Lower-Limb and Trunk Muscle Activation With Back Squats and Weighted Sled Apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The back squat is a traditional resistance training exercise, whereas the resisted sled exercise is a relatively new resistance exercise. However, as there are no studies comparing muscle activation between the exercises, the objective of this study was to examine activity of leg and trunk muscles for both exercises. Ten healthy resistance-trained men participated in a randomized crossover design study consisting of 2 preparation sessions and 2 testing sessions. Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the rectus femoris, biceps femoris, gastrocnemius, lower erector spinae, and the transversus abdominis/internal obliques (TrA/IO) were monitored during a 20-step maximum push with the weighted sled apparatus and a 10 repetition maximum with a bilateral back squat. There were nonsignificant trends for the rectus femoris (p = 0.092: 8.6-16.7%) and biceps femoris (p = 0.09: 10.5-32.8%) to demonstrate higher activity with the sled and squat exercises, respectively. There were main effects for condition with 61.2% greater gastrocnemius EMG with the sled exercise (p = 0.01) and 74.5% greater erector spinae EMG activity with the squat (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences between the exercises for the TrA/IO. In summary, the sled and squat exercises provided similar EMG activity for the quadriceps, hamstrings, and TrA/IO. The squat provided higher lower erector spinae activation, whereas the sled had superior gastrocnemius activation. Depending on the movement-training specificity of the sport, either exercise may be used in a training program while acknowledging the differences in gastrocnemius and erector spinae activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".