Accepted Manuscript

The effects of squatting footwear on three-dimensional lower limb and spine

kinetics

Daniel J. Southwell, Shane A. Petersen, Tyson A.C. Beach, Ryan B. Graham

PII: S1050-6411(16)30232-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.10.005
Reference: JJEK 2026

To appear in: Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

Received Date: 10 May 2016

Revised Date: 6 October 2016
Accepted Date: 10 October 2016

Please cite this article as: D.J. Southwell, S.A. Petersen, T.A.C. Beach, R.B. Graham, The effects of squatting
footwear on three-dimensional lower limb and spine kinetics, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (2016),
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.10.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Running Head: SQUATTING FOOTWEAR AND JOINT KINETICS

* Original Article *

The effects of squatting footwear on three-dimensional lower limb and spine kinetics.

Daniel J. Southwell1, Shane A. Petersen1, Tyson A.C. Beach2, PhD, and Ryan B. Graham1,3*,
PhD
1
School of Physical and Health Education, Schulich School of Education, Nipissing University,
100 College Drive, Box 5002, North Bay, Ontario, Canada, P1B 8L7
2
Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, 55 Harbord Street,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 2W6
3
School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 125 University
Private, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5

* Corresponding Author

125 University Private, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5

Tel.: 1-613-562-5800 x 1025

Fax: 1-613-562-5497
E-mail: rgraham@uottawa.ca

3
1. INTRODUCTION

It is widely accepted that the barbell back squat is an effective exercise for increasing

lower extremity muscle strength (Hickson et al., 1994), but specific knowledge of the associated

biomechanical loading demands is required to maximize the positive effects of training and

minimize the occurrence of injury (Lorenzetti et al., 2012). Previous studies have analyzed a

variety of biomechanical variables during the barbell back squat to provide athletes and their

coaches with information to guide training prescription, progression, and technique instruction

(Biscarini et al., 2013; Flanagan and Salem, 2007; Fry et al., 2003; Hartmann et al., 2013;

Lorenzetti et al., 2012; Sriwarno et al., 2008; Strutzenberger et al., 2009; Zwerver et al., 2007),

but the impact of footwear worn on biomechanical loading patterns has been largely unexplored.

Previous research has demonstrated that modifying footwear characteristics, such as

shoe/sole stiffness and support, can significantly alter squat kinematics and kinetics (Bourgit et

al., 2008; Fechner et al., 2010; Sato et al., 2013; Shorter et al., 2011; Wenning, 2005). Several

advantages of wearing weightlifting shoes when squatting, in particular, have been proposed

(Sato et al., 2012). Weightlifting shoes are generally designed to have non-compressible soles, a

flat rigid bottom, and an elevated heel. The elevation of the heel compared to the forefoot is most

commonly set around 2.5 cm (Sato et al., 2012). The claimed benefits of these specialized shoes

include: improved sole stability; greater external force production; assistance in maintaining an

upright posture; and reduced shear forces on the lumbar spine (Sato et al., 2012). From an injury

prevention and rehabilitation perspective, the finding that wearing weightlifting shoes when

squatting may promote less forward trunk lean (and reduce the external low back joint moment

and reaction shear forces) (Sato et al., 2013, 2012) may be particularly noteworthy (Myer et al.,

2014). From a knee injury prevention and rehabilitation perspective, the finding that squatting in

4
weightlifting shoes allows performers to maintain a more vertically oriented shank (and reduce

the external knee joint moment and reaction shear forces) (Sato et al., 2013) may also be relevant

(Myer et al., 2014).

Although the abovementioned findings do indeed yield insight into potential performance

enhancing and/or injury risk reducing adaptations associated with squatting in weightlifting

shoes, there remain several unanswered questions regarding their effectiveness. Most notably,

given that many of the previously conducted biomechanical analyses have been planar (two-

dimensional) in nature (Schilling, 2013), little is known about the effects of wearing

weightlifting shoes on the frontal and coronal plane kinematics and kinetics of squatting. A

recent study reported statistically significant differences in sagittal plane knee angles, and frontal

and coronal ankle angles when barbell back squats were performed while barefoot, wearing

minimalist shoes, wearing running shoes, and wearing weightlifting shoes (Sinclair et al., 2014).

However, no between-condition comparisons were made in kinetic quantities by the

aforementioned authors, making it difficult to assess the practical significance of the relatively

small magnitude between-condition kinematic differences reported. Moreover, to the authors’

knowledge, there have been no previous attempts to compare spinal load magnitudes when

performing the barbell back squat exercise across different footwear conditions. From a

performance enhancement and injury prevention perspective, it is important to consider the

biomechanical loading patterns associated with different exercise variations, as it could have a

direct influence on the structural (e.g., tissue growth and remodelling) and functional (e.g., tissue

strength, muscular coordination and control, etc.) adaptions elicited.

The general objective of this study was thus to quantify the three-dimensional lower limb

net joint moments and lumbosacral compression and shear forces when experienced weightlifters

5
performed heavy (80% one repetition maximum) barbell back squats while barefoot, while

wearing running shoes, and while wearing weightlifting shoes. Two specific hypotheses were

tested. First, based on previous research (Sato et al., 2013; Sinclair et al., 2014), it was

hypothesized that statistically significant differences would be detected in lower extremity joint

kinematics between the footwear conditions, but that any associated between-condition

differences in lower extremity joint moments would be of relatively small magnitudes because

experienced weightlifters’ motor patterns would be engrained. Second, it was hypothesized that

wearing weightlifting shoes (as opposed to squatting in running shoes or barefoot) would result

in less global trunk lean (Sato et al., 2013), but that lumbosacral joint (“bone-on-bone”) shear

force magnitudes would only be significantly different if lumbar spinal angles varied between

the conditions (Potvin et al., 1991).

6
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Participants

Twenty-four experienced weightlifters (12M, 12F) were recruited through the North Bay

Norsemen/Valkyries weightlifting club. Participant demographics are presented in Table 1. All

participants had been coached to perform back squats by a National Strength and Conditioning

Association (NSCA) Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) for at least eight

months prior to study commencement. True one repetition maximum (1RM) tests had been

completed under the supervision of the CSCS at the weightlifting club within one month prior to

testing. Since all participants were weightlifters, they regularly squatted in weightlifting shoes

and wore running shoes for other athletic activities. Prior to participating in the study,

participants signed the personal information and informed consent letter that was approved by

the Nipissing University Research Ethics Board. Specific inclusion criteria were that participants

must have been healthy with no known self-reported history of lower limb or spine pain/injury,

and no history of neurologic disorders (e.g. neuropathy, neurodegenerative conditions). The

individuals participating in this study did so voluntarily and therefore no monetary compensation

was provided.

2.2 Procedures

Upon entering the lab, researchers first recorded each participant’s demographics,

experience, and the make/model of their weightlifting and running shoes (Appendix A). It was

decided to allow participants to wear their own shoes, as it was considered more ecologically

valid and thus more directly applicable. Participants were then outfitted with 12.7 mm reflective

markers (B&L Engineering, Santa Ana, CA, USA) on the: upper back (T2), medial border of the

7
inferior angle of the left and right scapula, left and right acromioclavicular joint, sternal notch,

and xiphoid process); lower back (cluster placed over T12); pelvis (cluster placed over S1); left

and right thigh (cluster placed laterally mid-femur); left and right shank (cluster placed laterally

mid-shank); and left and right foot (cluster attached to foot). A second set of calibration-only

reflective markers was applied, which can be seen in Figure 1.

Once fully outfitted, a static calibration trial was collected during which participants

stood quietly in the anatomical position. Subsequently, calibration reflective markers were

removed and participants completed their warm-up. Each warm-up was a dynamic warm-up

consisting of numerous low repetition sets of barbell back squats at a sequentially increasing load

until participants were at 80% of their 1RM. The number of warm-up sets varied from

participant-to-participant, as they were dependent on participant-specific 1RM values (i.e.,

higher 1RM required more warm-up sets), as well as participants’ personalized

competition/training methodology. As part of the warm-up, participants were also afforded the

opportunity to become familiar with squatting under all three footwear conditions if required.

Once participants were warmed up, they began the testing protocol. The testing protocol

consisted of one trial per footwear condition (barefoot, running shoes, weightlifting shoes),

performed in a randomized order. Each trial required the participant to perform three repetitions

of barbell back squats at 80% of his or her 1RM. Each participant was instructed to squat

naturally, performing all repetitions of squats the way that they regularly compete. Participants

were afforded three minutes of rest between each trial. All squats were performed with an

Olympic style barbell resting in a high-bar position on the upper back (trapezius), at a self-

selected speed, depth, and body positioning (e.g. stance width and foot rotation). Once again,

these variables were not explicitly controlled to maximize the external/ecological validity of the

8
findings. Males used a 20kg competition Olympic barbell (DHS, Shanghai, China), while

females used a 15kg competition Olympic barbell (DHS, Shanghai, China).

During all trials, marker position data were collected at 200 Hz from 15 Oqus 400+

motion capture cameras (Qualisys, Gothenburg, Sweden). Participants placed one foot on each of

two FP6090 force plates (Bertec, Columbus, OH, USA), which recorded the ground reaction

forces and moments at 2000Hz. Marker position and force plate data were spatially and

temporally synchronized and stored for post-processing using Qualisys Track Manager software

(QTM, Qualisys, Gothenburg, Sweden).

2.3 Biomechanical Analyses

Using Visual3D software (Version 5, C-Motion, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA), a

“bottom-up” inverse dynamical linked-segment model (Figure 1C) was developed from the

anatomical landmarks and standing calibration trials and then applied to each of the motion

trials. A thorough description of the model-building procedures employed can be found

elsewhere (Hamill et al., 2014); the modeling procedures described therein (e.g., derivation of

segment-fixed coordinate systems, methods of joint center and body segment parameter

estimation, etc.) were used in the current study and are based on the default procedures in

Visual3D. From the linked-segment model, lower extremity and spine angles (computed based

on recommendations in the literature (Wu et al., 2002)), net joint moments (normalized to

participant mass), and whole-body centre-of-mass (COM) trajectories were quantified after

filtering the raw marker data at 6Hz. Additionally, lumbosacral joint compression and shear

forces were calculated in Visual3D by combining the estimated force from a single-muscle

9
equivalent (van Dieën and de Looze, 1999) with the reaction forces resulting from the inverse

dynamics analyses (Howarth et al., 2010).

Time histories of the abovementioned kinetic and kinematic dependent variables

generated in Visual3D were exported to Matlab (The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA), wherein

they were split into three single-squat repetitions (delineated by each squat “start” and “end”

based on COM trajectory) within each footwear condition before being ensemble averaged.

Then, minimum and maximum values from each ensemble-averaged waveform for each person

were extracted for statistical analyses. After bilateral symmetry was confirmed (i.e., no

statistically significant differences were detected between the left- and right-leg kinematics and

kinetics), data were averaged within individuals across legs after the appropriate inversion of

signs due to coordinate system orientations.

2.4 Statistical Analyses

Due to displacement of the foot marker cluster during squatting, data were discarded for

one male participant; therefore, statistical analyses were conducted on 23 complete data sets. The

following dependent variables for each footwear condition were statistically analyzed: 1)

maximum and minimum ankle, knee, hip, lumbar spine joint moments and angles in each body-

fixed plane of movement (sagittal, frontal, transverse); 2) peak lumbosacral compression and

shear forces; 3) maximum and minimum thoracic spine joint angle in each body-fixed plane of

movement, 4) maximum and minimum global trunk lean angle; and 5) vertical whole-body COM

range from standing (maximum) to full squatting (minimum). Each dependent variable was

analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVAs in SPSS 22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA)

in order to determine significant main effect of shoe type. The critical p-value for these main

10
effects was adjusted to 0.01 using the false discovery rate technique (Benjamini and Hochberg,

1995). Post-hoc least significant difference adjusted paired t-tests were then completed to

determine where any differences existed.

11
3. RESULTS

As can be seen in Figures 2-4, the kinematic and kinetic waveforms associated with each

footwear condition were mostly qualitatively indistinguishable. However, there were a number

of statistically significant between-condition differences in the peaks of these waveforms. Means

and standard deviations of all peak kinematic and kinetic variables are included in Appendix B

together with corresponding ANOVA outputs. A narrative summary of these findings follows.

3.1 Peak Net Joint Moments (Figure 2)

There was no effect of footwear on ankle moments in any movement plane (p>0.01). At

the knee, there was a significant main effect of footwear on the knee extension moment (p=

0.001); post-hoc testing revealed that knee extension moments were of significantly greater peak

magnitudes in the running shoe (0.123Nm/kg) and weightlifting shoe (0.284Nm/kg) conditions

than they were in the barefoot condition. There was also a main effect of footwear on knee

external rotation moments (p= 0.002), where the weightlifting shoe condition produced

significantly larger moments than both other conditions (barefoot= +0.041Nm/kg, running shoe=

+0.026Nm/kg). At the hip, there was also a main effect of footwear on the extension moment (p=

0.004), where the barefoot condition produced significantly larger moments than the running

shoe (+0.11Nm/kg) and weightlifting shoe (+0.13Nm/kg) conditions. Lastly, there was also a

significant main effect of footwear on both hip external (p=0.005) and internal (p=0.003) rotation

moments, where the barefoot condition produced greater internal rotation (running=

+0.038Nm/kg, weightlifting= +0.042Nm/kg) and less external rotation moments (running= -

0.044Nm/kg, weightlifting= -0.074Nm/kg) than either shod condition. There was no effect of

footwear on low back (lumbosacral) moments in any body-fixed movement plane (p>0.01).

12
3.2 Peak Joint and Segment Angles (Figures 3-4)

There was a main effect of footwear on ankle plantar flexion angles (p< 0.001), with

angles increasing from barefoot to running shoes to weightlifting shoes. Post-hoc testing

revealed that these plantar flexion angles were significantly different between all three conditions

(barefoot vs. running= -1.7°, barefoot vs. weightlifting= -4.3°, running vs. weightlifting= -2.7°).

There was also a main effect of footwear on ankle dorsiflexion (p= 0.001), with post-hoc testing

showing that angles were significantly larger in the barefoot condition compared to the running

shoe (+1.3°) and weightlifting shoe (2.6°) conditions. At the knee, there was a significant main

effect of footwear on the knee flexion angle (p< 0.001), where post-hoc testing revealed that the

barefoot condition produced significantly less knee flexion (-2.6°) than the weightlifting shoe

condition. There were also significant main effects of footwear on knee external (p= 0.001) and

internal (p< 0.001) rotation angles. Knee external rotation angles were significantly different

between all three conditions, with angles significantly decreasing from barefoot to running shoe

to weightlifting shoe (barefoot vs. running= -0.9°, barefoot vs. weightlifting= -1.8°, running vs.

weightlifting= -0.9°) conditions. Knee internal rotation angles were significantly greater in the

weightlifting shoe condition compared to the barefoot (+2.0°) and running shoe (+1.1°)

conditions. At the hip, there was a significant main effect (p= 0.008) of footwear on hip flexion,

with the barefoot condition producing a significantly larger angle than both running shoe (+1.7°)

and weightlifting shoe (+2.2°) conditions. Finally, there was a significant main effect (p= 0.001)

of footwear on global trunk forward lean (trunk relative to lab), with a larger angle in the

barefoot condition than in the running shoe (+1.5°) and weightlifting shoe (+1.8°) conditions.

Lumbar spine (lumbar marker cluster relative to pelvis marker cluster), and thoracic spine

13
(thoracic marker cluster relative to lumbar marker cluster) angles were similar between all

conditions (p>0.01).

3.3 Peak Spinal Compression and Shear Forces

There were no significant main effects of footwear on lumbosacral joint compression (p=

0.18) or shear (p= 0.954) force magnitudes.

3.4 Vertical Centre-of-Mass Trajectory

There was a significant main effect of footwear on the COM minimum position

(p<0.001), maximum position (p<0.001), and vertical range (i.e., maximum COM position –

minimum COM position = squat depth) (p<0.001). Post-hoc testing revealed that the

weightlifting shoe and running shoe conditions produced significantly deeper squats (~1cm) than

did the barefoot condition (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively).

14
4. DISCUSSION

Three-dimensional body segment, joint angles, and net joint moments were quantified

together with lumbosacral joint compression and shear forces while experienced weightlifters

performed 80% 1RM barbell back squats while barefoot, while wearing running shoes, and while

wearing weightlifting shoes. Despite detecting several statistically significant between-condition

differences in body segment and joint angles with large effect sizes, the magnitudes of the

biomechanical loading patterns were only marginally affected by varying footwear worn. These

findings were consistent with the general expectation that the motor patterns of experienced

weightlifters would be relatively stable in a single testing session wherein 80% 1RM back squats

were performed.

Consistent with previous findings wherein participants performed 70% 1RM back squats

under conditions similar to those tested herein (Sinclair et al., 2014), results of the current study

revealed several statistically significant between-condition differences in squat depth, knee joint

flexion angle, and ankle joint plantar flexion and dorsiflexion angles. In contrast to the study

conducted by Sinclair et al. (2014), there were also a number of statistically significant between-

condition differences in hip flexion angle, knee internal and external rotation angles, and global

trunk forward lean angle documented in the current study. It should be noted that in both studies,

any between-condition differences in body segment and joint kinematics were of small

magnitudes. And, as hypothesized, there were small magnitude differences in the associated

biomechanical loading demands at the ankle, knee, and hip (i.e., peak net joint moments varied

by less than 0.284Nm/kg (~3-20Nm) across the footwear conditions tested). Of course, results of

more sophisticated biomechanical analyses (e.g., musculoskeletal modeling) must ultimately be

combined with those from additional experimental (e.g., training interventions) and

15
observational (e.g., longitudinal) studies to assess the practical significance of such findings. It is

feasible, for example, that over time, the cumulative effects of these small differences could lead

to meaningful training adaptations; athletes may be able to modify both squat difficulty (i.e. joint

targeting) as well as musculoskeletal injury risk (i.e. joint unloading) by varying footwear worn

during training sessions. Results of the current study specifically indicate that in comparison to

squatting barefoot, wearing shoes results in a “shift” in the biomechanical demands from the hip

joint extensors to the knee joint extensors. Based on rationale presented elsewhere (Lynn and

Noffal, 2012), this means that athletes who have a history of knee pain and/or injury (e.g.,

patellar tendinopathy, chondromalacia patellae, etc.) may consider occasionally squatting

without shoes because it may allow them to attain and maintain desirable training effects (e.g.,

hip muscle strength gains, energy system development, etc.) without overloading painful or

damaged knee joint structures (e.g., patellar tendon, patellofemoral joint, etc.).

As expected from a previous study (Sato et al., 2013), participants exhibited significantly

greater forward trunk lean when squatting barefoot compared to the other two footwear

conditions. Despite this, there were no differences in lumbosacral joint compressive or shear

forces of the spine between footwear conditions. A likely explanation for this is that although

forward trunk lean was different between conditions, the lumbar and thoracic spine joint angles

(referenced to proximal segment) were not significantly different. This meant that participants

maintained a similar spinal angle between the footwear conditions, and thus the net extensor

“muscle” line-of-action and effective moment arm was consistent between conditions (van Dieën

and de Looze, 1999). Consequently, the muscular contributions to lumbosacral forces were not

different between the conditions examined, and because muscle forces typically contribute most

to spinal load magnitudes (Frost et al., 2012), there were no between-condition differences

16
detected in lumbosacral compression and shear forces. Therefore, our hypothesis that

lumbosacral joint shear force magnitudes would not be significantly affected by changes in

global trunk lean was supported.

This study contained several (de-)limitations that should be considered when interpreting

and before applying the findings. First, the current study included experienced weightlifters who

had received sport-specific coaching to “stabilize” their squatting technique. Had novices or

other athletes been tested, it is possible that varying footwear in a single testing session would

have a greater influence on squatting kinematics and kinetics of performers. Second, and related

to the point above, study participants indicated that they preferred to squat in weightlifting shoes,

which meant that the other two conditions may have been unfamiliar and may have potentially

caused the participants to acutely (if only marginally) alter their squat biomechanics. Over time,

between-condition differences could fade as performers become more comfortable with different

footwear conditions. Third, participants wore different makes and models of shoes. This

inconsistency may have meant that some footwear may have had different heel heights, arch

support and overall stability. Fourth, only one squat load (80% 1RM) was included in the testing.

It is possible that between-condition differences would result at lower intensities, as the

participants would have more movement “solutions” available to them. Finally, the conclusions

regarding the practicality of the findings are based on outputs derived from crude biomechanical

models that are insensitive to inter- and intra-individual differences in muscle (co-)activation

patterns and geometry (i.e., muscle lengths, moment arms, cross-sectional areas, etc.). Future

work using an EMG-and/or optimization-assisted musculoskeletal model (Zheng et al., 1998) or

joint power analyses (Robertson et al., 2008) is warranted to address this directly.

17
5. CONCLUSIONS

Results of the kinetic and kinematic analyses conducted herein indicate that altering

footwear conditions may only marginally redistribute the biomechanical loading amongst the

lower extremity joints during the back squat exercise. These changes could alter the

musculoskeletal adaptations elicited over time, and thus trainers and coaches may be able to

modify both squat difficulty (i.e., joint targeting) as well as injury risk (i.e., joint unloading) via

footwear modifications. However, between-condition differences in joint kinetics were relatively

small in magnitude and therefore future research should incorporate more sophisticated

modelling approaches to establish whether the findings of this study are biomechanically

significant, and how they may vary across individuals (i.e., training experience, physical

characteristics, etc.) and squat variations (i.e, frequency, intensity, time, and type).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Larry Sheppard for all his advice and support during the completion of

this study.

Authors’ Contributions

DS, SP, TB, and RG designed the research study. DS, SP, and RG contributed to data collection.

DS, SP, TB, and RG analyzed and interpreted data. DS, SP, TB, and RG wrote the manuscript.

All authors have read and approved of the final version of the manuscript, and agree with the

order of presentation of the authors.

18
Competing Interests

None of the authors declare competing financial interests.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,

or not-for-profit sectors.

19
References

Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y., 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful
approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300.

Biscarini, A., Botti, F.M., Pettorossi, V.E., 2013. Joint torques and joint reaction forces during
squatting with a forward or backward inclined Smith machine. J. Appl. Biomech. 29, 85–
97.

Bourgit, D., Millet, G., Fuchslocher, J., 2008. Influence of shoes increasing dorsiflexion and
decreasing metatarsus. J. Stength Cond. 22, 966.

Fechner, R.J., Reuter, G.D., Bumgarner, Mi.R., Christensen, D.E., Senchina, D.S., 2010.
Electromyographical analysis of three different cross-training shoes In standard squat and
maximum vertical jump exercises, in: Drake University Conference on Undergraduate
Research in the Sciences. p. 2872.

Flanagan, S.P., Salem, G.J., 2007. Bilateral differences in the net joint torques during the squat
exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21, 1220–1226. doi:10.1519/R-21156.1

Frost, D.M., Beach, T., Fenwick, C., Callaghan, J., McGill, S., 2012. Is there a low-back cost to
hip-centric exercise? Quantifying the lumbar spine joint compression and shear forces
during movements used to overload the hips. J. Sports Sci. 30, 859–70.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.671532

Fry, A., Smith, C., Schilling, B., 2003. Effect of knee position on hip and knee torques during the
barbell squat. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17, 629–633.

Hamill, J., Selbie, W., Kepple, T., 2014. Three-Dimensional Kinematics. Research Methods in
Biomechanics-2nd Edition. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.

Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Klusemann, M., 2013. Analysis of the load on the knee joint and
vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. Sports Med. 43, 993–
1008. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0073-6

Hickson, R.C., Hidaka, K., Foster, C., 1994. Skeletal muscle fiber type, resistance training, and
strength-related performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26, 593–598.

Howarth, S.J., Beach, T. A. C., Callaghan, J.P., 2010. Dynamic factors and force-weighting
corrections influence estimates of cumulative vertebral joint compression. Theor. Issues
Ergon. Sci. 11, 474–488. doi:10.1080/14639220902862675

Lorenzetti, S., Gulay, T., Stoop, M., List, R., Gerber, H., Schellenberg, F., Stussi, E., 2012.
Comparison of the angles and corresponding moments in the knee and hip during restricted
and unrestricted squats. J. Strength Cond. Res. 26, 2829–2836.

20
Lynn, S.K., Noffal, J., 2012. Lower extremity biomechanics during a regular and
counterbalanced squat. J. strength Cond. Res. 26, 2417–2425.

Myer, G., Kushner, A., Brent, J., Schoenfeld, B., Hugentobler, J., Lloyd, R., Vermeil, A., Chu,
D., Harbin, J., McGill, S., 2014. The Back Squat: A Proposed Assessment of Functional
Deficits and Technical Factors That Limit Performance. Strength Cond. J. 36, 4–27.

Potvin, J.R., McGill, S.M., Norman, R.W., 1991. Trunk muscle and lumbar ligament
contributions to dynamic lifts with varying degrees of trunk flexion. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976).
16, 1099–1107.

Robertson, D.G.E., Wilson, J.J., Pierre, T.A.S., 2008. Lower extremity muscle functions during
full squats. J. Appl. Biomech. 24, 333–339.

Sato, K., Fortenbaugh, D., Hydock, D., 2012. Kinematic changes using weightlifting shoes on
barbell back squat. J. Strength Cond. Res. 26, 28–33.

Sato, K., Fortenbaugh, D., Hydock, D.S., Heise, G.D., Schilling, B., 2013. Comparison of back
squat kinematics between barefoot and shoe conditions. Int. J. Sport. Sci. Coach. 8, 579–
580. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.3.579

Schilling, B., 2013. Comparison of back squat kinematics between barefoot and shoe conditions.
Int. J. Sport. Sci. Coach. 8, 579–580. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.3.579

Shorter, K., Lake, J., Smith, N., Lauder, M., 2011. Influence of the foot-floor interface on
squatting performance. Port. J. Sport Sci. 11, 385–388.

Sinclair, J., McCarthy, D., Bentley, I., Hurst, H.T., Atkins, S., 2014. The influence of different
footwear on 3-D kinematics and muscle activation during the barbell back squat in males.
Eur. J. Sport Sci. 1–8. doi:10.1080/17461391.2014.965752

Sriwarno, A.B., Shimomura, Y., Iwanaga, K., Katsuura, T., 2008. The effects of heel elevation
on postural adjustment and activity of lower-extremity muscles during deep squatting-to-
standing. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 20, 31–38.

Strutzenberger, G., Simonidis, C., Krafft, F., Mayer, D., Schwameder, H., Science, S., 2009.
Joint loading at different variations of squats, in: International Conference on Biomechanics
on Sports.

Van Dieën, J.H., de Looze, M.P., 1999. Sensitivity of single-equivalent trunk extensor muscle
models to anatomical and functional assumptions. J. Biomech. 32, 195–8.

Wenning, M., 2005. Kinematic and kinetic differences in the barbell squat wearing two different
types of shoes. Ball Street University.

21
Wu, G., Siegler, S., Allard, P., Kirtley, C., Leardini, A., Rosenbaum, D., Whittle, M., D’Lima,
D.D., Cristofolini, L., Witte, H., Schmid, O., Stokes, I., 2002. ISB recommendation on
definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint
motion—part I: ankle, hip, and spine. J. Biomech. 35, 543–548. doi:10.1016/S0021-
9290(01)00222-6

Zheng, N., Fleisig, G., Escamilla, R., Barrentine, S., 1998. An analytical model of the knee for
estimation of internal forces during exercise. J. Biomech. 31, 963–967.

Zwerver, J., Bredeweg, S.W., Hof, a L., 2007. Biomechanical analysis of the single-leg decline
squat. Br. J. Sports Med. 41, 264–268. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.032482

22
Figure Captions

Figure 1: A) Anterior and B) posterior view of an instrumented participant, illustrating reflective

markers. C) Anterior view of the Visual3D model, illustrating segment-fixed coordinate systems.

Figure 2: Mean ensemble averaged moment waveforms for the ankle, knee, hip, and lumbar

spine in the three movement planes. Dashed lines represent standard deviations. † = significant

main effect. Significant post hoc differences: a (barefoot vs. running), b (barefoot vs. weight),

and c (running vs. weight).

Figure 3: Mean ensemble averaged angle waveforms for the ankle, knee, and hip in the three

movement planes. Dashed lines represent standard deviations. † = significant main effect.

Significant post hoc differences: a (barefoot vs. running), b (barefoot vs. weight), and c (running

vs. weight).

Figure 4: Mean ensemble averaged angle waveforms for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and

trunk (global lean) in the three movement planes. Dashed lines represent standard deviation. † =

significant main effect. Significant post hoc differences: a (barefoot vs. running), b (barefoot vs.

weight), and c (running vs. weight).

23
Daniel Southwell is currently completing his Masters of Physical Therapy at the University of
Toronto. Prior to this, Daniel attended Nipissing University where he received his Bachelors of
Physical and Health Education. While completing his Bachelor’s degree, Daniel was involved in
research in the Biomechanics and Ergonomics Laboratory at Nipissing University, where he
completed this study investigating the effects of footwear on squatting kinetics.

Shane Petersen is currently working as an Account Manager at Lifetime Athletic in

Mississauga, Ontario. He completed his undergraduate degree in Physical and Health Education
at Nipissing University where he worked on this project.

Tyson Beach is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at
the University of Toronto where he also holds an appointment in the Graduate Department of
Exercise Sciences. The overarching aim of his research is to design movement assessment and
(re)training strategies for the prevention and management of musculoskeletal disorders.

24
Ryan Graham received his Ph.D. in Biomechanics & Ergonomics from Queen’s University in
2012. He then obtained an Assistant Professor position at Nipissing University which lead him to
his current tenure-track position at the University of Ottawa. His current research focuses on
improving whole-body (in particular spine) musculoskeletal injury understanding, assessment,
prevention, and rehabilitation in a variety of populations.

25