GLUTEUS MAXIMUS AND HAMSTRING ACTIVATION
DURING SELECTED WEIGHT-BEARING RESISTANCE
EXERCISES
KEVIN MCCURDY, JOHN WALKER, AND DERRICK YUEN
Department of Health and Human Performance, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas
ABSTRACT
McCurdy, K, Walker, J, and Yuen, D. Gluteus maximus and
hamstring activation during selected weight-bearing resistance
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVFrctQzt46R2JFw22KnOTVjL2RS6pSliDKuwnflXJDrN on 10/29/2018
exercises. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 594–601, 2018—The
purpose of this study was to compare the gluteus maximus
(GM) and hamstring group (HG) electromyographic (EMG)
activation levels among selected weight-bearing resistance ex-
ercises. Eighteen young adult females with previous resistance
training experience completed the study. Strength was as-
sessed on the bilateral squat (BS) (3 repetition maximum
[RM]), modified single-leg squat (MSLS) (3RM), and stiff-leg
deadlift (SLDL) (8RM) to determine an 8RM load for all lifts.
Surface EMG was collected after 48 hours of rest using wire-
less Trigno IM Sensors using EMMA software (Delsys), which
also collected and synchronized 3D hip and knee motion. A
maximum voluntary isometric contraction was determined for
the GM and HG to normalize the EMG data. During EMG data
collection, 3 repetitions were completed using an 8RM load on
all 3 exercises. Gluteus maximus EMG was significantly greater
than HG EMG on the BS (40.3 vs. 24.4%, p , 0.001), MSLS
(65.6 vs. 40.1 %, p , 0.012), and SLDL (40.5 vs. 29.9 %, p ,
0.047). The MSLS produced significantly greater HG EMG (p
= 0.001) compared with the SLDL, whereas the SLDL was
significantly greater (p = 0.004) than the BS. The MSLS GM
EMG was also significantly greater (p , 0.001) than the SLDL
and BS, whereas no difference was found between the SLDL
and BS. Comparing the activation of the 2 muscle groups in all
exercises, the GM seems to be the primary muscle recruited
whereas the MSLS seems to produce greater GM and HG
activation. The data indicate that it would be most beneficial
to include the MSLS during GM and HG training.
KEY WORDS hip extensors, knee flexors, bilateral resistance,
unilateral resistance
Address correspondence to Dr. Kevin McCurdy, km55@txstate.edu.
32(3)/594–601
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
594 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
A
lthough recruitment of the gluteus maximus
(GM) and hamstring group (HG) control hip
and knee stability and mobility, a primary role
of these muscles is to extend the hip. Research
has shown that weakness at the hip can lead to poor perfor-
mance and lower extremity dysfunction and injury (16,30,36).
Weight-bearing, free-weight exercise is arguably used most
often to increase hip strength for sport performance and
reduce the risk of injury, but the exercises that produce the
greatest muscle recruitment are not clear. Variations in the
type of stance and the use of single- (hip alone) and multi-
joint (hip and knee) during weight-bearing exercise likely
affects hip muscle recruitment levels but also needs further
investigation. These modifications may alter the contribu-
tion of each hip extensor muscle that may lead to differences
in strength and hip and knee injury prevention.
A key difference between the GM and HG is mono-
articular vs. biarticular joint control, respectively, at the
hip and knee (11). The GM reduces the risk of injury by
stabilizing the sacroiliac joint, preventing hip adduction
and internal rotation during weight-bearing actions,
which prevents excessive knee valgus. Along with hip
extension, the HG flexes the knee, prevents anterior tibia
shearing, and controls knee rotations while providing
medial and lateral knee support (13,38). Given these dif-
ferences, it is imperative to identify the exercises that best
recruit these muscle groups for the purpose of implement-
ing resistance training programs with the goal to obtain
these specific desired outcomes.
Previous research has revealed that GM and HG recruit-
ment can be isolated primarily with single-joint actions
(17,18,27). Gluteus maximus activation is relatively high dur-
ing the prone, hip extension exercise (40), and while abduct-
ing the hip to 30–608 with knee flexion before hip extension
(17). Commonly used as a maximum voluntary isometric
contraction (MVIC), knee flexion before hip extension is
suggested to minimize the contribution of the HG to hip
extension by reducing the muscle length in application of the
length-tension relationship. Non–weight-bearing exercises
during isolated knee flexion have been shown to significantly
activate the HG (18,27). However, these hip and knee

exercises may have a limited effect on multi-joint, weight-
bearing performance (39).
In contrast, weight-bearing, multijoint exercises (i.e.,
bilateral squat [BS]) can arguably be considered the most
beneficial for performance and injury prevention during
activities involving gait. Yet, research shows low activation
levels in the HG in comparison to the quadriceps during the
BS (8,32). Reciprocal inhibition from high quadriceps acti-
vation and minimal change in length after simultaneous hip
and knee flexion followed by extension have been suggested
to limit HG activation during the squat (41,42).
Few studies have compared the level of GM to HG
activation during the squat (2,3,14,21,31,35) and other
weight-bearing, multijoint exercises (1,7,20,34). The majority
of the studies that have analyzed GM and HG activation
have used only body weight as resistance that is typically
intended as rehabilitation exercise (1,7,12,14,20). The contri-
bution of each muscle to a joint action is likely different at
higher relative intensities. In addition, few studies have
included females as subjects, who have demonstrated lack
of hip strength (19) and biomechanical differences in com-
parison to males during lower extremity exercise
(4,24,29,30,43). Furthermore, GM and HG activation may
differ when using an anterior-posterior stance (i.e., lunge,
step-up) compared with a medial-lateral stance but direct
comparison among these exercises in the same study is lim-
ited at higher relative intensities (5). Thus, the contribution
of the GM and HG to hip control during these variations in
stance is not clear and requires further investigation. Previ-
ous research also indicates that muscle recruitment levels at
a joint can vary during single-joint vs. multi-joint actions
(41). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare
the GM and HG activation during 2 weight-bearing, multi-
joint resistance exercises (BS and modified single-leg squat
[MSLS]), and a single-joint, weight-bearing exercise (stiff-leg
deadlift [SLDL]).
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Three commonly used weight-bearing resistance exercises
were included to analyze surface electromyographic (EMG)
activation of the GM and HG. These exercises were
included because most sports involve weight-bearing activ-
ity. An 8 repetition maximum (RM) load was used to
observe the EMG response at a relative intensity typically
prescribed to increase strength and muscle size for improved
sport performance and prevention of injury. The GM and
HG are hip extensors but also stabilize the hip and knee
during the stance phase of various activities. Evidence
suggests that the activation of the GM and HG is important
for the prevention of knee injury (30); therefore, females,
known to have a higher rate of knee injury compared with
their male counterparts, were selected to be subjects. Gluteus
maximus and HG activation were compared with each exer-
cise to determine the relative activation levels. The type of
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
stance was a factor in the selection of the exercises. A
medial-lateral stance used in the SLD and BS and the
anterior-posterior stance used in the MSLS might signifi-
cantly influence muscle activation levels during hip flexion
and extension exercise. The effect of single- vs. multi-joint,
lower-extremity motion was also considered in exercise
selection.
Subjects
Eighteen women (SD 6 age 20.92 6 1.1 years, ht 165.30
6 5.51 cm, mass 61.84 6 6.37 kg) with previous resistance
training experience (range 1–5 years) before the study com-
pleted the study. All the subjects had previous participation
in a competitive sport but were not currently participating in
that sport. A few of the subjects were currently active inter-
mittently in resistance training, but none of the subjects were
consistently training to maximize strength or athletic perfor-
mance at the time of the study. Thus, the subjects were
classified as untrained in resistance training. To be included
in the study, the subjects had to complete all lifts with proper
form. Subjects with current or previous lower extremity
injury that would limit maximum performance on the exer-
cises were excluded. All procedures and informed written
consent form were approved by Texas State University’s inter-
nal review board. All subjects volunteered and were informed
of the benefits and risks of the procedures before signing the
approved written informed consent form to participate.
Procedures
Surface EMG was collected using wireless Trigno IM
Sensors using EMMA software (Delsys, Natick, MA).
Containing a built-in triaxial accelerometer, the sensors also
collected hip and knee 3-D motion, which was synchronized
with the EMG data. Each sensor also contained a Butter-
worth filter with a high-pass corner frequency of 20 Hz (40
dB/dec) and a low-pass corner frequency of 450 Hz (80 dB/
dec). Electromyographic data were collected with a sampling
rate of 1,111 Hz, whereas motion was collected at 148 Hz. A
base-station receiver with a 40 m range collected the data
that were transferred to a laptop through USB connection.
This collected data were exported to excel files followed by
being imported to EMGworks Data Acquisition and Anal-
ysis software (Delsys) for further processing. Within this
program, mean concentric, eccentric, and combined EMG
levels across 3 repetitions were determined using root mean
square calculation. Using separate data plots of motion and
EMG, the software allowed curser placement to determine
the specific range of motion that was synchronized to the
EMG levels. Electromyographic data were normalized with
conversion to a percentage of the MVIC for each muscle.
To collect hip motion data, a sensor was placed above the
sacrum on L5 and on the lateral thigh approximately 6 in
below and in line with the greater trochanter. For knee
motion, a sensor was placed 2 inches above the lateral
malleolus. For EMG analysis, one sensor was placed on the
GM belly parallel to the muscle fibers. Placement of the HG
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2018 | 595
 Gluteus Maximus and Hamstring Activation
sensors occurred using the positions used in recent research
to represent the entire group of muscles (33). An alcohol
wipe was used to clean each site, and double-sided tape
was used to improve sensor application to the skin.
Familiarization Session. The initial session was used to obtain
informed consent signatures and collect age, height, and
mass data. Instructions were provided to successfully per-
form each exercise, which was practiced using the free-
weight bar and light weight. Measurements were taken for
placement of the support step used to elevate the trail leg on
the MSLS (also called rear foot elevated split squat). The
subjects were instructed to abstain from participation in
resistance training during the study and given instructions to
wear appropriate clothing and shoes for resistance exercise.
Subjects were instructed to maintain a healthy dietary
routine and maintain hydration. Testing took place mid-
morning and early-afternoon hours and at the same time for
each subject.
Strength Assessment. After the familiarization session and 48
hours of rest, the subjects completed a strength assessment
on the SLDL (8RM) and either the BS (3RM) or MSLS
(3RM) in a randomized order. A final assessment took place
after 48 hours of rest to complete the MSLS or BS. A 5-
minute jog and dynamic stretching protocol was completed
before all strength and EMG data collection. All strength
assessments included 2 warm-up sets that progressed from
40 to 50% of the subject’s estimated 1RM while completing
3–5 repetitions. Based on the ease of completing the second
warm-up set, the weight was increased approximately 10%
for the initial set. For the SLDL, 8 repetitions were com-
pleted each set with a 3–4-minute recovery between trials.
Approximately 10% was added for each successful trial.
The subject had to complete all repetitions with proper
form. Three repetitions were completed each set on the
BS and MSLS. All strength measures occurred within 5
sets. For the SLDL, the subjects maintained knee flexion
near complete knee extension and a neutral trunk. With an
alternated grip at shoulder width, the subject flexed the
hip until the trunk was near parallel to the floor before
returning to the standing position (41). For the BS and
MSLS, the lead knee was in line with the toe while com-
pleting a parallel squat position (23). A shoulder-width
stance was used for the BS. For the MSLS, the trail leg
was supported with the ankle in complete plantar flexion
while making contact at the metatarsophalangeal joint
and toes (23). The height of the step was equal to the
height of the subject’s tibial tuberosity. A spotter was
placed behind and on both sides of the subject.
Electromyographic Data Collection. Electromyography was
collected after a minimum of 48 hours of rest after the last
strength assessment. Maximum voluntary isometric con-
traction took place after the warm-up and sensor placement.
the TM
596 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Gluteus maximus MVIC was taken with the subject prone
on a lab table, whereas the hip was positioned at 08 exten-
sion and the knee was flexed at 908 (40). The subject was
stabilized by spotters holding the uninvolved leg and the
upper body. Manual resistance was placed at the distal
femur. The subject gradually increased hip extension force
until maximum effort was reached within 1–2 seconds and
held for approximately 3 seconds during a 5-second trial.
Two trials took place with a 1-minute rest between trials,
and the highest mean EMG level over a 1-second period
was recorded as the MVIC. Hamstring group MVIC
occurred with subject prone and the hip and knee extended.
Manual resistance was applied at the ankle as the subject
attempted to flex the knee (33).
After a 5-minute rest, the subjects completed the 3
exercises in random order with 5 minutes between each
exercise. Three repetitions were completed for each exercise
using an 8RM load. The same technique used during
strength assessments was used to complete the EMG data.
The repetitions were performed with a 2-second descent and
ascent.
Statistical Analyses
The dependent variables in this study were the percent of
maximum EMG measures for each of the 3 lifts: (a) BS, (b)
modified squat, and (c) deadlift. The 2 independent variables
were (a) type of contraction (concentric vs. eccentric), and
(b) muscle group (hamstring vs. gluteus). Both of these
independent variables are within-subjects (repeated) varia-
bles. There were no between-subjects independent variables.
Bartlett’s test for equal variances and the Shapiro-Wilk test
for normality were used to determine whether the EMG
measures met the basic assumptions for an analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA). The results of these tests are reported in
Table 1.
Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the test-retest
reliability across 3 trials for each site. The reliability coeffi-
cients for the EMG measures ranged from 0.85 to 0.99.
Based on these high values, the EMG measures for each site
were determined to be highly reliable, and suitable for
analysis.
For each dependent variable, a 2-way ANOVA with
repeated measures was used to determine differences
between the 2 types of contractions, the 2 muscle groups,
and the interaction between contraction and muscle group.
Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon was used to adjust probability
values for any variation in sphericity among the trials. Paired
t-tests were used as post hoc comparisons between trials.
Partial h2 was used to determine effect size for each statisti-
cal test. All statistical significance was defined as p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Tests for the basic assumptions of ANOVA are reported in
Table 1, and indicate that the EMG measures for all data
met both the assumptions of equal variances and
 the TM

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

TABLE 1. Tests for the basic assumptions of TABLE 2. Descriptive values for BS.*
analysis of variance.*
Concentric Eccentric
Bartlett’s test for equal Variances x2 p (Mean 6 SD) (Mean 6 SD)
BS Hamstrings only† 29.6 6 11.0 19.3 6 8.1
Con. vs. Ecc. 1.25 0.26 Gluteus maximus 51.3 6 20.9 31.6 6 15.9
Ham. vs. Glut. 1.92 0.16 only†
MSLS Both muscle 38.7 6 13.6 24.8 6 10.8
Con. vs. Ecc. 1.83 0.18 groups†
Ham. vs. Glut. 1.67 0.20
SLDL Gluteus
Con. vs. Ecc. 0.84 0.36 Hamstrings Maximus
Ham. vs. Glut. 0.19 0.66 (Mean 6 SD) (Mean 6 SD)
Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normality Ζ p Both contractions 24.4 6 10.6 40.3 6 17.7
combined†
BS BS 1 RM (lbs.) 169.2 6 30.0
Concentric 0.73 0.23
Eccentric 1.50 0.07 *BS = bilateral squat.
Hamstring 0.81 0.21 †p , .05 between trials.
Gluteus 0.08 0.47
MSLS
Concentric 0.46 0.32
Eccentric 0.42 0.34
Hamstring 0.95 0.17 HG was not significantly different than the 19.7% difference
Gluteus 1.34 0.09 in eccentric contractions between the GM and HG, F(1,17) =
SLDL
Concentric 0.64 0.24 3.8, p = 0.069, partial h2 = 0.18.
Eccentric 1.41 0.08 Table 4 reports the descriptive values across trials for the
Hamstring 1.54 0.06 SLDL. Concentric contractions were significantly higher than
Gluteus 1.13 0.13 the eccentric, F(1,18) = 54.1, p , 0.001, partial h2 = 0.89, a very
large effect. Gluteus maximus EMG was also greater than HG,
*BS = bilateral squat; MSLS = modified single-leg
squat; SLDL = stiff-leg deadlift. F(1,17) = 4.6, p = 0.047, partial h2 = 0.70, another very large
effect. Also, the 11.3% difference in the concentric contractions
between the GM and HG was not greater than the 9.9%

normality. Table 2 reports the GM and HG descriptive

values across trials for the combinations of concentric
and eccentric contractions during the BS. Repeated meas- TABLE 3. Descriptive values for MSLS.*
ures ANOVA indicated a significantly higher concentric vs.
Concentric Eccentric
eccentric contractions, F(1,18) = 45.4, p , 0.001, partial h2
(Mean 6 SD) (Mean 6 SD)
= 0.89, a very large effect. There was also significantly
greater GM EMG than HG, F(1,17) = 9.2, p = 0.008, partial Hamstrings only† 50.0 6 14.6 30.2 6 9.3
h2 = 0.87, another very large effect. In addition, there was Gluteus maximus 76.1 6 14.9 49.9 6 16.2
a significant 2-way interaction between type of contraction only†
Both muscle 63.2 6 14.8 40.2 6 13.1
and muscle group, F(1,17) = 6.8, p = 0.018, partial h2 = 0.29, groups†
a large effect. The difference in the concentric EMG
between the GM and HG was greater (21.7%) than the Gluteus
difference in eccentric contractions (12.4%). Hamstrings Maximus
Table 3 reports the descriptive values across trials for the (Mean 6 SD) (Mean 6 SD)
MSLS. Electromyography was greater in the concentric Both contractions 40.1 6 10.8 65.6 6 15.1
contractions, F(1,18) = 107.9, p , 0.001, partial h2 = 0.80, combined†
a very large effect. Gluteus maximus EMG was also greater MSLS 1 RM (lbs.) 115.1 6 20.5
than the HG EMG, F(1,17) = 7.9, p = 0.012, partial h2 = 0.79,
*MSLS = modified single-leg squat.
another very large effect. Table 3 shows that the 26.1% dif- †p , .05 between trials.
ference between the concentric contractions in the GM and

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2018 | 597

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Gluteus Maximus and Hamstring Activation

the MSLS produced significantly greater GM and HG

activation than the BS and SLDL. These results were
TABLE 4. Descriptive values for SLDL.*
consistent across concentric, eccentric and combined. Con-
Concentric Eccentric centric contractions were also significantly greater than
(Mean 6 SD) (Mean 6 SD) eccentric contractions.
Although the GM and HG are active during hip flexion
Hamstrings only† 39.8 6 16.6 19.9 6 11.3
Gluteus maximus 51.1 6 22.1 29.9 6 16.2 and extension in all 3 exercises, the GM seems to be the
only† primary hip extensor. These results are in agreement with
Both muscle 45.6 6 18.9 24.8 6 12.7 previous research that have analyzed both muscle groups
groups† during weight-bearing exercises (2,3,7,34,35). The GM is
a monoarticular muscle that is also active during hip exter-
Gluteus
Hamstrings Maximus nal rotation and abduction, whereas the HG is biarticular
(Mean 6 SD) (Mean 6 SD) producing hip extension and providing direct knee stabili-
zation with medial and lateral insertions across the knee.
Both contractions 29.9 6 12.5 40.5 6 18.8 Research indicates that the primary role of the HG during
combined† the stance phase is to transfer forces across the joints of the
SLDL 1 RM (lbs.) 141.6 6 25.1
lower extremity and increase activation for hip extension
*SLDL = stiff-leg deadlift. when needed (16). Using modeling techniques during gait
†p , .05 between trials.
analysis, Jonkers et al. (16) determined that the biceps
femoris is able to increase activation if the GM is weak
during hip extension of the stance leg. Although non–
weight-bearing exercises designed to increase hip
difference in the eccentric contraction between the GM and strength have not shown kinematic changes related to
HG, F(1,17) = 0.07, p = 0.790, partial h2 = 0.004. lower extremity injury prevention (9), weight-bearing exer-
For the combined concentric and eccentric HG measures, cise could possibly produce more effective kinematic
a significant difference was observed among the 3 exercises, change during the stance phase.
F(2,35) = 25.7, Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon = 0.665, p , During the stance phase of sprinting, jumping, and sled
0.001, partial h2 = 0.766, a very large effect. The mean values pulling (26), GM activation was also higher than HG acti-
reported in Tables 2–4 indicate that HG EMG values were vation. Findings from Niinimaki et al. (25) revealed that GM
the smallest for the BS (24.4 6 10.6) and the largest for the cross-sectional area was greater in athletes who were
MSLS (40.1 6 10.8). Post hoc tests indicated that the MSLS involved in high impact and loading during weight-bearing
EMG was significantly greater than the SLDL EMG, t(18) = activity. In addition to our results, these investigations reveal
3.61, p = 0.001, whereas SLDL values were also significantly that the GM is the prime mover at the hip for a variety of
greater than the BS values t(17) = 22.99, p = 0.004. When weight-bearing activities. In comparison to these studies, our
the same comparisons were made with separate concentric results demonstrated similar relative activation levels in the
and eccentric hamstring measures, almost identical results GM and HG during weight-bearing resistance exercises.
were observed. Body-weight resistance (1,7,12,14,20) or light loads (2)
For the combined concentric and eccentric GM EMG, have been used in the majority of the studies that have
another significant difference was observed among the 3 analyzed the GM and HG during weight-bearing exercises.
exercises, F(2,34) = 20.9, Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon = 0.661, Compared with our results produced using an 8RM load,
p , 0.001, partial h2 = 0.825, a very large effect. The mean these studies found low activation in the GM (#35% MVIC)
values reported in Tables 2–4 indicate that a significant dif- and HG (#15% MVIC). Using a higher relative intensity
ference in GM EMG values was observed for the MSLS than these previous studies, we found higher percent MVIC
(65.6 6 15.1) and BS (40.3 6 17.7). Post hoc tests revealed levels in the combined concentric and eccentric phases for
that the MSLS values were also significantly higher than the the GM (41–63%) and HG (24–40%) across the 3 exercises.
SLDL values, t(17) = 4.38, p , 0.001, but the SLDL and BS The relatively low activation from the HG indicates that
values were not significantly different, t(17) = 20.09, p = other types of resistance exercise may be necessary to elicit
0.466. When the same comparisons were made with sepa- HG adaptations. Further research is needed to determine the
rate concentric and eccentric GM measures, almost identical relative activation and contribution necessary from the HG
results were observed. to provide sufficient knee support during various sport-
related maneuvers.
DISCUSSION Most research investigating the GM and HG at higher
The findings of this study revealed that the GM demon- loads have focused on the BS (3,22,28,44). Biomechanical
strated significantly higher relative muscle activation in differences in squat patterns tend to exist between males
comparison to the HG across the 3 exercises. In addition, and females but with the exception of Contreras et al. (3),
the TM

598 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

these previous studies included only male subjects. Contreras
et al. (3) used a 10RM load comparing the BS and hip
thruster (transverse load at the hip in a bridge position)
and found 37 and 16% of the MVIC in the GM and biceps
femoris activation, respectively. McCaw and Melrose (22)
and Paoli et al. (28) found a significant increase in GM levels
with an increase in stance width, but normalization of the
EMG using MVIC was not conducted in these previous
studies (22,28,44); thus, comparison of relative intensity
between the GM and HG was not determined and cannot
be used to compare with our study.
In contrast to the BS, the MSLS is performed with
a narrow, anterior-posterior stance that requires muscular
control for frontal plane stability (12,23). The MSLS pro-
duced significantly higher GM and HG activation compared
with BS and SLDL levels. McCurdy et al. (23) also found
higher HG activity in the MSLS compared with activation
in the BS, but only analyzed the biceps femoris within the
HG and did not include the GM. In contrast, DeForest et al.
(5) found no significant difference in muscle recruitment
between the 2 exercises in untrained males, but with 50%
of the BS 1RM used on the MSLS, comparisons were likely
determined with different relative intensities. Jones et al. (15)
also found no difference in muscle activation between the 2
types of squat in trained males. In addition to the difference
in subjects included, Jones et al. (15) compared the barbell-
BS to the dumbbell-MSLS that may explain the different
findings compared with our study. Relative muscle activation
found in our study cannot be compared with these recent
studies because they did not conduct EMG normalization.
Without normalization, comparison of activation across
muscle groups was also not analyzed in these previous stud-
ies. With a bilateral stance in the BS and SLDL, the load is
stabilized in the frontal plane that possibly minimized
recruitment in the GM and HG. Our data indicate that the
GM’s role as a hip abductor and the HG’s medial and lateral
insertions provide frontal plane support (38) during the
MSLS. Simenz et al. (34) also found high GM (127–240%)
and HG (42–73%) activation during 4 step-up exercises per-
formed with a 6RM load, which supports our data and sug-
gests that the narrow medial-lateral base of support increases
the GM and HG activation. Limiting comparison to our
study, Simenz et al. (34) used different normalization techni-
ques to measure GM MVIC (708 hip flexion) and HG MVIC
(seated at 608 knee flexion).
Although the MSLS produced the highest activation in
both muscle groups, the GM EMG was similar between the
BS and SLDL. Conversely, the SLDL produced greater
EMG in the HG compared with BS HG levels due to the
difference in the concentric phase. Weiss et al. (37) showed
further support that low HG activation occurs during the BS
after finding no change in HG hypertrophy after subjects
trained several weeks with the BS. In addition, Wright
et al. (41) found that squats at 75% 1RM produced approx-
imately half as much HG activity compared with the SLDL
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
and lying leg curl. Yamishita (42) suggested that the HG may
be attenuated by the simultaneous shortening at the hip and
lengthening at the knee during biarticular action
producing minimal change in length during the BS. Without
concentric action through a significant range of motion,
muscular activity may be reduced. Our data support previous
research (27) demonstrating consistently greater EMG acti-
vation in the concentric phase. However, the higher EMG in
the MSLS compared with the SLDL (monoarticular) does
not support the suggestion that biarticular action reduces
activity, which warrants further investigation. It is possible
that the higher demand for frontal plane support during the
MSLS may compensate for any attenuating effects of the
HG’s biarticular function. Although not measured in this
study, reciprocal inhibition could be a plausible explanation
for the low HG activity in the BS with potentially higher
quadriceps activation (23).
Several limitations of this study require noting. When using
a different relative intensity than the load used in this study,
different results may occur. It is also important in future
research to analyze EMG activation of the GM and HG
comparing males and females and subjects with different
training experience. Measurements of EMG collected in one
session may not predict long-term training adaptations, which
would require longitudinal investigation. Surface EMG may
not reflect the total activation of the muscle groups analyzed,
whereas cross-talk may have occurred from surrounding
muscles. Timing of muscle activation and recruitment patterns
are also important factors for performance and injury pre-
vention, which were not investigated in this study.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Although the GM demonstrated higher activation than
the HG during all 3 exercises, training with these exercises
at relatively high intensities may preferentially activate the
GM leading to greater adaptation. The GM also seems to
be the prime mover at the hip during various weight-
bearing activities (26). Although the weight-bearing, hip
extension resistance exercises analyzed are commonly im-
plemented due to their sport specificity, strength coaches
may need to include isolated hamstring exercises to
achieve maximum hamstring development and benefits.
The inclusion of hamstring exercises seems to be particu-
larly needed when the BS is used as the primary lower-
extremity exercise for strength as the BS produced the
lowest HG activity.
The greater GM and HG activation found during the
MSLS provides justification for strength coaches to
preferentially and regularly include this exercise into
resistance training programs in comparison to the
weight-bearing exercises with a wider medial-lateral base.
It seems that the narrow medial-lateral stance of the
MSLS increases the recruitment of the GM and HG for
frontal plane support along with their role as hip exten-
sors. The results were found when using a relatively high
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2018 | 599
 Gluteus Maximus and Hamstring Activation
intensity, thus inclusion of the MSLS during a strength
phase is warranted.
Women, shown to have a higher rate of knee injury (10),
may benefit most from training with the MSLS compared
with the BS and SLDL. Research has shown that women
have lower hip strength (19), lower hip extension mo-
ments, low GM activation (43) with higher hip adduction,
internal rotation, and lower hip flexion during landing
(30), which increase the risk of knee injury. Women also
have been shown to produce high quadriceps and low
hamstring activity during resistance exercise, landing,
and cutting (6,24). Based on joint actions produced by
the GM and HG contraction, these muscles are likely
involved in the reduction of these risk factors of knee
injury. Thus, the results of this study indicate that it would
be logical to include the MSLS in a resistance training
program designed to prevent knee injury.
REFERENCES
1. Arokoski, J, Kankaanpaa, M, Valta, T, Juvonen, I, Partanen, J,
Taimela, S, Lindgren, K, and Airaksinen, O. Back and hip extensor
muscle function during therapeutic exercises. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
80: 842–850, 1999.
2. Caterisano, A, Moss, R, Pellinger, T, Woodruff, K, Lewis, V, Booth,
W, and Khadra, T. The effect of back squat depth on EMG activity
of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond Res 16: 428–
432, 2002.
3. Contreras, B, Vigotsky, A, Schoenfeld, B, 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 6: 452–458, 2015.
4. Decker, M, Torry, M, Wyland, D, Sterett, W, and Steadman, R.
Gender differences in lower extremity kinematics, kinetics, and
energy absorption during landing. Clin Biomech 18: 662–669, 2003.
5. Deforest, B, Cantrell, G, and Schilling, B. Muscle activity in single-
versus double-leg squats. Int J Ex Sci 7: 302–310, 2014.
6. Ebben, W, Fauth, M, Petushek, E, Garceau, L, Hsu, B, Lutsch, B,
and Feldmann, C. Gender-based analysis of hamstring and
quadriceps muscle activation during jump landings and cutting. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 408–415, 2010.
7. Ekstrom, R, Donatelli, R, and Carp, K. Electromyographic analysis
of core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation
exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37: 754–762, 2007.
8. Gorsuch, J, Long, J, Miller, K, Primeau, K, Rutledge, S, Sossong, A,
and Durocher, J. The effect of squat depth multiarticular muscle
activation in collegiate cross-country runners. J Strength Cond Res 27:
2619–2625, 2013.
9. Herman, D, Weinhold, P, Guskiewicz, K, Garrett, W, Yu, B, and
Padua, D. The effects of strength training on the lower extremity
biomechanics of female recreational athletes during a stop-jump
task. Am J Sports Med 36: 733–740, 2008.
10. Hewett, T, Ford, K, and Meyers, G. Anterior cruciate injuries in
female athletes: Part 2, a meta-analysis of neuromuscular
interventions aimed at injury prevention.Am J Sports Med 34: 1–9,
2006.
11. Hof, A. The force resulting from the action of mono- and biarticular
muscles in a limb. J Biomech 34: 1085–1089, 2001.
12. Hollman, J, Galardi, C, Lin, I, Voth, B, and Whitmarsh, C. Frontal
and transverse plane kinematics and gluteus maximus recruitment
correlate with frontal plane knee kinematics during single-leg squat
tests in women. Clin Biomech 29: 468–474, 2014.
the TM
600 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
13. Houck, F. Muscle activation patterns of selected lower extremity
muscles during stepping and cutting tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13:
545–554, 2003.
14. Isear, J, Erickson, J, and Worrell, T. EMG analysis of lower extremity
muscle recruitment patterns during an unloaded squat. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 29: 532–539, 1997.
15. Jones, M, Ambegaonkar, J, Nindl, B, Smith, J, and Headley, S. Effects
of unilateral and bilateral lower-body heavy resistance exercise on
muscle activity and testosterone responses. J Strength Cond Res 26:
1094–1100, 2012.
16. Jonkers, I, Stewart, C, and Spaepen, A. The complementary role
of the plantar flexors, hamstrings, and gluteus maximus in the
control of stance limb stability during gait. Gait Posture 17: 264–
272, 2003.
17. Kang, S, Jeon, H, Kwon, O, Cynn, H, and Choi, B. Activation of the
gluteus maximus and hamstring muscles during prone hip extension
with knee flexion in three hip abduction positions. Man Ther 18:
303–307, 2013.
18. Kubota, J, Ono, T, Araki, M, Torii, S, Okuwaki, T, and Fukubayashi,
T. Non-uniform changes in magnetic resonance measurements of
the semitendonosus muscle following intensive eccentric exercise.
Eur J Appl Physiol 101: 713–720, 2007.
19. Leetun, D and Ireland, M. Core stability measures as risk factors for
lower extremity injury in athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 926–934,
2004.
20. Lin, C, Tsai, L, Press, J, Ren, Y, and Chung, S, Zhang, L. Lower-limb
muscle-activation patterns during off-axis elliptical compared with
conventional gluteal-muscle-strengthening exercises. J Sport Rehabil
25: 164–172, 2016.
21. Lynn, S and Noffal, G. Lower extremity biomechanics during
a regular and counterbalanced squat. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2417–
2425, 2012.
22. McCaw, S and Melrose, D. 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, O’Kelly, E, Kutz, M, Langford, G, Ernest, J, and Torres,
M. Comparison of lower extremity EMG between the 2-leg squat
and modified single-leg squat in female athletes. J Sport Rehabil 19:
57–70, 2010.
24. Nagano, Y, Hirofumi, I, Akai, M, and Fukubayashi, T. Gender
differences in knee kinematics and muscle activity during single limb
drop landing. Knee 14: 218–223, 2007.
25. Niinimaki, S, Harkonen, L, Nikander, R, Abe, S, Knusel, C, and
Sievanen, H. The cross-sectional area of the gluteus maximus
muscle varies according to habitual exercise loading: Implications
for activity-related and evolutionary studies. Homo 67: 125–137,
2016.
26. Okkonen, O and Hakkinen, K. Biomechanical comparison between
sprint start, sled pulling, and selected sprint-start squat exercises. J
Strength Cond Res 27: 2674–2684, 2013.
27. Ono, T, Okuwaki, T, and Fukubayashi, T. Differences in activation
patterns of knee flexor muscles during concentric and eccentric
exercises. Res Sports Med 18: 188–198, 2010.
28. 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.
29. Pappas, E, Marshall, H, Ali, S, Margareta, N, and Rose, D.
Biomechanical differences between unilateral and bilateral
landings from a jump: Gender differences. Clin J Sport Med 17:
263–268, 2007.
30. Pollard, C, Sigward, S, and Powers, C. Gender differences in hip
joint kinematics and kinetics during side-step cutting maneuvers.
Clin J Sport Med 17: 38–42, 2007.
31. Robertson, D, Wilson, J, and Pierre, T. Lower extremity muscle
functions during full squats. J Appl Biomech 24: 333–339, 2008.

32. Schaub, P and Worrell, T. EMG activity of six muscles and VMO:
VL ratio determination during a maximal squat exercise. J Sports
Rehabil 4: 195–202, 1995.
33. Schoenfeld, B, Contreras, B, Tiryaki-Sonmez, G, Wilson, J, Kolber,
M, and Peterson, M. Regional differences in muscle activation
during hamstrings exercise. J Strength Cond Res 29: 159–164, 2015.
34. Simenz, C, Garceau, L, Lutsch, B, Suchomel, T, and Ebben, W.
Electromyographical analysis of lower extremity muscle activation
during variations of the loaded step-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res
26: 3398–3405, 2012.
35. Sugisaki, N, Kurokawa, S, Okada, J, and Kanehisa, H. Difference in
the recruitment of hip and knee muscles between back squat and
plyometric squat jump. PLoS One 9: e101203, 2014.
36. Wagner, T, Behnia, N, Ancheta, W, Shen, R, Farrokhi, S, and
Powers, C. Strengthening and neuromuscular reeducation of the
gluteus maximus in a triathlete with exercise-associated cramping of
the hamstrings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40: 112–119, 2010.
37. Weiss, L, Coney, H, and Clark, F. Gross measures of exercise-induced
muscular hypertrophy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30: 143–148, 2000.
38. Weltin, E, Mornieux, G, and Gollhofer, A. Influence of gender on
trunk and lower limb biomechanics during lateral movements. Res
Sports Med 23: 265–277, 2015.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
39. Willy, R and Davis, I. The effect of a hip-strengthening program on
mechanics during running and during a single-leg squat. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 41: 625–632, 2011.
40. Worrell, T, Karst, G, Adamczyk, D, and Moore, R. Influence of joint
position on electromyographic and torque generation during
maximal voluntary isometric contractions of the hamstrings and
gluteus maximus muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 31: 730–740,
2001.
41. Wright, G, Delong, T, and Gehlsen, G. Electromyographic activity
of the hamstrings during performance of the leg curl, stiff-leg dead
lift, and back squat movements. J Strength Cond Res 13: 168–174,
1999.
42. Yamishita, N. EMG activities in mono- and bi-articular thigh
muscles in combined hip and knee extension. Eur J Appl Physiol 58:
274–277, 1988.
43. Zazulak, B, Ponce, P, Straub, S, Medvecky, M, Avedisian, L, and
Hewett, T. Gender comparison of hip muscle activity during single-
leg landing. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 35: 292–299, 2005.
44. Zink, A, Whiting, W, Vincent, W, and McLaine, A. The effects of
a weight belt on trunk and leg muscle activity and joint kinematics
during the squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 15: 235–240, 2001.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2018 | 601