↓ Skip to main content

A Biomechanical Comparison of Back and Front Squats in Healthy Trained Individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
172 X users
facebook
22 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
16 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
626 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Biomechanical Comparison of Back and Front Squats in Healthy Trained Individuals
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, January 2009
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31818546bb
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan C Gullett, Mark D Tillman, Gregory M Gutierrez, John W Chow

Abstract

The strength and stability of the knee plays an integral role in athletics and activities of daily living. A better understanding of knee joint biomechanics while performing variations of the squat would be useful in rehabilitation and exercise prescription. We quantified and compared tibiofemoral joint kinetics as well as muscle activity while executing front and back squats. Because of the inherent change in the position of the center of mass of the bar between the front and back squat lifts, we hypothesized that the back squat would result in increased loads on the knee joint and that the front squat would result in increased knee extensor and decreased back extensor muscle activity. A crossover study design was used. To assess the net force and torque placed on the knee and muscle activation levels, a combination of video and force data, as well as surface electromyographic data, were collected from 15 healthy trained individuals. The back squat resulted in significantly higher compressive forces and knee extensor moments than the front squat. Shear forces at the knee were small in magnitude, posteriorly directed, and did not vary between the squat variations. Although bar position did not influence muscle activity, muscle activation during the ascending phase was significantly greater than during the descending phase. The front squat was as effective as the back squat in terms of overall muscle recruitment, with significantly less compressive forces and extensor moments. The results suggest that front squats may be advantageous compared with back squats for individuals with knee problems such as meniscus tears, and for long-term joint health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 172 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 626 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 614 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 151 24%
Student > Master 110 18%
Student > Postgraduate 47 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 6%
Researcher 30 5%
Other 112 18%
Unknown 136 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 267 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 8%
Engineering 37 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 3%
Other 48 8%
Unknown 156 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 177. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#229,539
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#108
of 6,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#680
of 184,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.