USAWA

By Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

THE GUESSING GAME – BOX SQUATS

Part III: Removing the Guesswork

          Part II (see part II) of this series reviewed what was likely the first study to investigate kinematic differences between a box-squat-like movement and the standard squat. The next study was published by the Neuromuscular Laboratory at Appalachian State University in North Carolina in 2010.(2) They wanted to know what effect removing the stretch-shortening cycle via the box squat might have. They compared the box squat to the standard squat at 60%, 70%, and 80% 1-RM (1-rep maximum, the maximal amount of weight you can lift once). Their subjects were competitive male powerlifters with a minimum of 3 years experience and they looked at peak force and power during the concentric phase (i.e., ascent) along with relevant muscles’ activity. The squat was performed with a quick transition between hitting the hole and blasting back up and the box squat required a one second pause. The primary finding was that both forms of the squat were very similar, indicating that the box squat had “neither a positive nor a negative effect on squat performance.” This surprised the scientists because despite the one-second pause on the box, sufficient amounts of elastic energy remained available to negate significant differences between the two forms of squatting.

There are a few limitations that deserve mention. First, only a 1-second pause was investigated in the box squat. The usual recommendation includes times twice to five times as long. Perhaps the amortization phase requires more than one second to significantly lose its benefits. Second, the scientists did not define their box squat technique. It’s possible that the subjects held the position on the box firmly in an isometric contraction for one second as opposed to sitting back and resting on the box as is usually recommended. In doing so, the subjects would not have broken the coupling phase of contractions, which could explain why elastic energy remained to benefit the ascent.

A year later the same scientists provided additional information.(3) This time they also calculated peak velocity and made it clear that they removed the coupling phase. What the calculations revealed was that, generally, muscle activity was significantly higher in the standard squat compared to the box squat. This left the research team to conclude that, “It does not appear that the box squat, which removes the coupling phase, increases muscle activity in either the eccentric or concentric phase.” Based on their analyses they deduced that, “The box squat does not appear to be a viable alternative to squatting…which would not optimize training adaptations.”

A Final Look

The most recent study was published in 2012.(4) This research is very complex in terms of the kinetic variables investigated and results analyses and interpretations. I’m limiting my review to those aspects most related to the comparison of the box squat to powerlifting squat.

The research team used 12 well-trained powerlifters with an average training experience of 9.2 years. The testing protocol I shall present is the one with the heaviest weight, i.e., 70% 1-RM. Though 30% and 50% 1-RM were also investigated, I’m omitting those findings because, 1) although of great scientific value, those intensities don’t reflect the training most strength athletes engage in; 2) by including findings at lesser intensities, the math is skewed away from the higher training intensity; 3) since research shows that the degree of muscle involvement can change as lifting intensity rises (1), I thought it prudent to only look at the heaviest weight lifted (see Part 1).

The scientists looked at the traditional squat (weightlifter’s style), powerlifting squat, and box squat. The box squat employed the powerlifting squat style along with sitting/rocking backward on the box as is mostly advised in the gym setting. Each subject paused on the box for the same duration used in training, which ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 seconds. All conditions required the powerlifters to squat as explosively out of the hole as possible.

One of the most interesting findings was that the forces generated in the box squat were the weakest. The same was found for peak power values; the box squat came in last. In terms of speed of movement, the traditional squat was superior to the powerlifting squat and the box squat came in last. Although mathematically insignificant, I thought I’d share it with you because perhaps you might still consider that meaningful. In regard to the rate of force development, however, the box squat showed values three to four times greater than the other squat techniques. Another important finding was that the greatest hip moments were observed in the powerlifting squat and the least in the box squat. The same comparisons were found for the lower back and knees.

Another important consideration is that during the weightlifting and powerlifting squat, large increases in force were measured during the transition in and out of the hole. During the box squat, however, these forces decreased tremendously, though they would “then rapidly increase during the concentric phase.” This is expected, and nice to have scientific confirmation for, since you’re starting a squat out of the hole from nothing. Of course this also highlights how ineffective the box squat would be for improving standard squat abilities because a critical performance component of the latter is removed from the movement.

Finally, in looking at joint angles of the hip, knee, ankle, and shank, significant differences were noted between the box squat and powerlifting squat. This, too, is an important consideration when it comes to training specificity, one of the key variables required to maximize training gains. With a significant difference between joint angles in these two squat movements, even though the subjects were instructed to copy their powerlifting squat style to the box squat, it’s not clear how the box squat would be able to increase performance in the powerlifting squat.

This group of scientists noted that one of the key findings of previous research is that if you can maximize the production of all of the variables this group looked at, you would provide your body with the best stimulus necessary for long-term strength gains. Rather clearly, the box squat would not be able to deliver.

The next step is to tie the research together and derive at a conclusion. Part IV will attempt to do so.

References

1. Król, H. and A. Golaś. Effect of barbell weight on the structure of the flat bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 31(5):1321–1337, 2017.
2. McBride, J., et al. Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 24(12):3195-3199, 2010.
3. Skinner, J., et al. Comparison of performance variables and muscle activity during the squat and box squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 25(Supplement 1):S21, 2011.
4. Swinton, P., et al. A biomechanical comparison of the traditional squat, powerlifting squat, and box squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 26(7):1805–1816, 2012.

By Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

THE GUESSING GAME – BOX SQUATS

Part II: Less Guesswork

“The progressive evolution of athletic performance and specific conditioning techniques is dependent on a thorough understanding of those mechanisms underlying dynamic muscular function.”(2)

In Part I, I presented someone’s guess that has huge intuitive appeal—that the box squat will enhance your squat strength and power for driving out of the hole. I made a guess, too, and to derive at it I asked what is perhaps the most important question anybody can ask about any training concept: by what physiological mechanism would that idea work? I could find none. The question is, might there be something going on that’s less well understood about muscle contraction mechanisms that might render the box squat a useful tool after all?

Our knowledge of how important the coupling and amortization phases (see Part I) are to you being able to produce maximal strength goes back to research published in 1931.(1) Back then, however, those phase-terms were not used. Since then research has built upon itself and advanced our knowledge of what we now term the stretch-shortening cycle. What all this scientific study would suggest is that the promise that performing box squats will enhance your regular squat is nonsense. But I wanted to verify or refute my “guess” based specifically on research that looked at the squat and box squat.

A First Look

I believe the best starting point to be research published in 1998.(2) The researchers recruited 40 athletes of various sports. They all had a minimum of 1 year squatting experience and could squat a minimum of 1.5 times their body weight. The entirety of testing methods are too complex to mention here, but to briefly illustrate included a modified Smith machine that measured and controlled speed of movement, among other things; a force plate to gather much data on force, power, work, etc.; electromyography to measure muscle contractions; and more.

The subjects were tested in three conditions: 1. They had to squat from the bottom position up, similar to a box squat. What was dissimilar to a box squat was that they had to first hold an isometric contraction for no more than 1.5 seconds before exploding upward; 2. The “stretch-shortening squat” was tested, which you may view as a normal competition squat with an intact coupling and optimized amortization phase; 3. The subjects had to perform a maximal isometric contraction against an immovable bar for 100 to 200 milliseconds before it automatically released and allowed the athletes to explode out of the hole.

Among many data points analyzed, the most important consideration for the strength athlete is that the greatest effect on the squat was achieved in the stretch-shortening condition, i.e., a regular squat. That was followed by the squat preceded by a maximal isometric contraction and lastly by squatting from the bottom up as in a box squat, which resulted in the weakest readings. In fact, the readings generated from the standard squat were more than twice that compared to the box squat style. The research team concluded that the quicker you transition from lowering the bar to exploding upward, the more strength you’ll be able to demonstrate. This finding is entirely in line with what you would expect considering the basics of muscle contraction mechanisms/physiology. Bottom line, you must have an intact coupling phase along with the briefest amortization phase possible. Only then can you expect to demonstrate maximal strength and power.

Still, because this was initial work done on the squat and how different methods of commencing the ascent might influence strength and power, there were a lot of methodological controls put in place. Researchers place a great deal of control into their studies in an effort to eliminate extraneous variables that might influence the outcome. In doing so, they obtain very specific and accurate information. From there, future research builds and looks at additional variables that might have an impact. And so it could be argued that since in this initial work the squat was performed with an empty bar and the speed of ascent could not exceed the 0.4 meters per second set by the modified Smith machine, no matter how hard each athlete tried, the squatting was not as specific to a regular competition squat as necessary for an accurate comparison. Of course the research team acknowledged this while outlining in painstaking detail the reasons for their approach. Moreover, it could be argued that when the subjects commenced the squat from a dead stop without pre-stretch or isometric contraction first, that movement pattern was not exactly the same as what’s generally advised in doing a box squat.

So far things don’t look good for the box squat, but the above concerns may or may not be valid, which means I had to dig deeper into the research advancements. Part III will look at comparisons between the actual box squat and standard squat.

References

1. Fenn, W.O., et al. The tension developed by human muscles at different velocities of shortening. American Journal of Physiology. 97:1–14, 1931.
2. Walsche, A., et al. Stretch-shorten cycle compared with isometric preload: contributions to enhanced muscular performance. Journal of Applied Physiology. 84(1):97–106, 1998.