Squats: Back Vs. Front.
I need some advice on the front
squat. Is it a good alternative to the
regular (back) squat? What's the best
grip to use?
front squat is still "a squat"
and it really makes no difference if
you do it or the back squat version, as
far as your routine goes. It's more a
matter of tradition that most people
do back squats, though front squats are
more tricky to perform than regular
squats.
It's my opinion that the front
squat is at least as good, or better;
unless, of course, you're competing
as a powerlifter, but even then it will
take a minimum adjustment to switch
over to the regular squat, with no loss
of strength-I've done it. Do what
you like and prefer. If you prefer
regular back squats, do them. They can
be great too.
Many feel, me included, that the
front squat is an even harder version
of the squat than the regular one. I've
done the front squat for years, with
back squats too. I only do front
squats now because back squats hurt
my neck area. Every time I back
squat, I end up with a stiff neck and
can't turn my head for a few days. I
think I'm getting a warning following
decades of heavy weights on my
spine.
Everyone is different, so if you
like front squats, just replace the back
squats with them. No big deal. You're doing no less work, that's for sure,
and maybe even more work.
Ask Olympic lifters about front
squats. You use less weight as you
must stand straight or else you'll dump
the bar.
It makes you use better form
and is more leg specific and less backand-
glute specific than the back squat.
You don't actually grip the bar
during the front squat.
My finger tips
just touch the bar and keep it in place.
The bar rests in a groove in my delts,
and my fingers just help keep it there.
There's no gripping involved. If
you're in a power rack-which you
should be for the front squat, with
pins set in place to catch the bar if you
have to dump it-you've nothing to
worry about. Just get your balance
and form down pat first, and then
build up the weight.
Many non-Olympic lifters like the
cross-arms method. Olympic lifters
usually don't use cross-arms when
front squatting, since cross-arms are
not used in Olympic lifting. I don't
cross my arms. Use what feels
comfortable to you. Remember, the bar
is supported in a groove in your
deltoids. Once you find what feels
comfortable, and you can keep good
form and balance, then you should be
able to up the poundage quickly.
Again, take your time to master form
with a light weight before you go
increasing the poundage.
The style that you use to support the
bar (cross-armed or Olympic) is really
not that important, as it's not actually
involved in lifting the weight. I
sometimes do a technique demo for my
clients. I do a little jig with a light bar
on my shoulders to show how the bar is wedged in my delts. I then do some
front squats with my arms out straight
just to demonstrate that the key is bar
positioning and balance, and has
nothing to do with grip. On the final
few reps, due to total body fatigue, you
must resist slouching on your form.
You'll need to strain to hold good form
in order to get the last few reps. Gravity
pulls you forward with the weight, and
it's harder to stay straight up when
you're tired. This is when your finger
tips might help hold the bar in place.
Sometimes I try "one too many" and
end up dumping the bar in the rack.
Some people, especially those new
to the front squat, may feel more
comfortable with a secure grip on the
bar while squatting.
Check out
AtomicAthletic.com, as they now have
a seven-foot bar, weighing 52 pounds,
that has parallel-grip handles made
especially for front squatting. Ken
Mannie, strength coach at Michigan
State University, has his charges front
squat with this bar, and he loves the
feel of the bar while front squatting. A
bar with this grip may solve your
gripping problem while front squatting.
Upright Row
The upright row is considered a
dangerous exercise by some. What's
your opinion of this exercise?
As I've gotten older I've developed an
appreciation of Stuart's conservative
approach to form and exercise selection.
I used to do the upright row with my
hands close together, and pull the bar all
the way up to my chin. It never bothered
me when I was younger, but does now.
I still do it (but differently) and think it's
a good exercise as long as you don't
pull the bar up too high and don't use a
close grip. I believe it becomes
increasingly dangerous if you go above
the lower chest level.
I always do a few warm-up sets in
the upright row before the heavy sets.
For both warm-up and work sets I
keep my hands right on the edge of
the knurl mark on a York bar (about
16 inches apart). I lower the bar
slowly with a good bottom pause, and
raise it no higher than chest/nipple
level.
If you do the movement this
way, your chances of injury are
dramatically reduced. Of course, if
you still get a negative reaction even
to the modified version, eliminate the
exercise. Never persist with any
exercise that causes pain or any other
type of negative reaction.
Deadlifting Frequency
Some coaches feel that intensive
bent-legged deadlifting on one day
and intensive stiff-legged deadlifting
on another day each week is too
much for the lower back, but others
feel it's okay. What's your position?
What do you have your clients do, as
a general rule?
In my opinion, deadlifting of any form
should not be done more than once per
week. The muscles of the lower back
frequently need more recovery time
than other musculature. The deadlift is
one of the toughest exercises and there
are many individuals, powerlifters
included, who only deadlift once
every other week (twice per month).
There may be a minority of
individuals who can get away with
doing a variation of deadlifts twice
per week, but I feel that would be
serious overtraining for the vast
majority of lifters. Deadlifting hard
and heavy once per week is the
frequency I recommend.
Grip Training
Some people recommend training
the grip hard once or at most twice a week, but a few recommend
training it almost every day, rotating
a number of different exercises. How
much is enough with grip work, and
should the grip be worked more
frequently than other bodyparts?
I may be the wrong person to ask this
question of, as I do grip work just to
assist my strength training, not to
compete in any form of grip
competition. It may be different if
you're seriously training to excel in a
grip competition or demonstration,
such as closing a certain gripper.
I recommend doing your grip training
just like you would any other muscle-
hitting it twice every 7-10 days as per
the "commandments" of Whelan
Strength Training. Why should the grip
get any special extra attention, unless
you're really involved in grip
competition, which I'm not, and
neither are my clients.
It's great if you have a strong grip,
but your major lifts should be as
impressive, if not more so. I get a
good chuckle when I see some of the
guys who are so into grip work that
they seem to forget they have a body
attached to their hands. I know a guy
who can almost close the number
three gripper, which is very
impressive and a lot better than I can
do, but he can only bench press about
250 pounds and squat maybe 350, if
he's lucky. He thinks he's a strong guy
just because of his grip.
I think some people are getting
their priorities mixed up. Work your
whole body, which includes the grip.
Don't put emphasis on the grip at the
expense of the major strength training
movements. People who can
only do feats of strength with the grip
aren't real strongmen in my opinion.
If their squat, bench press, deadlift,
military press, etc, are done with heavy weights, and they have a
strong grip, to me, that's impressive.
To have a really strong grip and be
weak in the major barbell
movements, is getting it all wrong.
Muscletown USA Book
What do you think of the book
Muscletown USA, by John D. Fair?
In my opinion, although it unfairly
treated Hoffman too negatively,
Fair's book is excellent. It's full of
historical information and is a
fascinating read. The facts in it can't
be disputed, but some of the negative
things about Hoffman were unfairly
portrayed. The same effort wasn't
made to dig in detail into the personal
lives of other major characters in Iron
Game history.
I don't know of any
new book coming out with a more
positive spin on the York/Hoffman
side, but I'd love to see it.
The problem is that Fair seems to
go out of his way to show Hoffman's
bad side. He seemed biased towards
Joe Weider and cynical/negative
about Hoffman. Factual information
can still be unfair.
People usually dig
deeper into personal negative things if
they don't like you, and omit some of
the positive things. (The opposite
applies if they like you). If you can
keep that in mind, Muscletown USA
is a great book.
I love Hoffman. His influence got
me started in all this when I bought
my first copies of MUSCULAR
DEVELOPMENT and STRENGTH AND
HEALTH, in 1964, when I was ten
years old. I admire the man and won't
let Fair's book change my admiration
for Hoffman. I'd like to see the same
dirt-digging effort put into a book
about other leading Iron Game
figures, past and present, to help
balance things.
Past Training Beliefs
What's the best description of how
the old-timers really trained?
The only real absolute about the oldtimers
is that they trained naturally,
hard and progressively. They may
have had crude equipment and limited
information, but they made the most
of what they had. If you take a close
look at old Iron Game literature,
you'll find a common theme: health,
strength, vigor and longevity.
Cosmetic results, although
mentioned, were clearly secondary.
The cosmetic results were believed to
be the end result of "doing the right
thing," and were a reward for effort,
discipline and a lifestyle commitment.
The titles of the popular books and
magazines reflected these values.
There were STRENGTH AND HEALTH,
HEALTH AND STRENGTH, PHYSICAL
CULTURE, STRENGTH, THE STRONG MAN,
and numerous other titles.
Compare
these titles to the best-selling training
books and magazines of today-the
difference is astounding.
The pioneers of Physical Culture
were not just body beautiful posers.
They were strong! Eugene Sandow and
others competed in various feats of
strength. They had to make do with
crude training facilities and equipment,
but they made the most of what they
had. They had to endure the wrath of
society, as attaining health and strength
was not a trendy thing to do in those
days.
This is how the term health nut
got started (they were definitely not
called buff!) Even though they had far
less information available, they swore
by the information they did have.
How many of us truly can say
we're using the information we have?
Jack LaLanne was so dedicated that
he trained his mind to visualize
disgusting images at the very thought
of junk food. Cosmetic results were seen as the reward for correct living
and hard training.
Many of our Physical Culture
forefathers went beyond physical
health and were concerned with
mental and spiritual health as well.
Peary Rader frequently wrote articles
about spiritual health; and Bob
Hoffman and Bernarr MacFadden, in
addition to writing about training,
wrote about practically everything
dealing with health and happiness,
including moral issues.
We now have much better overall
equipment, gyms, and nutritional and
health knowledge. But we also have
the horrendous mess of drug abuse.
Public acceptance/involvement of
training is much higher now. But most
of the training principles have been
around a long time.
There's nothing really new as far as
strength-training principles are
concerned. It just gets re-packaged.
Read the "Letters from Chas" on
NaturalStrength.com, and his articles
in old issues of HARDGAINER, as he
repeatedly covers this topic. There's
no single training philosophy that
defines the old-timers. Klein, Maxick,
Cyr and Grimek trained differently,
just as individuals today train
differently. Chas stated that none of
today's training principles are really
new. The only exception I can think of
that may be considered new is the
concept of very slow speed training.
Arthur Jones - Methods & Writing
I'm curious as to what you think
about Arthur Jones, his writing and
strength training methods. Also,
do you consider yourself an
advocate of HIT?
I have a great deal of respect for
Jones, and consider him to be one of
the brightest minds in the history of strength training. I didn't discover
him right away though. My early
influences were mainly from York
(Hoffman and Grimek), Brad Steiner
and later from the original IRON MAN
from Peary Rader.
In the late 1970s I
was temporarily influenced a great
deal by Heavy Duty from Mike
Mentzer, but later realized that he just
paraphrased and repackaged Arthur
Jones' theories, so it was really Jones
I was influenced by. I don't agree
with everything Jones says, but most
of it. He definitely had a big impact
on my beliefs.
I frequently use multiple sets, low
reps and barbells. I believe how you
train depends on the goal of your
training. A powerlifter has to do low
reps, multiple sets and use a barbell. A
basketball player doesn't. I don't
believe you have to go to failure to get
good results so long as you train
progressively. It depends on the goal of
your training and your circumstances.
The methods promoted in
HARDGAINER will pack on
muscle and strength for all
who conscientiously and
diligently put them into
practice. But the practical
application demands great
resolve, dedication, effort and
persistence. We provide the
training advice you need, but
only you alone can provide
the resolve, dedication, effort
and persistence.
Rise to the challenge,
and then you'll reap the
wonderful rewards!
When it comes to training stimulus,
I'm mainly a poundage guy. A lot of
HIT guys never talk about poundage,
it's always only about going to failure.
I always put poundage (in good form)
first, ahead of going to failure or
anything else as far as training stimulus
goes. Although I'm a big supporter of
going to failure, and controlled speed
of motion training (for some trainees),
for me they are clearly secondary to
load progression.
I have a broad view of strength
training and can see many ways that
work. I don't feel the need to try to
persuade people to do exactly what I
do, nor do I get personally offended
by differences in training philosophy
other than those which use drug
support. The most important thing is
that you're natural and trying to train
hard and lift heavier. If so, we're
brothers, and there's no need to argue
about minor details.
Conclusion
In strength training, it's all good as
long as you follow the sensible rules of
safety, progression and recovery as
expressed in HARDGAINER. If you do
power cleans or don't do them, I don't
care so long as you don't get hurt.
Same with odd objects, going to
failure, etc. Just don't get injured!
I see the various modes and
methods of strength training as tools in
a tool chest. A craftsman can collect
and use many tools to perform his art.
Only a fool would throw useful tools
away and insist on using just a few
tools. Different tools can be used for
different people. Some need low reps
and multiple sets due to their goals, and
some need one set to failure.
Regardless of the method used in
strength training, I always put the
greatest emphasis on load or
poundage progression. Effort without
progression is no better than
calisthenics or manual labor.
Visit us at Hardgainer Online!
Copyright 2000 by CS Publishing
Thanks,
cspubltd@spidernet.com.cy
Recommend this article to a friend by e-mail here!
Visitor Reviews Of This Article!
Read Visitor Reviews - Write Your Own Review
Back To Hardgainer.com's Main Page
Back To The Articles Main Page.
Related Articles
Mahler's Aggressive Strength Q&A!
Q & A With James Wilson # 3.
Q & A With Clayton South - April 2003!
