Biomechanical comparisons of back and front squats with a straight bar and four squats with a transformer bar

The purpose was to quantify trunk and lower extremity biomechanics among back and front squats with a straight bar and four squats with different anterior-posterior load placements imposed by a transformer bar. Ten males and eight females performed six squat conditions: back and front squats with a straight bar, back and front squats with a transformer bar, and squats with more posteriorly or anteriorly placed loads with a transformer bar. A constant load of 70% of the participant's one-repetition maximum in the straight-bar front squat was used. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected to quantify joint biomechanics at an estimated parallel squat position in the descending and ascending phases. Squats with more anteriorly placed load significantly decreased trunk flexion and pelvis anterior tilt angles with large effect sizes but increased low-back extension moments with medium to large effect sizes. Hip, knee, and ankle extension moments were generally similar among most conditions. Participants adjusted their trunk and pelvis to mediate the effects of load placements on low-back and lower extremity moments. While lower extremity loading was similar among different squats, the different trunk and pelvis angles and low-back moments should be taken into consideration for people with low-back impairment.

Differences in Muscle Activity and Kinetics Between the Goblet Squat and Landmine Squat in Men and Women

ABSTRACT

Collins, KS, Klawitter, LA, Waldera, RW, Mahoney, SJ, and Christensen, BK. Differences in muscle activity and kinetics between the goblet squat and landmine squat in men and women. J Strength Cond Res 35(10): 2661-2668, 2021-Squat exercise variations are widely used and extensively researched. However, little information exists on the goblet squat (GBS) and landmine squat (LMS) and differences between men and women. This study investigated the differences in muscle activity and kinetics between the GBS and the LMS in 16 men and 16 women. Five repetitions of each squat type were performed loaded at 30% of their body mass. Vertical and anteroposterior ground reaction forces for the eccentric and concentric phases and peak vertical force were recorded with a force plate. Electromyographic (EMG) signals were recorded for the vastus medialis (VM), vastus lateralis (VL), semitendinosus (ST), and biceps femoris (BF). Normalized mean EMG values and ground reaction forces were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance (p < 0.05). Significant main effects for squat condition and sex were found. The LMS reduced activity in the quadriceps (VM and VL) muscles and vertical forces, while increasing posterior horizontal forces. In the LMS, men showed decreased ST activity, whereas women had decreased BF activity. Women exhibited greater quadriceps activity in both the GBS and LMS and greater ST in the LMS. Women also produced greater eccentric vertical force in both the GBS and LMS and less posterior horizontal forces in the LMS. The LMS may be useful to balance hamstring to quadriceps activity, increase horizontal loading, and reduce vertical loading. Conversely, the GBS can better target quadriceps activity and increase vertical loading. Sex differences should be considered for training programs that include the GBS and LMS.

Lower limb muscle and joint forces during front and back squats performed on a Smith machine

BACKGROUND: Comparison of knee loads on a Smith machine, which is utilised for maintenance of health and rehabilitation, has not been attempted. OBJECTIVE: This study compared lower limb muscle and knee joint forces during front and back squats performed on a Smith Machine. METHODS: Eleven participants performed front and back squats with loads at 40%, 60% and 80% of their back squat 1-RMs. Ground reaction forces and three-dimensional full body motion were collected and used for modelling lower limb muscle and knee joint forces. RESULTS: Larger loads increased tibiofemoral compressive force during back squat at 80% compared to 40% (p< 0.01; d= 1.58) and to 60% (p< 0.01; d= 1.37). Patellofemoral compressive (p= 0.96) and tibiofemoral shear forces (p= 0.55) were not influenced by external load or type of squat. Gluteus medius and minimus produced more force at 80% compared to 60% (p= 0.01; d= 1.10) and to 40% (p< 0.01; d= 1.87) without differences for other muscles (p= 0.09–0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Greater external load was associated with increase in gluteus medius and minimus force and with increased tibiofemoral compressive force without effects on tibiofemoral shear force, patellofemoral compressive force or other lower limb muscle forces.