The Progression of Paraspinal Muscle Recruitment Intensity in Localized and Global Strength Training Exercises Is Not Based on Instability Alone

Core muscle activity in a series of balance exercises with different stability conditions

“…This fact suggest that during a standing stance with the own body weight, core activation of the measured muscles may be more sensitive to antero-posterior movements or disruptions, at least with these devices, where the difference between them in the amount of stability may be too small to elicit significant muscle activity changes as has been demonstrated in a recent study [12]. In the same vein, Colado et al [15] reported no significant core muscle activity difference between a static unipedal forward flexion and the same exercise performed with another multiaxial device (i.e., BOSU ball). Moreover, a study showed no differences in balance gains between two intervention groups that were assigned to either uniaxial or multiaxial training [20].…”

“…While a progressive increase in the degree of instability during resistance training may be recommended during rehabilitation [14], literature that provides progression models based on muscle activity and postural manipulations is scarce. As far as we are concerned, there is only one study [15] that provided a core progression based on muscle activity and performed one exercise with an unipedal stance, although this modification not enhance muscle activity compared with the same exercise performed with an unstable device. Nevertheless, authors only used an unstable device that may be insufficient to enhance balance disruptions and muscle activity in experienced participants [16].…”

Systematic Review of Core Muscle Activity During Physical Fitness Exercises

“…The subsequent screening of titles and abstracts found 141 studies deemed potentially relevant. After screening full-text articles, 17 studies were deemed eligible and were included for further analysis (5,(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)18,24,25,28,29,(33)(34)(35)40,41). Of the 124 ineligible studies, reasons for exclusion were made comparisons between slight variations of the same exercise (n = 37), assessed exercises that are not typically performed in fitness setting (n = 31), not original research (n = 16), outcome measures not of interest in particular study (n = 13), comparisons made only within 1 exercise type (n = 9), no muscle of interest (n = 6), muscle activity assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound (n = 5), intervention design (n = 4), not written in English (n = 2), and subjects reported back pain (n = 1).…”

Comparison of Abdominal and Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Activity During Unilateral Hip Extension in Prone Position on the Floor and on a Round Foam Roll

“…Compare with similar exercises in previous studies, LM muscle activity was approximately 20％ MVIC during unilateral hip extension in four-point kneeling (Drake et al, 2006;Stevens et al, 2007) and approximately 60％ MVIC during static lumbar extension with the trunk parallel to the floor and the pelvis supported by fixing the feet on the table (Colado et al, 2011). Drake et al (2006) suggested that the use of an exercise ball does not increase the challenge imposed on the musculoskeletal system of healthy young participants because abdominal and back muscle activity is unchanged or decreased on the ball during unilateral hip extension in four-point kneeling and static lumbar extension compared with the same maneuver on a mat (floor).…”

“…Surface electrodes were attached at an interelectrode distance of 2 ㎝. LM electrodes were placed 3 ㎝ lateral to the spinous process at L5 (Colado et al, 2011;Hibbs et al, 2011). EO and IO electrodes were placed at the midpoint between the anterior-superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the ribs and at the midpoint between the anterior superior iliac crest and the symphysis pubis and proximal to the inguinal ligament, respectively (Cram et al, 1998;Cynn, 2010).…”