Cited by 38Sports Performance and TrainingLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

Effects of different lifting cadences on ground reaction forces during the squat exercise

Bentley, Jason R, Amonette, William E, De Witt, John K, Hagan, R Donald·2010·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of different lifting cadences on the ground reaction force (GRF) during the squat exercise. Squats performed with greater acceleration will produce greater inertial forces; however, it is not well understood how different squat cadences affect GRF. The hypotheses were that faster squat cadences would result in greater peak GRF and that the contributions of the body and barbell, both of equivalent mass, to total system inertial force would not be different. Six experienced male subjects (31 +/- 4 years, 180 +/- 9 cm, 88.8 +/- 13.3 kg) performed 3 sets of 3 squats using 3 different cadences (fast cadence [FC] = 1-second descent/1-second ascent; medium cadence [MC] = 3-second descent/1-second ascent; and slow cadence [SC] = 4-second descent/2-second ascent) while lifting a barbell mass equal to their body mass. Ground reaction force and velocity sensor data were used to calculate inertial force contributions of both the body and barbell to total inertial force. Peak GRF were significantly higher in FC squats compared to MC (p = 0.0002) and SC (p = 0.0002). Ranges of GRF were also significantly higher in FC compared to MC (p < 0.05) and higher in MC compared to SC (p < 0.05). The inertial forces associated with the body were larger than those associated with the barbell, regardless of cadence. Faster squat cadences result in significantly greater peak GRF as a result of the inertia of the system. This study demonstrates that GRF was more dependent on descent cadence than on ascent cadence and that researchers should not use a single point on the body to approximate the location of the center of mass during squat exercise analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181cb27e7

Cites

17 of 17 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentley, J. R., Amonette, W. E., De Witt, J. K., & Hagan, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Wyle (United States) (US)
  • University of Houston - Clear Lake (US)
  • Johnson Space Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bentley, Jason R
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2010-05
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
1414-1420
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040441914
Cited by
38
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Keywords
squatting, ground reaction force, inertial forces, barbell, center of mass, speed sensor, peak ground reaction force
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Humans, Male, Musculoskeletal Physiological Phenomena, Weight-Bearing, 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