Influence of Pelvis Position on the Activation of Abdominal and Hip Flexor Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pelvic position has been sought that optimizes abdominal muscle activation while diminishing hip flexor activation. Thus, the objective of the study was to investigate the effect of pelvic position and the Janda sit-up on trunk muscle activation. Sixteen male volunteers underwent electromyographic (EMG) testing of their abdominal and hip flexor muscles during a supine isometric double straight leg lift (DSLL) with the feet held approximately 5 cm above a board. The second exercise (Janda sit-up) was a sit-up action where participants simultaneously contracted the hamstrings and the abdominal musculature while holding an approximately 45 degrees angle at the knee. Root mean square surface electromyography was calculated for the Janda sit-up and DSLL under 3 pelvic positions: anterior, neutral, and posterior pelvic tilt. The selected muscles were the upper and lower rectus abdominis (URA, LRA), external obliques, lower abdominal stabilizers (LAS), rectus femoris, and biceps femoris. The Janda sit-up position demonstrated the highest URA and LRA activation and the lowest rectus femoris activation. The Janda sit-up and the posterior tilt were significantly greater (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively) than the anterior tilt for the URA and LRA muscles. Activation levels of the URA and LRA in neutral pelvis were significantly (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively) less than the Janda sit-up position, but not significantly different from the posterior tilt. No significant differences in EMG activity were found for the external obliques or LAS. No rectus femoris differences were found in the 3 pelvis positions. The results of this study indicate that pelvic position had a significant effect on the activation of selected trunk and hip muscles during isometric exercise, and the activation of the biceps femoris during the Janda sit-up reduced the activation of the rectus femoris while producing high levels of activation of the URA and LRA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".