glutes more.
 
All styles of squat, including the front squat, activate the hamstrings and glutes. The conventional wisdom has been that the high-bar back squat is better for the quads and the low-bar back squat is better for the posterior chain. Research supports this conventional wisdom. However, even though the low-bar back squat may use the hamstrings a bit more than the high-bar back squat, it is not a particularly good hamstring exercise. Hamstrings aren’t activated very well during the squat. The seated hamstring curl has been shown to achieve about three times as much hamstring activation as the squat with equally challenging loads. Load does not seem to matter -- increasing barbell load in the squat does not increase hamstrings activation, but it causes both quadriceps and gluteus maximus activation to leap upwards remarkably. Anecdotal evidence confirms this. The powerlifters at Westside are famous for their zeal in strengthening the hamstrings. Which squat variation do they choose for the majority of their training? The box squat. Even Nuckols agrees that the box squat may be a “true” hip dominant squat. Any other squat variation is simply the wrong exercise if you want to work your hamstrings.
 
Why is this so? Biomechanics. For in-depth explanations that delve into Lombard’s Paradox and other biomechanics stuff see this article and this article. The short version is that the hamstrings are antagonists to the quads. Normally, if two opposing muscle groups contract at the same time, the joint would not be able to move at all. Yet the quads and hamstrings can contract at the same time, and the knee can still extend. Why is this so? (This is Lombard’s Paradox.) Because the hamstrings are biarticulate, meaning that they cross both the hip and knee joints. As you squat down, the hamstring must lengthen to allow hip flexion, but shorten to allow knee flexion. The net result is little change in the length – that is, little contraction – of the hamstrings. Little contraction translates to little force production. The hamstrings function only as dynamic stabilizers, not prime movers, in any type of squat (except perhaps the box squat).
 
In terms of strengthening the quads, because of where the bar is located in the low-bar back squat, the moment arm for the knee extensors (i.e., the quads) can be about 10 percent shorter. That means for the quads to get the same amount of work as in the high-bar back squat, the load on the bar for the low-bar back squat must be 10 percent greater. However, it is not always the case that a lifter can use 10 percent more weight with the low-bar back squat. As noted above, the general rule is that a lifter can use five to 10 percent more weight with the low-bar back squat, but inexperienced lifters may only be able to use two and a half percent more. That means it is very possible for the quads to be doing less work in the low-bar back squat.
 
But doesn’t this mean that the hamstrings are going to work a bit more? Yes, but this is not a huge deal for hamstrings which simply do not receive a significant amount of stress from squat variations. If the quads are going to receive less stress from the low-bar back squat, this is a big deal for a weightlifter. Most people assume that weightlifters squat primarily to build strength to recover from the bottom positions of the clean and snatch, and that the hip extensors drive the pull. However, the quads are also very potent drivers in the pull (at least in the correct pull). At least five coaches have made YouTube videos that stress the importance of vertical leg drive. Greg has made one, as well as Project Lift, Wil Fleming, and Zack Telander. (Another good video by Zack.) In addition, quad strength is a key driver in the jerk, as Greg mentioned in his previous article.
 
The counter-argument to the quad strength issue is that weightlifters already perform front squats. As Greg mentioned back in 2008, the front squat has a “considerable core stabilization component due to the placement of the bar in front of the spine and the resultant torque. Forward collapse of the spine is possibly responsible for failed front squats as much as inadequate leg drive, if not more. That said, the front squat may be considered as much of a core exercise as a leg exercise.” I would add to this that the late Charles Poliquin noted that the scapulae retractors also fatigue during the front squat. The point of the high-bar back squat for weightlifters is to provide additional training to the quads with the limitations inherent in the front squat.
 
The other issue impacting quad strength is depth. To be fair, Rippetoe’s version of the low-bar back squat has a slightly narrower stance than a typical powerlifter would use, and Rippetoe encourages squatting to slightly below parallel. However, with the high-bar back squat, the lifter can usually go lower than “slightly below parallel.” In my own experiments with the low-bar back squat that I performed as research for this article, I found it difficult to even get to parallel. Depth is important because it creates a longer range of motion. A longer range of motion means more work, and more work means more strength gains. Glassbrook’s study found that the high-bar back squat did, in fact, result in more work performed.
 
What about the glutes? Does the low-bar back squat use the glutes more? A study compared the hamstring and glute activation in parallel, full, and front squats. The front squat and parallel squat differed markedly in forward lean, the difference is much greater than between the high bar and low bar squat. Despite this, they found no significant difference in gluteus maximus activation between the three variations. Moreover, this study and this study suggested that glute activation increases with squat depth.
 
In sum, the low-bar back squat does involve the hamstrings a bit more, but because of biomechanics, the hamstrings are not the prime movers in any squat variation and simply act as dynamic stabilizers. But even if this increased hamstring involvement were advantageous, there is a possibility that the quads may be doing less work if a lifter cannot use upwards of 10 percent more weight in the low-bar back squat. Many lifters also find it more difficult to go as deep in the low-bar back squat than the high-bar back squat, which means less work. Studies have shown that the quads and glutes work more the deeper you go. In addition, one study showed a trend towards higher measures of intensity (peak force, peak power, and peak velocity) and volume (work, vertical displacement) in the high-bar back squat. The study used a small sample size of six, and the results were not deemed statistically significant. Nonetheless, the findings were enough for the study author to recommend that the high-bar back squat be used as the squat variation in the training of athletes. Putting all this together, there is serious doubt that the low-bar back squat will build more strength than the high-bar back squat despite the use of more weight, and, as crazy and paradoxical as it may sound, it’s possible that the high-bar back squat may actually be better at building strength than the low-bar back squat.
 
Sport Specificity aka “Carryover”
 
Weightlifters typically argue that the bottom position of the high-bar back squat is similar to the bottom position of the clean and thus there is better carryover to the sport. The response from the low-bar back squat proponents has been that strength is a general adaptation, and it is the strength gained from the low-bar back squat that has carryover to weightlifting. This argument is based on two flawed premises. The first is that the low-bar back squat is better at building strength than the high-bar back squat. As was discussed at length above, this is not necessarily the case. At best, the low-bar back squat and high-bar back squat are equal in building strength, and in certain cases the high-bar back squat may even be better. The second flawed premise is that the high-bar back squat is somehow a sport-specific exercise that does not build “general strength.” Not sure how they got to this one. The fact that the high-bar back squat is part of many general strength programs and even powerlifters like to use the high-bar back squat in the off-season shows that the high-bar back squat is an excellent general strength exercise. The carryover argument simply states that the high-bar back squat is a general strength exercise that also has the capability of developing sport-specific strength in weightlifters. A general strength exercise that also has sport-specific benefits is a strength coach’s Holy Grail. But does the high-bar back squat really have better carryover to weightlifting?
 
Saying that the bottom position of the high-bar back squat is similar to the bottom position of the clean is based on observation. Strength gains are joint-angle specific. So if the bottom position of the high-bar back squat looks like the bottom position of the clean, there is a good chance that the joint angles are the same and the strength developed will be specific. But there is more than just observational evidence. Glassbrook specifically wanted to compare and contrast the kinematics and kinetics of the high-bar back squat with those of the snatch and clean in competitive Olympic weightlifters. What he found was that the kinematic joint angle results of the study indicated similarities between the high-bar back squat and the snatch and clean. He concluded that the lack of significant differences in joint angles across all three joints provides evidence to support the use of the high-bar back squat as a supplementary exercise to the snatch and clean. The high-bar back squat was also shown to replicate similar kinetic values to the snatch and clean in rate of force development. The study author noted that the sample size was small (only six) and the weightlifters had significant experience. Nonetheless, weightlifters now have some evidence that the high-bar back squat does, in fact, have carryover to the competition lifts.
 
Bottom Line
 
Weightlifters use squats to develop strength in the quads and glutes. If you are using the squat to develop your hamstrings, you’ve chosen the wrong exercise because of biomechanics. If you need stronger hamstrings, there are many exercises that target the hamstrings as the prime movers, thus eliminating that annoying biomechanics issue found in squats.
 
This article ended up way longer than I thought it would, and I probably could have written more. But I felt the biomechanics stuff and the research studies were important to include. As I noted in the beginning, I wanted to know if there was really something to the “more weight more strength” argument, or if there was something I was “missing” by not doing the low-bar back squat. After reviewing all of the biomechanics and data, the evidence does not support that the low-bar back squat is better at building strength than the high-bar back squat, and may even be worse. Research supports the claim that there is better carryover from the high-bar back squat to the competition lifts. In my research, I found no good reason to include the low-bar back squat in a weightlifter’s training. In fact, I am willing to make this bold and perhaps controversial statement: for purposes of training weightlifters, the high-bar back squat is superior to the low-bar back squat in all respects, and that includes strength gains.