Muscle Activation during a Squat

Weight baring exercise is commonly introduced during the latter stages of

rehabilitation, whereby the reintegration of power and dynamic movement can
enhance both recovery and performance. It is theorized that exercises requiring
greater electromyography (EMG) will result in greater strength gains (Reiman et al.,
2009) and is therefore essential to observe how greater recruitment of specific
muscle fibres promotes biomechanical efficiency. Health care professionals have
observed the effects of loading throughout different methods of exercise, where
squats in particular are renowned as a widely applicable and adaptable movement
(Behm et al., 2007). As such, this brief article will investigate the legitimacy of the
squat and the impact towards rehabilitation and performance.

The squat is a functional exercise which requires adequate mobility of the ankle joint,
hip joint, and thoracic segment of the spine. Likewise, muscle firing patterns must
occur in unison to ensure equivocal stability of the lumbar segment and knee joint for
correct form and to produce maximal effects (Czaprowski et al., 2012). Whilst
mobility of the ankle joint is important, peak angular velocities of both the knee and
hip are proven to be substantially higher than that of the ankle (Robertson et al.,
2008). This indicates neuromuscular control of the trunk is more essential when
performing a squatting motion, since angle differences of the ankle are so minute
they are unlikely to have much effect on the capacity for torque production during the
concentric phase. During stances with higher loading, angular velocity of the hip is
said to decrease significantly between 62% and 70% 1 rep max (1RM), meaning
insufficient velocity may negatively influence torque production (Kellis et al., 2005).

Rectus Femoris (RF), Gluetus Maximus (GMAX) and Glute Medius (GMED) are
suggested to boast the highest activity during a squatting motion (Boudreau et al.,
2009). GMED in particular reportedly has the greatest activation of all three muscle
groups identified by Boudreau et al. (2009), with the adductors (ADD) classified to be
the least. Whilst the level of activity is statistically significant during a typical two-leg
stance, follow-up research suggests RF activity to be greater when compared to a
single-leg stance. EMG activity during a single-leg stance instead presents greater
GMED and hamstring recruitment (McCurdy et al., 2010), which has made this
variation the choice method for late stage anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)
rehabilitation to reduce knee valgus (Dill et al., 2014). Single-leg squats have also
been identified as a feasible means of visual analysis regarding medial knee
displacement; a useful characteristic for injury prevention, to identify individuals
displaying high risk biomechanical patterns that may place them at greater risk of
injury through incorrect form (Mauntel et al., 2014).

Shirey et al. (2012) suggests that intentional core activation during a single-leg squat
stance affects hip and knee kinematics; decreasing medial-lateral movement and
promoting greater frontal plane stability. Both of these motion planes are considered
predictors for injury, particularly regarding the anterior cruciate ligament as knee
valgus produced from loss of pelvis/trunk control is one of the key features
(Yamazaki et al., 2010). Increased lower abdominal muscle activation and lowersacrum erector-spinae activity was shown to produce greater EMG activity during
80% of 1RM loading in comparison to unloaded squats Hamlyn et al. (2007). Further

to identifying this level of activation, Hamlyn et al. (2007) proposes the addition of
instability devices are unnecessary if the desired level of trunk activation is already
achieved with said squats. This research falls in-line with McBride et al. (2011) who
concluded stable squats under sufficient weight are more effective in producing the
force, power, and muscle activation necessary for stability, than unstable squats
which produced no statistically significant activation of the same core muscles
aforementioned.

The use of apparatus such as the Smiths machine is often recommended to correct
the fundamentals of an athletes stance before advancing onto free bar loading
(Behm et al., 2007). Away from establishing form, and despite the additional support
of the Smiths machine allowing for heavier loads of between 14-23kg; Schwanbeck
et al. (2009) has reported a 43% increase in average muscle activity during a free
bar squat in comparison to the Smiths machine. It should therefore be considered
that other alterations using the free bar rather than the Smiths, would be better
suited to ensure form whilst also encouraging the highest level of muscle activity
possible.

Squat width, depth and bar position (front or back squat) are considerations with high
biomechanical importance. In particular, Paoli et al. (2009) tested EMG activity of
eight muscles which amalgamate to form the thigh and hip during three stances;
narrow, hip width and wide. Gluteus Maximus activity was recorded to be the highest
during a wider stance and in a back squat position. Whilst extensor forces were
increased during the ascending phases of a back squat in support of Paoli et al.

(2009); equal overall muscle recruitment has been noted during both front and back
squat stances with no statistical significance (Gullett et al., 2009). However, Gullet et
al., (2009) continues to digress that the anterior weight distribution during a front
squat may be more advantageous for athletes with knee injury. An interesting
contrast from Clark et al. (2012), who explored three stance widths similar to Paoli et
al. (2009) but also included different increments of load, saw no difference in squat
width under 60% 1RM but did find a 20% higher EMG recruitment rate of the
quadriceps when 1RM load was increased to 75%. This suggests that an increase in
load is more consistently effective in producing higher EMG activity than altering
stance positioning.

With reference to loading, an investigation from Gorsuch et al. (2008) looked at

muscle activation during partial (45 degrees knee angle) and parallel squats (90
degree knee angle). Despite a significantly lighter load when performing the parallel
squat; results showed increased EMG activity in comparison to a partial squat. In
particular, activation of the rectus femoris and erector spinae were recorded to be the
highest firing muscles and therefore the most likely to fatigue the quickest. This
suggests that motion through a greater range of motion has the potential for
sufficient activation without the need for increasing load, as proposed with stance
width. The activation of these muscles, in particular the erector spinae, is especially
important when considering core stability and maintain an upright posture (Gorsuch
et al., 2010). Whilst increasing squat depth during a controlled static stance is
beneficial for increasing EMG activation, in a functional setting Domire and Challis
(2007) question whether deep squats in relation to vertical jump is optimally
coordinated. No difference in jump height was recorded due to muscle coordination

of the hamstrings differing between partial and deep squats. This differentiation is
likely to attribute towards the lack of optimal coordination proposed. Similarly, a twopeak ground reaction force pattern was observed during the deep squat, which could
be closely correlated with injury and increased joint strain Domire and Challis (2007).
Increasing depth should be a controlled action, perfected by the athlete before
integrating any form of functional adaptation.

It is apparent from the above research that increased muscle activation

predominately occurs during the ascension phase of the squatting motion. Likewise,
the muscles involved and the level of their activation are highly dependent upon the
stance adopted by the athlete. In particular, a standard two-legged squat heavily
recruits the rectus femoris, in comparison to the single-leg stance which is
dominated considerably by the gluteus medius. Through increasing stance width,
further recruitment of the gluteus maximus can be experienced; however, greater
levels of activation have been experienced through the addition of extra load
between 70-80% 1RM, which also proved to have a positive influence on core
stability. Whilst parallel squat depth is still a consideration for increased activation,
caution should be made when integrating depth into functional movement due to the
necessary coordination required. It is apparent from this research that control in
width and depth is beneficial for building strength and stability during the initial
phases of training, with power in the form of vertical jumps from depth considered
towards the latter stages of development when the athlete is more competent and to
avoid injury.

Behm, D., Carlos, J. and Sanchez, C. (2012) The effectiveness of resistance training using unstable
surfaces and devices for rehabilitation. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. Vol. 7, No. 2:
226-242.
Boudreau, S.N., Dwyer, M.K., Mattacola, C.G., Lattermann, C., Uhl, T.L. and McKeon, J.M. (2009)
Hip-muscle activation during the lunge, single-leg squat, and step-up-and-over exercises. Journal of
Sport Rehabilitation. Vol. 18, No. 1: 91-103.
Clark, D.R., Lambert, M.I. and Hunter, A.M. (2012) Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat:
A Brief Review. Scotland Institute of Sport. Vol. 26, No. 4: 1169-1178.
Czaprowski, D., Kedra, A. and Biernat, R. (2012) Students knowledge concerning the correct squat
and the elements of the methodology of teaching it. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity. Vol.
4, No. 2: 124-131.
Dill, K., Begalle, R. and Frank, B. (2014) Altered knee and ankle kinematics during squatting in those
with limited weight-bearing-lunge ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion.. Journal of Athletic Training. Vol.
49, No. 6: 723-32.
Domire, Z. and Challis, J. (2007) The influence of squat depth on maximal vertical jump
performance. Journal of Sports Sciences. Vol. 25, No. 2: 193-200.
Gorsuch, J., Long, J., Miller, K., Primeau, K., Rutledge, S. and Sossong, A. (2008) The effect of squat
depth on muscle activation in male and female cross-country runners. Department of Physical
Therapy, USA. Vol. 14, No. 1: 5-7.
Gullett, J., Tillman, M. and Gutierrez, G. (2009) A biomechanical comparison of back and front squats
in healthy trained individuals.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Vol. 23, No. 1: 284292.
Hamlyn, N., Behm, D. and Young, W. (2007) Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight training
exercises and isometric. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Vol. 21, No. 4: 1108-1112.
Kellis, E., Arambatzi, F. and Papadopoulos, C. (2005) Effects of load on ground reaction force and
lower limb kinematics during concentric squats. Journal of Sports Sciences. Vol. 23, No. 10: 10451055.

Mauntel, T.C., Frank, B.S., Begalle, R.L., Blackburn, J.T. and Padua, D.A. (2014) Kinematic
differences between those with and without medial knee displacement during a single-leg
squat. Journal of Applied Biomechanics . Vol. 30, No. 1: 707-712.
McBride, J.M., Haines, T.L. and Kirby, T.J. (2011) Effect of loading on peak power of the bar, body, and
system during power cleans, squats, and jump squats.. Journal of Sports Sciences. Vol. 29, No. 11:
1215-1221.
McCurdy, K., O'Kelley, E., Kutz, M., Langford, G., Ernest, J. and Torres, M. (2010) Comparison of
lower extremity EMG between the 2-leg squat and modified single-leg squat in female
athletes. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. Vol. 19, No. 1: 57-70.
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.
Reiman, M.P., Bolgia, L.A. and Lorenz, (2009) Hip function's influence on knee dysfunction: A
proximal link to a distal problem. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. Vol. 18, No. 1: 33-46.
Robertson, D.G.E., Wilson, J.M.J. and Pierre, T.A. (2008) Lower extremity muscle functions during full
squats. Journal of Applied Biomechanics . Vol. 24, No. 1: 333-339.
Schwanbeck, S., Chillibeck, P.D. and Binsted, B.A. (2009) A comparison of free squat to Smith's
machine squat. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning. Vol. 23, No. 9: 2598-2591.
Shirey, M., Hurlbutt, M. and Johansen, N. (2012) The influence of core musculature engagement on
hip and knee kinematics in women during a single leg squat.International Journal of Sports Physical
Therapy. Vol. 7, No. 1: 1-13.
Yamazaki, J., Muneta, T. and Ju, Y. (2009) Differences in kinematics of single leg squatting between
anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients and healthy controls.Sports Traumatology. Vol. 18, No. 1:
56-63.