A COMPARISON OF FREE WEIGHT SQUAT TO SMITH
MACHINE SQUAT USING ELECTROMYOGRAPHY
SHANE SCHWANBECK, PHILIP D. CHILIBECK, AND
College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
ABSTRACT
Schwanbeck, S, Chilibeck, PD, and Binsted, G. A comparison
of free weight squat to smith machine squat using electro-
myography. J Strength Cond Res 23(9): 2588–2591, 2009—
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether free
weight or Smith machine squats were optimal for activating
the prime movers of the legs and the stabilizers of the legs and
the trunk. Six healthy participants performed 1 set of 8 repeti-
tions (using a weight they could lift 8 times, i.e., 8RM, or
8 repetition maximum) for each of the free weight squat and
Smith machine squat in a randomized order with a minimum of
3 days between sessions, while electromyographic (EMG)
activity of the tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, vastus medialis,
vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, lumbar erector spinae, and
rectus abdominus were simultaneously measured. Electromyo-
graphic activity was significantly higher by 34, 26, and 49 in the
gastrocnemius, biceps femoris, and vastus medialis, respec-
tively, during the free weight squat compared to the Smith
machine squat (p , 0.05). There were no significant differences
between free weight and Smith machine squat for any of the
other muscles; however, the EMG averaged over all muscles
during the free weight squat was 43% higher when compared
to the Smith machine squat (p , 0.05). The free weight squat
may be more beneficial than the Smith machine squat for
individuals who are looking to strengthen plantar flexors, knee
flexors, and knee extensors.
KEY WORDS vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris,
tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius
INTRODUCTION
F
ree weights are generally preferred over machines
by body builders and strength-trained athletes
because they are thought to provide a more
unstable exercise, requiring a greater recruitment
of trunk musculature (5). Machines, however, are easier to use
Address correspondence to Philip D. Chilibeck, phil.chilibeck@usask.ca.
23(9)/2588–2591
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
2588 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
GORDON BINSTED
by beginners and require spotters less often than free weight
exercise (5). Few studies have compared free weight and
machine exercises of similar movement pattern to determine
which is optimal for muscle activation.
Free weight squat is one of the most popular exercises used
by strength-trained athletes for training leg musculature.
The Smith machine allows one to perform a similar type of
movement, where the barbell is stabilized in 2 parallel tracks,
allowing a more stable exercise. Anderson and Behm (1)
compared electromyographic (EMG) activity during squat
exercises using free weights and the Smith machine. They
found that there was a trend for EMG activity of the trunk
musculature to be greater during the free weight squat;
however, EMG activity of the quadriceps (i.e., vastus
lateralis) was highest during the Smith machine squats.
One limitation of this study was that the same absolute
weight was used for both exercises. The relative intensity
during the most stable condition (i.e., Smith machine squats)
would have been low because muscle force production
during this movement is superior to the more unstable free
weight squat (3). The purpose of the current study was to
reassess EMG activity of prime movers and stabilizers during
the squat exercise using free weights and the Smith machine
where the load lifted was the maximal one could lift over
8 repetitions on each exercise (i.e., loads were set relative to
each exercise; therefore, different absolute loads were used).
We believe this has greater applicability to actual resistance-
training situations when one is selecting training loads to
achieve a desired number of repetitions. It was hypothesized
that (a) in a stable environment (Smith machine) prime
movers (i.e., muscles of the upper leg) activity would be
higher and (b) in an unstable environment (free weight)
stabilizer (i.e., muscles of the trunk and lower leg) activity
would be higher.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to compare electromyographic
activity of the legs (i.e., tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, vastus
medialis, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris) and trunk stabilizers
(i.e., lumbar erector spinae and rectus abdominus) during free
weight and Smith machine squat exercises to determine
which exercise was optimal for activating musculature.
Resistance was selected for each exercise to achieve

8 maximal repetitions (8RM) to match what a typical
strength-trained athlete would select during a training set.
Subjects
Six healthy participants (3 males and 3 females, 22 6 1.2 years,
171 6 12 cm, 71.5 6 12.7 kg), all with previous strength
training experience (2–5 years), were involved in this study.
All participants were active in sports (i.e., basketball, track, or
squash) and had trained on both free weights and machines.
All participants were currently involved in resistance training
at least 3 days per week. The study took place from January to
March. Subjects were informed of the experimental risks and
signed an informed consent document prior to the inves-
tigation. The investigation was approved by an Institutional
Review Board for use of human subjects.
Procedures
Each participant performed 8RM of Smith machine squat and
free weight squat with the order randomized while EMG
activity of 7 muscles was assessed. Testing sessions were at
least 3 days apart.
Recording sites for EMG were prepared by shaving the
area and wiping with alcohol pads to decrease electrical
impedance. Electrodes were placed on the dominant side of
the participant’s body; this was the right side for all 6
participants. Electrodes were placed two thirds distally
between the greater trochanter and the lateral condyle on
the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis, mid-belly of the biceps
femoris parallel to the quadriceps landmark, distal part of the
lateral head of the gastrocnemius, mid-belly of the tibialis
anterior, medial rectus abdominus (approximately 6 cm
superior and 4 cm lateral of the umbilicus), and lumbar erector
spinae (approximately 6 cm lateral to the L1-L2 spinous
processes). For the purpose of this study the prime movers
were considered the vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, and
biceps femoris. The lower-limb stabilizers included the tibialis
anterior and lateral gastrocnemius. The trunk stabilizers
included the rectus abdominus and the lumbar erector spinae.
Ground sites included the tibial tuberosity, iliac crest, and
lateral malleolus of the fibula.
The EMG main amplifier unit included single differential
electrodes with a bandwidth of 10 Hz to 1,000 Hz. The overall
amplification or gain per channel was between 5,000 and
10,000 dB and was set according to individual subjects to
maximize the digital range without saturating the signal. The
electrodes were Ag/AgCl surface electrodes (2.4 cm 3 2.4
cm) spaced 2 cm apart and aligned parallel to muscle fiber
orientation. The EMG was recorded as raw EMG (V) and
stored in the computer for analysis. The sampling rate was set
at 500 Hz for 60 seconds. After data collection, the raw EMG
data were used to calculate a mean absolute value (MAV) for
each repetition in the 8RM. The EMG signal was not
normalized because the experiment was a repeated-measures
design comparing within individuals. Testing sessions were at
least 3 days apart for the 2 conditions. A permanent marker
was used to identify electrode placement on the first testing
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
session so that identical electrode placement could be used
during the second testing session. Identical amplification was
used for each collection period within individual subjects.
Intraclass correlation coefficients for EMG MAV for test–
retest reliability (i.e., at least 3 days apart for the 6 individuals)
were 0.93 for tibialis anterior, 0.95 for gastrocnemius, 0.80
for vastus lateralis, 0.84 for vastus medialis, 0.82 for biceps
femoris, 0.90 for medial rectus abdominus, and 0.67 for erector
spinae.
Participants were required to attend 2 pre-experimental
exercise testing sessions during which a weight that could
be lifted for 8 repetitions during a squat exercise using free
weights (i.e., a barbell and weights) and the Smith machine
were determined. This process consisted of performing 2 to 3
warm-up sets and then 2 to 3 working sets. The working sets
consisted of choosing a weight that the participants thought
they could do for 8 repetitions and was adjusted throughout
these sets to meet the desired repetitions. Rest intervals were 4
to 5 minutes between sets. The Smith machine was composed
of a rack that fully supports a regular Olympic barbell,
therefore completely stabilizing the barbell. The barbell can
be moved up and down the rack so that the user can perform
a variety of exercises including squats. Approximately 1 week
later participants were randomly assigned to perform 8
repetitions of squat exercise with free weights or the Smith
machine while their EMG activity was recorded. Participants
returned within a minimum of 3 days to have their muscle
activity measured while performing 8 repetitions on the
opposite exercise. We chose to make comparisons between
the 2 training modes with the same relative load (i.e., 8RM)
rather than the same absolute load because this provides
a greater simulation of real-life training practices (i.e., one
usually aims for a given number of repetitions, rather than
selecting the same absolute load, when training for 2 different
exercises). This resulted in a heavier weight used (by 14–
23 kg) by each individual on the Smith machine compared to
the free weight squat. Each testing session consisted of 2 to 3
warm-up sets with light weight and 1 working set. One
repetition was performed prior to the working set with
the appropriate weight for 8 repetitions. This allowed the
amplification of the EMG to be adjusted to prevent saturated
signals. Participants were reminded of the basic squatting
technique but were encouraged to use their natural technique
they were accustomed to from their previous experiences.
Participants were instructed to go to approximately 90
degrees of knee flexion and were given feedback when this
was achieved.
Statistical Analyses
A repeated measures analysis of variance (with mode of
testing: free weights vs. Smith machine as the factor) for each
of the 7 muscle groups was used (Statistica Version 6.0
Chicago, Illinois, USA). Statistical significance for all anal-
yses was set at p # 0.05. Data are reported as means 6
standard deviation.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 9 | DECEMBER 2009 | 2589
Free Weight vs. Smith Machine Squat

Behm (1), who evaluated the

Figure 1. Mean (6SD) electromyographic (EMG) mean absolute value (MAV) of the tibialis anterior (TA),
gastrocnemius (Gastroc), vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), biceps femoris (BF), rectus abdominus (RA),
and erector spinae (ES) during free weight squat and Smith machine squat. Free weight squat results are shown in
dark bars, and Smith machine results are shown in white bars. Results are mean 6 SD. *Significant differences
between exercise modes at p , 0.05.
RESULTS
The free weight squat elicited a 34% higher EMG MAV
from the gastrocnemius, a 26% higher EMG MAV from the
biceps femoris, and a 49% higher EMG MAV from the vastus
medialis compared to the Smith machine squat (p , 0.05;
Figure 1). The free weight squat also elicited a 25% higher
EMG MAV from the vastus lateralis, with each subject
having a higher EMG MAV during the free weight squat
compared to the Smith machine squat; however, the differ-
ences between exercises did not reach a level of statistical
significance (p = 0.057). Averaged over all muscle groups, the
free weight squat elicited a 43% higher EMG MAVcompared
to the Smith machine squat (p , 0.05).
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to have applicability to typical
training sessions, where participants did free weight and
Smith machine squats with heavy weights for a desired
number of repetitions (i.e., 8RM). Contrary to our hypotheses,
muscles of the legs (specifically the vastus medialis and biceps
femoris) displayed greater EMG activity during the free
weight squat compared to the Smith machine squat, whereas
there were no differences between exercises for EMG activity
of trunk stabilizers. In support of our hypothesis, 1 of the
stabilizing muscles of the lower leg (i.e., gastrocnemius)
displayed greater EMG activity during the free weight squat.
The pattern of muscle activation during our free weight
squat and Smith machine squat was similar to Anderson and
the
same exercises. The knee ex-
tensors (i.e., vastus lateralis) and
erector spinae displayed a large
amount of EMG activity,
whereas the abdominal stabil-
izers, biceps femoris, and plan-
tar flexors displayed relatively
less EMG activity. Several im-
portant differences were seen
between studies regarding acti-
vation of specific muscle groups
across the 2 different exercises;
these differences are most likely
a result of the different type of
loading used across the 2
studies. These differences are
outlined in detail later.
Our finding of a higher biceps
femoris and gastrocnemius ac-
tivity during the free weight
squat may be attributed to the
increased role that the knee
flexors play in stabilizing and
supporting the ankle, knee, and
hip joints in a more unstable
environment. Behm et al. (2) found significantly higher EMG
activity of the biceps femoris during an unstable leg extension
on a Swiss ball. This may be attributed to the antagonistic
role that the biceps femoris plays in relation to the vastus
medialis and vastus lateralis. As a result of a muscle
contraction, the antagonist may be trying to control the
placement of the limb (4). To increase joint stability and
stiffness, the antagonist muscle activity increases (6). Behm
et al. (2) also suggest that improved balance and motor
control may be attributed to increased antagonist activity. In
contrast to our results, Anderson and Behm (1) found no
significant difference in muscle activity of the biceps femoris
between a free weight squat and Smith machine squat. These
results are likely a result of differences in design compared
to the current study. Most notably, they had participants
perform squats with standardized submaximal loads, whereas
the current study used a load specific for each exercise for
which participants could complete 8RM. We feel this is more
applicable to an actual training situation, where one usually
selects loads based on a target number of repetitions.
Our finding of a higher gastrocnemius EMG during the free
weight squat compared to the Smith machine squat is again
different from the results of Anderson and Behm (1), who
found similar EMG activity of the plantar flexors (i.e., soleus)
across the 2 exercises. Their data, however, showed a trend
for EMG activity during free weight squat to be higher.
Because the distal attachment of the gastrocnemius crosses
the ankle joint and the proximal attachment crosses the knee
joint, this muscle probably plays an important stabilizing role
TM

2590 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


during movements such as the squat, which involve both of
these joints and would be activated to a greater extent during
a more unstable movement (7).
In contrast to Anderson and Behm (1), we did not find the
Smith machine squat to be superior for activation of the knee
extensors (i.e., vastus lateralis). Our free weight squat elicited
higher activity of the vastus medialis and a trend for higher
activity of the vastus lateralis (p = 0.057) compared to the
Smith machine squat. This result was contrary to our hypo-
thesis, which was based on the fact that one can lift
heavier loads during the Smith machine exercise because of
the greater stability (3). The higher vastus medialis and vastus
lateralis recruitment during the free weight squat may be
attributed to the potential increase in the stabilization roles
these muscles play during this exercise.
One might postulate that there would be higher activation
of trunk musculature during the more unstable free weight
exercise compared with the more stable Smith machine
exercise (1,5); however, our findings indicate the differences
only existed in activation of leg musculature. There were
trends for trunk musculature to have higher activation during
the free weight squat; however, the differences when
compared to Smith machine squat were not significant
(Figure 1). Our study is limited by a lack of power because we
only had 6 subjects participate in the study. After the study
we determined the number of individuals required to reach
statistical significance at alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%.
For our nonsignificant results, this ranged from 8 required
subjects for the vastus lateralis measurement to 29 subjects
for the rectus abdominus measurement. Power for compar-
isons of muscle groups between the 2 exercises was 48% for
tibialis anterior, 59% for gastrocnemius, 51% for vastus
lateralis, 84% for vastus medialis, 83% for biceps femoris, 50%
for rectus abdominus, and 25% for erector spinae. Another
limitation of the study is the use of both genders. The small
number of subjects did not permit a statistical comparison for
differences across genders; however, the differences for
activation between the free weight squat and the Smith
machine squat were similar between the genders (i.e., an
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
average difference in activation of 47% for males and 37%
for females).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
We found a 43% higher muscle activation during the free
weight squat compared to the Smith machine squat.
Activation of the knee extensors and flexors and ankle
plantar flexors were higher during free weight squat, whereas
activation of the trunk stabilizers was similar across the 2
exercises. This indicates that the free weight squat may be
superior to the Smith machine squat for training the major
muscle groups of the legs and possibly would result in greater
strength development and hypertrophy of these muscle
groups with long-term training.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge Doug Jacobson and Heather
Whelan for their technical help and the participants who
volunteered their time for this study.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, K and Behm, DG. Trunk muscle activity increases with
unstable squat movements. Can J Appl Physiol 30: 33–45, 2005.
2. Behm, DG, Anderson, K, and Curnew, RS. Muscle force and
activation under stable and unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res
16: 416–422, 2002.
3. Cotterman, ML, Darby, LA, and Skelly, WA. Comparison of muscle
force production using the Smith machine and free weights for bench
press and squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res 19:169–176, 2005.
4. De Luca, CJ and Mambrito, B. Voluntary control of motor units in
human antagonist muscles: Coactivation and reciprocal activation.
J Neurophysiol 58: 525–542, 1987.
5. Haff, G. Roundtable discussion: Machines versus free weights.
Strength Cond J 22: 18–30, 2000.
6. Hogan, N. Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation
of antagonist muscles. IEEE Trans Automat Contr AC29: 681–690,
1984.
7. Sherbondy, PS, Queale, WS, McFarland, EG, Mizuno, Y, and
Cosgarea, AJ. Soleus and gastrocnemius muscle loading decreases
anterior tibial translation in anterior cruciate ligament intact and
deficient knees. J Knee Surg 16: 152–58, 2003.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 9 | DECEMBER 2009 | 2591