THE HIGH-BAR AND LOW-BAR BACK-SQUATS: A BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

被引:31
作者
Glassbrook, Daniel J. [1 ]
Brown, Scott R. [1 ]
Helms, Eric R. [1 ]
Duncan, Scott [1 ]
Storey, Adam G. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Auckland Univ Technol, SPRINZ, Auckland, New Zealand
[2] HPSNZ, Auckland, New Zealand
关键词
joint angles; ground reaction forces; powerlifting; Olympic weightlifting; KNEE BIOMECHANICS; MUSCLE ACTIVATION; KINETIC-ANALYSIS; LOWER-LIMB; LOAD; PERFORMANCE; KINEMATICS; CHAIN; POWER;
D O I
10.1519/JSC.0000000000001836
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
No previous study has compared the joint angle and ground reaction force (vertical force [Fv]) differences between the high-bar back-squat (HBBS) and low-bar back-squat (LBBS) above 90% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Six male powerlifters (POW) (height: 179.2 +/- 7.8 cm; mass: 87.1 +/- 8.0 kg; age: 21-33 years) of international level, 6 male Olympic weightlifters (OLY) (height: 176.7 +/- 7.7 cm; mass: 83.1 +/- 13 kg; age: 22-30 years) of national level, and 6 recreationally trained male athletes (height: 181.9 6 8.7 cm; mass: 87.9 +/- 15.3 kg; age: 23-33 years) performed the LBBS, HBBS, and both LBBS and HBBS (respectively) up to and including 100% 1RM. Small to moderate (d = 0.2-0.5) effect size differences were observed between the POW and OLY in joint angles and Fv, although none were statistically significant. However, significant joint angle results were observed between the experienced POW/OLY and the recreationally trained group. Our findings suggest that practitioners seeking to place emphasis on the stronger hip musculature should consider the LBBS. Also, when the goal is to lift the greatest load possible, the LBBS may be preferable. Conversely, the HBBS is more suited to replicate movements that exhibit a more upright torso position, such as the snatch and clean, or to place more emphasis on the associated musculature of the knee joint.
引用
收藏
页码:S1 / S18
页数:18
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Benda B. J., 1994, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, V2, P3, DOI 10.1109/86.296348
[2]  
Benz RC, 1989, THESIS
[3]  
Cohen J., 1992, CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI, V1, P98, DOI [10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783, DOI 10.1111/1467-8721.EP10768783]
[4]   Adaptations in Athletic Performance after Ballistic Power versus Strength Training [J].
Cormie, Prue ;
Mcguigan, Michael R. ;
Newton, Robert U. .
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2010, 42 (08) :1582-1598
[5]  
Donnelly DV, 2006, J STRENGTH COND RES, V20, P145
[6]   THE OPTIMAL BACK SQUAT LOAD FOR POTENTIAL OSTEOGENESIS [J].
Ebben, William P. ;
Garceau, Luke R. ;
Wurm, Bradley J. ;
Suchomel, Timothy J. ;
Duran, Kasiem ;
Petushek, Erich J. .
JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 2012, 26 (05) :1232-1237
[7]   KINETIC ANALYSIS OF CONCURRENT ACTIVATION POTENTIATION DURING BACK SQUATS AND JUMP SQUATS [J].
Ebben, William P. ;
Kaufmann, Clare E. ;
Fauth, McKenzie L. ;
Petushek, Erich J. .
JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 2010, 24 (06) :1515-1519
[8]   Electromyographic and kinetic analysis of traditional, chain, and elastic band squats [J].
Ebben, WP ;
Jensen, RL .
JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 2002, 16 (04) :547-550
[9]  
Escamilla RF, 2001, MED SCI SPORT EXER, V33, P127
[10]   Effects of technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and leg press [J].
Escamilla, RF ;
Fleisig, GS ;
Zheng, NQ ;
Lander, JE ;
Barrentine, SW ;
Andrews, JR ;
Bergemann, BW ;
Moorman, CT .
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2001, 33 (09) :1552-1566