I read on a recent thread that some dismiss the 45-degree leg press as an inferior exercise. Why is that? I thought it was a good compound movement. I often alternate whole body workouts between leg presses and squats or if splitting, doing both on leg day. (I also place my feet moderatley high on the plate to bring the hams into the movement.) I push 18 plates (810+ lbs) for 8 reps with good ROM on the leg press so it doesn’t seem like a wimpy exercise to me. Should I forego it and do only squats?

I read on a recent thread that some dismiss the 45-degree leg press as an inferior exercise. Why is that?

Because there are a lot of better things to do with your time. Start with Bulgarian squats.

I read on a recent thread that some dismiss the 45-degree leg press as an inferior exercise. Why is that? I thought it was a good compound movement. I often alternate whole body workouts between leg presses and squats or if splitting, doing both on leg day. (I also place my feet moderatley high on the plate to bring the hams into the movement.) I push 18 plates (810+ lbs) for 8 reps with good ROM on the leg press so it doesn’t seem like a wimpy exercise to me. Should I forego it and do only squats?

It depends on your goals. I see it as inferior because there is hardly any sport where you are laying on your back pushing a load at a 45 degree angle (or any regular activity for that matter). The leg press also takes out most of the whole body stabilization needed in barbell squats.

Pushing 8+ plates on a barbell squat is much more impressive than 18 on a leg press.

I push 18 plates (810+ lbs) for 8 reps with good ROM on the leg press so it doesn’t seem like a wimpy exercise to me.

You are probably using a 40 degree leg press - they are still called "45" degree. Then that 810# is equivalent to 520# vertical load.

Go ahead and squat the 520# for sets of 8. That will explain the difference.

And for the Bulgarians, a rough equivalent would be 8x315#. That will be even more fun.

The other big single leg exercise is the single stiff legged deadlift. If you do that 8x315# it will be the biggest set I've ever heard of for that lift for a while.

It depends on your goals. I see it as inferior because there is hardly any sport where you are laying on your back pushing a load at a 45 degree angle (or any regular activity for that matter). The leg press also takes out most of the whole body stabilization needed in barbell squats.

Pushing 8+ plates on a barbell squat is much more impressive than 18 on a leg press.

Good points. I think my legs could handle 8 on the squats, but my abs and back cannot (yet). I guess that's my reasoning for doing leg presses. I can use more weight for my legs and not be limited by my abs/back (until those areas get stronger).

You are probably using a 40 degree leg press - they are still called "45" degree. Then that 810# is equivalent to 520# vertical load.

Go ahead and squat the 520# for sets of 8. That will explain the difference.

And for the Bulgarians, a rough equivalent would be 8x315#. That will be even more fun.

The other big single leg exercise is the single stiff legged deadlift. If you do that 8x315# it will be the biggest set I've ever heard of for that lift for a while.

I use two gyms. One is 40, the other is 45. The stats I mentioned were for the 45 degree.

I know I cannot squat 520#. Partly due to ab/back strength. But even beyond that, my legs probably can't handle that yet. I know squats are harder on the legs than leg presses. But does that make leg presses of no value (especially when alternated with squats)?

Good points. I think my legs could handle 8 on the squats, but my abs and back cannot (yet). I guess that's my reasoning for doing leg presses. I can use more weight for my legs and not be limited by my abs/back (until those areas get stronger).

Well, that's where the single leg work comes in. Since you're only using one leg, you don't have to use as much weight and it takes some of the stress off the back.

As for the leg press, I think it's an OK exercise that has it's place. I've seen both bodybuilders and powerlifters incorporate them into their routines with success.

Good points. I think my legs could handle 8 on the squats, but my abs and back cannot (yet). I guess that's my reasoning for doing leg presses. I can use more weight for my legs and not be limited by my abs/back (until those areas get stronger).

Well you have it backwards then. If you want your core to catch up, then unloading it doesn't make any sense.

And if you want to load your legs more than your core, but still make progress with the core, then the single leg freeweight lifts I have suggested make a lot more sense.

It depends on your goals. I see it as inferior...

For a guy your height, you may want to reconsider that slightly. Check out the T-Nation article "Why Won't Lurch Grow (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=461061)". I think he's got a good argument for using the leg press to compensate for aerobic failure in squats.

I don't see anything wrong with the leg press. Just another tool to use.

Well, that's where the single leg work comes in. Since you're only using one leg, you don't have to use as much weight and it takes some of the stress off the back.

I hadn't considered that solution, thanks. (I can be slow sometimes.) I will incorporate some single leg work into my routine.

And if you want to load your legs more than your core, but still make progress with the core, then the single leg freeweight lifts I have suggested make a lot more sense.

Yes, that makes sense to me now. I will integrate single leg work into my routine.

For a guy your height, you may want to reconsider that slightly. Check out the T-Nation article "Why Won't Lurch Grow (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=461061)". I think he's got a good argument for using the leg press to compensate for aerobic failure in squats.

Thanks for the link to the article. It is helpful and might explain some of my weaknesses in the gym. I am 6' 2" so I'm fairly tall (with pretty long arms). I've experienced a lot of the problems due to height described in the article: weak bench, weak lower back, difficulty growing arms.

For a guy your height, you may want to reconsider that slightly. Check out the T-Nation article "Why Won't Lurch Grow (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=461061)". I think he's got a good argument for using the leg press to compensate for aerobic failure in squats.

I don't see anything wrong with the leg press. Just another tool to use.

My legs are the biggest and strongest part of my body, my training usually consists of barbell squatting 2-3 times a week (amongst complimentary posterior chain exercises). While my height is not an advantage I wouldn't switch to leg pressing on myself due to how tall I am (relatively short to basketball players).

However, I still think my statement is fairly accurate on that it depends on his goals. I claimed it as inferior on the basis of 'functionality' (for whatever that word is worth now a days).

Also, possibly because at my height I wouldn't consider myself a lurch and that article may better be suited for those even taller than me yet. Or maybe i'm just defensive about my height :moon:

And even as Zen has suggested, bulgarian split squats are always an option.

For a guy your height, you may want to reconsider that slightly. Check out the T-Nation article "Why Won't Lurch Grow (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=461061)". I think he's got a good argument for using the leg press to compensate for aerobic failure in squats.

It's a good argument for bad athletes.

Start from the point of view that the world's biggest aerobic capacities are found on elite rowers who are very tall. (Matthew Pinsent's 8 liters blows Lance Armstrong's 6.4 liters away). So there is no excuse for a tall athlete to have aerobic failure just like there is no excuse for a short athlete to have aerobic failure. John Christy used to have some excellent advice on his old site about why everyone should be in good enough shape to lift, and this is case in point. Anyone experiencing "aerobic failure" during lifting just has some cardiovascular homework to do. Yeah a lot of people cut this corner in their training but it's no excuse. (Oddly enough M@ with your running it should not be something that you actually experience.)

The next issue is that the author (TC) points out that tall people often can pull deadlifts a lot better than they can squat. And that is true, and part of the explanation is leverage and bone length. And I will accept that if someone is trying to balance out their enormous deadlift work with extensions and presses, there might be some merit in that. But in the case at hand I wonder if there is a ton of deadlifting threatening to overbalance the guy. When a guy is driving 520# on the leg press for reps but isn't sure his back can handle four plates in a squat, it's a reasonable question whether his back can handle that much more in the deadlift.

Another issue is that that article takes the common view that if the resistance you apply to a muscle changes a lot over the range of motion, then only that part of the range of motion with the heavy load builds muscle. Where in fact to the extent that is true for strength, a good deal of that effect is from the nerves. There is a lot of evidence that you don't need to use a full range of motion to train strength or build muscle, (Louie Simmons almost making a fetish of this), and so leverage limitations are less onerous once you stop trying to get a huge range of motion.

So yeah, being tall is an issue, but it shouldn't preclude squatting. Changing the bar position (as suggested in the article) makes a big difference, and the taller you are the more difference it makes. But going to unilateral (Bulgarians) makes an even larger difference; you can almost double the ratio of load on the leg to the load on the back. Plus, it should also remove any question of "aerobic failure".

One more thing about why long levers should point to free weight exercise - if you get a machine that tracks your knee a little badly (and for example this is thought to be the case for every leg extension machine on the planet) then the longer your bones are, the more that leverage amplifies the unwanted secondary forces on the joint.

So yeah, I'm still going to dis the leg press and extension machines. I myself actually do those exercises once in a while, but they are not staples.

For a guy your height, you may want to reconsider that slightly. Check out the T-Nation article "Why Won't Lurch Grow (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=461061)". I think he's got a good argument for using the leg press to compensate for aerobic failure in squats.

I don't see anything wrong with the leg press. Just another tool to use.

Thanks for the link to the article. It is helpful and might explain some of my weaknesses in the gym. I am 6' 2" so I'm fairly tall (with pretty long arms). I've experienced a lot of the problems due to height described in the article: weak bench, weak lower back, difficulty growing arms.

Also, possibly because at my height I wouldn't consider myself a lurch and that article may better be suited for those even taller than me yet. Or maybe i'm just defensive about my height :moon:
I've seen this tall person argument for the leg press a few times. It's almost always in the context of athletes who are much taller than 6'2" or 6'3". The average person might think that is tall, but it's only average in a lot of the profession sports populations (basketball, American football, etc.), which is where most of the S&C coaches giving this advice work.

So, for tall, think really tall -- 6'8" or even larger.

I use two gyms. One is 40, the other is 45. The stats I mentioned were for the 45 degree.

I know I cannot squat 520#. Partly due to ab/back strength. But even beyond that, my legs probably can't handle that yet. I know squats are harder on the legs than leg presses. But does that make leg presses of no value (especially when alternated with squats)?

On the 45 degree machine, then the 810# is equivalent to 573#.

Leg presses will never be of no value, the question is whether there is greater value in something else. So if you really love leg presses, it's better than what a lot of guys do and ignore their legs, hoping they will go away....

If I were you I would try the 275# - 315# Bulgarians, in a power cage or rack. I know a lot of guys who can leg press nine or ten plates. I don't know a lot of guys who do the Bulgarian for three plates on a side.

On the 45 degree machine, then the 810# is equivalent to 573#.

Leg presses will never be of no value, the question is whether there is greater value in something else. So if you really love leg presses, it's better than what a lot of guys do and ignore their legs, hoping they will go away....

If I were you I would try the 275# - 315# Bulgarians, in a power cage or rack. I know a lot of guys who can leg press nine or ten plates. I don't know a lot of guys who do the Bulgarian for three plates on a side.

Don't kill the boy, zen!:lol:

800# leg press may be equivalent 560# vertically, but it is NOT equivalent at all to a 560# squat!! At 200 BW, maybe a 360# squat at best, but likely less.

Which boils down to why leg press is (mostly) a poor choice for anyone with some basic strength, and a good choice for people who want to kid themselves into thinking they're stronger than they are: if you squat 4 or 5 bills, you have to load the leg press with 20 some plates, spend half the damn day loading the leg press!! Do it unilaterally if you have to, otherwise you're doing a lot of loading for a little buck! Most guys do it because 600-800 leg press sounds more impressive than 200-300 squats (or so they think) :rolleyes:

Whatever, go play on the leg press if ya want, frees up the squat rack for the rest of us....;)

Don't kill the boy, zen!:lol:

800# leg press may be equivalent 560# vertically, but it is NOT equivalent at all to a 560# squat!!

That depends. If the leg press is your staple leg exercise, then you are completely correct.

But I have found that as a guy who gets almost all my leg volume from free weights, then the leg press is a bit more in line with these conversions.

I think the thing about the leg press is that the position of the pelvis is a lot different than in the squat, so the extra you can get in the leg press comes from being able to shove your pelvis against the machine.

Also, possibly because at my height I wouldn't consider myself a lurch and that article may better be suited for those even taller than me yet. Or maybe i'm just defensive about my height

At 6' 2" I don't consider myself a lurch either, just taller than average. I don't think my height impacts my leg exercises too much, but my long arms (which are long even for my height) may impact my bench press and bis/tris a bit.

Leg presses will never be of no value, the question is whether there is greater value in something else. So if you really love leg presses, it's better than what a lot of guys do and ignore their legs, hoping they will go away....

If I were you I would try the 275# - 315# Bulgarians, in a power cage or rack. I know a lot of guys who can leg press nine or ten plates. I don't know a lot of guys who do the Bulgarian for three plates on a side.

My leg day is tomorrow and I plan on adding bulgarians then. I really like the idea of maxing the load on my legs without overloading the back/abs.

That is one of the main reasons why I used the leg press. I wanted to exhaust my legs in 6-10 reps and I just could not do it on squats without my back cracking. By loading up on the leg press, the big muscles in my legs were really hit hard. (This is also why I put my feet a little higher on the plate to bring in hams. I wanted to increase the muscle mass involved.)

This was primarily to get the extra hormone response they say you get from really pushing large muscle groups.

Previously, I would go 3-4 sets @ 8 reps on the leg press to hit my legs hard. Then I would do 3 sets @ 12 reps on free squats. I guess this is kind of like pre-exhausting my legs before squats (but using a compound movement instead of isolation to pre-exhaust). I would lift lighter than my fresh legs could of handled on the squat, but at least my back/abs could handle it.

I don't see anything wrong with the leg press. Just another tool to use.

Except that you don't sound hardcore when you say that....and we all know that being hardcore is what weight lifting is all about. That, and saying "bro" alot.

But seriously, all you guys debating "leg press vs. squats", the article (and the poster) didn't suggest doing leg press INSTEAD of squats, but rather, the suggestion was that it could be a helpful SUPPLEMENT to squats for some people. I dunno...I haven't done a leg press in forever, but, I don't discount the possibility that it could serve as a beneficial exercise for some people.

Except that you don't sound hardcore when you say that....and we all know that being hardcore is what weight lifting is all about. That, and saying "bro" alot.



I ain't hardcore or functional. I just want to look good. I say drop 150 lb or more on a good leg extension machine and do them 4/4 cadence, then do leg curls and calf raises. if you want legs for beach or bed. And be sure and get a tan.:tucool:

I ain't hardcore or functional. I just want to look good. I say drop 150 lb or more on a good leg extension machine and do them 4/4 cadence, then do leg curls and calf raises. if you want legs for beach or bed. And be sure and get a tan.:tucool:
Yeah, it all depends on the OP's goals.

Except that you don't sound hardcore when you say that....and we all know that being hardcore is what weight lifting is all about. That, and saying "bro" alot.

But seriously, all you guys debating "leg press vs. squats", the article (and the poster) didn't suggest doing leg press INSTEAD of squats, but rather, the suggestion was that it could be a helpful SUPPLEMENT to squats for some people. I dunno...I haven't done a leg press in forever, but, I don't discount the possibility that it could serve as a beneficial exercise for some people.


I must admit I cringe big time with all the hardcore terminology that goes around with weightlifting.

Hardcore ?! Some people need to get real! Working down a mine for 16 hours a day might be described as hardcore, fighting in a war in a real live firefight might be described as hardcore, professional boxing and some full contact martial arts might be described as hardcore.


Weightlifting ?:lol: Let me put it this way, probably 98 percent plus of weightlifters in gyms are training purely to look good, to get abs and try and get laid etc. and there it ends, WITNOF could possibly be hardcore about that ?? So somebody works a sedentary white collar job, has a comfortable living and a nice big house, he's never been in a fight in his life, but go into a gym, put on his training top and start squatting and deadlifting and suddenly he's hardcore ?:D Most guys you see in gyms, well certainly the leisure type gyms, would run a mile from a fight with a 14 year school girl.

Weightlifting ?:lol: Let me put it this way, probably 98 percent plus of weightlifters in gyms are training purely to look good, to get abs and try and get laid etc. and there it ends, WITNOF could possibly be hardcore about that ?? So somebody works a sedentary white collar job, has a comfortable living and a nice big house, he's never been in a fight in his life, but go into a gym, put on his training top and start squatting and deadlifting and suddenly he's hardcore ?:D Most guys you see in gyms, well certainly the leisure type gyms, would run a mile from a fight with a 14 year school girl.

It's hardcore to make training your life, to be a machine, to excel as you try to become the best. Think Olympic and elite athletes, Olympia bodybuilders, etc. Most of the time when you see the word "hardcore" on the forum, unless you're reading bodybuilding.com, I think:

1) we're using it tongue-in-cheek because, as you correctly state, most of us are not doing the three things I listed first in this post
2) we're referring to something as being representative of the those three things (e.g. some of zenpharaohs' squat and deadlifts sets :eek: or just about any day in the life of mastover ;))
3) if not either of those, we're making an outright joke, as I believe JoeSchmo was.

I don't think most of us classify ourselves as "hardcore" for our non-competitive leisure lifting.

It's hardcore to make training your life, to be a machine, to excel as you try to become the best. Think Olympic and elite athletes, Olympia bodybuilders, etc. Most of the time when you see the word "hardcore" on the forum, unless you're reading bodybuilding.com, I think:

1) we're using it tongue-in-cheek because, as you correctly state, most of us are not doing the three things I listed first in this post
2) we're referring to something as being representative of the those three things (e.g. some of zenpharaohs' squat and deadlifts sets :eek: or just about any day in the life of mastover ;))
3) if not either of those, we're making an outright joke, as I believe JoeSchmo was.

I don't think most of us classify ourselves as "hardcore" for our non-competitive leisure lifting.


Fair doos, I agree that most people on this forum don't think of themselves as hardcore abd wasn't trying to say that. Was more thinking of bodybuilding articles you'll read with all the military metaphors and hard man talk. Was just pointing out that weighlifting, particularly weightlifting for purely aesthetics alone never turned anyone into any sort of tough guy:).


I would ask if it is makes sense to "make training your life" if one is purely a leisure trainer. In any event if one is not a pro athlete or bodybuilder etc, it won't be possible to make it your life as job/college etc. will take up much more of your time than training ever will.

Indeed the very best thing about this forum is that the tone and membership is very much geared towards Joe Average, guys who need to get their training done in say 3-6 hours a week, guys for whom the advice you see on bodybuilding sites would often not be appropriate.