ACTIVATION OF THE GLUTEUS MAXIMUS DURING

PERFORMANCE OF THE BACK SQUAT, SPLIT SQUAT,

AND BARBELL HIP THRUST AND THE RELATIONSHIP
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

WITH MAXIMAL SPRINTING

CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS,1,2 NEIL V. GIBSON,2 GRAEME G. SORBIE,1,4 UKADIKE C. UGBOLUE,1,5

JAMES BROUNER,3 AND CHRIS EASTON1
1
Institute for Clinical Exercise & Health Science, University of the West of Scotland, United Kingdom; 2Oriam, Scotland’s
Sports Performance Center, Heriot-Watt University, United Kingdom; 3School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy, and Chemistry,
Kingston University, United Kingdom; 4School of Social & Health Sciences, Sport and Exercise, Abertay University, United
Kingdom; and 5Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT hip thrust and the relationship with maximal running speed
Williams, MJ, Gibson, N, Sorbie, GG, Ugbolue, UC, Brouner, J, suggests that this movement may be optimal for training this
and Easton, C. Activation of the gluteus maximus during muscle group in comparison to the back squat and split squat.
performance of the back squat, split squat, and barbell hip KEY WORDS strength training, bilateral exercises, unilateral
thrust and the relationship with maximal sprinting. J Strength exercises, ground reaction force, electromyography
Cond Res 35(1): 16–24, 2021—The purpose of this research
was to compare muscle activation of the gluteus maximus and
ground reaction force between the barbell hip thrust, back
INTRODUCTION

A
squat, and split squat and to determine the relationship
between these outcomes and vertical and horizontal forces xial loaded strength exercises, such as the back
squat, are often regarded as a fundamental com-
during maximal sprinting. Twelve, male, team sport athletes
ponent of strength programs designed to increase
(age, 25.0 6 4.0 years; stature, 184.1 6 6.0 cm; body mass,
lower-body strength and power (24,38). Tradi-
82.2 6 7.9 kg) performed separate movements of the 3
tional squatting exercises can be further subdivided into
strength exercises at a load equivalent to their individual 3 bilateral and unilateral derivatives, although they seem to
repetition maximum. The ground reaction force was measured be equally as efficacious for developing power and lower-
using force plates and the electromyography (EMG) activity of body strength (25,36). Nevertheless, these movements do
the upper and lower gluteus maximus and was recorded in not always improve sprint speed (16). During maximal
each leg and expressed as percentage of the maximum volun- sprinting, ground contact seems to occur with the hips in
tary isometric contraction (MVIC). Subjects then completed a neutral to slightly extended position, with the gluteus mus-
a single sprint on a nonmotorized treadmill for the assessment culature shown to be the biggest contributor to hip exten-
of maximal velocity and horizontal and vertical forces. Although sion torque (14,19). This position is not replicated by
ground reaction force was lower, peak EMG activity in the traditional squatting exercises, and this lack of movement
gluteus maximus was higher in the hip thrust than in the back specificity between the back squat and sprinting mechanics
may explain conflicting reports within the literature regard-
squat (p = 0.024; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4–56%
ing its ability to improve running speed (7,16). Although
MVIC) and split squat (p = 0.016; 95% CI = 6–58% MVIC).
exercises that elicit vertical forces initiate the gluteal muscles
Peak sprint velocity correlated with both anterior-posterior hor-
(particularly the gluteus maximus) in a hips-flexed position,
izontal force (r = 0.72) and peak ground reaction force during activation is reduced when the hips are neutral or slightly
the barbell hip thrust (r = 0.69) but no other variables. The extended (9). If strength and or force production in this
increased activation of gluteus maximus during the barbell position is a limiting factor when sprinting, the back squat
may not be the most suitable exercise to prescribe.
Address correspondence to Dr. Chris Easton, [email protected]. Conversely, horizontal force production is a key com-
35(1)/16–24 ponent in the optimization of acceleration and maximal
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research sprint speed (5,6,21,28,33), highlighting the importance of
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association incorporating exercises that develop horizontal forces in
the TM

16 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

training programs. Indeed, when used in combination with physical parameters, including sprint acceleration and jump
exercises that promote vertical force production, horizon- performance, to our knowledge, there are no comparisons
tally orientated exercises have been shown to improve between unilateral strength exercises and the barbell hip thrust.
sprint speed and peak power (2,27). Whether the effect of Furthermore, previous research has not determined whether
exercises that use horizontal force expression can stimulate there is any relationship between gluteus maximus activity and
improvements in maximal sprint speed without the inclu- force production during strength exercises or maximal sprint-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

sion of traditional squatting exercises has yet to be eluci- ing. The primary aim of the present study, therefore, was to
dated. Recent research, however, has proposed the use of determine the difference between muscle activation and force
the barbell hip thrust as an alternative means of training the production during the bilateral squat, unilateral split squat, and
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

posterior chain musculature of the lower body (9,10). This barbell hip thrust. A secondary objective was to determine the
exercise has been shown to elicit greater gluteus maximus association of the aforementioned dependent variables with
and hamstring activation when compared with the back speed, and horizontal and vertical forces during maximal
squat in strength-trained females and higher anterior- sprinting. The experimental hypothesis was that the barbell
posterior horizontal forces (10). The barbell hip thrust al- hip thrust would elicit higher mean and peak gluteus maximus
lows strength to be developed with the hips in an extended activity when compared with the back squat and split squat,
position and via a horizontal force production, which may and these variables would be more strongly associated with
be of greater relevance to sprinting (14) (Figure 1). parameters of maximal running performance.
Although this approach would appear to contravene the
training philosophy of specificity, it does conform to the METHODS
theory of dynamic correspondence; although not identical Experimental Approach to the Problem
to the activity of sprinting, the barbell hip thrust replicates In the first part of this experiment, measurements of ground
the muscular patterns, synchronicity, and energy produc- reaction force and electromyography (EMG) of the gluteus
tion involved during training (35). maximus were recorded in team sport athletes during 3-
Despite recent research (9,10,12) comparing the barbell hip repetition maximum efforts of the barbell hip thrust, bilateral
thrust with other bilateral strength exercises and its relation to squat, and unilateral split squat. Data were then analyzed to

Figure 1. Diagram annotated to show equipment and positional requirements of the barbell hip thrust (permission given by the subject for photographs to be
included in this publication).

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2021 | 17

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 EMG of the Gluteus Maximus During Strength Exercise
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

Figure 2. A) Mean gluteus maximus EMG activation for all 3 exercises expressed as a percentage of the maximum isometric voluntary contraction. Data are
presented as mean 6 SD. *Significantly greater than the back squat. ◊Significantly greater than the split squat. B) Peak gluteus maximus EMG activation for all 3
exercises expressed as a percentage of the maximum isometric voluntary contraction. Data are presented as mean 6 SD. *significantly greater than the back
squat. ◊Significantly greater than the split squat.

determine whether there were any differences between the 3 184.1 6 6.0 cm; body mass, 82.2 6 7.9 kg) who had 4.0 6
different exercises. In the second part of the experiment, subjects 1.0 years of strength training experience. Subjects had expe-
completed a single maximal sprint effort on a nonmotorized rience in all 3 exercises; however, they were used to varying
treadmill while speed, horizontal force, and vertical force were degrees by each individual within their own training regi-
measured. Data were then analyzed to assess whether there was mens. Inclusion criteria required subjects to be aged between
any association between the variables of muscle activation and 18 and 35 years, have a minimum of 3 years resistance train-
force measured during the 3 different strength exercises with ing experience, and able to safely perform each of the 3
metrics of maximal running performance. exercises with external load. All subjects provided written
Subjects informed consent, and the study was approved by the
Twelve, male, team-sport athletes volunteered to participate School of Science and Sport Ethics Committee at the
in the study (mean 6 SD age, 25.0 6 4.0 years; stature, University of the West of Scotland.

Figure 3. Peak ground reaction force in each leg for all 3 exercises. Data are presented as mean 6 SD. †Significantly greater than the hip thrust. ◊Significantly
greater than the split squat.

the TM

18 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

Figure 4. Correlation between peak anterior-posterior horizontal force during sprinting and peak sprint velocity.

Procedures Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction Assessment. Subjects

Assessment of Three Repetition Maximum Strength. Subjects completed the aforementioned warm-up before performing
performed 3-repetition maximum testing on each resistance progressive submaximal lifts until they felt prepared to
exercise. Subjects performed a standardized warm-up com- perform their 3-repetition maximum lifts as determined
prising dynamic movement patterns designed to target the during the initial trial. To prepare the subject for electrode
gluteal musculature, including external resistance via the use placement, their skin was shaved using a Bic hand razor and
of minibands. Immediately after the warm-up, subjects com- sterilized with an alcohol swab to reduce electrical imped-
pleted submaximal loads in each of the 3 exercises to ance (1,34). A pair of Ag-AgCl surface conductive gel elec-
determine the 3 repetition maximum as advocated by Baechle trodes (Blue Sensor; Ambu, Ballerup, Denmark) were then
and Earle (3). This procedure incorporated 5–10 repetitions applied with an interelectrode distance of 2 cm in alignment
with a light to moderate load, progressing to heavier sets of 3 with the fiber direction of the gluteus maximus using posi-
repetitions, until the 3 repetition maximum was determined. tional guidelines described elsewhere (15). Electrodes were
The order in which the exercises were assessed was random- attached to both the upper and the lower segment of the
ized, and subjects were allowed to self-select recovery time gluteus maximus on both sides of the body. A line was
between exercises. The barbell back squat was performed with drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine and the
greater trochanter; the upper electrode was placed approx-
feet placed slightly wider than shoulder width apart with the
imately 5 cm above and laterally to the midpoint of this line
bar secured across the upper trapezius musculature (3). Sub-
given the diagonal direction the muscle fibers course. The
jects descended until the top of the thigh was deemed parallel
lower electrode was positioned approximately 5 cm below
to the floor, which was continually cued by the researcher
and medially to the same line. Electrodes were secured to
throughout the lifts. The barbell split squat was performed
the skin with tape to avoid movement artifacts (22). Maxi-
with the same bar position but in a split stance, with the for-
mum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) testing was
ward foot placed flat on the floor and the rear knee slightly then performed for the gluteus maximus musculature using
flexed to allow for a heel raised foot position on the trailing leg. a standing glute squeeze technique (4,11). This value was
The barbell hip thrust was performed with the subject’s upper used as a reference for the normalization of data.
back pressed against a weight bench, with feet placed slightly
wider than shoulder width apart and the bar positioned across EMG and Force Assessment During Resistance Exercises. On
the hips, as advocated by Contreras et al. (9). completion of MVIC testing, subjects rested for 4 minutes

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2021 | 19

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 EMG of the Gluteus Maximus During Strength Exercise
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

Figure 5. Correlation between peak force during the barbell hip thrust and peak sprint velocity.

before completing the barbell hip thrust, unilateral split collected during the preassessment glute squeeze. Force plate
squat, and bilateral squat in a randomized order using a basic data are presented as the mean of both legs for each of the 3
counterbalanced design. Subjects were instructed to com- exercises to allow comparisons between unilateral and bilateral
plete a 3-repetition maximum lift for each exercise according data.
to loads previously established with 4 minutes rest between
exercises (3). Two fixed and embedded force plates (AMTI Maximal Sprint Assessment. Following the strength assess-
Optima 400600; Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc, ments, subjects rested for 10 minutes before performing
Boston, MA) were used to measure ground reaction force a maximal linear sprint on a Woodway Force nonmotorized
at a sampling rate of 1,000 Hz calibrated according to the treadmill (Woodway Force 3.0; Woodway USA, Inc, Wau-
manufacturer’s guidelines. Subjects were instructed to place kesha, WI). Subjects performed 3 submaximal warm-up
1 foot on each of the force plates for the bilateral squat and sprints to habituate themselves with the treadmill. After
barbell hip thrust. For the split squat, subjects were required to a 5-minute rest, they were instructed to complete a maximal
position their forward leg onto the force plate; for the split effort sprint during which maximal horizontal and vertical
squat, 3-repetition maximum lifts were completed on both legs. forces and velocity were determined.
A portable squat rack was set up in front of the force plates for
the bilateral and unilateral split squats. The barbell hip thrust Statistical Analyses
was performed with the upper back supported on a 17-inch- All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical
high bench as indicated in Figure 1. An EMG system (Myon Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0; IBM, Corp,
AG 320; Schwarzenberg, Switzerland) was used to collect raw Armonk, NY). The distribution of the data was first assessed
EMG signals at 1,000 Hz, which were filtered using Myon using a Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way repeated-measure anal-
proEMG software (Myon; Schwarzenberg, Switzerland). ysis of variance (ANOVAs) was used to compare mean and
EMG signals for all 3 repetitions of each set were filtered using peak EMG values between strength exercises. Differences in
a 10–450 Hz band-pass filter and smoothed using root mean ground reaction forces were assessed between strength
square with a 50-millisecond window (13). The EMG data are exercises and between legs using a 2-way repeated-
presented as the mean of the 4 EMG electrode sites for each of measures ANOVA. Any significant main effects were further
the 3 exercises to allow comparisons between unilateral and analyzed by applying Bonferroni corrections for pairwise
bilateral data. Mean and peak data were normalized to MVIC comparisons. Effect sizes (M1 2 M2/SD) were calculated
the TM

20 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

using Cohen’s d values and defined as small (0.20), medium neither reached statistical significance (r = 0.52, p = 0.086; r
(0.50), and large (0.80) (11). Pearson’s product-moment cor- = 0.53, p = 0.076, respectively). Peak gluteus maximus acti-
relations were also used to determine the relationship vation for each exercise did not correlate with peak sprint
between peak sprinting velocity and selected variables. Sta- speed (all p . 0.05) (Figures 4 and 5).
tistical significance was accepted at p # 0.05, and 95% con-
fidence intervals (95% CIs) are presented with p values. DISCUSSION
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

The objective of the present study was to compare muscle

RESULTS activation of the gluteus maximus and ground reaction force
Exercise Loads between the barbell hip thrust, back squat, and split squat
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

The 3-repetition maximum exercise loads for the barbell hip and to determine the relationship between these outcomes
thrust (157 6 29 kg; 1.9 6 0.3 3 body mass) were higher and vertical and horizontal forces during maximal sprinting.
than both the back squat (117 6 39 kg; 1.4 6 0.3 3 body In agreement with our experimental hypothesis, the barbell
mass; p = 0.001) and the split squat (68 6 23 kg; 0.8 6 0.2 3 hip thrust elicited significantly higher mean and peak gluteus
body mass; p , 0.001). The 3-repetition maximum loads for maximus activation than the back squat and the split squat
the back squat was higher than the split squat (p , 0.001). when performing 3-repetition maximum lifts despite a lower
peak ground reaction force in this movement. These data
Mean Activation
support recent research with female athletes that demon-
The barbell hip thrust displayed higher mean gluteus
strated a higher gluteus maximus activation in the barbell hip
maximus activation than both the back squat (d = 1.29; p
thrust compared with the back squat (10). The present study
= 0.005; 95% CI = 10–55% MVIC) and split squat (d = 1.24;
further extends these findings by demonstrating that peak
p = 0.006; 95% CI = 9–54% MVIC; Figure 2A). There was no
sprint velocity significantly correlated with both peak hori-
difference in mean gluteus maximus activation between the
zontal sprint force and peak barbell hip thrust force.
squat and split squat (d = 0.05; p = 1; 95% CI = 11–13%
The results of the present study align with findings of
MVIC).
Contreras et al. and suggest that greater peak and mean
Peak Activation activation of the gluteus maximus occurs in the barbell hip
The barbell hip thrust displayed higher peak gluteus thrust compared with the back squat. Recent extensive pilot
maximus activation than both the squat (d = 1.08; p = studies by Contreras et al. (10) have suggested that the glu-
0.024; 95% CI = 4–56% MVIC) and split squat (d = 1.08; p teus maximus elicits peak EMG activation at the shortest
= 0.016; 95% CI = 6–58% MVIC, Figure 2B). There was no muscle length in hip hyperextension. Several researchers
difference in peak gluteus maximus activation between the have concluded that peak gluteus maximus activation during
squat and split squat (d = 0.07; p = 1; 95% CI = 15–19% the back squat occurs on the ascendancy from the bottom of
MVIC). the lift in a hip’s flexed position and that activation increases
with load (40). However, Contreras et al. (10) found that
Peak Ground Reaction Force
during isometric holds of both the barbell hip thrust (fully
There were no difference in peak ground reaction force
extended position) and back squat (fully flexed position), the
between left and right legs in any 3 of the strength exercises
former produced significantly greater mean and peak EMG
(Figure 3) Peak force in the right foot was lower in the
activation in the gluteus maximus.
barbell hip thrust compared with the back squat (d = 2.98;
Although there have been numerous studies comparing
p , 0.001; 95% CI = 416–1,012 N) and the split squat (d =
unilateral to bilateral strength exercises, to the knowledge of
2.24; p , 0.001; 95% CI = 412–740 N). Peak force in the left
the authors, this is the first study to compare a unilateral
foot was also lower in the barbell hip thrust compared with
exercise to the barbell hip thrust. The results showed that
the back squat (d = 2.80; p , 0.001; 95% CI = 596–1,130 N)
although there were no differences between the 2 squat
and the split squat (d = 1.80; p , 0.001; 95% CI = 412–740
movements, the barbell hip thrust elicited significantly greater
N). Peak force was higher in the back squat than compared
gluteus maximus activation than the split squat. The similarity
with the split squat in the left leg (effect size = 0.66; p =
in gluteus maximus activation between the squat movements
0.019; 95% CI = 45–534 N) but not the right leg (p = 0.18).
may appear surprising given that peak ground reaction force
Maximal Sprinting and the summated total load across both front limbs in the
Peak anterior-posterior horizontal force during sprinting semiunilateral split squat was higher than in the bilateral back
significantly correlated with peak velocity (r = 0.72; p = squat (1.6 vs. 1.4 3 body mass, respectively). Given that an
0.008), but there was no relationship between peak vertical increased load has been shown to increase muscle activation
force and peak velocity (r = 0.232; p = 0.47). Peak force (32), it may be presumed that the additional load during the
during the barbell hip thrust significantly correlated with split squat would have produced higher gluteus maximus acti-
peak sprint velocity (r = 0.69; p = 0.014). There was a weak vation than in the back squat. In this instance, however, the
relationship between maximal sprint velocity and peak force unilateral strength exercise produced similar EMG activation
in both the bilateral squat and the unilateral split squat, but of the gluteus maximus. These findings are similar to that of

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2021 | 21

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 EMG of the Gluteus Maximus During Strength Exercise

Jones et al. (18) who found no difference in gluteus maximus assessing short sprint performance (17), some may question
activity between unilateral and bilateral exercises despite how closely it replicates sprinting outdoors. For example,
discrepancies in relative load. Muscle activity was not mea- running on a treadmill eliminates air resistance, which is
sured in the support leg in either the present study or in the likely to be meaningful during sprinting exercise (37). Fur-
previous work (18), which may explain some of this dispar- thermore, given the individual is tethered at the hips and has
ity and highlights the necessity for further research in this to manually move the treadmill belt with their feet, one
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

area. could argue that this encourages an inclined position,

Training with traditional squat movements does not decreasing the involvement of the postural musculature.
always lead to an improvement in maximal sprinting speed However, McKenna and Riches (26) demonstrated that in-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

(16), although this is often a desired outcome given several dividuals use similar sprinting technique on the nonmotor-
studies have demonstrated enhancements in this ability ized treadmill to over ground sprinting. Furthermore, Morin
(23,36). Given that sprint velocity appears to be more depen- and Sève (30) reported that individuals performing sprint
dent on horizontal force production than on vertical force accelerations on the nonmotorized treadmill produce similar
production (5,20,31), this is perhaps not surprising. Indeed, physical and technical movements to outdoor sprint
in the present study, horizontal force production signifi- accelerations.
cantly correlated with maximal sprint velocity. Furthermore, In the present study, only 2 force plates were used, both
the data presented here demonstrate that peak barbell hip positioned beneath the feet during the barbell hip thrust
thrust ground reaction force significantly correlated with exercise. However, at the top of the lift, it is likely that a large
maximal sprint velocity. Although the vertically oriented portion of the vertical force will be exerted through the
back squat and split squat elicited higher ground reaction bench itself. As such, we would suggest that in future
forces than the barbell hip thrust, the correlation between research, an additional plate is placed under the bench or
these values and maximal sprinting speed did not reach sta- structure supporting the back in order that the ground
tistical significance. Although speculative, this suggests that reaction forces can be more fully quantified. A further
force production during the barbell hip thrust may be asso- potential limitation of the present study was the use of
ciated with sprint performance in team sport athletes. Fur- surface EMG to measure muscle activity. The limitations of
thermore, horizontal anteroposterior-based exercises, such this technique have been discussed extensively by De Luca
as the barbell hip thrust, may be more effective for improving (13) and include muscle fiber movement, cross talk from
maximal sprint speed than either squat movement. Indeed, adjacent musculature, and extrinsic factors, such as volume
Contreras et al. (12) reported that a 6-week barbell hip thrust of subcutaneous fatty tissue, and that electrodes may not
training intervention led to improved 20-m sprint times with detect all active motor units. Additionally, EMG peaks
no improvement in a group completing back squat training. may potentially be artifacts given that the EMG signal not
This presents a compelling case that the orientation of force only includes muscle movement information but also noise
application is an important factor in determining maximal components that are unpreventable despite efforts being
sprint performance. Squats and their derivatives are clearly made to filter out these unwanted components (13). To
staples in the field of strength and conditioning; however, reduce potential cross talk, the surface electrodes were posi-
understanding how movement mechanics accentuate force tioned within the middle of the muscle belly of the gluteus
development is becoming an important factor in exercise maximus and applied in parallel arrangement to the muscle
selection. fibers, with a center to center interelectrode distance of 2 cm.
Despite a positive relationship between horizontal sprint Further to this, the upper and lower gluteus maximus have
force and maximal sprint velocity, gluteus maximus activa- been shown to activate uniquely (10). However, because in
tion did not correlate with maximal sprint velocity. This the current study data from these musculature were aver-
perhaps is not surprising given the findings of Morin et al. aged, it has not been possible to determine how the upper
(29) that generation of horizontal force during sprinting was and lower fibers correlate with sprinting independently.
linked with a better activation of the hamstring muscles just Despite some of the positive findings in the present study
before ground contact. Because the barbell hip thrust and between commonly used strength exercises and sprinting,
back squat both produce significantly greater gluteus maxi- the data obtained is mechanistic in nature; therefore, the
mus activation when compared with biceps femoris (9), the author suggests that future training studies are required to
lack of correlation between muscle activation and sprint show transference to sprinting and to verify the proposed
velocity in this study is perhaps to be expected. On the other theories.
hand, muscle activation during a hamstring-dominant exer-
cise may be more strongly associated with maximal sprint PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
performance. Given that maximal sprint speed correlated with horizontal
The assessment of sprint performance in this study was force production but not vertical production, using exercises
conducted using a nonmotorized treadmill. Although this that develop force in the horizontal plane may provide
treadmill is regarded as a valid and reliable means of superior transfer to sprint-based performance. Furthermore,
the TM

22 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

the present study has demonstrated maximal sprinting speed 10. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C, and
to be correlated with peak force production during the Cronin, J. A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and
vastus lateralis EMG amplitude in the back squat and barbell hip
barbell hip thrust but neither of the 2 vertical squat move- thrust exercises. J Appl Biomech 31: 452–458, 2015.
ments. Applied practitioners can incorporate the barbell hip 11. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C, and
thrust into their strength programs based on data indicating Cronin, J. A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum
that it has the capacity to elicit greater gluteus maximus voluntary isometric contraction positions. PeerJ 3: 1–10, 2015.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

activity than both the back squat and split squat and that it is 12. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C, McMaster,
more likely to lead to a greater increase in horizontal force DT, Reyneke, J, et al. Effect of a six week hip thrust versus front
squat resistance training program on performance in adolscent
production. Based on these data, it is proposed that
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

males: A randomized control trial. J Strength Cond Res 31: 999–1008,

performing anteroposterior strength exercises, such as the 2016.
barbell hip thrust, and focusing on methods to increase 13. De Luca, CJ. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics.
horizontal force during sprinting may be effective in J Appl Biomech 13: 135–163, 1997.
improving maximal sprint performance. During maximal 14. Dorn, TW, Schache, AG, and Pandy, MG. Muscular strategy shift in
sprinting, it appears toe off at ground contact occurs with the human running: Dependence of running speed on hip and ankle
hips in a slightly hyperextended position, which could be muscle performance. J Exp Biol 215: 1944–1956, 2012.
a key component as to why barbell hip thrust force 15. Fujisawa, RPD. Hip muscle activity during isometric contraction of
hip abduction. Soc Phys Ther Sci 2: 187–190, 2014.
production is a better indicator of maximal sprint velocity
16. Harris, GR, Stone, MH, O’Bryant, HS, Proulx, CM, and Johnson,
(14,19). This is not to suggest that the barbell hip thrust
RL. Short term performance effects of high power, high force or
should be used as a replacement for more traditional vertical combined weight training methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20,
orientated exercises given they have also been shown to 2000.
improve sprint performance (24,39). 17. Highton, JM, Lamb, KL, Twist, C, and Nicholas, C. The reliability
and validity of short-distance sprint performance assessed on
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a nonmotorized treadmill. J Strength Cond Res 26: 458–465, 2012.
18. Jones, MT, Ambegaonkar, JP, Nindl, BC, Smith, JA, and Headley,
The results of the present study do not constitute endorse- SA. Effects of unilateral and bilateral lower-body heavy resistance
ment by the authors or the National Strength and Condi- exercise on muscle activity and testosterone responses. J Strength
tioning Association. This project was partly funded by Cond Res 26: 1094–1100, 2012.
Oriam: Scotland’s Sport Performance Center. 19. Jönhagen, S, Ericson, MO, Nemeth, G, and Eriksson, E. Amplitude
and timing of electromyographic activity during sprinting. Scand J
REFERENCES Med Sci Sports 6: 15–21, 1996.

1. Andersen, KS, Christensen, BH, Samani, A, and Madeleine, P. 20. Kuitunen, S, Komi, PV, and Kyröläinen, H. Knee and ankle joint
Between-day reliability of a hand-held dynamometer and surface stiffness in sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 166–173, 2002.
electromyography recordings during isometric submaximal 21. De Lacey, J. Brughelli, M, McGuigan, MR, and Hansen, K. Strength,
contractions in different shoulder positions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol speed and power characteristics of elite rugby league players. J
24: 579–587, 2014. Strength Cond Res 28: 2372–2375, 2014.
2. Arcos, AL, Yanci, J, Mendiguchia, J, Salinero, JJ, Brughelli, M, and 22. Von Laßberg, C, Beykirch, KA, Mohler, BJ, and Bülthoff, HH.
Castagna, C. Short-term training effects of vertically and Intersegmental eye-head-body interactions during complex whole
horizontally oriented exercises on neuromuscular performance in body movements. PLoS One 9: e95450, 2014.
professional soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 480–488,
2014. 23. McBride, JM, Blow, D, Kirby, JT, Haines, LT, Dayne, MA, and
Triplett, NT. Relationship between maximal squat strength and five,
3. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW; National Strength and Conditioning ten, and forty yard sprint times. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1633–1636,
Association. Exercise techniques In. Essentials of Strength Training
2009.
and Conditioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp.
350. 24. McBride, JM, Triplett-McBride, T, Davie, A, and Newton, RU.
4. Boren, K, Conrey, C, Le Coguic, J, Paprocki, L, Voight, M, and The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the
Robinson, TK. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and development of strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res
gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Int J Sports Phys 16: 75–82, 2002.
Ther 6: 206–223, 2011. 25. McCurdy, KW, Langford, GA, Doscher, MW, and Wiley, LP. The
5. Brughelli, M and Cronin, J. Effects of running velocity on running effects of short term unilateral and bilateral lower body resistance
kinetics and kinematics. J Strength Cond Res 25: 933–939, 2011. training on measures of strength and power. J Strength Cond Res 19:
9–15, 2005.
6. Buchheit, M, Samozino, P, Glynn, JA, Michael, BS, Al Haddad, H,
Mendez-Villanueva, A, et al. Mechanical determinants of 26. McKenna, M and Riches, PE. A comparison of sprinting kinematics
acceleration and maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young on two types of treadmill and overground. Scand J Med Sci Sports 17:
soccer players. J Sports Sci 32: 1906–1913, 2014. 649–655, 2007.
7. Chelly, SM and Denis, C. Leg power and hopping stiffness: 27. Meylan, CMP, Cronin, JB, Oliver, JL, Hopkins, WG, and Contreras,
Relationship with sprint running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc B. The effect of maturation on adaptations to strength training and
33: 326–333, 2001. detraining in 11–15-year-olds. Scand J Med Sci Sports 24: 156–164,
8. Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1: 98–101, 2014.
1992. 28. Morin, JB, Edouard, P, and Samozino, P. Technical ability of force
9. Contreras, B, Cronin, J, and Schoenfeld, B. Barbell hip thrust. application as a determinant factor of sprint performance. Med Sci
Strength Cond J 33: 58–61, 2011. Sports Exerc: 1680–1688, 2011.

VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2021 | 23

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 EMG of the Gluteus Maximus During Strength Exercise

29. Morin, JB, Gimenez, P, Edouard, P, Arnal, P, Jiménez-Reyes, P, 36. Spiers, DE, Bennett, MA, Finn, CV, and Turner, AP. Unilateral
Samozino, P, et al. Sprint acceleration mechanics: The major role of vs bilateral squat training for strength, sprints and agility in
hamstrings in horizontal force production. Front Physiol 6: 1–14, 2015. academy rugby players. J Strength Cond Res 30: 386–392, 2016.
30. Morin, JB and Sève, P. Sprint running performance: Comparison between 37. Weyand, PG, Sternlight, DB, Bellizzi, MJ, and Wright, S. Faster
treadmill and field conditions. Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 1695–1703, 2011. top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces
31. Nummela, A, Keränen, T, and Mikkelsson, LO. Factors related to not more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol 89: 1991–1999,
top running speed and economy. Int J Sports Med 28: 655–661, 2007. 2000.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

32. Pinto, R, Cadore, E, Correa, C, Gonçalves Cordeiro da Silva, B, 38. Wisløff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
Alberton, C, Lima, C, et al. Relationship between workload and correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and
neuromuscular activity in the bench press exercise. Medicina vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285–
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 12/26/2023

Sportiva 17: 1–6, 2013. 288, 2004.

33. Randell, AD, Cronin, JB, Keogh, JWL, and Gill, ND. Transference of 39. Worrell, TW, Karst, G, Adamczyk, D, Moore, R, Stanley, C, Steimel,
strength and power adaptation to sports performance—horizontal B, et al. Influence of joint position on electromyographic and torque
and vertical force production. Strength Cond J 32: 100–106, 2010. generation during maximal voluntary isometric contractions of the
34. Seitz, AL and Uhl, TL. Reliability and minimal detectable change in hamstrings and gluteus maximus muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
scapulothoracic neuromuscular activity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 22: 31: 730–740, 2001.
968–974, 2012. 40. Yavuz, HU and Erdag, D. Kinematic and electromyographic activity
35. Siff, MC. Dynamic correspondence as a means of strength training. In: changes during back squat with submaximal and maximal loading.
Supertraining. Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute, 2004.pp.242–247. Appl Bionics Biomech 17: 1–9, 2017.

the TM

24 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.