DIFFERENCES IN THE KNEE TORQUE BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-BAR BACK SQUAT TECHNIQUES: A PILOT STUDY

Authors

  • Janez Logar University of Primorska, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, Applied Kinesiology, Koper
  • Matej Kleva University of Primorska, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, Applied Kinesiology, Koper
  • Uroš Marušič University of Primorska, Science and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research, Koper
  • Matej Supej University of Primorska, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, Applied Kinesiology, Koper University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Department of Biomechanics
  • Mitja Gerževič University of Primorska, Science and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research, Koper

Abstract

Purpose: The squat is one of the most frequently used exercises in sports training and competitions. There are several squat variations: i) the front squat (FS), ii) the high-bar back squat (HBS) and iii) the low-bar back squat (LBS). As the biomechanics of the LBS technique have been studied to a lesser extent, therefore the purpose of this pilot study was to analyze the differences in knee joint net muscle torque between the HBS and LBS.

Methods: One healthy male subject (180.0 cm, 76.0 kg, 26 years) performed 10 steady paced squats (5 HBS and 5 LBS) with additional weight (40.4 kg) to a 90° knee angle. Kinematic and kinetic data were gathered using a high-speed camcorder and a force plate, respectively. The maximal and average knee joint net muscle torques (Mmax and Mavg) were then calculated via 2-dimensional inverse dynamics.

Results: A significantly greater Mavg was observed using the HBS technique as compared to the LBS, both during the entire range of the squat (MavgHBS = 221.6 ± 5.1 Nm, MavgLBS= 203.3 ± 10.2 Nm; p = 0.026) as well as during the eccentric (MavgHBS = 226.0 ± 5.9 Nm, MavgLBS= 202.0 ± 14.0 Nm; p = 0.043) and concentric (MavgHBS = 216.2 ± 3.6 Nm, MavgLBS= 205.0 ± 7.9 Nm; p = 0.021) phase separately.

Conclusions: It can be concluded that the lower Mavg during the LBS could be due to the load transfer to the hip joint, most likely because of the greater anterior tilt of the torso, which is a direct response to a lower and more posterior bar placement on the back to finally maintain an unchanged centre of mass. Confirmation of these findings in a larger sample would imply that the LBS could be a more appropriate squat technique when knee joint relief is desired.

References

Braidot, A. A., Brusa, M. H., Lestussi, F. E., & Parera, G. P. (2007). Biomechanics of front and back squat exercises. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 246(6), 1–8.

Diggin, D., O'Regan, 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(Suppl. 2), 643–646.

Donnelly, D. V., Berg, W. P., & Fiske, D. M. (2006). The effect of the direction of gaze on the kinematics of the squat exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(1), 145–150.

Escamilla, R. F. (2001). Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(1), 127–141.

Fry, A. C., Smith, J. C., & Schilling, B. K. (2003). Effect of knee position on hip and knee torques during the barbell squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4), 629–633.

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. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(1), 284–292.

Holmberg, L. J., Lund Ohlsson, M., Supej, M., & Holmberg, H. C. (2013). Skiing efficiency versus performance in double-poling ergometry. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 16(9), 987–992.

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), 428–436.

Rasmussen, J., Holmber, L. J., Sørensen, K., Kwan, M., Andersen, M. S., & de Zee, M. (2012). Performance Optimization by Musculoskeletal Simulation. Movement & Sport Sciences, 75(1), 73–83.

Russell, P. J., & Phillips, S. J. (1989). A preliminary comparison of front and back squat exercises. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(3), 201–208.

Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3497–3506.

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. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24(6), 792–799.

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. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(7), 1805–1816.

Winter, D. A. (2009). Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement (4th ed.). New Jersey (USA): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Downloads

Published

19-01-2015

How to Cite

Logar, J., Kleva, M., Marušič, U., Supej, M., & Gerževič, M. (2015). DIFFERENCES IN THE KNEE TORQUE BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-BAR BACK SQUAT TECHNIQUES: A PILOT STUDY. Annales Kinesiologiae, 5(2). Retrieved from https://ojs.zrs-kp.si/index.php/AK/article/view/37

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2014)

Section

Articles

License

Open Access Policy and Copyright

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors grant the publisher commercial rights to produce hardcopy volumes of the journal for sale to libraries and individuals.
  3. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.