Cargando…

An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training

The present study examined the posterior chain muscle excitation in different deadlift variations. Ten competitive bodybuilders (training seniority of 10.6 ± 1.8 years) performed the Romanian (RD), Romanian standing on a step (step-RD), and stiff-leg deadlift (SD) with an 80% 1-RM. The excitation of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coratella, Giuseppe, Tornatore, Gianpaolo, Longo, Stefano, Esposito, Fabio, Cè, Emiliano
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35162922
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031903
_version_ 1784649451183276032
author Coratella, Giuseppe
Tornatore, Gianpaolo
Longo, Stefano
Esposito, Fabio
Cè, Emiliano
author_facet Coratella, Giuseppe
Tornatore, Gianpaolo
Longo, Stefano
Esposito, Fabio
Cè, Emiliano
author_sort Coratella, Giuseppe
collection PubMed
description The present study examined the posterior chain muscle excitation in different deadlift variations. Ten competitive bodybuilders (training seniority of 10.6 ± 1.8 years) performed the Romanian (RD), Romanian standing on a step (step-RD), and stiff-leg deadlift (SD) with an 80% 1-RM. The excitation of the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, biceps femoris, semitendinosus, erector spinae longissimus, and iliocostalis was assessed during both the ascending and descending phases. During the ascending phase, the RMS of the gluteus maximus was greater in the step-RD than in the RD (effect size (ES): 1.70, 0.55/2.84) and SD (ES: 1.18, 0.11/2.24). Moreover, a greater RMS was found in the SD than in the RD (ES: 0.99, 0.04/1.95). The RMS of the semitendinosus was greater in the step-RD than in the RD (ES: 0.82, 0.20/1.44) and SD (ES: 3.13, 1.67/4.59). Moreover, a greater RMS was found in the RD than in the SD (ES: 1.38, 0.29/2.48). The RMS of the longissimus was greater in the step-RD than in the RD (ES: 2.12, 0.89/3.34) and SD (ES: 3.28, 1.78/4.78). The descending phase had fewer differences between the exercises. No further differences between the exercises were found. The step-RD increased the overall excitation of the posterior chain muscles, possibly because of the greater range of movement and posterior muscle elongation during the anterior flexion. Moreover, the RD appeared to target the semitendinosus more than the SD, while the latter excited the gluteus maximus more.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8835508
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88355082022-02-12 An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training Coratella, Giuseppe Tornatore, Gianpaolo Longo, Stefano Esposito, Fabio Cè, Emiliano Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The present study examined the posterior chain muscle excitation in different deadlift variations. Ten competitive bodybuilders (training seniority of 10.6 ± 1.8 years) performed the Romanian (RD), Romanian standing on a step (step-RD), and stiff-leg deadlift (SD) with an 80% 1-RM. The excitation of the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, biceps femoris, semitendinosus, erector spinae longissimus, and iliocostalis was assessed during both the ascending and descending phases. During the ascending phase, the RMS of the gluteus maximus was greater in the step-RD than in the RD (effect size (ES): 1.70, 0.55/2.84) and SD (ES: 1.18, 0.11/2.24). Moreover, a greater RMS was found in the SD than in the RD (ES: 0.99, 0.04/1.95). The RMS of the semitendinosus was greater in the step-RD than in the RD (ES: 0.82, 0.20/1.44) and SD (ES: 3.13, 1.67/4.59). Moreover, a greater RMS was found in the RD than in the SD (ES: 1.38, 0.29/2.48). The RMS of the longissimus was greater in the step-RD than in the RD (ES: 2.12, 0.89/3.34) and SD (ES: 3.28, 1.78/4.78). The descending phase had fewer differences between the exercises. No further differences between the exercises were found. The step-RD increased the overall excitation of the posterior chain muscles, possibly because of the greater range of movement and posterior muscle elongation during the anterior flexion. Moreover, the RD appeared to target the semitendinosus more than the SD, while the latter excited the gluteus maximus more. MDPI 2022-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8835508/ /pubmed/35162922 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031903 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Coratella, Giuseppe
Tornatore, Gianpaolo
Longo, Stefano
Esposito, Fabio
Cè, Emiliano
An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training
title An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training
title_full An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training
title_fullStr An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training
title_full_unstemmed An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training
title_short An Electromyographic Analysis of Romanian, Step-Romanian, and Stiff-Leg Deadlift: Implication for Resistance Training
title_sort electromyographic analysis of romanian, step-romanian, and stiff-leg deadlift: implication for resistance training
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35162922
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031903
work_keys_str_mv AT coratellagiuseppe anelectromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT tornatoregianpaolo anelectromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT longostefano anelectromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT espositofabio anelectromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT ceemiliano anelectromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT coratellagiuseppe electromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT tornatoregianpaolo electromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT longostefano electromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT espositofabio electromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining
AT ceemiliano electromyographicanalysisofromanianstepromanianandstifflegdeadliftimplicationforresistancetraining