The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat
# Background Weightlifting is growing in popularity among recreational and competitive athletes. The barbell back squat (BackS) is commonly included in these training programs, while the barbell front squat (FrontS) is commonly performed as a component of other lifts such as the power clean or clea...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
North American Sports Medicine Institute
2023-08-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.84306 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1825197044404322304 |
|---|---|
| author | Joseph B. McCormick Alexander S. Drusch Darragh J. Lynch Gesine H. Seeber Katherine F. Wilford Troy L. Hooper Brad S. Allen Dennis G. O’Connell Maria J. Mena-Iturriaga Kinyata J. Cooper Phillip S. Sizer |
| author_facet | Joseph B. McCormick Alexander S. Drusch Darragh J. Lynch Gesine H. Seeber Katherine F. Wilford Troy L. Hooper Brad S. Allen Dennis G. O’Connell Maria J. Mena-Iturriaga Kinyata J. Cooper Phillip S. Sizer |
| author_sort | Joseph B. McCormick |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | # Background
Weightlifting is growing in popularity among recreational and competitive athletes. The barbell back squat (BackS) is commonly included in these training programs, while the barbell front squat (FrontS) is commonly performed as a component of other lifts such as the power clean or clean and jerk, it is less commonly practiced in isolation.
# Hypothesis/Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of VPAC performance on trunk muscle and LE biomechanical responses during loaded BackS versus FrontS in healthy subjects.
# Study Design
Controlled Laboratory Study
# Methods
Healthy male subjects with the ability to perform a sub-maximal loaded barbell squat lift were recruited. Subjects completed informed consent, demographic/medical history questionnaires and an instructional video. Subjects practiced VPAC and received feedback. Surface electromyography (sEMG) electrodes and kinematic markers were applied. Muscles included were the internal oblique (IO), external oblique (EO), rectus abdominis, iliocostalis lumborum (ICL), superficial multifidi, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and gluteus maximus. Maximal voluntary isometric contractions established reference sEMG values. A squat one-rep-max (1RM) was predicted by researchers using a three to five repetition maximum (3RM, 5RM) load protocol. Subjects performed BackS trials at 75% 1RM while FrontS trials were performed at 75% BackS weight, both with and without VPAC. Subjects performed three repetitions of each condition with feet positioned on two adjacent force plates. Significant interactions and main effects were tested using a 2(VPAC strategy) x 2(squat variation) and 2(VPAC strategy) x 2(direction) within-subject repeated measures ANOVAs. Tukey's Post-Hoc tests identified the location of significant differences.
# Results
Trunk muscle activity was significantly higher during FrontS versus BackS regardless of VPAC condition. (IO: p=0.018, EO: p\<0.001, ICL: p\<0.001) VPAC increased performance time for both squat variations (p=.0011), which may be associated with decreased detrimental force potential on the lumbar spine and knees. VPAC led to improved ability to maintain a neutral lumbar spine during both squat variations. This finding is associated with decreased detrimental force potential on the lumbar spine.
# Conclusions
Findings could help guide practitioners and coaches to choose squat variations and incorporate VPAC strategies during their treatments and/or training programs.
# Level of Evidence
Level 3 |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cccdfa961f734b93acb88ea9936bef08 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2159-2896 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-08-01 |
| publisher | North American Sports Medicine Institute |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| spelling | doaj-art-cccdfa961f734b93acb88ea9936bef082025-02-11T20:27:21ZengNorth American Sports Medicine InstituteInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy2159-28962023-08-01184The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell SquatJoseph B. McCormickAlexander S. DruschDarragh J. LynchGesine H. SeeberKatherine F. WilfordTroy L. HooperBrad S. AllenDennis G. O’ConnellMaria J. Mena-IturriagaKinyata J. CooperPhillip S. Sizer# Background Weightlifting is growing in popularity among recreational and competitive athletes. The barbell back squat (BackS) is commonly included in these training programs, while the barbell front squat (FrontS) is commonly performed as a component of other lifts such as the power clean or clean and jerk, it is less commonly practiced in isolation. # Hypothesis/Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of VPAC performance on trunk muscle and LE biomechanical responses during loaded BackS versus FrontS in healthy subjects. # Study Design Controlled Laboratory Study # Methods Healthy male subjects with the ability to perform a sub-maximal loaded barbell squat lift were recruited. Subjects completed informed consent, demographic/medical history questionnaires and an instructional video. Subjects practiced VPAC and received feedback. Surface electromyography (sEMG) electrodes and kinematic markers were applied. Muscles included were the internal oblique (IO), external oblique (EO), rectus abdominis, iliocostalis lumborum (ICL), superficial multifidi, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and gluteus maximus. Maximal voluntary isometric contractions established reference sEMG values. A squat one-rep-max (1RM) was predicted by researchers using a three to five repetition maximum (3RM, 5RM) load protocol. Subjects performed BackS trials at 75% 1RM while FrontS trials were performed at 75% BackS weight, both with and without VPAC. Subjects performed three repetitions of each condition with feet positioned on two adjacent force plates. Significant interactions and main effects were tested using a 2(VPAC strategy) x 2(squat variation) and 2(VPAC strategy) x 2(direction) within-subject repeated measures ANOVAs. Tukey's Post-Hoc tests identified the location of significant differences. # Results Trunk muscle activity was significantly higher during FrontS versus BackS regardless of VPAC condition. (IO: p=0.018, EO: p\<0.001, ICL: p\<0.001) VPAC increased performance time for both squat variations (p=.0011), which may be associated with decreased detrimental force potential on the lumbar spine and knees. VPAC led to improved ability to maintain a neutral lumbar spine during both squat variations. This finding is associated with decreased detrimental force potential on the lumbar spine. # Conclusions Findings could help guide practitioners and coaches to choose squat variations and incorporate VPAC strategies during their treatments and/or training programs. # Level of Evidence Level 3https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.84306 |
| spellingShingle | Joseph B. McCormick Alexander S. Drusch Darragh J. Lynch Gesine H. Seeber Katherine F. Wilford Troy L. Hooper Brad S. Allen Dennis G. O’Connell Maria J. Mena-Iturriaga Kinyata J. Cooper Phillip S. Sizer The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| title | The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat |
| title_full | The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat |
| title_fullStr | The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat |
| title_short | The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat |
| title_sort | effect of volitional preemptive abdominal contraction on biomechanical measures during a front versus back loaded barbell squat |
| url | https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.84306 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT josephbmccormick theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT alexandersdrusch theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT darraghjlynch theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT gesinehseeber theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT katherinefwilford theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT troylhooper theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT bradsallen theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT dennisgoconnell theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT mariajmenaiturriaga theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT kinyatajcooper theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT phillipssizer theeffectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT josephbmccormick effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT alexandersdrusch effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT darraghjlynch effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT gesinehseeber effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT katherinefwilford effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT troylhooper effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT bradsallen effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT dennisgoconnell effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT mariajmenaiturriaga effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT kinyatajcooper effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat AT phillipssizer effectofvolitionalpreemptiveabdominalcontractiononbiomechanicalmeasuresduringafrontversusbackloadedbarbellsquat |