I remember I posed a question years ago on here about squats vs hip thrusts for glute growth and Jordan indicated that at that time he did not think that squats were better than thrusts for glute growth on a per set basis.
Has this controversial study, the first directly comparing growth between the two exercises, changed BBM’s mind at all?
Just generally speaking, do you think the study design is sound enough to take the study seriously as an item of evidence? I realize that one study is just one study, the n is low, yada yada, but with all those usual stipulations accounted for, do you think it is good science?
It didn’t really change my mind, no, but I don’t think it’s controversial either. I would expect similar hypertrophy responses to both exercises, with a substantial amount of inter-individual variation in outcomes, preferences, etc.
I think the study was reasonably well-constructed. That said, making up your mind about anything is generally a bad idea with respect to science, especially if it’s one study.
I guess I sort of do have one follow up question, though: given that the ROM is so much longer for squats, why would you predict similar overall responses to both exercises? hip thrust critics say that the shorter ROM usually means less tension. If you dont mind could you briefly explain what factors you think offsets the disparity in ROM?
I’m not sure the ROM at the hip is hugely different than squats and hip thrusts have the knees fixed at 90*, thereby decreasing the leverage of the hamstrings. I don’t think that shorter ROM= less tension either, necessarily, as partial ROM exercises have been demonstrated to yield similar hypertrophy outcomes to longer ROM exercises in some studies.
I hope it’s cool that I’m bumping this. I had a question in pretty much the same vein related to things that the “pro-hip thrust” and “anti-hip thrust/anti glute bridge” crowds have been arguing about around the net recently. Which statement do you think is closer to the truth:
A. If the primary goal is adding glute mass, it is important to train three main patterns, in addition to abduction: a pattern in the squat family (training the glutes from a fully lengthened position), a pattern in the deadlift family (training hip ext from a moderately stretched position), and a pattern in the thrust family (training the glutes from a shortened position). There are specific advantages associated with training from multiple different muscle lengths when it comes to taking on productive stress. (These advantages go beyond those associated with exercise variation in general, like program adherence and managing the repeated bout effect).
B. To the best of our knowledge at present, growth is a product of the glutes being exposed to an increasing amount of mechanical tension over time. This can be accomplished in any number of ways with any number of different exercises. It is not neccesarily the case that a trainee that does not do one or even two of the aforementioned exercise “families” should expect to grow less than they would if they sedulously include all the “families” each week, provided that the total amount of mechanical tension to which the glutes are exposed is equal and increases at the same rate.
Bonus: does the repeated bout effect have the effect of decreasing the amount of mechanical tension muscle groups take on when executing a movement pattern? Will someone who does 9 sets of RDL’s a week be exposed to less tension per set than someone who does 4 sets of RDLs a week, even with weight lifted and bar speed etc. being equal?
If forced to choose, probably B, though I think there’s substantial variability in response and variation can help folks identify what they best respond to in addition to other benefits.
The Fonseca paper also suggests maybe more hypertrophy with more variation, but that hasn’t been replicated elsewhere.
I don’t think RBE reduces mechanical tension at all, but rather improves one’s ability to tolerate (and thus respond to) stimuli.
Overall, I don’t think a lot of these things are black and white.
