Modifying the hip abduction angle during bridging exercise can facilitate gluteus maximus activity

Effects of pelvic tilt control using visual biofeedback on gluteus maximus, multifidus, and hamstring activities during three different bridge exercises

BACKGROUND

The effects of pelvic tilt control using visual biofeedback on gluteus maximus (GM), multifidus (MF), and hamstring (HAM) muscle activities during bridge exercises involving anterior pelvic tilt (APT), neutral pelvic tilt (NPT), and posterior pelvic tilt (PPT) were investigated.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthy participants were included (mean age, 24.6 ± 1.9 years). Visual biofeedback was used for the participants to self-control pelvic tilt during the bridge exercises. Pelvic tilt controls were performed in a random order (APT vs. NPT vs. PPT) following 30 minutes education program. GM, MF, and HAM muscle activities were measured by surface electromyography. One-way repeated analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc test were used.

RESULT

GM and MF muscle activities significantly differed among the different pelvic tilting controls (APT vs. NPT vs. PPT) (p < .017). GM muscle activity during the exercise involving PPT was significantly higher than that involving APT and NPT (p < .017). In contrast, MF muscle activity during the exercise involving PPT was significantly lower than that involving APT (p < .017). In addition, the GM/Right MF, GM/Left MF, and GM/HAM muscle activity ratios during the exercise involving PPT were significantly greater than those involving APT and NPT (p < .017).

CONCLUSIONS

The bridge exercise involving PPT using visual biofeedback can be recommended as a home exercise to selectively improve the muscle activity of the GM and the muscle activity ratio of the GM/HAM and GM/MF. This information may be valuable for clinicians seeking exercise programs to target specific muscles effectively.

Effects of Visual Biofeedback on Symmetrical Movements During Bridge Exercise With Sling

CONTEXT

Asymmetrical movements of trunk and lower-extremity are common during the bridge exercise on the unstable condition. However, no studies have investigated whether visual biofeedback of pressing pressure on the unstable surface changes muscle activation patterns of trunk and hip extensors and pelvic rotation during the bridge exercise.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how visual biofeedback of pressing pressure influences symmetrical activity of lumbar and hip extensor and pelvic rotation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty healthy males participated in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants performed 2 versions of the bridge exercise: the standard bridge exercise and the bridge exercise with visual biofeedback using amount of pressing pressure on the sling.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surface electromyography was used to measure the symmetry (ie, the difference between dominant and nondominant sides) of muscle activation in the bilateral erector spinae, gluteus maximus, and hamstring muscles, and motion sensors were used to assess pelvic rotation. Symmetry of pressing pressure was measured using a tension meter.

RESULTS

The differences between the dominant and nondominant pressing pressures and differences between the electromyography activity of the dominant and nondominant erector spinae, gluteus maximus, and hamstring were significantly smaller during the bridge exercise with visual biofeedback than during the standard bridge exercise (P < .05). In addition, there was significantly less pelvic rotation during the bridge exercise with visual biofeedback than during the standard bridge exercise (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings suggest that visual biofeedback strategy may be a useful method for enhancing the symmetrical activation of the erector spinae, gluteus maximus, and hamstring and for reducing pelvic rotation during the bridge exercise on the unstable surface.

Effects of knee flexion angles in supine bridge exercise on trunk and pelvic muscle activity

This study investigated the activity of surface electromyography (sEMG) on trunk and pelvic muscles during supine bridge exercise (SBE) with different knee flexion angles. Twenty-five physically active males participated in this study. Subjects received maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) tests followed by four SBEs with different knee flexion angles (40°, 60°, 90° and 120°) in random. sEMG activities of rectus abdominis (RA), erector spinae (ER), gluteus medius (GMed), superior gluteus maximus (SGMax), inferior gluteus maximus (IGMax), biceps femoris (BF) long head, and the ratio of SGMax/BF and IGMax/BF on the dominant side were measured. Non-clinical magnitude-based inference was performed to compare the effect. The results indicated a substantial change of muscle activity, especially between SBE with 40° and 120° knee flexion. With respect to ER and BF, moderate effect (-0.70 ± 0.17) and extremely large effect (-4.78 ± 0.51) were recorded, whereas very large effect for SGMax/BF (2.68 ± 0.23) and IGMax/BF (2.95 ± 0.26) was observed, respectively. Both ER and BF worked better with smaller knee flexion angles (40° > 60° > 90° > 120°), while SGMax and IGMax were more favourable to SBE with large knee flexion angles (90° = 120° > 60° > 40°).

Do Verbal and Tactile Cueing Selectively Alter Gluteus Maximus and Hamstring Recruitment During a Supine Bridging Exercise in Active Females? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Context: Hip extension with hamstring-dominant rather than gluteus maximus-dominant recruitment may increase anterior femoracetabular forces and contribute to conditions that cause hip pain. Cueing methods during hip extension exercises may facilitate greater gluteus maximus recruitment. Objective: We examined whether specific verbal and tactile cues facilitate gluteus maximus recruitment while inhibiting hamstring recruitment during a bridging exercise. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory. Participants: 30 young adult women (age 24 [3] y; BMI 22.2 [2.4] kg/m2). Intervention: Participants were tested over 2 sessions, 1 week apart, while performing 5 repetitions of a bridging exercise. At their second visit, participants in the experimental group received verbal and tactile cues intended to facilitate gluteus maximus recruitment and inhibit hamstring recruitment. Control group participants received no additional cues beyond original instructions. Main Outcome Measures: Gluteus maximus and hamstring recruitment were measured with surface electromyography, normalized to maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs). Results: Gluteus maximus recruitment was unchanged in the control group and increased from 16.8 to 33.0% MVIC in the cueing group (F = 33.369, P < .001). Hamstring recruitment was unchanged in the control group but also increased from 16.5 to 29.8% MVIC in the cueing group (F = 6.400, P = .02). The effect size of the change in gluteus maximus recruitment in the cueing group (Cohen’s d = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.2) was not significantly greater than the effect size in hamstring recruitment (Cohen’s d = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.1 to 1.5). Conclusions: Verbal and tactile cues hypothesized to facilitate gluteus maximus recruitment yielded comparable increases in both gluteus maximus and hamstring recruitment. If one intends to promote hip extension by facilitating gluteus maximus recruitment while inhibiting hamstring recruitment during bridging exercises, the cueing methods employed in this study may not produce desired effects.