Squat

Squat
The barbell squat is a key exercise in strength and conditioning

programs. There are many barbell squat variations, which can
be classified in different ways (including barbell placement,
technique, stance width or foot placement, and fixed or free
weight).
The test-re-test reliability of back squat 1RM testing is generally
nearly perfect or very high, although a familiarization effect has
been observed over subsequent sessions. In trained individuals, a
difference of 4% can differentiate between individuals, and a
difference of 8% can establish a real training effect. In untrained
individuals, much larger differences may be necessary.
Based on changes in muscle activity with load, bar speed,
and ROM, the prime movers in the back squat include the
quadriceps, gluteus maximus and erector spinae. The hamstrings
appear to function as antagonist co-contractors. The roles of the
adductors, gastrocnemius and soleus and abdominals
are unclear. During the back squat, using a wider stance and knee
wraps increase gluteus maximus muscle activity, while using
running shoes rather than no footwear increases quadriceps muscle
activity.
Most squat variations appear to lead to similar quadriceps, gluteus
maximus and erector spinae muscle activity, but the back squat
seems to display greater quadriceps muscle activity than either the
split squat or overhead squat. No other exercise has been found
to involve greater quadriceps muscle activity than the back squat
but the barbell hip thrust involves greater gluteus maximus
activity and the deadlift involves greater erector spinae muscle
activity.
Heavier loads are lifted during partial rather than parallel
squats, by individuals with greater levels of resistance-training
experience, and by athletes using a powerlifting-style of squat
compared to an Olympic weightlifting-style of squat. Ground

reaction forces appear to be primarily a function of the absolute
loads used.
The optimal load for power during back squats is unclear.
Supportive equipment (knee wraps and weightlifting belts) appear
to increase power output, most likely by increasing velocity as a
result of stored elastic energy in the lowering phase. Greater rate of
force development seems to be observed in the box squat than in
other squat variations.
Greater trunk angles in the back squat are observed in subjects
wearing no footwear rather than running shoes and when using
cues to restrict the movement of the knees over the toes. The effect
of cues to prevent knee movement over the toes on peak hip
angle is unclear but cues to look downwards rather than upwards
lead to more acute hip angles, while increasing fatigue leads to less
acute peak hip angles.
Increasing load and wearing running shoes rather than no footwear
appear to lead to more acute peak knee angles, while using cues to
prevent forward knee movement over the toes and fatigue lead to
less acute knee angles. Similarly, using weightlifting shoes and
running shoes both lead to more acute peak ankle angles than using
no footwear, while cues to prevent the knee from moving forward
over the toes lead to less acute peak ankle angles.
Hip extensor moments in the back squat increase with increasing
relative load, squat depth, trunk lean and with cues to prevent
forward movement of the knees over the toes. They are greater
using a powerlifting-style squat than a traditional squat. When
using Smith machine squats, hip extensor moments are greater with
a foot position that is further forward of the barbell or a backward
body inclination.
In contrast, knee extensor moments in the back squat increase with
increasing relative load and squat depth but reduce with cues to
prevent forward movement of the knees over the toes or with
greater trunk lean. They are greater using a traditional squat than
when using a powerlifting-style squat but similar during back and
front squats. When using Smith machine squats, knee extensor
moments are greater with a foot position that is closer toward the
barbell or a forward body inclination.
CONTENTS
Full table of contents [show]
Click on the links below to jump down to the relevant section of the page:
Background
Reliability of 1RM testing
Electromyography
External kinetics
Joint angle movements
Net joint moments
External moment arm lengths
References
BACKGROUND TO THE SQUAT

PURPOSE
This section provides some background to the squat exercise, its variations
and how they are used, and suggests some reasons for its prominent
position in strength and conditioning programs.
CONTRIBUTORS
To see the authorship and review status of this page, click HERE. To
contribute to this page, please clickHERE.
BACKGROUND
Introduction
The squat is a key exercise in strength and conditioning programs. There are
many squat variations, which can be classified in various ways, including the
placement of the barbell, the technique used, and whether they are
performed with free weights or in a Smith machine. Primarily,
squats are classified by the placement of the barbell. Squats classified in this
way are described as back squats, front squats, and overhead squats and
these variations are often viewed as completely distinct exercises.
Secondarily, squats can be classified by the technique used in the type of
strength sport that they resemble. Squats classified in this way are often
described as Olympic squats or powerlifting squats and display certain key
distinctive features. Thirdly, squats can be classified regarding whether they
are performed using a free weight barbell or a barbell in a fixed apparatus,
such as a Smith machine. Fourthly, squats can be classified by hip angles,
which lead to different stance widths (wide, medium or narrow) and foot
positions (neutral or outwardly rotated feet). Fifthly, squats can be classified
according to whether there is a box placed at the bottom of the movement or
whether they are performed freely without any box.
Squat variations
The back squat is the most commonly-performed squat variation in strength
and conditioning programs. It is also a key element of most Olympic
weightlifting training routines, and is contested as one of the three lifts that
comprise the sport of powerlifting. The biomechanics of the back squat have
been reviewed countless times over recent years (OShea, 1985; Chandler
and Stone, 1991; Neitzel and Davies, 2000; Escamilla, 2001c; Schoenfeld,
2010; Clark et al. 2012), leading to a range of suggestions regarding
performance, and various recommendations have been made for correct or
optimal technique (Carter et al. 2013; Myer et al. 2014). The front squat is
another very commonly-used squat in strength and conditioning programs
and has a number of variations that are valuable for use in developing
athletes (Larson et al. 1991; Cissik, 2000; Waller and Townsend, 2007; Bird
and Casey, 2012).
THE REVIEW
Inclusion criteria
The main part of this page covers research into the biomechanics of the
loaded barbell squat using the following inclusion criteria:
Study design = acute
Population = healthy adults
Intervention = loaded barbell squat
Comparator = squat variation or technique or other exercise
Outcome = biomechanical measure (muscle activity, kinetics, or

kinematics)
Squat variations could include the back squat, front squat, overhead squat,
Smith machine squat, box squat, and cambered bar squat. Squat techniques
could include different styles (e.g. Olympic, powerlifting) or different hip
angles (foot placements and stance widths). Other exercises could include
any instance where the squat has been compared to another lower-body
exercise, such as a leg press, lunge, or deadlift. Muscle activity studies were
included where they used surface or fine wire electrodes to record
electromyography (EMG). Outcomes recorded in studies of kinetics were
reported for external load, ground reaction forces, power outputs, rate of
force development, and net joint moments. Outcomes recorded in studies of
kinematics were reported for peak trunk angles, and peak angles at the hip,
knee and ankle.
Exclusion criteria
The main part of this page covers research into the biomechanics of the
loaded barbell squat and excluded studies using the following
exclusion criteria:
Study design = any non-acute study design
Population = any study not in healthy adults
Intervention = any study not using a loaded barbell squat
Comparator = any study not providing a comparator for the back

squat
Outcome = any non-biomechanical measure
As a result of these exclusion criteria, this page does not cover the long-term
effects of training using squats, either in relation to muscular adaptations
(strength, hypertrophy, power and rate of force development) or in relation
to the longitudinal transfer to sporting qualities (sprinting, jumping,
throwing). It does not include research exploring squats of any kind in
unhealthy or clinical populations. It does not cover research involving
unloaded squats (also called sit-to-stands) or loaded squats performed
without a barbell, either because they are loaded with dumbbells, elastic
resistance, or boxes placed in the hands (also called squat lifting). It does
not include any study where an aspect of the squat exercise was
not explored in relation to another squat variation or another exercise and
therefore excludes studies exploring the post-activation potentiation effect,
which frequently makes use of the loaded barbell squat exercise.
Reporting of findings
Findings reported on this page are with very few exceptions provided only if
the comparison met statistical significance (p < 0.05). Therefore, where it is
noted that a study reported a finding, it is assumed that the finding was
statistically significant. Where this is not the case, a note is always provided
to clarify that the finding was only a trend and did not meet with the
requirements of the tests used by the researchers to establish whether a
finding was likely to be real or whether there was a risk of being fooled by
randomness in the observation.
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
The squat is a key exercise in strength and conditioning programs.

There are many squat variations, which can be classified in various
ways, including the placement of the barbell, the technique used,
and whether they are performed with free weights or in a Smith
machine.
RELIABILITY OF 1RM TESTING

PURPOSE
This section details the test-re-test reliability of 1RM back squat testing,
which helps provide strength and conditioning coaches with a method for
assessing whether an improvement in 1RM back squat is real or random.
BACKGROUND
Introduction
When using tests, it is important to be certain that they are both reliable and
valid. When a test is reliable, this means that it routinely produces the same
result (output) for the same performance (input). When a test is valid, this
means that it actually measures what it is supposed to measure. Tests can
display very good reliability and poor validity and vice versa. Reliability is
much easier to measure than validity for tests and screens and therefore
there are usually more studies for any given test or screen for reliability than
validity. Reliability can be measured in at least two, if not three ways: interrater reliability, intra-rater reliability, and test-re-test reliability. Each of these
contribute to our overall assessment of the reliability of a test.
Types of reliability
Inter-rater reliability describes whether a test can be performed by different
people at the same time and yet still produce the same (or at least a very
similar) result. If two people score a subject or an outcome very differently
while watching them perform the test at the same time, this would mean
that the test had poor inter-rater reliability and this would challenge the
overall assessment of the reliability of a test. Similarly, intra-rater reliability
describes whether a test can be performed by the same person on two
different occasions and yet still produce the same result. If the same person
scores a subject or an outcome very differently on two different occasions,
this would mean that the test had poor intra-rater reliability and this would
challenge the overall assessment of the reliability of a test. Sometimes, true
intra-rater can be differentiated from test-re-test reliability and sometimes it
cannot. True intra-rater reliability can be tested when we are certain that the
underlying outcome is truly identical in both cases. For example, when a
movement screen is tested by a rater watching the same video of a
screening performance on two separate occasions, this is true intra-rater
reliability. Test-re-test reliability differs from true intra-rater reliability, as it
involves the outcome being measured again shortly after the initial test. For
example, when a movement screen is tested by raters watching a person
perform the screen on two separate (live) occasions, this is test re-test
reliability. It includes variability inherent in the individual performance as well
as in the rater assessment. Consequently, test-re-test reliability is normally
worse than true intra-rater reliability.
Intra-class correlation coefficients

There are three main ways to measure reliability, of which the intra-class
correlation coefficient (ICC) is one. The ICC measures the amount of variance
that arises from measuring different individuals vs. measuring the amount of
variance that arises from measuring multiple occasions. A high ICC means
that most of the variance seen in a data set is caused by the differences
between individuals. A low ICC means that most of the variance is seen
between multiple tests. In practice, the size of an ICC will depend on the
desired accuracy of the outcome and the between-individual variability in the
population being tested. However, in practice, typical standards used are as
follows:
Trivial (r < 0.1)
Small (r = 0.1 0.3)
Moderate (r = 0.3 0.5)
Large (r = 0.5 0.7)
Very large (r = 0.7 0.9)
Nearly perfect (r > 0.9)
Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

There are three main ways to measure reliability, of which the Standard Error
of Measurement (SEM) is one. Although the ICC is the most common, the
SEM is probably more useful. The SEM converts the ICC into a usable format
for comparing the performances of several individuals in practice (for exact
method and rationale, see review by Weir, 2005). The SEM is essentially the
typical error that can arise when recording the score of a test. When taking a
single measurement, the SEM can be used to construct a confidence interval
(usually a 95% confidence interval) on either side of the measured value.
This confidence interval provides an approximation of the range in which the
real value will fall, either side of the measured value. The most commonlyused, rough estimate of the SEM uses the standard deviation (SD) as follows:
SEM = SD x (1-ICC) and this has been used to estimate SEM in this section
where the researchers have not performed any calculation themselves (see
further review by Weir, 2005).
Minimum Difference (MD)

There are three main ways to measure reliability, of which the Minimum
Difference to be considered real (MD) is one. Unlike the SEM, there is no
commonly-accepted terminology for the MD and it is also sometimes called
the Smallest Real Difference (SRC) (see Beckerman et al. 2001) or the
Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD) (see Comfort and McMahon, 2014).
Although the ICC is the most common, the MD is a way of converting
reliability measurements as recorded using ICCs into a usable format for
comparing the results of a single individual on multiple occasions, such as
before and after a training program (for exact method and rationale, see
review by Weir, 2005). Whereas the SEM deals with differences between
subjects, the MD addresses differences within the same subject. The MD is
the difference that must be recorded between two test scores for the same
subject when multiple measurements are taken, usually as the result of an
intervention, in order for practitioners to be certain that a real change has
actually taken place. The MD is always larger than the SEM because it
involves two possible errors from two measurements rather than a single
error from one measurement. The approach to calculating the MD is similar
to the SEM and involves estimating a confidence interval. This confidence
interval around the MD is most commonly estimated as (SEM x 1.96 x 2)
(see further review by Weir, 2005).
RELIABILITY OF 1RM
Selection criteria
Population any healthy, adult population
Intervention any acute study assessing the reliability of 1RM testing in
the back squat exercise
Comparison between sessions (test-re-test reliability)
Outcomes Pearsons correlation coefficient, Standard Mean Difference
(SMD), Minimum Difference to be considered real (MD)
Results
The following relevant studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria:
Soares-Caldeira (2009), Ritti-Dias (2011), Seo (2012), Augustsson (2013),
Comfort (2014).
Findings
INTRA-CLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
The test-re-test reliability of 1RM back squat as measured by ICC has most
often been reported as either nearly perfect (Soares-Caldeira et al. 2009,
Ritti-Dias et al. 2011, Seo et al. 2012; Comfort and McMahon, 2014) or very
large (Swinton et al. 2012, Augustsson and Svantesson, 2013). Lower
reliability appears to be associated mainly with untrained individuals

(Augustsson and Svantesson, 2013) while the highest levels of reliability
appear to be observed in previously trained subjects (Soares-Caldeira, 2009;
Comfort and McMahon, 2014). Additionally, there appears to be a training or
familiarization effect, with later sessions tending to display higher values of
1RM than earlier sessions, even in moderately-trained individuals (SoaresCaldeira et al. 2009).
STANDARDIZED MEAN DIFFERENCE
The SEM for the 1RM back squat has been reported less frequently than the
ICC but it can be estimated from data provided in the relevant studies. In
trained individuals, the SEM appears to be between 1 4% (Soares-Caldeira
et al. 2009; Ritti-Dias et al. 2011; Seo et al. 2012; Comfort and McMahon,
2014). In untrained individuals, it appears much higher at between 6
11% (Ritti-Dias et al. 2011; Augustsson and Svantesson, 2013). Therefore,
the ability to differentiate 1RM back squat performances between individuals
may depend substantially upon training status.
MINIMUM DIFFERENCE TO BE CONSIDERED REAL
The MD for the 1RM back squat has been reported less frequently than the
ICC but it can be estimated from data provided in the relevant studies. In
trained individuals, the MD appears to be between 2 8% (Soares-Caldeira et
al. 2009; Seo et al. 2012; Comfort and McMahon, 2014). In completely
untrained individuals, it appears much higher at between 17 30% (RittiDias et al. 2011; Augustsson and Svantesson, 2013). Therefore, the ability to
differentiate 1RM back squat performances for a given individual from the
beginning of a training program to the end may only be feasible in trained
individuals.
To open a new window and view detailed information in a large table,
click HERE (not recommended for small screens)
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
The test-re-test reliability of back squat 1RM testing is generally

either nearly perfect (r > 0.9) or very high (r = 0.7 0.9), with only a
few reports identifying test-re-test reliability only as high (r = 0.5
0.7). This indicates that the 1RM back squat test is reliable,
although a familiarization effect has been observed over subsequent
sessions even in moderately trained individuals.
When measuring trained individuals, a difference of around 4%
can differentiate between individuals, and a difference of 8%
can establish a real training effect. However, when measuring
untrained individuals, a difference of around 6 11% may
be necessary to differentiate between individuals, and a difference
of around 17 30% may be necessary to establish a real training
effect.
ELECTROMYOGRAPHY (EMG)
PURPOSE
This section sets out a summary of the research that has explored the
muscle activity of each of the main trunk and lower body muscles during the
squat exercise, using electromyography (EMG).
GLUTEUS MAXIMUS
Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the muscle activity of the gluteus
maximus during the squat exercise
Comparison either normalized values relative to a maximum voluntary
isometric contraction (MVIC) value or a dynamic reference contraction, or
absolute values of voltage where such comparisons are appropriate
Outcome percentage of MVIC
Results
McCaw (1999), Zink (2001), Caterisano (2002), Andersen (2006), Manabe
(2007), Paoli (2009), Jones (2012), Li (2013), Aspe (2014), DeForest (2014),
Gomes (2015), Yavuz (2015), Contreras (2015a), Contreras (2015b).
Findings
EFFECT OF TRAINING VARIABLES
Exploring training variables, Li et al. (2013), Aspe and Swinton (2014) and
Gomes et al. (2015) all reported that greater relative loads produced greater
levels of muscle activity. Manabe et al. (2007) reported that faster bar
speeds produced greater muscle activity compared to slower bar speeds.
Caterisano et al. (2002) reported that increasing depth led to increasing
muscle activity (using the same absolute loads) but Contreras et al. (2015b)
found that increasing depth had no effect on muscle activity (using the same
relative loads), thereby indicating that so long as similar percentage of 1RM
is used, depth has no effect on gluteus maximus muscle activity.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Exploring the effects of equipment on muscle activity, Zink et al. (2001)
reported that a weightlifting belt did not affect muscle activity. However,
Gomes et al. (2015) reported that knee wraps lead to increased
muscle activity.
EFFECT OF HIP JOINT ANGLES
Comparing different stance widths, both McCaw and Melrose (1999) and Paoli
et al. (2009) found that muscle activity was greater during squats with a
wide stance width compared to those with a narrower stance width.
EFFECT OF EXERCISE VARIATION
Comparing back and front squats, both Contreras et al. (2015b) and Yavuz et
al. (2015) found that front and back squats displayed equal levels of
muscle activity (with the same relative loads). Similarly, comparing the back
squat and the split squat, both Jones et al. (2012) and DeForest et al. (2014)
found no differences between conditions (with the same relative and

adjusted absolute loads, respectively).
COMPARING THE BACK SQUAT TO OTHER EXERCISES
Comparing back squats with the leg press, Andersen et al. (2006) found that
muscle activity was similar between the back squat and the horizontal leg
press. However, Contreras et al. (2015) found that the barbell hip thrust
displayed greater muscle activity than the barbell back squat.
Conclusions
Heavier loads, faster bar speeds, greater depth (with the same
load), a wider stance, and using knee wraps all lead to increased
gluteus maximus muscle activity during back squats. Back squats,
front squats, split squats and leg presses all appear to lead to
similar gluteus maximus muscle activity. However, the barbell hip
thrust appears to lead to greater gluteus maximus activity than the
barbell back squat.
QUADRICEPS
Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the muscle activity of the
quadriceps during the squat exercise
Comparison normalized values relative to a maximum voluntary isometric
contraction (MVIC) value or a dynamic reference contraction, or absolute
values of voltage where such comparisons are appropriate
Results
Signorile (1994), Stuart (1996), Wretenberg (1996), Ninos (1997), Escamilla
(1998), McCaw (1999), Boyden (2000), Pick (2000), Zink (2001), Escamilla
(2001b), Caterisano (2002), Anderson (2005), Andersen (2006), Manabe
(2007), Schwanbeck (2009), Gullett (2009), Paoli (2009), McCurdy (2010),

Pereira (2010), Jones (2012), Li (2013), Gorsuch (2013), Maddigan (2014),
Aspe (2014), Luera (2014), Andersen (2014), Sinclair (2014), DeForest
(2014), Gomes (2015), Yavuz (2015), Contreras (2015a), Contreras (2015b).
Findings
EFFECT OF INTRINSIC FEATURES
Both Wretenberg et al. (1996) and Pick and Becque (2000) found that
stronger individuals displayed greater muscle activity than weaker
individuals during the back squat. In the case of the data reported
by Wretenberg et al. (1996), differences may also have arisen because of the
styles of squat used by the stronger and weaker lifters, being powerlifters
and Olympic weightlifters.
Exploring the effects of training variables, McCaw and Melrose (1999), Li et
al. (2013), Aspe and Swinton (2014) and Gomes et al. (2015) all reported
that greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity and
Luera et al. (2014) showed that the correlation between increasing squat
force and muscle activity was strong and linear. Manabe et al. (2007)
reported that faster bar speeds produced greater muscle activity compared
to slower bar speeds. Both Gorsuch et al. (2013) and Caterisano et al. (2002)
reported that increasing depth led to increasing muscle activity (using the
same relative and absolute loads, respectively). However, Contreras et al.
(2015b) found that increasing depth had no effect on muscle activity (using
the same relative loads), suggesting that so long as similar percentage of
1RM is used, depth is not important.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Exploring the effects of equipment on muscle activity, Zink et al. (2001)
reported that a weightlifting belt did not affect muscle activity. However,
Gomes et al (2015) reported effects of knee wraps that depended upon
relative load but was not linear. Sinclair et al. (2014) compared the use
of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes, and no footwear

(barefoot) and found that running shoes displayed greater muscle activity
than no footwear but there were no other differences between conditions.
EFFECT OF HIP JOINT ANGLE
Comparing squats with different hip rotation angles, Ninos et al. (1997),
Boyden et al. (2000) and Pereira et al. (2010) all found no differences in
muscle activity between squats with the feet pointing neutrally forwards and
with the feet turned out at 20 30 degrees (using the same absolute load).
Similarly, McCaw and Melrose (1999), Escamilla et al. (2001b), and Paoli et
al. (2009) all found no differences in muscle activity between narrow and
wide stance width squats (using the same absolute load).
Comparing front and back squats, neither Stuart et al. (1996), Gullett et al.
(2009) or Contreras et al. (2015b) found any differences in muscle activity
(with the same absolute or relative loads). However, Yavuz et al. (2015)
found that front and back squats displayed equal levels of muscle activity for
the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris but greater levels in the front squat
for the vastus medialis (with the same relative loads). Comparing back and
overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton (2014) found that muscle activity was
greater in the back squat than in the overhead squat (with the same relative
loads). Comparing free weight and machine squats, Anderson and Behm
(2005) found that muscle activity was greater during the Smith machine
squat than during a free weight squat (with the same absolute load), while
Schwanbeck et al. (2009) found the opposite results, possibly because
they used the same relative loads. Comparing the back squat and the split
squat (with the same relative loads), both McCurdy et al. (2010) and
Andersen et al. (2014) found that the back squat displayed greater muscle
activity than the split squat. However, Jones et al. (2012) and DeForest et al.
(2014) found no differences between exercises (with the same relative and
adjusted absolute loads, respectively).
COMPARING THE SQUAT TO OTHER EXERCISES
Comparing the back squat with knee extensions, Signorile et al. (1994) found
that muscle activity was greater during back squats than during knee
extensions but Andersen et al. (2006) found the opposite results and
Escamilla et al. (1998) found that muscle activity differences depended upon
knee angle. Escamilla et al. (1998) reported that muscle activity was greater
in the knee extension closer to full extension (15 65 degrees) and greater
int the squat at greater angles of flexion (>83 degrees). Comparing the back
squat with the forward lunge, Stuart et al. (1996) noted that the forward
lunge displayed higher muscle activity than either the front or back squat
(albeit using the same absolute load). Comparing the back squat with the leg
press, Andersen et al. (2006) found that the leg press involved greater
muscle activity than the back squat (with the same relative load) but
Escamilla et al. (2001b) found the opposite results (also with the same
relative load). Comparing the barbell hip thrust and the barbell back squat,
Contreras et al. (2015) found no differences in muscle activity between
exercises. Finally, Maddigan et al. (2014) compared a 10RM back squat with
a 20 step maximum sled push and found no differences in muscle activity
between the two exercises during the maximal tests.
Conclusions
Heavier loads, faster bar speeds, greater depth (with the same
absolute and relative loads), and using running shoes rather than
no footwear all lead to increased quadriceps muscle activity during
back squats. Back squats, front squats, Smith machine squats, hip
thrusts and sled pushes appear to display similar quadriceps
muscle activity, but the back squat seems to display greater
quadriceps muscle activity than either the split squat or overhead
squat.
HAMSTRINGS
Selection criteria

hamstrings during the squat exercise
Results
Stuart (1996), Ninos (1997), Escamilla (1998), McCaw (1999), Zink (2001),
Escamilla (2001b), Caterisano (2002), Anderson (2005), Andersen (2006),
Manabe (2007), Schwanbeck (2009), Paoli (2009), Gullett (2009), McCurdy
(2010), Jones (2012), Li (2013), Gorsuch (2013), DeForest (2014), Luera
(2014), Aspe (2014), Maddigan (2014), Andersen (2014), Sinclair (2014),
Yavuz (2015), Contreras (2015a), Contreras (2015b).
Findings
Exploring training variables, Aspe and Swinton (2014) reported that greater
relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity but Li et al. (2013)
found that greater relative loads did not lead to greater increases in muscle
activity. Additionally, Luera et al. (2014) showed that correlations between
increasing squat force and muscle activity were only low-to-moderate.
Manabe et al. (2007) reported that faster bar speeds produced greater
muscle activity compared to slower bar speeds. Caterisano et al. (2002)
reported that increasing depth led to increasing muscle activity (using the
same absolute loads) but both Gorsuch et al. (2013) and Contreras et al.
(2015b) reported that increasing depth had no effect on muscle activity
(using the same relative loads).
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Exploring the effect of supportive equipment, Zink et al. (2001) reported that
a weightlifting belt did not affect muscle activity. Sinclair et al. (2014)
compared the use of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes,

and no footwear (barefoot) and found no differences between conditions.
Comparing squats with different hip rotation angles, Ninos et al. (1997) found
no differences in muscle activity between squats with the feet pointing
neutrally forwards and the feet turned out at 30 degrees (using the same
absolute load). Similarly, McCaw and Melrose (1999), Escamilla et al. (2001b)
and Paoli et al. (2009) all found no differences in muscle activity between
narrow and wide stance width squats (using the same absolute load).
Comparing front and back squats, Stuart et al. (1996), Gullett et al. (2009),
Yavuz et al. (2015) and Contreras et al. (2015b) all found no differences in
muscle activity between front and back squats (with the same absolute or
relative loads). Comparing back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton
(2014) found that muscle activity was greater in the back squat than in the
overhead squat (with the same relative loads). Comparing free weight and
machine squats, Anderson and Behm (2005) found no differences in muscle
activity between the free weight and Smith machine squat (using the same
absolute loads), while Schwanbeck et al. (2009) reported that the free weight
back squat displayed higher muscle activity than a Smith machine squat,
possibly because they used the same relative loads. Comparing the back
squat and the split squat (with the same relative loads), both McCurdy et al.
(2010) and Andersen et al. (2014) found that the split squat displayed
greater muscle activity than the back squat. DeForest et al. (2014) also
found greater muscle activity in the split squat, using the same adjusted
absolute loads. However, Jones et al. (2012) found no differences between
exercises.
Comparing the back squat and the forward lunge, Stuart et al. (1996) noted
that the forward lunge displayed lower muscle activity than either the front
or back squat. Comparing the back squat and leg press, Andersen et al.
(2006) found that the leg press involved similar muscle activity to the back
squat (with the same relative load) but both Escamilla et al. (1998) and
Escamilla et al. (2001b) found that the squat was superior to the leg press
(also with the same relative load). Comparing the barbell back squat and the
barbell hip thrust, Contreras et al. (2015) found that the hip thrust displayed
greater muscle activity. Finally, Maddigan et al. (2014) compared a 10RM
back squat with a 20 step maximum sled push and found no differences in
muscle activity between the two exercises during the maximal tests.
Conclusions
Faster bar speeds and greater depth with the same absolute loads
(but not the same relative loads), lead to increased
hamstrings muscle activity during back squats. The back squat
appears to display greater hamstrings muscle activity than the
forward lunge and overhead squat but
less hamstrings muscle activity than the split squat and hip thrust.
There is no difference in hamstrings muscle activity between back
and front squats.
ADDUCTORS
Selection criteria
adductors (adductor group, adductor magnus, or adductor longus) during the
squat exercise
Results
McCaw (1999), Zink (2001), Paoli (2009), Pereira (2010).
Findings
Comparing squats with different relative loads, McCaw and Melrose (1999)
found that adductor longus muscle activity was greater when using heavier
relative loads than when using lighter relative loads.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
a weightlifting belt did not affect muscle activity.
Comparing squats with different stance widths, both McCaw and Melrose
(1999) and Paoli et al. (2009) found that stance width had no effect on the
muscle activity of the adductors (using the same absolute load). In contrast,
Pereira et al. (2010) found that hip adductor muscle activity was increased
by increasing hip external rotation angle (between 0 and 30 degrees), when
using the same absolute load for each variation. However, they found that
there was no further increase between 30 and 50 degrees, suggesting that
there is an optimal length-tension relationship before this point is reached.
Conclusions
Heavier loads appear to lead to increased hip adductor muscle
activity during back squats. Although stance width appears to have
no effect, greater hip external rotation angles (up to 30 degrees)
appear to cause increased hip adductor muscle activity.
GASTROCNEMIUS AND SOLEUS

Selection criteria

gastrocnemius or soleus during the squat exercise
Results
Escamilla (2001b), Anderson (2005), Manabe (2007), Paoli (2009),
Schwanbeck (2009), Li (2013), Gorsuch (2013), DeForest (2014), Sinclair
(2014), Aspe (2014), Andersen (2014), Maddigan (2014).
Findings
Both Li et al. (2013) and Aspe and Swinton (2014) reported that greater
relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity. Manabe et al.
(2007) reported that faster bar speeds did not cause greater muscle activity
compared to slower bar speeds. Gorsuch et al. (2013) found that squat depth
had no effect on muscle activity (using the same relative loads).
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Comparing different types of footwear, Sinclair et al. (2014) compared the
use of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes, and no
footwear (barefoot) and found no differences between conditions.
Comparing squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001b)
found that muscle activity was greater in narrow stance width squats
compared to wide stance width squats.
Comparing the back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton (2014) found
that muscle activity was greater in the back squat than in the overhead
squat (with the same relative loads). Comparing free weight and machine
squats, Anderson and Behm (2005) found no differences between conditions
(with the same absolute loads) but Schwanbeck et al. (2009) noted that the
free weight back squat displayed higher muscle activity than a Smith
machine squat (with the same relative loads). Comparing the back squat and
the split squat, DeForest et al. (2014) found no differences between exercise
variations (using the same adjusted absolute loads).
COMPARING THE SQUAT WITH OTHER EXERCISES
Comparing the back squat and the leg press, Escamilla et al. (2001b) found
that there was no difference in muscle activity between the squat and the
leg press. Comparing the back squat and sled push, Maddigan et al. (2014)
compared a 10RM back squat with a 20 step maximum sled push and found
that the sled displayed superior muscle activity to the squat during the
maximal tests.
Conclusions
Heavier loads and narrower stance widths appear to lead to
increased gastrocnemius and soleus muscle activity during back
squats. The back squat appears to display similar gastrocnemius
and soleus muscle activity to the leg press but less than the sled
push.
ERECTOR SPINAE
Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the muscle activity of the erector
spinae during the squat exercise
Results
Zink (2001), Anderson (2005), Hamlyn (2007), Manabe (2007), Nuzzo (2008),
Paoli (2009), Willardson (2009), Bressel (2009), Gullett (2009), Schwanbeck
(2009), Comfort (2011), Jones (2012), Li (2013), Gorsuch (2013), Sinclair
(2014), Fletcher (2014), Aspe (2014), Maddigan (2014), Andersen (2014),
Yavuz (2015).
Findings
Exploring the effects of training variables, Bressel et al. (2009), Willardson et
al. (2009), Li et al. (2013) and Aspe and Swinton (2014) all reported that
greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity. Manabe et
al. (2007) reported that faster bar speeds produced greater muscle activity
compared to slower bar speeds. Gorsuch et al. (2013) found that muscle
activity increased with increasing squat depth (using the same relative
loads).
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
a weightlifting belt did not affect muscle activity. Sinclair et al. (2014)
EFFECT OF EXERCISE CUES
Assessing the effects of cues, Bressel et al. (2009) found that conscious
efforts to contract the abdominal muscles during squats did not affect the
muscle activity of the erector spinae.
Comparing front and back squats, Comfort et al. (2011) reported
greater muscle activity in the front squat than in the back squat (using the
same absolute load) but Gullett et al. (2009) and Yavuz et al. (2015) found no
differences between front and back squats when using the same relative
load. Comparing back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton (2014) found
that muscle activity was greater in the back squat than in the overhead
squat (with the same relative loads). Comparing free weight and machine
squats, while some researchers have reported lower erector spinae muscle
activity in the Smith machine squat than in the free weight back squat, with
both the same absolute (Anderson and Behm, 2005) and relative (Fletcher
and Bagley, 2014) loads, Schwanbeck et al. (2009) found no differences
(using the same relative loads). Comparing the back squat with the split
squat (with the same relative loads), both Jones et al. (2012) and Andersen
et al. (2014) found no differences in muscle activity between exercises.
Although Willardson et al. (2009) found that muscle activity was greater in
the deadlift than in the back squat, these results may depend upon the exact
region measured, as Hamlyn et al. (2007) reported greater muscle activity in
the back squat than the deadlift in the lower erectors but greater muscle
activity in the deadlift than the back squat in the upper erectors (with
the same relative loads), although Nuzzo et al. (2008) reported no
differences (also using the same relative loads). Additionally, while Comfort
et al. (2011) found that muscle activity was greater in the superman exercise
than in the back squat, this involved a low absolute load and therefore it is
unsurprising that Hamlyn et al. (2007) reported greater muscle activity in the
back squat than in the superman when using a heavy relative load (80% of
1RM). Finally, comparing the back squat and sled push, Maddigan et al.
(2014) compared a 10RM back squat with a 20 step maximum sled push and
found that the squat displayed superior muscle activity to the sled during the
maximal tests.
Conclusions
Heavier loads, faster bar speeds, and greater depth (with the same
relative load), all lead to increased erector spinae muscle activity
during back squats. The back squat displays greater erector
spinae muscle activity than the overhead squat, superman or sled

push exercises but less than the deadlift.
ABDOMINALS
Selection criteria
abdominal musculature (including rectus abdominis, internal or external
obliques, or transverse abdominis) during the squat exercise
Results
Anderson (2005), Hamlyn (2007), Nuzzo (2008), Willardson (2009), Bressel
(2009), Schwanbeck (2009), Comfort (2011), Aspe (2014), Andersen (2014),
Maddigan (2014).
Findings
Both Willardson et al. (2009) and Aspe and Swinton (2014) reported that
greater relative loads produced greater levels of muscle activity.
Assessing the effects of cues, Bressel et al. (2009) found that conscious
efforts to contract the abdominal muscles during squats caused
increased muscle activity.
Comparing front and back squats, Comfort et al. (2011) found no differences
in muscle activity. Comparing back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton
(2014) found that muscle activity was greater in the overhead squat than in
the back squat (with the same relative loads). Comparing free weight and
machine squats, Anderson and Behm (2005) and Schwanbeck et al.
(2009) found no differences between the free weight back squat and
the Smith machine squat, with either the same relative or absolute loads.
Comparing the back squat and the split squat, Andersen et al. (2014) found
that the split squat displayed greater external oblique muscle activity but
similar rectus abdominis muscle activity to the back squat.
Comparing the back squat and deadlift, Hamlyn et al. (2007), Nuzzo et al.
(2008) and Willardson et al. (2009) all found no differences in muscle activity
between the deadlift and the back squat. Comparing the back squat and
standard core exercises, Comfort et al. (2011) reported that the plank
exercise produced much greater muscle activity than either the front or back
squat variations but Nuzzo et al. (2008) found no differences in muscle
activity between the back squat and three different Swiss ball stability
exercises. Finally, comparing the back squat and sled push, Maddigan et al.
(2014) compared a 10RM back squat with a 20 step maximum sled push and
found no differences in muscle activity between the two exercises during the
maximal tests.
Conclusions
Heavier loads, and conscious cues to contract the abdominals lead
to increased abdominal muscle activity during back squats. The
back squat appears to display lower abdominal muscle activity than
the overhead squat or plank exercises but similar abdominal muscle
activity to the front squat and deadlift.
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
Based on changes in muscle activity with load, bar speed, and ROM,
the prime movers in the back squat include the quadriceps, gluteus
maximus and erector spinae. The hamstrings appear to function

as antagonist co-contractors. The roles of the adductors,
gastrocnemius and soleus and abdominals are unclear. During the
back squat, using a wider stance and knee wraps increase gluteus
maximus muscle activity, while using running shoes rather than no
footwear increases quadriceps muscle activity.
Most squat variations appear to lead to similar quadriceps, gluteus
maximus and erector spinae muscle activity, but the back squat
seems to display greater quadriceps muscle activity than either the
split squat or overhead squat. No other exercise has been found
to involve greater quadriceps muscle activity than the back squat
but the barbell hip thrust involves greater gluteus maximus activity
and the deadlift involves greater erector spinae muscle activity.
EXTERNAL KINETICS
PURPOSE
This section sets out a summary of the research that has explored
the external kinetics (ground reaction forces, power outputs, and rate of
force development) during the squat exercise.
EXTERNAL LOADING (1RM)

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study measuring the effect of condition
on 1RM during the squat exercise, with>2 different conditions
Comparison between squat variations
Outcome 1RM
Results
Wretenberg (1996), Ritti-Dias (2011), Cotter (2013), Gorsuch (2013),
Pallars (2014), Yavuz (2015).
Findings
Assessing the 1RM back squat in individuals with different levels of training
experience, Ritti-Dias et al. (2011) found that subjects with greater
resistance-training experience displayed greater back squat 1RM than
subjects with less resistance-training experience.
Assessing the effect of squat depth, Cotter et al. (2013) compared the effect
of squat depth on 1RM achieved and found that 1RM increased substantially
in the order above parallel > parallel > below parallel. Similarly, Gorsuch et
al. (2013) reported that the absolute load was greater during squats to above
parallel than during squats to parallel, when using the same relative loads.
Surprisingly, Pallars et al. (2014) found that incorporating a pause into the
1RM test did not alter the measured 1RM, although there was a large albeit
non-significant trend for the paused squat 1RM to be lighter than the touchand-go 1RM, which may therefore be type II error (90.3 14.7 vs. 97.2
16.8kg).
Comparing the Olympic and powerlifting squats, Wretenberg et al. (1996)
found that powerlifters performing the powerlifting squat lifted heavier loads
that Olympic weightlifters using the Olympic-style back squat. Comparing
the back and front squats, Yavuz et al. (2015) found that loads were greater
in the back squat than in the front squat.
Conclusions
Heavier absolute loads are lifted by individuals with greater levels
of resistance-training experience, as well as athletes using a
powerlifting-style of squat compared to an Olympic weightliftingstyle of squat. Substantially heavier absolute loads are required to
achieve the same relative loads when using partial squats as for
parallel squats.
GROUND REACTION FORCES

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing ground reaction forces during the
squat exercise
Comparison between squat variations or between legs
Outcome ground reaction forces in the lifting phase
Results
Lander (1986), Escamilla (2001b), Kellis (2005), Zink (2006), Flanagan
(2007), McBride (2010), Blatnik (2012), Drinkwater (2012), Swinton (2012),
Okkonen (2013), Aspe (2014).
Findings
Comparing forces exerted by each leg, Flanagan and Salem (2007) reported
ground reaction forces on the left side were slightly greater (by around 6%)
than the right side, irrespective of loading condition.
Exploring training variables, Kellis et al. (2005), Zink et al. (2006) and
Drinkwater et al. (2012) all found that increasing relative load led to
increased ground reaction forces. Additionally, Drinkwater et al. (2012) also
found that partial depth squats produced greater ground reaction forces than
full range-of-motion squats, which was likely a function of the larger absolute
loads used.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Assessing the effects of supportive gear, Blatnik et al. (2012) found that
wearing a squat suit had no effect on ground reaction forces at a range of
loads (80% 100% of 1RM).
Comparing squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001b)
found no differences in ground reaction forces between squats with wide and
narrow stances (with the same absolute loads).
Comparing the box squat and back squat, McBride et al. (2010) reported that
the box squat displayed greater ground reaction forces than the traditional
squat with 70% of 1RM (but not 60% or 80% of 1RM), when using the same
absolute load. In contrast, Swinton et al. (2012) found that peak ground
reaction forces were greater during the traditional and powerlifting squat
variations than during the box squat variation (using the same relative load)
but there was no difference between traditional and powerlifting squat
variations. Comparing the back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton
(2014) found that the back squat displayed greater ground reaction forces to
the overhead squat with the same relative load but similar ground reaction
forces when using the same absolute load. Comparing back squats and
squats with a cambered bar, Lander et al. (1986) found no differences
in ground reaction forces (with the same relative loads).
Comparing the back squat with sled pulling, Okkonen and Hkkinen (2013)
reported that peak ground reaction forces with 70% of half squat 1RM were
greater than during either block starts or sled pulling with loads of 10% or
20% of bodyweight.
Conclusions
Ground reaction forces appear to be primarily if not exclusively

a function of the absolute loads used and do not appear to be
markedly affected by other parameters.
POWER OUTPUTS
Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing system power outputs during the
squat exercise
Outcome system power output in the lifting phase
Results
Siegel (2002), Zink (2006), McBride (2010), Drinkwater (2012), Lake (2012),
Blatnik (2012), Swinton (2012).
Findings
Various contrasting findings have been reported for the effect of relative load
on power output in the squat. Siegel et al. (2002) originally found that peak
power output occurred between 50 70% of 1RM for the squat. In contrast,
Drinkwater et al. (2012) found that increasing relative load (from 67% to 83%
of 1RM) led to increased power output. However, Zink et al. (2006) did not
find any effect of relative load on power output, most likely because they
observed considerable inter-individual variability in respect of the relative
load at which maximum power output was observed. In terms of other
training variables, Drinkwater et al. (2012) found that partial depth squats
produced greater power output than full range-of-motion squats.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Assessing the effects of supportive gear, Blatnik et al. (2012) found that
wearing a squat suit increased power output at several different relative
loads (80% 90% of 1RM) compared to not wearing a squat suit. Lake et al.
(2012) similarly found that wearing knee wraps improved peak power (when
using 80% of 1RM).
Comparing the back squat and box squat, McBride et al. (2010) reported that
the box squat displayed greater power outputs than the traditional squat
with 80% of 1RM (but not 70% or 80% of 1RM), when using the same
absolute loads. In contrast, Swinton et al. (2012) found that system power
outputs were greater during the traditional and powerlifting squat variations
than during the box squat variation but there was no difference
between traditional and powerlifting squat variations (with the same relative
loads).
Conclusions
Power outputs during back squats differ from jump squats and the
optimal load for power is unclear. Substantial inter-individual
variability appears to exist in respect of the load at which power is
greatest. Supportive equipment (knee wraps and weightlifting
belts) appear to increase power output, most likely by increasing
velocity as a result of stored elastic energy in the lowering phase.
RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing rate of force development during
the squat exercise
Outcome rate of force development in the lifting phase
Results
Swinton (2012).
Findings
Comparing the back squat and box squat, Swinton et al. (2012) found that
rate of force development was 3 4 times greater during the box squat
variation than during the traditional and powerlifting squat variations.
However, there was no difference between traditional and powerlifting squat
variations.
Conclusions
Greater rate of force development seems to be observed in the box
squat than in other squat variations. The reasons for this are
unclear but may relate to the pause before commencing the lifting
phase. Whether this acute difference could translate to long-term
improvements is unclear.
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
Heavier loads are lifted during partial rather than parallel squats,
by individuals with greater levels of resistance-training experience,
and by athletes using a powerlifting-style of squat compared to an
Olympic weightlifting-style of squat. Ground reaction forces appear
to be primarily a function of the absolute loads used.
The optimal load for power during back squats is unclear.
Supportive equipment (knee wraps and weightlifting belts) appear
to increase power output, most likely by increasing velocity as a
result of stored elastic energy in the lowering phase. Greater rate of
force development seems to be observed in the box squat than in
other squat variations.
JOINT ANGLE MOVEMENTS
PURPOSE
This section sets out a summary of the research that has explored the joint
angle movements during the squat exercise, using motion analysis software
in either two dimensions (2D) or three dimensions (3D).
BACKGROUND
Kinematics reported in studies are not always easy to interpret. There are
two main types of angle: absolute angles and relative angles. Absolute
angles are those that represent the angles of the trunk, thigh or shank
relative to the horizontal. Relative angles are those that represent the angles
of the hip, knee and ankle relative to the body. The following diagram shows
a representation of the squat in the bottom position performed with a
medium width stance by masters powerlifters (joint angle data taken from
Escamilla et al. 2001a; segment length data taken from McKean and Burkett,
2012):
PEAK TRUNK ANGLES

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing peak trunk angles in the sagittal
plane during the squat exercise
Comparison between squat variations or lifters of differing expertise
Outcome peak joint angles (more acute angles are more closed while
less acute angles are more open)
Results
Lander (1986), Russell (1989), Orloff (1997), Zink (2001), Escamilla (2001a),
Fry (2003), Donnelly (2006), Hirata (2007), Gullet (2009), Gutierrez (2009),
McCurdy (2010), Diggin (2011), Swinton (2012), List (2013), Sato
(2013), Sinclair (2014).
Findings
Orloff et al. (1997) assessed the effect of training status on peak trunk angle
(using the same absolute loads). They found that trained individuals
remained more upright and therefore displayed a less acute peak trunk angle
than untrained subjects.
Orloff et al. (1997) assessed the effect of load on peak trunk angle and found
that there was no effect with increasing load. List et al. (2013) found that
load had a complex effect on peak lumbar and thoracic angles. Peak lumbar
angle was found to reduce with increasing load from no load through to 50%
of bodyweight, which represents a straightening of the spine under load. In
contrast, peak thoracic angle first increased from no load to 25% of
bodyweight and then decreased from 25% of bodyweight to 50% of
bodyweight.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Exploring the effects of supportive gear, Zink et al. (2001) found no effect on
peak trunk angle of using a weightlifting belt. Sinclair et al. (2014) compared
the use of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes, and no
footwear (barefoot) and found no differences between conditions. However,
Sato et al. (2013) found that no footwear allowed greater trunk lean than
wearing running shoes.
Taking the trunk as a single segment, Donnelly et al. (2006) found that peak
trunk angle was similar whether lifters were cued to look downwards
or upwards; both Fry et al. (2003) and Hirata and Duarte (2007) found that
when artificially restricting forward knee motion, this produced greater
forward lean and hence a more acute peak trunk angle. Taking the trunk as
multiple segments, List et al. (2013) found that peak thoracic trunk angle
was greater when artificially restricting forward knee motion using visual
cues compared to unrestricted squats, and peak lumbar trunk angle
displayed a non-significant trend in the same direction.
Comparing the effects of squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al.
(2001a) compared narrow, medium and wide stance back squats and found
that peak trunk angles did not differ between variations.
Both Russell and Phillips (1989) and Diggin et al. (2011) reported that peak
trunk angle was more acute during the back squat than during the front
squat (performed to a standardized depth). McCurdy et al. (2010) reported
that peak trunk angle was more acute during the back squat than during a
rear-foot elevated split squat. Swinton et al. (2012) found that peak trunk
angle was similar in the traditional and powerlifting squat variations but was
much less acute during the box squat. Lander et al. (1986) found no
difference in trunk angles between back squats and squats using a cambered
bar. Finally, Gutierrez and Bahamonde (2009) found that peak trunk
angle was more acute during a free weight back squat compared to a Smith
machine squat.
Conclusions
Greater trunk angles in the back squat are observed in untrained
individuals, in subjects wearing no shoes, and when using cues to
restrict the forward movement of the knees over the toes. Greater
trunk angles are also observed during the back squat compared to
the front squat, box squat, Smith machine squat, and split squat.
PEAK HIP JOINT ANGLES

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing peak hip angles in the sagittal
Comparison between squat variations, between legs, or between lifters of
differing expertise
Results
Wretenberg (1996), Zink (2001), Escamilla (2001a), Fry (2003), Kellis (2005),
Donnelly (2006), Flanagan (2007), Manabe (2007), Braidot (2007), Hales
(2009), Gutierrez (2009), Lorenzetti (2010), McKean (2010), Swinton (2012),
List (2013), Sinclair (2014), Hooper (2014), Gomes (2015), Yavuz (2015).
Findings
Comparing differences between legs during the back squat, Flanagan and
Salem (2007) reported that peak hip angles did not differ between legs and
thus there were no bilateral differences. Hooper et al. (2014) found that
greater levels of fatigue led to less acute hip angles.
Exploring the effects of training variables, Kellis et al. (2005) found that joint
angles differed between relative loads but did not identify how the individual
hip, knee and ankle joints differed; however, McKean et al. (2010) reported
that peak hip angle was more acute with load compared to no load, while
both List et al. (2013) and Gomes et al. (2015) reported that peak hip angle
became less acute with heavier relative loads. Manabe et al. (2007) found
that there was no difference in peak hip angles between squats performed at
slow, moderate or fast speeds.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
Exploring the effects of supportive gear, Gomes et al. (2015) noted that knee
wraps had no effect on peak hip angles. Similarly, Zink et al. (2001) found
no effect on peak hip angle of using a weightlifting belt. Sinclair et al. (2014)
Exploring the effects of movement cues, Lorenzetti et al. (2010) found that
peak hip angle was more acute when lifters were visibly cued to prevent the
knee from moving forward over the toes, compared to when they were
allowed to lift normally. However, using a similar technique, List et al. (2013)
found that there was no difference in peak hip angle between restricted and
unrestricted squats and while Fry et al. (2003) found that artificially
restricting forward knee motion produced greater forward trunk lean, this did
not also lead to a difference in peak hip angle. Finally, Donnelly et al. (2006)
found that peak hip angle was more acute when lifters were cued to look
downwards rather than upwards.
(2001a) found that peak hip angles did not differ between narrow, medium
and wide stance width back squat variations.
Both Braidot et al. (2007) and Yavuz et al. (2015) found that peak hip angle
was more acute during the back squat than during the front squat.
Wretenberg et al. (1996) found that peak hip angle was less acute in the
Olympic weightlifting-style squat than in the powerlifting squat. Swinton et
al. (2012) found that the peak hip angle was less acute in the traditional
squat than in the powerlifting squat variation but there was no difference
between either of these variations and the box squat. Finally, Gutierrez and
Bahamonde (2009) found that peak hip angle was more acute during a free
weight back squat compared to a Smith machine squat.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER EXERCISES
Comparing the back squat with other exercises, Hales et al. (2009) compared
the peak hip angles in the back squat and deadlift. They reported that the
squat displayed a more acute peak hip angle than the deadlift, when
performed under powerlifting regulations.
Conclusions
The effects of load and cues to prevent forward knee movement
over the toes on peak hip angle are unclear. However, cues to look
downwards rather than upwards lead to more acute hip angles,
while increasing fatigue leads to less acute hip angles. Peak hip
angle is more acute during the back squat than the front squat,
Smith machine squat or deadlift.
PEAK KNEE JOINT ANGLES

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing peak knee angles in the sagittal
differing expertise
Results
Lander (1986), Russell (1989), Wretenberg (1996), Zink (2001), Escamilla
(2001a), Fry (2003), Kellis (2005), Donnelly (2006), Hirata (2007), Braidot
(2007), Manabe (2007), Flanagan (2007), Hales (2009), Miletello (2009),

Gutierrez (2009), Lorenzetti (2010), McKean (2010), Diggin (2011), Swinton
(2012), List (2013), Sato (2013), Hooper (2014), Sinclair (2014), Gomes
(2015), Yavuz (2015).
Findings
Salem (2007) found that peak knee flexion angles displayed bilateral
differences, with the right side achieving a more acute angle than the left
side. Hooper et al. (2014) found that greater levels of fatigue led to less
acute knee angles. Miletello et al. (2009) analysed the peak knee angles
between lifters of different experience levels and found that novice
lifters achieved the most acute peak knee angles, followed by college-level
lifters, and finally high-school lifters.
Exploring the effects of training variables, Kellis et al. (2005) found that peak
joint angles differed between relative loads but did not identify how the
individual hip, knee and ankle joints differed; however, both McKean et al.
(2010) and List et al. (2013) reported that peak knee angle became more
acute with load compared to no load or with increasing load (from 25% to
50% of bodyweight), while Gomes et al. (2015) reported that peak
knee angle was similar with heavy and moderate relative loads; Manabe et
al. (2007) found that there was no difference in peak knee angles between
squats performed at slow, moderate or fast speeds.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
peak knee angle of using a weightlifting belt. Sinclair et al. (2014) compared
footwear (barefoot) and found that running shoes displayed greater peak
knee flexion angles than no footwear but there were no other differences
between conditions. Similarly, Sato et al. (2013) also found that running
shoes displayed greater peak knee flexion angles than no footwear.
Assessing the effects of cues, Fry et al. (2003), Hirata and Duarte (2007),
Lorenzetti et al. (2010) and List et al. (2013) all found that peak knee
angles were less acute when lifters were visibly or forcibly cued to prevent
the knee from moving forward over the toes, compared to when they were
allowed to lift normally; while Donnelly et al. (2006) found that peak
knee angle was similar whether lifters were cued to look downwards
or upwards.
(2001a) compared narrow, medium and wide stance back squats and found
that peak knee angles did not differ between variations.
Comparing squat variations, Russell and Phillips (1989), Braidot et al. (2007),
Diggin et al. (2011) and Yavuz et al. (2015) all reported that peak knee
angles were similar during the back squat and front squat, even when each
variation was performed to a standardized depth. Wretenberg et al. (1996)
found that peak knee angle was more acute in the Olympic weightliftingstyle squat than in the powerlifting squat. Swinton et al. (2012) found that
peak knee angles were more acute in the order traditional > powerlifting >
box squat variations. Lander et al. (1986) found no difference in knee angles
between back squats and squats using a cambered bar. Finally, Gutierrez and
Bahamonde (2009) found that peak knee angle was more acute during a free
weight back squat compared to a Smith machine squat.
Comparing the back squat with other exercises, Hales et al. (2009) compared
the peak knee angles in the back squat and deadlift. They reported that the
squat displayed a more acute peak knee angle than the deadlift, when
performed under powerlifting regulations.
Conclusions
appear to lead to more acute peak knee flexion angles. The effect of
training status is unclear. Peak knee flexion angles are less acute
when using cues to prevent forward knee movement over the toes
or as a result of fatigue. Peak knee flexion angle is more acute
during the traditional or Olympic weightlifting-style of back squat
than during the powerlifting-style of back squat, while the back
squat displays a more acute peak knee flexion angle than the Smith
machine squat or deadlift.
PEAK ANKLE JOINT ANGLES

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing peak ankle angles in the sagittal
differing expertise
Results
Zink (2001), Fry (2003), Kellis (2005), Hirata (2007), Braidot (2007), Manabe
(2007), Hales (2009), Gutierrez (2009), Lorenzetti (2010), Swinton (2012),
List (2013), Sinclair (2014).
Findings
Salem (2007) reported that peak ankle angles did not differ between sides.
Exploring the effects of training variables, Kellis et al. (2005) found that joint
angles differed between relative loads but did not identify how the individual
hip, knee and ankle joints differed; however, List et al. (2013) found that
increasing load caused peak ankle angle to become more acute, from no
load to 25% of bodyweight, to 50% of bodyweight. Manabe et al. (2007)
found that there was no difference in peak ankle angles between squats
performed at slow, moderate or fast speeds.
EFFECT OF EQUIPMENT
peak ankle angle of using a weightlifting belt. Sinclair et al. (2014) compared
footwear (barefoot) and found that both weightlifting shoes and running
shoes displayed more acute peak ankle angles than no footwear but there
were no other differences between conditions.
Exploring the effects of cues, Hirata and Duarte (2007), Lorenzetti et al.
(2010) and List et al. (2013) all found that peak ankle angles were less
acute when lifters were visibly cued to prevent the knee from moving
forward over the toes, compared to when they were allowed to lift normally.
(2001a) did not report actual peak ankle plantar flexion angles, but they
did report more heavily-angled shanks in narrow stance squats compared to
wide stance squats.
EFFECT OF SQUAT VARIATION
Comparing squat variations, Braidot et al. (2007) reported that peak

ankle angle was similar for the back squat and the front squat. Swinton et al.
(2012) found that peak ankle angles were less acute in the order box squat >
powerlifting > traditional variations. This appeared to be a function of the
near-vertical shank in the box squat and the heavily-angled shank in the
traditional squat. Gutierrez and Bahamonde (2009) found that peak ankle
angle was more acute during a free weight back squat compared to a Smith
machine squat.
Comparing exercises, Hales et al. (2009) compared the peak ankle angles in
the back squat and deadlift. They reported that the squat displayed a
less acute peak ankle angle than the deadlift, when performed under
powerlifting regulations.
Conclusions
Using weightlifting shoes and running shoes lead to more acute
peak ankle angles than using no footwear, while cues to prevent the
knee from moving forward over the toes lead to less acute peak
ankle angles. Peak ankle ankles are more acute during traditional
back squats than during powerlifting or box squats. They are also
more acute during back squats than during Smith machine squats.
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
Greater trunk angles in the back squat are observed in subjects
wearing no footwear rather than running shoes and when using
cues to restrict the movement of the knees over the toes. The effect
of cues to prevent knee movement over the toes on peak hip angle
is unclear but cues to look downwards rather than upwards lead to
more acute hip angles, while increasing fatigue leads to less acute
hip angles.

appear to lead to more acute peak knee angles, while using cues to
prevent forward knee movement over the toes and fatigue lead to
less acute knee angles. Similarly, using weightlifting shoes and
running shoes both lead to more acute peak ankle angles than using
no footwear, while cues to prevent the knee from moving forward
over the toes lead to less acute peak ankle angles.
NET JOINT MOMENTS

PURPOSE
This section sets out a summary of the research that has explored the net
joint moments during the squat exercise, using inverse dynamics calculations
based on data from motion analysis of joint angle movements and on ground
reaction forces measured using a force plate.
LUMBAR JOINT MOMENTS

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the peak lumbosacral (L5-S1) joint
moments in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Outcome net joint moment
Results
Swinton (2012).
Findings
Comparing different squat variations, Swinton et al. (2012) reported that
lumbosacral extensor moments were greater in the traditional squat
variation than in either the box or powerlifting squat variations, but there
was no difference between box and powerlifting squats.
Conclusions
Lumbosacral extensor moments are greater in traditional back
squats than in either box or powerlifting-style squats.
HIP NET JOINT MOMENTS

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the peak hip net joint moments in
the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Results
McLaughlin (1978), Lander (1986), Russell (1989), Wretenberg (1996), Orloff
(1997), Escamilla (2001a), Abelbeck (2002), Fry (2003), Hirata (2007),
Lorenzetti (2010), Biscarini (2011), Bryanton (2012), Swinton (2012),
Biscarini (2013).
Findings
Orloff et al. (1997) reported that experienced lifters displayed lower peak hip
extensor moments than inexperienced lifters during squats with the same
absolute loads. This was associated with the more acute peak trunk angles
displayed by the inexperienced lifters, which was taken to imply a greater
moment arm length at the hip joint.
Exploring the effects of training variables, Bryanton et al. (2012) found that
peak hip extensor moments increased with increasing relative load (data
reported but not analysed directly). Wretenberg et al. (1996) similarly

observed that peak hip extensor moment was greater when heavier loads
were used, although this was likely also a function of differences between
powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting styles of squat. Bryanton et al. (2012)
found that peak hip extensor moments increased with increasing depth
(albeit with the same absolute loads) but Wretenberg et al. (1996)
reported that peak hip extensor moments during both powerlifting squats
and during Olympic weightlifting-style squats did not differ substantially
between deep and parallel versions (deep = maximal knee flexion vs.
parallel = posterior of the hamstrings parallel to the ground).
Assessing the effects of cues, Fry et al. (2003) and Lorenzetti et al. (2010)
found that peak hip extensor moments were greater when lifters were visibly
or forcibly cued to prevent the knee from moving forward over the toes,
compared to when they were allowed to lift normally but Hirata and Duarte
(2007) found the opposite. McLaughlin et al. (1978) similarly noted that peak
hip extensor moments were greater in individuals who displayed greater
trunk lean and more acute hip angles, which is associated with this type of
exercise cue.
Comparing squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001a)
reported that peak hip extensor moments did not differ between narrow,
medium and wide stance squats.
Comparing squat variations, Russell and Phillips (1989) reported that peak
hip extensor moments were greater during the back squat than in the front
squat, even when each variation was performed to a standardized depth and
with the same relative load. Both Abelbeck (2002) and Biscarini et al. (2011)
modeled the effect of changing foot position during Smith machine squats
and reported that peak hip extensor moments increased with a foot position
that was increasingly further forward of the barbell; similarly, Biscarini et al.
(2013) modeled the effect of inclining the Smith machine apparatus
backwards or forwards and found that a backward inclination increased hip
extensor moments, while a forward inclination decreased them. Wretenberg
et al. (1996) found that peak hip extensor moments were greater during
powerlifting squats than during Olympic weightlifting-style squats, although
this also involved the use of greater absolute loads. Swinton et al. (2012)
reported that peak hip extensor moments were greatest in the order
powerlifting > traditional > box squat variations. Finally, Lander et al. (1986)
compared found no differences in peak hip extensor moments between back
squats and squats using a cambered bar.
Conclusions
Hip extensor moments increase with increasing relative load, squat
depth, greater trunk lean, and with cues to prevent forward
movement of the knees over the toes. They are greater using a
powerlifting-style squat than a traditional squat. When using Smith
machine squats, hip extensor moments are greater with a foot
position that is further forward of the barbell or a backward body
inclination.
KNEE NET JOINT MOMENTS

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the peak knee net joint moments
in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Results
McLaughlin (1978), Lander (1986), Russell (1989), Wretenberg (1996), Stuart
(1996), Escamilla (2001a), Wallace (2002), Abelbeck (2002), Fry (2003),
Hirata (2007), Gullett (2009), Lorenzetti (2010), Bryanton (2012), Swinton

(2012), Biscarini (2013), Cotter (2013).
Findings
Exploring the effects of training variables, Bryanton et al. (2012) and Cotter
et al. (2013) found that peak knee extensor moments increased with
increasing depth (albeit with the same absolute loads). Bryanton et al.
(2012) reported that peak knee extensor moments did not increase with
increasing relative load (data reported but not analysed directly), but Cotter
et al. (2013) noted an increase with increasing load. Similarly, Wallace et al.
(2002) noted that peak knee extensor moment increased between squats
with no load to squats with a barbell load equal to 35% of bodyweight.
Wretenberg et al. (1996) found that peak knee extensor moments were
greater during both powerlifting squats and during Olympic weightliftingstyle squats when performed with greater depth (deep = maximal knee
flexion vs. parallel = posterior of the hamstrings parallel to the ground).
Exploring the effects of cues, Fry et al. (2003), Hirata and Duarte (2007) and
Lorenzetti et al. (2010) all found that peak knee extensor moments were
smaller when lifters were visibly or forcibly cued to prevent the knee from
moving forward over the toes, compared to when they were allowed to lift
normally. McLaughlin et al. (1978) similarly noted that peak knee extensor
moments were smaller in individuals who displayed greater trunk lean and
more acute hip angles, which is associated with this type of exercise cue.
(2001a) reported that peak knee extensor moments did not differ between
narrow, medium and wide stance squats.
Both Russell and Phillips (1989) and Stuart et al. (1996) reported that peak
knee extensor moments were similar during the back squat and front squat,
even when each variation was performed to a standardized depth. In
contrast, Gullett et al. (2009) reported that peak knee extensor moments
were greater during the back squat than the front squat; Both Abelbeck
(2002) and Biscarini et al. (2011) modeled the effect of changing foot
position during Smith machine squats and reported that peak knee extensor
moments decreased with a foot position that was increasingly further
forward of the barbell; similarly, Biscarini et al. (2013) modeled the effect of
inclining the Smith machine apparatus backwards or forwards and found that
a backward inclination decreased knee extensor moments, while a forward
inclination increased them. Wretenberg et al. (1996) found that peak
knee extensor moments were lower during powerlifting squats than during
Olympic weightlifting-style squats, even though the powerlifting squats
involved the use of greater absolute loads; Swinton et al. (2012) reported
that peak knee extensor moments were greater in the box squat variation
than in either the traditional or powerlifting squat variations, but there was
no difference between traditional and powerlifting squats. Finally, Lander et
al. (1986) found no differences in peak knee extensor moments between
back squats and squats using a cambered bar.
Conclusions
Knee extensor moments increase with increasing relative load and
squat depth but reduce with cues to prevent forward movement of
the knees over the toes or with greater trunk lean. They are greater
using a traditional squat than when using a powerlifting-style squat
but similar during back and front squats. When using Smith machine
squats, knee extensor moments are greater with a foot position that
is closer toward the barbell or a forward body inclination.
ANKLE NET JOINT MOMENTS

Selection criteria

Intervention any acute study assessing the peak ankle net joint moments
in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Results
Lander (1986), Escamilla (2001a), Hirata (2007), Bryanton (2012), Swinton
(2012).
Findings
Exploring training variables, Bryanton found that peak ankle plantar
flexor moments increased with increasing depth (albeit with the same
absolute loads) and with increasing relative load (data reported but not
analysed directly).
Exploring the effects of cues, Hirata and Duarte (2007) found that peak ankle
flexor moments were smaller when the knee was cued not to pass forward of
the toes compared to a conventional technique.
(2001a) reported that peak ankle plantar flexor moments did not differ
between narrow and medium stance squats but were much larger in
magnitude during wide stance squats. Additionally, they noted that the net
joint moment was an ankle dorsiflexion moment in the medium and wide
stance squats but an ankle plantar flexion moment in narrow stance squats.
peak ankle plantar flexor moments were greater in the traditional squat
variation than in either the box or powerlifting squat variations, but there
was no difference between box and powerlifting squats. Lander et al. (1986)
found no differences in peak ankle plantar flexor moments between back
squats and squats using a cambered bar.
Conclusions
Ankle plantar-flexor moments increase with increasing relative load,
stance width and squat depth but reduce with cues to prevent
forward movement of the knees over the toes.
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
Hip extensor moments increase with increasing relative load, squat
depth, trunk lean and with cues to prevent forward movement of
the knees over the toes. They are greater using a powerlifting-style
squat than a traditional squat. When using Smith machine squats,
hip extensor moments are greater with a foot position that is
further forward of the barbell or a backward body inclination.
In contrast, knee extensor moments increase with
increasing relative load and squat depth but reduce with cues to
prevent forward movement of the knees over the toes or with
greater trunk lean. They are greater using a traditional squat than
when using a powerlifting-style squat but similar during back and
front squats. When using Smith machine squats, knee extensor
moments are greater with a foot position that is closer toward the
barbell or a forward body inclination.
Ankle plantar-flexor moments increase with increasing relative load,
stance width and squat depth but reduce with cues to prevent
forward movement of the knees over the toes.
EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM

LENGTHS
PURPOSE
This section sets out a summary of the research that has explored the
external moment arm lengths at the hip, knee and ankle during the squat
exercise.
EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: SPINE

Selection criteria
Intervention any acute study assessing the external moment arm lengths
at the lumbar spine in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Comparison the anatomical position or between squat variations
Outcome external moment arm length
Results
Swinton (2012).
Findings
peak lumbosacral moment arm lengths were greater in the traditional and
powerlifting squat variations than in the box squat variations. However, there
was no difference between the traditional and powerlifting squat variations.
Conclusions
Lumbosacral moment arm lengths are greater in the traditional and
powerlifting squat styles than in the box squat style.
EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: HIP

Selection criteria
at the hip in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Results
Escamilla (2001a), Swinton (2012).
Findings
Comparing the effect of squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al.
(2001a) reported no differences in hip moment arm lengths between the
narrow, medium, and wide stance width squats at any point in the lowering
and lifting phases, except at 45 degrees of knee flexion in the lifting phase,
when the medium and wide stance width squats displayed greater hip
moment arm lengths than narrow stance width squats.
peak hip extension moment arm lengths were greater in the traditional and
powerlifting squat variations than in the box squat variations. However, there
was no difference between the traditional and powerlifting squat variations.
Conclusions
Hip extensor moment arm lengths are greater in the traditional and
powerlifting squat styles than in the box squat style.
EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: KNEE

Selection criteria

at the knee in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Results
Findings
(2001a) reported no differences in knee moment arm lengths between the
narrow, medium, and wide stance width squats at any point in the lowering
and lifting phases, except at 45 degrees of knee flexion in both lowering
and lifting phases, when the wide stance width squats displayed greater
knee moment arm lengths than either medium or narrow stance width
squats.
peak knee extension moment arm lengths were greatest in the order box >
traditional > powerlifting squat variations.
Conclusions
Knee extensor moment arm lengths are greatest in the order box >
traditional > powerlifting squat styles.
EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: ANKLE

Selection criteria
at the ankle in the sagittal plane during the squat exercise
Results
Findings
(2001a) reported differences in ankle moment arm lengths between narrow,
medium, and wide stance width squats at most points in the lowering and
lifting phases. In general, wide stance width squats displayed large,
negative ankle moment arm lengths, medium stance width squats displayed
small, negative ankle moment arm lengths, and narrow stance width
squats displayed small, positive ankle moment arm lengths.
peak ankle moment arm lengths were greater in the traditional squat
variation than in either the powerlifting or box squat variations. However,
there was no difference between the powerlifting and box squat variations,
and only positive ankle moment arm lengths were observed for all types of
squat.
Conclusions
Ankle moment arm lengths are greater in the traditional squat
style than in either the powerlifting or box squat styles.
SECTION CONCLUSIONS
Lumbosacral, hip extensor moment and ankle arm lengths are

greater in the traditional and powerlifting squat styles than in the
box squat style. In contrast, knee extensor moment arm lengths are
greatest in the order box > traditional > powerlifting squat styles.
REFERENCES
1.
Abelbeck, K. G. (2002). Biomechanical model and evaluation of a linear motion squat type exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 16(4), 516-524.[PubMed]
2.
Andersen, L. L., Magnusson, S. P., Nielsen, M., Haleem, J., Poulsen, K., & Aagaard, P. (2006). Neuromuscular activation in conventional
therapeutic exercises and heavy resistance exercises: implications for rehabilitation. Physical therapy, 86(5), 683.[PubMed]
3.
Andersen, V., Fimland, M. S., Brennset, O., Haslestad, L. R., Lundteigen, M. S., Skalleberg, K., & Saeterbakken, A. H. (2014). Muscle activation
and strength in squat and bulgarian squat on stable and unstable surface. International journal of sports medicine, 35(14), 1196-1202.[PubMed]
4.
Anderson, K., & Behm, D. G. (2005). Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat movements. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology,
30(1), 33-45.[PubMed]
5.
Aspe, R. R., & Swinton, P. A. (2014). Electromyographic and kinetic comparison of the back squat and overhead squat. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research, 28(10), 2827-2836.[PubMed]
6.
Augustsson, S., & Svantesson, U. (2013). Reliability of the 1 RM bench press and squat in young women. European Journal of Physiotherapy,
15(3), 118-126.[Citation]
7.
Beckerman, H., Roebroeck, M. E., Lankhorst, G. J., Becher, J. G., Bezemer, P. D., & Verbeek, A. L. M. (2001). Smallest real difference, a link
between reproducibility and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 571-578.[PubMed]
8.
Bird, S. P., & Casey, S. (2012). Exploring the front squat. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 34(2), 27-33.[Citation]
9.
Biscarini, A., Benvenuti, P., Botti, F., Mastrandrea, F., & Zanuso, S. (2011). Modelling the joint torques and loadings during squatting at the
Smith machine. Journal of sports sciences, 29(5), 457.[PubMed]
10.
Biscarini, A., Botti, F. M., & Pettorossi, V. E. (2013). Joint torques and joint reaction forces during squatting with a forward or backward inclined
Smith machine. Journal of applied biomechanics, 29(1).[PubMed]
11.
Blatnik, J. A., Skinner, J. W., & McBride, J. M. (2012). Effect of supportive equipment on force, velocity, and power in the squat. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(12), 3204-3208.[PubMed]
12.
Boyden, G., Scurr, J., & Dyson, R. (2000). A comparison of quadriceps electromyographic activity with the position of the foot during the
parallel squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14(4), 379-382.[Citation]
13.
Braidot, A. A., Brusa, M. H., Lestussi, F. E., & Parera, G. P. (2007, November). Biomechanics of front and back squat exercises. In Journal of
Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 90, No. 1, p. 012009). IOP Publishing.[Citation]
14.
Bressel, E., Willardson, J. M., Thompson, B., & Fontana, F. E. (2009). Effect of instruction, surface stability, and load intensity on trunk muscle
activity. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19(6), e500-e504.[PubMed]
15.
Bryanton, M. A., Kennedy, M. D., Carey, J. P., & Chiu, L. Z. (2012). Effect of squat depth and barbell load on relative muscular effort in squatting.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(10), 2820-2828.[PubMed]
16.
Carter, J. G., & Brooks, K. A. (2013). Proper Technique in the Execution of a Barbell Back Squat: A review. Journal of Sport and Human
Performance, 1(2).[Citation]
17.
Caterisano, A., Moss, R. F., Pellinger, T. K., Woodruff, K., Lewis, V. C., Booth, W., & Khadra, T. (2002). The effect of back squat depth on the EMG
activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 16(3),
428-432.[PubMed]
18.
Chandler, T. J., & Stone, M. H. (1991). NSCA position paper: The squat exercise in athletic conditioning: A position statement and review of the
literature. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J, 13, 51-58.
19.
Cissik, J. M. (2000). Coaching the Front Squat. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 22(5), 7.[Citation]
20.
Clark, D. R., Lambert, M. I., & Hunter, A. M. (2012). Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat: a brief review. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 26(4), 1169.[PubMed]
21.
Comfort, P., Pearson, S. J., & Mather, D. (2011). An electromyographical comparison of trunk muscle activity during isometric trunk and
dynamic strengthening exercises. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(1), 149.[PubMed]
22.
Comfort, P., & McMahon, J. J. (2014). Reliability of Maximal Back Squat and Power Clean Performances in Inexperienced Athletes. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Association.[PubMed]
23.
Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., Cronin, J. (2015a). A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus
Lateralis EMG Activity in the Back Squat and Barbell Hip Thrust Exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics.[PubMed]
24.
Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2015b). A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and
Vastus Lateralis EMG Amplitude in the Parallel, Full, and Front Squat Variations in Resistance Trained Females. Journal of Applied Biomechanics.
[PubMed]
25.
Cotter, J. A., Chaudhari, A. M., Jamison, S. T., & Devor, S. T. (2013). Knee joint kinetics in relation to commonly prescribed squat loads and
depths. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 27(7), 1765.[PubMed]
26.
DeForest, B. A., Cantrell, G. S., & Schilling, B. K. (2014). Muscle Activity in Single-vs. Double-Leg Squats. International Journal of Exercise
Science, 7(4), 6.[Citation]
27.
Diggin, D., ORegan, C., Whelan, N., Daly, S., McLoughlin, V., McNamara, L., & Reilly, A. (2011). A Biomechanical Analysis of Front Versus Back
Squat: Injury Implications. Portugese Journal of Sport Sciences, 11, 643-646.[Citation]
28.
Donnelly, D. V., Berg, W. P., & Fiske, D. M. (2006). The effect of the direction of gaze on the kinematics of the squat exercise. The Journal of
29.
Drinkwater, E. J., Moore, N. R., & Bird, S. P. (2012). Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics.
Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 26(4), 890.[PubMed]
30.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N., Barrentine, S. W., Wilk, K. E., & Andrews, J. R. (1998). Biomechanics of the knee during closed kinetic
chain and open kinetic chain exercises. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 30(4), 556-569.[PubMed]
31.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Lowry, T. M., Barrentine, S. W., & Andrews, J. R. (2001a). A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the squat
during varying stance widths. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 33(6), 984.[PubMed]
32.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N., Lander, J. E., Barrentine, S. W., Andrews, J. R., & Moorman 3rd, C. T. (2001b). Effects of technique
variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and leg press. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(9), 1552.[PubMed]
33.
Escamilla, R. F. (2001c). Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 33(1), 127-141.
[PubMed]
34.
Flanagan, S. P., & Salem, G. J. (2007). Bilateral differences in the net joint torques during the squat exercise. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 21(4), 1220.[PubMed]
35.
Fletcher, I. M., & Bagley, A. (2014). Changing the stability conditions in a back squat: the effect on maximum load lifted and erector spinae
muscle activity. Sports Biomechanics, 13(4), 380-390.[PubMed]
36.
Fry, A. C., Smith, J. C., & Schilling, B. K. (2003). Effect of knee position on hip and knee torques during the barbell squat. The Journal of
37.
Gomes, W. A., Brown, L. E., Soares, E. G., Silva, J. J., Silva, F. H., Serpa, . P., & Marchetti, P. H. (2015). Kinematic and sEMG analysis of the back
squat at different intensities with and without knee wraps. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]
38.
Gorsuch, J., Long, J., Miller, K., Primeau, K., Rutledge, S., Sossong, A., & Durocher, J. J. (2013). The effect of squat depth on multiarticular
muscle activation in collegiate cross-country runners. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(9), 2619.[PubMed]
39.
Gullett, J. C., Tillman, M. D., Gutierrez, G. M., & Chow, J. W. (2009). A biomechanical comparison of back and front squats in healthy trained
individuals. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 284-292.[PubMed]
40.
Gutierrez, A., & Bahamonde, R. (2009, August). Kinematic analysis of the traditional back squat and Smith machine squat exercises. In ISBS-
Conference Proceedings Archive (Vol. 1, No. 1).[Citation]
41.
Hales, M. E., Johnson, B. F., & Johnson, J. T. (2009). Kinematic analysis of the powerlifting style squat and the conventional deadlift during
competition: is there a cross-over effect between lifts?. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2574.[PubMed]
42.
Hirata, R. P., & Duarte, M. (2007). Effect of relative knee position on internal mechanical loading while squatting. Brazilian Journal of Physical
Therapy, 11(2), 121-125.[Citation]
43.
Hooper, D. R., Szivak, T. K., Comstock, B. A., Dunn-Lewis, C., Apicella, J. M., Kelly, N. A., & Kraemer, W. J. (2014). Effects of fatigue from
resistance training on barbell back squat biomechanics. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(4), 1127-1134.[PubMed]
44.
Jones, M. T., Ambegaonkar, J. P., Nindl, B. C., Smith, J. A., & Headley, S. A. (2012). Effects of unilateral and bilateral lower-body heavy resistance
exercise on muscle activity and testosterone responses. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(4), 1094.[PubMed]
45.
Kellis, E., Arambatzi, F., & Papadopoulos, C. (2005). Effects of load on ground reaction force and lower limb kinematics during concentric
squats. Journal of sports sciences, 23(10), 1045-1055.[PubMed]
46.
Lake, J. P., Carden, P. J., & Shorter, K. A. (2012). Wearing knee wraps affects mechanical output and performance characteristics of back squat
exercise. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(10), 2844.[PubMed]
47.
Lander, J. E., Bates, B. T., & Devita, P. (1986). Biomechanics of the squat exercise using a modified center of mass bar. Medicine and science in
sports and exercise, 18(4), 469.[PubMed]
48.
Larson, M. L., Weir, J., & Martin, G. (1991). The front squat. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 13(1), 70-76.[Citation]
49.
Li, Y., Cao, C., & Chen, X. (2013). Similar electromyographic activities of lower limbs between squatting on a reebok core board and ground.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(5), 1349.[PubMed]
50.
List, R., Glay, T., Stoop, M., & Lorenzetti, S. (2013). Kinematics of the trunk and the lower extremities during restricted and unrestricted
squats. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(6), 1529-1538.[PubMed]
51.
Lorenzetti, S., Glay, T., Stoop, M., List, R., Gerber, H., Schellenberg, F., & Stssi, E. (2012). Comparison of the angles and corresponding
moments in the knee and hip during restricted and unrestricted squats. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(10), 2829.[PubMed]
52.
Luera, M. J., Stock, M. S., & Chappell, A. D. (2014). Electromyographic amplitude vs. concentric and eccentric squat force relationships for
monoarticular and biarticular thigh muscles. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(2), 328-338.[PubMed]
53.
Maddigan, M. E., Button, D. C., & Behm, D. G. (2014). Lower-Limb and Trunk Muscle Activation With Back Squats and Weighted Sled Apparatus.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3346-3353.[PubMed]
54.
Manabe, Y., Shimada, K., & Ogata, M. (2007). Effect of slow movement and stretch-shortening cycle on lower extremity muscle activity and
joint moments during squat. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 47(1), 1.[PubMed]
55.
McBride, J. M., Skinner, J. W., Schafer, P. C., Haines, T. L., & Kirby, T. J. (2010). Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a
squat vs. a box squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3195-3199.[PubMed]
56.
McCaw, S. T., & Melrose, D. R. (1999). Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Medicine and science
in sports and exercise, 31(3), 428.[PubMed]
57.
McCurdy, K., OKelley, E., Kutz, M., Langford, G., Ernest, J., & Torres, M. (2010). Comparison of lower extremity EMG between the 2-leg squat
and modified single-leg squat in female athletes. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 19(1), 57.[PubMed]
58.
McKean, M. R., Dunn, P. K., & Burkett, B. J. (2010). Quantifying the movement and the influence of load in the back squat exercise. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(6), 1671-1679.[PubMed]
59.
McKean, M., & Burkett, B. J. (2012). Does Segment Length Influence the Hip, Knee and Ankle Coordination During the Squat Movement?.
Journal of Fitness Research, 1(1).[Citation]
60.
McLaughlin, T. M., Lardner, T. J., & Dillman, C. J. (1978). Kinetics of the parallel squat. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical
Education and Recreation, 49(2), 175-189.[PubMed]
61.
Miletello, W. M., Beam, J. R., & Cooper, Z. C. (2009). A biomechanical analysis of the squat between competitive collegiate, competitive high
school, and novice powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(5), 1611-1617.[PubMed]
62.
Myer, G. D., Kushner, A. M., Brent, J. L., Schoenfeld, B. J., Hugentobler, J., Lloyd, R. S., & McGill, S. M. (2014). The back squat: A proposed
assessment of functional deficits and technical factors that limit performance. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 36(6), 4-27.[PubMed]
63.
Neitzel, J. A., & Davies, G. J. (2000). The Benefits and Controversy of the Parallel Squat in Strength Training and Rehabilitation. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 22(3), 30.[Citation]
64.
Ninos, J. C., Irrgang, J. J., Burdett, R., & Weiss, J. R. (1997). Electromyographic analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower extremity
neutral rotation and 30 degrees of lower extremity turn-out from the self-selected neutral position. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical
therapy, 25(5), 307.[PubMed]
65.
Nuzzo, J. L., McCaulley, G. O., Cormie, P., Cavill, M. J., & McBride, J. M. (2008). Trunk muscle activity during stability ball and free weight
exercises. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(1), 95-102.[PubMed]
66.
Okkonen, O., & Hkkinen, K. (2013). Biomechanical comparison between sprint start, sled pulling, and selected squat-type exercises. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(10), 2662.[PubMed]
67.
Orloff, H., Veil, G., & Askins, R. (1997). Forces on the lumbar spine during the parallel squat. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (Vol. 1,
No. 1).[Citation]
68.
OShea, P. (1985). Sports Performance Series: The parallel squat. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 7(1), 4-6.[Citation]
69.
Painter, K. B., Haff, G. G., Ramsey, M. W., McBride, J., Triplett, T., Sands, W. A., & Stone, M. H. (2012). Strength gains: block versus daily
undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 7(2), 161.
[PubMed]
70.
Pallars, J. G., Snchez-Medina, L., Prez, C. E., De La Cruz-Snchez, E., & Mora-Rodriguez, R. (2014). Imposing a pause between the eccentric
and concentric phases increases the reliability of isoinertial strength assessments. Journal of sports sciences, 32(12), 1165.[PubMed]
71.
Paoli, A., Marcolin, G., & Petrone, N. (2009). The effect of stance width on the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles
during back squat with different bar loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 246-250.[PubMed]
72.
Pereira, G. R., Leporace, G., das Virgens Chagas, D., Furtado, L. F., Praxedes, J., & Batista, L. A. (2010). Influence of hip external rotation on hip
adductor and rectus femoris myoelectric activity during a dynamic parallel squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 27492754.[PubMed]
73.
Pick, J., & Becque, M. D. (2000). The Relationship Between Training Status and Intensity on Muscle Activation and Relative Submaximal Lifting
Capacity During the Back Squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14(2), 175-181.[Citation]
74.
Ritti-Dias, R. M., Avelar, A., Salvador, E. P., & Cyrino, E. S. (2011). Influence of previous experience on resistance training on reliability of one-
repetition maximum test. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(5), 1418-1422.[PubMed]
75.
Robertson, D. G., Wilson, J. M., & St Pierre, T. A. (2008). Lower extremity muscle functions during full squats. J Appl Biomech, 24(4), 333-9.
[Citation]
76.
Russell, P. J., & Phillips, S. J. (1989). A preliminary comparison of front and back squat exercises. Research quarterly for exercise and sport,
60(3), 201.[PubMed]
77.
Sato, K., Fortenbaugh, D., & Hydock, D. S. (2012). Kinematic changes using weightlifting shoes on barbell back squat. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research, 26(1), 28-33.[PubMed]
78.
Sato, K., Fortenbaugh, D., Hydock, D., & Heise, G. (2013). Comparison of back squat kinematics between barefoot and shoe conditions.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 8(3), 571-578.[Citation]
79.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 24(12), 3497.[PubMed]
80.
Schwanbeck, S., Chilibeck, P. D., & Binsted, G. (2009). A comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine squat using electromyography. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2588-2591.[PubMed]
81.
Seo, D. I., Kim, E., Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L., Young, K., Ferguson, S. L., & So, W. Y. (2012). Reliability of the one-repetition maximum test based on
muscle group and gender. Journal of sports science & medicine, 11(2), 221.[PubMed]
82.
Siegel, J. A., Gilders, R. M., Staron, R. S., & Hagerman, F. C. (2002). Human muscle power output during upper-and lower-body exercises. Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(2), 173-178.[PubMed]
83.
Signorile, J. F., Weber, B., Roll, B., Caruso, J. F., Lowensteyn, I., & Perry, A. C. (1994). An Electromyographical Comparison of the Squat and Knee
Extension Exercises. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 8(3), 178-183.[Citation]
84.
Sinclair, J., McCarthy, D., Bentley, I., Hurst, H. T., & Atkins, S. (2014). The influence of different footwear on 3-D kinematics and muscle
activation during the barbell back squat in males. European journal of sport science, 1.[PubMed]
85.
Soares-Caldeira, L. F., Ritti-Dias, R. M., Okuno, N. M., Cyrino, E. S., Gurjo, A. L., & Ploutz-Snyder, L. L. (2009). Familiarization indexes in
sessions of 1-RM tests in adult women. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(7), 2039-2045.[PubMed]
86.
Stuart, M. J., Meglan, D. A., Lutz, G. E., Growney, E. S., & An, K. N. (1996). Comparison of intersegmental tibiofemoral joint forces and muscle
activity during various closed kinetic chain exercises. The American journal of sports medicine, 24(6), 792-799.[PubMed]
87.
Swinton, P. A., Lloyd, R., Keogh, J. W., Agouris, I., & Stewart, A. D. (2012). A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat, powerlifting
squat, and box squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(7), 1805-1816.[PubMed]
88.
Tagesson, S. K., & Kvist, J. (2007). Intra-and interrater reliability of the establishment of one repetition maximum on squat and seated knee
extension. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 21(3), 801.[PubMed]
89.
Urquhart, B., Moir, G. L., Graham, S. M., & Connaboy, C. (2015). The reliability of 1RM split-squat performance and the efficacy of assessing
both bilateral squat and split-squat 1RM in a single session for non-resistance trained, recreationally active men. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research.[PubMed]
90.
Wallace, D. A., Salem, G. J., Salinas, R., & Powers, C. M. (2002). Patellofemoral joint kinetics while squatting with and without an external load.
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 32(4), 141-148.[PubMed]
91.
Waller, M., & Townsend, R. (2007). The Front Squat and Its Variations. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 29(6), 14-19.[Citation]
92.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231-240.[PubMed]
93.
Willardson, J. M., Fontana, F. E., & Bressel, E. (2009). Effect of surface stability on core muscle activity for dynamic resistance exercises.
International journal of sports physiology and performance, 4(1), 97.[PubMed]
94.
Wretenberg, P. E. R., Feng, Y. I., & Arborelius, U. P. (1996). High-and low-bar squatting techniques during weight-training. Medicine and science
in sports and exercise, 28(2), 218-224.[Citation]
95.
Yavuz, H. U., Erda, D., Amca, A. M., & Aritan, S. (2015). Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum
loads. Journal of sports sciences, 33(10), 1058.[PubMed]
96.
Zink, A. J., Whiting, W. C., Vincent, W. J., & McLaine, A. J. (2001). The effects of a weight belt on trunk and leg muscle activity and joint
kinematics during the squat exercise. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 15(2), 235.[PubMed]
97.
Zink, A. J., Perry, A. C., Robertson, B. L., Roach, K. E., & Signorile, J. F. (2006). Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat
exercise performed at different loads. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 20(3), 658.[PubMed]

Squat

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Squat

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Squat

The barbell squat is a key exercise in strength and conditioning

compared to an Olympic weightlifting-style of squat. Ground

BACKGROUND TO THE SQUAT

Study design = acute

Population = healthy adults

Intervention = loaded barbell squat

Comparator = squat variation or technique or other exercise

Outcome = biomechanical measure (muscle activity, kinetics, or

Study design = any non-acute study design

Population = any study not in healthy adults

Intervention = any study not using a loaded barbell squat

Comparator = any study not providing a comparator for the back

Outcome = any non-biomechanical measure

The squat is a key exercise in strength and conditioning programs.

RELIABILITY OF 1RM TESTING

Intra-class correlation coefficients

Trivial (r < 0.1)

Small (r = 0.1 0.3)

Moderate (r = 0.3 0.5)

Large (r = 0.5 0.7)

Very large (r = 0.7 0.9)

Nearly perfect (r > 0.9)

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimum Difference (MD)

reliability appears to be associated mainly with untrained individuals

The test-re-test reliability of back squat 1RM testing is generally

found no differences between conditions (with the same relative and

(2007), Schwanbeck (2009), Gullett (2009), Paoli (2009), McCurdy (2010),

of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes, and no footwear

Intervention any acute study assessing the muscle activity of the

compared the use of weightlifting shoes, minimalist footwear, running shoes,

GASTROCNEMIUS AND SOLEUS

Intervention any acute study assessing the muscle activity of the

spinae muscle activity than the overhead squat, superman or sled

maximus and erector spinae. The hamstrings appear to function

EXTERNAL LOADING (1RM)

GROUND REACTION FORCES

Ground reaction forces appear to be primarily if not exclusively

RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT

JOINT ANGLE MOVEMENTS

PEAK TRUNK ANGLES

PEAK HIP JOINT ANGLES

PEAK KNEE JOINT ANGLES

(2007), Manabe (2007), Flanagan (2007), Hales (2009), Miletello (2009),

PEAK ANKLE JOINT ANGLES

Comparing squat variations, Braidot et al. (2007) reported that peak

Increasing load and wearing running shoes rather than no footwear

NET JOINT MOMENTS

LUMBAR JOINT MOMENTS

HIP NET JOINT MOMENTS

reported but not analysed directly). Wretenberg et al. (1996) similarly

KNEE NET JOINT MOMENTS

Hirata (2007), Gullett (2009), Lorenzetti (2010), Bryanton (2012), Swinton

ANKLE NET JOINT MOMENTS

Population any healthy, adult population

EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM

EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: SPINE

EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: HIP

EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: KNEE

Population any healthy, adult population

EXTERNAL MOMENT ARM LENGTHS: ANKLE

Lumbosacral, hip extensor moment and ankle arm lengths are

Smith machine. Journal of applied biomechanics, 29(1).[PubMed]