The Box Squat: An Underrated and Undervalued exercise in Raw Powerlifting
Over the weekend an Instagram post was brought to my attention. This post listed a hierarchy of exercises that have the best carry over to powerlifting performance — meaning transference to competition squat, bench press, and deadlift. The list was created by a strong, popular lifter and coach, who I’m sure had the best of intentions. I’m not going to get into why I disagree with a list like this in general, or why I think it simply made no sense, but I would like to highlight and address, in my opinion, an ignorant claim made in this post: that box squats are “meme worthy/circus lifting,” and essentially useless. The box squat was among other very useful exercises that ranked in this category, but I digress. I may have gotten a little triggered, made some memes, but that’s neither here nor there. This claim shows a poor understanding of specificity, transference, and practical application.
The principle of specificity is something we’ve mentioned in several posts and articles. The SAID prinicple and its proper application is essential to any training program. But, do we truly understand the prinicples and their potential transfer to sport? Powerlifting isn’t all that complicated, but humans are. In the gym we attempt to exploit immediate, accumulative, and long-term delayed effects of imposed training demands to enhance performance on the platform. These long term performance changes are specific to the organization, sequencing, and manipulation of the training principles — overload, specificity, and variation. Such adaptations are multifaceted and driven by many factors including genetics and psychological state. Though complex, transfer of training effects is important to understand as strength must be developed within the context of sport to maximize its effectiveness.
Transference refers to Yuri Verkoshanky’s dynamic correspondence. A deeper consideration for fully exploiting training outcomes, dynamic correspondence was devised in the early 1990s in order to logically piece together aspects of training specificity into more quantifiable, direct components. These include:
- Amplitude and direction of movement
- Accentuated regions of force production
- Dynamics of effort
- Rate and time of maximum force production
- Regime of muscular work
The two most evident aspects of specificity, or dynamic correspondence, are the amplitude and direction of movement. Amplitude refers to the ROM or degree of displacement of a movement. The direction of an exercise is the most logical and widely accepted form of specificity. When barbell squatting, the barbell is applying a downward force on the body, hello gravity, and the direction of the movement is determined by the placement, and load, of the bar. A high bar close stance squat may require a more upright torso with forward knee travel, whereas a low bar wide stance squat will require a greater trunk lean with the hips moving backwards. As an aside, there has been some debate over force vectors in complex movements like sprinting, and while that is outside the scope of this discussion, it’s important to note that no matter which direction the athlete moves, the execution of most sporting actions, like squatting a 1RM, requires high magnitudes of vertical ground reaction forces. Therefore, an exercise that is initiated differently, like a leg press or belt squat, may not transfer to the same degree even if the muscle groups used are similar. Additionally, even small changes in the direction of movement, like high bar to low bar, can alter the muscle groups used, which would affect outcomes. Therefore, training should progress from less specific to more specific amplitudes to sporting actions. In order to accomplish this, we should understand the joint angles and amplitudes most commonly used in the sport of powerlifting. Subsequently, progressing and manipulating exercise selection to address lifters individual needs.
Accentuated regions of force production refers to specificity of muscular effort and consequently the application of force throughout the course of a movement. Only one study has directly studied the diverse regions of force production for different exercises, but this concept may explain why some exercises transfer better than others. Coaches and researchers have sought different means of manipulating the accentuated regions of force production with varied success. Direct manipulation of the accentuated region of an exercise may be provided using bands, chains, or weight releasers. For example, adding bands to a squat lowers early concentric forces but significantly increases late concentric forces compared to no bands, shocker. When examining research on transfer to training, there seems to be no evidence that this improves jumping performance however, we are squatting, not jumping, and bands have been shown to increase measures of strength and power (here, here, and here). Although it should be noted that the addition of bands or chains should be implemented appropriately, and potentially avoided during phases looking to maximize transfer of training effects.
The dynamics of effort refers to the force-velocity training means as they relate to specific athletic movements. Athletic performance depends on the ability to apply or withstand varying magnitudes of force at different movement velocities. Thus, the dynamics of effort of training should encompass the force magnitudes as well as movement and contraction velocities associated with sport specific movements. Evidence in support of this concept demonstrates that heavy load resistance training outperforms low load resistance training regarding maximal strength. In addition to actual movement velocity, the intent to move quickly also plays an important role in force and velocity improvements(here, here). Greater improvements in load lifted as well as bar speed have been found when using maximal pushing speed compared to self selected speed in the bench press with equal loads. Therefore, athletes should execute exercises with the intention of moving as rapidly as possible. Particular attention should be placed on performing warm-ups and back down sets with maximum intent. This results in maximizing the stimulus of both heavy and light loads in addition to various forces and velocities within a single training session.
Rate and time of force production. Success in many sports is determined by the ability to maximize force production during critical time intervals, i.e., the seconds it takes to perform a maximal lift. Therefore, training should seek to improve rate of force development (RFD), and use tasks that have similar constraints of sport specific movements, e.g., maximum effort singles. Coaches must consider the multiple adaptations that may contribute to improvements in RFD. A review by Maffiuletti highlights neural and muscular determinants of explosive strength(RFD), showing that heavy resistance can produce favorable changes in motor unit recruitment and discharge rates that contribute to RFD. Heavy resistance training appears to be effective partly due to hypertrophy of type II fibers and morphological changes of whole muscle. Therefore, in order to fully leverage this aspect of dynamic correspondence we must be aware of the scalability of the training process — programming for long term adaptations to support a greater effect when transitioning to a similarity in force production.
Regime of muscular work refers to the type of muscular action — concentric, isometric, and eccentric. The regime of muscular work is also inclusive of stretch shortening cycle (SSC) actions. The importance of specificity for different types of muscle contraction is well known(here, and here). However, there are unique aspects and potential implications for subsequent adaptation between concentric and eccentric action(here). For example, greater mechanical efficiency and dissipation have been observed in eccentric contractions compared to concentric, as well as differing structural adaptations. Muscle hypertrophy, linked to a variety of performance outcomes, appears to differ depending on contraction type. Eccentric training has been shown to increase fascicle length, while concentric training has been more associated with increases in pennation angle. These changes in morphology likely means that differing adaptations take place between concentric and eccentric actions, which can influence subsequent physical capabilities and are important considerations when designing training programs. Coaches need to consider the respective mechanisms of each contraction type separately, as well as together.
In addition to these five components, Goodwin and Cleather suggested a sixth, which is referred to as segmental interrelation. This suggests that coaches must account for the complex interrelations between global, segmental, and muscular actions during goal-directed movement. Not only that, but develop a keen understanding of kinetic and kinematic associations concerning certain training methods and athletic performances to effectively exploit Verkoshansky’s principle of dynamic correspondence. Use of this principle must also take into account general training principles of overload, specificity, and variation(here, here). For instance, certain exercises may fit the criteria of the information covered, but if they are not correctly loaded, varied, and sequenced, they may not result in a positive transfer of training effect.
Transference vs. Specificity. Specificity exists on a spectrum, but not in a vacuum. Just because something is specific in a superficial sense, doesn’t necessarily mean it will carry transference. Specificity in powerlifting is usually thought of as hand, foot, and bar placement of the competition lifts. While that is not wrong, sport specific conditions of a competition lift is a maximum effort single repetition in a competition setting. Actually, nine of them, if you’re lucky. These conditions need to be met in order to elicit specific adaptations to yield the greatest transference. This is due to the high psychological demands of not only competing, but lifting a maxmial load. In a perfect world, that would mean we just compete every week and we’d improve over time. Obviously that is not only impractical but impossible. Next option is maxing out each lift every training session, with “specific” preferred technique. Again, unrealistic and unsustainable. This is why periodization exists, but I’m just making a point. Speaking of periodization, singles are all the rage in powerlifting lately with the popularity of Daily Undulating Periodization models, and for good reason, but are we fully exploiting Verkoshansky’s principles of dynamic correspondence?
Tie in — The Box Squat. This famous squat variation has been around for over 60 years and has been utilized very successfully by coaches and athletes alike. The box squat may be less specific than a competition squat, but depending on individual strengths and weaknesses, a box squat could have better transference. That may sound a little backwards, but hear me out.
A 2010 study comparing kinetic variables and muscle activity in the squat vs. box squat found that, although muscle activity was similar or higher through all trials in the squat, peak force was significantly higher in the box squat compared to the squat at both 70% and 80% of 1RM. The study concluded that there were neither net positive or negative effects in comparison of both exercises. However, in a 2012 study comparing the traditional squat, “powerlifting squat,” and box squat, recommends the use of the box squat due to the very large RFD values produced which suggest it could be an effective exercise to develop explosive strength and athleticism. This is partially supported by the 2010 study referenced above.
It is suggested the box squat be used as a training tool to modify the transition between the eccentric and concentric phase, and improve competency in performing the “powerlifting squat.” This refers to a low bar wide stance position where the eccentric portion is initiated by “sitting back” in the squat. By instructing individuals to maximize posterior displacement of the hip as is required during the “powerlifting squat”, it is possible to increase the stress placed on the hip joint in all 3 planes. This creates a larger moment arm at the hip joint and places emphasis on the hip musculature to produce force.
In terms of dynamic correspondence, the box squat is probably the most bang for your buck training exercise. The use of the box not only enables individuals to maximize posterior displacement of the hip, ground reaction forces were observed to be greatest in the box squat compared to both the traditional, and powerlifting, squat. This accentuates the region of force production we are always trying to improve upon — the posterior chain. The box squat also addresses dynamics of effort with a combination of high load low velocity, and low load high velocity repetitions, respectively. I’ve already mentioned the increases in rate of force development the box squat offers, and to top it off, we easily cover the regime of muscular work because almost everything we do has both eccentric and concentric portions. The only caveat is that the box squat doesn’t really utilize the SSC, but that can be developed in other ways.
Coupled with the psychological demands of a near, or at, maximal effort single, which we’ve written about extensively, the box squat meets all of this criteria. I’m not saying that everyone should do box squats, or that everyone should adopt a wide stance in their competition squat. But it could be a viable option depending on the individual needs of the athlete. The box squat has been a staple in powerlifting for many years, and there is no reason we should disregard it’s utility. Doing so shows a lack of critical thinking, and a poor understanding of these principles and their practical application. We can’t just keep doing the same things over and over and expect to get better results. That is the definition of insanity. At some point we need a little variety in our lives.
