There is a common argument used to justify compound
movements (Squat/Bench/Deadlift, etc) as the best for general strength
training, used to suggest low-bar squat is better than high-bar squat for
general strength training, and to say that some unilateral movements are better
than complementary bilateral movements. That is, that if a movement can be used
to move relatively more weight and use more muscle then it is ‘better’. Usually
this means ‘better for general strength’, but in any case, is this completely
true? I definitely agree that these movements are the best, in various contexts,
but it seems to me that many people are using incomplete arguments to tout
these exercises.
The core reason I disagree with the specifics of this
argument is based on multiple things. It firstly depends on what the purpose of
strength training normally is, and what the specific definition of strength is.
In the case of the compound movements being better than isolation movements,
the common argument is something along the lines of “The squat uses more muscle
group and more total muscle mass than the leg-press and is therefore better for
general strength.” However, if the squat uses more muscle groups, shouldn’t one
by default be able to use more weight? And if the squat uses more muscles,
couldn’t it be that it also uses more neuro-muscular resources? Therefore, it
could be that the leg-press is actually more efficient at increasing strength
in the specific muscles that it uses. I am not saying that this is the case (I
have no idea), but only that the argument is incomplete. The squat is better
for general strength training because it uses more core muscles and is closer
to daily activity, and therefore will affect one’s ability to do daily
activities. The squat trains muscles together in a way that they would normally
be used and helps to train healthy and efficient ways to move heavy weights.
The squat is functional.
This same deconstruction can be used for unilateral
exercises. Some preachers of unilateral exercises will point to the well-known
fact that most can do more than one half of the weight on a unilateral movement
than the equivalent bilateral movement. This is often used to say that the unilateral
movement is somehow more efficient. But the matter of fact is, that one half of
the body is not dead during the unilateral movement. The core muscles along
with muscles of the non-weighted side help to balance and stabilize. The
unilateral movements are not useful because they tap on unknown resources
(although maybe they do). They are better because in real life and in sports we
often produce force asymmetrically. The unilateral movements are useful and
functional, and recreate very important force-production scenarios.
My point with this short article is only that many
proponents of certain movements use irrelevant arguments to justify a movements
usefulness in general strength training. Of course, if you are a powerlifter
then you want to use the most weight, but otherwise exercises are useful not
because of the weight possible, but for a variety of other valid reasons. The
fact that some of the most useful movements also happen to be movements where
we can use relatively more weight is only either a coincidence or a related,
but not equivalent property of the movement.
