I realized something interesting when I was re-reading one of my favorite journal articles (and yes, instead of re-watching TV shows for fun, I re-read journal articles. Don’t judge): The typical gym wisdom that close stance squats are more quad-dominant may be wrong.
The study is titled A Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Analysis of the Squat During Varying Stance Widths by Escamilla et al. (2001). The participants were nationally competitive masters lifters (at least 40 years old). The average weight of the group was 90kg (~200lbs), and the average squat was 225kg (~500lbs). It should be noted that the meet where these data were collected allowed supportive gear, but since this study was conducted in 2001 (before gear started getting insane) and the ADFPA (previously the USAPL) only allowed single ply gear, that shouldn’t be too big of a concern.
The study split the groups by stance width. Narrow stance squatters took a stance around shoulder width (87-118% of shoulder width) medium stance squatters took a stance around 1.25-1.5x shoulder width, and wide stance squatters took a stance around 1.5-2x shoulder width. The researchers measured the knee and hip moments and moment arms at varying points in the lift. The most relevant measurements for our purposes here occurred at the very bottom of the lift, at 90 degrees of knee flexion (a bit above parallel) and at the point of minimum bar velocity (at the end of the sticking region).
For this analysis, I’m only going to focus on the moment arms, rather than the actual joint moments. That will make for a fairer apples-to-apples comparison since the wide stance squatters were, on average, bigger and stronger than the narrow and medium stance squatters, which leads to larger joint moments. Furthermore, I’ll be focusing on the ratio of knee-to-hip moment arms to account for any group differences in femur length.
I defined “knee dominance” by this simple calculation: knee moment arm ÷ hip moment arm = knee-dominance. A value of 1 indicates equal moment arms about the knees and hips, a value greater than 1 indicates a larger moment arm about the knee, and a value less than 1 indicates a larger moment arm about the hip. The larger the number, the more knee-dominant a position is.
As you can see, all three squats are more knee-dominant in the hole than at the sticking point, but the wide stance squatters were the most knee-dominant at all three points in the lift.
This is interesting because typical bro wisdom says that narrow stance squats are more knee-dominant and better for building the quads, while wide stance squats are more hip-dominant and better for building the posterior chain. However, at all (meaningful) points in the lift, the wide stance squats were about 18-44% more knee-dominant than medium and narrow stance squats.
That may all strike you as odd. Viewed from the side, it almost always looks like there’s more forward knee travel in a close stance squat. However, it makes sense when you remember that knee and hip flexor/extensor moments need to be calculated in the sagittal plane relative to the femur, not relative to the torso (if that terminology is confusing, review the biomechanics section of my squat guide for a refresher).
So, wide stance squats were actually more knee-dominant in this study. Case closed, right?
Not so fast.
Keep in mind, there were different people in all three groups in this study. All participants were allowed to select the stance that was strongest for them (as the data were collected in-competition). So, it may not be that wide stance squats are inherently more knee-dominant. It may instead be that other factors simultaneously influence people to both squat with a wider stance, and to adopt a more knee-dominant squat.
Let’s look a bit deeper into the literature.
Only one other study looked at joint moments. Swinton et al. (2012) reported peak joint moments in the “traditional” squat compared to the “powerlifting-style” squat. Stance width was approximately twice as wide for the powerlifting squat vs. the traditional squat. However, it’s worth noting that the instructions in this study were considerably different. In Escamilla’s study, the participants used whatever technical approach allowed them to lift the most weight to competition standards; in Swinton’s, the participants were instructed to let their knees travel past their toes for the traditional squat, and to keep their shins as vertical as possible in the powerlifting-style squat.
In Swinton’s study, the peak knee moment arm was roughly 10% longer, and the peak knee moment was roughly 5% larger for the traditional squat versus the powerlifting-style squat. However, again, it’s worth noting that this study wasn’t solely investigating the impact of stance width. It was also, more saliently, investigating the effects of forward knee travel, as discussed here (Sitting Back vs. Down In The Squat: Much Ado About Very Little) instead of allowing the participants to optimize their technique for strength with each stance width.
Finally, three studies (one, two, three) have compared muscle activation (using EMG) in squats of varying stance widths. None of them found any differences in any of the quad muscles, though two reported slightly higher glute EMG with wide stance squats. However, it may not be wise to read into the EMG findings too much; they don’t correlate perfectly with joint moments and can be influenced by changes in joint angles (muscles simply have higher EMG readings in some positions than others).
So, at this point, there’s not a clear answer to the question posed in the title of this article.
Only one study has actually looked at the way stance width impacts joint moments while allowing the participants to squat with the technique that lets them lift the heaviest loads. However, it didn’t test each participant with each stance width; maybe the wide stance squatters with more knee-dominant squats would have still had more knee-dominant squats if they were asked to squat with a narrow stance, and maybe the more hip-dominant narrow stance squatters would still be just as hip-dominant if they were asked to squat with a wider stance.
The only study looking at joint moments that tested the same participants with two different stance widths reported a slightly higher peak knee moment with a narrower stance, but it also specifically restricted forward knee travel with a wide stance, which removes the chance for an apples-to-apples comparison.
Finally, several studies have shown that stance width doesn’t really impact quad activation, though wider stance squats may do a slightly better job of activating the glutes.
Taken in totality, there’s probably not enough evidence to unequivocally state that any particular stance width is inherently more knee-dominant because we just don’t have any studies with the proper design to conclusively answer that question. However, we can state, quite confidently, that the common wisdom (close stance squats are way more knee-dominant, and wide stance squats are way more hip-dominant) is probably wrong. I don’t see any reason to think that wide stance squats can’t train the quads just as well as narrow stance squats do.
This article ends with a piece of advice that should sound familiar to consistent readers: this is a detail that’s probably not worth getting too hung up about. Feel free to squat with the stance width that’s the most comfortable for you. The stance width that allows for the longest range of motion will likely be your best bet for building your quads (which may be narrower for some people and wider for other) but the inherent influence of stance width itself seems to be pretty minimal.
If you want to learn a LOT more about squatting, then you should check out How to Squat: The Definitive Guide. I can guarantee you that it’s the most thorough resource on the internet for learning and troubleshooting the squat.
Read Next
- How To Help Your Squat Catch Up With Your Deadlift
- High Bar And Low Bar Squatting 2.0
- Sitting Back vs. Down In The Squat: Much Ado About Very Little
Zach says
What about training the quads for jumping and sprinting? Conventional wisdom would suggest a more narrow stance to better mimic the actual movement pattern, but Louie Simmons — who has trained gold medalist track athletes, not just geared powerlifters — seems to prefer his athletes training the squat with a very wide stance.
Would data suggest that Louie is right, and that wide stances are fine for developing strength and power, so long as you also train the movement you ultimately want to develop?
Either way, interesting article, thanks for sharing.
Greg Nuckols says
Just to keep everything in one spot
Ryan Ferguson says
Anecdotally, it appears to me that modifications such as a narrower stance and bar placement to make the body more upright increase quadriceps dominance insofar as they reduce the recruitment of other muscles to move the weight. This would be consistent with the second study’s observation that there was increased glute EMG in the wider stance squats. Less load being moved by other muscles implicitly makes the quadriceps more dominant in the movement, not because they are doing more work, but rather they are doing more OF THE work to move the same weight.
I also observe that among lifters, when we adopt a narrower stance it is often (but not always) in conjunction with an elevated heel, while a flat heel is often (again, not always) preferred for a wider stance. Likewise, a narrower stance often accompanies high bar and front squats, while a wider stance often accompanies low bar squats. This, of course, has its influences on knee and hip positions throughout the movement, and may erroneously contribute to the perception that a narrow stance increases quad dominance. Dat correlation:causation problem.
Greg Nuckols says
I think that’s really the issue. When people think “close stance,” they generally implicitly think of 3-4 things that make a squat more knee-dominant, and vice versa with wide stance squats, but it’s not the stance width itself really making the difference.
Micoolol Kücükmus says
Less load being moved by other muscles implicitly makes the quadriceps more dominant in the movement, b e c a u s e they are doing more work in this or that way. Otherwise it would just be fancy to subdivide this reasoning.
Brent says
Hey Greg, was an email sent out when this article was released? I’ve signed up for the email list, but I don’t think I’ve been getting them. Re-signing up hasn’t resolved the issue.
Greg Nuckols says
This one is going out tomorrow morning at 9am. We often share on FB first in case we missed any typos, or in case I needed to clarify something that a lot of people are asking about. When we send it out on email, we want it to be as good as it can be.
Lee says
This is quite interesting.
I do note that in the picture (narrow vs powerlifting squat) that the torso angle is very similar which I don’t see very often – it seems that narrower squatters have a more upright torso compared to a super low bar and wider squat. Is it maybe more torso positioning that increases the demands of the knee?
Anecdotally, whenever I do wide stance squats to a box with a more upright torso – I feel the quads working harder to get the pop off the box – I assume this is because I am limiting the posterior chain to some degree.
Greg Nuckols says
“it seems that narrower squatters have a more upright torso compared to a super low bar and wider squat”
Honestly I think that says more about the people who choose those squat styles than the squat styles themselves. i.e. you can see pretty big differences between individuals, but you don’t typically see huge differences within an individual.
DTSJR says
This makes a lot of sense to me. Simply given that the knee is a basic ‘hinge’ joint (i.e….it only opens and closes and can’t do anything else) and the primary role of the quads is to operate the tibia—stance width should make no difference. Increased EMG activity in the glutes from a wide stance also makes sense to me given a wider stance squat tends to be more ‘hip’ driven.
Matt Newberry says
Greg- thanks again for the great articles. Would it be safe to assume that, due to the increased involvement of the glutes, a lifter could generally expect to be able to generate more power with a wider-stanced squat?
I ask this because I simply can’t hit depth in a wider stance. If more power can be achieved, though, I’d prioritize hip mobility over quad strength in hopes to see a boost from technique.
Greg Nuckols says
I think that, all other things being equal (though they usually aren’t), wide stance squats tend to lend themselves to 1rms a bit better. I think the biggest issue, though, is that you can get your adductor magnus more involved with a wider stance squat.
Micoolol Kücükmus says
So theres on task bein unsaid, you should try to actually train your adductor magnus strengthwise, to not let them perish. You ask how? Just like you strength train all your other bodyparts.
Cheers
Carson Patterson says
Thanks Greg, as usual informative, thought provoking and very interesting!
EMG studies are also interesting for this topic. Chris Beardsley wrote a good article on Strength and Conditioning Research about this.
https://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/perspectives/vastus-medialis-squats/
Here’s his conclusion:
Targeting greater relative activation of vastus medialis during the squat probably cannot be done by using a narrow stance instead of a wide stance, nor by elevating your heels instead of squatting on a flat surface. Stance width has no effect on the activation of any of the quadriceps muscles, and raising the heel probably affects all quadriceps muscles in exactly the same way. This is probably because the quadriceps share common neural drive, and it is very hard to target any of them individually.
Additionally, at the bottom of the squats, all of the quadriceps muscles have to work very hard to get you out of the hole. However, as you might expect based on the above analysis, the vastus medialis is no more important than any of the other quadriceps muscles.
Grant says
Thanks for linking that article. I have always had that feeling about a lot of muscle groups. My thought is that you will get the best muscle development by lifting the most weight possible in whatever foot and heel position feels the most natural. Even if I could get slightly better activation by pointing my toes at an uncomfortable angle and elevating my heels on plates I would have to decrease the load and potentially increase my risk of injury so what is the benefit?
DTSJR says
To me targeting different quad muscles is difficult (I would argue impossible) because 3 of the 4 quad muscles originate on the femur and they all insert via the knee. The knee would have to move in multiple directions to potentially target a particular quad muscle.
Micoolol Kücükmus says
Carson Patterson, how do you mean this citate of your text is meant 🙂 :
as we (exclusively me) might expected, “the vastus medialis is no more important than any of the other quadriceps muscles”
thanks in advance
Ant says
Yea, but wide stance… SUMO is cheating.
Greg Nuckols says
Nah, not really.
Edward says
Greg, thanks for the files from earlier and excuse me for using to thread for another inquiry.
I resumed training and dieting this past month after a long hiatus but I haven’t been sure which program to follow yet and don’t want to continue flip flopping between them this early.
I tried out The Journey beginner program but the gym I go to is small and ends up getting a bit crowded even though I go when it opens at 7 a.m., enough to make it a problem to do all 4 main lifts even if I go through them pretty quickly. I’ve no problem with sharing but some people kinda don’t and I don’t want to be waiting for them to finish or having to constantly change the plates with those who share.
I also tried out the Average to Savage program and it’s also good but I’m pretty weak and would need to train at a high-ish 1RM% to actually be able to lift the barbell at all in the bench press and specially the OHP. There’s only 45lb barbells here.
Right now I’m doing the 2x beginner routines of your 28 programs and I’ll prolly continue with them. I’m basically looking to train 4x per week, preferably with an upper/lower split, to cut down on some gym time and because I like it. I’m focusing on both hypertrophy and strength but with more bias towards hypertrophy. I liked the high frequency of The Journey and looking to train each main lift 2-4 times per week to get some practice. However I think 2 main lifts per session may be the most I can do before running into the problems mentioned above. I’m also on a moderate deficit looking to get to 10-15% from the 20% BF I’m at right now. Here’s what I’ll do:
Monday – Squat 2x Day 1, Deadlift 2x Day 2, lower body accessories
Tuesday – Bench 2x Day 1, upper body accessories
Thursday – Squat 2x Day 2, Deadlift 2x Day 1, lower body accessories
Friday – Bench 2x Day 2, upper body accessories
For the hypertrophy accessory work I’m following what you describe in The Journey Intermediate program, but with 1/2 to 2/3 of the volume since I’m a newbie, and back work only on bench days. Doing a good amount of dumbbell and machine work ain’t really a problem in this gym like it’d be for barbell work.
Tell me what you think and if I should make some changes or optimizations that might be better.
Edward says
No replies yet lmao.
Greg Nuckols says
Give it a shot, and if you’re not getting the results you want, try making tweaks and monitor how you respond.
Edward says
I wonder if I should switch the Day 1 Deadlift to Monday instead of Thursday. Last week I was pretty tired when I got to that part since I spent some sets figuring out my 8RM for the Squat. I did it again today (week 2 this time ofc) and it was better but I don’t know if 2 heavy lower body lifts on the same day is a good idea. I’m putting equal focus to both lifts.
Adam says
Hi Greg, thanks for an interesting article.
I believe this could be dissected only by taking a single individual and measuring both squat styles on him. In Escamilla’s study, there would be a lot of variables in the individual’s body segment lengths, which I think is an important thing to consider in such project.
This is something Swinton had right, but only in theory, since I have some issues to believe the individuals knew how to squat both styles (the “closed stance” has some obvious technical issues, and lot of other things you mentioned), and I believe that would affect the measured quantities to some level.
Greg Nuckols says
I agree. Like I said, there hasn’t been a perfect study yet to examine that question. However, I think it’s interesting that even in Swinton’s study where they purposefully tried to accentuate the differences between styles, the differences in joint moments were fairly small.
Micoolol Kücükmus says
Hello Adam,
I wanted to know which technical issuses of the “closed stance” do make it hard to
implement more of the quads compared to the case of the execution of right close stance squats
– among making a lightly “hunched”back in the part of full depth –
– like I’ve thought?
Thanks for your attention,cheers
Franz Ferdinand says
I agree with some of the comments here. I think torso alignment has more of an affect on quad activation than does varied stance. Both a wide stance and close stance squat with an emphasis on an upright torso will activate more quad activation by causing the knees to come further forward towards the toes. The pictures shown indicate that the torso is not maintained as upright as possible. A lifted heel makes the upright torso squat more comfortable.
I’ve switched from a narrow stanced powerlifting squat to a more upright and quad dominant approach by focusing on breaking at the hips and maintaining an upright torso. I lift much less weight this way but my quads scream. I think bodybuilders could benefit from varying from the traditional powerlifting squat not necessarily by changing stance width, but by altering the movement pattern to emphasize quad activation.
Greg Nuckols says
The other squat article linked above (sitting down vs. back) addresses that issue. I think it may interest you.
DTSJR says
Franz – I would agree with you. The more the knees travel forward, the more the tibia moves and gets more perpendicular to gravity. The closer the tibia is to parallel to gravity, the more ‘neutral’ it is and, thus, the quads are minimally involved. The more the tibia moves, the more the quads are working. But you mention focusing on breaking at the hips to try and keep torso more upright. Wouldn’t it be just the opposite? Wouldn’t you focus on breaking at the knees in order to stay more upright and let the knees travel forward?
Ethan says
I personally find narrow squats target my quads more and I don’t come all the way back up to standing position.
With that being said, I usually only do narrow stance on a front squat.
Daniel says
In most squat “cues” it is said, “spread the knees” on the ascent. Or “screw your feet into the floor” as you “spread the knees”. I think a wider stance puts more “stress” on the knees because of the angle of the Femur and Tibia is at a sharper angle and then of course the whole knee spreading action. One thing would be nice is having the new comments at the top of the comment board dominant
Greg Nuckols says
“I think a wider stance puts more “stress” on the knees because of the angle of the Femur and Tibia is at a sharper angle and then of course the whole knee spreading action.”
I’m honestly not sure what you’re describing. Would you mind elaborating?
Exercisen says
A nice mathematical treatment of the subject
Craig says
Greg what about the extremely close stance squats that the coaches love to push off on the girls for their glutes? Does it really even dominate the move over the quads?
Greg Nuckols says
Probably not