Sentences with phrase «erector spinae muscle activity»

Deadlift technique (sumo vs. conventional) and the use of a weightlifting belt do not affect erector spinae muscle activity.

When controlling for relative load, bar speed does not affect erector spinae muscle activity during deadlifts.

Finally, comparing the Romanian deadlift with various other exercises, McAllister et al. (2014) reported that erector spinae muscle activity was lower in the Romanian deadlift than in the glute - ham raise but similar in the Romanian deadlift and good morning exercises.

Similarly, Hamlyn et al. (2007) found that the back squat and deadlift performed with 80 % of 1RM produced superior erector spinae muscle activity compared to the side plank.

Exploring the effect of stability on erector spinae muscle activity, Saeterbakken et al. (2013) compared the bench press performed with loads equal to the 6RM on a stable bench, a balance cushion and a swiss ball.

They reported that erector spinae muscle activity was similar with and without a weightlifting belt in conventional or sumo deadlift conditions.

Many squat variations appear to produce high levels of erector spinae muscle activity, although machine squats may be less effective than free weight squats.

During the 1 handed swing, the opposite side (from the kettlebell hand) upper erector spinae displayed superior muscle activity compared to the kettlebell side (35 ± 15 vs. 42 ± 13 %), while there was no difference in lower erector spinae muscle activity between sides.

In contrast, in the descending phase, both upper and lower erector spinae muscle activity grew higher as the knee angle increased from the top portion of the lift (0 — 30 degrees knee flexion) to the bottom portion (61 — 90 degrees knee flexion).

The erector spinae muscle activity was significantly greater at all loads when performing the back squat compared with the overhead squat.

The deadlift produces very high levels of erector spinae muscle activity, especially in the upper erector spinae.

They reported no difference in erector spinae muscle activity between exercises.

Training with higher loads and faster speeds leads to greater erector spinae muscle activity.

Similarly, Andersen et al. (2014) compared the back squat and split squat with the same relative loads (6RM) and also found no difference in erector spinae muscle activity between conditions.

Comparing two different velocities using an isokinetic machine deadlift, Noe et al. (1992) found no differences in erector spinae muscle activity between two different bar speeds (45.7 vs. 30.5 cm / s).

Yavus et al. (2015) assessed erector spinae muscle activity during back and front squats with 1RM.

In contrast, Comfort et al. (2011) compared the front and back squat with the same absolute load of 40 kg to the superman exercise and reported no difference in lower erector spinae muscle activity.

They reported that erector spinae muscle activity was greater in the ascending phase compared to the descending phase but there was no difference between squat conditions.

Despite greater 10RM loads in the partial squat (78.4 ± 4.6 kg) compared to the parallel squat (51.2 ± 3.1 kg), erector spinae muscle activity was superior when performing the parallel squat condition.

They reported that erector spinae muscle activity was superior in the elastic resistance condition compared with to the machine condition.

Assessing the effect of bar velocity, Manabe et al. (2007) found that performing the back squat with quicker speeds with the same relative load increased erector spinae muscle activity when compared to slower speeds.

They reported that erector spinae muscle activity was not different when performing the bench press on a stable bench or on a balance cushion, while performing the bench press on a Swiss ball significantly reduced erector spinae muscle activity.

The researchers reported that erector spinae muscle activity was high in all conditions.

Therefore, it appears that erector spinae muscle activity is higher during deeper squats compared to shallower squats.

Surprisingly, it displays similar rectus abdominis and erector spinae muscle activity to the back squat.

Lumbar erector spinae muscle activity appeared to increase with increasing load, between 50 — 60 % of 1RM.

Assessing the effects of upper or lower body movement, Kim et al. (2015) explored erector spinae muscle activity during isometric hip extension exercises performed with either the upper or lower body moving and with either neutral or maximal lumbar and hip extension.

They reported no difference in erector spinae muscle activity between the two squat variations despite a greater absolute load being lifted during the back squat.

They reported that upper erector spinae muscle activity was highest in the log lift and tire flip exercises.

Comparing the back squat and the sled, Maddigan et al. (2014) compared the erector spinae muscle activity during the back squat performed with 10RM and the weighted sled push at a 20 step maximum.

They reported superior upper (at T9) erector spinae muscle activity when performing the bench press compared with the standing cable press.

The squat and deadlift exercise produce superior erector spinae muscle activity compared to unloaded core exercises such as the front and side plank, superman and quadruped arm - and - leg lift regardless of the stability requirement.

They reported that erector spinae muscle activity was similar on the stable and unstable surfaces.

Therefore, even when using low loads, compound exercises display superior erector spinae muscle activity compared to front and side plank exercises.

Therefore there appears to be no benefit of using unstable loads in the back squat to enhance erector spinae muscle activity.

Assessing the effect of surface stability, Bressel et al. (2009) explored erector spinae muscle activity when performing the conventional deadlift at 50 % of 1RM, either standing on the floor or standing on a BOSU ball.

During the squat, training with higher loads and faster speeds appear to increase erector spinae muscle activity, while internal cues, unstable surfaces, using both barbells and elastic resistance, altering footwear, and using a weightlifting belt do not affect erector spinae muscle activity.

Assessing the effects of stability during split squats, Andersen et al. (2014) explored erector spinae muscle activity in the split squat with the foot placed on the floor or on a foam cushion, using 6RM.

They reported that the upper and lower instability condition produced superior erector spinae muscle activity compared to the upper body instability condition (23 ± 28 % vs. 7 ± 4 % MVIC).

Comparing the effect of exercise variation, Fenwick et al. (2009) compared rowing exercises with varying degrees of spinal loading on upper and lower erector spinae muscle activity.

They reported erector spinae muscle activity was markedly reduced when using the foam cushion compared to the when using the floor.

Other studies have also shown consistently greater erector spinae muscle activity when performing the back squat with higher relative loads between 30 — 75 % of 1RM or 60 — 90 % of 3RM, respectively (Willardson et al. 2009; Li et al. 2013; Aspe et al. 2014).

Assessing different whole - body exercises, McGill et al. (2014) explored upper and lower erector spinae muscle activity during the hanging leg raise (straight - leg and bent - leg), the hand walk - out, and body - saw with a suspension system.

During deadlifts, training with faster speeds, using conventional or sumo deadlift technique, introducing an unstable surface, and using a weightlifting belt do not affect erector spinae muscle activity.

Comparing the effect of external resistance type, Vinstrup et al. (2015) explored erector spinae muscle activity during a machine trunk rotation exercise and a standing torso twist exercise with elastic resistance.

It appears that in many traditional core exercises erector spinae muscle activity is relatively low.

Comparing the back squat and deadlift, Hamlyn et al. (2007) explored erector spinae muscle activity using 80 % of 1RM load.

Additionally, isolation exercises such as the glute - ham raise and prone leg curl appear to be effective (and in some cases) superior exercises for producing high levels of erector spinae muscle activity compared with some other isolation and compound exercises.

Assessing the effect of surface stability during back squats, Bressel et al. (2009) explored erector spinae muscle activity during the barbell back squat with 50 % of 1RM both when standing on the floor and when standing on a BOSU ball.

The prone trunk extension (superman) exercise is an effective exercise and displays very high levels of erector spinae muscle activity when performed with maximum lumbar extension.