HB vs LB and carryover - lbss self-centered thread

[LBSS]

i've read the pendlay article KF linked to (here in case someone changes the link at the top of the forum: http://www.rookiejournal.com/low-bar-squats-for-olympic-weightlifters-are-usually-not-a-good-idea.html). i hear what he and t0ddday are saying. but i am stubborn and remain unconvinced that switching to high-bar would make a significant difference for me. the pendlay article is about olympic lifters. the main point he makes is that for oly lifters the positional carryover is much better for HB, and the LB squats can fuck you up if you're trying to get better at clean and jerk. he admits that HB squats tend to bias toward quad dominance, which is not advantageous for jumpers and sprinters, who need hamstring strength. and says, at the end:

I also think the HB vs LB controversy has less meaning than has been assigned to it... for example, one certainly can squat with the bar in a low position and still do a pretty upright, deep squat, that as far as body position would satisfy any Olympic lifting coach. One can also do a HB squat and get quite bent over, I have personally proven that many times! Simply changing the position of the bar on the back doesnt magically change a good exercise to a bad one, or vice versa.

in my squats i situate the bar lower on my shoulders and have some forward lean, but still manage to get pretty well below parallel and to avoid shooting my hips (most of the time). if you want to talk about movement patterns, kingfish's SVJ's are more like a low-bar squat. he leans way over. so do i, although i don't get nearly as high. look:

lbss SVJ:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGWtN9Kwpc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGWtN9Kwpc</a>

kingfish SVJ:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDScwmqe1kk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDScwmqe1kk</a>

lbss squat:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMx2gx0EvWc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMx2gx0EvWc</a>

kingfish squat:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozdetncWM7U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozdetncWM7U</a>

kingfish's squat is obviously deeper, more upright and with a farther-forward knee position than mine. but i fail to see why, as a general training exercise, HB would be better. people with much more knowledge than i have say it would be -- who am i to question glenn pendlay or fred hatfield -- and i'm willing to try the switch just to see. i guess my brain is just struggling with the fact that i've yet to see someone explain WHY HB would have better carryover than LB to anything other than the oly lifts.

[entropy]

I don't even consider your squat to be a traditional belted, bent over, PC dominant LBBS back squat. It has more in common with the archetypal HBBS than it does with the LBBS.  I'll tell you why, the way you come out of the hole - you're pressing hard against the ground with your legs. This means your squats are very leg driven out of the hole. I can see that just by looking at your video because of the way you unfold out of the hole. In comparison the anti-athletic LBBS type of squat looks more like a good morning out of the bottom which isn't what you're doing at all.

It's interesting that Kings squat there though HBBS is more PC dominant out of the hole to my eye, it's less leg dominant than your LBBS.

I remember reading a quote from jack reap  (an accomplished powerlifter and thinking ironhead) on some forum where he made the great distinction of bearing against the floor - he was talking about deadlifts I think but also made a reference to squats as well and it stuck with me. Actively pushing into the floor makes the squat (or deadlift) leg driven. The alternative is to catch the bounce out of the hole straight into a good morning pattern like the PL would do although the PL would only attain minimal depth but I digress.

I don't have a horse in the race, i think both squats are fine. I like front squats best though.

 

[Raptor]

If all you care about is two-leg jumping exclusively, then you don't care about hamstring strength other than their function as the antagonists of the quads (having strong hams will allow the quads to express power better).

I think you can get away doing a "leg dominant" low bar squat though... so a similar movement pattern to a high bar squat. Also, a deep low bar squat.

Also, a successful (two leg) jumper is going to be more quad dominant than a sprinter.

You're also more hip dominant than Kingfish. You have your head forward and hips pushed more backwards at 0:31, with your knees barely going over the toes in the deep squat position and also having the heels elevated from the floor, whereas Kingfish has his knees go WAY over the toes and head more "back" and back more vertical in his video at 0:19, with his heels planted on the ground (they do seem to be just 1 inch or so raised off the floor).

Granted, he jumps with a ball in hand and you're not, but still, something to think about. Quadnation™

[LBSS]

If all you care about is two-leg jumping exclusively, then you don't care about hamstring strength other than their function as the antagonists of the quads (having strong hams will allow the quads to express power better).

I think you can get away doing a "leg dominant" low bar squat though... so a similar movement pattern to a high bar squat. Also, a deep low bar squat.

Also, a successful (two leg) jumper is going to be more quad dominant than a sprinter.

okay. i care about two-leg jumping primarily because it has always seemed the quickest of my available routes to being able to dunk. a LR DLRVJ is the highest jump i can do by a wide margin. i don't care exclusively about it, but it is the most important, regardless of how little i've practiced since november.

You're also more hip dominant than Kingfish. You have your head forward and hips pushed more backwards at 0:31, with your knees barely going over the toes in the deep squat position and also having the heels elevated from the floor, whereas Kingfish has his knees go WAY over the toes and head more "back" and back more vertical in his video at 0:19, with his heels planted on the ground (they do seem to be just 1 inch or so raised off the floor).

see above:

kingfish's squat is obviously deeper, more upright and with a farther-forward knee position than mine.

we agree.

Granted, he jumps with a ball in hand and you're not, but still, something to think about. Quadnation™

relevance of ball in hand?

[Raptor]

When I was comparing the styles of jump I was actually reffering to this:

if you want to talk about movement patterns, kingfish's SVJ's are more like a low-bar squat. he leans way over. so do i, although i don't get nearly as high. look:

vs comparing your SQUAT styles. I was comparing your JUMPING styles.

From what I understand, you were comparing your squat styles lower in your post (and what you quoted).

The revelance of ball in hand is that he can't armswing his arms from back to forward-up like you can... that might alter the way he jumps (maybe with the ball in hand he has more weight in front of him, loading the quads more like in a front squat).

[LBSS]

When I was comparing the styles of jump I was actually reffering to this:

if you want to talk about movement patterns, kingfish's SVJ's are more like a low-bar squat. he leans way over. so do i, although i don't get nearly as high. look:

vs comparing your SQUAT styles. I was comparing your JUMPING styles.

From what I understand, you were comparing your squat styles lower in your post (and what you quoted).

The revelance of ball in hand is that he can't armswing his arms from back to forward-up like you can... that might alter the way he jumps (maybe with the ball in hand he has more weight in front of him, loading the quads more like in a front squat).

ah, my mistake. points taken.

[Dreyth]

My post won't mean crap but I really like how upright low bar squats look. Pretty boss.

[LBSS]

from a gchat today with a friend:

Jennifer:  how's your lifting?
 me:  meh
i'm engaged in a debate about whether i should switch to high bar
 Jennifer:  no brainer.
yes.
 me:  well you're biased
oly lifter
 Jennifer:  your low bar isn't really that low anyway.
 me:  i know
and i get deep and stay relatively upright
 Jennifer:  HAHAHA.

 

[Raptor]

When I read "Jennifer" I imagine a hot chick with tits.

[T0ddday]

I think that this thread is getting a bit carried away in so far as the analysis.  I think in general this branding of each person as quad dominant or hamstring dominant is a bit out of hand. 



Here is a sprinter (albiet one of the most muscular of sprinters).  He's not faster than you because of his superior posterior chain.  He's not hamstring dominant nor quad dominant necessarily.  Every part of his legs are stronger than yours and he's much more powerful and can run faster and jump much higher than most people.  The goal is to get strong strong strong.  Ideally you want to have a huge low-bar squat, huge high-bar squat, huge deadlift, huge front-squat, huge olympic lifts, be lean and train for jumping and running.   In other words you are want to be a beast in the weight-room and hope it translates to the field/court/track whatever.

There are three big misconceptions about the low bar squat, besides that I don't have a problem with an athlete low-bar squatting.  They are

a) That it more closely mimics the pull position and thus is a must for olympic lifters (rippetoe's claim - has been shot down by the every other olympic lifter).
b) The low-bar squat is better simply because (some) athletes can handle a larger load (again rippetoe, again makes little sense)
c) That sprinters are more hamstring dominant and therefore should low-bar squat.   -> Yes, sprinting requires hamstring strength.  However, the only time when ground contacts are long enough for weight room strength to carryover (the start of a race) the sprinter is using roughly equal parts hamstring/quad/glute.   At top speed ground contacts are 0.1 seconds and the majority of the impulse is created by a stiff straight/almost straight leg making contact with the ground and the hamstings and glutes acting as a hip extensor momentarily to propel you forward.   Unless you are really slow you don't deform and make enough ground contact to break at the hips and activate anywhere near the movement patterns that a low-bar squat provides.  A reverse-hyper or even hamstring makes more sense in this case for specificity to sprinting than the LBS.

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

Now the question that LBSS is really asking is specifically "is my time better spend Low-Bar squatting or high bar squatting as far as standing vertical jump is concerned".   Remember, the goal is to be a beast at all of the above, and they are all related... so clearly both are good.   If you are low-bar squatting and your vertical is going up and your getting faster and your becoming more of a beast... great.    But which is better?  I think the truth is nobody has definite proof.   I'd love to see the results of a study where a bunch of fit, coordinated males with 25-30 inch vertical jumps are put on a diet of only vertical jumps olympic squats or vertical jumps and LBS for 1 year and the benefit of each squat is evaluated.   In the absence of that study all we have is anecdotes.  As I said before:  I have seen many many more guys who have built up a huge low-bar squat despite showing little improvement to the olympic squat, deadlift, front squat, speed, or jumping ability than the other way around.   In other words I have seen a lot of guys get big low-bar squats without becoming much of a beast at all.  This isn't a knock especially against the low-bar squat... I have seen a lot of people with big deadlifts that can't run or jump or front squat at all.   KF seems to agree with this observation.   Now this article by Pendley seems to also suggest this, going so far as to say that his olympic squat brings up his low-bar squat but not that other way around.  (in other words low-bar squats are superflous, kinda how I feel about deadlifts... [ another story]).   Even Fred Hatfield is mentioned stating the claim that olympic squats have much more carryover in general.   

So there you have it.  At this point I think it's a bit unnecessary to analyze the biomechanics of why the olympic squat has been observed by so many people as having more carryover than the low bar squat.  I have some of my own ideas as to why the olympic squat provides more carryover but they are really just broscience conjectures, that I don't think matter much to the argument.    The bottom line seems to me that if your becoming more of a beast on a program centered around low-bar squats than by all means... continue.  But if your low bar squat has gone up but your SVJ/other lifts are stagnant.... considering the observations of many other people and try incorporating some olympic squatting or front squatting into your program.   

Finally, to answer Raptors old question of "What if I do a low-bar squat but I use leg-drive like a high-bar squat".    Obviously the lack of carryover of the LBS relative to the olympic squat is not simply based on exactly where the bar is placed on your back.   If your essentially doing an Olympic squat with funny bar placement... sure carryover is probably more similar to a that of an olympic squat.  But if your coming so close to olympic squatting.... why not just olympic squat?

[Raptor]

Well in my case... going for a leg driven low bar squat vs a leg driven high bar squat could mean the difference between knee pain and lack of knee pain.

You know it's weird but when I did the high bar squats 2 days ago, the HAMSTRINGS (off all muscles) were kinda locking up. Really, really weird stuff to happen in a high bar squat. Maybe I was doing high bar squats with a low bar squat form (it felt that way).

[TKXII]

Agree with Raptor and T0dday.

Unfortunately there are no studies, and even if there were, it would be difficult to recruit people with similar limb length and structures or group them together by similar athletic ability and jumping potential unless you had over 100 ppl in each group where effects could normalize.


I disagree with whoever said Kingfish's squat looks more like a LBBS. LBSS's LBBS looks very much like a LBBS because the following are happening:
1. Knees are behind toes
2. Hips are behind center of mass
3. hips thrust forward at end

Kingfish's squat has his knees go over his toes as already mentioned, and there is no hip thrusting action; instead his knees travel backwards at the end as is typical of a quadnation squat and it looks like a normal HBBS to me.

I support LBSS switching to high bar, especially since he has admitted in the past that he does not feel his squat in his quads. We see thus a hip dominant vertical jump. How's the broad jump though?

Are there examples of hip dominant 40+ SVJ leapers? probably only a few out of many more quadnation leapers.

I don't think anyone even specified whether LBBS or HBBS is more specific to SVJ or RVJ. LBSS is primarily interested in his LR DLRVJ, where hips are more important than in an SVJ. Right?

[entropy]

I disagree with whoever said Kingfish's squat looks more like a LBBS.

I didn't say that though. According to my heuristic of squats, I said Kings HBBS is more PC dominant compared to LBSS' LBBS which is leg dominant. And I gave my reasoning why I think they look that way.

LBSS's LBBS looks very much like a LBBS because the following are happening:
1. Knees are behind toes
2. Hips are behind center of mass
3. hips thrust forward at end

You lost me on point 1. Yeah you can tell a few things about knee position relative to toes, but not really. I've experimented with both HBBS, LBBS and FS and knee position at the end of the movement doesn't vary very much. Yes there is a difference but it depends on depth more than anything else. If you control for depth I think knee position is fairly similar. But I don't think is a very useful thing to debate - what you want is an athletic squat. And that's not necessarily ONLY a HBBS. Some LBBS can be said to be athletic (like our LBSS). You can argue that every HBBS is by defn an athletic squat - and I'd be okay with that. Hatfield goes into a fair amount of detail on the matter of the athletic squat.

Kingfish's squat has his knees go over his toes as already mentioned, and there is no hip thrusting action; instead his knees travel backwards at the end as is typical of a quadnation squat and it looks like a normal HBBS to me.

This is highly individual, i disagree with this analysis on principle.

[Raptor]

I think Lance posted some time ago a low bar squat style that he deemed as very useful for athleticism (and then put in a comparison with a "bad" squat as in a squatmorning).

What I think is an interesting debate is choosing between a low weight high bar squat vs a heavy weight low bar squat, where the difference is very high (like for me - 100 kg high bar is very hard, to the same level as a 130 kg low bar squat would be). The question in that scenario is if the squat is hard due to lack of muscle in the right places (lack of quad strength) or due to lack of movement efficiency in one of the squatting styles/structure (in the high bar in my case).

[T0ddday]

I don't think anyone even specified whether LBBS or HBBS is more specific to SVJ or RVJ. LBSS is primarily interested in his LR DLRVJ, where hips are more important than in an SVJ. Right?

This is a great point.  The tremendous carryover from the olympic squat seems much better for SVJ.  Now, SVJ and DLRJ are related obviously, and SVJ will help RVJ to some degree.... but in my case building up my squat served mostly to bring my SVJ up really close to my RVJ.   Of course, my RVJ was already decent... the results are surely different for people with low SVJ and DLRJ. 

However, I don't agree with the conclusion that RVJ is not aided as much by olympic squatting, low-bar squatting is preferred to bring up DLRJ because it's more hip "dominant".    Just because olympic squats are not super specific to an exercise doesn't mean LBS are the answer!    I feel that this is the same line of logic that causes strength coaches to think sprinters have to low-bar squat....  OS and LBS are not related to the degree that if one doesn't work the other always does!

Like Avishek said... We don't have studies and they are not even feasible.  Best thing we can really on is our experience.  Mine isn't as extensive as Glenn Pendley but it involves sprinters rather than primarily lifters like Pendleys.  I'd also like to hear Lance chime in here as I think he works primarily with basketball players, which are often a different breed being extremely tall and using having pretty big strength deficits.   

My experiences:

1) When you weak you have to get strong.   At this level everything works.  When someone like the poster selfallih PM's me asking what squat is best, I tell him to squat however he feels comfortable providing he gets good depth.  Low-Bar, High-Bar, Front-Squat, Box-squat.... it really doesn't matter.  If squat racks aren't available he can even deadlift.  Doesn't matter.    When you squat 50kg all of these squats will bring up your hamstrings, quads, glutes, hips, etc, and this added strength will make you a better athlete.     

2) As you get stronger everything works a little less.  However, olympic squatting seems to provide the best carryover for the longest ( it's like the Jensen's inequality of squats -> If you get that you know your real analysis!! ) and specifically it provides the best carryover for most of the other strength movements.   You could make an argument that carryover is even greater to athleticism and other movements with a huge full clean and jerk, but this lift is technically way more difficult and is basically a combination of multiple lifts.   This carryover for oly squatting "lasts longer" for the "SVJ" than for the "RVJ".   

@Raptor:

As far as the idea that you can get the same carryover from an olympic squat by "using more legs" in a LBS, here is what I don't get.  Olympic squats hurt your knee.  But if you put the bar on a different part of your back and emulate an olympic squat... your knees don't hurt.  So you must be doing something different with your legs (because knee pain is not caused by where on your back the bar is) and might therefore have less carryover than you would get if you used a traditional oly squat.    Remember, I believe that we don't really know 100% why olympic squatting has much better carryover.... it could simply be that full olympic squatting improves ankle mobility while strengthening the legs...    Also, don't look at this as an either or type of thing... If I had an athlete who was already fairly strong but for some reason couldn't do olympic squats, I wouldn't necessarily think 'low-bar squats".   

This might sound sacrilegious but I have actually seen better results for athletes who build up strength using above-parallel hi-bar type squats than athletes who use deep low-bar squats.   There are more tools in the shed than olympic and LB squats.... In fact if you give me an athlete who can do a huge above parallel hi-bar squat with good speed... I would put my money on a higher RVJ than the athlete who has added weight to his deep low-bar squat...