A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions

Abstract

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.

A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyography Amplitude for the Barbell, Band, and American Hip Thrust Variations

“…Pilot data from our laboratory revealed that a minority of subjects achieved higher levels of gluteus maximus EMG amplitude with the standing glute squeeze than during the prone bent-leg hip extension against manual resistance; thus, both conditions were recorded and EMG was normalized to whichever contraction elicited greater EMG amplitude. 41 Biceps femoris MVIC was determined by having the subject lay prone and produce maximum knee flexion moment at 45° knee flexion against manual resistance applied to the distal leg just above the ankle, as found to be superior by Mohamed and colleagues. 42 Two vastus lateralis MVIC positions were used.…”

Interpreting Signal Amplitudes in Surface Electromyography Studies in Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences

“…Much like comparing between-muscles, there are a number of concerns pertaining to whether or not individuals in a group, especially symptomatic ones, have the ability to maximally excite a muscle during a normalization trial 7 . Furthermore, different participants respond differently to different normalization positions and techniques (Vera-Garcia et al, 2010 ; Contreras et al, 2015 ), so one can never be sure whether they are comparing apples-to-apples, so to speak, unless more robust normalization techniques are used, such as maximum M-wave amplitude. In such cases, training (exercise) experience may still confound maximum M-wave normalized sEMG signals (Arabadzhiev et al, 2014 ).…”

Evaluating gluteus maximus maximal voluntary isometric contractions for EMG normalization in male rugby players

“…Electromyography (EMG) normalization allows for comparison between muscle groups, tasks, participants and studies1,2,3 ) . Peak or mean EMG amplitude in an exercise or activity is used as a reference value to determine the EMG activity in a specific task, which is expressed as a percentage of the reference.…”

“…Peak or mean EMG amplitude in an exercise or activity is used as a reference value to determine the EMG activity in a specific task, which is expressed as a percentage of the reference. The reference value is usually obtained from a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)1,2,3 ) .…”