Study on Back and Front Squats taken from PubMed

[Jarconis]

interesting article, kinda plays into what some people have talked about, involving long term joint health and doing heavy back squats.

The strength and stability of the knee plays an integral role in athletics and activities of daily living. A better understanding of knee joint biomechanics while performing variations of the squat would be useful in rehabilitation and exercise prescription. We quantified and compared tibiofemoral joint kinetics as well as muscle activity while executing front and back squats. Because of the inherent change in the position of the center of mass of the bar between the front and back squat lifts, we hypothesized that the back squat would result in increased loads on the knee joint and that the front squat would result in increased knee extensor and decreased back extensor muscle activity. A crossover study design was used. To assess the net force and torque placed on the knee and muscle activation levels, a combination of video and force data, as well as surface electromyographic data, were collected from 15 healthy trained individuals. The back squat resulted in significantly higher compressive forces and knee extensor moments than the front squat. Shear forces at the knee were small in magnitude, posteriorly directed, and did not vary between the squat variations. Although bar position did not influence muscle activity, muscle activation during the ascending phase was significantly greater than during the descending phase. The front squat was as effective as the back squat in terms of overall muscle recruitment, with significantly less compressive forces and extensor moments. The results suggest that front squats may be advantageous compared with back squats for individuals with knee problems such as meniscus tears, and for long-term joint health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[roscopcoltrain]

I switched to fronts and never looked back (no pun intended)

I prefer to keep my glutes as small as possible. It does a great job of putting the muscle closer to the knee versus the hips and upper thighs

 

[Ivanko]

Yea, I came to find this out about a year ago. Front squats + deadlifts = all you need. I like front squats a lot better anyway, I find it MUCH easier to go below parallel and my quads grow like weeds from them.

 

[PHIL HERNON]

I SEE

BUT I PREFER BACK SQUATS.........GOING LIGHTER AND VARIOUS DEPTH CAN FOND YOUR SWEET SPOT WHERE IT NEVER HURTS. I TOTALLY BELIEVE FRONT SQUATS COME NO WHERE NEAR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT THAT BACK SQUATS GIVE YOU. NO WHERE DOES IT TELLS ME I HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN AND BOUNCE AT THE BOTTOM......THATS A NO BRAINER.

 

[Copenhagen]

I use both. They both hit the leg differently, they are both great muscle building exercises.

 

[IRON37]

I prefer to keep my glutes as small as possible. It does a great job of putting the muscle closer to the knee versus the hips and upper thighs

Yeah back squats gave me a huge ass lol. The chicks liked it but it made my upperbody look out of proportion having big quads and hips/glutes. Front squats will do the trick but arent so popular because they will wear you down quicker it seems. As far as a better mass builder who knows..since obviously everyone can use more weight on back squats

 

[Jarconis]

What if you did both back squats and front squats in the same workout? Heavy back squats to pre exhaust, then went to front squats for reps?

 

[PHIL HERNON]

WELL

What if you did both back squats and front squats in the same workout? Heavy back squats to pre exhaust, then went to front squats for reps?

I WOULD DO IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND......PRE EXHAUST WITH THE ISOLATION THEN GO TO THE COMPOUND

 

[Dad]

I didn't see any mention of stance width. A wide stance will take the force off the knees as the tibia does not move forward over the toes. A closer stance will cause this movement and result in greater knee involvement.

Try doing a squat with 12 inches between your feet, and another with, say, 36 inches between and see which makes the kness move forward over the foot, and consequently flex to a greater degree.

 

[jfunk316]

Dad

I didn't see any mention of stance width. A wide stance will take the force off the knees as the tibia does not move forward over the toes. A closer stance will cause this movement and result in greater knee involvement.

Try doing a squat with 12 inches between your feet, and another with, say, 36 inches between and see which makes the kness move forward over the foot, and consequently flex to a greater degree.

So you are basically saying that if people want to put less stress on their knees they should widen their stances?????


Also, what if I have hip issues? Do you have any ideas on what stance maybe best for the hip?

 

[roscopcoltrain]

Yeah back squats gave me a huge ass lol. The chicks liked it but it made my upperbody look out of proportion having big quads and hips/glutes. Front squats will do the trick but arent so popular because they will wear you down quicker it seems. As far as a better mass builder who knows..since obviously everyone can use more weight on back squats

I agree. They wear me down quicker also. You may not use as much weight versus back squats but I find the bar across front shoulders makes breathing a bit of a challenge, almost as if my ribcage is getting just as much of a workout as the thighs.

 

[Muay Thai]

I WOULD DO IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND......PRE EXHAUST WITH THE ISOLATION THEN GO TO THE COMPOUND

im trying that tomororw

thanks!!! frontsquats better for 'tear drop' ?

 

[Dad]

So you are basically saying that if people want to put less stress on their knees they should widen their stances?????


Also, what if I have hip issues? Do you have any ideas on what stance maybe best for the hip?

My experience has been, yes, much less stress on the knees from a wider stance and sitting back to use the hips. This will add more weight to the hips - good if yuo're trying to lift heavy as in powerlifting (yes, some guys use closer stances), but more work for the hips, so possibly not the best for someone with hip issues - obviously, each person must do what's best for their situation.

 

[roscopcoltrain]

I don't mean to threadjack, but how do you guys feel about using a board under the heels when back squatting?

 

[Incoldestblood]

Personally, I haven't had too much joint pain - I'm 23, but the scholar in me would think that a somewhat wider stance would not only more evenly divide the weight among the quads, hams and glutes, but also spread the stress on the joints more evenly as well.

 

[hawkmoon]

Front squats are great, and really the only wise choice for me these days.

If I load up on aspirin, I can squat. Within a few months I am moving 620+ again - but my knees fall apart, every time.
These days even 135 makes my knees scream.

Fronts however cause little pain (there is no such thing as no pain now) and I can get great feel for the muscle while using a fraction of the weight. For me at least back squats are for the ego, and fronts are to get work done.

 

[hawkmoon]

I don't mean to threadjack, but how do you guys feel about using a board under the heels when back squatting?

This is the only way I could go deep. My ankles don't flex enough for me to break parallel without a 2x4 under my heal.

I would also keep my toes pointed slightly outwards and my heels at hip-width. I picked this up from Paul DeMayo.

 

[MR. BMJ]

A member at my board wrote the following, and I can see his points:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can offer some thoughts.As far as the stress on the knee joint, I'd be very interested in knowing the style of squat and the depth regarding the backs. This is because when squatting with a moderate to narrow stance, the pressure transfers from the knees (which are poorly equipped to handle stress) to the much more powerful and durable hips as you get deeper.

So, with a back squat done in a narrow or moderate stance (e.g, basically anything other than what is known today as a "powerlifting squat" where you sit back) the deeper you go, the better it is for the knees because the stress transfers to the hips.

With fronts, the positioning forces people who don't normally burry their back squats to get down low, so in a study like this I would guess that's why fronts were less stressful to the knees. I would imagine that the back squats in a study like this were cut off around parallell, and if that is the case, the knees act like a pair of breaks for all intents and purposes and it would probably explain the results.

As far as muscle recruitment, people can handle more on backs than fronts because the posterior chain is recruited more. So, backs recruit more, but I'd be interested to know what the study measured. If it was quad recruitment, it would explain the result because fronts are a quad dominant lift and the posterior chain isn't recruited much to pick up some of the work.

And, I'm not surprised about backs causing more back extensor activity. It is just a matter of bar placement. With fronts, if you don't force yourself vertical, you'll likely dump the bar.

BMJ

 

[MR. BMJ]

Here is another good one:

The Effect of Back Squat Depth on the EMG Activity of 4 Superficial Hip and Thigh Muscles

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Vol 6(3)

The purpose of this study was to measure the relative contributions of 4 hip and thigh muscles while performing squats at 3 depths. Ten experienced lifters performed randomized trials of squats at partial, parallel, and full depths, using 100–125% of body weight as resistance. Electromyographic (EMG) surface electrodes were placed on the vastus medialis (VMO), the vastus lateralis, (VL), the biceps femoris (BF), and the gluteus maximus (GM). EMG data were quantified by integration and expressed as a percentage of the total electrical activity of the 4 muscles. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests indicated a significant difference (p < 0.001*, p = 0.056**) in the relative contribution of the GM during the concentric phases among the partial- (16.9%*), parallel- (28.0%**), and full-depth (35.4%*) squats. There were no significant differences between the relative contributions of the BF, the VMO, and the VL at different squatting depths during this phase. The results suggest that the GM, rather than the BF, the VMO, or the VL, becomes more active in concentric contraction as squat depth increases.

BMJ

 

[MR. BMJ]

Here's another new one as well:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jan;33(1):127-41.

Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise.

Escamilla RF.

Michael W. Krzyzewski Human Performance Laboratory, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. [email protected]
PURPOSE: Because a strong and stable knee is paramount to an athlete's or patient's success, an understanding of knee biomechanics while performing the squat is helpful to therapists, trainers, sports medicine physicians, researchers, coaches, and athletes who are interested in closed kinetic chain exercises, knee rehabilitation, and training for sport. The purpose of this review was to examine knee biomechanics during the dynamic squat exercise. METHODS: Tibiofemoral shear and compressive forces, patellofemoral compressive force, knee muscle activity, and knee stability were reviewed and discussed relative to athletic performance, injury potential, and rehabilitation. RESULTS: Low to moderate posterior shear forces, restrained primarily by the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), were generated throughout the squat for all knee flexion angles. Low anterior shear forces, restrained primarily by the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), were generated between 0 and 60 degrees knee flexion. Patellofemoral compressive forces and tibiofemoral compressive and shear forces progressively increased as the knees flexed and decreased as the knees extended, reaching peak values near maximum knee flexion. Hence, training the squat in the functional range between 0 and 50 degrees knee flexion may be appropriate for many knee rehabilitation patients, because knee forces were minimum in the functional range. Quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius activity generally increased as knee flexion increased, which supports athletes with healthy knees performing the parallel squat (thighs parallel to ground at maximum knee flexion) between 0 and 100 degrees knee flexion. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the parallel squat was not injurious to the healthy knee. CONCLUSIONS: The squat was shown to be an effective exercise to employ during cruciate ligament or patellofemoral rehabilitation. For athletes with healthy knees, performing the parallel squat is recommended over the deep squat, because injury potential to the menisci and cruciate and collateral ligaments may increase with the deep squat. The squat does not compromise knee stability, and can enhance stability if performed correctly. Finally, the squat can be effective in developing hip, knee, and ankle musculature, because moderate to high quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius activity were produced during the squat.

BMJ