Makine ve Serbest Ağırlıkla Uygulanan Halter Squat Egzersizinde Kas Aktivasyonu ve Yorgunluk Düzeylerinin Karşılaştırılması

Year 2025, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 19 - 31, 30.06.2025

Fatih Gür , Beste Serter , Vedat Ayan

Abstract

Squat egzersizi, direnç antrenmanlarında temel bir hareket olup, atletik performansı artırmanın yanı sıra eklem stabilitesini destekler ve kemik yoğunluğunu yükseltir. Squat egzersizlerinin serbest ağırlıklar veya makinelerle uygulanması, kas aktivasyonu ve yorgunluk düzeylerini etkileyebilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, serbest ağırlıkla ve Smith makinesi ile uygulanan halter squat egzersizlerinin akut etkilerini kas aktivasyonu, algılanan yotgunluk ve sıçrama performansı açısından karşılaştırmaktır. Direnç antrenmanı geçmişi olan on yedi üniversite öğrencisi (yaş: 23,0 ± 2,8 yıl) randomize çapraz desenli tasarım ile araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Katılımcılar, %70 1 tekrar maksimum (1RM) yükle, iki farklı protokol doğrultusunda halter squat uygulamıştır: serbest ağırlıkla squat ve Smith makinesiyle squat (5 set x 8 tekrar, setler arası 3 dakikalık dinlenme). Bulgular, vastus lateralis kasında kas aktivasyonunun Smith makinesi protokolünde anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir (p < 0.05). Ancak algılanan yorgunluk (RPE) ve sıçrama performansı (CMJ) açısından iki squat yöntemi arasında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmemiştir (p > 0.05). Ayrıca, her iki protokol de egzersiz sonrası CMJ performansında benzer düzeyde azalmaya yol açmıştır. Bu sonuçlar, Smith makinesinin serbest ağırlıklara kıyasla kas aktivasyonunu artırmasına rağmen, genel performans çıktıları ve algılanan yorgunluk düzeylerinin iki yöntem arasında benzer olduğunu göstermektedir. Antrenörler ve sporcular, bireysel antrenman hedefleri ve tercihlere göre her iki yöntemi de programlarına dâhil edebilir.

Keywords

Sıçrama performansı, Kas aktivasyonu, Algılanan yorgunluk, Direnç antrenmanı, Smith makinesi

Comparison of Muscle Activation and Fatigue Levels in Barbell Squat Exercise Performed with Machine and Free Weights

Abstract

The squat exercise is a fundamental movement in resistance training that enhances athletic performance, supports joint stability, and increases bone density. The execution of squats using either free weights or machines can influence muscle activation and fatigue levels. This study aimed to compare the acute effects of barbell squat exercises performed with free weights and the Smith machine on muscle activation, perceived exertion, and jump performance. Seventeen university students (age: 23.0 ± 2.8 years) with resistance training experience participated in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed barbell squats at 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) using two different protocols: free weight squats and Smith machine squats (5 sets of 8 repetitions, with 3-minute rest intervals between sets). Findings indicated that muscle activation in the vastus lateralis was significantly higher in the Smith machine condition (p < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed in perceived exertion (RPE) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance between the two squat modalities (p > 0.05). Additionally, both squat techniques resulted in similar decreases in CMJ performance after the exercise session. These results suggest that while the Smith machine increases muscle activation compared to free weights, the overall performance outcomes and perceived exertion levels are comparable between the two squat methods. Coaches and athletes may incorporate both methods into their training programs based on individual goals and preferences.

Keywords

Jump performance, muscle activation, perceived fatigue, resistance training, smith machine

References

• A Alba-Jiménez, C., Moreno-Doutres, D., & Peña, J. (2022). Trends assessing neuromuscular fatigue in team sports: A narrative review. Sports, 10(3), 33.
• Amritashish, B. (2015). An Electromyographical Analysis of Barbell and Smith Machine Squats among Weight Lifters. International Journal of Sports Sciences & Fitness, 5(2), 293-303.
• Anderson, K., & Behm, D. G. (2005). Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat movements. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 30(1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1139/h05-103
• Bashir, M., Soh, K. G., Samsudin, S., Akbar, S., Luo, S., & Sunardi, J. (2022). Effects of functional training on sprinting, jumping, and functional movement in athletes: A systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology, 13, 1045870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.1045870
• Carraro, A., Paoli, A., & Gobbi, E. (2018). Affective response to acute resistance exercise: A comparison among machines and free weights. Sport Sciences for Health, 14(2), 283-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-018-0427-4
• Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. (2005). Comparison of muscle force production using the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(1), 169-176.
• Cuevas-Aburto, J., Jukic, I., Chirosa-Ríos, L. J., González-Hernández, J. M., Janicijevic, D., Barboza-González, P., Guede-Rojas, F., & García-Ramos, A. (2022). Effect of traditional, cluster, and rest redistribution set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual responses during strength-oriented resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(6), 1490-1497. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003658
• Haff, G. G. (2000). Roundtable discussion: Machines versus free weights. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 22(6), 18.
• Heidel, K. A., Novak, Z. J., & Dankel, S. J. (2022). Machines and free weight exercises: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing changes in muscle size, strength, and power. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 62(8), 1061-1070. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0022-4707.21.12929-9
• Hernández-Belmonte, A., Martínez-Cava, A., Buendía-Romero, Á., Franco-López, F., & Pallarés, J. G. (2023). Free-weight and machine-based training are equally effective on strength and hypertrophy: Challenging a traditional myth. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 55(12). https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003271
• Konrad, P. (2005). ABC of EMG: A practical introduction to kinesiological electromyography. Noraxon INC. O’Grady, M. W., Young, W. B., & Talpey, S. (2015). A comparison of Smith machine & barbell half squats to elicit potentiation in countermovement jump performance. J Aus Strength Cond Res, 23, 90–94.
• Schwanbeck, S., Chilibeck, P. D., & Binsted, G. (2009). A comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine squat using electromyography. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2588-2591. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b1b181
• Schwanbeck, S. R., Cornish, S. M., Barss, T., & Chilibeck, P. D. (2020). Effects of training with free weights versus machines on muscle mass, strength, free testosterone, and free cortisol levels. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(7), 1851-1859. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003349
• Schwarz, N., Harper, S., Waldhelm, A., McKinley-Barnard, S., Holden, S., & Kovaleski, J. (2019). A comparison of machine versus free-weight squats for the enhancement of lower-body power, speed, and change-of-direction ability during an initial training phase of recreationally-active women. Sports, 7(10), 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7100215
• Stone, M. H., Hornsby, W. G., Mizuguchi, S., Sato, K., Gahreman, D., Duca, M., Carroll, K. M., Ramsey, M. W., Stone, M. E., Pierce, K. C., & Haff, G. G. (2024). The use of free weight squats in sports: A narrative review—terminology and biomechanics. Applied Sciences, 14(5), 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051977
• Svensson, F., Aasa, U., & Strong, A. (2022). Textile electromyography electrodes reveal differences in lower limb muscle activation during loaded squats when comparing fixed and free barbell movement paths. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 1021323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.1021323
• Zuna, I. A. (2024). The benedits of kneeflexions (squats) on body health. Romanian Journal of Medical Rehabilitation Physical Medicine and Balneoclimatology, 1(1), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.59277/RJMRPMB.2024.1.14