See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351504410

Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when
both exercises are standardized

Article in Isokinetics and Exercise Science · May 2021

DOI: 10.3233/IES-210125

CITATIONS READS

0 2,531

8 authors, including:

Rodrigo Ramalho Aniceto André Pirauá

Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Federal Rural University of Pernambuco
69 PUBLICATIONS 369 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pablo B. Costa Heleodório Honorato Santos

California State University, Fullerton Federal University of Paraíba
235 PUBLICATIONS 4,109 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 491 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Heleodório Honorato Santos on 27 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 1

Isokinetics and Exercise Science -1 (2021) 1–7 1

DOI 10.3233/IES-210125
IOS Press

Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles

more than back squats when both exercises
are standardized
Rodrigo Ramalho Anicetoa,d,∗ , André Luiz Torres Pirauáa,b , Leonardo da Silva Leandroa,c,d ,
Hélen Cristina Ferreira da Silvad , Diego Mesquita Silvaa,d , Leandro Cândido de Araújoa,d ,
Pablo Brando Costae and Heleodório Honorato dos Santosa,c,f
a
Study and Research Group in Biomechanics and Psychophysiology of Exercise, Department of Physical Education
and Sport, Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Norte, Currais Novos, RN, Brazil
b
Department of Physical Education, Rural Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
c
Associate Graduate Program in Physical Education UPE/UFPB, Department of Physical Education, Federal
University of Paraiba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil
d
Laboratory of Kinesiology and Biomechanics, Department of Physical Education, Integrated Colleges of Patos,
Patos, PB, Brazil
e
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, USA
f
Physiotherapy Department, Federal University of Paraiba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil

Received 22 February 2021

Accepted 16 April 2021

Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Squats are considered one of the main exercises for the lower limbs and are used in resistance training under
different contexts, including rehabilitation and sports performance.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the EMG activity of different muscles in back squat and lunge exercises in trained women.
METHODS: Ten healthy women experienced in resistance training performed back squat and lunge exercises on a Smith machine
(total work: 70% of 1RM, 1 set, 10 repetitions and 2-s/2-s of execution speed) with an interval of 20-min between exercises. Both
exercises were standardized in relation to the trunk inclination and were performed with an erect trunk parallel to the cursor of the
guided bar.
RESULTS: The EMG activity of the vastus medialis (VM), vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), and gluteus maximus (GM)
were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the EMG activity of the VM, VL, and BF muscles between the back squat
and lunge exercises (P > 0.05); however, GM activation was greater during the lunge exercise (effect size = 1.15; P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Lunges were more effective in recruiting the GM when compared to back squats. However, both exercises can
be recommended when the goal is knee extensor and flexor muscle activity.

Keywords: Electromyography, strength training, skeletal muscle, knee joint

1. Introduction 1

∗ Corresponding author: Rodrigo Ramalho Aniceto, Instituto Fed-

Squats are considered one of the main exercises for 2
eral de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Norte,
the lower limbs and are used in resistance training [1]. 3
Rua Manoel Lopes Filho, n◦ 773, Valfredo Galvão, Currais Novos,
Rio Grande do Norte, 59380-000, Brazil. Tel.: +55 81 996171903; The importance of squats is justified by application in 4

E-mail: [email protected]. different contexts, including rehabilitation and sports 5

ISSN 0959-3020/$35.00 c 2021 – IOS Press. All rights reserved.

 Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 2

2 R.R. Aniceto et al. / Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when both exercises are standardized

6 performance, among other aspects [1,2]. There are a the lower limbs are positioned in a way which requires 57

7 series of variations in performing squats in the liter- greater balance in relation to back squats, and there- 58

8 ature, among them: front or back squat [3], with feet fore (according to Dwyer et al.) [15] the disposition of 59

9 positioned at different widths [4] or in different degrees one leg in front of the other provides a pre-stretching 60

10 of medial and lateral rotation [5] in relation to the trunk, condition of the posterior thigh and gluteal muscles 61

11 with free weights or guided bars [6], and even with a from the kinesiological point of view, with greater myo- 62

12 different range of motion at the knees and/or hips [7,8]. electric activation therefore being expected under these 63

13 These variations seek to stimulate the muscle groups conditions. 64

14 which compose the lower limbs in a more selective or

15 effective manner in order to promote better results for
16 resistance training practitioners [1]. Electromyographic 2. Methods 65

17 (EMG) activity additionally appears as one of the most

18 explored variables in these types of studies and is mini- 2.1. Subjects 66

19 mally affected by the squat variations mentioned above,

20 especially with regard to the action of the primary knee A total of 10 women (mean ± SD – age: 22.8 ± 67

21 agonists [1,4,5]. 3.1 years; body mass: 62.5 ± 5.6 kg; height = 1.6 ± 68

22 Although primary knee agonists are most often not 0.03 m; body mass index: 24.1 ± 2.1 kg/m2 ; body fat: 69

23 significantly affected by squat variations, primary hip 21.4 ± 5.1%) participated in this study. Subjects were 70

24 agonists such as the biceps femoris and gluteus max- classified as trained on the basis of regular resistance ex- 71

25 imus seem to be more sensitive to such variations, espe- ercise practice for at least 6 months (19.3 ± 7.7 months) 72

26 cially in positioning the feet in relation to the torso [1]. with a minimum frequency of 3 times a week. All the 73

27 Accordingly, a variation of the squat which has been the participants answered “no” to all the questions on the 74

28 subject of research is the performance of lunges [9–12]. Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) 75

29 Although lunges are widely used by resistance train- and reported not having used anabolic steroids. Exclu- 76

30 ing practitioners [10], few studies have compared the sion criteria were the use of alcohol, nicotine, drugs, or 77

31 EMG activity of primary knee and hip agonist mus- dietary supplements; musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, 78

32 cles between variations of lunge squats (with one foot and cognitive complications; menstruation during the 79

33 in front) and back squat (with feet parallel). Stuart et study; and the performance of any physical exercise 80

34 al. [2] compared squats in each of the aforementioned 48-h before the experimental session. This study was 81

35 conditions and noted that the lunge exercise provided approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the In- 82

36 higher EMG activity values for the knee extensors and tegrated Colleges of Patos (protocol: 190/2012). All of 83

37 flexors were compared to the back squat and front squat, the participants read and signed an informed consent 84

38 but there was poor control and standardization of the form and were informed about the research objectives 85

39 conditions tested. For instance, only the bar was used and procedures, as well as the possible risks and benefits 86

40 as an external load, thereby compromising the study of the study. 87

41 results since the intensity was not standardized for each The sample size was calculated using the G*Power 88

42 of the tested conditions. Additionally, the position of 3.1.9 software program (Franz Faul, Germany) and 89

43 the trunk was different, since there is an anterior in- based on the literature [1,15–17]. As it is a multiartic- 90

44 clination of the trunk when executing the back squat ular exercise which involves large muscle groups, an 91

45 with free bar, while the trunk remains perpendicular to effect size (d) of 1.2, a power of 0.80 (β = 0.20) and 92

46 the ground during lunges, and this modifies the EMG a two-tailed significance level (α) of 0.05, determined 93

47 activity [12–14]. In this sense, it is not clear whether a minimum of eight subjects was necessary to com- 94

48 there is a difference in EMG activity when the exercises pare the EMG activity of the muscles between the back 95

49 are performed with the same trunk alignment. squat exercises and lunges. The calculations followed 96

50 Thus, the objective of the present study was to com- the recommendations of Beck [17] and Faul et al. [18]. 97

51 pare the EMG activity of the knee extensor and flexor

52 muscles and hip extensors between the lunge and back 2.2. Procedures 98

53 squat exercises in women when both exercises are stan-

54 dardized by the intensity, amplitude, and inclination of Two visits to the laboratory were carried out with 99

55 the trunk. It was hypothesized that lunges would acti- an interval of 48 to 96-h in between. Anthropometric 100

56 vate the muscles more because it is an exercise in which measurements, the maximum repetition (1RM) test and 101
 Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 3

R.R. Aniceto et al. / Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when both exercises are standardized 3

102 familiarization with exercises and repetition speed using

103 the metronome were performed on the first visit. The
104 participants did the experimental session on the second
105 visit, which consisted of performing the back squats
106 first and then the lunges, with an interval of 20-min
107 between exercises [19].
108 Prior to the first visit, participants were instructed
109 to abstain from exercise for a minimum of 24-h and to
110 eat a light meal 2-h before the visit. Anthropometric
111 measurements including height (m), body mass (kg),
112 and skinfold thickness (mm) were determined. Body
113 mass index was calculated by dividing weight by height
114 squared (kg/m2 ), and body fat (%) was estimated us-
115 ing the 3-skinfold protocol by Jackson, Pollock and Fig. 1. Back squat execution.
116 Ward [20]. Correct positioning, execution, and range
117 of motion for the leg resistance exercises were subse-
118 quently demonstrated and standardized to determine the
119 load in the 1RM test and to familiarize the participants
120 for the future experimental session.
121 The load percentage used in the experimental session
122 was determined by performing the 1RM test according
123 to the recommendations of Kraemer et al. [21]. The or-
124 der of the test in the exercises was the same as that used
125 in the experimental session. Values of 52.2 ± 12.1 kg
126 were obtained for the back squats and 49.6 ± 17.3 kg
127 in the lunges for the 1RM test. After the 1RM test, the
128 participants held a session to familiarize themselves
129 with the exercise protocol and the repetition rate of the
Fig. 2. Lunges execution.
130 experimental session. This session consisted of one set
131 of 10 repetitions in two exercises at an execution speed (Fig. 1). Lunges were performed with the bar positioned 153
132 of 2-s for each concentric and eccentric phase and was in the same way as the back squats, the subjects took a 154
133 monitored using a metronome (Korg MA30, Tokyo, large step forward keeping the torso upright and during 155
134 Japan). the descending phase the leg was positioned down until 156
135 The subjects performed a set of 10 repetitions at 70% the knee approached the floor, and the knee of the an- 157
136 of 1RM for each exercise during the experimental ses- terior leg was flexed until the thigh was parallel to the 158
137 sion. The repetition speed was 2-s for each concen- ground (Fig. 2). Both exercises were standardized and 159
138 tric and eccentric phase controlled by the metronome performed with the trunk erect parallel to the cursor bar 160
139 in both exercises. Subjects performed a warm up on a guided on the Smith machine, and both in the eccentric 161
140 cycle ergometer for 5-min before starting the exercise and concentric phase in order to eliminate the influence 162
141 protocol. of the trunk inclination on the EMG activity [12–14]; 163
142 Back squats and lunges were performed on the Smith thus, measuring tapes were placed on the floor both 164

143 machine based on the procedures by Stuart et al. [2] in the sagittal and in the frontal plane to standardize 165

144 and Caulfield and Berninger [22] for free bar exercises. the positions of the feet between the exercises (Figs 1 166

145 During the back squats the barbell was placed in the and 2). The only difference was the posterior leg in the 167

146 high bar position across the shoulders on the trapezius, lunge exercise. It is important to highlight that these 168

147 slightly above the posterior aspect of the deltoids, with same procedures were performed on the first visit, and 169

148 the subjects in the vertical posture and their feet fixed the feet adjustment at that moment to enable the trunk 170

149 and positioned parallel to the shoulder width with their to remain erect during the exercises was determined and 171

150 toes pointed forward or slightly outward. The subjects recorded. 172

151 performed the descending phase by flexing their hips Next, Ag/AgCl surface electrodes (Maxicor Produtos 173

152 and knees until their thighs were parallel to the floor Médicos, Pinhais, PR, Brazil) with 1 cm in diameter 174
 Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 4

4 R.R. Aniceto et al. / Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when both exercises are standardized

Table 1
Comparison of the mean peak electromyographic activity of different muscles between
back squats and lunges performed on the Smith machine (n = 10)
Muscles Exercises P -value Effect size
Back squats Lunges Magnitude Classification
VM (mV) 0.62 ± 0.18 0.72 ± 0.38 0.169 0.59 Small
VL (mV) 0.75 ± 0.17 0.78 ± 0.25 0.498 0.19 Trivial
BF (mV) 0.25 ± 0.11 0.29 ± 0.11 0.115 0.40 Small
GM (mV) 0.16 ± 0.06 0.23 ± 0.08 0.001 1.15 Moderate
Note. VM = Vastus medialis; VL = Vastus lateralis; BF = biceps femoris; GM = gluteus
maximus.

175 arranged in a bipolar configuration with 2 cm of inter- trivial (d < 0.20), small (d = 0.20–0.59), moderate 214

176 electrode distance were used to collect the EMG activ- (d = 0.60–1.19), large (d = 1.20–1.99), very large (d = 215

177 ity. Before placing the electrodes on the skin, excess 2.00–3.99), and nearly perfect (d > 4.0). 216

178 hair was removed with a razor, and skin was cleaned
179 and abraded using cotton and 70% alcohol. The elec-
180 trodes were attached to the subjects’ dominant side [6] 3. Results 217

181 on the belly of the vastus medialis (VM), vastus later-

182 alis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), and gluteus maximus The data on Table 1 demonstrate there was no sig- 218

183 (GM) muscles according to the recommendations of nificant difference between the back squats and lunges 219

184 Hermens et al. [23] After the electrodes were secured, in relation to the EMG activity of the VM, VL, and BF 220

185 a quality check was performed to ensure EMG signal muscles (P > 0.05; ES = 0.59, 0.19, 0.40). However, 221

186 validity [24]. the GM showed greater EMG activity during the lunge 222

187 The electrodes were connected to an electromyo- exercise than the back squat (P = 0.001), reporting a 223

188 graph (Miotec Miotool 400, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) moderate ES of 1.15. 224

189 with its respective software (Miotec Miograph 2.0,

190 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil), which had been previously
191 calibrated according to the manufacturer’s recommen- 4. Discussion 225

192 dations. The EMG signals were amplified 1000 times

193 with a common mode rejection rate of 110 dB. The The results of the present study showed that the GM 226

194 sampling frequency was 2000 Hz and a 20 Hz high pass muscle showed higher levels of EMG activity in lunges 227

195 filter and a 500 Hz low pass filter were applied. After when compared to back squats, with no significant dif- 228

196 data collection, the magnitude of the EMG signal was ferences between the exercises for the other analyzed 229

197 calculated in root mean square (RMS) values in milli- muscles. These findings partially confirmed the hypoth- 230

198 volts (mV) using the peak contraction of each repetition esis of the present study, considering only the GM was 231

199 to obtain the average peak of the 10 repetitions. more activated in lunges than in back squats; a fact 232

which did not occur with the BF. 233

200 2.3. Statistical analysis According to findings in the literature [4,27–29], the 234

external loads applied in squats have a direct impact 235

201 The normality and homogeneity of the data were on muscle recruitment. Thus, there is an increase in 236

202 confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene test, re- EMG activity as loads are increased on the equipment 237

203 spectively. The paired Student’s t-test was subsequently bar. As we are aware of this information, the loads in 238

204 used to compare the EMG muscle activity (VM, VL, the present study were normalized individually. Each 239

205 BF, and GM) between the back squats and lunges. Data subject performed the 1RM test for the back squat and 240

206 are presented as mean ± standard deviation with a sig- the lunge and subsequently underwent 10 repetitions 241

207 nificance level of p 6 0.05. The analyzes were per- at 70% of 1RM. Accordingly, this procedure enabled 242

208 formed using SPSS 24.0 software. The effect size (ES) comparing the exercises in an equal manner. 243

209 was additionally calculated by Cohen’s d test [25] to Another important point refers to the trunk position- 244

210 determine the magnitude of the differences between ing. Performing back squats and lunges on the Smith 245

211 the types of exercises in relation to the muscles. The machine in the present study enabled the distances of 246

212 scale proposed by Hopkins et al. [26] was used to cate- the lower limbs to be standardized according to the 247

213 gorize the effect magnitude with the classifications of length of the limbs for the sagittal plane and based on 248
 Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 5

R.R. Aniceto et al. / Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when both exercises are standardized 5

249 the hip width for the frontal plane. Thus, the only differ- cise if the practitioner’s goal is to obtain higher GM 300

250 ence between the exercises was positioning of the base recruitment levels. Finally, the importance of standard- 301

251 line of the feet in relation to the trunk. This standard- izing the tested conditions is emphasized, given that this 302

252 ization enabled the subjects to perform both exercises procedure ensures the analyzes are not influenced by 303

253 with the same trunk alignment. The trunk posture in other factors which may have an impact on the results, 304

254 the upright position is important because the muscle such as inadequate execution in the movement, under- 305

255 contraction of the hamstrings [12,13] increases as the estimation or overestimation of the external training 306

256 anterior flexion angle of the trunk increases. Accord- load in different exercises, as well as the volume (series, 307

257 ingly, the fact that there were no differences in the trunk repetitions, break time, etc.) of the training session. 308

258 position may explain the similarities between the EMG

259 activity of VM, VL, and BF.
260 The findings of the present study do not corroborate Acknowledgments 309

261 the results reported by Stuart et al. [2]. Although the

262 methodological differences between Stuart et al. [2] The authors would like to thank Prof. Elvis Costa 310

263 and the present study limit some comparisons, such as Crispiniano of Integrated Colleges of Patos for his as- 311

264 the EMG analysis of the GM, it is important to em- sistance in collecting electromyography data and all the 312

265 phasize studies with a closer methodological approach participants for their effort and commitment during the 313

266 are scarce in the literature. Stuart et al. [2] compared study period. 314

267 the EMG activity of knee extensors (VM, VL, rectus

268 femoris, vastus intermedius) and flexors (semitendi-
269 nosus, semimembranosus, biceps femoris long head) Author contributions 315

270 during three closed kinetic chain exercises with the

271 distal segment fixed: front squats, back squats, and CONCEPTION: Rodrigo Ramalho Aniceto and Hélen 316

272 lunges. The authors concluded lunges showed higher Cristina Ferreira da Silva. 317

273 EMG activity levels for both knee extensor and flexor PERFORMANCE OF WORK: Rodrigo Ramalho An- 318

274 muscles compared to back squats and front squats. iceto and Hélen Cristina Ferreira da Silva. 319

275 However, the authors used an equal load for the three INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Ro- 320

276 exercises and did not standardize the trunk position; drigo Ramalho Aniceto, Hélen Cristina Ferreira da Silva 321

277 these limitations compromised these results and their and Diego Mesquita Silva. 322

278 extrapolation. PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Rodrigo 323

279 In the present study it was found that lunges activate Ramalho Aniceto, André Luiz Torres Pirauá, Leonardo 324

280 the GM musculature more than in back squats; this re- da Silva Leandro, Diego Mesquita Silva and Leandro 325

281 sult perhaps occurred because lunges are an exercise Cândido de Araújo. 326

282 of greater complexity and instability, considering that REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL 327

283 the primary action of the GM is the hip extension and CONTENT: Pablo Brando Costa and Heleodório Hon- 328

284 as a secondary action to assist in the trunk stability, orato dos Santos. 329

285 especially during coordinated actions of the knee and SUPERVISION: Pablo Brando Costa and Heleodório 330

286 hip joints [30]. Thus, feet positioning spread in the an- Honorato dos Santos. 331

287 teroposterior direction favors GM recruitment, simi-

288 lar to running and/or walking movements, in order to
289 guarantee the trunk alignment as upright as possible. Ethical considerations 332

290 In addition, the lower limbs in front are overloaded in

291 lunges, to the detriment of the limb positioned behind. This study was approved by the Research Ethics 333

292 Conversely, the load in the back squat is equally dis- Committee of the Integrated Colleges of Patos (proto- 334

293 tributed between the two lower limbs, thus decreasing col: 190/2012; August 15, 2013). All participants signed 335

294 GM activation [31,32]. a written informed consent. 336

295 This was the first study to compare back squats and
296 lunges on the Smith machine in trained women. The
297 findings demonstrate both back squats and lunges were Conflict of interest 337

298 similar for recruiting the VM, VL and BF muscles;

299 however, performing lunges is the most suitable exer- The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. 338
 Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 6

6 R.R. Aniceto et al. / Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when both exercises are standardized

339 Funding [14] Fry AC, Smith JC, Schilling BK. Effect of knee position on 397
hip and knee torques. J Strength Cond Res 2003; 17: 629-33. 398
doi: 10.1519/00124278-200311000-00001. 399
340 The authors report no funding. [15] Dwyer MK, Boudreau SN, Mattacola CG, Uhl TL, Lattermann 400
C. Comparison of lower extremity kinematics and hip muscle 401
activation during rehabilitation tasks between sexes. J Athl 402

341 References Train 2010; 45: 181-90. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-45.2.181. 403

[16] Bouillon LE, Wilhelm J, Eisel P, Wiesner J, Rachow M, Hat- 404
teberg L. Electromyographic assessment of muscle activity 405
342 [1] Clark DR, Lambert MI, Hunter AM. Muscle activation in the between genders during unilateral weight-bearing tasks using 406
343 loaded free barbell squat: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res adjusted distances. Int J Sport Phys Ther 2012; 7: 595-605. 407
344 2012; 26: 1169-78. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822d533d. [17] Beck TW. The importance of a priori sample size estimation in 408
345 [2] Stuart MJ, Meglan DA, Lutz GE, Growney ES, An K-N. Com- strength and conditioning research. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 409
346 parison of intersegmental tibiofemoral joint forces and muscle 27: 2323-37. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318278eea0. 410
347 activity during various closed kinetic chain exercises. Am J [18] Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lag A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flex- 411
348 Sports Med 1996; 24: 792-9. doi: 10.1177/036354659602400 ible statistical power analysis program for the social, behav- 412
349 615. ioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39: 413
350 [3] Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Schoenfeld BJ, Beardsley C, 175-91. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146. 414
351 Cronin J. A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, [19] Rocha VA, Jr., Gentil P, Oliveira E, Carmo J. Comparison 415
352 and vastus lateralis electromyography amplitude in the parallel, among the EMG activity of the pectoralis major, anterior del- 416
353 full, and front squat variations in resistance-trained females. J
toidis and triceps brachii during the bench press and peck deck 417
354 Appl Biomech 2016; 32: 16-22. doi: 10.1123/jab.2015-0113. exercises. Rev Bras Med Do Esporte 2007; 13: 43e-46e. doi: 418
355 [4] Paoli A, Marcolin G, Petrone N. The effect of stance width on
10.1590/S1517-86922007000100012. 419
356 the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh mus- [20] Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized equations for 420
357 cles during back squat with different bar loads. J Strength Cond
predicting body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 421
358 Res 2009; 23: 246-50. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181876811. 12: 175-82. 422
359 [5] Boyden G, Kingman J, Dyson R. A comparison of quadriceps [21] Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, Fry AC, French DN. Strength 423
360 electromyographic activity with the position of the foot during testing: development and evaluation of methodology. Physiol. 424
361 the parallel squat. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14: 379-82. doi: Assess. Hum. Fit. 2nd ed., Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2006, 425
362 10.1519/00124278-200011000-00002. pp. 119-50. 426
363 [6] Schwanbeck S, Chilibeck PD, Binsted G. A comparison of free [22] Caulfield S, Berninger D. Exercise technique for free weight 427
364 weight squat to smith machine squat using electromyography. and machine training. In: Haff GG, Triplett NT, eds. Essentials 428
365 J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 2588-2591. doi: 10.1519/JSC. strength Train. Cond. 4th ed., Champaign: Human Kinetics; 429
366 0b013e3181b1b181. 2016, pp. 351-408. 430
367 [7] Drinkwater EJ, Moore NR, Bird SP. Effects of changing from [23] Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau 431
368 full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinet- G, et al. SENIAM: European recommendations for surface 432
369 ics. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 890-896. doi: 10.1519/JSC. electromyography. Roessingh Research and Development b.v.; 433
370 0b013e318248ad2e. 1999. 434
371 [8] Cotter JA, Chaudhari AM, Jamison ST, Devor ST. Knee joint [24] Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Schoenfeld BJ, Beardsley C, 435
372 kinetics in relation to commonly prescribed squat loads and Cronin J. A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, 436
373 depths. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 1765-74. doi: 10.1519/ and vastus lateralis electromyographic activity in the back 437
374 JSC.0b013e3182773319. squat and barbell hip thrust exercises. J Appl Biomech 2015; 438
375 [9] Stastny P, Lehnert M, Zaatar AMZ, Svoboda Z, Xaverova Z. 31: 452-8. doi: 10.1123/jab.2014-0301. 439
376 Does the dumbbell-carrying position change the muscle activ- [25] Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 440
377 ity in split squats and walking lunges? J Strength Cond Res 2nd ed. United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- 441
378 2015; 29: 3177-3187. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000976. ciates; 1988. 442
379 [10] Singh B, Yack HJ, Francis SL, Janz KF. Biomechanical loads [26] Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Pro- 443
380 during common rehabilitation exercises in obese individuals. gressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise 444
381 Int J Sports Phys Ther 2015; 10: 189-96. doi: 10.1519/JSC. science. Med Sci Sport Exerc 2009; 41: 3-13. doi: 10.1249/ 445
382 0000000000000976. MSS.0b013e31818cb278. 446
383 [11] Hale R, Hausselle JG, Gonzalez R V. A preliminary study on [27] McCaw ST, Melrose DR. Stance width and bar load effects on 447
384 the differences in male and female muscle force distribution iemg values during phases of the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports 448
385 patterns during squatting and lunging maneuvers. Comput Biol Exerc 1995; 27: S159. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199505001- 449
386 Med 2014; 52: 57-65. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2014.06. 00897. 450
387 010. [28] Wretenberg P, Feng Y, Arborelius UP. High- and low-bar 451
388 [12] Farrokhi S, Pollard CD, Souza RB, Chen Y-J, Reischl S, Pow- squatting techniques during weight-training. Med Sci Sports 452
389 ers CM. Trunk position influences the kinematics, kinetics, and Exerc 1996; 28: 218-24. 453
390 muscle activity of the lead lower extremity during the forward [29] McBride JM, Larkin TR, Dayne AM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. 454
391 lunge exercise. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 2008; 38: 403-9. doi: Effect of absolute and relative loading on muscle activity dur- 455
392 10.2519/jospt.2008.2634. ing stable and unstable squatting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 456
393 [13] Ohkoshi Y, Yasuda K, Kaneda K, Wada T, Yamanaka M. 2010; 5: 177-83. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.5.2.177. 457
394 Biomechanical analysis of rehabilitation in the standing posi- [30] Navega M, Viotto M. Complexo articular do quadril. In: Costa 458
395 tion. Am J Sports Med 1991; 19: 605-11. doi: 10.1177/036354 P, Serrão F, eds. Mov. Articul. Asp. morfológicos e funcionais 459
396 659101900609. Vol. II, membro Infer., Barueri, SP: Manole; 2010, pp. 2-68. 460
 Galley Proof 7/05/2021; 15:24 File: ies–1-ies210125.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 7

R.R. Aniceto et al. / Lunges activate the gluteus maximus muscles more than back squats when both exercises are standardized 7

461 [31] Muyor JM, Martín-Fuentes I, Rodríguez-Ridao D, Antequera- [32] McCurdy K, O’Kelley E, Kutz M, Langford G, Ernest J, Torres 467
462 Vique JA. Electromyographic activity in the gluteus medius, M. Comparison of lower extremity EMG between the 2-leg 468
463 gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, vastus lateralis, vastus me- squat and modified single-leg squat in female athletes. J Sport 469
464 dialis and rectus femoris during the monopodal squat, forward Rehabil 2010; 19: 57-70. doi: 10.1123/jsr.19.1.57. 470
465 lunge and lateral step-up exercises. PLoS One 2020; 15: 1-15.
466 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230841.

View publication stats