Here's a link to Cressey's latest newsletter http://ericcressey.com/newsletter154.html. In it he talks about the 'safety' of the front squat vs the back squat and also gets into each squat a little bit.

He sits on the fence with his choice of which is the better overall movement, but I think thats a good thing. We all know the benefits of front squats (and variations) as well as the back squat. And we know that each one has unique advantages and disadvantages which is why I agree with Cressey in saying they both have their place and one is not better or safer or more effective than the other. They're tools in a toolbox, you can't use a hammer to tighten a bolt, sometimes you need to have a wrench (or a ratchet :P).

That's funny I just was telling someone how I hadn't back squatted (straight bar on back) forever. And the world did not fold up and squish me; nor did the sky fall.

Good stuff as usual from EC.

One thing he didn't mention, which I think is just as important in a simple common sense type of way, is that the MAJORITY of trainees are one-trick-ponies.

You want to look at which is "safer" from that perspective and it would still be hard. I.E. if all you EVER do is back squat or all you ever do is front squat, which will do the most cumulative damage. I'm 39 years old so I'm looking at a lot more wear and tear and not all of it comes from "battle scars" that I can point to and say, "this is from such and such a time."

I think Mike Boyle is pretty adamant about front squat being safer from a long term perspective. I don't really know about that but TOO many trainees are being taught that one movement is "superior" to another. Rarely do trainers who prescribe exercises in this way look at them from a cost-benefit standpoint. Trainees are taught to be one-trick ponies at best and motor-morons at worst.

If you asked me, Eric, which is better and safer, back squats or front squats, this would be my response:

"Why do you have to choose?"

What is it that is giving rise to these attitudes about movements like squatting. THAT is what needs to be determined and changed. Technical analysis is great but it won't change a die-hard back squatter if they believe that back squatting will increase testosterone and pack on pounds of muscle while turning them into Paul Anderson (without the fat).

The average trainee gets jumped all over for being ignorant while the fitness industry waffles back and forth sending mixed messages. KISS! Variety! Blah, blah…no wonder people get confused. Lip service is all it is. Throw the right word at someone and you can do and say whatever you want. It's one thing to be blinded by science; it's another to be blinded by the pretense of science.

One one hand you have a coaching community that has become elitist and protective. Professing to science without understanding the scientific method and refusing to be subject to any kind of peer review that isn't behind closed doors and never subject to the light of day.

On the other you have lab rats who have no practical experience when it comes to training actual human beings and they think they can glimpse the magical apple tree of training in a scientific study.

Most seem to go back and forth between these two extremes, depending on whats convenient at the time.

When that doesn't work they pull out the macho act. Just get in there and get it done. Lift some heavy shit! Booyah!

Training is more often what works for the trainers than what works for the trainees.

Is it really a surprise then that there should be a never ending debate on back squats versus front squats?

It is NOT the forum gurus that are causing all the problems. I am sick and tired of the convenient excuse that all the problems are caused by "arm-chair" trainers on the internet. Bullshit. Guess who those arm-chair trainers are quoting? Guess who their authority figures are?

The back squat versus front squat debate should not really exist. No more than a bilateral versus unilateral debate should exist.

Seems like everybody has the balls to call up some random youtube video and make fun of somebody trying to get fit but doing it "wrong". Lets call out the slackers! BFD. But nobody has the balls to hold their own industry accountable. Oh, wait, they do, unless it's a person who can help their career or is just famous enough to be untouchable.

I'm sick and tired of it.

I completely agree.

There should not be a debate about which one is better. From an overall strength standpoint I like the front squat more. It requires more core stability than a backsquat and lets face it, a front squat can get pretty damn heavy. Its not like we're taking 50% of the weight off. I'd also say that a front squat has less potential for compensation to kick in. How many front squats have you seen end up like a goodmorning? BUT I still think that a backsquat, done correctly, can be a very good tool and I don't use front squats exclusively. Like I said earlier, tools in a toolbox.

I know alot of people that backsquat exclusively. They have to much ego and not enough patience to learn the front squat or the OH squat (to name a couple). Which is pretty sad IMO. Especially since these people are the ones backsquatting with incorrect form and compensations all over the place. All in the name of poundage and impressing people.

A perfect example of this sort of bullshit comes from Ripp. He chooses high rep vert jumps over pistol squats because they are bilateral and he explains the overhead squat as a backsquat with 'the same bar position only higher'. How many people do you suppose listen to that hs and take it as scripture? I'm guessing quite a few.

That is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Rip goes around saying that bilateral is SUPERIOR to Unilateral and saying some type of nonsense about all athletics being bilateral or something. I don't know what he says, really but it's something simplistic like that. Now there ain't a self respecting strength coach, especially one who trains athletes, who would agree wit that.

And YET they will blindly recommend Starting Strength because of the instruction on the basic lifts. That's it, because of some written instructions on a few very simple damn lifts. People don't buy the book for the damned instruction. You can get good instruction on squats, presses, and deadlifts from any of hundreds of sources. They buy it for the program…which throws so many beginners under the bus it's ridiculous.

Where does the sort of dogmatic attitudes that give rise to these type of debates come from. People like Rip. Not "some guy on a forum.". That guy on the forum is quoting Rip. Squat and drink milk. C'mon.

And yet you will find an article where Mike Boyle, of all people, are PRAISING this shit. Why? Reputation and image that is DRIVEN by the industry. Fame. Not ability and talent. Fame. So many people who are influential have an image that has outgrown their ability.

I am not saying that Rippetoe created the debate about back squats versus front squats. Let's be clear on that. Rip recommends front squats. Mostly as a light day alternative, though. He is all about the back squat is superior to everything…

How could a statement like "the same position only higher" be made? Higher is EVERYTHING. It's not just forward or backward.

Here is an idea. It may sound ludicrous but hear me out.

TRY a frigging OH squat before you talk about it. If you think that doing a back squat will get you READY for an OH squat then you obviously haven't talked to even a BEGINNER who has done both. The fact that most people cannot do an OH squat is partially OWED to all the back squats they've done. That mixed with the typical training scenario which you (Joe) and EC have mentioned.

Basically, according to Mark Rippetoe either everyone is capable of doing a perfect OH squat OR, they shoudn't bother because it is the same thing as a back squat only higher. Both, likely. If OH squats are the SAME as back squats only the bar is higher than everyone who back squats, logically, should be able to do an OH squat. But they can't. Not even close.

Wow. And so many of the people who regularly back squat with a straight bar don't have the shoulders for it! And yet Rip says they can OH squat! Man oh man. If you have trouble just setting up a back squat because of your shoulders then you ain't gonna do an OH squat.

How can it possibly be the same thing to have a bar in your hands versus on your back?

See, you don't even have to get technical. Just use a tiny bit of common sense and logical thought. (I know that "common sense" is not a good argument. But let's assume that a reasonably intelligent person knows the difference between something sitting on his shoulder and held in his hands overhead).

The pistol versus vertical jump is far too complicated to get into. But that should tell you something. They are two completely different animals that would be done for different reasons. It's like just pulling something out of thin air to say that vertical jumps would be BETTER than pistols. Better for what?

It has to be expected. Because someone who has made their career on giving people simplistic cook-book prescriptions NEED people to be DEPENDENT. DON'T do anything that is OUTSIDE my experience or you take money out of my wallet, lol.

I rarely make blanket statements but I'm with Leigh on this one. I don't give a crap about fame. I don't even care if you are generally great at what you do. Everyone is subject to critical thought being applied to their ideas. Everyone. You, me, and ESPECIALLY the famous, influential ones. Those that can do the most good can therefore do the most HARM. Nothing that anybody says should be taken as scripture. As soon as you do that you take YOU out of the picture. How can you reach YOUR goals without YOU being in the picture?

Hey, front squats for "light day" is another little mini debate.

So as this whole thread isn't just rants by Joe and I here is a sorta related video from Elliot Hulse (shoulder issues and back squatting).

This probably won't seem related but in a round about way it is.

This thread reminds me of just how magical the so-called "health and fitness" industry is. One of the biggest, if not, taken in whole, THE BIGGEST, money makers out there and yet probably the LEAST accountable. It's amazing and it's programs like "Starting Strength" and the attitude and message that surrounds it that creates this magical industry.

Is there another example out there? Seriously. Tell me.

In what other industry would someone buy a product and find that the product does NOT work as advertised and blame THEMSELVES.

Sure, sure, we can get into all the stuff about following programs properly and approaching it with the right attitude. But do not tell me that if someone beats their head against the wall for months and months in the face of failure that they should then continue to follow the same blind alley in the face of the same non-results, or worse, injuries.

Sure, this person may be doing certain things wrong. But how much of what a person does "wrong" is their being stubborn and how much has it to do with the programs not fitting them as an individual? If I can take that same person who "failed" on such and such cookie-cutter and turn him around and have him be successful and happy what does that mean? Is he now smarter? (probably since he talked to me, lol). Or did he simply figure out how to take charge of himself?

I say the latter.

I make a car. The car breaks down. And I say..you put the wrong kind of oil in it and didn't drive it just right. And you buy it hook line and sinker. Not only that but your come buy another car from me! Sucks for you but it's perfect for me.

What a sweet deal.

Or, if you do decide that my cars suck you turn around and buy pretty much the same car from another guy. Same deal.

We can do this forever. There are yo-yo trainees out there just like there are yo-yo dieters.

Here's the thing. It IS your fault. Do blame yourself. But not for the reasons the "gurus" tell you. Blame yourself for believing in the crap they cram down your throat.

And people get pissed at me because I do not kiss every body's ass. You know why..this industry does NOT NEED my help. This industry will continue to be successful by the near miraculous, uncanny position it's in.

Meteorology/Meterologists…but they don't make nearly as much money and sometimes I think they screw up on purpose. Its pretty weak compared to the fitness industry, but you asked :P

And US? Rant?!?! Never, lol. It may be a rant but what's written down here is important nonetheless. The sad truth is that alot of trainees aren't actually training as much as they are going through the motions of training. I could go up to someone at the gym tomorrow and ask them WHY they are doing an exercise and they could probably name off a few reasons or muscles. If I asked why they did exercise A and then exercise B for such and such sets and reps, I would most likely get the 'that's the way the program is setup' or 'thats what my spreadsheet says'.

Meteorology/Meterologists…but they don't make nearly as much money and sometimes I think they screw up on purpose. Its pretty weak compared to the fitness industry, but you asked :P

Nice. But you don't pay for the weather report as such!

I think if people could sort of free themselves from this deconstructing idea that is disquised as "science" they would be able to realize so much more about themselves and their training pursuits.

I personally am not PASSIONATE about training. I am PASSIONATE about results. The great trick of that is being passionate about results communicates when you talk about training.

When someone goes on and on about back squats versus front squats versus this or that, to me, that is just like taking apart a car and sitting there DWELLING on one single part of the car. No matter how important that part may be, when you're sitting there gazing at it like you're trying to find the essence of a "car" in that one part…you see NOTHING. It's a worthless part and you are sitting there surrounded by nothing more than a pile of worthless parts. I think Bruce Lee used a similar example of a car in an essay once and he was talking about how we strive to divide that which is indivisible.

If you applied the kind of thinking to practical every day matters that people apply to training you would right away see how ludicrous it is. It's like, snow chains on your tires are great when there is a heavy snow therefore snow chains are great!

Yet you see this EXACT thinking all the time in training.

Maybe if trainees learn to EXPERIENCE their training instead of being like a spectator to it we wouldn't have these types of debates. But how can they when they have 'gurus' whispering in their ear and telling them that training is A and B and C…

No, training is something that grows out of A and B and C…and D and E…

A by itself is just A. Without its complements; its opposites - it is nothing.

Ok, so more information of a less general nature.

If you have trouble using a clean grip when front squatting there are several alternatives.

Lack of flexibility in the wrists and previous wrist injury/pain is one of the main reasons people don't front squat.

The most common alternative and one that I DON'T like or recommend is the cross grip. This is where you cross your hands in front of your neck, palms down and grip the bar.

The other alternative is to use something as a handle to grip so that you don't have to extend your wrists into the clean grip. I said "several" alternatives because there is more than one way to do this. But the best is using lifting straps, which Mike Boyle mentioned some years back in an article I'm about to steal from. You just loop the straps around the bar and grab the free ends…

BTW, I've read the strap handle idea in a million places for years. I'm getting a little sick of everything mentioned on T-Nation being assumed to be unique, lol.