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.

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

Purpose: We examined how set-volume equated resistance training using either the back squat (SQ) or hip thrust (HT) affected hypertrophy and various strength outcomes. Methods: Untrained college-aged participants were randomized into HT or SQ groups. Surface electromyograms (sEMG) from the right gluteus maximus and medius muscles were obtained during the first training session. Participants completed nine weeks of supervised training (15-17 sessions), before and after which we assessed muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) via magnetic resonance imaging and strength via three-repetition maximum (3RM) testing and an isometric wall push test. Results: Glutei mCSA growth was similar across both groups. Estimates [(-) favors HT; (+) favors SQ] modestly favored the HT compared to SQ for lower [effect ± SE, -1.6 ± 2.1 cm2], mid [-0.5± 1.7 cm2], and upper [-0.5 ± 2.6 cm2], but with appreciable variance. Gluteus medius+minimus [-1.8 ± 1.5 cm2] and hamstrings [0.1 ± 0.6 cm2] mCSA demonstrated little to no growth with small differences between groups. Thigh mCSA changes were greater in SQ for the quadriceps [3.6 ± 1.5 cm2] and adductors [2.5 ± 0.7 cm2]. Squat 3RM increases favored SQ [14 ± 2.5 kg] and hip thrust 3RM favored HT [-26 ± 5 kg]. 3RM deadlift [0 ± 2 kg] and wall push strength [-7 ± 13 N] 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. Conclusion: Nine weeks of squat versus hip thrust training elicited similar gluteal hypertrophy, greater thigh hypertrophy in SQ, strength increases that favored exercise allocation, and similar strength transfers to the deadlift and wall push.

Lower-Extremity Motor Synergies in Individuals With and Without Chronic Ankle Instability.

Current theoretical models suggest that ankle sprain copers exhibit movement adaptations contributing to the avoidance of chronic ankle instability. However, few studies have examined adaptations at the level of biomechanical motor synergies. The purpose was to examine characteristics of the support moment synergy between individuals with chronic ankle instability, copers, and healthy individuals. A total of 48 individuals participated in the study. Lower-extremity kinetics and variability in the moment of force patterns were assessed during the stance phase of walking trials. The copers exhibited reductions in the support moment during the load response and preswing phase compared with the chronic ankle instability group, as well as during the terminal stance and preswing phase compared the healthy group. The copers also exhibited reductions in the hip extensor moment and ankle plantarflexion moment compared with healthy and chronic ankle instability groups during intervals of stance phase. Variability of the support moment and knee moment was greater in the copers compared with the chronic ankle instability group. Dampening of the support moment and select joint moments exhibited by the copers may indicate an adaptive mechanism to mitigate loading perturbations on the previously injured ankle. Heightened motor variability in copers may be indicative of a more adaptable motor synergy compared with individuals with chronic ankle instability.

Ankle Bracing Alters Coordination and Coordination Variability in Individuals With and Without Chronic Ankle Instability.

CONTEXT: Ankle bracing is an effective form of injury prophylaxis implemented for individuals with and without chronic ankle instability, yet mechanisms surrounding bracing efficacy remain in question. Ankle bracing has been shown to invoke biomechanical and neuromotor alterations that could influence lower-extremity coordination strategies during locomotion and contribute to bracing efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of ankle bracing on lower-extremity coordination and coordination dynamics during walking in healthy individuals, ankle sprain copers, and individuals with chronic ankle instability. DESIGN: Mixed factorial design. SETTING: Laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight recreationally active individuals (16 per group) participated in this cross-sectional study. INTERVENTION: Participants completed 15 trials of over ground walking with and without an ankle brace. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Coordination and coordination variability of the foot-shank, shank-thigh, and foot-thigh were assessed during stance and swing phases of the gait cycle through analysis of segment relative phase and relative phase deviation, respectively. RESULTS: Bracing elicited more synchronous, or locked, motion of the sagittal plane foot-shank coupling throughout swing phase and early stance phase, and more asynchronous motion of remaining foot-shank and foot-thigh couplings during early swing phase. Bracing also diminished coordination variability of foot-shank, foot-thigh, and shank-thigh couplings during swing phase of the gait cycle, indicating greater pattern stability. No group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Greater stability of lower-extremity coordination patterns as well as spatiotemporal locking of the foot-shank coupling during terminal swing may work to guard against malalignment at foot contact and contribute to the efficacy of ankle bracing. Ankle bracing may also act antagonistically to interventions fostering functional variability.

Improving performance by anchoring movement and "nerves".

Golf's governing bodies' recent decision to ban all putting styles "anchoring one end of the club against the body" bridges an important practical problem with psychological theory. We report the first experiment testing whether anchoring provides technical and/or psychological advantage in competitive performance. Many "greats" of professional golf from Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to Tiger Woods have argued against anchoring, believing that it takes "nerves" out of competitive performance and therefore artificially levels the playing field. To shed more light on the issue, we tested participants' performance with anchored and unanchored putters under low and high pressure when controlling for the putter length. We found no statistically significant evidence for a technical advantage due to anchoring but a clear psychological advantage: participants who anchored their putters significantly outperformed unanchored counterparts under high, but not low, pressure. Results provide tentative evidence for the ban's justification from a competitive standpoint. However, before any definite conclusions can be made, more research is needed when using high-level golfers.