Gluteus maximus

Reading time:

The gluteus maximus connects the upper body and trunk to the pelvis and legs. It
has a range of origins, on the pelvis, sacrum, coccyx, and the
lumbar, thoracolumbar, and gluteus medius fascia. It inserts on the

upper femur and on the ITB of the fascia latae, which connects to the tibia. These
varied attachment points allow it to perform a wide variety of roles.

The gluteus maximus produces a number of joint actions, including: hip extension,
trunk extension, posterior pelvic tilt, hip external rotation, hip abduction (upper
fibers), force closure of sacroiliac joint, force transfer through the ITB, and even
force transfer through the tensor fascia latae.

The gluteus maximus is the largest muscle in the body, whether measured by
weight, cross-sectional area or volume. It should be allotted similar training
time to other major muscle groups. Athletes participating in sports with odd
impacts have the best gluteal development, implying that a range of joint actions
and loading types are required for developing this muscle fully.

The gluteus maximus has at least six regions within the muscle according to
anatomical, EMG and MMG studies, with upper, middle, and lower regions being
identified, as well as superficial sacral, deep sacral and deep ilium regions. These
varied regions likely require different joint actions and/or loading schemes for
complete development.

The human gluteus maximus is much larger than that of other apes. The difference
in size is mainly observed in the upper region, and only humans have an origin on
the iliac crest. There are three (unsatisfactory) theories for how the human gluteals
evolved to become so different: upright posture, persistence running, and tool use.

The gluteus maximus moment arm for hip extension indicates that it is a key hip
extensor in the sagittal plane, and decreases with increasing hip flexion angle. The
gluteus maximus is therefore most effective when the hip is near full
extension, implying that exercises that produce peak contractions at this point will
be most beneficial for its development.

The gluteus maximus has unusual muscle architecture. It is heavily pennated, with
a large physiological cross-sectional area, but also has long muscle fascicle lengths.
This suggests it functions both to produce high levels of force at low speeds
through small ranges of motion, as well as low levels of force at high speeds
through large ranges of motion. Optimal training may therefore require
movements in both categories.

The gluteus maximus is a mixed slow and fast twitch muscle, meaning that a
mixture of both high and low repetitions and/or high and low velocities are
probably useful for training this muscle.
Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is higher when muscle fibers are shorter (in full
hip extension compared to flexion, in hip abduction compared to neutral, in hip
external rotation compared to neutral, and in posterior pelvic tilt compared to
anterior pelvic tilt). Exercises producing the greatest gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude will likely be those that are hardest when the muscle is short (pull-
throughs, glute bridges, hip thrusts, horizontal back extensions).

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is lower in combined hip extension and knee
extension movements than in isolated hip extension movements. The most
effective exercises for the gluteus maximus likely involve hip extension without
simultaneous knee extension but this remains to be confirmed by future trials.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is higher in the barbell hip thrust than in the
barbell back squat, when using the same relative loads in resistance-trained
females. Among hip thrust variations, the standard barbell hip thrust produces the
highest mean and peak gluteus maximus EMG amplitudes.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is lower than quadriceps EMG amplitude in the
back squat, suggesting that the squat is primarily a quadriceps exercise. Even so, a
wider stance helps increase gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, as does sitting
back. Despite claims to the contrary, deeper squats do not increase gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude when using the same relative load.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude can be enhanced during the leg press by placing
the feet higher on the footplate. This has a similar effect to sitting back during the
back squat.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude can be enhanced during lunges (and probably
also split squats) by selecting the forward variation, using longer step lengths,
and using elastic resistance to increase the difficulty at the top of the movement.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude can be enhanced during back extensions by

performing the exercise in a position of knee flexion and/or in hip external
rotation, and by adding external loads (such as by wearing a weighted vest or
holding a dumbbell or weight plate).

Studies that have directly compared antero-posterior rehabilitation exercises with

axial exercises have found that antero-posterior exercises (quadruped hip
extension, prone hip extension, front plank with hip extension, gluteal squeeze)
produce higher gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. This is not surprising, given
that the position for testing the maximal strength of the gluteus maximus is in
prone hip extension.

CONTENTS
Full table of contents [show]

1. Anatomy
2. Muscle architecture
3. Muscle fiber type
4. Electromyography effect of joint angle
5. Electromyography effects of other factors
6. Electromyography resistance training
7. Electromyography rehabilitation
8. Moment arms
9. References
10. Contributors
11. Provide feedback

ANATOMY
PURPOSE

This section provides some background and a summary of the anatomy of the
gluteus maximus.

ORIGINS AND INSERTIONS

Introduction

The gluteus maximus (like the gluteus medius) is innervated by the inferior gluteal
nerve, which branches out from the spinal cord at the L5 and S1 vertebrae (Phillips &
Park, 1991; Zhu et al. 2015). It is a truly remarkable muscle, which connects the upper
body and core to the pelvis and lower body. At the top, it attaches to the sacrum,
coccyx, pelvis, and even up into the thoracolumbar fascia, and latissimus dorsi by
means of myofascial force transmission (Neumann, 2010; Carvalhais et al. 2013). At the
bottom, it attaches to the femur, integrates with the hamstrings (Prez-Bellmunt et al.
2014) and reaches as far as the tibia through the iliotibial band (ITB).

Origins
The origins and insertions of a muscle describe where the end of a muscle attaches on
the body. The origin is the end closest to the center of the body. Traditionally,
the origins of the gluteus maximus have included attachments to the posterior quarter of
the iliac crest, the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx, and to the fascia of the
lumbar spine (Gibbons and Mottram, 2004; Neumann, 2010). Recent investigations
have also found attachments originating from the gluteus medius fascia, ilium,
thoracolumbar fascia, erector spinae aponeurosis, dorsal sacroiliac and sacrotuberous
ligaments, as well as the traditional attachments at the sacrum and coccyx (Barker et al.
2014). These varied origins imply a wide variety of roles.

Insertions

The origins and insertions of a muscle describe where the end of a muscle attaches on
the body. The insertion is the end furthest from the center of the body. The gluteus
maximus has two main insertions. Firstly, it inserts on the oblique ridge on the lateral
surface of the greater trochanter of the femur, and secondly, it inserts on the ITB of the
fascia latae (Gibbons and Mottram, 2004; Neumann, 2010; Stecco et al. 2013).
Although it was once thought to be of secondary importance, the large role of the lower
insertion of the gluteus maximus into the ITB was recently emphasised. Stecco et al.
(2013) performed a dissection study of 6 elderly cadavers (4 males and 2 females). They
reported that the gluteus maximus displayed a major insertion into the fascia lata of
which the ITB appeared to be a reinforcement. They suggested that the ITB could
therefore be characterised as a tendon of insertion for the gluteus maximus. Since it
inserts on the lateral tibial condyle, this insertion point connects the gluteus maximus
with the lower limb, below the knee. The exact implications of this attachment are
unclear, but the existence of multiple insertion points implies a wide variety of roles.

MUSCLE ACTIONS

Introduction

Based on the origins and insertions of the muscle, as well as the muscle moment arms
derived from cadaver measurements, researchers have generally agreed that the primary
role of the gluteus maximus is to perform extension at the hip. However, depending on
the actions of other leg and trunk muscles, and the external forces acting on the body,
this hip extension muscle action can actually produce true hip extension, trunk
extension, or even posterior pelvic tilt. In addition, it seems likely that the gluteus
maximus can also produce hip external rotation, hip abduction (upper fibers), force
closure of sacroiliac (SI) joint, force transfer through the ITB, and even force transfer
through the tensor fascia latae.

Force closure of the SI joint

By recording data about the origins and insertions and muscle architecture of the gluteus
maximus in 11 embalmed cadaver limbs and including these data into a musculoskeletal
model, Barker et al. (2014) found that the force producing capability of the gluteus
maximus was large (mean = 891N) and that a large proportion of the muscle fibers
(70%, or 702N) crossed perpendicularly over the SI joint, meaning that a large
proportion of this force could act to produce force closure of the joint by exerting
compressive forces on the joint (Barker et al. 2014). The implications of this finding are
currently unclear, but may imply that increased gluteus maximus muscle size could
potentially be beneficial for certain conditions involving a loss of SI joint stability.

SIZE AND WEIGHT

Muscle weight

The gluteus maximus is the heaviest muscle in the body. Dissection studies in single
elderly male cadavers have reported that the gluteus maximus weighs 573g (Ito et al.
2003) and 989g (Horsman et al. 2007). Ito et al. 2003 found that the gluteus
maximus was more than twice as heavy as the gluteus medius and 27% heavier than the
second heaviest muscle, the adductor magnus. In fact, the gluteus maximus was
so heavy that it was 49% heavier than all four hamstrings muscles added together and
comprised 15% of the total mass of the entire leg musculature. This result was similar to
the findings of a more comprehensive analysis of 11 cadavers (6 male and 5 female),
which found that the weight of the gluteus maximus was 13% of the total lower body
musculature. Notwithstanding these remarkable results, these findings are yet limited
insofar as the dissections were performed in elderly cadavers and both the age and the
condition of the muscle likely lead to an underestimation of the actual muscle weights
in younger, living humans.

Muscle cross-sectional area

The gluteus maximus is the largest muscle in the body by cross-sectional area, with
measurements in cadavers reaching 48.4cm (Pohtilla, 1969; Ito et al. 2003), and
measurements taken in living subjects using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or
computed tomography (CT) scans reaching 58.3 10.3cm (Arokoski et al. 2002;
Kamaz et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2009; Ahedi et al. 2014; Yasuda et al. 2014; Niinimki et
al. 2015; Uemura et al. 2015). In a recent study, Niinimki et al. (2015) performed MRI
scans of the upper gluteus maximus in five different groups of athletic females, as
follows: high impact sports (volleyball players and high-jumpers), odd impact sports
(soccer and squash players), high force sports (powerlifters), repetitive impact sports
(endurance runners) and repetitive non-impact sports (swimmers). They found that the
athletes who took part in high impact, odd impact, or high force sports all displayed
larger upper gluteus maximus cross-sectional area than both a non-athletic control group
and the other athletes. Although the cross-sectional nature of this study makes it hard to
draw definitive conclusions, it does suggest that odd impact sports, which include a
range of different movements and loading schemes, may be optimal for gluteus
maximus development.


Muscle thickness

The gluteus maximus is one of the largest muscles in the body by thickness, with some
measurements in living subjects using ultrasound reaching 25.0 2.98mm (Ikezoe et al.
2011a; 2011b; Fukumoto et al. 2012).

Muscle volume

The gluteus maximus one of the largest muscles in the body by volume, with some
measurements in young subjects reaching 1,007.7ml (Popov et al. 2006; Gerber et al.
2009; Jolivet et al. 2009; Miokovic et al. 2011; Sakamaki et al. 2011; Preininger et al.
2013; Nakase et al. 2013; Christodoulou et al. 2014).

Sex differences

Substantial sex differences, as well as differences between individuals have

been observed in respect of the overall size of the gluteus maximus. Preininger et al.
(2012) investigated the muscle volume of the gluteals in both male and female patients
who were going to have a total hip replacement. They found that although the relative
size of each of the gluteals was similar in both males and females (as a proportion of
total hip muscle size) there were significant differences in absolute muscle volume. The
absolute size of the gluteus maximus was 27% larger in males than in females,
respectively. Preininger et al. (2012) commented that this might explain the greater
impact of muscle damage as a result of total hip replacement surgery on females and
emphasizes the importance of choosing a surgical approach to total hip replacement in
women that causes the least muscle damage. This also may imply that post-operation
rehabilitation following total hip replacement surgery is even more important for
females, and may require extensive and targeted gluteal development.

Gluteal atrophy

Gluteal atrophy is very common in the elderly (Ikezoe et al. 2011a). It one of the main
muscles that atrophies most substantially with age, close behind the hip flexors and
hamstrings. Gluteal atrophy also occurs regularly following hip osteoarthritis (Arokoski
et al. 2002; Uemura et al. 2015) and after total hip replacement (Rasch et al. 2009).
Programs to improve gluteus maximus size may therefore be very valuable in
older populations.

Gluteal atrophy also occurs quickly during sustained periods of bed rest (Berg et al.
2007; Miokovic et al. 2011). The use of gluteal implants for cosmetic reasons also tends
to produce gluteal atrophy, possibly because of the additional compression that is
produced by the implanted silicone (Serra et al. 2013; 2015). While sitting also causes
substantial compression of the gluteus maximus (Al-Dirini et al. 2015), it is still unclear
whether extended periods of sitting similarly cause any gluteal atrophy, particularly as
there is inter-individual variability in respect of which parts of the gluteus maximus or
surrounding subcutaneous fat deposits are used for sitting upon (Sonenblum et al.
2015).

MUSCLE REGIONS

Introduction

Several lines of evidence point to the idea that the gluteus maximus has multiple
different regions. Studies of anatomy, electromyography (EMG) and
mechanomyography (MMG) have all identified at least two major regions to the gluteus
maximus (upper and lower), as well as many other minor regions, which may be
differently affected by the various joint actions that can be performed at the hip and
which may have slightly different muscle fiber types. Indeed, many researchers working
with musculoskeletal models have been assuming that the gluteus maximus is
subdivided into multiple compartments for some time (e.g. Delp et al. 1999).
Compartments can be designated in three main planes: from superior to inferior, from
medial to lateral, and from superficial to deep. The presence of multiple different
regions within the gluteus maximus that have different characteristics seems to imply
that training a range of different hip actions through hip extension, hip external rotation,
and hip abduction, as well as through different repetition ranges may be valuable for
maximum development.

Upper and lower regions

ANATOMICAL INVESTIGATION

Few studies have performed anatomical investigations into the different regions of the
gluteus maximus, although some anatomical texts have noted the presence of an upper
and lower region (Grimaldi et al. 2009). The upper region is described as being the part
that originates from the posterior iliac crest and the lower region is described as
originating from the inferior sacrum and upper lateral coccyx (Grimaldi et al. 2009). It
has been suggested that the presence of these two key regions within the gluteus
maximus muscle might result from the fusion of two foetal muscles, one attaching
between the coccyx and the femur and one attaching between the sacrum and iliac spine
of the pelvis and the femur (Tich and Grim, 1985). Miokovic et al. (2011) divided
the gluteus maximus into upper and lower regions at the point of greatest cross-sectional
area of the femoral head, which resulted in the lower gluteus maximus being around
60% of the total and the upper gluteus maximus being around 40% of the total by
volume.

EMG INVESTIGATION

[Read more: electromyography]

EMG amplitude is closely related to muscle force in unfatigued muscles (Perry &
Bekey, 1981; Lawrence and De Luca, 1983; Woods & Bigland-Ritchie, 1983; Onishi et
al. 2000; Alkner et al. 2000). This enables researchers to compare the efficacy of
different exercises on involving different regions of the gluteus maximus, so long as the
set is not taken to muscular failure. EMG studies have provided evidence that there are
at least two key regions within the gluteus maximus: the upper and lower compartments
of the gluteus maximus and that these different regions may be active to a different
extent depending on the type of joint action being performed (Karlsson and
Jonsson, 1965; Furlani et al. 1974; Lyons et al. 1983; Fujisawa et al. 2014; Selkowitz et
al. 2016). It seems likely that the lower glutes are only involved in hip extension, while
the upper glutes are the more versatile region, performing hip extension, hip abduction,
and hip external rotation.

MMG INVESTIGATION

Mechanomyography (MMG) is a method used to detect the low frequency vibrations

that are produced when a muscle is contracted, which causes a reduction in its length
and an increase in its diameter. These vibrations create pressure waves that can
be detected on the surface of the skin by a simple detection device (see review by
Ibitoye et al. 2014). Although MMG is still in its infancy in comparison with EMG,
there are indications that it can be used to assess differences in a range of parameters,
including muscle fiber type, muscle force, peripheral fatigue, and contractile
properties (see review by Ibitoye et al. 2014). Like the EMG literature, there are MMG
studies that indicate that the gluteus maximus muscle can be subdivided into several
regions. Although EMG has identified only upper and lower compartments, MMG has
uncovered at least three separate regions (upper, middle and lower). McAndrew et al.
(2006) measured the mean contraction time for 6 subdivisions of the gluteus maximus
using MMG. They found that the mean contraction time was significantly different in
all regions. They reported that the upper region had the longest contraction time
followed by the middle region and then the lower region. There were no differences
between the lateral and medial regions. These findings may suggest that there are
differences in muscle fiber type between the upper and lower regions of the gluteus
maximus. Since the upper region appears to display slower contractile characteristics, it
may have a greater proportion of type I muscle fibers. Consequently, it may be intended
for more postural functions, including trunk extension or control of hip adduction
during gait. Since the upper fibers have a greater abductor moment arm, this seems
logical. Since the middle and lower regions display faster contractile characteristics,
they may be comprised of a greater proportion of type II muscle fibers. They
may therefore be more involved in hip extension and external rotation of the hip joint
during forceful movements. Overall, this finding suggests that for training all regions of
the gluteus maximus adequately, strategies that are appropriate for a range of different
muscle fiber types may be required.

Superficial and deep regions

ANATOMICAL INVESTIGATION

In contrast to other studies identifying upper and lower regions using either EMG or
MMG, Gibbons and Mottram (2004) performed an anatomical dissection study of
the gluteus maximus muscles of 12 cadavers. In contrast to the EMG and MMG
literature, this anatomical dissection study identified 3 different regions: superficial
sacral, deep sacral and deep ilium. The superficial sacral fibers originated on the sacrum
and inserted on the ITB or gluteal tuberosity of the femur. The deep ilium fibers
originated on the ilium and inserted on the gluteal tuberosity. The deep sacral fibers
originated on the lateral side of the sacrum, crossed the SI joint and inserted just lateral
to the posterior superior iliac spine. In comparison with the other fibers, the researchers
noted that these fibers were very short (1 3cm) but did not appear to have a different
source of innervation. Given the slightly different attachment points, it seems likely
that these different regions may be active to a different extent depending on the type of
joint action being performed, particularly if force closure of the SI joint is required.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY

Introduction

Comparative anatomy is the study of human anatomy in relation to that of other

primates. By studying the differences in the anatomy of the gluteus maximus
between humans and other apes, we can draw inferences about both the circumstances
in which humans developed and also the function of the muscle itself. Indeed, the
human gluteus maximus is very different from that of other apes but the reasons for this
are unclear and highly contentious (Jouffroy & Mdina, 2006; Eng et al. 2015a).

Humans and other apes

Differences between the human gluteus maximus muscle and the same musculature in
other apes are manifold. It has been noted that the human lower limb muscles are in
general heavier and have shorter fascicles compared to non-human apes (Payne et al.
2006). However, the human gluteus maximus in particular is much larger than that of
other apes and the difference in size is mainly observed in the upper region. However,
in other apes, the equivalent muscle to the gluteus medius is much larger than the
gluteus maximus. In humans there is a single gluteus maximus muscle while in other
apes, there tend to be two gluteal muscles (the gluteus maximus proprius and the
ischiofemoralis). However, this varies between primates and reference is often made
instead to the gluteus superficialis or gluteus superficialis proprius instead. The human
gluteus maximus originates on the iliac crest. In other apes, the equivalent gluteal
muscles originate in the fascia that covers the gluteus medius and spinal erectors and
from the sacrum and ischium. However, importantly, there is no attachment to the iliac
crest, as in humans. In humans, the main two insertion points are (1) the ITB of the
fascia latae and (2) the proximal third of the femur. In non-human primates, the femoral
insertion points vary and can be either in the proximal or distal half of the leg bone.
Although there has been a great deal of disagreement in this area, there are ultimately
only three prevailing theories for how the human gluteals evolved to become so
different from those possessed by other apes: upright posture, persistence running, and
tool use.

Upright posture

The idea of upright posture being responsible for the distinctive gluteal shape and size
in humans is very attractive because it addresses one of the basic differences between
apes and humans. It is still referenced as a possible solution regularly (e.g. Fujisawa et
al. 2014). However, the gluteals are not very active in upright posture, which has been
considered by some researchers to be problematic for this theory. Equally, it has been
suggested that it the gluteus maximus has evolved in conjunction with the need for
greater posterior tilt, which appears to be beneficial in energy conservation when
standing, walking and running (see review by Hogervorst et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2014a;
Eng et al. 2015a).

Persistence running

The idea of persistence running being responsible for the unique gluteal shape and size
in humans was originally proposed by Stern (1972) and was further developed by
Bramble and Lieberman (2004), Lieberman et al. (2006) and Eng et al. (2015a; 2015b).
In many circles, this explanation has become the default suggestion, despite severe
limitations. As with the proposal of upright posture, this theory has been criticized as
the gluteus maximus is similarly active in slow running and climbing, which is a
common primate movement (Bartlett et al. 2014). Therefore, there is no obvious reason
why the gluteus maximus should have evolved differently for running when it was
already being used (and continues to be used in other primates) to a similar extent
during climbing. In addition, it has been reported in EMG studies that the gluteus
maximus is substantially more active during other potentially adaptive movements
(such as sprinting) than in either running or climbing (Bartlett et al. 2014) and it is clear
from cross-sectional analyses of athletes that endurance running develops the gluteus
maximus to a much smaller extent that almost any other athletic activity (Niinimki et
al. 2015). Finally, although certain traditional tribes have been reported performing
persistence hunting in modern times, there is no strong evidence that early hominids
engaged in this practice nor that humans are superior to any other predators in this
regard. More recent work has identified certain adaptations in relation to the gluteus
maximus that may be relevant to long distance walking economy (rather than
persistence running), such as the greater ability to store elastic energy in the ITB (Eng et
al. 2015a; 2015b) as well as an increase in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude when
walking at faster speeds (Lee et al. 2014a).

Tool use
The idea of tool use was proposed by Marzke et al. (1988), who noted that because there
is such increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during the throwing, clubbing, and
digging, this may connect the greater gluteal mass to increased efficiency in throwing
projectiles or early spears. As Jouffroy (2006) also noted that extended time spent in the
squatting position may also have been relevant. However, this theory has been
challenged on the basis of when hominids began using tools.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

The gluteus maximus connects the upper body and trunk to the pelvis and legs. It
has a range of origins, on the pelvis, sacrum, coccyx, and the
lumbar, thoracolumbar, and gluteus medius fascia. It inserts on the upper femur
and on the ITB of the fascia latae, which connects to the tibia. These
varied attachment points imply a wide variety of roles.

The gluteus maximus produces a number of joint actions, including: hip extension,
trunk extension, posterior pelvic tilt, hip external rotation, hip abduction (upper
fibers), force closure of sacroiliac joint, force transfer through the ITB, and even
force transfer through the tensor fascia latae.

The gluteus maximus is the largest muscle in the body, whether measured by
weight, cross-sectional area or volume. It should therefore
be allotted similar training time to other major muscle groups. Athletes
participating in sports with odd impacts have the best gluteal development,
implying that a range of joint actions and loading types are required
for developing this muscle fully.

The gluteus maximus has at least six regions within the muscle according to
anatomical, EMG and MMG studies, with upper, middle, and lower regions being
identified, as well as superficial sacral, deep sacral and deep ilium regions. These
varied regions likely require different joint actions and/or loading schemes for
complete development.

The human gluteus maximus is much larger than that of other apes. The difference
in size is mainly observed in the upper region, and only humans have an origin on
the iliac crest. There are three (unsatisfactory) theories for how the human gluteals
evolved to become so different: upright posture, persistence running, and tool use.

Top Contents References

MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE
[Read more: Muscle architecture]

PURPOSE

This section provides a summary of the muscle architecture of the gluteus

maximus.

INTRODUCTION

Muscle architecture describes the arrangement of muscle fibers within the overall
framework of the muscle itself, which is surrounded by fascia. It has been described as
the macroscopic arrangement of muscle fibers (see review by Lieber and Fridn,
2000). Since muscles are roughly cylindrical structures comprising fascicle bundles that
run at an angle to the axis of force generation, there are three main measurements of the
structure of a muscle: normalized fiber length, physiological cross-sectional area, and
pennation angle.

PENNATION ANGLE

Although only a small number of studies have assessed the pennation angle of the
gluteus maximus, there is consistency in the reported findings (Ward et al. 2009; Barker
et al. 2014). The gluteus maximus is heavily pennated compared with other muscles,
with angles reaching 30 45 degrees (Ward et al. 2009).

FASCICLE LENGTH

Although only a small number of studies have assessed fascicle lengths of the gluteus
maximus, there is some consistency in the reported findings (Friederich & Brand 1990;
Horsman et al. 2007; Ward et al. 2009; Barker et al. 2014). It appears that the gluteus
maximus displays quite long fascicle lengths compared with other muscles, with
fascicles reaching up to 18.5cm (Ward et al. 2009).

PHYSIOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA

Although only a small number of studies have assessed the physiological cross-sectional
area of the gluteus maximus, there is some consistency in the reported findings
(Friederich & Brand 1990; Horsman et al. 2007; Ward et al. 2009; Barker et al. 2014).
As might be expected, the gluteus maximus has a very large physiological cross-
sectional area compared to other muscles, with values in some male cadavers
reaching 49.7cm (Ward et al. 2009).

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

The gluteus maximus has unusual muscle architecture. It is heavily pennated, with
a large physiological cross-sectional area, but also has long muscle fascicle lengths.

This suggests that the gluteus maximus functions both to produce high levels of
force at low speeds through small ranges of motion, as well as low levels of force at
high speeds through large ranges of motion. Optimal training may therefore
require movements in both categories.

Top Contents References

MUSCLE FIBER TYPE

[Read more: Muscle fiber type]

PURPOSE

This section provides a summary of the muscle fiber type of the gluteus maximus.

MUSCLE FIBER TYPE

Very little information exists regarding the muscle fiber type of the gluteus maximus.
Currently, there are only two studies that have reported data. Johnson et al. (1973) took
muscle samples at 50 sites in each of 6 previously normal male autopsy subjects aged
between 17 30 years. They reported that the gluteus maximus had an approximately
equal (52% type I) proportion of type I and type II muscle fibers. In contrast, Sirca et al.
(1980) took muscle samples from 21 cases of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip.
They reported that the gluteus maximus has a greater (68% type I) proportion of type I
than type II muscle fibers. Current evidence therefore indicates that the gluteus
maximus is a mixed slow and fast twitch muscle, meaning that both high and low
repetitions may be necessary for its development.
 Gluteus maximus fiber type reported by Johnson et al. (1973)

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

The gluteus maximus is a mixed slow and fast twitch muscle, meaning that a
mixture of both high and low repetitions and/or high and low velocities are
probably useful for training this muscle.

Top Contents References

ELECTROMYOGRAPHY EFFECT OF JOINT

ANGLE
[Read more: Electromyography]

PURPOSE
This section provides a summary of the electromyography (EMG) studies into how
the EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus changes with joint angle.

BACKGROUND

Among sports scientists, it is widely accepted that EMG amplitude can provide a way
for determining the best exercises for training a muscle. EMG is essentially a
measurement of voluntary activation, which is a compound function of both motor unit
recruitment and motor unit firing frequency. There is a relatively close relationship
between muscle force and EMG amplitude in non-fatigued conditions (Perry & Bekey,
1981; Lawrence and De Luca, 1983; Woods & Bigland-Ritchie, 1983; Onishi et al.
2000; Alkner et al. 2000).

EFFECTS OF JOINT ANGLE ON GLUTEUS

MAXIMUS EMG AMPLITUDE

Introduction

By analysing studies that have explored the effects of joint angle on gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude, it is possible to identify which joint angles will produce the greatest
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Using this information, it is then possible to identify
which resistance training exercises are best for training the muscle, as each exercise has
its own strength curve, with points within its range of motion where it requires a great
deal of effort, and points where it requires little effort (Contreras et al. 2013).

Effect of hip flexion angle during isometric hip extension

Increasing hip flexion reduces gluteus maximus EMG amplitude when hip extension
force is tested isometrically at different joint angles. Worrell et al. (2001) investigated
the changes in both hip extension torque and gluteus maximus EMG amplitude with
changing degree of hip flexion. They found that although hip extension torque increased
with increasing hip flexion, gluteus maximus EMG amplitude decreased. Fischer and
Houtz (1968) also reported greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude in full hip
extension compared to greater degrees of hip flexion, during hip extension.

Effect of hip abduction angle or moments during isometric hip extension

HIP ABDUCTION ANGLE

Increasing hip abduction appears to cause increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
when hip extension force is tested isometrically at different joint angles. Kang et al.
(2013) tested gluteus maximus and hamstrings amplitude during prone hip extension
while in 90 degrees of knee flexion in three different positions of hip abduction: 0
degrees, 15 degrees and 30 degrees. Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was found to
increase with increasing hip abduction, while the activity of the hamstrings
simultaneously reduced. Similarly, Suehiro et al. (2014) investigated the EMG
amplitude of the gluteus maximus during a prone hip extension in knee flexion exercise,
with the hip joint in different positions (neutral, abducted, externally rotated). Gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude was significantly higher when the hip was abducted than
when the hip was in neutral (14 9% vs. 23 14%).

HIP ABDUCTION MOMENT

Additionally, it seems that even a force exerted towards producing hip abduction may
suffice to bring about increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, as Choi et al. (2014)
reported that providing an elastic resistance band for subjects to exert hip abduction
force against during a bridging exercise led to both a reduction in anterior pelvic tilt and
an increase in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (although it must be noted that Jang et
al. 2013 found a similar beneficial effect of a hip adduction moment).

RELATION TO DYNAMIC EXERCISE

These findings are interesting, as they relate to several observations in some other
studies of dynamic exercise. Increasing gluteus maximus EMG amplitude with
increased hip abduction has been reported during wide stance squats compared to
narrow stance squats (McCaw & Melrose, 1999; Paoli et al. 2009) but not during wide
stance deadlifts compared to narrow stance deadlifts (Escamilla et al. 2002; Sorensen et
al. 2007).

Effect of hip flexion angle during isometric hip abduction

During hip abduction, a greater hip flexion angle seems to lead to greater gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude. Fujisawa et al. (2014) found that both upper and lower
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude increased with increasing hip flexion. Upper gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude increased from 30% of MVIC at 0 degrees of hip flexion
to 86% of MVIC at 80 degrees of hip flexion. Lower gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
increased from 20% of MVIC at 0 degrees of hip flexion to 38% of MVIC at 80 degrees
of hip flexion.

Effect of hip external rotation angle during isometric hip extension

Performing isometric hip extension in a position of greater hip external rotation appears
to cause greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than performing isometric hip
extension in a neutral hip rotation position. Sakamoto et al. (2009) investigated gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude during four prone hip extension movements with varying
joint angles. The researchers tested prone hip extension in knee extension, in knee
flexion, in hip external rotation and knee extension, and in hip external rotation and
knee flexion. Hip extension performed in knee extension with hip external rotation led
to greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than hip extension in knee extension
without hip external rotation (23% of MVIC vs. 13% of MVIC). Similarly, Suehiro et
al. (2014) investigated the EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus during a prone hip
extension in knee flexion exercise, with the hip joint in different positions (neutral,
abducted, externally rotated). Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was significantly
higher when the hip was abducted than when the hip was in neutral (14 9% vs. 23
14%) and significantly higher when the hip was both abducted and externally rotated
than when the hip was just abducted (41 24% vs. 23 14%). However, when
performing hip abduction, the act of externally rotating the hip does not appear to
influence gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Lee et al. 2014b).

Effect of knee flexion angle during isometric hip extension

Performing isometric hip extension in a position of knee flexion appears to cause

greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than performing isometric hip extension in a
position of knee extension. Sakamoto et al. (2009) investigated gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude during four prone hip extension movements with varying joint angles. They
tested prone hip extension in knee extension, in knee flexion, in hip external rotation
and knee extension, and in hip external rotation and knee flexion. They found that hip
extension performed in knee flexion led to greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
than hip extension performing in knee extension (23% vs. 13% of MVIC). Similar
findings were observed by Kwon et al. (2013), who explored 5 different knee angles (0,
30, 60, 90, and 110 degrees). Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude in 0 and 30 degrees of
knee flexion was substantially lower (48% and 53% of MVIC) than in 60, 90 or 110
degrees of knee flexion (63 65% of MVIC). When exploring knee flexion during
dynamic back extensions, Park and Yoo (2014) also found that increased knee flexion
led to increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. It seems likely that the gluteus
maximus is forced to become more active as the hamstrings are in active insufficiency
and therefore their capacity to produce force is reduced.

Effect of pelvic tilt angle during isolated hip extension

Performing posterior pelvic tilt during isolated hip extension appears to cause
greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than performing isometric hip extension in
anterior pelvic tilt. Queiroz et al. (2010) investigated gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
during four variations of a Pilates hip extension exercise in the quadruped position. The
four variations were: retroverted pelvis with flexed trunk (i.e. in posterior pelvic tilt),
anteverted pelvis with extended trunk (i.e. in anterior pelvic tilt), neutral pelvis with
trunk inclined in relation to the ground, and neutral pelvis with trunk parallel to the
ground. These exercises were performed in the Reformer apparatus, which consists of a
sliding platform with attached resistive springs on which the subject was placed in a
quadruped position. Hip extension causes this sliding platform to move backwards
against the resistance of the spring-loaded apparatus. In this apparatus, gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude was significantly higher in posterior pelvic tilt compared anterior
pelvic tilt (41% of MVIC vs. 18% of MVC). Kim and Seo (2015) observed vastly
increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during standing on a vibrating platform
when in posterior pelvic tilt compared to in either neutral or anterior pelvic tilt
positions. Additionally, Tateuchi et al. (2012) and Tateuchi et al. (2013) both monitored
the EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus during prone hip extension from 30 10
degrees of hip flexion. They found that increased EMG amplitude of the hip flexor
(tensor fasciae latae) relative to that of hip extensors (gluteus maximus and
semitendinosus) was significantly associated with increased anterior pelvic tilt during
the prone hip extension movement. It is also noteworthy that Choi et al. (2014) found
that providing an elastic resistance band for subjects to exert hip abduction
force against during a bridging exercise led to both a reduction in anterior pelvic tilt and
an increase in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Finally, given that abdominal activity
can also influence pelvic tilt, it is interesting to note that several investigations have
reported reduced anterior pelvic tilt through performing the Abdominal Drawing-In
Maneuver (ADIM) and that this can lead to increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
or earlier onset times (Oh et al. 2007; Park et al. 2011; Kim et al. 2014a; Kim and Kim,
2015).

Interpretation of EMG amplitude and muscle fiber length

In several of the above joint angle combinations, gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is
higher when muscle fibers are shorter. Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is greater in
full hip extension compared to flexion (Worrell et al. 2001), in abduction compared to
neutral (Kang et al. 2013; Suehiro et al. 2014), in external rotation compared to neutral
(Sakamoto et al. 2009; Suehiro et al. 2014), and in posterior pelvic tilt compared to
anterior pelvic tilt (Queiroz et al. 2010; Tateuchi et al. 2012; Tateuchi et al. 2013; Choi
et al. 2014). There are two possible explanations for this observation. The results could
be caused by geometry-related errors in that the surface electrodes used in most studies
could be recording a lower signal at longer muscle lengths on account of there being a
smaller surface area of the muscle tissue underneath the electrodes (a diminished
innervation zone). Alternatively, it could be a genuine feature of neural drive to the
gluteus maximus. Irrespective of the reason for the relationship, it presents important
ramifications for all studies investigating gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. It is
therefore very likely that exercises that produce the greatest gluteus maximus
activation will do so where the muscle is required to produce its peak force when most
contracted (i.e. hip extended, externally rotated, and abducted, and in posterior pelvic
tilt). Such exercises are likely to be where exercises are hardest at the end of the
movement when the gluteus maximus is contracted (e.g. pull-throughs, glute bridges,
hip thrusts, horizontal back extensions) and not exercises that are hardest at the start of
the movement when the gluteus maximus is stretched (e.g. squats and step ups).

SECTION CONCLUSIONS
Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is higher when muscle fibers are shorter (in full
hip extension compared to flexion, in hip abduction compared to neutral, in hip
external rotation compared to neutral, and in posterior pelvic tilt compared to
anterior pelvic tilt).

Exercises producing the greatest gluteus maximus EMG amplitude will likely
be those that are hardest when the muscle is short (pull-throughs, glute bridges,
hip thrusts, horizontal back extensions).

Top Contents References

ELECTROMYOGRAPHY EFFECTS OF OTHER

FACTORS
[Read more: Electromyography]

PURPOSE

This section provides a summary of the electromyography (EMG) studies into the
gluteus maximus where factors other than joint angle have been investigated, such
as stability, or use of the hip with and without knee movement.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

In addition to basic joint angle positions, there are a range of other movement-related
factors that can affect gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, such as whether the hip
extension movement is performed in combination with a knee extension movement,
whether the legs or trunk are supported, and whether the exercise is performed on an
unstable surface or not. The following sections detail some of these findings.

Effect of combined hip and knee extension

Performing isometric knee extension at the same time as isometric hip

extension appears to cause reduced gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than performing
isometric hip extension alone. Yamashita (1988) tested gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude during independent hip extension and knee extension movements at 20% of
MVC before testing gluteus maximus EMG amplitude using the same torque at each
joint but in a combined movement. They found that gluteus maximus, hamstrings and
rectus femoris EMG amplitude were all lower in the combined movement, despite the
same amount of hip extension torque in both cases. Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
in the combined movement was 51% of the level in the single-joint movement.
However, vastus medialis EMG amplitude was much greater at 154% of the single-joint
movement. It seems that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is depressed when hip
extension is combined with knee extension.

This is very relevant for two key reasons. Firstly, since most compound resistance
training exercises (e.g. squats) involve combined hip and knee extension, this indicates
that maximum gluteus maximus development may be difficult with traditional
exercises. Secondly, traditional hip extension machines involve combined hip and knee
extension and may therefore fail to develop the gluteus maximus to any greater extent
than other leg muscles. Indeed, Cochrane & Harnett (2015) found that the glute machine
led to similar EMG amplitude in the quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteus
maximus. Training to increase the strength and size of the gluteus maximus may be
better performed with movements that limit knee extension (e.g. hip thrusts and back
extensions) compared to with movements that involve substantial knee extension
(squats and step ups).

Effect of support point

INTRODUCTION

Hip extension can be performed in many postures and with different support points.
Whether these parameters alter the gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, however, is very
unclear. Hip extension can be performed with upper body support (prone hip extension
position) or without back support (Biering-Sorensen or seated positions). In addition,
isometric hip extension can be performed lying down in the classic manual muscle
testing position (prone hip extension) or in the standing (gluteal squeeze) position
(Contreras et al. 2015c).
 The classic testing position for maximum glute activation

WITH AND WITHOUT UPPER BODY SUPPORT

Recently, Yoo (2015) compared gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during 3 different
types of hip extension: prone isometric hip extension, supine isometric hip extension
(Biering-Sorensen position), and seated dynamic hip extension (Roman chair). In the
prone hip extension, the upper body is supported, while in the other two exercises it is
not. They reported that prone isometric hip extension produced greater involvement of
the gluteus maximus relative to the back musculature than the other exercises. De
Ridder et al. (2013) compared isometric and dynamic versions of trunk extension
(horizontal back extension) and leg extension (reverse hyper) exercises with 60% of
1RM. Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude tended to be greater in the trunk extension
(horizontal back extension) than in the leg extension (reverse hyper). Kim & Yoo
(2015) explored gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during isometric hip extension
exercises performed with either the upper or lower body moving. With the upper body
fixed, the subjects performed an isometric reverse hyper exercise. With the lower body
fixed, the subjects performed an isometric horizontal back extension. There was no
difference between the two conditions and gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was
moderately high in both (53 62% of MVIC).

STANDING OR LYING

Comparing the gluteus maximus EMG amplitude in prone or when standing, while
performing maximal isometric contractions, Contreras et al. (2015c) found that there
was no difference between the two conditions. However, they also discovered that no
single testing position was ideal for every participant, which may suggest that there is
inter-individual variability in respect of the optimal positions for training the gluteus
maximus.


Effect of instability

Although many rehabilitation professionals have championed the use of unstable

surfaces to enhance the recruitment of muscles during certain lower body exercises, the
gluteus maximus is likely not recruited to a greater extent following the introduction of
instability. Although Kim et al. (2013a) found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
was enhanced by instability during a prone hip extension performed with a foam roll,
and Barton et al. (2014) found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was enhanced
during single-leg squats with a Swiss ball, such potentially positive findings have not
been observed by all researchers. For example, Eom et al. (2013) found that it was not
affected by instability at the feet during a supine bridge. Similarly, Youdas et al.
(2015) compared gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during supine bridges on stable and
unstable surfaces. The gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was actually higher during the
stable conditions compared to the unstable conditions.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is lower in combined hip extension and knee
extension movements than in isolated hip extension movements.

The most effective exercises for the gluteus maximus likely involve hip extension
without simultaneous knee extension but this remains to be confirmed by
future trials.

Top Contents References

ELECTROMYOGRAPHY RESISTANCE
TRAINING
[Read more: Electromyography]

PURPOSE

This section provides a summary of the electromyography (EMG) studies into the
gluteus maximus during resistance training exercises.

BACKGROUND

Researchers often use EMG to investigate resistance training exercises, because higher
levels of EMG amplitude within a muscle are believed to be associated with
greater long-term increases in muscle size in that part of the muscle, when using that
exercise in a training program (Wakahara et al. 2012; Wakahara et al. 2013). We can
therefore assume that exercises that involve high levels of EMG in the gluteus maximus
will likely lead to increases in strength and size in this muscle. Additionally, we can
assume that exercises that involve high levels of EMG in certain parts of the gluteus
maximus will likely lead to increases in the size of those parts of the muscle. Also,
as long as exercises are not taken to muscular failure, we can also compare multiple
exercises within a single study, to see which is best.

Testing EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus in a glute bridge exercise

However, only a few studies have explored the EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus
in the exercises that are most commonly used for developing this muscle, such as the
barbell glute bridge, barbell hip thrust, and band hip thrust (Contreras et al. 2011;
Contreras et al. 2015a; 2015d). Similarly, few studies have explored the most
commonly used machine exercise, the glute (hip extension) machine, although
unfortunately those who have investigated this machine have not found promising
results (Cochrane & Harnett, 2015). In fact, the EMG amplitude in the gluteus maximus
has only really been studied extensively in the back squat and the deadlift.

THE SQUAT

[Read more: squat]

Introduction

The back squat is a standard exercise in many strength and conditioning programs.
Generally, researchers have reported that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is much
lower than quadriceps EMG amplitude in the back squat (Isear et al. 1997; McCaw &
Melrose, 1999; Manabe et al. 2007; Paoli et al. 2009; Lynn & Noffal, 2012; Li et al.
2013; Aspe & Swinton, 2014; Yavuz et al. 2015; Contreras et al. 2015b), although
musculoskeletal modelling investigations indicate that both muscle groups are
important (Bryanton et al. 2015). Although it is often viewed as one of the most useful
exercises for building glute size and strength, percentages of maximum voluntary
isometric contraction (MVIC) mean EMG amplitude range from as low as 17 70% for
the gluteus maximus, but range from 47 100% for the vastus lateralis (Isear et al.
1997;McCaw & Melrose, 1999; Manabe et al. 2007; Paoli et al. 2009; Lynn & Noffal,
2012; Li et al. 2013; Aspe & Swinton, 2014; Yavuz et al. 2015; Contreras et al. 2015b).
This indicates that the back squat is probably a better exercise for the quadriceps than
for the gluteus maximus.

Effect of stance width

The exact technique used to perform the back squat seems to affect the magnitude of the
EMG amplitude recorded, suggesting that some variations are better than others.
Technique variables include: stance width, tibial angle, depth, and use of a weightlifting
belt). Performing back squats with greater stance width seems to involve greater gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude (McCaw & Melrose, 1999; Paoli et al. 2009). This could be
related to the increased hip abduction angle, which has been reported to lead to greater
EMG amplitude under more controlled conditions (Kang et al. 2013).

Effect of sitting back

Performing squats with a counter-balanced load such as dumbbells held

with outstretched arms (as in Lynn and Noffal, 2012) or with elastic resistance held in a
similar position (as in Kang et al. 2014) may help the lifter to sit back and use a more
vertical tibia. This position appears to lead to greater EMG amplitude in the gluteus
maximus (Lynn and Noffal, 2012; Kang et al. 2014). This type of posture may lead
greater external hip extension moment arm lengths because the hip is further from the
barbell. These greater moment arm lengths would then necessitate greater hip extension
moments to produce this squat variation. Muscle forces would therefore need to be
greater, which are then reflected by the increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude.
Indeed, in modelling the Smith Machine squat, Abelbeck (2002) found that foot
placements further from the bar path produced greater hip extension torque than foot
placements closer to the bar path.

Effect of squat depth

Within a squat movement, it seems that the EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus is
lowest at the bottom of the movement and highest in the middle of the concentric phase
(Robertson et al. 2008). 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). In contrast, performing back squats with the same relative load but to
different depths appears to lead to similar gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Contreras
et al. 2015b).

Effect of using equipment

The use of equipment such as weightlifting belt or compressive gear like knee wraps
may affect gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Performing back squats with a
weightlifting belt does not seem to affect EMG amplitude in the gluteus maximus (Zink
et al. 2001). Using a weightlifting belt might be expected to affect gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude only if abdominal muscle EMG amplitude were to be affected, as there
is often an influence of abdominal muscle EMG amplitude on gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude, which is thought to be because of force couples created across the pelvis
during hip extension (Neumann, 2010). However, Gomes et al. (2015) reported that
with 60% of 1RM, knee wraps led to reduced gluteus maximus EMG amplitude,
perhaps because of increased elastic energy storage reducing the effort required to lift
the same load, but this was not observed at heavier relative loads.

Effect of load and speed

Observing the effect of load and speed during a movement is one way in which the role
of a muscle in an exercise can be assessed. Large increases in EMG amplitude with both
increasing load and speed indicate that the muscle has an important role. Studies have
found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude increases during the back squat with both
load (Savelberg et al. 2007; Li et al. 2013; Aspe and Swinton, 2014; Gomes et al. 2015;
Giroux et al. 2015) and speed (Manabe et al. 2007). These studies are supported by
observations that hip extension moments also increase with increasing relative load
during the back squat (Bryanton et al. 2012).

Effect of squat variation

When matched for relative load, it appears that front and back squats are similarly
effective for the gluteus maximus (Yavuz et al. 2015; Contreras et al. 2015b). However,
overhead squats appear to involve a lower level of gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
than back squats for the same relative load (Aspe and Swinton, 2014).

Effect of hip flexor length

When comparing groups of female soccer athletes, Mills et al. (2015) found that those
displaying a smaller peak hip extension angle on the modified Thomas Test also
displayed lower gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (but proportionally
greater hamstrings EMG amplitude) during the descent phase of the back squat exercise.
The researchers suggested that these findings imply that hip flexor length affects gluteus
maximus and hamstrings EMG amplitudes during squatting motions, at least during
eccentric muscle actions. Improving hip extension range of motion (ROM) may
therefore be important for maximizing gluteus maximus EMG amplitude when
resistance training.

THE DEADLIFT

[Read more: deadlift]

Introduction

The deadlift is another standard exercise in many strength and conditioning programs.
Generally, researchers have reported that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is
somewhat higher than in the back squat, although good studies performing direct
comparisons of the two exercises are currently lacking.

Effect of load

Few studies have explored the effect of increasing load during the deadlift. Cochrane
and Barnes (2015) confirmed that gluteus maximus EMG increased with increasing load
between 30 and 50% of 1RM. Moreover, they noted that gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude relative to hamstrings EMG amplitude did not alter between these loads.
Therefore, increasing load in the deadlift may not alter the relative contribution of the
gluteus maximus to the performance of the exercise.

Effect of stance width

Performing deadlifts with greater stance width (using a sumo technique instead of a
conventional technique) does not appear to alter EMG amplitude in the gluteus
maximus (Escamilla et al. 2002; Sorensen et al. 2011). It is unclear why performing
deadlifts with greater stance width does not lead to superior gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude when performing back squats with greater stance width does. However,
several possible explanations exist. Firstly, it is commonly observed that performing
back squats with wider stance widths permits greater loads to be used and greater loads
are associated with higher EMG amplitude in the back squat. On the other hand, sumo
deadlifts are not reliably associated with heavier loads than conventional deadlifts.
Secondly, the external hip extension moment arm is shorter in sumo deadlifts than in
conventional deadlifts (Escamilla et al. 2000) and therefore the muscle force for the
same hip extension moment must be lower. Alternatively, it may be that ach individual
has an optimum lifting pattern determined by their own anthropometry. Yoon (2013)
found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was not increased as a result of increasing
stance width during basic lifting tasks with a 10kg box but was in fact somewhat
correlated with tibialis anterior EMG amplitude. However, there were two very
important limitations of this study. Firstly, only very light loads were used and secondly
the relative load was not equalized between conditions.

Effect of deadlift height

Although a deadlift is traditionally pulled from the floor, many trainees make use of
either rack pull or block pull variations in order to gain many of the advantages of the
exercise without developing the mobility required to lift from the floor. Unfortunately,
no studies have yet explored the EMG amplitude levels in the gluteus maximus
during deadlifts from different heights. 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).
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that when Noe et al. (1992) tested isokinetic
deadlifting at 30.5 and 45.7cm/s, they found that the gluteus maximus did not reach its
peak activation until 83% of the way through the lift. They suggested that the delay in
activating the gluteus maximus to its peak level may be explained by the poor length-
tension relationship in the stretched position.

Effect of using weightlifting belt

Performing the deadlift with a weightlifting belt does not seem to alter gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude (Escamilla et al. 2002). This finding is similar to that of the squat (Zink
et al. 2001). Using a weightlifting belt might be expected to affect gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude only if abdominal muscle EMG amplitude were to be affected, as there
is often an influence of abdominal muscle activity on gluteus maximus EMG amplitude,
which is thought to be because of force couples created across the pelvis during hip
extension (Neumann, 2010).

THE LUNGE

Effect of load

Currently, there are no studies that have explored the effect of load on gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude during lunges. However, several studies have investigated the behavior
of hip extensor moments in response to load. Riemann et al. (2012) explored the effects
of different loads on joint moments in the forward lunge. They found that increasing
load does not increase the moments at the ankle, knee, and hip joints equally. Rather,
the hip moment is increased to a greater extent than the ankle and the knee moments. As
loading increases, the hip extensors must therefore work proportionally harder than the
knee extensors. So the more weight that is used, the more the forward lunge becomes a
useful exercise for the hip extensors, which include the gluteus maximus.


Effect of step length

Currently, there are no studies that have explored the effect of step length on gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude during lunges. However, several studies have investigated the
behavior of hip extensor moments in response to step length. Riemann et al. (2013)
explored the effects of different step lengths on joint moments in the forward lunge.
They found that longer step lengths involved greater hip extensor moments than shorter
step lengths. This implies that longer step lengths may make lunges more useful as an
exercise for the gluteus maximus.

Effect of technique

Few studies have compared gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during different lunges or
during different variations in technique during lunges (such as trunk angle or arm
position). However, Flanagan et al. (2004) compared joint moments between the
forward and lateral lunges and reported that the forward lunge displayed greater hip
extensor moments, suggesting that it involves the gluteus maximus to a greater degree.
Similar findings were reported by Riemann et al. (2013) when comparing forward and
lateral lunges. In terms of studies exploring gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
directly, Farrokhi et al. (2008) found that forward lunges with forward lean lead to
slightly greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than forward lunges with either no
trunk lean or with backward trunk lean. As yet, however, neither reverse lunges nor
walking lunges have been investigated in the literature.

Effect of external resistance type

Using elastic resistance during lunges may be superior to using conventional free
weight resistance for developing the gluteus maximus. Although Jakobsen et al. (2013)
found that with matched loading parameters, forward lunges performed with elastic
resistance led to similar gluteus maximus EMG amplitude levels to those produced
using conventional loading with dumbbells, Sundstrup et al. (2014) found that elastic
resistance was superior. Moreover, Jakobsen et al. (2013) reported that during lunges
with both free weights and elastic resistance, EMG amplitude of most of the leg muscles
is greatest at the point of peak hip and knee flexion, where ground reaction forces are
exerted in order to start the lifting phase but that in the elastic resistance condition, there
was a trend towards a more even level of EMG amplitude across joint angles. The
applications of these differences are slightly unclear. It seems likely that the greater and
more even EMG amplitude during the movement performed with elastic resistance
might enhance mechanical tension and thereby increase hypertrophy. On the other hand,
the use of free weight resistance seems to provide greater tension in the bottom position
where the muscle is stretched, which may lead to greater levels of muscle damage and
consequently greater hypertrophy through a different mechanism.

THE BACK EXTENSION

Effect of load

Several researchers have investigated the role of the gluteus maximus during back
extensions of varying kinds (horizontal and different degrees of incline). Clark et al.
(2002) investigated back extensions at 15 degrees to the horizontal. They explored the
effect of increasing load on gluteus maximus EMG amplitude and found that gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude increased significantly with load. They also noted that this
increase in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was greater than the increase in the EMG
amplitude of the lumbar extensors, suggesting that the gluteus maximus is more
important for the movement as fatigue sets in.

Effect of hand and foot position

Since the position of the hands alters the effective load during the back extension, it
might be expected to affect gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Similarly, since previous
studies have found that knee flexion leads to increased gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude through active insufficiency of the hamstrings, placing the knee into flexion
during back extensions might also be expected to increase gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude during back extensions. However, when Park and Yoo (2014) investigated
these factors, only increasing knee flexion increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude.

Effect of hip rotation angle

Given that the gluteus maximus appears to be more active in hip external rotation than
in hip internal rotation (Sakamoto et al. 2009; Suehiro et al. 2014), it might be expected
that performing hip external rotation during back extensions would increase gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude. Mayer et al. (2002) investigated the effect of hip rotation
angle on gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during 45-degree back extensions. They also
measured lumbar extensor EMG amplitude. They found that the lumbar extensors were
significantly more active in hip internal rotation than in hip external rotation. The
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was conversely greater in hip external hip rotation,
which is as would be expected from more studies performed in more controlled
conditions (Sakamoto et al. 2009; Suehiro et al. 2014) but this finding did not quite
reach statistical significance, which may have been type II error. It seems likely that the
reduction in lumbar extensor EMG amplitude occurred in tandem with the increase
in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude and represented a shift in the involvement of the
lumbar extensors to the gluteus maximus as a result of hip external rotation, which is
known to activate the gluteus maximus to a greater extent than either neutral or
internally rotated hip positions.

Effect of pelvic restriction

The role of pelvic restriction on gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during back
extensions or other exercises (such as seated lumbar extension machines) remains
unclear. In general, it appears that pelvic restriction has no significant effect on gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude (Udermann et al. 1999; Da Silva et al. 2009a; Da Silva et al.
2009b). However, some researchers have noted non-significant trends for either
increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude as a result of pelvic restriction
(Udermann et al. 1999; Da Silva et al. 2009a) or alternatively for decreasing gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude with pelvic restriction. Whether the seated position of the
lumbar extension machine makes these findings impossible to compare with those taken
during the horizontal back extension in the prone position, however, is unclear.

BARBELL HIP THRUST

Introduction

Although widely used by the general population for increasing gluteus maximus size
and by strength and conditioning coaches to enhance the strength and size of the hip
extensors to enhance sporting performance, the barbell hip thrust exercise has not been
extensively researched. What research has been performed to date is very promising,
however. In fact, Contreras et al. (2015a) found that the barbell hip thrust produced
superior gluteus maximus EMG amplitude to the back squat, when performed with the
same relative load in resistance-trained females.

Effect of external resistance

When comparing hip thrust variations, Contreras et al. (2015d) reported that both mean
and peak gluteus maximus EMG amplitudes were greater in the standard barbell hip
thrust than in the band hip thrust and American hip thrust variations. The American hip
thrust is a barbell hip thrust variation that pivots about a point lower on the back than
the standard barbell hip thrust, which rests the middle back on the bench. This very
likely changes the external moment arm at the hip and probably makes the exercise
easier to move a heavier barbell load for the same hip joint moment.

OTHER EXERCISES

Smith machine squat

Few studies have directly studied gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during the Smith
machine squat. However, Biscarini et al. (2011) developed a biomechanical model to
explore the effects of changing hip and knee angles. They found that for any set knee
angle, either bending the trunk forward or moving the feet forward away from the bar
led to greater emphasis on hip moments while reducing knee moments correspondingly.
When exploring gluteus maximus EMG amplitude and hip extensor moments in a
weighted Smith machine type apparatus with minimal loading, Nmeth et al. (1983)
found little effect of foot position or trunk angle but this may have been a function of
the small loads used, as they noted that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude remained low
in all conditions.

Leg press

The leg press appears to display similar characteristics to the back squat, in that a high
foot placement leads to greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than a low foot
placement (Da Silva et al. 2008). A high foot placement in the leg press corresponds to
sitting back in the squat, which also appears to cause greater gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude. In addition, the leg press is one of the few exercises that has been subject to
investigation in a long-term trial measuring increases in gluteus maximus muscle size
(Popov et al. 2006; Yasuda et al. 2014). Popov et al. (2006) reported that gluteus
maximus muscle volume increased by 18% following an 8-week period of leg press
training, 3 times per week. Similarly, Yasuda et al. (2014) found that gluteus maximus
cross-sectional area was increased by 4.4% after a 12-week period of leg press training
using blood flow restriction, 2 times per week, in elderly males and females.

Weighted sled dragging or pushing

Sled dragging or pushing is becoming more and more popular in strength and
conditioning. Frost et al. (2012) investigated forward, backward and lateral sled
dragging and band walking using both a straight-leg and bent-leg approach. However,
they did not find any effect of loading on gluteus maximus EMG amplitude for any of
the conditions except for lateral sled dragging with straight legs. This lack of effect of
load might suggest that the gluteus maximus is not the most important muscle in these
exercises. However, Okkonen and Hkkinen (2013) found that gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude was greater during sled pulling than during a block start during sprint
running. And while Maddigan et al. (2014) did not explore gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude in their comparison of sled pushing and back squat exercise, they found no
differences between the quadriceps and hamstrings EMG amplitude levels between the
two exercises. These findings suggest that with sufficient loading and appropriate
technique, the sled push or tow can be an effective exercise for the lower body at least
and perhaps also the gluteus maximus.

Kettlebell swings and snatches

[Read more: kettlebells]

Few studies have reported on the EMG amplitude of the gluteus maximus during
kettlebell exercises (McGill & Marshall, 2012; Van Gelder et al. 2015). McGill and
Marshall (2012) assessed gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during the squat-style 1-
hand kettlebell swing, kettlebell swing with kime, racked kettlebell carry, and bottoms-
up kettlebell carry. They reported that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was relatively
high in the squat-style 1-hand kettlebell swing, squat-style kettlebell swing with kime,
squat-style kettlebell snatch (76%, 83% and 58% of MVIC), compared with the leg
muscles. Van Gelder et al. (2015) similarly found high levels of gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude during the 100hand and 2-hand kettlebell swings (7555% of MVIC) Thus,
the kettlebell swing seems to produce sufficient gluteus maximus EMG amplitude to
exert a training effect, and a greater level than the kettlebell snatch. McGill & Marshall
(2012) also noted that the kettlebell swing led to peak gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
relatively late in the swing cycle and was closely associated with final degrees of hip
extension. Van Gelder et al. (2015) similarly noted that peak gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude occurred after the peak of the hamstrings EMG amplitude.

Plyometrics

EMG amplitude is only rarely explored during plyometrics. However, Struminger et al.
(2013) explored the gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during a range of different lower
body plyometrics exercises (180 degree jump, frontal plane hurdle hop, double leg
sagittal plane hurdle hop, single leg sagittal plane hurdle hop, and split squat jump).
They found that single-leg sagittal plane hurdle hops produced the greatest gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude. Whether such exercises are optimal for transfer to sporting
movements, however, is a separate question. Sugisaki et al. (2014) compared the
recruitment of the gluteus maximus between plyometric squat jumps and a back squat
performed with a steady tempo using 60% of 1RM, using T2-weighted magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scans. They found that the plyometric exercise produced
greater muscle recruitment, as measured by the MRI immediately post-exercise. Since
the back squat was not performed explosively but rather with a steady tempo, it is
difficult to assess the implications of this finding.

Unconventional exercises

Comparing strongman-type exercises, McGill et al. (2009b) reported that the Atlas
stone event produced the greatest gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. This could be
because of several key biomechanical characteristics of the movement. Firstly, the Atlas
stone event involves not just lifting a weight but also projecting it horizontally forwards
onto a platform. This forceful horizontal movement takes place in full hip extension,
where the gluteus maximus is most easily activated (Worrell et al. 2001). Secondly, it is
very common for competitors to display posterior pelvic tilt while holding the weight,
which has also been found to increase gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Queiroz et al.
2010). Comparing rowing exercises, Fenwick et al. (2009) reported that the inverted
row and standing bent-over row both produced more gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
than the 1-armed cable row, although in no case did gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
reach even moderate levels, which therefore suggests that these exercises are not
suitable for developing the gluteus maximus. Comparing hamstring strain injury
prevention and rehabilitation exercises, Orishimo & McHugh (2015) found that the
supine sliding leg curl (Slider) produced greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
during the eccentric phase than the standing elastic-band resisted hip extension, the
standing trunk flexion (Glider) or the standing split (Diver). However, the Glider
and the Diver produced greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during the
concentric phase than the standing elastic-band resisted hip extension or the Slider.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is higher in the barbell hip thrust than in the
barbell back squat, when using the same relative loads in resistance-trained
females. Among hip thrust variations, the standard barbell hip thrust produces the
highest mean and peak gluteus maximus EMG amplitudes.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is lower than quadriceps EMG amplitude in the
back squat, suggesting that the squat is primarily a quadriceps exercise. Even so, a
wider stance helps increase gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, as does sitting back.
Despite claims to the contrary, deeper squats do not increase gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude when using the same relative load.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude can be enhanced during the leg press by placing
the feet higher on the footplate. This has a similar effect to sitting back during the
back squat.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude can be enhanced during lunges (and probably
also split squats) by selecting the forward variation, using longer step lengths,
and using elastic resistance to increase the difficulty at the top of the movement.

Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude can be enhanced during back extensions by

performing the exercise in a position of knee flexion and/or in hip external
rotation, and by adding external loads (such as by wearing a weighted vest or
holding a dumbbell or weight plate).

Top Contents References

ELECTROMYOGRAPHY REHABILITATION
[Read more: Electromyography]

PURPOSE
This section provides a summary of the electromyography (EMG) studies into the
gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

On account of its ability to control lower body movement in multiple different planes,
the gluteus maximus muscle has been identified as a key muscle for the prevention and
rehabilitation of several lower body musculoskeletal injuries and
conditions. Primarily, it is thought to have potential for preventing knee valgus during
dynamic movements, although this is not entirely clear (Hollman et al. 2009; Lubahn et
al. 2011; Nguyen et al. 2011; Alkjr et al. 2012; Gadikota et al. 2013; Hollman et al.
2013; Homan et al. 2013). In addition to knee valgus, differences in certain gluteus
maximus EMG parameters have been identified between younger and older subjects
(Morcelli et al. 2015) and between those with and without severe hip osteoarthritis
(Rutherford et al. 2015). Consequently, there has been a great deal of interest in respect
of which exercise is best for developing the gluteus maximus in the context of physical
therapy and rehabilitation. In this respect, many of the exercises focus on the gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude during hip abduction and external rotation (Macadam et al.
2015), as these are the movements that are often of most interest during rehabilitation.

Glute activation training

Anecdotally, many people have reported finding it hard to make their glutes work hard
during multi-joint exercises. They often feel the movement in the other hip extensors,
such as the hamstrings or adductor magnus. Given that a lack of gluteus maximus
involvement has also been implicated in several musculoskeletal conditions, this has led
many clinicians to use isolated glute activation training, in order to help encourage the
glutes to work harder during multi-joint exercises. Such training often involves bent-leg
hip extension movements, such as the quadruped hip extension, which reduce hamstring
involvement through active insufficiency. Until lately, there was little evidence for this
practice, but a short-term (6 days) trial performed by Fisher et al. (2016) recently found
that such targeted activation exercises do increase the amount that the glutes
contribute to multi-joint exercises.

KNEE VALGUS

Relationship with gluteus maximus strength

Since the gluteus maximus is a hip abductor and hip external rotator (Macadam et al.
2015), it has been proposed that it can help prevent knee valgus and stabilise the knee
during compound lower body movements. For example, Gadikota et al. (2013) studied
the effects of loading the ITB in cadaveric knees and found that increases in ITB
loading (taken to mean greater gluteus maximus muscle force) led to decreased internal
tibial rotation and medial tibial translation, which is contributory to knee valgus.
Similarly, Alkjr et al. (2012) showed using musculoskeletal modelling that the gluteus
maximus is key for stabilising the knee in the sagittal plane at peak knee flexion during
a forward lunge. On the basis of observations of this kind, it has been suggested that
increasing gluteus maximus strength might reduce knee valgus movement. However,
the contribution of gluteus maximus force production and neuromuscular activity to
knee valgus during normal movement remains unclear. Importantly in this regard,
Homan et al. (2013) found that knee valgus motion did not differ between groups with
high and low hip abduction and hip external rotation strength. However, the
low strength groups displayed greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than the
higher strength groups. Homan et al. (2013) interpreted this to imply that weaker
individuals attempt to compensate for a lack of muscle strength by increasing relative
neural drive. How this might impact knee valgus motion, however, is unclear.

Knee valgus and gluteus maximus activation

Contrary to the proposal by Homan et al. (2013), there are some indications that
greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during single-leg exercises is predictive of
reduced knee valgus. Gluteus maximus EMG amplitude has been reported to
be moderately and negatively correlated with knee valgus during a step-down (Hollman
et al. 2009) and during jump landings (Hollman et al. 2013). However, Nguyen et al.
(2011) reported contrary results that are in line with the findings of Homan et al. (2013).
They observed that lower levels of gluteus maximus EMG amplitude that predicted
reduced knee valgus. Both of these findings are contradicted by the discovery reported
by Lubahn et al. (2011). They applied a medial force during a single-leg squat, double-
leg squat and step-up, they found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude did not increase
following this intervention.

Sex differences in knee valgus

Since females frequently display greater levels of knee valgus, it is often thought that
females display greater levels of gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during single-leg
movements than males. Some research supports this idea. Wilson et al. (2012) reported
that females display greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during running. Dwyer et
al. (2010) found that females displayed greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than
males in both the forward lunge and single-leg squat. Nakagawa et al. (2012) also found
found that females displayed greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than males in
the single-leg squat but while Zeller et al. (2003) and Bolgla et al. (2014) both found a
similar trend, their results did not achieve significance. Perhaps most importantly, when
Bouillon et al. (2012) normalized the excursion distances for males and females during
the step down, forward lunge, and sidestep lunge tasks, they reported no differences in
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude between males and females. Bolgla et al. (2014)
reported similar findings. This suggests that the greater gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude that has previously been observed may have been a function of the
movements being relatively more difficult for females by requiring them to move
through a greater relative distance than males.

REHABILITATION EXERCISES

Introduction

Various researchers have assessed the literature to ascertain the best gluteus maximus
exercise based on EMG amplitude. Reiman et al. (2012) performed a review of the
literature and concluded that the best rehabilitation exercise for training the gluteus
maximus was the step up. With the benefit of hindsight following from later research,
this conclusion is very likely incorrect. Researchers directly comparing the step-up with
other exercises in individual studies have uniformly failed to demonstrate its
superior results (Ayotte et al. 2007; Boudreau et al. 2009; Lubahn et al. 2011;
MacAskill et al. 2014). Most recently when MacAskill et al. (2014) compared
the forward step-up, lateral step-up, side-lying hip abduction and prone hip extension,
they found that the prone hip extension was significantly superior to both step ups at
around 101% of the reference value, while the step ups were only 29 31% of the
reference value. Similarly, a study of four different single-leg exercises including those
similar to step ups (wall squat, minisquat, lateral stepdown, and front stepdown) by
Bolgla et al. (2014), who found that none of the exercises led to sufficient gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude for them to qualify as capable of developing the muscle.
Consequently, it seems very likely that the conclusion drawn in the the review by
Reiman et al. (2012) occurred because they only recorded the results of traditional
single-leg exercises and did not include antero-posterior exercises (e.g. prone hip
extension, glute bridge, and quadruped hip extension) in their comparisons.

Axial vs. antero-posterior exercises

INTRODUCTION

Axial exercises are those in which hip and knee extension are performed in order
to direct the external force in a direction parallel with a line drawn between the head and
the feet when in the anatomical position. Normally, these exercises are performed while
standing upright, although some leg press equipment allows the same type of exercise to
be performed while supine. Common axial exercises include the squat, leg press, lunge,
and deadlift. Unless using accommodating resistance, the hardest part of an
axial exercise tends to be at the bottom of the movement, where the gluteus maximus is
longest. Antero-posterior exercises are those in which hip and knee extension are
performed in order to direct the external force in a direction perpendicular with a line
drawn between the head and the feet when in the anatomical position. Normally, these
exercises are performed while lying supine, although the pull through exercise
is performed while standing. Common antero-posterior exercises include the hip thrust,
glute bridge, pull through, and back extension. The hardest part of an axial exercise
tends to be at the top of the movement, where the gluteus maximus is shortest.


COMPARISONS

In those studies that have directly compared antero-posterior exercises with axial
exercises, it has generally been found that antero-posterior exercises are superior (e.g.
Ekstrom et al. 2007; Boren et al. 2011). Ekstrom et al. (2007) reported that the
quadruped hip extension ranked highest out of the exercises tested (including the
forward lunge and lateral step-up but not the single-leg squat). Similarly, Arokoski et al.
(1999) found that the quadruped hip extension with contra-lateral arm lift produced the
greatest gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, followed by the prone hip extension with
flexed knee, followed by the horizontal back extension. Boren et al. (2011) reported
5 exercises that generated more than 70% of MVC in respect of gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude, which were (in descending rank order) the front plank with hip
extension, the gluteal squeeze, the side plank abduction with dominant leg on top, the
side plank abduction with dominant leg on bottom, and the single-leg squat. The
majority of these comparisons demonstrate that exercises with minimal knee extension
movement and with the peak muscle force exerted with a fully-extended hip are
superior (quadruped hip extension, prone hip extension with flexed knee, and front
plank with hip extension). This is exactly what we would expect based on the preceding
section analysing the characteristics of gluteus maximus EMG amplitude with changing
joint angle.

SINGLE-LEG SQUATS

Single-leg are widely used to develop the gluteus maximus. Indeed, this is supported by
several studies comparing the single-leg squat with other common rehabilitation
exercises, which found that the single-leg squat was best (Distefano et al. 2009;
Boudreau et al. 2009; Lubahn et al. 2011). However, it is key to note that these studies
only compared very similar, axial exercises that involve peak muscle force in a
stretched position. They did not include other commonly-used rehabilitation exercises
for the gluteus maximus such as glute bridges, side-lying clams, or back extensions,
which involve peak muscle force in a contracted position. Moreover, two key factors
indicate that the single-leg squat might not be the best exercise for the gluteus maximus.
Firstly, the exercise involves combined hip and knee extension, which is expected to
lead to greater EMG amplitude in the quadriceps and less EMG amplitude in the gluteus
maximus (Yamashita, 1988). Secondly, the hardest part of the single-leg squat is in hip
flexion (at the bottom) and the easiest part is in hip extension (at the top), which means
that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude cannot be maximized, as EMG amplitude in the
gluteus maximus reduces with increasing hip flexion (Worrell et al. 2001).
Therefore, there are good reasons to doubt that the single-leg squat is the best exercise
for the gluteus maximus.

STEP UP VARIATIONS

Introduction
Some reviewers have concluded that the step up is the best rehabilitation exercise for
the gluteus maximus (Reiman et al. 2012). However, researchers directly comparing the
step up with other exercises have failed to demonstrate this. For example, Ayotte et al.
(2007) directly compared 5 different unilateral weight-bearing exercises commonly
used in rehabilitation. They reported that the unilateral wall squat was marginally better
than the forward step-up in respect of gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Similarly, both
Boudreau et al. (2009) and Lubahn et al. (2011) both found that the single-leg squat led
to greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than the forward step-up.

Factors informing the poor performance of the step up

Two factors indicate that the step up might not be the ideal exercise for the gluteus
maximus. Firstly, the exercise involves combined hip and knee extension, which is
expected to lead to greater EMG amplitude in the quadriceps and less EMG amplitude
in the gluteus maximus (Yamashita, 1988; Kwon et al. 2013). Secondly, the hardest part
of the step up is in hip flexion (at the bottom) and the easiest part is in hip extension (at
the top), which means that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude cannot be maximized, as
EMG amplitude in the gluteus maximus reduces with increasing hip flexion (Worrell et
al. 2001). Therefore, there are good reasons to doubt that the step up is the best exercise
for the gluteus maximus. Indeed, studies have reported that EMG amplitude of the
gluteus maximus and hamstrings is actually quite low in the step up in comparison
quadriceps EMG amplitude (Worrell et al. 1998). It is important to note that those
reviews that have compared the step up favorably with other exercises (e.g. Reiman et
al. 2012) failed to control for relative load and since the step up is a unilateral weight-
supporting exercise, it typically scores better than many other exercises simply because
it is harder.

Effect of step up variation

In respect of step-up variations, it is useful to note that Simenz et al. (2012) found that
the forward step-up produced greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than other step-
up variations, including the cross-over, diagonal and lateral step-ups. However, the
MVIC position used in this study was non-standard, which may have affected the
results.

SIDE-LYING CLAMS

The side-lying clam has traditionally been a key exercise for the rehabilitation of the
gluteus maximus and gluteus medius. Selkowitz et al. (2013) used fine wire electrodes
to compare 11 different rehabilitation exercises for the gluteus maximus, including the
side-lying clam. They reported that the clam with added elastic resistance was a very
effective gluteus maximus exercise (followed by the unilateral glute bridge and the
quadruped hip extension with knee flexed). Whether the clam exercise is in fact a
superior exercise is unclear, however, as the addition of elastic resistance in this study
may have been the factor that led to it being ranked highest in this study, where most of
the other exercises were performed without resistance. Indeed, when comparing the
clam exercise without added elastic resistance with the side-lying hip abduction and the
side-lying hip abduction with external hip rotation, McBeth et al. (2012) reported that
the clam exercise caused the greatest activation of the anterior hip flexors and very
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Moreover, the exact way in which the clam exercise
is performed may affect the gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. Willcox and
Burden (2013) found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was significantly greater
when the pelvis was in neutral rather than reclined toward the ground. However, the
degree of hip flexion was not found to have any effect.

LATERAL BAND WALKS

More recently, the lateral band walk has become popular among some rehabilitation
professionals for developing the gluteus maximus. However, research suggests that it
may be more effective for the gluteus medius muscle. Youdas et al. (2012) reported that
during lateral band walking, gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was significantly greater
on the stance limb than the moving limb. These findings were replicated by Berry et al.
(2015). However, Youdas et al. (2012) also noted that the EMG amplitude of the
gluteus maximus was less than that of the gluteus medius muscle. Frost et al. (2012)
investigated forward, backward and lateral band walking using both a straight-leg and
bent-leg approach. They did not note any effect of loading on gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude for any of the conditions. This lack of effect of load also suggests that the
gluteus maximus is not the most important muscle during band walking. Nevertheless,
Cambridge et al. (2012) found that the exact placement of elastic resistance bands on
the legs affected gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during lateral band walking.
Investigating band placement at the knees, ankles and feet, the researchers found that
EMG amplitude increased as the placement progressed from knees to ankles to feet,
essentially partly because the external moment arm increased and partly because the
band was stretched further for the same range of motion. Similarly, Berry et al. (2015)
found that posture was important and that performing the lateral band walk in a squat
position led to greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than performing the same
exercise in an upright position.

GLUTE BRIDGE

The glute bridge (also called the hip lift or supine bridge) has been used for many years
by rehabilitation professionals to develop the gluteus maximus specifically. However, it
was only more recently popularised as a strength and conditioning exercise (Contreras
et al. 2011). Most research investigating the glute bridge has used no load, although
both unilateral and bilateral variations have been investigated. Interestingly, when Jang
et al. (2013) explored the effects of adding a hip adduction force to the glute bridge,
they observed that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was greater (27% vs. 20% of
MVIC). This was accompanied by greater abdominal muscle EMG amplitude (10% vs.
6% of MVIC), which may indicate the presence of enhanced force couple activity
(Neumann et al. 2010). Nevertheless, these findings are difficult to reconcile with other
findings indicating that increased hip abduction angle or moment involves increased
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Kang et al. 2013; Suehiro et al. 2014; Choi et al.
2014).

PRONE HIP EXTENSION

Effect of internal cues

Cues to enhance abdominal muscle involvement and/or gluteal muscle involvement

during the prone hip extension exercise may lead to enhanced gluteus maximus EMG
amplitudes. Prone hip extensions are very commonly used in rehabilitation for
musculoskeletal disorders, particularly for assessing lumbopelvic stability. Oh et al.
(2007) investigated gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during prone hip extensions
performed with and without an Abdominal Drawing-In Maneuver (ADIM). They also
recorded lumbar extensor EMG amplitude. They reported that performing an ADIM led
to decreased lumbar extensors EMG amplitude and increased gluteus maximus EMG
amplitude. At the same time, they noted a significant decrease in the angle of anterior
pelvic tilt when using the ADIM. The observation reduced anterior pelvic tilt in
combination with increased gluteus maximus EMG amplitude when performing an
intervention intended to increase abdominal muscle involvement in the exercise may
arise because of force couples created across the pelvis during hip extension (Neumann,
2010) or because of inhibition of either the spinal erectors or hip flexors. Later research
has confirmed these early findings by Oh et al. (2007) that performing ADIM reduces
anterior pelvic tilt and simultaneously increases gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Park
et al. 2011; Kim et al. 2014a; Kim and Kim, 2015). Additionally, Lewis & Sahrmann
(2009) found that cues to focus on the gluteus maximus directly also led to increased
gluteus maximus EMG amplitudes during the prone hip extension exercise.

Effect of instability

The effect of instability on gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is currently unclear. In

respect of the prone hip extension, Kim et al. (2013a) reported that the addition of a
foam roll to produce instability during the prone hip extension led to superior gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude than when performing the same exercise on a stable surface.
However, when Eom et al. (2013) made the foot position of the glute bridge unstable by
placing the feet in a sling suspended from the ceiling, this led to substantially increased
hamstrings EMG amplitude but left gluteus maximus EMG amplitude unchanged.
Youdas et al. (2015) compared gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during supine bridges
on stable and unstable surfaces. The gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was higher
during the stable conditions compared to the unstable conditions. Calatayud et al.
(2015) compared the effects of bipedal and unipedal balance exercises on a range
of unstable and stable surfaces with and without added elastic resistance. They found
that increasing levels of instability and increasing resistance caused increases in gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude. Further research is therefore required to understand whether
the behavior of the gluteus maximus during prone and supine hip extension and during
bipedal and unipedal standing differs under different stability conditions.


Effect of starting position

Recently, Yoo et al. (2015) explored the effects of starting position during prone hip
extension exercises. The subjects performed PHE in three positions: neutral, 20 degrees,
and 45 degrees of hip flexion. The gluteus maximus EMG amplitude recorded was
greatest when the starting position of the exercises was 20 degrees of hip flexion, which
was associated with a smaller degree of anterior pelvic tilt. The reduced anterior pelvic
tilt when using this starting position will most likely explain the superior results for
muscle activation, as gluteus maximus EMG amplitude is generally increased by
posterior pelvic tilt in the prone hip extension (Tateuchi et al. 2012; Tateuchi et al.
2013), as in standing (Kim and Seo, 2015).

Effect of pelvic compression belt

During prone hip extension in individuals with chronic low back pain, the application of
a pelvic compression belt has been found to reduce gluteus maximus EMG amplitude
(Oh, 2014; Kim et al. 2014b). The use of this type of equipment is therefore not
recommended during this exercise unless required for other therapeutic reasons, such as
pain relief or motor control.

Effect of injury or pain

Some studies have identified that individuals with a history of injury display differences
in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude, particularly during the prone hip extension
exercise. Emami et al. (2014) found significantly greater gluteus maximus and medial
hamstring EMG amplitude levels in athletes with a history of hamstring strain injury
compared to those without any history of hamstring strain injury. Similarly, Kim et al.
(2014b) and Kim et al. (2014d) both found that subjects with chronic low back pain
displayed greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during prone hip extension
compared to healthy control subjects. And Jung et al. (2015) found that gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude was significantly greater in individuals with lumbar
segmental instability than in healthy individuals, although the hip extension force
produced in this population was lower. Similarly, but in a standing balance
exercise, Ciesielska et al. (2015) also found that gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was
significantly greater in individuals with radicular low back pain (either arising from low
disc herniation or non-specific causes) than in healthy individuals.

STANDING HIP EXTENSION

Although the standing resisted hip extension exercise is often used in rehabilitation
following procedures such as total hip replacements (Strya et al. 2012), either using a
cable machine or elastic resistance, it has not been widely explored. Recently, Youdas et
al. (2014) compared standing hip extension, hip flexion, hip adduction and hip
abduction exercises across standing and moving limbs. They found that the gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude was much greater in the moving limb during standing hip
extension than any other exercise or limb combination (40% vs. 10 22% of MVIC)
but they concluded that this still probably did not reach levels sufficient to elicit gains in
muscular strength or size. Indeed, Orishimo & McHugh (2015) found that several
standard hamstring strain injury prevention and rehabilitation exercises (Glider, Slider
and Diver) all produced greater gluteus maximus EMG amplitude than the standing
elastic band-resisted hip extension exercise.

NORMAL WALKING

Introduction

As a lower body muscle, the gluteus maximus is involved in normal gait, although
considerable inter-individual variability has been observed in respect of the extent to
which each of the primary muscles are used (Kolk et al. 2014). Musculoskeletal
modelling studies indicate that where quadriceps atrophy has occurred, the gluteus
maximus and soleus muscles can compensate (Thompson et al. 2013). When walking
with faster speeds or when using arm swing, this appears to lead to increased gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude compared to normal walking (Shin et al. 2013; Kim et al.
2013b; Lee et al. 2014a).

Effect of pelvic compression belt

Some researchers have observed that adding a pelvic compression belt can increase
gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during walking (Arumugam et al. 2015), which may
be advantageous for elderly or injured populations. Indeed, Arumugam et al. (2015)
reported that the increase in gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during walking was
present in individuals with and without a history of prior hamstring strain injury. This is
in contrast to prone hip extension in individuals with chronic low back pain, where the
application of a pelvic compression belt reduces gluteus maximus EMG amplitude (Oh,
2014; Kim et al. 2014b) and also in contrast to one-leg standing in individuals with
sacroiliac pain, where the application of a pelvic compression belt also reduces gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude (Jung et al. 2013). Thus, the application of pelvic
compression belts may have different effects in individuals with different injuries or
conditions and during different activities.

PILATES EXERCISES

Although Pilates is commonly used as a method to exercise the hip and trunk
musculature, there have been relatively few investigations into the gluteus maximus
EMG amplitude produced between the various different exercises. Queiroz et al. (2010)
investigated gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during four variations of a Pilates hip
extension exercise in the quadruped position (retroverted pelvis with flexed trunk,
anteverted pelvis with extended trunk, neutral pelvis with trunk inclined in relation to
the ground, and neutral pelvis with trunk parallel to the ground). These exercises were
performed in the Reformer apparatus, which consists of a sliding platform with attached
resistive springs on which the subject was placed in a quadruped position. Hip extension
causes this sliding platform to move backwards against the resistance of the spring-
loaded apparatus. In this apparatus, gluteus maximus EMG amplitude was significantly
higher in posterior pelvic tilt compared anterior pelvic tilt. More recently, Kim et al.
(2014c) compared the gluteus maximus EMG amplitude during three prone, ground-
based exercises: the double leg kick, swimming, and leg beat exercises. The double leg
kick exercise involves alternating hip flexion and extension. The swimming exercise
involves lifting the trunk and legs while holding the arms overhead. The leg beat
exercise involves raising both legs and knocking the big toes together while in hip
extension. The double leg kick exercise was found to have significantly lower gluteus
maximus EMG amplitude than the other two exercises (21 22% vs. 30 33% of
MVIC), although whether any of these exercises would be sufficient to produce any
meaningful change in muscular strength and size appears doubtful.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

Studies that have directly compared antero-posterior rehabilitation exercises with

axial exercises have found that antero-posterior exercises (quadruped hip
extension, prone hip extension, front plank with hip extension, gluteal
squeeze) produce higher gluteus maximus EMG amplitude. This is not
surprising, given that the position for testing the maximal strength of the gluteus
maximus is in prone hip extension.

Top Contents References

MUSCLE MOMENT ARMS

[Read more: Moments]

BACKGROUND

Muscle moment arms are often overlooked when determining the precise function of a
muscle. However, they are essential for establishing how effective a muscle can be at
producing torque at a given joint, at any given joint angle. Muscle moment arm lengths
are the distances between the perpendicular force that is applied, and the joint. Longer
moment arm lengths make for more effective levers, as we know instinctively from
using a wrench.

Hold the wrench closer to the business end, and your leverage decreases

When we hold the wrench lower down the handle, it is easier to use, and we need to use
less muscle force to turn it. When we hold a wrench higher up the handle, it is much
harder to use, and we need to use a lot more muscle force to turn it with the same effect.
If a muscle moment arm is large in a particular movement, the muscle will be
very effective at performing that particular movement.

ANATOMICAL POSITION

Introduction

For the gluteus maximus, Dostal et al. (1986) reported on the muscle moment arms in
the anatomical position. They found that this muscle had muscle moment arms in all
three planes (sagittal, frontal and transverse), enabling it to perform hip extension, hip
adduction, and hip external rotation.

Sagittal plane

Several studies have reported data for the muscle moment arm length of the gluteus
maximus in relation to other muscles in the sagittal plane. Dostal et al. (1986)
reported that the hip extension moment arm of the gluteus maximus was smaller than
that of other key hip extensors (adductor magnus, semitendinosus, biceps femoris, and
semimembranosus) and was around 4.5cm. This value is similar to those reported
by Blemker and Delp (2005) who built a three-dimensional musculoskeletal model and
found that the moment arm length of the gluteus maximus ranged between 1.5 6.5cm,
with a median value of around 4cm. However, it is substantially less than the value
reported by Nmeth & Ohlsn (1984) from a study of 10 cadavers and 20 live subjects.
They reported that the hip extension moment arm length of the gluteus maximus was
around 8cm and was greater than that of the other hip extensors (adductor magnus and
hamstrings).


Transverse plane

Few studies have reported on the muscle moment arm length of the gluteus maximus in
the transverse plane, although it is thought to be a key hip external rotator. Dostal et al.
(1986) also found that the hip external rotation arm was substantial, smaller only than
that of the posterior fibers of the gluteus medius and of the deep external rotators.

Frontal plane

Few studies have reported on the muscle moment arm length of the gluteus maximus in
the frontal plane, although the upper fibers particularly are believed to be involved
in hip abduction while the lower fibers are believed to be involved in hip adduction.
Even so, Dostal et al. (1986) reported finding a hip adduction moment arm, although
it was very small.

EFFECT OF HIP FLEXION

Introduction

Muscle moment arms can often change with changing joint angle. This means that the
function of a muscle at one position can differ from its function at another angle.

Sagittal plane

Several studies have reported data for how the muscle moment arm length of the gluteus
maximus changes in joint angle in the sagittal plane. Delp et al. (1999) measured the
muscle moment arms of 6 different compartments of the gluteus maximus at several
different hip flexion angles (0, 20, 45, 60, and 90 degrees) in 4 cadavers. They imported
this data into a three-dimensional musculoskeletal model of the hip muscles in order to
assess the effects of changing hip flexion on the ability of the gluteus maximus to
perform different movements at different hip flexion angles. Nmeth & Ohlsn (1984)
performed a study of 10 cadavers and 20 live subjects, and reported that the hip
extension moment arm length of the gluteus maximus moment arm of gluteus maximus
decreased substantially from around 8cm to 3cm with increasing hip flexion angle,
making the gluteus maximus far more effective as a hip extensor in full hip extension,
than in full hip flexion. In contrast, the adductor magnus is a much better hip extensor in
hip flexion, than in hip extension.
 Gluteus maximus moment arms reported by Nmeth & Ohlsn (1984)

Transverse plane

Few studies have reported on the muscle moment arm length of the gluteus maximus in
the transverse plane, although it is thought to be a key hip external rotator. Delp et al.
(1999) measured the muscle moment arms of 6 different compartments of the gluteus
maximus at several different hip flexion angles (0, 20, 45, 60, and 90 degrees) in
4 cadavers. They imported this data into a three-dimensional musculoskeletal model of
the hip muscles in order to assess the effects of changing hip flexion on the ability of the
gluteus maximus to perform different movements at different hip flexion angles. They
found that the gluteus maximus anterior and posterior compartments both have the
ability to produce substantial hip external rotation in 0 degrees of hip flexion but the
anterior compartment switches to internal rotation as the hip is flexed and the ability of
the posterior compartment to perform hip external rotation is much reduced.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

The gluteus maximus moment arm for hip extension indicates that it is a key hip
extensor in the sagittal plane, and decreases with increasing hip flexion angle.

The gluteus maximus is therefore most effective when the hip is near full
extension, implying that exercises that produce peak contractions at this point will
be most beneficial for its development.

Top Contents References

REFERENCES
1. Abelbeck, K. G. (2002). Biomechanical Model and Evaluation of a Linear Motion Squat Type Exercise (Smithsquat). The Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 16(4), 516-524.[PubMed]

2. Ahedi, H., Aitken, D., Scott, D., Blizzard, L., Cicuttini, F., & Jones, G. (2014). The Association Between Hip Muscle Cross-Sectional Area, Muscle Strength, and
Bone Mineral Density. Calcified tissue international, 95(1), 64-72.[PubMed]

3. Al-Dirini, R. M., Reed, M. P., & Thewlis, D. (2015). Deformation of the gluteal soft tissues during sitting. Clinical Biomechanics.[PubMed]

4. Alkjr, T., Wieland, M. R., Andersen, M. S., Simonsen, E. B., & Rasmussen, J. (2012). Computational modeling of a forward lunge: towards a better
understanding of the function of the cruciate ligaments. Journal of anatomy, 221(6), 590-597.[PubMed]

5. Alkner, B. A., Tesch, P. A., & Berg, H. E. (2000). Quadriceps EMG/force relationship in knee extension and leg press. Medicine and science in sports and
exercise, 32(2), 459.[PubMed]

6. Arnold, E. M., Ward, S. R., Lieber, R. L., & Delp, S. L. (2010). A model of the lower limb for analysis of human movement. Annals of biomedical engineering,
38(2), 269-279.[PubMed]

7. Arokoski, J., Kankaanp, M., Valta, T., Juvonen, I., Partanen, J., Taimela, S., Lindgren, K. A., & Airaksinen, O. (1999). Back and hip extensor muscle function
during therapeutic exercises. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 80(7), 842-850.[PubMed]

8. Arokoski, M. H., Arokoski, J. P., Haara, M., Kankaanp, M., Vesterinen, M., Niemitukia, L. H., & Helminen, H. J. (2002). Hip muscle strength and muscle
cross sectional area in men with and without hip osteoarthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 29(10), 2185-2195.[PubMed]

9. Arumugam, A., Milosavljevic, S., Woodley, S., & Sole, G. (2015). The effect of a pelvic compression belt on functional hamstring muscle activity in sportsmen
with and without previous hamstring injury. International journal of sports physical therapy, 10(3), 291.[PubMed]

10. Aspe, R. R., & Swinton, P. A. (2014). Electromyographic and kinetic comparison of the back squat and overhead squat. Journal of strength and conditioning
research, 28(10), 2827.[PubMed]

11. Ayotte, N. W., Stetts, D. M., Keenan, G., & Greenway, E. H. (2007). Electromyographical analysis of selected lower extremity muscles during 5 unilateral
weight-bearing exercises. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 37(2), 48.[PubMed]

12. Barker, P. J., Hapuarachchi, K. S., Ross, J. A., Sambaiew, E., Ranger, T. A., & Briggs, C. A. (2014). Anatomy and biomechanics of gluteus maximus and the
thoracolumbar fascia at the sacroiliac joint. Clinical Anatomy, 27(2), 234-240.[PubMed]

13. Bartlett, J. L., Sumner, B., Ellis, R. G., & Kram, R. (2014). Activity and functions of the human gluteal muscles in walking, running, sprinting, and climbing.
American journal of physical anthropology, 153(1), 124-131.[PubMed]

14. Barton, C. J., Kennedy, A., Twycross-Lewis, R., Woledge, R., Malliaras, P., & Morrissey, D. (2014). Gluteal muscle activation during the isometric phase of
squatting exercises with and without a Swiss ball. Physical Therapy in Sport, 15(1), 39-46.[PubMed]

15. Berg, H. E., Eiken, O., Miklavcic, L., & Mekjavic, I. B. (2007). Hip, thigh and calf muscle atrophy and bone loss after 5-week bedrest inactivity. European
journal of applied physiology, 99(3), 283-289.[PubMed]

16. Berry, J. W., Lee, T. S., Foley, H. D., & Lewis, C. L. (2015). Resisted Side Stepping: The Effect of Posture on Hip Abductor Muscle Activation. Journal of
Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 45(9), 675-682.[PubMed]

17. Biscarini, A., Benvenuti, P., Botti, F., Mastrandrea, F., & Zanuso, S. (2011). Modelling the joint torques and loadings during squatting at the Smith machine.
Journal of sports sciences, 29(5), 457.[PubMed]

18. Blemker, S. S., & Delp, S. L. (2005). Three-dimensional representation of complex muscle architectures and geometries. Annals of biomedical engineering,
33(5), 661-673.[PubMed]

19. Bolgla, L., Cook, N., Hogarth, K., Scott, J., & West, C. (2014). Trunk and hip electromyographic activity during single leg squat exercises do sex differences
exist?. International journal of sports physical therapy, 9(6), 756.[PubMed]

20. Boren, K., Conrey, C., Le Coguic, J., Paprocki, L., Voight, M., & Robinson, T. K. (2011). Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and gluteus maximus
during rehabilitation exercises. International journal of sports physical therapy, 6(3), 206.[PubMed]

21. Boudreau, S. N., Dwyer, M. K., Mattacola, C. G., Lattermann, C., Uhl, T. L., & McKeon, J. M. (2009). Hip-muscle activation during the lunge, single-leg squat,
and step-up-and-over exercises. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 18(1), 91.[PubMed]

22. Bouillon, L. E., Wilhelm, J., Eisel, P., Wiesner, J., Rachow, M., & Hatteberg, L. (2012). Electromyographic assessment of muscle activity between genders
during unilateral weight-bearing tasks using adjusted distances. International journal of sports physical therapy, 7(6), 595.[PubMed]

23. Bramble, D. M., & Lieberman, D. E. (2004). Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature, 432(7015), 345.[PubMed]
24. Bryanton, M. A., Kennedy, M. D., Carey, J. P., & Chiu, L. Z. (2012). Effect of Squat Depth and Barbell Load on Relative Muscular Effort in Squatting. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]

25. Bryanton, M. A., Carey, J. P., Kennedy, M. D., & Chiu, L. Z. (2015). Quadriceps effort during squat exercise depends on hip extensor muscle strategy. Sports
Biomechanics, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.[PubMed]

26. Cambridge, E. D., Sidorkewicz, N., Ikeda, D. M., & McGill, S. M. (2012). Progressive hip rehabilitation: the effects of resistance band placement on gluteal
activation during two common exercises. Clinical Biomechanics, 27(7), 719-724.[PubMed]

27. Calatayud, J., Borreani, S., Martin, J., Martin, F., Flandez, J., & Colado, J. C. (2015). Core muscle activity in a series of balance exercises with different stability
conditions. Gait & Posture.[PubMed]

28. Carvalhais, V. O., Ocarino, J. M., Arajo, V. L., Souza, T. R., Silva, P. L., & Fonseca, S. T. (2013). Myofascial force transmission between the latissimus dorsi
and gluteus maximus muscles: an in vivo experiment. Journal of biomechanics, 46(5), 1003-1007.[PubMed]

29. Caterisano, A., Moss, R. F., Pellinger, T. K., Woodruff, K., Lewis, V. C., Booth, W., & Khadra, T. (2002). The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity of
4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(3), 428-432.[PubMed]

30. Choi, S. A., Cynn, H. S., Yi, C. H., Kwon, O. Y., Yoon, T. L., Choi, W. J., & Lee, J. H. (2014). Isometric hip abduction using a Thera-Band alters gluteus
maximus muscle activity and the anterior pelvic tilt angle during bridging exercise. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology.[PubMed]
31. Christodoulou, A., Boutsiadis, A., Christodoulou, E., Antonarakos, P., Givissis, P., & Hatzokos, I. (2014). Iliac Crest Regeneration. A Retrospective Study of 14
Years Follow-up. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques.[Citation]

32. Ciesielska, J., Lisiski, P., Bandosz, A. G. A. T. A., Huber, J., Kulczyk, A., & Lipiec, J. (2015). Hip strategy alterations in patients with history of low disc
herniation and non-specific low back pain measured by surface electromyography and balance platform. Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics, 17(3), 103-
108.[PubMed]

33. Clark, B. C., Manini, T. M., Mayer, J. M., Ploutz-Snyder, L. L., & Graves, J. E. (2002). Electromyographic activity of the lumbar and hip extensors during
dynamic trunk extension exercise. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 83(11), 1547.[PubMed]

34. Clark, D. R., Lambert, M. I., & Hunter, A. M. (2012). Muscle Activation in the Loaded Free Barbell Squat: A Brief Review. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 26(4), 1169.[PubMed]

35. Cochrane, D. J., & Harnett, M. C. (2015). Muscle activation pattern and onset times during a semi-orthostatic, unilateral closed-kinetic hip extension exercise in
adolescent males. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, (0), 1-5.[Citation]

36. Cochrane, D. J., & Barnes, M. J. (2015). Muscle Activation and Onset Times of Hip Extensors during Various Loads of a Closed Kinetic Chain Exercise.
Research in Sports Medicine, (ahead-of-print), 1-11.[Citation]

37. Contreras, B., Cronin, J., & Schoenfeld, B. (2011). Barbell hip thrust. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 33(5), 58-61.[PubMed]
38. Contreras, B. M., Cronin, J. B., Schoenfeld, B. J., Nates, R. J., & Sonmez, G. T. (2013). Are All Hip Extension Exercises Created Equal?. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 35(2), 17-22.[PubMed]

39. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2015a). A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis
EMG Activity in the Back Squat and Barbell Hip Thrust Exercises. Journal of applied biomechanics.[PubMed]

40. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2015b). A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis
EMG Amplitude in the Parallel, Full, and Front Squat Variations in Resistance Trained Females. Journal of applied biomechanics.[PubMed]

41. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2015c). A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary
isometric contraction positions. PeerJ, 3, e1261.[PubMed]

42. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., & Cronin, J. (2015d). Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis
EMG Amplitude for the Barbell, Band, and American Hip Thrust Variations. Journal of applied biomechanics.[PubMed]

43. Danneels, L. A., Vanderstraeten, G. G., Cambier, D. C., Witvrouw, E. E., Stevens, V. K., & De Cuyper, H. J. (2001). A functional subdivision of hip, abdominal,
and back muscles during asymmetric lifting. Spine, 26(6), E114-E121.[PubMed]

44. Da Silva, E. M., Brentano, M. A., Cadore, E. L., De Almeida, A. P. V., & Kruel, L. F. M. (2008). Analysis of muscle activation during different leg press
exercises at submaximum effort levels. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(4), 1059.[PubMed]

45. Da Silva, R. A., Larivire, C., Arsenault, A. B., Nadeau, S., & Plamondon, A. (2009a). Effect of pelvic stabilization and hip position on trunk extensor activity
during back extension exercises on a Roman chair. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41(3), 136-142.[PubMed]

46. Da Silva, R., Larivire, C., Arsenault, A. B., Nadeau, S., & Plamondon, A. (2009b). Pelvic stabilization and semisitting position increase the specificity of back
exercises. Medicine+ Science in Sports+ Exercise, 41(2), 435.[PubMed]

47. Delp, S. L., Hess, W. E., Hungerford, D. S., & Jones, L. C. (1999). Variation of rotation moment arms with hip flexion. Journal of biomechanics, 32(5), 493-
501.[PubMed]

48. De Ridder, E. M., Van Oosterwijck, J. O., Vleeming, A., Vanderstraeten, G. G., & Danneels, L. A. (2013). Posterior muscle chain activity during various
extension exercises: an observational study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 14(1), 204.[PubMed]

49. Distefano, L. J., Blackburn, J. T., Marshall, S. W., & Padua, D. A. (2009). Gluteal muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises. The Journal of
orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 39(7), 532-540.[PubMed]

50. Dostal, W. F., Soderberg, G. L., & Andrews, J. G. (1986). Actions of hip muscles. Physical therapy, 66(3), 351.[PubMed]
51. Dwyer, M. K., Boudreau, S. N., Mattacola, C. G., Uhl, T. L., & Lattermann, C. (2010). Comparison of lower extremity kinematics and hip muscle activation
during rehabilitation tasks between sexes. Journal of athletic training, 45(2), 181.[PubMed]

52. Ekstrom, R., Donatelli, R., & Carp, K. (2007). Electromyographic analysis of core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation exercises. Journal of
Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 37(12), 754.[PubMed]

53. Emami, M., Arab, A. M., & Ghamkhar, L. (2014). The activity pattern of the lumbo-pelvic muscles during prone hip extension in athletes with and without
hamstring strain injury. International journal of sports physical therapy, 9(3), 312.[PubMed]

54. Eng, C. M., Arnold, A. S., Biewener, A. A., & Lieberman, D. E. (2015a). The human iliotibial band is specialized for elastic energy storage compared with the
chimp fascia lata. The Journal of Experimental Biology, jeb-117952.[PubMed]

55. Eng, C. M., Arnold, A. S., Lieberman, D. E., & Biewener, A. A. (2015b). The capacity of the human iliotibial band to store elastic energy during running. Journal
of biomechanics, 48(12), 3341-3348.[PubMed]

56. Eom, M. Y., Chung, S. H., & Ko, T. S. (2013). Effects of bridging exercise on different support surfaces on the transverse abdominis. Journal of physical therapy
science, 25(10), 1343.[PubMed]

57. Escamilla, R. F., Francisco, A. C., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Welch, C. M., Kayes, A. V., Speer, K. P. & Andrews, J. R. (2000). A three-dimensional
biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(7), 1265-1275.[PubMed]

58. Escamilla, R. F., Francisco, A. C., Kayes, A. V., Speer, K. P., & Moorman 3rd, C. T. (2002). An electromyographic analysis of sumo and conventional style
deadlifts. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 34(4), 682.[PubMed]

59. Farrokhi, S., Pollard, C. D., Souza, R. B., Chen, Y., Reischl, S., & Powers, C. M. (2008). Trunk position influences the kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity
of the lead lower extremity during the forward lunge exercise. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 38(7), 403.[PubMed]

60. Fenwick, C. M., Brown, S. H., & McGill, S. M. (2009). Comparison of different rowing exercises: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and
stiffness. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(2), 350-358.[PubMed]

61. Fisher, B. E., Southam, A. C., Kuo, Y. L., Lee, Y. Y., & Powers, C. M. (2016). Evidence of altered corticomotor excitability following targeted activation of
gluteus maximus training in healthy individuals. NeuroReport, 27(6), 415-421.[PubMed]

62. Fischer, F. J., & Houtz, S. J. (1968). Evaluation of the function of the gluteus maximus muscle. An electromyographic study. American Journal of Physical
Medicine & Rehabilitation, 47(4), 182.[PubMed]

63. Flanagan, S. P., Wang, M. Y., Greendale, G. A., Azen, S. P., & Salem, G. J. (2004). Biomechanical attributes of lunging activities for older adults. Journal of
strength and conditioning research, 18(3), 599.[PubMed]

64. Frost, D. M., Beach, T., Fenwick, C., Callaghan, J., & McGill, S. (2012). Is there a low-back cost to hip-centric exercise? Quantifying the lumbar spine joint
compression and shear forces during movements used to overload the hips. Journal of sports sciences, 30(9), 859-870.[PubMed]

65. Fujisawa, H., Suzuki, H., Yamaguchi, E., Yoshiki, H., Wada, Y., & Watanabe, A. (2014). Hip Muscle Activity during Isometric Contraction of Hip Abduction.
Journal of physical therapy science, 26(2), 187.[PubMed]

66. Fukumoto, Y., Ikezoe, T., Tateuchi, H., Tsukagoshi, R., Akiyama, H., So, K., & Ichihashi, N. (2012). Muscle mass and composit ion of the hip, thigh and
abdominal muscles in women with and without hip osteoarthritis. Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 38(9), 1540-1545.[PubMed]
67. Fukumoto, Y., Tateuchi, H., Ikezoe, T., Tsukagoshi, R., Akiyama, H., So, K., & Ichihashi, N. (2014). Effects of high-velocity resistance training on muscle
function, muscle properties, and physical performance in individuals with hip osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical rehabilitation, 28(1),
48.[PubMed]

68. Furlani, J., Berzin, F., & Vitti, M. (1974). Electromyographic study of the gluteus maximus muscle. Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology, 14(4),
379.[PubMed]

69. Friederich, J. A., & Brand, R. A. (1990). Muscle fiber architecture in the human lower limb. Journal of biomechanics, 23(1), 91-95.[PubMed]
70. Gadikota, H. R., Kikuta, S., Qi, W., Nolan, D., Gill IV, T. J., & Li, G. (2013). Effect of Increased Iliotibial Band Load on Tibiofemoral Kinematics and Force
Distributions: A Direct Measurement in Cadaveric Knees. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 43(7), 478-485.[PubMed]

71. Gerber, J. P., Marcus, R. L., Dibble, L. E., Greis, P. E., Burks, R. T., & LaStayo, P. C. (2009). Effects of early progressive eccentric exercise on muscle size and
function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 1-year follow-up study of a randomized clinical trial. Physical therapy, 89(1), 51-59.[PubMed]

72. Gibbons, S. G. T. & Mottram, S. L. (2004). The anatomy of the deep sacral part of the gluteus maximus and the psoas muscle: a clinical perspective. Proceedings
of: The 5th Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back Pain. November 7-11, Melbourne, Australia.

73. Giroux, C., Guilhem, G., Couturier, A., Chollet, D., & Rabita, G. (2015). Is muscle coordination affected by loading condition in ballistic movements?. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 25(1), 69-76.[PubMed]

74. Gomes, W. A., Brown, L. E., Soares, E. G., da Silva, J. J., de Oliveira Silva, F. H. D., Serpa, . P., & Marchetti, P. H. (2015). Kinematic and sEMG analysis of
the back squat at different intensities with and without knee wraps. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]

75. Grimaldi, A., Richardson, C., Durbridge, G., Donnelly, W., Darnell, R., & Hides, J. (2009). The association between degenerat ive hip joint pathology and size of
the gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata muscles. Manual therapy, 14(6), 611-617.[PubMed]

76. Hollman, J. H., Ginos, B. E., Kozuchowski, J., Vaughn, A. S., Krause, D. A., & Youdas, J. W. (2009). Relationships between knee valgus, hip-muscle strength,
and hip-muscle recruitment during a single-limb step-down. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 18(1), 104.[PubMed]

77. Hollman, J. H., Hohl, J. M., Kraft, J. L., Strauss, J. D., & Traver, K. J. (2013). Modulation of frontal-plane knee kinematics by hip-extensor strength and gluteus
maximus recruitment during a jump-landing task in healthy women. J Sport Rehabil, 22(3), 184-90.[PubMed]

78. Hogervorst, T., Bouma, H. W., & De Vos, J. (2009). Evolution of the hip and pelvis. Acta Orthopaedica, 80(s336), 1-39.[PubMed]
79. Homan, K. J., Norcross, M. F., Goerger, B. M., Prentice, W. E., & Blackburn, J. T. (2013). The influence of hip strength on gluteal activit y and lower extremity
kinematics. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(2), 411-415.[PubMed]

80. Horsman, M. K., Koopman, H. F. J. M., Van der Helm, F. C. T., Pros, L. P., & Veeger, H. E. J. (2007). Morphological muscle and joint parameters for
musculoskeletal modelling of the lower extremity. Clinical Biomechanics, 22(2), 239-247.[PubMed]

81. Ibitoye, M. O., Hamzaid, N. A., Zuniga, J. M., & Wahab, A. K. A. (2014). Mechanomyography and muscle function assessment: A review of current state and
prospects. Clinical Biomechanics, 29(6), 691-704.[PubMed]

82. Ikezoe, T., Mori, N., Nakamura, M., & Ichihashi, N. (2011a). Age-related muscle atrophy in the lower extremities and daily physical activity in elderly women.
Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 53(2), e153-e157.[PubMed]

83. Ikezoe, T., Mori, N., Nakamura, M., & Ichihashi, N. (2011b). Atrophy of the lower limbs in elderly women: is it related to walking ability?. European journal of
applied physiology, 111(6), 989-995.[PubMed]

84. Isear, J. A., Erickson, J. C., & Worrell, T. W. (1997). EMG analysis of lower extremity muscle recruitment patterns during an unloaded squat. Medicine and
science in sports and exercise, 29(4), 532-539.[PubMed]

85. Ito, J. (1996). Morphological analysis of the human lower extremity based on the relative muscle weight. Okajimas folia anatomica Japonica, 73(5), 247-
251.[PubMed]

86. Ito, J., Moriyama, H., Inokuchi, S., & Goto, N. (2003). Human lower limb muscles: an evaluation of weight and fiber size. Okajimas folia anatomica Japonica,
80(2-3), 47-55.[PubMed]

87. Jakobsen, M. D., Sundstrup, E., Andersen, C. H., Aagaard, P., & Andersen, L. L. (2013). Muscle activity during leg strengthening exercise using free weights
and elastic resistance: Effects of ballistic vs controlled contractions. Human movement science, 32(1), 65.[PubMed]

88. Jang, E. M., Kim, M. H., & Oh, J. S. (2013). Effects of a bridging exercise with hip adduction on the EMG activities of the abdominal and hip extensor muscles
in females. Journal of physical therapy science, 25(9), 1147.[PubMed]

89. Jouffroy, F. K., & Mdina, M. F. (2006). A Hallmark of Humankind: The Gluteus Maximus Muscle. In Human Origins and Environmental Backgrounds (pp.
135-148). Springer US.[Citation]

90. Johnson, M., Polgar, J., Weightman, D., & Appleton, D. (1973). Data on the distribution of fibre types in thirty-six human muscles: an autopsy study. Journal of
the neurological sciences, 18(1), 111-129.[PubMed]

91. Jolivet, E., Daguet, E., Bousson, V., Bergot, C., Skalli, W., & Laredo, J. D. (2009). Variability of hip muscle volume determined by computed tomography. Irbm,
30(1), 14-19.[Citation]

92. Jung, H. S., Jeon, H. S., Oh, D. W., & Kwon, O. Y. (2013). Effect of the pelvic compression belt on the hip extensor activation patterns of sacroiliac joint pain
patients during one-leg standing: a pilot study. Manual therapy, 18(2), 143-148.[PubMed]

93. Jung, H. S., Kang, S. Y., Park, J. H., Cynn, H. S., & Jeon, H. S. (2015). EMG activity and force during prone hip extension in individuals with lumbar segmental
instability. Manual Therapy, 3(20), 440-444.[PubMed]

94. Kamaz, M., Kiresi, D., Oguz, H., Emlik, D., & Levendoglu, F. (2007). CT measurement of trunk muscle areas in patients with chronic low back pain. Diagn
Interv Radiol, 13(3), 144-148.[PubMed]

95. Kang, S. Y., Jeon, H. S., Kwon, O., Cynn, H. S., & Choi, B. (2013). Activation of the gluteus maximus and hamstring muscles during prone hip extension with
knee flexion in three hip abduction positions. Manual therapy.[PubMed]

96. Kang, M. H., Jang, J. H., Kim, T. H., & Oh, J. S. (2014). Effects of Shoulder Flexion Loaded by an Elastic Tubing Band on EMG Activity of the Gluteal Muscles
during Squat Exercises. Journal of physical therapy science, 26(11), 1787.[PubMed]

97. Karlsson, E., & Jonsson, B. (1965). Function of the gluteus maximus muscle. An electromyographic study. Acta morphologica Neerlando-Scandinavica, 6,
161.[PubMed]

98. Kim, J. W., Han, J. Y., Kang, M. H., Ha, S. M., & Oh, J. S. (2013a). Comparison of posterior oblique sling activity during hip extension in the prone position on
the floor and on a round foam roll. Journal of physical therapy science, 25(8), 977.[PubMed]

99. Kim, T. Y., Yoo, W. G., An, D. H., Oh, J. S., & Shin, S. J. (2013b). The Effects of Different Gait Speeds and Lower Arm Weight on the Activities of the
Latissimus Dorsi, Gluteus Medius, and Gluteus Maximus Muscles. Journal of physical therapy science, 25(11), 1483.[PubMed]

100. Kim, T., Woo, Y., & Kim, Y. (2014a). Effect of abdominal drawing-in maneuver during hip extension on the muscle onset time of gluteus
maximus, hamstring, and lumbar erector spinae in subjects with hyperlordotic lumbar angle. Journal of physiological anthropology, 33(1), 1-6.[PubMed]

101. Kim, J. W., Kwon, O. Y., Kim, T. H., An, D. H., & Oh, J. S. (2014b). Effects of external pelvic compression on trunk and hip muscle EMG
activity during prone hip extension in females with chronic low back pain. Manual therapy, 19(5), 467-471.[PubMed]

102. Kim, B. I., Jung, J. H., Shim, J., Kwon, H. Y., & Kim, H. (2014c). An analysis of muscle activities of healthy women during Pilates exercises in a
prone position. Journal of physical therapy science, 26(1), 77.[PubMed]
103. Kim, J. W., Kang, M. H., & Oh, J. S. (2014d). Patients with low back pain demonstrate increased activity of the posterior oblique sling muscle
during prone hip extension. PM & R: the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 6(5), 400.[PubMed]

104. Kim, T. W., & Kim, Y. W. (2015). Effects of abdominal drawing-in during prone hip extension on the muscle activities of the hamstring, gluteus
maximus, and lumbar erector spinae in subjects with lumbar hyperlordosis. Journal of physical therapy science, 27(2), 383.[PubMed]

105. Kim, J. H., & Seo, H. J. (2015). Influence of pelvic position and vibration frequency on muscle activation during whole body vibration in quiet
standing. Journal of physical therapy science, 27(4), 1055.[PubMed]

106. Kim, S. M., & Yoo, W. G. (2015). Comparison of trunk and hip muscle activity during different degrees of lumbar and hip extension. Journal of
physical therapy science, 27(9), 2717.[PubMed]

107. Kolk, S., Klawer, E. M., Schepers, J., Weerdesteyn, V., Visser, E. P., & Verdonschot, N. (2014). Muscle Activity during Walking Measured Using
3D MRI Segmentations and FDG-PET. Medicine and science in sports and exercise.[PubMed]

108. Kwon, Y. J., & Lee, H. O. (2013). How different knee flexion angles influence the hip extensor in the prone position. Journal of physical therapy
science, 25(10), 1295.[PubMed]

109. Lawrence, J. H., & De Luca, C. J. (1983). Myoelectric signal versus force relationship in different human muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology,
54(6), 1653-1659.[PubMed]

110. Lee, S. K., Lee, S. Y., & Jung, J. M. (2014a). Muscle Activity of the Gluteus Medius at Different Gait Speeds. Journal of physical therapy science,
26(12), 1915.[PubMed]

111. Lee, J. H., Cynn, H. S., Kwon, O. Y., Yi, C. H., Yoon, T. L., Choi, W. J., & Choi, S. A. (2014b). Different hip rotations influence hip abductor
muscles activity during isometric side-lying hip abduction in subjects with gluteus medius weakness. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 24(2), 318-
324.[PubMed]

112. Lewis, C. L., & Sahrmann, S. A. (2009). Muscle activation and movement patterns during prone hip extension exercise in women. Journal of
Athletic Training, 44(3), 238-248.[PubMed]

113. Li, Y., Cao, C., & Chen, X. (2013). Similar EMG Activities of Lower Limbs between Squatting on a Reebok Core Board and Ground. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]

114. Lieber, R. L., & Fridn, J. (2000). Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture. Muscle & Nerve, 23(11), 1647-
1666.[PubMed]

115. Lieberman, D. E., Raichlen, D. A., Pontzer, H., Bramble, D. M., & Cutright-Smith, E. (2006). The human gluteus maximus and its role in running.
Journal of Experimental Biology, 209(11), 2143-2155.[PubMed]

116. Lubahn, A. J., Kernozek, T. W., Tyson, T. L., Merkitch, K. W., Reutemann, P., & Chestnut, J. M. (2011). Hip muscle activation and knee frontal
plane motion during weight bearing therapeutic exercises. International journal of sports physical therapy, 6(2), 92.[PubMed]

117. Lynn, S. K., & Noffal, G. J. (2012). Lower Extremity Biomechanics During a Regular and Counterbalanced Squat. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 26(9), 2417-2425.[PubMed]

118. Lyons, K., Perry, J., Gronley, J. K., Barnes, L., & Antonelli, D. (1983). Timing and relative intensity of hip extensor and abductor muscle action
during level and stair ambulation An EMG study. Physical Therapy, 63(10), 1597-1605.[PubMed]

119. Macadam, P., Cronin, J., & Contreras, B. (2015). An examination of the gluteal muscle activity associated with dynamic hp abduction and external
rotation exercise: a systematic review. International journal of sports physical therapy, 10(5), 573.[PubMed]

120. MacAskill, M. J., Durant, T. J., & Wallace, D. A. (2014). Gluteal muscle activity during weightbearing and non-weightbearing exercise.
International journal of sports physical therapy, 9(7), 907.[PubMed]

121. Maddigan, M. E., Button, D. C., & Behm, D. G. (2014). Lower-Limb and Trunk Muscle Activation With Back Squats and Weighted Sled
Apparatus. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3346-3353.[PubMed]

122. Manabe, Y., Shimada, K., & Ogata, M. (2007). Effect of slow movement and stretch-shortening cycle on lower extremity muscle activity and joint
moments during squat. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 47(1), 1-12.[PubMed]

123. Marzke, M. W., Longhill, J. M., & Rasmussen, S. A. (1988). Gluteus maximus muscle function and the origin of hominid bipedality. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 77(4), 519-528.[PubMed]

124. Mayer, J. M., Verna, J. L., Manini, T. M., Mooney, V., & Graves, J. E. (2002). Electromyographic activity of the trunk extensor muscles: effect of
varying hip position and lumbar posture during Roman chair exercise. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 83(11), 1543-1546.[PubMed]

125. McAndrew, D., Gorelick, M., & Brown, J. M. M. (2006). Muscles within muscles: a mechanomyographic analysis of muscle segment contractile
properties within human gluteus maximus. Journal of Musculoskeletal Research, 10(01), 23-35[Citation]

126. McBeth, J. M., Earl-Boehm, J. E., Cobb, S. C., & Huddleston, W. E. (2012). Hip Muscle Activity During 3 Side-Lying Hip-Strengthening
Exercises in Distance Runners. Journal of Athletic Training, 47(1), 15-23.[PubMed]

127. McCaw, S. T., & Melrose, D. R. (1999). Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat.[PubMed]

128. McGill, S. M., Karpowicz, A., Fenwick, C. M., & Brown, S. H. (2009a). Exercises for the torso performed in a standing posture: spine and hip
motion and motor patterns and spine load. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(2), 455-464.[PubMed]

129. McGill, S. M., McDermott, A., & Fenwick, C. M. (2009b). Comparison of different strongman events: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine
motion, load, and stiffness. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(4), 1148-1161.[PubMed]

130. McGill, S. M., & Marshall, L. W. (2012). Kettlebell swing, snatch, and bottoms-up carry: back and hip muscle activation, motion, and low back
loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(1), 16.[PubMed]

131. Mills, M., Frank, B., Goto, S., Blackburn, T., Cates, S., Clark, M., & Padua, D. (2015).Effect of restricted hip flexor muscle length on hip extensor
muscle activity and lower extremity biomechanics in collegeaged female soccer players. International journal of sports physical therapy, 10(7), 946.[PubMed]

132. Miokovic, T., Armbrecht, G., Felsenberg, D., & Belav, D. L. (2011). Differential atrophy of the postero-lateral hip musculature during prolonged
bedrest and the influence of exercise countermeasures. Journal of Applied Physiology, 110(4), 926-934.[PubMed]

133. Morcelli, M. H., LaRoche, D. P., Crozara, L. F., Marques, N. R., Hallal, C. Z., Rossi, D. M., & Navega, M. T. (2015). Neuromuscular performance
in the hip joint of elderly fallers and non-fallers. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 1-8.[PubMed]

134. Nakagawa, T. H., Moriya, E. T., Maciel, C. D., & Serro, F. V. (2012). Trunk, pelvis, hip, and knee kinematics, hip strength, and gluteal muscle
activation during a single-leg squat in males and females with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy, 42(6), 491-501.[PubMed]

135. Nakase, J., Inaki, A., Mochizuki, T., Toratani, T., Kosaka, M., Ohashi, Y., & Tsuchiya, H. (2013). Whole body muscle activity during the FIFA
11+ program evaluated by positron emission tomography. PloS one, 8(9), e73898.[PubMed]

136. Nmeth, G., Ekholm, J., Arborelius, U. P., Schldt, K., & Harms-Ringdahl, K. (1983). Hip joint load and muscular activation during rising
exercises. Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine, 16(3), 93-102.[PubMed]

137. Nmeth, G., Ekholm, J., & Arborelius, U. P. (1984). Hip load moments and muscular activity during lifting. Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation
medicine, 16(3), 103.[PubMed]
138. Nmeth, G., & Ohlsn, H. (1985). In vivo moment arm lengths for hip extensor muscles at different angles of hip flexion. Journal of biomechanics,
18(2), 129-140.[PubMed]

139. Neumann, D. A. (2010). Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular actions. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 40(2), 82-
94.[PubMed]

140. Niinimki, S., Hrknen, L., Nikander, R., Abe, S., Knsel, C., & Sievnen, H. (2015). The cross-sectional area of the gluteus maximus muscle
varies according to habitual exercise loading: Implications for activity-related and evolutionary studies. HOMO-Journal of Comparative Human
Biology.[PubMed]

141. Nguyen, A. D., Shultz, S. J., Schmitz, R. J., Luecht, R. M., & Perrin, D. H. (2011). A Preliminary Multifactorial Approach Describing the
Relationships Among Lower Extremity Alignment, Hip Muscle Activation, and Lower Extremity Joint Excursion. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(3), 246-
256.[PubMed]

142. Nketiah, G., Savio, S., Dastidar, P., Nikander, R., Eskola, H., & Sievnen, H. (2015). Detection of exercise loadassociated differences in hip
muscles by texture analysis. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 25(3), 428-434.[PubMed]

143. Noe, D. A., Mostardi, R. A., Jackson, M. E., Porterfield, J. A., & Askew, M. J. (1992). Myoelectric activity and sequencing of selected trunk
muscles during isokinetic lifting. Spine, 17(2), 225-229.[PubMed]

144. Oh, J. S., Cynn, H. S., Won, J. H., Kwon, O. Y., & Yi, C. H. (2007). Effects of performing an abdominal drawing-in maneuver during prone hip
extension exercises on hip and back extensor muscle activity and amount of anterior pelvic tilt. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 37(6),
320-324.[PubMed]

145. Oh, J. S. (2014). Effects of pelvic belt on hip extensor muscle EMG activity during prone hip extension in females with chronic low back pain.
Journal of physical therapy science, 26(7), 1023.[PubMed]

146. Okkonen, O., & Hkkinen, K. (2013). Biomechanical comparison between sprint start, sled pulling, and selected squat-type exercises. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(10), 2662-2673.[PubMed]

147. Onishi, H., Yagi, R., Akasaka, K., Momose, K., Ihashi, K., & Handa, Y. (2000). Relationship between EMG signals and force in human vastus
lateralis muscle using multiple bipolar wire electrodes. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 10(1), 59-67.[PubMed]

148. Orishimo, K. F., & McHugh, M. P. (2015). Effect of an Eccentrically Biased Hamstring Strengthening Home Program on Knee Flexor Strength
and the Length-Tension Relationship. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(3), 772-778.[PubMed]

149. Paoli, A., Marcolin, G., & Petrone, N. (2009). The effect of stance width on the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles
during back squat with different bar loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 246.[PubMed]

150. Payne, R. C., Crompton, R. H., Isler, K., Savage, R., Vereecke, E. E., Gnther, M. M., & DAot, K. (2006). Morphological analysis of the
hindlimb in apes and humans. I. Muscle architecture. Journal of anatomy, 208(6), 709-724.[PubMed]

151. Park, K. N., Cynn, H. S., Kwon, O. Y., Lee, W. H., Ha, S. M., Kim, S. J., & Weon, J. H. (2011). Effects of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver on
muscle activity, pelvic motions, and knee flexion during active prone knee flexion in patients with lumbar extension rotation syndrome. Archives of physical
medicine and rehabilitation, 92(9), 1477-1483.[PubMed]

152. Park, S. Y., & Yoo, W. G. (2014). Effects of hand and knee positions on muscular activity during trunk extension exercise with the Roman chair.
Journal of electromyography and kinesiology: official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology, 24(6), 972-976.[PubMed]

153. Prez-Bellmunt, A., Miguel-Prez, M., Brugu, M. B., Cabs, J. B., Casals, M., Martinoli, C., & Kuisma, R. (2014). An anatomical and
histological study of the structures surrounding the proximal attachment of the hamstring muscles. Manual therapy.[PubMed]

154. Perry, J., & Bekey, G. A. (1981). EMG-force relationships in skeletal muscle. Crit Rev Biomed Eng, 7(1), 1-22.[PubMed]

155. Pohtilla, J. F. (1969). Kinesiology of hip extension at selected angles of pelvifemoral extension. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation,
50(5), 241-250.[PubMed]

156. Phillips, L. H., & Park, T. S. (1991). Electrophysiologic mapping of the segmental anatomy of the muscles of the lower extremity. Muscle &
nerve, 14(12), 1213-1218.[PubMed]

157. Popov, D. V., Tsvirkun, D. V., Netreba, A. I., Tarasova, O. S., Prostova, A. B., Larina, I. M., & Vinogradova, O. L. (2006). Hormonal adaptation
determines the increase in muscle mass and strength during low-intensity strength training without relaxation. Fiziologiia cheloveka, 32(5), 121.[PubMed]

158. Preininger, B., Schmorl, K., von Roth, P., Winkler, T., Matziolis, G., Perka, C., & Tohtz, S. (2012). The sex specificity of hip-joint muscles offers
an explanation for better results in men after total hip arthroplasty. International orthopaedics, 36(6), 1143-1148.[PubMed]

159. Preininger, B., Schmorl, K., von Roth, P., Winkler, T., Matziolis, G., Perka, C., & Tohtz, S. (2013). Mehr Muskelmasse bei Mnnern. Der
Orthopde, 42(2), 107-113.[Citation]

160. Queiroz, B. C., Cagliari, M. F., Amorim, C. F., & Sacco, I. C. (2010). Muscle activation during four Pilates core stability exercises in quadruped
position. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 91(1), 86-92.[PubMed]

161. Rasch, A., Bystrm, A. H., Dalen, N., Martinez-Carranza, N., & Berg, H. E. (2009). Persisting muscle atrophy two years after replacement of the
hip. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume, 91(5), 583-588.[PubMed]

162. Riemann, B. L., Lapinski, S., Smith, L., & Davies, G. (2012). Biomechanical analysis of the anterior lunge during 4 external-load conditions.
Journal of athletic training, 47(4), 372.[PubMed]

163. Riemann, B., Congleton, A., Ward, R., & Davies, G. J. (2013). Biomechanical comparison of forward and lateral lunges at varying step lengths.
The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 53(2), 130-138.[PubMed]

164. Reiman, M. P., Bolgla, L. A., & Loudon, J. K. (2012). A literature review of studies evaluating gluteus maximus and gluteus medius activation
during rehabilitation exercises. Physiotherapy theory and practice, 28(4), 257-268.[PubMed]

165. Robertson, D. G. E., Wilson, J. M. J., & St Pierre, T. A. (2008). Lower extremity muscle functions during full squats. Journal of applied
biomechanics, (24), 333-9.[PubMed]

166. Rutherford, D. J., Moreside, J., & Wong, I. (2015). Hip joint motion and gluteal muscle activation differences between healthy controls and those
with varying degrees of hip osteoarthritis during walking. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 25(6), 944-950.[PubMed]

167. Sakamaki, M., Bemben, M. G., & Abe, T. (2011). Legs and trunk muscle hypertrophy following walk training with restricted leg muscle blood
flow. Journal of sports science & medicine, 10(2), 338.[PubMed]

168. Sakamoto, A. C. L., Teixeira-Salmela, L. F., de Paula-Goulart, F. R., de Morais Faria, C. D. C., & Guimares, C. Q. (2009). Muscular activation
patterns during active prone hip extension exercises. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19(1), 105-112.[PubMed]

169. Savelberg, H. H. C. M., Fastenau, A., Willems, P. J. B., & Meijer, K. (2007). The load/capacity ratio affects the sit-to-stand movement strategy.
Clinical Biomechanics, 22(7), 805-812.[PubMed]

170. Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857-2872.[PubMed]

171. Selkowitz, D. M., Beneck, G. J., & Powers, C. M. (2012). Which Exercises Target the Gluteal Muscles While Minimizing Activation of the Tensor
Fascia Lata? Electromyographic Assessment Using Fine-Wire Electrodes. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 43(2), 54-64.[PubMed]

172. Selkowitz, D. M., Beneck, G. J., & Powers, C. M. (2016). Comparison of Electromyographic Activity of the Superior and Inferior Portions of the
Gluteus Maximus Muscle During Common Therapeutic Exercises. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 46(9), 794-799. [PubMed]
173. Serra, F., Aboudib, J. H., & Marques, R. G. (2013). Intramuscular technique for gluteal augmentation: Determination and quantification of muscle
atrophy and implant position by computed tomographic scan. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 131(2), 253e-259e.[PubMed]

174. Serra, F., Aboudib, J. H., Neto, J. I. S., Cossich, V. R. A., Rodrigues, N. C. P., de Oliveira, K. F., & Marques, R. G. (2015). Volumetric and
Functional Evaluation of the Gluteus Maximus Muscle after Augmentation Gluteoplasty Using Silicone Implants. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 135(3),
533e-541e.[PubMed]

175. Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., & Yoo, W. G. (2013). Effects of various gait speeds on the latissimus dorsi and gluteus maximus muscles associated with
the posterior oblique sling system. Journal of physical therapy science, 25(11), 1391.[PubMed]

176. Simenz, C. J., Garceau, L. R., Lutsch, B. N., Suchomel, T. J., & Ebben, W. P. (2012). Electromyographical Analysis of Lower Extremity Muscle
Activation During Variations of the Loaded Step Up Exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]

177. Sirca, A., & Susec-Michieli, M. (1980). Selective type II fibre muscular atrophy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Journal of the
neurological sciences, 44(2), 149-159.[PubMed]

178. Sonenblum, S. E., Sprigle, S. H., Cathcart, J. M., & Winder, R. J. (2015). 3D anatomy and deformation of the seated buttocks. Journal of tissue
viability.[PubMed]

179. Sorensen, C. J., Haddad, O., Campbell, S., & Mirka, G. A. (2011). The effect of stance width on trunk kinematics and trunk kinetics during
sagitally symmetric lifting. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41(2), 147-152.[Citation]

180. Stecco, A., Gilliar, W., Hill, R., Fullerton, B., & Stecco, C. (2013). The anatomical and functional relation between gluteus maximus and fascia
lata. Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, 17(4), 512.[PubMed]

181. Stern, J. T. (1972). Anatomical and functional specializations of the human gluteus maximus. American journal of physical anthropology, 36(3),
315-339.[PubMed]

182. Struminger, A. H., Lewek, M. D., Goto, S., Hibberd, E., & Blackburn, J. T. (2013). Comparison of gluteal and hamstring activation during five
commonly used plyometric exercises. Clinical Biomechanics, 28(7), 783-789.[PubMed]

183. Strya, W., Pogorzaa, A. M., Rogala, P., & Nowakowski, A. (2012). Algorithm of physical therapy exercises following total hip arthroplasty.
Polish Orthopedics & Traumatology, 78, 33-39.[PubMed]

184. Suehiro, T., Mizutani, M., Okamoto, M., Ishida, H., Kobara, K., Fujita, D., & Watanabe, S. (2014). Influence of hip joint position on muscle
activity during prone hip extension with knee flexion. Journal of physical therapy science, 26(12), 1895.[PubMed]

185. Sugisaki, N., Kurokawa, S., Okada, J., & Kanehisa, H. (2014). Difference in the Recruitment of Hip and Knee Muscles between Back Squat and
Plyometric Squat Jump. PLoS ONE, 9(6).[PubMed]

186. Sundstrup, E., Jakobsen, M. D., Andersen, C. H., Bandholm, T., Thorborg, K., Zebis, M. K., & Andersen, L. L. (2014). Evaluation of elastic bands
for lower extremity resistance training in adults with and without musculoskeletal pain. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 24(5), e353-
e359.[PubMed]

187. Taniguchi, M., Fukumoto, Y., Kobayashi, M., Kawasaki, T., Maegawa, S., Ibuki, S., & Ichihashi, N. (2015). Quantity and Qualit y of the Lower
Extremity Muscles in Women with Knee Osteoarthritis. Ultrasound in medicine & biology.[PubMed]

188. Tateuchi, H., Taniguchi, M., Mori, N., & Ichihashi, N. (2012). Balance of hip and trunk muscle activity is associated with increased anterior pelvic
tilt during prone hip extension. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology: official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology,
22(3), 391.[PubMed]

189. Tateuchi, H., Tsukagoshi, R., Fukumoto, Y., Akiyama, H., So, K., Kuroda, Y., & Ichihashi, N. (2013). Pelvic instability and trunk and hip muscle
recruitment patterns in patients with total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(1), 151-158.[PubMed]

190. Tateuchi, H., Shiratori, S., & Ichihashi, N. (2015). The effect of angle and moment of the hip and knee joint on iliotibial band hardness. Gait &
posture, 41(2), 522-528.[PubMed]

191. Thompson, J. A., Chaudhari, A. M., Schmitt, L. C., Best, T. M., & Siston, R. A. (2013). Gluteus maximus and soleus compensate for simulated
quadriceps atrophy and activation failure during walking. Journal of biomechanics, 46(13), 2165-2172.[PubMed]

192. Tich, M., & Grim, M. (1985). Morphogenesis of the human gluteus maximus muscle arising from two muscle primordia. Anatomy and
embryology, 173(2), 275-277.[PubMed]

193. Udermann, B. E., Graves, J. E., Donelson, R. G., Ploutz-Snyder, L., Boucher, J. P., & Iriso, J. H. (1999). Pelvic restraint effect on lumbar gluteal
and hamstring muscle electromyographic activation. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 80(4), 428-431.[PubMed]

194. Uemura, K., Takao, M., Sakai, T., Nishii, T., & Sugano, N. (2015). Volume Increases of the Gluteus Maximus, Gluteus Medius, and Thigh
Muscles After Hip Arthroplasty. The Journal of arthroplasty.[PubMed]

195. Van Gelder, L. H., Hoogenboom, B. J., Alonzo, B., Briggs, D., & Hatzel, B. (2015). EMG Analysis and Sagittal Plane Kinematics of the Two
Handed and SingleHanded Kettlebell Swing: A Descriptive Study. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 10(6), 811.[PubMed]

196. Wakahara, T., Miyamoto, N., Sugisaki, N., Murata, K., Kanehisa, H., Kawakami, Y., Yanai, T. (2012). Association between regional differences in
muscle activation in one session of resistance exercise and in muscle hypertrophy after resistance training. European journal of applied physiology, 112(4), 1569
76.[PubMed]

197. Wakahara, T., Fukutani, A., Kawakami, Y., & Yanai, T. (2013). Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training
session. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 45(11), 215865.[PubMed]

198. Ward, S. R., Eng, C. M., Smallwood, L. H., & Lieber, R. L. (2009). Are current measurements of lower extremity muscle architecture accurate?.
Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 467(4), 1074-1082.[PubMed]

199. Willcox, E. L., & Burden, A. M. (2013). The influence of varying hip angle and pelvis position on muscle recruitment patterns of the hip abductor
muscles during the clam exercise. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 43(5), 325-331.[PubMed]

200. Willson, J. D., Petrowitz, I., Butler, R. J., & Kernozek, T. W. (2012). Male and female gluteal muscle activity and lower extremity kinematics
during running. Clinical Biomechanics, 27(10), 1052-1057.[PubMed]

201. Woods, J. J., & Bigland-Ritchie, B. (1983). Linear and non-linear surface EMG/force relationships in human muscles. An anatomical/functional
argument for the existence of both. American journal of physical medicine, 62(6), 287-299.[PubMed]

202. Worrell, T. W., Crisp, E., & LaRosa, C. (1998). Electromyographic reliability and analysis of selected lower extremity muscles during lateral step-
up conditions. Journal of athletic training, 33(2), 156.[PubMed]

203. Worrell, T. W., Karst, G., Adamczyk, D., Moore, R., Stanley, C., Steimel, B., & Steimel, S. (2001). Influence of joint position on
electromyographic and torque generation during maximal voluntary isometric contractions of the hamstrings and gluteus maximus muscles. The Journal of
orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 31(12), 730.[PubMed]

204. Wu, G. A., & Bogie, K. (2009). Assessment of gluteus maximus muscle area with different image analysis programs. Archives of physical
medicine and rehabilitation, 90(6), 1048-1054.[PubMed]

205. Wu, G. A., & Bogie, K. M. (2013). Not just quantity: gluteus maximus muscle characteristics in able-bodied and SCI individualsimplications for
tissue viability. Journal of tissue viability, 22(3), 74-82.[PubMed]

206. Yamashita, N. (1988). EMG activities in mono-and bi-articular thigh muscles in combined hip and knee extension. European journal of applied
physiology and occupational physiology, 58(3), 274-277.[PubMed]
 207. Yasuda, T., Fukumura, K., Fukuda, T., Uchida, Y., Iida, H., Meguro, M., & Nakajima, T. (2014). Muscle size and arterial stiffness after blood
flowrestricted lowintensity resistance training in older adults. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 24(5), 799-806.[PubMed]

208. Yavuz, H. U., Erda, D., Amca, A. M., & Aritan, S. (2015). Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum
loads. Journal of sports sciences, (ahead-of-print), 1-9.[Citation]

209. Yoo, W. G. (2015). Comparison of the isolated contraction ratios of the hip extensors and erector spinae muscles of the lumbar region and thoracic
muscles during different back extension exercises. Journal of physical therapy science, 27(2), 315.[PubMed]

210. Yoon, J. G. (2013). The Correlation between the Muscle Activity and Joint Angle of the Lower Extremity According to the Changes in Stance
Width during a Lifting Task. Journal of physical therapy science, 25(8), 1023.[PubMed]

211. Youdas, J. W., Foley, B. M., Kruger, B. L., Mangus, J. M., Tortorelli, A. M., Madson, T. J., & Hollman, J. H. (2012). Electromyographic analysis
of trunk and hip muscles during resisted lateral band walking. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 1-11.[PubMed]

212. Youdas, J. W., Adams, K. E., Bertucci, J. E., Brooks, K. J., Nelson, M. M., & Hollman, J. H. (2014). Muscle activation levels of the gluteus
maximus and medius during standing hip-joint-strengthening exercises using elastic tubing resistance. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 23(1).[PubMed]

213. Youdas, J. W., Hartman, J. P., Murphy, B. A., Rundle, A. M., Ugorowski, J. M., & Hollman, J. H. (2015). Magnitudes of muscle activation of
spine stabilizers, gluteals, and hamstrings during supine bridge to neutral position. Physiotherapy theory and practice, (0), 1-10.[PubMed]

214. Zeller, B. L., McCrory, J. L., Kibler, W. B., & Uhl, T. L. (2003). Differences in Kinematics and Electromyographic Activity Between Men and
Women during the Single-Legged Squat. The American journal of sports medicine, 31(3), 449-456.[PubMed]

215. Zhu, L., Lin, H. D., & Chen, A. M. (2015). Accurate segmental motor innervation of human lower-extremity skeletal muscles. Acta
neurochirurgica, 157(1), 123-128.[PubMed]

216. Zink, A. J., Whiting, W. C., Vincent, W. J., & McLaine, A. J. (2001). The effects of a weight belt on trunk and leg muscle activity and joint
kinematics during the squat exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(2), 235-240.[PubMed]