nopityfitness asked: I think a more valid question is... Which is better, the front squat or the back squat? Back squat allowing more weight, front squat requiring more mobility/postural integrity. Which is more valid?
This is also a much debated point in weight training. If you’re familiar with Mike Boyle, he’s made a career out of grand, sweeping, and controversial statements in this arena. First it was “never back squat again, only front squat!” Then it was “I was wrong, front squats are bad, only Bulgarian split squat!” The logic is that the back is the limiting factor in squats, not the legs, so the front squat is a better lift (than the back squat), as it puts more demand onto the spine, while limiting the overall weight. After experimenting with that for awhile, Boyle decided the front squat is still limited by the same issues as the back squat, so he began to poo-poo both lifts. With Boyle, it is a question of goals: he almost exclusively trains high level hockey players, which of course means highly trained athletes with very specific needs. These needs are met most effectively and safely by the split squat, as hockey players require explosiveness and stability predominately from a single leg position.
I’m not saying Boyle is wrong, he’s an educated guy with some valid points, but his perspective is warped by two common issues in the strength and conditioning research world, the first being that he trains almost exclusively one type of high level athlete. This abounds in s&c research. Who do you think are the usual subjects in university tests? College students/athletes. And for more “underground” s&c coaches like Boyle and Cressey, they stick to their clients, who are usually one type of athlete with specific needs. Again, their research is valid and extremely helpful in their field, but does not necessarily apply to the larger public.
The second issue is that of celebrity: fitness is a tough industry, and if you want to make it, you’re going to have to be willing to have a sparkling personality and/or make some bold statements to catch people’s eyes. Common sense and non-dramatic dissemination of information don’t exactly attract a lot of followers. Catchy one-liners and shocking statements do (let my tumblr stand as an example of this quandary). So whether Boyle is aware of this or not, he definitely sells more books and fills more seminar seats when he makes bold, controversial claims like “never squat again!” I can’t fault the guy, it’s a discussion worth having and it doesn’t hurt to pad that pocketbook.
Back to the original point: it’s again a question of goals - the back squat is crucial for almost all beginners, but so is the front squat, though many do not have the postural integrity for it out of the gate. The back squat is a fantastic way to move a lot of weight, but for certain body types, it can be potentially injurious when you get to elite level poundages. The front squat is great for spinal strength, and essential for building your Olympic lifts, but suffers from many of the same limitations as the back squat in terms of spinal integrity. The split squat is great for athletes, and a valuable addition to a normal program, but not a necessary replacement for the squat, unless you are a high level athlete who’s sport requires it, or have a freaky body type.
My two cents.
