A BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL SQUAT, POWERLIFTING SQUAT, AND BOX SQUAT
A BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL SQUAT, POWERLIFTING SQUAT, AND BOX SQUAT
复制标题
DOI：
10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182577067
复制
发表时间：
2012-07-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Stewart, Arthur D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Swinton, Paul A.;Lloyd, Ray;Stewart, Arthur D.
Swinton，PA，Lloyd，R，Keogh，JWL，Agouris，I，and Stewart，AD.传统深蹲、举重深蹲与方块深蹲之生物力学比较。J Strength Cond Res 26（7）：1805-1816，2012。本研究的目的是比较生物力学的传统蹲与2个流行的运动变化，通常被称为举重蹲和方块蹲。12名男性举重运动员进行了30，50和70%的测量1重复最大值（1 RM）的练习，并指示尽可能快地举起负荷。逆动力学和空间跟踪的外部阻力被用来量化生物力学变量。一系列显着的运动学和动力学差异（p < 0.05）之间出现的演习。传统的深蹲是以狭窄的姿势进行的，而举重深蹲和箱式深蹲是以相似的宽姿势进行的（分别为48.3 +/- 3.8，89.6 +/- 4.9，92.1 +/- 5.1 cm）。在传统下蹲的偏心阶段，膝盖经过脚趾，导致系统质心（COM）向前位移。相反，在举重深蹲和箱式深蹲期间，保持更垂直的胫骨位置，导致系统COM的后移位。这些线性位移的差异对许多峰值关节力矩有显著影响（p < 0.05），在脊柱和踝关节测量的影响最大。对于两个关节，最大的峰值力矩产生在传统的深蹲，其次是举重深蹲，然后方块深蹲。在髋关节处也观察到显著差异（p < 0.05），在举重深蹲期间，所有3个平面中产生的最大力矩。教练员和运动员应该意识到蹲姿变化之间的生物力学差异，并根据最符合训练目标的运动学和动力学特征进行选择。
Swinton, PA, Lloyd, R, Keogh, JWL, Agouris, I, and Stewart, AD. A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat, powerlifting squat, and box squat. J Strength Cond Res 26(7): 1805-1816, 2012. 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.