The effect of stance width on muscle activation during squat exercise

The squat is a fundamental exercise which can be applied to a range of specific sports as part of
strength and conditioning. The squat is the number one body building movement - using nearly the
entire muscular system, cardiovascular and respiratory systems (Delavier, 2010). It is a closed kinetic
chain exercise which has a high transfer of training effects relatable to sports movements and daily
activities (Hoffman, 2012). Closed chain kinetic exercises are described where the distal segments of
the body are fixed (Hoffman, 2012). A high correlation of improved sports performance has been
demonstrated between vertical and standing long jumps using closed kinetic chain exercises when
compared to open chain exercises (Blackburn and Morrisey, 1998). This correlation demonstrates
the importance of exercises, such as the squat, as a fundamental, functional improvement in
strength and conditioning and sports performance.

There are a number of different variations of the squat. These include:
dumbbell squats (dumbbells positioned on the outside of the legs)
squats with a dumbbell in between the legs
front squats
back squats
standard squats
power squats
box squats
hack squats

Squat stance changes amongst different variations and is often prescribed according to the target or
isolation of different muscles (McCaw and Melrose, 1999). Measurement of accuracy of this
prescription is through Electromyography (EMG) the measurement of muscle response or
electrical activity in reaction to a nerves stimulation. Although different stance widths are
prescribed for isolation of the varying muscles in the squat, it does not actually isolate these muscles
or increase muscle activation. Muscle activation is the dynamic process which describes the delay
between muscle force developments (the active state of the muscle) from the process of neural
excitation. A concentric muscle contraction is muscle activation that increases tension as muscle
shortens. The squat is a commonly used exercise which causes concentric muscle contractions
(Delavier, 2010).

Escamilla et al. (2001) analyzed barbell squat stances at varying shoulder widths: narrow (~107% of
shoulder width), medium (~142% of shoulder width) and wide (~169% of shoulder width). In
comparison to the narrower stance, increased stance width had these effects:
7-12 degrees greater horizontal thigh position
6-11 degrees greater hip flexion
6 degrees greater hip external rotation
5-9 degrees greater vertical shank (lower-leg) position

These results show how the varying stance widths affect kinematics within the squat. Many athletes
perform a variety of squats with varying stances in order to alter muscle activation, strengthen
muscles in a different way and add a variety to workouts.

Paoli et al, (2009) used six experienced lifters to perform 3 sets of 10 repetitions of squats, each one
with a different stance width and using 3 resistances: no load, 30% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM)
and 70% 1RM. Sets were separated by 6 minutes of rest. EMG surface electrodes were placed on the
muscles. Analysis of variance and Scheff post hoc tests indicated a significant difference in EMG
activity only for the gluteus maximus. In particular, there was a higher electrical activity of this
muscle when back squats were performed at the maximum stance widths at 0 and 70% 1RM. There
were no significant differences concerning the EMG activity of the other analyzed muscles. These
findings suggest that a large width is necessary for a greater activation of the gluteus maximus
during back squats (Figure 1.).




















Figure 1. EMG activity of muscles during back squats

Specifically, the researchers found that at 75% of 1RM, the activity of the gluteus maximus was
significantly greater in the wide stance condition than in the narrow stance condition. However,
there was no significant difference between the wide and moderate stance conditions, nor between
the moderate and narrow stance conditions.

During the wide squat (or power squat) according to Delavire (2010) the main difference with regard
to muscles activated is the extent at which the wider stance will work the adductor muscle group
and gluteus maximus. The adductors will be worked to a greater extent than in comparison to the
narrower stance. This is supported by evidence from McCaw & Melrose (1999) and Paoli et al.
(2009). They demonstrate a stance width of 40% wider than shoulder width or twice the width of the
hips shows greater activation of adductors of the thigh and gluteus maximus. Greater activation of
the adductor muscles can be further increased by turning the feet outwards or rotating the hip
(Pereira et al., 2010).

The research above addresses the issue of stance width and the effect it has upon muscle activation.
It does this through the use of EMG. There are some limitations, as the machines need to be
standardised in order to be considered accurate. No evidence of standardisation was present in the
Paoili et al. (2009) study. The lack of standardisation has the potential to affect data negatively due
to the different levels of impedance readings among differing muscle groups, due to the amount of
fat content within various parts of the lower limb and gluteals. The difference in EMG activity with
stance width is likely because the gluteus maximus appears to be more active when at a shorter
length than when at a longer length, as a number of studies have shown. A wider stance moves the
hip into greater degree of abduction, which shortens the gluteus maximus. It also typically externally
rotates the hip somewhat, which also causes the muscle to shorten.
From the results however conclusions can be made that the gluteus maximus muscle was
significantly activated. Using different widths in the squat is unlikely to isolate or target specific
muscles within the quadreceps, other exercises might be needed in order to isolate these muscles.
It is possible that greater uses of the adductor muscles are incorporated during the wide stance
(McCaw & Melrose, 1999).

For power lifters or sports in which the gluteals are targeted, wider stance in the squat may help to
target this area to a greater extent than a narrower stance. The benefit of targeting the adductors is
stabilisation of the leg and hip; this can be beneficial to all sports practitioners, as the hip plays a
major part in nearly all sporting activities. Although the wider stance does not isolate different
muscles within the quadriceps group, it can benefit sports personnel through increased hip stability,
and be used as an exercise to increase gluteal muscle activation.





































References

Blackburn, J.R. and Morrisey, M.C. (1998) The relationship between open and closed kinetic chain
strength of the lower limb and jumping performance. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy. Vol. 27: 430-435.

Delavier, F. (2010) Strength training anatomy. (3rd ed.) United States of America: Human Kinetics.

Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Lowry, T.M., Barrentine, S.W. and Andrews, J.R. (2001) A three-
dimensional biomechanical analysis of the squat during varying stance widths. Medical Science of
Sports and Exercise. Vol. 33: 984-998.

Hoffman, J.R. (2012) NSCA's Guide to program design. (1st ed.) United States of America: Human
Kinetics.

McCaw, S.T. and Melrose, D.R. (1999) Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity during
the parallel squat. Medicine, science and sports exercise. Vol. 31, No. 3: 428-436.

Neptune, R.R. and Kautz, S.A. (2001) Muscle activation and deactivation dynamics: the governing
properties in a fast cyclical human movement performance. Exercise sports science review. Vol. 29,
No. 2: 76-81.
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. Vol. 23, No. 1: 246-250.

Pereira, G.R., Leporace, G., Chagas, D.D.V., Furtado, L.F.L., Pracedes, J. and Batista, L.A. (2010)
Influence of Hip External Rotation on Hip Adductor and Rectus Femoris Myoelectric Activity During a
Dynamic Parallel Squat. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. Vol. 24, No. 10: 2749-2754.