Exercise Technique

The Exercise Technique Column provides detailed

explanations of proper exercise technique to optimize
performance and safety.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

COLUMN EDITOR: Jay Dawes, PhD, CSCS*D,

NSCA-CPT*D, FNSCA
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023

Safety Squat Bar Squat

Technique and
Biomechanics-Driven
Programming
Merrick A. Lincoln, PT, DPT, CSCS,1 Sheldon G. Wheeler, Jr, BS,1 and Jeremy L. Knous, PhD1
1
Department of Kinesiology, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan

ABSTRACT
The safety squat bar squat (SSBS) is a
unique squat variation performed with
its namesake barbell. In addition to
describing proper SSBS technique,
this column reviews SSBS biome-
chanics, criteria for exercise perfor-
mance, programming opportunities for
special populations, and descriptions
of 3 additional exercise variations with
suggestions for use.
INTRODUCTION
quats are among the most com-
training programs ranging in duration
from 5 to 12 weeks are associated with
improvements in sprint performance
(79), change of direction ability (79),
running economy (76,80), quadriceps
cross-sectional area (8), and jumping
performance (8,35,64,76). Athletes
with a higher squat 1 repetition maxi-
mum (1RM) relative to body mass also
demonstrate the reduced risk of lower-
body injury (13). Therefore, the squat
may serve as a key performance indi-
cator for a variety of goals in the
strength and conditioning scope (11).
The safety squat bar squat (SSBS) is
performed with its namesake barbell.
Jesse Hoagland invented and patented
the safety squat barbell in 1981 (38,39).
Typical safety squat barbells have the
following features: (a) cambers or pro-
jections on each end that place the
sleeves of the barbell anterior-inferior
to the shaft of the barbell; (b) 2 handles
extending anteriorly from the shaft of
the barbell; and (c) a central “yoke”
comprised padding around the proxi-
mal handles and the interval between
the handles (36,38,39,57,60,85).
Despite the growing popularity of the

S
mon exercises in strength and
conditioning (74). The squat tar-
gets the extensor muscles of the hips,
knees, and ankles (6,10). Variations of
the squat serve as assessments of
dynamic lower-body strength, neuro-
muscular control, and functional
mobility (16,22,51,61,74). Squat
Address correspondence to Merrick A. Lin-
coln, malincol@svsu.edu.
Practitioners regularly use squat variations
that involve modifying the barbell posi-
tion (e.g., low-bar back squat or front
squat) or changing the load implement
(e.g., kettlebell, dumbbell, or specialty bar-
bell) (6,28,30,36,64). Squat variations that
alter the placement of the load are asso-
ciated with subtle changes to exercise bio-
mechanics, including several kinematic
and kinetic features (30,32,54,70,92,93),
along with muscle activity (36,54,93).
SSBS, recommendations for its use
remain largely anecdotal. Two studies
have examined the biomechanical fea-
tures of the exercise (36,85), and a sin-
gle study examined performance-
related outcomes of training with the
safety squat bar (57). The SSBS may
offer novel opportunities for perfor-
mance enhancement for healthy ath-
letes and those training with

Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association 241

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Exercise Technique
orthopedic limitations or injuries. The
purposes of this column are to provide
an overview of current research on the
SSBS, to describe the SSBS technique,
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
to suggest programming opportunities
related to the unique SSBS biomechan-
ics, and to present exercise variations
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
not previously discussed in the schol-
arly literature.
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
The sole published training study on
the SSBS indicates both SSBS and
back squat (BS) are effective for
improving power and strength (57).
Meldrum and DeBeliso (57) conducted
a retrospective analysis of a 9-week
training block to compare the effective-
ness of an autoregulated progressive
resistance exercise program containing
either the SSBS or the BS among male
collegiate baseball players. Pitchers (n
5 14) were assigned to the SSBS
group, and nonpitchers (n 5 14) were
assigned to the BS group. The SSBS
was found to improve vertical jump
and sprinting speed to a similar degree
as BS; however, effect size (ES) mag-
nitudes favored the SSBS. For vertical
jump, trivial effect size improvements
occurred in the BS group, whereas
small effect size improvements
occurred in the SSBS group (ES: 0.23
versus 0.38, p 5 0.37) (57,69). For
improvements in sprint speed, a trivial
effect size was calculated for the BS
group, whereas a small effect size was
shown for the SSBS group (ES 5 0.22
versus 0.44, p 5 0.42) (57,69).
One repetition maximum (1RM) squat
strength was estimated using 3–5 RM
and the Brzycki formula for each ath-
lete’s assigned squat variation. Esti-
mated 1RM improved in both groups
with large magnitude effects (SSBS ES
5 2.71, p , 0.05; BS ES 5 2.69, p ,
0.05) (57,69). Athletes who trained
using the SSBS experienced a greater
increase in SSBS-estimated 1RM com-
pared with improvements demon-
strated by athletes trained and tested
through the BS (p , 0.05) (57). The
authors interpreted this finding conser-
vatively, citing similar effect size
improvements between groups (57). It
has been suggested that these findings
242 VOLUME 45 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2023
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
indicate a learning effect for the SSBS
(85). Presently, the existence of a learn-
ing effect cannot be discerned, as Mel-
drum and DeBeliso (57) did not report
cross-over testing or prior training
experience with each squat variation.
Importantly, Meldrum and DeBeliso
(57) validate the SSBS as an effective
squat variation for strength and power
training.
Two cross-sectional, cross-over studies
compared the biomechanical features
of the SSBS with the BS (36,85). Heck-
er et al. (36) studied 12 female and male
powerlifters with 3.3 6 2.8 years of
competitive experience including prior
training with SSBS. Hecker et al. (36)
reported that the SSBS 3-repetition
maximum was 11.3% lower than the
BS 3-repetition maximum (146 versus
164 kg). Vantrease et al. (85) recruited
32 men with a minimum history of
resistance training of $6 months at
$3 sessions per week frequency; how-
ever, no prior experience with the
SSBS was reported by any of the par-
ticipants. Vantrease et al. (85) reported
that SSBS and BS performances were
highly correlated (r 5 0.947); however,
the mean 1RM for the SSBS was 11.0%
lower than the mean BS 1 repetition
maximum (128.7 versus 144.7 kg)
(36,85). Although Hecker et al. (36)
and Vantrease et al. (85) tested different
loading intensities (3RM and 1RM,
respectively), the absolute load for
SSBS repetition maximum was signifi-
cantly lower than BS repetition maxi-
mum by a similar relative margin
of ;11%.
Hecker et al. (36) concluded that rep-
etition maximum data indicate the
SSBS may be less effective than BS
for training for maximum lower-body
strength. The data more directly sug-
gest that high-intensity training may be
accomplished using lower absolute
external loads with the SSBS than
the BS. Using lower absolute external
load may provide potential safety
advantages for the lifter and spotters
should failure occur. In addition, the
use of lower external load is expected
to result in reduced compressive and
shearing forces at involved joints,
including the knees and low
back (32,70).
Practitioners of velocity-based training
(VBT) use velocity to direct or aug-
ment training practice (87). Velocity
data may be useful for determining
exercise intensity (%1RM) (29,72), in-
forming of exercise training loads
(19,77), monitoring of training progress
(41), and the accumulation of fatigue
(71), as well as providing feedback dur-
ing exercise (42). In addition, velocity-
based methods may inform estimations
of 1RM (43) and the number of repe-
titions remaining before failure (59)
without requiring maximal or exhaus-
tive exercise, respectively. Albeit, exist-
ing evidence questions the usefulness
of these estimates because of reliability
(27) and concurrent validity con-
cerns (4,41).
Vantrease et al. (85) used a linear posi-
tion transducer to compare mean
velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV)
for the SSBS and BS at 65% 1RM and
85% 1RM. At the same relative inten-
sities, MV was similar for SSBS (65%
1RM: 0.751 6 0.120 m$s21, 85% 1RM:
0.503 6 0.109 m$s21) and BS (65%
1RM: 0.721 6 0.091 m$s21, 85%
1RM: 0.498 6 0.076 m$s21). Likewise,
PV was similar for SSBS (65% 1RM:
1.209 6 0.167 m$s21, 85% 1RM:
0.972 6 0.143 m$s21) and BS (65%
1RM: 1.268 6 0.145 m$s21, 85%
1RM: 1.038 6 0.133 m$s21) at the
same relative intensities. Correlations
between SSBS velocities between 3
measured repetitions were good to
excellent (ICC 3,1) at 65% 1RM for
MV (ICC: 0.930) and PV (ICC:
0.905) and at 85% 1RM for MV
(ICC: 0.922) and PV (ICC: 0.804) (85).
The practitioner may use velocity-
based monitoring for the SSBS and
expect similar velocities to the BS with
common training loads (85). Addi-
tional research is needed to describe
the velocity characteristics of the SSBS
through a full spectrum of loading
intensities and during repetitions to
fatigue, to validate 1RM estimation
methods for the SSBS, and to inform
 other uses of VBT for SSBS
programming.
Hecker et al. (36) and Vantrease et al.
(85) compared muscle excitation
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
through surface electromyography
(sEMG) during SSBS and BS. Hecker
et al. (36) recorded mean muscle exci-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
tation during 5 repetition sets of squats
with 75% of each variation’s respective
1RM, whereas Vantrease et al. (85) re-
corded 3 repetitions at 65 and 85% of
each variation’s 1RM before normaliz-
ing all data against the sEMG ampli-
tude of each variation’s 1RM trial.
Vantrease et al. (85) reported no signif-
icant interactions between squat varia-
tion and muscle excitation for all
muscles assessed: vastus lateralis,
vastus medialis, rectus femoris, biceps
femoris, semitendinosus, gluteus maxi-
mus, and erector spinae (p . 0.05 for
all). Similarly, Hecker et al. (36) re-
ported no significant differences
between squat variations and muscle
excitation for vastus medialis, erector
spinae, and rectus femoris (p . 0.05
for all); however, muscle excitation of
the biceps femoris, semitendinosus,
and vastus lateralis was significantly
lower (p , 0.05) during the SSBS than
BS. Hecker et al. (36) reported lower (p
, 0.05) muscle excitation during the
SSBS for the medial gastrocnemius
and upper trapezius and greater muscle
excitation (p 5 0.004) of the lower tra-
pezius during the SSBS.
Vantrease et al. (85) hypothesized that
their findings in conflict with Hecker
et al. (36) were related to the differ-
ences in the training backgrounds of
the participants. Participants recruited
by Heckler et al. (36) were powerlifters
with SSBS experience, whereas the
participants recruited by Vantrease
et al. (85) had no prior experience with
the SSBS. Different models of safety
squat barbells were used in the 2 stud-
ies, which could potentially affect out-
comes (36,85). Hecker et al. (36)
attributed differences in muscle excita-
tion between the SSBS and BS to dif-
ferent absolute loads and different
load-carriage positions. Differences in
exercise kinematics confound the inter-
pretation of sEMG data (86). The
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
practical significance of sEMG differ-
ences between the SSBS and BS is
unclear because the exercises were
not kinematically identical, as dis-
cussed below (36,85).
Hecker et al. (36) compared peak
angles of the lower leg and trunk
between the SSBS and BS through
video 3D motion capture. Squat depth
was visually verified to reach parallel
depth, as indicated by the top of the
proximal thigh descending below the
top of the knee at the bottom position
(36). Compared with the BS, the SSBS
was characterized by lower mean peak
hip flexion angle (114 6 9.48 versus
119.7 6 11.28), lower mean peak ankle
dorsiflexion angle (19.7 6 6.88 versus
20.6 6 6.88), and lower mean peak for-
ward inclinations of the lower leg (24.1
6 6.18 versus 25.4 6 6.88) and trunk
(41.6 6 6.58 versus 48.9 6 9.08) (36).
Hecker et al. (36) reported similar
mean peak knee flexion angles between
the BS (107.7 6 11.98) and SSBS (108.1
6 10.28). These flexion angles are con-
sistent with the mean peak knee flexion
angles previously reported among
powerlifters performing low-bar back
squats to parallel (92). Although similar
knee flexion excursions may be ex-
pected for both the SSBS and BS, the
SSBS is distinguished by a more
upright body position and lower peak
angles for hip flexion, ankle dorsiflex-
ion, and lower leg inclination (36).
BASIC EXERCISE TECHNIQUE
Set-up and Starting Position
Ideally, the SSBS is performed in a
squat rack with the pins or safety arms
set one increment below the antici-
pated bottom position of the squat
(60). The height of the barbell hooks
should allow effective unracking and
reracking.
The lifter semisquats under the bar,
ensuring that the yoke rests on the tra-
pezius. Lengths of safety squat bar
handles vary by manufacturer. Bars
with short handles are grasped imme-
diately adjacent to the yoke, whereas
other designs afford a variety of grasp
positions along the length of the
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
handles. The amount of elbow flexion
required to grasp the bar is determined
by specific grip location. The lifter
should use a neutral and closed grip.
The lifter removes the bar from the
rack. The lifter should take small steps
back from the rack, ensuring that feet
are placed evenly at shoulder width (or
slightly wider) with toes pointed
straight ahead or slightly outward.
The lifter prepares by taking a deep
breath and bracing the muscles of the
midsection.
Downward Movement Phase
While maintaining chest up and feet
flat on the floor, the lifter allows hips,
knees, and ankles to bend. The angle
between the torso and the floor should
remain relatively constant during the
descent. Squat depth is typically termi-
nated when the thighs are parallel to
the floor, the trunk begins to flex for-
ward, or the heels rise from the floor
(14). The bottom position demarcates
the downward movement phase from
the upward movement phase and is
shown in Figure 1A.
Upward Movement Phase
The lifter returns to the top position by
extending the hips, knees, and ankles at
a similar rate, maintaining the relatively
constant angle between the torso and
the floor throughout. The lifter should
keep the spine braced, handles of the
safety squat bar parallel to the floor,
gaze straight ahead or slightly upward,
and feet flat. The repetition ends with
hips and knees extended in the top
position, as shown in Figure 1B.
When finished with the exercise, the
lifter should step forward until the
shaft of the safety squat bar contacts
the rack. The lifter then performs a
shallow semisquat, allowing the bar
to rest in the hooks before releasing.
MONITORING THE SAFETY SQUAT
BAR SQUAT
The practitioner should monitor the
squat using lateral and anterior views
during several repetitions (61,78).
Although the athlete’s unique anthro-
pometry may affect squat kinematics
(26,56), the qualitative criteria
243
 Exercise Technique

From the front, the practitioner should

visually monitor control of the torso
and legs in the frontal plane. Listing
(i.e., lateral shifting) of the torso should
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

not be present (78). The knees should

track in line with the toes (22,61).
Dynamic knee valgus refers to signifi-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023

cant deviation of the knee medially and

Figure 1. Safety squat bar squat bottom position (A) and safety squat bar squat top
position (B).
presented in the Table 1 are sufficiently
robust to account for most interindivid-
ual differences.
When viewing the athlete from the
side, the practitioner should visually
monitor the alignment of body seg-
ments and the position of the load rel-
ative to the base of support. Optimal
squat form has been described as
dynamic body alignment that main-
tains the trunk and lower leg segments
approximately parallel to one another
in the sagittal plane (7,78). Throughout
the entire lift, the sleeves of the barbell
should be maintained above the foot.
Chiu and Burkhardt (17) referred to
this as the “optimal window,” as shown
in Figure 2A.
As a closed kinetic chain exercise, the
SSBS is characterized by highly inter-
dependent movements of involved
joints (26). An athlete who demon-
strates reduced ankle dorsiflexion or
reduced lower leg forward inclination
is likely to show increased forward
trunk inclination when full squat depth
is achieved (25,26). Greater hip flexion
during the squat results in increased
forward inclination of the trunk (92).
Athletes who maintain an excessively
vertical trunk position require
increased dorsiflexion or increased
lower leg forward inclination to pre-
vent falling backward. The latter may
manifest as the heels rising from
the floor.
is related to adduction and internal
rotation of the hip with pronation of
the foot during closed kinetic chain
movements (67). Dynamic knee valgus
may place undue strain on noncontrac-
tile structures, including the anterior
cruciate ligament and medial collateral
ligament (67). Although no incidents of
ligamentous injuries from dynamic
knee valgus during squatting in the
strength training environment have
been reported in the scholarly litera-
ture, significant frontal plane knee
excursions are commonly considered
undesirable (53,61,67). As some indi-
viduals tend toward valgus and others
toward varus during bilateral squats
(53,66,68), the practitioner should
remain vigilant for extreme deviations
into either pattern.
Myer et al. (61) proposed that the lat-
eral aspect of the knee should not cross
over the medial malleolus of the ankle
and the medial aspect of the knee
should not cross over the lateral mal-
leolus. To verify these criteria, the prac-
titioner may once again apply the
concept of an optimal window. The
practitioner should identify the medial
and lateral borders of the ankle visual-
izing vertical lines upward, which rep-
resent the bounds of the knee’s optimal

Table 1
Qualitative criteria for safety squat bar squat monitoring

Perspective Criteria Description

Lateral (“sagittal Barbell in sagittal optimal Sleeve of barbell remains above the anterior and posterior extremes of foot
view”) window
The lateral midline of trunk remains parallel to lateral midline of lower leg
Trunk and lower leg parallel The heel and forefoot remain flat on the floor throughout
Heel and forefoot contact The proximal aspect handles of barbell remain parallel to floor throughout
Handles neutral
Anterior (“frontal Knees in frontal optimal The medial and/or lateral aspect of knee remains above medial and lateral
view”) window extremes of ankle
Midline maintained The anterior midline of trunk remains vertical and centered within base of
support

244 VOLUME 45 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2023

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
Figure 2. Optimal window for the safety squat barbell in the sagittal plane (A). Barbell
sleeve should remain within vertical boundaries formed by the anterior
and posterior foot (dotted lines); optimal window for the safety squat
barbell in the frontal plane (B). All or part of the patella should remain
within the vertical boundaries formed by the medial and lateral malleoli
(dotted lines).
window in the frontal plane. As illus-
trated in Figure 2B, at least some por-
tion of the patella should remain within
the optimal window throughout
the squat.
Squat errors may result from poor
understanding, poor motor planning,
or poor motor execution (7). Many
errors may be resolved by improved
instruction or provision of feedback
and cueing (7,21,48). The hands-free
SSBS, discussed below, is an example
of a safety squat bar squat exercise pro-
gression that may be used to minimize
technical errors related to trunk posi-
tion and barbell carriage. The practi-
tioner may refer to published
resources for additional corrective
strategies (48). Because motor execu-
tion may become more variable (15)
or deteriorate under heavy relative
loads (23,53), the practitioner should
monitor the performance of the SSBS
across multiple repetitions at all inten-
sities used in training (15). Technique
errors related to inappropriate load
may be remedied by initial load
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
reduction, reassessment, and graded
progression.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR
PROGRAMMING
Kinematic differences between the
SSBS and other squat variations are
apparent for the upper extremities,
whereas differences in maximum ankle
range of motion, hip range of motion,
and trunk angle have been objectively
reported (36,85). The following section
highlights biomechanical features that
distinguish the SSBS from other com-
mon squat variations. These features
inform programming opportunities of
the SSBS, especially for trainees with
orthopedic limitations and sport-
specific training goals. Application
claims stem from inductive reasoning;
therefore, the practitioner is encour-
aged to use critical judgment.
Upper Extremity Considerations
The safety squat bar places the upper
extremities in a position that resembles
carriage during many sports, such as
the ready stance of wrestling and
jujitsu, the basic guard in boxing, the
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
blocking position in American football,
and the athletic position in basketball,
volleyball, netball, and other sports.
When considering exercise selection
and specificity of training, the practi-
tioner must consider the neuromuscu-
lar demands of the exercises (9,91).
Because the upper extremity is not typ-
ically overloaded during the squat, the
practitioner is encouraged to refrain
from inferring superior specificity of
training from the biomechanical simi-
larities. However, postural demand on
the upper extremity during squat vari-
ations may be an important consider-
ation for certain athletes.
The BS has aggressive shoulder range-
of-motion demands and may not be
tolerated by all athletes. The BS
requires abduction with external rota-
tion, which tends to translate the head
of the humerus forward and resembles
the crank test for shoulder instability
(55). This position may be painful in
the presence of internal impingement,
a common shoulder syndrome among
overhead athletes (5,55). The SSBS
requires minimal upper extremity
mobility. Hence, the SSBS has been
recommended for use among athletes
who poorly tolerate the barbell posi-
tion of the BS because of existing
injury, as well as those at risk for shoul-
der instability and labrum injury, such
as baseball pitchers (57).
Axial Considerations
To set up for the BS, the lifter is instructed
to create a muscular “shelf” for the barbell
to rest on by contracting trapezius and
spinal erector muscles (61,65). Ectomor-
phic individuals, those with prominent
thoracic spinous processes, and lifters
who lack neuromuscular control of the
parascapular muscles may be unable to
create a suitable soft-tissue shelf for the
barbell. For these individuals, the SSBS
may provide a comfortable alternative
to the BS.
Hecker et al. (36) proposed that the
SSBS may be more appropriate than
the BS for athletes at risk for low back
injuries. Current literature suggests that
lower absolute magnitude loads are lifted
during the SSBS compared with the BS
245
 Exercise Technique
(36,85), which may result in decreased
compression forces on the lumbar region
(12). Although the SSBS may be more
appropriate than the BS for athletes at
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
risk or recovering from compression-
related spinal pathology (e.g., vertebral
end-plate fractures) (84), other forces,
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
such as torque and shear, are important
considerations (33).
Squat variations that modify the posi-
tion of the load or absolute angles of
body segments affect joint moments,
sheer, and stress on local structures
(33,45,70,73,74,81). Because these fea-
tures have not been analyzed directly
during the SSBS, the practitioner
should use caution when attempting
to extrapolate kinetic features from
published kinematic findings. For
example, based on a simple mechanical
model, increased trunk lean during the
squat is associated with increased lum-
bar flexion torque (25,52). Although
Hecker et al. (36) showed significantly
lower mean maximum trunk lean for
the SSBS than BS (41.6 6 6.58 versus
48.9 6 9.08, p , 0.05), extrapolation of
this finding to the claim of reduced
lumbar flexion torque is inappropriate
because it fails to account for the cam-
ber of the safety squat barbell, which
increases the moment arm of the load.
Lumbar pathologies such as spondy-
lolysis, spondylolisthesis, and disc her-
niations are common among athletes
(40,83,89). Because most athletes with
lumbar injuries ultimately return to
training and sport (40,83), additional
kinetic research is needed to determine
whether the SSBS is more appropriate
than other squat variations.
Lower Extremity Considerations
Hip-related groin pain is the preferred
terminology that encompasses joint-
related issues including femoroacetab-
ular impingement (FAI) syndrome
(88). The presence of FAI has been
associated with the development of
other groin pathology, including
labrum tears (62) and early hip osteo-
arthritis (1,37). FAI syndrome is related
to bony changes of the femoral neck
and/or acetabulum, pain in positions of
hip flexion and internal rotation
246 VOLUME 45 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2023
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(“impingement” positions), and activity
limitation (31,44). Deep hip flexion
may aggravate hip-related groin pain
(50). Owing to reduced peak hip flex-
ion (36), the SSBS may be a more
appropriate variation than the BS for
those with hip-related groin pain or
those at risk.
Hip muscle weakness is associated
with FAI (24), and the importance of
hip muscle strengthening is well estab-
lished for individuals with FAI
(3,34,47). The strength practitioner
and sports medicine specialist should
work together to determine whether
the SSBS is an appropriate exercise
for individuals with FAI. Substitution
of the BS for the SSBS should also
be considered for individuals at an ele-
vated risk of hip-related groin injury,
including male athletes participating
in hockey, lacrosse, American football,
soccer, or outdoor track (18,46), as well
as athletes who demonstrate total com-
bined internal and external rotation
range of motion ,858 at preseason
screening (82).
The SSBS has been proposed to bias
the quadriceps to greater degree than
the BS (60,85). Indeed, squatting with
a more upright torso has been shown
to increase knee extensor muscle
demand through increased resistance
moment of the trunk segment (81).
Although the SSBS demonstrates a
more upright torso than the BS (36),
inferring that the superiority of the
SSBS for training the quadriceps is
complicated by the camber of the
safety squat bar. The knee moment
during the squat is the summed prod-
ucts of the masses of all body seg-
ments superior to the knee and their
respective moment arms plus the
product of the barbell’s mass and
moment arm (45). The camber of
the safety squat bar displaces the
plates toward the knees, which
reduces their moment arm. Previ-
ously, Lynn and Noffal (54) reported
reduced knee moment during a squat
variation with dumbbells held out-
stretched anterior to the body com-
pared with a regular squat with
dumbbells placed atop the shoulders.
The camber of the safety squat bar
opposes the kinetic effects of the
upright torso position during the
SSBS, albeit to an unknown extent.
Inverse dynamic biomechanical mod-
eling with quasistatic analysis is indi-
cated to substantiate claims related to
SSBS joint moments (10,49,70,81).
SAFETY SQUAT BAR EXERCISE
VARIATIONS
Hands-free Safety Squat Bar Squat
Positioned appropriately, the safety
squat bar’s padded handles sit parallel
to the ground and remain in this posi-
tion throughout the lift (36). During
the SSBS, novices may erroneously
pull the handles downward. This
action changes the position of the bar’s
cambered sleeves, decreasing the ante-
rior placement of the load, and poten-
tially destabilizes the lifter. Following
Chiu and Burkhardt (17) who pro-
posed the “no-arms front squat” for in-
structing barbell positioning, the
hands-free SSBS may be used as a
teaching progression to instruct proper
carriage of the safety squat bar.
The hands-free SSBS is set up identically
to the standard SSBS; however, imme-
diately before the downward movement
phase, the athlete is asked to release the
barbell. The athlete descends to the bot-
tom position of the squat and returns to
standing without touching the handles,
as shown in Figure 3. The athlete should
be instructed to keep their hands near
the handles, ready to grasp them if the
barbell begins to deviate from its bal-
anced position.
The hands-free SSBS re-enforces
trunk neuromuscular control because
keeping a balanced bar position
requires the athlete to maintain the
trunk steady and upright position
throughout the squat. Furthermore,
this variation may present opportuni-
ties for athletes with upper extremity
injuries or restrictions to perform
loaded squats. If orthopedic limitations
require the walkout and reracking of
the barbell to be performed hands-
free, a 3-spotter method for the squat
should be used; 1 spotter on either side
of the barbell and 1 standing behind
 for balance (60). The performance of
the HSSBS is illustrated in Figure 4.
Exercises providing more support to
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

the athlete typically demonstrate high-

er absolute repetition maximum loads
(20,75,90). The HSSBS provides stabil-
ity throughout the squat and eliminates
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023

the walkout, which may facilitate the

use of supramaximal loads (2). It has
been suggested that the HSSBS may be
loaded to 120–150% of the BS 1RM
(2). The ability to use a higher absolute
load may be desirable for the develop-
ment of maximum lower-body
strength.

Safety Squat Bar Jump Squat

Jump squats are superior to squat and
leg press training for improving verti-
Figure 3. Hands-free safety squat bar squat bottom position (A) and hands-free safety cal jump (63). The safety squat bar
squat bar squat top position (B). jump squat engages the stretch-
shortening cycle to potentiate the
the lifter (60). When training an injured removing hands from the rack or upward movement phase, which is
athlete, the decision to incorporate the stepping back, the athlete lifts the performed in a ballistic fashion.
hands-free SSBS should be made in barbell from the hooks and stands Athletes should first be proficient in the
consultation with the sports medi- upright (60). The athlete performs standard SSBS technique. The set-up and
cine team. the downward and upward move- starting position steps are identical to the
ment phases of the squat with hands standard SSBS. The downward move-
remaining on the squat handles or ment phase is performed to serve as a
Hatfield Safety Squat Bar Squat
rack. The athlete should attempt to countermovement. On reaching the bot-
This upper extremity–supported SSBS
maintain straight elbows throughout tom position, the athlete rapidly performs
variation has also been termed “safety
the HSSBS, using the rack primarily extension of the hips, knees, and ankles.
squat” (60). For the purposes of this
column, we will refer to the exercise as
the Hatfield SSBS (HSSBS), which
references Fred Hatfield, PhD, a pow-
erlifter and early adopter of this varia-
tion (2,60). During the HSSBS, the
athlete maintains hand support on the
squat rack.
The HSSBS is most appropriately
programmed for athletes who dem-
onstrate proper barbell carriage tech-
nique during the hands-free SSBS
and proficiency with standard SSBS
technique. Rack-mounted squat han-
dles, if available, are set at the level of
the athlete’s iliac crests. If unavail-
able, the athlete may grasp the
uprights of the power rack at the level
of the iliac crests. The athlete places
feet in a preferred squat stance imme-
diately in front of the rack and dips
under the yoke, placing it as Figure 4. Hatfield safety squat bar squat bottom position (A) and Hatfield safety squat
described for the SSBS. Without bar squat top position (B).

247
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Exercise Technique
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
Figure 5. Triple extension of the hip, knee, and ankle during the flight phase of the
safety squat bar jump squat.
This manifests as a vertical jump, as
shown in Figure 5. On landing, the athlete
absorbs forces using muscle tension with
knees and ankles bent, body upright, and
feet symmetrically positioned (58). The
athlete should be encouraged to “land
in (their) footprint” to prepare for the next
repetition.
Programming jump squats with the
safety squat bar rather than the tradi-
tional barbell may be advantageous for
comfort and training specificity. The
padded yoke of the safety squat bar
helps to minimize the potential impact
between the barbell and the athlete in
the event erroneous separation occurs
during exercise. In addition, the safety
squat bar jump squats may result in
superior transfer to sports requiring
jumping and landing with an upright
torso, such as basketball and volleyball.
248 VOLUME 45 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2023
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Squat variations are fundamental to
strength and conditioning programs.
To select an appropriate squat varia-
tion, the practitioner must appreciate
the unique biomechanical features of
each. The SSBS is performed with a
bar that places the athlete’s upper
extremities in front of the body and
shifts the resistance load anteriorly.
The practitioner may expect
resistance-trained athletes to demon-
strate approximately 11% lower repeti-
tion maximum for the SSBS than the
BS at 3RM and greater intensities,
albeit additional research is needed to
determine whether this trend remains
with moderate and light loads (36,85).
Athletes may demonstrate accelerated
improvement in SSBS performance
with consistent programming (57).
Altogether, biomechanical analyses
indicate more similarities than differ-
ences between the SSBS and the BS.
Key differences emerge for maximum
range of motion required by the ankles
and hips, as well as forward lean of the
trunk (36). Unique kinematic features
of the SSBS may allow successful
squatting for athletes with orthopedic
limitations or concerns. Further
research is needed to investigate the
mechanical demand placed on the
low back and major lower extremity
joints during the SSBS. The SSBS
and related squat variations may be
useful for developing strength and
speed-strength qualities, which are ex-
pected to translate to sprinting, jump-
ing, and other athletic abilities.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors express gratitude to Zach
Even-Esh, MA, CSCS, for providing
historical information on the safety
squat bar.
Merrick A. Lincoln is an Assistant
Professor of Kinesiology at Saginaw
Valley State University, a strength and
conditioning coach, and a physical ther-
apist in Midland, MI.
Sheldon G. Wheeler Jr is a graduate
of the Exercise Science Bachelor of Sci-
ence Program at Saginaw Valley State
University and a student in the Master of
Athletic Training Program at Eastern
Michigan University.
Jeremy L. Knous is a Professor of
Kinesiology and Assistant Dean of the
College of Health and Human Services at
Saginaw Valley State University.
REFERENCES
1. Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Arden NK, et al. Cam
impingement of the hip: A risk factor for hip
osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 9: 630–634,
2013.
2. Bishop A. Tip: The Squat That’ll Revolutionize
Your Training. T Nation, 2020. Available at: https://
www.t-nation.com/training/tip-the-squat-thatll-
revolutionize-your-training/. Accessed June 27,
2021
 3. Bagwell JJ, Powers CM. The influence of squat
kinematics and cam morphology on acetabular
stress. Arthroscopy 33: 1797–1803, 2017.
4. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and
validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
the 1RM back squat. J Strength Cond Res 31:
1897–1904, 2017.
5. Behrens SB, Compas J, Deren ME, Drakos M.
Internal impingement: A review on a common
cause of shoulder pain in throwers. Phys
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
Sportsmed 38: 11–18, 2010.
6. Bird SP, Casey S. Exploring the front squat.
Strength Cond J 34: 27–33, 2012.
7. Bishop C, Turner A. Integrated approach to
correcting the high-bar back squat from “excessive
forward leaning”. Strength Cond J 39: 46–53,
2017.
8. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, et al. Effect
of range of motion in heavy load squatting on
muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol
113: 2133–2142, 2013.
9. Brazil A, Exell T, Wilson C, Irwin G. A
biomechanical approach to evaluate overload and
specificity characteristics within physical
preparation exercises. J Sports Sci 38: 1140–
1149, 2020.
10. Bryanton MA, Carey JP, Kennedy MD, Chiu LZ.
Quadriceps effort during squat exercise depends
on hip extensor muscle strategy. Sports Biomech
14: 122–138, 2015.
11. Cardinale M. Key performance indicators. In:
Essentials of Sport Science. French D, Ronda LT,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2022. pp.
59–66.
12. Cappozzo A, Felici F, Figura F, Gazzani F. Lumbar
spine loading during half-squat exercises. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 17: 613–620, 1985.
13. Case MJ, Knudson DV, Downey DL. Barbell squat
relative strength as an identifier for lower extremity
injury in collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res
34: 1249–1253, 2020.
14. Caulfield S, Berninger D. Exercise technique for
free weight and machine training. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning (4th ed). Haff
G and Triplett N, eds. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2016.
15. Carroll KM, Sato K, Bazyler CD, Triplett NT, Stone
MH. Increases in variation of barbell kinematics are
observed with increasing intensity in a graded
back squat test. Sports (Basel) 5: 51, 2017.
16. Cook LB, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional
movement screening: The use of fundamental
movements as an assessment of function‐part 1.
Int J Sports Phys Ther 9: 396–409, 2014.
17. Chiu LZ, Burkhardt E. A teaching progression for
squatting exercises. Strength Cond J 33: 46–54,
2011.
18. Cruz CA, Kerbel Y, Smith CM, et al. A sport-
specific analysis of the epidemiology of hip injuries
in National Collegiate Athletic Association athletes
from 2009 to 2014. Arthroscopy 35: 2724–2732,
2019.
19. Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of
velocity-based and traditional percentage-based
loading methods on maximal strength and power
adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 34: 46–53,
2020.
20. Drinkwater EJ, Pritchett EJ, Behm DG. Effect of
instability and resistance on unintentional squat-
lifting kinetics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2:
400–413, 2007.
21. Emamvirdi M, Letafatkar A, Khaleghi Tazji M. The
effect of valgus control instruction exercises on
pain, strength, and functionality in active females
with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Sports Health
11: 223–237, 2019.
22. Escamilla RF. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic
squat exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 127–
141, 2001.
23. Foley RCA, Bulbrook BD, Button DC, Holmes
MWR. Effects of a band loop on lower extremity
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
muscle activity and kinematics during the barbell
squat. Int J Sports Phys Ther 12: 550–559, 2017.
24. Freke MD, Kemp J, Svege I, et al. Physical
impairments in symptomatic femoroacetabular
impingement: A systematic review of the evidence.
Br J Sports Med 50: 1180, 2016.
25. Fry AC, Smith JC, Schilling BK. Effect of knee
position on hip and knee torques during the barbell
squat. J Strength Cond Res 17: 629–633, 2003.
26. Fuglsang EI, Telling AS, Sørensen H. Effect of
ankle mobility and segment ratios on trunk lean in
the barbell back squat. J Strength Cond Res 31:
3024–3033, 2017.
27. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Feriche B, et al.
Prediction of the maximum number of repetitions
and repetitions in reserve from barbell velocity. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 13: 353–359, 2018.
28. Glassbrook DJ, Helms ER, Brown SR, Storey AG.
A review of the biomechanical differences
between the high-bar and low-bar back-squat.
J Strength Cond Res 31: 2618–2634, 2017.
29. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L.
Movement velocity as a measure of loading
intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med
31: 347–352, 2010.
30. Gorsic M, Rochelle LE, Layer JS, et al.
Biomechanical comparisons of back and front
squats with a straight bar and four squats with a
transformer bar. Sports Biomech 8: 1–16, 2020.
31. Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O’Donnell J, et al. The
Warwick agreement on femoroacetabular
impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): An
international consensus statement. Br J Sports
Med 50: 1169–1176, 2016.
32. Gullett JC, Tillman MD, Gutierrez GM, Chow JW. A
biomechanical comparison of back and front
squats in healthy trained individuals. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 284–292, 2009.
33. Hall SJ. Basic Biomechanics (7th ed). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015. pp. 286–291.
34. Hallberg S, Sansone M, Augustsson J. Full
recovery of hip muscle strength is not achieved at
return to sports in patients with femoroacetabular
impingement surgery. Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc 28: 1276–1282, 2020.
35. Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M, et al.
Influence of squatting depth on jumping
performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3243–
3261, 2012.
36. Hecker KA, Carlson LA, Lawrence MA. Effects of
the safety squat bar on trunk and lower-body
mechanics during a back squat. J Strength Cond
Res 33(Suppl 1): S45–S51, 2019.
37. Heijboer MP, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Verhaar JA,
Weinans H, Waarsing JH. Cam impingement
causes osteoarthritis of the hip: A nationwide
prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum
Dis 72: 918–923, 2013.
38. Henderson SK. African-American Inventors II.
Mankato, MN: Capstone, 1998. pp. 31–36.
39. Hoagland J, inventor; Weight lifting bar apparatus.
US patent no. 4 274 628. June 23, 1981.
40. Huang P, Anissipour A, McGee W, Lemak L.
Return-to-play recommendations after cervical,
thoracic, and lumbar spine injuries: A
comprehensive review. Sports Health 8: 19–25,
2016.
41. Hughes LJ, Banyard HG, Dempsey AR, Scott BR.
Using a load-velocity relationship to predict one
repletion maximum in free-weight exercise: A
comparison of the different methods. J Strength
Cond Res 33: 2409–2419, 2019.
42. Jiménez-Alonso A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Cepero M,
et al. Velocity performance feedback during the
free-weight bench press testing procedure: An
effective strategy to increase the reliability and one
repetition maximum accuracy prediction.
J Strength Cond Res, 2020. (DOI: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000003609).
249
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
43. Jovanovic M, Flanagan E. Researched applications
of velocity-based strength training. J Aust Strength
Cond 22: 58–69, 2014.
44. King MG, Lawrenson PR, Semciw AI, Middleton
KJ, Crossley KM. Lower limb biomechanics in
femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports
Med 52: 566–580, 2018.
45. Keogh JW, Lake JP, Swinton P. Practical
applications of biomechanical principles in
resistance training: Moments and moment arms.
J Fit Res 2: 39–48, 2013.
46. Kerbel YE, Smith CM, Prodromo JP, Nzeogu MI,
Mulcahey MK. Epidemiology of hip and groin
injuries in collegiate athletes in the United States.
Orthop J Sports Med 6: 2325967118771676,
2018.
47. Kuhns BD, Weber AE, Batko B, Nho SJ,
Stegemann C. A four-phase physical therapy
regimen for returning athletes to sport following
hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
with routine capsular closure. Int J Sports Phys
Ther 12: 683–696, 2017.
48. Kushner AM, Brent JL, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. The
back squat part 2: Targeted training techniques to
correct functional deficits and technical factors
that limit performance. Strength Cond J 37: 13–
60, 2015.
49. Lander JE, Simonton RL, Giacobbe JK. The
effectiveness of weight-belts during the squat
exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 117–126,
1990.
50. Lewis CL, Sahrmann SA. Acetabular labral tears.
Phys Ther 86: 110–121, 2006.
51. Lisman P, Wilder JN, Berenbach J, Foster JJ,
Hansberger BL. Sex differences in lower extremity
kinematics during overhead and single leg squat
tests. Sports Biomech, 2021. (DOI: 10.1080/
14763141.2020.1839124).
52. List R, Gülay T, Stoop M, Lorenzetti S. Kinematics
of the trunk and the lower extremities during
restricted and unrestricted squats. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 1529–1538, 2013.
53. Lorenzetti S, Ostermann M, Zeidler F, et al. How to
squat? Effects of various stance widths, foot
placement angles and level of experience on knee,
hip and trunk motion and loading. BMC Sports Sci
Med Rehabil 10: 14, 2018.
54. Lynn SK, Noffal GJ. Lower extremity biomechanics
during a regular and counterbalanced squat.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 2417–2425, 2012.
55. Magee DJ. Orthopedic Physical Assessment (5th
ed). St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier, 2008. pp.
279–281.
56. McKean MR, Burkett BJ. Does segment length
influence the hip, knee and ankle coordination
during the squat movement? J Fitness Res 1: 23–
30, 2012.
57. Meldrum R, DeBeliso M. A comparison of back
squat & safety squat bar on measures of
strength, speed, and power in NCAA Division I
baseball players. Int J Sports Sci 8: 137–144,
2018.
58. Moolyk AN, Carey JP, Chiu LZ. Characteristics of
lower extremity work during the impact phase of
jumping and weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res
27: 3225–3232, 2013.
59. Morán-Navarro R, Martı́nez-Cava A, Sánchez-
Medina L, et al. Movement velocity as a measure of
level of effort during resistance exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 33: 1496–1504, 2019.
60. Murphy CJ. The Complete Guide to Using the
Safety Squat Bar. Everett, MA: Total Performance
Sports, 2006. 10, 18, 20–22.
61. Myer GD, Kushner AM, Brent JL, et al. The back
squat: A proposed assessment of functional
deficits and technical factors that limit
performance. Strength Cond J 36: 4–27, 2014.
62. Nepple JJ, Carlisle JC, Nunley RM, Clohisy JC.
Clinical and radiographic predictors of intra-
 Exercise Technique
articular hip disease in arthroscopy. Am J Sports
Med 39: 296–303, 2011.
63. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K. Effects of
ballistic training on preseason preparation of elite
volleyball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 323–
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
330, 1999.
64. Otto WH III, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA.
Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on
vertical jump, strength, and body composition.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 1199–1202, 2012.
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/20/2023
65. Pham RD, Machek SB, Lorenz KA. Technical
aspects and applications of the low-bar back
squat. Strength Cond J 42: 121–128, 2020.
66. Pollard JP, Porter WL, Redfern MS. Forces and
moments on the knee during kneeling and
squatting. J Appl Biomech 27: 233–241, 2011.
67. Powers CM. The influence of abnormal hip
mechanics on knee injury: A biomechanical
perspective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40: 42–
51, 2010.
68. Reece MB, Arnold GP, Nasir S, Wang WW,
Abboud R. Barbell back squat: How do resistance
bands affect muscle activation and knee
kinematics? BMJ Open Sport Exer Med 6:
e000610, 2020.
69. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment
effects in strength training research through the
use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res 18:
918–920, 2004.
70. Russell PJ, Phillips SJ. A preliminary comparison of
front and back squat exercises. Res Q Exerc Sport
60: 201–208, 1989.
71. Sánchez -Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity
loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue
during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
43: 1725–1734, 2011.
72. Sánchez-Medina L, Pallarés JG, Pérez CE, Morán-
Navarro R, González-Badillo JJ. Estimation of
relative load from bar velocity in the full back squat
exercise. Sports Med Int Open 1: e80–e88, 2017.
73. Sayers MGL, Bachem C, Schütz P, et al. The
effect of elevating the heels on spinal kinematics
250 VOLUME 45 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2023
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
and kinetics during the back squat in trained and
novice weight trainers. J Sports Sci 38: 1000–
1008, 2020.
74. Schoenfeld BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics
and their application to exercise performance.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 3497–3506, 2010.
75. Schwanbeck S, Chilibeck PD, Binsted G. A
comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine
squat using electromyography. J Strength Cond
Res 23: 2588–2591, 2009.
76. Sedano S, Marı́n PJ, Cuadrado G, Redondo JC.
Concurrent training in elite male runners: The
influence of strength versus muscular endurance
training on performance outcomes. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 2433–2443, 2013.
77. Shattock K, Tee J. Autoregulation in resistance
training: A comparison of subjective versus
objective methods. J Strength Cond Res, 2020.
(DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003530).
78. Snarr RL, McGinn W. Addressing weaknesses in
squat patterns. J Sport Hum Perf 3: 1–12, 2015.
79. Speirs DE, Bennett MA, Finn CV, Turner AP.
Unilateral vs. bilateral squat training for strength,
sprints, and agility in academy rugby players.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 386–392, 2016.
80. Støren O, Helgerud J, Støa EM, Hoff J. Maximal
strength training improves running economy in
distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40:
1087–1092, 2008.
81. Swinton PA, Lloyd R, Keogh JW, Agouris I, Stewart AD.
A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat,
powerlifting squat, and box squat. J Strength Cond Res
26: 1805–1816, 2012.
82. Tak I, Engelaar L, Gouttebarge V, et al. Is lower hip
range of motion a risk factor for groin pain in athletes? A
systematic review with clinical applications. Br J Sports
Med 51: 1611–1621, 2017.
83. Tawfik S, Phan K, Mobbs RJ, Rao PJ. The
incidence of pars interarticularis defects in
athletes. Glob Spine J 10: 89–101, 2020.
84. Van Dieën JH, Weinans H, Toussaint H. Fractures
of the lumbar vertebral endplate in the etiology of
low back pain: A hypothesis on the causative role
of spinal compression in aspecific low back pain.
Med Hypotheses 53: 246–252, 1999.
85. Vantrease WC, Townsend JR, Sapp PA, Henry
RN, Johnson KD. Maximal strength, muscle
activation, and bar velocity comparisons
between squatting with a traditional or safety
squat bar. J Strength Cond Res 35(Suppl 2):
S1–S5, 2021.
86. Vigotsky AD, Halperin I, Lehman GJ, Trajano GS,
Vieira TM. Interpreting signal amplitudes in surface
electromyography studies in sport and
rehabilitation sciences. Front Physiol 8: 1–15,
2018.
87. Weakley J, Mann B, Banyard H, et al. Velocity-
based training: From theory to application.
Strength Cond J 43: 31–49, 2021.
88. Weir A, Brukner P, Delahunt E, et al. Doha
agreement meeting on terminology and definitions
in groin pain in athletes. Br J Sports Med 49: 768–
774, 2015.
89. Wilder DG, Pope MH, Frymoyer JW. The
biomechanics of lumbar disc herniation and the
effect of overload and instability. J Spinal Disord 1:
16–32, 1988.
90. Willardson JM, Bressel E. Predicting a 10
repetition maximum for the free weight parallel
squat using the 45 angled leg press. J Strength
Cond Res 18: 567–571, 2004.
91. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Walshe A. The
specificity of strength training: The effect of
posture. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 73:
346–352, 1996.
92. Wretenberg P, Feng Y, Arborelius UP. High- and
low-bar squatting techniques during weight-
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 218–224,
1996.
93. Yavuz HU, Erda g D, Amca AM, Aritan S. Kinematic
and EMG activities during front and back squat
variations in maximum loads. J Sports Sci 33:
1058–1066, 2015.