Biomechanics of front and back squat exercises

Braidot, Ariel; Brusa, M H; Lestussi, F E; Parera, G P

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/90/1/012009

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, only a few of them have compared front and back squat (Braidot, Brusa, Lestussi, & Parera, 2007;Diggin et al, 2011;Gullett et al, 2009) and even less have studied electromyography (EMG) and kinematics together in the same study to see the interactions (Gullett et al, 2009). Braidot et al (2007) compared the kinematics, dynamics, the power and the energy in the different joints during the complete cycle from the exercise in the different variants of squat. A better development of energy with the front bar is observed in the knee, allowing a better muscular exercise with the same load.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum loads

Yavuz

Erdağ

Amca

et al. 2015

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the musculature activity and kinematics of knee and hip joints during front and back squat with maximal loading. Two-dimensional kinematical data were collected and electromyographic activities of vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, semitendinosus, biceps femoris, gluteus maximus and erector spinae were measured while participants (n = 12, 21.2 ± 1.9 years old) were completing front and back squat exercises with maximum loading. Paired sample t-test was used for comparisons between two techniques. Results showed that the electromyographic activity of vastus medialis was found to be greater in the front squat compared to the back squat during the ascending phase (P < 0.05, d = 0.62; 95% CI, -15.0/-4.17) and the whole manoeuvre (P < 0.05, d = 0.41; 95% CI, -12.8/-0.43), while semitendinosus (P < 0.05, d = -0.79; 95% CI, 0.62/20.59) electromyographic activity was greater in the back squat during the ascending phase. Compared to the front squat version, back squat exhibited significantly greater trunk lean, with no differences occurring in the knee joint kinematics throughout the movement. Results may suggest that the front squat may be preferred to the back squat for knee extensor development and for preventing possible lumbar injuries during maximum loading.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum loads

Yavuz

Erdağ

Amca

et al. 2015

Journal of Sports Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus athletes may find it to be more sport-specific and, due to its tie-in with the Olympic lifts, front squats serve as an important exercise for strength and power gains [13,18]. Biomechanical differences among the two deep knee bend varieties likely cause front squats to be impacted more by body segment lengths and ratios than by muscle mass-related measures; as a comparative study showed, at the same absolute load, back squats evoke greater hip angles and higher lumbar shear forces [2]. In contrast front squats yielded higher comparative hip extensor moments and faster run times [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, recent comparative research on the two types of squats suggests the frontal version may be superior for muscle activation and injury rehabilitation [13]. Aside from comparative studies to the back squat [2,13,18,19], the frontal version of the exercise has received little attention from researchers. For these reasons the front squat is an important measure of athletic prowess and deserves continued inquiry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropometry as a predictor of front squat performance in American college football players

Caruso

McLagan

Shepherd

et al. 2009

IES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the extent anthropometry predicts front squat performance, American college football players (n = 18) performed 3-6 repetition sets at 55, 65, 75 and 80% of their 1RM (one repetition maximum) load across two workouts. At the conclusion of sets, an accelerometer (Myotest Inc., Royal Oak MI) measured peak power, force and velocity. Before the first workout, anthropometric data were collected from subjects that emphasized body segment length ratios in an attempt to predict front squat variance. Via multivariate regression, anthropometry attempted to predict the variance from each of 12 criterion variables (peak power, force and velocity at each load). With an α = 0.05, anthropometry predicted significant amounts of variance for six criterion variables, which also had high R (0.647-0.832) and R 2 (0.419-0.720) values. The same variables also yielded moderate standard error of estimates, thus anthropometry accounted for much front squat performance variance. Height/hip width ratio, body weight, body mass index and torso length were the best predictors of front squat performance. Based on current results, it was concluded anthropometry is an important predictor of front squat performance in American college football players.

show abstract

“…The two principal variants of the squat are the back and the front squat lifts. Although both squats are mechanically similar, slight variations exist in terms of technique and muscular involvement [4][5][6] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of front and back squat techniques on patellofemoral joint kinetics in males

Sinclair¹,

Atkins²,

Kudiersky³

et al. 2015

JBEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The barbell squat is fundamental in strength and conditioning, with two principal variants; the back and front squat. Unfortunately, the propensity for injury is high particularly at the knee. The aim of the current investigation was examine the influence of front and back squat variations on patellofemoral joint load. Methods:Patellofemoral loads were obtained from thirty-five experienced male participants, who completed both back and front squats at 70% of 1 RM. Differences between squat conditions were examined using Bonferroni adjusted (P = 0.008) paired t-tests. Results:The results showed that significant differences (P < .008) in patellofemoral load were identified between both conditions with the highest load being experienced during the back squat exercise.Conclusions: Given the proposed relationship between the magnitude of the load experienced by the patellofemoral joint and associated injury pathology, the back squat appears to place lifters at greater risk from injury. Therefore, it may be prudent therefore for lifters who are predisposed to patellofemoral pain syndrome to utilize the front squat in their training.

show abstract

Biomechanics of front and back squat exercises

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum loads

Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum loads

Anthropometry as a predictor of front squat performance in American college football players

Effects of front and back squat techniques on patellofemoral joint kinetics in males

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About