Search

Background and Purpose: Performing nontraditional abdominal exercises with devices such as abdominal straps, the Power Wheel, and the Ab Revolutionizer has been suggested as a way to activate abdominal and extraneous (nonabdominal) musculature as effectively as more traditional abdominal exercises, such as the crunch and bent-knee sit-up. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of traditional and nontraditional abdominal exercises in activating abdominal and extraneous musculature., Subjects: Twenty-one men and women who were healthy and between 23 and 43 years of age were recruited for this study., Methods: Surface electromyography (EMG) was used to assess muscle activity from the upper and lower rectus abdominis, external and internal oblique, rectus femoris, latissimus dorsi, and lumbar paraspinal muscles while each exercise was performed. The EMG data were normalized to maximum voluntary muscle contractions. Differences in muscle activity were assessed by a 1-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance., Results: Upper and lower rectus abdominis, internal oblique, and latissimus dorsi muscle EMG activity were highest for the Power Wheel (pike, knee-up, and roll-out), hanging knee-up with straps, and reverse crunch inclined 30 degrees. External oblique muscle EMG activity was highest for the Power Wheel (pike, knee-up, and roll-out) and hanging knee-up with straps. Rectus femoris muscle EMG activity was highest for the Power Wheel (pike and knee-up), reverse crunch inclined 30 degrees, and bent-knee sit-up. Lumbar paraspinal muscle EMG activity was low and similar among exercises., Discussion and Conclusion: The Power Wheel (pike, knee-up, and roll-out), hanging knee-up with straps, and reverse crunch inclined 30 degrees not only were the most effective exercises in activating abdominal musculature but also were the most effective in activating extraneous musculature. The relatively high rectus femoris muscle activity obtained with the Power Wheel (pike and knee-up), reverse crunch inclined 30 degrees, and bent-knee sit-up may be problematic for some people with low back problems.

The objective was to assess how patellofemoral loads (joint force and stress) change while lunging with step length and step height variations. Sixteen participants performed a forward lunge using short and long steps at ground level and up to a 10-cm platform. Electromyography, ground reaction force, and 3D motion were captured, and patellofemoral loads were calculated as a function of knee angle. Repeated-measures 2-way analysis of variance (P < .05) was employed. Patellofemoral loads in the lead knee were greater with long step at the beginning of landing (10°-30° knee angle) and the end of pushoff (10°-40°) and greater with short step during the deep knee flexion portion of the lunge (50°-100°). Patellofemoral loads were greater at ground level than 10-cm platform during lunge descent (50°-100°) and lunge ascent (40°-70°). Patellofemoral loads generally increased as knee flexion increased and decreased as knee flexion decreased. To gradually increase patellofemoral loads, perform forward lunge in the following sequence: (1) minimal knee flexion (0°-30°), (2) moderate knee flexion (0°-60°), (3) long step and deep knee flexion (0°-100°) up to a 10-cm platform, and (4) long step and deep knee flexion (0°-100°) at ground level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Forward and side lunge exercises strengthen hip and thigh musculature, enhance patellofemoral joint stability, and are commonly used during patellofemoral rehabilitation and training for sport. Hypothesis/Purpose The purpose was to quantify, via calculated estimates, patellofemoral force and stress between two lunge type variations (forward lunge versus side lunge) and between two step height variations (ground level versus 10 cm platform). The hypotheses were that patellofemoral force and stress would be greater at all knee angles performing the bodyweight side lunge compared to the bodyweight forward lunge, and greater when performing the forward and side lunge at ground level compared to up a 10cm platform. Study Design Controlled laboratory biomechanics repeated measures, counterbalanced design. Methods Sixteen participants performed a forward and side lunge at ground level and up a 10cm platform. Electromyographic, ground reaction force, and kinematic variables were collected and input into a biomechanical optimization model, and patellofemoral joint force and stress were calculated as a function of knee angle during the lunge descent and ascent and assessed with a repeated measures 2-way ANOVA (p<0.05). Results At 10° (p=0.003) knee angle (0° = full knee extension) during lunge descent and 10° and 30° (p<0.001) knee angles during lunge ascent patellofemoral joint force and stress were greater in forward lunge than side lunge. At 40°(p=0.005), 50°(p=0.002), 60°(p<0.001), 70°(p=0.006), 80°(p=0.005), 90°(p=0.002), and 100°(p<0.001) knee angles during lunge descent and 50°(p=0.002), 60°(p<0.001), 70°(p<0.001), 80°(p<0.001), and 90°(p<0.001) knee angles during lunge ascent patellofemoral joint force and stress were greater in side lunge than forward lunge. At 60°(p=0.009) knee angle during lunge descent and 40°(p=0.008), 50°(p=0.009), and 60°(p=0.007) knee angles during lunge ascent patellofemoral joint force and stress were greater lunging at ground level than up a 10cm platform. Conclusions Patellofemoral joint loading changed according to lunge type, step height, and knee angle. Patellofemoral compressive force and stress were greater while lunging at ground level compared to lunging up to a 10 cm platform between 40° - 60° knee angles, and greater while performing the side lunge compared to the forward lunge between 40° -100° knee angles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prone, supine, and side position exercises are employed to enhance core stability.Hypothesis: Overall core muscle activity would be greater in prone position exercises compared with supine and side position exercises.Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.Methods: Eighteen men and women between 23 and 45 years of age served as subjects. Surface electrodes were positioned over the upper and lower rectus abdominis, external and internal obliques, rectus femoris, latissimus dorsi, and lumbar paraspinals. Electromyography data were collected during 5 repetitions of 10 exercises, then normalized by maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC). Differences in muscle activity were assessed using 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance, while t tests with a Bonferroni correction were employed to assess pairwise comparisons.Results: Upper and lower rectus abdominis activity was generally significantly greater in the crunch, bent-knee sit-up, and prone position exercises compared with side position exercises. External oblique activity was significantly greater in the prone on ball with right hip extension, side crunch on ball, and side bridge (plank) on toes compared with the prone and side bridge (plank) on knees, the crunch, or the bent-knee sit-up positions. Internal oblique activity was significantly greater in the prone bridge (plank) on ball and prone on ball with left and right hip extension compared with the side crunch on ball and prone and side bridge (plank) on knees positions. Lumbar paraspinal activity was significantly greater in the 3 side position exercises compared with all remaining exercises. Latissimus dorsi activity was significantly greater in the prone on ball with left and right hip extension and prone bridge (plank) on ball and on toes compared with the crunch, bent-knee sit-up, and prone and side bridge (plank) on knees positions. Rectus femoris activity was significantly greater in the prone on ball with left hip extension, bent-knee sit-up, or prone bridge (plank) on toes compared with the remaining exercises.Conclusion: Prone position exercises are good alternatives to supine position exercises for recruiting core musculature. Side position exercises are better for oblique and lumbar paraspinal recruitment.Clinical Relevance: Because high core muscle activity is associated with high spinal compressive loading, muscle activation patterns should be considered when prescribing trunk exercises to those in which high spinal compressive loading may be deleterious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although bodyweight wall and ball squats are commonly used during patellofemoral rehabilitation, patellofemoral loading while performing these exercises is unknown, which makes it difficult for clinicians to know how to use these exercises in progressing a patient with patellofemoral pathology. Therefore, the purpose was to quantify patellofemoral force and stress between two bodyweight squat variations (ball squat vs wall squat) and between two heel-to-wall-distance (HTWD) variations (long HTWD vs short HTWD). Methods: Sixteen participants performed a dynamic ball squat and wall squat with long HTWD and short HTWD. Ground reaction force and kinematic data were used to measure resultant knee force and torque from inverse dynamics, whereas electromyographic data were used in a knee muscle model to predict resultant knee force and torque, and subsequently, all these data were inputted into a biomechanical computer optimization model to output patellofemoral joint force and stress at select knee angles. A repeated-measures two- and three-way ANOVA (P < 0.01) was used for statistical analyses. Results: Collapsed across long HTWD and short HTWD, patellofemoral joint force and stress were greater in ball squat than wall squat at 30° (P = 0.009), 40° (P = 0.008), 90° (P = 0.003), and 100° (P = 0.005) knee angles during the squat descent, and greater in wall squat than ball squat at 100° (P < 0.001), 90° (P < 0.001), 80° (P = 0.004), and 70° (P = 0.009) knee angles during squat ascent. Collapsed across ball and wall squats, patellofemoral joint force and stress were greater with a short HTWD than a long HTWD at 100° (P = 0.007) and 90° (P = 0.008) knee angles during squat ascent. Conclusions: Patellofemoral joint loading changed according to both squat type and HTWD variations. These differences occurred in part due to differences in forces the wall or ball exerted on the trunk, including friction forces. Overall, patellofemoral force and stress were greater performing the bodyweight wall squat compared with the bodyweight ball squat. Moreover, squatting with short HTWD produced anterior knee displacement beyond the toes at higher knee angles, resulting in greater patellofemoral force and stress compared with squatting with long HTWD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the findings of the study on the stress and force of patellofemoral joint in performing Wall Squat and One-Leg Squat. Eighteen participants are asked to do the wall squat and one leg squat exercises in appropriate form using 12 repetition maximum (RM) weight. To compute the patellofemoral compressive force and stress as a function of knee angle the electromyogram (EMG), force platform and kinematic variables are entered to the biochemical model. Result reveals that patellofemoral force and stress increase in squat descent and progressively decreased in squat ascent except in 90 and 70 degrees where patellofemoral force and stress increases. It suggests that smaller knee angle of 0 and 50 degrees must be used to lessen patellofemoral compressive force and stress.