wide is better than narrow squat stance???

[oso0690]

I was reading on westside-barbell.com to get a good understanding about westside's method and found something interesting. Now I expect Louie simmons to know his shit but he was saying that wide stance squats are just so much better for development because they put the posterior chain into play WITH the same degree of quads to a close stance. It's the June 2006 article 'things you should know'. So if that's true, what is the point of a close stance squat being the main squat stance? Did he leave out that they might build better explosive strength or that since it resembles a linemans setup on the football field, be good for specific sport strength?

Here's what it said:

Did you know that a wide stance squat works the quads to the same degree as a close stance squat, but with the bonus of using more hip, glute, and hamstring muscles? Anyone who tries to squat as much as possible soon learns that a wide stance produces greater results. This was proven at a test at Ball State University.

I want to hear what you all think about that

 

[maldorf]

I was reading on westside-barbell.com to get a good understanding about westside's method and found something interesting. Now I expect Louie simmons to know his shit but he was saying that wide stance squats are just so much better for development because they put the posterior chain into play WITH the same degree of quads to a close stance. It's the June 2006 article 'things you should know'. So if that's true, what is the point of a close stance squat being the main squat stance? Did he leave out that they might build better explosive strength or that since it resembles a linemans setup on the football field, be good for specific sport strength?

Here's what it said:

Did you know that a wide stance squat works the quads to the same degree as a close stance squat, but with the bonus of using more hip, glute, and hamstring muscles? Anyone who tries to squat as much as possible soon learns that a wide stance produces greater results. This was proven at a test at Ball State University.

I want to hear what you all think about that

Yeah, I saw that study posted on the internet once. They used an instrument to measure the electrical output in the different muscles of the lower limb while doing both styles of squats. Results showed that the various muscles of the quad contracted with the same intensity in both versions of the squat.

 

[Cynical Simian]

Were they comparing wide-stance squats to narrow squats done with the same range of motion (i.e. both with PL ROM - "sit back" to parallel rather than go ATG)?

A wide-stance squat will allow you to handle more weight, albeit through a smaller ROM, which is why powerlifters use it. That's what Louie meant by "greater results".

 

[bignate73]

yep, what CS said.

a close stance lets gives you more range of motion. and yes, to a degree takes a bit of the post chain out of it.

I'd be interested to see what the definition of wide and narrow was. i like to do wide stances and "narrow" but my narrow isn't that narrow. I'd consider it more of an athletic stance to allow me to go ATF. the only reason I do it is for the range of motion, going wide is for the numbers.

 

[Protobuilder]

It comes down to this: is it better to use more weight but w/ a limited range of motion (PL squat) or work through a full ROM (OLY squat)? If you plan to catch heavy cleans, then you'll have to work the full ROM b/c you aren't stopping a heavy bar at parallel. LoL And unless you're a competitive PL, why do half ROM on anything? Nobody stops their bench when their upper arms are parallel to the ground. So why squat until a designated stopping point? I mean, sure, you could bench more if you did a half bench. But nobody advocates that. Why not? They must think there's value to the full ROM. So, I don't see the point in a half squat unless you're powerlifting.

Also, from what I"ve seen, it's healthier on your knees to go through the full ROM.

 

[elitft_bouncer]

I've always termed full squats as oly squats and parallel as powerlifting squats. Two completely seperate movements. Oly squats must be always done full rom. No excuse. Doing oly squats to half rom is like doing bench to half rom (as described above). Powerlifting squats is all about sitting back, with the bar a little lower down the traps. The stance doesnt have to be so wide, but the main emphasizes is on fully sitting back, thus stretching the hamstrings to full rom. This results in only reaching parallel or a little past it. So overall, most guys in the gym who squats to parallel are normally doing oly style squats to half rom, which defeats the whole purpose of oly squats. Trying to perform a powerlifting squat to full rom is probably not possible for the majority due to the fact the hamstrings are already stretched pretty far past parallel (well for me thats the case)

p.s LOL as for answering your question on wide or close, they both give you pretty big/strong legs but wideST gives you more developed hammies/hip/glute/quad in that order and closeST gives you more developed quad/glute/hammies/hip in that order.

 

[Illuminati]

I was reading on westside-barbell.com to get a good understanding about westside's method and found something interesting. Now I expect Louie simmons to know his shit but he was saying that wide stance squats are just so much better for development because they put the posterior chain into play WITH the same degree of quads to a close stance. It's the June 2006 article 'things you should know'. So if that's true, what is the point of a close stance squat being the main squat stance? Did he leave out that they might build better explosive strength or that since it resembles a linemans setup on the football field, be good for specific sport strength?

Here's what it said:

Did you know that a wide stance squat works the quads to the same degree as a close stance squat, but with the bonus of using more hip, glute, and hamstring muscles? Anyone who tries to squat as much as possible soon learns that a wide stance produces greater results. This was proven at a test at Ball State University.

I want to hear what you all think about that

WSB doesn't not use the Narrow Stance as a main exercise. As a matter of fact, I dont think that they use a narrow stance ever.

Getting out into a wider stance, puts a little more of the strain into your glutes and hams. Going wide can wreak havoc on peoples hips. So if you do decided to squat with a wide PL style stance, get a pair of groove briefs (I use the metal ones from elitefts.com) Groove briefs give you support in your hips, and help against the abuse from the wide stance.

 

[HotMan]

depeneds on your goals..

if your powerlifting than ya you want to get wide to limit range of motion and lift alot of weight..

if your olympic lifting than you need to practice close stance.

if you want muscle mass, you need to do everything..

i think for a regualr person slightly wider than shoulders is perfect.