CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesSports Performance and TrainingSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

Load-dependent mechanical demands of the lower extremity during the back and front squat

Krzyszkowski, John, Kipp, Kristof·2020·Journal of Sports Sciences
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2020.1766738
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine load-dependent differences in lower-extremity biomechanics between the back squat (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. Eleven NCAA Division-I athletes performed three repetitions of the BS and FS at loads of 40%, 60%, and 80% of their FS one repetition maximum (FS-1RM). Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during each squat repetition and used to calculate lower extremity peak joint angles and peak net joint moments (NJM). Peak angles and NJM were compared with a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Peak hip extensor NJM were greater during the BS at 60% and 80% of FS-1RM. In comparison, peak knee extensor NJM were greater during the FS at 80% of FS-1RM. However, regression-based prediction of NJM at 100% of FS and BS 1RM indicated that at maximal loads, peak knee NJM are (~3%) higher during the BS. The experimental results suggest that when performed at the same absolute load, the BS and FS are characterized by greater respective mechanical demands imposed on the hip and knee extensors muscles groups. However, prediction-based results suggest that the knee extensor NJM demands are comparable when performed at the same relative load (i.e., with respect to each exercise's RM).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02640414.2020.1766738

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The increase in the knee flexion moment with greater squat depth is not consistent across studies, and can be affected by the trunk and tibia orientation.

    “However, the increase in the knee flexion moment with greater squat depth is not consistent across studies,33,34 and can be affected by the trunk and tibia orientation.”

    From A Biomechanical Review of the Squat Exercise: Implications for Clinical Practice. (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krzyszkowski, J., & Kipp, K.
Affiliations
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • Marquette University (US)
Corresponding author
Krzyszkowski, John
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Sports Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-06-16
Volume
38
Issue
17
Pages
2005-2012
ISSN
  • 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-447X
DOI
10.1080/02640414.2020.1766738
OpenAlex
W3035625489
Cited by
18
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Keywords
back squat, front squat, squatting, lower limb biomechanics, joint moments, joint angles, load dependence, relative load, knee extensors, hip extensors, one-repetition maximum
MeSH terms
Ankle, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Hip, Humans, Knee, Male, Posture, Time and Motion Studies, Weight Lifting, Weight-Bearing, Lower Extremity, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review