Anne Khuu1, Cara L Lewis2. 1. Boston University, Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, PhD Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, 635 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: akhuu@bu.edu. 2. Boston University, Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, PhD Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, 635 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: lewisc@bu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kinematic differences between females and males for the single leg squat (SLS) have been identified. However, kinetic differences between sexes and how variations of the non-stance leg position during the SLS may affect kinematics and kinetics differently in females and males have not been examined. OBJECTIVES: Examine sex-specific kinematic and kinetic differences during the SLS task with 3 different non-stance leg positions. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study, cross-sectional design. METHODS: Thirty-two healthy adults (16 females, 16 males) performed the 3 SLS tasks while data were collected using a motion capture system and force plates. At 60 degrees of knee flexion (60KF) and peak knee flexion (PKF), kinematics and joint moments were compared between sexes and SLS tasks using a linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Females exhibited less ipsilateral trunk flexion (P < 0.001) and greater anterior pelvic tilt (P ≤ 0.021) and hip adduction (P < 0.001) than males across tasks at 60KF and PKF. Across tasks, females had a smaller knee flexion moment than males at PKF (P = 0.001). Females had a greater hip abduction moment during SLS-Front than SLS-Middle (P = 0.044) and SLS-Back (P = 0.003) at PKF, but males had similar hip abduction moments across tasks (P ≥ 0.299). At 60KF, males had a greater knee adduction moment during SLS-Front compared to the other tasks (P ≤ 0.019) while females had similar hip abduction moments across tasks (P ≥ 0.459). CONCLUSION: Altering the non-stance leg position during the SLS affects the kinematics and kinetics of both females and males. The position of the non-stance leg can be modified for assessment and treatment purposes and should be reported in research.
BACKGROUND: Kinematic differences between females and males for the single leg squat (SLS) have been identified. However, kinetic differences between sexes and how variations of the non-stance leg position during the SLS may affect kinematics and kinetics differently in females and males have not been examined. OBJECTIVES: Examine sex-specific kinematic and kinetic differences during the SLS task with 3 different non-stance leg positions. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study, cross-sectional design. METHODS: Thirty-two healthy adults (16 females, 16 males) performed the 3 SLS tasks while data were collected using a motion capture system and force plates. At 60 degrees of knee flexion (60KF) and peak knee flexion (PKF), kinematics and joint moments were compared between sexes and SLS tasks using a linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Females exhibited less ipsilateral trunk flexion (P < 0.001) and greater anterior pelvic tilt (P ≤ 0.021) and hip adduction (P < 0.001) than males across tasks at 60KF and PKF. Across tasks, females had a smaller knee flexion moment than males at PKF (P = 0.001). Females had a greater hip abduction moment during SLS-Front than SLS-Middle (P = 0.044) and SLS-Back (P = 0.003) at PKF, but males had similar hip abduction moments across tasks (P ≥ 0.299). At 60KF, males had a greater knee adduction moment during SLS-Front compared to the other tasks (P ≤ 0.019) while females had similar hip abduction moments across tasks (P ≥ 0.459). CONCLUSION: Altering the non-stance leg position during the SLS affects the kinematics and kinetics of both females and males. The position of the non-stance leg can be modified for assessment and treatment purposes and should be reported in research.
Authors: Randy J Schmitz; Anthony S Kulas; David H Perrin; Bryan L Riemann; Sandra J Shultz Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Martin B Warner; David A Wilson; Lee Herrington; Sharon Dixon; Conor Power; Richard Jones; Markus O Heller; Patrick Carden; Cara L Lewis Journal: Phys Ther Sport Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Cale A Jacobs; Timothy L Uhl; Carl G Mattacola; Robert Shapiro; William S Rayens Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2007 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Gustavo Luís Bellizzi; Tenysson Will-Lemos; Renan Alves Resende; Ana Cristina Corrêa Cervi; Paulo Roberto Pereira Santiago; César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas; Débora Bevilaqua-Grossi; Lidiane Lima Florencio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Magdalena Zawadka; Jakub Smolka; Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska; Edyta Lukasik; Aleksandra Bys; Grzegorz Zielinski; Piotr Gawda Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 4.379