Leg press vs. Squat

**rangers97** · 30-Jun-04, 01:35 PM

ok, we know a squat is more demanding due to a number of reasons we won't get into here...BUT, if you think about it, isn't a leg press kind of the same thing as a bench press for your legs? (Back supported to lean on and then you press). That being the case, what makes it SO inferior to a squat? Yes, I do not like doing squats, I can't get the form down properly even with a very light weight, and it kinda hurts my knees a bit, so I am searching for the alternative, and I feel the leg press is pretty even for your legs anyway. Sure you dont have a huge weight balanced on your shoulders when you do it, but when you do a bench press, you dont have to balance anything either, you just press and it works your chest, shoulders and tris....so with a leg press, you just press and it works your quads, hams and gluts, right?

**Luca Brasi** · 30-Jun-04, 01:36 PM

It isolates the quads so you don't utilize your lower back or abs. I do them, but only about 2 sets after 4 sets of squats.

**MAURER** · 30-Jun-04, 02:41 PM

you DO have to balance for bench press. could you do a one arm bench press? no. coud you do a one legged leg press? yeah. you don't have to balance, you don't work stabilizer muscles. just do squats man.

gdawg0987 · 30-Jun-04, 02:47 PM

I look at it like this. Bench pressing on a smith machine instead of doing regular benching is comparable to leg presses instead of squats kind of b/c it is on a fixed track and you only push the weight and don't have to stabilize it.

TommyD · 30-Jun-04, 03:20 PM

Squats have a stimulating effect on the CNS because of the stabilization you need from things like back and abs, thereby having a stronger effect on muscle growth.

The same thing goes for bench press, stabilizing the weight with other muscles besides the chest results in the stimulation of the CNS.

Leg Press on the other hand doesn't incorporate quite as much of the lower body as the bench press does for the upper body. Therefore it wouldn't be the "bench press" of the legs, nor would it be an adequate replacement of squats. If you *can't* do squats, I would recommend leg press instead, but that's only if you *can't*.

Klinger · 30-Jun-04, 03:27 PM

This one comes up a lot here on the board. The answers supplied all are pretty well rounded. The squat is the superior exercise. There is a place for the leg press in your routine, but by no means is the leg press a suitable substitute for the squat. It is the king of lower-body exercises, baby.

:

Jakanden · 30-Jun-04, 04:33 PM

I personally do not do squats. I stopped doing them a couple of months ago and I have still been progressing fine with Leg Press and Stiff-Legged Deadlifts =)

**Todd** · 30-Jun-04, 06:07 PM

yah, this same question and topic has been brought up many times....but it seems people STILL hope or want to think that something out there is or might be better than or equal to squats...but there isn't! Have a read at this thread.

Leg Presses, etc. will give you results, but not the kind of results that you'd experience by doing heavy ass squats! Not even close. Again, squats are what separate the "men" from the "boys" in bodybuilding.

Jakanden · 30-Jun-04, 06:13 PM

Then i will forever be a "Boy" =)

grambo · 30-Jun-04, 10:48 PM

you make bench press sound so easy, you must bench like what, 5-600 lbs raw?

If you cant be bothered to master one of the key exercises in all of weight training(be it body building, or power lifting), stick to the leg press.

jukka · 01-Jul-04, 03:52 AM

there's still the issue of genetics and body structure.

people like to present just about everything in weight training
in an extremely black and white way: either you do this or you're permanently f***ed in ever way.

I know several guys who are blessed with genetics that make it easy for them to put on mass for legs, and they only do hacks and leg presses and
have really big and muscular legs....of course, there are also the guys that don't have these genetics and still stick to leg presses...and have legs that are just plain funny.

and then there are guys like me, who'd love to squat,
but whose slightly abnormal lower back prevents deep or even parallel squatting. yet I'm able to put on decent leg size with smith-machine squats.

barbell squat probably is the king but not being able to do is does not mean you should quit weight training and stick to table tennis.

**Firehawk** · 01-Jul-04, 08:45 AM

I think people really need to determine if they can't do squats because of an injury, or because they are being lazy. It is easy to say "I don't feel like doing squats". REAL EASY!

And, for those with great genetics that have strong and muscular legs from doing presses, jsut think how much better they would be developed if they did squats? There is just no comparison.

01-Jul-04, 11:36 AM

If you can't squat properly then there is no point in doing the exercise. Stick with the leg presses and avoid injuring yourself. Maybe someday you will find a trainer or partner who can figure out why you don't squat well. Until that time, do what you can as best you can and don't worry about not squatting.

**Todd** · 01-Jul-04, 12:47 PM

Yah, I would definitely agree....if you cannot perform squats properly because of an injury or problem with structure (as in some people who are extremely tall find it difficult to perform), then I would stick to Smith Machine squats or some variation of machine squats, or leg presses.

BUT, if you are not injured or extremely tall, then you really are just cheating yourself out of possible huge gains by not doing squats, no matter how you look at it.

Axion · 02-Jul-04, 10:49 PM

i didn't start doing heavy squats untill just a few months ago, I kick myself for that all the time.

If you can squat, then do them! If you don't you're only cheating yourself.