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.
Exploring the kettlebell swing, Andersen et al. (2015) compared the kettlebell swing performed with 1 or 2 hands
on erector spinae muscle activity.
At comparable relative loads, stability has no effect
on erector spinae muscle activity.
Studies have shown that using a weight belt either has little effect at
all on the erector spinae muscles (lower back muscles) or an increase of their engagement by up to 25 %.
Not exact matches
For those with scoliosis, some sections of the multifidus and
erector spinae, supportive
muscles running along the spine, will need strengthening (particularly
on the side that's convex) in order to hold this new, more neutral alignment.
Based
on changes in
muscle activity with load, bar speed, and ROM, the prime movers in the back squat include the quadriceps, gluteus maximus and
erector spinae.
This dynamic stretch focuses
on glutes and
erector spinae muscle.
The dorsal raise uses the lower back (
erector spinae) and works the extensor
muscles on either side of the spine.
Exploring stability at the hand, Maeo et al. (2014) compared
erector spinae muscle activity when performing push ups
on the ground or utilising a suspension system.
Comparing the effect external resistance type, Saeterbakken et al. (2014) explored
erector spinae muscle activity during the back squat with 6RM loads using either a barbell or a combination of a barbell and elastic resistance (where elastic resistance comprised between 25 — 40 % total load, depending
on the phase of the lift).
Comparing compound and stability exercises, Comfort et al. (2011) explored lower
erector spinae muscle activity during the back squat, front squat, the standing barbell press, plank and superman
on a swiss ball.
They reported that the
erector spinae muscle was greater when the back squat was performed
on the floor with loads of 90 and 100 % of 1RM but there were no significant differences between conditions at 70 or 80 % of 1RM.
Nuzzo et al. (2008) compared the upper (at L1) and lower (at L5)
erector spinae muscle activity during the birddog, hip bridge with feet
on swiss ball, and back extension from a swiss ball.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They reported that
erector spinae muscle activity was similar
on the stable and unstable surfaces.
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.
On inspection, the most inferior area of the
erector spinae appears as one common
muscle belly.
Several studies have investigated the effect of relative load
on muscle activity in the
erector spinae.
Initially, this fear may look sensible: lifting several hundred pounds off the floor — levying all the pressure
on the back, especially
on the
erector spinae and low - back
muscles — would result in a lumbar and thoracic disaster.