A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum voluntary isometric contraction positions

Background. The purpose of this study was to compare the peak electromyography (EMG) of the most commonly-used position in the literature, the prone bent-leg (90°) hip extension against manual resistance applied to the distal thigh (PRONE), to a novel position, the standing glute squeeze (SQUEEZE). Methods. Surface EMG electrodes were placed on the upper and lower gluteus maximus of thirteen recreationally active females (age = 28.9 years; height = 164 cm; body mass = 58.2 kg), before three maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) trials for each position were obtained in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. Results. No statistically significant (p \u3c 0.05) differences were observed between PRONE (upper: 91.94%; lower: 94.52%) and SQUEEZE (upper: 92.04%; lower: 85.12%) for both the upper and lower gluteus maximus. Neither the PRONE nor SQUEEZE was more effective between all subjects. Conclusions. In agreement with other studies, no single testing position is ideal for every participant. Therefore, it is recommended that investigators employ multiple MVIC positions, when possible, to ensure accuracy. Future research should investigate a variety of gluteus maximus MVIC positions in heterogeneous samples

What is the numerical nature of pain relief?

Pain relief, or a decrease in self-reported pain intensity, is frequently the primary outcome of pain 10 clinical trials. Investigators commonly report pain relief in one of two ways: using raw units (additive) 11 or using percentage units (multiplicative). However, additive and multiplicative scales have different 12 assumptions and are incompatible with one-another. In this work, we describe the assumptions and 13 corollaries of additive and multiplicative models of pain relief to illuminate the issue from statistical 14 and clinical perspectives. First, we explain the math underlying each model and illustrate these points 15 using simulations, for which readers are assumed to have an understanding of linear regression. Next, we 16 connect this math to clinical interpretations, stressing the importance of statistical models that accurately 17 represent the underlying data; for example, how using percent pain relief can mislead clinicians if the data are actually additive. These theoretical discussions are supported by empirical data from four 19 longitudinal studies of patients with subacute and chronic pain. Finally, we discuss self-reported pain 20 intensity as a measurement construct, including its philosophical limitations and how clinical pain differs 21 from acute pain measured during psychophysics experiments. This work has broad implications for 22 clinical pain research, ranging from statistical modeling of trial data to the use of minimal clinically important differences and patient-clinician communication

Methods matter: the relationship between strength and hypertrophy depends on methods of measurement and analysis

Purpose: The relationship between changes in muscle size and strength may be affected by both measurement and statistical approaches, but their effects have not been fully considered or quantified. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to explore how different methods of measurement and analysis can affect inferences surrounding the relationship between hypertrophy and strength gain. Methods: Data from a previous study—in which participants performed eight weeks of elbow flexor training, followed by an eight-week period of detraining—were reanalyzed using different statistical models, including standard between-subject correlations, analysis of covariance, and hierarchical linear modeling. Results: The associative relationship between strength and hypertrophy is highly dependent upon both method/site of measurement and analysis; large differences in variance accounted for (VAF) by the statistical models were observed (VAF = 0– 24.1%). Different sites and measurements of muscle size showed a range of correlations coefficients with one another (r = 0.326–0.945). Finally, exploratory analyses revealed moderate-to-strong relationships between within-individual strength-hypertrophy relationships and strength gained over the training period (ρ = 0.36–0.55). Conclusions: Methods of measurement and analysis greatly influence the conclusions that may be drawn from a given dataset. Analyses that do not account for inter- individual differences may underestimate the relationship between hypertrophy and strength gain, and different methods of assessing muscle size will produce different results. It is suggested that robust experimental designs and analysis techniques, which control for different mechanistic sources of strength gain and inter-individual differences (e.g., muscle moment arms, muscle architecture, activation, and normalized muscle force), be employed in future investigations

Mechanical misconceptions: Have we lost the "mechanics" in "sports biomechanics"?

Biomechanics principally stems from two disciplines, mechanics and biology. However, both the application and language of the mechanical constructs are not always adhered to when applied to biological systems, which can lead to errors and misunderstandings within the scientific literature. Here we address three topics that seem to be common points of confusion and misconception, with a specific focus on sports biomechanics applications: (1) joint reaction forces as they pertain to loads actually experienced by biological joints; (2) the partitioning of scalar quantities into directional components; and (3) weight and gravity alteration. For each topic, we discuss how mechanical concepts have been commonly misapplied in peer-reviewed publications, the consequences of those misapplications, and how biomechanics, exercise science, and other related disciplines can collectively benefit by more carefully adhering to and applying concepts of classical mechanics

A Critical Evaluation of the Biological Construct Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: Size Matters but So Does the Measurement

Skeletal muscle is highly adaptable and has consistently been shown to morphologically respond to exercise training. Skeletal muscle growth during periods of resistance training has traditionally been referred to as skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and this manifests as increases in muscle mass, muscle thickness, muscle area, muscle volume, and muscle fiber cross-sectional area (fCSA). Delicate electron microscopy and biochemical techniques have also been used to demonstrate that resistance exercise promotes ultrastructural adaptations within muscle fibers. Decades of research in this area of exercise physiology have promulgated a widespread hypothetical model of training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy; specifically, fCSA increases are accompanied by proportional increases in myofibrillar protein, leading to an expansion in the number of sarcomeres in parallel and/or an increase in myofibril number. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that myofibrillar protein concentration may be diluted through sarcoplasmic expansion as fCSA increases occur. Furthermore, and perhaps more problematic, are numerous investigations reporting that pre-to-post training change scores in macroscopic, microscopic, and molecular variables supporting this model are often poorly associated with one another. The current review first provides a brief description of skeletal muscle composition and structure. We then provide a historical overview of muscle hypertrophy assessment. Next, current-day methods commonly used to assess skeletal muscle hypertrophy at the biochemical, ultramicroscopic, microscopic, macroscopic, and whole-body levels in response to training are examined. Data from our laboratory, and others, demonstrating correlations (or the lack thereof) between these variables are also presented, and reasons for comparative discrepancies are discussed with particular attention directed to studies reporting ultrastructural and muscle protein concentration alterations. Finally, we critically evaluate the biological construct of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, propose potential operational definitions, and provide suggestions for consideration in hopes of guiding future research in this area

A Critical Evaluation of the Biological Construct Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: Size Matters but So Does the Measurement

Skeletal muscle is highly adaptable and has consistently been shown to morphologically respond to exercise training. Skeletal muscle growth during periods of resistance training has traditionally been referred to as skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and this manifests as increases in muscle mass, muscle thickness, muscle area, muscle volume, and muscle fiber cross-sectional area (fCSA). Delicate electron microscopy and biochemical techniques have also been used to demonstrate that resistance exercise promotes ultrastructural adaptations within muscle fibers. Decades of research in this area of exercise physiology have promulgated a widespread hypothetical model of training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy; specifically, fCSA increases are accompanied by proportional increases in myofibrillar protein, leading to an expansion in the number of sarcomeres in parallel and/or an increase in myofibril number. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that myofibrillar protein concentration may be diluted through sarcoplasmic expansion as fCSA increases occur. Furthermore, and perhaps more problematic, are numerous investigations reporting that pre-to-post training change scores in macroscopic, microscopic, and molecular variables supporting this model are often poorly associated with one another. The current review first provides a brief description of skeletal muscle composition and structure. We then provide a historical overview of muscle hypertrophy assessment. Next, current-day methods commonly used to assess skeletal muscle hypertrophy at the biochemical, ultramicroscopic, microscopic, macroscopic, and whole-body levels in response to training are examined. Data from our laboratory, and others, demonstrating correlations (or the lack thereof) between these variables are also presented, and reasons for comparative discrepancies are discussed with particular attention directed to studies reporting ultrastructural and muscle protein concentration alterations. Finally, we critically evaluate the biological construct of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, propose potential operational definitions, and provide suggestions for consideration in hopes of guiding future research in this area

A Comparison of Increases in Volume Load Over 8 Weeks of Low-Versus High-Load Resistance Training

Background: It has been hypothesized that the ability to increase volume load (VL) via a progressive increase in the magnitude of load for a given exercise within a given repetition range could enhance the adaptive response to resistance training. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare changes in volume load (VL) over eight weeks of resistance training (RT) in high-versus low-load protocols. Materials and Methods: Eighteen well-trained men were matched according to baseline strength were randomly assigned to either a low-load RT(LOW,n= 9) where 25 - 35 repetitions were performed per exercise, or a high-load RT (HIGH,n= 9) where 8 - 12 repetitions were performed per exercise. Both groups performed three sets of seven exercises for all major muscles three times per week on nonconsecutive days. Results: After adjusting for the pre-test scores, there was a significant difference between the two intervention groups on post intervention total VL with a very large effect size (F (1, 15) = 16.598, P = .001, p2 = .525). There was a significant relationship between pre-intervention and post-intervention total VL (F (1, 15) = 32.048, P \u3c .0001, p2 = .681) in which the pre-test scores explained 68% of the variance in the post-test scores. Conclusions: This study indicates that low-load RT results in greater accumulations in VL compared to high-load RT over the course of 8 weeks of training

Hip thrust and back squat training elicit similar gluteus muscle hypertrophy and transfer similarly to the deadlift

We examined how set-volume equated resistance training using either the back squat (SQ) or hip thrust (HT) affected hypertrophy and various strength outcomes. Untrained college-aged participants were randomized into HT (n = 18) or SQ (n = 16) groups. Surface electromyograms (sEMG) from the right gluteus maximus and medius muscles were obtained during the first training session. Participants completed 9 weeks of supervised training (15–17 sessions), before and after which gluteus and leg muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was assessed via magnetic resonance imaging. Strength was also assessed prior to and after the training intervention via three-repetition maximum (3RM) testing and an isometric wall push test. Gluteus mCSA increases were similar across both groups. Specifically, estimates [(−) favors HT (+) favors SQ] modestly favored the HT versus SQ for lower [effect ±SE, −1.6 ± 2.1 cm2; CI95% (−6.1, 2.0)], mid [−0.5 ± 1.7 cm2; CI95% (−4.0, 2.6)], and upper [−0.5 ± 2.6 cm2; CI95% (−5.8, 4.1)] gluteal mCSAs but with appreciable variance. Gluteus medius + minimus [−1.8 ± 1.5 cm2; CI95% (−4.6, 1.4)] and hamstrings [0.1 ± 0.6 cm2; CI95% (−0.9, 1.4)] mCSA demonstrated little to no growth with small differences between groups. mCSA changes were greater in SQ for the quadriceps [3.6 ± 1.5 cm2; CI95% (0.7, 6.4)] and adductors [2.5 ± 0.7 cm2; CI95% (1.2, 3.9)]. Squat 3RM increases favored SQ [14 ± 2 kg; CI95% (9, 18),] and hip thrust 3RM favored HT [−26 ± 5 kg; CI95% (−34, −16)]. 3RM deadlift [0 ± 2 kg; CI95% (−4, 3)] and wall push strength [−7 ± 12N; CI95% (−32, 17)] similarly improved. All measured gluteal sites showed greater mean sEMG amplitudes during the first bout hip thrust versus squat set, but this did not consistently predict gluteal hypertrophy outcomes. Squat and hip thrust training elicited similar gluteal hypertrophy, greater thigh hypertrophy in SQ, strength increases that favored exercise allocation, and similar deadlift and wall push strength increases

Moving sport and exercise science forward: A call for the adoption of more transparent research practices

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer on 04/02/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01227-1 The accepted version may differ from the final published version. For re-se please see the publisher's terms and conditions.The primary means of disseminating sport and exercise science research is currently through journal articles. However, not all studies, especially those with null findings, make it to formal publication. This publication bias towards positive findings may contribute to questionable research practices. Preregistration is a solution to prevent the publication of distorted evidence resulting from this system. This process asks authors to register their hypotheses and methods before data collection on a publicly available repository or by submitting a Registered Report. In the Registered Report format, authors submit a stage 1 manuscript to a participating journal that includes an introduction, methods, and any pilot data indicating the exploratory or confirmatory nature of the study. After a stage 1 peer review, the manuscript can then be offered in-principle acceptance, rejected, or sent back for revisions to improve the quality of the study. If accepted, the project is guaranteed publication, assuming the authors follow the data collection and analysis protocol. After data collection, authors re-submit a stage 2 manuscript that includes the results and discussion, and the study is evaluated on clarity and conformity with the planned analysis. In its final form, Registered Reports appear almost identical to a typical publication, but give readers confidence that the hypotheses and main analyses are less susceptible to bias from questionable research practices. From this perspective, we argue that inclusion of Registered Reports by researchers and journals will improve the transparency, replicability, and trust in sport and exercise science research. The preprint version of this work is available on SportRχiv: https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/fxe7a/.Published versio