Literature DB >> 29870422

Muscle Activation in Unilateral Barbell Exercises: Implications for Strength Training and Rehabilitation.

Lasse Mausehund1, Audun E Skard1, Tron Krosshaug2.   

Abstract

Mausehund, L, Skard, AE, and Krosshaug, T. Muscle activation in unilateral barbell exercises: Implications for strength training and rehabilitation. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S85-S94, 2019-The purpose of the present investigation was to assess lower-body muscle activity and hamstrings-to-quadriceps (HQ) activation ratios during performance of the split squat (SS), single-leg squat (SLS), and rear foot elevated split squat (RFESS), while using the same relative load and performing the exercises to muscular failure. Eleven healthy, moderately strength-trained subjects performed a 6-8 repetition maximum set of each exercise while electromyographic (EMG) activity of the vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, gluteus maximus, and gluteus medius was recorded. The results show that there were no significant differences in EMG peak activity of the gluteus maximus and vastus lateralis between any of the exercises. Gluteus medius activation was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher during the SLS (81.9% maximum voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC]), compared with the RFESS (54.9% MVIC) and SS (46.2% MVIC). The RFESS elicited higher (p ≤ 0.05) biceps femoris activity (76.1% MVIC) than the SS (62.3% MVIC), as well as higher (p ≤ 0.05) HQ activation ratios (0.83) than the SS (0.69) and SLS (0.63). During the SLS and the SS, HQ activation ratios increased significantly in the course of the repetition maximum set. In conclusion, although absolute loading differs between exercises, similar training stimuli of the gluteus maximus and quadriceps femoris can be expected for all exercises. The SLS is likely to induce the greatest improvements in gluteus medius strength, whereas the RFESS should be preferred if high hamstring coactivation is desired. To improve validity in EMG studies, strength training exercises should be performed close to failure while using the same relative loading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29870422     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  5 in total

1.  Biomechanical Differences Between the Bulgarian Split-Squat and Back Squat.

Authors:  Ethan R Mackey; Bryan L Riemann
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2021-04-01

2.  Influence of Trunk Position during Three Lunge Exercises on Muscular Activation in Trained Women.

Authors:  Ewertton DE S Bezerra; Fernando Diefenthaeler; João Pedro Nunes; Raphael L Sakugawa; Isabel Heberle; Bruno M Moura; Antônio R P Moro; Giuseppe Marcolin; Antonio Paoli
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2021-04-01

3.  Muscle activity of Bulgarian squat. Effects of additional vibration, suspension and unstable surface.

Authors:  Joan Aguilera-Castells; Bernat Buscà; Jose Morales; Mònica Solana-Tramunt; Azahara Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe; Fernando Rey-Abella; Jaume Bantulà; Javier Peña
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The "Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology" Journal Club Series: Resistance Training.

Authors:  Antonio Paoli; Tatiana Moro; Silvio Lorenzetti; Jan Seiler; Fabian Lüthy; Micah Gross; Federico Roggio; Helmi Chaabene; Giuseppe Musumeci
Journal:  J Funct Morphol Kinesiol       Date:  2020-04-02

5.  Influence of the Amount of Instability on the Leg Muscle Activity During a Loaded Free Barbell Half-Squat.

Authors:  Bernat Buscà; Joan Aguilera-Castells; Jordi Arboix-Alió; Adrià Miró; Azahara Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe; Javier Peña
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.