The Effect of Stance on Muscle Activation in the Squat

This article will compare research into the effect of altering stance width
on muscle activation during the squat.
Introduction
The squat is performed in Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting, and is
also a movement applicable to many athletes and sporting groups
(Contreras et al., 2016). It is a multi joint knee and hip extensor exercise
comprising three distinct phases: the start position, the descent and the
ascent (Cissik, 2011).
Muscle Activation
During the squat, several muscle groups are recruited, including the
gluteus maximus, hamstrings, quadriceps, erector spinae, abdominals and
gastrocnemius (Almosnino et al., 2013; Cissik, 2011). To successfully
execute the exercise, the hips flex eccentrically in conjunction with the
gluteus maximus and hamstrings, while the quadriceps work eccentrically
at the knee and the lower leg works eccentrically at the ankle (McCaw and
Melrose, 1999). In the concentric phase, the muscles shorten and the
athlete rises to the start position (van der Tillaar 2015).
When a muscle activates, the muscle fibres are innervated by motor
neurons and transmit electrochemical signals to the muscle from the
spinal cord (Baechle and Earle, 2008). Analysis of the muscle movements
and activity can be achieved using electromyography (EMG). This method
is commonly used to quantify the electrical activity of the muscles by
placing electrodes on the skin or inserting them into the muscles
(DeForest et al., 2014; McCaw and Melrose, 1999).
Variations of the Squat Exercise
There are numerous squat techniques, examples of which include the
bodyweight squat, the back squat, the front squat and the parallel squat.
Each squat technique can be performed in a variety of ways and many
believe that altering limb positions or joint angles will change the specific
muscle activation (Anderson et al., 1998; Murray et al., 2013; Stoutenberg
et al., 2005).
One such way to modify these exercises is to alter the foot position
(Stoutenberg et al. 2005). This can be achieved by varying the stance
width, which aims to isolate different muscles during the activity (Riley et
al., 2007).
Research

Research conducted by Anderson et al. (1998) aimed to determine

whether widening the stance at varying ranges of knee flexion would
better align the vastus medialis oblique (VMO) and vastus lateralis (VL)
muscles of the quadriceps to create a biomechanical advantage.
Electrodes were placed over the VMO and VL muscles of the right leg of
fifteen healthy subjects, who performed unloaded squats at narrow and
wide stances and with knee flexion of 30, 60 and 90.
The results were analysed using paired T tests. The mean EMG activity of
the VMO:VL ratios were as follows:
Angle
30
60
90

Narrow
Stance
0.797
0.928
1.065

Wide Stance
0.803
0.969
0.988

Whilst VMO activity increased when the knee flexion angle increased from
30 to 60 and again to 90, the study reported no significant differences
in the VMO and VL activity between the wide and narrow stances
(Anderson et al, 1998). This corresponds with research by Signorile et al.
(1995), which suggests that there is no variance in quadriceps muscle
activation when altering the foot position during a barbell squat.
A study by McCaw and Melrose (1999) produced similar results; no
connection was found between changes in the stance width and activation
of the quadriceps. Nine male lifters performed the back squat at 75% and
140% of shoulder width and with a bar load of 60% and 75% of their 1-RM.
EMG surface data was collected for the rectus femoris, VMO, VL, adductor
longus, gluteus maximus and biceps femoris. Results suggested that
although there was variation in the activation of the biceps femoris and
gluteus maximus with changes to the stance width, these were not as
significant as increased bar load (McCaw and Melrose, 1999).
Paoli et al. (2009) measured the activation of eight thigh muscles during
the back squat in three different stances. Experienced lifters performed
the back squat with no load, at 30% of 1-RM and at 70% of 1-RM, with
EMG surface electrodes placed on the muscles. The only significant
difference in EMG activity observed was in the gluteus maximus, which
was highest at maximum stance width and a load of 70% of 1-RM. This
study reported that a stance twice and one-and-a-half times the distance
between the hips produces a significantly increased activation of the
gluteus maximus than a shoulder width stance.
Conclusion

With the exception of Paoli et al. (2009), none of the above research
produced statistically significant findings when comparing the EMG activity
of the muscles in different stance positions. This is in contrast to theories
that claim it is possible to isolate different muscles at different stance
widths. While Paoli et al (2009) and McCaw and Melrose (1999) found that
a wider stance increased the EMG activity of the gluteus maximus, it was
noted that the load effect was a more significant factor than the stance
width (McCaw and Melrose, 1999; Paoli et al., 2009).
It is also important to note that the above research used varying bar loads;
subjects of the Anderson et al. (1998) study used unloaded squats, McCaw
and Melrose (1999) at 60% and 75% of their 1-RM and Paoli et al. (2009)
with no load, 30% of 1-RM and 70% of 1RM. Given that both Paoli et al.
(2009) and McCaw and Melrose (1999) saw significant results with greater
loads, this may be a reason that the other research was not consistent
with these findings.
Variability in results can also occur from the methods used to monitor the
muscle activity (McCaw and Melrose, 1999). However, all the studies used
EMG surface electrodes to gather data, which suggests that this factor can
be excluded when assessing differences. Another inconsistency across the
research was the type of squat analysed; Anderson et al. (1998) used the
bodyweight squat, Paoli et al. (2009) the back squat, McCaw and Melrose
(1999) the parallel squat and Signorile et al. (1995) the barbell squat.
However, research conducted by Contreras et al. (2016) suggest this may
not be significant, as their study comparing EMG amplitude in the parallel,
full and front squats found no significant differences.
Given the results of the studies discussed, it can be suggested that
individuals may position themselves in the stance they find to be the most
comfortable to perform the squat, as stance width does not appear to
have a significant effect on the activation of the muscles (Almosnino et al.,
2013; Anderson et al., 1998; McCaw and Melrose, 1999; Paoli et al., 2009).
If, however, isolating the gluteus maximum is a training aim, then a wider
stance width may achieve this.

Reference List
Almosnino, A., Kingston, D. and Graham, R.B. (2013) Three-Dimensional
Knee Joint Movements During Performance of the Bodyweight Squat: Effect
of Stance Width and Foot Rotation. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. Vol.
29: 33-43. [Online] Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=4&sid=ed35a7a3-fd65-4c8b-a79ed1bb01f589a8%40sessionmgr104&hid=103 [accessed 30 May 2016]

Anderson, R., Courtney, C. and Carmeli, E. (1998) EMG Analysis of the

Vastus Medialis/Vastus Lateralis Muscles Utilizing the Unloaded Narrowand Wide-Stance Squats.. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. Vol. 7, No. 4: 236248. [Online] Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ed35a7a3-fd654c8b-a79e-d1bb01f589a8%40sessionmgr104&vid=14&hid=103bv bv
[accessed 2 June 2016]
Baechle, T. and Earle, R. (2008) Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. (3rd ed.) Leeds: Human Kinetics.
Cissik, J. (2011). Back Squat Exercise: A Primer. Modern Athlete & Coach.
Vol. 1. No. 9; 29-31.
Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cronin, J.
(2016) A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus
Lateralis Electromyography Amplitude in the Parallel, Full, and Front Squat
Variations in Resistance-Trained Females. Journal of Applied Biomechanics.
Vol. 32: 16-22. [Online] Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=1&sid=567a9829-dd1c-454b-a2e3488ae78441d8%40sessionmgr104&hid=108 [accessed 5 June 2016]
DeForest, B., Cantrell, G. and Schilling, K. (2014). Muscle Activity in Singlevs. Double-Leg Squats. International Journal of Exercise Science . Vol. 7. No.
4; 302-310.
McCaw, S. and Melrose, D. (1999) Stance width and bar load effects on leg
muscle activity during the parallel squat. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise. Vol. 31, No. 3: 428- 436. Available from:
http://www.castonline.ilstu.edu/McCaw/HPR482/EMGREAD_files/4540%20M
cCaw%20and%20Melrose%20squat%20EMG.pdf [accessed 30 May 2016]
Murray, N., Cipriani, D., O'Rand, D. and Reed-Jones, R. (2013) Effects of
Foot Position during Squatting on the Quadriceps Femoris: An
Electromyographic Study. International Journal of Exercise Science. Vol. 6,
No. 2: 114-126. [Online] Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=24&sid=ed35a7a3-fd65-4c8b-a79ed1bb01f589a8%40sessionmgr104&hid=103 [accessed 2 June 2016]
Paoli, A., Marcolin, G. and Petrone, N. (2009) The effect of stance width on
the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles during
back squat with different bar loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. Vol. 23, No. 1: 246-250. [Online] Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=ed35a7a3-fd654c8b-a79e-

d1bb01f589a8%40sessionmgr104&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxp
dmU%3d#AN=edselc.2-52.0-68249149218&db=edselc [accessed 2 June
2016]
Riley, Z.A., Terry, M.A., Mendez-Vilanueva, A., Litsey, J.C. and Enoka, R.M.
(2008) Motor unit recruitmetn and bursts of activity in the surface
electromyogram during a sustained contraction. Muscle & Nerve. Vol. 37,
No. 6: 745-753. [Online] Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=ed35a7a3-fd654c8b-a79ed1bb01f589a8%40sessionmgr104&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxp
dmU%3d#AN=edselc.2-52.0-42149193307&db=edselc [accessed 2 June
2016]
Signorile, J.F., Kacsik, D., Perry, A., Robertson, B., Williams, R. and
Lowensteyn, I. (1995) The effect of knee and foot position on the EMG
activity of the superficial quadriceps. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports
Physical Therapy. Vol. 22, No. 1: 2-9. [Online] Available from:
http://www.jospt.org/doi/pdf/10.2519/jospt.1995.22.1.2 [accessed 4 June
2016]
Stoutenberg, M., Pluchino, A.P., Fangchao, M.A., Hoctor, J.E. and Signorile,
J.F. (2005) The impact of foot position on electromyographical activity of
the superficial quadriceps muscles during leg extension. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. Vol. 19, No. 4: 931-939. [Online]
Available from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=29&sid=ed35a7a3-fd65-4c8b-a79ed1bb01f589a8%40sessionmgr104&hid=103 [accessed 2 June 2016]
van der Tillaar, R. (2015). Kinematics and Muscle Activation Around the
Sticking Region in Free-Weight Barbell Back Squats. Kinesiologia Slovenica.
Vol 21. No. 1; 15-25.