Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1002/ejsc.12042
ORIGINAL PAPER
- -
Revised: 22 August 2023 Accepted: 4 September 2023
1
Metabolism, Nutrition and Strength Training
Research Group, Federal University of Paraná Abstract
(UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil
The barbell squat is a multijoint exercise often employed by athletes and fitness
2
Department of Physical Education, Sports
enthusiasts due to its beneficial effects on functional and morphological neuro-
Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina
(UFSC), Florianópolis, Brazil muscular adaptations. This study compared the effects of squat variations on lower
3
Department of Physical Education, Federal limb muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations. Twenty‐four recreationally
University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri
Valleys, Diamantina, Brazil
trained females were assigned to a 12‐week front squat (FS; n = 12) or back squat
4
Department of Kinesiology, California State (BS; n = 12) resistance training protocol (twice per week). Maximum dynamic
University (CSU), San Bernardino, California, strength (1‐RM) on the 45° leg press, a nonspecific strength test, and muscle
USA
5
thickness of the proximal, middle, and distal portions of the lateral thigh were
Department of Exercise Science and
Recreation, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, assessed at baseline and post‐training. A significant time versus group interaction
New York, USA was observed for 1‐RM values (F(1,22) = 10.53; p = 0.0004), indicating that BS
Correspondence
training elicits greater improvements in muscle strength compared with FS training
Alysson Enes, Department of Physical (p = 0.048). No time versus group interactions were found for muscle thickness
Education, Metabolism, Nutrition and
(F(1,22) = 0.103; p = 0.752); however, there was a significant main effect of time for
Strength Training Research Group, Federal
University of Paraná, Rua Coronel Francisco the proximal (F(1,22) = 7.794; p = 0.011), middle (F(1,22) = 7.091; p = 0.014), and
Heráclito dos Santos, 210, Curitiba, PR
distal portions (F(1,22) = 7.220; p = 0.013) of the lateral thigh. There were no
81531‐980, Brazil. Email: alysson.
enes@hotmail.com between‐group differences for any muscle thickness portion (proximal: p = 0.971;
middle: p = 0.844; and distal: p = 0.510). Our findings suggest that BS elicits greater
Funding information
Coordination for the Improvement of Higher improvements in lower limb muscle strength on the 45° leg press than FS, but
Education Personnel hypertrophic adaptations are similar regardless of variations during the squat
exercise.
KEYWORDS
back squat, front squat, muscle thickness, muscular strength, quadriceps femoris
Highlights
� Back squat training elicited greater strength‐related improvements in a nonspecific strength
test than front squat training.
� Hypertrophic adaptations of the lateral thigh are similar between both squat variations.
-
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Sport Science published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European College of Sport Science.
� Both squat variations elicited similar growth at proximal, middle, and distal regions of the
lateral thigh.
was performed using a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance were submitted and approved by the local ethics committee and
(InBody 120) to assess body mass and body fat percentage, and were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
height was assessed with a stadiometer (W200/5). As per the
guidelines provided by the manufacturer, participants were
instructed to (i) refrain from consuming any food or water for a 2.3 | Maximum dynamic strength (1‐RM)
minimum of 2 h prior to the evaluation; (ii) abstain from consuming
beverages containing alcohol or caffeine within a 24‐h period Participants completed two familiarization sessions before the 1‐RM
leading up to the evaluation; (iii) avoid engaging in moderate to 45° leg press tests at baseline. These familiarization sessions con-
vigorous physical activity within 12 h before the evaluation; (iv) sisted of instructions for technical standards for each exercise that
consume water of at least 2 L on the day preceding the evaluation; would be used during the training program. Both familiarization
and (v) if possible, urinate 30 min before the evaluation. After sessions were conducted with the same procedures as used during 1‐
familiarization sessions, participants underwent 1‐RM tests on the RM testing (i.e., warm‐up and rest between sets); however, partici-
45° leg press. Afterward, participants undertook a progressive RT pants used close to but not maximum loads. Each familiarization
program that aimed to compare the effects of the barbell FS versus session was conducted 48h apart. Seventy‐two hours after the final
BS on strength and hypertrophy adaptations. familiarization session, participants performed the first 1‐RM testing
After baseline assessments, participants were allocated to either session, and the second 1‐RM session was conducted 72 h later. The
the FS or the BS group. Initially, participants began the training highest 1RM value between the two testing sessions was considered
program with a weekly set volume of 20% more than their previous for the analysis.
quadriceps training volume. The weekly quadriceps training volume Both familiarization sessions and 1‐RM tests were carried out
was increased by 20% every 4 weeks (B. Schoenfeld et al., 2021). as follows: participants performed a general warm‐up (5 min at
Total training volume (TTV) was monitored but not equated to 6 km.h−1 at a treadmill and a light full‐body stretching routine)
maintain ecological validity as BS training allows the use of greater followed by a specific warm‐up of 2 sets of 5 repetitions at an
absolute loads than FS (Yavuz & Erdag, 2017). Seventy‐two hours estimated load for 12 and 8 repetitions, respectively, with 2‐min
after the last training session, lateral thigh muscle thickness and 1‐ rest interval between sets. Participants received specific in-
RM tests were conducted in the same manner as baseline. structions regarding the 45° leg press technique (e.g., full range of
motion with the knees brought as close as possible to the chest).
Three min after the specific warm‐up, 1‐RM attempts began. The
2.2 | Subjects load was progressively increased until participants were unable to
perform the correct 45° leg press with proper form (e.g., knee
The sample power was calculated using the software G*Power 3.1 for flexion less than ~100°), which was monitored by the research
F family analysis of variance (ANOVA) repeated measures, within‐ team. The 1‐RM load was determined within 5 attempts, with 3–
factors, to determine a sufficient number of participants to meet 5 min passive recovery provided between attempts (Brown &
the study purpose with the following conditions: Power = 0.80, Weir, 2001). The postintervention 1‐RM testing was conducted
α = 0.05, a moderate effect size of 0.25, and correlation among after ultrasound imaging. The coefficient of variation (CV), standard
repeated measures of 0.7. The analysis indicated that 22 participants error of measurement (SEM), and intraclass correlation coefficient
were required to achieve adequate statistical power. To account for with 95% confidence interval (ICC) between two 1‐RM tests per-
potential dropouts, we recruited 29 healthy females and allocated formed 72 h apart were 3.85%, 5 kg, and 0.95 (0.90–0.98),
them to either the FS group (n = 15) or the BS group (n = 14). respectively.
Randomization was pair‐matched based on the initial maximum dy-
namic strength (1‐RM) in the 45° leg press.
We employed the following inclusion criteria for the study: (a) 2.4 | Muscle thickness
age 18–30 years; (b) at least 6 months of RT practice at 4 days per
week of RT frequency; (c) negative answers to all items of the A B‐mode ultrasound (ECO3, Chison Medical Imaging Ltd.) with a 5‐
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire; (d) free from creatine MHz linear transducer was used to obtain muscle thickness mea-
supplementation; and (e) self‐report of the use of at least 3 months of surements of the lateral quadriceps as assessed along the proximal
combined oral contraceptive pills with consumption and withdrawal (30%), middle (50%), and distal (70%) aspects, considered as the
phases according to individual menstrual cycle length. The exclusion distance from the greater trochanter to the lateral condyle of the
criteria were as follows: (a) self‐report of any musculoskeletal injury; femur (Abe et al., 2000). These anatomical points were detected by
(b) self‐report of alcohol abuse; (c) self‐report of anti‐inflammatory palpation. We then measured femur length with an anatomical
or anabolic androgenic steroids use; and (d) self‐report of any men- pachymeter, registering the femur length of each participant as well
strual irregularities. Participants were informed of the procedures as the respective proximal, middle, and distal aspects of lateral thigh
and details related to training intervention and signed a written muscles, which were transversally marked to guide imaging
informed consent form prior to their participation. All procedures (Figure 2). Participants were instructed to refrain from any strenuous
15367290, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12042 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
- 9
F I G U R E 2 Thigh regions and an ultrasound image. Estimation plot of the paired mean difference for hypertrophic responses for proximal
(30%; A), middle (50%; B), and distal (70%; C) regions of lateral thigh for within‐subjects (top) and between‐groups (bottom) conditions. The
raw data are plotted on the upper axes; each paired set of observations is connected by a line. On the lower axes, each paired mean difference
is plotted as a bootstrap sampling distribution. Mean differences are depicted as dots; 95% confidence intervals are indicated by the ends of
the vertical error bars. BS, back squat; F, femur; FS, front squat; mm, millimeters; VI, vastus intermedius; VL, vastus lateralis.
15367290, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12042 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10
- ENES ET AL.
et al., 2022). The postintervention ultrasound imaging was conducted Front squat or back squat ITV � 6–8 ITV � 10–12
72 h after the last training session. The CV, SEM, and ICC with 95% Romanian deadlift 2 � 6–8 2 � 10–12
confidence interval among the muscle thickness measurements for
Seated knee flexion 2 � 6–8 2 � 10–12
each portion of the lateral thigh were 2%, 0.9 mm, and 0.98 (0.96–
0.99) for the proximal portion; 0.92%, 0.5 mm, and 0.99 (0.98–0.99) Seated hip abduction 2 � 6–8 2 � 10–12
for the middle portion; and 1.45%, 0.6 mm, and 0.99 (0.98–0.99) for Note: The sets scheme in the front squat or back squat were calculated
the distal portion. according to participants' previous weekly set volume for the
quadriceps and increased by 20% every 4 weeks.
Abbreviation: ITV, Individualized training volume.
3 | RESULTS Figure 2A; Meandiff (95%CI) = 0.10 mm (−5.77 – 5.98); pn2 = 0.000,
small effect); middle (p = 0.844; Figure 2B; Meandiff (95%CI) = 0.56 mm
During the study period, 3 subjects dropped out of the FS group (loss (−5.29 – 6.42); pn2 = 0.002, small effect); and distal (p = 0.510;
of interest: n = 2; excessive shoulder joint pain due to barbell posi- Figure 2C; Meandiff (95%CI) = 1.39 mm (−2.92 – 5.72); pn2 = 0.02, small
tion: n = 1) and 2 subjects dropped out of the BS group (injuries not effect). Within‐group Meandiff (95%CI) data are depicted at Figure 2.
related to current study: n = 1; personal reasons: n = 1). Thus, 24
participants (FS = 12; BS = 12) completed the training intervention.
Table 2 shows general characteristics of participants at baseline and 4 | DISCUSSION
the accumulated TTV between groups. Over the duration of the
training program, the accumulated TTV and the absolute load of BS To our knowledge, this is the first paper to compare the effects of the
were higher than in FS (p = 0.033 for both variables) as shown in BS and FS on lower limb strength and hypertrophy adaptations in
Table 2. The average number of weekly sets for squats was statisti- healthy females. Our main findings were: (a) BS training promotes
cally similar between conditions (19.1 � 4.1 sets and 21.9 � 5.4 sets greater dynamic strength‐related improvements in a nonspecific
for FS and BS, respectively; p = 0.171). strength test (i.e., 45° leg press) compared to FS training and (b)
Both groups increased their maximum dynamic strength hypertrophic adaptations were similar between conditions among
compared to baseline (F(1,22) = 78.47; p = 0.0001; pn2 = 0.78, large lateral thigh regions.
effect); Figure 1 (Ho et al., 2019)). A time versus group interaction In agreement with our initial hypothesis, strength‐related im-
was found for the 1‐RM 45° leg press test (F(1,22) = 10.53; provements varied between conditions with the BS eliciting greater
p = 0.0004; pn2 = 0.32, large effect) with the BS eliciting greater adaptations (~37.2%) when compared to FS (~19.6%) after a 12‐week
muscle strength adaptations compared to the FS (p = 0.048; period. Importantly, these differences were assessed in the 45° leg
between‐group Meandiff (95% CI) = 67.9 kg (0.55–135.2); pn2 = 0.16, press, thus indicating that strength adaptations transferred to a
medium effect). Within‐group Meandiff (95% CI) data are depicted at nonspecific strength task. Previous studies that aimed to compare
Figure 1. dynamic strength gains induced by squatting techniques focused on
Both groups increased their muscle thickness at the proximal, different depths (full vs. partial range of motion) and movement
middle, and distal regions of the lateral thigh in a similar fashion tempo (Kubo et al., 2019; Morrissey et al., 1998; Pallarés et al., 2020;
(Figure 2). Analysis revealed no time versus group interactions Usui et al., 2016). Collectively, the findings of these studies, which
(F(1,22) = 0.103; p = 0.752; pn2 = 0.005, small effect). However, there investigated squat variations in healthy untrained or recreationally
was a significant main effect of time for proximal (F(1,22) = 7.794; trained individuals over 7‐ to 12‐week periods were similar to our
p = 0.011; pn2 = 0.26, large effect), middle (F(1,22) = 7.091; p = 0.014; findings related to within‐group dynamic strength gains after our 12‐
2
pn = 0.24, medium effect), and distal portions (F(1,22) = 7.220; week intervention. Given that our study is the first to investigate the
p = 0.013; 0.24, medium effect). No between‐group differences were strength‐related changes between the FS versus BS, direct compar-
observed for any muscle thickness region: proximal (p = 0.971; isons cannot be made between investigations.
T A B L E 2 Baseline characteristics, resistance training schemes information, and accumulated total training volume data after
intervention.
1‐RM 45° leg press (kg) 219.5 � 93.5 247.5 � 84.2 0.450
Moreover, we employed a nonspecific dynamic strength test in Emerging evidence has shown that variation in exercise selection
an exercise that was not employed in the training program. This can influence nonuniform skeletal muscle adaptations (Kassiano
decision is consistent with the principle of specificity, since regularly et al., 2022; Zabaleta‐Korta et al., 2020). Previous studies that
training with the same exercise used in the strength assessment can investigated interventions with squat training on regional hypertro-
influence the outcome (Mattocks et al., 2017). However, to date, phy among quadriceps muscles found similar increases between
there are no longitudinal data regarding the effects of the FS versus proximal to distal portions, similar to our findings (Kojic et al., 2022;
BS on a neutral strength test; thus, our study adds novel findings to Merrigan et al., 2019). It should also be noted that the BS may not
the literature related to nonspecific strength testing. optimize hypertrophy of all the quadriceps heads. Fonseca
Evidence suggests that biomechanical differences exist between et al. (2014) found that a combination of different lower body ex-
BS and FS training (B. J. Schoenfeld, 2010). Yavuz and Erdag (2017) ercises promoted more uniform development of the quadriceps
compared to kinematic activities between the BS and FS and found compared to the BS alone, which showed inferior hypertrophy in the
that the BS has greater hip flexion angles than the FS. Krzyszkowski vastus medialis and rectus femoris in a cohort of untrained young
and Kipp (2020) found that peak hip extensor net internal joint men over a 12‐week period. Similarly, Kubo et al. (2019) found that
moments were higher in BS compared to FS training. These biome- the BS preferentially hypertrophied the vasti muscles, with no
chanical differences might uniquely influence the activation of hip appreciable effect on the rectus femoris in a cohort of untrained
extensor muscles during each respective squatting technique, young men over a 10‐week interventional period. Our study only
resulting in differential dynamic strength adaptations. Nevertheless, assessed the lateral quadriceps, and thus we cannot draw conclu-
it is important to point out that neither discrepancies in TTV between sions on this topic. However, our data indicate that both FS and BS
groups nor individualized volume approaches seem to influence elicited a sufficient training stimulus to promote growth along the
strength adaptations (Aube et al., 2022; Nóbrega et al., 2022). Similar length of the lateral thigh, specifically to the vastus lateralis and
to our data, Yavuz and Erdag (2017) showed that participants could intermedius.
lift greater absolute loads in the BS than the FS, perhaps due to ki- The present study is not without limitations. First, our findings
nematic and kinetic differences (i.e., hip angle) between them. In are specific to recreationally trained females and should not be
addition, it is well‐documented that high loads are a main driver of extrapolated to other populations, such as strength‐oriented ath-
muscle strength adaptations (Lopez et al., 2021). Since the BS allows letes, males, or older individuals. Second, although we attempted to
the use of higher absolute loads compared to the FS, this may have verbally encourage participants to reach momentary failure in the
elicited higher neural adaptations, which may partially explain our last set, some participants volitionally terminated the set prior to
findings. These explanations remain speculative and warrant further failure due to discomfort with the barbell position. Additionally,
research to provide insight into these hypotheses. failure in the barbell squat can arise from the fatigue of other muscle
Although both squatting techniques elicited hypertrophic adap- groups, not necessarily the quadriceps femoris, due to biomechanical
tations, the changes were similar among lateral thigh regions (pooled characteristics of the exercise. Although we cannot rule out that this
mean increases ~4.4% for back squat and ~5.1% for front squat occurrence may have influenced results, the literature indicates that
training). In contrast to our findings, Usui et al. (2016) compared fast training to failure is not obligatory for muscle adaptations (Grgic
versus slow movement tempos in the BS at low‐load conditions in et al., 2021), and thus confounding from this variable appears un-
untrained males. After an 8‐week training period, poststudy results likely. Third, in addition to reports of shoulder discomfort due to the
showed an inhomogeneous muscle growth only for the slow move- FS positioning, we did not consider previous experiences with the FS
ment tempo, with increases observed in the middle and distal vastus as a requirement for eligibility in our study, which may have
intermedius sites (~6%‐9%) but not in the proximal site (50%, 70%, confounded results. Fourth, we used a dynamic strength test and only
and 30% of the femur length, respectively). Alternatively, the fast assessed muscle thickness, a one‐dimensional imaging modality, of
movement tempo group showed no significant increases for the the vastus lateralis and vastus intermedius. Thus, results may be
vastus intermedius at any site. Moreover, the vastus lateralis muscle different when assessing strength with isometric testing or employ-
thickness (analyzed only at 50% of the femur length) showed no ing two‐ or three‐dimensional imaging measures, such as cross‐
poststudy statistical change for both squat variations. The relative sectional area or muscle volume in other lower limb muscles, such
increases found by Usui et al. (2016) were slightly higher to our as the vastus medialis and recuts femoris. Fifth, although the par-
relative increases, which may be attributed to differences in training ticipants were instructed to maintain their habitual dietary intake
status and movement tempos between studies. In addition, it is well‐ during the training program, we did not directly control this variable
established that training volume plays a key role in muscle plasticity and thus cannot rule out the possibility that differences in nutritional
(B. J. Schoenfeld et al., 2017), and although TTV was not equated consumption may have influenced results. Sixth, we cannot extrap-
between conditions, we ensured an individualized progressive RT olate conclusions to programs that equalize TTV between conditions.
volume. The muscle thickness responses in all portions of the lateral Finally, we did not account for the dosage of ethynil‐estradiol and
thigh were similar between conditions, which is consistent with other associated factors of contraceptive pills pharmacokinetics,
previous studies despite not equalizing the TTV (Barcelos et al., 2018; which conceivably may have influenced the response to resistance
B. J. Schoenfeld et al., 2015). training.
15367290, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12042 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
- 13
Grgic, Jozo, Brad J. Schoenfeld, John Orazem, and Filip Sabol. 2021. “Ef- “Resistance Training Does Not Induce Uniform Adaptations to
fects of Resistance Training Performed to Repetition Failure or Non‐ Quadriceps.” PLoS One 13(8): e0198304. https://doi.org/10.1371/
failure on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: a Systematic Review journal.pone.0198304.
and Meta‐Analysis.” Journal of Sport and Health Science 11(2): 202– Mattocks, Kevin T., Samuel L. Buckner, Matthew B. Jessee, Scott J. Dan-
11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007. kel, J. Grant Mouser, and Jeremy P. Loenneke. 2017. “Practicing the
Gullett, Jonathan C., Mark D. Tillman, Gregory M. Gutierrez, and John W. Test Produces Strength Equivalent to Higher Volume Training.”
Chow. 2009. “A Biomechanical Comparison of Back and Front Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 49(9): 1945–54. https://
Squats in Healthy Trained Individuals.” The Journal of Strength \and doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001300.
Conditioning Research 23(1): 284–92. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc. Merrigan, Justin J., Margaret T. Jones, and Jason B. White. 2019. “A
0b013e31818546bb. Comparison of Compound Set and Traditional Set Resistance
Ho, Joses, Tayfun Tumkaya, Sameer Aryal, Hyungwon Choi, and Adam Training in Women: Changes in Muscle Strength, Endurance, Quan-
Claridge‐Chang. 2019. “Moving beyond P Values: Data Analysis with tity, and Architecture.” Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise 1(3):
Estimation Graphics.” Nature Methods 16(7): 565–6. https://doi.org/ 264–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978‐019‐00030‐8.
10.1038/s41592‐019‐0470‐3. Morrissey, Matthew C., Everett A. Harman, Peter N. Frykman, and K. H.
Kassiano, Witalo, João Pedro Nunes, Bruna Costa, Alex S. Ribeiro, Brad J. Han. 1998. “Early Phase Differential Effects of Slow and Fast Barbell
Schoenfeld, and Edilson S. Cyrino. 2022. “Does Varying Resistance Squat Training.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine 26(2): 221–30.
Exercises Promote Superior Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465980260021101.
Gains? A Systematic Review.” The Journal of Strength \and Condi- Nóbrega, Sanmy R., Maíra C. Scarpelli, Cintia Barcelos, Talisson S. Chaves,
tioning Research 36(6): 1753–62. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.00000 and Cleiton A. Libardi. 2022. “Muscle Hypertrophy Is Affected by
00000004258. Volume Load Progression Models.” Journal of Strength and Condi-
Kojic, Filip, Igor Ranisavljev, Milos Obradovic, Danimir Mandic, Vladan tioning Research. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000004225.
Pelemis, Milos Paloc, and Sasa Duric. 2022. “Does Back Squat Ex- Pallarés, Jesús G., Alejandro M. Cava, Javier Courel‐Ibáñez, Juan José
ercise Lead to Regional Hypertrophy Among Quadriceps Femoris González‐Badillo, and Ricardo Morán‐Navarro. 2020. “Full Squat
Muscles?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Produces Greater Neuromuscular and Functional Adaptations and
Health 19(23): 16226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316226. Lower Pain Than Partial Squats after Prolonged Resistance
Korak, J. Adam, Max R. Paquette, Dana K. Fuller, Jennifer L. Caputo, and Training.” European Journal of Sport Science 20(1): 115–24. https://
John M. Coons. 2018. “Muscle Activation Patterns of Lower‐Body doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1612952.
Musculature Among 3 Traditional Lower‐Body Exercises in Ralston, Grant W., Lon Kilgore, Frank B. Wyatt, and Julien S. Baker. 2017.
Trained Women.” The Journal of Strength \and Conditioning Research “The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta‐
32(10): 2770–5. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000002513. Analysis.” Sports Medicine 47(12): 2585–601. https://doi.org/10.
Krzyszkowski, John, and Kristof Kipp. 2020. “Load‐dependent Mechanical 1007/s40279‐017‐0762‐7.
Demands of the Lower Extremity during the Back and Front Squat.” Remaud, Anthony, Christophe Cornu, and Arnaud Guével. 2010.
Journal of Sports Sciences 38(17): 2005–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/ “Neuromuscular Adaptations to 8‐week Strength Training: Isotonic
02640414.2020.1766738. versus Isokinetic Mode.” European Journal of Applied Physiology
Kubo, Keitaro, Toshihiro Ikebukuro, and Hideaki Yata. 2019. “Effects of 108(1): 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421‐009‐1164‐9.
Squat Training with Different Depths on Lower Limb Muscle Vol- Ribeiro, Alex S., Erick D. Santos, João Pedro Nunes, Matheus A. Nasci-
umes.” European Journal of Applied Physiology 119(9): 1933–42. mento, Ágatha Graça, Ewertton S. Bezerra, and Jerry L. Mayhew.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421‐019‐04181‐y. 2022. “A Brief Review on the Effects of the Squat Exercise on
Kuehne, Tayla E., Ryo Kataoka, Noam Yitzchaki, Wenyuan G. Zhu, Eca- Lower‐Limb Muscle Hypertrophy.” Strength \and Conditioning Journal
terina Vasenina, and Samuel L. Buckner. 2021. “An Examination of 45(1): 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000709.
Changes in Muscle Thickness, Isometric Strength and Body Water Rossi, Fabrício E., Brad J. Schoenfeld, Skyler Ocetnik, Jonathan Young,
throughout the Menstrual Cycle.” Clinical Physiology and Functional Andrew Vigotsky, Bret Contreras, James W. Krieger, Michael G.
Imaging 41(2): 165–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12680. Miller, and Jason Cholewa. 2018. “Strength, Body Composition, and
Lee, Sabrina Eun Kyung, Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira, Viviane Louise Functional Outcomes in the Squat versus Leg Press Exercises.” J
Andree Nouailhetas, Rodrigo Luiz Vancini, and Marilia Santos Sports Med Phys Fitness 58(3): 263–70. https://doi.org/10.23736/
Andrade. 2018. “Do Isometric, Isotonic And/or Isokinetic Strength s0022‐4707.16.06698‐6.
Trainings Produce Different Strength Outcomes?” Journal of Body- Scarpelli, Maíra C., Sanmy R. Nóbrega, Natalia Santanielo, Ieda F. Alvarez,
work and Movement Therapies 22(2): 430–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Gabriele B. Otoboni, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, and Cleiton A. Libardi.
j.jbmt.2017.08.001. 2020. “Muscle Hypertrophy Response Is Affected by Previous
Lopez, Pedro, Régis Radaelli, Dennis R. Taaffe, Robert U. Newton, Daniel A. Resistance Training Volume in Trained Individuals.” Journal of Strength
Galvão, Gabriel S. Trajano, Juliana L. Teodoro, William J. Kraemer, and Conditioning Research 36(4): 1153–7. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.
Keijo Häkkinen, and Ronei S. Pinto. 2021. “Resistance Training Load 0000000000003558.
Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Re- Schoenfeld, Brad, James Fisher, Jozo Grgic, Cody Haun, Eric Helms, Stuart
view and Network Meta‐Analysis.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Phillips, James Steele, and Andrew Vigotsky. 2021. “Resistance
Exercise 53(6): 1206–16. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.00000000 Training Recommendations to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy in an
00002585. Athletic Population: Position Stand of the IUSCA.” International
Lorenzetti, Silvio, Mira Ostermann, Fabian Zeidler, Pia Zimmer, Lina Journal of Strength and Conditioning 1(1). https://doi.org/10.47206/
Jentsch, Renate List, William R. Taylor, and Florian Schellenberg. ijsc.v1i1.81.
2018. “How to Squat? Effects of Various Stance Widths, Foot Schoenfeld, Brad, and Jozo Grgic. 2017. “Evidence‐Based Guidelines for
Placement Angles and Level of Experience on Knee, Hip and Trunk Resistance Training Volume to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy.”
Motion and Loading.” BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation Strength and Conditioning Journal 1(4): 107–12. https://doi.org/10.
10(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102‐018‐0103‐7. 1519/SSC.0000000000000363.
Mangine, Gerald T., Michael J. Redd, Adam M. Gonzalez, Jeremy R. Schoenfeld, Brad J. 2010. “Squatting Kinematics and Kinetics and Their
Townsend, Adam J. Wells, Adam R. Jajtner, Kyle S. Beyer, et al. 2018. Application to Exercise Performance.” The Journal of Strength \and
15367290, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12042 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
- 15
Conditioning Research 24(12): 3497–506. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc. Sung, E.‐Sook, Ahreum Han, Timo Hinrichs, Matthias Vorgerd, and Petra
0b013e3181bac2d7. Platen. 2022. “Effects of Oral Contraceptive Use on Muscle
Schoenfeld, Brad J., Dan Ogborn, and James W. Krieger. 2017. “Dose‐ Strength, Muscle Thickness, and Fiber Size and Composition in
response Relationship between Weekly Resistance Training Vol- Young Women Undergoing 12 Weeks of Strength Training: a Cohort
ume and Increases in Muscle Mass: A Systematic Review and Meta‐ Study.” BMC Women’s Health 22(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Analysis.” Journal of Sports Sciences 35(11): 1073–82. https://doi.org/ s12905‐022‐01740‐y.
10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197. Usui, S., S. Maeo, K. Tayashiki, M. Nakatani, and H. Kanehisa. 2016. “Low‐
Schoenfeld, Brad J., Mark D. Peterson, Dan Ogborn, Bret Contreras, and load Slow Movement Squat Training Increases Muscle Size and
Gul T. Sonmez. 2015. “Effects of Low‐Vs. High‐Load Resistance Strength but Not Power.” International Journal of Sports Medicine
Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well‐Trained Men.” 37(04): 305–12. https://doi.org/10.1055/s‐0035‐1564255.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29(10): 2954–63. Vigotsky, Andrew D., Israel Halperin, Gabriel S. Trajano, and Taian M.
https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000000958. Vieira. 2022. “Longing for a Longitudinal Proxy: Acutely Measured
Sinclair, Jonathan, Paul John Taylor, Bryan Jones, Bobbie Butters, Ian Surface Emg Amplitude Is Not a Validated Predictor of Muscle Hy-
Bentley, and Christopher James Edmundson. 2022. “A Multi‐ pertrophy.” Sports Medicine 52(2): 193–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Experiment Investigation of the Effects Stance Width on the s40279‐021‐01619‐2.
Biomechanics of the Barbell Squat.” Sports 10(9): 136. https://doi. Yavuz, H. U., and D. Erdag. 2017. Kinematic and Electromyographic Activity
org/10.3390/sports10090136. Changes during Back Squat with Submaximal and Maximal Loading.
Stone, Michael H., W. Guy Hornsby, Dylan G. Suarez, Marco Duca, and Applied Bionics and Biomechanics.
Kyle C. Pierce. 2022. “Training Specificity for Athletes: Emphasis on Zabaleta‐Korta, Aitor, Eneko Fernández‐Peña, and Jordan Santos‐
Strength‐Power Training: A Narrative Review.” Journal of Functional Concejero. 2020. “Regional Hypertrophy, the Inhomogeneous Mus-
Morphology and Kinesiology 7(4): 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/ cle Growth: A Systematic Review.” Strength \and Conditioning Journal
jfmk7040102. 42(5): 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000574.