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)....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Contreras, Bret, Vigotsky, Andrew D., Schoenfeld, Brad J., Beardsley, Chris, Cronin, John
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