Clark 2017
Clark 2017
Clark 2017
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002144
Title:
Trunk muscle activation in the back and hack squat at the same relative loads
Running head:
D
Institution:
University of Stirling, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, Physiology, Exercise Nutrition
TE
Research Group, Stirling, UK.
First Author:
David R Clark1
EP
Co-Authors:
Michael I Lambert2
Angus M Hunter1
Institutions:
C
1
Physiology, Exercise and Nutrition Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport,
University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
C
2
Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, University of Cape Town, Department of
Human Biology, Cape Town, South Africa.
A
Corresponding Author:
David R Clark
The hack squat (HS) is likely to produce a greater 1 repetition maximum (1RM) compared to
the back squat (BS). This can be attributed to the support of the trunk during the HS
compared to no support during BS. This support however, may compromise trunk muscle
activation (TMA), therefore producing different training adaptations. Accordingly, the
purpose of this study was to compare 1RM in BS and HS and TMA at 4 relative loads, 65,
75, 85 and 95% of maximal system mass. Ten males completed 3 test sessions:1) BS and HS
D
1RM, 2) HS & BS neuromuscular test familiarization, and, 3) Neuromuscular test for 3 reps
at 4 loads for BS and HS. BS TMA was significantly greater (p<0.05) than HS for all muscles
TE
and phases except rectus abdominus in concentric phase. TMA increased (p<0.05) with load
in all muscles for both exercises and phases apart from lumbar sacral erector spinae in HS
eccentric phase. Mean HS 1RM and submaximal loads were significantly (p<0.0001) higher
than the equivalent BS loads. Duration of the eccentric phase was higher (p<0.01) in HS than
EP
BS but not different in concentric phase. Duration increased significantly (p<0.01) with load
in both exercises and both phases. Despite higher absolute tests loads in HS, TMA was higher
in BS. TMA is sensitive to load in both exercises. BS is more effective than HS in activating
the muscles of the trunk and therefore arguably more effective in developing trunk strength
and stability for dynamic athletic performance.
C
Key words: back squat, hack squat, trunk muscles, neuromuscular, electromyography, core
stability
C
A
The squat exercise is a compound movement that engages all muscles below the shoulders
including the lower limb. The primary purpose of both the back squat (BS) and hack squat
(HS) are to develop strength and power in the lower limb1–4. Both are widely used for the
development of performance capabilities for a variety of sports2,5 and as a rehabilitative
exercise for lower limb injuries and post-surgical programmes1,6,7. Recent research has
focused on loaded compound exercises such the squat and deadlift as a method of developing
D
trunk strength and stability. The hack squat (HS) has been used in a number of research
training studies8–10, however no trunk muscle activation data exists for HS.
TE
Research investigating the BS11–15, front squat12,13,16, and overhead squat15 have confirmed
that the loaded, free barbell squat is an effective method of activating the stabilizing muscles
of the trunk. There is also evidence that in BS magnitude of activation across the majority of
muscle sites is sensitive to the external load1,11,17,18. As a result, a number of researchers
EP
concluded that BS is an effective method for developing dynamic trunk strength and stability
for healthy function and athletic performance11,17–19.
There are variations of the squat exercise performed in a machine supported set-up. These
include leg press6,20, HS4 and Smith machine squats14,21–23 and are generally performed at
higher absolute loads than BS14,21. It is believed that these more stable versions of the squat
C
compromise and reduce TMA due to biomechanical set-up and support22,23. Fletcher and
Bagley (2014)14 reported an 11% greater Smith machine one repetition maximum (1RM)
C
compared to BS. Despite this, erector spinae electromyography (EMG) activity was
significantly greater in BS compared to the Smith machine squat 1RM test.
A
The HS offers more support than the Smith machine squat; it is commonly viewed as a safe
version of the loaded squat exercise, especially suitable in the absence of established barbell
squat technique and for rehabilitation programmes4,24. The HS is performed in a machine
angled posteriorly at 45o where force is applied and resisted through padded shoulder yokes.
The participant’s back is positioned on a padded board offering greater support to the trunk
during squat movement4 contributing to higher loading capacity compared to Smith machine
squat and BS. To our knowledge, there is no research comparing 1RM in HS to BS.
However, untrained subjects developed a 1RM of over 250 kg after 8 weeks HS training8,9.
This is equivalent to a relative 1RM of approximately 3.3 times body mass, greater that any
Centre of gravity of the person and external load, or the system load, in BS must remain over
base of support25 to prevent failure and or injury. As a result, force is resisted in the eccentric
phase and expressed in the concentric phase through the line of gravity which determines
how the loads are experienced by the affected muscles. When squatting in a linear motion
machine, such as a Smith Machine or HS, the centre or line of gravity can safely sit outside
the foot stance or the point where force is applied. This is the result of anterior foot
D
placement which is made possible by the supported trunk and fixed external load. This
introduces horizontal forces which potentially change load direction experienced by muscles
of the body25, including the prime movers and trunk stabilizers. To our knowledge there is no
TE
research describing or quantifying either trunk or lower limb muscle activation in HS.
Using a two dimensional model of a free body diagram, Abelbeck (2002)25 assessed moments
and work of the hip and knee joints for 6 foot positions anterior to the line of gravity. Position
1 was under the line of gravity and at position 6, knees were flexed to 90o and thighs
EP
horizontal. Each foot position away from the line of gravity resulted in a greater moment
about both joints. Net work done at the knee decreased while it increased at the hip with each
anterior foot position. HS is a tilted and supported version of a linear motion machine squat.
Escamilla6 (1998) measured activation of 6 muscles of the lower limb in leg press and squat
C
exercise at 12RM. Foot placement in the leg press was anterior to the line of gravity
equivalent to position 6 in Ablebeck’s25 (2002) study. Apart from biceps femoris in
C
extension where activation was greater in the squat than leg press, there were no significant
differences in activation between the two exercises for all muscles in both flexion and
extension.
A
It has been established that TMA, across majority of muscle sites, is sensitive to increases in
external load in BS1,11,17,18. It is also accepted that load capacity of HS is greater than for
BS8,9. In the BS, stabilization of the trunk is necessary to ensure that the centre of gravity of
the system load remain over the base of support for the eccentric and concentric phases.
Anterior foot placement in the HS, facilitated by fixed external load and trunk support,
resulted in higher work at the hip joint25 but no meaningful increase in activation of leg
muscles6. Trunk muscle activation under these conditions is unknown. While there is an
Accordingly, we hypothesize that the requirement to stabilize the bar in BS places greater
demands on muscles of the trunk than greater absolute loads in the more supported HS. In
accordance with this, objectives of the study were to; 1) determine 1RM for HS and BS
within a strength trained cohort, 2) compare TMA in HS and BS in a range of relatively
equivalent external loads, and 3) determine whether TMA was load sensitive in HS and BS.
D
METHODS
TE
Experimental Approach to the Problem
All subjects attended 3 test sessions (Figure. 1). In the first, a 1RM test was conducted for BS
and HS. In session 2, subjects completed the neuromuscular test protocol familiarization with
loads calculated from the 1RM. In the third session, the neuromuscular test protocol was
EP
repeated while EMG and kinematic measures were taken. All tests were conducted 5 to 7
days apart.
All BS repetitions were performed according to technique described by Earle and Baechle
(2000)26. Starting with the barbell in high bar position, on the trapezius across the back of the
shoulders with hip and knee joints fully extended. Feet were placed shoulder width apart with
C
legs externally rotated by 3-5o so that that the toes were turned slightly out. Hack squats24
were performed with the back placed against the padded surface, shoulders wedged under the
C
yokes and feet placed shoulder width apart to the front of the footplate. Both squat versions
comprised of a descent through knee and hip flexion to where mid-point of the thigh joint
was below mid-point of the knee joint with a minimum knee flexion of 90o. The transition
A
between the descent and the ascent was visually assessed as the point where the top of the
thighs were horizontal in BS and parallel to the footplate in HS. The load was returned to the
start position by extending the hip and knees in a controlled manner as fast as possible. All
BS were performed using barbells and discs approved by International Weightlifting
Federation (Eleiko, Sweden). BS tests were conducted in a safety power cage (FT700 Power
Cage, Fitness Technology, Skye, Australia) and HS in a plate loaded Bodymax CF800 Leg
Press/Hack Squat Machine.
Ten males actively participating in regular strength training with at least 1 years’ experience
in BS exercise were recruited for the study. Using G*Power software (3.1) we calculated a
minimum of 10 participants was required for 90% power from the effect size of RMS
increase in the eccentric phase of BS from 75-95% load17. Subject characteristics were; age:
27 ± 8 years, body mass: 86 ± 8 kg, squat training age: 6 ± 5 years, BS 1RM: 142 ± 29 kg,
relative BS 1RM: 1.7 ± 0.3, HS 1RM: 171 ± 34 kg and relative HS 1RM: 2.0 ± 0.4. In
accordance with Declaration of Helsinki (2013)27, the local research ethics committee granted
D
approval for the study. The risks and potential benefits of the study were explained to all
subjects prior to signing an informed consent form. Signed parental consent was recorded for
TE
the subjects under the age of 18. Subjects abstained from strenuous exercise and followed
usual dietary habits for 24 hours prior to test sessions which were conducted at the same time
of day to account for circadian variation28.
Procedures
EP
1RM testing
determined for each subject from previous 1RM test results and current training loads. BS
1RM test was performed first followed by HS 1RM to avoid possible potentiation effect of
higher absolute loads reported for HS8,9. 1RM test scores were recorded as highest load lifted
C
successfully through required range of movement within 4 attempts in BS and HS. Subjects
were instructed to control cadence of descent and perform ascent as fast as possible under
A
control. Three minute rest periods were allocated between each warm-up and test set24,29–31.
Correct squat depth for both exercises was established during warm-up sets and reinforced
during testing by an experienced strength coach, the principle investigator, who conducted all
tests.
Test loads for sessions 2 and 3 were calculated using the system mass (SM)17,32 approach.
This is calculated by adding 88.6% of body mass to 1RM, which is equivalent to body mass
minus the mass of the shanks and feet. This represents total load lifted vertically when
External test load = (SM max x percentage of SM) - (0.886 x body mass) (kg)
D
In test session 2, subjects completed the standardised warm-up and neuromuscular test
protocol at individually calculated loads for BS and HS. During this familiarization session
TE
exercise technique, squat depth and rest times were rehearsed. In test session 3, subjects were
prepared for EMG and kinematic data collection which was confirmed during 2 warm-up sets
before proceeding to neuromuscular test protocol. Subjects were instructed to control descent
and perform ascent as fast as possible under control for both BS and HS. Squat depth was
monitored using linear transducer data and observation.
EP
Kinematic data
The duration and displacement of eccentric and concentric phases of both exercises were
measured by linear transducer (Celesco, PT5A, California, USA). The linear transducer was
C
placed directly beneath, and attached to the barbell in BS. In HS it was placed adjacent to the
footplate and attached at shoulder height to the sled of the HS machine to measure full
displacement of the load along the 45o plane of travel29,33.
C
A bespoke Matlab (Matlab R2010A, The Mathworks Inc., USA) programme was designed to
identify initiation and completion of descent and ascent of the load in order to determine
A
Electromyography
Muscle activity was measured from 5 sites on right-hand side of the body based on
established bilateral symmetry of these muscles34; rectus abdominus (RA), external oblique
(EO), lumbar sacral erector spinae (LSES), upper lumbar erector spinae (ULES) and vastus
lateralis (VL)11,23 using surface EMG (Biopac MP100, Biopac Systems Inc., Santa Barbara,
CA). SENIAM (Surface Electromyography for Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles)
recommendations were followed for skin preparation and application of electrodes35. Hair
D
relative (ICC) reliability of mean RMS data for these trunk muscles in the back squat exercise
at similar loads17.
TE
Mean RMS for eccentric and concentric phases were calculated from 3 reps for each load and
exercise. Mean RMS data for 75, 85 and 95% SM for each phase of both exercises were
normalized to mean RMS of concentric phase of 65% SM in BS and presented as mean ± SD
percentage normalized RMS. It has been demonstrated that submaximal dynamic contraction,
not maximal isometric contraction, offer more reliable amplitude for EMG normalization of
EP
trunk muscles in healthy controls and patients with lower back pain33. We have previously
shown that submaximal dynamic normalization was far more reliable and sensitive than
MVC methods in BS exercise for VL17,33.
Statistical Analysis
C
Statistics were performed using GraphPad Prism version 6.07 for Windows, GraphPad
Software, La Jolla California USA. Data were analysed with a 2-way repeated measures
C
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for condition (x2) and load (encoder displacement and
duration x2, RMS x3). 1RM data were analysed using paired t-tests. F ratios were considered
A
Cohen's d = Mean1 - Mean2 / SDpooled, where SDpooled = √[(SD 12+ SD 22) / 2].
ES were then interpreted as <0.2 = trivial, ≥0.2 - 0.5 = small, ≥0.5 - ≤0.8 = moderate, >0.8 =
large 36
Electromyography
In the eccentric phase RMS was significantly (p<0.05 to p<0.0001) greater in BS vs. HS in 7
of the 9 test loads for EO, ULES and LSES (Table 1). However, there was no difference in
RA RMS in the eccentric phase between BS and HS; whereas concentric RMS was
significantly (p<0.05 to p<0.0001) greater in BS than HS in all muscle sites and in 8 out of 12
instances (Table 2).
D
Insert Table 1 here
TE
RMS increased with load in the following trunk muscle sites in the eccentric phase for both
exercises (Figure 2): RA (F(2, 18) = 13.52, p<0.001) EO (F(2, 18) = 5.258 p<0.05), ULES F(2, 18)
= 6.374 p<0.01). There was no eccentric load effect for LSES for both BS and HS. RMS
increased with load in all muscle sites and both exercises in the concentric phase (Figure 3):
EP
RA (F(2, 18) = 7.795 p<0.01), EO F(2, 18) = 14.70 p<0.001), LSES (F(2, 18) = 18.76 p<0.001) and
ULES F(2, 18) = 6.035 p<0.01).
Mean VL RMS was significantly (F(1, 9) = 5.846 p<0.05) higher for BS vs HS in the
concentric phase and a tendency in the eccentric phase where post-hoc analysis demonstrated
C
significance for 3 test loads (75% SM p <0.0001, 85% SM p <0.01, 95% SM p<0.0001).
Muscle activation in VL produced a significant load effect in both exercises for both phases:
eccentric (F(2, 18) = 18.85 p<0.001) concentric (F(2, 18) = 3.711 p<0.05).
A
The mean HS 1RM was significantly (p <0.0001) higher at 171 ± 34 kg when compared to
142 ± 29 kg in BS. As a result relative test loads at 65, 75, 85 and 95% SM were significantly
greater in HS than BS by 16.5, 17.5, 20.5 and 23.0 kg respectively (F(1, 9) = 19.94 p<0.01).
D
(95% SM).
TE
Insert Figure 5 here
DISCUSSION
C
This is the first study to compare maximal strength and TMA in HS and BS. Anecdotal
evidence that HS maximal strength capacity is greater than BS is confirmed under scientific
A
TMA was greater in BS vs. HS for all measured muscles during both phases, with the
exception of rectus abdominus in the eccentric phase which demonstrated no such
differences. This largely agrees with our hypothesis, although the rectus abdominus finding
was also unsurprising given the previous equivocal reports of this muscle’s RMS activity in
In the lateral stabilizers, activation of external oblique muscle was significantly greater in BS
than HS in all instances and both phases apart from 85% SM in eccentric phase. The shared
D
function of rectus abdominus and external oblique muscles are to create intra-abdominal
pressure during exertion through the trunk37. Individually rectus abdominus controls lumbar
extension and external oblique controls lateral flexion and rotation of the trunk37. Logically,
TE
these functions will be challenged more in BS than HS which suggest greater trunk muscle
adaptation potential in the free bar BS.
Activation of posterior stabilizers, lumbar sacral erector spinae and upper lumbar erector
EP
spinae muscles was greater in BS than HS in 9 out of 12 instances. Importantly, in these 2
muscle sites at the heaviest load, 95% SM, activation was higher in BS than HS. Hamlyn and
coworkers11 (2007) using the mean RMS calculated from a 1 second sample from each phase,
eccentric and concentric, showed that LSES and ULES activation was more than twofold
higher in back squat at 80% 1RM compared the bodyweight squats. The purpose of erector
C
spinae muscle complex is to extend the trunk, or in the case of BS prevent trunk
flexion14,15,17. In the free bar exercise this challenge is greater where back and trunk are
C
unsupported. During the descent activation was significantly higher in BS than HS for all
three loads in ULES and for 85 and 95% SM in LSES. This was similar for the ascent
however the magnitude of activation was greater for both exercises and all three loads in both
A
ULES and LSES (Tables 1 and 2) (Concentric RMS: 97-230% vs Eccentric RMS: 92-155%).
The higher activation of trunk stabilizers in the concentric compared to eccentric phase has
been reported in a number of studies.12,13,15,38
Activation of external oblique and erector spinae muscles have been shown to increase
alongside load in BS with submaximal loads of 50 and 75% 1RM39. In 2 studies where higher
loads were used, the primary purpose was to compare TMA in deadlift exercise and a range
of dynamic18 and isometric11 trunk exercises. Both studies reported a load effect in the
posterior trunk muscles for BS but this was not significant. In our recent study we
D
type of activity in moderate to well strength trained populations.
In this study where load was significantly higher in HS, vastus lateralis RMS was greater in
TE
the BS for all loads and both phases. Vastus lateralis RMS increased with load in both BS and
HS which is well established for this muscle during both eccentric17 and concentric phases 29.
This is similar to earlier work from our laboratory where there was higher activation of vastus
lateralis in concentric phase at 100% 3RM compared to 75% 3RM despite higher power
produced in the lower load test effort29. Fundamentally, this demonstrates the large effect
EP
comparatively lower forces, external load in BS vs HS, have on increasing activation of
prime lower limb muscle where no external support is provided for lifting weights vertically
against gravity.
Mean 1RM for HS was 29 kg (18%) greater than BS, significantly more than the 11%
C
Eccentric displacement was on average 22 cm less in HS than BS across 4 test loads. This can
be explained by the positioning in HS machine in which the moment about both knee and hip
joint increase as the feet move anterior to the line of gravity25. At the same time, work done at
A
the knee probably decreased due to reduced range of movement, while compensatory work at
the hip may have increased. Therefore, the reduced overall displacement (external marker)
and the higher absolute load (internal marker) in the HS possibly resulted in a greater
moment and therefore work at the hip compared to the BS25.
Eccentric displacement decreased across the 4 test loads for both squat versions. This is
possibly due to compressive force of the incremental external loads causing spine
shrinkage40. Wisleder40 showed that an external load equivalent to body mass resulted in a
mean shrinkage of 3.9 mm. This shrinkage would result in a progressively lower start point
The eccentric phase of the BS was significantly faster for each load despite a significantly
greater displacement. There was no difference between the duration of HS and the BS in the
concentric phase apart from the heaviest load (95% SM) where HS was performed quicker
D
than BS. This suggests that the instruction to ascend as fast as possible compensated the
greater BS displacement and HS load respectively, in the concentric phase for 3 loads. While
the instruction to descend in a controlled manner was applied to both exercises, BS descent
TE
was faster than HS. This occurred despite the greater support offered by the HS machine and
the greater range of movement in the BS. A possible explanation could be familiarity with BS
training reflected by mean squat training age of 6 years (Range: 1-17 years) compared to the
relative novelty of the HS exercise within this group.
EP
In our earlier study we established reliability of surface EMG in measuring trunk muscle
activation in the BS17. The current study has confirmed and expanded those findings. The
kinematic characteristics of the unsupported free bar BS are a greater range of movement,
faster descent and lower absolute external loads than the HS. Importantly, this study has
C
shown that under those conditions the BS places greater demands on the trunk stabilizers than
the HS and that this increases with load. Three factors therefore explain greater trunk muscle
activation in the BS, greater range of movement, faster descent and importantly, the
C
requirement to control the unsupported external load through the full kinetic chain. This
included lower limbs, hips and pelvis and, as shown by this study, the trunk. We have shown
A
that both the BS and HS challenge the trunk stabilizers and that this activation increases in
both exercises with load. However, BS is a significantly more effective method of activating
the trunk stabilizers than HS. The conclusion therefore is that free barbell loaded squats are
an effective exercise for the development of dynamic trunk strength and stability and for both
BS and HS, trunk stability training effect is enhanced by increasing external load.
This study presents a number of interesting and novel findings particularly applicable to
evidence based, applied strength and conditioning coaches. The key finding is that the free
barbell back squat elicits greater trunk muscle activation than HS at the same relative load.
This strengthens the case made in previous studies11,17–19 and confirms applied anecdotal
evidence that back squat is an effective method of developing dynamic trunk strength and
stability. Similarly, we have presented novel research evidence to demonstrate and quantify
greater absolute maximal strength capacity in HS compared to BS for a cohort of well-trained
D
subjects. A further novel finding was the greater activation of vastus lateralis in the
concentric phase of BS compared to HS despite significantly higher absolute HS loads. We
also confirmed previous research1,11,17,18 showing that increases in external load in both the
TE
BS and HS produce greater trunk muscle activation.
The implication of these findings for applied setting, is that free barbell squat is an effective
exercise for the development of dynamic strength and stability in the trunk. The more stable
EP
hack squat is less effective for this purpose, however in both exercises trunk stabilization
training effect can be enhanced by increasing external load.
REFERENCES
C
1. Clark DR, Lambert MI, Hunter AM. Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat:
a brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(4):1169-1178.
C
2. Schoenfeld BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise
performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3497-3506.
A
3. Escamilla RF. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. MedSciSports Exerc.
2001;33:127-141.
5. Hansen K, Cronin J. Training loads for the development of lower body power during
squatting movements. Strength Cond J. 2009;31(3):17-33.
6. Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Zheng N, Barrentine SW, Wilk KE, Andrews JR.
Biomechanics of the knee during closed kinetic chain and open kinetic chain exercises.
7. Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Zheng N, et al. Effects of technique variations on knee
biomechanics during the squat and leg press. MedSciSports Exerc. 2001;33:1552-1566.
8. Loveless DJ, Weber CL, Haseler LJ, Schneider DA. Maximal leg-strength training
improves cycling economy in previously untrained men. MedSciSports Exerc.
2005;37:1231-1236.
D
anaerobic capacity. EurJApplPhysiol. 2008;102:659-666.
10. Andersen LL, Andersen JL, Zebis MK, Aagaard P. Early and late rate of force
TE
development: Differential adaptive responses to resistance training? Scand J Med Sci
Sport. 2010;20(1):162-169.
11. Hamlyn N, Behm DG, Young WB. Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight-
training exercises and isometric instability activities. JStrengthCondRes.
EP
2007;21:1108-1112.
13. Yavuz HU, Erdağ D, Amca AM, Aritan S. Kinematic and EMG activities during front
and back squat variations in maximum loads. J Sports Sci. 2015;(JANUARY):1-9.
C
14. Fletcher IM, Bagley A. Changing the stability conditions in a back squat: the effect on
maximum load lifted and erector spinae muscle activity. Sport Biomech.
2014;13(4):380-390.
A
15. Aspe RR, Swinton PA. Electromyographic and Kinetic Comparison of the Back Squat
and Overhead Squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28:2828-2836.
16. Gullett JC, Tillman MD, Gutierrez GM, Chow JW. A biomechanical comparison of
back and front squats in healthy trained individuals. JStrengthCondRes. 2009;23(1533-
4287:284-292.
17. Clark D, Lambert MI, Hunter AM. Reliability of Trunk Muscle Electromyography in
the Loaded Back Squat Exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37(6):448-456.
20. Wilk KE, Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Andrews JR, Boyd ML. A
comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity during open
and closed kinetic chain exercises. AmJSports Med. 1996;24:518-527.
D
21. Cotterman ML, Darby LA, Skelly WA. Comparison of muscle force production using
the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. J Strength
Cond Res. 2005;19(1):169-176.
TE
22. Schwanbeck S, Chilibeck PD, Binsted G. A comparison of free weight squat to Smith
machine squat using electromyography. JStrengthCondRes. 2009;23:2588-2591.
23. Anderson K, Behm DG. Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat
EP
movements. CanJApplPhysiol. 2005;30:33-45.
24. Keogh JWL, Marnewick MC, Maulder PS, Nortje JP, Hume PA, Bradshaw EJ. Are
anthropometric, flexibility, muscular strength, and endurance variables related to
clubhead velocity in low- and high-handicap golfers? J Strength Cond Res.
C
2009;23(6):1841-1850.
25. Abelbeck KG. Biomechanical model and evaluation of a linear motion squat type
C
26. Baechle TR, Earle RW. Resistance training and spotting techniques. In: Baechle TR,
Roger E, eds. Essentials of Strength and Conditioning. 2nd ed. Champaign IL: Human
A
Kinetics; 2000:343-389.
31. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement techniques
in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech. 2007;23(2):103-118.
D
32. Dugan EL, Doyle TL, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, Newton RU. Determining the optimal
load for jump squats: a review of methods and calculations. JStrength CondRes.
2004;18:668-674.
TE
33. Balshaw TG, Hunter AM. Evaluation of electromyography normalisation methods for
the back squat. JElectromyogrKinesiol. 2012;22:308-319.
34. Vakos JP, Nitz AJ, Threlkeld AJ, Shapiro R, Horn T. Electromyographic activity of
EP
selected trunk and hip muscles during a squat lift. Effect of varying the lumbar posture.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(6):687-695.
35. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, et al. European Recommendations for Surface
ElectroMyoGraphy. Roessingh Res Dev. 1999:8-11.
C
36. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Stat Power Anal Behav
Sci. 1988;2nd:567.
C
37. Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French D, Wrigley A, Spears I. Optimizing performance by
improving core stability and core strength. Sport Med. 2008;38:995-1008.
A
38. McBride JM, Larkin TR, Dayne AM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Effect of absolute and
relative loading on muscle activity during stable and unstable squatting. IntJSports
Physiol Perform. 2010;5:177-183.
39. Bressel E, Willardson JM, Thompson B, Fontana FE. Effect of instruction, surface
stability, and load intensity on trunk muscle activity. JElectromyogrKinesiol.
2009;19:e500-e504.
40. Wisleder D, Smith MB, Mosher TJ, Zatsiorsky V. Lumbar spine mechanical response
to axial compression load in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(18):E403-9.
Figure 1. Experimental design illustrating the timing and content of the three test sessions and
the standardised warm-up. 1RM – 1 repetition maximum.
Figure 2. Mean RMS for the eccentric phase for 3 test loads, 75, 85 and 95% SM for the 4
trunk muscle sites; A – rectus abdominus, B – external oblique, C – lumbar sacral erector
D
spinae and D – upper lumbar erector spinae. Significant load effect: * (p<0.05), ** (p<0.01),
*** (p<0.001) and significant difference between BS and HS: # p<0.05 and p<0.0001.
TE
Figure 3. Mean RMS for the concentric phase for 3 test loads, 75, 85 and 95% SM for the 4
trunk muscle sites; A – rectus abdominus, B – external oblique, C – lumbar sacral erector
spinae and D – upper lumbar erector spinae. Significant load effect: ** (p<0.01), ***
(p<0.001) and significant difference between BS and HS: # (p<0.05 to p<0.0001).
EP
Figure 4. Kinematic data for the BS and HS where panel A is eccentric displacement and B
concentric displacement. Significant load effect in both conditions: # (p<0.01), and
significant difference between HS and BS: * (p<0.001).
Figure 5. Kinematic data for the BS and HS where panel A is eccentric duration and B
C
concentric duration. Significant load effect in both conditions: # (p<0.01) and significant
difference between HS and BS: * (p<0.001) ** (p<0.0001).
C
A
D
75% 57 ±31 87 ±33 -29.4 -48.8 -9.9 0.003* -0.91 Moderate
EO 85% 62 ±27 80 ±26 -19.2 -38.6 0.3 0.054 -0.72 Moderate
95% 70 ±31 94 ±27 -24.0 -43.4 -4.5 0.013* -0.84 Moderate
TE
75% 92 ±38 118 ±56 -26.1 -40.8 -11.5 0.001* -0.55 Small
ULES 85% 84 ±39 130 ±47 -45.9 -60.5 -31.3 <0.0001* -1.07 Moderate
95% 85 ±41 155 ±64 -69.2 -83.8 -54.6 <0.0001* -1.29 Large
75% 96 ±51 132 ±68 -36.4 -73.6 0.5 0.054 -0.61 Moderate
RA 85% 117 ±68 159 ±60 -41.6 -78.6 -4.7 0.024* -0.65 Moderate
95% 138 ±67 166 ±64 -27.4 -64.3 9.6 0.199 -0.42 Small
D
75% 81 ±34 142 ±42 -61.1 -102.1 -20.1 0.003* -1.60 Large
EO 85% 99 ±26 188 ±90 -89.0 -130.0 -47.9 <0.0001* -1.34 Large
95% 123 ±43 224 ±114 -100.7 -141.8 -59.7 <0.0001* -1.16 Moderate
TE
75% 112 ±42 152 ±46 -39.8 -64.5 -1.4 0.039* -0.90 Moderate
ULES 85% 133 ±90 169 ±49 -36.1 -84.7 -21.6 0.001* -0.50 Small
95% 128 ±62 230 ±107 -102.2 -112.3 -49.2 <0.0001* -1.17 Moderate
75% 97 ±37 130 ±27 -33.0 -91.3 11.8 0.170 -1.02 Moderate
LSES 85% 105 ±31 159 ±43 -53.1 -87.7 15.4 0.243 -1.42 Large
95% 110 ±32 191 ±50 -80.7 -153.7 -50.6 0.000* -1.92 Large
EP
Note: *Significant greater mean RMS in back squat compared to hack squat (p<0.05).
C
C
A