Recently a lot of the atletes in my gym have been doing squats with a more narrow stance, a little shorter then shoulder width. If you think about it, it makes some sense, becasue most of the time in sports you arent very wide, you do everything with your feet under you, unless that is you are a offensive lineman. How does everyone feel about this? Is this a good idea
CONSISTANT EFFORT is more important than any formula for success
if you watch film, most anything done athletically except all out sprints are not done with feet directly under, particularly sports that require a lot of agility and varied movement. I can see the point of not going sumo, but narrower than shoulder width is unnatural, if you asked me.
i would say it depends on what your training for. if you were squatting for vertical leap (ie: bball), it would make sense to use a narrower stance. but take football for example, some have a wider foot positioning when lining up.
take it from me...i have done both...and still do both. My narrow stance is in front and light weight squats... but normal squats i do with a widder grip. And i picked this up in college. My coach in high school had us pretty much go all the way down to the ground till or butt touched our heels. So you can imagine some of us were doing 375+ like that..plus with your knees bending liek that its ridiculous. Well...while i was in college i noticed everyone had a wider squat then i did...and i tried it and it almost killed me the next day how much my inner thighs burned. Wider you go the more muslces you work...and the more they will get worked. And the funny thing is...i see all theese people do their squats and i am amazed..i looked at my schools hang clean and the all school record when i left was 295, and i see freshman cleaning 315x5 times. So...obviously...my school sucks and i have a lot ot lern about thoose lifts in college.
I read something from a good track website that regarded a study done on posture and athletic performance. It said that the weightlifting movements that closely resembeled the activity had greater benefits. Normally when going deep you use a narrow stance, high bar, and an upright posture. In track, upright posture is huge in many events.
On the other hand I can also see how acceleration in something like the 40 or in football you accellerate with a forward torso until you pick up speed.
Kelly Baggett actually addressed this question on his website. He said that for a beginning athlete he prefers Oly style squats. As the athlete becomes much stronger and develops closer to his potential, he should change to more of a powerlifting style squat as the focus shifts more toward the posterior chain, or something to that affect.
Vertical 29" Running= 37" 40= 4.70
Big 3: Squat= 320
OL: .....Clean= 270 150%
...........Snatch= 200 111%
Also, squatting wide stance is not going to help your clean as much as squatting narrow stance is. (For an already fairly balanced person. If you have no posterior chain, more PC work would probably benefit you.) There's a reason Olympic lifters squat narrow stance, after all. Most people have better power production in a more narrow stance. (You dont see people going for a vertical test doing a sumo stance, after all.) Yes, Force = mass x acceleration, and you can normally use more weight in a wide stance. But the speed of a lift does not correlate linearly with the weight. Most people can generate much greater speed in a narrower stance. There's always an exception to the rule, though, so its not true for all athletes - just the majority of them.
I like to back squat wide to hit the posterior chain, plus front squat in the position I catch cleans in(not on the same day). But really, if you're not doing cleans but you think the stance of your squat is the key to athletic performance, you're missing the point rather badly.
Last edited by kingfisher; 04-18-2007 at 02:59 AM. Reason: typo