IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8351-d609873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Biomechanical Comparison of the Safety-Bar, High-Bar and Low-Bar Squat around the Sticking Region among Recreationally Resistance-Trained Men and Women

Author

Listed:
  • Eirik Kristiansen

    (Department of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, 7600 Levanger, Norway)

  • Stian Larsen

    (Department of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, 7600 Levanger, Norway)

  • Markus E. Haugen

    (Department of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, 7600 Levanger, Norway)

  • Eric Helms

    (Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

  • Roland van den Tillaar

    (Department of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, 7600 Levanger, Norway
    Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

Abstract

Barbell placement can affect squat performance around the sticking region. This study compared kinematics, kinetics, and myoelectric activity of the safety-bar squat with the high-bar, and low-bar squat around the sticking region. Six recreationally resistance-trained men (26.3 ± 3.1 years, body mass: 81 ± 7.7 kg) and eight women (22.1 ± 2.2 years, body mass: 65.7 ± 10.5 kg) performed three repetition maximums in all three squat conditions. The participants lifted the least load with the safety bar followed by the high-bar and then the low-bar squat. Greater myoelectric activity of the gluteus maximus was observed during safety-bar squats than high-bar squats. Also, larger knee extension moments were observed for the safety bar compared with low-bar squat. Men had higher myoelectric activity in the safety-bar condition for the gluteus maximus during all regions in comparison with women, and greater knee valgus at the second occurrence of peak barbell velocity. Our findings suggest that the more upright torso inclination during the safety-bar could allow greater gluteus maximus contribution to the hip extensor moment. Moreover, low-bar squats allowed the greatest loads to be lifted, followed by the high-bar and safety-bar squats, possibly due to the larger hip moments and similar knee moments compared to the other squat conditions. Therefore, when the goal is to lift the greatest load possible among recreationally trained men and women, they should first attempt squatting with a low-bar technique, and if the goal is to increase myoelectric activity in the gluteus maximus, a safety-bar squat may be the more effective than the high- bar squat.

Suggested Citation

  • Eirik Kristiansen & Stian Larsen & Markus E. Haugen & Eric Helms & Roland van den Tillaar, 2021. "A Biomechanical Comparison of the Safety-Bar, High-Bar and Low-Bar Squat around the Sticking Region among Recreationally Resistance-Trained Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8351-:d:609873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8351/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8351/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roland van den Tillaar & Eirik Lindset Kristiansen & Stian Larsen, 2021. "Is the Occurrence of the Sticking Region in Maximum Smith Machine Squats the Result of Diminishing Potentiation and Co-Contraction of the Prime Movers among Recreationally Resistance Trained Males?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-10, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8351-:d:609873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.