differences in the knee torque between high- and low-bar back squat techniques. a pilot study

Clicks: 159
ID: 130104
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #6 of 16 articles by views in zhidkie kristally i ikh prakticheskoe ispol'zovanie

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
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.
Reference Key
logar2015annalesdifferences Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Janez Logar;Matej Kleva;Uroš Marušič;Matej Supej;Mitja Gerževič
Journal zhidkie kristally i ikh prakticheskoe ispol'zovanie
Year 2015
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.