» Articles » PMID: 22505136

A Biomechanical Comparison of the Traditional Squat, Powerlifting Squat, and Box Squat

Overview
Specialty Physiology
Date 2012 Apr 17
PMID 22505136
Citations 46
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanics of the traditional squat with 2 popular exercise variations commonly referred to as the powerlifting squat and box squat. Twelve male powerlifters performed the exercises with 30, 50, and 70% of their measured 1 repetition maximum (1RM), with instruction to lift the loads as fast as possible. Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify biomechanical variables. A range of significant kinematic and kinetic differences (p < 0.05) emerged between the exercises. The traditional squat was performed with a narrow stance, whereas the powerlifting squat and box squat were performed with similar wide stances (48.3 ± 3.8, 89.6 ± 4.9, 92.1 ± 5.1 cm, respectively). During the eccentric phase of the traditional squat, the knee traveled past the toes resulting in anterior displacement of the system center of mass (COM). In contrast, during the powerlifting squat and box squat, a more vertical shin position was maintained, resulting in posterior displacements of the system COM. These differences in linear displacements had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on a number of peak joint moments, with the greatest effects measured at the spine and ankle. For both joints, the largest peak moment was produced during the traditional squat, followed by the powerlifting squat, then box squat. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were also noted at the hip joint where the largest moment in all 3 planes were produced during the powerlifting squat. Coaches and athletes should be aware of the biomechanical differences between the squatting variations and select according to the kinematic and kinetic profile that best match the training goals.

Citing Articles

Identifying the Primary Kinetic Factors Influencing the Anterior-Posterior Center of Mass Displacement in Barbell Squats: A Factor Regression Analysis.

Chen D, Sun D, Li F, Wang D, Zhou Z, Gao Z Sensors (Basel). 2025; 25(2).

PMID: 39860942 PMC: 11769179. DOI: 10.3390/s25020572.


Instantaneous self-recovery and ultra-low detection limit hydrogel electronic sensor for temporomandibular disorders intelligent diagnosis.

Yan Y, Yu L, Zhang X, Han Q, Yang Z, Lu X Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):839.

PMID: 39833158 PMC: 11747250. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-55996-7.


Injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting: an updated systematic review.

Tung M, Lantz G, Lopes A, Berglund L BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024; 10(4):e001884.

PMID: 39650568 PMC: 11624822. DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001884.


Addressing Biomechanical Errors in the Back Squat for Older Adults: A Clinical Perspective for Maintaining Neutral Spine and Knee Alignment.

Papadakis Z, Stamatis A, Almajid R, Appiah-Kubi K, Smith M, Parnes N J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2024; 9(4).

PMID: 39584877 PMC: 11587132. DOI: 10.3390/jfmk9040224.


Kinematic analysis of the back squat at different load intensities in powerlifters and weightlifters.

Giustino V, Vicari D, Figlioli F, Gervasi M, Fernandez Pena E, Schifaudo N Front Sports Act Living. 2024; 6:1454309.

PMID: 39553375 PMC: 11565377. DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1454309.