Announcement

**MachMood** · 04-15-2011, 05:25 PM

I like the part where he talks about people adding weight to the leg press but not adding weight to squats. Fact is leg press is 100000x "easier" to perform. When talking about widowmakers I know on squat day I have to get siked up and really get focused mentally for widowmaker squats, everything in your body says to stop and the pain seems unbearable yet you somehow get 5 more reps(when done correctly). If the average person isnt going to push themselves then maybe leg press would be a better option. This has nothing to do with exercise efficiancy, just a good point that was talked about in the article which I think holds true

**JoeFromIA** · 04-15-2011, 07:27 PM

It's been long known for years that the squat is the best leg builder, and is one of the exercises that contributes to overall body mass development... The leg press is very good for recruiting quads, but doesn't hold a candle for overall mass development in the lower body.

What Yates said is another true example of a genetically gifted body builder on lots of androgens with a statement that is backed up by nothing except maybe his own experiences which is not relevant to anyone but him. As far as stressing or activating the most motor units in the legs, there's a huge dichotomy between the squat and the leg pres.

That's not to say there's a lot of guys out there who havent built impressive leg sizes without squats, there's exceptions to the rule and that rule is you should be basing your lower body workouts around squats and deads most of the time. Look at a powerlifters or even olympic lifters legs. Super well developed, even at the smaller weight classes.

**bouncer dave** · 04-15-2011, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by JoeFromIA View Post

What Yates said is another true example of a genetically gifted body builder on lots of androgens with a statement that is backed up by nothing except maybe his own experiences which is not relevant to anyone but him. .

.

You are taking it a bit too far.

**JoeFromIA** · 04-15-2011, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by bouncer dave View Post

You are taking it a bit too far.

Why because he's a BB legend? If a 170 lb BB-er made the same quote, he would get flamed til the cows come home. It's a dumb statement and thanks to BB mags and quotes like that, this is the type of info that new guys (obviously not referring to you p2, but new lifters in general) get bombarded with. I'm not saying the leg press doesn't have it's uses or machines for that matter, but that's pure bullshit and awful advice to say how you stress the muscle doesn't matter.. And it doesnt matter if you're a BB legend like the great Dorian, or a 170 lber, it absolutely does matter how you stress the muscle. You take identical twins, one purely squats, the other purely leg presses, I'm betting dollars to donuts the one who squats is going to have much great leg development than the leg presser. You see it at commercial gyms all the time, kids loading up 800 lbs with 4 inch range of motion and can't squat 225 for decent reps... Its pretty much training 101, the multi joint free weight lifts are going to activate more motor units (stressing the muscle more).

**bbjeff86** · 04-15-2011, 09:07 PM

Going to have to agree with Joe on this one... Squats>Leg Press>leg extension, etc...

That being said I think the question was can you build good legs or muscles in general without the core compound movements (BB squat, deadlift, BB bench, BB MP, etc.) The answer to that is yes... but not as well as if you used those things. Progressive overload is progressive overload... the problem is machines (even hammer strength machines which are better than most machines) do not recruit as many muscle fibers, or motor units because there is little to no balance or coordination needed.

So to answer the OP the drawbacks to all machines IMO would be

A)not maximally developing your size or strength
B)not being nearly as functional as using free weight compound movements.

**p2geo** · 04-15-2011, 09:56 PM

I agree with you Joe. I also believe alot of these pros forget were they came from what gave them the base to be able to progress with.

My biggest problem with those type of statments is it can be interpreted as Squats and other core lifts in general are not needed (for begginers). I think the can apply to trainees in the intermediate or advance stage because they have got a base on how to fire certain muscle groups to avoid injuries, like learning to activate the lower back/lumbar area when a set of squats becomes increasingly fatiuging. I think its safe to say if i can teach a begginer how to properly squat ive pretty much taught him every excercise. Now it still raises the point of intermediates and advanced trainees being able to get away with not using these movements, and i have to wonder that it would come at the expense of having to add more excercises to get the same affect. I know i could get overall growth with using say Rows or squats for legs but i think id be lacking size if i opted for sesated hammer rows and hack squats. Id have to add in atleast a pulldown variant and a glute/hamstring variant to get the same effect. Which is why i asked i feel there got to be more going on than just muscle tension. The total body/muslce response you get from a complex lift like rows/squats has to be far superior to that of hammer rows and leg presses. Atleast more muslce fiber recruitment.

BBjeff. I agree with you somewhat i just feel if someone were to base there whole training on just machines those gains would come to a halt very fast. There would be some serious muscle imbalances that could well lead to injuries. For instacne the lack of lat recruitment in Hammer strength chest press.

Thank you for youre opinions guys. I want to keep this discussion going and im open to all sides of the beliefs.

**bbjeff86** · 04-15-2011, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by p2geo View Post

BBjeff. I agree with you somewhat i just feel if someone were to base there whole training on just machines those gains would come to a halt very fast. There would be some serious muscle imbalances that could well lead to injuries. For instacne the lack of lat recruitment in Hammer strength chest press.

That is why I said that the gains wouldn't be as good... also most people aren't doing HS CP for their lats.... they are doing it for there chest, and will likely do other things for their back. You are probably right in that using machines would cause you to have to use more exercises to effectively work all the muscles. I don't think though with a million exercises you would ever be able to hit all the tiny stabilizing muscles and motor units used when balancing free weights.

**p2geo** · 04-15-2011, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by bbjeff86 View Post

That is why I said that the gains wouldn't be as good... also most people aren't doing HS CP for their lats.... they are doing it for there chest, and will likely do other things for their back. You are probably right in that using machines would cause you to have to use more exercises to effectively work all the muscles. I don't think though with a million exercises you would ever be able to hit all the tiny stabilizing muscles and motor units used when balancing free weights.

I agree with you bbjeff86. My comment regarding lat recruitment is the synergism that goes of activating one which helps the other. I dont think you can affectively do that by working them seperatly. In other words you must press in a way that effectively uses your lats to be able to progress your press. Not work your press and your lats independently to progress your press. Hopefully that came out right.

**fixation** · 04-16-2011, 01:27 AM

I would like to hear Skipps thoughts.
In longevity he states number one leg developer for him is hacks, then leg press and last squats.
Personally i feel the same way.
Im going to throw something else in the mix and say if ur squating ATG and yours hams are weaker than quads then they will fail before your legs thus cutting the exercise short for your quads. Louie simmons and other powerlifting gurus stress the importance of strong hamstring in the squat so i beleive a movement where you can go to complete failure with mainly your quads is very important. If you have overpowering hams i guess it would not matter though. Not saying i dont squat, i love it, but i beleive i get more out of a leg press or hack for quads.

**bouncer dave** · 04-16-2011, 02:21 AM

Yates was talking smith squats. worked well for him and others.
squats are great , but not for everyone. (injuries).
I am not going to even comment about the remark regarding Yates lack of knowledge about building mass.

**JoeFromIA** · 04-16-2011, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by bouncer dave View Post

Yates was talking smith squats. worked well for him and others.
squats are great , but not for everyone. (injuries).
I am not going to even comment about the remark regarding Yates lack of knowledge about building mass.

Good because no one said he had a lack of knowledge on building mass, you would be commenting on your own comment.

Look, my point is this. Just like Dante mentioned about Arnold's books where he outlined his routine. A million have tried it, and there's still only one Arnold. Just because smith squats worked well for Yates, means absolutely didly poo to Joe average. Take twin 1 who bb squats and twin 2 who uses smith squats.. Whos going to have the better leg development? You see a lot of advice that pros give out, and it's SO not applicable to Joe average, yet it gets parroted a lot in BB circles.

If you were to say , on average, what is the best exercise for developing overall leg mass? The answer is squats, it always has been squats and it always will be squats. Like I have said before, rarely do you ever see powerlifters with poor leg development, it's not a question, big compound movements activate many more motor units, which proves Yate's statement to be not true. That doesn't say leg presses and hacks aren't great tools in a lifters arsenal, I'm all for a variety of exercises. But let's not get carried away , squats are king.

Yes and I recognize there are guys out there with huge legs who can't squat or don't squat... That still doesn't change that squat is the king of lower body lifts though

**bouncer dave** · 04-16-2011, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by JoeFromIA View Post

Good because no one said he had a lack of knowledge on building mass, you would be commenting on your own comment.

.

no mate . I already quoted your comment in post #4.

think what you want , do what you want ..I am not going to post any more , its seems you enjoy this thing a bit too much.

**trucelt** · 04-16-2011, 02:55 AM

Joe-

do you think squats are superior to deads for overall mass/size gains?

**JoeFromIA** · 04-16-2011, 03:25 AM

IME deads for overall mass, how about you over the years? That's a solid question for sure

Announcement

Squats for legs

Squats for legs

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment