scholarly journals Integrated Electromyographic Activity of the Upper Fibers of the Gluteus Medius, Tensor Fascia Latae, and Gluteus Maximus Muscles on the Weight-Shifted Side during Lateral Body Weight Shifting in the Upright Sitting Position

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kouji IKEDA ◽  
Tosihiro OONUMA ◽  
Hirohumi WATANABE ◽  
Masashi FUJIMOTO ◽  
Keisuke AKAMATSU ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 682-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunal Bhanot ◽  
Navpreet Kaur ◽  
Lori Thein Brody ◽  
Jennifer Bridges ◽  
David C. Berry ◽  
...  

Context:Dynamic balance is a measure of core stability. Deficits in the dynamic balance have been related to injuries in the athletic populations. The Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) is suggested to measure and improve dynamic balance when used as a rehabilitative tool.Objective:To determine the electromyographic activity of the hip and the trunk muscles during the SEBT.Design:Descriptive.Setting:University campus.Participants:Twenty-two healthy adults (11 males and 11 females; 23.3 [3.8] y, 170.3 [7.6] cm, 67.8 [10.3] kg, and 15.1% [5.0%] body fat).Intervention:Surface electromyographic data were collected on 22 healthy adults of the erector spinae, external oblique, and rectus abdominis bilaterally, and gluteus medius and gluteus maximus muscle of the stance leg. A 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine the interaction between the percentage maximal voluntary isometric contraction (%MVIC) and the reach directions. The %MVIC for each muscle was compared across the 8 reach directions using the Sidak post hoc test withαat .05.Main Outcome Measures:%MVIC.Results:Significant differences were observed for all the 8 muscles. Highest electromyographic activity was found for the tested muscles in the following reach directions—ipsilateral external oblique (44.5% [38.4%]): anterolateral; contralateral external oblique (52.3% [40.8%]): medial; ipsilateral rectus abdominis (8% [6.6%]): anterior; contralateral rectus abdominis (8% [5.3%]): anteromedial; ipsilateral erector spinae (46.4% [20.2%]): posterolateral; contralateral erector spinae (33.5% [11.3%]): posteromedial; gluteus maximus (27.4% [11.7%]): posterior; and gluteus medius (54.6% [26.1%]): medial direction.Conclusions:Trunk and hip muscle activation was direction dependent during the SEBT. This information can be used during rehabilitation of the hip and the trunk muscles.


2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. McBeth ◽  
Jennifer E. Earl-Boehm ◽  
Stephen C. Cobb ◽  
Wendy E. Huddleston

Context: Lower extremity overuse injuries are associated with gluteus medius (GMed) weakness. Understanding the activation of muscles about the hip during strengthening exercises is important for rehabilitation. Objective: To compare the electromyographic activity produced by the gluteus medius (GMed), tensor fascia latae (TFL), anterior hip flexors (AHF), and gluteus maximus (GMax) during 3 hip-strengthening exercises: hip abduction (ABD), hip abduction with external rotation (ABD-ER), and clamshell (CLAM) exercises. Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: Laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Twenty healthy runners (9 men, 11 women; age = 25.45 ± 5.80 years, height = 1.71 ± 0.07 m, mass = 64.43 ± 7.75 kg) participated. Intervention(s): A weight equal to 5% body mass was affixed to the ankle for the ABD and ABD-ER exercises, and an equivalent load was affixed for the CLAM exercise. A pressure biofeedback unit was placed beneath the trunk to provide positional feedback. Main Outcome Measure(s): Surface electromyography (root mean square normalized to maximal voluntary isometric contraction) was recorded over the GMed, TFL, AHF, and GMax. Results: Three 1-way, repeated-measures analyses of variance indicated differences for muscle activity among the ABD (F3,57 = 25.903, P<.001), ABD-ER (F3,57 = 10.458, P<.001), and CLAM (F3,57 = 4.640, P=.006) exercises. For the ABD exercise, the GMed (70.1 ± 29.9%), TFL (54.3 ± 19.1%), and AHF (28.2 ± 21.5%) differed in muscle activity. The GMax (25.3 ± 24.6%) was less active than the GMed and TFL but was not different from the AHF. For the ABD-ER exercise, the TFL (70.9 ± 17.2%) was more active than the AHF (54.3 ± 24.8%), GMed (53.03 ± 28.4%), and GMax (31.7 ± 24.1 %). For the CLAM exercise, the AHF (54.2 ± 25.2%) was more active than the TFL (34.4 ± 20.1%) and GMed (32.6 ± 16.9%) but was not different from the GMax (34.2 ± 24.8%). Conclusions: The ABD exercise is preferred if targeted activation of the GMed is a goal. Activation of the other muscles in the ABD-ER and CLAM exercises exceeded that of GMed, which might indicate the exercises are less appropriate when the primary goal is the GMed activation and strengthening.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 419-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Bonan ◽  
S. Butet ◽  
K. Jamal ◽  
A. Yelnik ◽  
S. Tasseel Ponche ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Seung-Min Baik ◽  
Heon-Seock Cynn ◽  
Chung-Hwi Yi ◽  
Ji-Hyun Lee ◽  
Jung-Hoon Choi ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of side-sling plank (SSP) exercises on trunk and hip muscle activation in subjects with gluteus medius (Gmed) weakness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To quantify muscle activation of the rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), erector spinae (ES), lumbar multifidus (LM), Gmed, gluteus maximus (Gmax), and tensor fasciae latae (TFL) during SSP with three different hip rotations compared to side-lying hip abduction (SHA) exercise in subjects with Gmed weakness. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects with Gmed weakness were recruited. SHA and three types of SSP exercises were performed: SSP with neutral hip (SSP-N), hip lateral rotation (SSP-L), and hip medial rotation (SSP-M). Surface electromyography was used to measure the activation of the trunk and hip muscles. RESULTS: The trunk and hip muscles activations were generally significantly higher level during three SSP than SHA. SSP-M showed significantly lower EO activation while significantly higher ES and LM activation than SSP-L. Gmed activation was significantly higher during SSP-M than during SSP-L. TFL activation was significantly lower during SSP-M than during SSP-N and SSP-L. CONCLUSIONS: SSP could be prescribed for patients who have reduced Gmed strength after injuries. Especially, SSP-M could be applied for patients who have Gmed weakness with dominant TFL.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document