©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2020) 19, 195-203

http://www.jssm.org

` Review article

Gluteus Maximus Activation during Common Strength and Hypertrophy

Exercises: A Systematic Review

Walter Krause Neto 1, Enrico Gori Soares 2, Thais Lima Vieira 3, Rodolfo Aguiar 1, Thiago Andrade
Chola 1, Vinicius de Lima Sampaio 1 and Eliane Florencio Gama1
1
Department of Physical Education, Laboratory of Morphoquantitative Studies and Immunohistochemistry, São Judas
Tadeu University, São Paulo-SP, Brazil; 2 Human Performance Research Group - College of Health Science, Methodist
University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP), Piracicaba - São Paulo, Brazil; 31st Military Fire Brigade Group of the Federal
District, Brasilia-DF, Brazil

Neto et al., 2019, McCurdy et al., 2018; Williams et al.,

Abstract 2018; Sugisaki et al., 2014). There is a significant number
The gluteus maximus (GMax) is one of the primary hip extensors. of studies comparing GMax activation levels between sev-
Several exercises have been performed by strength and condition- eral loaded and bodyweight exercises (Bishop et al., 2018;
ing practitioners aiming to increase GMax strength and size. This Boren et al., 2011; Macadam et al., 2015; Macadam and
systematic review aimed to describe the GMax activation levels Feser, 2019; Selkowitz et al., 2016).
during strength exercises that incorporate hip extension and use Electromyography (EMG) is a technique for meas-
of external load. A search of the current literature was performed uring the electric potential field generated by the depolari-
using PubMed/Medline, SportDiscuss, Scopus, Google Scholar, zation of the sarcolemma (Merletti and Parker, 2004). De-
and Science Direct electronic databases. Sixteen articles met the
spite limitations and common misinterpretations (Vigostky
inclusion criteria and reported muscle activation levels as a per-
centage of a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC).
et al., 2015; 2016), under controlled conditions, the EMG
The exercises classified as very high level of GMax activation signal comprises the summation of motor unit action po-
(>60% MVIC) were step-up, lateral step-up, diagonal step-up, tentials and provides an index of muscle activation (Enoka
cross over step-up, hex bar deadlift, rotational barbell hip thrust, and Duchateau, 2015). Therefore, EMG has been widely
traditional barbell hip thrust, American barbell hip thrust, belt used to compare the muscle activation between exercises,
squat, split squat, in-line lunge, traditional lunge, pull barbell hip which can assist the strength and conditioning coach on se-
thrust, modified single-leg squat, conventional deadlift, and band lecting and systematically progressing exercise intensity
hip thrust. We concluded that several exercises could induce very (Vigostky et al., 2015, Macadam and Feser, 2019).
high levels of GMax activation. The step-up exercise and its var-
Previous studies have systematically reviewed the
iations present the highest levels of GMax activation followed by
several loaded exercises and its variations, such as deadlifts, hip
gluteal muscle activity, measured by EMG, in a variety of
thrusts, lunges, and squats. The results of this systematic review lower body exercises (Macadam et al., 2015; Macadam and
may assist practitioners in selecting exercised for strengthening Feser, 2019). The systematic review conducted by Mac-
GMax. adam et al. (2015) showed that exercises with dynamic hip
abduction and external rotation elicited high levels of
Keywords: Skeletal muscle, gluteus maximus, electromyogra- GMax activation (ranging from 79% to 113% of a maximal
phy, strength training. voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC]). Recently, Mac-
adam and Feser (2019) have found that it is still possible to
achieve high levels of GMax activation (>60% of MVIC)
Introduction by performing exercises with bodyweight as resistance.
However, due to the inclusion/exclusion criteria chosen by
Hip extension is a fundamental movement in daily life and the authors to answer their research questions, both studies
athletic activities. Previous research has proposed an in- eventually excluded more ecologically valid studies for
creasing role of hip extensor musculature with heavier strength and conditioning coaches that investigated exer-
lower body exercises (e.g., squats, lunges, and deadlifts) cises with higher intensity (external load) and neuromus-
and explosive sports actions (e.g., jumping, sprinting and cular demand. As external load may affect exercise me-
change of direction) (Beardsley and Contreras, 2014). The chanics and the resultant muscular activation (Bryanton et
primary muscles responsible for this movement are gluteus al., 2012; Da Silva et al., 2008; Riemann et al., 2012; Swin-
maximus (GMax), long head of biceps femoris, semimem- ton et al., 2011), currently there is ambiguity on which ex-
branosus, semitendinosus, and the ischiocondylar portion ercises that incorporate hip extension and use of external
of the adductor magnus (Broski et al., 2015; Neumann, load achieve the most significant Gmax activation.
2010; Youdas et al., 2017). Despite the involvement of all Several factors, including relative external load,
these muscles, GMax has been identified as the primary movement velocity, level of fatigue, the mechanical com-
muscle responsible for hip extension, specifically on plexity of the exercise (open or closed kinetic chain, weight
loaded exercises that typically do not sufficiently activate bearing or non-weight bearing), and the need for joint sta-
the hamstrings in tasks involving simultaneous hip and bilization, may directly influence GMax activation. The
knee extension, such as the squat and the leg press (Krause purpose of this systematic review was to describe the

Received: 22 August 2019 / Accepted: 11 November 2019 / Published (online): 24 February 2020
196 EMG and gluteus maximus

GMax activation levels during dynamic exercises that in- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
corporate hip extension and use of external load. To assist The inclusion criteria were: (a) original articles; (b) de-
strength and conditioning coaches in selecting exercises for scriptive studies (in case of no raw description of the data,
the GMax, we categorized the exercises as low level of ac- an e-mail was sent to the authors requesting the raw data);
tivation (0 to 20% of MVIC), moderate level of activation (c) studies with physically trained participants; (d) studies
(21 to 40% of MVIC), high level of activation (41 to 60% that measured surface EMG and reported muscle activation
of MVIC), and very high level of activation (greater than as a percentage of maximal voluntary isometric contraction
60% of MVIC) accordingly to the recommendations of (MVIC); (e) studies which analyzed the muscle activation
Macadam and Feser (2019). of the GMax using strength exercises with external load
and (f) English language. Studies with insufficient data, re-
Methods view articles, conference papers, student thesis, samples
from metabolic patients, patients with musculoskeletal
Literature research strategies trauma and older people, poor presentation of data, unclear
The preferred item declaration guide for systematic review or vague descriptions of the protocols applied, and articles
and meta-analysis reports (PRISMA) was used to conduct evaluating isometric, plyometrics, and calisthenics exer-
this systematic review (Liberati et al., 2009). cises were excluded.
On February 15th, 2019, a systematic review was
conducted using the PubMed/Medline, SportDiscuss, Sco- Studies selection
pus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct electronic data- Authors WKN, RA, and TAC independently performed the
bases. The MeSH descriptors, along with the related terms data analysis with two subsequent meetings to decide on
and keywords, were used as follows: ((((resistance training the inclusion of eligible articles in the final text. After each
OR resistance exercise OR training, resistance OR strength article was read, the following information was extracted:
training OR training, strength OR weight-lifting strength- (1) exercise performed, (2) EMG normalization procedure,
ening program OR strengthening program, weight-lifting (3) electrode placement, (4) external load used in the exer-
OR strengthening programs, weight-lifting OR weight lift- cise, (5) main findings and (6) mean %MVIC values
ing strengthening program OR weight-lifting strengthening achieved in each exercise. If two or more studies evaluated
programs OR weight-lifting exercise program OR exercise the same exercises, the data were pooled as an average of
program, weight-lifting OR exercise programs, weight-lift- the mean % MVIC of each exercise. Only the mean
ing OR weight lifting exercise program OR weight-lifting %MVIC data from each study was used here.
exercise programs OR weight-bearing strengthening pro- To classify the Gmax activation measured, we used
gram OR strengthening program, weight-bearing OR the following levels: 0-20% MVIC, low muscle activation;
strengthening programs, weight-bearing OR weight bear- 21-40% MVIC, moderate muscle activation; 41-60%
ing strengthening program OR weight-bearing strengthen- MVIC, high muscle activation; >60% MVIC, very high
ing programs OR weight-bearing exercise program OR ex- muscle activation (Escamilla et al., 2010; Youdas et al.,
ercise program, weight-bearing OR exercise programs, 2014, Cacchio et al., 2008). According to Macadam and
weight-bearing OR weight bearing exercise program OR Feser (p. 17, 2019), “this classification scheme provides a
weight-bearing exercise programs OR isometric OR exer- means by which the practitioner can select exercises, that
cise OR rehab OR physical therapy OR load OR training))) match the capabilities of their client/athlete thus targeting
AND ((muscle development OR development, muscle OR neuromuscular, endurance, or strength type training, and
muscular development OR development, muscular OR provides a means by which the GMax can be progressively
myogenesis OR myofibrillogenesis OR muscle hypertro- overloaded in a systematic fashion.”
phy OR hypertrophy OR hypertrophies OR electromyog-
raphy OR electromyographies OR surface electromyogra- Results
phy OR electromyographies, surface OR electromyogra- Search results
phy, surface OR surface electromyographies OR electro- A total of 1963 articles were identified in the initial survey.
myogram OR electromyograms OR muscle strength OR After the analysis of the titles/abstracts, 1853 articles were
power output OR force OR strength OR muscular excita- eliminated, leaving 110 articles selected for full-text exam-
tion OR excitation OR EMG OR muscle activation OR ac- ination. After two meetings and discussion of the data, 61
tivation))) AND ((gluteus maximus OR gluteus OR hip ex- items were included and evaluated by the methodological
tensor OR hip extensors)). quality scale and inclusion/exclusion criteria, of which 16
After reading the titles and abstracts, all eligible full articles were eligible for this systematic review (Figure 1).
text was assessed for methodological quality using the In total, 231 participants (90 women and 141 men)
PEDro methodological quality scale. This scale is com- underwent 24 strength exercises variations. Table 1 de-
posed of eleven questions and scores proportional to the scribes the exercises investigated, methods of EMG nor-
number of items. However, due to the inability to "blind" malization, testing load, and the main findings. Of these,
coaches and practitioners, we excluded three questions, ten studies investigated the back squat exercise and its var-
setting the eight as the maximum score. Thus, studies with iations [partial, parallel and full] (Aspe and Swinton, 2014;
scores equal to or higher than five were considered of good Contreras et al., 2015b; 2016a; Da Silva et al., 2017; Evans
methodological quality, excluding those with scores equal et al., 2019; Gomes et al., 2015; McCurdy et al., 2018; Wil-
to or less than 4 (Krause Neto et al., 2019). liams et al., 2018; Yavuz et al., 2015; Yavuz and Erdag,
 Krause Neto et al. 197

2017), five studies investigated the barbell hip thrust and strated the highest Gmax activation. However, possibly
its variations [American and traditional styles and different due to the wide variation of methods used for EMG nor-
feet positions] (Andersen et al., 2018; Collazo Garcia et al., malization, at least 16 exercises variations presented simi-
2018; Contreras et al., 2015b; 2016b; Williams et al., lar maximum Gmax excitatory levels (step-up, lateral step-
2018), three studies investigated the deadlift, and its varia- up, diagonal step-up, crossover step-up, hex bar deadlift,
tions [traditional and hex bar] (Andersen et al., 2018; Es- rotation barbell hip thrust, traditional barbell hip thrust,
camilla et al. 2002; McCurdy et al., 2018) and two studies American barbell hip thrust, belt squat, split squat, in-line
investigated the front squat (Contreras et al., 2016a; Yavuz lunge, traditional lunge, pull barbell hip thrust, modified
et al., 2015). Other studies investigated the overhead squat single-leg squat, band hip thrust and conventional deadlift
(Aspe and Swinton, 2014), split squat (Williams et al., [Figure 2]).
2018), modified single-leg squat (McCurdy et al., 2018),
belt squat (Evans et al., 2019), lunges (Marchetti et al.,
2018), and step-ups (Simenz et al., 2012). External loads
were prescribed either by % of 1RM (varied from 40 to
100% of 1RM) or repetition maximum (varied from 3 to
12RM). The methods for normalizing EMG levels varied
among the studies; the positions glute squeeze, standing
glute squeeze, and prone with 90° flexion being the most
common (Table 1). Interestingly, three studies evaluated
the lower and upper GMax portions separately (Contreras
et al., 2015b; Contreras et al., 2016a; Contreras et al.,
2016b).
Although there was no time limit as an inclusion cri-
terion, all the articles included in this review were pub-
lished between the years of 2002 and 2019. After the meth-
odological quality analysis, all included studies were clas-
sified as excellent (mean score 7).

Muscle activation levels

Table 2 describes the pooled average muscle activation lev-
els and the minimum and maximum EMG values for each
exercise. In general, the step-up exercise and its variations
[lateral, diagonal, and cross-over] showed the highest
GMax activation (average 125.09% MVIC, ranging from
104.19-169.22% MVIC).
In Table 3, it is possible to verify that 24 variations
related to the ten main exercises included in this study were
investigated. In this analysis, the classification of the exer-
cises regarding the activation of GMax ranged from mod-
erate to very high. Among all, the step-up exercise demon- Figure 1. Search and screening procedure.

Table 1. Description of data extracted from each article about subtopics: exercises, electromyography signal normalization (EMG)
method, electrode placement, testing load, and main findings.
References Exercises EMG Electrode placement Testing Main Findings
normalization Load
method
Williams Back Squat, Standing glute A line was drawn between the posterior 3RM Barbell hip thrust presented
et al. 2018 Barbell Hip squeeze superior iliac spine and the greater a higher mean GMax
Thrust and trochanter; the upper electrode was activation than back and
Split Squat placed approximately 5 cm above and split squat
laterally to the midpoint of this line,
given the diagonal direction the muscle
fibers course. The lower electrode was
positioned approximately 5 cm below
and medially to the same line.
Marchetti n-line and Tra- Prone position 50% on the line between the sacral 10RM Both exercises presented
et al. 2018 ditional Lunge with knee 90° vertebrae and the greater trochanter similar GMax activation
flexion
Collazo Barbell Hip Thrust Prone position 50% on the line between the sacral 40%RM Rotation feet variation
Garcia with feet position with knee 90° vertebrae and the greater trochanter presented the higher GMax
et al. 2018 variations flexion activation
GMax = Gluteus maximus; 1RM = maximum repetition.
 198 EMG and gluteus maximus

Table 1. Continued…
References Exercises EMG normalization Electrode placement Testing Load Main Findings
method
Yavuz and Back Squat Extended and flexed knee 50% on the line between 80, 90 and Higher GMax activa-
Erdag, 2017 position with slightly outward the 100%RM tion with higher loads
rotated legs and hyperexten- sacral vertebrae and the (90 and 100%RM)
sion position (~20°) greater trochanter
Andersen Barbell Deadlift, Prone position 50% on the line between the 1RM Barbell hip thrust
et al. 2017 Hex-bar Deadlift, with straight legs sacral vertebrae and the presented the higher
and Barbell Hip Thrust greater trochanter GMax activation
McCurdy Bilateral Squat, Prone position with Gluteus maximus belly Bilateral and Greater GMax
et al. 2017 Modified-Single- knee 90° flexion parallel with the muscle modified-single-leg activation in the
leg Squat, and fibers squat 3RM Stiff-leg modified-single-leg
Stiff-leg Deadlift deadlift 8RM squat compared to
others
Da Silva Partial (0-90°) Prone position with 50% on the line between the 10RM Partial back squat
et al. 2017 and Full (0-140°) knee 90° flexion sacral vertebrae and the presented higher GMax
Back Squat against resistance greater trochanter activation
Evans Back Squat and Glute squeeze 50% on the line between the sacral 5RM Higher GMax activa-
et al. 2017 Belt Squat vertebrae and the greater trochanter tion found for back
squat
Contreras Barbell Hip Standing glute Upper gluteus maximus: superior 10RM Higher GMax activa-
et al. 2016 Thrust with squeeze or prone and lateral to a line drawn between tion found in the tradi-
Traditional, bent-leg hip exten- the posterior superior iliac spine and tional Barbell hip thrust
Band and sion against manual the posterior greater trochanter; than others
American style resistance Lower gluteus maximus: inferior
and medial to a line drawn between
the posterior superior iliac spine and
the posterior greater trochanter
Contreras Back Squat and Standing glute Upper gluteus maximus: superior 10RM Barbell hip thrust
et al. 2016 Barbell Hip squeeze or prone and lateral to a line drawn between presented higher GMax
Thrust bent-leg hip exten- the posterior superior iliac spine and activation
sion against manual the posterior greater trochanter;
resistance Lower gluteus maximus: inferior
and medial to a line drawn between
the posterior superior iliac spine and
the posterior greater trochanter
Contreras Parallel and Full Standing glute Upper gluteus maximus: superior 10RM No differences found
et al. 2015 Back Squat and squeeze or prone and lateral to a line drawn between between exercises
Front Squat bent-leg hip exten- the posterior superior iliac spine and
sion against manual the posterior greater trochanter;
resistance Lower gluteus maximus: inferior
and medial to a line drawn between
the posterior superior iliac spine and
the posterior greater trochanter
Yavuz et al. Front and Extended and flexed knee po- 50% on the line between the 1RM No differences found
2015 Back Squat sition with slightly outward sacral vertebrae and the between exercises
rotated legs and hyperexten- greater trochanter
sion position (~20°)
Gomes Back Squat with Prone position with 50% on the line between the sa- 60%RM Knee wrap decreased
et al. 2015 and without knee knee 90° flexion cral vertebrae and the greater and GMax activation and
wraps trochanter 90%RM higher load-induced
higher GMax excitation
Aspe and Back and Horizontal position anchored 50% on the line between the 60, 75 Higher GMax activa-
Swinton, Overhead at the ankles and supported sacral vertebrae and the and tion found in back squat
2014 Squat across hip joint on a glute- greater trochanter 90% 3RM compared to overhead
hamstring apparatus for all intensities tested
Simenz Step-Up, Crossover Lying prone with muscle belly one-third of the 6RM Step-up presented
et al. 2012 Step-Up, Diagonal 70° hip flexion on a distance from the second higher GM activation
Step-Up, and Lateral decline bench sacral spine to the greater
Step-Up trochanter.
Escamilla Sumo and EMG data normalization 50% on the line between the 12RM No differences found
et al. 2002 Conventional averaged over each of the sacral vertebrae and the between exercises
Deadlift trials greater trochanter
GMax = Gluteus maximus; 1RM = maximum repetition.
Krause Neto et al. 199

Table 2. Summary of the pooled average of the mean maximum voluntary isometric contraction percentage (%MVIC) for
Gluteus maximus in the different exercises. Values are given as an average of pooled mean and the standard deviation.
Exercise Number Number of Average Minimum-maximum (%MVIC)
of studies subjects (mean %MVIC)
Back Squats (all variations) 10 156 53.10 ± 25.12 13 - 92.70
Deadlifts (all variations) 4 78 61.02 ± 28.14 35 - 94
Hip Thrusts (all variations) 5 58 75.41 ± 18.49 49.2 - 105
Front Squat 2 38 40.54 ± 4.73 37.2 – 43.89
Belt Squat 1 31 71.34 ± 29.42 -
Modified Single-leg Squat 1 18 65.6 ± 15.1 -
Step-ups (all variations) 1 15 125.09 ± 55.26 104.19 - 169.22
Lunges (all variations) 1 15 66.5 ± 0.7 66 - 67
Overhead Squat 1 14 39.75 ± 29.91 -
Split Squat 1 12 70 ± 15 -
Table 3. Comparison of Gluteus maximus (GMax) activation for all exercise variations. Classification of muscle activation is
givens as low (0-20% MVIC), moderate (21-40% MVIC), high (41-60% MVIC) and very high (>60% MVIC). Values are given
as mean or the average of pooled mean of maximum voluntary isometric contraction percentage (%MVIC) and the standard
deviation.
Classification Level of Exercise Average (%MVIC)
activation
1º Very high Step-Up 169.22 ± 101.47
2° Very high Lateral Step-Up 114.25 ± 54.74
3° Very high Diagonal Step-Up 113.21 ± 43.54
4° Very high Crossover Step-up 104.19 ± 33.63
5° Very high Hex Bar Deadlift 88 ± 16
6° Very high Rotation Barbell Hip Thrust 86.18 ± 34.3
7° Very high Traditional Barbell Hip Thrust 82.37 ± 18.65 (Lower GM: 69.5/Upper GM: 86.7)
8° Very high American Barbell Hip Thrust 73.65 ± 22.98 (Lower GM: 57.4 ± 34.8/ Upper GM: 89.9 ± 32.4)
9° Very high Belt Squat 71.34 ± 29.42
10° Very high Split Squat 70 ± 15
11° Very high In-line Lunge 67 ± 11
12° Very high Traditional Lunge 66 ± 13
13° Very high Pull Barbell Hip Thrust 65.87 ± 23.28
14° Very high Modified Single-leg Squat 65.6 ± 15.1
15° Very high Traditional Deadlift 64.50 ± 41.72
16° Very high Band Hip Thrust 64.2 ± 21.21 (Lower GM: 49.2 ± 26.5/ Upper GM: 79.2 ± 29.9)
17° High Parallel Back Squat 59.76 ± 22.52
18° High Feet-away Barbell Hip Thrust 51.38±17.93
19º High Front Squat 40.54 ± 4.73
20° High Stiff-Leg Deadlift 40.5 ± 18.8
21° Moderate Overhead Squat 39.75 ± 29.91
22° Moderate Sumo Deadlift 37 ± 28
23° Moderate Partial Back Squat 28.16 ± 10.35
24° Moderate Full Back Squat 26.56 ± 12.33

Figure 2. Gluteus maximus exercises with very high average activation (>60%MVIC).
MVIC = maximum voluntary isometric contraction).
200 EMG and gluteus maximus

Discussion recently, Da Silva et al. (2017) demonstrated that the par-

tial squat elicited higher GMax activation than the full
The results of this systematic review have shown that squat variation when external loads are equated to squat
GMax activation varied among the exercises investigated. depth. GMax relative contribution to hip extensor moment
In general, the step-up exercise and its variations present may be reduced in positions of greater squat depth (Vigot-
the highest levels of GMax activation (>100% of MVIC) sky et al., 2016; Hoy et al., 1990; Neumann, D. A. 2010).
followed by several loaded exercises and its variations, Nevertheless, chronic studies have suggested that deeper
such as deadlifts, hip thrusts, lunges, and squats, that pre- squats, or a combination of different ranges of motion, in-
sented a very high level of GMax activation (>60% of duce the most substantial functional and muscular gains,
1RM). It was observed that several factors, including rela- possibly due to more considerable time under tension, me-
tive external load, movement velocity, level of fatigue, the chanical tension, and longer muscle length (Bloomquist et
mechanical complexity of the exercise, and the need for al., 2013; Kubo et al., 2019; Bazyler et al., 2014).
joint stabilization, might directly influence GMax activa- The barbell hip thrust exercise and its variations are
tion. expected to demonstrate higher GMax excitation levels
The exercise that elicited the highest activation lev- when compared to any exercise that includes simultaneous
els of the GMax was the step-up and its variations [lateral, knee and hip flexion/extension movement, such as squats
diagonal, and cross-over step-up] (Simenz et al., 2012). All and their variations (Contreras et al., 2015b; Contreras et
four exercises are unilateral and require weight-bearing al., 2016b). Regarding the hip thrust and its variations,
from the practitioner; therefore, during these exercises, the GMax activation varied between 49.2 and 105% of MVIC.
GMax is responsible for extending the hip joint, while sim- These results are similar to a recent review performed by
ultaneously maintaining the pelvis level controlling exces- our group (Krause Neto et al., 2019), where mean GMax
sive femur adduction and medial rotation (Baker et al., activity ranged between 55 and 105% of MVIC. The foot
2014; Blemker and Delp, 2005; Macadam et al., 2015). Ac- position is the main factor affecting GMax activation dur-
cording to Macadam et al. (2015), the higher excitatory de- ing the barbell hip thrust. For example, Collazo Garcia et
mand for step-up and its variations are associated with the al. (2018) compared the GMax activation between the dif-
need to stabilize the knees and hip during the upward and ferent variations of barbell hip thrust. They observed the
downward movement (the more significant synergistic ac- highest GMax activation when subjects were oriented to
tivity of the gluteus medius). However, these exercises are intend to rotate the foot outward. Additionally, Kang et al.
considered difficult to perform and have a high stabilizing (2016) found placing the foot at 30° of hip abduction pre-
demand for most beginning and intermediate practitioners; sented higher GMax activation than 15 and 0° of hip ab-
even for the experienced practitioner, the higher stability duction during a bodyweight hip bridge. Another interest-
demand may limit the load used, and therefore, may hinder ing fact is that barbell hip thrusts elicit high and very high
maximal strength and hypertrophy development (Behm GMax activation even when relative low loads are lifted.
and Anderson, 2006). Collazo Garcia et al. (2018) used 40% of 1RM and ob-
The back squat exercise and its variations are tained high and very high levels of GMax activation in the
widely used in strength training with goals of increasing variations of hip thrusts investigated. Delgado et al. (2019)
strength and lower limb muscle hypertrophy (Clark et al., observed that barbell hip thrust performed at 60 kg (~36%
2012). This fact was demonstrated here by a large number of 1RM) elicited similar GMax activation than Romanian
of studies included, which investigated different variations deadlift and back squat at 1RM.
of the squat (10 articles). In our results, squats were classi- The reader should be aware of the number of meth-
fied as high GMax. However, we found significant varia- odological limitations present in the studies included in this
tions in the classification between the different types of systematic review: (1) the electrode placement, the EMG
squats (ranging from low [13% of MVIC] to very high signal processing, movement phase analyzed and normali-
GMax activation [92.7% of MVIC]). Several factors, such zation varied between studies, therefore, may have influ-
as barbell position (front, high/low bar back squat), stance enced the results obtained in the systematic review; (2) a
width, and the depth of squat, are the main factors affecting heterogeneous sample composed of studies that investigate
GMax activation during the squat. For example, Paoli et al. women and/or men may suffer different influences; (3) the
(2009) suggested that larger stance widths (1,5 and 2x great variation of the loads used (40% to 100% maximum) may
trochanter distance) are necessary for greater activation of alter the activity levels of GMax as presented by Yavuz and
the GMax during the back squat. Regarding the effect of Erdag (2017); and (4) different levels of training experi-
squat depth on GMax activity, the results are contradicting. ence and familiarization with the exercises tested may have
Caterisano et al. (2002) compared three different squat influenced the EMG levels that were investigated.
depths (partial: ~45° of knee flexion; parallel: ~90° of knee
flexion, and full: ~135° of knee flexion) using 100 to 125% Conclusion
of subject’s body weight as external resistance. Their re-
sults suggested that the full squat elicited greater GMax ac- Despite the limitations of the present review, we observed
tivation than the parallel and partial back squat. However, that several exercises and variations elicited very high lev-
their main limitation was the lack of equalization of exter- els of GMax activity. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest
nal load by the depth investigated. Contreras et al. (2016a) that the strength and conditioning coach should select in a
found no significant difference between full and parallel variety of exercises, the one that most fit-on clients’ indi-
back squats for any of the GMax portions evaluated. More vidual needs.
Krause Neto et al. 201

Other factors such as exercise kinetics and kinemat- press machines on muscular activity pattern and strength. Jour-
nal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 18(4), 618-627.
ics, relative external load, movement velocity, range of Caterisano, A., Moss, R.F., Pellinger, T.K., Woodruff, K., Lewis, V.C.,
motion, level of fatigue, the mechanical complexity of the Booth, W. and Khadra T. (2002) The effect of back squat depth
exercise (open or closed kinetic chain; weight bearing or on the EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. Jour-
non-weight bearing) should be considered when selecting nal of Strength and Conditioning Research 16(3), 428-32.
Clark, D.R., Lambert, M.I. and Hunter, A.M. (2012) Muscle activation in
an appropriate exercise for strengthening the GMax. the loaded free barbell squat: a brief review. Journal of Strength
Therefore, this systematic review demonstrated that and Conditioning Research 26(4), 1169-78.
the step-up exercise and its variations present the highest Collazo García, C.L., Rueda, J., Suárez Luginick, B. and Navarro, E.
levels of muscle excitation of GMax followed by several (2018) Differences in the Electromyographic Activity of Lower-
Body Muscles in Hip Thrust Variations. Journal of Strength and
bilateral exercises and its variations, such as deadlifts, hip Conditioning Research. In press.
thrusts, and squats. GMax activity may vary significantly Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cro-
according to changes in technique during the exercise. nin, J. (2015a) A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG
maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions. PeerJ
Acknowledgments 3:e1261;
The authors have no conflicts of interest. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cro-
nin, J. (2015b) A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Fem-
oris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyographic Activity in the
References Back Squat and Barbell Hip Thrust Exercises. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics 31(6), 452-8.
Andersen, L.L., Magnusson, S.P., Nielsen, M., Haleem, J., Poulsen, K. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cro-
and Aagaard, P. (2006). Neuromuscular activation in conven- nin, J. (2016a)A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Fem-
tional therapeutic exercises and heavy resistance exercises: im- oris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyography Amplitude in the
plications for rehabilitation. Physical Therapy 86(5), 683-697. Parallel, Full, and Front Squat Variations in Resistance-Trained
Andersen, V., Fimland, M. S., Mo, D. A., Iversen, V.M., Vederhus, T., Females. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 32(1), 16-22.
Rockland Hellebø, L.R., Nordaune, K.I. and Saeterbakken, A.H. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D., Schoenfeld, B.J., Beardsley, C. and Cro-
(2018) Electromyographic Comparison of Barbell Deadlift, Hex nin, J. (2016b) A Comparison of Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Fem-
Bar Deadlift, and Hip Thrust Exercises: A Cross-Over Study. oris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyography Amplitude for the
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 32(3), 587-593. Barbell, Band, and American Hip Thrust Variations. Journal of
Aspe, R.R. and Swinton, P.A. (2014) Electromyographic and kinetic com- Applied Biomechanics 32(3), 254-260.
parison of the back squat and overhead squat. Journal of Strength Da Silva, E.M., Brentano, M.A., Cadore, E.L., De Almeida, A.P. and
and Conditioning Research 28(10), 2827-36. Kruel, L.F. (2008). Analysis of muscle activation during differ-
Baker, P. J., Hapuarachchi, K. S., Ross, J. A., Sambaiew, E., Ranger, T. ent leg press exercises at submaximum effort levels. Journal of
A. and Briggs, C. A. (2014). Anatomy and biomechanics of glu- Strength and Conditioning Research 22(4), 1059-1065.
teus maximus and the thoracolumbar fascia at the sacroiliac joint. Da Silva, J.J., Schoenfeld, B.J., Marchetti, P.N., Pecoraro, S.L., Greve,
Clinical Anatomy 27:234–240. J.M.D. and Marchetti, P.H. (2017) Muscle Activation Differs
Beardsley, C., and Contreras, B. (2014) The increasing role of the hip ex- Between Partial and Full Back Squat Exercise With External
tensor musculature with heavier compound lower-body move- Load Equated. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
ments and more explosive sports actions. Journal of Strength and 31(6), 1688-1693.
Conditioning Research 36(2), 49-55. Delgado, J., Drinkwater, E.J., Banyard, H.G., Haff, G.G. and Nosaka, K.
Behm, D. G., and Anderson, K. G. (2006). The role of instability with (2019) Comparison Between Back Squat, Romanian Deadlift,
resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re- and Barbell Hip Thrust for Leg and Hip Muscle Activities Dur-
search 20(3), 716-722. ing Hip Extension. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
Bishop, B.N., Greenstein, J., Etnoyer-Slaski, J.L., Sterling, H. and Topp, search 33(10), 2595-2601.
R. (2018).Electromyographic analysis of gluteus maximus, glu- De Ridder, E.M., Van Oosterwijck, J.O., Vleeming, A., Vanderstraeten,
teus medius, and tensor fascia latae during therapeutic exercises G.G. and Danneels, L.A. (2013) Posterior muscle chain activity
with and without elastic resistance. International Journal of during various extension exercises: an observational study. BMC
Sports Physical Therapy 13(4), 668-675. Musculoskeletal Disorders 9(14), 204.
Bazyler, C. D., Sato, K., Wassinger, C. A., Lamont, H. S., and Stone, M. Enoka, RM, and Duchateau, J. (2015) Inappropriate interpretation of sur-
H., (2014) The efficacy of incorporating partial squats in maxi- face EMG signals and muscle fiber characteristics impedes un-
mal strength training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re- derstanding of the control of neuromuscular function. Journal of
search 28(11), 3024–3032. Applied Physiology 119, 1516–1518.
Blemker, S. S. and Delp, S. L. (2005) Three-dimensional representation Escamilla, R.F., Francisco, A.C., Kayes, A.V., Speer, K.P. and Moorman,
of complex muscle architectures and geometries. Annals of Bio- C.T. 3rd. (2002) An electromyographic analysis of sumo and
medical Engineering 33(5), 661-373. conventional style deadlifts. Medicine and Science of Sports Ex-
Bloomquist, K., Langberg, H., Karlsen, S., Madsgaard, S., Boesen, M. ercise 34(4), 682-8.
and Raastad, T. (2013) Effect of range of motion in heavy load Escamilla, R.F., Lewis, C., Bell, D., Bramblet, G., Daffron, J., Lambert,
squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations. European Journal S., Pecson, A., Imamura, R., Paulos, L. and Andrews, J.R. (2010)
of Applied Physiology 113(8), 2133-42. Core muscle activation during Swiss ball and traditional ab-
Boren, K., Conrey, C., Le Coguic, J., Paprocki, L., Voight, M. and Rob- dominal exercises. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical
inson, T.K. (2011). Electromyographic analysis of gluteus me- Therapy 40(5), 265-276.
dius and gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Inter- Evans, T.W., McLester, C.N., Howard, J.H., McLester, J.R. and Callo-
national Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 6(3), 206-23. way, JP. (2019) A comparison of muscle activation between back
Bryanton, M. A., Kennedy, M. D., Carey, J. P. and Chiu, L. Z. (2012). squats and belt squats. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
Effect of squat depth and barbell load on relative muscular effort search 33(Suppl 1), S52-S59.
in squatting. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26 Gomes, W.A., Brown, L.E., Soares, E.G., da Silva, J.J., de O Silva, F.H.,
(10), 2820–2828. Serpa, É.P., Corrêa, D.A., Vilela Junior, Gde. B., Lopes, C.R.
Broski, S. M., Murthy, N. S., Krych, A. J., Obey, M. R. and Collins, M. and Marchetti, P.H. (2015) Kinematic and sEMG analysis of the
S. (2015) The adductor magnus “mini-hamstring”: MRI appear- back squat at different intensities with and without knee wraps.
ance and potential pitfalls. Skeletal Radiology 45(2), 213-219. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29(9), 2482-
Cacchio, A., Don, R., Ranavolo, A., Guerra, E., McCaw, S. T., Procac- 2487.
cianti, R., Camerota, F., Frascarelli, M. and Santilli, V. (2008) Haff, G. G., and Triplett, N. T. (2015) Essentials of strength training and
Effects of 8-week strength training with two models of chest conditioning. 4th edition. Human kinetics.
202 EMG and gluteus maximus

Hoy, M. G., Zajac, F. E. and Gordon, M. E. (1990) A musculoskeletal exercises. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
model of the human lower extremity: the effect of muscle, ten- 46(9), 794-9.
don, and moment arm on the moment-angle relationship of mus- Simenz, C.J., Garceau, L.R., Lutsch, B.N., Suchomel, T.J. and Ebben,
culotendon actuators at the hip, knee, and ankle. Journal of bio- W.P. (2012). Electromyographical analysis of lower extremity
mechanics 23(2), 157-169. muscle activation during variations of the loaded step-up exer-
Kang, S., Choung, S. and Jeon, H. (2016) Modifying the hip abduction cise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26(12),
angle during bridging exercise can facilitate gluteus maximus ac- 3398-405.
tivity. Manual Therapy 22, 211-215. Stragier, S., Baudry, S., Carpentier, A. and Duchateau, J. (2019). Efficacy
Korak, J.A., Paquette, M.R., Fuller, D.K., Caputo, J.L. and Coons, J.M. of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method. European
(2018) Muscle Activation Patterns of Lower-Body Musculature Journal of Applied Physiology 119(5), 1093-1104.
Among 3 Traditional Lower-Body Exercises in Trained Women. Sugisaki, N., Kurokawa, S., Okada, J. and Kanehisa, H. (2014). Differ-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 32(10), 2770- ence in the recruitment of hip and knee muscles between back
2775. squat and plyometric squat jump. PLoS ONE. 9(6), e101203.
Krause Neto, W., Vieira, T.L. Gama, E.F. (2019) Barbell Hip Thrust, Swinton, P. A., Stewart, A., Agouris, I., Keogh, J. W. and Lloyd, R.
Muscular Activation and Performance: A Systematic Review. (2011). A biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal bar-
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 18, 198-206. bell deadlifts using submaximal loads. Journal of Strength and
Kubo, K., Ikebukuro, T. and Yata, H. (2019) Effects of squat training with Conditioning Research 25: 2000–2009.
different depths on lower limb muscle volumes. European Jour- Vigotsky, A.D., Beardsley, C., Contreras, B., Steele, J., Ogborn, D. and
nal of Applied Physiology 119(9), 1933-1942. Phillips, S.M. (2015). Greater Electromyographic Responses Do
Lasevicius, T., Ugrinowitsch, C., Schoenfeld, B.J., Roschel, H., Tavares, Not Imply Greater Motor Unit Recruitment and ‘Hypertrophic
L.D., De Souza, E.O., Laurentino, G. and Tricoli, V. (2018). Ef- Potential’ Cannot Be Inferred. Journal of Strength and Condi-
fects of different intensities of resistance training with equated tioning Research 31(1), e1-e4.
volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. European Vigotsky, A.D., Ogborn, D. and Phillips, S.M. (2016). Motor unit recruit-
Journal of Sports Science 18(6), 772-780. ment cannot be inferred from surface EMG amplitude and basic
Lee, S., Schultz, J., Timgren, J., Staelgraeve, K., Miller, M. and Liu, Y. reporting standards must be adhered to. European Journal of Ap-
(2018). An electromyographic and kinetic comparison of con- plied Physiology 116(3), 657-8.
ventional and Romanian deadlifts. Journal of Exercise Science Vigotsky, A.D., Halperin, I., Lehman, G.J., Trajano, G.S., and Vieira,
& Fitness 16(3), 87-93. T.M. (2018) Interpreting Signal Amplitudes in Surface Electro-
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Io- myography Studies in Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences. Fron-
annidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J. and tiers in Physiology 4(8), 985.
Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting system- Wakahara, T., Fukutani, A., Kawakami, Y. and Yanai, T. (2013). Nonu-
atic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate niform muscle hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in
healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS training session. Medicine and Science of Sports and Exercise
Medicine 6(7), e1000100. 45(11), 2158-2165.
Macadam, P., Cronin, J. and Contreras, B. (2015). An examination of the Williams, M.J., Gibson, N., Sorbie, G.G., Ugbolue, U.C., Brouner, J., and
gluteal muscle activity associated with dynamic hip abduction Easton, C. (2018) Activation of the gluteus maximus during
and hip external rotation exercise: A systematic review. Interna- performance of the back squat, split squat, and barbell hip thrust
tional Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 10(5), 573. and the relationship with maximal sprinting. Journal of Strength
Macadam, P. and Feser, E.H. (2019) Examination of gluteus maximus and Conditioning Research 9, 309.
electromyographic excitation associated with dynamic hip exten- Yavuz, H.U., Erdağ, D., Amca, A.M. and Aritan, S. (2015) Kinematic and
sion during body weight exercise: a systematic review. Interna- EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maxi-
tional Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 14(1), 14-31. mum loads. Journal of Sports Science 33(10),1058-66.
Marchetti, P.H., Guiselini, M.A., da Silva, J.J., Tucker, R., Behm, D.G. Yavuz, H.U. and Erdag, D. (2017). Kinematic and electromyographic ac-
and Brown, L.E. (2018) Balance and Lower Limb Muscle Acti- tivity changes during back squat with submaximal and maximal
vation between In-Line and Traditional Lunge Exercises. Jour- loading. Applied Bionics Biomechanics 9084725.
nal of Human Kinetics 13(62), 15-22. Youdas, J.W., Adams, K.E., Bertucci, J.E., Brooks, K.J., Nelson, M.M.
McCurdy, K., Walker, J., Yuen, D. (2018) Gluteus Maximus and Ham- and Hollman, J.H. (2014) Muscle activation levels of the gluteus
string Activation During Selected Weight-Bearing Resistance maximus and medius during standing hip-joint-strengthening ex-
Exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. ercises using elastic-tubing resistance. Journal of Sports Reha-
32(3), 594-601. bilitation. 23(1), 1-11.
Merletti, R. and Parker, P. A. (2004) Electromyography: physiology, en- Youdas, J.W., Hartman, J.P., Murphy, B.A., Rundle, A.M., Ugorowski,
gineering, and non-invasive applications. Vol. 11. John Wiley & J.M. and Hollman, J.H. (2017) Electromyographic analysis of
Sons. gluteus maximus and hamstring activity during the supine re-
Neumann, D.A. (2010) Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular ac- sisted hip extension exercise versus supine unilateral bridge to
tions. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 40(2), neutral. Physiotherapy: Theory and Practice 33(2), 124-130.
82-94.
Paoli, A., Marcolin, G. and Petrone, N. (2009) The effect of stance width
on the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh
muscles during back squat with different bar loads. Journal of Key points
Strength and Conditioning Research 23(1), 246–250.
Ramis, T.R., Muller, C.H.L., Boeno, F.P., Teixeira, B.C., Rech, A., Pom-
permayer, M.G., Medeiros, N.D.S., Oliveira, Á.R., Pinto, R.S.
 The step-up and its variations may elicit the highest
and Ribeiro, J.L. (2018) Effects of traditional and vascular re- level of Gmax activation possibly to the stabiliza-
stricted strength training program with equalized volume on iso- tion requirement of the exercise.
metric and dynamic strength, muscle thickness, electromyo-  Several bilateral exercises (e.g. hip thrusts, squats,
graphic activity, and endothelial function adaptations in young
adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30.
deadlifts, and lunges) can provide very high level of
Riemann, B.L., Lapinski, S., Smith, L. and Davies. G. (2012) Biomechan- GMax activation.
ical analysis of the anterior lunge during 4 external-load condi-  The external load, movement velocity, level of fa-
tions. Journal of Athletic Training 47, 372–378. tigue, the mechanical complexity of the exercise,
Schoenfeld, B.J., Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A.D. and Peterson, M.
(2016).Differential effects of heavy versus moderate loads on and the need for joint stabilization, might directly
measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. influence GMax activation.
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 15(4), 715-722.  Further research may investigate the best practices
Selkowitz, D.M., Beneck, G.J. and Powers, C.M. (2016) Comparison of
electromyographic activity of the superior and inferior portions
for normalizing GMax activation.
of the gluteus maximus muscle during common therapeutic  
Krause Neto et al. 203

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Eliane Florencio GAMA

Walter KRAUSE NETO Employment
Employment Master's and PhD Advisor at São Judas
Personal trainer and Postdoctoral fellow Tadeu University
of São Judas Tadeu University. Degree
Degree PhD
PhD Research interests
Research interests Musculoskeletal disorders, neurodegen-
Exercise physiology, biomechanics, erative diseases, morphology/anatomy,
musculoskeletal disorders, peripheral body perception/image and strength
nervous system morphology, euro- training adaptations
degenerative diseases, aging and E-mail: [email protected]
strength training adaptations
E-mail: [email protected]  Walter Krause Neto
Enrico G. SOARES Department of Physical Education, Laboratory of Morphoquanti-
Employment tative Studies and Immunohistochemistry, São Judas Tadeu Uni-
Professor versity, São Paulo-SP, Brazil
Degree
MSc
Research interests
Biomechanics, strength training and hy-
pertrophy.
E-mail: [email protected]
Thais Lima VIEIRA
Employment
Personal trainer and military firefighter.
Degree
Bachelor of Physical Education.
Research interests
Exercise physiology and strength train-
ing adaptations
E-mail: [email protected]
Rodolfo AGUIAR
Employment
Personal trainer
Degree
Bachelor of Physical Education.
Research interests
Exercise physiology and strength train-
ing adaptations
E-mail: [email protected]
Thiago A. CHOLA
Employment
Personal trainer
Degree
Bachelor of Physical Education.
Research interests
Exercise physiology and strength train-
ing adaptations
E-mail: [email protected]
Vinicius de Lima SAMPAIO
Employment
Personal trainer
Degree
Bachelor of Physical Education.
Research interests
Exercise physiology and strength training adaptations
E-mail: [email protected]