Cargando…
A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions
Background. The purpose of this study was to compare the peak electromyography (EMG) of the most commonly-used position in the literature, the prone bent-leg (90°) hip extension against manual resistance applied to the distal thigh (PRONE), to a novel position, the standing glute squeeze (SQUEEZE)....
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4582950/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26417543 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1261 |
_version_ | 1782391779758178304 |
---|---|
author | Contreras, Bret Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. Beardsley, Chris Cronin, John |
author_facet | Contreras, Bret Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. Beardsley, Chris Cronin, John |
author_sort | Contreras, Bret |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background. The purpose of this study was to compare the peak electromyography (EMG) of the most commonly-used position in the literature, the prone bent-leg (90°) hip extension against manual resistance applied to the distal thigh (PRONE), to a novel position, the standing glute squeeze (SQUEEZE). Methods. Surface EMG electrodes were placed on the upper and lower gluteus maximus of thirteen recreationally active females (age = 28.9 years; height = 164 cm; body mass = 58.2 kg), before three maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) trials for each position were obtained in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. Results. No statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed between PRONE (upper: 91.94%; lower: 94.52%) and SQUEEZE (upper: 92.04%; lower: 85.12%) for both the upper and lower gluteus maximus. Neither the PRONE nor SQUEEZE was more effective between all subjects. Conclusions. In agreement with other studies, no single testing position is ideal for every participant. Therefore, it is recommended that investigators employ multiple MVIC positions, when possible, to ensure accuracy. Future research should investigate a variety of gluteus maximus MVIC positions in heterogeneous samples. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4582950 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45829502015-09-28 A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions Contreras, Bret Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. Beardsley, Chris Cronin, John PeerJ Anatomy and Physiology Background. The purpose of this study was to compare the peak electromyography (EMG) of the most commonly-used position in the literature, the prone bent-leg (90°) hip extension against manual resistance applied to the distal thigh (PRONE), to a novel position, the standing glute squeeze (SQUEEZE). Methods. Surface EMG electrodes were placed on the upper and lower gluteus maximus of thirteen recreationally active females (age = 28.9 years; height = 164 cm; body mass = 58.2 kg), before three maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) trials for each position were obtained in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. Results. No statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed between PRONE (upper: 91.94%; lower: 94.52%) and SQUEEZE (upper: 92.04%; lower: 85.12%) for both the upper and lower gluteus maximus. Neither the PRONE nor SQUEEZE was more effective between all subjects. Conclusions. In agreement with other studies, no single testing position is ideal for every participant. Therefore, it is recommended that investigators employ multiple MVIC positions, when possible, to ensure accuracy. Future research should investigate a variety of gluteus maximus MVIC positions in heterogeneous samples. PeerJ Inc. 2015-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4582950/ /pubmed/26417543 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1261 Text en © 2015 Contreras et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Anatomy and Physiology Contreras, Bret Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. Beardsley, Chris Cronin, John A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
title | A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
title_full | A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
title_fullStr | A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
title_short | A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
title_sort | comparison of two gluteus maximus emg maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions |
topic | Anatomy and Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4582950/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26417543 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1261 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT contrerasbret acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT vigotskyandrewd acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT schoenfeldbradj acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT beardsleychris acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT croninjohn acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT contrerasbret comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT vigotskyandrewd comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT schoenfeldbradj comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT beardsleychris comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT croninjohn comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions |