Side-To-Side Difference in Electromyographic Activity of Abdominal Muscles during Asymmetric Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A side-to-side difference in the muscle size of the rectus abdominis has been suggested to increase the strain injury risk. Attenuating the difference in size of the rectus abdominis may decrease the injury risk. To explore ways to highly activate one side of the rectus abdominis, we aimed to clarify the activity levels of both sides of the muscle during asymmetric abdominal exercises. Fifteen male sprinters performed the following five asymmetric exercises for the right and left sides: (i) sit-up twist, (ii) oblique leg raise, (iii) side bridge, (iv) side bridge roll out with the elbow, and (v) side bridge roll out with the foot. Side bridge roll out with the elbow and that with the foot were performed using a wheeled platform. During the exercises, electromyographic signals were recorded bilaterally from the upper, central, and lower portions of the rectus abdominis. We calculated the root mean square of electromyograms during the concentric and eccentric phases of the exercises and normalized to that during maximal voluntary contractions. In all portions of the rectus abdominis, the root mean squares of electromyograms were significantly higher in the moving side than in the non-moving side during the concentric and eccentric phases of the side bridge, the side bridge roll out with the elbow and that with the foot (all p < 0.01), but not in sit-up twist or oblique leg raise. The root mean squares of electromyograms of all portions of the rectus abdominis in the moving side were significantly higher in the side bridge roll out with the elbow and that with the foot than in the side bridge during both phases (all p < 0.01). The results suggest that the application of the wheeled platform to side bridge is useful to highly activate one side of the rectus abdominis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".