April 26, 2019, 07:38:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: squat stance...whats yours..?  (Read 14357 times)
fhwill
*****
Posts: 1607


Email
« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2015, 11:14:32 AM »

I change mine all around. I do Front Squats, Back Squats, Bulgarian, depending on the day/what I feel like/how my Legs feel that day.

BUT for me, I can feel a narrower stance more in my Quads. My glutes seem to activate really easily and the narrower the stance I have, the more I feel the movement in my Quads.

When I wanted to increase my numbers, widening my stance worked wonders  Cheesy

Enjoying the discussion though. I wandered home from the gym pondering this one  Grin
Logged
egg-custard
*****
Posts: 1582



« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2015, 02:18:45 PM »



When I wanted to increase my numbers, widening my stance worked wonders  

 

hi...should then this be the approach for those of us who are looking to improve pb`s...?
Logged
fhwill
*****
Posts: 1607


Email
« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2015, 02:33:52 PM »



When I wanted to increase my numbers, widening my stance worked wonders  

 

hi...should then this be the approach for those of us who are looking to improve pb`s...?

Don't ask me, I don't work by science/masses of knowledge, just own experience  Cool
Logged
Jaymero
***
Posts: 213



Email
« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2015, 03:32:19 PM »

I find using a narrow stance incredibly difficult for back squats; I just haven't got the flexibility (Or stability for that matter Grin) to get low enough to feel my glutes and quads engaging properly. I favour the wider stance, anywhere from shoulder width apart to sumo style width for reps, depth and weight.

It's funny though because when I do my front squats I opt for a narrow stance and my depth issues go away. For me, it seems that the tiny adjustment to my centre mass makes all the difference.

Very interesting topic!
Logged
Badger
*****
Posts: 2351

To press a lot, you must press a lot. -Sheiko


Email
« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2015, 03:42:43 PM »

I find using a narrow stance incredibly difficult for back squats; I just haven't got the flexibility (Or stability for that matter Grin) to get low enough to feel my glutes and quads engaging properly. I favour the wider stance, anywhere from shoulder width apart to sumo style width for reps, depth and weight.

It's funny though because when I do my front squats I opt for a narrow stance and my depth issues go away. For me, it seems that the tiny adjustment to my centre mass makes all the difference.

Very interesting topic!

Same! Squatting close stance is near useless for me if I need to move good weight to anything near depth in the back squat but front squatting even in oly shoes works perfectly.

Lever length plays such a massive role. Would be interesting to compare a close stance back squatter and a wide stance squatters relative lever lengths with regard to spine/femur/ fibia
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2015, 04:46:07 PM »

Glen and Turpin - what other movements do you think are good for hitting the Adductor muscles? I assume a wide stance is also beneficial?

   Goblet squat with feet turned out or Sumo stance KB deadlift really hits my adductors hard , but then so does heavy back squats for me ( just that for bodybuilding purposes they are not as effective on the quads  )

   T.
Logged
Monbeef
*****
Posts: 7994


Author of The Tower Grave - available on Amazon!


Email
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2015, 10:38:33 PM »

Walking lunges kill my adductors. Might just be the way they work on me but that's where they hit. And wide stance SLDL hits the inner hams and fills the gap too.
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2015, 10:59:56 PM »

A series of pics of my thigh development ( adductors ) over some years with varying choice of exercise whilst eating plan ( high fat/low carb remained constant ) ... obviously body composition levels changed over the years BUT I hope the pics can give some indication of what benefit ( or otherwise ) each exercise provided.



1: squat & leg press @ 75kg  2: Leg press only HIT ( no squat ) @ 75kg 3: Belt squats ( cumulative fatigue .. heavy resistance ) @ 74kg 4: Sissy squat ( light resistance .. lots of volume ) @ 72kg .

  T.
Logged
Trow
*****
Posts: 701


« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2015, 11:18:20 PM »

That's some awesome pictures there Turpin, a lot of people struggle to get detailed Hams in stage condition but in pics 3 and 4 they are dialled in.... But I would still argue that it's not necessarily the exercises that have had the major effect. I'm assuming you were strength/powerlifting training in pic 1 so correct me if I'm wrong.... but I would suggest the major effects/change seen in the pics is more likely to be due to the change in training, i.e. hypertrophy training with more volume, not the change in exercises per se. And I'm assuming your diet changed considerably between these 4 pics.
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #54 on: January 21, 2015, 11:28:38 PM »

That's some awesome pictures there Turpin, a lot of people struggle to get detailed Hams in stage condition but in pics 3 and 4 they are dialled in.... But I would still argue that it's not necessarily the exercises that have had the major effect. I'm assuming you were strength/powerlifting training in pic 1 so correct me if I'm wrong.... but I would suggest the major effects/change seen in the pics is more likely to be due to the change in training, i.e. hypertrophy training with more volume, not the change in exercises per se. And I'm assuming your diet changed considerably between these 4 pics.

  Diet was constant but training aim and choice of exercise and method different , I really don't `diet` ( reduce ) , the pics were indicative mainly of the effect of high fat / low carb eating over a 4yr time frame and the exercise choice implemented.

  T.
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #55 on: January 21, 2015, 11:31:47 PM »



Last year with front squat and Bulgarian split squat .

As I mentioned previously ( despite not competing in physique contest ) I DO monitor carefully the effect of any exercise I employ on both physique and performance .

 T.
Logged
Glen Danbury
*****
Posts: 4279


fuelled by EQ nutrition


WWW Email
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2015, 12:05:30 PM »

impressive images.

I do feel like trow mentioned though that these shots are hard to gauge as theres radical different conditioning levels. I noticed heavily how when competing a few lbs off or on could create different appearances in how a given bodypart looks.
Logged
tony_b
*****
Posts: 2940



Email
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2015, 01:03:45 PM »

Some corking shots there Turpin - certainly don't look low 70s weight wise!

Narrow stance for me = awful depth...

I squat wide, toes out. Have been trying to bring up my hams/glutes, so actually do my best to not load my quads at all. I find by fatiguing hams and ass as much as possible, by the time I get to my last few reps, they are failing big time, and load starts going through my quads. Last set usually leads to both being done and dusted.

This approach also seems to be adding the width I need on my adductors to thicken me out
Logged
Proff
*****
Posts: 617


« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2015, 11:12:55 PM »

Awkward, with closed eyes wondering when it will be the hell over.
Jesus Turpin thats obscene well done chap!
Logged
Damon Eaton
*****
Posts: 1368


Damon "The Truth" Eaton. Free Agent.


Email
« Reply #59 on: February 11, 2015, 12:42:16 PM »

Read an article on this which explains how everyone's ideal squat stance with very based on anatomy not just muscular imbalances.
http://www.theptdc.com/2015/02/why-people-must-have-different-squat-stance/
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Natural Muscle Forum: Discussion on UK natural bodybuilding, weight training, strongman, powerlifting, weight loss, nutrition and supplements
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!