The Effects of Footwear on Squat Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of different footwear (bare feet, flat-soled shoes, and weightlifting shoes) on balance during a barbell back squat in novice and advanced participants. It was hypothesized that i) weightlifting shoes would increase balance performance in the anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) directions, and ii) advanced participants would demonstrate increased balance performance in the AP and ML direction compared to novice participants. 17 participants (9 novice and 8 advanced) performed 3 trials of a single squat repetition, using a 45lb Olympic standard barbell on a force plate, with bare feet, flat shoes, and weightlifting shoes. Squat 1 and 2 were used as warm-up repetitions and data was collected during squat 3 of each condition. Participants were characterized as either novice or advanced based on the number of training sessions they performed squats each week. Novice participants squatted with a barbell less than once per week, and advanced squatted with a barbell more than once per week. Balance performance was quantified by the percentage of time the centre of pressure (CoP) had the smallest displacement from the average CoP location. A chi-square test was performed to determine the statistically significant changes in CoP displacement between the 3 footwear conditions; accordingly, the post hoc significance interval was calculated to P0.0167). Using a 2-way ANOVA, no significant differences were found between novice and advanced participants’ root mean square values for normalized CoP in the AP or ML directions (P>0.05). Participants during the weightlifting shoe condition were found to have better regulation of balance compared to bare feet or flat shoes conditions. Additionally, it was found that novice and advanced participants did not regulate balance differently from each other during the squat movement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".