Front squat

Compared in the reviewR1 · 7 full-text papers, 5 abstract-only

At least one paper behind this review states what this option was measured against. That is not a ranking, and this option carries no evidence profile of its own.

Requirements it fills

No extraction row pairs this option with a requirement, so it is not filed under a slot. Its rows name several practices at once without saying which fills what.

How it is performed

Feet shoulder-width apart, toes facing forward, descend until thighs are parallel to the floor. Bar placement is either parallel or crossed-arm, depending on preference.
J. Korak, M. Paquette, D. Fuller, J. Caputo, John M. Coons (2018) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002513
Muscle Activation Patterns of Lower-Body Musculature Among 3 Traditional Lower-Body Exercises in Trained Women
Bar held in front of the chest at the clavicle.
Javier Gené-Morales, Jorge Flandez, Álvaro Juesas, P. Gargallo, Iván Miñana, J. Colado (2020) · Journal of Human Sport and Exercise · 10.14198/jhse.2020.15.proc4.28
A systematic review on the muscular activation on the lower limbs with five different variations of the squat exercise
Participants performed a 3-RM test with a warm-up consisting of a stationary bike and dynamic exercises. The squat depth was standardized to ensure the top of the thigh reached parallel to the floor, with a 90° angle from knee to hip to floor. Participants were instructed to perform the squats with a 1:1 second tempo for concentric and eccentric phases.
David Bautista, Dustin Durke, J. Cotter, Kurt A. Escobar, Evan E Schick (2020) · International Journal of Exercise Science · 10.70252/btuh3630
A Comparison of Muscle Activation Among the Front Squat, Overhead Squat, Back Extension and Plank.

Dose

Nothing states what this option's dose measures — no library step prescribes this option and its review states no dose unit.

Dose and time, as the papers state it

No row states a dose or a time for this option.

Equipment

barbell · advanced — from the exercise catalogue, which is where equipment is authored.

Level and prerequisites

No row states a level or a prerequisite for this option.

Progression and regression

No row states how to make this option harder or easier.

Who should not do this

The papers behind this option report nothing on contraindications, which is not the same as saying there are none.

Setting, as the studies used it

No row describes the setting.

What the papers compared it with

Barbell back squat — a paper measured this option against it
“The free barbell back squat is compared against the leg extension” · D. Clark, M. Lambert, A. Hunter (2012) · 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822d533d
Leg press — a paper measured this option against it
“leg press” · D. Clark, M. Lambert, A. Hunter (2012) · 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822d533d
Smith machine exercise — a paper measured this option against it
“and Smith Machine squat” · D. Clark, M. Lambert, A. Hunter (2012) · 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822d533d
Deadlift — a paper measured this option against it
“Multi-joint lower-body exercises (Romanian deadlift” · R. Juřík, P. Šťastný, D. Kolinger et al. (2025) · 10.1186/s13102-025-01161-y
Romanian deadlift — a paper measured this option against it
“Multi-joint lower-body exercises (Romanian deadlift” · R. Juřík, P. Šťastný, D. Kolinger et al. (2025) · 10.1186/s13102-025-01161-y
Plank — a paper measured this option against it
“the back extension (BE) and plank (PL” · David Bautista, Dustin Durke, J. Cotter, Kurt A. Escobar, Evan E Schick (2020) · 10.70252/btuh3630

A paper measuring one option against another does not make the two interchangeable, and it does not say which to choose. These are listed as what the papers did, and nothing here proposes a substitution.