A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis

of the squat during varying stance widths

RAFAEL F. ESCAMILLA, GLENN S. FLEISIG, TRACY M. LOWRY, STEVEN W. BA.RRENTINE, and
JAMES R. ANDREWS
Michael W. Krzyzewski Huiman Performance Laboratory. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC 27710; and American Sports Medicine Institute. Birmingham, AL 35205

ABSTRACT
ESCAMILLA, R. F.. G. S. ELEISIG. T. M. LOWRY, S. W. BARRENTINE, and J. R. ANDREWS. A three-dimensional biomechanical
analysis of the squat during varying stance widths. Mfed.Si. Sports Exerc.. Vol. 33, No. 6. 2001, pp. 984-998. Purpose: The purpose
of this study was to quantify biomechanical parameters employing two-dimensional i2-DI and three-dimensional i3-D) analyses while
performing the squat with varying stance widths. MIethods: Two 60-Hz cameras recorded 39 lifters during a national powerli'ting
chamnpionship. Stance width was normalized by shoulder width (SW), and three stance groups were defined: 1) narrow stance squat
2Ci; SW. Results: Most
(NSl. 07 l09 SW: 2 j medium stance squat (MS), 142 + 12% SW- and 3) wide stance squat 'WS), 169
biomechanical differences among the three stance groups and between 2-D and 3-D analyses occurred between the NS and WS.
Compared wi,h the NS at 45' and 90' knee flexion angle (KF). the hips flexed 6-.11 rnore and the thighs were 7-12 more horizontal
during the MS and WS. Compared with the NS at 900 and maximum KF. the shaniks were 5-9' more vertical and the feet 'aere turned
out 6- more during the WS. No significant differences occurred in trunk positions. Hip and thigh angles were 3-- 13' less in 2-D
compared with 3-D analyses. Ankle plantar flexor (10-51 N'm), knee extensor (359-573 Nm). and hip extensor (275-5-77 N-m) net
mnuscle mrnoments wvere generated for the NS. whereas ankle dorsiflexor (34-284 N n). knee extensor (a 47-756 N-m;., and hip extensor
(382-628 N-m) net muscle moments were generated for the MS and WS. Significant differences in ankle and knee moment arms
between 2-D and 3-D analyses were 7-9 cm during the NS, 12-14 cm during the MS, and 16-18 cm during the WS. Conclusions:
Ankle plantar flexor net muscie moments were generated during the NS. ankle dorsiflexor net muscte moments were produced during
the MS and WS. and knee and hip moments were greater during the WS compared with the NS. A 3-D biomechanical analysis of the
squat is more accurate than a 2-D biomechanical analysis, especially during the WS. Key Words: POWERLIFTING. WEIGHTLIFTING. JOINT MOMENTS, JOINT MOMENT ARMS, JOINT ANGLES, SEGMENT ANGL.ES. KINEMATICS, KINETICS.
MIECHANICAL WORK

T he squat, which measures

judge at the completion of the lift. All squat trials analyzed

in the current study were in accordance with these rules.
Strength athletes. such as Armerican football players and
powerlifters. often employ the barbell squat in their training
or rehabilitation regimens. These athletes use the squat to
enhance hip. thigh, and back strengath. Although varying
squat stance widths and foot angles are employed in training
according to an athlete's goals and preferences. the efficacy
of one stance over another is unclear. Only a few studies
have quantified stance widths or foot angles during the squat
(8,10.2-0,25.29). Escamilla et al. (8) reported a preferred
mean stance (inside heel to inside heel distance) of 40 _ 8
I11
cm and a preferred mean forefoot abduction of 22
from 10 male powerlifters and bodybuilders performing the
squat. In a follow-up study, Escamilla et al. (10)Oexamined
the effects of defined narrow and wide stance widths on
knee biomechanics. McCaw and Melrose t20) examined the
effects of defined narrow and wide stance widths on iower
extremity muscle activity. Both Signorile et al. (29) and
Ninos et al. (25) examined the effects of turning the feet in
or out on lower extremity muscle activity. However, none of
these aforementioned studies have examined how varying
stance widths affects joint and segment angles and joint
moments and moment arms.

lower body and trunk

strength, is the first of three lifts in powerlifting

competition. The starting and ending position for the
powerlifting squat is when the lifter is in the upright position
with the knees and hips near full extension. After the
"squat" command is given by the head judge, the lifter
descends until an imaginay line from the top of the knees
to the hips moves below a parallel position relative to the
ground. and in a continuous motion the lifter ascends back
to the upright position. According to the American Drug
Free Powerliftin2 Association (ADFPA) rules at the time of
this study, causes for disqualification include failure to wait
for the referee's "squat" command at the beginning of the
lift, not descending to the below parallel position, positioning the bar on the back greater than 5 cm below the acromion, any stopping or downward movement of the bar once
the ascent begins, any shifting of the feet throughout the lift,
and failure to wait for the 'rack' command by the head

0195-913110 1/3306-0984/$3.00/0
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE,
Copyright (2001 by the American College of Sports Medicine
Received for publication Januarv 2000.
Accepted for publication September 2000.

984

Because the squat is considered a closed kinetic chain

exercise (31,37), it can also be employed in knee rehabilitation programs, such as after anterior cruciate ligament
(ACL) reconstruction. Studies have shown that the squat is
an effective exercise during ACL rehabilitation (31.37). The
moderate to high hamstring activity that has been reported
during the squat (8,31) may help protect the ACL during
knee rehabilitation. However, the role of varying stance
widths during the squat is unclear in knee rehabilitation. It
is hvpothesized that knee and hip moments will increase as
stance width increases.
Although there are several studies that have quantified joint. moments during the barbell squat (2,8,12,16,
17,22.26,28.34,35), none of these studies examined the effects of stance width on joint moments. Similarly, there are
only a few studies that have quantified select joint and
segment angles during the barbell squat (16,17,21,28), and
none of these studies examined the effects of stance width
on joint and segment angles. In addition, one limitation to
most barbell squat studies that quantified joint and segments
angles and joint moments is that a two-dimensional (2-D)
analysis was employed using a single camera to record a
sagittal view of the lifter. Although trunk movements
through spinal and hip flexion and extension occur primarily
in the sagittal plane, flexion and extension movements at the
ankle and knee occur in the sagittal plane only if the feet are
positioned in that plane (i.e., pointing straight ahead). This
is because the ankles and knees primarily function as hinge
joints during the squat, and thus move in the direction the
feet point. Therefore. the lower extremities will move out of
a sagittal plane as the feet turn outwards and the stance
widens. These will cause erroneous measurements of lower
extremity joint and segment angles and ankle and knee
moments and moment arms (9). These errors are minimal
when the feet are pointing straight ahead, but considerable
errors occur as the feet turn out to a greater extent and the
stance widens (9). Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to compare joint and segment angles and ankle, knee, and
hip moments and moment arms between 2-D and 3-D analyses while performing the squat with varying stance widths.
It was hypothesized that the number of significant differences in joint kinematic and kinetics between 2--D and 3-D
analyses will increase as stance width widens and that 3-D
joint kinematics and kinetics will be significantly different
among varying stance widths,

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects. Thirty-nine male powerlifters served as subjects, with a mean mass of 91.0 t 25.2 kg, a mean height of
174.9 7.0 cm, a mean age of 45.7 t 5.2 yr, and a mean
load lifted of 225.4 - 58.0 kg. All subjects wore a one piece
lifting suit. All subjects participated in a national powerlifting masters' championship that was sanctioned by the ADFPA. To participate in masters' level powerlifting competition, all lifters had to be at least 40 yr old. All subjects
signed a human consent form giving their approval to be
videotaped and participate in this study.
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

Data collection. Two synchronized Sony HVM 200

video cameras were used to collect 60-Hz video data. One
camera faced the subject's left side while the other camera
faced the subject's right side, with each camera's optical
axis forming a 45 angle to the sagittal plane of the lifter.
The cameras were positioned approximately 14 in apart and
faced perpendicular to each other, with each camera approximatelylO m from the subject. To minimize the effects of
digitizing error, the cameras were positioned so that the
lifter-barbell system was as large as possible within the
viewing area of the cameras.
Just before a subject initiated their lift, an external light
source was activated in both camera views to help match
video frames when viewing the videotapes. Before and just
after the subjects were videotaped, a 2 X 1.5 X I m 3-D
calibration frame (Peak Perfornance Technologies, Inc.,
Englewood, CO), surveyed with a measurement tolerance of
0.5 cm, was positioned and videotaped in the same volume
occupied by the lifter-barbell system. The calibration frame
was comprised of 24 spherical balls of known spatial coordinates, with the x- and z-axes positioned parallel to the
ground, and the y-axis pointing vertical.
Data analysis. In powerlifting competition, lifters are
given three attempts during the squat to maximize the
amount of weight they can lift. A lifter's first attempt is
usually submaximal, whereas their second and third attempts are near the maximal weight thev are capable of
lifting. Therefore, only second and third attempts that were
successfully completed (i.e., ruled a "good lift" by a panel
of three judges) were analyzed. Twenty-two of the 39 lifts
analyzed were third attempts. The 17 second-attempt lifts
were used because the third attempts were unsuccessful due
to the lifter attempting a weight that was beyond their one
repetition maximum (I RM). Therefore, it was thought that
all lifts analyzed were vely near each lifter's I RM.
Previously, the squat has been divided into three descent
and three ascent phases (16,17,21): 1) starting position to
450 knee flexion angle (KF); 2) 45"KF to 901KF; 3) 901KF
to maximum KF; 4) maximum KF to 90'KF; 5) 90'KF to
450 KF; and 6) 4Y5KF to lift completion. The end of each of
the first five phases was chosen for kinematic and kinetic
analyses: I) 45 0 KF Jduring descent; 2) 90'KF during descent; 3) maximumi iKFE; 41 90QKF during ascent. and 5)
450 KE during- ascent. Kinematic and kinetic analyses were
also performed at minimum bar velocity. which always
occurred between 900 and 450KF during the ascent. Because
the starting and ending positions of the squat are similar
with the knees and&hips near full extension, kinematic and
kinetic analyses Were not performed at these positions.
A 3-D video analysis system (Peak Performance Technologies, fnc,) Was used to manually digitize data for all 39
subjects. A 15-point spatial model was created, comprised
of the top of the head and centers of the left and right
mid-toes, ankles, knees, hips, shoulders. hands, and end of
bar. All points were seen in each camera view. Each of these
15 points was digitized in every video field (60 Hz). which
was adequate due to the slow movement of the lift (3,17).
Digitizing began five video fields (0.17 s) before the start of
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,6

985

the descent and ended five video fields after the end of the
ascent.
A fourth-order, zero-lag Butterworth digital filter was
used to smooth the raw data with a cutoff frequency of 5 Hz.
A cutoff frequency between 3 and 5 Hz has been demonstrated to be adequate during lifting 1-RM loads involving
slow movements (9). Bv using the direct linear transformation method (l33), 3-D coordinate data were derived from the
2-D digitized images from each camera view. An average
resultant mean square calibration error of 0.3 cm produced
an average volurne error of 0.121%.
The origin of the 3-D orthogonal axis system was first
translated to the right ankle joint and rotated so that the
positive x-axis pointed to the left ankle joint, the positive
z-axis pointed anteriorly in the direction the lifter was facing, and the y-axis pointed in the vertical direction (9). The
vertical positions of the digitized left and right ankles were
withirn I cm of each other. This axis system was initially
used to calculate all joint moments, monnent arms, and
angles. Muscle moment arms were not quantified in this
studv. Because hip flexion and extension during the squat
occur primarily in the y-z sagittal plane about the x-axis, hip
moments were calculated about the x-axis and hip moment
arms were calculated in the z-axis direction. Ankle and knee
moment arms were also calculated in the z-axis direction.
which equates to a 2-1D analysis using one camera to record
a sagittal view of the lifter. These 2-D data were compared
with 3-D data from the 3-D analysis. To calculate the actual
ankle and knee moment arms from a 3-D analysis. the axes
system was translated to each ankle joint center and rotated
so that the positive z-axis pointed fromn the ankle joint center
to the mid-toes, the y-axis pointed vertical, and the x-axis
was orthogonal to the y- and z-axes (9). Hence. for both
sides of the body, arkie and knee mnoments were calculated
about the x-axis. and ankle and knee moment arms were
calculated in the z-axis direction. In addition, movement of
knees relative to the ankles were measured in the z-axis (i.e..
in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the foot) to
determine how far forward the knees translated over the feet
during the squat. with left and right side measurements
averaged.
Linear and anguiar displacements and velocities were
calculated for both the left and right sides of the body. and
then averaged t9). Relative knee and hip anglies and absolute
trunk, thigh, and shank angles were defined in accordance
with previous lifting studies (3.9). Trunk, thigh. and shank
angles were measuared relative to the x-z horizontal plane
(i.e., from a right horizontal relative to a sagittal view of the
lifter's right side). Knee angles were measured relative to
thigh and leg segments, whereas hip angles were measured
relative to trunk and thigh segments. As long as the trunk is
rigid and straight. this relative angle approximated the true
hip angle. From qualitative analyses of the squat, unlike the
deadlift, the trunk typically remains rigid and straight. Knee
and hip angle measurements were expressed as 0 at full
knee and hip extension by subtracting relative angle measurements fromr 180'. To compare joint and segment angle
differences between 2-D and 3-D analyses, hip, knee, thigh,
986

Officiat Joumat of the American College of Sports Medicine

and shank angles from 3-D analyses were projected onto a

2-D sagittal plane (9). Foot angle was defined as the angle
formed between the foot segment and the y-z sagittal plane.
Stance width was defined as the linear distance between the
left and right ankle joint cernters, whereas hand width was
defined as the linear distance between the left and right hand
centers.
During the I RM squat (21). the barbell initially accelerates at the beginning of the ascent to a first peak velocity.
then decelerates to a minimum velocity, accelerates again to
a second peak velocity. and finally decelerates until the end
of the ascent. Therefore, the squat ascent was divided into
maximum
four lifting phases ,9): a) acceleration phase
KF to first peak bar velocity: b) sticking region -- first peak
bar velocity to minimum bar velocity; c) maximum strength
region -* minimum bar velocity to second peak bar velocsecond peak bar velocity to
ity; and d) deceleration phase
lift completion.
Because segment and barbell accelerations are verv small
while lifting maximum or near maximum loads. joint: moments can accurately be calculated using quasi-static models
(16.17,21.22,26). Lander et al. (17 found that joint moments varied less than 1I% between quasi-static and dynamic
analyzes during the squat exercise with near maximum
loads. Hip, knee, and ankle moments and moment arms
were calculated for left and right sides and then averaged
(9). Body segment center of mnasses and weights were calculated bv using appropriate anthropometric data (7), and
each lifter's knowvn mass and segment lengths. The geometric center of the barbell represented the center of mass of the
barbell (COMb.,). Position coordinates for x. y, and z were
calculated for both COM,hA,r and the center of rnass of the
svstem (CONM Ystem), which included both barbell and body
masses. Joint moments and moment arms were calculated
relative to both barbell weight and system weight (9). The
system weight used to calculate joint moments was the sum
of the barbell weight and the weight of body segments above
the joint in which the moments were calculated (9). Ankle
moment arms (MAankle) were calculated as the distance in
the z-axis direction from the ankle joints to COMi,,ar or
COMsy,steni, with the system comprising barbell and body

masses minus the mass of the feet. Ankle morments were

calculated as the product of MAanki, and barbell weight and
the product of MAankie and system weight. Knee moment
arms (MAknlee) were calculated as the distance in the z-axis
direction from the knee joints to COMba, or COM,,,tem, with
the system comprising barbell and bodv masses minus the
masses of the legs and feet. Knee moments were calculated
as the product of MAkn.e and barbell weight. and the product
of MAkle, and s'stem weight. Hip moment arms (MAh,P)
were calculated as the distance in the z-axis direction from
the hip joints to COMba, or COM,vstew. with the system
comprising barbell and body masses mninus the masses of the
thighs. legs and feet. Hip moments were calculated as the
product of MA1 ,i, and barbell weight, and the product of
MAhip and system weight.
Because bar motion primarily' occurred in the vertical
direction, vertical bar displacement was calculated from
htts: ./Www .acsrn-rsse.org

maximum KF to lift completion and normalized by body

height. Mechanical work, which was calculated relative to
both barbell weight and system weight, was the product of
system or barbell weight and total vertical displacement of
COMba, or COMsvstem, The svstem weight used to calculate
mechanical work was the sum of barbell weight and body
weight minus the weight of the feet.
To compare stance widths relative to individual size differences, stance width was normalized and expressed as a
percent of each subject's shoulder width (distance between
digitized shoulder joint centers). The 39 normalized stances
were ranked from lowest to highest (87-196% shoulder
width) and divided into defined narrow, medium, and wide
stance groups. The 13 lowest normalized stances (87-118%
shoulder width) were assigned to the narrow stance (NS)
group; the middle 13 normalized stances (121-153% shoulder width) were assigned to the medium stance (MS) group;
and the highest 13 normalized stances (158-196% shoulder
width) were assigned to the wide stance (WS) group. To
assess kinematic and kinetic differences among the three
stance groups, a three-way, mixed-factor multiple analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was employed (P < 0.05). The
repeated factors in the MANOVA consisted of 2-D versus
3-D comparisons and descent versus ascent comparisons.
Stance was the between subjects factor in the MANOVA,
which consisted of narrow, medium, and wide stances. A
simple linear regression was used to assess the relationship
(P < 0.05) between normalized stance width and joint and
segment angles.

RESULTS
A representative graph of joint and segment angles as a
function of time is shown in Figure 1. During the squat, the
knees and hips flex and extend together with similar mag-

nitudes and shapes. Thigh angles follow the same general

pattern as knee and hip angles. Shank angles have similar
shapes and magnitudes as trunk angles. The minimum bar
velocity shown in Figure I corresponds to the minimum bar
velocity in Figure 2 (occurring at approximately 2.15 s),
which shows a representative graph of vertical bar velocity
during the squat. The acceleration and deceleration phases
were the shortest in duration, whereas the sticking and
maximum strength regions were the longest in duration.
Typical differences between 2-D and 3-D joint angle analyses for the NS and WS are shown in Figure 3. Representative graphs for hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities as
functions of knee and hip angles are shown in Figures 4 and
5. Shapes and magnitudes of hip and knee angular velocities
as functions of hip and knee angles were similar during the
squat motion. In addition, hip, knee, and ankle angular
velocities as a function of knee angles were very similar to
hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities as a function of hip
angles. Ankle angular velocities remained low and fairly
constant throughout the descent and ascent phases. Employing different stance widths did not affect the general shapes
and magnitudes seen in the representative graphs from Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Significant positive correlations (r
0.5-0.85) were
found between normalized stance width and joint and segment angles, with joint angles increasing as normalized
stance width increased. The highest correlations were found
between normalized stance width and thigh angles (r =
0.75-0.85). A representative graph between normalized
stance width and thigh angles is shown in Figure 6. Low to
moderate correlations (r = 0.5- 0.7) were observed between
normalized stance width and hip and shank angles, whereas
nonsignificant correlations (r = 0.15-0.35) were observed
between normalized stance width and trunk angle.

la,

it

:
Ba

Ve 3
i

oo

eoo~

vyTlg

>~~~11

hn

FIGURE I-Representative graph for joint and

segment angles.

P so
Ti

0.0

0.S

1.0

i.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

TrW I

ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

Medicine &Science in Sports &Exerciseg

987

0.75

Ascent Phase

0.50

0.25

FIGURE 2-Representative graph for vertical bar velocity. AP, acceleration phase; SR,
sticking region; MSR, maximum strength region; and DP, deceleration phase.

0.00

Min
Bar
Velocity

0
-0.25

-0.50

-0.75
0.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

3.5

Time (s)

There were no significant differences in kinematic and

kinetic measurements between left and right sides of the
body. Subject characteristics among the NS, MS, and WS
are shown in Table 1. Among the three stance groups there
were no significant differences in age. body height, body
weight, barbell load, and hand width. Joint and segment
angles among the three stance groups are shown in Table 2.
with significant differences found in hip, thigh. and shank
measurements. Most significant differences occurred between NS and WS groups, with no differences observed
between MS and WS groups. In the MS and WS groups at
450, 900. and maximum KF, the hips flexed approximately

10 more compared with the NS. Compared with the NS, the
shanks were approximately 80 more vertical. the thighs were
approximately 10 more horizontal, and the feet were turned
out approximately

60

more in the WS. There were no

significant differences in trunk positions among the stance

groups. At 45KF, there was significantly less hip flexion
and forward trunk tilt in the descent phase compared with
the ascent phase. There was significantly greater hip flexion
(12-14') and forward trunk tilt (7-l00) at minimum bar
velocitv during the ascent (Table 2) compared with hip and
trunk angles at corresponding KF arngies during the descent,
70, 68 10^, and 69 12',
in which the hips flexed 67
I

Narro% Stance

- 2-D Analysis

Wide Stance

34 A.a,- ,
2-DAnaly,is

i 83 Si.

'R
sI 60
.2 8(i-,

~~\1

XA

L 40

40-

203

FIGURE -Representative
graph for joint angles between 2-D and 3-D analyses
for narrow and wide stance
squats.

jC

8'

10

320 -

80

'a
_1604
E.2

-K8

CS

69>-

.E49
2C ' OI

3
Time {s,

988

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

Time (s)

http://www.acsm-msse.org

40

-~~~~~~~~~~~~

2)0

gf

FIGURE 4-Representative graph for hip,

knee, and ankle angular velocities as a function of knee angle.

-120
-I40

,-,-

20

40

60

80

100

120

--- -

100

80

Descent Phase

60

40

20

Ascnt Phase
Kne Angle (deg)

Knee Angular Velocitv

-4_

Hip Angsslar Velocity

--

AnikleAngtsAw
Velocity

respectivelv, and trunk angles were 65

50, 64
4, and
66 + 5.0 respectively, during the NS, MS, and WS. There
were no significant differences found among the three
stance groups at minimum bar velocity. Comparing joint
and segment angles between 2-D and 3-D analyses, the NS
showed the fewest number of significant differences,
whereas the WS showed the greatest number of significant
differences (Table 3). Hip and thigh angles were 3-13' less
in 2-D analyses compared with 3-D analyses.
There were no significant differences in temporal, work,
and bar velocity comparisons among the three stance groups
(Tables 4-6). On the average. it took 4.60 1.20 s to
complete the I RM squat, with a descent time of 1.92 +
0.51 s and an ascent time of 2.68 1.04 s. Significant
differences among the three stance groups in peak hip, knee,
and ankle angular velocities, and corresponding knee and
hip angles, are shown in Table 7. The only significant
differences found among the three stance comparisons were

the ankle joints the knees translated forward over the feet
21.7 + 4.4 cm during the NS, 18.0 - 2.6 cm during the MS.
and 16.0 4.6 cm during the WS. There was significantly
greater forward knee translation over the feet during the NS
compared with the MS and WS.
The joint moments and moment arms expressed in Tables
8-10 are relative to barbell or system loads. Positive moment arms are anterior to joint, producing positive hip
flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor system moments. Hip extensor, knee flexor, and ankle plantar flexor
resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these
system moments. Negative moment arms are posterior to
joint, producing negative hip extensor, knee flexor. and
ankle plantar flexor system moments. Hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments are
needed to counteract these system moments. Joint moments
and moment arms were significantly different among the
three stance groups (Table 8). with most differences occur-

greater hip angles in the MS and WS compared with the NS

ring between the NS and WS. From Table 8. most signifi-

at peak hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities. Relative to

cant differences in moments and moment arms involved the

40

0
80~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

80

FIGURE S--Representative graph for hip,

10

knee, an ankle angular velocities as a function

hip angle.

00

o0of

-120

.140i

60

40

80

10

120

100

Descern Phae

80

60

40

20

Ascent Pha

*lio _Anglo
(deg)
-X|

KneeAngular Velocity
Hip Angular Velocity
Ankle Angular Velocity

ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

Medicine &Science in Sports &Exercise#,

989

plantar flexor resultant muscle moments were significantly

greater in 2-D analyses compared with 3-D analyses. During
the WS, ankle resultant muscle moments changed from
plantar flexor in 2-D analyses to dorsiflexor in 3-D analyses.
In 2-D analyses knee moments were greater with an NS
compared with a WS. Conversely. in 3-D analyses knee
moments were greater with a WS compared with a NS. All
data in Tables 1-10 and Figures 1-6 are from 3-D analyses
unless specified otherwise.

140

ia 125

115-,

105

---_

80

~~~Thigh
93.856

100

-(0.19i1Stance)

/-

128

0.81 1; SEE

160

140

3,.95; p < 0.001

180

200

220

DISCUSSION

ankle, whereas significant differences in knee and hip moments and moment arms occurred only at 45 0KF. Ankle
plantar flexor resultant muscle moments were generated
exclusively during the NS, whereas ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments were generated exclusively during the
MS and WS. Peak ankle moments and moment arms oc-

Many athletes and coaches believe that technique variations occur in the sauat as different stance widths are employed. There are currently no known studies that have
quantified joint angles, moments. and moment arms while
performing the squat with varying stance widths. Therefore,
the objective of this study was to compare squat kinematics
and kinetics between 2-D and 3-D analyses among three
defined stance groups. The results from the current study
demonstrate that kinematic and kinetic differences do occur
among the three stance groups and that 2-D kinematic and
kinetic analyses produce erroneous results compared with

curred at maximum KF during the NS and at 45KF during

3-D analyses, especially during the WS.

the MS and WS. Peak knee moments and moment arms

occurred at maximum KF, whereas peak hip moments and
moment arms occurred at minimum bar velocity. The only
significant differences between the squat descent and ascent
occurred at 455KF. in which hip moments and moment arms
were significantly greater during ihe ascent compared with
the descent. Ankle, knee. and hip moment anns and ankle
and hip moments were not significantly different between

In the current study, linear and angular displacements and

velocities, as well as joint moments and moment arms, were
averaged from the left and right sides of the body. There
were no significant differences between bilateral measurements. which demonstrate the symmetrical nature of the
squat exercise. This implies that during the squat analyzing
only one side of the body may be adequate in calculating
joint and segment angles, joint moments, and joint moment
arms. The symmetrical nature of the deadlift, which is
similar to the squat, has previously been demonstrated by
Escamilia et al. (9), who found no significant differences in
kinematic and kinetic measurements between left and right
sides of the body.

Stance Width 1%shoulder width)

FIGURE 6-Representative graph of simple linear regression between

normalized stance width and thigh angle at 45 knee flexion during the
squat descent.

COMbar and COMS,,t,. However, knee moments were

significantly greater in system load compared with barbell

load for all three stance groups (Table 9). Significant differences in ankle and knee moments and moment arms
between 2-D and 3-D analyses are shown in Table 10 for the
NS and WS. During the NS, ankle moment arns were 7-8
cm less in a 3-D analysis compared with a 2-D analysis,
whereas knee moment arms were 9-10 cm greater in a 3-D
analysis compared with a 2-D analysis. This same tread in
ankle and knee moment arms occurred during the MS and
WS. with a 12.-14 cm difference between 2-D and 3-D
analyses during the MS and a 16-18 cm difference betweer
2-D and 3-D analvses during the WS. During the NS, ankle
BA
E 1. Subiect characteristics (mean

S0M.
Medium Stance

Wide Stance

176.7 _ 6.9
82.4 + 21.7
208.3- 54.9
290.7 74.2

45 7 6.4
173.6 + 7.3
93.1 - 24.8
229.2 64.4
322.4 86.7

478- 4.
174.3 6.8
97.5 a 28.2
2387 54
336.2 _ 80.1

40.9 + 3.8
107 10
88.2 15.6

59.7 6.6
142 12
98.4 13.5

69.6 +.595
169 12
94.3 + 15.9

Narrow Stance
Age (yr)
Bodv height (cm'
Body mass (kg)
Barbeil load (kg5
Systemr
load (kg)
Stance width (cVm
Stance width (%shoulder widthi
Hand width (cm)

Joint and segmental angles. Although trunk angle

was not significantly different among the three stance
groups at 45S, 90g, and maximum KF, greater hip flexion, a
more horizontal thigh position. and a more vertical shank
position were observed in the WS and MS compared with
the NS. These chanees occurred in part because the NS had
approximately 4-6 cm greater forward knee movement in
the direction of the toes compared with the MS and WS.

437

,3.5

Signilicant
Differences

* Significant differences (P < 0.05).

vs narrow: I medium vs wide; 'wide vs narrow.

a Mediumn

990

Official Journai of the American College of Sports Medicine

hftr,v/www.acsrn-rnsse.org

TABLE 2.Joint and segment angles (mean :- SD).

Descent phase
45sKF
Hipi')
Trunk ()
0

Thigh ( )117
Shank1;
90' KF
Hip) 0)
runk(
Thlign
Shank fi
Maximumr KF
Hip ('I
runk(j
T.hiah ')
ShanrkL
Knee (j)
Ascert phase
90' KF
Hip(0
Trunk !
Thigh) 0 )

Shank '(i
Minimum bar velocity
Hip (C)
Tunk (')
Thiah ')
Shanh ()
Knee (j
45' KF
Hip)
7runk

'high()
Shank ()
Foo Angle(

Narrow Stance

Medium Stance

Wide Stance

4717

55+62*

55 1 7

70 + 4*-

68 + 4-

-5
71 3

124 +4
73 4

70 5"
126 _4

92t 8
60- 4153 5
61 5

98 6
60 6
160 +5
66 4

101

107.
58
166
58
106

109

110 t 7
62 _ 5
173 - 5
67 . 7

0
5
5
5
8

97+7

56-8
154

63

7
4
5
69 -5
81

56
138

67 9

52 9
66+ 6*
118 4
71 A
20 5

61 6
171 5
64 -4
102 7
1006
61 6
162 +5

66

80 - 11
57 t.9
137 6

72 +4
59 8
63
62

126

9"
6**
5
4

74
23 3

Significant
Difterences

*a,

71 * 4

89

62 + 6
165 t 7
69 + 6

99

104
60
166
68

10

7
-8
5

-'

82 9
56 - 6
140 +6
71 .-6
60 - 12
63 13
63 7"
.28 - 7
72 + 6
26 _o4

Significant differences (P< 0.05).

Medium vs narrow; 'medium vs wide: 'wide vs narrow.
Significant differences (P < 0.05) at 45' KF and 90' KF between descent and ascent phases.

Greater forward knee movements during the squat have

been shown to increase knee shear forces (2), which implies
that employing a MS or WS may be more effective than an
NS in minimizing knee shear forces.
Trunk. knee, hip, and thigh angle patterns and magnitudes

differences, because McLaughlin et al. employed a 2-D

analysis whereas the current study employed a 3-D analysis.
However, because trunk positions between 2-D and 3-D
analyses should be similar due to the trunk moving in a
sagittal plane, the observed joint position differences be-

from Figure I are similar to data from several other studies

tween these two studies are also probably due to technique

which quantified joint and segment angles during the squat

( 1,12,16,1-,21,26.35). Averaged amnong all three stance
groups, nm;nimal bar velocity occurred at 62 IO'KF,
which is slightly lower than the 75 6 KF reported by
McLaughlin et al. (21). Averaged among all three stance
groups. hip, trunk, thigh, and shank angles at minimum bar
velocity were 81 9G, 57
6, 139* 6', and 70 5PQ
*
respectively, in the current study, and 110 1 ll11, 39
I1iP,
150 + 2c, and 74 + 50, respectivelv. from McLaughlin et al.
(21). Although subjects from the current study and subjects
from McLaughlin et al. (21) all participated in a national
powerlifting competition involving 1-RM4 liffing, subjects
from McLaughlin et al. (21) had 13 more knee fl&exion. 129'
more hip flexion, and 18 more forward trunk tilt at minimum bar velocity. This implies that, compared with the
subjects in M'cLaughlin et al. (21), the subjects in the current
study obtained minimum bar velocity later in the ascent and
maintained a more upright trunk Dosition. Some of these
joint position differences between the current studv and
McLaughlin et al. (21) are probably due to methodological

differences.
All previous studies that quantified joint and segment
angles employed a 2-D sagittal plane analysis
(16.17,21.26,35). It was hvpothesized that hip, thigh, and
shank angles would show a greater number of significant
differences, between 2t-D and 3-D analyses during a WS
comparedtwith an NS. During the WS, the feet are typically
turned6out to a greater degree compared with an NS. The
ore; the feet turn out, the greater the lower extremities
deviateWfrom sagittal plane movements, and the greater the
differences will be between 2-D and 3-.D analyses. The
significantly greater foot angles in the WS compared with
the-NS contributed to several significant differences between 2-1l and 3-D analyses in the WS, but fewer significant
differences were observed between 2-D and 3-D analyses in
the NS. This is supported by Figure 3, which shows typical
differences in joint angles between 2-D and 3-D analyses for
the NS and WS. During the NS, 2-D and 3-D joint angle
analyses were nearly identical. whereas larger differences
between 2-D and 3-D analyses were observed during the

ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

991

TABLE 3. Comparisons of lower extremity joint and segment angles (mean SD) between 2-D and 3-D analyses

Descent phase
45 KF
Hip(')
Knee (1
Thigh (
Shank(f
90' KF
Hipf)
Kneel')
Thigh (')
Shank )
Maximum KF
Hip (')
Kneef,
Thigh'
Shanki')

Ascent phase
90' KF
Hip(')
Knee(
Tnigh('}

Shank(*)
Minimum bar velocity
Hip)')
Kneel')
Thigh (
Shank (i)
45' KF

Hip,')
Knee)
Thigh(

2-D

3-0

7*
2*
4
4*

42 7'
42 4'
115 + 4*
74 4'

55 7'
45- 1
126 t 4*
71 +4'

6'
1
5'
4

92
87
159
70

101 9*
88-3
165 7*
69 - 6

3-0

3-D

2-0

40+7*
42
114 3'
72 3

477*
44 1'
117 5'
71+3

45 6*
42 4*
118 9
75- 5

55
45_
124
73

88 9*
88 2*
151: 5
63 4

92
90
153
61

91 +8*
87 + 5
154 5
67 4

98
89:
160
66

103 13'
105+t9
166 5

107 _10*
106 8
166 5
58 5

104 - 13*
105 I11
169 8
65 t3

109

_ 8'
102 7
17'1 5
64 +4

106
X
12'
13+ 12'
170 7'
68 _7

99 _ 10'
173 5*
67 : 7

977*
90 2
154 4
63 5

90 10l
88+7
157 5*
67 + 4

100 6*
90 2
162 +5'
66 5

96:a,
89 6
162 : 9'
70 _ 6

104 ~ 7'
88 +3
166 8*
68 6

81 7'
67 9
138 5
69 5

72 14*
57 -8
133 7*
75 4'

80 11'
59 8
137 - 6*
72 _4'

74 _
58 133:
75

11
14
7'
7*

55 11'
43 3
121 5'
77 4*

63 9
45 :
126: 5
74 4'

54
43119
77

14*
3
6*

58 5

92 10*
88 5
153

64

77

66 - 9
137 5
700 S

46

9*

43 +2'
115 _ 3*

52
45
118

71
73 +3
Shanki
Significant differences (P< 0.05) between 2-D and 3-0 analyses.

8*
1V
5
5

9*
1*

4'
4

WS. However, the relatively small 65 difference in foot

angle between the NS and WS may have contributed to
several WS comparisons between 2-D and 3-D analyses not
being significantly different (Table 3). In examining 2-D
and 3-D joint and segment angle comparisons during sumo
(wide stance) and conventional (narrow stance) style deadlifts. Escamilla et al. (9) generally found no significant
differences between 2-D and 3-D analyses during the conventional deadlift. whereas all 2-D versus 3-D comparisons
were significantly different in the sumo deadlift. However,
mean foot angles were 14 + 6G for the conventional deadlift
and 42 8G for the suino deadlift. Furthermore. a comparisor between deadlift stance widths (9) and squat stance
widths from the current study revealed that the NS had a
33% greater stance width than the conventional deadlift,
whereas the suamo deadlift had an 11 % greater stance width
than the WS. These data imply that a 2-D analysis may be
adequate to calculate joint and segment angles when the foot
angle is relatively small (i.e., 0-1 5c) and a narrow stance is
employed, but significant errors can occur from 2-D analvses as foot angles and stance widths increase.
Mechanical work. Although there were no significant
differences in vertical bar distance and mechanical work
among the three stance groups (Table 4), the overall mechanical work on the svstem (1444 366 J) was significantlv greater than the total mechanical work on the bar
(1 107 278 J). This difference between bar mechanical
work and system mechanical work implies that the total
energy expenditure during the squat is underestimated if
992

Wide Stance

Medium Stance

Narrow Stance
2-0

Official Joumai of the American College of Sports Medicine

11*
6
4*
6

82 9*

60:-12
64^. 6

7'1+ 6*
63 + 13*
45- I
125:-7'
72 6*

6i

only the bar mechanical work is calculated, because energy

expenditure during the squat increases "inearly as mechanical work increases (5). Bar and system mechanical work
values in the current study were approximately 10% greater
than bar and system mechanical work values reported by
Escamilla et al. (9) during the conventional style deadlift,
which is performed similar to the squat. Because the subjects in Escamilla et al. (9) lifted a mean load of 222 34
kg, which is nearly identical to the mean load lifted in the
current study, the 1.0% difference in mechanical work between these two studies is from a 109-c greater vertical bar
distance in the current study. High energy expenditures have
been reported during both the deadlift (4,9) and squat (5),
which suggests that these types of multi-muscle. multi-joint
exercises are more effective in energy expenditure and muscle development compared with single-joint, single-muscle
exercises. Several studies have shown moderate to high
TABLE 4. Temporal and work comparisons (mear -- SD).
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance
Total lift time is)

Total descent time Is)

Total ascent time (s)
Total vertical bar distance (%-it)

Total vertical system. distance i(%Ht)

4.69

4.43 -0.60
1,95 0.55

2.48

C.50
0

29.2

1.7

27.0
51.6
vertical bar distance (cm)
47.8 vertical system distance (cm.
1058
mechanical work on bar (J)
mechanical work on svstem iJ) 1371 :

1.9
4.1
4.2
302
394

1.3c
1

2.02 0.47
'

2.6? :1.36

Total
Total
Total
Total
For all parameters there were no significant differences

4.68 1.48
.80 0.50

2.88 -1 1

28.5 - 2.2
26.7 2.3

28.6 -2.6
26.2 +.21

49.6 5.3
46.5 z. 5.4

49.8 -4.9
45.7 3.8
1154 :228
1493 + 309

1110 312
1468 +.406

among stance comparisons.

http:Ilwww.acsm-msse.org

TABLE 5. Select events (mean - SD).

Descent phase
Peak bar veiocitv
Velocity (ms 1)
Time occurred (%descent time)
Vertical bar position (%descent vertical bar distance)
Ascent phase
First peak bar velocity
Velocity (m-s 1)
lime occuirred (%ascent time)
Vertical bar position (%ascent vertical bar distance)
Minimum bar velocity
Velocity (ms 1)
Time occurred (%ascent time)
Vertical bar position 1%ascent vertical bar distance)
Second peak bar velocity
Velocity (ms-')
Time occurred (%ascent time)
Vertical bar position (%ascent vertical bar distance)

Narrow Stance

Medium Stance

Wide Stance

0.527 0.140
29.5 - 10.8
27.4 11.7

0.508 0.097
22.66 10.4
23.2 11.0

0.559

0.380 0.,102
13.8 8.5
10.0 _3.3

0.365
18.4
13.6

0.085
10.7
6.1

0.367
19.3
15.9

0.086 t 0.069
47.8 9.8
42.0 5.9

0.00
50.7
43 4

0.097
6.8
88.4

0.058 0.089
47.2 + 8.5
41.6 -2.0

0.464 t 0.116
86.5 '.2
9
84.6 + 114

0.457 0.111
85.6 - 6.5
84.6 + 4.4

0.156
11.0
14.1

30.9
29.5

0.434
84.4
82.3

0.055
10.9
'0.4

0.130
10.7
9.5

For all parameters there were no significant difterences among stance comparisons.
0% ascent time or vertical bar distance isthe beginning of the ascent, and 100% ascent time or vertical bar distance is the end of the ascent.

muscle activitv during the squat from the quadriceps, hamstrings, giuteus maximus, thigh adductors. abdominals, obliques, and erector spinae (6,8,14,17,20,25,29-31,34-36).
These are the largest and most powerful muscles in the body
and generate a high force production and energy expenditure when active.
Selected events and lifting phases. Mean peak vertical bar velocity during the squat descent (0.531 + 0.132
111-s) was slightly greater than mean peak bar velocity
during the squat ascent (0.452
0Q I 17 mr-s-) and occurred
at approximately 27% of both the descent time and the
descent vertical bar distance. Mean peak vertical bar velocity durin,g the descent was nearly identical to the high skilled
squat group from McLaughlin et al. (21) but approximately
15% lower than the less skilled squat group from McLaughlin et al. (21). This implies that higher-skilled lifters lower
the bar at a slower rate compared with lesser-skilled lifters.
This is important because several studies have reported
significantly greater tibiofemoral shear and compressive
forces during a fast squat cadence compared with a slow

squat cadence (1.6.11). This occurs because faster descent

rates require greater deceleration forces from the knee and
hip extensors in order to slow down and stop the weight at
the end of the descent.
The vertical bar velocity curve shown in Figure 2 is the
same pattern reported by McLaughlin et al. (21). Of the 39
lifters in the current study. 28 lifters achieved maximum
vertical bar velocity at their second peak vertical bar velocity, whereas the remaining 11 lifters achieved maximum
vertical bar velocity at their first peak vertical bar velocity.
However, for all stance comparisons, the mean second peak
bar velocity was not significantly different from the mean

first peak bar velocity (Table 5). These data are similar to
the I RM squat data reported by McLaughlin et al. (21), in
which most lifters also reached their maximum vertical bar
velocity at their second peak vertical bar velocity. Both the
acceleration and deceleration phases of the squat comprised
15-25% of the ascent time, whereas the sticking region and
maximum strength region comprised 30-40% of the ascent
time. These values are similar to data reported by McLaughlin et al. (21). These results imply that during the squat
approximately twice as much time is spent in the sticking
region and maximum strength region compared with the
acceleration and deceleration phases.
The end of the sticking region (i.e., minimum bar velocity) has previously been reported as the "sticking point"
(21), which occurred at approximately 60-650 KF and 8085"' hip angle (Table 2). The "sticking point" appears to be
the most difficult part of the lift, and is often where powerlifters fail in their attempt for a successful lift. Because
knee and hip moments and moment arms generated by the
system weight generally decrease during the ascent as the

knees and hips extend (16,22,35), a mechanical disadvantage is believed to occur namong knee and hip muscle extensor moments duunng the sticking region, being greatest
near the sticking point. The sticking point phenomena mav
in part be due to mechanical principles of skeletal muscle,
such as to the length-force relationship and muscle moment
arm lengths. It is well known that as a muscle contracts
concentrically and shortens its abilitv to generate force
diminishes. Because the product of muscle force and muscle

moment arm:determines the net muscle moment generated

atf
a joint,la decrease: in::both of these variables or a disproportionately decrease: in one variable with respect to the

TABLE 6. Lifting phases (mean _ SD).

Narrow Stance
Acceleration phase (%ascent time)
13. -88.5
33.9 t 9.7
Sticking region (%ascent time)
Maximum strength region (%ascent time)
38.8 --12.8
Deceleration phase (/0 ascent time)
13.5 9.2
For all parameters there were no significant differences among stance comparisons.
%ascent time is the total percentage of the ascent represented by each phase or region.
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

Medium Stance
18.4 10.7
32.3 m 12.3
35.0 6.1
14.4 - 6.5

Wide Slance
19.3 + 10.9
27.9 + 12.2
37.2 - 10.7
15.6 10.7

Medicine &Science in Sports &Exercise(,,

993

TABLE 7. Peak hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities and corresponding hip and knee angles.
Narrow Stance

Medium Slance

Wide Stance

-106 t 24
50 14
50 e 15

-104 22
45 13
56 14

-. 0 _- 21
46 - 14
58 14

Peak knee angtilar velocity (' s

Knee angle at peak knee angular velocity ()
Hip angie at peak knee angular velocity (01

-123 24
37 t 11
39 11

-112 + 19
36 C9
48 1
'0

-20 _ 23
34 - 12
46_ 11

Peak angie angular velocity ('-s -')

Knee anlgle at peak ankle anguiar velociht (0)
Hip angie at peak ankle angular velocity i
Ascent phase
Peak hip angular velocity ('s
Knee angle at peak hip anguilar veiocity (0
Hip angle at peak hip angular velocity (0)

-40 8
43 _ 19
45 t 19

-30 '2
59+ 15
70 19

-3 5_ 1I
54 25
73 _ 25

121 t 24
40 12
45 12

104 24
43 + 16
58 --44

I.02 24
36 1I
52 = 13

Peak knee angular velocity l"s -'

Knee angle at peak knee angular velocity (0)
HiP angle at peak knee angular veiocity ')

130 32
36 - 13
42 12

109 -: 29

"In - 3>
45 . 16
60 -a 24

42 = 13
52 + 27
59 - 25

33 t 6
65 - 17

Descent phase
Peak hip angular veiocitv ".sh
Knee angie at peak hip anoular velocity (1
Hip angle at peak hip angular velocity (}

Peak ankle angular velocity ("5s'

Knee angie at peak ankle
Hip angle at peak ankie angular velocity (0i
0

49 21
63 18

80 18

Significant
Differences

35 9
64 -- 20
80 23

Significant differences (P < 0.051.

aMedium vs narrow: b medium vs wide,C wide vs narrow.

other will cause a decrease in the net muscle moment. The

net hip extensor moment generated by the gluteus maximus.
hamstrings, and ischial fibers of adductor magnus has been
shown to be maximumn at 90o hip angle, decreasing progressive1v as the hips extend (23). This decrease in the net hip
extensor moment with hip extension contributes to the sticking point. Interestingly. in contrast to hip extensor mnoments,
the hip extensor morment arms for both the hamstrings and
gluteus maximus have their smallest values at 90' hip angle
(24). increasing progressively as the hips extend. This implies that the length-force relationship and muscle forces
fromn the gluteus maximus and hamstrings have a much
greater influence on hip extensor moments compared with
these muscle's respective moment arms. It has been previouslv demonstrated that changes in muscle forces affect
muscle moments to a much greater extent than changes in
muscle moment arms (18 e, All moment arms from the hip
extensors have been shown to initially increase as the hips
extend from 90' hip angle (24). The moment arms of the
adductor magnus increase until approximately 75G hip an(le. and then progressively decrease with further hip extension (24). Because the adductor magnus is a uni-articular
muscle, a decrease in this muscle's ability to generate force
due to muscle shortening, combined with its decreasing
moment arms as the sticking point is approached, produce a
decrease in the net hip extensor moment near the sticking
point. Although the moment arms of the uni-articular gluteus maximus increase progressively with hip extension
(24). a disproportional decrease in muscle force as this
muscles shortens may produce a decrease in the net hip
extensor moment near the sticking point. Because the hamstrings are bi-articular. during the ascent these muscles
lengthen at the knees and shorten at the hips, which helps
maintain a more optimal force-length relationship during the
squat. However, hip extension causes the hamstrings to
994

Official Journa, of the American College of Sports Medicine

lengthen to a greater extend than knee tlexion causes the

hamstrings to shorten (19,32). Therefore, it is common near

the sticking point for lifters to slightly increase forward

trunk tilt and hip flexion, as shown in Figure 1 at minimum
bar velocity. so as to increase the length of the hamstrings
and other hip extensors, thus increasing these muscle's
ability to generate force. The inclined for-ward trunk tilt also
allows a greater contribution from. the powerful back muscles. Although hip moment arms from the hamnstrings increase as the hips extend fromn 90t

to

35

' (24), knee moment

arms from the hamstrings peak near 50-60'KF (15,27).

which increase knee flexor moments near the sticking point.
The gastrocnemius also generates knee flexor mroments during the squat as they contract to cause ankle plantar flexion
during the ascent. These increased knee flexor moments
generated by the hamstrings and gastrocnernius. which oppose the knee extensor moments generated by the quadriceps, contribute to the sticking point. In addition. knee
extensor moments generated by the quadriceps decrease as
the knees extend toward the sticking point. This decrease in
knee extensor moments as the knees extend is primarily due
to a decrease in quadriceps force. because patellar tendon
moment arms change only a few millimeters frorm full knee
flexion to full knee extension (13,15j.
Interestingilv. the
12-140 greater hip flexion and 7-.00 greater forward trunk
tilt observed at the sticking point compared with the same
KF position during the squat descent implies that the sticking region causes an asymmetrical pattern to occur between
the squat descent and ascent. This explains why at 45eKF
there was significanthy greater hip flexioon and forward trunk
tilt during the ascent compared with the descent (Table 2).

Joint moments and moment arns. Although several studies have quantified joint moments during the squat
(2,8,12 ,16,17,12,26,28,31,34.35). there are no known studies that have quantified hip, knee, and ankle momernt arms
http:,'v/wwv.acsm-rmsse.org

TABLE _ 8.
Joint
moments and moment
arms
(mean - SD) relative to system load.
,
...
-..-----

Descent phase
Moment arms at 450 KFfcm)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moments at 45' KF(N-m)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moment arms at 90 KF (cmi
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moments at 900 KF(N-m)
Ankie
Knee
Hip
Moment arms at maximum KF(cm)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moments at maximum KF(N-m)
Ankie
Knee
Hip
Ascent pnase
Moment arms at 90 KF (cm)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moments at 90 KF(N-m)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moment arms at minimum bar velocity (cm)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moments at minimum bar velocity (Nm)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moment arms at 450 KF(cm)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
Moments at 450 KF(N-m)
Ankle
Knee
Hip

Narrow Stance

Medium Stance

0.5 t 2.1
-13.8 4.3
1.1 . 3.0

-4.2 2.7
--16.7 4.2
13.5 + 2.0*i

-79 5.0
-21.6 5.3
12 4 3.3*

10 t 52
-382 + 145
275 + 71 '

-136 t 122
-521 + 248
382 92**

-284 t 236
-698 299
383 t 161*0

-2.2 t 2.6
-19.7+ 5.0
17.3 3.8

-7.0 5.1
-22.6 t 5.0
16.3 3.5

-73 99
-605 t 247
487 t 123

-254 233
-723 t 267
479- 134

-1.4 t 2.6
-20.4 + 3.9
17.8+ 3.7

-23.7
16.7

-573 179
514 159

-47 100
-627 t 233
507 t 158

-242 t 228
- 756 235
499 158

1.3 2.3
18.45.4
21.1 t 3.5

- 1.0 t 2.5
-18.4 3.9
I17.3 3.6

-6.0 t 5.5
-22.1 3.8
17.6 t 4.2

40C 68
--504 - 187
547- 169

-34 t 108
--564 + 217
498 170

-224 t 242
-709 244

0.5 2.5
-14.5 5.6
22.0 3.5

-2.9 2.6
-15.2 4.3
21.0 + 5.1

-6.1 =5.3
- 19.2+ 6.1
21.2 4.0

22 73
-393 + 161
577 r 195

-90 t 100
-475 236
595 t 188

-227
224
-623 t 274
628 + 167

0.5 t 2.8
-12.9
4.1
13.9 2.8**

-3.6 2.1
-14.2 3.7
18.8 3.7

-18.5 4.6
17.5 t 4.6*-

1.0

2.3
5.2

-18.9
.9.4

3.9

34 66
-517 + 169
505 t 169

1.7t 2.6
-21.0 t 5.7
19.9 t 4.2
51 t 72

16
359
355

79
t

141
8
59**

-112 81
-447 - 221

549 t 211

Wide Stance

Significant
Differences

fib,c

.a,c
C

*a,c

-6.6 + 5.0
t

4.0
3.6

516 - 143

-6.7+

ohs,

4.4

- 243 t 201
-605 + 254
526 + 197-

*6.6

*ac

i Significant differences (P < 0.05).

'Medium vs narrow; 'medium vs wide; wide vs narrow.

00 Significant differences (P < 0.05) at 450 KF and 9Q0KF between descent and ascent phases.
Positive moment arms are anterior to joint, producing positive hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor system moments. Hip extensor, knee flexor. and ankie plantar
flexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system moments. Negative moment arms are posterior to joint, producing negative nip extensor. knee
flexor, and ankle plantar flexor system moments. Hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system
moments.

during the squat. Positive ankle moment arms during the NS

produced dorsiflexor system moments (Table 8) that must
be counterbalanced by plantar flexor resultant muscle moments. In contrast, negative ankle moment arms during the
MS and WS generated ankle plantar flexor system moments
(Table 8) that must be counterbalanced by dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments. This implies that the ankle plantar
flexors may be recruited to a greater extent during the NS
compared with the MS and WS. whereas the ankle dorsiflexors may be recruited to a greater extent during the MS
and WS compared with the NS. Escamilla et al. (8), whose
subjects had a stance width similar to the NS group, reported
low to moderate gastrocnemius activity during the 12 RM
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

squat. In addition, gastrocnemius activity has been reported

to be 10-15% greater in the NS squat compared with the
WS squat (10). Ankle moment arms peaked at maximum
KF, which is consistent with squat data from Escamilia et al.
(8) and Isear et al.(14), which show peak gastrocnemius
activity near maximum KF.
Several studies have shown moderate to high activity
from the quadriceps during the squat (8,20,25,29-31,34,35).
with peak activity occurring near maximum KF
(8,14,25,30.31,35). Moderate to high knee extensor muscle
moments imply overall knee extensor activity, especially
during the MS and WS, which produced significantly
greater knee moments compared with the NS. However, two
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exerciset

995

studies have reported no significant differences in quadriceps activity between the NS and WS (10,20).
Moderate to high hip extensor muscle moments suggest
overall hip extensor activity. especially in the MS and WS
groups. which at 450 KF produced significantly greater hip
moments compared with the NS. At minimum bar velocity
(approximately 60KF) peak hip extensor muscle moments
were generated in all stance groups. Escamilla et al. (8)
reported peak hamstring activity (approximately 50% of a
maximum voluntary isometric contraction) near 50OKF.
whereas other studies have reported peak hamstring activity
during the squat between 10 and 600 KF (14,25.31). The
hamstrings, gluteus maximus, and ischial fibers of the adductor magnus have all shown significantly greater activity
in the WS squat compared with the NS stance (10,20).
Compared with the squat descent at corresponding KF angles, the significantly greater hip flexion and forward trunk
tilt observed during the squat ascent at minimum bar velocity and 45'KF caused significantly greater hip moments and
moment arms.
It is difficult to compare ankle, knee, and hip moments
among squat studies in the literature because methodologies
and loads lifted (20-270 kg range) varied greatly. In quantifying ankle, knee, and hip moments, some studies used a
single camera (2-D) and no force platform (2.12,22,26),
some studies used a single camera and one force platform
(16.17,28.34,35), whereas some studies used multiple cameras (3-D) and one force platforrm. (8,31). In addition, some
studies had subjects squat with one foot on a force platform
(8,31), some studies had subjects squat with both feet on a
force platform (16,17.34,35x, some studies quantified joint
moments relative to barbell weight t2,26), and other studies
TABLE 9.Mean (mean + SD) knee moments (Nm)between barbell ioad and
system load.
Relative to Bar Load Relative to System Load
Descent phase

Narrow stance
45' KF
90' KF

Maximum KF
Medium stance
45' KF
90' KF
Maximum KF
Wide stance
45' KF
90' KF
Maximum KF
Ascent phase

Narrow stance
90' KF
Minimum bar veiocitv
45' KF

--249

117'
--366 129'

-382 145'
--517t169'
-573
179*

-341
-393
-411

168*
178'
174*

-521 - 248'
--605 247'
-627t 233*

-468 210'
-477- -191'
-498 164'

-698 t 299'
-723 267'
-756 t 235*

--310

-504 -187'

102'

-324

-226
---223

133*

t1-.3'

1l00*

--393 + 161'
t 141'

-359

Medium stance
-564 t 217*
90' KF
-362 160'
Minimum bar velocity
-288 160'
-475 1236'
45 KF
-270 149*
-447 t 22-1
Wide stance
90 KF
-462 168*
-709 t 244*
-386 - 196'
- 623 - 274'
Minimum bar veiocity
45' KF
-384 178'
-605 t 254'
'Significant differences (P< 0.05).
All moments are knee flexor moments generated by barbell or system loads. Knee
extensor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these barbell or
system moments.
996

Official Journal of the American Coliege of Sports Medicine

quantified joint moments relative to system weight

(8,12,16,17,22,28.31,34.35). Peak ankle moments have
been reported between 50 and 300 N-m (16,17,22,26).
peak knee moments between 100 and 500 N-m
(2.8,12,16,17,22.26,28.31,34.35), and peak hip moments
between 150 and 600 N-m (16,17,22,34,35). Hence, ankle,
knee, and hip moment magnitudes in the current study are
similar to corresponding moment magnitudes in the squat
literature.
One of the most important findings from the current study
is the numerous significant differences observed in moments and moment arns between 2-D and 3-D analyses.
Most of the above squat studies that quantified joint moments employed a single camera to record a sagittal view of
the lifter, thus performing a 2-D analysis. Although a 2-D
analysis may be appropriate in calculating hip and spinal
moments and moment arms during squat, because the trunk
moves primarily in the sagittal plane. it is only appropriate
in calculating ankle and knee moments and moment arms if
lower extremity movements occur primarily in the sagittal
plane. However, as the stance widens and the feet turn out,
greater errors in 2-D moment and moment arm calculations
will occur, because lower extremitv movements move out of
the sagittal plane. Escamilla et al. i9) reported only- a few cm
differences in ankle and knee moment arm calculations
between 2-D and 3-D analyses during the conventional
deadlift exercise. in which a very narrow stance was emnployed (32 _ 8 cm, 80 _ 16% shoulder width) with the feet
only slightly tumed out (14 = 60). However, these authors
reported 20-25 cm differences in ankle and klnee moment
arms between 2-D and 3-D analvses during the sumo deadlift, in which a very wide stance was employed (70 11 cm,
188 + 37-/% shoulder width) with the feet turned out 42
8'. Although 2-D analyses in the current study were significantlv different than 3-D analyses for all three stance
groups, errors in moment arm. magnitudes were twice as
great in the WS compared with the NS. This occurred
because the WS had a significantly greater stance width and
foot angle compared with the NS.
When circumstances do not permit multiple cameras to be
employed during the squat, a 3-D analysis can still be
performed on some kinematic and kinetic variables by inputting 2-D data from a single camera into appropriate
derived -nathematical equations. For example, ankle moment arms derived fromn a 3-D analysis car be calculated
given ankle moment arms from a 2-D analysis by employing
the following equation: MA 3 r - cos 0(MA,D) (0.5S- ,,.h)sin 0, where MA2 is the ankle moment arm measured from
a 2-D analysis, MAOD is the predicted ankle moment arm
from a 3-D analysis, B is the angle measured between the
sagittal plane and the longitudinal axis of the foot. and Swidth
is the stance width measured between ankles. This equation
is easily derived by utilizing elementary trigonometry. The
values predicted for MA3D by emnploying this equation were
nearly identical to the actual measured values of MA3 D from
the 3-D analysis. A 2-D analysis from a single camera will
yield correct ankle moments and moment arms only when
the feet are pointing straight ahead (i.e., B = 0"), and will
D

http:lvwww.acsm-msse.org

TABLE 10. Comparisons of ankle and knee joint moments and moment arms (mean t SD) relative to system load between 2-D and 3-D analyses.
Wide Stance
Narrow Stance
2^0
3-D
2-D

3-0

Descent phase
Moment arms at 45' KF(cm;
-7.9 5.0*
7.9 2.0*
0.5 2.1*
7.1+ 2.0*
Ankie
-21.6 5,3*
- 3.3 2.9'
13.8 4.3*
- 4.5 + 2.4
Knee
Moments at 45* KF(N-inl
-284 236'
257 -78
10 52'
207 80*
Ankie
-698 299'
-104 - 99*
-382 t 145*
-133 + 86*
Knee
Moment arms at 90 KF(cm)
-7.0 + 5.1'
9.0 2.4'
1.0 t 2.3*
8.8 +2.2*
Ankle
-22.6 + 5.0
-4.0 3.3'
-18.9 5.2'
-8.7 + 2.2*
Knee
Moments at 90' KF(N-mj
-254 + 233*
291 77'
34 t 66'
254 98'
Ankle
-723 + 267'
-119+. 89*
-517 169*
-248t 86'
Knee
Moment arms at maximum KF(cm)
-6.6 5.0'
9.4 + 2.1*
17 - 2.6*
9.5 2.3*
Ankle
-23.7 4.0'
--4.9 - 3.1*
-21.0 5.7'
-10.5 :2.7*
Knee
Moments at maximum KFiN-m)
-242 t 228*
305 80*
5t 72'
272 _ 98'
Ankle
-756 235'
-146 75*
-573179*
-297t 97*
Knee
Ascent phase
Moment arms at 90' KF(cm)
-6.0 5.5'
10.1 2.4'
1.3: 2.3
9.1 2.0*
Ankle
-22.1 3,8*
-3.A 2.3*
-18.4 t 5.4'
-8.2 t 2.4*
Knee
Moments at 90' KF(N-m)
-224 242'
325 78*
40 +68*
260: 86*
Ankle
-709 244*
-101 t 67*
-504 187*
-236 t 104*
Knee
Moment arms at minimum bar velocity (cm)
-6.1 + 5.3*
10.0 2.8*
0.5 + 2.5'
8.3 + 2.4*
Ankle
--19.2 t 6.1"
-0.9 4.1*
-14.5 t 5.6*
-4.9 t 2.8'
Knee
Moments at minimum bar velocity (N-mi
-227 t 224'
323 t 100*
22 t 73*
241 102'
Ankle
-623 +273'
-24 35'
-393 t 161
-137 89*
Knee
Moment arms at 45' KF(cm)
--6.7 + 4.4*
9.3 :2.1'
0.5 t 2.8'
8.3 :3.2*
Ankie
-18.5 t 4.6'
-0.4 3.3*
-12.9 4.1'
--3.6 2.3'
Knee
Moments at 45' KF(N-m)
-243 t201
305 98*
16 79*
235 101'
Ankle
-605 254'
- 12 t 122'
-359 t 141
-107 77
Knee
'Significant differences (P< 0.05) between 2-D and 3-D analyses for the NS and WS.
Positive moment arms are anterior to joint, producing positive hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor system moments. Hip extensor, knee fiexor, and ankle piantar
flexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system moments. Negative moment arms are posterior to joint, producing negative hip extensor, knee
flexor, and ankle plantar fiexor system moments. Hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system
moments.

produce only small errors when the feet are slightly turned
out with an NS employed. For exaimple, if during the NS
squat MA,D measured 9 cm, stance width was 35 cm, and
the foot angle was 10', MA3D would yield a value of
approximately 6 cm, which is only a few cm different than
MAID. However, if during the WS squat MA2 D measured
the same 9 cm, but stance width was 70 cm and foot angleI
was 45', MA 3D would yield a value of approximately - 18
cm, a difference of 27 cm. Also, the difference in the
moment arm sign implies a change from a plantar flexor net
muscle moment to a dorsiflexor net muscle moment. The
employment of a 3-D analysis is clearly more paramount
during the WS squat with a large foot angle compared with
the NS squat with a small foot angle.
When peak mean joint moments from the squat literature
involving 2-D analyses are normalized by body heig ain
system weight, their normalized peak mean values are very
similar to the normalized mean peak 2-D moments calculated in the current study. For example, from Table 10 the
peak mean 2-D knee moment calculated for the NS was 297
N-m. When this peak knee moment is normalized by the
product of body height (1.77 m, Table 1) and system load
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES

(2852 N, Table 1) and expressed as a percentage, the normalized mean peak knee moment for the NS is between 5.5

and 6%. Compared with other squat studies that reported

peak Mean knee0moments using a 2-D analysis, Ariel (2)
found a.:normalized:g, peak meanh knee moment of approximately 55%, Similarly. Laider et al. (17i and Wretenberg
aLet
a.(35) found pekmean knee moments of approximately
6-6-5%, which are similar to the nonnalized peak mean
knee moment in the current study. As seen in Table 10. knee
imoments and moment arms are significantly underestimated
in -D0analyses compared with 3-D analyses.
moment significant differences observed beThet 0knee
tween barbell 7load and system load implies that knee moment contributions from bodv segments should not be discounted when calculating the actual joint moments that
occur urri}nsg0lifting.t is interesting that hip and ankle
moments were not significantly different between barbell
load and system load. There are several reasons why this
occurred. First, knee moment arms were generally greater
and hip and ankle moment arms were generally less for the
system loads compared with the barbell loads. Therefore,
these smaller system hip and ankle moment arms would
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercisea

997

produce a relative decrease in hip and ankle svstem moments. Second, the system load was greater for knee moments than hip moments, because there is greater body mass
above the knee joints compared w-ith the hip joints. Third,
the relative small ankle moment arms compared with the
knee and hip moment arms produced relatively large standard deviations for both ankle moments and moment arms
(Table 8).

The authors extend a special thanks to Andy Demonia and Christian Welch for all their help in collecting the data and Abidemi Bolu
Ajiboye, Herbert Bohnet, and Brian Pullin for all their assistance in
manually digitizing the data. Also, we would like to extend a special
thanks to Tom and Ellen Trevorah, powerlifting meet directors, for all
their support throughout this project.
Address for correspondence: Rafae. Escamilla, Ph.D., C.S.C.S..
Duke University Medical Center, P.O. Box 3435, Durham, NC 27710;
E-mail: rescamil@duke.edu.

REFERENCES
I.

Knee shear forces

during a squat exercise using a barbeli and a weight machine. In:
Biomechanics VIhf-B. X. Matsui and K. Kobavashi (Eds.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1983, Pp. 923-927.
2. ARIEL. B. G. Biomechanical analysis of the knee joint during deep
knee bends with heavy loads. In: Biomechanics IV, R. Nelson and
C. Morehouse (Eds.). Baltimore: University Park Press, 1974, pp.

19. LIEBER, R. L., and C. G. BRowN. Sarcomere length-joint angle

relationships of seven frog hindlimb muscles. Acta Anat. 145:
289-295, 1992.
20. MCCAW. S. T., and D. R. MELROSE. Stance width and bar load
effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med. Sci.
Sports Exere. 3}(3):428-436. 1999.
21. MCLAUGHLIN, T. M., C. J. DILLMAN. and T. J. LAR3sNER. A kinematic

44-52.
3. BROWN. E. W.. and K. ABANI. Kinematics and kinetics of the dead
lift in adolescent power lifters. Med. Set. Sports Exerc. 17:554566, 1985.
4. BROWN, S. P., J. M. CLEMONS. Q. HE. and S. Lit'. Prediction of the
oxygen cost of the deadlift exercise. J. Sports Sel. 12:371-375,
1994.
5. BYRD. R., K. PIERCE, R. GENTRY, and M. SWISHER. Predicting the
caloric cost of the parallel back squat in women. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 10:184-185. 1996.
6. DAIIL.KVIST, N. 1J.,P. MAYO. and B. B. SEEnHoM. Forces during
squatting and rising from a deep squat. Engl. Med. Ii (2):69-76,
1982.
7. DEMPSTER, W. T. Space requirements of the seated operator
(WADC Technical Report). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio. 1955, pp. 55-159.
8. ESCANMILLA. R. F., G. S. FLEISIG. N. ZHENG. S. W. BARRENTINE, K. E.
WILK, and J. R. ANDREWS. Biomechanics of the knee during closed
kinetic chain and open kinetic chain exercises. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc, 30:556-569. 1998.
9. ESCAMILLA. R. F.. A. C. FRANCISCO, G. S. FLEISIG, et al. A threedimensional biomechanical analvsis of sumo and conventional
style deadlifts. Med. Sci. Sports Exere. 32:1265-`275. 200O.
10. ESCAMILLA. R. F., N. ZHENG. G. S. FLEISIG. et: al. The effects of
technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and
leg press. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29:S156, 1997.
1]. HATTIN. H. C., M. R. PIERRYNOWSKI. and K. A. BAiL. Effect of load,
cadence, and fatigue on tibio-femoral joint force during a half
squat. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21:613-61&, 1989.
12. HAY, J. G., J. G. ANDREWS. C. L. VAAUGHAN, and K. UEYA. Load,
speed, and equipment effects in strength-training exercises. In:
Biomechanics VII1-B, H. Masui and K. Kobayashi (Eds.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1983, pp. 939-950.
13. HERZOG, W., and L. J. READ. Lines of action and moment arms of
the major force-carrying structures crossing the human knee joint.
J. Anat. 1}82(Pt 2):213-230, 1993.
14. ISEAR, J. A., Jr., J. C. ERICKSON, and T. W. WORRELL, EMG analysis
of lower extremity muscle recruitment patterns during an unloaded
squat. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29:532-539. 1997.
15 KELLIS, E., and V. BALT-zoPouLos. In vivo determination of the

model of performance irnthe parallel squat by champion power-

ANDREWS. J. G., J G. HAY. and C. L. VAUTGHAN.

patelia tendon and hamstrings moment arms in adult males using

videofluoroscopy during submaximal knee extension and fiexion.
Clin. Biomech. 14:118- 24, 1999.
16. LANDER, J. E., B. T. BATES, and P. DEVITA. Biomechanics of the
squat exercise using a modified center of mass bar. MAed. Sci.
Sports Exere. 18:469-478, 1986.
17. LANDER. J. E._ R. L. SIMoNToN, and J. K. GIACOBBE. The effective-

ness of weight-belts during the squat exercise. Med. Sci. Sports

Exerc. 22:1 17-1 26, 1990.
18. LIEBER, R. L., and J. L. BOAKES. Muscle force and moment arm

contributions to torque production in frog hindlimb. Am. J.

Physiol. 254(6 Pt 1):C769-772. 1988.

998

Official Joumal of the American College of Sports Medicine

lifters. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 9:128-133, 1977.

22. MCLAUGHLIN. T. M., T. J. L.ARDNER. and C. J. DILLMAN. Kinetics of
the parallel squat. Res. Q. 49:175-189. 1978.
23. NEvEmm, G. On hip and lumbar biomechanics: a studv of joint load and
muscular activity. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med Suppl. 10: 1-35, 1984.
24. NEMETH, G.. anid H. OHLSEN. In vivo moment arm iengths for hip
extensor muscles at different angles of hip fiexion. J. Biomech.

18:129-140. 1985.
25. NINOS, J. C., J. J. IRRGANG. R. B- RDFTI and J. R. WEISS. Electromyographic analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower
extremity neutral rotation and 30 degrees of lower extremity
turn-out from the self-selected neutral position. [. Orthop. Sports
Phys. Ther. 25:307-315. 1997.
26. NISELL, R., and J. EKHOLM. Joint load during the parallei souat in
powerlifting and force analysis of in vivo bilateral quadriceps
tendon rupture. Scand J. Sports Sci. 8:63-73. 1986.

27. OCONNOR. J. J. Can muscle co-contraction protect knee ligaments

after injury or repair? J. Bone Joint Surg. (Br.) 75-B.1():41-48.
1993.
28. RUSSELL, P. J.. and S. J. PHILLiPS. A preliminary comparison of

front and back squat exercises. Res. Q. 60:201-208. 1989.

29. SIGNORILE, J. F.. K. KwIAiTKOWSKI, J. F. CARUSO, and B. ROBERTSON.

Effect of foot position on the electromryographical activit of the

superficial quadriceps muscles during the parallel squat and knee
extension. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:182 187. 1995.
30. SIGNoRiLE, J. F.. B. WErER. B. RouL.T.F. C.p.Uso. 1. LoAE_rrY.N, and
A. C. PERRY. An electromyographicai comparison of the squat and knee
extension exercises. J. Strength Cond Res. 8:178-183, 1994.
31. STUART, M. 21..D. A. MEGLAN, G. E. Liurz, E. S. GROWNEY, and

K. N. AN. Comparison of intersegmnental tibiofemoral joint forces

and muscle activity during various closed kinetic chain exercises.
Am. J. Sports Med. 24:792-799, 1996.
32. VISSER, J. J., J. E. HOOGKAIMER, M. F. BOBBERT, and P. A. HUIJ1NG.
Length. and moment arm of human leg muscles as a function of
knee and hip-joint angles. Eur. J. Appl. PhYsioi. 61(5-6):453460, 1990.
33. WOOD, G. A., and R. N. MARSHiALL. The accuracy of DIT extrapolation in three-dimensional film analysis. J. Biomech. 19:781785, 1986.
34. WRETENBERG, P.. Y. FENG, and U. P. ARBORELIUS. High-and low-

bar squatting techniques during weight-training. Med. Sci. Sports

Exerc. 28:218-224. 1996.
35. WRETENBERG, P., Y. FENG, F. LINDBERG. and U. P. ARBORELILS.

Joint moments of force and quadriceps activity during squatting

exercise. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 3:244-250, 1993.
36. WRIGHT, G. A., T. H. DELONG, and G. GEHLSEN. Electromryographic
activity of the hamstrings during performance of the leg curls,
stiff-leg deadlift, and back squat movements. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 13:168-174, 1999.
37. YACK, H. J., C. E. COLLINS, and T. J. WHIELDON. Comparison of
closed and open kinetic chain exercise in the anterior cruciate
ligament-deficient knee. Am. J. Sporfs Med. 21:49-54. 1993.
http-./!www.acsm-msse.org

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A three-dimensional biochemical analysis of the squat

during varying stance widths
SOURCE: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 33 no6 Je
2001
WN: 0115201727052
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company.

All rights reserved.