Sentences with phrase «same absolute load»

Although performing back squats with the same absolute load but to a greater depth has been found to lead to increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Caterisano et al. 2002), this is likely because greater depth leads to greater hip extension moments for the same absolute external load (Bryanton et al. 2012; Clark et al. 2012).

It is expected that performing deadlifts with the same absolute load would produce greatest EMG amplitude in the gluteus maximus when deadlifts are pulled from the lower starting points because external hip extension moment arm lengths and hip extension moments are greatest at lift - off in comparison with knee - passing and lock - out (Escamilla et al. 2000; Escamilla et al. 2002).

Comparing the deadlift with the good morning, Schellenberg et al. (2013) found that peak L4 - L5 net joint moment during the deadlift was similar during the good morning and the deadlift (using the same absolute load).

The peak knee net joint moment during straight bar deadlifts was lower than during hexagonal bar deadlifts with the same absolute load.

In contrast, Comfort et al. (2011) compared the front squat to the back squat with the same absolute load of 40 kg.

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 internal oblique muscle activity was highest with either lower body instability (feet on BOSU) or combined upper body and lower body instability (BOSU and swiss ball) but the same absolute load of 9.1 kg was used for all conditions.

Rectus abdominis muscle activity tended to be greater in the standing barbell overhead press compared to the front and back squat with the same absolute load.

Andersen et al. (2005) similarly found that lower erector spinae muscle activity was similar in barbell back squats and smith machine squats with the same absolute load but they found superior muscle activity in the upper erector spinae in the barbell squat.

Similarly, McCaw and Melrose (1999), Escamilla et al. (2001b), and Paoli et al. (2009) all found no differences in muscle activity between narrow and wide stance width squats (using the same absolute load).

In contrast, Pereira et al. (2010) found that hip adductor muscle activity was increased by increasing hip external rotation angle (between 0 and 30 degrees), when using the same absolute load for each variation.

Comparing front and back squats, Comfort et al. (2011) reported greater muscle activity in the front squat than in the back squat (using the same absolute load) but Gullett et al. (2009) and Yavuz et al. (2015) found no differences between front and back squats when using the same relative load.

Comparing squats with different hip rotation angles, Ninos et al. (1997) found no differences in muscle activity between squats with the feet pointing neutrally forwards and the feet turned out at 30 degrees (using the same absolute load).

In contrast, with the same absolute load (load lifted in both movements equal to 90 % of overhead squat), there was no difference in gastrocnemius muscle activity during the concentric phase yet greater muscle activity during the eccentric phase when performing the overhead squat.

Comparing squats with different stance widths, both McCaw and Melrose (1999) and Paoli et al. (2009) found that stance width had no effect on the muscle activity of the adductors (using the same absolute load).

Comparing the back squat with the forward lunge, Stuart et al. (1996) noted that the forward lunge displayed higher muscle activity than either the front or back squat (albeit using the same absolute load).

Comparing the box squat and back squat, McBride et al. (2010) reported that the box squat displayed greater ground reaction forces than the traditional squat with 70 % of 1RM (but not 60 % or 80 % of 1RM), when using the same absolute load.

Comparing the back and overhead squats, Aspe and Swinton (2014) found that the back squat displayed greater ground reaction forces to the overhead squat with the same relative load but similar ground reaction forces when using the same absolute load.

Comparing the power clean with the jump squat using the same absolute loads, MacKenzie et al. (2014) reported that peak GRF was greater in the power clean.

Exploring the effects of training variables, Bryanton et al. (2012) and Cotter et al. (2013) found that peak knee extensor moments increased with increasing depth (albeit with the same absolute loads).

Orloff et al. (1997) reported that experienced lifters displayed lower peak hip extensor moments than inexperienced lifters during squats with the same absolute loads.

Caterisano et al. (2002) reported that increasing depth led to increasing muscle activity (using the same absolute loads) but Contreras et al. (2015b) found that increasing depth had no effect on muscle activity (using the same relative loads), thereby indicating that so long as similar percentage of 1RM is used, depth has no effect on gluteus maximus muscle activity.

Faster bar speeds and greater depth with the same absolute loads (but not the same relative loads), lead to increased hamstrings muscle activity during back squats.

Bryanton et al. (2012) found that peak hip extensor moments increased with increasing depth (albeit with the same absolute loads) but Wretenberg et al. (1996) reported that peak hip extensor moments during both powerlifting squats and during Olympic weightlifting - style squats did not differ substantially between deep and parallel versions (deep = maximal knee flexion vs. parallel = posterior of the hamstrings parallel to the ground).

Comparing free weight and machine squats, Anderson and Behm (2005) found no differences between conditions (with the same absolute loads) but Schwanbeck et al. (2009) noted that the free weight back squat displayed higher muscle activity than a Smith machine squat (with the same relative loads).

Comparing squats with different stance widths, Escamilla et al. (2001b) found no differences in ground reaction forces between squats with wide and narrow stances (with the same absolute loads).

Comparing the effects of barbell type, Swinton et al. (2011a) found that power outputs were higher when using the hexagonal bar compared to the straight bar (using the same absolute loads).

Winwood et al. (2014) found that vertical and resultant ground reaction forces were higher in the farmers» walk deadlift than in the straight bar deadlift (using the same absolute loads).

Not exact matches

Therefore, it appears that any differences in gastrocnemius muscle activity between the back and overhead squat at the same relative load, is likely due to the differences in the absolute load being lifted.

Similarly, Gorsuch et al. (2013) reported that the absolute load was greater during squats to above parallel than during squats to parallel, when using the same relative loads.

Comparing free weight and machine squats, while some researchers have reported lower erector spinae muscle activity in the Smith machine squat than in the free weight back squat, with both the same absolute (Anderson and Behm, 2005) and relative (Fletcher and Bagley, 2014) loads, Schwanbeck et al. (2009) found no differences (using the same relative loads).

Comparing front and back squats, Stuart et al. (1996), Gullett et al. (2009), Yavuz et al. (2015) and Contreras et al. (2015b) all found no differences in muscle activity between front and back squats (with the same absolute or relative loads).

Comparing front and back squats, neither Stuart et al. (1996), Gullett et al. (2009) or Contreras et al. (2015b) found any differences in muscle activity (with the same absolute or relative loads).

Comparing the back squat and the split squat, DeForest et al. (2014) found no differences between exercise variations (using the same adjusted absolute loads).

Heavier loads, faster bar speeds, greater depth (with the same absolute and relative loads), and using running shoes rather than no footwear all lead to increased quadriceps muscle activity during back squats.

However, Jones et al. (2012) and DeForest et al. (2014) found no differences between exercises (with the same relative and adjusted absolute loads, respectively).

Substantially heavier absolute loads are required to achieve the same relative loads when using partial squats as for parallel squats.

Overhead squats produce less gastrocnemius muscle activity because of the lighter absolute load at the same relative load.

Both Gorsuch et al. (2013) and Caterisano et al. (2002) reported that increasing depth led to increasing muscle activity (using the same relative and absolute loads, respectively).

Similarly, comparing the back squat and the split squat, both Jones et al. (2012) and DeForest et al. (2014) found no differences between conditions (with the same relative and adjusted absolute loads, respectively).

As explained above, agonist muscle forces (as indicated by the proxy of EMG) are probably largely similar when lifting the same relative load (but a different absolute load) under stable and unstable conditions.

When investigating exercises performed with the same relative load (which means a lower absolute load in the unstable condition), some researchers have found that EMG amplitude of the prime movers is similar in exercises performed in unstable and stable environments.

metrooptions are another load of conmen same old thing few pounds to start then more money then new account manager will make you a fortune absolute thieves lost 3000 before i worked out con do not touch these conmpanies or binary options