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).M...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2015-09-01
|
| Series: | PeerJ |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/1261.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797424405343633408 |
|---|---|
| author | Bret Contreras Andrew D. Vigotsky Brad J. Schoenfeld Chris Beardsley John Cronin |
| author_facet | Bret Contreras Andrew D. Vigotsky Brad J. Schoenfeld Chris Beardsley John Cronin |
| author_sort | Bret Contreras |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:00:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-95a22b125bbe471b98abbc03bb787937 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2167-8359 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:00:44Z |
| publishDate | 2015-09-01 |
| publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PeerJ |
| spelling | doaj.art-95a22b125bbe471b98abbc03bb7879372023-12-03T00:43:55ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592015-09-013e126110.7717/peerj.1261A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positionsBret Contreras0Andrew D. Vigotsky1Brad J. Schoenfeld2Chris Beardsley3John Cronin4Auckland University of Technology, Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland, New ZealandKinesiology Program, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USADepartment of Health Sciences, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USAStrength and Conditioning Research Limited, London, UKAuckland University of Technology, Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland, New ZealandBackground. 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.https://peerj.com/articles/1261.pdfMVCMVICElectromyographyNeuromechanicsNormalization |
| spellingShingle | Bret Contreras Andrew D. Vigotsky Brad J. Schoenfeld Chris Beardsley John Cronin A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions PeerJ MVC MVIC Electromyography Neuromechanics Normalization |
| 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 | MVC MVIC Electromyography Neuromechanics Normalization |
| url | https://peerj.com/articles/1261.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bretcontreras acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT andrewdvigotsky acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT bradjschoenfeld acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT chrisbeardsley acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT johncronin acomparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT bretcontreras comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT andrewdvigotsky comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT bradjschoenfeld comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT chrisbeardsley comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions AT johncronin comparisonoftwogluteusmaximusemgmaximumvoluntaryisometriccontractionpositions |