See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281621756

Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation in Free-Weight Back Squat

With and Without Elastic Bands

Article  in  The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · September 2015

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001178

CITATIONS READS

11 698

3 authors:

Atle Hole Saeterbakken Vidar Andersen

Høgskulen på Vestlandet Høgskulen på Vestlandet
49 PUBLICATIONS   378 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roland van den Tillaar

Nord University
126 PUBLICATIONS   2,012 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Instability in resistance training View project

Acute effect of overspeed and resisted sprints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roland van den Tillaar on 01 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMPARISON OF KINEMATICS AND MUSCLE
ACTIVATION IN FREE-WEIGHT BACK SQUAT WITH
AND WITHOUT ELASTIC BANDS
ATLE H. SAETERBAKKEN,1 VIDAR ANDERSEN,1 AND
1
Department of Teacher Education and Sports, Sogn and Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway; and 2Department of
Teacher Education, Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger, Norway
ABSTRACT
Saeterbakken, AH, Andersen, V, and van den Tillaar, R.
Comparison of kinematics and muscle activation in free-
weight back squat with and without elastic bands. J Strength
Cond Res 30(4): 945–952, 2016—The purpose of the study
was to compare kinematic muscle activation when perform-
ing 6 repetition maximum (6RM) squats using constant (free
weights) or variable resistance (free weights + elastic
bands). Twenty recreationally trained women were recruited
with 4.6 6 2.1 years of resistance training experience and
a relative strength (6RM/body mass) of 1.1. After a familiar-
ization session identifying the 6RM loads, the participants
performed 6RM squats using constant and variable resis-
tance in a randomized order. The total resistance in the vari-
able resistance group was similar to the constant resistance
in the presticking region (98%), but greater in the sticking
region (105%) and the poststicking region (113%). In addi-
tion, the presticking barbell velocity was 21.0% greater using
variable than constant resistance, but 22.8% lower in the
poststicking region. No significant differences in muscle
electromyographic activity, time occurrence, and vertical dis-
placement between the squat modalities were observed,
except for higher barbell displacement poststicking using
variable resistance. It was concluded that, due to differences
in total resistance in the different regions performing variable
compared with constant resistance, greater barbell velocity
was observed in the presticking region and lower resistance
was observed in the poststicking region. However, the extra
resistance in the sticking and poststicking regions during the
variable resistance modality did not cause increased muscle
activity. When performing squats with heavy resistance,
the authors recommend using variable resistance, but we
Address correspondence to Atle H. Saeterbakken, atle.saeterbakken@
hisf.no.
30(4)/945–952
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ROLAND VAN DEN TILLAAR2
suggest increasing the percentage resistance from the elas-
tic bands or using chains.
KEY WORDS EMG, variable resistance, constant resistance,
strength training, sticking region
INTRODUCTION
T
raditional free-weight exercises provide constant
resistance in the range of movement (ROM).
Because of this constant resistance, in multijoint
exercises, such as bench press and squat, there are
often regions in which subjects can produce less force than in
other regions such as the sticking region (11,29,31). The stick-
ing region is referred to as the region from the initial maxi-
mum upward velocity to the region associated with the
lowest concentric velocity of a barbell after which the barbell
velocity increases again (18) and has only been reported in
near-maximal to maximal loads during the upward movement
in multijoint exercises (9,10,17,24,28), or when fatigued
(12,26,30,31). In this region, failure often occurs during lifting
(9,17,24,30); however, in barbell heights above the sticking
region (poststicking region), more force can be produced (28).
It has been proposed that the cause of the sticking region
in multijoint exercises is a poor mechanical force position in
which the maximal force generation declines because of
reduced lengths and mechanical advantages of the muscles
involved (18,28,32). It has been demonstrated that some
muscles (the pectoralis major, triceps, and deltoids during
bench press) are responsible for getting the loads through
the sticking region (28,33,34). For example, van den Tillaar
et al. (28) demonstrated that, in the bench press, some
muscles are more active and can produce more force in
the poststicking region than in the sticking region. Differ-
ences in muscle activation were recently reported in squats
in the sticking region (29).
Thus, when performing free-weight exercises, there is
a mismatch throughout the ROM between the torque
created by the weights and the muscles’ ability to produce
torque because of the constant resistance. To maximize the
force and torque generation throughout the ROM, variable
resistance has been applied using cam-based machines,
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 945
 Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance

variable resistance (chains and elastic bands) in free-weight

squats, but the authors only included the eccentric vs. con-
centric phases in the kinematics analyses.
Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the
kinematics and muscle activation in 2-legged free-weight
back squats using constant or variable resistance with similar
relative intensity to fatigue (6 repetition maximum [6RM]
loads). It was hypothesized that the length of the sticking
region would increase due to the increased resistance of the
elastic band. In addition, it was hypothesized that muscle
activity would be the same in the presticking region but
would be increased in the poststicking region using variable
resistance.

METHODS
Figure 1. The placement of the elastic bands performing squats with Experimental Approach to the Problem
variable resistance. To compare the effect of elastic bands on kinematics and
muscle activation in 6RM free-weight back squats, repeated-
measures designing was conducted. After a familiarization
chains, or elastic rubber bands (5,19,22). These systems
session with the 6RM loads, the participants tested 6RM in
cause more force in regions in which the muscles can pro-
the back squat using constant resistance (free weights) and
duce more force (i.e., the poststicking region). However,
variable resistance (free weights + elastic bands) in a random-
there is controversial evidence regarding the effects of vari-
ized order. The barbell velocity, barbell displacement, the
able resistance. Comparably, increased muscle activation and
time spent in the different lifting regions, and associated
force output have been demonstrated using variable instead
muscle activation performing the 2 squat modalities were
of constant resistance throughout the ROM (1,2,16,36).
compared.
Increased resistance throughout the ROM increased the
stress and the neuromuscular activation in squats (15), which Subjects
might enhance the long-term training effects more than Twenty healthy recreationally trained women (mean age =
using constant resistance. However, to the best of our knowl- 23.3 6 2.6 years, age range = 21–27 years, mean stature =
edge, no studies have analyzed the sticking region compar- 1.68 6 0.06 m, mean body mass = 65.3 6 8.5 kg) who
ing effects of including elastic rubber bands, kinematics, and demonstrated a clear sticking region (29) in the sixth repe-
muscle activation in free-weight multijoint exercises. For tition using both constant and variable resistance were
example, Ebben and Jensen (8) reported similar muscle activ- included as participants in the study. All participants had
ity and ground reaction force comparing constant and resistance training experience (4.6 6 2.1 years) but were
not competitive powerlifters
or weightlifters. The partici-
pants were trained in back
squats twice a week as part of
their training program. The
participant’s relative strength
(6RM load/body mass) in
squats was 1.1. Seventy-two
hours before testing, the partic-
ipants were instructed to
refrain from any additional
resistance training.
Before the study, each sub-
ject was informed of the testing
procedures and possible risks,
and written consent was ob-
tained from each participant.
Figure 2. Relationship between the stretching length of the elastic band and the resistance provided by the The participants had to be free
elastic bands. of any musculoskeletal pain,
injury, or illness that might
the TM

946 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

reduce their maximal effort. None of the participants

experienced pain during the test. Ethical approval for this

746 6 107*
802 6 108*
research study was obtained from the local research ethics

697 6 106
Variable
committee (31359/3/SSA) and conformed to the latest

Total resistance (N)

revision of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Procedures
The free-weight back squat was performed in a power rack

713 6 82
713 6 82
713 6 82
Constant
(Gym 2000, Modum, Norway) with an Olympic barbell
(diameter = 2.8 cm, length = 1.92 m). The exercise started
with fully extended knees and a natural sway in the lower
back, which was maintained throughout the entire execu-
tion. Using a self-paced but controlled tempo, the partici-

0.41 6 0.12
0.90 6 0.31
1.88 6 0.60
pants lowered themselves to 808 knee flexion (1808 fully

Variable
extended knee) measured with a protractor (femur–fibula).

TABLE 1. Kinematics of the sixth repetition for the variable and constant resistance modalities in free-weight back squats.
When the participants had the correct knee angle, a horizon-
tal elastic band was adjusted (4,25). The participants had to

Time (s)
touch the band (midthigh) in every repetition before starting
the concentric phase. A test leader gave oral confirmation

0.44 6 0.17
0.97 6 0.29
1.81 6 0.61
Constant
when the participants touched the band. If the participants
successfully lifted six repetitions, the loads were increased
until the true 6RM in the 2 squat modalities were achieved.
The interclass coefficient between the familiarization session
and experimental session was 0.952 using constant resistance

0.23 6 0.06*

0.43 6 0.17*
(free weights) and 0.912 using variable resistance (free

0.14 6 0.06
Variable
weights + elastic bands).
The procedures used in the squats performed with vari-

Velocity (m$s21)
able resistance were identical to the constant resistance
condition with 1 exception: 2 elastic bands (R.O.P.E.S 3002
Bungee, Norway) were attached at the bottom of the power

0.19 6 0.05
0.16 6 0.06
0.53 6 0.17
rack on both sides of the barbell creating variable resistance
Constant

(Figure 1). The external load provided by the elastic bands

decreased with decreasing knee angles and increased with

*Significant differences between the modalities on a p # 0.05 level.

increasing knee angles. The barbell and the elastic bands did
not provide sufficient 6RM loads alone. Therefore, weight
plates were added to increase the total resistance.
43.39 6 6.02*
6.26 6 2.37
14.44 6 5.21

The force provided from the elastic bands with different

Variable
Vertical displacement (cm)

lengths when stretched was measured using a force cell

(Ergotest Technology AS, Langesund, Norway). The exter-
nal forces provided by the elastic bands as they stretched
were close to having a linear relationship (Figure 2). There-
fore, the total resistance in the variable resistance group dur-
5.39 6 2.81
13.40 6 5.82
40.95 6 5.22

ing the different concentric lifting phases was the sum of the
Constant

weight of the barbell, external loads, and the force provided

by the stretch length of the elastic bands (25).
Before the 6RM test, the participants performed a 10-
minute warm-up on a cycle ergometer or treadmill while
talking. The participants then performed 3 warm-up sets of
traditional back squats using their self-estimated 6RM loads
Squat modality
Lifting regions

Poststicking

to calculate the warm-up resistance: 20 repetitions at 25%, 10

Presticking

repetitions at 50%, and 8 repetitions at 70% of the 6RM load.

Sticking

The testing order was randomized. The load in the 6RM test
was increased to either a load that resulted in failure to
complete the final repetition or to a load where the
participants and test leaders agreed that it was the true

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 947

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
Figure 3. The barbell kinematics in the sixth repetition in squat using constant or variable resistance. *Significant difference (p # 0.05) between the 2 squat
modalities in barbell speed in the different lifting regions.
6RM load. The 6RM was achieved within 1–4 attempts with
4–5 minutes of rest between each attempt (13). Half of the
participants started with the constant resistance, while the
other half started with the variable resistance 6RM attempts.
After shifting from the first squat modality to the other, the
participants executed 2 or 3 nonfatigue habitation sets (4–8
repetitions at 50% of familiarization 6RM loads with 3 mi-
nutes of rest between each set).
The surface electromyographic (EMG) bipolar electrodes
(contact diameter = 11 mm and center-to-center distance =
20 mm) were positioned on the preferred foot (4) on the
vastus medialis (80% of the distal distance between the ante-
rior spina iliaca superior and the joint space in front of the
anterior border of the medial ligament), vastus lateralis (2/3
of the distal distance between the anterior spina iliaca supe-
rior and the lateral side of the patella), and biceps femoris
(50% of the distance between ischial tuberosity and the lat-
eral epicondyle of the tibia) according to the SENIAMs
recommendations (14). Before the placement of the gel-
coated self-adhesive electrodes (Dri-Stick Silver Circular
sEMG Electrodes AE-131; NeuroDyne Medical, Cambridge,
MA, USA), the skin was shaved, washed with alcohol, and
abraded, as recommended in a previous study (14).
A commercial EMG recording system was used to
measure EMG activation (MuscleLab 4020e, Ergotest Tech-
nology AS). To minimize the noise induced from external
sources through the signal cables, the EMG raw signal was
amplified and filtered using a preamplifier located as close as
possible to the pickup point. The preamplifier had a common
the
948 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
mode rejection ratio of 100 dB. The EMG raw signal was then
bandpass-filtered (fourth-order Butterworth filter) with cut-off
frequencies of 8 and 600 Hz. The bandpassed EMG signals
were converted to root mean square (RMS) signals using
a hardware circuit network (frequency response = 0–600 kHz,
average constant = 100 milliseconds, total error = 6 0.5%).
Finally, the RMS-converted signal was sampled at 100 Hz
using a 16-bit A/D converter (AD637). A commercial software
program (MuscleLab V8.13; Ergotest Technology AS) was
used to analyze the stored EMG data.
Only the final repetition of the 6RM lift was included in
the analyses because the sticking region occurs only during
the upward phase at near-maximal load or fatigue
(9,17,29,31). A linear encoder (sampling frequency of 100
Hz, ET-Enc-02; Ergotest Technology AS) was attached to
the barbell during the squats to measure barbell velocity,
lifting time, and vertical displacement. The linear encoder
synchronized the EMG measurements using MuscleLab
4020e (Ergotest Technology AS) and used to identify the
different lifting regions using the same approaches as previous
studies (29,34). The following regions were identified and
used to calculate the EMG activity: (a) the presticking region
from the lowest barbell position until the first barbell peak
velocity (Vmax1), (b) the sticking region from the first barbell
peak velocity until the lowest barbell velocity (Vmin), and (c)
the poststicking region from the first located lowest barbell
velocity until the second barbell peak velocity (Vmax2) for the
sixth repetition (9,17). The mean muscle activity (RMS) of the
3 regions was calculated and used for further analysis. The
TM
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

RMS values were not normal-

ized as the aim of the study
was to compare the muscle
activity between the 2 squat
modalities and the relative mus-
cle activation values from nor-
malization would not provide
any further information (20).
Statistical Analyses
To assess differences in the
EMG activity between the
constant and variable resis-
tance, a 2-way (lifting phase:
presticking and poststicking
phase 3 squat modality: con-
stant vs. variable) analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with
repeated measurements was
used. If differences were de-
tected by the ANOVA, paired
t post hoc tests with Bonferroni
post hoc corrections were used
to determine the identity of the
differences. To assess the differ-
ences in barbell velocity, bar-
bell displacement, and the
time spent in the different lift-
ing phases between constant
and variable resistance, paired
sample t-tests were used. To
compare the total resistance in
the 3 lifting phases between the
squat modalities, a 1-way AN-
OVA with Bonferroni post hoc
corrections was used. Where
sphericity assumptions were
violated, Greenhouse-Geisser
adjustment of the p-values was
reported. The criterion level for
significance was set at p # 0.05.
Effect size was evaluated with
h2 (eta partial squared), where
0.01 , h2 , 0.06 constitutes
a small effect, 0.06 , h2 ,
0.14 constitutes a medium
effect, and h2 . 0.14 constitutes
a large effect (7). Statistical anal-
ysis was performed in SPSS,
version 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chica-
go, IL, USA) and differences
Figure 4. A–C) The muscle activity (mean 6 SD) in the sixth repetition in squat using constant or variable with p # 0.05 were considered
resistance for the biceps femoris (A), vastus medialis (B), and vastus lateralis (C). statistically significant. All re-
sults are presented as mean 6
SD values.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 949

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
RESULTS
The average 6RM lifting weight with the constant resistance
was 72.7 6 8.6 kg and 76.3 6 11.2 kg with the variable
resistance weight (loads: 49.9 6 9.7 kg + mean resistance
from the elastic band: 26.4 6 15.7 kg). A 1-way ANOVA for
repeated measures indicated a significant effect for the resis-
tance during the different lifting phases with the constant
resistance (F = 87.0; p , 0.01; h2 = 0.82). The post hoc
comparison showed that the constant resistance load
(712 N) was comparable with the variable resistance load
at the presticking region (697; p = 0.78), while the variable
resistance was significantly higher at the sticking (105%;
p = 0.02) and poststicking regions (113%; p , 0.01) when
compared with the constant resistance load (Table 1). The
first peak barbell velocity (Vmax1) was significantly higher
when using variable resistance than constant resistance
(21.0%), whereas the opposite was found for the second
barbell peak velocity (222.8%). No significant differences
in velocity were observed at Vmin (p = 0.42; Table 1; Figure
3). When comparing vertical displacement and time occur-
rence of the different regions, only a significantly higher
barbell displacement at Vmax2 was found for the variable
resistance compared with the constant resistance (Table 1).
No other significant differences in measured kinematics were
found (Table 1).
A 2-way ANOVA for repeated measures performed on
EMG and squat modality of the different muscles indicated
significant main effects for the lifting phase (F $ 5.505; p #
0.008; h2 $ 0.23) in biceps femoris, vastus medialis, and
vastus lateralis. However, no main effects for squat modality
(F # 1.545; p $ 0.229; h2 = 0.08) or interaction (F # 2.819;
p $ 0.072; h2 # 0.13) for any of the muscles were found.
Post hoc comparisons revealed that, for the biceps femoris,
the activity significantly increased from the presticking to the
sticking phase (constant; 50.0%, variable 69.5%) with no sig-
nificant change from the sticking to the poststicking phase
(Figure 4A). The EMG activity decreased significantly from
the sticking to the poststicking region in the vastus medialis
(constant 212.1%; variable 28.8%) and vastus lateralis (con-
stant 212.6%; variable 29.9%), while no significant changes
were observed from the presticking to the sticking region
(Figures 4B, C).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was to compare kinematics and
muscle activation in 2-legged free-weight back squats using
constant or variable resistance with a similar relative
intensity to fatigue (6RM loads). The main findings were
that the length of the sticking region was the same for both
squat modalities and that the first and second peak barbell
velocities were results of the variable resistance, which
caused a higher resistance in the poststicking region. In
addition, no significant differences in the EMG activity were
observed between the modalities.
the TM
950 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
As hypothesized, a clear sticking region was observed in
both squat modalities in the sixth repetition. The results are
in line with previous studies examining the bench press at
near-maximal effort (9,17,24,31) and, most recently, in squats
(29). Furthermore, the variable resistance of the elastic bands
influenced the kinematics of the barbell; the first barbell peak
velocity (Vmax1) was greater and the second barbell peak
velocity (Vmax2) lower than the constant resistance of free-
weight 6RM squats. The results are in line with the hypoth-
eses. Using variable resistance in squats, the force needed to
move the barbell upward increased with greater knee angles
as the elastic bands provide increasing resistance with
greater length of the elastic bands (Figure 2) (25). This re-
sulted in a significantly greater total resistance using variable
resistance in the sticking and poststicking regions compared
with constant resistance (Table 1). This explains the
decreased barbell velocity at the Vmax2 (11). The increased
Vmax1 with the variable resistance squat modality was not
expected, because the resistance at this lifting height was
approximately the same between the 2 (Table 1). Possible
explanations for these findings can be potentiation, the active
state of the muscles, and stability during lifting with the vari-
able resistance modality. Because of the nature of elastic
bands, the participants are pulled down more at the begin-
ning of the downward movement. This might cause a higher
active state and more potentiation, and/or store more elastic
energy at the bottom of the lift, which can result in a higher
first peak barbell velocity that has been demonstrated in
explosive movements (35). Still, the prolonged transition
period between the eccentric and concentric phases would
result in loss of any stretch shortening cycling enhancements
(23,27,28) and, thereby, not be the explanation of increased
Vmax1 using variable resistance.
Another possibility is the lifting movement caused by the
elastic bands. These bands are connected from the barbell to
the ground, and the participants are pulled down to the
attachment point of the ground. It could therefore be
speculated that the lifting pattern was more vertical with
less hip flexion (decreased horizontal movement) than with
free weights and, thereby, could increase the Vmax1 in the
variable squat modality. However, 3D analyses were not
conducted to support the speculation.
It was hypothesized that the length of the sticking region
would increase because of the increased resistance of the
elastic band. However, this was not found in this study: the
lifting phases occurred with similar vertical displacement of
the barbell and time. This surprising result could be the
cause of the low variable resistance differences. However, the
loads performing variable resistance were 98, 105, and 113%
of the constant resistance in presticking and poststicking
regions. The differences in loads between the modalities
were perhaps not large enough to change the sticking
region. Furthermore, the results indicated that the sticking
region was caused by a poor mechanical force position at
specific joint angles, as previous studies have suggested for

the bench press (9,18). This is true even when greater peak
barbell velocity (Vmax1) was observed with the variable resis-
tance, which, theoretically, should lead to a greater vertical
displacement in the presticking region. However, because of
the combination of a small time interval (0.41–0.44 seconds),
low maximal barbell velocity (0.19–0.23 m$s21), and increas-
ing resistance (with the variable resistance) in the presticking
region, no significant differences in displacement were
observed. Because only the final repetition in 6RM in each
squat modality was studied, the participants were close to
fatigue and near-maximal effort (28,29,33). This resulted in
a sticking region for both squat modalities, which is in line
with the findings of earlier studies using multijoint exercises
as bench press (30,31) and back squats (29).
No difference in the EMG activity was observed between
the variable and constant resistance, which was not hypoth-
esized, because the resistance increased significantly in the
last region with more than 100 N. Normally, this would
result in higher EMG activity of the prime movers (3,21).
However, low differences in resistance between the 2 modal-
ities and the possible different lifting movement in the vari-
able resistance condition could explain that EMG activity is
not different between the 2. The results are supported by
Ebben and Jensen (8) who reported similar quadriceps and
hamstring activation comparing free-weight squats and
squats with variable resistance (elastic bands and chains).
Unfortunately, Ebben and Jensen (8) only analyzed the lift-
ing movement in the eccentric and concentric phases and
the results are therefore not comparable with those of this
study. The EMG activity of the biceps femoris and the vastus
lateralis and medialis showed the same muscle activation
pattern as found by van den Tillaar et al. (17), in which the
biceps femoris increased the EMG activity from the prestick-
ing to the sticking region, whereas the vastus muscles
decreased their activity in the poststicking region. However,
both this study and the study by van den Tillaar et al. (17)
were limited by not including the glutei muscles. The gluteus
muscles are mainly responsible for the hip extension in mul-
tijoint exercises as the squat (6), and it can be speculated that
the EMG activity can be changed with variable resistance.
The majority of the participants refused to participate if the
EMG measurement of the gluteus maximus was included.
Therefore, it was not possible to include the EMG measure-
ment of the gluteus maximus in this study.
Future studies should include the EMG measurement of
the glutei muscles, use 3D analyses, and test 1RM to
examine what the limitations are during squat lifting. In
addition, to improve the knowledge of what happens in the
muscles and kinematics using variable resistance, the authors
suggest increasing the percentage resistance from the elastic
bands or using chains in the total resistance group.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Heavy resistance training (i.e., squats) has been shown to be
effective for improving maximal strength and jump heights.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
However, when training with heavy resistance, maximal
effort is only required at the beginning of the concentric
lifting phase: neuromuscular stress decreases throughout the
concentric phase. Theoretically, variable resistance may
provide near-maximal neuromuscular stress throughout the
whole ROM because of the increasing load in the concentric
phase. However, this study did not demonstrate that variable
resistance training had an increased effect on muscle
activation in the sticking and poststicking regions because
of increased resistance when compared with constant
resistance. This was probably caused by the use of elastic
bands that did not provide enough resistance in these
regions, whereas stability during the lift increased. Therefore,
the use of chains is suggested, because they also increase the
resistance during the lift, but not the stability. When
performing squats with heavy resistance, the authors rec-
ommend including variable resistance with greater resistance
than used in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted without any funding from
companies or manufacturers or outside organizations. The
results of this study do not constitute endorsement by
National Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Aboodarda, SJ, Hamid, MSA, Muhamed, AMC, Ibrahim, F, and
Thompson, MW. Resultant muscle torque and electromyographic
activity during high intensity elastic resistance and free weight
exercises. Eur J Sport Sci 13: 155–163, 2013.
2. Aboodarda, SJ, Shariff, MAH, Muhamed, AMC, Ibrahim, F, and
Yusof, A. Electromyographic activity and applied load during high
intensity elastic resistance and nautilus machine exercises. J Hum
Kinet 30: 5–12, 2011.
3. Alkner, BA, Tesch, PA, and Berg, HE. Quadriceps EMG/force
relationship in knee extension and leg press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:
459–463, 2000.
4. Andersen, V, Fimland, MS, Brennset, O, Haslestad, LR,
Lundteigen, MS, Skalleberg, K, and Saeterbakken, AH. Muscle
activation and strength in squat and bulgarian squat on stable and
unstable surface. Int J Sports Med 35: 1196–1202, 2014.
5. Bellar, DM, Muller, MD, Barkley, JE, Kim, CH, Ida, K, Ryan, EJ,
Bliss, MV, and Glickman, EL. The effects of combined elastic- and free-
weight tension vs. free-weight tension on one-repetition maximum
strength in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 25: 459–463, 2011.
6. 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 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond
Res 16: 428–432, 2002.
7. Cohen, J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1988.
8. Ebben, WP and Jensen, RL. Electromyographic and kinetic analysis
of traditional, chain, and elastic band squats. J Strength Cond Res 16:
547–550, 2002.
9. Elliott, BC, Wilson, GJ, and Kerr, GK. A biomechanical analysis of
the sticking region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 450–
462, 1989.
10. Escamilla, RF, Francisco, AC, Fleisig, GS, Barrentine, SW,
Welch, CM, Kayes, AV, Speer, KP, and Andrews, JR. A three-
dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style
deadlifts. Med Sci Sport Exer 32: 1265–1275, 2000.
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2016 | 951
 Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
11. Frost, DM, Cronin, J, and Newton, RU. A biomechanical evaluation
of resistance: Fundamental concepts for training and sports
performance. Sports Med 40: 303–326, 2010.
12. Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ and Sanchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med
31: 347–352, 2010.
13. Goodman, CA, Pearce, AJ, Nicholes, CJ, Gatt, BM, and
Fairweather, IH. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle
activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable
surface. J Strength Cond Res 22: 88–94, 2008.
14. Hermens, HJ, Freriks, B, Disselhorst-Klug, C, and Rau, G.
Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor
placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10: 361–374, 2000.
15. Israetel, MA, McBride, JM, Nuzzo, JL, Skinner, JW, and Dayne, AM.
Kinetic and kinematic differences between squats performed with
and without elastic bands. J Strength Cond Res 24: 190–194, 2010.
16. Jakobsen, MD, Sundstrup, E, Andersen, CH, Aagaard, P, and
Andersen, LL. Muscle activity during leg strengthening exercise
using free weights and elastic resistance: Effects of ballistic vs
controlled contractions. Hum Mov Sci 32: 65–78, 2013.
17. Lander, JE, Bates, BT, Sawhill, JA, and Hamill, J. A comparison
between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sport
Exer 17: 344–353, 1985.
18. Madsen, N and McLaughlin, T. Kinematic factors influencing
performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 16: 376–381, 1984.
19. Manning, RJ, Graves, JE, Carpenter, DM, Leggett, SH, and
Pollock, ML. Constant vs variable resistance knee extension
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 397–401, 1990.
20. Marshall, PW and Murphy, BA. Increased deltoid and abdominal
muscle activity during Swiss ball bench press. J Strength Cond Res 20:
745–750, 2006.
21. McBride, JM, Larkin, TR, Dayne, AM, Haines, TL, and Kirby, TJ.
Effect of absolute and relative loading on muscle activity during
stable and unstable squatting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 5: 177–183,
2010.
22. McCurdy, K, Langford, G, Ernest, J, Jenkerson, D, and Doscher, M.
Comparison of chain- and plate-loaded bench press training on
strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball
players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 187–195, 2009.
23. Mina, MA, Blazevich, AJ, Giakas, G, and Kay, AD. Influence of
variable resistance loading on subsequent free weight maximal back
squat performance. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2988–2995, 2014.
the TM
952 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
24. Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, Humphries, BJ, Wilson, GJ, Kraemer, WJ,
and Hakkinen, K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on
the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during
explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
75: 333–342, 1997.
25. Saeterbakken, AH, Andersen, V, Kolnes, MK, and Fimland, MS.
Effects of replacing free weights with elastic band resistance in
squats on trunk muscle activation. J Strength Cond Res 28: 3056–
3062, 2014.
26. Sanchez-Medina, L and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Velocity loss as an
indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med
Sci Sport Exer 43: 1725–1734, 2011.
27. Stevenson, MW, Warpeha, JM, Dietz, CC, Giveans, RM, and
Erdman, AG. Acute effects of elastic bands during the free-weight
barbell back squat exercise on velocity, power, and force production.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 2944–2954, 2010.
28. van den Tillaar, R, Saeterbakken, AH, and Ettema, G. Is the
occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing
potentiation in bench press?. J Sports Sci 30: 591–599, 2012.
29. van den Tillaar, R, Andersen, V, and Saeterbakken, AH. The
existence of a sticking region in free weight squats. J Hum Kinet 42:
63–71, 2014.
30. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. A comparison of successful and
unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 2056–2063, 2009.
31. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. The “sticking period” in
a maximum bench press. J Sports Sci 28: 529–535, 2010.
32. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. A comparison of muscle activity
in concentric and counter movement maximum bench press. J Hum
Kinet 38: 63–71, 2013.
33. van den Tillaar, R and Saeterbakken, A. Effect of fatigue upon
performance and electromyographic activity in 6-RM bench press.
J Hum Kinet 40: 57–65, 2014.
34. van den Tillaar, R and Saeterbakken, AH. Fatigue effects upon
sticking region and electromyography in a six-repetition maximum
bench press. J Sports Sci 31: 1823–1830, 2013.
35. Van Soest, AJ, Bobbert, MF, and Van Ingen Schenau, GJ. A control
strategy for the execution of explosive movements from varying
starting positions. J Neurophysiol 71: 1390–1402, 1994.
36. Walker, S, Peltonen, H, Avela, J, and Hakkinen, K. Kinetic and
electromyographic analysis of single repetition constant and variable
resistance leg press actions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 21: 262–269,
2011.