Search

Background: Symmetry during lifting is considered critical for allowing balanced power production and avoidance of injury. This investigation assessed the influence of elevating the heels on bilateral lower limb symmetry during loaded (50% of body weight) high-bar back squats., Methods: Ten novice (mass 67.6 ± 12.4 kg, height 1.73 ± 0.10 m) and ten regular weight trainers (mass 66.0 ± 10.7 kg, height 1.71 ± 0.09 m) were assessed while standing on both the flat level floor and on an inclined board. Data collection used infra-red motion capture procedures and two force platforms to record bilateral vertical ground reaction force (GRF vert ) and ankle, knee and hip joint kinematic and kinetic data. Paired t-tests and statistical parametric mapping (SPM1D) procedures were used to assess differences in discrete and continuous bilateral symmetry data across conditions., Results: Although discrete joint kinematic and joint moment symmetry data were largely unaffected by raising the heels, the regular weight trainers presented greater bilateral asymmetry in these data than the novices. The one significant finding in these discrete data showed that raising the heels significantly reduced maximum knee extension moment asymmetry ( P  = 0.02), but in the novice group only. Time-series analyses indicated significant bilateral asymmetries in both GRF vert and knee extension moments mid-way though the eccentric phase for the novice group, with the latter unaffected by heel lift condition. There were no significant bilateral asymmetries in time series data within the regular weight training group., Conclusions: This investigation highlights that although a degree of bilateral lower limb asymmetry is common in individuals performing back squats, the degree of this symmetry is largely unaffected by raising the heels. Differences in results for discrete and time-series symmetry analyses also highlight a key issue associated with relying solely on discrete data techniques to assess bilateral symmetry during tasks such as the back squat., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: Internal and external rotation exercises of the shoulder are frequently performed to avoid injury and pain. Knowledge about the motion and loadings of the upper extremities during these exercises is crucial for the development of optimal training recommendations. However, a comparison of the angles and corresponding moments in the upper extremities that are achieved during internal and external rotation exercises for the shoulder by using different resistance types has not yet been performed. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine upper extremity kinetics and kinematics in 3D of the internal and external rotation exercises., Methods: The kinematics and kinetics of 12 participants while they performed 10 different exercises with a constant and with an elastic external load corresponding to 2% body mass was assessed. The motion of the upper extremities was recorded three-dimensionally with a motion capture system, using a newly developed marker set and joint coordinate systems with 28 markers. The applied external load was measured with a load cell placed in series with the external resistance, and moments were calculated using an inverse dynamics approach., Results: The range of motion and the joint loading was highly dependent on the exercises. The range of motion in the glenohumeral joint did not differ significantly between the two resistance types, whereas internal/external rotation moments were significantly higher with constant resistance than those with elastic resistance., Conclusions: Larger or lower moments can, therefore, be achieved through selection of the appropriate resistance type, while the range of motion can be altered through the selection of exercise type. Therefore, the loading motion patterns identified in this study can help to choose suitable shoulder exercises dependent on the training objective., Competing Interests: An ethics application including method section, protocols, participant information and informed consent was submitted to and approved by the ethics committee of ETH Zurich, Switzerland (EK 2015-N-50). In addition, all participants provided written informed consent to participate before commencing testing.The person on the picture has provided written consent for publication.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: Squatting is a core exercise for many purposes. The tissue loading during squatting is crucial for positive adaptation and to avoid injury. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of narrow, hip and wide stance widths, foot position angles (0°, 21°, and 42°), strength exercise experience, and barbell load (0 and 50% body weight, experts only) during squatting., Methods: Novice ( N  = 21) and experienced ( N  = 21) squatters performed 9 different variations of squats (3 stance widths, 3 foot placement angles). A 3D motion capture system (100 Hz) and two force plates (2000 Hz) were used to record mediolateral knee displacement ( ΔD* ), range of motion (RoM) at the hip and knee joints, and joint moments at the hip, knee, and lower back., Results: Both stance width and foot placement angles affected the moments at the hip and knee joints in the frontal and sagittal planes. ΔD* varied with stance width, foot placement angles and between the subjects' level of experience with the squat exercise as follows: increasing foot angle led to an increased foot angle led to an increased ΔD* , while an increased stance width resulted in a decreased ΔD* ; novice squatters showed a higher ΔD* , while additional weight triggered a decreased ΔD* ., Conclusions: Suitable stance width and foot placement angles should be chosen according to the targeted joint moments. In order to avoid injury, special care should be taken in extreme positions (narrow stand-42° and wide stance-0°) where large knee and hips joint moments were observed., Competing Interests: The survey of data in this study followed the cohort study design. The Ethical Committee of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich endorsed the study design protocol (EK 2015-N-27) prior to participant acquisition. All participants received written information on the course of study and provided written, informed consent prior to starting measurements. This study was performed according to the Declarations of Helsinki.The participant in the picture provided written informed consent that the picture can be published.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: In order to improve training performance, as well as avoid overloading during prevention and rehabilitation exercises in patients, the aim of this study was to understand the biomechanical differences in the knee, hip and the back between the exercises "Goodmornings" (GMs) and "Deadlifts" (DLs)., Methods: The kinetics and kinematics of 13 subjects, performing GMs and DLs with an additional 25% (GMs), 25% and 50% (DLs) body weight (BW) on the barbell were analysed. Using the kinetic and kinematic data captured using a 3D motion analysis and force plates, an inverse approach with a quasi-static solution was used to calculate the sagittal moments and angles in the knee, hip and the trunk. The maximum moments and joint angles were statistically tested using ANOVA with a Bonferroni adjustment., Results: The observed maximal flexion angle of the knee was 5.3 ± 6.7° for GMs and 107.8 ± 22.4° and 103.4 ± 22.6° for DLs with 25% and 50% BW respectively. Of the hip, the maximal flexion angle was 25% smaller during GMs compared to DLs. No difference in kinematics of the trunk between the two exercises was observed. For DLs, the resulting sagittal moment in the knee was an external flexion moment, whereas during GMs an external extension moment was present. Importantly, no larger sagittal knee joint moments were observed when using a heavier weight on the barbell during DLs, but higher sagittal moments were found at the hip and L4/L5. Compared to GMs, DLs produced a lower sagittal moment at the hip using 25% BW while generating the same sagittal moment at L4/L5., Conclusions: The two exercises exhibited different motion patterns for the lower extremities but not for the trunk. To strengthen the hip while including a large range of motion, DLs using 50% BW should be chosen. Due to their ability to avoid knee flexion or a knee flexion moment, GMs should be preferentially chosen over DLs as ACL rupture prevention exercises. Here, in order to shift the hamstring to quadriceps ratio towards the hamstrings, GMs should be favoured ahead of DLs using 50% BW before DLs using 25% BW.