Motion and Muscle Activity Are Affected by Instability Location During a Squat Exercise.

Nairn, BC, Sutherland, CA, and Drake, JDM. Motion and muscle activity are affected by instability location during a squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 677-685, 2017-Squat exercise training using instability devices has become increasingly popular for a multitude of reasons. Many devices generate instability at the feet and provide a bottom-up perturbation; however, the effect of a top-down instability device during a squat remains unclear. To induce instability at the upper body, a water-filled cylinder called the Attitube was used. This study analyzed the effects of instability location (top-down, bottom-up, and no instability) during a squat exercise in terms of kinematics and muscle activation. Ten male participants were instrumented with 75 reflective markers to track kinematics of the ankle, knee, hip, trunk, and the Bar/Attitube, and electromyography was recorded from 12 muscles bilaterally. Squats were performed with an Olympic bar on a stable surface, an Olympic bar on a BOSU ball (BALL, bottom-up), and the Attitube on solid ground (TUBE, top-down). The TUBE showed up to 1.5 times reduction in erector spinae activation and up to 1.5 times less trunk flexion while being performed at a slower velocity. There was also higher abdominal activation in the TUBE, with up to 2.8 times greater oblique activation compared with the stable condition. The BALL increased ankle eversion and knee flexion with higher muscle activation in gastrocnemius, biceps femoris, and quadriceps. Overall, changing the location of instability during a squat changed the motion and muscle activation patterns of the trunk and lower extremities. This provides information for future research into rehabilitation, learning proper squat technique, and for specific training scenarios.

Location of Instability During a Bench Press Alters Movement Patterns and Electromyographical Activity.

Instability training devices with the bench press exercise are becoming increasingly popular. Typically, the instability device is placed at the trunk/upper body (e.g., lying on a Swiss ball); however, a recent product called the Attitube has been developed, which places the location of instability at the hands by users lifting a water-filled tube. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of different instability devices (location of instability) on kinematic and electromyographical patterns during the bench press exercise. Ten healthy males were recruited and performed 1 set of 3 repetitions for 3 different bench press conditions: Olympic bar on a stable bench (BENCH), Olympic bar on a stability ball (BALL), and Attitube on a stable bench (TUBE). The eccentric and concentric phases were analyzed in 10% intervals while electromyography was recorded from 24 electrode sites, and motion capture was used to track elbow flexion angle and 3-dimensional movement trajectories and vertical velocity of the Bar/Attitube. The prime movers tended to show a reduction in muscle activity during the TUBE trials; however, pectoralis major initially showed increased activation during the eccentric phase of the TUBE condition. The trunk muscle activations were greatest during the TUBE and smallest during the BAR. In addition, the TUBE showed decreased range of elbow flexion and increased medial-lateral movement of the Attitube itself. The results further support the notion that instability devices may be more beneficial for trunk muscles rather than prime movers.

Quantification of the lumbar flexion-relaxation phenomenon: comparing outcomes of lumbar erector spinae and superficial lumbar multifidus in standing full trunk flexion and slumped sitting postures.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify differences in flexion-relaxation outcomes in asymptomatic participants, with respect to both flexion-relaxation phenomenon (FRP) occurrence and spinal onset angles, as a function of posture and choice of muscle being examined. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in a laboratory setting. Thirty asymptomatic participants performed standing full trunk flexion and slumped sitting postures while activation levels of the lumbar erector spinae and superficial lumbar multifidus were monitored. Two thresholds were used to define whether FRP was present in each muscle and, if present, at what trunk flexion angle it occurred. These outcomes were compared descriptively between muscles and between postures. RESULTS: Most participants displayed FRP in both muscles during standing full flexion; occurrences were more variable in slumped sitting. On average, FRP during standing full flexion and slumped sitting occurred at approximately 80% and 52% of participants' maximum flexion value, respectively. Variability in the slumped sitting onset angles was greater than that in standing full flexion. CONCLUSION: Outcomes for FRP during standing full flexion in asymptomatic participants appeared to be more robust and were not affected by the choice of either lumbar erector spinae or superficial lumbar multifidus. Conversely, during slumped sitting, FRP occurrence varied substantially depending on choice of muscle, although onset angles were relatively consistent between muscles. Although the choice of one muscle over the other may be warranted, it may be prudent to examine both muscles during FRP investigations in sitting postures, in order to fully characterize the behavior and activation patterns of the lumbar musculature.

Evaluation of methods for the quantification of the flexion-relaxation phenomenon in the lumbar erector spinae muscles.

OBJECTIVES: There are various methods to quantify the flexion-relaxation phenomenon (FRP); however, there is little standardization. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of various quantification methods in terms of their ability to identify lumbar erector spinae flexion-relaxation during standing forward trunk flexion. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional design in a laboratory setting. Lumbar erector spinae activation levels were measured in 12 male participants performing full trunk flexion movements. Electromyographical signals were assessed using 16 criteria within 4 quantification methods (visual, statistical, threshold, ratio), and the sensitivity of each was assessed relative to the benchmark criterion (visual inspection of raw electromyography data). RESULTS: Visual inspection and most of the threshold and ratio criteria displayed the highest sensitivity. On average (SD) across the 16 criteria, FRP was positively identified 21.6 (6.2) times of 24 data sets (12 participants, 2 muscles). The visual inspection criteria positively identified FRP in all 24 trials, whereas the statistical method did not identify FRP at all (P = .44 and P = .46 for the left and right sides, respectively). The threshold and ratio criteria positively identified FRP 23.2 (1.5) and 22.5 (3.7) times, on average, respectively. Results from criteria based on differences between upright and fully flexed muscle activation tended to be conservative in FRP identification. The methods were classified as reliable or nonreliable, based on their sensitivity when specific characteristics were evident in the electromyography signals. CONCLUSIONS: Although many of the criteria identified FRP with 100% sensitivity, others produced unrealistic results. The latter may be suitable for other experimental designs or may require reevaluation regarding their ability to identify FRP. Although visual inspection, threshold, or ratio methods performed well and may be appropriate for either biomechanical or clinical research, the threshold method provided the optimal trade-off between performance, consistency, and feasibility for these data.

Seated maximum flexion: An alternative to standing maximum flexion for determining presence of flexion-relaxation?

BACKGROUND: The flexion-relaxation phenomenon (FRP) in standing is a specific and sensitive diagnostic tool for low back pain. Seated flexion as an alternative could be beneficial for certain populations, yet the behavior of the trunk extensors during seated maximum flexion compared to standing flexion remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Compare FRP occurrences and spine angles between seated and standing flexion postures in three levels of the erector spinae muscles. METHODS: Thirty-one participants free of back pain performed seated and standing maximum trunk flexion. Electromyographical signals were recorded from the bilateral lumbar (L3), lower-thoracic (T9), and upper-thoracic (T4) erector spinae and assessed for the occurrence of FRP. Spine angles corresponding to FRP onset and cessation were determined, and FRP occurrences and angles were compared between posture and muscle. RESULTS: FRP occurrence was similar in standing and seated maximum flexion across all muscles, with the lumbar muscles showing the greatest consistency. Standing FRP onset and cessation angles were consistently greater than the corresponding seated FRP angles. CONCLUSION: Considering the similar number of FRP occurrences, seated maximum flexion may constitute an objective criterion for low back pain diagnosis. Future work should seek to confirm the utility of this test in individuals with low back pain.

Impact of lumbar spine posture on thoracic spine motion and muscle activation patterns.

Complex motion during standing is typical in daily living and requires movement of both the thoracic and lumbar spine; however, the effects of lumbar spine posture on thoracic spine motion patterns remain unclear. Thirteen males moved to six positions involving different lumbar (neutral and flexed) and thoracic (flexed and twisted) posture combinations. The thoracic spine was partitioned into three segments and the range of motion from each posture was calculated. Electromyographical data were collected from eight muscles bilaterally. Results showed that with a flexed lumbar spine, the lower-thoracic region had 14.83 ° and 15.6 1 ° more flexion than the upper- and mid-thoracic regions, respectively. A flexed lumbar spine significantly reduced the mid-thoracic axial twist angle by 5.21 ° compared to maximum twist in the mid-thoracic region. Functional differences emerged across muscles, as low back musculature was greatest in maintaining flexed lumbar postures, while thoracic erector spinae and abdominals showed bilateral differences with greater activations to the ipsilateral side. Combined postures have been previously identified as potential injury modulators and bilateral muscle patterns can have an effect on loading pathways. Overall, changes in thoracic motion were modified by lumbar spine posture, highlighting the importance of considering a multi-segmented approach when analyzing trunk motion.

Should a standing or seated reference posture be used when normalizing seated spine kinematics?

Currently in the literature there is no consensus on which procedure for normalizing seated spine kinematics is most effective. The objective of this study was to examine the changes in the range of motion (ROM) of seated posture trials when expressed as a percent of maximum standing and seated ROM. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the typical maximum planar calibration movements (flexion, lateral-bend, and axial twist) elicited the respective maximum ROM values for each spine region versus postures with specific movement instruction. Thirteen male participants completed seven different movement trials. These consisted of the maximum planar movement trials, with the remaining four postures being combinations of specific lumbar and thoracic movements. Global and relative angles for the upper-thoracic, mid-thoracic, lower-thoracic, and lumbar regions were calculated and normalized to both a seated and standing reference posture. When normalizing both global and relative angles the standing reference appears optimal for flexion, twisting and lateral bend angles in all spine regions, with the exception of relative flexion angle in the mid-thoracic region. The maximum planar movement trials captured the greatest ROM for each global angle, relative lower-thoracic angle and relative lumbar flexion angle, but did not for all other relative angles in the upper-thoracic, mid-thoracic, and lumbar regions. If future researchers can only collect one reference posture these results recommend that a standing reference posture be collected for normalizing seated spine kinematics, although a seated reference posture should be collected if examining relative flexion angles at the mid-thoracic region.

Transient pain developers show increased abdominal muscle activity during prolonged sitting.

BACKGROUND: Sitting is a commonly adopted posture during work and prolonged exposures may have detrimental effects. Little attention has been paid to the thoracic spine and/or multiple axes of motion during prolonged sitting. Accordingly, this study examined three-dimensional motion and muscle activity of the trunk during two hours of uninterrupted sitting. METHODS: Ten asymptomatic males sat during a simulated office task. Kinematics were analyzed from six segments (Neck, Upper-, Mid-, and Lower-thoracic, Lumbar, and Pelvis) and electromyography was recorded from eight muscles bilaterally. RESULTS: Four participants developed transient pain. These participants showed higher average muscle activations in the abdominal muscles. Additionally, the non-pain group showed less lateral bend positional change in the mid-thoracic region compared to the upper- and lower-thoracic regions. Weak-to-moderate positive correlations were also found between rated pain and low back muscle activation. DISCUSSION: The results provided further evidence of reduced movement in non-pain developers and altered muscle activation patterns in pain developers. Low-level, prolonged static contractions could lead to an increased risk of injury; and though the increased abdominal activity in the pain developers was not directly associated with increased rated pain scores, this could indicate a pre-disposition to, or enhancer of, transient pain development.

What is slumped sitting? A kinematic and electromyographical evaluation.

Slumped sitting is a commonly used reference posture when comparing effects of upright sitting in both clinical and non-clinical populations alike. The exact nature of slumped sitting has not been clearly defined, including regional differences within the posture, and how the passive nature of slumped sitting compares to an active-flexion posture. Kinematic and electromyographical (EMG) data were collected from 12 males during three repeats of slumped sitting and seated maximum forward flexion. Spine angles were defined in four regions (three thoracic and lumbar) as well as for the pelvis, and EMG was collected from eight muscles bilaterally. Kinematic data were expressed as a range of motion (in degrees), and as a percent of full forward flexion while seated (%SIT-FF) and standing (%STAND-FF). EMG data were normalized to a percent maximum contraction (%MVC). Results showed that slumped sitting is characterized by 10° posterior pelvis rotation, near end-range flexion of the mid- (90%SIT-FF) and lower- (81%SIT-FF) thoracic regions, and mid-range flexion of the upper-thoracic (51%SIT-FF) and lumbar (43%SIT-FF) regions. Comparison of slumped by %STAND-FF showed the upper- and mid-thoracic regions to have high variability and large values (over 100%STAND-FF). Muscle activation showed a significant 3%MVC reduction in the lower-thoracic erector spinae muscle when moving from upright to slumped sitting. These data highlight the postural differences occurring within different spine regions, and interpretations that could be drawn, depending on which normalization (sit or stand) method is used.

Investigation of trunk muscle co-contraction and its association with low back pain development during prolonged sitting.

Previous work has shown muscle activation differences between chronic low back pain patients and healthy controls in sitting postures, and between asymptomatic individuals who do (PDs: pain developers) and do not (NPDs: non-pain developers) develop transient back pain during prolonged standing (as determined using a visual analog scale). The current study aimed to investigate differences in trunk muscle co-contraction between PD and NPD individuals over 2h of prolonged sitting. Ten healthy males sat continuously for 2h while performing tasks that simulated computer-aided-drafting; four were classified as PDs, and six as NPDs. Co-contraction indices were calculated from EMG data collected from eight trunk muscles bilaterally, and compared between pain groups and over time. PDs exhibited higher levels of co-contraction than NPDs. Additionally, co-contraction tended to increase over time, and was significantly correlated to pain development. The relationship between co-contraction and back pain development may actually be circular, in that it is both causal and adaptive: high co-contraction initially predisposes to pain development, following which co-contraction further increases in an attempt to alleviate the pain, and the cycle perpetuates. Further work will be required to elucidate the exact nature of this relationship, and to confirm the generalizability to other populations.