- Aug 15, 2018
- 612
- 346
- 63
The front-versus-back squat debate never really dies. Some people swear the front squat is "more quad-focused," others treat them as interchangeable. The EMG and training studies give a more nuanced picture.
Gullett and colleagues in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2009 found no meaningful difference in EMG activity of the quads, hamstrings, or erectors between front and back squats despite higher absolute loads on the back squat. Knee compressive forces and extensor moments were lower in the front squat. Yavuz and colleagues in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2015 reported higher vastus medialis activity in the front squat during the ascent and overall, with higher semitendinosus activity in the back squat, plus greater trunk lean on the back squat. A 2020 isometric comparison by Trindade and colleagues found little difference at 90° of knee flexion and only modest variations at other angles.
On actual training outcomes, a 12-week study in trained women (Enes and colleagues, discussed by Stronger by Science) found similar quadriceps thickness gains whether they front-squatted or back-squatted, but larger leg-press strength gains in the back-squat group. Meta-analytic work comparing multiple squat variations has generally shown similar overall muscle activation between front and back squats.
Taken together, the front squat can be done with less absolute load for comparable quad recruitment and places less compressive demand on the knee, while the back squat usually allows heavier loading and may transfer better to certain strength measures. Neither is clearly superior for hypertrophy when volume is equated.
If you've swapped one for the other for a full block, did you see different results in quad size, squat numbers, or how your lower back felt?
Gullett and colleagues in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2009 found no meaningful difference in EMG activity of the quads, hamstrings, or erectors between front and back squats despite higher absolute loads on the back squat. Knee compressive forces and extensor moments were lower in the front squat. Yavuz and colleagues in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2015 reported higher vastus medialis activity in the front squat during the ascent and overall, with higher semitendinosus activity in the back squat, plus greater trunk lean on the back squat. A 2020 isometric comparison by Trindade and colleagues found little difference at 90° of knee flexion and only modest variations at other angles.
On actual training outcomes, a 12-week study in trained women (Enes and colleagues, discussed by Stronger by Science) found similar quadriceps thickness gains whether they front-squatted or back-squatted, but larger leg-press strength gains in the back-squat group. Meta-analytic work comparing multiple squat variations has generally shown similar overall muscle activation between front and back squats.
Taken together, the front squat can be done with less absolute load for comparable quad recruitment and places less compressive demand on the knee, while the back squat usually allows heavier loading and may transfer better to certain strength measures. Neither is clearly superior for hypertrophy when volume is equated.
If you've swapped one for the other for a full block, did you see different results in quad size, squat numbers, or how your lower back felt?