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.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
159 views
25 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #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 mintedCreate 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
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.