THE LUMBAR AND SACRUM MOVEMENT PATTERN
DURING THE BACK SQUAT EXERCISE
MARK R. MCKEAN, PETER K. DUNN, AND BRENDAN J. BURKETT
Australian Institute of Fitness Research, School of Health and Sport Science, Faculty of Science, Health, and Education,
University of Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
ABSTRACT
McKean, MR, Dunn, PK, and Burkett, BJ. The lumbar and
sacrum movement pattern during the back squat exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 24(10): 2731–2741, 2010—An essential
exercise for strength training of the lower limbs is the squat
exercise. During this exercise, changes in lumbar lordosis are
commonly used to indicate when the descent of the squat
should cease, yet the behavior of the lumbar–scarum segments
remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantify the
lumbar–sacrum movements during the back squat, because the
movement of the sacrum is influenced by the width of stance,
this variable was also investigated. Thirty trained subjects, 18
men with 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat of 123% (13.9%)
of bodyweight and 12 women with 1RM squat of 93% (15.6%),
performed a set of narrow and wide stance squats, each
carrying an additional 50% of body weight as load. The timing
and movement of the lumbar angle (T12/L1), sacrum angle (L5/
S1), and lumbar flexion angle (lumbar lordosis) were measured
in 3 dimensions for the ascent and decent phases. Men and
women achieved similar lumbar angles for both width of stance
and phase. Sacrum angles, lumbar flexion angles, and timing
differed significantly (p , 0.05) between gender and width of
stance. The lumbar flexion range during the descent phase for
women in narrow and wide stance was 12.9° and 12.6°,
respectively; for men, this range was significantly (p , 0.05)
larger at 26.3° and 25.4°, respectively. Men and women
developed different movement patterns for the squatting
movement, and therefore, this needs to be considered in
strength development and screening procedures. The lumbar
spine became kyphotic as soon as a load was placed on the
shoulders, and any teaching cues to maintain a curved lumbar
spine when squatting must be questioned.
KEY WORDS lumbar, lumbar flexion, sacrum, segment timing
Address correspondence to Mark R. McKean, mmckean@usc.edu.au.
24(10)/2731–2741
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
O
ne of the fundamental exercises for lower body
strength, general fitness, and rehabilitation pro-
grams is the squat. The majority of previous
research on this exercise has been devoted to hip
and knee movements (16,32,35), possibly because of the
relative ease of measuring the movements of these joints.
Research of the lumbar spine and pelvic movements in squats
has been limited. Some research methodologies suggest
a correct way to perform the squat (8,12), yet the technique
described contains limited references to the actual move-
ments of the lumbar and sacrum segments. The appropriate
squat technique is controversial, with suggestions that the
lumbar curve should be maintained throughout the squat
(9,20), whereas other research instructs the subjects to
maintain a ‘‘flat to arched but not rounded lumbar spine’’
(28). In the few cases where subjects were instructed on
a lumbar position when performing the squat, the lumbar
curve, or change in its position, was not actually monitored or
measured during the performance. The majority of research
on squat technique provides no quantified measure or change
in the position for the lumbar spine when squatting (13). To
ensure the safety and effectiveness of this common exercise,
initially quantifying the movement of the lumbar and sacrum
region is necessary.
Most research into lumbar lordosis has been conducted in
the field of industrial squat lifting where the weight lifted is in
front of the body (3,7,30). In this type of lifting, Burgess-
Limerick recommends avoiding extreme lumbar vertebral
flexion where flexion increases by .60° (7). For strength
training squats, McCaw and Melrose (26) and Liebenson (20)
suggest the squat should be performed to full depth as long as
the lordotic curve is maintained. In all cases, the recommended
posture of the lumbar curve was not substantiated by any
quantification of the lumbar spine movements during the
exercise. The alignment of the pelvis has also been found to
influence the function of squat lifting, with an anterior tilt of the
pelvis providing increased trunk muscle activity and therefore
more muscular support, or Ôcore stability,Õ when squat lifting
and lowering (10). However, the squat lifting technique is an
industrial type of lift, which allows the heels to lift off the floor,
and the load is held in front of the body, which is quite different
from a strength training deep back squat technique.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2731
 Lumbar and Sacrum Movement Pattern
Width of stance variations have long been used by the
strength coaches and fitness trainers (13,26) as a means to
provide a variation of the squat exercise. However, altering the
width of stance has produced conflicting results with some
studies showing no noticeable change in muscle recruitment
(13,31,33) and others finding width of stance did affect muscle
recruitment patterns (26), whereas Escamilla et al. (13) showed
no significant differences in trunk lean between 3 different
widths of stance. In all these studies, there was no evidence or
discussion regarding the influence of altered width of stance on
the lumbar spine and sacrum movements.
In previous squat research studies, the loads have ranged from
body weight squats (1,11,32) to 1 repetition maximum (1RM)
(26). Submaximal loads minimize fatigue (8), provide a repetition
range similar to those common in training (14), and reduce the
likelihood of changes to technique attributable to heavy loads,
which allows a consistent performance across repetitions (31).
Loads up to 1RM, or equal to 2.5 times a subject’s body weight,
have been used in studies not specifically researching on
movement patterns and limb coordination.
Gender differences in the pelvic dimensions (5,25) lumbar
vertebrae sizes (18), and trunk geometry (23) have been
reported in the literature. Research suggests that these
differences should be considered when developing bio-
mechanical models for the lumbar spine (23), yet the
influence of these gender differences on the movements of
the lumbar and sacrum segments during the squat have not
yet been identified.
The concentric and eccentric contractions associated with
squatting break the movement into 2 very distinct phases, the
descent and the ascent. Walsh et al. (34) showed differences in
lumbar behavior for each phase, and Escamilla et al. (13)
found differences in forward trunk lean at similar knee flexion
angles in each phase. The combined movement and critical
interaction of the lumbar and sacrum region however has not
yet been quantified, nor the influence of the descent and
ascent phases considered. Based on the previously estab-
lished differences in concentric and eccentric movement,
gender differences in pelvic anatomy, it was hypothesized
that gender, phase, and width of stance would influence the
lumbar–sacrum profile when performing the back squat.
TABLE 1. Subject characteristics.
Subjects Age (y) Weight (kg) Height (cm)
Women (n = 12) 24.2 (6.5) 62.1 (7.9) 167.1 (4.9)
Men (n = 18) 24.1 (4.9) 83.2 (11.5) 179.5 (6.1)
Combined (n = 30) 24.1 (5.5) 74.7 (14.6) 174.6 (8.3)
*1RM = 1 repetition maximum.
†Values are given as mean (SD).
ASIS = anterior superior iliac spine.
the TM
2732 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Therefore, the specific aims of this study were to firstly
quantify in 3-dimensions, the timing and range of movement
in the lumbar–sacrum region when performing the back
squat exercise and to secondly to determine the influence of
(a) 2 different widths of stance (narrow and wide), (b) gender,
and (c) the ascent and descent phases.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Thirty subjects completed 1 set of 8 back squat repetitions for
2 widths of stance; (a) narrow stance in (NS) which the width
of stance was equal to anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) width
and (b) wide stance (WS) with stance twice ASIS width. Each
squat was performed with an additional load equal to 50% of
the subject’s body weight. The time and position of the lumbar
spine and sacrum were measured and analyzed.
Subjects
All subjects freely volunteered to participate in the study.
Subjects were informed of the experimental risks, and written
informed consent was obtained under the guidelines
approved by the University Human Research and Ethics
Committee before any experimental testing. The subjects
were either in their final year of study to become or already
working as an accredited personal trainer. Subjects completed
a questionnaire detailing training and medical history.
Subjects were eliminated if they had not participated in
regular strength training using the back squat exercises in the
last 12 months or if they had any history of medical conditions
related to the back and lower extremities. Subjects had been
performing squats in their strength and conditioning training
programs at least twice a week for a minimum of 12 months,
and their relative mean (SD) squatting to body weight ratio
was 123% (13.9%) for men and 93% (15.6%) for women.
Subject data are shown in Table 1.
Procedures
Standing height was measured to the nearest 1 mm using
a portable Stadiometer (Telescopic Metal Height Scale
(PE063) Mentone International, Moorabin, Australia). Using
calibrated electronic scales (TI BWB-600P—Digital Personal
Scale, Wedderburn Pty Ltd, Willawong, Australia) total body
ASIS width (cm) 1RM as % of body weight
24.4 (2.2) 93 (15.6)
25.2 (1.5) 123 (13.9)
24.9 (1.8) 112 (17.3)
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 2. Position of sensors for 3D magnetic

tracking device.

Sensor Anatomical segment

1 Stylus to digitize the

subjects dimensions
2 Thorax (the C7–T12 junction)
3 Lumbar (dorsal surface
of T12–L1 junction)
4 Sacrum (dorsal surface
of L5–S1 junction)
5 Left thigh (anteromedial aspect
of upper thigh)
6 Right thigh (anteromedial aspect
of upper thigh)
7 Left shank (anteromedial aspect
of the tibia shaft)
8 Right shank (anteromedial aspect
of the tibia shaft)

mass was measured to the nearest 0.01 kg. Lumbar spine,

sacrum, and lower limb motion data were collected in real
time at 120 Hz by a 3 Dimensional Magnetic Tracking Device Figure 2. Digital picture of the sensor setup for the lumbar and sacrum
(Motion Monitor, Version 6.50.0.1 Innovative Sports Train- spine.
ing, Chicago, IL, USA). Eight magnetic sensors were placed

TABLE 3. The ICC values for the dependent

variables.*

Descent Ascent
phase phase

NS WS NS WS

Men (n = 18)
Lumbar angle 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.96
Lumbar time 0.82 0.94 0.91 0.87
Sacrum angle 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.97
Sacrum time 0.90 0.82 0.93 0.92
Lumbar flexion angle 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.95
Lumbar flexion time 0.91 0.90 0.83 0.87
Women (n = 12)
Lumbar angle 0.94 0.93 0.97 0.93
Lumbar time 0.79 0.80 0.76 0.73
Sacrum angle 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.94
Sacrum time 0.81 0.87 0.74 0.84
Lumbar flexion angle 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.99
Lumbar flexion time 0.87 0.90 0.85 0.95

*ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; NS = narrow

stance; WS = wide stance.
Figure 1. Digital picture of squat technique with sensors attached.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2733

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Lumbar and Sacrum Movement Pattern

TABLE 4. The start angles for lumbar, sacrum, and lumbar flexion in unloaded and loaded set ups for NS and WS squats.*†

Angles before commencement of the descent phase

NS unloaded NS + 50% BW WS unloaded WS + 50% BW

Men (n = 18)
Lumbar start angle 70.8 (5.2) 71.0 (6.4) 75.6 (5.7) 70.8 (6.4)
Sacrum start angle 43.7 (8.0) 46.6 (9.4) 47.0 (8.1) 43.1 (9.2)
Lumbar flexion start angle 2.7 (11.7) 8.5 (11.4) 22.0 (10.3) 7.1 (12.5)
Women (n = 12)
Lumbar start angle 79.8 (9.6) 69.2 (11.0) 72.8 (7.5) 69.8 (9.8)
Sacrum start angle 42.8 (7.9) 47.2 (10.9) 48.3 (8.3) 46.7 (10.5)
Lumbar flexion start angle 3.7 (7.9) 7.9 (4.8) 1.3 (7.1) 5.9 (5.2)
*BW = body weight; NS = narrow stance; WS = wide stance.
†Values are given as mean (SDs) in degrees.

TABLE 5. The maximum angle for the lumbar and normalized time when the maximum occurred during the descent and
ascent phase of the back squat, for NS and WS squats with 95% CI size effect.*†

Descent phase Ascent phase

Description NS WS NS WS

Men (n = 18)
Lumbar start angle (°) 71.0 (0.9) 70.8 (0.7) 37.7 (0.8)‡ 40.4 (1.2)‡
95% CI (69.2, 72.7) (69.3, 72.3) (36.0, 39.4) (38.0, 42.9)
Lumbar max angle (°) 36.8 (0.9)§ 40.0 (1.0)§ 37.3 (0.8)§ 40.0 (1.0)§
95% CI (35.0, 38.5) (38.0, 42.0) (35.7, 38.9) (38.1, 42.0)
Time max lumbar (%) 90.3 (1.2) 91.1 (1.2) 93.5 (1.9)k 89.1 (1.6)k
95% CI (87.9, 92.7) (88.6, 93.6) (89.7, 97.2) (85.9, 92.3)
Lumbar range (°) 234.2 (1.2){ 230.8 (1.2){ 20.4 (0.3) 20.4 (0.6)
95% CI (236.6, 231.8) (233.2, 228.4) (20.9, 0.1) (21.5, 0.8)
Women (n = 12)
Lumbar start angle (°) 69.2 (1.8) 69.8 (1.6) 35.8 (1.1)# 39.7 (1.1)#
95% CI (65.5, 72.9) (66.5, 73.1) (33.6, 38.0) (37.4, 41.9)
Lumbar max angle (°) 35.5 (1.0)** 38.8 (1.1)** 33.8 (1.3)** 38.3 (1.0)**
95% CI (33.4, 37.6) (36.6, 41.0) (31.1, 36.5) (36.3, 40.4)
Time max lumbar (%) 94.1 (1.1) 92.8 (1.5) 93.6 (1.7) 91.7 (1.6)
95% CI (91.9, 96.4) (89.7, 95.8) (90.1, 97.2) (88.5, 94.9)
Lumbar range (°) 233.8 (1.4)†† 231.0 (0.9)†† 22.0 (1.0) 21.3 (0.5)
95% CI (236.6, 230.9) (232.9, 229.1) (24.1, 0.1) (22.4, 20.3)
*CI = confidence interval; NS = narrow stance; WS = wide stance.
†Values are given as mean (SE).
‡Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the starting lumbar angle for men in the ascent phase, when comparing the width of stance.
§Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the maximum lumbar angle achieved for men in both phases, when comparing the width of stance.
k
Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the timing of maximum lumbar angle achieved by men in the ascent phase, when comparing the
width of stance.
{Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the lumbar angle range achieved by men in the descent phase, when comparing the width of stance.
#Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the starting lumbar angle for women in the ascent phase, when comparing the width of stance.
**Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the maximum lumbar angle achieved for women in both phases, when comparing the width of
stance.
††Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the lumbar angle range achieved by women in the descent phase, when comparing the width
of stance.

the TM

2734 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-jscr.org

TABLE 6. The maximum angle for the sacrum and normalized time when the maximum occurred during the descent and
ascent phase of the back squat, for NS and WS squats with 95% CI size effect.*†

Descent phase Ascent phase

Description NS WS NS WS

Men (n = 18)
Sacrum start angle (°) 46.6 (1.3)‡ 43.1 (1.2)‡ 33.2 (1.5)§ 32.9 (1.6)
95% CI (44.1, 49.2) (40.7, 45.5) (30.3, 36.2) (29.7, 36.2)
Sacrum max angle (°) 28.4 (1.3)k 28.7 (1.3) 30.8 (1.3)k 29.1 (1.4)
95% CI (25.8, 31.0) (26.0, 31.3) (28.1, 33.4) (26.3, 31.9)
Time max sacrum (%) 78.2 (1.9) 76.5 (1.9) 80.8 (2.7) 78.6 (2.3)
95% CI (74.4, 81.9) (72.7, 80.2) (75.5, 86.2) (74.0, 83.1)
Sacrum range (°) 218.2 (1.2){# 214.5 (1.0){# 22.4 (0.4)# 23.9 (0.9)#
95% CI (220.7, 215.7) (216.4, 212.5) (23.3, 21.6) (25.6, 22.1)
Women (n = 12)
Sacrum start angle (°) 47.2 (1.8) 46.7 (1.8) 23.1 (2.4)§ 27.1 (2.1)
95% CI (43.5, 50.8) (43.1, 50.3) (18.2, 28.0) (22.9, 31.3)
Sacrum max angle (°) 20.4 (1.9)k** 23.7 (1.3)** 20.3 (1.8)k††** 23.1 (1.3)††**
95% CI (16.6, 24.2) (21.0, 26.3) (16.7, 24.0) (20.5, 25.6)
Time max sacrum (%) 87.2 (1.9) 84.9 (1.7) 87.2 (2.3)‡‡ 82.5 (2.2)‡‡
95% CI (83.4, 90.9) (81.5, 88.4) (82.6, 91.8) (78.0, 87.0)
Sacrum range (°) 226.8 (1.1){§§ 223.1 (1.0){§§ 22.8 (0.9)§§ 24.0 (1.1)§§
95% CI (228.9, 224.6) (225.1, 221.0) (217.9, 211.6) (26.3, 21.8)
*CI = confidence interval; NS = narrow stance; WS = wide stance.
†Values are given as mean (SE).
‡Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the starting sacrum angle for men in the descent phase, when comparing the width of stance.
§Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the starting sacrum angle for NS squats in the ascent phase, when comparing gender.
k
Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the maximum sacrum angle achieved in NS squats in both phases, when comparing gender.
{Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the sacrum angle range for both WS and NS squats in the descent phase, when comparing
gender.
#Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the sacrum angle range achieved for men in both phases, when comparing width of stance.
**Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the maximum sacrum angle for women in both phases, when comparing the width of stance.
††Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the starting sacrum angle for women in the ascent phase, when comparing the width of
stance.
‡‡Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the timing of maximum sacrum angle achieved by women in the ascent phase, when
comparing the width of stance.
§§Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the sacrum angle range achieved for women in both phases, when comparing width of
stance.

on anatomical segments as described in Table 2. Validation of
the system was confirmed against standardized reference
measures, and the variation was ,0.5° and within 0.0034 m.
Three-dimensional magnetic tracking has been previously
validated (27).
The subjects were given time to complete their usual warm-
up procedure. With the sensors attached, the subjects
completed 1 further warm-up set of squats with no additional
load. The width of each subject’s pelvis was measured between
right and left ASIS, using skeletal goniometers (TTM Bone
Caliper [PE054] Mentone International, Moorabin, Australia).
Based on research by Escamilla et al. (14), narrow stance was
defined when the inside distance between the subject’s heels
equaled the pelvic width, measured from right ASIS to left
ASIS. Wide stance squat was defined as twice the pelvic width,
measured from right to left ASIS. The width of each stance
was established using a steel measuring ruler and marks placed
on the floor for each individual stance setup.
To determine if stance influenced movement patterns in
a safe and repeatable manner, a submaximal load of body
weight + 50% (BW + 50%) was chosen. This is a common load
employed by beginners and women and allowed multiple sets
of 8 repetitions without fatigue (12). Submaximal loads also
reduce the possibility of nonvoluntary technique changes
attributed to heavy loads (31) and allowed comparison to
previous studies. The capture of 3 blind repetitions for analysis
occurred within the set of 8 repetitions, the first and last
repetitions were excluded (31).
Foot alignment was not controlled, but in most cases in
the narrow stance squat, the feet were aligned parallel
to the sagittal plane, that is, toes pointed straight ahead; and in
the wide stance squat, the feet were between 20° and 30° away
from the midline. The 50% load was achieved by using an
aluminum Olympic bar placed across the upper trapezius and
the spine of scapula, with the subjects placing their hands in
a palm forward grip.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2735

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Lumbar and Sacrum Movement Pattern

TABLE 7. The maximum angle for lumbar flexion and normalized time when the maximum occurred (mean and standard
error) during the descent and ascent phase of the back squat, for NS and WS with 95% confidence interval size effect.*

Descent phase Ascent phase

Description NS WS NS WS

Men (n = 18)
Lumbar flexion start (°) 8.5 (1.6)†‡ 7.1 (1.7)‡ 34.6 (2.9)†‡ 32.3 (2.8)‡
95% CI (5.3, 11.6) (3.6, 10.5) (28.7, 40.4) (26.6, 38.0)
Lumbar flexion max (°) 34.8 (2.9)§k 32.5 (2.8)k 34.9 (2.9)§k 32.7 (2.9)k
95% CI (28.9, 40.6) (26.9, 38.2) (29.1, 40.6) (26.9, 38.4)
Time max lumbar flexion (%) 96.5 (1.9){ 97.9 (0.9) 97.2 (0.6){# 95.2 (0.9)#**
95% CI (92.7, 99.3) (96.1, 99.6) (96.0, 98.3) (93.5, 97.0)
Lumbar flexion range (°) 26.3 (1.8)†† 25.5 (1.7)†† 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)
95% CI (22.7, 29.9) (22.0, 28.9) (0.0, 0.6) (0.1, 0.5)
Women (n = 12)
Lumbar flexion start (°) 7.9 (0.8)†‡‡ 5.9 (0.9)‡‡ 19.0 (1.9)† 18.3 (1.8)
95% CI (6.3, 9.5) (4.2, 7.7) (15.1, 23.0) (14.7, 22.0)
Lumbar flexion max (°) 20.8 (1.7)§§§ 18.5 (1.8)§§ 20.4 (1.9)§ 19.0 (1.8)
95% CI (17.2, 24.3) (14.9, 22.2) (16.6, 24.2) (15.3, 22.7)
Time max lumbar flexion (%) 83.6 (3.7){ 95.2 (2.0) 86.1 (3.0){ 88.3 (2.6)**
95% CI (76.0, 91.1) (91.1, 99.3) (80.0, 92.2) (83.1, 93.6)
Lumbar flexion range (°) 12.9 (1.8)††kk 12.6 (1.7)††kk 1.4 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2)
95% CI (9.2, 16.5) (9.1, 16.1) (0.3, 2.5) (0.2, 1.1)
*NS = narrow stance; WS = wide stance.
†Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the starting lumbar flexion angle for NS and WS squats in the ascent phase, when comparing
gender.
‡Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the starting lumbar flexion angle for men in both phases, when comparing width of stance.
§Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the maximum lumbar flexion angle achieved for NS squats in both phases, when comparing
gender.
k
Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the maximum lumbar flexion angle achieved by men in the both phases, when comparing width
of stance.
{Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the timing of maximum lumbar flexion angle in NS squat in both phases, when comparing
gender.
#Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the timing of maximum lumbar flexion angle achieved by men in the ascent phases, when
comparing width of stance.
**Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the timing of maximum lumbar flexion angle in WS squat in the ascent phase, when comparing
gender.
††Significant difference (p , 0.01) in lumbar flexion range in NS and WS squat in the descent phase, when comparing gender.
‡‡Significant difference (p , 0.001) in the starting lumbar flexion angle for women in the descent phase, when comparing width of
stance.
§§Significant difference (p , 0.05) in the maximum lumbar flexion angle achieved by women in the descent phase, when comparing
width
kk
of stance.
Significant difference (p , 0.01) in the timing of maximum lumbar flexion angle achieved by women in the descent phase, when
comparing width of stance.

Subjects assumed the squat start position unloaded while an
initial reading was taken. Then, with the loaded bar and
correct width of stance, descended to the deepest point they
felt comfortable with and in control. Subjects were allowed to
stop squatting at any time they wished, and spotters were
ready to assist the subject should the need arise. The actual
technique or depth of the squat were not limited or controlled,
but subjects were encouraged to perform the squat in the
same fashion they would do in normal training, and all
subjects squatted to a depth where thighs level with below
parallel. The squat was performed according to the National
Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) guidelines
on squats and monitored by the main researcher who is an
the TM
NSCA certified Certified Strength and Condiitoning Special-
ist (CSCS) coach at the elite level. Three repetitions were
collected for analysis, and subjects were blind to which 3 of
the 8 performed were recorded, although the first and last
repetitions were excluded. Subjects were given 120-second
recovery between sets. A digital image of the squat technique
is shown in Figure 1.
The magnetic tracking device measures the orthopedic
axes of the lumbar and sacrum. This instrument uses a single
transmitter strapped to the sacrum over L5/S1 and another
transmitter strapped to the lumbar–thoracic junction over the
spinous processes of T12/L1 as shown in Figure 2. These 2
sensors feed back information regarding their relative

2736 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-jscr.org

toward a more lordotic or increased curve in the lumbar

spine and an increase in the lumbar flexion angle would
TABLE 8. Lumbar–pelvic ratios in trunk movement for indicate a move toward a flat or more kyphotic curve of the
descent and ascent phases in NS and WS squats lumbar spine. The results reported show the absolute values
by gender.*†
for the starting angle and maximum angle of each variable
Descent Ascent and the timing of when those angles were achieved.
phase phase The time for each phase (descent and ascent) was
normalized, with the starting point at the top of the squat
NS WS NS WS
(highest vertical displacement of the sacrum) represented as
Men (n = 18) 1.88 2.12 0.17 0.10 0%, whereas the deepest part of the squat (lowest vertical
Women (n = 12) 1.26 1.34 0.71 0.32 displacement of the sacrum) represented as 100%, regardless
of the phase of the movement.
*NS = narrow stance; WS = wide stance.
†The ratio is calculated by dividing the lumbar range of
movement by the sacrum range of movement to show Statistical Analyses
relative movement of each segment towards total trunk A total of 6 different responses were analyzed (maximum
inclination.
lumbar angle; the time at which the maximum lumbar angle
occurred; maximum sacrum angle; the time at which the
maximum sacrum angle occurred; the maximum lumbar
flexion angle; and the time at which the maximum lumbar
position to the world axis (lumbar and sacrum angles), and flexion angle occurred). Each of these 6 responses were
relative to each other (lumbar flexion). Lumbar flexion was analyzed separately for differences between gender (men or
measured comparing the change in relative angle between women), phase (ascent or decent), and stance (WS or NS).
these 2 sensors during the squat. An initial positive The results (Tables 4–7) are presented as mean and standard
measurement would indicate a kyphotic lumbar curve and error analyzed for gender (men or women), stance (WS or
an initial negative measurement would indicate a lordotic NS), and phase (ascent or decent). Intraclass correlation
lumbar curve. A reduction in this angle reflects a move coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess the reliability of

Figure 3. Sample male lumbar angle, sacrum angle, and lumbar flexion angle movement in an NS squat.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2737

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Lumbar and Sacrum Movement Pattern
the repeated measures using the Bland and Altman method
(4). Intraclass correlation coefficient values ,0.4 represented
poor reliability, 0.4–0.7 fair, 0.70–0.90 good, and .0.9
excellent reliability (15). One hundred percent of ICC values
were in the good category (.0.7) and 68.8% in the excellent
category (.0.9), showing good reliability of the data.
Statistical interpretation focused on the main effects and
the threshold for statistical significance was set to p # 0.05.
Linear mixed models were used to model the data using
subjects as random effects. Models were fitted individually
with 1 response and 1 explanatory variable (gender, phase, or
stance) as a fixed effect. Differences were then detected using
the p values from the analysis of variance F-tests on the
corresponding fixed effect.
The ICC for the dependent variables is included in Table 3.
RESULTS
The initial angles for the lumbar, sacrum, and lumbar flexion
angles for unloaded and loaded setups are presented in Table 4.
These results show the adjustment made by the subjects to
the lumbar, sacrum, and lumbar flexion angles in response to
the addition of the loaded bar. Men adjusted lumbar and
sacrum angles more in the wide stance squat in response to the
load, whereas women adjusted these angles more in the narrow
stance squat. For unloaded and loaded, wide and narrow stance
setup positions, men and women adjusted lumbar flexion
angles so as to create a more kyphotic lumbar spine as a means
of coping with the additional load before squatting.
The maximum lumbar angle and normalized time when the
maximum occurred during the descent, ascent for both men
and women are presented in Table 5.
The maximum sacrum angle and normalized time when
the maximum occurred during the descent, ascent for both
men and women are presented in Table 6.
The maximum lumbar flexion angle and normalized time
when the maximum occurred during the descent, ascent for
both men and women are presented in Table 7.
Lumbar and sacrum movements and the timing of when
the maximums occur in these movements differ significantly
across gender and width of stance. Lumbar starting angles and
ranges of movement were similar across gender for each
stance, but the maximum lumbar angle achieved was different
intragender with both groups achieving a significantly re-
duced maximum angle and range of movement with the wide
stance squat compared to the narrow squat. Women achieved
a greater range of movement of the sacrum angle in the
descent phase and the timing of this maximum also occurred
significantly earlier than for men.
There were significant differences in techniques when
comparing the effect of width of stance. The wider stance
allowed all subjects to achieve reduced lumbar, sacrum, and
lumbar flexion angles, whereas the narrow stance squat
caused increased lumbar and sacrum angles and increased
lumbar flexion. Men reached maximum sacrum angles sooner
in the descent and later in the ascent for both widths of stance.
the TM
2738 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
In lumbar flexion timing, women reached the maximum
position sooner in descent and later in ascent for both widths
of stance. The lumbar–sacrum ratios showing contribution
toward total trunk inclination in the squat are presented in
Table 8.
Men showed a higher lumbar–sacrum ratio for both widths
of stance. Men also increased the lumbar–sacrum ratio
substantially for the wide squat compared to the narrow
squat. Women achieved similar ratios regardless of width of
stance. A sample of the typical movements of lumbar angle,
sacrum angle, and lumbar flexion for both phases of a narrow
squat for a man is shown in Figure 3.
DISCUSSION
The first aim of this study was to quantify lumbar and sacrum
movements when performing the back squat exercise and
subsequently determine if width of stance influenced these
movements with regard to gender and phase.
The unloaded spine positions of the sacrum were similar
across gender and stance width. However, the lumbar starting
angles differed significantly between gender for both widths of
stance and lumbar flexion angles differed between genders in
the wide stance unloaded start position. Regardless of stance
and starting position, the adjustment of the lumbar, sacrum and
lumbar flexion angles from the unloaded to loaded start
positions suggest that the human body has a means of
determining the ideal posture of the spine, thus allowing it to
achieve the optimal position to manage the additional load.
This premise is supported by Martin and Nelson (24) who
suggests that the trunk moves forward to align the combined
subject and bar load vertically over the center of gravity
causing the spinal curve to decrease the lordosis.
Once loaded with the 50% additional weight, men and
women had similar lumbar starting angles before the descent
phase, with a difference of ,1.8° for the narrow and wide
stance squats. Sacrum starting angles were also similar
between genders in the narrow squat, but men significantly
altered their starting sacrum angle for wide stance squats,
whereas women maintained similar sacrum angles regardless
of width of stance. Men appear to alter their sacrum angle to
accommodate either structural or mechanical differences in
the pelvic girdle. This significantly different sacrum starting
angle between the 2 widths of stance for men results in a more
posterior tilt to the sacrum for narrow squats as shown by the
increased sacrum starting angle. Width of stance also had
a significant difference in the starting lumbar flexion angle for
both genders, with a more kyphotic lumbar curve in the
narrow squat setup position than for the start of the wide
squat position. This feature may be explained by the reported
increase size of lumbar vertebral bodies and distance between
lumbar vertebrae (18), and the narrower taller pelvis found in
men (25) which may cause men to stand more upright
through the trunk than women.
In performing the squats, there were significant differences
in the maximum lumbar angle and resultant lumbar range of

movement. Both men and women achieved a significantly
smaller lumbar angle in the wide stance squat compared to
the narrow squat in both phases. Although these angles are
very small, this significant difference suggests that the wide
squat allows the lumbar position to remain slightly more
upright and not lean as far forwards as with the narrow squat.
In addition, there is also a significant difference for gender in
the range of lumbar motion between the 2 squats stances in
the descent phase, showing that men perform the narrow
stance by allowing more forward lean of the lumbar spine
than in the wide stance squat. The difference in timing for the
maximum lumbar angle reached by men in the ascent phase
of the narrow squat may also be because of the gender
differences in lumbar structure mentioned previously.
Women subjects reached the maximum forward position at
a later stage of the squat descent than men and significantly
later in the ascent for wide stance squats, suggesting the wider
stance provides women with a greater range of flexibility in
the deepest part of the squat. Furthermore, this interesting
result indicates sacrum movement timing in the ascent can
occur much later, creating 2 different pathways for descent
and ascent in wide stance squats. This feature may be
attributed to the proportionally wider more oval pelvis and
shorter lumbar vertebral length of women (18,25) and the
accepted increased level of flexibility of women (2,17).
Lumbar flexion ranges have been shown to change with
torso inclination (22), and the greater the trunk inclination,
the more likely the lumbar curvature will become kyphotic.
Maximum lumbar flexion range of movement of 60° has been
reported (29), whereas in the current study for both widths of
stance, the start position for the lumbar spine was already in
a kyphotic rather than lordotic position, with the lumbar
flexion angle ranging from 5.9° to 8.5°. During the squat
descent, this kyphosis increased for both genders and in both
widths of stance. This is supported by Walsh et al. (34), who
found that ‘‘weightlifting using a squat bar causes athletes to
significantly hyperextend their lumbar spines.’’ In the current
study, men significantly increased their lumbar flexion and
nearly doubled the lumbar flexion range of movement
achieved by women, a finding that is also supported by Walsh
et al. To squat, it appears that men have a limited range of
movement at the sacrum, and this is compensated by an
increased range of movement in lumbar flexion. This
decreased movement of the sacrum requires men to achieve
an increased kyphosis as part of their movement pattern. This
may relate to the increased level of inherent stiffness men
have in the lumbar spine, compared to women (6). Women
appear to maintain a greater stiffness in the lumbar flexion
angle and make up for this by increased range of movement
in the sacrum. This lower level of inherent stiffness in the
lumbar spine may necessitate women to establish more
muscular control and stability of the lumbar spine and thus
keep a stiffer lumbar curve in movements such as squatting.
The timing of the different spine segments demonstrates
the different coordination methods between men and
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
women. In the descent phase, for both stance widths, men
reach maximum angles of the 3 measures in the order, sacrum
angle, lumbar angle, and lumbar flexion angle. In the ascent
phase, men simply reversed the order. For women in the
narrow stance squat, the sequence in the descent phase was
lumbar flexion angle, sacrum angle, and lumbar angle. With
a different pattern in the wide stance squat of sacrum angle,
lumbar angle, and lumbar flexion angle. A different pattern
emerged in the narrow stance ascent phase with the order
lumbar angle, sacrum angle, and lumbar flexion angle. Finally,
there was a different pattern again in the wide stance, with the
order of lumbar angle, lumbar flexion angle, and sacrum angle.
The reason for this variation found among the women is
unknown and is a topic for future studies.
Lumbar–sacrum ratios were also calculated. This interac-
tion of the lumbar and sacrum described by the lumbar–
sacrum ratio shows the differences between genders for the
manner in which they achieve trunk inclination during
squatting. Men show a significant difference in lumbar–
sacrum ratios with more lumbar movement in the descent
phase and less lumbar movement in the ascent than do
women. Women achieved a more similar lumbar–sacrum
ratio across width of stance in the descent, whereas men
decreased sacrum movement in the wide stance squat, thus
increasing the lumbar–sacrum ratio. This is supported by
other research studies (19,21,30) that show differences in the
patterns of movement and coordination between genders. As
demonstrated in the current study, the segmental coordina-
tion within the squat exercise is a complex issue, pre-
dominately as there are many joints, levers, and structural
aspects that contribute to the overall movement patterns.
Because of these many aspects and the differences in
physique, men and women differ in the manner in which
they coordinate the lumbar sacral region to perform a squat.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Previous research has not reported on squat movement
pattern differences between men and women. The current
research has shown that there are significant differences in the
squatting behavior for men and women when compared
across both WS and NS setups. In the squat exercise
environment, professionals need to understand the influence
that the width of stance plays on these behaviors and the
different movement patterns men and women achieve under
loads equal to 50% of BW. This would be most evident when
viewing women in the sagittal plane where health profes-
sionals would see differences in the timing of the sequences
between descent and ascent phases when considering the
movements of the sacrum and lumbar spines. Further, the use
of the same screening protocols for squatting movements
between men and women must be questioned. The squat is
commonly used as a screening tool in the practical setting and
coaches and trainers should avoid comparing male squat
patterns to that of women especially when considering
scarum and lumbar movements and timing.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2739
 Lumbar and Sacrum Movement Pattern
The common squat technique presented in previous
research suggests maintaining a flat to semicurved lumbar
spine when squatting. The current research has shown that as
soon as the 50% BW load is placed across the shoulders, the
lumbar curve flattens and becomes slightly kyphotic before
the subject commences the descent. This change of lumbar
curve is marginal, and we suggest it would be difficult to view
with the naked eye. Coaches using the change in lumbar
curve, or lumbar flexion angle, as a determining factor, or
teaching cue for good squat technique may in fact be
interfering with normal lumbar movement behavior. Further,
the point at which the subject loses the lumbar curve cannot
be used as a cue to determine when a person should cease the
descent. We suggest that kyphosis of the lumbar spine in deep
squatting is a natural part of the squat movement when using
loads equal to 50% BW and coaches should not prevent
experienced squatters from allowing this to happen to the
small extent shown in this research.
The current research also shows that the movement
pattern used by women when squatting involves a much
stiffer lumbar spine position or less change in the lumbar
flexion. Previous research suggests men have a stiffer lumbar
spine because of the additional soft tissue support than
women, and the authors suggest that women may benefit
from enhanced strength training of the surrounding muscu-
lature of the lumbar spine and trunk region to provide
additional stiffness to support the lumbar spine region during
squat type activities. Coaches may see improved squatting
abilities in women who develop supporting muscles of the
trunk during the preparation phases or before each pro-
gressive increase in training loads.
Finally width of stance created several changes in squatting
movement patterns across both men and women. Modifying
stance width is a common exercise variation in the strength
training environment, and this research has shown that the
movement patterns so alter significantly with regards to the
different spinal segments. Coaches need to appreciate this
when altering stance width and not expect a person to
perform the squat in an identical pattern of movement. This
also suggests that the motor pattern developed by people who
squat is different between stances and both widths of stance
should be taught progressively to ensure the movement
pattern is equally learned across both widths of stance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
No funding was received for this research project.
REFERENCES
1. Abelbeck, KG. Biomechanical model and evaluation of a linear
motion squat type exercise. J Strength Cond Res 16: 516–524, 2002.
2. Allander, E, Bjornsson, O, Olafsson, O, Sigfusson, N, and
Thorsteinsson, J. Normal range of joint movements in shoulder, hip,
wrist and thumb with special reference to side: A comparison
between two populations. Int J Epidemiol 3: 253–261, 1974.
the TM
2740 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3. Bazrgari, B, Shirazi-Adl, A, and Arjmand, N. Analysis of squat and
stoop dynamic liftings: Muscle forces and internal spinal loads. Eur
Spine J 16: 687-699, 2006.
4. Bland, M and Altman, D. Measurement error and correlation
coefficients. BMJ 313: 41–42, 1996.
5. Brinckmann, P, Hoefert, H, and Jongen, H. Sex differences in the
skeletal geometry of the human pelvis and hip joint. J Biomech 14:
427–430, 1981.
6. Brown, M, Holmes, D, Heiner, A, and Wehman, K. Intraoperative
measurement of lumbar spine motion segment stiffness. Spine 27:
954, 2002.
7. Burgess-Limerick, R. Squat, stoop, or something in between? In:
Straker, L and Pollock, C, (eds.) 1999. CD-ROM Proceedings of
CybErg 1999: The Second International Cyberspace Conference on
Ergonomics. The International Ergonomics Association Press,
Curtin University Perth, 1999. pp. 143–148.
8. 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.
9. Comfort, P and Kasim, P. Optimizing squat technique. Strength Cond
J 29: 10–13, 2007.
10. Delitto, RS and Rose, SJ. An electromyographic analysis of two
techniques for squat lifting and lowering. Phys Ther 72 438, 1992.
11. Dionisio, VC, Almeida, GL, Duarte, M, and Hirata, RP. Kinematic,
kinetic and EMG patterns during downward squatting.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18: 134–143, 2008.
12. Donnelly, DV, Berg, WP, and Fiske, DM. The effect of the direction
of gaze on the kinematics of the squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res
20: 145–150, 2006.
13. Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Lowry, TM, Barrentine, SW, and
Andrews, JR. A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the
squat during varying stance widths. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 984,
2001.
14. Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Zheng, N, Lander, JE, Barrentine, SW,
Andrews, JR, Bergemann, BW, and Moorman III, CT. Effects of
technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and leg
press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1552, 2001.
15. Fleiss, J. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York,
NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1986.
16. Fry, AC, Smith, JC, and Schilling, BK. Effect of knee position on hip
and knee torques during the barbell squat. J Strength Cond Res 17:
629–633, 2003.
17. Gabbard, C and Tandy, R. Body composition and flexibility among
prepubescent males and females. J Hum Mov Stud 14: 153–159,
1988.
18. Gilsanz, V, Boechat, M, Ramon Gilsanz, P, Loro, M, Roe, T, and
Goodman, W. Gender differences in vertebral sizes in adults.
Radiology 190: 678–682, 1994.
19. Kernozek, TW, Torry, MR, Van Hoof, H, Cowley, H, and Tanner, S.
Gender differences in frontal and sagittal plane biomechanics during
drop landings. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 1003, 2005.
20. Liebenson, C. Activity modification advice: Part II–squats. J Body
Mov Ther 7: 230–232, 2003.
21. Lindbeck, L and Kjellberg, K. Gender differences in lifting technique.
Ergonomics 44: 202–214, 2001.
22. Maduri, A, Pearson, B, and Wilson, S. Lumbar-pelvic range and
coordination during lifting tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18: 807–814,
2007.
23. Marras, W, Jorgensen, M, Granata, K, and Wiand, B. Female and
male trunk geometry: Size and prediction of the spine loading trunk
muscles derived from MRI. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16: 38–46,
2001.

24. Martin, P and Nelson, R. The effect of carried loads on the walking
patterns of men and women. Ergonomics 29: 1191–1202, 1986.
25. Mays, S and Cox, M. Sex Determination in Skeletal Remains. Human
Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2000. pp. 117–142.
26. McCaw, ST and Melrose, DR. Stance width and bar load effects on
leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31
428, 1999.
27. Mills, P, Morrison, S, Lloyd, D, and Barrett, R. Repeatability of 3D
gait kinematics obtained from an electromagnetic tracking system
during treadmill locomotion. J Biomech 40: 1504–1511, 2007.
28. Morrissey, MC, Harman, EA, Frykman, PN, and Han, KH. Early
phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell squat training. Am J
Sports Med 26: 221, 1998.
29. Norkin, C, White, D, and White, J. Measurement of Joint Motion: A
Guide to Goniometry. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis, 1995.
30. O’Brien, A and O’Sullivan, L. A biomechanical, physiological and
psychophysical study of the squat, stoop and semi-squat lifting
techniques. In: Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society Annual
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Conference. O’Sullivan, L and Chan, S, eds. Limerick, Ireland:
University of Limerick, 2005. pp. 26–31.
31. Paoli, A, Marcolin, G, and Petrone, N. The effect of stance width on
the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles
during back squat with different bar loads. J Strength Cond Res 23:
246, 2009.
32. Scaglioni-Solano, P, Song, JE, and Salem, GJ. Lower extremity
biomechanics during different squat depths. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37:
S393, 2005.
33. Signorile, JF, Kacsik, D, Perry, A, Robertson, B, Williams, R,
Lowensteyn, I, Digel, S, Caruso, J, and LeBlanc, WG. The effect of
knee and foot position on the electromyographical activity of the
superficial quadriceps. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 22: 2–9, 1995.
34. Walsh, JC, Quinlan, JF, Stapleton, R, FitzPatrick, DP, and McCormack, D.
Three-dimensional motion analysis of the lumbar spine during ‘‘Free
squat’’ Weight lift training. Am J Sports Med 35: 927, 2007.
35. Wretenberg, PER, Feng, YI, and Arborelius, U. High-and low-bar
squatting techniques during weight-training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:
218, 1996.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2741