This is one of those studies that actually makes programming decisions easier. For years, there's been this underlying assumption that if you're not doing the traditional barbell back squat, you're somehow compromising your lower body development. Like the back squat is the gold standard and everything else is a consolation prize. But what if that's not true? What if the safety squat bar produces the exact same strength and power adaptations as the traditional back squat?

Because that's exactly what the research shows. And honestly, this should be liberating for coaches and athletes who've been forcing themselves into a movement that doesn't feel right just because they thought they had to.

A 2019 study published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise took 28 Division I baseball players and split them into two groups over a nine-week resistance training program. Pitchers used the safety squat bar (the thinking being that it may minimize stress on the shoulder and elbow joints during the squat), while position players stuck with the traditional Olympic barbell back squat. Both groups trained twice a week using an autoregulatory progressive resistance protocol, and researchers tracked lower body strength through estimated 1RM, sprint speed over 54.86 meters (basically a 60-yard sprint), and vertical jump height.

What The Study Found

Both groups improved, and improved significantly. The back squat group increased their vertical jump from 74.6 centimeters to 76.5 centimeters, while the safety squat bar group went from 72.4 to 75.3 centimeters. When you compare the gain scores between the two groups, there was no difference. Both methods drove similar improvements in explosive power. For estimated 1RM squat strength, the back squat group jumped from 136.2 kilograms to 166.1 kilograms, and the safety squat bar group went from 112.3 to 152.6 kilograms. Interestingly, the safety squat bar group actually showed greater absolute gains, though this is almost certainly due to regression to the mean (they started lower, so bigger jumps were expected). The effect sizes between the two groups were nearly identical, sitting at 2.69 standard deviations for the back squat and 2.71 for the safety squat bar. Sprint speed, for what it's worth, didn't improve in either group, though that's not particularly surprising when you consider the training design (we'll get to that in a minute).

The researchers concluded that given both squat modalities yielded approximately equal improvements in vertical jump and lower body strength, coaches and athletes can confidently consider the safety squat bar as a viable option for developing lower body strength and power.

Why This Information Matters

To be honest, this reminds me of a 2025 study published in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research that examined trained football players and found that strength and power improvements only predicted sprint performance up to specific thresholds. Once athletes reached an isometric mid-thigh pull strength of about 2.0 times their bodyweight, additional strength didn't really translate to faster sprint times. The lesson there? More isn't always better, and hitting the right adaptation thresholds matters more than the specific vehicle you use to get there.

The same principle applies here with squat variations. If you're getting the same lower body strength and power adaptations from the safety squat bar that you'd get from a traditional back squat, then the tool itself becomes less important than the adaptation it creates. And in a sport like baseball where shoulder health is already at a premium (especially for pitchers), using a variation that may reduce joint stress while maintaining performance benefits is a pretty easy decision.

But let's be clear about the limitations before we start prescribing this to everyone. First, the safety squat bar group in this study started with lower baseline strength. The pitchers averaged 112.3 kilograms on their estimated 1RM compared to 136.2 kilograms for the position players. So yes, they gained more in absolute terms, but that's exactly what you'd expect when someone starts from a lower baseline. It's not evidence that the safety squat bar is superior, it's just math.

Second, sprint speed didn't improve in either group. Now, if you're programming for baseball athletes and one of your primary training goals is improving sprint performance, this should catch your attention. The study used an estimated 1RM protocol (which typically involves lifting at velocities around 0.25 to 0.1 meters per second), and there was no mention of tracking bar speed during training. If you're chasing 1RM numbers with heavy, slow reps and then measuring a 60-yard sprint as your speed outcome, you shouldn't be shocked when speed doesn't improve. Plus, a 60-yard sprint is kind of an antiquated measure for baseball anyway. A 10-yard or 30-yard sprint would have been far more relevant to the actual movement demands of the sport.

Third, we don't know what else these athletes were doing. The study mentions they were completing this squat protocol "concurrent with their existing, season-specific RT program," but we have no idea what that program looked like. Were they doing plyometrics? Additional lower body work? Olympic lifts? These are all factors that make it difficult to isolate the true effect of the squat variation alone.

And here's the assumption everyone seems to take for granted: that the safety squat bar may actually reduce shoulder and elbow stress. Yes, the bar positioning allows for a more neutral shoulder position, but this study didn't measure joint stress or loading. We're assuming the benefit based on biomechanics and bar placement, which is probably fair, but it's still an assumption. In my experience working with pitchers, they rarely lack the external rotation capacity needed to get into a high bar back squat position anyway. If anything, I tend to see positioning restrictions more often in position players, and specifically first basemen, not pitchers. So the premise that pitchers need the safety squat bar more than position players might not hold up as cleanly as this study suggests.

But here's the thing. Even with all those limitations, the core finding still stands: the safety squat bar produces equivalent strength and power adaptations to the back squat. And for baseball athletes specifically, lower body power matters. A 2025 study on MLB pitchers found that vertical jump acceleration explained 45% of the variance in fastball velocity, which is nearly double what upper body pressing movements predict. The lower body drives performance in this sport, whether you're a pitcher generating force up the chain or a hitter creating rotational power through ground contact. If you can develop that explosive capacity through a safer, more joint-friendly variation, why wouldn't you?

How You Can Apply This Information

If you're a coach or athlete dealing with shoulder restrictions, previous injuries, or just general discomfort with the traditional back squat, use the safety squat bar. Don't second-guess it. The data supports that you're not compromising your strength or power development by making that switch. You're still going to build the lower body force production that matters for throwing velocity, sprint speed, bat speed, and overall athletic performance.

That said, don't assume the safety squat bar is automatically better for everyone. If you can back squat comfortably without joint stress, there's no reason to switch just because the bar looks cooler or feels novel. The best exercise is the one you can load progressively, execute with good mechanics, and recover from without breaking down. For some athletes, that's the back squat. For others, it's the safety squat bar. And for some, it might be neither, it might be a trap bar deadlift or a front squat or something else entirely.

The bigger lesson here is about training systems, not isolated exercises. If your goal is to develop lower body strength and power for baseball performance, you need to create a program that balances load, intent, and recovery. That might mean using the safety squat bar as your primary squat variation during certain training blocks. It might mean rotating between squat variations throughout the year to manage joint stress and keep the training stimulus fresh. It might mean using velocity-based training to ensure you're not grinding through slow, fatiguing reps that compromise your explosive qualities. The tool matters less than how you use it.

And if you're wondering whether you should be testing a true 1RM or using estimated values like this study did? Go with the true max when it matters (end of an off-season block, for example), but use estimated or calculated maxes during in-season or higher-volume phases to avoid the fatigue and injury risk that come with max-effort testing. Your programming should be driven by the adaptations you're chasing, not by arbitrary testing protocols.

The Bottom Line

The safety squat bar is a legitimate training tool that produces the same lower body strength and power adaptations as the traditional back squat. If positioning, comfort, or joint health pushes you toward the safety squat bar, make the switch with confidence. You're not leaving gains on the table. You're making a smart decision that prioritizes long-term development over forcing yourself into a movement pattern that doesn't fit your body or your current situation.

But remember, exercise selection is just one piece of the puzzle. How you program volume, intensity, and recovery around that exercise matters just as much, if not more. Build your training around principles, not dogma. And if something isn't working, change it. There's no award for suffering through a movement that beats you up when there's a perfectly good alternative sitting right next to it in the rack.

References

1. Meldrum R, DeBeliso M. A Comparison of Back Squat & Safety Squat Bar on Measures of Strength, Speed, and Power in NCAA Division I Baseball Players. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2019.
2. Yee SR, Jensen MR, Azevedo AS, Bradley T, Waterman W, Bruneau Jr ML, Cressey E, Allen T, Maskell J, Jensen CD. The Relationship Between Vertical Jump Acceleration And Fastball Velocity In Major League Baseball. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2025.
3. Vial S, Scanlan M, Beranek P, Kadlec D, Barley OR, Cochrane Wilkie J. How Strong Is Strong Enough? Assessing When Physical Performance Tests Cease to Be Predictive of Sprint Performance in Trained Football Players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2025.