Squat vs Leg Press

B

berserk

Member
I'm guessing this question would've come up before, but I did a couple of searches and couldn't find it.

Has barbell squatting got any advantages over using a leg press machine for hypertrophy? The actions of the legs/glutes seem pretty much identical on either exercise - with the leg press being easier on the lower back. And I would've thought one could move more weight on a leg press machine too . . .so I'm struggling to see why I would bother worrying about all sorts of technique issues and risking my lower back with sqautting when I can subject my legs/glutes to more weight with more safety on a leg press machine.
 
squats use other muscles(most actually) besides the legs,and remember you are also lifting your own weight which you dont on a leg press machine.but as far as safety goes if you want to use a leg press machine go do it
cool.gif
biggrin.gif
 
I have a partially crushed #4 lumbar disc. When my barbell squats got up to over 450, it was re-injured, even though I've been very careful about form in the squats. Now I squat at home in a freeweight lever machine, which is sort of like using a smith machine; you lift your own weight, the weights on the bar, and the cradle itself (40lbs on mine) BUT, you don't have to balance the weight; just push it.
    Since I don't have to use all the assisting muscles to balance the bar, and the machine has me leaning slightly back, keeping the abs tight, I'm up to 540 for 8 rep sets with it, going ATG.
    Last time I used a leg sled in the gym, I had about 1500 lbs on it (a 45 degree model). I don't remember the reps. So what I'm saying is that it's all relative to the machine as to how much weight you can use. As for development, my legs have always lagged badly, but using Steve Jones' advice and going ATG with the feet almost parallel and fairly close together, I've seen advances in size and shape at last. It just seems to me that the posture itself is more important than the machine.
    Of course, the leg sled totally takes the upper body out of the lift, so the numbers skyrocket, and ANY machine takes out the balance factor, raising the numbers also; the true indicator (for your ego purposes) is the one and only barbell squat, which by the way, kills my neck unless I'm using a manta ray. Some guys even wanna consider THAT cheating though. And if you want the big numbers in the squat, you would use the olympic style stance. But that topic has been debated endlessly as to it's efficacy for a bodybuilder...for me, results came better with the bodybuilder's stance.
 
I did my first ever squats (beyond trying it out at school) the other day.

I've never bothered before because I've always intended to train legs but somehow never get round to it (!).

I started deadlifting about a year ago but that was mainly for upper body strength.

Anyway, I had been doing the leg press for a few sessions ubefore I started squatting but the difference in the soreness in my legs was incredible after my first squatting session. I will never think that squats and leg press are equal in the leg development stakes again. Plus my whole upper body felt like it had had a workout too.

Safety's a separate issue but then all free weight exercises are dangerous if proper form is not observed. Not sure if you deadlift but I would think deads are probably even more dangerous that squats.

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Rob
 
<div>
(faz @ Jul. 20 2006,18:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">squats use other muscles(most actually) besides the legs,and remember you are also lifting your own weight which you dont on a leg press machine.but as far as safety goes if you want to use a leg press machine go do it
cool.gif
 
biggrin.gif
</div>
The other muscles you speak of are just stabilizers though. Only the muscles which are lengthening and shortening under tension will grow. ie. quads, hams and glutes and maybe calves to a lesser extent due to slight dorsi flexion/extension.

I think we need some evidence - any studies comparing the two exercises pound for pound for hypertrophy? Or is squatting just a throwback from strength/power orientated programs?
 
I prefer squats myself. You dont have to go very heavy with them to get a good workout. Keep your form real good, and you can avoid most back problems. I know I hurt myself more on legpress, since it allows &quot;more weight&quot; and more squirming to do the weight.

Also remember that on legpress, if its the 45degree one, to SUBTRACT you body weight from the total weight on the sled, then multiply that by 0.707 (for the incline) to get an idea of the equivalent weight you would be squatting. Then take into account the differenct in difficulty between a machine and deadweight (like the difference between a machine Chest press and a REAL bench press).

Leg Press is really no match for Squat, but it DOES have its uses.
 
Pointless speaking much here.

Dan...put some of your good ol'research to settle this one out!

Squats rule! But yeah, the leg press has its place specially if your back is injured, otherwise it is no substitute, maybe as an add on yeah!
 
I'm going throw in another one. Leg extension versus the other two. They get a lot of bad press, but I'm not sure why. The EMG studies I've seen suggest that the difference between squats and extensions are statistically insignificant. Not that EMG are the end all be all of determining the best excercise, but they are a valid factor. I've been using isolations on the legs...extensions and curls and really like the pump. I have a problem with involuntarily holding my breath sometimes. For some reason, extensions don't bother my breathing, so I go with them. Fortunately they seem to work just as well.
 
<div>
(Tradnyx @ Jul. 20 2006,13:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Also remember that on legpress, if its the 45degree one, to SUBTRACT you body weight from the total weight on the sled, then multiply that by 0.707 (for the incline) to get an idea of the equivalent weight you would be squatting.  </div>
I always wondered what the formula would be for that! Way Cool!

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The EMG studies I've seen suggest that the difference between squats and extensions are statistically insignificant. Not that EMG are the end all be all of determining the best excercise, but they are a valid factor.</div>
I thought the matter was settled as to squats hitting the upper quads more and the extensions hitting the lower, just above the knees. Whatever is 'statistically significant' - I can only say that before squatting, I built up the lower quads doing extensions only, and my uppers just didn't grow, until recently when I started doing machine squats as I outlined before, feet close and ATG.
I'm certainly no expert, but that's my opinion and experience.
 
You were sore b/c you have never done that movement before.

Dont get me wrong squats are hard as hell...but dont let Soreness mean that its way better.

You could go to the gym 3 days a week and every time choose a different exercise you have never done and be sore as hell but that doesn;t mean its your best bang for your buck.

I think leg press machine is perfectly fine. I think machines have been given a bad rap.

If you have access to hammer strength machines they are the best...plus they make training around an injury easier.

Just a little side not for me I was injured doing heavy benches so I would never think of going below 5 reps..however I still use compounds for my higher reps sets but when i want to put up serious weight I go to hammer strength only b/c it does not aggravate my injury.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The other muscles you speak of are just stabilizers though. Only the muscles which are lengthening and shortening under tension will grow. ie. quads, hams and glutes and maybe calves to a lesser extent due to slight dorsi flexion/extension.</div>
Ah, well, that's a bit misleading. Muscles that are acting as stabilizers are still working even if in a static contraction and some work through a reduced ROM. As loads increase the stabilizers are put under more tension so even if there is no movement along their length they are still actively contracting against the increased loads. It's a small point but worth noting.
 
No comparison in my experience, squats are more than a lower body movement, they affect most of the body. In addition to hypertrophy, proper, full ROM squats have a big strength carry-over to other great exercises such as cleans and puch presses.
 
The BNBF Squatting Experiment: Does squatting involve the same amount of muscular activation as leg press or hack squatting?


In order to establish the most effective resistance exercise for quadricep development the BNBF sanctioned a scientific investigation, collaborating with Napier Universities sports science research department. The investigation was prompted by varying opinions on the optimal resistance exercise to induce muscular hypertrophy in the quadriceps of body builders. Many body builders and trained coaches believe that conventional squatting is ineffective at producing large quantities of muscular hypertrophy when compared to such exercises as hack squatting and leg pressing. In order to establish whether these views had any scientific grounding, a series of controlled experiments were undertaken in a private resistance training facility.
Three trained body builders with at least five years resistance training experience were recruited for this micro study. Each of the subjects had refrained from leg training 2 days prior to the commencement of the experimental protocols to ensure neuromuscular fatigue and myofibril damage had no influence on results. The testing was separated into three phases, squatting, leg press and hack squatting conducted in randomised order to eliminate any potential influence of fatigue on the results as previously stated. The exercises were as follows; wide and normal stance squatting at 3/4 depth and 90 degrees (parallel), wide and close stance leg press and finally close and wide stance hack squats. Each subject performed 3 repetitions of each exercise at 90% of there 1 repetition maximal established 1 week prior to the testing session. Five minutes recovery was given between trials.

Muscular electromyography was used to measure muscular activation during each trial in millivolts. A four channel EMG was attached to the Vastus Medialis, Rectus Femoris and Vastus Lateralis of the right quadriceps and also the Biceps Femoris of the Hamstrings. The average of the three repetitions was taken as the result for each exercise. After the completion of the testing the results were collated and subsequently analysed.

The results demonstrated that shallow ¾ squatting (68º knee flexion), both wide and shallow stances, produced the greatest amount of quadriceps stimulation. Shallow squatting elicited 20% more muscular activation throughout the three quadricep muscles measured compared to full 90º squats. This is likely due to the constant load applied to the quadriceps during shallow squats. During full squats the load is assisted by the gluteus and hamstring muscles during the concentric drive phase of the action which reduces the load and subsequent activation of the quadriceps. This was evident from the EMG results, with the Biceps Femoris muscle being stimulated 50% more during full squats compared to shallow squats.

Hack squatting and leg press both produced similar muscular activation patterns for those measured during close and wide stances. However quadriceps activation was 30% and 15% less when compared with shallow squatting and normal squatting respectively. Biceps Femoris activation however was significantly reduced during leg press compared with all other exercises. Activation of the Biceps Femoris muscle was 18%, 200% and 450% greater for hack squatting, shallow squats and full squats respectively compared with leg press.


These results suggests that leg press isolates the quadriceps muscles better than squatting or hack squatting. However in relative terms, squatting shallow and to a lesser extent full squatting, produces more muscular activation of the quadriceps in relation to the relative load applied compared to any of the other exercises tested. Squatting also utilised more of the biceps femoris (hamstring muscle) than leg press or hack squatting as previously stated. This translates into a more complete utilisation of the leg muscles during each contraction. Also full (90º) squats elicits the utilisation of the gluteuls which again provides a more complete leg workout compared to hack squatting or leg press. Therefore squatting should provide more muscular stimulation and subsequent development compared to other exercises. A greater level of muscular activation results in a larger percentage of the muscle fibres being utilised during the activity allowing for more muscular damage to result. As the body is an over compensatory system, if enough recovery is given the body will not only repair the myofibril damage but muscle hypertrophy will result. If this form of training is continued with a constant progression of the imposed load, the result will be larger stronger muscles which is the ultimate goal of the body builder.

Accordingly squatting to 68º and 90º of knee flexion should produced greater gains in muscle mass and strength in the quadriceps compared with leg press and hack squats.
However squatting below parallel will noticeably shift the implied load away from the quadriceps and induce greater activity within the hamstrings and gluteuls. This may reduce quadricep development. However squatting below 90 degrees will shift the emphasis from hamstrings to gluteals. Accordingly squatting to 85º will likely induce the optimal ratio between quadricep and hamstring / gluteul development in one exercise and result in greater overall leg development compared to leg press or hack squats. Therefore squatting, preferably to 85º should be an essential part of any bodybuilders leg workouts.


Written by Scott Macrae,BNBF Scientific development officer.
Bsc Honours Sports Science.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Muscles that are acting as stabilizers are still working even if in a static contraction and some work through a reduced ROM. As loads increase the stabilizers are put under more tension so even if there is no movement along their length they are still actively contracting against the increased loads.</div>
Good point there, nice one Lol.

Now on to the matter at hand, in my experience squats are a far better exercise than leg press. Obviously they hit many more muscles. But aside from that, considering leg hypertrophy (and strength) only, again they have proved to be far superior.

Leg press is a good substitute if you can't (for whatever reason) or don't want to squat, but it's not the same.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jul. 22 2006,05:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't know if it's true or not, but I'd read that squats are supposedly the best AB exersize! Odd, huh?</div>
I'm sure I read a post by Bryan saying that in order to make the abs grow/change then the torso really needs to be curling (eg. a crunch, preferably weighted)

Since the idea of a safe and effective squat involves keeping the torso straight, the rectus abdominus is only acting as a stabilizer (isometric contraction) so I highly doubt any sort of squat could possibly be the best ab exercise!

As for the increasing resistance for the stabilizers, I'm not sure if these isometric contractions really cause any noticable growth response - I'd like to know the % difference of growth response for isometric contractions compared to isotonic contractions (with the same weight and and same TUL)

Anyone?
 
Yeah Faz's post was an interesting one but have they compared actual resultant leg hypertrophy? Using the EMG system they can only look in theory as to how the muscle will respond.

Here's a hypothetical - who thinks there would there be any noticable difference in a 10-year bodybuilder's physique today if every squat he'd ever done in his career was replaced with 45 leg presses with the same* loads and same number of sets/reps). (*slightly more weight on the leg press to compensate for not lifting his upper body as when squatting - see Tradnyx's 0.7 formula in this topic)

We will never know the answer to this but I think there'd be no noticable hypertrophy difference. However, perhaps his CNS would've been spared a bit, and his lower back would be effectively a lot younger. Or I could be plain wrong.
 
I doubt there would be much of a difference, and as long as the squatter was using good form, his back would not be in worse shape than the other person. I don't see why people think squats destroy people's backs. I do all kinds of stuff to my back and it's the one part of my body that never hurts. Both my parents have back problems too, so you'd think I'd be predisposed. Nope. Unless you are squating in a moronic fashion or using more weight than you are ready to handle, there shouldn't be any problems.

Further, I don't think that formula for comparing leg press to squats is accurate. I'm not really sure how you can make a formula for that, unless they are just comparing specific lifters differences in each lift. Obviously it is going to vary a lot between lifters. It might be good to give you an idea of what you might be able to squat, but I would only take it as that and nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top