ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparing the kinematics of back squats performed with different heel elevations
1
University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
2
State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil
Submission date: 2020-09-21
Acceptance date: 2020-12-04
Publication date: 2021-10-26
Hum Mov. 2022;23(2):97-103
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Back squat (BS) is a popular exercise owing to its capacity to develop lower limb strength. During BS, trunk inclination and knee range of motion (RoM) are relevant aspects of a proper technique, and these movement kinematics parameters can be positively altered with official weightlifting shoes lifting the heel 13 mm above the ground. Wedges are a low-cost alternative to lifting the heel to different heights, but movement kinematics adaptations with higher elevations, above 25 mm, are not well described in the literature. Thus, we compared the effect of different heights of heel wedges on BS kinematics.
Methods:
Fifteen experienced recreational weightlifters (22 ± 5.4 years; 83 ± 11 kg; 179 ± 6 cm; 5 ± 2.1 years of BS experience) were conveniently selected. Three randomized conditions were applied: barefoot (B), 25-mm (W25), and 50-mm wedges (W50). BS movement was assessed by kinematic analysis with an optoelectronic camera system.
Results:
After ANOVA, the post-hoc indicated significant RoM differences in reducing trunk (F = 27.27; p < 0.01) and increasing knee (F = 16.87; p < 0.01) flexions between conditions. Post-hoc analysis verified decreasing trunk inclination (B > W25 > W50; p < 0.05) and increasing knee (B < W25 < W50; p < 0.05) RoM with increasing wedge height.
Conclusions:
Higher wedges allowed positive adaptations by promoting a more upright trunk position and greater BS depth. Using a heel wedge can be a low-cost and viable strategy to optimize BS technique in a variety of training settings and contexts.
Back squat (BS) is a popular exercise owing to its capacity to develop lower limb strength. During BS, trunk inclination and knee range of motion (RoM) are relevant aspects of a proper technique, and these movement kinematics parameters can be positively altered with official weightlifting shoes lifting the heel 13 mm above the ground. Wedges are a low-cost alternative to lifting the heel to different heights, but movement kinematics adaptations with higher elevations, above 25 mm, are not well described in the literature. Thus, we compared the effect of different heights of heel wedges on BS kinematics.
Methods:
Fifteen experienced recreational weightlifters (22 ± 5.4 years; 83 ± 11 kg; 179 ± 6 cm; 5 ± 2.1 years of BS experience) were conveniently selected. Three randomized conditions were applied: barefoot (B), 25-mm (W25), and 50-mm wedges (W50). BS movement was assessed by kinematic analysis with an optoelectronic camera system.
Results:
After ANOVA, the post-hoc indicated significant RoM differences in reducing trunk (F = 27.27; p < 0.01) and increasing knee (F = 16.87; p < 0.01) flexions between conditions. Post-hoc analysis verified decreasing trunk inclination (B > W25 > W50; p < 0.05) and increasing knee (B < W25 < W50; p < 0.05) RoM with increasing wedge height.
Conclusions:
Higher wedges allowed positive adaptations by promoting a more upright trunk position and greater BS depth. Using a heel wedge can be a low-cost and viable strategy to optimize BS technique in a variety of training settings and contexts.
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Schoenfeld BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3497–3506; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bac2d7.
2.
Rossi FE, Schoenfeld BJ, Ocetnik S, Young J, Vigotsky A, Contreras B, et al. Strength, body composition, and functional outcomes in the squat versus leg press exercises. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018;58(3):263–270; doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06698-6.
3.
Kubo K, Ikebukuro T, Yata H. Effects of squat training with different depths on lower limb muscle volumes. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2019;119(9):1933–1942; doi: 10.1007/s00421-019-04181-y.
4.
Everhart JS, Cole D, Sojka JH, Higgins JD, Magnussen RA, Schmitt LC, et al. Treatment options for patellar tendinopathy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(4):861–872; doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.11.007.
5.
Watson SL, Weeks BK, Weis LJ, Harding AT, Horan SA, Beck BR. High-intensity resistance and impact training improves bone mineral density and physical function in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: the LIFTMOR randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(2):211–220; doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284.
6.
Caterisano A, Moss RF, Pellinger TK, Woodruff K, Lewis VC, Booth W, et al. The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(3):428–432; doi: 10.1519/1533-4287(2002)016<0428:TEOBSD>2.0.CO;2.
7.
Wilk M, Golas A, Stastny P, Nawrocka M, Krzysztofik M, Zajac A. Does tempo of resistance exercise impact training volume? J Hum Kinet. 2018;62:241–250; doi: 10.2478/hukin-2018-0034.
8.
Durall CJ, Manske R. Avoiding lumbar spine injury during resistance training. Strength Cond J. 2005;27(4):64–72; doi: 10.1519/00126548-200508000-00011.
9.
Yavuz HU, Erdag D. Kinematic and electromyographic activity changes during back squat with submaximal and maximal loading. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2017;2017:9084725; doi: 10.1155/2017/9084725.
10.
Raske Å, Norlin R. Injury incidence and prevalence among elite weight and power lifters. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(2):248–256; doi: 10.1177/03635465020300021701.
11.
Sinclair J, McCarthy D, Bentley I, Hurst HT, Atkins S. The influence of different footwear on 3-D kinematics and muscle activation during the barbell back squat in males. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015;15(7):583–590; doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.965752.
12.
Legg HS, Glaister M, Cleather DJ, Goodwin JE. The effect of weightlifting shoes on the kinetics and kinematics of the back squat. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(5):508–515; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1175652.
13.
Sato K, Fortenbaugh D, Hydock DS. Kinematic changes using weightlifting shoes on barbell back squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(1):28–33; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318218dd64.
14.
Lee S-P, Gillis CB, Ibarra JJ, Oldroyd DF, Zane RS. Heel-raised foot posture does not affect trunk and lower extremity biomechanics during a barbell back squat in recreational weight lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(3):606–614; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001938.
15.
Whitting JW, Meir RA, Crowley-McHattan ZJ, Holding RC. Influence of footwear type on barbell back squat using 50, 70, and 90% of one repetition maximum: a biomechanical analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(4):1085–1092; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001180.
16.
Charlton JM, Hammond CA, Cochrane CK, Hatfield GL, Hunt MA. The effects of a heel wedge on hip, pelvis and trunk biomechanics during squatting in resistance trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(6):1678–1687; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001655.
17.
Sayers MGL, Bachem C, Schütz P, Taylor WR, List R, Lorenzetti S, et al. The effect of elevating the heels on spinal kinematics and kinetics during the back squat in trained and novice weight trainers. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(9):1000–1008; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1738675.
18.
Krzyszkowski J, Kipp K. Load-dependent mechanical demands of the lower extremity during the back and front squat. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(17):2005–2012; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1766738.
19.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191; doi: 10.3758/bf03193146.
20.
Winter M, Bunge C- A, Setti D, Petermann K. A statistical treatment of cross-polarization modulation in DWDM systems. J Light Technol. 2009;27(17):3739–3751; doi: 10.1109/JLT.2009.2025394.
21.
Morris SB, DeShon RP. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):105–125; doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105.
22.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
23.
Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):918–920; doi: 10.1519/14403.1.
24.
Butler RJ, Plisky PJ, Southers C, Scoma C, Kiesel KB. Biomechanical analysis of the different classifications of the Functional Movement Screen deep squat test. Sports Biomech. 2010;9(4):270–279; doi: 10.1080/14763141.2010.539623.
25.
McKean MR, Dunn PK, Burkett BJ. The lumbar and sacrum movement pattern during the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(10):2731–2741; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e2e166.
26.
Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):577–585; doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0304-0.
27.
Marcori A, Moura T, Okazaki V. Gastrocnemius muscle activation during plantar flexion with different feet positioning in physically active young men. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2017;25(2):121–125; doi: 10.3233/IES-160654.
28.
Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(10):2857–2872; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e840f3.
29.
Fuglsang EI, Telling AS, Sørensen H. Effect of ankle mobility and segment ratios on trunk lean in the barbell back squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(11):3024– 3033; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001872.
30.
Edholm P, Strandberg E, Kadi F. Lower limb explosive strength capacity in elderly women: effects of resistance training and healthy diet. J Appl Physiol. 2017;123(1): 190–196; doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00924.2016.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
