ASPH05

Low-bar vs High-bar: Biomechanical considerations of

the back squat in relation to injury prevention and
rehabilitation.
Squatting is a widely recognised form of exercise to build strength as it
targets the largest muscles groups of the lower body (Logar et al., 2014).
Squatting can be implemented through a variety of techniques including
high-bar squat (HBS), low-bar squat (LBS), and front squat. Squat depth is
also considered to be a further variation of each of these techniques, the
parallel squat a relatively popular approach where the knee joint flexes to
at least 90 on the descent phase. As the back squat is considered to be
the technically easier squat to perform, this article will explore the
biomechanics of the HBS and LBS with key points athletes should consider
when choosing between the two. Both of the back squat techniques
involve a barbell (weighted and un-weighted) as the resistance. During a
HBS the barbell sits on the upper trapezius muscles at a level slightly
superior to the acromion, whilst the LBS sits slightly inferior to the
acromion on the posterior deltoids and spine of scapula (Marques-Bruna et
al., 2014). Joint movements, joint loading and muscle activation are the
areas of biomechanics which can be considered in an athlete who squats
(parallel) regularly, especially in relation to injury prevention and
rehabilitation.

Joint angle is a biomechanical marker which should be considered when

comparing the HBS and LBS with specific focus to the knee, hip and torso
where most of the force is transmitted. Research by Marques-Bruna et al.
(2014) displayed that mean knee angles in athletes performing LBS
(91.2) were slightly higher than those performing HBS (90.5). Mean hip
angles during each squat technique were examined by Wretenberg et al.
(1996) which highlighted increased levels of hip flexion during execution
of the LBS (132) in comparison to the HBS (111). Increased hip flexion
during the LBS subsequently results in torso lean, which Marques-Bruna et
al. (2014) discovered using trunk inclination to the right horizontal as a
Taylor Cornish 20044127

Page 1

ASPH05

marker. The results showed LBS (63.1) to have a lower trunk inclination
than HBS (68.3), highlighting increased anterior leaning of the trunk
during LBS.

The joint angle differences displayed during the HBS and LBS has a
confounding relationship with the force transmitted through that joint.
During the LBS it is thought that twice as much force is transmitted
through the hip than in the knee, this is attributed to the bar position
forcing the hips into greater angles of flexion. Increased levels of hip
flexion also contribute to increased spinal shearing forces which can be
limited through the HBS (Rippetoe, 2008). The slightly superior bar
position in a HBS maintains the weight over the centre of mass creating
an equal distribution of force between the knee and hip, which in
comparison to LBS results in less force transmitted through the hip but
more through the knee joints. In relation to muscular torque the LBS
subsequently targets the posterior chain creating greater hip and back
extensor torque as well as hamstring, gastrocnemius and soleus activation
than with the HBS (Rippetoe, 2008), whereas HBS provides more torque
from the quadriceps muscles. Although ankle joint angles are not
commonly tested Marques-Bruna et al. (2014) suggests that the LBS
technique exerts more force through the ankle joint than the HBS due to
increased angles of flexion in the superior joints. A final consideration to
squatting technique and joint force is the movement of the knees during
the descent phase, as anterior movement past the line of the toes creates
increased forces upon the knee, similarly found with valgus deviation
(Marques-Bruna et al., 2014).

Applying the current concepts behind the HBS and LBS to lower limb injury
rehabilitation it is plausible to implement a certain squatting technique to
a specific injury scenarios. Reduced knee joint forces displayed in the LBS
relate directly to tendinous and ligamentous structures by reducing
Taylor Cornish 20044127

Page 2

ASPH05

patella-femoral compression, strain on the anterior cruciate ligament

(ACL) as well as the collateral ligaments (Marques-Bruna et al., 2014).
Taking this into consideration it can be argued that the LBS should be
included in the late stage of knee related rehabilitation programmes.
Logar et al. (2014) also believes that the LBS should be used by athletes
with a history of patella-femoral injury to reduce forces on the patellafemoral joint as well as strain on the patella tendon structure. The HBS is
thought to be more appropriate following hip injuries due to the reduced
hip forces in relation to the LBS technique; similarly this would be best
implemented in the late stages of rehabilitation providing a reduced risk
of re-injury compared to LBS (Wretenberg et al., 1996). Rehabilitation of
ankle injuries are also claimed to benefit from the HBS, especially in cases
involved with the posterior chain such as achilles tendon, gastrocnemius
and soleus strains due to the reduced forces implemented. Specific ankle
joint injuries resulting in ankle instability problems are also thought to
benefit from the HBS over the LBS. With an approach to injury prevention
the key point relates to the influence the HBS has on the lower back. The
reduced hip flexion and torso tilt during the HBS results in reduced spinal
shearing in comparison to the LBS, subsequently reducing the risk of
vertebral damage. The increased focus on back angle during the HBS
technique can also contribute to further reductions in the risk of lower
back related injuries (Rippetoe, 2008). Preventative measures gained
through the LBS technique are related to the activation of the posterior
chain, especially when considering the prevention of hamstring injuries.

When considering biomechanical differences between the HBS and LBS

there are seen to be differences in joint angles, joint and muscle forces
and relevance to injury rehabilitation. The HBS characteristically shows an
even distribution of weight between joints and reduced hip flexion whilst
producing increased quadriceps torque (Marques-Bruna et al., 2014).
These aspects make this technique the most appropriate approach for hip
and ankle rehabilitation as well as prevention of lower back injuries. In
Taylor Cornish 20044127

Page 3

ASPH05

comparison the reduced knee force in the LBS makes it a relevant

rehabilitation approach for knee injuries, ACL injuries in particular (Logar
et al., 2014). The LBS technique should also be implemented if
strengthening the posterior chain is the training or rehabilitation goal. It is
also important to consider technique with both of these back squat
approaches as regardless of whether the HBS or LBS is chosen squat form
should be correct to prevent additional forces to the back, hip and knee
increasing the risk of injury (Rippetoe, 2008).

Reference List
Logar, J., Kleva, M., Marusic, U., Supej, M. and Gerzevic, M. (2014) DIFFERENCES IN THE KNEE
TORQUE BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-BAR BACK SQUAT TECHNIQUES: A PILOT
STUDY. ANNALES KINESIOLOGIAE. Vol. 5, No. 2: 141-152.
Marques-Bruna, P., Rhodes, D. and Hartley-Woodrow, L. (2014) STATIC LOADS ON THE KNEE AND
ANKLE FOR TWO MODALITIES OF THE ISOMETRIC SMITH SQUAT. Journal of fitness research.
Vol. 3, No. 2: 42-53.
Rippetoe, M. (2008) Low-Bar vs. High-Bar Squats. The CrossFit Journal Articles. No. 69: 1-8.
Wretenberg, P., Feng, Y. and Arborelius, U. (1996) High- and low-bar squatting techniques during
weight-training.. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. Vol. 28, No. February: 218-224.

Taylor Cornish 20044127

Page 4