But this is beside the primary point of my argument: high-bar squats have a limited usefulness,
for several reasons. As we discussed earlier, the low-bar squat is the primary exercise for developing
hip drive – the active recruitment of the muscles of the posterior chain. The hamstrings, adductors,
and glutes in a low-bar squat act directly to open the hip angle out of the bottom. In a front squat the
hamstrings are shortened by the closed knee angle and open hip angle into a position of contraction,
and cannot be used to make the hips extend since they are already contracted. The extremely vertical
back angle is maintained by the glutes and the contracted hamstrings, and the glutes and adductors
function as the primary extensors of the hip in the absence of hamstring involvement. This means
that there is little hamstring in a front squat and lots of hamstring in a low-bar back squat. And a
high-bar back squat is intermediate between the two. I specifically want there to be lots of hamstring
involvement in the squat, especially for Olympic weightlifters, most of whom either will not or are not
allowed to deadlift heavy and thereby get some hamstring work. If all your squat work – front squats
when you clean and when you do them out of the rack, and high-bar back squats – omits effective
hamstring involvement, and you don’t deadlift, your posterior chain gets inadequate training. And this
can be costly on a 3rd attempt clean. If we’re front squatting when we clean and when we front squat,
what earthly reason would there be to make our back squats more like an exercise we’re already doing,
an exercise that leaves out a muscle group that is very important when we pull?