See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317316691

A Review of the Biomechanical Differences Between the High-Bar and Low-Bar

Back-Squat

Article  in  The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · May 2017

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002007

CITATIONS READS
13 8,381

4 authors:

Daniel Glassbrook Eric R Helms

Macquarie University Auckland University of Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   910 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Scott R. Brown Adam Storey

University of Michigan Auckland University of Technology
69 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   394 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Comparing RPE and percentage 1RM based loading in trained lifters following a DUP program View project

Intermittent versus Continuous Dieting in Athletes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Glassbrook on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BRIEF REVIEW
A REVIEW OF THE BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE HIGH-BAR AND LOW-BAR BACK-SQUAT
DANIEL J. GLASSBROOK,1 ERIC R. HELMS,1 SCOTT R. BROWN,1
1
Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
Zealand; and 2High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ), Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
Glassbrook, DJ, Helms, ER, Brown, SR, and Storey, AG. A
review of the biomechanical differences between the high-bar
and low-bar back-squat. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2618–
2634, 2017—The back-squat is a common exercise in strength
and conditioning for a variety of sports. It is widely regarded as
a fundamental movement to increase and measure lower-body
and trunk function, as well as an effective injury rehabilitation
exercise. There are typically 2 different bar positions used
when performing the back-squat: the traditional “high-bar”
back-squat (HBBS) and the “low-bar” back-squat (LBBS). Dif-
ferent movement strategies are used to ensure that the center
of mass remains in the base of support for balance during the
execution of these lifts. These movement strategies manifest as
differences in (a) joint angles, (b) vertical ground reaction
forces, and (c) the activity of key muscles. This review showed
that the HBBS is characterized by greater knee flexion, lesser
hip flexion, a more upright torso, and a deeper squat. The
LBBS is characterized by greater hip flexion and, therefore,
a greater forward lean. However, there are limited differences
in vertical ground reaction forces between the HBBS and
LBBS. The LBBS can also be characterized by a greater mus-
cle activity of the erector spinae, adductors, and gluteal
muscles, whereas the HBBS can be characterized by greater
quadriceps muscle activity. Practitioners seeking to develop
the posterior-chain hip musculature (i.e., gluteal, hamstring,
and erector muscle groups) may seek to use the LBBS. In
comparison, those seeking to replicate movements with a more
upright torso and contribution from the quadriceps may rather
seek to use the HBBS in training.
KEY WORDS joint angles, ground reaction forces, EMG,
powerlifting, Olympic weightlifting
Address correspondence to Daniel J. Glassbrook, daniel.glassbrook@
aut.ac.nz.
31(9)/2618–2634
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
2618 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND ADAM G. STOREY1,2
INTRODUCTION
T
he squat is one of the most prevalent exercises in
strength and conditioning. The movement is
widely regarded as a valid and reliable measure
of lower-body/trunk strength and function, and
is deemed to be a fundamental process to increase maximal
strength of the lower extremities (11–14,23,24,51,70,73,86).
Furthermore, the squat is an effective mechanism in injury
rehabilitation settings (36,55). The wide-reaching benefits of
the squat are acknowledged to originate from the contribu-
tions made by the quadriceps, hamstrings, gluteal, erector,
and triceps surae muscle groups to complete the movement
(23,47,65). Furthermore, it is surmised that more than 200
additional muscles are used in the completion of a single
squat repetition (58,77).
Although it involves numerous muscle groups, the squat,
in essence, is a simple movement. To complete the squat, an
individual starts in an upright position with the knees and
hips near full extension; the hips are then lowered toward
the ground until a desired depth is reached, and the
individual then ascends back to the upright position in one
continuous motion (24). In strength and conditioning, squats
are typically performed in 2 ways: (a) as a front-squat, where
a barbell is placed anteriorly on the shoulder and (b) as
a back-squat, where the barbell is placed posteriorly to the
shoulder and across the trapezius musculature (32). This
review will focus on the back-squat, and more specifically,
2 different barbell positional variations; the traditional “high-
bar” back-squat (HBBS) and the alternative “low-bar” back-
squat (LBBS). During the traditional HBBS, the bar is placed
across the top of the trapezius just below the spinous process
of the C7 vertebra. Conversely, during the LBBS, the bar is
placed on the lower trapezius just over the posterior deltoid,
along the spine of the scapula (87).
Regardless of bar position, the back-squat requires an
adequate range of motion at the hip, knee, and ankle joints.
Throughout the movement, the mass of the bar applies force
to the body in the sagittal, coronal, and transverse planes. To
resist perturbation from this force, equal and opposite forces
are applied across the 3 planes (42). The back-squat is
a closed kinetic chain exercise, as the feet are anchored to
the ground throughout the movement. This is in comparison
to an open chain kinetic exercise where peripheral segments
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

are allowed to move in free space (i.e., leg extension exercise) with the crease of the hips well below the level of the knee)
(25,74,76). Closed kinetic chain exercises tend to enable squat depth (34,39,44,52,80), such as is displayed at the catch
a higher degree of joint motion and an increase in muscle position of both the snatch and clean. The LBBS may have
recruitment and are therefore thought to replicate athletic the potential ability to allow for greater loads to be lifted
tasks better than open kinetic chain exercises (59), and it is for this reason that the LBBS is commonly
(25,64,69,71,75,89). Thus, the muscles used in a variety of used in competitive powerlifting (where the back-squat is
different sports can be developed by using the squat in train- one of the 3 competition lifts). The potential to lift greater
ing. For instance, the back-squat is commonly included in loads could be due to the maximization of posterior dis-
the strength and conditioning programs of competitive placement of the hips and increased force through the hip
Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters. In particular, the joints in comparison to the knee joints (80). This maximiza-
HBBS is commonly used in Olympic weightlifting training tion of the posterior displacement of the hips may manifest
to simulate the catch and recovery stages of the Olympic as greater engagement and activity of the larger hip muscles
weightlifting competition lifts; the snatch and clean and jerk (i.e., gluteal muscles). Squat training with maximal effort also
(87). The HBBS is defined by an upright torso (4,28,87) and enhances powerful movements such as jumping and sprint-
a knee flexion resulting in a “deep” (hips close to the ground, ing (17,48,49,84,90). Endurance-based sports also routinely
incorporate the back-squat into
their trainings. The back-squat
and heavy resistance training in
general has been shown to
improve aerobic endurance
and movement economy in
sports such as cycling, running,
and cross-country skiing
(2,38,60,78,79). Moreover, the
back-squat is also commonly
used in team sports (e.g., hand-
ball, football, and rugby) to
facilitate improvements in per-
formance, where a combination
of strength, power, endurance,
and sprint ability is often
required (10,37,66,86).
As alluded to, the LBBS may
result in an ability to lift greater
loads in comparison to the
HBBS. Differences in bar posi-
tion between the HBBS and
LBBS result in an altered cen-
ter of mass (80). Therefore, dif-
ferent movement strategies are
used to ensure that the center
of mass remains within the
base of support to maintain
balance during the execution
of these lifts, which will be cov-
ered in this review. These
movement strategies manifest
as differences in joint angles
of the lower-body kinetic
chain, vertical ground reaction
forces (Fv), and the activity of
key muscles.
Although a variety of sports
Figure 1. Study exclusion and inclusion process. use the back-squat in training,
little is known as to why the

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2619

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review
LBBS may enable greater loads to be lifted. The purposes of
this review are to (a) provide a summary of prior kinematic,
kinetic, and muscle activity research on the HBBS and
LBBS; (b) examine whether or not the LBBS enables greater
loads to be lifted; and (c) hypothesize why this might be the
case. This review will present current literature in each of
these categories for both the HBBS and LBBS to allow
educated decisions to be made by practitioners concerning
exercise prescription and the optimal style of back-squat for
different sport specific applications.
METHODS
Definition of Terms
Many authors examining the squat use different terminology
when describing their study’s experimental procedures.
Therefore, definitions of these terms are vital to the clarity
of this review. Where authors did not use the same defini-
tions for variables such as the specific terms HBBS and
LBBS, their raw (unprocessed) data were used to derive
the variables as defined in our review. Thus, for the purposes
of this article, a “high-bar” squat is synonymous with the
“traditional” squat and “Olympic” squat, whereas a “low-
bar” squat is synonymous with a “powerlifting” squat. A
“squat” is synonymous with a back-squat and is not to be
confused or compared with other squat variations that use
different bar positions or loading modalities. An analysis of
squat styles besides HBBS and LBBS is outside of the scope
of this review, but for more information on other squat
styles, the reader is referred to texts by Delavier (16) and
Newton (56). Furthermore, all results that are presented in
this review are based on “un-equipped” or “raw” lifters. That
is to say, those lifters that do not perform the squat with
external assistance such as squat suits or elastic knee wraps
(5,22,35).
Search Parameters and Criteria
PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CHINAHL, MEDLINE (EBSCO),
and Scopus electronic databases were searched online up to
March 2017 (Figure 1). The following strings of keywords
were arranged and searched in each database: (a) squat
AND kine* OR exercise OR biomechanics OR weight, (b)
squat AND kine* AND knee OR barbell, (c) squat AND
force OR load, and (d) squat AND emg OR activ* OR elec-
tro* OR muscle. The search strategy used limited database
results to academic journals, reviews, dissertations, and
human subjects when applicable.
Inclusion criteria for this review comprised articles that
included (a) healthy (showing no symptoms of sickness, able to
take part fully in the study); (b) resistance-trained ($6-months
experience); (c) adults ($18 years); and (d) provided one of the
following variables: hip, knee, or ankle joint angles, Fv or lower
extremity electromyography (EMG) during a squat.
Articles were excluded if (a) they were not available in
English; (b) the full text was not available; (c) male and
female subjects were not separated; or (d) comprised a case
the TM
2620 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
study, a poorly designed cohort/case-control study, anec-
dotal evidence, animal research, laboratory-based research,
or unpublished clinical observations (i.e., levels of clinical
evidence and study design consisting of a score of 4 or 5 as
adapted from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Med-
icine) (54). Only full text sources were included so that
methodology could be assessed. Finally, a comprehensive
hand search of article reference lists and citation tracking
on Google Scholar were used to identify any additional rel-
evant articles. In total, 41 studies were included in this
review.
Study Characteristics
Physically active and healthy (i.e., showing no symptoms of
sickness, able to take part fully in the study) individuals, from
a mixture of sports including both individual and team-based
sports, and from different levels of competition, comprised
the study participants that were included in this review
(Tables 1–7). The total mean age, body-height, and body-
mass in the included studies were 28.6 6 27.1 years, 177.7 6
6.1 cm, and 80.1 6 12.6 kg, respectively.
FINDINGS
Kinematics
Hip. The back-squat is performed by the simultaneous flexion
or extension of 3 key joints (e.g., hip, knee, and ankle) known
as the lower-body kinetic chain (61). The resultant angle
between the trunk and the thigh is synonymous with the
names hip, trunk, and torso angle. A difference in trunk angle
manifests as either a greater forward lean (i.e., a reduced trunk
angle) or a more upright orientation of the torso, relative to
the thigh (i.e., an increased trunk angle). Authors of previous
research specifically comparing the HBBS to the LBBS have
shown that the LBBS is defined by a smaller absolute trunk
angle, and therefore, greater forward lean (4,28,87). This for-
ward lean effectively maximizes the posterior displacement of
the hips, and therefore, increases the force placed on the hips
in comparison to the knee joints. Thus, there may also be
a decreased moment arm when placing the bar lower on
the back, which may attribute to the ability to lift larger loads.
There may also be an increase in stability and potential
decrease in stress placed on the lumbar region and ankle
compared with the HBBS (67,80). These factors may contrib-
ute to understanding why the LBBS might allow for greater
loads to be lifted. However, these joint angle results are not
definitive, and there are mixed results in the literature for the
size of HBBS and LBBS trunk angles at peak hip flexion
(19,26,27,33,39,44,46,52,53,80) (Tables 1 and 2). These dis-
crepancies in joint angles may result from differences in par-
ticipant age, training experience, strength, anthropometry, or
the presented joint angle (i.e., presenting unprocessed seg-
ment angles or specific joint angles known as “absolute” or
“relative” angles respectively) (Figure 2).
Last, it is common for Olympic weightlifters and power-
lifters to wear special weightlifting/squat shoes/boots when
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 1. HBBS peak hip flexion.*†

Reference Athletes (n) and gender Sport Conditions Load (kg per %RM) Angle (8) Significance (p)

(27) 9 M, 9 F Experienced recreational LHS 25% 1RM 87 6 7

lifters
RHS 25% 1RM 87 6 8
LHS 50% 1RM 85 6 7
RHS 50% 1RM 85 6 7
LHS 75% 1RM 84 6 7
RHS 75% 1RM 85 6 7
LHS 100% 1RM 83 6 7
RHS 100% 1RM 83 6 7
(19) 10 M University gridiron Downward gaze 25% 1RM 77 6 7 0.05
Straight gaze 25% 1RM 84 6 15 0.05
Upward gaze 25% 1RM 86 6 14 0.05
(39) 12 M, 13 F Experienced recreational Beginning 75% 1RM 87 6 16 0.016
lifters
Fatigued 75% 1RM 117 6 73 0.016
(44) 18 M University long jump Take off leg 50% 3RM 97 6 9 ,0.05
Non-take off leg 50% 3RM 99 6 8
Take off leg 70% 3RM 95 6 10 ,0.05
Non-take off leg 70% 3RM 97 6 10
Take off leg 90% 3RM 94 6 11 ,0.05
Non-take off leg 90% 3RM 97 6 10
(52) 16 M Experienced recreational BW 78 6 3 ,0.05
lifters

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

74 6 4 ,0.05

the
BW + 50%
(28) 6M Olympic weightlifting and Segment angle 50% 1RM 46 6 5
powerlifting
(46) 8 NM, 8 NF, 8 EM, 8 EF Experienced recreational Running shoes NM BW 100 6 8
lifters and recreational
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 |

athletes with no squat

experience
Weightlifting shoes NM BW 100 6 10
Running shoes NF BW 105 69
Weightlifting shoes NF BW 107 68
Running shoes EM BW 108 66
Weightlifting shoes EM BW 107 66
Running shoes EF BW 113 66
Weightlifting shoes EF BW 113 68
Running shoes NM BW + 25% 100 69
Weightlifting shoes NM BW + 25% 101 6 11

TM
Running shoes NF BW + 25% 105 69

| www.nsca.com
Weightlifting shoes NF BW + 25% 107 6 10
(continued on next page)
2621
 High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review

performing the back-squat (41,67,68,72). These shoes are

characterized by designs incorporating a raised heel, usually
of ;2.5 cm in height, and stiff noncompressible soles with

*M = male; F = female; RM = repetition maximum; LHS = left hand side; RHS = right hand side; BW = body weight; NM = novice male; NF = novice female; EM = experienced
a reinforced outer sole. The raised heel present in weightlift-

,0.05
ing shoes has been shown to reduce overall trunk lean dur-
ing the back-squat compared with barefoot or running shoes
(46,67,68,72). This may be attributed to increased stability, as
the added heel height allows for a lifter to reach depth while
requiring less dorsiflexion range of motion and thus a more
17

17
17
18
8
8
8
8

vertical alignment of all segments during the lift, attributing

6
6
6
6
6

6
6
6
6

to greater balance and resistance to tipping forward (68).

112
113
112
112
88

89
87
89
104

Knee. In competitive powerlifting, there are regulations that

each lifter must comply with in order for each lift to count
30, 50, 70% 1RM

toward their total (40). One such regulation pertaining to the

1RM
1RM
1RM
1RM
1RM

70% 1RM
70% 1RM
70% 1RM

back-squat is that sufficient “depth” must be reached. That is,

there must be sufficient flexion of the knees and lowering of
75%
75%
75%
75%
70%

the hips toward the ground, so that “the top surface of the
legs at the hip joint is lower than the top of the knees” (40).
As a result, it is common for powerlifters to replicate this
required depth in training. In Olympic weightlifting, the
Barefoot inspired shoes
Weightlifting shoes EM

Weightlifting shoes EF

back-squat is not a competition lift, and therefore, in training

Weightlifting shoes
Running shoes EM

Running shoes EF

Traditional squat

back-squat depth is commonly modeled after the catch posi-

Running shoes

tion of the snatch and clean and jerk. This often manifests as
Barefoot

a deeper back-squat, with greater knee and ankle flexion.

There are apparent differences in knee joint angle
between the HBBS and LBBS, resulting from differences
in required depths. The HBBS can be defined as a “deeper
squat,” with greater knee flexion at maximum depth
(70–908), in comparison to the LBBS (100–1208)
(19,26,27,33,34,39,44,52,80,83) (Tables 3 and 4). However,
Experienced recreational

there are some studies which have reported the opposite

(33,44,80). This may have resulted from the experience of
the participants in the case of Kobayashi et al. (44) and
Hales et al. (33) and the fact that Swinton et al. (80)
studied powerlifters (who typically perform the LBBS)
Powerlifting

complete the HBBS and LBBS. Legg et al. (46) also

lifters

showed that wearing weightlifting shoes, in comparison to

running shoes, results in a deeper squat. This may result
from the increased stability provided from the non-
†All angle data presented as mean 6 SD.

compressible soles.

Ankle. Currently, only 9 studies have recorded ankle joint

angle data, 7 from the HBBS only (27,44,46,67,72,85,86),
14 M

12 M

male; EF = experienced female.

one from the LBBS only (33), and one from both the HBBS
and LBBS (80). One study also looked at the ankle segment
angle in Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters (28). These
studies show similar results for the HBBS ankle joint angle
across studies; however, there are mixed results for the
LBBS (Tables 5 and 6). Whitting et al. (85) showed that
wearing weightlifting shoes while performing the HBBS
results in a significantly lower peak dorsiflexion angle than
(72)

(80)

when wearing running shoes. Further research is warranted

to provide definitive differences between the HBBS and
LBBS.
the TM

2622 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 2. LBBS peak hip flexion.*†

Athletes (n) Significance

Reference and gender Sport Conditions Load (%RM) Angle (8) (p)

(53) 32 M Powerlifting Highly skilled 100% 1RM 42 6 3

Low skill level 100% 1RM 39 6 3
(26) 39 M Powerlifting Narrow stance 100% 12RM 107 6 10
Medium 100% 12RM 109 6 8
stance
Wide stance 100% 12RM 110 6 7
(33) 25 M Powerlifting Beginning of 100% 1RM 58 6 8 ,0.01
ascent
(28) 6M Olympic weightlifting and Segment 50% 1RM 41 6 6
powerlifting angle
(80) 12 M Powerlifting Traditional 30, 50, 70% 113 6 6 ,0.05
squat 1RM

*M = male; F = female; RM = repetition maximum.

†All angle data presented as mean 6 SD.

Kinetics tical displacement at all loads. Although all participants in

In the back-squat, the resultant ground reaction force, and
load on the lower extremity is influenced largely by the
position of the upper body because of its larger mass (8). As
the load of the back-squat is increased, the resulting Fv also
increases in a proportional fashion (27,43,91) during both the
concentric and eccentric phases of the movement (20,21). In
addition, the cadence at which the back-squat load is lifted
may also affect the magnitude of Fv produced. A faster
cadence will result in a shorter repetition duration in com-
parison to a slow cadence. Completing a back-squat repeti-
tion with an intentionally fast cadence has been shown to
result in a larger Fv, than when performing a repetition of the
same weight at a slower cadence (3). However, there is also
evidence to support no significant difference (45).
In 2 of the 5 studies specifically comparing the HBBS with
the LBBS, differences were recorded and reported in Fv; all
of which used force platforms to record Fv data. Several
other studies also used linear position transducers; however,
these were to measure bar velocities and not Fv. Swinton
et al. (80) reported that both the HBBS and LBBS produced
similar Fv profiles (no significant differences) across all loads
(percentages of LBBS 1 repetition maximum [1RM]). In
addition, as load increased, the Fv time curve showed a drop
off, followed by a second peak in the concentric phase. This
second peak is expected with an increase in load and repre-
sents the force produced overcoming the “sticking” point or
region after the initial “drive” out of the bottom of the squat
(82,83). Goodin (29) compared the HBBS with the LBBS
with loads up to 90% of each participants HBBS 1RM. The
HBBS produced larger peak force with loads of 20–80%
1RM, larger peak power with loads of 20–60% 1RM and
80–90% 1RM, greater total work with loads of 20%, 40%,
and 60–90% 1RM, as well as greater peak velocity and ver-
this study were experienced in both the HBBS and LBBS, up
to 90% of each participants’ HBBS 1RM was used as the
comparison load for both squat styles. Therefore, variation
between each participants’ HBBS and LBBS 1RMs may
have resulted in the HBBS results being better, as the effort
required at each percentage of 1RM may have differed com-
pared with if it was the same percentage of their LBBS 1RM.
However, the LBBS produced greater impulse at 30–90%
1RM than the HBBS.
As shown in the knee joint angle section of this review, the
HBBS is typically defined as a “deeper squat,” with greater
knee flexion at maximum depth. A study by Dali et al. (15)
showed that as depth increases from a semi-squat (408 knee
flexion) to a half-squat (708 knee flexion) to a deep-squat
(1108 knee flexion), there is significant increases in peak Fv
as depth increases between each level of squat. In addition to
differences in squat depth, the HBBS and LBBS are typically
characterized by different stance widths. Although there are
no limits on the stance width of either back-squat variation,
the LBBS is typically performed with a stance wider than
shoulder width (97%–183% of shoulder width) (24), and the
HBBS is typically performed at shoulder width (7). Swinton
et al. (80) analyzed the back-squat at different stance widths,
and showed that both a typical HBBS stance (shoulder
width) and a wider powerlifting style stance produced
a larger peak Fv when compared with a back-squat per-
formed to a box at the same load, without significant differ-
ences between the stances. Swinton et al. (80) recorded Fv
over the movement as a whole, without distinctly measuring
peak Fv for each phase. In the back-squat, however, the
largest active forces are often found during the eccentric,
lowering phase because of the force required to break the
momentum of the mass, and come to a stop before

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2623

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review
Figure 2. Relative and absolute joint angles of the hip, knee, and ankle.
transitioning into the concentric phase. It may then be fair to
assume that the results of Swinton et al. (80) show a lower
peak Fv for the box-squat than the HBBS and wider power-
lifting style back-squat because of the participants intention-
ally lowering themselves to the box more slowly, to avoid
a heavy “landing” on the box before trying to ascend back to
an upright position. The external stimulus of the box makes
the box-squat a very different movement, and difficult to
directly compare with the HBBS and wider powerlifting
style back-squat. However, in contrast to these results,
McBride et al. (50) showed a back-squat to produce a signif-
icantly smaller peak Fv than a box-squat at 70% back-squat
1RM (p # 0.05). Comparable peak Fv results (no significant
differences) were observed between the back-squat and box-
squat at 60% and 80% 1RM also in this study.
In summary, currently, there are few known differences
between the HBBS and LBBS in ground reaction forces. The
potential for the LBBS to enable greater loads to be lifted may
be attributed to the joint angles specific to the movement, and
a shortened moment arm. These factors may result in
a mechanical advantage. That is, greater loads may be lifted
through a more effective application of force through the bar,
the
2624 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
and increased torque at the hip. The results above show
limited differences between the HBBS and LBBS in Fv, and
therefore, indicate that Fv alone may not portray these
mechanical differences effectively. Mechanical advantage by
the LBBS will be characterized by a greater load lifted, while
producing a similar force to the HBBS. Therefore, the analysis
of joint angles or muscle activity may be more appropriate to
determine whether and why an LBBS enables heavier loads
to be lifted. Further research should compare the HBBS with
the LBBS across a full range of loads, to create a full profile
and understanding of Fv differences between the 2 back-squat
variations. Strength and conditioning coaches for a range of
sports may then make informed decisions as to the most
appropriate style of squats to produce a stimulus applicable
to their athletes (Table 7).
Muscle Activity
Study of the back-squat muscle activity typically focuses on
the HBBS (1,6,26,31,57,62,63), with only 2 studies specifi-
cally analyzing the activity of the LBBS (51,87). The LBBS
is characterized by a greater forward lean at the trunk in
comparison to the HBBS (59). As forward lean increases,
it has been shown that the lumbar erector spinae muscle
activity also increases (81). In addition, because of the wider
stance width that is common for the LBBS (7,24), a different
EMG profile arises from this squat variation. Escamilla et al.
(26) observed a significantly larger EMG amplitude in the
gastrocnemius during narrow stance squatting compared
with wide stance squatting. Furthermore, McCaw and Mel-
rose (51) compared the activity of the rectus femoris, vastus
medialis, vastus lateralis, adductor longus, biceps femoris,
and gluteus maximus during the parallel LBBS at different
stance widths and bar loads. They observed no change in
quadriceps activity with a different stance width, but muscle
activity was higher in the adductors and gluteus maximus
with a wider stance. Anderson et al. (1) observed similar
outcomes as McCaw and Melrose (51), finding no significant
differences in the EMG of the vastus medialis and vastus
lateralis with a change in stance width. However, Anderson
et al. (1), did not assess gluteus maximus activity. The resul-
tant increase in gluteus maximus activity from a wider stance
width was also shown by Paoli et al. (62) during the perfor-
mance of the HBBS, and in a review by Clark, Lambert, and
Hunter (9). The authors propose that the lack of change in
quadriceps muscle activity during different stance widths,
results from similar muscle lengths in both stances. On the
other hand, longer muscle lengths, and anthropometric in-
fluences may explain the increase in adductor and gluteus
maximus activity as stance widens. However, the higher
EMG in the gluteus maximus with increased stance width
was only observed with high loads, which draws into ques-
tion whether an increase in muscle activity results from in-
creases in load or changes in muscle length. Contrastingly,
Wretenberg et al. (87) found a significant difference in the
EMG of the rectus femoris (p # 0.05) during the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 3. HBBS peak knee flexion.*†

Reference Athletes (n) and gender Sport Conditions Load (%RM) Angle (8) Significance (p)

(27) 9 M, 9 F Experienced recreational LHS 25% 1RM 85 6 6

lifters
RHS 25% 1RM 85 6 6
LHS 50% 1RM 83 6 5
RHS 50% 1RM 84 6 5
LHS 75% 1RM 81 6 5
RHS 75% 1RM 83 6 5
LHS 100% 1RM 80 6 7
RHS 100% 1RM 82 6 6
(19) 10 M University gridiron Downward gaze 25% 1RM 82 6 11
Straight gaze 25% 1RM 83 6 12
Upward gaze 25% 1RM 85 6 12
(39) 12 M, 13 F Experienced recreational Beginning 75% 1RM 97 6 7 0.016
lifters
Fatigued 75% 1RM 90 6 6 0.016
(44) 18 M University long jump Take off leg 50% 3RM 109 6 10
Non-take off leg 50% 3RM 110 6 10
Take off leg 70% 3RM 107 6 12
Non-take off leg 70% 3RM 108 6 12
Take off leg 90% 3RM 104 6 11
Non-take off leg 90% 3RM 105 6 10
(52) 16 M Experienced recreational BW 65 6 2 ,0.05
lifters

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

59 6 2 ,0.05

the
BW + 50%
(80) 12 M Powerlifting Traditional squat 30, 50, 70% 1RM ,0.05
(34) 9 M, 9 F N/A Neutral squat BW 94 6 11
Squeeze squat BW 89 6 13
Outward squat BW 92 6 14
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 |

(28) 6M Olympic weightlifting and Segment angle 50% 1RM 63 6 12

powerlifting
(46) 8 NM, 8 NF, 8 EM, 8 EF Experienced recreational Running shoes NM BW 98 6 20 ,0.05
lifters and recreational
athletes with no squat
experience
Weightlifting shoes NM BW 104 6 20 ,0.05
Running shoes NF BW 110 68 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes NF BW 113 67 ,0.05
Running shoes EM BW 126 6 11 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes EM BW 128 6 10 ,0.05

TM
Running shoes EF BW 120 6 17 ,0.05

| www.nsca.com
Weightlifting shoes EF BW 123 6 13 ,0.05
(continued on next page)
2625
 High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review

performance of the LBBS by 6 powerlifters who typically

use a wider stance, when compared with the HBBS as per-

*M = male; F = female; RM = repetition maximum; LHS = left hand side; RHS = right hand side; BW = body weight; NM = novice male; NF = novice female; EM = experienced
formed by 8 Olympic weightlifters. Two other muscles in
this study, the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, also pre-
,0.05
,0.05
,0.05
,0.05
,0.05
,0.05
,0.05
,0.05

,0.05
sented larger EMG magnitudes; however, these results were
nonsignificant. The EMG amplitudes of this study for both
groups were normalized to a 3-second static contraction at
65% 1RM (LBBS for powerlifters or HBBS for Olympic
weightlifters).
18
16

14
11
10
10
13

12
13
13
12
5
6

As described in the joint angles section of this review,

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

6
6
6
6
the differences in squat depth between the HBBS and
104
109
110
112
128
132
110
112
101

103
108
106
89
LBBS can influence the corresponding muscle activity.
Wretenberg et al. (88) showed that in the vastus lateralis,
rectus femoris, and long head of biceps femoris, muscle
activity generally increases with depth, from 458 to 908
BW + 25%
BW + 25%
BW + 25%
BW + 25%
75% 1RM
75% 1RM
75% 1RM
75% 1RM
70% 1RM

1RM
1RM
1RM
6RM

knee flexion and to “parallel” where the posterior borders

of the hamstrings muscles are parallel to the floor. These
70%
70%
70%
95%

results are further supported by Ninos et al. (57) who

showed significant increases in the activity of the vastus
medialis and vastus lateralis with increased depth in the
squat (10–608), but also no significant increases in muscle
Barefoot inspired shoes
Weightlifting shoes NM

Weightlifting shoes EM
Weightlifting shoes NF

Weightlifting shoes EF

activity in the biceps femoris, semimembranosus or sem-

Lowest barbell point
Weightlifting shoes
Running shoes NM

Running shoes EM
Running shoes NF

Running shoes EF

Running shoes

itendinosus muscles. Wretenberg et al. (88) observed no

Barefoot

further increase in muscle activity with a deep-squat past

parallel (knees maximally flexed). This may imply that for
the specific purpose of training the quadriceps, parallel
squats could be sufficient, without a benefit from perform-
ing deeper squats. Similarly to Wretenberg et al. (88), Gor-
such et al. (31) showed that squatting to a deeper knee
angle of 908 increased the activation of the rectus femoris
and lumbar erector spinae muscles more so than when
Experienced recreational

Experienced recreational

male; EF = experienced female; PT = personal trainer; N/A = not applicable.

squatting to a depth of 458 (absolute angle, Figure 2).

Increasing muscular activity of the thigh with greater
depth and standardized neutral hip position (external rota-
tion at 308 or 508 external rotation) is also supported by
Pereira et al. (63) who showed that the thigh musculature
was most active in the bottom 308 of the back-squat, in
lifters

lifters

both the eccentric and concentric phases. Furthermore,

a review by Clark et al. (9) showed no variation in muscle
activity to different depths at moderate loads, only at high
†All angle data presented as mean 6 SD.

loads.
However, Caterisano et al. (6) demonstrated no change
in activity in the vastus medalis, vastus lateralis, or biceps
femoris with increased squat depth; instead, they observed
14 M

15 M

EMG activity changes only in the gluteus maximus. The

premise that performing squats past parallel only serves to
increase the EMG activity in the gluteus maximus rather
than the quadriceps is also supported in a review by
Schoenfeld (69). A greater gluteal muscle activity in the
HBBS may also be possible when compared with the
LBBS because of the impact of hamstring active insuffi-
ciency. Throughout the HBBS, the hamstrings act to
(72)

(83)

extend the hip and maintain an upright torso position.

However, with increasing depth, the hamstrings reach
a point of active insufficiency where they are unable to
the TM

2626 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 4. LBBS peak knee flexion.*†

Athletes (n) Significance

Reference and gender Sport Conditions Load (%RM) Angle (8) (p)

(26) 39 M Powerlifting Narrow stance 100% 12RM 106 6 8

Medium stance 100% 12RM 102 6 7
Wide stance 100% 12RM 99 6 10
(33) 25 M Powerlifting Beginning of 100% 1RM 66 6 7
ascent
(28) 6M Olympic Segment angle 50% 1RM 68 6 14
weightlifting
and powerlifting
(80) 12 M Powerlifting Traditional squat 30, 50, 70% 112 6 4 ,0.05
1RM

*M = male; F = female; RM = repetition maximum.

†All angle data presented as mean 6 SD.

produce force because of their shortened length, with
respect to the length-tension relationship (30). As the abil-
ity of the hamstrings to apply force decreases, there is
a possible increase in gluteal muscle activity as a compen-
sation strategy. For an in-depth analysis of the key muscle
activity strategies throughout a bodyweight squat, refer to
Dionisio et al. (18).
Drawing on the present literature, it is difficult to
conclude what differences exist in muscular activity of the
lower-body between the HBBS and LBBS. However, the
differences that do exist seem interrelated with the associ-
ated depths typically displayed in each squat variation.
Further research is required to provide an authoritative text
on the matter. It is acknowledged, however, that this
research may be difficult to produce because of the great
variation in athletes even within a study. We also acknowl-
edge differences in the muscle activity signal processing
used in the data presented in this review. Refer to Table 8
for a summary of the different processing methods used in
this review.
In summary, previous research has demonstrated that in
comparison to the HBBS, the LBBS results in increased
erector spinae muscle activity because of the increased
forward lean, increased activity of the adductors and gluteal
muscles, and reduced gastrocnemius activity from a wider
stance width. Larger loads can be lifted during the LBBS,
which results in a greater overall muscle activity, and
potentially larger increases in strength and muscle size.
However, those looking to induce anterior kinetic chain, and
quadriceps specific adaptations, may be advised to perform
the HBBS.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The purpose of this review was to examine the literature
relating to the HBBS and LBBS to improve understanding
of why the LBBS enables greater loads to be lifted. Three
distinct categories were explored to further this under-
standing; joint angles, Fv, and muscle activity. This review
showed that in the present literature, Fv studies yielded few
known differences between the HBBS and LBBS. How-
ever, several potential differences can be observed in joint
angle and muscle activity literature on the topic. In fact, the
answer to why the LBBS may allow for greater loads to be
lifted can be found in the joint angle differences between
each squat. Specifically, the LBBS is presented with
a greater forward lean and reduced knee flexion (i.e.,
reduced depth). This results in greater posterior displace-
ment of the hip, and a maximization of the associated
force-producing ability. Such displacement of the hip en-
gages the stronger posterior hip musculature (i.e., gluteal,
hamstring and spinal erector muscle groups), as supported
in this review though analysis of muscle activity studies on
each back-squat variation. By contrast, the HBBS presents
with greater activation of the anterior thigh musculature (i.
e., quadriceps). With knowledge of this, practitioners seek-
ing to specifically develop either the anterior or posterior
musculature can make an informed decision regarding the
type of back-squat prescribed. Furthermore, this review
showed that because of its joint angles, the HBBS appears
to be more suited to those athletes who are required to
strengthen and replicate movements that exhibit a more
upright torso, such as the Olympic weightlifting competi-
tion lifts.
At present, a comparison of the kinematics, kinetics, or the
muscle activity of both back-squat variations has not been
completed above 90% 1RM. To create a full profile of the
differences between each squat style, future research should
be performed up to and including 100% 1RM. This will
allow for a full range of loads to be assessed, and the effects
of maximal effort on the joint angles, Fv, and muscle activ-
ities associated with the HBBS and LBBS. Moreover, factors
such as anthropometry, sex, age, strength, and experience

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2627

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2628

High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review

TABLE 5. HBBS peak ankle flexion.*†

Reference Athletes (n) and gender Sport Conditions Load (%RM) Angle (8) Significance (p)
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

(27) 9 M, 9 F Experienced recreational LHS 25% 1RM 27 6 5

lifters
RHS 25% 1RM 27 6 5
LHS 50% 1RM 26 6 5
RHS 50% 1RM 26 6 5
LHS 75% 1RM 25 6 5
RHS 75% 1RM 25 6 5
LHS 100% 1RM 24 6 6
RHS 100% 1RM 24 6 5
(67) 20 M, 5 F Team sports Weightlifting shoes 60% 1RM 39 6 4
Running shoes 60% 1RM 35 6 6
(44) 18 M University long jump Take off leg 50% 3RM 29 6 6
Non-take off leg 50% 3RM 29 6 6
Take off leg 70% 3RM 29 6 5
Non-take off leg 70% 3RM 29 6 5
Take off leg 90% 3RM 28 6 4
TM

Non-take off leg 90% 3RM 28 6 5

(28) 6M Olympic weightlifting and Segment angle 50% 1RM 53 6 6
powerlifting
(46) 8 NM, 8 NF, 8 EM, 8 EF Experienced recreational Running shoes NM BW 28 6 8 ,0.05
lifters and recreational
athletes with no squat
experience
Weightlifting shoes NM BW 27 6 8 ,0.05
Running shoes NF BW 36 6 8 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes NF BW 32 6 7 ,0.05
Running shoes EM BW 37 6 6 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes EM BW 31 6 4 ,0.05
Running shoes EF BW 33 6 7 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes EF BW 29 6 8 ,0.05
Running shoes NM BW + 25% 31 6 8 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes NM BW + 25% 29 6 8 ,0.05
Running shoes NF BW + 25% 32 6 8 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes NF BW + 25% 30 6 7 ,0.05
Running shoes EM 75% 1RM 30 6 6 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes EM 75% 1RM 29 6 6 ,0.05
Running shoes EF 75% 1RM 28 6 5 ,0.05
Weightlifting shoes EF 75% 1RM 25 6 5 ,0.05
(72) 14 M Experienced recreational Barefoot 70% 1RM 26 6 5
lifters
Barefoot inspired shoes 70% 1RM 27 6 7
Weightlifting shoes 70% 1RM 29 6 5
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Running shoes 70% 1RM 28 6 4 ,0.05

(85) 9M Experienced recreational Weightlifting shoe LHS 50% 1RM 25 6 4 ,0.001
lifters
Running shoe LHS 50% 1RM 29 6 4 ,0.001
Weightlifting shoe RHS 50% 1RM 25 6 7 ,0.001
Running shoe RHS 50% 1RM 31 6 5 ,0.001
Weightlifting shoe LHS 70% 1RM 25 6 5 ,0.001
Running shoe LHS 70% 1RM 30 6 3 ,0.001
Weightlifting shoe RHS 70% 1RM 25 6 7 ,0.001
Running shoe RHS 70% 1RM 31 6 4 ,0.001
Weightlifting shoe LHS 90% 1RM 26 6 5 ,0.001
Running shoe LHS 90% 1RM 31 6 4 ,0.001
Weightlifting shoe RHS 90% 1RM 26 6 7 ,0.001
Running shoe RHS 90% 1RM 32 6 5 ,0.001
(80) 12 M Powerlifting Traditional squat 30, 50, 70% 1RM 37 6 4

*M = male; F = female; RM = repetition maximum; LHS = left hand side; RHS = right hand side; NM = novice male; NF = novice female; EM = experienced male; EF = experienced
female; BW = body weight.
†All angle data presented as mean 6 SD.

TABLE 6. LBBS peak ankle flexion.*†

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
Athletes (n)
Reference and gender Sport Conditions Load (%RM) Angle (8) Significance (p)

(28) 25 M Powerlifting Beginning of ascent 100% 1RM 55 6 6 ,0.01

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 |

(33) 6M Olympic weightlifting Segment angle 50% 1RM 56 6 6

and powerlifting
(80) 12 M Powerlifting Traditional squat 30, 50, 70% 1RM 27 6 5 ,0.05

*M = male; RM = repetition maximum.

†All angle data presented as mean 6 SD.

TM
| www.nsca.com
2629
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2630

High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review

TABLE 7. HBBS and LBBS kinetic results.*†

Athletes (n) Load

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Reference and gender Sport Conditions (%RM) Peak Fv (N) Mean Fv (N) Significance
the

(43) 8M Experienced Smith machine squats 10% 1RM 2.30 6 0.17 *BW 1.69 6 0.10 *BW p # 0.05
recreational
lifters
100% 1RM 3.21 6 0.29 *BW 2.44 6 0.15 *BW p # 0.05
(91) 12 M Experienced Standard parallel squats 20% 1RM 0.66 6 0.060
recreational
lifters
30% 1RM 0.70 6 0.070
40% 1RM 0.75 6 0.090
50% 1RM 0.78 6 0.070
60% 1RM 0.81 6 0.030
70% 1RM 0.85 6 0.030
80% 1RM 0.94 6 0.030
90% 1RM 1.00 6 0.010
(20) 6 F, 5 M Volleyball (F), Traditional squat Ecc 100% 5RM 1,401.00 6 360.80 1,188.00 6 303.9
TM

basketball
(F), wrestling
(M)
Traditional squat Con 100% 5RM 1,603.00 6 360.80 1,260.00 6 301.40
Chain squat Ecc 100% 5RM 1,347.00 6 366.50 1,129.00 6 333.60
Chain squat Con 100% 5RM 1,528.00 6 344.40 1,238.00 6 320.40
Elastic band squat Ecc 100% 5RM 1,408.00 6 356.80 1,189.00 6 317.90
Elastic band squat Con 100% 5RM 1,603.00 6 311.40 1,229.00 6 308.60
(21) 12 M Experienced Ecc 80% 1RM 2.77 6 0.47 *BW p # 0.001
recreational
lifters
Con 80% 1RM 3.23 6 0.55 *BW p # 0.001
Ecc 100% 1RM 3.26 6 0.60 *BW p # 0.001
Con 100% 1RM 3.65 6 0.62 *BW p # 0.001
Ecc 120% 1RM 3.57 6 0.66 *BW p # 0.001
Con 120% 1RM 4.12 6 0.75 *BW p # 0.001
(3) 6M Experienced Fast cadence BW 2.62 6 0.09 *BW p = 0.0002
recreational
lifters
Medium cadence BW 2.37 6 0.08 *BW p = 0.0002
Slow cadence BW 2.30 6 0.06 *BW p = 0.0002
(45) 30 M Experienced Non-ballistic squat P 45% 1RM 1,706.00 6 250.71
recreational
lifters
Ballistic squat P 45% 1RM 1,768.27 6 260.85
Non-ballistic squat PB 45% 1RM 1,324.36 6 216.51
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Ballistic squat PB 45% 1RM 1,330.96 6 207.14

(80) 12 M Powerlifting Traditional squat 30% 1RM 2,166.00 6 194.00
50% 1RM 2,448.00 6 295.00 p # 0.05
70% 1RM 2,680.00 6 309.00 p # 0.05
Powerlifting squat 30% 1RM 2,165.00 6 182.00
50% 1RM 2,400.00 6 270.00 p # 0.05
70% 1RM 2,685.00 6 301.00 p # 0.05
Box-squat 30% 1RM 2,080.00 6 280.00
50% 1RM 2,265.00 6 306.00 p # 0.05
70% 1RM 2,528.00 6 302.00 p # 0.05
(29) 6M Experienced High-bar 20% 1RM 2,190.00 6 54.00 d . 0.80
recreational
lifters
30% 1RM 2,402.00 6 34.00 d . 1.30
40% 1RM 2,632.00 6 32.00 d . 1.30
50% 1RM 2,867.00 6 39.00 d . 1.30
60% 1RM 2,931.00 6 29.00 d . 1.30
70% 1RM 3,048.00 6 28.00 d . 1.30
80% 1RM 3,146.00 6 30.00 d . 1.30
90% 1RM 3,176.00 6 25.00 d . 0.20
Low-bar 20% 1RM 2,121.00 6 71.00 d . 0.80
30% 1RM 2,332.00 6 30.00 d . 1.30
40% 1RM 2,573.00 6 34.00 d . 1.30
50% 1RM 2,720.00 6 22.00 d . 1.30
60% 1RM 2,776.00 6 45.00 d . 1.30
70% 1RM 2,968.00 6 32.00 d . 1.30

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

80% 1RM 3,084.00 6 28.00 d . 1.30

the
90% 1RM 3,192.00 6 49.00 d . 0.20
(15) 37 M Military BW squat 408 Knee flexion 309.03 6 0.00 p # 0.05
personnel
708 Knee flexion 329.46 6 14.85 p # 0.05
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 |

1108 Knee flexion 383.22 6 52.63 p # 0.05

(50) 8M Competitive Back-squat 70% 1RM 3,269.00 6 573.00
powerlifters
Box-squat 70% 1RM 3,364.00 6 575.00

*M = male; F = female; RM = repetition maximum; *BW = normalized to body weight; 0 = normalized top peak of movement; Con = Concentric phase; Ecc = eccentric phase; WtD
= weight distribution; P = propulsive phase only; PB = propulsive and braking phases; d . 0.20 = small Cohen’s d effect; d . 0.80 = large Cohen’s d effect; d . 1.30 = very large
Cohen’s d effect.
†All angle data presented as peak/mean 6 SD.

TM
| www.nsca.com
2631
 High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review

TABLE 8. HBBS and LBBS muscle activity processing and units.*

Reference Processing Units

(81) Rectified and filtered using a fourth-order digital low-pass, zero-phase % Threshold value
Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz.
(26) Rectified and averaged in a 0.01-s moving window. Mean %MVIC
(51) Raw signal converted to linear envelope by zeroing the baseline, Mean mV
rectifying the signal and low-pass filtering with a cutoff set at 3 Hz.
(1) Full-wave rectified linear envelope with a 15-ms moving average. Mean %MVIC
(62) Raw signal converted to average RMS through built-in hardware mV
circuit network. Frequency response: 450 kHz; average constant:
100 ms; total error: 60.5%.
(87) Full-wave rectified low-pass filtered and time-averaged at 100 ms. Mean MVIC
(88) Full-wave rectified low-pass filtered and time-averaged %MVIC
electromyogram (linear envelope).
(57) Preamplified with a gain of 35 Hz, high-pass filtered at 75 Hz, then RMSV
converted to RMS voltage using a time constant of 55 ms.
(31) High- and low-pass filters at 30 and 500 Hz respectively. mV
(63) Fourth-order band pass Butterworth filter at 10–500 Hz; normalized %MVIC
to greater RMS of MVIC.
(6) High-pass frequency filter. Mean %Contribution
(18) Rectified and filtered by low-pass at 20 Hz using a second-order %MVIC
Butterworth filter.
(50) Rectified and filtered by 6-pole Butterworth, notch filter 60 Hz and Mean mV
band pass filter 10–200 Hz.

*MVIC = maximum voluntary isometric contraction; RMS = route mean squared; RMSV = route mean squared voltage.

should be taken into consideration. Future research should
look to include analysis of joint angles, Fv, and muscle activ-
ity together. Each variable alone is unable to provide a com-
plete picture of each back-squat variation. Instead, the
combination of kinematic, kinetic, and muscle activity is
necessary to create a full profile.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, R, Courtney, C, and Casmeli, E. Emg analysis of the
vastus medialis/vastus lateralis muscles utilizing the unloaded
narrow-and wide-stance squats. J Sport Rehabil 7: 236–247, 1998.
2. Beattie, K, Kenny, I, Lyons, M, and Carson, B. The effect of strength
training on performance in endurance athletes. Sports Med 44: 845–
865, 2014.
3. Bentley, JR, Amonette, WE, De Witt, JK, and Hagan, RD. Effects of
different lifting cadences on ground reaction forces during the squat
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1414–1420, 2010.
4. Benz, RC. A Kinematic Analysis of the High and Low Bar Squat
Techniques by Experienced Low Bar Weight Lifters. West Chester, PA:
West Chester University, 1989.
8. Chiu, LZ. Sitting back in the squat. Strength Cond J 31: 25–27,
2009.
9. Clark, DR, Lambert, MI, and Hunter, AM. Muscle activation in the
loaded free barbell squat: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res 26:
1169–1178, 2012.
10. Comfort, P, Haigh, A, and Matthews, MJ. Are changes in maximal
squat strength during preseason training reflected in changes in
sprint performance in rugby league players? J Strength Cond Res 26:
772–776, 2012.
11. Comfort, P, Stewart, A, Bloom, L, and Clarkson, B.
Relationships between strength, sprint, and jump performance
in well-trained youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 173–
177, 2014.
12. Cormie, P, McCaulley, GO, Triplett, NT, and McBride, JM. Optimal
loading for maximal power output during lower-body resistance
exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 340–349, 2007.
13. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Adaptations in
athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010.
14. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Influence of strength
on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1566–1581, 2010.

5. Blatnik, JA, Skinner, JW, and McBride, JM. Effect of supportive 15. Dali, S, Justine, M, Ahmad, H, and Othman, Z. Comparison of
equipment on force, velocity, and power in the squat. J Strength ground reaction force during different angle of squatting. J Hum
Cond Res 26: 3204–3208, 2012. Sport Exerc 8: 778–787, 2013.

6. Caterisano, A, Moss, RE, Pellinger, TK, Woodruff, K, Lewis, VC,
Booth, W, and Khadra, T. The effect of back squat depth on the
EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond
Res 16: 428–432, 2002.
7. Chandler, TJ and Stone, MH. The squat exercise in athletic
conditioning: A position statement and review of the literature.
Chiropractic Sports Med 6: 105, 1992.
the TM
16. Delavier, F. Strength Training Anatomy. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2010.
17. Delecluse, C. Influence of strength training on sprint running
performance. Sports Med 24: 147–156, 1997.
18. Dionisio, VC, Almeida, GL, Duarte, M, and Hirata, RP. Kinematic,
kinetic and EMG patterns during downward squatting. J
Electromyography Kinesiology 18: 134–143, 2008.

2632 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

19. Donnelly, DV, Berg, WP, and Fiske, DM. The effect of the direction
of gaze on the kinematics of the squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res
20: 145–150, 2006.
20. Ebben, WE and Jensen, RL. Electromyographic and kinetic analysis
of traditional, chain, and elastic band squats. J Strength Cond Res 16:
547–550, 2002.
21. Ebben, WP, Garceau, LR, Wurm, BJ, Suchomel, TJ, Duran, K, and
Petushek, EJ. The optimal back squat load for potential
osteogenesis. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1232–1237, 2012.
22. Eitner, JD, LeFavi, RG, and Riemann, BL. Kinematic and kinetic
analysis of the squat with and without knee wraps. J Strength Cond
Res 25: S41, 2011.
23. Escamilla, RF. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 127–141, 2001.
24. Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Lowry, TM, Barrentine, SW, and
Andrews, JR. A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the
squat during varying stance widths. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 984–
998, 2001.
25. Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Zheng, N, Barrentine, SW, Wilk, KE, and
Andrews, JR. Biomechanics of the knee during closed kinetic chain
and open kinetic chain exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 556–569,
1998.
26. Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Zheng, N, Lander, JE, Barrentine, SW,
Andrews, JR, Bergemann, BW, and Moorman, CT III. Effects of
technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and leg
press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1552–1566, 2001.
27. Flanagan, SP and Salem, GJ. Bilateral differences in the net joint torques
during the squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1220–1226, 2007.
28. Fry, A, Aro, T, Bauer, J, and Kraemer, W. A comparison of methods
for determining kinematic properties of three barbell squat exercises.
J Hum Mov Stud 24: 83, 1993.
29. Goodin, J. Comparison of External Kinetic and Kinematic Variables
Between High Barbell Back Squats and Low Barbell Back Squats Across
a Range of Loads. Johnson City, TN: East Tennessee State University,
2015.
30. Gordon, A, Huxley, AF, and Julian, F. The variation in isometric
tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres. J Physiol
184: 170, 1966.
31. Gorsuch, J, Long, J, Miller, K, Primeau, K, Rutledge, S, Sossong, A,
and Durocher, JJ. The effect of squat depth on multiarticular muscle
activation in collegiate cross-country runners. J Strength Cond Res 27:
2619–2625, 2013.
32. Gullett, JC, Tillman, MD, Gutierrez, GM, and Chow, JW. A
biomechanical comparison of back and front squats in healthy
trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 23: 284–292, 2009.
33. Hales, ME, Johnson, BF, and Johnson, JT. Kinematic analysis of the
powerlifting style squat and the conventional deadlift during
competition: Is there a cross-over effect between lifts? J Strength
Cond Res 23: 2574–2580, 2009.
34. Han, S, Ge, S, Liu, H, and Liu, R. Alterations in three-dimensional
knee kinematics and kinetics during neutral, squeeze and outward
squat. J Hum Kinet 39: 59–66, 2013.
35. Harman, E and Frykman, P. The effects of knee wraps on weightlifting
performance and injury. Strength Cond J 12: 30–35, 1990.
36. Heijne, A, Fleming, BC, Renstrom, PA, Peura, GD, Beynnon, BD, and
Werner, S. Strain on the anterior cruciate ligament during closed kinetic
chain exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 935–941, 2004.
37. Hermassi, S, Chelly, MS, Tabka, Z, Shephard, RJ, and Chamari, K.
Effects of 8-week in-season upper and lower limb heavy resistance
training on the peak power, throwing velocity, and sprint
performance of elite male handball players. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2424–2433, 2011.
38. Hoff, J, Gran, A, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training
improves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 12:
288, 2002.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
39. Hooper, DR, Szivak, TK, Comstock, BA, Dunn-Lewis, C, Apicella,
JM, Kelly, NA, Creighton, BC, Flanagan, SD, Looney, DP, and
Volek, JS. Effects of fatigue from resistance training on barbell back
squat biomechanics. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1127–1134, 2014.
40. International Powerlifting Federation. Technical Rules Book, Differdange,
Luxembourg: International Powerlifting Federation, 2015.
41. International Weightlifting Federation. Technical and Competition
Rules & Regulations 2013–2016, Budapest, Hungary: International
Weightlifting Federation, 2015.
42. Kawamori, N and Haff, GG. The optimal training load for the
development of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 18: 675–684, 2004.
43. Kellis, E, Arambatzi, F, and Papadopoulos, C. Effects of load on
ground reaction force and lower limb kinematics during concentric
squats. J Sports Sci 23: 1045–1055, 2005.
44. Kobayashi, Y, Kubo, J, Matsuo, A, Matsubayashi, T, Kobayashi, K, and
Ishii, N. Bilateral asymmetry in joint torque during squat exercise
performed by long jumpers. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2826–2830, 2010.
45. Lake, J, Lauder, M, Smith, N, and Shorter, K. A comparison of ballistic
and nonballistic lower-body resistance exercise and the methods used
to identify their positive lifting phases. J Appl Biomech 28: 431–437, 2012.
46. Legg, HS, Glaister, M, Cleather, DJ, and Goodwin, JE. The effect of
weightlifting shoes on the kinetics and kinematics of the back squat.
J Sports Sci 35: 508–515, 2017.
47. Maddigan, ME, Button, DC, and Behm, DG. Lower-limb and trunk
muscle activation with back squats and weighted sled apparatus. J
Strength Cond Res 28: 3346–3353, 2014.
48. McBride, JM, Blow, D, Kirby, TJ, Haines, TL, Dayne, AM, and Triplett,
NT. Relationship between maximal squat strength and five, ten, and
forty yard sprint times. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1633–1636, 2009.
49. McBride, JM, Nimphius, S, and Erickson, TM. The acute effects of
heavy-load squats and loaded countermovement jumps on sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res 19: 893–897, 2005.
50. McBride, JM, Szkinner, JW, Schafer, PC, Haines, TL, and Kirby, TJ.
Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat
vs. a box squat. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3195–3199, 2010.
51. McCaw, ST and Melrose, DR. Stance width and bar load effects on
leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:
428–436, 1999.
52. McKean, MR, Dunn, PK, and Burkett, BJ. Quantifying the
movement and the influence of load in the back squat exercise. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 1671–1679, 2010.
53. McLaughlin, TM, Dillman, CJ, and Lardner, TJ. Kinematic model of
performance in the parallel squat by champion powerlifters. Med Sci
Sports 9: 128–133, 1977.
54. Medina, JM, McKeon, PO, and Hertel, J. Rating the levels of
evidence in sports-medicine research. Athl Ther 11: 38–41, 2006.
55. Myer, GD, Ford, KR, and Hewett, TE. Rationale and clinical
techniques for anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention among
female athletes. J Athl Train 39: 352–364, 2004.
56. Newton, H. Explosive Lifting for Sports. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2002.
57. Ninos, JC, Irrgang, JJ, Burdett, R, and Weiss, JR. Electromyographic
analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower extremity neutral
rotation and 30 degrees of lower extremity turn-out from the self-
selected neutral position. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 25: 307–315, 1997.
58. Nisell, R and Ekholm, J. Joint load during the parallel squat in
powerlifting and force analysis of in vivo bilateral quadriceps tendon
rupture. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8: 63–70, 1986.
59. OʼShea, P. Sports Performance Series: The parallel squat. Strength
Cond J 7: 4, 1985.
60. Osteras, H, Helgerud, J, and Hoff, J. Maximal strength-training
effects on force-velocity and force-power relationships explain
increases in aerobic performance in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 88:
255–263, 2002.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2633
 High-Bar vs Low-Bar Squats: A Review
61. Palmitier, RA, An, KN, Scott, SG, and Chao, EYS. Kinetic chain
exercise in knee rehabilitation. Sports Med 11: 402–413, 1991.
62. Paoli, A, Marcolin, G, and Petrone, N. The effect of stance width on
the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles
during back squat with different bar loads. J Strength Cond Res 23:
246–250, 2009.
63. Pereira, GR, Lepobace, G, Chagas, DDV, Furtado, LFL, Praxedes, J,
and Batista, LA. Influence of hip external rotation on hip adductor
and rectus femoris myoelectric activity during a parallel squat. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 2749–2754, 2010.
64. Renström, P, Arms, S, Stanwyck, T, Johnson, R, and Pope, M. Strain
within the anterior cruciate ligament during hamstring and
quadriceps activity. Am J Sports Med 14: 83–87, 1986.
65. Robertson, DGE, Wilson, J-MJ, and Pierre, TAS. Lower extremity
muscle functions during full squats. J Appl Biomech 24: 333–339,
2008.
66. Ronnestad, BR, Kvamme, NH, Sunde, A, and Raastad, T. Short-
term effects of strength and plyometric training on sprint and jump
performance in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
773–780, 2008.
67. Sato, K, Fortenbaugh, D, and Hydock, DS. Kinematic changes using
weightlifting shoes on barbell back squat. J Strength Cond Res 26: 28–
33, 2012.
68. Sato, K, Fortenbaugh, D, Hydock, DS, and Heise, GD. Comparison
of back squat kinematics between barefoot and shoe conditions. Int
J Sports Sci Coach 8: 571–578, 2013.
69. Schoenfeld, BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their
application to exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3497–
3506, 2010.
70. Senter, C and Hame, SL. Biomechanical analysis of tibial torque and
knee flexion angle: Implications for understanding knee injury. Sports
Med 36: 635–641, 2006.
71. Shelbourne, KD, Klootwyk, TE, and DeCarlo, MS. Update on
accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 15: 303–308, 1992.
72. Sinclair, J, McCarthy, D, Bentley, I, Hurst, HT, and Atkins, S. The
influence of different footwear on 3-D kinematics and muscle
activation during the barbell back squat in males. Eur J Sport Sci 15:
583–590, 2015.
73. Sleivert, G and Taingahue, M. The relationship between maximal
jump-squat power and sprint acceleration in athletes. Eur J Appl
Physiol 91: 46–52, 2004.
74. Steindler, A. Kinesiology of the Human Body Under Normal and
Pathological Conditions. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1955.
75. Steinkamp, LA, Dillingham, MF, Markel, MD, Hill, JA, and
Kaufman, KR. Biomechanical considerations in patellofemoral joint
rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 21: 438–444, 1993.
76. Stone, MH, Potteiger, JA, Pierce, KC, Proulx, CM, O’Bryant, HS,
Johnson, RL, and Stone, ME. Comparison of the effects of three
the TM
2634 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum
squat. J Strength Cond Res 14: 332–337, 2000.
77. Stoppani, J. Encyclopedia of Muscle & Strength. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2006.
78. Støren, Ø, Helgerud, J, Støa, EM, and Hoff, J. Maximal strength
training improves running economy in distance runners. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 40: 1087–1092, 2008.
79. Sunde, A, Støren, Ø, Bjerkaas, M, Larsen, MH, Hoff, J, and
Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves cycling economy
in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2157–2165, 2010.
80. 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.
81. Toutoungi, D, Lu, T, Leardini, A, Catani, F, and O’Connor, J.
Cruciate ligament forces in the human knee during rehabilitation
exercises. Clin Biomech 15: 176–187, 2000.
82. van den Tillaar, R. Kinematics and muscle activation around the
sticking region in free-weight barbell back squats. Kinesiologia
Slovenica 21: 15–25, 2015.
83. van den Tillaar, R, Andersen, V, and Saeterbakken, AH. The
existence of a sticking region in free weight squats. J Hum Kinet 42:
63–71, 2014.
84. Weber, KR, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, and Zinder, SM. Acute effects
of heavy-load squats on consecutive squat jump performance. J
Strength Cond Res 22: 726–730, 2008.
85. Whitting, JW, Meir, RA, Crowley-McHattan, ZJ, and Holding, RC.
Influence of footwear type on barbell back squat using 50, 70, and
90% of one repetition maximum: A biomechanical analysis. J
Strength Cond Res 30: 1085–1092, 2016.
86. Wisløff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and
vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285–
288, 2004.
87. Wretenberg, P, Feng, Y, and Arborelius, UP. High- and low-bar
squatting techniques during weight-training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:
218–224, 1996.
88. Wretenberg, P, Feng, Y, Lindberg, F, and Arborelius, UP. Joint
moments of force and quadriceps muscle activity during squatting
exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports 3: 244–250, 1993.
89. Yack, HJ, Collins, CE, and Whieldon, TJ. Comparison of closed and
open kinetic chain exercise in the anterior cruciate ligament-
deficient knee. Am J Sports Med 21: 49–54, 1993.
90. Young, WB, Jenner, A, and Griffiths, K. Acute enhancement of
power performance from heavy load squats. J Strength Cond Res 12:
82–84, 1998.
91. Zink, AJ, Perry, AC, Robertson, BL, Roach, KE, and Signorile, JF.
Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat
exercise performed at different loads. J Strength Cond Res 20: 658–
664, 2006.