Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul 17:10:14.
doi: 10.1186/s13102-018-0103-7. eCollection 2018.

How to squat? Effects of various stance widths, foot placement angles and level of experience on knee, hip and trunk motion and loading

Silvio Lorenzetti  1   2 , Mira Ostermann  1   3 , Fabian Zeidler  1   4 , Pia Zimmer  1   4 , Lina Jentsch  1 , Renate List  1 , William R Taylor  1 , Florian Schellenberg  1
Affiliations

How to squat? Effects of various stance widths, foot placement angles and level of experience on knee, hip and trunk motion and loading

Silvio Lorenzetti et al. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Squatting is a core exercise for many purposes. The tissue loading during squatting is crucial for positive adaptation and to avoid injury. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of narrow, hip and wide stance widths, foot position angles (0°, 21°, and 42°), strength exercise experience, and barbell load (0 and 50% body weight, experts only) during squatting.

Methods: Novice (N = 21) and experienced (N = 21) squatters performed 9 different variations of squats (3 stance widths, 3 foot placement angles). A 3D motion capture system (100 Hz) and two force plates (2000 Hz) were used to record mediolateral knee displacement (ΔD*), range of motion (RoM) at the hip and knee joints, and joint moments at the hip, knee, and lower back.

Results: Both stance width and foot placement angles affected the moments at the hip and knee joints in the frontal and sagittal planes. ΔD* varied with stance width, foot placement angles and between the subjects' level of experience with the squat exercise as follows: increasing foot angle led to an increased foot angle led to an increased ΔD*, while an increased stance width resulted in a decreased ΔD*; novice squatters showed a higher ΔD*, while additional weight triggered a decreased ΔD*.

Conclusions: Suitable stance width and foot placement angles should be chosen according to the targeted joint moments. In order to avoid injury, special care should be taken in extreme positions (narrow stand-42° and wide stance-0°) where large knee and hips joint moments were observed.

Keywords: Knee alignment; Squat exercise; Squatting; Varus / valugus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The survey of data in this study followed the cohort study design. The Ethical Committee of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich endorsed the study design protocol (EK 2015-N-27) prior to participant acquisition. All participants received written information on the course of study and provided written, informed consent prior to starting measurements. This study was performed according to the Declarations of Helsinki.The participant in the picture provided written informed consent that the picture can be published.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Measurement set up including the participant (1) fitted with the IfB Marker Set (2), the wooden bar (3), force plates under each foot (4) and Vicon cameras (5) for the condition wide stance (6) with a 42° (7) foot angle placement (WS-42°)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Averaged values including standard deviation of ΔD* [% of leg length] displayed for the novice squatter (n), the experienced squatter non-loaded (e) and loaded (e+), for all three stance widths and all three foot placement angles. ΔD* is significant different between the different stance widths, foot placement angles and between the groups. While an increasing angle in the foot placement angle led to an increasing ΔD*, an increased stance width resulted in a decreased ΔD*. Novice squatters showed a higher ΔD*, while additional weight provoked a smaller ΔD*
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Averaged values of ΔD* [% of leg length] as a function of the knee flexion angle [°] of the experienced cohort with the wooden bar (e: thin line) and with extra load on the barbell (e+: thick line) for all nine positions
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Averaged values of the external hip adduction moment [Nm/Kg] (negative: external abduction moment) as a function of the hip adduction angle [°] of the experienced cohort with the wooden bar (e: thin line) and with extra load on the barbell (e+: thick line) for all nine positions
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lynn SK, Noffal GJ. Lower extremity biomechanics during a regular and counterbalanced squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:2417–2425. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8c2d. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Richards J. Biomechanics in Clinic and Research: An Interactive Teaching and Learning Course. 1. London: Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier; 2008.
    1. Pauli C, Keller M, Ammann F, Hubner K, Julia L, Taylor WR, Lorenzetti S. Kinematics and kinetics of squats, drop jumps and imitation jumps of ski jumpers. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(3):643–52. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001166 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schutz P, List R, Zemp R, Schellenberg F, Taylor WR, Lorenzetti S. Joint angles of the ankle, knee, and hip and loading conditions during split squats. J Appl Biomech. 2014;30:373–380. doi: 10.1123/jab.2013-0175. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Müller R. Fitness Center: Verletungen und Beschwerden beim Training bfu-Report 39. Bern: Beratungsstelle für Unfallverhütung; 1999.

LinkOut - more resources