Full squats raised 1RM nearly four times as much as half squats
In short
Twenty-eight trained pubertal tennis players were randomised to full-squat or half-squat training twice a week for eight weeks. Full-squat 1RM rose 10.2% in the full-squat group and 2.7% in the half-squat group. Countermovement jump height rose 12.2% against 3.8%. Only the full-squat group improved sprint times, by 7.5% over 5 m and 6.3% over 10 m; the half-squat group showed no significant sprint or change-of-direction improvement.
Cutting depth is a common trade — easier on the knees, more weight on the bar. An eight-week comparison puts a number on what that trade costs: 10.2% versus 2.7% on full-squat 1RM, close to a fourfold difference.
What was compared?
Twenty-eight trained male pubertal tennis players (14.0 years on average) were randomly assigned to a full-squat group of 14 or a half-squat group of 14. Both added a progressive squat program twice a week for eight weeks on top of their regular tennis training. Depth was the only variable that differed.
Testing covered 1RM for both full and half squats, countermovement jump height, 5 m and 10 m sprint times, and a T-half change-of-direction test.
How far apart did the groups end up?
Both groups got stronger and jumped higher. The margins were not close. Full-squat 1RM moved +10.2% against +2.7% and jump height +12.2% against +3.8%. Sprinting split entirely: only the full-squat group improved, by 7.5% at 5 m and 6.3% at 10 m, while the half-squat group showed no significant change in sprinting or change of direction.
The authors attribute this to the larger range of motion — training through more joint travel drives greater neuromuscular adaptation, and that adaptation transfers into sport-specific multidirectional tasks.
Why did heavier half squats not carry over?
Half squats let you load more absolute weight, so the stimulus is not small. But in this trial the half-squat group's gains stayed in the half squat and barely transferred to full-squat 1RM. Full-squat training raised both. The strength went where the range of motion went.
Participants were 28 trained athletes averaging 14 years old. Do not assume the same margins in adult lifters with long heavy-training histories. If knee or hip mobility limits your depth, fix the mobility before chasing the range.
What it means for your Muscle Index
The squat that counts toward the Big 3 total in Muscle Index is judged at depth — thighs below parallel. Weight moved on a half squat cannot be logged, and on this evidence it does not convert into full-squat 1RM either. Shortening the range costs you twice.
Going deeper drops the weight on the bar in the short term. For getting through that stretch, read squat strength rises before technique changes alongside knee-friendly leg training.
Frequently asked questions
Do full squats or half squats raise 1RM more?
Full squats. In an eight-week trial with 28 trained pubertal tennis players, full-squat 1RM rose 10.2% in the full-squat group against 2.7% in the half-squat group.
Does half-squat training improve sprint speed?
Not in this trial. The half-squat group showed no significant improvement in 5 m or 10 m sprints or in the T-half change-of-direction test, while the full-squat group improved by 7.5% at 5 m and 6.3% at 10 m.
How much did jump height differ between the groups?
Countermovement jump height rose 12.2% in the full-squat group and 3.8% in the half-squat group. Both improved, but the margin was more than threefold.
Why does a larger range of motion produce better results?
The authors propose that training through more joint travel drives greater neuromuscular adaptation, which then transfers more effectively to sport-specific multidirectional tasks such as sprinting and changing direction.
Do these results apply to adult lifters?
Not directly. The participants were 28 trained tennis players averaging 14.0 years of age. The direction is informative, but there is no basis for assuming the same magnitude in adults, and anyone limited by hip or knee mobility should address that before adding depth.
Source: PubMed