Front Squats

[beefcake]

Anybody here do em? I think I fucked up my delts doing em though. They are sore as hell from the bar digging in to them yesterday, and today I got delts to work. We'll see how that goes. I know it cuts down on how much weight you can use but other than back benefits, is there really any point to them over back squats?

[Taylor]

I dont think so, every time I've tried it's felt extremely uncomfortable

[redsquirrel]

I started doing them to help with more quad development and less JLo/glute development.

[beefcake]

Originally posted by redsquirrel
I started doing them to help with more quad development and less JLo/glute development.

How does that feel on your delts? I tried like 315 and the bar was digging into the joints. Do you see a lot more improvement since you changed over? No more J-LO butt? :(

[redsquirrel]

Originally posted by beefcake
How does that feel on your delts? I tried like 315 and the bar was digging into the joints. Do you see a lot more improvement since you changed over? No more J-LO butt? :(

I've only really been doing them for about a month or so. I don't use as much weight, so no, my shoulders don't hurt as bad. AND- I've also been doing them on the Smith Machine.

I alternate weeks between free squat and smith. When I free squat, I put like 25lbs on the floor, and put my heels on them; elevating and putting the muscle emphasis on my quads.

I haven't noticed that much improvement. But then again, I haven't been doing them that long, and it's probably not enough time to see any JLo reduction...LOL. Don't worry- the JLo will ALWAYS be there. I just want to fit into 4's & 6's rather than 8's & 10's with a big gap in the waist. LOL;)

[Stonecold54]

Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by beefcake
Anybody here do em? I think I fucked up my delts doing em though. They are sore as hell from the bar digging in to them yesterday, and today I got delts to work. We'll see how that goes. I know it cuts down on how much weight you can use but other than back benefits, is there really any point to them over back squats?

better off doing a smith machine squat with your legs out in front of you. almost the same thing and you REALLY feel it in the quads.

[beefcake]

Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by stonecold54
better off doing a smith machine squat with your legs out in front of you. almost the same thing and you REALLY feel it in the quads.

Is this going to weaken my core and stabilizers since i'll be technically leaning into the bar and have no need to control it?

[redsquirrel]

Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by beefcake
Is this going to weaken my core and stabilizers since i'll be technically leaning into the bar and have no need to control it?

Although you don't have to control the bar while using the smith, it shouldn't weaken your core. It's a different motion than free squats, so if you alternate, you will be strengthening even more. Smith takes the back out of squatting; using more legs than back.

[Stonecold54]

Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by beefcake
Is this going to weaken my core and stabilizers since i'll be technically leaning into the bar and have no need to control it?

you have been watching too much tv. LOL "core"? "Stabilizer"? :D

[beefcake]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by stonecold54
you have been watching too much tv. LOL "core"? "Stabilizer"? :D

I don't quite understand what you mean. I do watch a lot of jazzercise and carmen electra's strip aerobics, but are you saying there is no such thing as core and stabilizers? :D

[Stonecold54]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by beefcake
I don't quite understand what you mean. I do watch a lot of jazzercise and carmen electra's strip aerobics, but are you saying there is no such thing as core and stabilizers? :D

they are pseudo terms along the same lines as being "tone". any muscle can be a stablizer. all it is is a muscle that is not directly working but keep another in the correct alignment. so the tricep could be a stablizer for laterals and the calf could be a stablizer for squats. it doesn't really mean much honestly. do you get quality gains from triceps as they stabilize the arm for laterals? then why do people think that other "muscles" (stabilizers) get bigger and stronger from indirect work. The core is just something people made up to sell products. you have abdominal muscles, erector spinae muscles and thats pretty much it.

[beefcake]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by stonecold54
they are pseudo terms along the same lines as being "tone". any muscle can be a stablizer. all it is is a muscle that is not directly working but keep another in the correct alignment. so the tricep could be a stablizer for laterals and the calf could be a stablizer for squats. it doesn't really mean much honestly. do you get quality gains from triceps as they stabilize the arm for laterals? then why do people think that other "muscles" (stabilizers) get bigger and stronger from indirect work. The core is just something people made up to sell products. you have abdominal muscles, erector spinae muscles and thats pretty much it.

I don't think that working your "stabilizers" will allow them to get bigger, but I do think that it will allow them to get stronger and therefore benefit the exercise that you will be performing. Kind of in a sense that when I do db's bench presses, strengthening the "stabilizers" will ultimately allow me to press more in the long run, further benefiting pec developement. If my "stabilizers" are weak, then I won't be able to go up in weight. Same as in the squat, if my back, abs, hip flexors, erectors, etc are weak, then i'll find myself with an overarched back to compensate for being too weak to keep my torso erect and ultimately not be able to increase my weight over time. They will be the weak point of every exercise I do. Next time I won't use the term and make sure I list every muscle in the group.

[Stonecold54]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by beefcake
I don't think that working your "stabilizers" will allow them to get bigger, but I do think that it will allow them to get stronger and therefore benefit the exercise that you will be performing. Kind of in a sense that when I do db's bench presses, strengthening the "stabilizers" will ultimately allow me to press more in the long run, further benefiting pec developement. If my "stabilizers" are weak, then I won't be able to go up in weight. Same as in the squat, if my back, abs, hip flexors, erectors, etc are weak, then i'll find myself with an overarched back to compensate for being too weak to keep my torso erect and ultimately not be able to increase my weight over time. They will be the weak point of every exercise I do. Next time I won't use the term and make sure I list every muscle in the group.

true there are weak links in exercise, but that is more a function of pre-exhaustion as well. for instance do a set of leg extensions to failure then immediatley do a set of squats. you then equalize or at least move the balance closer to the strength of your quads (which would normally be able to press more but are weaker because of the set of extensions) and the weaker muscles (back, shoulder girdle, etc...).

[beefcake]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by stonecold54
true there are weak links in exercise, but that is more a function of pre-exhaustion as well. for instance do a set of leg extensions to failure then immediatley do a set of squats. you then equalize or at least move the balance closer to the strength of your quads (which would normally be able to press more but are weaker because of the set of extensions) and the weaker muscles (back, shoulder girdle, etc...).

But why would I want to do this. I'll always be stuck not being able to go up in weight. My "core" is nice and strong right now, which is allowing me to squat what I am now. When I go up in weight, my "core" strength won't be an issue. Had I been isolating my quads or pre-exhausting them from leg presses and leg extensions from the beginning, then my squat would be seriously lacking poundage, then I would be lacking growth. What i'm saying is that I don't want to have to rely on pre-exhaustion to compensate for other weak body parts. I want to make sure there is no weak link in any exercise. For instance, presses, i've made sure that tri's are not a weak factor. I could have totally bypassed the tri's by using machines to isolate the pecs or delts, but then tri's will always be the weak link and i'll never be able to go up in weight in the presses.

[Stonecold54]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Front Squats

Originally posted by beefcake
But why would I want to do this. I'll always be stuck not being able to go up in weight. My "core" is nice and strong right now, which is allowing me to squat what I am now. When I go up in weight, my "core" strength won't be an issue. Had I been isolating my quads or pre-exhausting them from leg presses and leg extensions from the beginning, then my squat would be seriously lacking poundage, then I would be lacking growth. What i'm saying is that I don't want to have to rely on pre-exhaustion to compensate for other weak body parts. I want to make sure there is no weak link in any exercise. For instance, presses, i've made sure that tri's are not a weak factor. I could have totally bypassed the tri's by using machines to isolate the pecs or delts, but then tri's will always be the weak link and i'll never be able to go up in weight in the presses.

at that point it is a preference and I have no problem with that reasoning. I go more for just building muscle rather than strength. I would rather find a way to use different techinques (intensity variables) than move heavy weights. The body grows from being "fooled" into growing not just getting stronger which is a function mainly of CNS adaptation.