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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |