hey everyone,
Im thinking of adding goblet squats in to my program. I can do them and other squats with very good form and am thinking they might be a good quad/core strengthener because you are forced to stay totally up-right.
I will still be front and back squatting and doing single leg movements at least once/week as well.
has anyone had any success with the goblet squat helping hypertrophy to a degree?
Why not. Just don’t make them your core movement on the day. But after squats or deads, hit up some goblet squats for some sets of 15-25 reps and you’ll see growth if you’re pushing it. DBs don’t go very high in weight, so stick to ultra high rep sets. Fill those legs up with blood. If you want to really hammer the quads with them put your heels up on some weight plates.
Shit, I just might do that in my next leg workout after front squats…lol. Sounds like a fun change of pace.
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
they always hit my groin the hardest…how do you guys do them for quads? I always thought they were supposed to be done pretty wide to train hips and groin.
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
[/quote]
This. I’ve always considered them more of a “learn to squat” exercise. Good luck holding 300+ lbs in front of you like that.
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
[/quote]
This. I’ve always considered them more of a “learn to squat” exercise. Good luck holding 300+ lbs in front of you like that.[/quote]
To speak the truth the only people I’ve seen advocating goblet squats for size are the “fitness legends” guys that don’t even train who post articles here from time to time.
Size and strength, not so much. Good for beginners that need to learn how to stay upright or for women that want to be “toned” and are afraid to put a barbell on their back but there are so many other better choices. For quads and core, I’d stick to the front squats where you can move some more substantial weight.
thanks for the advice guys, i think ill add them in, but only as an extra conditioning or finisher to a workout that has front squat as the main leg exercise.
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
[/quote]
This. I’ve always considered them more of a “learn to squat” exercise. Good luck holding 300+ lbs in front of you like that.[/quote]
To speak the truth the only people I’ve seen advocating goblet squats for size are the “fitness legends” guys that don’t even train who post articles here from time to time.[/quote]
From time to time I’ve seen them in the leg training videos for IFBB guys on youtube. Like I mentioned in my OP, usually done in the ultra high rep range towards the end of a leg workout just to “burn out.” While your statement may be true, why does that imply bodybuilders can’t elicit some growth from them if they use them in the right place in their training?
By that logic, MOST of the guys in the gym I see who really advocate high volume on biceps training are puny little frat boys. So I shouldn’t train my biceps in isolation like them?
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
[/quote]
This. I’ve always considered them more of a “learn to squat” exercise. Good luck holding 300+ lbs in front of you like that.[/quote]
To speak the truth the only people I’ve seen advocating goblet squats for size are the “fitness legends” guys that don’t even train who post articles here from time to time.[/quote]
From time to time I’ve seen them in the leg training videos for IFBB guys on youtube. Like I mentioned in my OP, usually done in the ultra high rep range towards the end of a leg workout just to “burn out.” While your statement may be true, why does that imply bodybuilders can’t elicit some growth from them if they use them in the right place in their training?[/quote]
Because, as I said it, it’s an inferior movement, it’s a complicated movement, it’s a fad movement, and it frankly has no place ANYWHERE. A) You can’t go heavy B) It’s a movement with a high chance of fuck-up, it places stress on your wrists, if you got elbow tendinitis or shoulder issues it will fuck these up , it requires a great deal of torso stabilization to stay upright, which will be pretty demanding considering one is already exhausted from squatting, C) There’s little room for progress, you are limited by how much you can hold on, and the weights get bigger the more trouble getting into position, D) There are simpler safer and better exercises that can elicit the same results or superior results, E) The risks outweighs the benefits, F) All of the above.
I’d like to see those videos.
[quote]
By that logic, MOST of the guys in the gym I see who really advocate high volume on biceps training are puny little frat boys. So I shouldn’t train my biceps in isolation like them? [/quote]
First, your statement here doesn’t make sense. What does high volume have to do with isolation exercises ? I can do low-volume high-intensity preacher curls if I wish. And curls are hardly “isolation” unless it’s a preacher curl/concentration curl. You should have said: “most of the guys in the gym I see who really advocate high volume on biceps training are puny little frat boys. So I shouldn’t do 20 sets for biceps ?”
DeltaOne is correct on all points.
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
[/quote]
This. I’ve always considered them more of a “learn to squat” exercise. Good luck holding 300+ lbs in front of you like that.[/quote]
To speak the truth the only people I’ve seen advocating goblet squats for size are the “fitness legends” guys that don’t even train who post articles here from time to time.[/quote]
From time to time I’ve seen them in the leg training videos for IFBB guys on youtube. Like I mentioned in my OP, usually done in the ultra high rep range towards the end of a leg workout just to “burn out.” While your statement may be true, why does that imply bodybuilders can’t elicit some growth from them if they use them in the right place in their training?[/quote]
Because, as I said it, it’s an inferior movement, it’s a complicated movement, it’s a fad movement, and it frankly has no place ANYWHERE. A) You can’t go heavy B) It’s a movement with a high chance of fuck-up, it places stress on your wrists, if you got elbow tendinitis or shoulder issues it will fuck these up , it requires a great deal of torso stabilization to stay upright, which will be pretty demanding considering one is already exhausted from squatting, C) There’s little room for progress, you are limited by how much you can hold on, and the weights get bigger the more trouble getting into position, D) There are simpler safer and better exercises that can elicit the same results or superior results, E) The risks outweighs the benefits, F) All of the above.
I’d like to see those videos.
Ok. Thanks for a well thought out reply. Unfortunately my gym does not have a smith machine, or a hack squat machine, so sometimes I have to be creative in choosing secondary quad dominant exercises. Personally, I don’t think goblet squats are as complicated as you’re making them sound though. It’s alot easier to maintain proper form with these than front squats. It’d be pretty damned hard to fuck them up or hurt yourself on them. Put a DB no a bench, squat down, grab it, squat it.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
You’ll have no success with globet squats if you are looking for size, or strength, because to speak the truth is an awfully complicated “fancy” fad movement that doesn’t allow for much progressive overload. There will be a point where you’ll reach a certain weight and that’s it, anything heavier will become a bitch to set up and everything will be counter productive.
You’re better off doing front squats one day and back squats the other, then using leg presses, hack squats and smith squats to complement your training, carriover on these are better to.
If you want more “core” work, do some roll-outs.
[/quote]
This. I’ve always considered them more of a “learn to squat” exercise. Good luck holding 300+ lbs in front of you like that.[/quote]
To speak the truth the only people I’ve seen advocating goblet squats for size are the “fitness legends” guys that don’t even train who post articles here from time to time.[/quote]
From time to time I’ve seen them in the leg training videos for IFBB guys on youtube. Like I mentioned in my OP, usually done in the ultra high rep range towards the end of a leg workout just to “burn out.” While your statement may be true, why does that imply bodybuilders can’t elicit some growth from them if they use them in the right place in their training?[/quote]
Because, as I said it, it’s an inferior movement, it’s a complicated movement, it’s a fad movement, and it frankly has no place ANYWHERE. A) You can’t go heavy B) It’s a movement with a high chance of fuck-up, it places stress on your wrists, if you got elbow tendinitis or shoulder issues it will fuck these up , it requires a great deal of torso stabilization to stay upright, which will be pretty demanding considering one is already exhausted from squatting, C) There’s little room for progress, you are limited by how much you can hold on, and the weights get bigger the more trouble getting into position, D) There are simpler safer and better exercises that can elicit the same results or superior results, E) The risks outweighs the benefits, F) All of the above.
I’d like to see those videos.
Ok. Thanks for a well thought out reply. Unfortunately my gym does not have a smith machine, or a hack squat machine, so sometimes I have to be creative in choosing secondary quad dominant exercises. Personally, I don’t think goblet squats are as complicated as you’re making them sound though. It’s alot easier to maintain proper form with these than front squats. It’d be pretty damned hard to fuck them up or hurt yourself on them. Put a DB no a bench, squat down, grab it, squat it. [/quote]
If lack of equipment is your main reason for doing them, that’s fine. But for argumentative purposes, don’t do them over better compound leg exercises like hacksquats and leg presses because you think they are better. IFBB pros may do them at the end of a workout, but that hardly means it’s the main factor in their leg development. They would have huge legs with or without them. Like kakno and Delta said, they are more of a learning tool than a muscle builder.
Edit: Even as a learning tool they are inferior to regular squats imo. If you want to learn how to squat with a barbell on your back, then squat with a barbell on your back.
I completely agree, it is a movement that is not going to build muscle. I personally still use 4 sets of high reps in my squat workouts though. The reason? A rehabilitative movement. It pumps alot of blood into sore areas with very little loading while maintaining that upright/grooved squat. Essentially its a RECOVERY tool.
Just my .02
Rudy
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
DeltaOne is correct on all points.[/quote]
Delta’s been hitting homers all over this place lately.
Thanks ID!
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Ok. Thanks for a well thought out reply. Unfortunately my gym does not have a smith machine, or a hack squat machine, so sometimes I have to be creative in choosing secondary quad dominant exercises. Personally, I don’t think goblet squats are as complicated as you’re making them sound though. It’s alot easier to maintain proper form with these than front squats. It’d be pretty damned hard to fuck them up or hurt yourself on them. Put a DB no a bench, squat down, grab it, squat it. [/quote]
Some people will disagree but I’m a firm believer in getting the most out of little. You can get very good results with just barbell squats variations, contrary to popular belief, machines are optional, not obligatory, unless you’re trying to get an IFBB card, and even there we find exceptions (Tom Platz)
Here’s what you can do with good results
Close-stance squats
Wide-stance squats
Olympic squats (heels elevated ATG)
Traditional Barbell Hack Squats
Jefferson Squats
Front Squats of several different stances
The only thing I wouldn’t do would be Heavy Front Squats and Heavy Back Squats in the same day for safety reasons.
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
Thanks ID!
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Ok. Thanks for a well thought out reply. Unfortunately my gym does not have a smith machine, or a hack squat machine, so sometimes I have to be creative in choosing secondary quad dominant exercises. Personally, I don’t think goblet squats are as complicated as you’re making them sound though. It’s alot easier to maintain proper form with these than front squats. It’d be pretty damned hard to fuck them up or hurt yourself on them. Put a DB no a bench, squat down, grab it, squat it. [/quote]
Some people will disagree but I’m a firm believer in getting the most out of little. You can get very good results with just barbell squats variations, contrary to popular belief, machines are optional, not obligatory, unless you’re trying to get an IFBB card, and even there we find exceptions (Tom Platz)
Here’s what you can do with good results
Close-stance squats
Wide-stance squats
Olympic squats (heels elevated ATG)
Traditional Barbell Hack Squats
Jefferson Squats
Front Squats of several different stances
The only thing I wouldn’t do would be Heavy Front Squats and Heavy Back Squats in the same day for safety reasons.[/quote]
Hey thanks man. I’ve definitely been creative, but haven’t hit up all these. Believe it or not, something I found that really helped me add some quad thickness was doing trap bar deadlifts in deficit (so my feet up on a box) with my heels elevated. It was the closest I could get to a hack squat.
I use these as a finisher. Have also used them before to help me get into the “groove”.
Related question: when doing goblet squats is it ok to have some “butt wink”, considering it is usually performed with relative light weight?
I know you should try keep tight and keep proper form, but I still “butt-wink” when I get low.
tweet
do an 8x8in the frog position… legs wide open, deep squatting, with 30-15 seconds of rest among each set, using a load that will allow to work @ 85% of your capacity and see your legs, especially the outer portion, levitate
it is not the weight but the way you do it
p.s. this is not for strength , just for hypertrophy!!
I use them as part of a warm up for squatting sometimes, along with walking lunges, lateral lunges and various mobility drills. Like Delta said, I doubt these will contribute to growth or strength development.
Delta, what do you do for hamstrings? Good posts, btw.