EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1RM ESTIMATION
METHOD BASED ON ISOMETRIC SQUAT USING
A BACK-DYNAMOMETER
SHINICH DEMURA,1 KAZUYOSHI MIYAGUCHI,2 SOHEE SHIN,3
1
Kanazawa University Graduate School of Natural Science & Technology, Kakuma, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan; 2Ishikawa
Prefectural University, Suematsu, Nonoichimachi, Ishikawa, Japan; 3Kanazawa University Graduate School of Natural
Science & Technology, Kakuma, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan; and 4Kanazawa University Graduate School of Natural Science
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3GqhOzspyl8wzdGoAiDZ01O7wS0wi3nF9yoH0dTlOfgg= on 06/05/2020
& Technology, Kakuma, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan
ABSTRACT
Demura, S, Miyaguchi, K, Shin, S, and Uchida, Y. Effectiveness of
the 1RM estimation method based on isometric squat using a back-
dynamometer. J Strength Cond Res 24(10): 2742–2748,
2010—This study aimed to clarify the relationships between
isometric squat (IS) using a back dynamometer and 1 repetition
maximum (1RM) squat for maximum force and muscle activities and
to examine the effectiveness of a 1RM estimation method based on
IS. The subjects were 15 young men with weight training
experience (mean age 20.7 6 0.8 years, mean height 171.3 6
4.4 cm, mean weight 64.4 6 8.4 kg). They performed the IS with
various stance widths and squat depths. The measured data of
exerted maximum force and the action potential of the agonist
muscles were compared with the 1RM squat data. The exerted
maximum force during IS was significantly larger in wide stance
(140% shoulder width) than in narrow stance (5-cm width). The
maximum force was significantly larger with decreased knee flexion.
As for muscle activity, the % root mean square value of muscle
electric potential of the rectus femoris and the vastus lateralis
tended to be higher in wide stance. As for exerted maximum force,
wide stance and parallel depth in IS showed a significant and high
correlation (r = 0.73) with 1RM squat. Simple linear regression
analysis revealed a significant estimated regression equation [Y =
0.992X + 30.3 (Y:1RM, X:IS)]. However, the standard error of an
estimate value obtained by the regression equation was very large
(11.19 kg). In conclusion, IS with wide stance and parallel depth
may be useful for the estimation of 1RM squat. However, estimating
a 1RM by IS using a back dynamometer may be difficult.
KEY WORDS 1RM squat, isometric, back dynamometer,
estimation method
Address correspondence to Kazuyoshi Miyaguchi, kazu1060@lapis.
plala.or.jp.
24(10)/2742–2748
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
2742 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND YU UCHIDA4
INTRODUCTION
T
he squat is a representative training method to
improve muscular strength of lower limbs and is
a useful index of lower muscle strength (2,6,8,9,25).
When performing a squat, we must know the
1 repetition maximum (1RM: the greatest amount of weight
that can be lifted with proper technique for only 1 repetition)
to establish an exercise program or to evaluate strength.
Because the 1RM test does not require expensive equipment
and reflects dynamic strength, which is necessary in
competitive sports, most strength and conditioning profes-
sionals have used it as a maximal strength test.
Until now, the direct measurement technique or the
indirect measurement technique has been used to detect
personal 1RM. The former examines the maximum weight
that can be lifted once. On the other hand, the latter estimates
1RM from the repetition number based on the %1RM–
repetition relationship by using arbitrary submaximal weight
(4). Because the direct measurement technique uses a heavy
weight, the risk of injury is high. In particular, when persons
without regular training experience lift weights .90%1RM,
their posture becomes unstable (16). As for the indirect
measurement technique, results differ with the tested
muscles. For instance, resistance-trained athletes may be
able to exceed the number of repetitions usually listed in the
table at any given percent of their 1RM, especially in lower-
body core exercise (10,11). On the other hand, subjects may
not be able to perform as many repetitions of exercises
involving smaller muscle areas (21,24).
Blazevich et al. (3) reported that isometric squat (IS) with
an isometric rack showed significant and high correlation
(r = 0.77) with 1RM squat. Hence, we hypothesized that
although muscular contraction styles differ, IS is an effective
index to estimate a 1RM squat. However, because Blazevich
et al. (3) used a large-scaled measurement approach with
a force plate, it is difficult to use it in a real training scenario.
Therefore, we devised a method using a back dynamometer
to measure squat ability easily. Because the back dynamom-
eter is relatively cheap and generally available, using it for
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

a field test may be useful. In particular, the above method

may be a useful index of muscle strength for young people
without weight training experience. TABLE 1. Physical characteristics (n = 15).
However, the back dynamometer was not designed to M SD
measure an IS squat. Hence, when performing an IS while
shouldering a shaft connected to a back dynamometer, the Age (y) 20.7 0.8
movement may differ from a real squat movement. Thus, we Height (cm) 171.3 4.4
Weight (kg) 64.4 8.4
need to examine relationships between the IS using a back
Training experience (y) 2.7 1.6
dynamometer and the 1RM squat for maximum force and Squat 1RM (kg) 99.1 15.7
muscle activities.
There have been several reports comparing different forms of
squats (5,7,13,18,20,22,23,27). For example, Caterisano et al. (5)
reported that in deep knee flexion, the relative contribution of
the gluteus maximus is high. Additionally, Wretenberg et al.
(28) stated that it is necessary to squat down until reaching
a parallel position (the front of thighs are parallel to the ground)
to place a large dynamic burden on the leg muscle groups. Also,
they reported that exerted maximum force and muscle groups
stimulated by the movement forms may differ. However, for IS,
there has been little examination of the influence of different
movement forms on maximum force and muscle activities.
When considering the practical application of the 1RM
estimation method using IS, maximum force and muscle
activities in a similar measurement posture will be necessary.
This study aimed to clarify the relationships between IS and
1RM squat for maximum force and muscle activities and to
examine the effectiveness of the 1RM estimation method
based on IS. Figure1. Measuring equipment.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the
Problem
The maximum force exerted
and muscle groups stimulated
by a squatting movement may
differ. Thus, when considering
the practical application of the
1RM estimation method using
IS, we need to examine relation-
ships between IS using a back
dynamometer and a real 1RM
squat for maximum force and
muscle activities. We examined
the differences of the above
measurements in both condi-
tions of stance width and squat
depth. Furthermore, a regres-
sion equation to estimate
a 1RM squat value was calcu-
lated from the IS value.

Subjects
The subjects were 15 young
men with weight training expe- Figure 2. Schematic representation of experimental setup.
rience. Table 1 shows their

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2743

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1RM Estimation Based on Isometric Squat

was affixed to the ankle extramalleolus. Electromyographic

TABLE 2. Reliability (ICC) of maximum force exerted
by each stance of isometric squat.*
Wide Narrow
Parallel 0.94 0.95
90° 0.96 0.96
60° 0.98 0.97
30° 0.94 0.95
*ICC = intracorrelation coefficient.
physical characteristics. They were selected from the
following sports backgrounds: baseball [11], soccer [3], and
rugby [1]. They performed sports training and resistance
training 2–4 times per week. They had been training for .2
years, but their mean 1RM squat was 99.1 6 15.7 kg (1.53
times of the weight). Informed consent was obtained from all
subjects after giving a full explanation of the experimental
study and its procedures. This study was approved by the
Human Rights Committee of Kanazawa University.
Experimental Procedure
The subjects performed a moderate warm-up after measure-
ment of height and weight. After affixing electrodes for
a surface electromyographic (EMG) measurement, they
performed 1RM squat and IS. The order of both measure-
ments was random.
To measure action potential of the agonist during both
squats, we adopted an EMG measure (SYNA ACT MT11)
made in NEC SANEISYA. As test muscles, gastrocnemius,
vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, adductor longus, biceps
femoris, gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, and erector spinae
muscles were selected in reference to previous studies
(13,20,23) that examined muscle activity during squatting.
For a bipolar lead, surface electrodes were affixed around
the muscle belly of each muscle with about 50-mm space
between the electrodes after shaving the skin surface,
abrading, and cleaning with alcohol. The ground electrode
signals in each trial were recorded continuously after A/D
conversion at 1,000 Hz. The EMG signals were amplified,
band-pass filtered (.10 Hz) and converted to root mean
square (RMS) in every 1-second section. In addition, the
muscle activity in IS was evaluated by the relative value of
RMS during 1RM squat as a standard.
One Repetition Maximum Squat
To unify squat posture, the 1RM test was performed with
a parallel toe and a parallel squat depth (i.e., the thigh fronts
were parallel to the ground). The subjects with poor flexibility
could squat with a parallel condition in a wide stance of 140%
width of the shoulders. After confirming that the thigh front
was parallel to the floor, a tester sent a signal to a subject. The
1RM test was performed according to the more convenient
Manabe et al.’s method (16). In short, when increasing weight
by 2.5 kg from the load that a subject reported himself, the
weight that he could not lift was decided to be 1RM. Subjects
warmed up with light weight load before the measurement.
The 1RM test was performed twice after sufficient rest, and
the best data were used for the analysis.
Isometric Squat
The IS was measured by a back dynamometer (YAGAMI).
A connection chain and a shaft were installed in a wooden
platform (Figure 1). The subjects lifted a shaft on the margo
superior scapulae of shoulders. The direction of the toes was
parallel. The degree of knee flexion (squat depth) and stance
width were prescribed. Four patterns of knee flexion degree
(30°, 60°, 90°, and parallel) were selected in reference to
previous studies (20,28). The stance width was either wide
(140% width of the shoulders) or narrow (5-cm width), based
on the reports of Steven and Donald (23) and Escamilla and
Zheng (7).
The hip joint angle was prescribed at 60°. The subject lifted
the shaft that was installed to the back dynamometer on his
shoulders after taking the measurement posture and performed
IS (Figure 2). We regarded the maximum value shown by the
back dynamometer as the IS value on this occasion. The subject
performed IS twice with each movement form, and the mean

TABLE 3. Summary of 2-way ANOVA on the differences of exerted maximum force by various conditions.*†

Two-way Post hoc, Bonferroni

30° 60° 90° Parallel ANOVA squat depth Stance

Wide 0.95 6 0.13 0.87 6 0.13 0.76 6 0.12 0.70 6 0.08 F1 8.34‡ Par, 90 , 60 , 30 W.N
Narrow 0.84 6 0.15 0.79 6 0.14 0.70 6 0.13 0.68 6 0.13 F2 45.77‡
F3 2.29

*F1 = stance; F2 = squat depth; F3 = interaction; W = wide; N = narrow; Par = parallel; ANOVA = analysis of variance.
†Values show relative values of isometric squat for 1RM squat.
‡ p # 0.05

the TM

2744 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 TABLE 4. Summary of 2-way ANOVA on the difference of muscle activity RMS.*

Post hoc,
Two-way Bonferroni
30° 60° 90° Parallel ANOVA Squat depth Stance

Gastrocnemius Wide 1.34 6 0.71 1.04 6 0.44 0.91 6 0.30 0.84 6 0.27 F1 5.05† ns W.N
Narrow 1.07 6 0.51 1.00 6 0.44 0.74 6 0.21 0.76 6 0.23 F2 6.96†
F3 1.56
Vastus Wide 0.22 6 0.09 0.49 6 0.15 0.62 6 0.14 0.69 6 0.15 F1 10.66† W, N: Par, Par, 90,
lateralis 90 . 60 . 30 60: W . N
Narrow 0.21 6 0.10 0.40 6 0.16 0.56 6 0.11 0.57 6 0.14 F2 72.55†
F3 3.27†
Rectus Wide 0.11 6 0.06 0.28 6 0.11 0.46 6 0.17 0.58 6 0.13 F1 10.53† W, N: Par, Par, 60:
femoris 90 . 60 . 30 W.N
Narrow 0.12 6 0.06 0.21 6 0.09 0.39 6 0.11 0.45 6 0.15 F2 74.23†
F3 3.56†
Adductor Wide 0.31 6 0.20 0.50 6 0.14 0.75 6 0.17 0.91 6 0.17 F1 1.15 Par . 90 . ns
longus 60 . 30
Narrow 0.30 6 0.14 0.51 6 0.17 0.84 6 0.23 0.95 6 0.28 F2 54.53†
F3 0.67
the

Biceps Wide 0.87 6 0.39 1.05 6 0.44 0.95 6 0.43 0.80 6 0.35 F1 0.06 N: 60 . 90 30, ns
femoris 60, 90 . Par
Narrow 1.09 6 0.56 1.13 6 0.59 0.84 6 0.45 0.66 6 0.38 F2 7.46†
F3 5.61†
Gluteus Wide 0.61 6 0.37 0.86 6 0.30 0.95 6 0.34 0.78 6 0.25 F1 5.17† 60, 90 . 30 W.N
maximus Narrow 0.54 6 0.38 0.75 6 0.33 0.76 6 0.31 0.70 6 0.39 F2 7.68†
F3 0.58
Gluteus Wide 0.78 6 0.42 0.85 6 0.41 0.74 6 0.41 0.62 6 0.41 F1 1.38 ns ns
medius Narrow 0.65 6 0.48 0.79 6 0.49 0.66 6 0.52 0.57 6 0.55 F2 2.40
F3 0.14
Erector spinae Wide 0.73 6 0.24 0.85 6 0.22 0.94 6 0.32 0.95 6 0.22 F1 6.62† ns W.N
muscles Narrow 0.72 6 0.26 0.75 6 0.16 0.78 6 0.15 0.80 6 0.18 F2 4.76†
F3 1.51
*ANOVA = analysis of variance; RMS = root mean square; F1 = stance; F2 = squat depth; F3 = interaction; W = wide; N = narrow; Par = parallel; ns = nonsignificant.
†p # 0.05
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
TM

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 |

2745
| www.nsca-jscr.org

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1RM Estimation Based on Isometric Squat
TABLE 5. Correlations between maximum force
exerted in isometric squat and 1RM squat.
Wide Narrow
Parallel 0.73* 0.29
90° 0.52* 0.34
60° 0.56* 0.39
30° 0.66* 0.30
*p # 0.05.
value was adopted. The measurement order of each movement
form was random, and the rest between trials was 3 minutes.
Instructions such as ‘‘Keep the same posture’’ and ‘‘Do not
incline the whole body’’ were given to subjects.
Statistical Analysis
The reliability of measurement values exerted by various
squat tests was examined by intracorrelation coefficient
(ICC). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA;stance width
and squat depth) was used to reveal the mean difference of
maximum force and muscle activity during IS with each
movement form. The post hoc comparisons were made using
Bonferroni’s method, which adjusts the level of significance a
by comparison number. The relationships between 1RM
squat and IS for maximum force were examined using
Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Statistical significance was
set at p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the reliability (ICC) of maximum force exerted by
each movement form of IS. All ICCs were .0.90. Table 3 shows
the results of 2 factor ANOVA on the difference of the
maximum force exerted by squatting with each movement
form. There was no significant interaction and a significant main
effect was found in stance width and knee flexure degree. Post
hoc comparisons showed that maximum force in the wide
stance was significantly larger than that in the narrow stance. As
for knee flexure degree, there was no significant difference
between exerted forces at the parallel and 90° positions, but the
force was significantly larger with decreasing knee flexion
(parallel, 90 , 60 , 30).
Table 4 shows the results of 2 factor ANOVA on the
difference of muscle activity RMS exerted by IS with each
movement form. There were significant differences in
gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, gluteus
maximus, and erector spinae muscles, and the wide stance
showed a higher value than the narrow stance. A marked
difference was found particularly in the vastus lateralis and
rectus femoris. In gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, rectus
femoris, adductor longus, gluteus maximus, and erector
spinae muscles, muscle activity tended to increase with
the TM
2746 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 3. Correlations between isometric squat and 1RM squats for
maximum force in wide stance and parallel conditions.
increasing knee flexion. On the other hand, the muscle
activity of the biceps femoris increased with decreasing squat
depth.
Table 5 shows correlations between maximum force
exerted in IS and 1RM squats. All knee flexion degrees of
IS showed significant and moderate correlations (r = 0.52–
0.73) with 1RM squat in the wide stance but not in the
narrow stance. Figure 3 shows the correlations between IS
and 1RM squats for maximum force in wide stance and
parallel conditions. The person with a high value in IS tended
to have higher 1RM. A regression equation to estimate
a 1RM squat value was calculated from the IS value, Y =
0.992X + 30.3 (Y: 1RM, X: IS). The standard error of the
estimation was 11.19 kg.
DISCUSSION
The squat is one of the most popular and important exercises
for developing leg strength and power and has been
commonly included in strength training and conditioning
or rehabilitation programs (1,26). The squat can stimulate
various muscles by changing movement form and direction
(7,13,18,20,22,23,27). However, there are few reports of the
influence of movement form on maximum force and muscle
activity during IS. Hence, we examined the difference of the
above measurements in both conditions of stance width and
squat depth.
Maximum force during IS was significantly larger in the
wide stance than in the narrow stance. Steven and Donald
(23) reported that muscle activity of the adductor longus and
gluteus maximus was significantly larger in the wide stance
than in the normal and narrow stances. Also in this study, the
wide stance showed larger muscle activities than the narrow
stance in gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris,
gluteus maximus, and erector spinae muscles. In particular,
because marked differences were found in the vastus lateralis
and the rectus femoris, an agonist muscle of knee extension, it
is inferred that the wide stance has a larger maximum force
than the narrow stance.

In addition, the maximum force tended to increase with
depthless knee flexion degree. This can be explained by the
relationship between joint angle and torque. All body
movements including a straight one take place by means of
rotation of joints, and exerted muscular strength appears as
torque. Therefore, the amount of torque that can be exerted
by a given body joint varies considerably throughout the
motion range of the joint. This may be explained by the
relationship of force vs. muscle length and the ever-changing
leverage brought about by the dynamic geometry of the
muscles, tendons, and internal joint structure. Ichinose et al.
(12) examined the relationship between muscle fascicle
length and tension in the vastus lateralis and reported that the
tension differs with changing joint angle and the tension
shows the highest value at the 70° knee joint.
Second, it is possible that the performance of the agonist
muscle varies as the squat posture changes. Yamashita (29)
performed EMG analysis upon standing from a squat position
and reported that muscle activity of the biceps femoris and the
rectus femoris changed during the first half (squat depth is
deep) and the second half (squat depth is shallow) of the
movement. In short, the rectus femoris was active in the first
half, and the biceps femoris was active in the second half. In
addition, Jensen and Ebben. (13) examined the relationship
between squat depth and muscle activity of the biceps femoris
and reported that although little muscle activity was found
during lifting in either squat depth, it increased when lowering
from full extension of the knee to 60°.
In this study, when squat depth increased, the activity of
gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, adductor
longus, gluteus maximus, and erector spinae muscles in-
creased. The main function of erector spinae muscles is
postural maintenance with trunk extension. When squat
depth increased, increasing force was required to bend the
trunk forward during lifting; thus, muscle activity may
increase. Additionally, it is possible that the vastus lateralis,
an agonist of knee extension, and the gluteus maximus, an
agonist of hip extension, act independently of each other with
increasing squat depth. On the other hand, the muscle activity
of the biceps femoris increased with decreased squat depth.
When evaluating the muscle activity in the IS with a relative
value based on the RMS at the time of the 1RM squat, all
muscles were ,1.0. In other words, muscle activity in the
IS tended to be less than that in the 1RM measurement.
Similarly maximum force tended to be ,1RM. Blazevich et al.
(3) reported that the IS using the isometric rack was about
1.4 times maximum force at 1RM squat. This was the same
isometric condition, but the results were markedly different.
This may be because of a difference of the experimental
device. When measuring the squat ability using the back
dynamometer as in this study, posture maintenance was
more difficult. Thus, the subjects may not have been fully able
to perform a squat. However, a correlation of IS and 1RM
squat by Blazevich et al. (3) found nearly equal findings
(r = 0.73). Therefore, a back dynamometer will be able to
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
estimate the squat ability in a similar manner to an isometric
rack.
Second, there may be a difference of operating character-
istics between the static IS and the 1RM squat that can use
countermovement. Because the present subjects performed
weight training regularly, they lifted heavier barbells skillfully
using a countermovement called ‘‘cheat’’ (movement by
which the muscle is expanded oppositely immediately before
the beginning of agonist muscle shortening). A rapid eccentric
muscle action stimulates the stretch reflex and builds up the
elastic energy, which increases the force produced during the
subsequent concentric action. Such a movement is called
stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) (15). The use of SSC produces
greater muscle power output within a short time than that
from a pure concentric contraction (14,19). Manabe et al. (17)
examined the influence of countermovement on muscle
activity and joint torque and reported that a squat with
countermovement shows high muscle activity and joint
torque. At the time of the 1RM squat of this study, we did not
limit use of countermovement. Therefore, it is inferred that
the 1RM squat showed a higher value in muscle activity and
maximum force than the IS.
In the present study, the maximum force of IS in wide
stance and parallel depth showed a significant and high
correlation (r = 0.73) with the 1RM squat. Performing IS with
the same deep posture of the 1RM squat is important for
the estimation of 1RM. In conclusion, although maximum
force is influenced by stance width and squat depth, IS
measurement values with wide stance and parallel depth may
be useful for the estimation of 1RM squat.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Simple linear regression analysis revealed a relationship of Y =
0.992X + 30.3 (Y: 1RM, X: IS). This suggests that the IS using
a back dynamometer may become an effective index for
predicting 1RM squat. However, the standard error of an
estimate provided by the regression equation was quite large,
11.19 kg, in subjects of only moderate squat ability (about 1.5
times body weight). Therefore, it is hypothesized that the
standard error will increase when applied to subjects without
weight training experience. In addition, it has been reported
that the maintenance of posture during IS using a back-
dynamometer is difficult. From a practical application
standpoint, a device that stabilizes posture will be needed
in the future.
REFERENCES
1. Abelbeck, KG. Biomechanical model and evaluation of a linear
motion squat type exercise. J Strength Cond Res 16: 516–524, 2002.
2. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, B. Generality versus specificity:
a comparison of dynamic and isometric measure of strength and
speed-strength. Eur J Appl Physiol 68: 350–355, 1994.
3. Blazevich, AJ, Gill, N, and Newton, RU. Reliability and validity of
two isometric squat tests. J Strength Cond Res 16: 298–304, 2002.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2747
 1RM Estimation Based on Isometric Squat
4. Brzycki, M. Strength testing: Predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-
fatigue. JOHPERD 64: 88–90, 1993.
5. Caterisano, A, Moss, RF, Pellinger, TK, Woodruff, K, Lewis, VC,
Booth, W, and Khadra T. The effect of back squat depth on the
EMG activity of superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond
Res 16: 428–432, 2002.
6. Delecluse, C, Van Coppenolle, H, Willems, E, Van Leemptte, M,
Diels, R, and Goris, M. Influence of high-resistance and high-velocity
training on sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 1203–1209,
1995.
7. Escamilla, RF and Zheng, GSF. The effect of technique variations on
knee biomechanics during the squat and leg press. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 29: 139–155, 1997.
8. Häkkinen, K and Komi, PV. Electromyographic changes during
strength training and detraining. Med Sci Sport Exerc 15: 455–460,
1983.
9. Häkkinen, K, Komi, PV, and Alen, M. Effect of explosive type
strength training on isometric force- and relaxation-time, electro-
myographic and muscle fibre characteristics of leg extensor muscles.
Acta Phisiol Scand 125: 587–600, 1985.
10. Hoeger, W, Barette, SL, Hale, DF, and Hopkins, DR. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum. J Appl Sport Sci 1: 11–13, 1987.
11. Hoeger, W, Hopkins, DR, Barette, SL, and Hale, DF. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained males and
females. J Appl Sport Sci Res 4: 47–54, 1990.
12. Ichinose, Y, Kawakami, Y, Ito, M, and Fukunaga, T. Estimation of
active force–length characteristics of human vastus lateralis muscle.
Acta Anat 159: 78–83, 1997.
13. Jensen, RL and Ebben, WP. Ham strength electromyographic
response of the back squat at different knee angles during concentric
and eccentric phases. In: Proceedings of XVII International Symposium
on Biomechanics in Sports. Hong Kong, 2000. 1: 158–161.
14. Komi, PV. Physiological and biomechanical correlates of muscle
function: Effects of muscle structure and stretch-shortening cycle on
force and speed. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 12: 81–117, 1984.
15. Komi, PV. Stretch-shortening cycle. In: Strength and Power in Sport.
Komi, PV, ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1992. pp.
169–179.
16. Manabe, Y, Yokozawa, T, and Ogata, M. Effect of load variation on
lower muscle activity and joint torque during parallel squats. Jpn J
Phys Fitness Sports Med 52: 89–98, 2003.
the TM
2748 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
17. Manabe, Y, Yokozawa, T, Shimada, K, and Ogata, M. Effect of speed
variation and stretch-shortening cycle on lower muscles activity and
joint torque during parallel squat. Jpn J Phys Fitness Sports Med
53: 425–442, 2004.
18. Nions, JC, Irrgang, JJ, Bourdett, R, and Weiss, JR. Electromyographic
analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower extremity neutral
rotation and 30 degrees of lower extremity turn-out from the self-
selected neutral position. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 25: 307–315, 1997.
19. Norman, RW and Komi, PV. Electromechanical delay in skeletal
muscle under normal movement conditions. Acta Physiol Scand
106: 241–248, 1979.
20. Ohkoshi, Y, Yasda, K, Wada, T, and Yamada M. Biomechanical
analysis of rehabilitation in the standing position. Am J Sports Med
19: 605–611, 1991.
21. Poliquin, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength
training program. NSCA J 10: 34–39, 1988.
22. Signorile, JF, Kwiatkowski, K, Caruso, JF, and Rovertson, B. Effect of
foot position on the electromyographic activity of the superficial
quadriceps muscles during the parallel squat and knee extension.
J Strength Cond Res 9: 182–187, 1996.
23. Steven, TM and Donald, RM. Stance width and bar load effects on
leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc
31: 428–436, 1999.
24. Tan, B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to
optimize maximum strength in men. J Strength Cond Res 13:
289–304, 1999.
25. Thorstensson, A, Karlsson, J, Viitasalo, JH, Luhtanen, P, and Komi, PV.
Effect of strength training on EMG of human skeletal muscle. Acta
Physiol Scand 98: 232–236, 1976.
26. Toutoungi, DE, Lu, TW, Leardini, A, Catani, F, and O’Connor, LL.
Cruciate ligament forces in the human knee during rehabilitation
exercises. Clin Biomech 15: 176–187, 2000.
27. Wretenberg, P, Feng, Y, and Arborelius, UP. High-and low bar squatting
technique during weight-training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 218–224, 1996.
28. Wretenberg, P, Feng, Y, Lindberg, F, and Arborelius, UP. Joint
moments of force and quadriceps muscle activity during squatting
exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports Exerc 3: 244–250, 1993.
29. Yamashita, N. Application to biomechanics of EMG. J Sports Sci
2: 717–727, 1983 (in Japanese).