KINETIC ANALYSIS OF ISOMETRIC BACK SQUATS AND
ISOMETRIC BELT SQUATS
JACOB S. LAYER,1 CHRISTYLYNNE GRENZ,1 TAYLOUR J. HINSHAW,1 DEREK T. SMITH,1
STEVEN F. BARRETT,2 AND BOYI DAI1
1
Division of Kinesiology and Health, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming; and 2Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
ABSTRACT
Layer, JS, Grenz, C, Hinshaw, TJ, Smith, DT, Barrett, SF, and
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVBZZxeh5YHRLZlQHHGlqluAG6ViJhApHjBKCPRxShwtFHFLOSkJF9z0= on 10/01/2018
Dai, B. Kinetic analysis of isometric back squats and isometric
belt squats. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2018—Belt
squats seem to provide an alternative to back squats. However,
it is not clear how musculoskeletal loading differs between the
two. This study compared lower extremity and low-back kinet-
ics during isometric back squats and isometric belt squats.
Sixteen men (age: 22.6 6 3.4 years; height: 1.74 6 0.11 m;
mass: 82.0 6 5.6 kg) and 10 women (age: 21.5 6 2.5 years;
height: 1.64 6 0.10 m; mass: 68.9 6 7.1 kg) performed iso-
metric back squats and belt squats at 4 squat depths. Joint
resultant moments were calculated from kinematic and ground
reaction force data. Linear interpolation was used to estimate
peak vertical forces and joint moments at a 458 thigh segment
angle. Subjects increased peak forces, ankle moments, and
knee moments but decreased low-back moments from back
to belt squats (p # 0.023). Hip moments did not significantly
change between 2 squats. Subjects demonstrating smaller
ankle and knee moments during back squats showed greater
increases in these moments from back to belt squats (p #
0.012, R2 # 0.24). Subjects whose back squats were charac-
terized by greater low-back moments displayed greater de-
creases in low-back moments from back to belt squats (p ,
0.001, R2 = 0.98). Compared with isometric back squats, iso-
metric belt squats may provide a similar or greater external
loading for the musculoskeletal system of the lower extremities
while reducing external spinal loading. Belt squats may be con-
sidered by individuals with upper-body or spinal injuries and
those displaying excessive external back moments.
KEY WORDS lower extremity, biomechanics, training, injury,
performance, spine
Address correspondence to Boyi Dai, bdai@uwyo.edu.
00(00)/1–9
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
INTRODUCTION
S
quats are effective resistance exercises for increas-
ing lower extremity strength and performance
(7,26). Squatting posture and neuromuscular coor-
dination are similar to those of many common
activities, allowing for greater transferability of the lower
extremity strength gained by squatting to these activities
(30,32). For example, an 8-week back squat intervention re-
sulted in significantly greater improvements in jump perfor-
mance compared with a leg press intervention (32). In
addition, the closed chain nature of squatting also makes it
well suited for post–anterior cruciate ligament injury reha-
bilitation (23).
Squats are considered safe for healthy individuals when
performed correctly (6,18). However, the spinal loading
associated with squats needs to be carefully controlled, espe-
cially for individuals with pathologies of the spinal column
and associated musculature (18). In traditional back squats,
the external weight placed on the shoulder imposes an exter-
nal vertical force to the lifter’s trunk. For safety, it is recom-
mended that the trunk be kept as vertical as possible
throughout the movement (6). However, lifters commonly
demonstrate forward trunk lean to maintain stability (33). As
the forward trunk lean increases, so does the horizontal dis-
tance between the low back and external force, resulting in
an increased external trunk flexion moment that must be
counteracted by low-back muscles (27). Forces generated
by muscle contraction apply compressive and shear loads
to the spine that can significantly exceed that of the external
resistance (18). Small changes to the lifter’s form can impact
the horizontal distance between the low back and external
load, magnifying or reducing low-back loading (21). This can
also lead the lifter to alter the relative load distribution of the
involved joints (15,16,21), potentially causing structural over-
load. Because commonly used squat variations such as the
front and back squats require the load be applied to the
shoulder, upper extremity and spinal pathologies may pre-
vent the development, maintenance, and testing of lower
extremity strength through traditional squat variations. From
all causes, the general population of the United States was
estimated to have experienced approximately half a million
incidences of low-back pain and more than 3 million
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 1
Back and Belt Squats
presentations with upper extremity injuries at emergency
departments (22,28). Squat variations that do not require
the spine and upper extremities to support the resistance
need to be developed and validated.
The belt squat differs from traditional squat variations in
that the external weight is applied to the pelvis rather than
the shoulder (13). Pelvic load placement minimizes the need
for upper extremity involvement and likely decreases spinal
loading. The relative balance of back and knee strength in-
fluences lifting strategies (20). In addition, both hip and knee
strength can be limiting factors in dynamic back squat per-
formance (16). In the cases of individuals whose squatting
ability may be limited by back or hip strength, the belt
squat’s pelvic load placement might allow for greater total
force production. Despite extensive research on dynamic
backs squats (4,9,15,21,27), only 2 studies have quantified
lower extremity muscle activation during dynamic belt
squats with submaximal loads, one using dynamic free
weight belt squats and the other dynamic lever-style
machine belt squats (13,17). Despite the apparent potential,
the understanding of the biomechanics of belt squats is
limited.
Isometric back squat variations seem to provide a valid
and convenient method of estimating the performance of
dynamic back squats and testing lower extremity strength in
specific ranges of motion (1,3,12,14). Excellent reliability (in-
traclass correlation coefficients $0.97) has been demon-
strated for peak forces produced in isometric back squats.
In addition to being reliable predictors of dynamic back
squat performance (3,12), isometric squat testing has been
shown to be sensitive enough to detect changes in strength
and rate of force development (1). Isometric back squats
have been used, in conjunction with kinematic and kinetic
analyses to examine the relationship between knee joint
angle specific strength and jump-landing kinematics (14).
Compared with dynamic tests, isometric strength tests, can
be more efficient, easier to administer, and easier to stan-
dardize (1). Overall, the literature supports the validity of
using isometric squats as a more convenient way to assess
lower extremity strength and dynamic squat performance.
Therefore, isometric back squats and isometric belt squats
may be useful for estimating and comparing the kinetics of
dynamic back and belt squats.
As an initial step toward understanding belt squat bio-
mechanics, the purpose of the current study was to compare
the peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), lower
extremity joint moments, and low-back moments between
isometric back squats and isometric belt squats. It was
hypothesized that the isometric belt squat would result in
greater peak vGRF, ankle, knee, and hip moments, but
smaller low-back moments compared with the isometric
back squat. Findings will provide a quantitative comparison
between isometric back and belt squats and inform future
biomechanical analyses of dynamic belt squats.
the TM
2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Each subject performed 1 maximal effort isometric back
squat and 1 maximal effort isometric belt squat, at each of 4
different squat depths. Three-dimensional kinematic and
ground reaction force (GRF) data were collected and used to
calculate lower extremity and low-back moments. Linear
interpolation was used to estimate peak vGRF and joint
moments at a 458 thigh segment angle. The thigh segment
angle was defined as the angle between the thigh segment
and vertical line in the sagittal plane. Thus, a 458 thigh seg-
ment was similar to the thigh segment angle achieved during
a half squat. Subjects also performed a full range of motion
body-weight squat. The low-back moment of the body-
weight squat was used as an estimation of the belt squat’s
low-back moment. The peak vGRF, lower extremity mo-
ments, and low-back moments at a 458 thigh segment angle
were compared between isometric back squats and isometric
belt squats. Pearson correlation was used to analyze the rela-
tionship between back squat forces and moments and the
amount they changed from back to belt squats.
Subjects
Based on a pilot study with 2 men and 1 woman, a large
effect size was expected for peak vGRF between the
isometric back squats and belt squats. A previous power
analysis was performed to estimate an adequate sample size
for the comparison between squat variations. Assuming an
effect size of 0.8 for a paired comparison, a sample size of 15
was needed for a type I error at the level of 0.05 to achieve
a power of 0.8. Sixteen men and 10 women participated,
with an age range of 18-31 years (Table 1). All subjects had
experience with dynamic back squats and participated in
exercises or sports for a minimum of 2–3 hours twice per
week at the time of testing. However, subjects were not
experienced in either isometric squats or belt squats. Individ-
uals were excluded if they (a) lacked squatting experience or
were not physically active, (b) had suffered any major injury
requiring surgical treatment within the past 3 years, (c) sus-
tained a lower extremity injury, which prevented participa-
tion in physical activity for a period greater than 2 weeks
within the preceding 6 months, (d) possessed any condition
TABLE 1. Demographic information and p values
of t-tests between men and women.
All subjects Men Women p
Age (y) 21.5 6 5.3 22.6 6 3.4 21.5 6 2.5 0.35
Height (m) 1.70 6 0.11 1.74 6 0.11 1.64 6 0.10 0.036
Mass (kg) 77.0 6 8.9 82.0 6 5.6 68.9 6 7.1 ,0.001
Measurements expressed mean 6 SD.

preventing maximal effort participation in sporting activities,
(e) were pregnant, or (f ) were allergic to adhesive tape. This
study was approved by the University of Wyoming Institu-
tional Review Board. All subjects signed an informed con-
sent form before participation.
Procedures
Subjects wore a spandex top and bottom, a hat, and Ghost 5
athletic shoes (Brooks Sports, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) for
data collection. Subjects completed a general warm-up
consisting of 5 minutes of light treadmill running at a self-
selected pace, then 30 yards each of walking toe touches,
walking quadriceps stretch, walking lunges, 2 sets of lateral
shuffles; followed by a specific warm-up including 2 sets of
10 back squats with an unloaded 20.5-kg barbell for 10
repetitions each. For the specific warm-up, subjects were
instructed to squat through their normal squatting range of
motion. Retroreflective markers were placed on subjects’
legs, pelvis, trunk, head, and arms (Figure 1) to capture squat
kinematics using 8 Vicon Bonita-10 infrared cameras
(Oxford Metrics Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom) at a sampling
frequency of 160 Hz. Markers placed on the pelvis were
removed during belt squats to accommodate the hip belt
(Spud, Inc., Columbia, SC, USA). GRF applied to each foot
were captured using 2 FP4060-05-PT force platforms (Bertec
Corp, Columbus, OH, USA) at a sampling frequency of
1,600 Hz. Three-dimensional kinematic and GRF data were
synchronized and collected by the Vicon Nexus 1.8.2 soft-
ware. All trials were conducted inside a squat rack modified
to include a reinforced aluminum lifting platform adapted for
use with force platforms.
Subjects first performed one static trial in a T-pose and
followed by a deep body-weight squat trial. The static trial
was performed to calibrate the relative positions among
markers on the same segment (24). For the deep body-
weight squat, subjects started standing and kept their arms
parallel to the ground while squatting as low as possible.
Subjects performed 1 maximal isometric back squat and 1
maximal isometric belt squat (Figure 1) at each of 4 different
squat depths for a total of 8 squat conditions. During pilot
testing, substantial fatigue effects were observed when 2 or 3
trials for each condition were performed. Therefore, subjects
only performed 1 trial for each condition. Squat depths were
evenly distributed from the lowest posture subjects achieved
to a standing posture for each squat variation, without
including the standing posture. Isometric back squat depths
were manipulated by adjusting the height of the squat rack’s
2 safety bars. Isometric belt squat height was controlled by
adjusting the length of the chain affixed between the lifters’
feet. To control stance width, subjects squatted with their
feet flat and their heels centered on strips of tape, placed
parallel to the subject’s midsagittal line and separated by
one and a half times the subject’s interacromial distance.
Subjects used their preferred foot orientation and hand
placement (back squat). Belt squat arm position was the
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
same as for the body-weight squat. Before data collection,
subjects were instructed to use their normal lifting technique
and keep their trunk as vertical as possible to minimize injury
risk (6). During squat trials, subjects were given consistent
loud verbal encouragement, “go, go, go!” Each squat condi-
tion was preceded by a 50% effort practice trial. The sub-
sequent official trial consisted of a 3-second maximal effort
isometric effort, in 1 of the 2 squat variations. The belt squat
was resisted by a chain affixed to the platform, between the
subject’s feet. For the back squat, subjects placed a standard
Olympic bar across the upper posterior region of their del-
toids, squatting up against the squat rack safety bars.
Although bar placement was self-selected, all placements
were below the cervical prominens and less than 2 inches
from the top of the deltoids. No effort was made to restrict
bar movement in the horizontal plane. However, such
movement was resisted by the friction between the Olympic
bar and the squat rack’s safety bars. At each height, both
squat variations were performed before moving to the next
height. Squat depth order was randomized, and squat varia-
tion order was counterbalanced for each subject.
A minimum rest of 4 minutes was provided between maxi-
mum effort trials.
Data Reduction. Marker coordinates and GRF were filtered
using a fourth-order Butterworth filter at a low-pass cutoff
frequency of 15 and 100 Hz, respectively (10). A lower
extremity and pelvis model was established to calculate joint
moments (25). Low-back moments were calculated around
the midpoint between 2 iliac crests, corresponding to the L3
or L3-4 spinal level (5). The hip joint center was defined 25%
of the distance from the ipsilateral to the contralateral
greater trochanters (29). The knee joint was defined as the
midpoint between the medial and lateral knee markers, and
the ankle joint as the midpoint between the medial and
lateral ankle markers (25). The pelvis, thigh, shank, and foot
reference frames were defined according to the International
Society of Biomechanics recommendations (34). Segment
reference frames were established during the static trial
and reconstructed during dynamics trials (24). A thigh vec-
tor was defined as a vector passing from the knee joint to the
hip joint. The thigh segment angle was calculated as the
angle between the thigh vector and global vertical axis in
the sagittal plane.
Three-dimensional ankle, knee, hip, and low-back mo-
ments were calculated through a bottom-up inverse dynam-
ics approach (19). Because of the minimal movements
during isometric squats and small acceleration during the
deep body weight squat, the linear and angular acceleration
of each segment was constrained to be zero for calculation
purposes. Segment mass and center of mass were estimated
through anthropometric assumptions (11). The joint resul-
tant moment was calculated as the magnitude of the 3-
dimensional joint moment vector representing the overall
joint effort. Joint moments were expressed as internal
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 3
Back and Belt Squats

Figure 1. Side (top) and front (bottom) views of the back (left) and belt (right) squats at an approximate 458 thigh angle.

moments and normalized as a percentage of the subject’s
body height and body mass (25). vGRF was normalized to
body mass (10).
Data were extracted at the time of peak bilateral vGRF,
during each of the isometric squat trials. The isometric squat
data included bilateral vGRF, ankle moments, knee mo-
ments, hip moments for both left and right legs, and low-
back moments. Because isometric squat depths instead of
actual thigh segment angles were controlled, linear interpo-
lation was performed between each dependent variable and
the
actual thigh segment angles for each squat variation and
subject. The estimated dependent variable at a 458 thigh
angle was used for further analyses to control for the effect
of kinematic variations on kinetic measurements (Figure 2).
Linear interpolation used the values immediately above and
below a 458 thigh angle for estimation. This linear interpo-
lation approach has been used and supported by the litera-
ture, which has shown a close to linear relationship between
squat depths and peak isometric force production during
isometric back squats when the knee flexion angle was
TM

4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


between 20 and 1008 (14). Low-back moments were not
calculated for the belt squats because of the removal of pelvis
markers. Instead, low-back moments at a 458 thigh angle
during the ascending phase of the deep body-weight squat
were used to represent low-back moments for belt squats.
Because the load applied by the belt was below the iliac
crests, the external low-back moments of the body-weight
squat and isometric belt squats were assumed to be equal for
a given thigh segment angle. Data calculation was performed
in MATLAB R2016b (MathWorks, Natrick, MA, USA).
Statistical Analyses
The peak bilateral GRF represented the peak total force
generated by the 2 legs during squats. Because ankle, knee,
and hip moments changed similarly between sexes and squat
variations for the left and right sides, the 2 sides were
averaged to represent unilateral joint moments. Outliers
were identified as values with z-scores greater than 2 or less
than 22. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check
for normal distribution. A 2 (back vs. belt squats, within-
subject variable) by 2 (men vs. women, between-subject vari-
able) analysis of variance was performed for each dependent
variable. Sex was included to detect potential interaction
between sex and squat variation, while squat variation was
the primary variable of interest. Independent and paired t-
tests were performed when a significant interaction was
observed. To further quantify how forces and joint moments
changed from back to belt squats, Pearson correlation anal-
yses were performed between the magnitudes of these var-
Figure 2. The linear interpolation approach to estimate peak vertical ground reaction force at a 458 thigh angle for a subject. BW = body weight.
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
iables during back squats and their changes from back to belt
squats. The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was applied to
all statistical tests to control the study-wide false discovery
rate to be 0.05 (2). To assess the effects of outliers and vio-
lation of normal distribution on parametric statistical tests,
the p values of independent and paired t-tests were com-
pared with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon
signed-rank tests, and the p values of Pearson correlation
tests were compared with Spearman’s rank correlation tests.
Cohen’s dz and Cohen’s d were calculated to quantify the
effect size of comparisons between squat variations and
between sexes, respectively. Cohen’s dz or d less than 0.5,
between 0.5 and 0.8, and greater than 0.8 were considered
“small,” “medium,” and “large” effect sizes, respectively (8).
Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS Statistics
22 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).
RESULTS
Men were taller and heavier than women (Table 1). Ten of
260 numbers were identified as outliers. Five of 20 variables
(5 dependent variables during back and belt squats for men
and women) did not meet the assumption of normal distri-
bution. However, statistical significance was consistent
between parametric and nonparametric tests. To keep con-
sistency among variables, all results were based on paramet-
ric tests. The largest p value for a significant test was 0.023
after the adjustment for the false discovery rate.
Both sexes increased peak vGRF, ankle moments, and
knee moments and reduced their low-back moments from
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 5
Back and Belt Squats

TABLE 2. Mean values 6 standard deviations of dependent variables and p values of ANOVAs.*†

p values of ANOVAs

Back squat Belt squat Squat Sex Interaction

Peak bilateral vertical ground reaction forces (N/BW)

Men 2.94 6 0.48 3.50 6 0.80 ,0.001 0.001 0.308
Women 2.23 6 0.38 2.59 6 0.48
All subjects 2.67 6 0.56 3.15 6 0.82
Ankle moments (N$m/BW/BH)
Men 0.09 6 0.04 0.12 6 0.03 0.006 0.006 0.304
Women 0.07 6 0.03 0.08 6 0.03
All subjects 0.08 6 0.04 0.11 6 0.04
Knee moments (N$m/BW/BH)
Men 0.16 6 0.03 0.19 6 0.03 ,0.001 0.002 0.736
Women 0.11 6 0.04 0.16 6 0.03
All subjects 0.14 6 0.04 0.18 6 0.04
Hip moments (N$m/BW/BH)
Men 0.27 6 0.05 0.27 6 0.05 0.394 ,0.001 0.587
Women 0.19 6 0.03 0.18 6 0.03
All subjects 0.24 6 0.06 0.23 6 0.06
Low-back moments (N$m/BW/BH)
Men 0.36 6 0.09 0.09 6 0.01 ,0.001 0.002 ,0.001
Women 0.24 6 0.05 0.08 6 0.01
All subjects 0.32 6 0.09 0.08 6 0.01

*ANOVA = analysis of variance; BW = body weight; BH = body height.

†Moments were extracted at the time of peak bilateral vertical ground reaction force; ankle, knee, and hip moments were the
average between the left and right sides. Bold values indicate a significance level of 0.05.

isometric back to isometric belt squats (Table 2). The effect back and belt squats. The effect sizes between sexes were
sizes between back and belt squats were large for vGRF, large except for ankle moments during back squats. Corre-
knee moments, and low-back moments and small to lation analyses showed significant negative correlations
medium for ankle moments (Table 3). Hip moments did between moments during back squats and amount of
not significantly change from back to belt squats. Men dem- changes in moments from back squats to belt squats for
onstrated greater peak vGRF, ankle moments, knee mo- ankle moments (p = 0.004, R2 = 0.3), knee moments (p =
ments, and hip moments than women for both isometric 0.012, R2 = 0.24), and low-back moments (p , 0.001, R2 =
0.98). No significant correla-
tions were observed for peak
vGRF or hip moments (p .
0.05, R2 = 0.06).
TABLE 3. Effect sizes of pairwise comparisons.
DISCUSSION
Cohen’s dz Cohen’s d
The purpose of this study was
Back squat vs. Belt squat Men vs. women to compare the peak vGRF,
lower extremity joint mo-
Men Women Back squat Belt squat
ments, and low-back moments
Peak bilateral vertical ground 1.06 1.03 1.58 1.29 of isometric back squats and
reaction forces belt squats in both men and
Ankle moments 0.77 0.43 0.66 1.27 women. Linear interpolation
Knee moments 1.31 2.14 1.23 1.29 was used to estimate the
Hip moments 0.06 0.30 1.73 1.93
Low-back moments 3.15 3.7 1.56 0.98 dependent variables at a 458
thigh angle, controlling for
the effect of kinematic varia-
tions. As hypothesized,
the TM

6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


isometric belt squats produced greater peak vGRF, knee
moments, and ankle moments, but lower low-back mo-
ments. However, both isometric squat types produced sim-
ilar hip moments.
Previous studies have examined the biomechanics of
dynamic squat variations and techniques by quantifying joint
angles, moment arms, and joint moments (4,9,15,21,27). Belt
squat studies have assumed negligible low-back loading
while focusing on lower extremity muscle activation
(13,17). Current findings support decreased low-back mo-
ments during the belt squat. The large effect size suggests
a practically meaningful decrease. In addition, the magnitude
of low-back moment differences between isometric back and
belt squats was strongly correlated with low-back moments
during back squats. During isometric belt squats, an external
force was applied inferior to the low back by the belt and
chain. Because no external force was applied superior to the
low back, only the upper-body mass and position contrib-
uted to the low-back moments for the body-weight squat
and isometric belt squat. Thus, the body-weight squat low-
back moments were used to represent the isometric belt
squat low-back moments, and they were found similar
among subjects. For isometric back squats, an external force
was applied to the shoulder by the bar. Therefore, the exter-
nal force also contributed to the isometric back squat low-
back moments. Because subjects’ abilities to apply forces to
the bar varied, there was a wide range of low-back moment
magnitudes among subjects in isometric back squats. As the
low-back moments in back squats reduced to similar values
in belt squats, individuals who produced greater back squat
low-back moments experienced more reductions in their
low-back moments.
The isometric belt squat resulted in increased vGRF,
ankle moments, and knee moments but similar hip mo-
ments compared with the isometric back squat. The effect
sizes between squat variations were large for vGRF and
knee moments, indicating the squat variation had the
greatest effect on the knee joint. Previously, 2 studies found
similar lower extremity muscle activation between dynamic
back squats, dynamic free weight belt squats, and dynamic
machine belt squats, except for the decreased gluteus
maximus activation during the machine belt squat com-
pared with the back squat (13,17). These findings suggest
similar ankle and knee moments but decreased hip mo-
ments during the belt squat, compared with the back squat.
This is generally consistent with the relative changes in
joint moments observed in the current study. The increased
vGRF might result from unloading the spine, decreasing
the limiting effect of the weakest joint, and allowing for
a more mechanically advantageous strategy. The increased
vGRF can be considered as increased external loads, con-
tributing to the increased ankle and knee moments.
Although subjects were instructed to keep their trunk as
vertical as possible, forward trunk lean was commonly
observed for maintaining stability. Therefore, moving the
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
external load from the shoulder to the pelvis placed it
closer to the hip, decreasing the hip’s external moment
arm. With the increased external force being counterbal-
anced by the decreased moment arm, similar hip moments
occurred in both squat conditions. Previous studies com-
paring dynamic back and belt squats have controlled the
load intensity by using either an 8 repetition maximum
(8RM) or 5RM (13,17). Based on the current findings, con-
straining back and belt squats to the same vGRF might
produce similar ankle and knee moments but decreased
hip moments for the belt squat.
Correlation analyses showed that individuals who dem-
onstrated lower knee moments during the back squat also
showed greater increases in knee moments during the belt
squat. It is speculated that these individuals likely demon-
strated greater trunk flexion during back squats. Unfortu-
nately, the shoulder markers were commonly blocked by
the bar and arms during data collection, so that the actual
trunk position could not be quantified. Greater trunk
flexion would move the external resistance anteriorly closer
to the knees and further from the hips, resulting in
decreased moment arms from the external force to the
knee and potentially decreasing involvement of the knees
in force production. As the external resistance moved
posterior during belt squats, the moment arms for the knee
were largely increased and resulted in more increases in
knee moments for these individuals. In the current study,
the isometric belt squat resulted in increased ankle and
knee joint moments. However, kinematic and kinetic
analyses of dynamic squats are needed to understand
how belt squats may affect joint positions, coordination
patterns, and joint relative efforts.
Several limitations existed in this study. Lifting techni-
ques could have been influenced by the isometric nature of
the assessment and the inexperience of subjects with either
belt squats or isometric squat variations. The loading
patterns of more experienced lifters may differ. Isometric
squat variations have been shown to be reliable predictors
of performance in their respective dynamic squat variation
(1). Subjects’ techniques also could have been influenced by
the suggestion to keep their trunk as vertical as possible.
Although this instruction was given for safety (6), some
individuals may be able to achieve greater performance
with greater forward trunk lean. Only isometric back and
belt squats were included. Other squat variations such as
front squats and squats with improved ankle dorsiflexion
may result in different kinematics and kinetics and should
be considered in future studies. Because of the fatigue effect
observed during pilot testing, only one trial was feasible for
each condition. Although previous studies have supported
the reliability of peaks forces during isometric back squats
(3,12), the current study did not provide quantification
regarding either trial-to-trial or day-to-day repeatability
for peak forces and joint moments. Kinematics and GRF
were measured to calculate joint resultant moments, from
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 7
Back and Belt Squats
which the dependent variables were estimated at a 458
thigh segment angle. In addition, because the belt pre-
vented pelvic marker placement, the low-back moment
from individual’s deep body-weight squat was used to esti-
mate the low-back moment during belt squat conditions.
Finally, joint moments cannot fully represent internal joint
loading. Cocontraction of the spinal stabilizers can produce
substantial spinal loading, even if the low-back moment
seems to be small (31). Future studies incorporating kine-
matic, force, electromyography measurements, and muscu-
loskeletal modeling may provide insight into the internal
spinal loading during belt squats. Improvements in marker
sets should be considered to provide a better understanding
of trunk and hip motion during belt squats. The biome-
chanics of dynamic, full range of motion belt squats, and
other belt squat variations should also be investigated.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Compared with isometric back squats, isometric belt squats
seem to impose a similar or greater loading to the
musculoskeletal system of the lower extremities, with sub-
stantially less low-back loading. Assuming generalizability of
our isometric results to the dynamic condition, dynamic belt
squats may be a viable alternative to the back squat, for
assessing and potentially developing lower extremity
strength. Individuals, who have upper-body injuries or who
are unable to maintain a neutral spinal position while back
squatting, may benefit from the reduced upper-body involve-
ment and low-back moments associated with belt squats.
If cocontraction of the musculature associated with the spine
is limited, belt squats seem to show potential as a squat
alternative for those with spinal injuries. If performed
appropriately, just like many other exercises, the belt squat
is a relatively safe assessment and is also easy to instruct.
Compared with leg press exercises, the belt squat allows for
a vertical body posture in a closed chain movement (32). On
the other hand, while the belt squat provides a strategy of
squatting when low-back loading is undesirable, it will fail to
load the back when adequate loading is needed. Future stud-
ies are warranted to quantify the application of the belt squat
for assessments and training.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors claim no conflict of interest; the results of the
current study do not constitute as an endorsement of the
equipment used by the current study by the authors nor
the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Bazyler, CD, Beckham, GK, and Sato, K. The use of the isometric
squat as a measure of strength and explosiveness. J Strength Cond Res
29: 1386–1392, 2015.
2. Benjamini, Y and Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate:
A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc
Ser B 57: 289–300, 1995.
the TM
8 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
3. Blazevich, AJ, Gill, N, and Newton, RU. Reliability and validity of
two isometric squat tests. J Strength Cond Res 16: 298–304, 2002.
4. Bryanton, MA, Kennedy, MD, Carey, JP, and Chiu, LZ. Effect of
squat depth and barbell load on relative muscular effort in squatting.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 2820–2828, 2012.
5. Chakraverty, R, Pynsent, P, and Isaacs, K. Which spinal levels are
identified by palpation of the iliac crests and the posterior superior
iliac spines? J Anat 210: 232–236, 2007.
6. Chandler, TJ and Stone, MH. The squat exercise in athletic
conditioning: A position statement and review of the literature. Natl
Str Cond Assoc J 13: 51–58, 1991.
7. Chelly, MS, Fathloun, M, Cherif, N, Ben Amar, M, Tabka, Z, and
Van Praagh, E. Effects of a back squat training program on leg
power, jump, and sprint performances in junior soccer players.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 2241–2249, 2009.
8. Cohen, J. The T-Test for Means. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1988. pp. 25–48.
9. Cotter, JA, Chaudhari, AM, Jamison, ST, and Devor, ST. Knee joint
kinetics in relation to commonly prescribed squat loads and depths.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 1765–1774, 2013.
10. Dai, B, Cook, RF, Meyer, EA, Sciascia, Y, Hinshaw, TJ, Wang, C,
et al. The effect of a secondary cognitive task on landing mechanics
and jump performance. Sports Biomech 17: 192–205, 2018.
11. de Leva, P. Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov’s segment inertia
parameters. J Biomech 29: 1223–1230, 1996.
12. Demura, S, Miyaguchi, K, Shin, S, and Uchida, Y. Effectiveness of
the 1RM estimation method based on isometric squat using a back-
dynamometer. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2742–2748, 2010.
13. Evans, TW, McLester, CN, Howard, JH, McLester, JR, and
Calloway, JP. A comparison of muscle activation between back
squats and belt squats. J Strength Cond Res. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002052. Epub ahead of print.
14. Fisher, H, Stephenson, ML, Graves, KK, Hinshaw, TJ, Smith, DT,
Zhu, Q, et al. The relationship between force production during
isometric squats and knee flexion angles during landing. J Strength
Cond Res 30: 1670–1679, 2016.
15. Flanagan, SP and Salem, GJ. Lower extremity joint kinetic
responses to external resistance variations. J Appl Biomech 24: 58–
68, 2008.
16. Flanagan, SP, Kulik, JB, and Salem, GJ. The limiting joint during
a failed squat: A biomechanics case series. J Strength Cond Res 29:
3134–3142, 2015.
17. Gulick, DT, Fagnani, JA, and Gulick, CN. Comparison of muscle
activation of hip belt squat and barbell back squat techniques. Isokinet
Exerc Sci 23: 101–108, 2015.
18. Hartmann, H, Wirth, K, and Klusemann, M. Analysis of the load on
the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth
and weight load. Sports Med 43: 993–1008, 2013.
19. Kingma, I, de Looze, MP, Toussaint, HM, Klijnsma, HG, and
Bruijnen, TBM. Validation of a full body 3-D dynamic linked
segment model. Hum Mov Sci 15: 833–860, 1996.
20. Li, K and Zhang, X. Can relative strength between the back and
knees differentiate lifting strategy? Hum Factors 51: 785–796,
2009.
21. List, R, Gulay, T, Stoop, M, and Lorenzetti, S. Kinematics of the
trunk and the lower extremities during restricted and unrestricted
squats. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1529–1538, 2013.
22. Ootes, D, Lambers, KT, and Ring, DC. The epidemiology of upper
extremity injuries presenting to the emergency department in the
United States. Hand (N Y) 7: 18–22, 2012.
23. Schoenfeld, BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their
application to exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3497–
3506, 2010.

24. Soderkvist, I and Wedin, PA. Determining the movements of the
skeleton using well-configured markers. J Biomech 26: 1473–1477,
1993.
25. Stephenson, ML, Hinshaw, TJ, Wadley, HA, Zhu, Q, Wilson, MA,
Byra, M, et al. Effects of timing of signal indicating jump directions
on knee biomechanics in jump-landing-jump tasks. Sports Biomech
17: 67–82, 2018.
26. Styles, WJ, Matthews, MJ, and Comfort, P. Effects of strength
training on squat and sprint performance in soccer players.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 1534–1539, 2016.
27. Swinton, PA, Lloyd, R, Keogh, JW, Agouris, I, and Stewart, AD.
A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat,
powerlifting squat, and box squat. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1805–
1816, 2012.
28. Waterman, BR, Belmont, PJ Jr, and Schoenfeld, AJ. Low back pain
in the United States: Incidence and risk factors for presentation in
the emergency setting. Spine J 12: 63–70, 2012.
29. Weinhandl, JT and O’Connor, KM. Assessment of a greater
trochanter-based method of locating the hip joint center. J Biomech
43: 2633–2636, 2010.
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
30. Wilson, GJ, Murphy, AJ, and Walshe, A. The specificity of strength
training: The effect of posture. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 73:
346–352, 1996.
31. Wilson, M, Dai, B, Zhu, Q, and Humphrey, N. Trunk muscle
activation and estimating spinal compressive force in rope and
harness vertical dance. J Dance Med Sci 19: 163–172, 2015.
32. Wirth, K, Hartmann, H, Sander, A, Mickel, C, Szilvas, E, and Keiner,
M. The Impact of back squat and leg-press exercises on maximal
strength and speed-strength parameters. J Strength Cond Res 30:
1205–1212, 2016.
33. Wretenberg, P, Feng, Y, and Arborelius, UP. High- and low-bar
squatting techniques during weight-training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:
218–224, 1996.
34. Wu, G, Siegler, S, Allard, P, Kirtley, C, Leardini, A, Rosenbaum,
D, et al; Standardization and Terminology Committee of the
International Society of Biomechanics. ISB recommendation on
definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the
reporting of human joint motion–part I: Ankle, hip, and spine.
J Biomech 35: 543–548, 2002.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 9