# Comparative Analysis of Performance in the High-Bar vs. Low-Bar Squat
## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to compare the 1 RM, load-velocity, and force-velocity relationships between the low-bar and high-bar squat exercise. Previous research has examined the factors that contribute to successful performance in competition events, with particular emphasis on the velocity and displacement of the barbell, which have been identified as key success factors for exercises such as the snatch and clean and jerk [39]. Participants executed both techniques in two sessions a week apart and the movement was recorded using a linear position transducer. The results showed that there was a difference between \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Technique** & **Participants** & **Load 1 RM (kg)** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Propulsive** \\ **Velocity at 1 RM (m/s)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Propulsive Force at 1 RM** \\ **(N)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{High-bar squat} & Men (N = 9) & 123.3 \(\pm\) 14.8 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 1274.0 \(\pm\) 143.0 \\  & (N = 9) & (112.0–134.7) & (0.22–0.33) & (1165.3–1382.8) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Women (N = 10) & 75.5 \(\pm\) 17.2 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 788.6 \(\pm\) 164.4 \\  & (N = 10) & (64.7–86.3) & (0.24–0.35) & (685.4–891.8) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Total (N = 19) & 98.2 \(\pm\) 29.1 *** & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 1018.5 \(\pm\) 290.9 *** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Low-bar squat} & Men (N = 9) & 132.2 \(\pm\) 16.2 & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 1386.8 \(\pm\) 184.1 \\  & (N = 9) & (121.1–143.3) & (0.25–0.37) & (1268.0–1505.6) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & Women (N = 10) & 80.5 \(\pm\) 15.4 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 842.3 \(\pm\) 154.2 \\ \cline{1-1}  & (N = 10) & (70.0–91.0) & (0.26–0.37) & (729.6–955.0) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & Total (N = 19) & 105.0 \(\pm\) 30.6 *** & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 1100.2 \(\pm\) 324.0 *** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* *** Difference (\(p\) < 0.001) between low- and high-bar squat exercise techniques as a result of the two-way ANOVA.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Back Squat test results (mean \(\pm\) SD; and confidence intervals at 95%). Figure 6: The continuous velocity profile of the movement during the concentric phase of the squat (i.e., from the lowermost position to the uppermost position) as recorded by the linear position transducer. the techniques applied, with greater forces and loads being applied using the low-bar technique. A mean difference of 7 kg in the 1 RM was observed in this study when the participants performed the low-bar squat. As a consequence, a higher force was produced using this technique [40], a finding that is consistent with previously published literature [13; 22]. Recent studies on well-trained powerlifters showed greater activation of all muscles in the eccentric phase and the hip extensors in the concentric phase at 60-70% 1 RM [23; 41], which could be one of the reasons for this improvement. Given that the force-velocity curve analysis in the present study also shows that the low-bar technique generates higher forces and velocities at similar loads, this could be an important consideration when programming the loads during training. For example, the velocity of 1 RM for a squat exercise was established at 0.32 m/s in previous studies [19; 28]. However, in our study we found changes in the velocity-load relationship regarding the technique, so these reference values could be modified. Regarding gender, a significant interaction between technique \(\times\) gender was observed in mean propulsive force. However, this difference disappears when the results are normalized to body mass. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [42] compared normalized net joint moments, moment arms, and muscle activity in the bench press exercise between women and men, concluding that gender affected bench press technique substantially. Our results also showed that males demonstrated a higher load in both exercises compared to females, which is in accordance with previous research [43].