Ever since circus strongmen and the early superstar bodybuilders like John Grimek and Steve Reeves were winning the Mr. Universe contest the question to perform barbell squats has been a hotly debated topic. In the 1970's, top bodybuilders like Ken Waller and Arnold would swear by the squat, while fitness guru's like Vince Gironda would not even have squat racks in their gym! His argument was that the barbell squat would overdevelop the glutes and would be a detriment to the symmetrical bodybuilder. Others, like Arnold and France Columbu squatted religiously, and they attributed there overall muscular balance and strength to the squat. So which point of view is correct? I don't want to ride the fence but in my humble opinion both are!
There really isn't a better exercise you can do for overall body balance, mass and conditioning that the squat. When I perform squats as part of my leg routine I can almost feel my strength and conditioning increase as I am doing them. I also feel that I have endless energy and stamina for the rest of my workouts, and every exercise seems that much easier to do. Barbell squatting is that good for conditioning! However my body type tends to gravitate more towards the ectomorph side (thinner and a hard gainer), so putting on too much mass was never an issue for me.
If your body type is more of an endomorph (larger and heavier) you may not ever need to put on more mass on your body, especially in the glute area. Although lighter weight and high repetition squats would still be of benefit to you for shaping and conditioning, heavy squats probably would not be the first and best choice of leg exercise, unless you're a powerlifter.
In summary there is not a better over all exercise you can do than the barbell squat. It is an individual choice as to determine if the aesthetic results are to your liking.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
