You're not required to squat, so why are you?

[Fadi]

Yes the title is controversial, especially to the hardcore bodybuilder reading here. But this is not the powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting section of the forum, so surely, the people's interest lies first and foremost with muscle hypertrophy above all else correct?



So think about it for a bit, why exactly are you squatting if your main aim is to build huge muscular legs? Not only that, but your aim is to build those legs with the absolute minimum potential to injury, would you agree? If so, then placing a load upon your shoulders, where the force on your spine is great, may not be your best and safest option after all.

I don't really know when the leg press machine as we know it today came into existence. So granted, with a bar and some weight plates, the squat would have most certainly been an exercise with a force to be reckoned with. But we've moved forward, and we have at our disposal a magnificent tool in the leg press machine. It's one hell of a versatile machine if you ask me. What with all the different foot placement onto that pressing plate, targeting and emphasising different section of your quadriceps muscles!



As a former Olympic weightlifter, it was never required of me to do the barbell curl (or any curling movement for that matter), so I simply did not do it. On the contrary, I have not come across or known of a single bodybuilder who did not pay his dues performing different variations of the curling exercise. It's a 100% requirement in the sport of bodybuilding if your aim is to build some top guns, period!

So when someone tells you that you must squat if your aim is to build some huge wheels, your natural response ought to simply be sure, but please tell me why I must do so, and is there not an alternative that is safer and perhaps even more effective in targeting such muscles as my quads? I'll be very much interested with the reply and the reasoning behind the "must" bit.

You see Ausbb, a powerlifter has to/must squat, so does an Olympic weightlifter (and perhaps a strongman athlete). And even these lifters have their own squat variations to do. I do not see why an Olympic weightlifter must back squat, or a powerlifter must front squat, when these lifts do not simulate any part of their competitive lifts.



Now someone might say that I'm simply bashing the squat exercise; I am not. What I am doing though, is questioning your reasoning behind your inclusion of such an exercise within your bodybuilding program. Hey Fadi, see those legs mate, they've been built by the good old mighty squat, so don't tell me squats aren't for bodybuilders! Again, I am not saying squats do not build muscles or make you strong or anything of the sort. What this is about, is building muscles whilst simultaneously taking the safety and injury issue into some serious consideration. Maximisation on muscle hypertrophy and minimisation on injury is (or ought to be) paramount here. Anyone disagrees?

 

[White_Lie]

Agreed Fadi.

I haven't done regular back squats for probably a year or more...that hasn't stopped my legs from growing. I do front squat maybe once or twice a month just to spice things up but even then I wouldn't say its a requirement and I certainly don't go as heavy or low rep as I used to.

There's plenty of ways to skin a cat, if you're an average gym rat with hypertrophy as the main goal, this advice is pretty sound to me.

 

[Shrek]

Fairies nuts.?

 

[simo74]

Fadi when you are talking 'Maximisation on muscle hypertrophy' would it not also be wise to take into account the impact the exercise has in inducing a hypertrophic state (not sure if that is even a word !!), My simple understanding is that when it comes to overall mass the Squat is hard to beat. So if one was also considering exercise efficiency and overall gains wouldn't you still keep the squat as one of the best full body exercises.

 

[steveP]

I squat because it's one of the hardest and taxing exercises in the gym. I feel that it also makes your body work as one, develops any weak links and helps with functional strength. Even though doing 100% leg presses for leg work might give a bit more growth, I think there's merit in doing things because they are difficult. I think most people do both however. Personally I back squat, front squat, leg press and hack squat in approx equal volume.

I guess some people may not have access to squat racks or leg presses, or even dislike one or the other. In that case, do what you enjoy/have at your disposal.

 

[Goosey]

The thing is; if you can squat? Do it.
but what I've found is that you're heading for trouble if you cannot "full squat", that's hammies touching calves with minimal movement of the spine.
i think that above everything else the squat stimulates the endocrine system, which gives one the optimal chance of building muscle and strength.

 

[spartacus]

As a single leg exercise, squat is a great exercise. If you would choose one thigh exercise, I would rank squats right up there.

But no, one does not need to do squats to work their legs. for powerlifting and Olympic lifting, however, squats are indeed the backbone of training.

 

[Fadi]

Fadi when you are talking 'Maximisation on muscle hypertrophy' would it not also be wise to take into account the impact the exercise has in inducing a hypertrophic state (not sure if that is even a word !!), My simple understanding is that when it comes to overall mass the Squat is hard to beat. So if one was also considering exercise efficiency and overall gains wouldn't you still keep the squat as one of the best full body exercises.

Hey Simo,

I do not believe in the term "overall mass", as there's no such thing. What there is however, an overall feeling of wellbeing due to a release of certain hormones and/or chemicals throughout our body. You get that from walking for example in the for of endorphin. Now what I think you're getting at is the much talked and written about hormonal release that just floods our bloodstream with some potential anabolic goodness, and it just so happens that compound movements such as the squat fits the bill perfectly as a stimulant of such an effect. Am I on the right track here with what you were thinking perhaps? If so, then again I must say no, well its a yes and a no, and my words are based on the latest scientific findings of Dr Layne Norton and Dr Stewart Phillips.

So yes to the endocrine system releasing such anabolic hormones as HGH and testosterone etc., but no in the sense that the amount is so miniscule so as to have no effect on muscle building whatsoever. In fact, cortisol (yes you've read that correctly), cortisol, the very much known and dreaded catabolic hormone, is a much better indicator of anabolism, or potential muscle growth after your workout. Its measured levels indicates how hard you've worked out, and how high you've stimulated or potentiated your protein synthesis post workout.

So please Simo, next time you hear someone tell you that squats are great for helping you build some mighty guns due to their "overall effect blah blah blah"...smile and say thank you for that info. I've yet to see an Olympic weightlifter with some sick arms due to their 100% training with compound movements...I speak from experience (backed up by modern science and observation).

 

[spartacus]

it is great that the latest research (2016?) has finally caught up with logic that should have been evident to most many decades ago, and probably was for the few that actually thought through bs comments. As if a squat is a whole body exercise.

 

[Stiffy]

I squat because it's one of the hardest and taxing exercises in the gym. I feel that it also makes your body work as one, develops any weak links and helps with functional strength. Even though doing 100% leg presses for leg work might give a bit more growth, I think there's merit in doing things because they are difficult. I think most people do both however. Personally I back squat, front squat, leg press and hack squat in approx equal volume.

I guess some people may not have access to squat racks or leg presses, or even dislike one or the other. In that case, do what you enjoy/have at your disposal.

I like this ^ (to borrow a phrase from Gooey)

Think about most 'functional' movements - pushing a wheelbarrow, pushing anything, grappling, tackling etc etc. You're using Leg Drive and the resistance is coming into the Shoulders, through the Core then into the Legs - similar to a Front Squat.

You hear Boxers say when they've thrown a good punch they feel it in their Legs, not their arms or shoulders, but in their Legs. The body acts as one.


Then there's the hormonal response and the conditioning that Squats give. They make you a Man!

 

[spartacus]

bs, I have seen ballet dancers with better and stronger legs than many who squat. kid yourself you are a man if you squat if you wish.

 

[Stiffy]

bs, I have seen ballet dancers with better and stronger legs than many who squat. kid yourself you are a man if you squat if you wish.

Yes, you can produce better Leg development without Squats perhaps, but the other benefits of Squats are undeniable.

 

[spartacus]

perhaps, but only logical that heavy compound movements will produce other more profound body responses. But so may other options.

But, I am talking whether squats are necessary for leg strength or other whole body muscular benefits.

 

[spartacus]

the squat is just another tool.
phil heath does merely partial squats to target quads, Arnold barely did parallel, Olympic lifters do full range, powerliftiers do all types to maximize leverage and bodytype to reach parallel, ben johnson did quarter squats on a bench.

So why would other non-squat methods not work just as well. All you need to do is strengthen the targeted muscle one needs for given sport.

Looking for holy grail exercises is merely a crock of shit.

 

[simo74]

Hey Simo,

I do not believe in the term "overall mass", as there's no such thing. What there is however, an overall feeling of wellbeing due to a release of certain hormones and/or chemicals throughout our body. You get that from walking for example in the for of endorphin. Now what I think you're getting at is the much talked and written about hormonal release that just floods our bloodstream with some potential anabolic goodness, and it just so happens that compound movements such as the squat fits the bill perfectly as a stimulant of such an effect. Am I on the right track here with what you were thinking perhaps? If so, then again I must say no, well its a yes and a no, and my words are based on the latest scientific findings of Dr Layne Norton and Dr Stewart Phillips.

So yes to the endocrine system releasing such anabolic hormones as HGH and testosterone etc., but no in the sense that the amount is so miniscule so as to have no effect on muscle building whatsoever. In fact, cortisol (yes you've read that correctly), cortisol, the very much known and dreaded catabolic hormone, is a much better indicator of anabolism, or potential muscle growth after your workout. Its measured levels indicates how hard you've worked out, and how high you've stimulated or potentiated your protein synthesis post workout.

So please Simo, next time you hear someone tell you that squats are great for helping you build some mighty guns due to their "overall effect blah blah blah"...smile and say thank you for that info. I've yet to see an Olympic weightlifter with some sick arms due to their 100% training with compound movements...I speak from experience (backed up by modern science and observation).

Fadi, firstly thankyou for taking the time to write a detailed and considered response. When I mentioned overall mass in my question I was certainly not suggesting that squats were going to directly increase the size of your biceps. I thought it was inferred that since your OP was specifically discussing building 'huge muscular legs' that overall mass was in reference to this. So if I indeed do meet someone who tells me to squat to grow my biceps then I will set them right or send them your way!!

I have another question though regarding exercise and protein synthesis, I may be going of topic a bit here so apologies in advance.
I have seen the material you posted in another thread around the effects of leucine on protein synthesis and read other interviews and articles with Dr Lane Norton. It is my understanding that whilst the correct diet (feeding) causes protein synthesis it is also effected by resistance exercise, so to make it really simple. Resistance exercise and Feeding is more effective than just feeding alone. I have also seen studies that suggest that resistance exercise in the 70-90% of 1 RM has a greater effect on protein synthesis than exercise in the 20-40% 1RM range, so again to make it simple, more intense resistance exercise has a greater effect than less intense resistance exercise. Hopefully we agree on this.
So now my question, have you seen or read any studies that show whether particular exercises have a greater effect on protein synthesis than others ? Do some specific exercises give more bang for buck ? For example does a squat do more than a leg press or vice versa?

 

[spartacus]

most studies are flawed in any case as they seldom incorporate the many, many variables, but keep reading and look for magical exercises. gives us something to do.

But any bozo can work it out if an exercise works simply by feel; work and think the muscle being trained. Maybe there is a study on that.

 

[Goosey]

If a trainee only had a barbell then all he would need to do would be;
The full squat
deadlift
row
press and curls

but I've said this before that after a protracted period of deadlifts and half squatting the knees will in time take the brunt of sheer force and eventually, inevitably will breakdown.

when I say "half squat" the is the powerlifting type.
20 years ago I remember that the squat made a big comeback, forums where flooded with the topic, as usual like everything else in this industry it went from one extreme to the next.

after 20 years I've finally worked it out.

if you want to stay mobile, by all means squat, but it must be done properly and properly is hamstrings touching calves and the movement must be controlled, none of this dropping into the hole and 5 rep and under stuff.

 

[Goosey]

The other one or two are stiff legged and pullovers.

 

[Goosey]

If you can't squat then find other exercises maybe a list is needed!?

 

[spartacus]

If a trainee only had a barbell then all he would need to do would be;
The full squat
deadlift
row
press and curls

but I've said this before that after a protracted period of deadlifts and half squatting the knees will in time take the brunt of sheer force and eventually, inevitably will breakdown.

when I say "half squat" the is the powerlifting type.
20 years ago I remember that the squat made a big comeback, forums where flooded with the topic, as usual like everything else in this industry it went from one extreme to the next.

after 20 years I've finally worked it out.

if you want to stay mobile, by all means squat, but it must be done properly and properly is hamstrings touching calves and the movement must be controlled, none of this dropping into the hole and 5 rep and under stuff.

I generally agree, but does one really need to full squat. as I suggest, many great champs never doid a full squat but they wee numero uno in their fields. more important is targeting the thighs.

Now a full squat for most tall people may not be the best choice and not worth the effort to get the necessary flexibility.