Cited by 64Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesSports Performance and Training

Knee joint kinetics in relation to commonly prescribed squat loads and depths

Open access
Cotter, Joshua A., Chaudhari, Ajit M., Jamison, Steve T., Devor, Steven T.·2013·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding the safety and performance benefits of performing the squat exercise to depths beyond 90° of knee flexion. Our aim was to compare the net peak external knee flexion moments (pEKFM) experienced over typical ranges of squat loads and depths. Sixteen recreationally trained men (n = 16; age, 22.7 ± 1.1 years; body mass, 85.4 ± 2.1 kg; height, 177.6 ± 0.96 cm; mean ± SEM) with no previous lower-limb surgeries or other orthopedic issues and at least 1 year of consistent resistance training experience while using the squat exercise performed single-repetition squat trials in a random order at squat depths of above parallel, parallel, and below parallel. Less than 1 week before testing, 1RM values were found for each squat depth. Subsequent testing required the subjects to perform squats at the 3 depths with 3 different loads: unloaded, 50% 1RM, and 85% 1RM (9 total trials). Force platform and kinematic data were collected to calculate pEKFM. To assess the differences among loads and depths, a 2-factor (load and depth) repeated measures analysis of variance with significance set at the p < 0.05 level was used. Squat 1RM significantly decreased 13.6% from the above-parallel to the parallel squat and another 3.6% from the parallel to the below-parallel squat (p < 0.05). Net peak external knee flexion moments significantly increased as both squat depth and load were increased (p ≤ 0.02). Slopes of pEKFM were greater from unloaded to 50% 1RM than when progressing from 50% to 85% 1RM (p < 0.001). The results suggest that typical decreases in squat loads used with increasing depths are not enough to offset increases in pEKFM.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182773319

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Varying rotations of the tibia and femur from 30° inward to 80° outward has no effect on quadriceps activity.

    “Similarly, varying rotations of the tibia and femur from 30° inward to 80° outward has no effect on quadriceps activity.23”

    From A Biomechanical Review of the Squat Exercise: Implications for Clinical Practice. (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Methods describe varying squat load and depth and measuring peak external knee flexion moments, not testing tibial or femoral rotation against quadriceps activity (page unavailable). Searches for the stated 30° inward to 80° outward range, rotation, and quadriceps activity found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 64

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Andriacchi TP Johnson TS Hurwitz DE Natarajan RN Mow VC Huiskes R Musculoskeletal dynamics, locomotion, and clinical applications Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics and Mechano-Biology Philadelphia, PA Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2005 91 122
  2. [16]Franklin B Whaley M Howley E Balady G ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription: Testing and Prescription Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2000
  3. [21]Kemper K Ferguson M Contraindicated exercises revisited IDEA Fitness Journal 4 34 37 2007

Authors
Cotter, J. A., Chaudhari, A. M., Jamison, S. T., & Devor, S. T.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Cotter, Joshua A.
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2013-07
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
1765-1774
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073869934
Cited by
64
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32AR047752)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
squatting, squat depth, knee flexion moment, knee kinetics, resistance training load, one-repetition maximum, recreational athletes
MeSH terms
Humans, Kinetics, Knee Joint, Male, Range of Motion, Articular, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult

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