A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis

of the squat during varying stance widths

RAFAEL F. ESCAMILLA, GLENN S. FLEISIG, TRACY M. LOWRY, STEVEN W. BARRENTINE, and
JAMES R. ANDREWS
Michael W. Krzyzewski Human Performance Laboratory, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC 27710; and American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham, AL 35205

ABSTRACT
ESCAMILLA, R. F., G. S. FLEISIG, T. M. LOWRY, S. W. BARRENTINE, and J. R. ANDREWS. A three-dimensional biomechanical
analysis of the squat during varying stance widths. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 33, No. 6, 2001, pp. 984 –998. Purpose: The purpose
of this study was to quantify biomechanical parameters employing two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) analyses while
performing the squat with varying stance widths. Methods: Two 60-Hz cameras recorded 39 lifters during a national powerlifting
championship. Stance width was normalized by shoulder width (SW), and three stance groups were defined: 1) narrow stance squat
(NS), 107 ⫾ 10% SW; 2) medium stance squat (MS), 142 ⫾ 12% SW; and 3) wide stance squat (WS), 169 ⫾ 12% SW. Results: Most
biomechanical differences among the three stance groups and between 2-D and 3-D analyses occurred between the NS and WS.
Compared with the NS at 45° and 90° knee flexion angle (KF), the hips flexed 6 –11° more and the thighs were 7–12° more horizontal
during the MS and WS. Compared with the NS at 90° and maximum KF, the shanks were 5–9° more vertical and the feet were turned
out 6° more during the WS. No significant differences occurred in trunk positions. Hip and thigh angles were 3–13° less in 2-D
compared with 3-D analyses. Ankle plantar flexor (10 –51 N·m), knee extensor (359 –573 N·m), and hip extensor (275-577 N·m) net
muscle moments were generated for the NS, whereas ankle dorsiflexor (34 –284 N·m), knee extensor (447–756 N·m), and hip extensor
(382-628 N·m) net muscle moments were generated for the MS and WS. Significant differences in ankle and knee moment arms
between 2-D and 3-D analyses were 7–9 cm during the NS, 12–14 cm during the MS, and 16 –18 cm during the WS. Conclusions:
Ankle plantar flexor net muscle moments were generated during the NS, ankle dorsiflexor net muscle moments were produced during
the MS and WS, and knee and hip moments were greater during the WS compared with the NS. A 3-D biomechanical analysis of the
squat is more accurate than a 2-D biomechanical analysis, especially during the WS. Key Words: POWERLIFTING, WEIGHT-
LIFTING, JOINT MOMENTS, JOINT MOMENT ARMS, JOINT ANGLES, SEGMENT ANGLES, KINEMATICS, KINETICS,
MECHANICAL WORK

T
he squat, which measures lower body and trunk judge at the completion of the lift. All squat trials analyzed
strength, is the first of three lifts in powerlifting in the current study were in accordance with these rules.
competition. The starting and ending position for the Strength athletes, such as American football players and
powerlifting squat is when the lifter is in the upright position powerlifters, often employ the barbell squat in their training
with the knees and hips near full extension. After the or rehabilitation regimens. These athletes use the squat to
“squat” command is given by the head judge, the lifter enhance hip, thigh, and back strength. Although varying
descends until an imaginary line from the top of the knees squat stance widths and foot angles are employed in training
to the hips moves below a parallel position relative to the according to an athlete’s goals and preferences, the efficacy
ground, and in a continuous motion the lifter ascends back of one stance over another is unclear. Only a few studies
to the upright position. According to the American Drug have quantified stance widths or foot angles during the squat
Free Powerlifting Association (ADFPA) rules at the time of (8,10,20,25,29). Escamilla et al. (8) reported a preferred
this study, causes for disqualification include failure to wait mean stance (inside heel to inside heel distance) of 40 ⫾ 8
for the referee’s “squat” command at the beginning of the cm and a preferred mean forefoot abduction of 22 ⫾ 11°
lift, not descending to the below parallel position, position- from 10 male powerlifters and bodybuilders performing the
ing the bar on the back greater than 5 cm below the acro-
squat. In a follow-up study, Escamilla et al. (10) examined
mion, any stopping or downward movement of the bar once
the effects of defined narrow and wide stance widths on
the ascent begins, any shifting of the feet throughout the lift,
knee biomechanics. McCaw and Melrose (20) examined the
and failure to wait for the “rack” command by the head
effects of defined narrow and wide stance widths on lower
extremity muscle activity. Both Signorile et al. (29) and
0195-9131/01/3306-0984/$3.00/0
Ninos et al. (25) examined the effects of turning the feet in
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE® or out on lower extremity muscle activity. However, none of
Copyright © 2001 by the American College of Sports Medicine these aforementioned studies have examined how varying
Received for publication January 2000. stance widths affects joint and segment angles and joint
Accepted for publication September 2000. moments and moment arms.
984
 Because the squat is considered a closed kinetic chain Data collection. Two synchronized Sony HVM 200
exercise (31,37), it can also be employed in knee rehabili- video cameras were used to collect 60-Hz video data. One
tation programs, such as after anterior cruciate ligament camera faced the subject’s left side while the other camera
(ACL) reconstruction. Studies have shown that the squat is faced the subject’s right side, with each camera’s optical
an effective exercise during ACL rehabilitation (31,37). The axis forming a 45° angle to the sagittal plane of the lifter.
moderate to high hamstring activity that has been reported The cameras were positioned approximately 14 m apart and
during the squat (8,31) may help protect the ACL during faced perpendicular to each other, with each camera approx-
knee rehabilitation. However, the role of varying stance imately10 m from the subject. To minimize the effects of
widths during the squat is unclear in knee rehabilitation. It digitizing error, the cameras were positioned so that the
is hypothesized that knee and hip moments will increase as lifter-barbell system was as large as possible within the
stance width increases. viewing area of the cameras.
Although there are several studies that have quanti- Just before a subject initiated their lift, an external light
fied joint moments during the barbell squat (2,8,12,16, source was activated in both camera views to help match
17,22,26,28,34,35), none of these studies examined the ef- video frames when viewing the videotapes. Before and just
fects of stance width on joint moments. Similarly, there are after the subjects were videotaped, a 2 ⫻ 1.5 ⫻ 1 m 3-D
only a few studies that have quantified select joint and calibration frame (Peak Performance Technologies, Inc.,
segment angles during the barbell squat (16,17,21,28), and Englewood, CO), surveyed with a measurement tolerance of
none of these studies examined the effects of stance width 0.5 cm, was positioned and videotaped in the same volume
on joint and segment angles. In addition, one limitation to occupied by the lifter-barbell system. The calibration frame
most barbell squat studies that quantified joint and segments was comprised of 24 spherical balls of known spatial coor-
angles and joint moments is that a two-dimensional (2-D) dinates, with the x- and z-axes positioned parallel to the
analysis was employed using a single camera to record a ground, and the y-axis pointing vertical.
sagittal view of the lifter. Although trunk movements Data analysis. In powerlifting competition, lifters are
through spinal and hip flexion and extension occur primarily given three attempts during the squat to maximize the
in the sagittal plane, flexion and extension movements at the amount of weight they can lift. A lifter’s first attempt is
ankle and knee occur in the sagittal plane only if the feet are usually submaximal, whereas their second and third at-
positioned in that plane (i.e., pointing straight ahead). This tempts are near the maximal weight they are capable of
is because the ankles and knees primarily function as hinge lifting. Therefore, only second and third attempts that were
joints during the squat, and thus move in the direction the successfully completed (i.e., ruled a “good lift” by a panel
feet point. Therefore, the lower extremities will move out of of three judges) were analyzed. Twenty-two of the 39 lifts
a sagittal plane as the feet turn outwards and the stance analyzed were third attempts. The 17 second-attempt lifts
widens. These will cause erroneous measurements of lower were used because the third attempts were unsuccessful due
extremity joint and segment angles and ankle and knee to the lifter attempting a weight that was beyond their one
moments and moment arms (9). These errors are minimal repetition maximum (1 RM). Therefore, it was thought that
when the feet are pointing straight ahead, but considerable all lifts analyzed were very near each lifter’s 1 RM.
errors occur as the feet turn out to a greater extent and the Previously, the squat has been divided into three descent
stance widens (9). Therefore, the purpose of this study was and three ascent phases (16,17,21): 1) starting position to
to compare joint and segment angles and ankle, knee, and 45° knee flexion angle (KF); 2) 45°KF to 90°KF; 3) 90°KF
hip moments and moment arms between 2-D and 3-D anal- to maximum KF; 4) maximum KF to 90°KF; 5) 90°KF to
yses while performing the squat with varying stance widths. 45°KF; and 6) 45°KF to lift completion. The end of each of
It was hypothesized that the number of significant differ- the first five phases was chosen for kinematic and kinetic
ences in joint kinematic and kinetics between 2-D and 3-D analyses: 1) 45°KF during descent; 2) 90°KF during de-
analyses will increase as stance width widens and that 3-D scent; 3) maximum KF; 4) 90°KF during ascent; and 5)
joint kinematics and kinetics will be significantly different 45°KF during ascent. Kinematic and kinetic analyses were
among varying stance widths. also performed at minimum bar velocity, which always
occurred between 90° and 45°KF during the ascent. Because
the starting and ending positions of the squat are similar
MATERIALS AND METHODS
with the knees and hips near full extension, kinematic and
Subjects. Thirty-nine male powerlifters served as sub- kinetic analyses were not performed at these positions.
jects, with a mean mass of 91.0 ⫾ 25.2 kg, a mean height of A 3-D video analysis system (Peak Performance Tech-
174.9 ⫾ 7.0 cm, a mean age of 45.7 ⫾ 5.2 yr, and a mean nologies, Inc.) was used to manually digitize data for all 39
load lifted of 225.4 ⫾ 58.0 kg. All subjects wore a one piece subjects. A 15-point spatial model was created, comprised
lifting suit. All subjects participated in a national powerlift- of the top of the head and centers of the left and right
ing masters’ championship that was sanctioned by the AD- mid-toes, ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, hands, and end of
FPA. To participate in masters’ level powerlifting compe- bar. All points were seen in each camera view. Each of these
tition, all lifters had to be at least 40 yr old. All subjects 15 points was digitized in every video field (60 Hz), which
signed a human consent form giving their approval to be was adequate due to the slow movement of the lift (3,17).
videotaped and participate in this study. Digitizing began five video fields (0.17 s) before the start of
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 985
the descent and ended five video fields after the end of the and shank angles from 3-D analyses were projected onto a
ascent. 2-D sagittal plane (9). Foot angle was defined as the angle
A fourth-order, zero-lag Butterworth digital filter was formed between the foot segment and the y-z sagittal plane.
used to smooth the raw data with a cutoff frequency of 5 Hz. Stance width was defined as the linear distance between the
A cutoff frequency between 3 and 5 Hz has been demon- left and right ankle joint centers, whereas hand width was
strated to be adequate during lifting 1-RM loads involving defined as the linear distance between the left and right hand
slow movements (9). By using the direct linear transforma- centers.
tion method (33), 3-D coordinate data were derived from the During the 1 RM squat (21), the barbell initially accel-
2-D digitized images from each camera view. An average erates at the beginning of the ascent to a first peak velocity,
resultant mean square calibration error of 0.3 cm produced then decelerates to a minimum velocity, accelerates again to
an average volume error of 0.121%. a second peak velocity, and finally decelerates until the end
The origin of the 3-D orthogonal axis system was first of the ascent. Therefore, the squat ascent was divided into
translated to the right ankle joint and rotated so that the four lifting phases (9): a) acceleration phase 3 maximum
positive x-axis pointed to the left ankle joint, the positive KF to first peak bar velocity; b) sticking region 3 first peak
z-axis pointed anteriorly in the direction the lifter was fac- bar velocity to minimum bar velocity; c) maximum strength
ing, and the y-axis pointed in the vertical direction (9). The region 3 minimum bar velocity to second peak bar veloc-
vertical positions of the digitized left and right ankles were ity; and d) deceleration phase 3 second peak bar velocity to
within 1 cm of each other. This axis system was initially lift completion.
used to calculate all joint moments, moment arms, and Because segment and barbell accelerations are very small
angles. Muscle moment arms were not quantified in this while lifting maximum or near maximum loads, joint mo-
study. Because hip flexion and extension during the squat ments can accurately be calculated using quasi-static models
occur primarily in the y-z sagittal plane about the x-axis, hip (16,17,21,22,26). Lander et al. (17) found that joint mo-
moments were calculated about the x-axis and hip moment ments varied less than 1% between quasi-static and dynamic
arms were calculated in the z-axis direction. Ankle and knee analyzes during the squat exercise with near maximum
moment arms were also calculated in the z-axis direction, loads. Hip, knee, and ankle moments and moment arms
which equates to a 2-D analysis using one camera to record were calculated for left and right sides and then averaged
a sagittal view of the lifter. These 2-D data were compared (9). Body segment center of masses and weights were cal-
with 3-D data from the 3-D analysis. To calculate the actual culated by using appropriate anthropometric data (7), and
ankle and knee moment arms from a 3-D analysis, the axes each lifter’s known mass and segment lengths. The geomet-
system was translated to each ankle joint center and rotated ric center of the barbell represented the center of mass of the
so that the positive z-axis pointed from the ankle joint center barbell (COMbar). Position coordinates for x, y, and z were
to the mid-toes, the y-axis pointed vertical, and the x-axis calculated for both COMbar and the center of mass of the
was orthogonal to the y- and z-axes (9). Hence, for both system (COMsystem), which included both barbell and body
sides of the body, ankle and knee moments were calculated masses. Joint moments and moment arms were calculated
about the x-axis, and ankle and knee moment arms were relative to both barbell weight and system weight (9). The
calculated in the z-axis direction. In addition, movement of system weight used to calculate joint moments was the sum
knees relative to the ankles were measured in the z-axis (i.e., of the barbell weight and the weight of body segments above
in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the foot) to the joint in which the moments were calculated (9). Ankle
determine how far forward the knees translated over the feet moment arms (MAankle) were calculated as the distance in
during the squat, with left and right side measurements the z-axis direction from the ankle joints to COMbar or
averaged. COMsystem, with the system comprising barbell and body
Linear and angular displacements and velocities were masses minus the mass of the feet. Ankle moments were
calculated for both the left and right sides of the body, and calculated as the product of MAankle and barbell weight and
then averaged (9). Relative knee and hip angles and absolute the product of MAankle and system weight. Knee moment
trunk, thigh, and shank angles were defined in accordance arms (MAknee) were calculated as the distance in the z-axis
with previous lifting studies (3,9). Trunk, thigh, and shank direction from the knee joints to COMbar or COMsystem, with
angles were measured relative to the x-z horizontal plane the system comprising barbell and body masses minus the
(i.e., from a right horizontal relative to a sagittal view of the masses of the legs and feet. Knee moments were calculated
lifter’s right side). Knee angles were measured relative to as the product of MAknee and barbell weight, and the product
thigh and leg segments, whereas hip angles were measured of MAknee and system weight. Hip moment arms (MAhip)
relative to trunk and thigh segments. As long as the trunk is were calculated as the distance in the z-axis direction from
rigid and straight, this relative angle approximated the true the hip joints to COMbar or COMsystem, with the system
hip angle. From qualitative analyses of the squat, unlike the comprising barbell and body masses minus the masses of the
deadlift, the trunk typically remains rigid and straight. Knee thighs, legs and feet. Hip moments were calculated as the
and hip angle measurements were expressed as 0° at full product of MAhip and barbell weight, and the product of
knee and hip extension by subtracting relative angle mea- MAhip and system weight.
surements from 180°. To compare joint and segment angle Because bar motion primarily occurred in the vertical
differences between 2-D and 3-D analyses, hip, knee, thigh, direction, vertical bar displacement was calculated from
986 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org
maximum KF to lift completion and normalized by body nitudes and shapes. Thigh angles follow the same general
height. Mechanical work, which was calculated relative to pattern as knee and hip angles. Shank angles have similar
both barbell weight and system weight, was the product of shapes and magnitudes as trunk angles. The minimum bar
system or barbell weight and total vertical displacement of velocity shown in Figure 1 corresponds to the minimum bar
COMbar or COMsystem. The system weight used to calculate velocity in Figure 2 (occurring at approximately 2.15 s),
mechanical work was the sum of barbell weight and body which shows a representative graph of vertical bar velocity
weight minus the weight of the feet. during the squat. The acceleration and deceleration phases
To compare stance widths relative to individual size dif- were the shortest in duration, whereas the sticking and
ferences, stance width was normalized and expressed as a maximum strength regions were the longest in duration.
percent of each subject’s shoulder width (distance between Typical differences between 2-D and 3-D joint angle anal-
digitized shoulder joint centers). The 39 normalized stances yses for the NS and WS are shown in Figure 3. Represen-
were ranked from lowest to highest (87–196% shoulder tative graphs for hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities as
width) and divided into defined narrow, medium, and wide functions of knee and hip angles are shown in Figures 4 and
stance groups. The 13 lowest normalized stances (87–118% 5. Shapes and magnitudes of hip and knee angular velocities
shoulder width) were assigned to the narrow stance (NS)
as functions of hip and knee angles were similar during the
group; the middle 13 normalized stances (121–153% shoul-
squat motion. In addition, hip, knee, and ankle angular
der width) were assigned to the medium stance (MS) group;
velocities as a function of knee angles were very similar to
and the highest 13 normalized stances (158 –196% shoulder
hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities as a function of hip
width) were assigned to the wide stance (WS) group. To
angles. Ankle angular velocities remained low and fairly
assess kinematic and kinetic differences among the three
constant throughout the descent and ascent phases. Employ-
stance groups, a three-way, mixed-factor multiple analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was employed (P ⬍ 0.05). The ing different stance widths did not affect the general shapes
repeated factors in the MANOVA consisted of 2-D versus and magnitudes seen in the representative graphs from Fig-
3-D comparisons and descent versus ascent comparisons. ures 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Stance was the between subjects factor in the MANOVA, Significant positive correlations (r ⫽ 0.5– 0.85) were
which consisted of narrow, medium, and wide stances. A found between normalized stance width and joint and seg-
simple linear regression was used to assess the relationship ment angles, with joint angles increasing as normalized
(P ⬍ 0.05) between normalized stance width and joint and stance width increased. The highest correlations were found
segment angles. between normalized stance width and thigh angles (r ⫽
0.75– 0.85). A representative graph between normalized
stance width and thigh angles is shown in Figure 6. Low to
RESULTS moderate correlations (r ⫽ 0.5– 0.7) were observed between
A representative graph of joint and segment angles as a normalized stance width and hip and shank angles, whereas
function of time is shown in Figure 1. During the squat, the nonsignificant correlations (r ⫽ 0.15– 0.35) were observed
knees and hips flex and extend together with similar mag- between normalized stance width and trunk angle.

FIGURE 1—Representa-
tive graph for joint and
segment angles.

ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 987
FIGURE 2—Representative graph for verti-
cal bar velocity. AP, acceleration phase; SR,
sticking region; MSR, maximum strength re-
gion; and DP, deceleration phase.

There were no significant differences in kinematic and 10° more compared with the NS. Compared with the NS, the
kinetic measurements between left and right sides of the shanks were approximately 8° more vertical, the thighs were
body. Subject characteristics among the NS, MS, and WS approximately 10° more horizontal, and the feet were turned
are shown in Table 1. Among the three stance groups there out approximately 6° more in the WS. There were no
were no significant differences in age, body height, body significant differences in trunk positions among the stance
weight, barbell load, and hand width. Joint and segment groups. At 45°KF, there was significantly less hip flexion
angles among the three stance groups are shown in Table 2, and forward trunk tilt in the descent phase compared with
with significant differences found in hip, thigh, and shank the ascent phase. There was significantly greater hip flexion
measurements. Most significant differences occurred be- (12–14°) and forward trunk tilt (7–10°) at minimum bar
tween NS and WS groups, with no differences observed velocity during the ascent (Table 2) compared with hip and
between MS and WS groups. In the MS and WS groups at trunk angles at corresponding KF angles during the descent,
45°, 90°, and maximum KF, the hips flexed approximately in which the hips flexed 67 ⫾ 7°, 68 ⫾ 10°, and 69 ⫾ 12°,

FIGURE 3—Representative
graph for joint angles be-
tween 2-D and 3-D analyses
for narrow and wide stance
squats.

988 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

 FIGURE 4 —Representative graph for hip,
knee, and ankle angular velocities as a func-
tion of knee angle.

respectively, and trunk angles were 65 ⫾ 5°, 64 ⫾ 4°, and the ankle joints the knees translated forward over the feet
66 ⫾ 5°, respectively, during the NS, MS, and WS. There 21.7 ⫾ 4.4 cm during the NS, 18.0 ⫾ 2.6 cm during the MS,
were no significant differences found among the three and 16.0 ⫾ 4.6 cm during the WS. There was significantly
stance groups at minimum bar velocity. Comparing joint greater forward knee translation over the feet during the NS
and segment angles between 2-D and 3-D analyses, the NS compared with the MS and WS.
showed the fewest number of significant differences, The joint moments and moment arms expressed in Tables
whereas the WS showed the greatest number of significant 8 –10 are relative to barbell or system loads. Positive mo-
differences (Table 3). Hip and thigh angles were 3–13° less ment arms are anterior to joint, producing positive hip
in 2-D analyses compared with 3-D analyses. flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor system mo-
There were no significant differences in temporal, work, ments. Hip extensor, knee flexor, and ankle plantar flexor
and bar velocity comparisons among the three stance groups resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these
(Tables 4 – 6). On the average, it took 4.60 ⫾ 1.20 s to system moments. Negative moment arms are posterior to
complete the 1 RM squat, with a descent time of 1.92 ⫾ joint, producing negative hip extensor, knee flexor, and
0.51 s and an ascent time of 2.68 ⫾ 1.04 s. Significant ankle plantar flexor system moments. Hip flexor, knee ex-
differences among the three stance groups in peak hip, knee, tensor, and ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments are
and ankle angular velocities, and corresponding knee and needed to counteract these system moments. Joint moments
hip angles, are shown in Table 7. The only significant and moment arms were significantly different among the
differences found among the three stance comparisons were three stance groups (Table 8), with most differences occur-
greater hip angles in the MS and WS compared with the NS ring between the NS and WS. From Table 8, most signifi-
at peak hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities. Relative to cant differences in moments and moment arms involved the

FIGURE 5—Representative graph for hip,

knee, an ankle angular velocities as a function
of hip angle.

ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 989
 plantar flexor resultant muscle moments were significantly
greater in 2-D analyses compared with 3-D analyses. During
the WS, ankle resultant muscle moments changed from
plantar flexor in 2-D analyses to dorsiflexor in 3-D analyses.
In 2-D analyses knee moments were greater with an NS
compared with a WS. Conversely, in 3-D analyses knee
moments were greater with a WS compared with a NS. All
data in Tables 1–10 and Figures 1– 6 are from 3-D analyses
unless specified otherwise.

DISCUSSION
Many athletes and coaches believe that technique varia-
FIGURE 6 —Representative graph of simple linear regression between tions occur in the squat as different stance widths are em-
normalized stance width and thigh angle at 45° knee flexion during the ployed. There are currently no known studies that have
squat descent. quantified joint angles, moments, and moment arms while
performing the squat with varying stance widths. Therefore,
ankle, whereas significant differences in knee and hip mo- the objective of this study was to compare squat kinematics
ments and moment arms occurred only at 45°KF. Ankle and kinetics between 2-D and 3-D analyses among three
plantar flexor resultant muscle moments were generated defined stance groups. The results from the current study
exclusively during the NS, whereas ankle dorsiflexor result- demonstrate that kinematic and kinetic differences do occur
ant muscle moments were generated exclusively during the among the three stance groups and that 2-D kinematic and
MS and WS. Peak ankle moments and moment arms oc- kinetic analyses produce erroneous results compared with
curred at maximum KF during the NS and at 45°KF during 3-D analyses, especially during the WS.
the MS and WS. Peak knee moments and moment arms In the current study, linear and angular displacements and
occurred at maximum KF, whereas peak hip moments and velocities, as well as joint moments and moment arms, were
moment arms occurred at minimum bar velocity. The only averaged from the left and right sides of the body. There
significant differences between the squat descent and ascent were no significant differences between bilateral measure-
occurred at 45°KF, in which hip moments and moment arms ments, which demonstrate the symmetrical nature of the
were significantly greater during the ascent compared with squat exercise. This implies that during the squat analyzing
the descent. Ankle, knee, and hip moment arms and ankle only one side of the body may be adequate in calculating
and hip moments were not significantly different between joint and segment angles, joint moments, and joint moment
COMbar and COMsystem. However, knee moments were arms. The symmetrical nature of the deadlift, which is
significantly greater in system load compared with barbell similar to the squat, has previously been demonstrated by
load for all three stance groups (Table 9). Significant dif- Escamilla et al. (9), who found no significant differences in
ferences in ankle and knee moments and moment arms kinematic and kinetic measurements between left and right
between 2-D and 3-D analyses are shown in Table 10 for the sides of the body.
NS and WS. During the NS, ankle moment arms were 7– 8 Joint and segmental angles. Although trunk angle
cm less in a 3-D analysis compared with a 2-D analysis, was not significantly different among the three stance
whereas knee moment arms were 9 –10 cm greater in a 3-D groups at 45°, 90°, and maximum KF, greater hip flexion, a
analysis compared with a 2-D analysis. This same tread in more horizontal thigh position, and a more vertical shank
ankle and knee moment arms occurred during the MS and position were observed in the WS and MS compared with
WS, with a 12–14 cm difference between 2-D and 3-D the NS. These changes occurred in part because the NS had
analyses during the MS and a 16 –18 cm difference between approximately 4 – 6 cm greater forward knee movement in
2-D and 3-D analyses during the WS. During the NS, ankle the direction of the toes compared with the MS and WS.

TABLE 1. Subject characteristics (mean ⫾ SD).

Significant
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance Differences
Age (yr) 43.7 ⫾ 3.5 45.7 ⫾ 6.4 47.8 ⫾ 4.9
Body height (cm) 176.7 ⫾ 6.9 173.6 ⫾ 7.3 174.3 ⫾ 6.8
Body mass (kg) 82.4 ⫾ 21.7 93.1 ⫾ 24.8 97.5 ⫾ 28.2
Barbell load (kg) 208.3 ⫾ 54.9 229.2 ⫾ 64.4 238.7 ⫾ 54
System load (kg) 290.7 ⫾ 74.2 322.4 ⫾ 86.7 336.2 ⫾ 80.1

Stance width (cm) 40.9 ⫾ 3.8 59.7 ⫾ 6.6 69.6 ⫾ 9.5 *a,b,c
Stance width (% shoulder width) 107 ⫾ 10 142 ⫾ 12 169 ⫾ 12 *a,b,c
Hand width (cm) 88.2 ⫾ 15.6 98.4 ⫾ 13.5 94.3 ⫾ 15.9
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05).
a
Medium vs narrow; b medium vs wide; c wide vs narrow.

990 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

TABLE 2. Joint and segment angles (mean ⫾ SD).
Significant
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance Differences
Descent phase
45° KF
Hip (°) 47 ⫾ 7 55 ⫾ 6** 55 ⫾ 7 *a,c
Trunk (°) 70 ⫾ 4** 68 ⫾ 4** 70 ⫾ 5**
Thigh (°) 117 ⫾ 5 124 ⫾ 4 126 ⫾ 4 *a,c
Shank (°) 71 ⫾ 3 73 ⫾ 4 71 ⫾ 4
90° KF
Hip (°) 92 ⫾ 8 98 ⫾ 6 101 ⫾ 9 *c
Trunk (°) 60 ⫾ 4** 60 ⫾ 6 62 ⫾ 6
Thigh (°) 153 ⫾ 5 160 ⫾ 5 165 ⫾ 7 *a,c
Shank (°) 61 ⫾ 5 66 ⫾ 4 69 ⫾ 6 *c
Maximum KF
Hip (°) 107 ⫾ 10 109 ⫾ 8 110 ⫾ 7
Trunk (°) 58 ⫾ 5 61 ⫾ 6 62 ⫾ 5
Thigh (°) 166 ⫾ 5 171 ⫾ 5 173 ⫾ 5 *c
Shank (°) 58 ⫾ 5 64 ⫾ 4 67 ⫾ 7 *c
Knee (°) 106 ⫾ 8 102 ⫾ 7 99 ⫾ 10
Ascent phase
90° KF
Hip (°) 97 ⫾ 7 100 ⫾ 6 104 ⫾ 7
Trunk (°) 56 ⫾ 5** 61 ⫾ 6 60 ⫾ 7
Thigh (°) 154 ⫾ 4 162 ⫾ 5 166 ⫾ 8 *a,c
Shank (°) 63 ⫾ 5 66 ⫾ 5 68 ⫾ 5 *c
Minimum bar velocity
Hip (°) 81 ⫾ 7 80 ⫾ 11 82 ⫾ 9
Trunk (°) 56 ⫾ 4 57 ⫾ 9 56 ⫾ 6
Thigh (°) 138 ⫾ 5 137 ⫾ 6 140 ⫾ 6
Shank (°) 69 ⫾ 5 72 ⫾ 4 71 ⫾ 6
Knee (°) 67 ⫾ 9 59 ⫾ 8 60 ⫾ 12
45° KF
Hip (°) 52 ⫾ 9 63 ⫾ 9** 63 ⫾ 13 *a,c
Trunk (°) 66 ⫾ 6** 62 ⫾ 6** 63 ⫾ 7**
Thigh (°) 118 ⫾ 4 126 ⫾ 5 128 ⫾ 7 *a,c
Shank (°) 71 ⫾ 4 74 ⫾ 4 72 ⫾ 6
Foot Angle (°) 20 ⫾ 5 23 ⫾ 3 26 ⫾ 4 *c
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05).
a
Medium vs narrow; b medium vs wide; c wide vs narrow.
** Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05) at 45° KF and 90° KF between descent and ascent phases.

Greater forward knee movements during the squat have differences, because McLaughlin et al. employed a 2-D
been shown to increase knee shear forces (2), which implies analysis whereas the current study employed a 3-D analysis.
that employing a MS or WS may be more effective than an However, because trunk positions between 2-D and 3-D
NS in minimizing knee shear forces. analyses should be similar due to the trunk moving in a
Trunk, knee, hip, and thigh angle patterns and magnitudes sagittal plane, the observed joint position differences be-
from Figure 1 are similar to data from several other studies tween these two studies are also probably due to technique
which quantified joint and segment angles during the squat differences.
(1,12,16,17,21,26,35). Averaged among all three stance All previous studies that quantified joint and segment
groups, minimal bar velocity occurred at 62 ⫾ 10°KF, angles employed a 2-D sagittal plane analysis
which is slightly lower than the 75 ⫾ 6° KF reported by (16,17,21,26,35). It was hypothesized that hip, thigh, and
McLaughlin et al. (21). Averaged among all three stance shank angles would show a greater number of significant
groups, hip, trunk, thigh, and shank angles at minimum bar differences between 2-D and 3-D analyses during a WS
velocity were 81 ⫾ 9°, 57 ⫾ 6°, 139 ⫾ 6°, and 70 ⫾ 5°, compared with an NS. During the WS, the feet are typically
respectively, in the current study, and 110 ⫾ 11°, 39 ⫾ 11°, turned out to a greater degree compared with an NS. The
150 ⫾ 2°, and 74 ⫾ 5°, respectively, from McLaughlin et al. more the feet turn out, the greater the lower extremities
(21). Although subjects from the current study and subjects deviate from sagittal plane movements, and the greater the
from McLaughlin et al. (21) all participated in a national differences will be between 2-D and 3-D analyses. The
powerlifting competition involving 1-RM lifting, subjects significantly greater foot angles in the WS compared with
from McLaughlin et al. (21) had 13° more knee flexion, 29° the NS contributed to several significant differences be-
more hip flexion, and 18° more forward trunk tilt at mini- tween 2-D and 3-D analyses in the WS, but fewer significant
mum bar velocity. This implies that, compared with the differences were observed between 2-D and 3-D analyses in
subjects in McLaughlin et al. (21), the subjects in the current the NS. This is supported by Figure 3, which shows typical
study obtained minimum bar velocity later in the ascent and differences in joint angles between 2-D and 3-D analyses for
maintained a more upright trunk position. Some of these the NS and WS. During the NS, 2-D and 3-D joint angle
joint position differences between the current study and analyses were nearly identical, whereas larger differences
McLaughlin et al. (21) are probably due to methodological between 2-D and 3-D analyses were observed during the
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 991
TABLE 3. Comparisons of lower extremity joint and segment angles (mean ⫾ SD) between 2-D and 3-D analyses.
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance
2-D 3-D 2-D 3-D 2-D 3-D
Descent phase
45° KF
Hip (°) 40 ⫾ 7* 47 ⫾ 7* 45 ⫾ 6* 55 ⫾ 7* 42 ⫾ 7* 55 ⫾ 7*
Knee (°) 42 ⫾ 2* 44 ⫾ 1* 42 ⫾ 4* 45 ⫾ 2* 42 ⫾ 4* 45 ⫾ 1*
Thigh (°) 114 ⫾ 3* 117 ⫾ 5* 118 ⫾ 9 124 ⫾ 4 115 ⫾ 4* 126 ⫾ 4*
Shank (°) 72 ⫾ 3 71 ⫾ 3 75 ⫾ 5* 73 ⫾ 4* 74 ⫾ 4* 71 ⫾ 4*
90° KF
Hip (°) 88 ⫾ 9* 92 ⫾ 8* 91 ⫾ 8* 98 ⫾ 6* 92 ⫾ 11* 101 ⫾ 9*
Knee (°) 88 ⫾ 2* 90 ⫾ 1* 87 ⫾ 5 89 ⫾ 1 87 ⫾ 6 88 ⫾ 3
Thigh (°) 151 ⫾ 5 153 ⫾ 5 154 ⫾ 5* 160 ⫾ 5* 159 ⫾ 4* 165 ⫾ 7*
Shank (°) 63 ⫾ 4 61 ⫾ 5 67 ⫾ 4 66 ⫾ 4 70 ⫾ 6 69 ⫾ 6
Maximum KF
Hip (°) 103 ⫾ 13* 107 ⫾ 10* 104 ⫾ 13* 109 ⫾ 8* 106 ⫾ 12* 110 ⫾ 7*
Knee (°) 105 ⫾ 9 106 ⫾ 8 105 ⫾ 11 102 ⫾ 7 103 ⫾ 12* 99 ⫾ 10*
Thigh (°) 166 ⫾ 5 166 ⫾ 5 169 ⫾ 8 171 ⫾ 5 170 ⫾ 7* 173 ⫾ 5*
Shank (°) 58 ⫾ 5 58 ⫾ 5 65 ⫾ 3 64 ⫾ 4 68 ⫾ 7 67 ⫾ 7
Ascent phase
90° KF
Hip (°) 92 ⫾ 10* 97 ⫾ 7* 90 ⫾ 10* 100 ⫾ 6* 96 ⫾ 8* 104 ⫾ 7*
Knee (°) 88 ⫾ 5 90 ⫾ 2 88 ⫾ 7 90 ⫾ 2 89 ⫾ 6 88 ⫾ 3
Thigh (°) 153 ⫾ 4 154 ⫾ 4 157 ⫾ 5* 162 ⫾ 5* 162 ⫾ 9* 166 ⫾ 8*
Shank (°) 64 ⫾ 4 63 ⫾ 5 67 ⫾ 4 66 ⫾ 5 70 ⫾ 6 68 ⫾ 6
Minimum bar velocity
Hip (°) 77 ⫾ 9* 81 ⫾ 7* 72 ⫾ 14* 80 ⫾ 11* 74 ⫾ 11* 82 ⫾ 9*
Knee (°) 66 ⫾ 9 67 ⫾ 9 57 ⫾ 8 59 ⫾ 8 58 ⫾ 14 60 ⫾ 12
Thigh (°) 137 ⫾ 5 138 ⫾ 5 133 ⫾ 7* 137 ⫾ 6* 133 ⫾ 7* 141 ⫾ 6*
Shank (°) 70 ⫾ 5 69 ⫾ 5 75 ⫾ 4* 72 ⫾ 4* 75 ⫾ 7* 71 ⫾ 6*
45° KF
Hip (°) 46 ⫾ 9* 52 ⫾ 9* 55 ⫾ 11* 63 ⫾ 9* 54 ⫾ 14* 63 ⫾ 13*
Knee (°) 43 ⫾ 2* 45 ⫾ 1* 43 ⫾ 3 45 ⫾ 1 43 ⫾ 3 45 ⫾ 1
Thigh (°) 115 ⫾ 3* 118 ⫾ 4* 121 ⫾ 5* 126 ⫾ 5* 119 ⫾ 6* 128 ⫾ 7*
Shank (°) 73 ⫾ 3 71 ⫾ 4 77 ⫾ 4* 74 ⫾ 4* 77 ⫾ 6* 72 ⫾ 6*
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05) between 2-D and 3-D analyses.

WS. However, the relatively small 6° difference in foot only the bar mechanical work is calculated, because energy
angle between the NS and WS may have contributed to expenditure during the squat increases linearly as mechan-
several WS comparisons between 2-D and 3-D analyses not ical work increases (5). Bar and system mechanical work
being significantly different (Table 3). In examining 2-D values in the current study were approximately 10% greater
and 3-D joint and segment angle comparisons during sumo than bar and system mechanical work values reported by
(wide stance) and conventional (narrow stance) style dead- Escamilla et al. (9) during the conventional style deadlift,
lifts, Escamilla et al. (9) generally found no significant which is performed similar to the squat. Because the sub-
differences between 2-D and 3-D analyses during the con- jects in Escamilla et al. (9) lifted a mean load of 222 ⫾ 34
ventional deadlift, whereas all 2-D versus 3-D comparisons kg, which is nearly identical to the mean load lifted in the
were significantly different in the sumo deadlift. However, current study, the 10% difference in mechanical work be-
mean foot angles were 14 ⫾ 6° for the conventional deadlift tween these two studies is from a 10% greater vertical bar
and 42 ⫾ 8° for the sumo deadlift. Furthermore, a compar- distance in the current study. High energy expenditures have
ison between deadlift stance widths (9) and squat stance been reported during both the deadlift (4,9) and squat (5),
widths from the current study revealed that the NS had a which suggests that these types of multi-muscle, multi-joint
33% greater stance width than the conventional deadlift, exercises are more effective in energy expenditure and mus-
whereas the sumo deadlift had an 11% greater stance width cle development compared with single-joint, single-muscle
than the WS. These data imply that a 2-D analysis may be exercises. Several studies have shown moderate to high
adequate to calculate joint and segment angles when the foot
angle is relatively small (i.e., 0 –15°) and a narrow stance is
TABLE 4. Temporal and work comparisons (mean ⫾ SD).
employed, but significant errors can occur from 2-D anal-
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance
yses as foot angles and stance widths increase.
Total lift time (s) 4.43 ⫾ 0.60 4.69 ⫾ 1.39 4.68 ⫾ 1.48
Mechanical work. Although there were no significant Total descent time (s) 1.95 ⫾ 0.55 2.02 ⫾ 0.47 1.80 ⫾ 0.50
differences in vertical bar distance and mechanical work Total ascent time (s) 2.48 ⫾ 0.50 2.67 ⫾ 1.36 2.88 ⫾ 1.11
among the three stance groups (Table 4), the overall me-
Total vertical bar distance (% Ht) 29.2 ⫾ 1.7 28.5 ⫾ 2.2 28.6 ⫾ 2.6
chanical work on the system (1444 ⫾ 366 J) was signifi- Total vertical system distance (% Ht) 27.0 ⫾ 1.9 26.7 ⫾ 2.3 26.2 ⫾ 2.1
cantly greater than the total mechanical work on the bar Total vertical bar distance (cm) 51.6 ⫾ 4.1 49.6 ⫾ 5.3 49.8 ⫾ 4.9
Total vertical system distance (cm) 47.8 ⫾ 4.2 46.5 ⫾ 5.4 45.7 ⫾ 3.8
(1107 ⫾ 278 J). This difference between bar mechanical Total mechanical work on bar (J) 1058 ⫾ 302 1110 ⫾ 312 1154 ⫾ 228
work and system mechanical work implies that the total Total mechanical work on system (J) 1371 ⫾ 394 1468 ⫾ 406 1493 ⫾ 309
energy expenditure during the squat is underestimated if For all parameters there were no significant differences among stance comparisons.

992 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

TABLE 5. Select events (mean ⫾ SD).
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance
Descent phase
Peak bar velocity
Velocity (m䡠s⫺1) 0.527 ⫾ 0.140 0.508 ⫾ 0.097 0.559 ⫾ 0.156
Time occurred (% descent time) 29.5 ⫾ 10.8 22.6 ⫾ 10.4 30.9 ⫾ 11.0
Vertical bar position (% descent vertical bar distance) 27.4 ⫾ 11.7 23.2 ⫾ 11.0 29.5 ⫾ 14.1
Ascent phase
First peak bar velocity
Velocity (m䡠s⫺1) 0.380 ⫾ 0.102 0.365 ⫾ 0.085 0.367 ⫾ 0.055
Time occurred (% ascent time) 13.8 ⫾ 8.5 18.4 ⫾ 10.7 19.3 ⫾ 10.9
Vertical bar position (% ascent vertical bar distance) 10.0 ⫾ 3.3 13.6 ⫾ 6.1 15.9 ⫾ 10.4
Minimum bar velocity
Velocity (m䡠s⫺1) 0.086 ⫾ 0.069 0.100 ⫾ 0.097 0.058 ⫾ 0.089
Time occurred (% ascent time) 47.8 ⫾ 9.8 50.7 ⫾ 6.8 47.2 ⫾ 8.5
Vertical bar position (% ascent vertical bar distance) 42.0 ⫾ 5.9 43.4 ⫾ 8.4 41.6 ⫾ 12.0
Second peak bar velocity
Velocity (m䡠s⫺1) 0.464 ⫾ 0.116 0.457 ⫾ 0.111 0.434 ⫾ 0.130
Time occurred (% ascent time) 86.5 ⫾ 9.2 85.6 ⫾ 6.5 84.4 ⫾ 10.7
Vertical bar position (% ascent vertical bar distance) 84.6 ⫾ 11.4 84.6 ⫾ 4.4 82.3 ⫾ 9.5
For all parameters there were no significant differences among stance comparisons.
0% ascent time or vertical bar distance is the beginning of the ascent, and 100% ascent time or vertical bar distance is the end of the ascent.

muscle activity during the squat from the quadriceps, ham- first peak bar velocity (Table 5). These data are similar to
strings, gluteus maximus, thigh adductors, abdominals, ob- the 1 RM squat data reported by McLaughlin et al. (21), in
liques, and erector spinae (6,8,14,17,20,25,29 –31,34 –36). which most lifters also reached their maximum vertical bar
These are the largest and most powerful muscles in the body velocity at their second peak vertical bar velocity. Both the
and generate a high force production and energy expendi- acceleration and deceleration phases of the squat comprised
ture when active. 15–25% of the ascent time, whereas the sticking region and
Selected events and lifting phases. Mean peak ver- maximum strength region comprised 30 – 40% of the ascent
tical bar velocity during the squat descent (0.531 ⫾ 0.132 time. These values are similar to data reported by McLaugh-
m·s-1) was slightly greater than mean peak bar velocity lin et al. (21). These results imply that during the squat
during the squat ascent (0.452 ⫾ 0.117 m·s-1) and occurred approximately twice as much time is spent in the sticking
at approximately 27% of both the descent time and the region and maximum strength region compared with the
descent vertical bar distance. Mean peak vertical bar veloc- acceleration and deceleration phases.
ity during the descent was nearly identical to the high skilled The end of the sticking region (i.e., minimum bar veloc-
squat group from McLaughlin et al. (21) but approximately ity) has previously been reported as the “sticking point”
15% lower than the less skilled squat group from McLaugh- (21), which occurred at approximately 60 – 65°KF and 80 –
lin et al. (21). This implies that higher-skilled lifters lower 85° hip angle (Table 2). The “sticking point” appears to be
the bar at a slower rate compared with lesser-skilled lifters. the most difficult part of the lift, and is often where pow-
This is important because several studies have reported erlifters fail in their attempt for a successful lift. Because
significantly greater tibiofemoral shear and compressive knee and hip moments and moment arms generated by the
forces during a fast squat cadence compared with a slow system weight generally decrease during the ascent as the
squat cadence (1,6,11). This occurs because faster descent knees and hips extend (16,22,35), a mechanical disadvan-
rates require greater deceleration forces from the knee and tage is believed to occur among knee and hip muscle ex-
hip extensors in order to slow down and stop the weight at tensor moments during the sticking region, being greatest
the end of the descent. near the sticking point. The sticking point phenomena may
The vertical bar velocity curve shown in Figure 2 is the in part be due to mechanical principles of skeletal muscle,
same pattern reported by McLaughlin et al. (21). Of the 39 such as to the length-force relationship and muscle moment
lifters in the current study, 28 lifters achieved maximum arm lengths. It is well known that as a muscle contracts
vertical bar velocity at their second peak vertical bar veloc- concentrically and shortens its ability to generate force
ity, whereas the remaining 11 lifters achieved maximum diminishes. Because the product of muscle force and muscle
vertical bar velocity at their first peak vertical bar velocity. moment arm determines the net muscle moment generated
However, for all stance comparisons, the mean second peak at a joint, a decrease in both of these variables or a dispro-
bar velocity was not significantly different from the mean portionately decrease in one variable with respect to the

TABLE 6. Lifting phases (mean ⫾ SD).

Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance
Acceleration phase (% ascent time) 13.8 ⫾ 8.5 18.4 ⫾ 10.7 19.3 ⫾ 10.9
Sticking region (% ascent time) 33.9 ⫾ 9.7 32.3 ⫾ 12.3 27.9 ⫾ 12.2
Maximum strength region (% ascent time) 38.8 ⫾ 12.8 35.0 ⫾ 6.1 37.2 ⫾ 10.7
Deceleration phase (% ascent time) 13.5 ⫾ 9.2 14.4 ⫾ 6.5 15.6 ⫾ 10.7
For all parameters there were no significant differences among stance comparisons.
% ascent time is the total percentage of the ascent represented by each phase or region.

ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 993
TABLE 7. Peak hip, knee, and ankle angular velocities and corresponding hip and knee angles.
Significant
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance Differences
Descent phase
Peak hip angular velocity (°䡠s⫺1) ⫺106 ⫾ 24 ⫺104 ⫾ 22 ⫺101 ⫾ 20
Knee angle at peak hip angular velocity (°) 50 ⫾ 14 45 ⫾ 13 46 ⫾ 14
Hip angle at peak hip angular velocity (°) 50 ⫾ 15 56 ⫾ 14 58 ⫾ 14

Peak knee angular velocity (°䡠s⫺1) ⫺123 ⫾ 24 ⫺112 ⫾ 19 ⫺120 ⫾ 23

Knee angle at peak knee angular velocity (°) 37 ⫾ 11 36 ⫾ 9 34 ⫾ 12
Hip angle at peak knee angular velocity (°) 39 ⫾ 11 48 ⫾ 10 46 ⫾ 11

Peak angle angular velocity (°䡠s⫺1) ⫺40 ⫾ 8 ⫺30 ⫾ 12 ⫺35 ⫾ 10

Knee angle at peak ankle angular velocity (°) 43 ⫾ 19 59 ⫾ 15 54 ⫾ 25
Hip angle at peak ankle angular velocity (°) 45 ⫾ 19 70 ⫾ 19 73 ⫾ 25 *a,c
Ascent phase
Peak hip angular velocity (°䡠s⫺1) 121 ⫾ 24 104 ⫾ 24 102 ⫾ 24
Knee angle at peak hip angular velocity (°) 40 ⫾ 12 43 ⫾ 16 36 ⫾ 13
Hip angle at peak hip angular velocity (°) 45 ⫾ 12 58 ⫾ 14 52 ⫾ 13 *a

Peak knee angular velocity (°䡠s⫺1) 130 ⫾ 32 109 ⫾ 29 116 ⫾ 31

Knee angle at peak knee angular velocity (°) 36 ⫾ 13 49 ⫾ 21 45 ⫾ 16
Hip angle at peak knee angular velocity (°) 42 ⫾ 12 63 ⫾ 18 60 ⫾ 24 *a,c

Peak ankle angular velocity (°䡠s⫺1) 42 ⫾ 13 33 ⫾ 6 35 ⫾ 9

Knee angle at peak ankle 52 ⫾ 27 65 ⫾ 17 64 ⫾ 20
Hip angle at peak ankle angular velocity (°) 59 ⫾ 25 80 ⫾ 18 80 ⫾ 23
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05).
a
Medium vs narrow; b medium vs wide; c wide vs narrow.

other will cause a decrease in the net muscle moment. The lengthen to a greater extend than knee flexion causes the
net hip extensor moment generated by the gluteus maximus, hamstrings to shorten (19,32). Therefore, it is common near
hamstrings, and ischial fibers of adductor magnus has been the sticking point for lifters to slightly increase forward
shown to be maximum at 90° hip angle, decreasing progres- trunk tilt and hip flexion, as shown in Figure 1 at minimum
sively as the hips extend (23). This decrease in the net hip bar velocity, so as to increase the length of the hamstrings
extensor moment with hip extension contributes to the stick- and other hip extensors, thus increasing these muscle’s
ing point. Interestingly, in contrast to hip extensor moments, ability to generate force. The inclined forward trunk tilt also
the hip extensor moment arms for both the hamstrings and allows a greater contribution from the powerful back mus-
gluteus maximus have their smallest values at 90° hip angle cles. Although hip moment arms from the hamstrings in-
(24), increasing progressively as the hips extend. This im- crease as the hips extend from 90° to 35° (24), knee moment
plies that the length-force relationship and muscle forces arms from the hamstrings peak near 50 – 60°KF (15,27),
from the gluteus maximus and hamstrings have a much which increase knee flexor moments near the sticking point.
greater influence on hip extensor moments compared with The gastrocnemius also generates knee flexor moments dur-
these muscle’s respective moment arms. It has been previ- ing the squat as they contract to cause ankle plantar flexion
ously demonstrated that changes in muscle forces affect during the ascent. These increased knee flexor moments
muscle moments to a much greater extent than changes in generated by the hamstrings and gastrocnemius, which op-
muscle moment arms (18). All moment arms from the hip pose the knee extensor moments generated by the quadri-
extensors have been shown to initially increase as the hips ceps, contribute to the sticking point. In addition, knee
extend from 90° hip angle (24). The moment arms of the extensor moments generated by the quadriceps decrease as
adductor magnus increase until approximately 75° hip an- the knees extend toward the sticking point. This decrease in
gle, and then progressively decrease with further hip exten- knee extensor moments as the knees extend is primarily due
sion (24). Because the adductor magnus is a uni-articular to a decrease in quadriceps force, because patellar tendon
muscle, a decrease in this muscle’s ability to generate force moment arms change only a few millimeters from full knee
due to muscle shortening, combined with its decreasing flexion to full knee extension (13,15). Interestingly, the
moment arms as the sticking point is approached, produce a 12–14° greater hip flexion and 7–10° greater forward trunk
decrease in the net hip extensor moment near the sticking tilt observed at the sticking point compared with the same
point. Although the moment arms of the uni-articular glu- KF position during the squat descent implies that the stick-
teus maximus increase progressively with hip extension ing region causes an asymmetrical pattern to occur between
(24), a disproportional decrease in muscle force as this the squat descent and ascent. This explains why at 45°KF
muscles shortens may produce a decrease in the net hip there was significantly greater hip flexion and forward trunk
extensor moment near the sticking point. Because the ham- tilt during the ascent compared with the descent (Table 2).
strings are bi-articular, during the ascent these muscles Joint moments and moment arms. Although sev-
lengthen at the knees and shorten at the hips, which helps eral studies have quantified joint moments during the squat
maintain a more optimal force-length relationship during the (2,8,12,16,17,22,26,28,31,34,35), there are no known stud-
squat. However, hip extension causes the hamstrings to ies that have quantified hip, knee, and ankle moment arms
994 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org
TABLE 8. Joint moments and moment arms (mean ⫾ SD) relative to system load.
Significant
Narrow Stance Medium Stance Wide Stance Differences
Descent phase
Moment arms at 45° KF (cm)
Ankle 0.5 ⫾ 2.1 ⫺4.2 ⫾ 2.7 ⫺7.9 ⫾ 5.0 *a,b,c
Knee ⫺13.8 ⫾ 4.3 ⫺16.7 ⫾ 4.2 ⫺21.6 ⫾ 5.3 *b,c
Hip 11.1 ⫾ 3.0** 13.5 ⫾ 2.0** 12.4 ⫾ 3.3**
Moments at 45° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 10 ⫾ 52 ⫺136 ⫾ 122 ⫺284 ⫾ 236 *a,c
Knee ⫺382 ⫾ 145 ⫺521 ⫾ 248 ⫺698 ⫾ 299 *c
Hip 275 ⫾ 71** 382 ⫾ 92** 383 ⫾ 161**
Moment arms at 90° KF (cm)
Ankle 1.0 ⫾ 2.3 ⫺2.2 ⫾ 2.6 ⫺7.0 ⫾ 5.1 *c
Knee ⫺18.9 ⫾ 5.2 ⫺19.7 ⫾ 5.0 ⫺22.6 ⫾ 5.0
Hip 19.4 ⫾ 3.9 17.3 ⫾ 3.8 16.3 ⫾ 3.5
Moments at 90° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 34 ⫾ 66 ⫺73 ⫾ 99 ⫺254 ⫾ 233 *a,c
Knee ⫺517 ⫾ 169 ⫺605 ⫾ 247 ⫺723 ⫾ 267
Hip 505 ⫾ 169 487 ⫾ 123 479 ⫾ 134
Moment arms at maximum KF (cm)
Ankle 1.7 ⫾ 2.6 ⫺1.4 ⫾ 2.6 ⫺6.6 ⫾ 5.0 *b,c
Knee ⫺21.0 ⫾ 5.7 ⫺20.4 ⫾ 3.9 ⫺23.7 ⫾ 4.0
Hip 19.9 ⫾ 4.2 17.8 ⫾ 3.7 16.7 ⫾ 3.6
Moments at maximum KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 51 ⫾ 72 ⫺47 ⫾ 100 ⫺242 ⫾ 228 *c
Knee ⫺573 ⫾ 179 ⫺627 ⫾ 233 ⫺756 ⫾ 235
Hip 514 ⫾ 159 507 ⫾ 158 499 ⫾ 158
Ascent phase
Moment arms at 90° KF (cm)
Ankle 1.3 ⫾ 2.3 ⫺1.0 ⫾ 2.5 ⫺6.0 ⫾ 5.5 *c
Knee ⫺18.4 ⫾ 5.4 ⫺18.4 ⫾ 3.9 ⫺22.1 ⫾ 3.8
Hip 21.1 ⫾ 3.5 17.3 ⫾ 3.6 17.6 ⫾ 4.2
Moments at 90° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 40 ⫾ 68 ⫺34 ⫾ 108 ⫺224 ⫾ 242 *c
Knee ⫺504 ⫾ 187 ⫺564 ⫾ 217 ⫺709 ⫾ 244
Hip 547 ⫾ 169 498 ⫾ 170 516 ⫾ 143
Moment arms at minimum bar velocity (cm)
Ankle 0.5 ⫾ 2.5 ⫺2.9 ⫾ 2.6 ⫺6.1 ⫾ 5.3 *a,c
Knee ⫺14.5 ⫾ 5.6 ⫺15.2 ⫾ 4.3 ⫺19.2 ⫾ 6.1
Hip 22.0 ⫾ 3.5 21.0 ⫾ 5.1 21.2 ⫾ 4.0
Moments at minimum bar velocity (N䡠m)
Ankle 22 ⫾ 73 ⫺90 ⫾ 100 ⫺227 ⫾ 224 *a,c
Knee ⫺393 ⫾ 161 ⫺475 ⫾ 236 ⫺623 ⫾ 274
Hip 577 ⫾ 195 595 ⫾ 188 628 ⫾ 167
Moment arms at 45° KF (cm)
Ankle 0.5 ⫾ 2.8 ⫺3.6 ⫾ 2.1 ⫺6.7 ⫾ 4.4 *a,c
Knee ⫺12.9 ⫾ 4.1 ⫺14.2 ⫾ 3.7 ⫺18.5 ⫾ 4.6 *b,c
Hip 13.9 ⫾ 2.8** 18.8 ⫾ 3.7** 17.5 ⫾ 4.6** *a,c
Moments at 45° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 16 ⫾ 79 ⫺112 ⫾ 81 ⫺243 ⫾ 201 *a,c
Knee ⫺359 ⫾ 141 ⫺447 ⫾ 221 ⫺605 ⫾ 254 *c
Hip 355 ⫾ 89** 549 ⫾ 211** 526 ⫾ 197** *a,c
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05).
a
Medium vs narrow; b medium vs wide; c wide vs narrow.
** Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05) at 45° KF and 90° KF between descent and ascent phases.
Positive moment arms are anterior to joint, producing positive hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor system moments. Hip extensor, knee flexor, and ankle plantar
flexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system moments. Negative moment arms are posterior to joint, producing negative hip extensor, knee
flexor, and ankle plantar flexor system moments. Hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system
moments.

during the squat. Positive ankle moment arms during the NS squat. In addition, gastrocnemius activity has been reported
produced dorsiflexor system moments (Table 8) that must to be 10 –15% greater in the NS squat compared with the
be counterbalanced by plantar flexor resultant muscle mo- WS squat (10). Ankle moment arms peaked at maximum
ments. In contrast, negative ankle moment arms during the KF, which is consistent with squat data from Escamilla et al.
MS and WS generated ankle plantar flexor system moments (8) and Isear et al.(14), which show peak gastrocnemius
(Table 8) that must be counterbalanced by dorsiflexor re- activity near maximum KF.
sultant muscle moments. This implies that the ankle plantar Several studies have shown moderate to high activity
flexors may be recruited to a greater extent during the NS from the quadriceps during the squat (8,20,25,29 –31,34,35),
compared with the MS and WS, whereas the ankle dorsi- with peak activity occurring near maximum KF
flexors may be recruited to a greater extent during the MS (8,14,25,30,31,35). Moderate to high knee extensor muscle
and WS compared with the NS. Escamilla et al. (8), whose moments imply overall knee extensor activity, especially
subjects had a stance width similar to the NS group, reported during the MS and WS, which produced significantly
low to moderate gastrocnemius activity during the 12 RM greater knee moments compared with the NS. However, two
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 995
studies have reported no significant differences in quadri- quantified joint moments relative to system weight
ceps activity between the NS and WS (10,20). (8,12,16,17,22,28,31,34,35). Peak ankle moments have
Moderate to high hip extensor muscle moments suggest been reported between 50 and 300 N·m (16,17,22,26),
overall hip extensor activity, especially in the MS and WS peak knee moments between 100 and 500 N·m
groups, which at 45°KF produced significantly greater hip (2,8,12,16,17,22,26,28,31,34,35), and peak hip moments
moments compared with the NS. At minimum bar velocity between 150 and 600 N·m (16,17,22,34,35). Hence, ankle,
(approximately 60°KF) peak hip extensor muscle moments knee, and hip moment magnitudes in the current study are
were generated in all stance groups. Escamilla et al. (8) similar to corresponding moment magnitudes in the squat
reported peak hamstring activity (approximately 50% of a literature.
maximum voluntary isometric contraction) near 50°KF, One of the most important findings from the current study
whereas other studies have reported peak hamstring activity is the numerous significant differences observed in mo-
during the squat between 10° and 60°KF (14,25,31). The ments and moment arms between 2-D and 3-D analyses.
hamstrings, gluteus maximus, and ischial fibers of the ad- Most of the above squat studies that quantified joint mo-
ductor magnus have all shown significantly greater activity ments employed a single camera to record a sagittal view of
in the WS squat compared with the NS stance (10,20). the lifter, thus performing a 2-D analysis. Although a 2-D
Compared with the squat descent at corresponding KF an- analysis may be appropriate in calculating hip and spinal
gles, the significantly greater hip flexion and forward trunk moments and moment arms during squat, because the trunk
tilt observed during the squat ascent at minimum bar veloc- moves primarily in the sagittal plane, it is only appropriate
ity and 45°KF caused significantly greater hip moments and in calculating ankle and knee moments and moment arms if
moment arms. lower extremity movements occur primarily in the sagittal
It is difficult to compare ankle, knee, and hip moments plane. However, as the stance widens and the feet turn out,
among squat studies in the literature because methodologies greater errors in 2-D moment and moment arm calculations
and loads lifted (20 –270 kg range) varied greatly. In quan- will occur, because lower extremity movements move out of
tifying ankle, knee, and hip moments, some studies used a the sagittal plane. Escamilla et al. (9) reported only a few cm
single camera (2-D) and no force platform (2,12,22,26), differences in ankle and knee moment arm calculations
some studies used a single camera and one force platform between 2-D and 3-D analyses during the conventional
(16,17,28,34,35), whereas some studies used multiple cam- deadlift exercise, in which a very narrow stance was em-
eras (3-D) and one force platform (8,31). In addition, some ployed (32 ⫾ 8 cm, 80 ⫾ 16% shoulder width) with the feet
studies had subjects squat with one foot on a force platform only slightly turned out (14 ⫾ 6°). However, these authors
(8,31), some studies had subjects squat with both feet on a reported 20 –25 cm differences in ankle and knee moment
force platform (16,17,34,35), some studies quantified joint arms between 2-D and 3-D analyses during the sumo dead-
moments relative to barbell weight (2,26), and other studies lift, in which a very wide stance was employed (70 ⫾ 11 cm,
188 ⫾ 37% shoulder width) with the feet turned out 42 ⫾
TABLE 9. Mean (mean ⫾ SD) knee moments (N䡠m) between barbell load and
8°. Although 2-D analyses in the current study were signif-
system load. icantly different than 3-D analyses for all three stance
Relative to Bar Load Relative to System Load groups, errors in moment arm magnitudes were twice as
Descent phase great in the WS compared with the NS. This occurred
Narrow stance because the WS had a significantly greater stance width and
45° KF ⫺249 ⫾ 102* ⫺382 ⫾ 145*
90° KF ⫺324 ⫾ 117* ⫺517 ⫾ 169* foot angle compared with the NS.
Maximum KF ⫺366 ⫾ 129* ⫺573 ⫾ 179* When circumstances do not permit multiple cameras to be
Medium stance
45° KF ⫺341 ⫾ 168* ⫺521 ⫾ 248*
employed during the squat, a 3-D analysis can still be
90° KF ⫺393 ⫾ 178* ⫺605 ⫾ 247* performed on some kinematic and kinetic variables by in-
Maximum KF ⫺411 ⫾ 174* ⫺627 ⫾ 233* putting 2-D data from a single camera into appropriate
Wide stance
45° KF ⫺468 ⫾ 210* ⫺698 ⫾ 299* derived mathematical equations. For example, ankle mo-
90° KF ⫺477 ⫾ 191* ⫺723 ⫾ 267* ment arms derived from a 3-D analysis can be calculated
Maximum KF ⫺498 ⫾ 164* ⫺756 ⫾ 235*
Ascent phase
given ankle moment arms from a 2-D analysis by employing
Narrow stance the following equation: MA3D ⫽ cos ␪(MA2D) ⫺ (0.5Swidth-
90° KF ⫺310 ⫾ 133* ⫺504 ⫾ 187* )sin ␪, where MA2D is the ankle moment arm measured from
Minimum bar velocity ⫺226 ⫾ 113* ⫺393 ⫾ 161*
45° KF ⫺223 ⫾ 100* ⫺359 ⫾ 141* a 2-D analysis, MA3D is the predicted ankle moment arm
Medium stance from a 3-D analysis, ␪ is the angle measured between the
90° KF ⫺362 ⫾ 160* ⫺564 ⫾ 217*
Minimum bar velocity ⫺288 ⫾ 160* ⫺475 ⫾ 236* sagittal plane and the longitudinal axis of the foot, and Swidth
45° KF ⫺270 ⫾ 149* ⫺447 ⫾ 221* is the stance width measured between ankles. This equation
Wide stance is easily derived by utilizing elementary trigonometry. The
90° KF ⫺462 ⫾ 168* ⫺709 ⫾ 244*
Minimum bar velocity ⫺386 ⫾ 196* ⫺623 ⫾ 274* values predicted for MA3D by employing this equation were
45° KF ⫺384 ⫾ 178* ⫺605 ⫾ 254* nearly identical to the actual measured values of MA3D from
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05). the 3-D analysis. A 2-D analysis from a single camera will
All moments are knee flexor moments generated by barbell or system loads. Knee
extensor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these barbell or yield correct ankle moments and moment arms only when
system moments. the feet are pointing straight ahead (i.e., ␪ ⫽ 0°) and will
996 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org
TABLE 10. Comparisons of ankle and knee joint moments and moment arms (mean ⫾ SD) relative to system load between 2-D and 3-D analyses.
Narrow Stance Wide Stance
2-D 3-D 2-D 3-D
Descent phase
Moment arms at 45° KF (cm)
Ankle 7.1 ⫾ 2.0* 0.5 ⫾ 2.1* 7.9 ⫾ 2.0* ⫺7.9 ⫾ 5.0*
Knee ⫺4.5 ⫾ 2.4* ⫺13.8 ⫾ 4.3* ⫺3.3 ⫾ 2.9* ⫺21.6 ⫾ 5.3*
Moments at 45° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 207 ⫾ 80* 10 ⫾ 52* 257 ⫾ 78* ⫺284 ⫾ 236*
Knee ⫺133 ⫾ 86* ⫺382 ⫾ 145* ⫺104 ⫾ 99* ⫺698 ⫾ 299*
Moment arms at 90° KF (cm)
Ankle 8.8 ⫾ 2.2* 1.0 ⫾ 2.3* 9.0 ⫾ 2.4* ⫺7.0 ⫾ 5.1*
Knee ⫺8.7 ⫾ 2.2* ⫺18.9 ⫾ 5.2* ⫺4.0 ⫾ 3.3* ⫺22.6 ⫾ 5.0*
Moments at 90° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 254 ⫾ 98* 34 ⫾ 66* 291 ⫾ 77* ⫺254 ⫾ 233*
Knee ⫺248 ⫾ 86* ⫺517 ⫾ 169* ⫺119 ⫾ 89* ⫺723 ⫾ 267*
Moment arms at maximum KF (cm)
Ankle 9.5 ⫾ 2.3* 1.7 ⫾ 2.6* 9.4 ⫾ 2.1* ⫺6.6 ⫾ 5.0*
Knee ⫺10.5 ⫾ 2.7* ⫺21.0 ⫾ 5.7* ⫺4.9 ⫾ 3.1* ⫺23.7 ⫾ 4.0*
Moments at maximum KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 272 ⫾ 98* 51 ⫾ 72* 305 ⫾ 80* ⫺242 ⫾ 228*
Knee ⫺297 ⫾ 97* ⫺573 ⫾ 179* ⫺146 ⫾ 75* ⫺756 ⫾ 235*
Ascent phase
Moment arms at 90° KF (cm)
Ankle 9.1 ⫾ 2.0* 1.3 ⫾ 2.3* 10.1 ⫾ 2.4* ⫺6.0 ⫾ 5.5*
Knee ⫺8.2 ⫾ 2.4* ⫺18.4 ⫾ 5.4* ⫺3.4 ⫾ 2.3* ⫺22.1 ⫾ 3.8*
Moments at 90° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 260 ⫾ 86* 40 ⫾ 68* 325 ⫾ 78* ⫺224 ⫾ 242*
Knee ⫺236 ⫾ 104* ⫺504 ⫾ 187* ⫺101 ⫾ 67* ⫺709 ⫾ 244*
Moment arms at minimum bar velocity (cm)
Ankle 8.3 ⫾ 2.4* 0.5 ⫾ 2.5* 10.0 ⫾ 2.8* ⫺6.1 ⫾ 5.3*
Knee ⫺4.9 ⫾ 2.8* ⫺14.5 ⫾ 5.6* ⫺0.9 ⫾ 4.1* ⫺19.2 ⫾ 6.1*
Moments at minimum bar velocity (N䡠m)
Ankle 241 ⫾ 102* 22 ⫾ 73* 323 ⫾ 100* ⫺227 ⫾ 224*
Knee ⫺137 ⫾ 89* ⫺393 ⫾ 161* ⫺24 ⫾ 35* ⫺623 ⫾ 273*
Moment arms at 45° KF (cm)
Ankle 8.3 ⫾ 3.2* 0.5 ⫾ 2.8* 9.3 ⫾ 2.1* ⫺6.7 ⫾ 4.4*
Knee ⫺3.6 ⫾ 2.3* ⫺12.9 ⫾ 4.1* ⫺0.4 ⫾ 3.3* ⫺18.5 ⫾ 4.6*
Moments at 45° KF (N䡠m)
Ankle 235 ⫾ 101* 16 ⫾ 79* 305 ⫾ 98* ⫺243 ⫾ 201*
Knee ⫺107 ⫾ 77* ⫺359 ⫾ 141* ⫺12 ⫾ 122* ⫺605 ⫾ 254*
* Significant differences (P ⬍ 0.05) between 2-D and 3-D analyses for the NS and WS.
Positive moment arms are anterior to joint, producing positive hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor system moments. Hip extensor, knee flexor, and ankle plantar
flexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system moments. Negative moment arms are posterior to joint, producing negative hip extensor, knee
flexor, and ankle plantar flexor system moments. Hip flexor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor resultant muscle moments are needed to counteract these system
moments.

produce only small errors when the feet are slightly turned (2852 N, Table 1) and expressed as a percentage, the nor-
out with an NS employed. For example, if during the NS malized mean peak knee moment for the NS is between 5.5
squat MA2D measured 9 cm, stance width was 35 cm, and and 6%. Compared with other squat studies that reported
the foot angle was 10°, MA3D would yield a value of peak mean knee moments using a 2-D analysis, Ariel (2)
approximately 6 cm, which is only a few cm different than found a normalized peak mean knee moment of approxi-
MA2D. However, if during the WS squat MA2D measured mately 5.5%. Similarly, Lander et al. (17) and Wretenberg
the same 9 cm, but stance width was 70 cm and foot angle et al. (35) found peak mean knee moments of approximately
was 45°, MA3D would yield a value of approximately ⫺18 6 – 6.5%, which are similar to the normalized peak mean
cm, a difference of 27 cm. Also, the difference in the knee moment in the current study. As seen in Table 10, knee
moment arm sign implies a change from a plantar flexor net moments and moment arms are significantly underestimated
muscle moment to a dorsiflexor net muscle moment. The in 2-D analyses compared with 3-D analyses.
employment of a 3-D analysis is clearly more paramount The knee moment significant differences observed be-
during the WS squat with a large foot angle compared with tween barbell load and system load implies that knee mo-
the NS squat with a small foot angle. ment contributions from body segments should not be dis-
When peak mean joint moments from the squat literature counted when calculating the actual joint moments that
involving 2-D analyses are normalized by body height and occur during lifting. It is interesting that hip and ankle
system weight, their normalized peak mean values are very moments were not significantly different between barbell
similar to the normalized mean peak 2-D moments calcu- load and system load. There are several reasons why this
lated in the current study. For example, from Table 10 the occurred. First, knee moment arms were generally greater
peak mean 2-D knee moment calculated for the NS was 297 and hip and ankle moment arms were generally less for the
N·m. When this peak knee moment is normalized by the system loads compared with the barbell loads. Therefore,
product of body height (1.77 m, Table 1) and system load these smaller system hip and ankle moment arms would
ANALYSIS OF THE SQUAT DURING VARYING STANCES Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise姞 997
produce a relative decrease in hip and ankle system mo- The authors extend a special thanks to Andy Demonia and Chris-
ments. Second, the system load was greater for knee mo- tian Welch for all their help in collecting the data and Abidemi Bolu
Ajiboye, Herbert Bohnet, and Brian Pullin for all their assistance in
ments than hip moments, because there is greater body mass manually digitizing the data. Also, we would like to extend a special
above the knee joints compared with the hip joints. Third, thanks to Tom and Ellen Trevorah, powerlifting meet directors, for all
the relative small ankle moment arms compared with the their support throughout this project.
Address for correspondence: Rafael Escamilla, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.,
knee and hip moment arms produced relatively large stan-
Duke University Medical Center, P.O. Box 3435, Durham, NC 27710;
dard deviations for both ankle moments and moment arms E-mail: [email protected].
(Table 8).

REFERENCES
1. ANDREWS, J. G., J .G. HAY, and C. L. VAUGHAN. Knee shear forces 19. LIEBER, R. L., and C. G. BROWN. Sarcomere length-joint angle
during a squat exercise using a barbell and a weight machine. In: relationships of seven frog hindlimb muscles. Acta Anat. 145:
Biomechanics VIII-B, H. Matsui and K. Kobayashi (Eds.). Cham- 289 –295, 1992.
paign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1983, pp. 923–927. 20. MCCAW, S. T., and D. R. MELROSE. Stance width and bar load
2. ARIEL, B. G. Biomechanical analysis of the knee joint during deep effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med. Sci.
knee bends with heavy loads. In: Biomechanics IV, R. Nelson and Sports Exerc. 31(3):428 – 436, 1999.
C. Morehouse (Eds.). Baltimore: University Park Press, 1974, pp. 21. MCLAUGHLIN, T. M., C. J. DILLMAN, and T. J. LARDNER. A kinematic
44 –52. model of performance in the parallel squat by champion power-
3. BROWN, E. W., and K. ABANI. Kinematics and kinetics of the dead lifters. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 9:128 –133, 1977.
lift in adolescent power lifters. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 17:554 – 22. MCLAUGHLIN, T. M., T. J. LARDNER, and C. J. DILLMAN. Kinetics of
566, 1985. the parallel squat. Res. Q. 49:175–189, 1978.
4. BROWN, S. P., J. M. CLEMONS, Q. HE, and S. LIU. Prediction of the 23. NEMETH, G. On hip and lumbar biomechanics: a study of joint load and
oxygen cost of the deadlift exercise. J. Sports Sci. 12:371–375, muscular activity. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. Suppl. 10:1–35, 1984.
1994. 24. NEMETH, G., and H. OHLSEN. In vivo moment arm lengths for hip
5. BYRD, R., K. PIERCE, R. GENTRY, and M. SWISHER. Predicting the extensor muscles at different angles of hip flexion. J. Biomech.
caloric cost of the parallel back squat in women. J. Strength Cond. 18:129 –140, 1985.
Res. 10:184 –185, 1996. 25. NINOS, J. C., J. J. IRRGANG, R. BURDETT, and J. R. WEISS. Electro-
6. DAHLKVIST, N. J., P. MAYO, and B. B. SEEDHOM. Forces during myographic analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower
squatting and rising from a deep squat. Engl. Med. 11(2):69 –76, extremity neutral rotation and 30 degrees of lower extremity
1982. turn-out from the self-selected neutral position. J. Orthop. Sports
7. DEMPSTER, W. T. Space requirements of the seated operator Phys. Ther. 25:307–315, 1997.
(WADC Technical Report). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 26. NISELL, R., and J. EKHOLM. Joint load during the parallel squat in
Ohio, 1955, pp. 55–159. powerlifting and force analysis of in vivo bilateral quadriceps
8. ESCAMILLA, R. F., G. S. FLEISIG, N. ZHENG, S. W. BARRENTINE, K. E. tendon rupture. Scand J. Sports Sci. 8:63–70, 1986.
WILK, and J. R. ANDREWS. Biomechanics of the knee during closed 27. O’CONNOR, J. J. Can muscle co-contraction protect knee ligaments
kinetic chain and open kinetic chain exercises. Med. Sci. Sports after injury or repair? J. Bone Joint Surg. (Br.) 75-B(1):41– 48,
1993.
Exerc. 30:556 –569, 1998.
28. RUSSELL, P. J., and S. J. PHILLIPS. A preliminary comparison of
9. ESCAMILLA, R. F., A. C. FRANCISCO, G. S. FLEISIG, et al. A three-
front and back squat exercises. Res. Q. 60:201–208, 1989.
dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional
29. SIGNORILE, J. F., K. KWIATKOWSKI, J. F. CARUSO, and B. ROBERTSON.
style deadlifts. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1265–1275, 2000.
Effect of foot position on the electromyographical activity of the
10. ESCAMILLA, R. F., N. ZHENG, G. S. FLEISIG, et al. The effects of
superficial quadriceps muscles during the parallel squat and knee
technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and
extension. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:182–187, 1995.
leg press. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29:S156, 1997.
30. SIGNORILE, J. F., B. WEBER, B. ROLL, J. F. CARUSO, I. LOWENSTEYN, and
11. HATTIN, H. C., M. R. PIERRYNOWSKI, and K. A. BALL. Effect of load, A. C. PERRY. An electromyographical comparison of the squat and knee
cadence, and fatigue on tibio-femoral joint force during a half extension exercises. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8:178–183, 1994.
squat. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21:613– 618, 1989. 31. STUART, M. J., D. A. MEGLAN, G. E. LUTZ, E. S. GROWNEY, and
12. HAY, J. G., J. G. ANDREWS, C. L. VAUGHAN, and K. UEYA. Load, K. N. AN. Comparison of intersegmental tibiofemoral joint forces
speed, and equipment effects in strength-training exercises. In: and muscle activity during various closed kinetic chain exercises.
Biomechanics VIII-B, H. Masui and K. Kobayashi (Eds.). Cham- Am. J. Sports Med. 24:792–799, 1996.
paign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1983, pp. 939 –950. 32. VISSER, J. J., J. E. HOOGKAMER, M. F. BOBBERT, and P. A. HUIJING.
13. HERZOG, W., and L. J. READ. Lines of action and moment arms of Length and moment arm of human leg muscles as a function of
the major force-carrying structures crossing the human knee joint. knee and hip-joint angles. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 61(5– 6):453–
J. Anat. 182(Pt 2):213–230, 1993. 460, 1990.
14. ISEAR, J. A., Jr., J. C. ERICKSON, and T. W. WORRELL. EMG analysis 33. WOOD, G. A., and R. N. MARSHALL. The accuracy of DLT extrap-
of lower extremity muscle recruitment patterns during an unloaded olation in three-dimensional film analysis. J. Biomech. 19:781–
squat. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29:532–539, 1997. 785, 1986.
15. KELLIS, E., and V. BALTZOPOULOS. In vivo determination of the 34. WRETENBERG, P., Y. FENG, and U. P. ARBORELIUS. High-and low-
patella tendon and hamstrings moment arms in adult males using bar squatting techniques during weight-training. Med. Sci. Sports
videofluoroscopy during submaximal knee extension and flexion. Exerc. 28:218 –224, 1996.
Clin. Biomech. 14:118 –124, 1999. 35. WRETENBERG, P., Y. FENG, F. LINDBERG, and U. P. ARBORELIUS.
16. LANDER, J. E., B. T. BATES, and P. DEVITA. Biomechanics of the Joint moments of force and quadriceps activity during squatting
squat exercise using a modified center of mass bar. Med. Sci. exercise. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 3:244 –250, 1993.
Sports Exerc. 18:469 – 478, 1986. 36. WRIGHT, G. A., T. H. DELONG, and G. GEHLSEN. Electromyographic
17. LANDER, J. E., R. L. SIMONTON, and J. K. GIACOBBE. The effective- activity of the hamstrings during performance of the leg curls,
ness of weight-belts during the squat exercise. Med. Sci. Sports stiff-leg deadlift, and back squat movements. J. Strength Cond.
Exerc. 22:117–126, 1990. Res. 13:168 –174, 1999.
18. LIEBER, R. L., and J. L. BOAKES. Muscle force and moment arm 37. YACK, H. J., C. E. COLLINS, and T. J. WHIELDON. Comparison of
contributions to torque production in frog hindlimb. Am. J. closed and open kinetic chain exercise in the anterior cruciate
Physiol. 254(6 Pt 1):C769 –772, 1988. ligament-deficient knee. Am. J. Sports Med. 21:49 –54, 1993.

998 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org