Quantifying Muscle Patterns and Spine Load during Various Forms of the Push-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to quantify the normalized amplitudes of the abdominal wall and back extensor musculature during a variety of push-up styles. We also sought to quantify their impact on spinal loading by calculating spinal compression and torque generation in the L4-5 area. METHODS: Ten university-age participants, nine males and one female, in good to excellent condition, volunteered to participate in this study. All participants were requested to perform a maximum of 12 different push-up exercises, three trials per exercise. Surface electromyographic data (EMG) were collected bilaterally on rectus abdominis, external oblique, internal oblique, latissimus dorsi, and erector spinae muscles, and unilaterally (right side) on pectoralis major, triceps brachii, biceps brachii, and anterior deltoid muscles. Spine kinetics were obtained using an anatomically detailed model of the torso/spine. RESULTS: This study revealed that more dynamic push-ups (i.e., ballistic, with hand movement) required more muscle activation and higher spine load, whereas placing labile balls under the hands only resulted in modest increases in spine load. Right rectus abdominis (RA) activation was significantly higher than left RA activation during the left hand forward push-up and vice versa for the right hand forward push-up (P < 0.001). External oblique (EO) demonstrated the same switch in dominance during staggered hand push-ups (P < 0.01). The one-arm push-up resulted in the highest spine compression. Skilled participants showed greater synchronicity with peak muscle activation (plyometric type of contractions) during ballistic push-ups. CONCLUSION: These data will help guide exercise selection for individuals with differing training objectives and injury history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".