CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesSports Performance and TrainingSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

A preliminary comparison of front and back squat exercises

Russell, Pamela J., Phillips, Sally J.·1989·Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
DOI 10.1080/02701367.1989.10607441
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the knee extensor demands and low back injury risks of the front and back squat exercises. Highly strength-trained college-aged males (n = 8), who performed each type of squat (Load = 75% of front squat one repetition maximum), were filmed (50 fps) from the sagittal view. The body was modeled as a five link system. Film data were digitized and reduced through Newtonian mechanics to obtain joint forces and muscle moments. Mean and individual subject data results were examined. The maximum knee extensor moment comparison indicated similar knee extensor demands, so either squat exercise could be used to develop knee extensor strength. Both exercises had similar low back injury risks for four subjects, but sizable maximum trunk extensor moment and maximum lumbar compressive and shear force differences existed between the squat types for the other subjects. The latter data revealed that with the influence of trunk inclination either exercise had the greatest low back injury risk (i.e., with greater trunk inclination: greater trunk extensor demands and lumbar shear forces, but smaller lumbar compressive forces). For these four subjects low back injury risk was influenced more by trunk inclination than squat exercise type.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02701367.1989.10607441

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • To the best of the authors' knowledge, no previous study has considered how angular and linear kinematics of the back squat vary at different load intensities.

    “However, these studies have evaluated the biomechanics of different types of squats but, to the best of our knowledge, none of these have considered how these can vary at different load intensities.”

    From Kinematic analysis of the back squat at different load intensities in powerlifters and weightlifters (2024) · cites this paper as [30]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Russell, P. J., & Phillips, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Russell, Pamela J.
Venue
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1989-09
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
201-208
ISSN
  • 0034-5377 (ISSN-L)
  • 0270-1367
  • 2168-3824
DOI
10.1080/02701367.1989.10607441
OpenAlex
W1967623057
Cited by
52
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
front squat, back squat, knee extensor moment, low back injury risk, trunk inclination, joint forces, muscle moment
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Humans, Knee, Male, Risk Factors, Weight Lifting, Back Injuries

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