DIFFERENCES IN THE ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC ACTIVITY
OF LOWER-BODY MUSCLES IN HIP THRUST
VARIATIONS
CÉSAR L. COLLAZO GARCÍA, JAVIER RUEDA, BRUNO SUÁREZ LUGINICK,
Department of Human Health and Performance, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
ABSTRACT
Collazo Garcı́a, CL, Rueda, J, Suárez Luginick, B, Navarro, E.
Differences in the electromyographic activity of lower-body
muscles in hip thrust variations. J Strength Cond Res XX(X):
000–000, 2018—Coaches often use variations of an exercise to
train a specific muscle. The purpose of this study was to analyze
motor patterns in 4 variations of one of the most popular strength
training exercises for the lower body: the barbell hip thrust. Seven
experienced personal trainers performed a series of 8 repetitions
of each variation with a load of 40% one repetition maximum.
Subjects rested 30 between series. Electromyographic (EMG)
muscle activity was measured in the rectus femoris, vastus medi-
alis; vastus lateralis; gluteus maximus; gluteus medius; biceps
femoris; and semitendinosus. Variations of the hip thrust exercise
were performed by changing the position of the feet (feet were
moving away from the body) and the direction of force exerted by
subjects (intentional force aimed at hip’s external rotation and
knee’s flexion). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed
significant differences in EMG in all muscles except for the glu-
teus medius, where no differences were observed among varia-
tions. The results obtained suggest that hip thrust variations have
different motor patterns, which can be exploited to adapt an exer-
cise to the individual needs of each athlete.
KEY WORDS intentional force, muscle activity, strength training
INTRODUCTION
T
he strength and power of hip extensor muscles are
essential for sports performance, daily life, and the
prevention of injuries (8,9). Hip extension exer-
cises—such as hip bridge exercises—are currently
used both, for training and rehabilitation (14,20).
One of the most popular and effective exercises for training
the gluteus muscle is the “barbell hip thrust” (HT) (1). The HT
Address correspondence to Dr. Javier R. Ojeda, javier.rueda7792@gmail.com.
00(00)/1–7
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
AND ENRIQUE NAVARRO
is effective in training the gluteal muscles because, in terms of
biomechanics, HT creates a hip flexion moment during the
entire range of motion of the exercise. Therefore, it involves
hip extensor muscle activation (11). Activation of posterior
lower-limb muscles—such as the biceps femoris (BF) and the
gluteus maximus—has been reported to be greater with the
barbell HT compared with back squat at an intensity of 75%
of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (9).
Using variations of an exercise to train a specific muscle is
a widely used method by coaches. Numerous studies have
been conducted to investigate the effect of exercise
variations on the pattern of muscle activation. For example,
evidence has been provided on variations based on the
position of hands (28), body, or limbs (15,22,27). Other
researchers have documented changes in electromyo-
graphic (EMG) when verbal instructions are given on
how to perform an exercise (5,6,29). Instructions that
induce an internal attentional focus seem to be effective
for increasing the intensity of specific muscle contractions,
i.e., thinking of the pectoral muscle during the bench press
exercise augments its activation (5).
In exercises more similar to HT such as bridge exercise,
the activation of the hamstrings decreased significantly
moving away the position of legs (thereby inducing greater
knee flexion, 1358 vs. 908), whereas the activity of the gluteus
maintained (20). Only one study has been conducted to
compare 3 variations of HT (10). However, the position of
the feet and the direction of voluntary force against the
ground (hereinafter “intentional force”) were the same in
all variations. No research has been conducted on the pat-
tern of muscle activation during HT variations or during HT
with low %1RM loads. To address these shortcomings, we
established 2 objectives:
Objective 1. Determining the pattern of muscle activation
during different HT variations.
Objective 2. Comparing the pattern of activation during
HT variations at 40% 1RM.
We postulated that variations of the HT at 40% 1RM
would cause a shift in the EMG activity of lower-limb
muscles.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 1
EMG Activity in Hip Thrust Variations
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We analyzed motor patterns in 4 variations of one of the
most popular strength training exercises for the lower body:
the barbell HT. In this study, EMG muscle activity was
measured in the rectus femoris (RF), vastus medialis (VM),
vastus lateralis (VL), gluteus maximus (GMax), gluteus
medius (GMed), BF, and semitendinosus (ST) muscles.
For the purposes of the study, we chose a moderate load
(40% 1RM), a load that could be used by population both for
training and rehabilitation purposes. The surface EMG activity
of 7 muscles of the lower body was recorded while 7
participants performed 4 variations of HT. A set of 8 repetitions
of 4 HT variations was performed in random order with full
rest. Measurements were made in 2 test sessions.
The experimental design of this study allowed us to
analyze the effect of HT variations on the EMG activity of
the 7 muscles analyzed.
Subjects
To improve the homogeneity of the sample, 7 healthy male
personal trainers were recruited. Subjects (mean 6 SD; age =
29.4 6 4.6 years; height = 176.8 6 5.8 cm; body mass = 74.0
6 8.2 kg) were experienced in strength training using a 1RM
of 153.3 6 11.0 kg in HT.
Inclusion criteria were an age of 20–40 years, having at least 3
years of experience in strength training and being familiar with
the HT exercise. All subjects were healthy and had no current
injuries, pain, or discomfort at musculoskeletal or neuromuscular
level. All had been free of injury for at least 1.5 years. Subjects
were asked not to perform any lower-body exercise in the 48
hours before the sessions. After being informed of the risks and
benefits of the study, subjects provided written informed consent.
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Poly-
technic University of Madrid. Sessions were held in the labora-
tory of Biomechanics of the University.
Figure 1. Mid and final position in original hip thrust.
the TM
2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Procedures
Subjects performed the HT exercise under the supervision of
an expert researcher on strength training to ensure exercises
were performed with the correct technique.
If any of the subjects reported pain or was unable to do the
exercise correctly, he was excluded from the study. Measure-
ments were made in 2 sessions, and all subjects completed all
exercises appropriately.
Session 1. One Repetition Maximum Determination. The aim of
the first session was to assess and determine the 1RM of
each subject. Subjects performed a 6-minute warm-up that
consisted of a continuous run combined with dynamic
stretches. Then, subjects performed 2 trials to become
familiar with the 3 variations of HT. One repetition
maximum of barbell HT was calculated according to the
method described by Baechle and Earle (2). Subjects were
asked to perform as many repetitions as they could with
a medium to high load (no more than 15 repetitions al-
lowed). The test was considered valid when a maximum of
5 series had been performed with extra weight added in
every new series, as described by McCurdy et al. (23).
Session 2. Hip Thrust Variations. The purpose of this session
was analyzing muscle activity during the different HT
variations. Warm-up was the same as in session 1. Maximum
voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) was measured with
the sensors in place and the EMG signal validated.
Once MVIC had been obtained for all muscles, a 10-minute
break was allowed. Then, 8 repetitions of HT were performed
using a load that accounted for 40% of 1RM of each subject.
Four HT variations were performed in random order, as follows:
Exercise 1 (Original Hip Thrust). First, the original HT (OHT)
was performed in accordance with Contreras et al. (11) pro-
tocol (Figure 1) in a seated position, with the upper back
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Differences in EMG activity of each muscle by exercise.*

Muscle Variation Mean (%) SD (%) 95% confidence interval Significant differences (p , 0.05)

RF OHT 5.87 2.56 3.51–8.24 FHT

PHT 4.95 2.13 2.98–6.92 —
RHT 5.43 2.50 3.11–7.74 —
FHT 3.47 1.94 1.68–5.27 OHT
VM OHT 35.32 21.35 15.57–55.07 FHT
PHT 21.31 12.32 9.92–32.70 —
RHT 28.96 17.35 12.91–45.01 —
FHT 10.63 11.34 0.14–21.13 OHT
VL OHT 27.48 8.05 20.04–34.93 FHT
PHT 23.67 13.49 11.20–36.15 —
RHT 28.51 18.10 11.77–45.25 FHT
FHT 10.70 6.89 4.33–17.07 OHT and RHT
GMax OHT 55.22 20.83 35.96–74.48 RHT
PHT 65.87 23.28 44.34–87.40 —
RHT 86.18 34.30 54.46–117.90 OHT
FHT 51.38 17.93 34.79–67.96 —
GMed OHT 46.67 18.29 29.75–63.59 —
PHT 59.75 17.83 43.26–76.24 —
RHT 65.04 14.79 51.37–78.72 —
FHT 48.06 25.32 24.64–71.48 —
BF OHT 41.02 29.89 13.37–68.67 FHT
PHT 61.07 18.37 44.09–78.06 —
RHT 42.80 19.83 24.46–61.14 —
FHT 72.43 33.21 41.72–103.15 OHT
ST OHT 31.61 8.18 24.04–39.17 FHT
PHT 49.60 15.31 35.44–63.76
RHT 32.52 13.23 20.28–44.75 FHT
FHT 70.14 16.62 54.77–85.52 OHT and RHT

*EMG = electromyographic activity; OHT = original hip thrust; PHT = pull hip thrust; RHT = rotation hip thrust; FHT = feet-away hip
thrust; RF = rectus femoris; VM = vastus medialis; VL = vastus lateralis; GMax = gluteus maximus; GMed = gluteus medius; BF =
biceps femoris; ST = semitendinosus.

leaning against a 41-cm flat bench, with feet distance slightly
exceeding shoulder width and the feet straight ahead or
slightly turned out. A bar is placed on the hips of the subject
with a protective pad to maximize comfort.
Exercise 2 (Pull Hip Thrust). The position in pull HT (PHT) is
the same as in the original HT, but the subject is asked to
exert voluntary force as follows: “try to get your heels close
to the glutes during the entire range of motion.” We called
this component “intentional force,” as it is consciously ex-
erted by the subject.
Exercise 3 (Rotation Hip Thrust). Rotation HT (RHT) was
performed with the feet wider apart than in the original
exercise under the feedback “feel that your feet rotate out-
wards.” Foot rotation on the vertical axis was also allowed,
provided the distance between the feet was maintained. This
is called “intentional force to external rotation.”
Exercise 4 (Feet-Away Hip Thrust). Feet-away HT (FHT) was
performed with the back in the same position as in the other
variations, but the distance of the feet from the bench was
increased by the length of the foot.
All variations were performed with a loaded barbell placed
on the hip and the back in neutral position. Each repetition
covered the entire range of motion, which started with the
barbell lying on the rubber floor and finished when extension
was completed with the trunk and thighs parallel to the
floor. The range of motion described was the same in all
repetitions. A set of 8 repetitions was performed per
variation followed by a 30 rest period. No cadence was estab-
lished for repetitions. Subjects performed exercises at a self-
selected pace. Electromyographic signals from the dominant
leg were collected throughout the 8 repetitions of each HT
variation. The dominant leg was identified as the leg that the
subject generally uses to shoot a ball (21).
Data Collection. Electromyographic activity of the 7 muscles
was analyzed using the wireless Trigno Delsys system set at
1,024 Hz. Sensors were placed in accordance with Seniam’s
protocol (17) on the RF, VM, VL, gluteus maximus, gluteus

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 3

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

EMG Activity in Hip Thrust Variations
medius, BF, and ST muscle. To improve the signal, the skin
was shaved and cleaned using an alcohol swab.
Electromyographic activity was first measured in the
gluteus maximus using the method described by Boren
et al. (4), namely, in prone position with the knee flexed
908, hip extension is performed against maximal manual
resistance applied to the posterior side of the thigh. Then,
the BF was tested following Mohamed et al. (25) protocol.
With the subject in prone position, the knee is flexed with
a knee flexion of 458 against manual resistance applied to
the ankle. The RF, VM, and VL were tested in accordance
with Kong and Van Haselen’s (19) protocol. With the sub-
ject sitting, he performed an MVIC of the knee extensors
at a 908 hip and knee angle against manual resistance
applied to the ankle. Maximum voluntary isometric con-
traction for the gluteus medius was obtained using Bolgla
and Uhl (3) protocol. With the subject lying on his side, he
abducts a lower extremity to 258 and then abducts it
against manual resistance applied to the knee. Maximal
voluntary contraction was held for 500 under the following
instruction: “1,2,3,4,5.” Verbal encouragement was given
for the subject to make maximal effort. Two series with
3000 between each series were performed to determine the
MVIC of each muscle.
Signal filtering was performed using a bandpass Butter-
worth filter with a normalized cutoff frequency of 20–300
Hz. The signal was smoothed by calculating the root mean
square (RMS) of the filtered signal with a window amplitude
of 0.0500 and a window overlap of 0.02500 . Analysis was
focused on signals from the concentric phase of exercises.
Starting and final phase data were obtained from the accel-
erometers integrated in the sensors.
Electromyographic data were normalized by calculating
the mean RMS of 2 trials of MVIC for each muscle. The first
Figure 2. Activation patterns in hip thrust variations. HT = hip thrust; RF = rectus femoris; VM = vastus medialis; VL = vastus lateralis; GMax = gluteus
maximus; GMed = gluteus medius; BF = biceps femoris; ST = semitendinosus.
the
4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
and last seconds of EMG data for each MVIC trial were
discounted, with the remaining 3 seconds of data used in the
analysis.
Statistical Analyses
The first and last repetitions of each exercise were excluded
because significant differences were observed with respect to
the other repetitions (repeated-measures analysis of variance
[ANOVA]). The dependent variable (RMS%) was calculated
by dividing the average RMS of 6 repetitions of each
exercise. In addition, the other repetitions showed a high
intraclass correlation coefficient. Normal distribution was
tested by the Saphiro-Wilk test showing a nonsignificant
result. Finally, repeated-measures ANOVA was performed as
follows: muscle factor (7) 3 exercise (4). A p value =0.05 was
considered statistically significant. Within-factor differences
were analyzed using Bonferroni’s correction. Effect size was
calculated by Hedges’ g (16). Hedges’ g is a variation of
Cohen’s d that is used for smaller samples and can be inter-
preted using Cohen’s method (7). An effect size of 0.2 was
considered small, 0.6 was medium, and 0.8 was a large effect.
RESULTS
No significant within-subject differences were observed in total
EMG activity (mean EMG of all muscles) (F3 = 1.746; p =
0.193). By contrast, significant differences were found in the
mean EMG activity of each muscle in all exercises (F3.172 =
14.787; p , 0.001; ES = 0.71). More specifically, EMG activity
of the RF was significantly lower as compared to the gluteus
medius (p = 0.007), gluteus maximus (p = 0.005), BF (p = 0.031),
and the ST muscle (p , 0.001). Also, the EMG activity was
significantly lower in the VM than in the gluteus medius (p =
0.024). Interaction between the type of exercise and the muscle
was also significant (F18 = 11.012; p , 0.001; ES = 0.65). In
TM

OHT, EMG activity was significantly lower in the RF than in
the VM (p = 0.003; ES = 1.81), gluteus maximus (p = 0.016; ES
= 3.11), gluteus medius (p = 0.03; ES = 2.57), and ST muscle
(p = 0.003; ES = 1.62). In PHT, the RF was significantly less
activated than the gluteus maximus (p = 0.007; ES = 3.85),
gluteus medius (p = 0.005; ES = 3.47), BF (p = 0.005;
ES = 3.55), and ST (p = 0.007; ES = 2.82). Electromyographic
activity in the VM was significantly lower than in the gluteus
maximus (p = 0.013; ES = 2.24) and gluteus medius (p = 0.009;
ES = 2.34). In RHT, the RF was significantly less activated than
the gluteus maximus (p = 0.014; ES = 5.10), the gluteus medius
(p = 0.001; ES = 3.76), BF (p = 0.048; ES = 2.36), and ST (p =
0.025; ES = 1.71). Electromyographic activity was significantly
higher in the gluteus maximus than in the ST (p = 0.035 ES =
1.77). In the FHT exercise, the RF was significantly less activated
than the gluteus maximus (p = 0.008; ES = 3.03), BF (p = 0.036;
ES = 4.36), and ST (p = 0.001; ES = 4.22). The activity in the
VM was significantly lower than in the gluteus maximus
(p = 0.003; ES = 2.27) and ST (p = 0.005; ES = 3.32). The
VL was significantly less activated than the gluteus maximus
(p = 0.048; ES = 0.99) and ST (p = 0.005; ES = 1.45).
Differences in EMG activity of each muscle by exercise were
as follows: EMG activity in the RF and the VM was
significantly higher in OHT as compared to FHT (p = 0.002;
ES = 0.99 and p = 0.042; ES = 1.35, respectively). The VL was
significantly less activated in FHT than in OHT (p = 0.002; ES
= 2.10) and more activated in RHT than in FHT (p = 0.047 ES
= 1.22). The gluteus maximus was less activated in OHT than
in RHT (p = 0.033; ES = 1.02). No significant differences were
documented in the activity of the gluteus medius among exer-
cises (p , 0.05). The activity of the BF was significantly lower
in OHT than in FHT (p = 0.008; ES = 0.93). Finally, the ST
muscle was significantly less activated in OHT and RHT than
in FHT (p = 0.006; ES = 2.75) (p = 0.015; ES = 2.34), respec-
tively. Differences in the EMG activity of each muscle by exer-
cise are shown in Table 1.
DISCUSSION
The results obtained confirm our hypothesis that HT
variations at 40% 1RM cause a specific change in the pattern
of activation of the target muscles.
The muscle that is more intensely activated in all
variations (OHT, FHT, RHT, and PHT) of the HT exercise
is the gluteus maximus followed by the gluteus medius, BF,
ST, VL, VM, and RF. The data obtained are consistent with
those reported by Contreras et al. (8), who recommend HT
for training the gluteus maximus. Indeed, the mean EMG%
activity of the gluteus maximus in all exercises is higher
(65.66%) with respect to the activity of its antagonist muscle
RF (4.93%). Significant differences were observed in EMG
activity between the RF and other hip extensors such as the
BF and the ST muscle in all variations except for the OHT.
Thus, in OHT, the activity of the BF was 41.02 6 29.89%,
whereas the activity of the RF was 5.87 6 2.56%; however,
these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.492).
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
The activity of muscles such as the RF, VM, gluteus
medius, and ST during HT has not been determined in
previous studies (1,9,10). Therefore, we provide novel
evidence on the motor patterns of different HT varia-
tions (Figure 2).
Each variation of the HT exercise exhibits a different
pattern of muscle activation. The results obtained are
consistent with those reported in previous studies, where
motor patterns were found to differ according to the exercise
(1,9,24) or variation performed (10,15,18,20,27).
A secondary objective of this study was to analyze the
EMG activity of each muscle during each HT variation.
In FHT vs. the OHT, activity in the BF increased by
31.41% (41.02 6 29.89% OHT vs. 72.43 6 33.21% FHT).
Also, the activity of the ST muscle increased by 38.53%
(31.61 6 8.18% OHT vs. 70.14 6 16.62% FHT). The greater
knee extension angle in FHT caused a higher involvement of
hip extensors and knee flexors (ST and BF). In the same line,
Lehecka et al. (20) reported that the activity of the BF in
single-leg bridge exercise increased from 23.49 to 75.34% of
the MVIC when the knee extension angle shifted from 135
to 908. In agreement with this finding, Kim and Park (18)
documented that the activity of the ST in bridge exercise
increased when the knee flexion angle was 90 or 608 as
compared to a greater flexion angle (1208).
In FHT, the activity of knee extensors decreased, namely:
VM (224.69%, 10.63 6 11.34% FHT vs. 35.32 6 21.35%
OHT) and VL (216.78%, 10.70 6 6.89% FHT vs. 27.48 6
8.05% OHT), and RF (22.40%, 3.47 6 1.9% FHT vs. 5.87 6
2.56% OHT). Therefore, the hamstrings:quadriceps coacti-
vation ratio increases when variations are performed. This is
relevant to the prevention and rehabilitation of lower-
extremity injuries (13).
One of the findings of this study was that the FHT
variation does not involve any change in the activity of the
gluteus maximus and gluteus medius with respect to the
OHT. Other authors such as Lehecka et al. (20) report to
have activated these muscles in pelvic bridge exercise by
changing the position of the feet and knees. Differences
can be due to the different percentages of 1RM used and
the wider range of joint motion involved in HT compared
with bridge exercise.
In the RHT, the activity of the gluteus maximus was
30.96% higher with respect to OHT (55.22 6 20.83% OHT
vs. 86.18 6 34.30% RHT). In RHT, intentional force is
shifted toward external rotation. Contreras et al. (12) con-
ducted a study to determine the maximal voluntary activity
of the gluteus maximus with the subject in standing position
by changing intentional force to external rotation. The au-
thors documented the same level of activity as in conven-
tional tests used to obtain MVIC in prone position. This
finding suggests that the greater external rotation, the more
intense the activity of the gluteus maximus. This is due to the
gluteus maximus having greater capacity of external rotation
(26). In the RHT, the distance between the feet also
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 5
EMG Activity in Hip Thrust Variations
increased. In a previous study, Paoli et al. (27) observed
that when stance width is increased in back squat (1.5 and
2 times the great trochanter distance), the electrical activ-
ity of the gluteus maximus without added load or with
loads of 70% RM increased. These results are in agree-
ment with those reported by Mccaw and Melrose (22),
who documented an increase in the activity of the gluteus
maximus when subjects completed parallel squat at 75% of
1RM using 140% of shoulder width, compared with mus-
cle activity at 75% of the subject’s shoulder width. The
greater the distance between the feet, the greater the
activity of the gluteus maximus (55.22 6 20.83% OHT
vs. 86.18 6 34.30% RHT). These findings suggest that
force work tending to the frontal plane causes a greater
activation of the gluteus maximus. In the RHT, the EMG
activity of the VL increased by 17.81% as compared to the
FHT (RHT 28.51 6 18.10% vs. FHT 10.70 6 6.89%). By
contrast, the activity of the ST muscle in RHT decreased
by 37.62% as compared to the FHT (RHT 32.52 6 13.23%
vs. 70.14 6 16.62% FHT). As a result of the increased
activity in the VL and reduced activity of the ST in
RHT, the hamstrings:quadriceps coactivation ratio in this
variation is lower than FHT variation.
In an initial analysis of PHT variation, we expected the
activity of hip extensors and knee flexors to increase, but no
significant differences were observed in EMG activity
compared with other variations. The EMG activity of the
gluteus maximus was in PHT 65.87 6 23.28%, while in
OHT, it was 55.22 6 20.83%. In addition, the activity of
the ST was in PHT 49.60 6 15.31% vs. HT 31.61 6
8.18%. Finally, another knee flexor, the BF, was 61.07 6
18.37 in PHT with respect to OHT.
Regarding the role of feedback or verbal instructions to
induce attentional focus either on the pectoralis or the
triceps muscle resulted in an increased activity in that muscle
during bench press and push-up exercises (5,6). However,
differences only remained significant until the threshold of
60% RM was reached. In addition, Snyder and Fry (29)
documented an increase of 17% in the activity of the pector-
alis major muscle when the subject was instructed to focus
on chest muscles during bench press at 50–80% RM. Based
on these findings, for the purposes of our study, we chose
a load of 40% of 1RM, which allowed us to cause significant
changes in muscle activation in the different variations of
HT. However, it could be that results found in this article
cannot be extrapolated to higher intensities.
Determining the relationship between reaction forces
against the ground, the percentage of 1RM and muscle
activation patterns is as worthwhile avenue for future
research. Thus, in relation to the study by Contreras et al.
(10), the increase in the activation of knee extensors caused
by greater loads (10RM) was more substantial than that
observed in our study. Further investigations comparing dif-
ferent speeds of execution are needed to better understand
the activity of each muscle in the HT exercise.
the TM
6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In HT, when the distance between the feet is increased, the
activity of knee flexors raises, whereas the activity of knee
extensors decreases. Therefore, this is a very recommendable
option to increase hamstring:quadriceps coactivation ratio.
Thus, in the RHT, the activity of the gluteus maximus
increases significantly reaching up to 90% MVIC with only
40% of 1RM. This is an optimal way to boost the activation
of the gluteus maximus in HT without increasing the load.
In conclusion, the motor pattern of HT can be easily
adjusted using either verbal instructions to apply “intentional
force” or changing foot position. This way, the efficacy of
each variation of HT can be optimized, and exercises can be
adjusted to a target muscle, which will allow coaches and
athletes to prevent and treat lower-limb injuries.
Understanding the biomechanics of each exercise will
help trainers adapt exercises to the needs of each athlete.
REFERENCES
1. Andersen, V, Fimland, MS, Mo, DA, Iversen, VM, Vederhus, T,
Hellebø, LRR, et al. Electromyographic comparison of barbell
deadlift, hex bar deadlift and hip thrust exercises: A cross-over
study. J Strength Cond Res 32: 587–593, 2018.
2. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathan, D. Training Load and
Repititions. In: 3rd, ed. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 395–396.
3. Bolgla, LA and Uhl, TL. Reliability of electromyographic
normalization methods for evaluating the hip musculature.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol 17: 102–111, 2007.
4. Boren, K, Conrey, C, Le Coguic, J, Paprocki, L, Voight, M, and
Robinson, TK. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and
gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Int J Sports Phys
Ther 6: 206–223, 2011.
5. Calatayud, J, Vinstrup, J, Jakobsen, MD, Sundstrup, E, Brandt, M, Jay, K,
et al. Importance of mind-muscle connection during progressive
resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 527–533, 2016.
6. Calatayud, J, Vinstrup, J, Jakobsen, MD, Sundstrup, E, Colado, JC,
and Andersen, LL. Mind-muscle connection training principle:
Influence of muscle strength and training experience during
a pushing movement. Eur J Appl Physiol 117: 1445–1452, 2017.
7. Cohen, J. The Analysis of Variance. In: 2nd, ed. Statistical Power
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1988. pp. 273-288.
8. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C,
McMaster, DT, Reyneke, J, et al. Effects of a six-week hip thrust
versus front squat resistance training program on performance in
adolescent males: A randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond
Res 31: 999–1008, 2017.
9. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C,
and Cronin, J. A Comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris,
and vastus lateralis electromyographic activity in the back squat and
barbell hip thrust exercises. J Appl Biomech 31: 452–458, 2015.
10. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C,
and Cronin, J. A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps
femoris, and vastus lateralis electromyography amplitude for
the barbell, band, and american hip thrust variations. J Appl
Biomech 32: 254–260, 2016.
11. Contreras, B, Cronin, J, and Schoenfeld, B. Barbell hip thrust.
Strength Cond J 33: 58–61, 2011.
12. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, Schoenfeld, BJ, Beardsley, C, and
Cronin, J. A comparison of two gluteus maximus EMG maximum
voluntary isometric contraction positions. PeerJ 3: e1261, 2015.

13. Dedinsky, R, Baker, L, Imbus, S, Bowman, M, and Murray, L.
Exercises that facilitate optimal hamstring and quadriceps co-
activation to help decrease ACL injury risk in healthy females: A
systematic review of the literature. Int J Sports Phys Ther 12: 3,
2017.
14. Distefano, LJ, Blackburn, JT, Marshall, SW, and Padua, DA. Gluteal
muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 39: 532–540, 2009.
15. Escamilla, RF, Francisco, AC, Kayes, AV, Speer, KP, and Moorman,
CT. An electromyographic analysis of sumo and conventional style
deadlifts. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 682–688, 2002.
16. Hedges, L and Olkin, I. Parametric Estimation of Effect Size from
a Series of Experiments. In: Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. Sand
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1985. pp. 108–138.
17. Hermens, HJ, Freriks, B, Disselhorst-Klug, C, and Rau, G.
Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and
sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10: 361–
374, 2000.
18. Kim, J and Park, M. Changes in the activity of trunk and hip
extensor muscles during bridge exercises with variations in unilateral
knee joint angle. J Phys Ther Sci 28: 2537–2540, 2016.
19. Kong, PW and Van Haselen, J. Revisiting the influence of hip and
knee angles on quadriceps excitation measured by surface
electromyography: Original research article. Int Sport Med J 11: 313–
323, 2010.
20. Lehecka, BJ, Edwards, M, Haverkamp, R, Martin, L, Porter, K,
Thach, K, et al. Building a better gluteal bridge: Electromyographic
analysis of hip muscle activity during modified single-leg bridges. Int
J Sports Phys Ther 12: 543, 2017.
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
21. Maulder, P and Cronin, J. Horizontal and vertical jump assessment:
Reliability, symmetry, discriminative and predictive ability. Phys Ther
Sport 6: 74–82, 2005.
22. McCaw, ST and Melrose, DR. Stance width and bar load effects on
leg muscle activity during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:
428–436, 1999.
23. McCurdy, K, Langford, GA, Cline, AL, Doscher, M, and Hoff, R.
The reliability of 1-and 3RM tests of unilateral strength in trained
and untrained men and women. J Sports Sci Med 3: 190, 2004.
24. McGill, SM, Cannon, J, and Andersen, JT. Analysis of pushing
exercises: Muscle activity and spine load while contrasting
techniques on stable surfaces with a labile suspension strap training
system. J Strength Cond Res 28: 105–116, 2014.
25. Mohamed, O, Perry, J, and Hislop, H. Relationship between wire
EMG activity, muscle length, and torque of the hamstrings. Clin
Biomech 17: 569–579, 2002.
26. Neumann, DA. Kinesiology of the hip: A focus on muscular actions.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40: 82–94, 2010.
27. Paoli, A, Marcolin, G, and Petrone, N. The effect of stance width on
the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles
during back squat with different bar loads. J Strength Cond Res 23:
246–250, 2009.
28. Snarr, RL, Hallmark, AV, Casey, JC, and Esco, MR.
Electromyographical comparison of a traditional, suspension device,
and towel pull-up. J Hum Kinet 58: 5–13, 2017.
29. Snyder, BJ and Fry, WR. Effect of verbal instruction on muscle
activity during the bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 26:
2394–2400, 2012.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 7