ArticleJournal of human kinetics2020
Comparison of Muscle Activation and Kinematics in 6-RM Squatting with Low and High Barbell Placement.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare 6-RM muscle activation and kinematics in back squats with low and high barbell placements. Twelve resistance-trained males (23.5 ± 2.6 years, 86.8 ± 21.3 kg, 1.81 ± 0.08 m) with a minimum of 2 years of squatting experience performed a 6-RM using high and low barbell placements while muscle activation of eight muscles and joint kinematics were measured. During high barbell placement squats, lifting time was longer, with lower average velocity than low barbell placement. This was accompanied by a lesser knee flexion angle at the lowest point of the squat, and larger hip flexion angles during high, compared to low barbell squats. Furthermore, peak angular ankle, knee and hip velocities in the descending phase developed differently between conditions. No significant differences in muscle activation were found between conditions. Thus, our data suggests gross muscular adaptations between barbell placements may be similar over time, and therefore, from a muscular development standpoint, both squat styles are valid. Furthermore, unlike the low barbell placement, fatigue may manifest earlier itself in the high barbell squats during 6-RMs as sets progress toward a lifter's maximal capacity, altering kinematics, especially in the last repetition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.