Muscle activation varies between high-bar and low-bar back squat.
Electromyography
Powerlifting
Repetition maximum
Resistance training
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
31
01
2020
accepted:
08
05
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
20
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Differences in the muscular activity between the high-bar back squat (HBBS) and the low-bar back squat (LBBS) on the same representative group of experienced powerlifters are still scarcely investigated. The main purpose of the study was to compare the normalized bioelectrical activity and maximal angles within single homogeneous group between the HBBS and LBBS for 60% one repetition maximum (1RM), 65% 1RM and 70% 1RM. Twelve healthy men (age 24.3 ± 2.8 years, height 178.8 ± 5.6 cm, body mass 88.3 ± 11.5 kg), experienced in powerlifting performed HBBS and LBBS with comparable external loads equal 60% 1RM, 65% 1RM, and 70% 1RM. Electromyography (EMG) signals of muscle groups were synchronously recorded alongside kinematic data (joints angle) by means of a motion capture system. EMG activity during eccentric phase of squat motion were significantly higher during LBBS than in HBBS for all selected muscles (60% 1RM and 65% 1RM) ( Our results confirmed significant differences in muscles activation between both squat techniques. Muscle activity during eccentric phase of squat motion were significantly higher during LBBS than HBBS. The differences are crucial for posterior muscle chain during eccentric phase of squat cycle.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Differences in the muscular activity between the high-bar back squat (HBBS) and the low-bar back squat (LBBS) on the same representative group of experienced powerlifters are still scarcely investigated. The main purpose of the study was to compare the normalized bioelectrical activity and maximal angles within single homogeneous group between the HBBS and LBBS for 60% one repetition maximum (1RM), 65% 1RM and 70% 1RM.
METHODS
METHODS
Twelve healthy men (age 24.3 ± 2.8 years, height 178.8 ± 5.6 cm, body mass 88.3 ± 11.5 kg), experienced in powerlifting performed HBBS and LBBS with comparable external loads equal 60% 1RM, 65% 1RM, and 70% 1RM. Electromyography (EMG) signals of muscle groups were synchronously recorded alongside kinematic data (joints angle) by means of a motion capture system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
EMG activity during eccentric phase of squat motion were significantly higher during LBBS than in HBBS for all selected muscles (60% 1RM and 65% 1RM) (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results confirmed significant differences in muscles activation between both squat techniques. Muscle activity during eccentric phase of squat motion were significantly higher during LBBS than HBBS. The differences are crucial for posterior muscle chain during eccentric phase of squat cycle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32551198
doi: 10.7717/peerj.9256
pii: 9256
pmc: PMC7289144
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e9256Informations de copyright
©2020 Murawa et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Oct;12(9):1170-1176
pubmed: 28182500
Sports Med. 2010 Mar 1;40(3):189-206
pubmed: 20199119
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996 Feb;28(2):218-24
pubmed: 8775157
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Apr;30(4):945-52
pubmed: 26349045
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Oct;28(10):2827-36
pubmed: 24662228
J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jul;26(7):1805-16
pubmed: 22505136
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Jun;33(6):984-98
pubmed: 11404665
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Sep;31(9):2618-2634
pubmed: 28570490
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 May;31(5):1251-1258
pubmed: 27465627
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):284-92
pubmed: 19002072
Int J Sports Med. 2016 Apr;37(4):305-12
pubmed: 26667928
Br J Sports Med. 2004 Jun;38(3):285-8
pubmed: 15155427
J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Apr;26(4):1169-78
pubmed: 22373894
Front Physiol. 2016 Aug 31;7:366
pubmed: 27630574
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74
pubmed: 11018445
Strength Cond J. 2015 Apr;37(2):13-60
pubmed: 26823657
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 May;30(5):1205-12
pubmed: 26439782
J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Oct;26(10):2820-8
pubmed: 22797000
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jul;32(7):1809-1815
pubmed: 29528956
PeerJ. 2019 Jul 26;7:e7337
pubmed: 31388473
J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Nov;16(4):547-50
pubmed: 12423183
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Dec;23(9):2588-91
pubmed: 19855308
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):246-50
pubmed: 19130646
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Jul;33 Suppl 1:S1-S18
pubmed: 28195975
Strength Cond J. 2014 Dec 1;36(6):4-27
pubmed: 25506270
J Appl Biomech. 2016 Feb;32(1):16-22
pubmed: 26252837
J Physiol. 1966 May;184(1):170-92
pubmed: 5921536
Int J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;37(6):448-56
pubmed: 26928915
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(3):641-647
pubmed: 28372315
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Dec;24(12):3195-9
pubmed: 21132859
J Appl Biomech. 2015 Dec;31(6):452-8
pubmed: 26214739
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Dec;43(12):2328-34
pubmed: 21552158
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Mar;31(3):428-36
pubmed: 10188748
Am J Med. 2011 Aug;124(8):702-4
pubmed: 21679913