Why I don't Program the Back Squat

Introduction

If you’re reading this you probably already know that my company, Heilman’s Performance, has recently been contracted to provide strength and conditioning guidance and services to Minot Public Schools and Minot State University. This includes the off-season and in-season training regimens for all of Minot High School and Minot State University’s athletic teams.

Now that I’m designing training programs for more athletes in my community I have consistently received some questions about the omission of a single exercise in my program, the barbell loaded back squat. It’s gotten to the point that instead of trying to explain myself one conversation at a time why I don’t include it in my programming it would just be easier to put it in writing and distribute it so I can take all the scrutiny at once. Before I get to my evidence-based defense for my omission of the back-squat exercise I feel like I have something to get off my chest regarding the current situation.

I am a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) through the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), I hold certifications through organizations such as Functional Movement Systems (FMS), Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS), United States Weight Lifting Association (USA-W), have obtained my undergraduate degree in the field of Exercise Science, and am less than a year away from obtaining a Master’s Degree in Kinesiology that is dual-tracked in Corrective Exercise and Orthopedic Rehabilitation and Sport Psychology. On top of the formal education I’ve worked so hard to obtain, I’ve poured my heart into successfully running and growing a human performance company for the last 5 years that I started at the age of 25. I was recently named Director of Human Performance at a Division II University and I think it’s worth noting that on top of all these responsibilities, my wife and I recently celebrated the birth of our first child.

My purpose is not to patronize anyone who has questions regarding the exercises I prescribe or to selfishly promote my professional accomplishments, but to:

1. Establish an understanding that if you are going to challenge what I think is best for the long-term athletic development (LTAD) of those I work with, you have to come to me with something better than subjective experience and what you “think” or “feel” is the right way to train.

2. Establish an understanding that I have more important things to do than write a blog explaining to those not educated in the field why I choose to omit ONE EXERCISE from my programming.

I have no qualms about defending the methods I choose to employ, but I find it frustrating that our athletic community has reacted the way they have in regard to this professional relationship. I’ve already had a meeting that took roughly 2 hours of my time and am now dedicating time to this writing that could be better spent running my company, progressively moving the athletic community in my community forward, spending time with my wife and daughter, or doing any number of the things I love to do.

Position Statement on the Back-Squat Exercise for LTAD

Let’s first address the nuance of the situation. This is not a black and white topic. There is gray area involved so it’s important to establish:

I AM NOT suggesting that you cannot derive improvements in performance from performing the back squat in your training. You can, and that’s why so many people defend it as if it’s a necessary component of all training programs.

I AM suggesting that the COST of frequently back squatting with high intensities through a pre-determined range of motion outweighs the BENEFIT derived by most individuals performing said action.

I AM suggesting that there are better methods that we can employ to achieve a higher transfer of training while simultaneously limiting the long-term structural distress placed on most individuals who frequently perform the back-squat exercise at high intensities.

The History of Powerlifting and its Influence on Sports Performance Training

The back-squat is one of three events in the sport of powerlifting (Powerlifting, 2018). The other two events in powerlifting are the bench press and the deadlift. Strength competitions have been around for centuries, and the roots of powerlifting can be found in traditions stretching all the way back to ancient China, Persia, and Greece. Throughout the history of strength events, people began calling for standardization and regulation of the competitions. This eventually evolved into what we recognize today as the sport of Powerlifting.

The International Powerlifting Federation was established in 1973, but the sport of powerlifting originated in the United Kingdom and the United States sometime in the 1950s. It was around this time that individuals started to recognize the benefits of strength and power development to performance in team sports and began seeking out the best methods available for the development of these physical qualities. As football coaches and the like started to navigate weight rooms in the mid 20^th century what do you suppose they found? I’ll tell you. They found that, in every weight room, the strongest cats in the room were powerlifters. As professionals with little understanding of strength and power enhancement, the assumption was then made that the methods being employed by these individuals would be the best methods to develop physical qualities necessary to enhance sport performance. This is why the back squat, deadlift, and bench press have been a part of the sports performance training paradigm for so many years. It was the best way to train powerlifters, but nobody bothered to ask, “Is this the best way to train athletes?” It just became “the way.”

Cross Training is NOT Sports Performance Training

I think it’s important to understand how the history of strength competitions has influenced the pursuit of performance enhancement in team sports but equally important is understanding that there is a difference between cross-training and sports performance training. Cross-training is defined as training in sports other than the athlete’s primary sport (Cross-training, 2018). When we engage in Powerlifting as a means to enhance performance in football, basketball, baseball, etc. we are engaging in cross-training, not sports performance training. We are, quite literally, utilizing the methods of one sport in the hopes that it produces benefit in another. Mike Boyle (2016) eludes to this confusion of the masses in his book Functional Training for Sports if you care to read more.

The most unfortunate part about this implementation is that it’s worked for a number of years. Participants in team sports back squatted, deadlifted, and bench pressed their way to great results. I would never argue that you can’t achieve positive results utilizing this strategy, but I will, with this writing try and convince you, through the presentation of scientific evidence, that it is not the most optimal way to enhance performance for team sport. And further, the cost of engaging in powerlifting for youth athletes outweighs the benefits they derive in the sport of their choice.

Evidence of Powerlifting’s Long-Term Effects

A cross-sectional study conducted by Strömbäck, Aasa, Gilenstam, and Berglund (2018) to investigate the prevalence, localization, and characterization of injuries among Swedish subelite classic powerlifters found that 70 percent (73/104) of participants were currently injured. 87% of the participants in the study reported having been injured through powerlifting at least once within the past 12 months. Injuries to the lumbopelvic region, the shoulder, and the hip were most commonly reported.

Brown and Kimball (1983) reported that the lower back region was shown to be the most commonly injured site in a prospective analysis of adolescent powerlifters competing in the Michigan Teenage Powerlifting Championships. Siewe et al. (2011) found in a review of 245 competitive and elite powerlifters that 43% of powerlifters complained of problems during training related to the shoulder, lower back, and the knee.

Are you starting to recognize the same trend that I am? Two of the studies, consisting of 349 of the participants, were conducted on competitive lifters. These are lifters that have committed to technical mastery of the three exercises and they’re still getting injured during their training. Do you really think that youth athletes who just want to be better at football, basketball, swimming, and volleyball should employ these same strategies now that you know the prevalence of injury associated?

In a recent study, McClellan et al. (2019) shined shed some light on why these injuries may be so common. In the study they found that the average slope of the sacrum from a standing position to a bilateral squatting position changed from 41 degrees to 68 degrees. This slope change combined with large external loads placed on the shoulders is almost assuredly a contributor to the increased rate of lower back injuries in those forced to perform traditional back squats and deadlifts across the country. The study by McClellan et al. also showed that many individuals who partake in bilateral squatting exercises early in life eventually develop degenerative disc problems, pars fractures in the lumbar spine, and a consequent lifetime of low back pain.

Knowing this evidence exists, I just can’t reason with asking youth athletes to perform the back squat (or the deadlift for that matter) at high intensities to/from a predetermined depth. It is my opinion that living with stress fractures in their lumbar spine and debilitating lower back pain into adulthood is not worth the potential benefits derived from partaking in this style of training.

Evidence that Back Squatting through Full Range of Motion is not Optimal

As I previously mentioned, one of the biggest problems with implementing cross-training in the weight room is that we confuse the rules of powerlifting with the methods used to enhance performance. In powerlifting you MUST squat to a standardized depth and you MUST deadlift a barbell from the floor in order to qualify in competition. We should NOT let this confuse us when we are training for other sports in the weight room. Not only is it unnecessary to force an athlete to a specific depth in a bilateral squat, but there is evidence to suggest that it’s also not OPTIMAL.

Dr. Matthew Rhea and colleagues (2016) have shown recently that quarter squats and half squats are actually more beneficial to sprint and jump performance. In their paper they suggest that, “Improvements in muscular fitness will occur at the joint-angles that are sufficiently overloaded. In the conventional approach to measuring 1RM values at either a parallel or deep squat depth, and then performing squats at a certain percentage of that 1RM through a parallel or deep squat range of motion, the joint-angles involved in jumping and springing may not be sufficiently overloaded for maximal gains.”

This suggests that if developing maximal power output is our ultimate goal, which I hope every sport coach in the country would agree that it should be, squatting to full depth is more than likely hindering our ability to do so. I would encourage you all to read Dr. Rhea’s paper in its entirety as it has been an absolute game changer in the sports science world. He’s one of the most well-respected sport scientists in the country so for him to release this data has undoubtedly changed the way strength coaches around the country approach squatting with their athletes.

Are you a Powerlifter or an Athlete?

If you’ve read this far I’m hoping that I’ve convinced you that powerlifting at high intensities through a full range of motion over the course of their athletic careers can be detrimental to the health of youth athletes and unless you compete in the sport of powerlifting, there is no need to squat through the full range of motion, especially if your goal is to improve power output for a team sport.

What we should really be discussing in regard to sport performance training are the methods that achieve the highest levels of transfer to the playing field. Lucky for us, Dr. Matthew Rhea has our back on this front too. He has a correlation chart that he has compiled over years of working with high school, college, and professional football players that his colleague, David Ballou of Indiana University, was kind enough to share on Twitter.

For those who aren’t well educated in statistics (neither am I) I’ll give you a crash course. The closer a number is to 1.0 means that the two variables are more likely to move in concert with each other in the same direction. The closer a number is to -1.0 means that the two variables are more likely to move in concert with each other in the opposite direction. Now, we could run through this chart for days and find interesting discussion points, but there are a few things that stand out to me.

1. The Squat 1RM doesn’t highly correlate to any measured performance variables quite like the speed squat does. This suggests to me that when we do squat, loads that lead to slow moving bar are considerably less optimal than loads that allow the athlete to move the bar at a higher velocity. Dr. Bryan Mann has been preaching this for years and is leading the charge on velocity-based training in the country. I would recommend reading his paper: Velocity Based Training in Football.
2. For the big boys, Hang/Power Clean 1RM matters. Everyone else should concern themselves with bar velocity.
3. The landmine press correlates higher than the bench press to talent levels at all positions.
4. Split squat jump performance correlates the highest with talent in skill position players, while rear foot elevated split squats correlates highest to the 10- and 20-yard dashes of the big fellas. This suggests to me that if you want to play the game fast at all levels, you’d better be training on a single leg.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to this chart, the 1RM back squat doesn’t seem to transfer nearly as well to the sport of football as other methods. Further evidence that we shouldn’t just hang our hat on how much weight we can squat.

Evidence that Single Leg Training is More Effective

I promised at the beginning of this paper that I would not only explain to you why I think back squatting gets way too much credit as a performance enhancing exercise, but also demonstrate to you that there are better methods we can employ to achieve all the same positive adaptations we seek from the back squat with the addition of many more positive qualities.

In sports science, there is something referred to as the bilateral deficit. It is defined by Eliassen et. al (2018) as the ability to generate more force in sum performing two unilateral exercises (i.e. one-legged squat) than in a bilateral exercise (i.e. two-legged squat).

Bilateral deficit can be explained like this: If a person can squat 100 lbs. on their left leg and 100 lbs. on their right leg it can be assumed that they can squat 200 lbs. on two legs, right? If you made that assumption, you would be wrong, and it’s demonstrated over and over in the literature. Individuals in this particular example almost always end up squatting loads under 200 lbs. on two legs.

If you’re a critical thinker I hope you’ll understand that what I’m telling you is that by performing HEAVY single leg exercises we can not only load our lower extremities with heavier loads than we could on two legs while simultaneously taking advantage of the proprioceptive qualities developed through single leg training AND attenuate the loads that we ask our spinal column to manage over the course of a training career. I don’t know about you, but that all sounds pretty good to me. More benefit, less cost.

If you can’t conceptualize that single leg training could possibly be more beneficial than two leg training then I would encourage you to read the work from Eliassen et. al (2018) that showed “unilateral squats with the same external load per leg produced greater peak vertical ground reaction forces than bilateral squats, as well as higher barbell velocity, which is associated with strength development and rate of force development, respectively.” Dawes and Raether (2010) published similar findings in the Australian Journal of Strength and Conditioning.

Subjective Reasoning for Eliminating Back Squats from Sports Performance Training

I know most who will defect will be speaking from subjective experience so I think it’s important that I also state some reasons, from my own experience, why I don’t love to utilize back squatting through full ranges of motion and heavy deadlifting from the floor as components of the LTAD model

The most common question I get from individuals is “If you don’t back squat athletes, how do you get strong?” Now that you’ve read through some of the scientific evidence I hope this sounds silly to you, but if it still seems like a legitimate question, I’ll explain. We perform other exercises that require strength and don’t put the athlete in a compromised position. If you’re a “subjective experience” guy I can help you with that. Here are a couple exercises we use frequently with athletes to build transferrable strength:

The second most common question I get is “If you don’t back squat athletes, doesn’t it hurt the culture?” My thoughts: “You can’t be serious.” My answer: “No.”

I do program the front squat. My reason for keeping a front-loaded bilateral squat in my programming is multi-factorial.

1.     If you read the paper from McClellan et al. (2019) you’ll know that the change in sacral slope in a front squat is less extreme than it is in the back squat due to the counterbalance provided as the athlete descends through their range of motion. This, combined with the loads being attenuated by stability in the trunk makes me feel as if front squatting will not only have a higher transfer to the playing field, but also be safer for athletes long-term.

2.     I believe that performing the front squat is one of the best ways to ensure an athlete continues to make progress in their power/hang clean. Though evidence exists that power can be developed without Olympic lifting (Oranchuk et. al, 2019), I think the Olympic clean has to, in some capacity, be a part of the LTAD model.

3.   Front squatting is a considerably safer exercise, in my opinion, than the back squat because once trunk stability becomes compromised, the individual is usually forced to shed the bar. This is known in the strength and conditioning world as a self-limiting factor. The exercise is over before the participant ever gets the opportunity to put themselves into a compromising posture. The back squat, comparatively, is not an exercise that gets terminated once posture is compromised and looks nothing like any portion of the Olympic clean, so I just don’t understand the argument for it.

Closing

My hope is that this writing will help you to understand why the back squat has persisted in weight rooms throughout the years, but also why I don’t see it as a great fit for the LTAD model. I’m certain that no matter how much evidence exists there will be those who think their subjective experience is more robust than any collection of objectivity. I think this will help mediate the amount of time I spend explaining my omission of back squatting from my program, but I also look forward to the discussion that will ensue. I remain open minded on the subject and perhaps there is someone out there that can convince me to add full ROM back squatting to my programming, but for now it will remain omitted. If you have made it this far, I appreciate you taking the time to learn and I hope my writing has positively influenced you in some way. I plan to continue pushing the athletic community I represent forward as best I possibly can, I hope you will join me.

As always, thank you for reading.

Caleb Heilman

References

Boyle, M. (2016) Functional Training for Sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Brown, E.W., Kimball, R.G. (1983) Medical history associated with adolescent powerlifting. Pediatrics, 72(5), 636-644. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6634267

Cross-Training (2018) Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-training

Dawes, J., Raether, J. (2010) Single Leg training exercises. Australian journal of strength and conditioning, 18(1), 29-30.

Eliassen, W., Saeterbakken, A.H., Tilaar, R. (2018) Comparison of bilateral and unilateral squat exercises on barbell kinematics and muscle activation. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 13(5), 871-881. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6159498/

McClellan, J. et al. (2019) The effects of two different types of squat exercises on radiography of the lumbar spine. North American Spine Society. Retrieved from: https://www.medpagetoday.com/orthopedics/sportsmedicine/29412

Mann, B.J., Ivey, P.A., Sayers, S.P. (2015) Velocity-Based Training in Football. Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 37(6), 52-57. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284281938_Velocity-Based_Training_in_Football

Oranchuk, D.J., Robinson, T.L., Switaj, Z.J., Drinkwater, E.J. (2017) Comparison of the Hang High-Pull and Loaded Jump Squat for the Development of Vertical Jump and Isometric Force-Time Characteristics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning research.

Powerlifting. (2018) Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerlifting

Siewe, J., Rudat, J., Röllinghoff, M., Schlegel, U.J., Eysel, P., Michael, J.W. (2011) Injuries and overuse syndromes in powerlifting, 32(9) 703-711. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21590644

Rhea, M., Peterson, M., Kenn, J., Massey, D. (2016) Joint-angle specific strength adaptations influence improvements in power in highly trained athletes. Human Movement, 17(1). Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304607794_Joint-Angle_Specific_Strength_Adaptations_Influence_Improvements_in_Power_in_Highly_Trained_Athletes

Strömbäck, E., Aasa, U., Gilenstam, K., Berglund, L. (2018) Prevalence and consequences of injuries in powerlifting: A cross-sectional study. Orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 6(5). Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954586/

An Open Letter to Minot and Surrounding Communities

New Responsibilities

As of late, we haven’t been as active on social media as we would like, but you can take my word for it that it is for good reason. I’m writing this today to get you all caught up on what we’ve been up to lately and what you can expect from us in the future as we grow as a company of young professionals in a community that we are excited to continue serving.

As we approach the coming Summer months we have some exciting announcements coming out of Heilman’s Performance that will assuredly change the manner in which we operate, but also provide us with an opportunity to positively influence more athletes in our community.

On January 1^st, 2019 I was officially appointed Director of Human Performance at Minot State University and Heilman’s Performance was contracted to provide strength and conditioning services for all athletic teams on campus. This has been a new experience for myself and my staff and we’ve been working hard to do the best job possible to fulfill our obligations to the University and all the student athletes that inhabit it. This new position has required me to spend less time, physically, inside the walls of Heilman’s Performance, but has also provided us with resources that we otherwise would not have access to. Rest assured that, although I have been less involved in the day to day operations at our private facility, our staff of strength coaches is the best in the area and more than prepared to handle the added responsibilities asked of them due to this new opportunity. You will find no other staff in the area comprised of coaches with college athletic experience, degrees in the field of exercise science, have endured the proper certification processes, and most importantly are passionate about doing the best job possible. I am truly grateful for the people we have had the opportunity to employ as a young company.

Agreement with Minot Public Schools

On top of the recent agreement with the local University we have another affair that we are excited to announce to the community. We have agreed to terms with Minot Public Schools that, starting June 1^st, will require us to provide the public-school system with strength and conditioning services at Magic City Campus. I have no doubt in my mind that this will be a partnership that changes the landscape of our athletic community for the good. We are extremely excited about this opportunity and look forward to helping affect positive change in our athletic community.

Management of our New Responsibilities

As you read this you are probably wondering how all of these new opportunities will affect the way we operate in regard to Human Resources, but also to the services we provide to each of our partners. I would like to address these concerns upfront with this piece to ensure we are all on the same page as an athletic community moving forward. I’m hoping to answer any questions that you may have as a parent with a student athlete in the Minot Public School system or as someone who has used and plans to continue using our services at Heilman’s Performance.

This coming Summer I will be running the Summer Strength and Conditioning Programs up at Minot State University for any athletes that decide to stay and train with us over their summer break. After working the early morning on campus, I will make my way down to Heilman’s Performance to assist our staff members Coach Arbaut, Coach Demary, Coach Arntson, and Coach Abel in the weight room and on the basketball court. Those who have used our services in the past and are concerned that I will not be in-house working with athletes at our private facility can rest easy knowing that my affiliation with the University will only remove me from our private operation a minimal amount.

Here are the faces you will get familiar with if you train with us at our private facility:

In order to do the best job possible at Magic City Campus I have designed a program and put coaches in place that not only understand the high standard that is expected from our program and our athletes, but have a legitimate amount of experience working in weight rooms with our program. Bryan Krahler, a coach who has worked with athletes on our programming at Heilman’s Performance since we opened in 2014 and Brody Myers, my graduate assistant coach at Minot State University, will be the coaches tasked with ensuring our program gets carried out properly at Magic City Campus this summer.

Here are the faces you will get familiar with if you train with us at Magic City Campus:

 Supplemental Training Opportunity

With all of the new responsibilities we’re taking on this coming summer there will certainly be some questions regarding the services we offer. It’s worth noting that no matter where you choose to train we can still offer significantly more value to those who choose to train at our private facility due to the assessment process, individualized programming, equipment availability, and advantageous coach to athlete ratios. It’s just not possible to replicate these services with the number of athletes we will be handling at MCC or the University. Knowing that we will have athletes that will want to train at both locations we have decided to offer a one day per week training program at our private facility. This could be a great option for those who want to supplement their training at an affordable rate.

New Skills Service: Football

Because Heilman’s Performance has been contracted only for strength and conditioning services by both the University and Minot Public School System nothing will change as far as our skill development services. Hitting lessons, pitching lessons, and basketball skills lessons will still be offered per usual via our private facility and coaching staffs. We are excited to be adding a Football Skills Program this summer as it’s something that has been inquired about for a number of years. We have a couple of college football players that are excited about running that program for us. Due to NCAA restrictions we’re unable to share specifics on the coaching staff, which makes advertising the program difficult. That said, in the event you decide to register for Football Skills Program, I know the individuals we have employed will do a great job.

Closing

My hope is, if you made it this far, that it helped clear up a number of questions that will assuredly arise as word spreads of our new partnerships. If you have any questions regarding the logistics that I may have missed please feel free to reach out to me at calebjheilman02@gmail.com or contact us through any of our social media outlets (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). We’re excited to continue growing with the athletic community in The Magic City and look forward to helping you all achieve the results you most desire.

We’ll see you all this summer!

Caleb Heilman