
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

37547841
83942
10.26603/001c.83942
Original Research
Thoracolumbar and Lumbopelvic Spinal Alignment During the Barbell Back Squat: A Comparison Between Men and Women
Bengtsson Victor 1
Berglund Lars 2
Öhberg Fredrik 3
Aasa Ulrika 2
1 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health Uppsala university
2 Community medicine and rehabilitation Umeå university
3 Department of Radiation Sciences Umeå university
Corresponding author: Lars Berglund Umeå University, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation Umeå University 901 87 Umeå lars.berglund@umu.se +46730226576
1 8 2023
2023
18 4 820830
28 9 2022
16 6 2023
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Maintaining neutral spinal alignment is considered important when performing the barbell back squat exercise. Since male and female lifters may differ in injury location it is important to examine whether they differ in spinal alignment during the back squat.

Objectives

The study aimed to quantify the spinal alignment in the upper and lower lumbar spine during the barbell back squat exercise in male and female lifters. Secondary aims were to compare alignment during the back squat to standing habitual lumbar spine alignment and determine whether male and female lifters differ in these aspects.

Study Design

Observational, Cross-sectional.

Methods

Competitive power- and weightlifters were recruited and performed three repetitions of the barbell back squat exercise using a load equivalent to 70% of their one-repetition maximum. Spinal alignment and range of motion were measured using inertial measurement units placed on the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine. Data was presented descriptively and comparisons between men and women as well as spinal alignment in four different positions were done with a factorial repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

Twenty-three (14 males, 9 females) were included. During execution of the squat, spinal alignment adjustments in the lumbar spine were made in all three planes of movement, compared to the start position, in both male and female lifters. Compared to their standing habitual posture, all lifters adjusted their upper lumbar spine to a less lordotic position when in the start position of the back squat (standing upright with the barbell on their back). Only male lifters assumed a less lordotic alignment in their lower lumbar spine in the start position compared their habitual posture.

Conclusions

Adjustments of spinal alignment, predominantly in the sagittal plane, are made during execution of the back squat in both male and female lifters. Further, lifters adopt a less lordotic alignment with a heavy barbell on their upper back, more so in male than female lifters. In conclusion, it seems that spinal alignment changes noticeably during the barbell back squat.

Level of Evidence

3

Inertial sensors
Lifting technique
Posture
Powerlifting
Weightlifting
None declared.
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

The barbell back squat is considered a safe strength training exercise, provided it is performed and progressed in a controlled manner.1–3 However, the squat appears to be associated with injuries in people participating in powerlifting, weightlifting, bodybuilding, and strongman sports.4 In Sweden, 70% of sub-elite powerlifters reported a current injury, and 87% had experienced an injury within the prior 12 months.5 The lumbopelvic region were one of the most frequently injured areas for both sexes, although men appeared to have a slightly higher frequency of lumbopelvic injuries, 42%, compared to 23% for women.5 Also notable was the difference between men and women regarding injuries to other parts of the spine where women had a significantly higher frequency of neck (20%) and thoracic injuries (29%) than men which reported zero (0%) injuries to these parts of the spine.

Numerous authors have discussed the importance of optimal technique for prevention of injuries during the barbell back squat.6–8 With respect to the spine, a correct technique is described as maintaining the spine in an upright position with preservation of its neutral posture while the trunk is held stable without any observation of wavering or displacement in all planes of movement, throughout the entire squat movement6,8 In a neutral posture, where the spine usually has a gentle “S” shape where the lower back has a slight lordotic curve and the thoracic spine a slight kyphotic curve, it is said that axial load is distributed in a balanced way in all movement segments.9 It seems, however, that there is an ongoing discussion about what constitutes correct squat technique for different parts of the body,3,6 though robust evidence in the matter is somewhat lacking. Nevertheless, experts have stated that improper technique in combination with heavy loads may cause back injuries while squatting10 and that flexion (rounding), twisting (rotating), and side bending of the spine are movements that should be avoided to reduce risk of injury risk and improve performance.11 In support of this, previous studies have reported that the ability to maintain the lumbar spine in a neutral position modifies the forces exerted on the body structures12 and that an inability to maintain a neutral position increases the potential to overload spine and soft tissues to the point of injury, especially when repeated over time.6

Previous authors have described the kinetics and kinematics of the squat using video analysis, magnetic tracking devices, or motion capture systems.13–17 However, a growing body of scientific literature has investigated the utility of inertial measurement units (IMUs) to assess exercise technique18 and for monitoring of the spinal alignment during resistance training.19 Inertial measurement units have been validated to electromagnetic based system for measuring 3D spinal ranges of movement and spinal coupled motion measurement20 and are reliable for measuring joint angles during physical activities.21 Further, IMU systems have been shown to provide data that can distinguish between acceptable and aberrant squat techniques and have been shown to be able to identify technique deviations.22

Results from previous studies have shown that the spinal alignment is adjusted during the performance of the squat and that the adjustments may be influenced by sex,15 load,16 lifting phase (i.e. concentric or eccentric phase)15,16 and stance width.15 However, there are several more variables that might influence spinal alignment, for example, one is how proficient the lifter is in the specific movement and so far, no study has evaluated the kinematics in a group of experienced lifters.

Considering that the lumbopelvic region appears to be one of the most injured anatomical locations among powerlifters and weightlifters4,23 and that men and women who powerlift appear to have different injury rates to different part of the spine, it was hypothesized that men and women move, and thereby load, their spine differently when performing the barbell back squat. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to quantify the spinal alignment in the upper (thoracolumbar, T11-L2) and lower (lumbopelvic, L2-S2) lumbar spine during the barbell back squat exercise in male and female lifters. Secondary aims were to compare alignment during the barbell back squat to standing habitual lumbar spine alignment and determine whether male and female lifters differ in these aspects.

METHODS

To quantify lumbar spine alignment IMUs where used to measure three-dimensional angles of the upper lumbar spine (i.e. thoracolumbar) and lower lumbar spine (i.e. lumbopelvic). Spinal alignment was measured in habitual standing and during performance of three repetitions of the barbell back squat with a high load (70% of self-estimated one repetition maximum (RM)).

Participants

Powerlifters and weightlifters were recruited through invitations to powerlifting and weightlifting clubs, respectively, in Umeå, Sweden. Only lifters with ≥two years of strength training experience, without present injuries that could affect squat performance, and with the intent of competing in powerlifting or weightlifting were included. Also, to avoid the risk of IMUs touching each other during the data collection, only lifters whose height was ≥150 cm were included. In order to ensure that eligibility criteria was met, all participants completed a questionnaire. No participant had any recent or previous medical issues which prevented them from participating in the study. They also signed written informed consent form prior to participation. The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board of Umeå, Sweden (Dnr 2014-285-31M).

Procedures

At the day of data collection, participants first answered a questionnaire and thereafter they completed a self-administred warm-up typically consisting of squats with an unloaded barbell progressing to heavy squats. Thereafter, three calibrated IMUs (MPU-9150, InvenSense, San Jose, USA) were affixed with double-sided tape and elastic self-adhesive bandage wraps to their back by the test leader at processus spinosus T11 and L2, and Sacrum (S2). Thereafter, the lifters completed one further set of warm-up bodyweight squats before data collection while the test leader ensured that the IMUs were set firmly and did not hinder squat performance. The lifters, who were wearing their preferred shoes, were then instructed to assume their habitual standing posture with their arms at their sides while looking straight ahead. Habitual spinal posture (habitual posture) was measured using the IMUs in this position. Thereafter, spinal alignment was registered during the squat. The lifters were asked to perform one set of three repetitions at 70% 1RM. Weight plates of official measures were attached to each end of a powerlifting barbell and the weight was adjusted to the nearest 2.5 kg. After receiving a start signal, the lifters were instructed to descend by flexing at the hip, knee and ankle joints until the crease of the hip was lower than the top of the knee.24 From the bottom position, the lifters ascended to the start position by extending the same joints. They stayed in this erect position and waited for a new signal before beginning the descent of the next repetition. No equipment other than wrist wraps was allowed.

Instruments and measurements

The spinal alignment (degrees) was measured during habitual posture in standing and during execution of the squat exercise. The IMUs recorded their position in all three planes of movement relative to each other and thus measured the three-dimensional angles of the upper lumbar spine (i.e. thoracolumbar spine, T11-L2) and lower lumbar spine (i.e lumbopelvic spine, L2-S2). A positive sagittal plane value indicated a lordotic spinal alignment and negative sagittal plane value indicated a kyphotic spinal alignment. A positive value in the frontal and horizontal plane indicated a right lateral flexion or rotation, respectively. A negative value in the frontal and horizontal plane indicated a left lateral flexion or rotation, respectively.

During the squat, four measures were selected to quantify spinal alignment: First, start position (the lifters standing erect with the barbell held across the back), second, min angle (the minimum angle, at any time during the squat, of the respective lumbar region in degrees), third, max angle (the maximum angle, at any time during the squat, of the respective lumbar region in degrees), and fourth, range of motion (ROM) between the minimum and maximum angles of the respective lumbar regions. The mean value of the three repetitions were used for data analysis for all variables.

The IMUs have a size of length 60 x width 45 x height 10 mm and weigh 14 g each and the IMUs communicated with a laptop via WiFi and had a sampling frequency of 100 Hz, a 16-bit resolution and an anti-aliasing low pass filter set at 50 Hz. The full-scale range was ±1000 °/s for the gyroscopes, ±8 g for the accelerometers and ±4800 µT for the magnetometers. Using three axis gyros and three axis accelerometers, the IMUs detected three-dimensional spinal alignment and real-time orientation was calculated using a customised system MoLabTM POSE (AnyMo AB, Umeå, Sweden).25

Data handling and statistical analyses

Orientation data (i.e., segment angles) from the IMUs were processed in Matlab (version 7.10.0 (R2010a), The MathWorks, Inc., USA). The Euler sequence used for the segment angles were X (rotations in the sagittal plane), Y (rotations in the frontal plane), and Z (rotations in the transverse plane). To each segment, a caudally and adjacent segment was selected as a reference in the calculation of joint angles. All orientation data was low-pass filtered offline with a second order Butterworth filter at a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz. The filter coeffcient was set to 10 Hz as human gross motion selldom contains frequencies above 10 Hz.26 A more detailed description of the used algorithms can be found in Öhberg et al.25 Inter- and intra-tester reliability has been estimated in a previous study showing higher intra-tester reliability.27

Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (mixed ANOVA) was conducted to compare the influence of the independent variables (group: 1=men and 2=women) and the effect of the dependent variable (segment angle at four different positions (1=habitual posture, 2=start position, 3=min angle at any timepoint, and 4=max angle at any timepoint)) using the mean values for the three repetitions. Sphericity was calculated using Mauchly’s test of Sphericity. If sphericity was was not assumed, a correction was made using the Greenhouse-Geisser estimation. If significant position x group effects were found, the results were also presented separately for male and female lifters. If significant within-subjects effects were found, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were calculated. Partial eta squared (η2p) was calculated for effect size, using 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 to indicate small, medium and large effects respectively.28 Significance level was set at 0.05 and Bonferroni corrections were performed for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Background characteristics for participants are presented in Table 1. Comparisons between male and female lifters showed that male lifters were significantly taller and heavier, had more resistance training experience and were stronger (Independent samples t-test, p<0.05) than the female lifters. There was no significant difference between male and female lifters for age. The lifters (n=23) reported current injuries (i.e., pain and impaired ability to perform the squat or deadlift exercises) of the lumbopelvic region (n=2), hip (n=3), knee (n=2) and shoulder (n=2).

171391 Table 1. Participant characteristics (mean ± SD).

Participants	Age (y)	Weight (kg)	Height (cm)	Experience (y)*	Squat 1RM (kg)†	
All (n=23)	25.5 ± 5.5	80.4 ± 11.5	171.5 ± 7.2	7.9 ± 6.3	134.5 ± 42.1	
Men (n=14)	26.7 ± 6.3	85.2 ± 10.8	174.9 ± 5.3	9.8 ± 7.5	162.9 ± 25.8	
Women (n=9)	23.3 ± 3.0	72.9 ± 8.5	166.1 ± 9.8	5.0 ± 2.0	90.5 ± 14.1	
*Strength training experience; †Self-estimated squat 1 repetition maximum.

The spinal alignment of the upper lumbar spine during standing habitual posture, and during the squats for the start position, minimum and maximum angle, and range of motion are presented in Table 2. For the upper lumbar spine, there were no differences between male and female lifters in spinal alignment (group x position interaction in the sagittal plane (F[1.6, 32.8] = 1.2, p = 0.309), frontal plane (F[1.7, 35.4] = 1.61, p = 0.217), or horizontal plane (F[1.9, 39.3] = 0.14, p = 0.860). In all participants their sagittal plane spinal alignment in standing habitual posture differed from the alignment at the start position and spinal adjustments were made in all three movement planes during the squat (significant main effect for position in the sagittal plane (F[1.6, 32.8] = 51.6, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.711), frontal plane (F[1.7, 35.4] = 21.27, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.503), and horizontal plane (F[1.9, 39.3] = 22.10, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.513). All three statistically significant comparisons for the upper lumbar spine had large effect sizes (η2p > 0.14).

171392 Table 2. Three-dimensional angles of the upper lumbar spine (thoracolumbar region) during standing Habitual posture, and during the squat for the Start position, Minimum (Min) angle, Maximum (Max) angle and range of motion (ROM) in degrees (°) as well as results of the factorial repeated measures ANOVA (within-subjects effect).

Measure	Habitual posture (°)	Start position (°)	Min angle (°)	Max angle (°)	ROM (°)	Within-subjects effect Time*group	Within-subjects effect Time	
	p	Partial Eta Squared	p	Partial Eta Squared	
All (n=23)										
Sagittal plane	17.5 ± 12.5	7.8 ± 9.7†	4.0 ± 7.7†‡	13.7 ± 9.5‡	9.7 ± 3.1	0.309	0.053	<0.001	0.711	
Frontal plane	0.9 ± 2.4	0.3 ± 3.1	-1.9 ± 4.2†‡	1.7 ± 3.3‡	3.6 ± 2.0	0.217	0.071	<0.001	0.503	
Horizontal plane	-0.4 ± 0.8	-0.3 ± 2.8	-2.2 ± 2.6†‡	1.5 ± 2.2†‡	3.7 ± 1.5	0.860	0.006	<0.001	0.513	
Men (n=14)										
Sagittal plane	12.1 ± 6.1	2.7 ± 6.0	0.3 ± 4.6	8.8 ± 5.3	8.5 ± 2.6					
Frontal plane	0.4 ± 2.4	-0.7 ± 3.0	-3.2 ± 4.4	0.4 ± 3.1	3.6 ± 2.3					
Horizontal plane	-0.1 ± 0.3	-0.3 ± 3.2	-2.1 ± 2.8	1.7 ± 2.1	3.8 ± 1.6					
Women (n=9)										
Sagittal plane	25.8 ± 15.6	15.8 ± 9.2	9.8 ± 8.2	21.4 ± 9.6	11.6 ± 2.9					
Frontal plane	1.8 ± 2.4	1.8 ± 2.6	0.0 ± 3.0	3.7 ± 2.7	3.6 ± 1.7					
Horizontal plane	-0.4 ± 0.8	-0.3 ± 2.8	-2.2 ± 2.6	1.3 ± 2.6	3.6 ± 1.3					
*A positive sagittal plane angle indicated a lordotic spinal alignment and negative sagittal plane angle indicated a kyphotic spinal alignment. A positive value in the frontal and horizontal plane indicated a right lateral flexion or rotation, respectively. A negative value in the frontal and horizontal plane indicated a left lateral flexion or rotation, respectively.

†Significant difference to Habitual posture after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.

‡Significant difference to Start position after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.

For the lower lumbar spine (Table 3), only the male lifters decreased their lumbar lordosis during the start position compared to during standing habitual posture (group x position interaction in sagittal plane spinal alignment (F[1.9, 38.9] = 8.59, p = 0.001, η2p = 0.290). There were no differences between men and women in spinal alignment in the frontal (F[1.6, 34.3] = 1.16, p = 0.316) or horizontal planes (F[1.7, 34.7] = 0.45, p = 0.605) spinal alignment. In all participants their sagittal plane spinal alignment in standing habitual posture differed from the alignment at the start position and spinal adjustments were made in all three movement planes during the squat (significant main effect for position in the sagittal plane (F[1.9, 38.9] = 131.52, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.862), frontal plane (F[1.6, 34.3] = 19.15, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.477), and horizontal plane (F[1.7, 34.7] = 30.92, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.596). All three statistically significant comparisons for the lower lumbar spine had large effect sizes (η2p > 0.14).

171393 Table 3. Three-dimensional angles of the lower lumbar spine (lumbopelvic region) during standing Habitual posture, and during the squat for the Start position, Minimum (Min) angle, Maximum (Max) angle and range of motion (ROM) in degrees (°) as well as results of the factorial repeated measures ANOVA (within-subjects effect).

Measure	Habitual posture (°)	Start position (°)	Min angle (°)	Max angle (°)	ROM (°)	Within-subjects effect Time*group	Within-subjects effect Time	
	P	Partial Eta Squared	P	Partial Eta Squared	
All (n=23)										
Sagittal plane	16.5 ± 10.7	12.2 ± 8.9†	-4.5 ± 8.0†‡	13.6 ± 8.4	18.1 ± 4.7	0.001	0.290	<0.001	0.862	
Frontal plane	-0.3 ± 3.5	0.2 ± 4.8	-1.8 ± 4.7†‡	1.3 ± 4.8‡	3.1 ± 1.1	0.316	0.052	<0.001	0.477	
Horizontal plane	0.1 ± 0.7	-0.8 ± 2.3	-2.6 ± 2.4†‡	0.8 ± 2.0‡	3.5 ± 1.3	0.605	0.021	<0.001	0.596	
Men (n=14)										
Sagittal plane	17.9 ± 7.7	9.9 ± 6.0†	-7.1 ± 5.6† ‡	11.5 ± 5.0†	18.6 ± 3.3			<0.001	0.933	
Frontal plane	-0.3 ± 3.5	0.8 ± 5.5	-1.3 ± 4.9	1.9 ± 5.3	3.2 ± 1.2					
Horizontal plane	-0.1 ± 0.6	-1.2 ± 2.6	-2.8 ± 2.9	0.4 ± 2.2	3.2 ± 1.2					
Women (n=9)										
Sagittal plane	14.4 ± 14.5	15.7 ± 11.7	-0.5 ± 9.8†‡	16.9 ± 11.5	17.4 ± 6.6			<0.001	0.767	
Frontal plane	-0.4 ± 3.5	-0.7 ± 3.5	-2.6 ± 4.3	0.4 ± 4.0	3.1 ± 1.2					
Horizontal plane	0.1 ± 0.7	-0.1 ± 1.6	-2.4 ± 1.5	1.4 ± 1.6	3.9 ± 1.4					
*A positive sagittal plane angle indicated a lordotic spinal alignment and negative sagittal plane angle indicated a kyphotic spinal alignment. A positive value in the frontal and horizontal plane indicated a right lateral flexion or rotation, respectively. A negative value in the frontal and horizontal plane indicated a left lateral flexion or rotation, respectively.

†Significant difference to Habitual posture after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.

‡Significant difference to Start position after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.

The factorial repeated measures ANOVA simple effects for position in upper and lower lumbar sagittal plane spinal alignment are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

171394 Figure 1. Upper (thoracolumbar region) and lower lumbar spine (lumbopelvic region) sagittal plane Habitual posture and Start position in degrees (°) presented in mean values and 95% CI.

LL = Lower lumbar spine (L2-S2), UL = Upper lumbar spine (T11-L2).

171395 Figure 2. Upper (thoracolumbar region) and lower lumbar spine (lumbopelvic region) sagittal plane Start position, Min angle, and Max angle in degrees (°) presented in mean values and 95% CI.

LL = Lower lumbar spine (L2-S2), UL = Upper lumbar spine (T11-L2).

The full kinematic tracings of the angle between the IMU at L2 and axis of gravity, in the sagittal plane, for the full sample (n=23), during the squat is visualized in Figure 3.

171396 Figure 3. Angle between IMU at L2 and axis of gravity during the squat movement, (eccentric phase approx. 0-50 %, concentric phase approx. 50-100 %). Presented as mean angle (degrees) for men (blue line, n=14) and women (red line, n=9) and standard deviation (blue/red shade).

DISCUSSION

This is the first study to investigate spinal alignment during the barbell back squat in experienced male and female power- and weightlifters. During the squat, spinal alignment was adjusted in all three planes of movement, especially in the sagittal plane. Lordosis in the upper lumbar spine (T11-L2) decreased among all participants from habitual posture to start position. In the lower lumbar spine (L2–S2) lordosis also decreased, but only among the male lifters. The difference in spinal alignment are consistent with the results of a study by McKean et al.,15 showing that with both a wide and narrow stance width the lumbar spine adjusts to a less lordotic alignment when a loaded barbell is placed on the shoulders.15 It is reasonable to hypothesize that the participants adjusted their spinal alignment in order to cope with the load and keep the combined body and barbell center of gravity within the base of support.15 However, the reason why male but not female lifters decreased their lordosis in the lower lumbar spine in their habitual posture compared to the start position is somewhat unclear. One possible explanation could be the female lifters, on average, used a load of 125% of their bodyweight and male lifters 192% of their bodyweight, and thereby not creating the same need to adjust their spinal alignment in order to keep their center of gravity within their base of support. Also, whether these differences between men and women in spinal kinematics could account for differences in injury localizations are unknown.

The results showing that lifters decrease their lumbar lordosis during the squat, is consistent with previous studies.13,15,16,29,30 Hebling Campos et al.29 found that the lumbar curvature is more flexed in the deepest position of a squat compared to the habitual standing. Further, the lumbar flexion is more evident when restricting the anterior translation of the knees.13,29 The less lordotic spinal alignment could, at least in part, be explained by the inherent hip flexion performed during the squat. Powerlifters in particular tend to perform a so called powerlifting style squat by “sitting back” into the squat. A greater forward lean during lifting tasks increases the likelihood of a less lordotic spinal alignment31 and it has further been argued that it is easier to maintain lumbar lordosis with an upright trunk when deadlifting.32 However, to the authors knowledge no studies have investigated underlying causes behind the different squat exercise movement patterns seen in male and females.

In contrast, Walsh et al.16 found that athletes extended their lumbar spines to a significant degree when squatting with heavier loads (60 and 80% of 1RM) but not with light loads (40% of 1RM). However, regardless of load, the athletes flexed their spines while descending to the bottom position. Walsh et al. noted that as a result, the athletes brought the weight in front of the spinal column and shifted their center of gravity anteriorly towards the forefoot. It was therefore speculated that lifters hyperextended their lumbar spine to shorten the moment arm length and to keep the center of gravity within the base of support. However, a shorter moment arm length could be achieved both by flexing and extending the spine and the reason for choosing one over the other direction is yet to be determined and may be dependent on the torso inclination. It should also be noted that in the study by Walsh et al.16 the subjects did not squat to IPF approved squat depth, but rather reversed the movement at apporixmately 90 degrees of hip flexion, which could explain the opposing results compared to the present study and the study by McKean et al.15

Minor adjustments of spinal alignment were made in the frontal and horizontal planes. This is in agreement with previous research showing less than 5° of lateral flexion and axial rotation when squatting with moderate to heavy loads.16 These minor adjustments in the frontal and horizontal planes are most likely not clinically relevant and implies that analyzing and correcting movements in these planes may be of less importance for the overall lifting performance.

Position statements and guidelines have proposed that neutral posture should be preserved during the squat, and that the trunk should be held stable without wavering or displacements throughout the movement.6–8 The observed adjustments of the lumbar spine alignment would imply that the lifters in the present study completed the squat with a technique proposed to increase risk of back injuries.6–8 However, the causative relationship between back injury and spinal alignment when squatting is yet to be confirmed.33 Further, the magnitude of the adjustments into flexion during the squat were 3.8 ± 4.3 and 16.7 ± 5.6 degrees in upper and lower lumbar spine, respectively, and should therefore be well within the lumbar spine range of motion in flexion/extension.

Some methodological considerations should be considered. Firstly, the lifters were asked to perform a squat with the only instruction being to, at their own pace, descend to a depth where the crease of the hip was lower than the top of the knee. Regarding depth, it was ascertained that they descended until the hip crease was lower than the top of the knee but some of them might have reached a greater depth. Therefore it is possible that these variations could, at least in part, explain the adjustments in spinal alignment.

Secondly, the lifters were instructed to perform three repetitions with a load equivalent to 70% of the lifters self-estimated 1RM. This repetition range and load are commonly used by both powerlifters and weightlifters and previous studies quantifying spinal alignment when squatting have used loads ranging from 40% to 80% of 1RM. It has to be noted though that load might influence on spinal alignment among recreational lifters.16 It is not yet known whether this also is true for competitive lifters, who are more used to lifting heavy loads.

Thirdly, when performing the ANOVA analysis the mean value of the three repetitions was used. This could have resulted in a regression to the mean. However, this was chosen over using a single repetition since using the mean values reduces the risk of random variations between repetitions.

Fourthly, angles measured using sensors on the skin might differ from the actual skeletal spinal alignment when musculature underneath is contracted. Skin tissue artefacts is a problem that cannot, however, be eliminated when using measurement systems that are based on mounting markers or sensors on the skin and must be considered when interpreting the results.

Lastly, a few lifters reported current injuries to the lumbopelvic, hip, knee and shoulder regions which impaired, but did not hinder, their ability to perform the squat and/or deadlift. It is also possible that some lifters had previously experienced pain and injury to the lumbopelvic region and lower extremities. Since it is well known that pain conditions can cause short term adaptations to lumbar spine kinematics and possibly also long term adaptations,34 the injury prevalence in the current sample could have affected the results. However, there were only two/three participants in total who reported a current lumboplevic or hip injury and therefore no statistical analysis of how pain could be associated with differences in lumbopelvic kinematics was included.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study show that spinal adjustments are made by experienced male and female power- and weightlifters in all planes of movement during the barbell back squat. Most significantly, all lifters reduced their lordosis in the start position of the squat compared to their habitual posture, and all lifters reduced their lordosis even further during the squat. Male lifters also seem to reduce their lower lumbar spine lordosis significantly more than females in the start position compared to their habitual posture. The results can impact practice with relevance to how the barbell back squat is assessed, instructed, and executed in regard to the notion that the lumbar spine needs to maintain its neutral position during lifting. For example, the results imply that coaches and lifters might not need to be over vigilant in correction of spinal movements as long as the amplitude of movements do not place the individual in their outer ranges of motion. In all, spinal adjustments during heavy resistance training need further study to reveal their importance for performance and/or injury risk and possible explanations to why they occur.

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Jimmy Falk for his help with the data collection and to Boxen Umeå, Sweden, for allowing us to collect data in their facilities.
==== Refs
Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat: a brief review Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Clark Dave R. Lambert Mike I. Hunter Angus M. 4 2012
26 4 1169 1178 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31822d533d 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31822d533d 22373894
The squat exercise in athletic conditioning: A position statement and review of the literature Journal of strength and conditioning research Chandler T.J. Stone M.H. 1991
13 51 60
Analysis of the load on the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load Sports Medicine Hartmann Hagen Wirth Klaus Klusemann Markus 3 7 2013
43 10 993 1008 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-013-0073-6 10.1007/s40279-013-0073-6 23821469
The epidemiology of injuries across the weight-training Sports Sports Medicine Keogh Justin W. L. Winwood Paul W. 2017
47 3 479 501 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-016-0575-0 10.1007/s40279-016-0575-0 27328853
Prevalence and consequences of injuries in powerlifting: a cross-sectional study Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Strömbäck Edit Aasa Ulrika Gilenstam Kajsa Berglund Lars 1 5 2018
6 5 2325967118771016 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967118771016 10.1177/2325967118771016 29785405
The back squat: a proposed assessment of functional deficits and technical factors that limit performance Strength & Conditioning Journal Myer Gregory D. Kushner Adam M. Brent Jensen L. Schoenfeld Brad J. Hugentobler Jason Lloyd Rhodri S. Vermeil Al Chu Donald A. Harbin Jason McGill Stuart M. 12 2014
36 6 4 27 1524-1602 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000103 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000103 25506270
Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Escamilla RAFAEL F. 1 2001
33 1 127 141 0195-9131 10.1097/00005768-200101000-00020 10.1097/00005768-200101000-00020
Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Schoenfeld Brad J 12 2010
24 12 3497 3506 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181bac2d7 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181bac2d7
Muscles, testing and function: with Posture and pain Kendall F.P. Kendall E. Williams & Wilkins Baltimore, MD 1993

Weight training injuries: part 1: diagnosing and managing acute conditions The Physician and Sportsmedicine Reeves Ronald K. Laskowski Edward R. Smith Jay 2 1998
26 2 67 96 0091-3847 10.3810/psm.1998.02.939 10.3810/psm.1998.02.939
Content validity index and reliability of a new protocol for evaluation of lifting technique in the powerlifting squat and deadlift Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Sjöberg Henrik Aasa Ulrika Rosengren Martin Berglund Lars 9 2020
34 9 2528 2536 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002791 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002791 30199449
Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities Journal of Biomechanics Dolan P. Earley M. Adams M.A. 10 1994
27 10 1237 1248 0021-9290 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90277-1 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90277-1
Kinematics of the trunk and the lower extremities during restricted and unrestricted squats Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research List Renate Gülay Turgut Stoop Mirjam Lorenzetti Silvio 6 2013
27 6 1529 1538 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182736034 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182736034 22990570
Comparison of the angles and corresponding moments in the knee and hip during restricted and unrestricted squats Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Lorenzetti Silvio Gülay Turgut Stoop Mirjam List Renate Gerber Hans Schellenberg Florian Stüssi Edgar 10 2012
26 10 2829 2836 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318267918b 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318267918b
The lumbar and sacrum movement pattern during the back squat exercise Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research McKean Mark R. Dunn Peter K. Burkett Brendan J. 10 2010
24 10 2731 2741 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181e2e166 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181e2e166
Three-dimensional motion analysis of the lumbar spine during "free squat" weight lift training The American Journal of Sports Medicine Walsh James C. Quinlan John F. Stapleton Robert FitzPatrick David P. McCormack Damian 6 2007
35 6 927 932 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546506298276 10.1177/0363546506298276 17307893
Kinematic analysis of the powerlifting style squat and the conventional deadlift during competition: is there a cross-over effect between lifts? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Hales Michael E Johnson Benjamin F Johnson Jeff T 12 2009
23 9 2574 2580 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181bc1d2a 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181bc1d2a
Multi-label classification for the analysis of human motion quality Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Taylor P. E. Almeida G. J. M. Hodgins J. K. Kanade T. 8 2012
2012 2214 8 10.1109/embc.2012.6346402 10.1109/embc.2012.6346402 23366363
The development and validation of using inertial sensors to monitor postural change in resistance exercise Journal of Biomechanics Gleadhill Sam Lee James Bruce James Daniel 5 2016
49 7 1259 1263 0021-9290 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.012 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.012 27038542
Measurement of lumbar spine range of movement and coupled motion using inertial sensors – a protocol validity study Manual Therapy Ha Tshui-Hung Saber-Sheikh Kambiz Moore Ann P. Jones Mark P. 2 2013
18 1 87 91 1356-689X 10.1016/j.math.2012.04.003 10.1016/j.math.2012.04.003
Evaluation of validity and reliability of inertial measurement unit-based gait analysis systems Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine Cho Young-Shin Jang Seong-Ho Cho Jae-Sung Kim Mi-Jung Lee Hyeok Dong Lee Sung Young Moon Sang-Bok 31 12 2018
42 6 872 883 2234-0645 10.5535/arm.2018.42.6.872 10.5535/arm.2018.42.6.872 30613081
Technology in strength and conditioning: assessing bodyweight squat technique with wearable sensors Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research O'Reilly Martin A. Whelan Darragh F. Ward Tomas E. Delahunt Eamonn Caulfield Brian M. 8 2017
31 8 2303 2312 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001957 10.1519/jsc.0000000000001957 28731981
Injuries among weightlifters and powerlifters: a systematic review British Journal of Sports Medicine Aasa Ulrika Svartholm Ivar Andersson Fredrik Berglund Lars 2017
51 4 211 219 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 27707741
International Powerlifting Federation IPF 2016-5-13 http://www.powerlifting-ipf.com/
Comparative analysis of different adaptive filters for tracking lower segments of a human body using inertial motion sensors Measurement Science and Technology Öhberg Fredrik Lundström Ronnie Grip Helena 16 7 2013
24 8 085703 0957-0233 10.1088/0957-0233/24/8/085703 10.1088/0957-0233/24/8/085703
Optimising filtering parameters for a 3D motion analysis system Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Schreven Sander Beek Peter J. Smeets Jeroen B.J. 10 2015
25 5 808 814 1050-6411 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.06.004 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.06.004
Seated postural neck and trunk reactions to sideways perturbations with or without a cognitive task Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Stenlund T.C. Lundström R. Lindroos O. Häger C.K. Burström L. Neely G. Rehn B. 6 2015
25 3 548 556 1050-6411 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.03.002 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.03.002 25843010
Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs Frontiers in Psychology Lakens Daniël 2013
4 863 1664-1078 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 24324449
The geometric curvature of the lumbar spine during restricted and unrestricted squats The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness Hebling Campos Mário Furtado Alaman Laizi I. Seffrin-Neto Aldo A. Vieira Carlos A. Costa de Paula Marcelo Barbosa de Lira Claudio A. 5 2017
57 6 773 781 0022-4707 10.23736/s0022-4707.16.06184-3 10.23736/s0022-4707.16.06184-3 27015103
How to squat? Effects of various stance widths, foot placement angles and level of experience on knee, hip and trunk motion and loading BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation Lorenzetti Silvio Ostermann Mira Zeidler Fabian Zimmer Pia Jentsch Lina List Renate Taylor William R. Schellenberg Florian 17 7 2018
10 1 14 2052-1847 10.1186/s13102-018-0103-7 10.1186/s13102-018-0103-7 30026952
Lumbar–pelvic range and coordination during lifting tasks Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Maduri A. Pearson B.L. Wilson S.E. 10 2008
18 5 807 814 1050-6411 10.1016/j.jelekin.2007.02.012 10.1016/j.jelekin.2007.02.012 17449278
Improving the deadlift: understanding biomechanical constraints and physiological adaptations to resistance exercise Strength & Conditioning Journal Hales Michael 8 2010
32 4 44 51 1524-1602 10.1519/ssc.0b013e3181e5e300 10.1519/ssc.0b013e3181e5e300
Narrative review of injuries in powerlifting with special reference to their association to the squat, bench press and deadlift BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine Bengtsson Victor Berglund Lars Aasa Ulrika 7 2018
4 1 e000382 2055-7647 10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000382 10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000382 30057777
Interaction between pain, movement, and physical activity: short-term benefits, long-term consequences, and targets for treatment The Clinical Journal of Pain Hodges Paul W. Smeets Rob J. 2 2015
31 2 97 107 0749-8047 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000098 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000098
