Looped Band Placed Around Thighs Increases EMG of Gluteal Muscles Without Hindering Performance During Squatting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
**Background:** There is little information about the effects of placing a resistance band around the outer thighs on the amplitude of performance and electromyography (EMG) of lower body muscles during a free barbell back squat (FBBS) activity. This study quantified EMG amplitudes of the gluteus medius, gluteus maximus, vastus lateralis, and biceps femoris dur- ing an FBBS with and without the use of a looped resistance band. In addition, the effects of the looped band on the number of repetitions completed on failure in performing FBBS were measured at 2 intensities. **Methods:** In this study, 15 resistance-trained males (age, 23.6 6 3.5 years) completed an FBBS 3 repetition maximum (RM) test on the first testing day to estimate their 1RM. On days 2 and 3, participants completed 5 repetitions equal to 80% of their estimated 1RM followed by a repetition to failure test using 60% of estimated 1RM with and without a band placed around their thighs in a counter-balanced fashion while EMG amplitudes were collected. **Results:** No differences were found at 60% intensity test between conditions (band: 21.4 6 6, control: 20.4 6 4.7; P = .171). Similarly, no differences were found between conditions in EMG of the vastus lateralis or biceps femoris at both intensities (effect size [ES] range = 0.01–0.4, P ≥ .05). In contrast, other than a few exceptions, gluteus medius and maximus showed greater EMG activity in the looped-band condition during tests (ES range = 0.28– 1.15, P < .05) at both 60% and 80% intensities. **Conclusion:** Placing a looped resistance band around the thighs can be used as a training strategy to increase the activation of the hip muscles during FBBS using medium to heavy loads without negatively affecting performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".