Sentences with phrase «comparing back squat»

Comparing the back squat and the sled, Maddigan et al. (2014) compared the erector spinae muscle activity during the back squat performed with 10RM and the weighted sled push at a 20 step maximum.

Comparing the back squat and deadlift, Hamlyn et al. (2007) explored erector spinae muscle activity using 80 % of 1RM load.

Comparing the back squat and the sled push, Maddigan et al. (2014) measured transverse abdominis and internal oblique muscle activity in the back squat performed with 10RM and the weighted sled push performed with a 20 step maximum.

In a study comparing back squat versus a power clean on performance, results revealed that a power clean, the more complex movement, led to greater improvement in sprint time, velocity, and average acceleration in 20m running sprints in elite rugby players.

Comparing the back squat and the split squat, Andersen et al. (2014) found that the split squat displayed greater external oblique muscle activity but similar rectus abdominis muscle activity to the back squat.

Comparing the back squat with other exercises, Hales et al. (2009) compared the peak hip angles in the back squat and deadlift.

Comparing the back squat with knee extensions, Signorile et al. (1994) found that muscle activity was greater during back squats than during knee extensions but Andersen et al. (2006) found the opposite results and Escamilla et al. (1998) found that muscle activity differences depended upon knee angle.

Comparing the back squat and leg press, Andersen et al. (2006) found that the leg press involved similar muscle activity to the back squat (with the same relative load) but both Escamilla et al. (1998) and Escamilla et al. (2001b) found that the squat was superior to the leg press (also with the same relative load).

Comparing the back squat with the split squat (with the same relative loads), both Jones et al. (2012) and Andersen et al. (2014) found no differences in muscle activity between exercises.

Similarly, comparing the back squat and the split squat, both Jones et al. (2012) and DeForest et al. (2014) found no differences between conditions (with the same relative and adjusted absolute loads, respectively).

Comparing the back squat and the leg press, Escamilla et al. (2001b) found that there was no difference in muscle activity between the squat and the leg press.

Comparing the back squat and the forward lunge, Stuart et al. (1996) noted that the forward lunge displayed lower muscle activity than either the front or back squat.

Finally, comparing the back squat and sled push, Maddigan et al. (2014) compared a 10RM back squat with a 20 step maximum sled push and found that the squat displayed superior muscle activity to the sled during the maximal tests.

Comparing the back squat and the split squat, DeForest et al. (2014) found no differences between exercise variations (using the same adjusted absolute loads).

Comparing the back squat with sled pulling, Okkonen and Häkkinen (2013) reported that peak ground reaction forces with 70 % of half squat 1RM were greater than during either block starts or sled pulling with loads of 10 % or 20 % of bodyweight.

Comparing the back squat with the forward lunge, Stuart et al. (1996) noted that the forward lunge displayed higher muscle activity than either the front or back squat (albeit using the same absolute load).

Comparing the back squat and the split squat (with the same relative loads), both McCurdy et al. (2010) and Andersen et al. (2014) found that the split squat displayed greater muscle activity than the back squat.

Comparing the back squat and sled push, Maddigan et al. (2014) compared a 10RM back squat with a 20 step maximum sled push and found that the sled displayed superior muscle activity to the squat during the maximal tests.

Comparing the back squat and box squat, Swinton et al. (2012) found that rate of force development was 3 — 4 times greater during the box squat variation than during the traditional and powerlifting squat variations.

Andersen et al. (2005) compared the back squat, smith machine squat and the back squat performed on two unstable balance disks with loads equal to 60 % of the individuals body mass.

Assessing the phase of movement, Escamilla et al. (2001) compared the back squat performed with either a narrow or wide (1 vs. 2 times hip width) stance with loads equal to the 12RM.

Assessing the effect of exercise, Aspe and Swinton et al. (2014) compared the back squat and overhead squat performed with relative loads of 60, 75 and 90 % of the 3RM.

Assessing stance width, Escamilla et al. (2001) compared the back squat with stance widths equal to 1 and 2.0 times hip width with loads equal to the 12RM and found that the narrow stance produced superior gastrocnemius muscle activity compared to the wide stance during the back squat.

Assessing the effect of technique, Deforest et al. (2014) compared the back squat performed with loads equal to 85 % of 1RM and the split squat and rear foot elevated split squat performed with 50 % of the back squat load.

Comparing back squats and squats with a cambered bar, Lander et al. (1986) found no differences in ground reaction forces (with the same relative loads).

A recent study published in The Journal Of Sports Medicine And Physical Fitness compared the back squat and the leg press,...

Comparing compound exercises, Willardson et al. (2009) compared the back squat, conventional deadlift, barbell curl, and standing barbell press performed with 50 % and 75 % of 1RM.

Similarly, Bellon et al. (2013) compared the back squat and rear foot elevated split squat, again with the split squat load being 50 % of the back squat load.

Similarly, Willardson et al. (2009) compared the back squat with 50 % of 1RM both when standing on the floor and when standing on a BOSU ball and also found no difference between conditions.

Similarly, Andersen et al. (2014) compared the back squat and split squat with the same relative loads (6RM) and also found no difference in erector spinae muscle activity between conditions.

McBride et al. (2010) compared the back squat performed with loads of 70, 80 90, and 100 % of 1RM using stable and unstable conditions.

Not exact matches

Irrespective of why you might choose to perform front squats instead of back squats, placing the bar on the front of your shoulders compared to the back changes the entire feel of the exercise and variation alone, the front squat is a great addition to your training tool box.

Also, the front squat encourages or, rather, insists on a much more upright torso position which means that your lower back is under much less stress compared to back squats.

When the researchers compared the effects of a 7 - week weightlifting training which included classics such as the deadlift, clean and jerk, military press and back squat, and the effects of a 7 - week strongman training that involved exercises such as log lift, farmer's walk and heavy sled pull, it was evident that the athletes who performed strongman exercises gained slightly more muscle and had similar increases in strength and power as the weightlifting group.

Compared to a standard back squat, deadlift, or clean and jerk, a complex is unique: You perform a series of movements without rest, one move transitioning fluidly — but still with perfect form — into the next.

Compared to back squats, front squats cause less stress and compressive forces and are a lot easier on the shoulders.

Most common is the Barbell Overhead Squat, where you hold the barbell right over your head, compared to the Back Squat, where the barbell position is on your back or the Front Squat where the barbell position is on the front of your shouldBack Squat, where the barbell position is on your back or the Front Squat where the barbell position is on the front of your shouldback or the Front Squat where the barbell position is on the front of your shoulders.

The ankles or ankle mobility are actually a crucial for the Overhead Squat because the bar is overhead and you are required to keep your body more upright as compared to a Front Squat or Back Squat.

With the rising popularity of sled training, the study's authors wanted to see how the exercise compared to the king of leg exercises, the barbell back squat.

Do a back squat and you're going to have to strip off all that weight and now you might be only doing three to four hundred pounds on a backsquat, compared to the sixteen hundred or two thousand you could do on a leg press because now the back has to transmit the load.

It's always great to see the progress the guys are making if we compare the current video of the Back Squat from Niek Kimmann to a previous video Back Squat Niek Kimmann 135 kg

Front squats are typically viewed as just a leg exercise, but if you've ever learned to do a proper front squat, you'll feel a tremendous stabilization tension required in your abs due to the weight being shifting more to the front of your body compared to the back as in back squats.

Comparing differences between legs during the back squat, Flanagan and Salem (2007) found that peak knee flexion angles displayed bilateral differences, with the right side achieving a more acute angle than the left side.

They report that the lateral gastrocnemius displayed superior muscle activity during the concentric upward phase of the back squat at 75 and 90 % of 1RM when compared to the same relative load in the overhead squat.

Comparing free weight and machine squats, while some researchers have reported lower erector spinae muscle activity in the Smith machine squat than in the free weight back squat, with both the same absolute (Anderson and Behm, 2005) and relative (Fletcher and Bagley, 2014) loads, Schwanbeck et al. (2009) found no differences (using the same relative loads).

Comparing squat variations, Russell and Phillips (1989) reported that peak hip extensor moments were greater during the back squat than in the front squat, even when each variation was performed to a standardized depth and with the same relative load.

Gutierrez and Bahamonde (2009) found that peak ankle angle was more acute during a free weight back squat compared to a Smith machine squat.

Comparing the back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton (2014) found that the back squat displayed greater ground reaction forces to the overhead squat with the same relative load but similar ground reaction forces when using the same absolute load.

Comparing the box squat and back squat, McBride et al. (2010) reported that the box squat displayed greater ground reaction forces than the traditional squat with 70 % of 1RM (but not 60 % or 80 % of 1RM), when using the same absolute load.

Comparing back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton (2014) found that muscle activity was greater in the overhead squat than in the back squat (with the same relative loads).