Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2016; 37(06): 448-456
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1569366
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Reliability of Trunk Muscle Electromyography in the Loaded Back Squat Exercise

D. Clark
1   Fitness Department, Irish Rugby Football Union, Dublin, Ireland
,
M. I. Lambert
3   Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, University of Cape Town, Department of Human Biology, Cape Town, South Africa
,
A. M. Hunter
2   School of Sport Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 26 November 2015

Publication Date:
29 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Trunk muscle activation (TMA) has been reported during back squat exercise, however reliability and sensitivity to different loads alongside kinematic measures has not. Hence the aim was to determine the interday reliability and load sensitivity of TMA and kinematics during back squats. 10 males performed 3 test sessions: 1) back squat 1RM, 2) and 3) 3 reps at 65, 75, 85 and 95% of system mass max (SMmax). Kinematics were measured from an electrogoniometer and linear transducer, and surface electromyography (sEMG) recorded 4 muscles of the trunk: rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), upper lumbar erector spinae (ULES) and lumbar sacral erector spinae (LSES), and a reference leg muscle, the vastus lateralus (VL). sEMG amplitude was root mean squared (RMS). No differences (p>0.05) found between tests for any kinematic and RMS data. CV demonstrated moderate interday reliability (~16.1%) for EO, LSES and ULES but not RA (29.4%) during the velocity-controlled eccentric phase; whereas it was moderately acceptable for just LSES and ULES (~17.8%) but not RA and EO (27.9%) during the uncontrolled concentric phase. This study demonstrated acceptable interday reliability for kinematic data while sEMG for most trunk muscle sites was moderately acceptable during controlled contraction. sEMG responded significantly to load.

Key words

back squat - neuromuscular - trunk muscles - electromyography - electrogoniometry
 

  • References

  • 1 Albertus-Kajee Y, Tucker R, Derman W, Lambert M. Alternative methods of normalising EMG during cycling. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010; 20: 1036-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Anderson K, Behm DG. Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat movements. Can J Appl Physiol 2005; 30: 33-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aspe RR, Swinton PA. Electromyographic and kinetic comparison of the back squat and overhead squat. J Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 2828-2836
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Atkinson G, Nevill A. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sport Med 1998; 26: 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Atkinson G, Reilly T. Circadian variation in sports performance. Sports Med 1996; 21: 292-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Baechle TR, Earle RW, Allerheiligen WB. Strength training and spotting techniques. In: Baechle TR. (ed.). Essentials of Strength and Conditioning. Human Kinetics. 1994: 345-400
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Baker D, Nance S, Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15: 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Balshaw TG, Hunter AM. Evaluation of electromyography normalisation methods for the back squat. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2012; 22: 308-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bentley JR, Amonette WE, De Witt JK, Hagan RD. Effects of different lifting cadences on ground reaction forces during the squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 1414-1420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brandon R, Howatson G, Hunter A. Reliability of a combined biomechanical and surface electromyographical analysis system during dynamic barbell squat exercise. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 1389-1397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brandon R, Howatson G, Strachan F, Hunter AM. Neuromuscular response differences to power vs strength back squat exercise in elite athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bressel E, Willardson JM, Thompson B, Fontana FE. Effect of instruction, surface stability, and load intensity on trunk muscle activity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009; 19: e500-e504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Burden A. How should we normalize electromyograms obtained from healthy participants? What we have learned from over 25 years of research. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010; 20: 1023-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Clark DR, Lambert MI, Hunter AM. Muscle activation in the loaded free barbell squat: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 1169-1178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Coburn J, Beck T, DeVries H. The neuromuscular system: anatomical and physiological bases and adaptations to training. In: Chandler T, Brown L. (eds.). Conditioning for Strength and Human Performance. Philiadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008: 40-59
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Comfort P, Pearson SJ, Mather D. An electromyographical comparison of trunk muscle activity during isometric trunk and dynamic strengthening exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 149-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cormie P, Deane R, McBride JM. Methodological concerns for determining power output in the jump squat. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 424-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 2007; 23: 103-118
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42: 1582-1598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan PB, Burnett AF, Straker LM, Danneels LA. Reliability of EMG measurements for trunk muscles during maximal and sub-maximal voluntary isometric contractions in healthy controls and CLBP patients. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2004; 14: 333-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dugan EL, Doyle TL, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, Newton RU. Determining the optimal load for jump squats: a review of methods and calculations. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 668-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Escamilla RF. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 127-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hamlyn N, Behm DG, Young WB. Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight-training exercises and isometric instability activities. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 1108-1112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Harris NK, Cronin JB, Hopkins WG. Power outputs of a machine squat-jump across a spectrum of loads. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 1260-1264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2016 update. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 1121-1124
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Hattin HC, Pierrynowski MR, Ball KA. Effect of load, cadence, and fatigue on tibio-femoral joint force during a half squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 613-618
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R. European recommendations for surface ElectroMyoGraphy. Roessingh Res Dev 1999; 8-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French D, Wrigley A, Spears I. Optimizing performance by improving core stability and core strength. Sport Med 2008; 38: 995-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French DN, Hodgson D, Spears IR. Peak and average rectified EMG measures: Which method of data reduction should be used for assessing core training exercises?. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011; 21: 102-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med 2001; 31: 211-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 McBride JM, Larkin TR, Dayne AM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Effect of absolute and relative loading on muscle activity during stable and unstable squatting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 177-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 McBride JM, Skinner JW, Schafer PC, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Comparison of kinetic variables and muscle activity during a squat vs. a box squat. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 3195-3199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 McGill SM, Karpowicz A, Fenwick CM, Brown SH. Exercises for the torso performed in a standing posture: spine and hip motion and motor patterns and spine load. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 455-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Menz H, Latt M, Tiedmann A, Mun San Kwan M, Lord SR. Reliability of the GAITRite walkway system for the quantification of temporo-spatial parameters of gait in young and older people. Gait Posture 2004; 20: 20-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nuzzo JL, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Cavill MJ, McBride JM. Trunk muscle activity during stability ball and free weight exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 95-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Pereira GR, Leporace G, Chagas DV, Furtado LF, Praxedes J, Batista LA. Influence of hip external rotation on hip adductor and rectus femoris myoelectric activity during a dynamic parallel squat. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 2749-2754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Schoenfeld BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 3497-3506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Sleivert GG, Wenger HA. Reliability of measuring isometric and isokinetic peak torque, rate of torque development, integrated electromyography, and tibial nerve conduction velocity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 1315-1321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Staudenmann D, Roeleveld K, Stegeman DF, van Dieën JH. Methodological aspects of SEMG recordings for force estimation – a tutorial and review. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010; 20: 375-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Taylor AD, Bronks R. Reproducibility and validity of the quadriceps muscle integrated electromyogram threshold during incremental cycle ergometry. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995; 70: 252-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Willardson JM, Fontana FE, Bressel E. Effect of surface stability on core muscle activity for dynamic resistance exercises. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2009; 4: 97-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Winter DA. The biomechanics and motor control of human gait: normal, elderly and pathological. Waterloo: University of Waterlloo Press; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Wisleder D, Smith MB, Mosher TJ, Zatsiorsky V. Lumbar spine mechanical response to axial compression load in vivo. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: E403-E409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Zink AJ, Perry AC, Robertson BL, Roach KE, Signorile JF. Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20: 658-664
    PubMedGoogle Scholar