ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Barbell Hip Thrust
Bret Contreras, MA,
John Cronin, PhD, CSCS,
and Brad Schoenfeld, MSc, CSCS
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; and
Exercise Science Department, Lehman College,
Bronx, New York
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (
he barbell hip thrust is a bio-
mechanically efficient way to
work the gluteal muscles. The
exercise can be used to maximize
gluteal muscle activation, develop
end-range hip extension strength in
the gluteus maximus musculature,
increase horizontal force production,
and increase the contribution of the
gluteus maximus relative to the ham-
strings during hip extension movement,
which may decrease the likelihood of
hamstring injuries (4).
Primary hip extensors (gluteus maxi-
mus, hamstrings, and hamstring part
of adductor magnus), secondary hip
extensors (adductors and posterior
fibers of gluteus medius and gluteus
minimus), posterior vertebral stabilizers
(erector spinae), and knee extensors
(rectus femoris and vasti muscles).
This bent-leg, horizontally loaded hip
extension exercise decreases hamstring
contribution to hip extension through
active insufficiency. Active insufficiency
refers to the phenomenon where a 2-
joint muscle is shortened at one joint
while a muscular contraction is initiated
by the other joint (11). The hamstrings
(semitendinosis, semimembranosus,
and long head of the biceps femoris)
are a group of biarticular muscles that
cross both the knee and the hip joints.
Because the hamstring muscles are
shortened during knee flexion (11),
their force-producing capacity neces-
sarily will be reduced during perfor-
mance of the hip thrust, consequently
increasing the contractile requirements
of the gluteus maximus musculature.
One drawback of typical standing
barbell strength exercises is the
decreased tension on the hip extensors
as the exercise nears lockout and the
hips reach a neutral position. Because of
the horizontally loaded nature of the
hip thrust exercise, tension on the hip
musculature is maximized at the
exercise’s lockout as the hips reach a
neutral or a slightly hip hyperextended
position. This corresponds to the
zone of hip range of motion involved
in ground contact during maximum
speed running. Normal hip extension
range of motion is around 20° past
neutral (10), and moving into this range
through active glute contraction may
maximize gluteus maximus activation as
maximal voluntary isometric contrac-
tion electromyographic activity of the
gluteus maximus has been shown to
increase as the hips move from flexion
to extension (13). However, increased
hip extension range of motion and weak
glutes have been shown to increase
anterior hip joint force (7,8), so proper
exercise progression should be em-
ployed, and caution should be taken
to ensure that the glutes are controlling
the movement.
Considering that (a) vertical forces
tend to plateau after approximately
70% of maximum running velocity is
achieved (1), whereas horizontal forces
continue to increase as velocity rises,
and (b) horizontal force application is
significantly correlated to increased
acceleration, whereas total and vertical
force production are not (9), it seems
wise to incorporate strategies to work
the hips from a horizontal vector if
increased speed and acceleration are
sought. Furthermore, because of the
increased muscular tension throughout
the full range of motion, the hip thrust
exercise would theoretically heighten
the hypertrophic stimulus for the
gluteal muscles (12) and thus increase
strength and power potential because
of the relationship of these factors to
muscle cross-sectional area (3,5,6).
The Exercise Technique Column provides detailed
explanations of proper exercise technique to optimize
performance and safety.
Column Editor:
John Graham, MS, CSCS*D, FNSCA
Exercise Technique
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 5 | OCTO BER 2011 Copyright Ó National Strengt h and Condition ing Association
Begin the exercise by sitting on the
ground and straightening the legs.
Line up the upper back across
a secured and padded bench, step,
or box. The placement of the upper
back across the bench should be
slightly lower than the low-bar
position used in the powerlifting-
style squat. Position the barbell over
the lower legs (Figure 1). (Note: Body
weight resistance must be mastered
before using barbell loading, and grad-
ually progressive increments should be
used to prepare the body’s tissues for the
new movement pattern.)
Lean forward and grab a hold of the
barbell (Figure 2).
Assuming large plates are used for
resistance, such as 45-lb or 20-kg
plates, it is usually possible to simply
roll the barbell over the thighs
toward the hips (Figure 3). Individ-
uals with extremely muscular thighs
may find this task challenging, in
which case they will need to make
modifications, such as asking a spot-
ter to lift up on one side of the barbell
to allow the exerciser to slide his or
her legs underneath.
Because the hip thrust puts consid-
erable pressure across the lower
abdominal and pubic region, it is
wise to pad the barbell. Coaches
have used Airex Balance Pads
(Airex AG, Switzerland), dense
padding, Hampton thick bar pads
(Hampton Fitness, Ventura, CA),
regular bar pads, towe ls, and home-
made devices consisting o f sagittally
cut PVC pipe and hollo wed out
foam rollers. The thicke r the pad-
ding, the better. The barbell is
situated symmetrically and placed
at the crease of the hips slightly
above the pelvis. If a bar pad is use d,
precautions are taken to ensure that
the bar will not slip through the
padding by making sure tha t the slit
in the pad is facing upward.
Lean back and resume the proper
upper back placement. Tighten
everything up by scooting the feet
toward the buttocks and ‘‘digging
into’’ the bench and ground. The
feet should be positioned around
shoulder width apart and placed at
a distance that creates a 90° angle at
the knee joint with a vertical tibia
relative to the ground at the top
portion of the movement (Figure 4).
From this starting position, a big
breath is taken and the core is braced.
The barbell is raised off the ground
via a powerful contraction of the hip
extensors. It is of utmost importance
to ensure that the spine and pelvis
stay in relatively neutral positions and
the extension movement comes from
the hips, not from the lumbopelvic
region. A slight arch in the low back is
fine, but excessive lumbar hyperex-
tension can predispose the posterior
elements of the spine to injury and
increase disc deformation and spinal
loading (2). Proper form involves
the athlete controlling the barbell
throughout the entire movement,
including the concentric, isometric,
and eccentric portions. The knees
should track directly over the toes
and not cave inward. The back hinges
across the bench, and any sliding of
the back up and down the bench is
kept to a minimum. The exerciser
should keep the feet flat and push
through the entire foot. Alternatively,
the exerciser may dorsiflex the ankles
throughout the movement to ensure
force transfer through the heels,
which may slightly increase posterior
Figure 1. Start position for the hip thrust.
Figure 2. Rolling the barbell over the legs.
Strength and Conditioning Journal |
chain recruitment. For maximum
safety, the head and neck should
track accordingly to remain in align-
ment with the spine.
The hips rise until the torso is
parallel with the ground and a hip-
neutral position is reached. The
exerciser may choose to take the
exercise a couple of inches higher
into hip hyperextension via a power-
ful contraction of the gluteals as the
hips can hyperextend around 10°
with bent legs (Figure 5).
The lockout position of the exer-
cise is held for a 1-count. The
eccentric portion is performed under
control, and the barbell should
lightly return to the ground. This
practice may allow for better trans-
fer to running through increased
net horizontal forces (see Video,
Supplemental Digital Content 1,
Five main strategies can be employed
for the hip thrust exercise:
1. The barbell is raised concentrically
for a 1-count, held isometrically up
top for a 1-count, and lowered
eccentrically for a 1-count, and then,
the barbell rests on the ground for
a 1-count before repeating. This is
the standard technique.
2. The barbell is raised concentrically
for a 1-count, held isometrically up
top for a 3-count, lowered eccentri-
cally for a 1-count, and then
repeated just before the barbell
touching the ground. This is the
constant tension method and creates
extreme cellular swelling and an
occlusion effect, which may maxi-
mize hypertrophic signaling.
3. The barbell is raised concentrically for
a 1-count, held isometrically up top
for a 1-count, and lowered eccentri-
cally for a 1-count, and then, the
barbell rests on the ground for 3–5
seconds. T his is known as the rest-
pause method and creates an extreme
high-threshold motor unit activa-
tion stimulus by allowing adequate
recovery between repetitions to max-
imize neural drive, which may
enhance neurological adaptation.
4. The exercise is first performed via
the constant tension method. When
it is no longer possible to perform
any more repetitions, the exerciser
switches to the rest-pause method
to squeeze out 1–5 more repetitions.
This is known as the extended
set method, and because it is an
advanced technique, fewer sets in
this manner should be performed
(1 all-out set would serve the exe-
rciser just fine).
5. The exercise is performed via a com-
bination of barbell, plate, and band
or chain resistance. Bands can be
secured to the end of the bar and
fastened to heavy dumbbells residing
directly underneath the bar. If chains
are used, care must be taken to make
sure the chains do not interfere with
the ground-plate interface.
Beginners should perform 1–3 sets
with 8–12 repetitions with 60–120
seconds in between sets.
Intermediates should perform 3–4
sets with 5–8 repetitions with 60–
120 seconds in between sets.
Advanced lifters should perform 3–5
sets with 1–5 repetitions with 120
seconds in between sets.
Figure 3. Ensuring symmetrical bar alignment and placement at the hips.
Figure 4. Bottom of hip thrust with barbell in position to be lifted.
Exercise Technique
Beginners should demonstrate pro-
ficiency with body weight resistance
before using additional loading. This
means feeling gluteal activation
through most of the range of motion
and not the erector spinae, ham-
strings, or quadriceps and keeping
a stable spine while moving solely at
the hips.
Intermediates should begin working
their way up to loading equal to
their own body weight via grad-
ual progressions in 20- to 25-lb
Advanced athletes have been known
to work their way up to impressive
loads in the hip thrust exercise. It is
not uncommon for strong and
powerful athletes to use 500–600 lb
of resistance on this exercise after
several months of progression.
The gluteal muscles are extremely
powerful and are capable of moving
relatively large weights from this
direction in this position.
Bret Contreras is a Certified Strength
and Conditioning Specialist and a PhD
candidate at the AUT University in
Auckland, New Zealand.
John Cronin is the director of Sports
Performance Research Institute New
Zealand and a strength & conditioning
professor at the AUT University in
Auckland, New Zealand.
Brad Schoenfeld is a lecturer at the
Lehman College and is the president of the
Global Fitness Services in Croton, NY.
1. Brughelli M, Cronin J, and Chaouachi A.
Effects of running velocity on running
kinetics and kinematics. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 933–939, 2011.
2. Callaghan JP, Gunning JL, and McGill SM.
The relationship between lumbar spinal
load and muscle activity during extensor
exercises. Phys Ther 78: 8–18, 1998.
3. Haxton HA. Absolute muscle force in the
ankle flexors of man. J Physiol 103:
267–273, 1944.
4. Hoskins W and Pollard H. The management
of hamstring injury—Part 1: Issues in
diagnosis. Man Ther 10: 96–107, 2005.
5. Ikai M and Fukunaga T. Calculation of
muscle strength per unit cross-sectional
area of human muscle by means of
ultrasonic measurement. Int Z Angew
Physiol 26: 26–32, 1968.
6. Jones EJ, Bishop PA, Woods AK, and
Green JM. Cross-sectional area and
muscular strength: A brief review. Sports
Med 38: 987–994, 2008.
7. Lewis CL, Sahrmann SA, and Moran DW.
Anterior hip joint force increases hip
extension, decreased gluteal force, or
decreased iliopsoas force. J Biomech 40:
3725–3731, 2007.
8. Lewis CL, Sahrmann SA, and Moran DW.
Effect of position and alteration in
synergistic muscle force contribution on hip
forces when performing hip strengthening
exercises. Clin Biomech 24: 35–42, 2009.
9. Morin JB and Samozino P. Technical
ability of force application as a determinant
factor of sprint performance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. Epub ahead of print, 2011.
10. Roach KE and Miles TP. Normal hip and
knee active range of motion: The relationship
to age. Phys Ther 71: 656–665, 1991.
11. Schoenfeld B. Accentuating muscular
development through active insufficiency
and passive tension. Strength Cond J 24:
20–22, 2002.
12. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle
hypertrophy and their application to
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res
24: 2857–2875, 2010.
13. Worrell TW, Karst G, Adamczyk D, Moore R,
Stanley C, Steimel B, and Steimel S. Influence
of joint position on electromyographic and
torque generation during maximal voluntary
isometric contractions of the hamstrings and
gluteus maximus muscles. JOrthopSports
Phys Ther 31: 730–740, 2001.
Figure 5. Top position for the hip thrust.
Strength and Conditioning Journal |
... The development of the hip extensor muscles rely on external load since body-weight exercises may not be sufficient to elicit changes within the muscles (Cochrane et al., 2017;Wretenberg et al., 1996). The barbell hip thrust (BHT) was introduced as a biomechanically efficient means to load the hip extensor muscles (Contreras et al., 2011). Through utilising active insufficiency, the shortening of a two-joint muscle at one of the joints, while muscular contraction is occurring, this horizontally loaded hip extension exercise can decrease hamstring activity, forcing an increase in the contribution of GMax musculature (Schoenfeld, 2002). ...
... Moreover, this load was selected to normalise each exercise's load to each exercise by taking into consideration the possibility of effects on muscular activity due to the presence of biomechanical and limb position variations (Escamilla et al., 2002;Korta & Peña, 2018;McCaw & Melrose, 1995;Paoli et al., 2009). Unlike previous BHT studies, foot position was standardised to the shoulder width of each subject, as noted in previous research (Contreras et al., 2011) to further standardised exercise set-up. ...
... As presented in Figure 2, the participants were instructed to perform the BHT protocol as described in previous research (Contreras et al., 2011) to ensure conformity across all recorded trials. All participants started in a seated position within the designated squat rack with the upper back against a Rogue® Hip Thruster Bench allowing the inferior angle of the scapula to sit just above it. ...
Hip extensor muscles are critical to sport performance as events requiring sprinting and forceful landings are highly dependent on these muscles. Despite biomechanical differences between the barbell hip thrust (BHT) and the barbell glute bridge (BGB), both are biomechanically efficient ways to load this musculature for training purposes. Research investigating the differences in muscular activity between the BHT and BGB has yet been conducted. The aim of this study was to investigate, through surface electromyography, if one exercise is more optimal than the other in producing greater muscle activation for specific hip extensor muscles. Ten male participants completed a two-part study protocol. Results revealed the BHT elicited significantly greater muscle activity within the vastus lateralis for peak and mean outcomes; however, the BGB elicited significantly greater muscle activity in the upper and lower gluteus maximus for peak and mean outcomes and mean outcome in the gluteus medius. Current findings suggest, the BGB is, at minimum, a superior substitute for the BHT for eliciting a larger magnitude of activity in the gluteus maximus. Future studies between the two exercises are warranted to discern which produces greater hypertrophy and whether adaption of the BHT or BGB transfers more optimally to sport performance.
... Recently, there has been an increase in the popularity of the barbell hip thrust, a type of bridging exercise performed against an external barbell resistance, used to develop the hip extensor musculature. Since its introduction to the literature by Contreras et al. [4], the hip thrust has gained popularity within the biomechanics and strength and conditioning communities due to evidence of superior gluteal activation characteristics compared with more conventional resistance training exercises such as the back squat or deadlift variations [5][6][7][8]. ...
... Due to the horizontally (anterior-posterior) loaded nature of the hip thrust, authors have speculated that this exercise requires a consistent hip extension moment throughout its range of motion [9,10], and maximal muscular tension when hip joint reaches full extension [4,5,7]. In addition, the loading nature of the hip thrust elicits a horizontal orientation of the resultant ground reaction force vector relative to the athlete in the global coordinate system [11]. ...
... Investigating the musculoskeletal demand placed on the lower limb and pelvic-trunk joints is fundamental to biomechanical analyses of strength training exercises [17][18][19][20][21][22], although has yet to be undertaken for the hip thrust. Specifically, for the hip joint, whilst authors have proposed that the hip thrust requires a consistent hip extension moment and greater muscular "tension" when hip joint is close to full extension [4,5,7,8], there is currently no joint kinetic evidence to support these ideas. ...
Full-text available
Barbell hip thrust exercises have risen in popularity within the biomechanics and strength and conditioning literature over recent years, as a method of developing the hip extensor musculature. Biomechanical analysis of the hip thrust beyond electromyography is yet to be conducted. The aim of this study was therefore to perform the first comprehensive biomechanical analysis the barbell hip thrust. Nineteen resistance trained males performed three repetitions of the barbell hip thrust at 70% one-repetition maximum. Kinematic (250 Hz) and kinetic (1000 Hz) data were used to calculate angle, angular velocity, moment and power data at the ankle, knee, hip and pelvic-trunk joint during the lifting phase. Results highlighted that the hip thrust elicits significantly ( p < 0.05) greater bilateral extensor demand at the hip joint in comparison with the knee and pelvic-trunk joints, whilst ankle joint kinetics were found to be negligible. Against contemporary belief, hip extensor moments were not found to be consistent throughout the repetition and instead diminished throughout the lifting phase. The current study provides unique insight to joint kinematics and kinetics of the barbell hip thrust, based on a novel approach, that offers a robust evidence base for practitioners to guide exercise selection.
... The maximal neuromuscular capabilities of the HT movement were quantified through maximal effort HT attempts performed against external loads of +40, +60, +80, +100 and +120 kg, applied with a free Olympic barbell equipped with a thick (d = 10 cm) padding to minimize participant discomfort. The HT kinematics were in accordance with the recommendations of Contreras et al. (Contreras et al., 2011(Contreras et al., , 2015, i.e. with the upper back resting on the bench, feet positioned shoulder width apart and hip-and knee-joint angles of ~ 90 deg, the movement was executed predominantly through extension of the hips, causing the pelvis and barbell to ascend vertically. Participants were instructed to perform the lift with maximal intentional velocity throughout the full range of motion, thus ballistically projecting the barbell off their hips if permitted by the load. ...
... Although sprinting and the HT exercise share some common biomechanical features pertaining to sagittally oriented force originating predominantly from the hip-extensor musculature, which could explain previous reports of a robust relationships between these variables (Loturco et al., 2018 ;Williams et al., 2021), they are both associated with unique kinematical characteristics potentially underlying their apparent distinctiveness as presently observed. During the push-off phase of sprinting when horizontal ground impulse is transmitted onto the supporting ground, the knee-joint operates in relative proximity of terminal extension (Nagahara et al., 2014), whereas the operating point of the knee in the HT is in a substantially more flexed position (Contreras et al., 2011). The relative importance of the various hip-extensor muscles to hip-extension torque production is known to vary as a function of knee-joint angle, with the bi-articular hamstrings being of stronger importance when the knee is closer to full extension and with the uni-articular gluteals serving as the prime hip-extensor in a knee-flexed position (Kim & Park, 2016 ;Kwon & Lee, 2013). ...
Comprehensive information regarding neuromuscular function, as assessed through force-velocity-power (FVP) profiling, is of importance for training optimization in athletes. However, neuromuscular function is highly task-specific, potentially governed by dissimilarity of the overall orientation of forceapplication. The hip thrust (HT) exercise is thought to be of relevance for sprinting considering its antero-posterior force orientation and considerable hip-extensor recruitment, however, the association between their respective FVP profiles remains unexplored. Therefore, to address the concept of force orientation specificity within FVP profiling, the maximal theoretical neuromuscular capabilities of 41 professional male footballers (22.1 ± 4.1 years, 181.8 ± 6.4 cm, 76.4 ± 5.5 kg) were assessed during sprint acceleration, squat jumping (SJ) and the HT exercise. No significant associations were observed for maximal theoretical force or velocity between the three FVP profiling modalities, however, maximal theoretical power (Pmax) was correlated between sprinting and SJ (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) and HT and SJ (r = 0.44, P = 0.01), but not between sprinting and HT (r = 0.18, P = 0.36). In conclusion, although Pmax may be considered a somewhat universal lower-extremity capability, neuromuscular function is associated with substantial task-specificity not solely governed by the overall direction of force orientation.
... In week 1 participants received formal introduction and coaching on correct technique to each exercise by a qualified strength and conditioning coach (see Supplementary Material), after completing a standardized warm-up of static and dynamic stretching. National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) guidelines for exercise technique were used to coach the BS, DL, and HT (Hales, 2010;Contreras et al., 2011;Comfort et al., 2018). To ensure minimal fatigue, the p1RMs achieved in familiarization were used to structure 1RM testing the following week (baseline measurement), which followed the same sets and percentage increments. ...
Full-text available
Measurement of muscle specific contractile properties in response to resistance training (RT) can provide practitioners valuable information regarding physiological status of individuals. Field based measurements of such contractile properties within specific muscle groups, could be beneficial when monitoring efficacy of training or rehabilitation interventions. Tensiomyography (TMG) quantifies contractile properties of individual muscles via an electrically stimulated twitch contraction and may serve as a viable option in the aforementioned applications. Thus, aims of this study were; (i) to investigate the potential use of TMG to quantify training adaptations and differences, in response to exercise specific lower limb RT; and (ii) investigate any associations between TMG parameters and accompanying muscle architectural measures. Non-resistance trained male participants (n = 33) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 single-exercise intervention groups (n = 11 per group); back squat (BS), deadlift (DL), or hip thrust (HT). Participants completed a 6-week linearized training program (2× per week), where the assigned exercise was the sole method of lower body training. Pre- and post-intervention testing of maximal dynamic strength was assessed by one repetition maximum (1RM) of BS, DL, and HT. Radial muscle belly displacement (Dm) and contraction time (Tc) were obtained via TMG from the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) pre- and post-intervention, alongside muscle architectural measures (pennation angle and muscle thickness). All three groups displayed significant increases all 1RM strength tests (p < 0.001; pη2 = 0.677–0.753). Strength increases were accompanied by significant overall increases in RF muscle thickness (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.969), and pennation angle (p = 0.007, pη2 = 0.220). Additionally, an overall reduction in RF Dm (p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.427) was observed. Significant negative relationships were observed between RF Dm and pennation angle (p = 0.003, r = −0.36), and with RF Dm and muscle thickness (p < 0.001, r = −0.50). These findings indicate that TMG is able to detect improved contractile properties, alongside improvements in muscle function within an untrained population. Furthermore, the observed associations between Dm and muscle architecture suggest that TMG contractile property assessments could be used to obtain information on muscle geometry.
... The RDL has also been considered to be crucial for the development of weightlifting movements such as the clean and snatch (12). It has been suggested by Contreras et al. (7) that the BHT is superior to the SQ in eliciting higher gluteal muscle activity, developing terminal hip extension strength in the gluteus maximus (GM) thereby increasing horizontal force production, and increasing the contribution of the GM relative to the hamstrings during hip extension movement. Although the BHT has gained recent popularity, there is a lack of evidence to support the notion that the BHT does in fact increase horizontal force production of the hip or elicits higher GM activity than the SQ or RDL in athletic populations. ...
Full-text available
Delgado, J, Drinkwater, EJ, Banyard, HG, Haff, GG, and Nosaka, K. Comparison between back squat, romanian deadlift, and barbell hip thrust for leg and hip muscle activities during hip extension. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-This study compared muscle activities of vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), and gluteus maximus (GM) during the back squat (SQ), Romanian deadlift (RDL), and barbell hip thrust (BHT) exercises performed with the same load (60 kg) and at one repetition maximum (1RM). Eight men with a minimum of 1 year's lower-body strength training experience performed the exercises in randomized order. Before each exercise, surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded during a maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and then used to normalize to each muscle's EMG during each trial. Barbell hip thrust showed higher GM activity than the SQ (effect size [ES] = 1.39, p = 0.038) but was not significantly different from RDL (ES = 0.49, p = 0.285) at 1RM. Vastus lateralis activity at 1RM during the SQ was significantly greater than RDL (ES = 1.36, p = 0.002) and BHT (ES = 2.27, p = 0.009). Gluteus maximus activity was higher during MVIC when compared with the 60 kg load for the SQ (ES = 1.29, p = 0.002) and RDL (ES = 1.16, p = 0.006) but was similar for the BHT (ES = 0.22, p = 0.523). There were no significant differences in GM (ES = 0.35, p = 0.215) and BF activities (ES = 0.16, p = 0.791) between 1RM and MVIC for the SQ. These findings show that the RDL was equally as effective as the BHT for isolating the hip extensors, while the SQ simultaneously activated the hip and knee extensors.
... The barbell hip thrust (BHT) has been classified as an "anteroposteriorly oriented lower-body exercise" 1 and recognized by its capacity to optimize gluteal muscle activation and improve endrange hip extension torque, which possibly enhances horizontal force production. 2,3 Considering these characteristics, it has been theorized that the BHT might reflect some biomechanical demands and functional requirements of maximum-effort sprinting. 1 Indeed, a growing body of evidence indicates that maximum running speed may be critically influenced by the ability to orient the resultant force vector horizontally throughout the sprint acceleration phase. ...
Purpose: To identify the bar velocities that optimize power output in the barbell hip thrust exercise. Methods: A total of 40 athletes from 2 sports disciplines (30 track-and-field sprinters and jumpers and 10 rugby union players) participated in this study. Maximum bar-power outputs and their respective bar velocities were assessed in the barbell hip thrust exercise. Athletes were divided, using a median split analysis, into 2 groups according to their bar-power outputs in the barbell hip thrust exercise ("higher" and "lower" power groups). The magnitude-based inferences method was used to analyze the differences between groups in the power and velocity outcomes. To assess the precision of the bar velocities for determining the maximum power values, the coefficient of variation (CV%) was also calculated. Results: Athletes achieved the maximum power outputs at a mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity of 0.92 (0.04) m·s-1 (CV: 4.1%), 1.02 (0.05) m·s-1 (CV: 4.4%), and 1.72 (0.14) m·s-1 (CV: 8.4%), respectively. No meaningful differences were observed in the optimum bar velocities between higher and lower power groups. Conclusions: Independent of the athletes' power output and bar-velocity variable, the optimum power loads frequently occur at very close bar velocities.
Full-text available
This study investigated whether the barbell hip thrust (BHT) enhanced change-of-direction (COD) speed measured by the 505 COD speed test. Forty recreationally trained individuals completed three sessions. Session 1 included one-repetition maximum (1RM) BHT testing to measure absolute and relative strength. Sessions 2 and 3 involved two counter-balanced conditioning activities (CAs): 3 sets × 5 repetitions of the BHT at 85% 1RM and a control condition (CC; 6 min rest). The 505 COD speed test was performed 5 and 2.5 min pre-CA, and 4, 8, 12, and 16 min post-CA in each session. A 2 × 5 repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.05) calculated performance changes across time post-CA. A 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA analyzed best potentiated performance. Partial correlations controlling for sex calculated relationships between the 1RM BHT and 505 COD speed test percent potentiation. There was a significant main effect for time (p < 0.001), but not for condition (p = 0.271) or condition × time (p = 0.295). There were no significant correlations between 1RM BHT and potentiation. The 85% 1RM BHT did potentiate the 505 4–16 min post-CA but no more than the CC. Nonetheless, a heavy BHT could be programmed prior to COD drills as COD speed could be potentiated and performance improved in men and women.
Full-text available
International Journal of Exercise Science 13(4): 49-61, 2020. The barbell back squat provides a highly effective training stimulus to improve lower body strength, speed, and power, which are considered key components of athletic performance in many sports. The barbell hip thrust exercise utilizes similar musculature, and is popular among practitioners, but has received far less scientific examination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of an in-season resistance training program with hip thrusts or back squats on physical performance in adolescent female soccer players. Fourteen players completed identical whole-body resistance training twice per week for 6 weeks, except one group used the barbell hip thrust (HT) (n = 6) and the other the back squat (SQ) (n = 8). Improvements were observed for both groups in hip thrust 3RM (HT = 34.0%, SQ = 23.8%), back squat 3RM (HT = 34.6%, SQ = 31.0%), vertical jump (HT = 5.4%, SQ = 4.9%), broad jump (HT = 10.5%, SQ = 8.1%), ball kicking distance (HT = 13.2%, SQ = 8.1%), and pro-agility (HT =-1.5%, SQ =-1.5%; faster), but not 36.6-m dash (HT = 2.9%, SQ = 1.9%; slower) with no significant between-group differences. These data indicate that both the hip thrust and the squat provide an effective stimulus to improve these sport-specific performance measures. Practitioners should consider these findings in combination with other factors (equipment availability, ability to coach the movement, training goals, injuries, etc.) when selecting exercises.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
During the surnmer of 1978, a selected group of male, national-class sprinters participated in an 0lympic Development Training Camp at Colorado Springs. A similar group of sprinters participated in an 0lympic Development Training Camp held in Tucson, Arizona, during the summer of 1979. Numerous tests were administered to the sprinters and data were collected on such variables as standing'long jump, vertical jump, reaction time to both an audio and a visual stimulus, body composition, strength via isokinetic testing, and running speed. The focus of this paper will be on the kinematic analysis of striding during the start from the blocks and during the mid-race sprint.
Full-text available
Ten male recreational runners were filmed using three-dimensional cinematography while running on a treadmill at 3.8 m/s, 4.5 m/s, and 5.4 m/s. A 14-segment mathematical model was used to examine the influence of the arm swing on the three-dimensional motion of the body center of mass (CM), and on the vertical and horizontal propulsive impulses (“lift” and “drive”) on the body over the contact phase of the running cycle. The arms were found to reduce the horizontal excursions of the body CM both front to back and side to side, thus tending to make a runner's horizontal velocity more constant. The vertical range of motion of the body CM was increased by the action of the arms. The arms were found to make a small but important contribution to lift, roughly 5–10% of the total. This contribution increased with running speed. The arms were generally not found to contribute to drive, although considerable variation existed between subjects. Consistent with the CM results, the arms were found to reduce the changes in forward velocity of the runner rather than increasing them. It was concluded that there is no apparent advantage of the “classic” style of swinging the arms directly forward and backward over the style that most distance runners adopt of letting the arms cross over slightly in front. The crossover, in fact, helps reduce side-to-side excursions of the body CM mentioned above, hence promoting a more constant horizontal velocity.
Full-text available
The purpose of the research was to find the most important kinematic and kinetic parameters of the set position and starting action and their correlation with the start acceleration. The subject sample comprised of thirteen male sprinters and eleven female sprinters. A 2D kinematic analysis video system (APAS) was used to register the kinematic start and start acceleration parameters. The kinetic parameters of the starting action were measured with the help of modified starting blocks (MMIP) with in-built measurement sensors. The time parameters of the start acceleration were measured by four pairs of photo cells (AMES) placed at 5–10–20–30 m from the starting line. The statistical analysis was performed with the statistical package SPSS. The efficiency of the sprint start for both sexes is generated by: horizontal start velocity of the C. G., starting reaction time, force impulse and the maximal force gradient on the front starting block. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between the genders are predominantly in the area of kinetic parameters of the starting action. The highest correlations with the start acceleration for male sprinters has the kinetic parameters block of the starting action – maximal and relative force of pressure, maximal force gradient, force impulse and time to maximal force; among the kinematic parameters horizontal start velocity of the C. G. and the ankle angle in the front starting block. Female sprinters have much lower correlations, only two significant coefficients were obtained – time to maximal force on the front and rear starting block. The generally low correlations between the start and the start acceleration, especially in the first five metres from the start are the consequence of the differences in the biomechanical motor structure.
Full-text available
Acceleration performance is important for field sport athletes that require a high level of repeat sprint ability. Although acceleration is widely trained for, there is little evidence outlining which kinematic factors delineate between good and poor acceleration. The aim of this study was to investigate the kinematic differences between individuals with fast and slow acceleration. Twenty field sport athletes were tested for sprint ability over the first three steps of a 15m sprint. Subjects were filmed at high speed to determine a range of lower body kinematic measures. For data analysis, subjects were then divided into relatively fast (n = 10) and slow (n = 10) groups based on their horizontal velocity. Groups were then compared across kinematic measures, including stride length and frequency, to determine whether they accounted for observed differences in sprint velocity. The results showed the fast group had significantly lower (~11-13%) left and right foot contact times (p < .05), and an increased stride frequency (~9%), as compared to the slow group. Knee extension was also significantly different between groups (p < .05). There was no difference found in stride length. It was concluded that those subjects who are relatively fast in early acceleration achieve this through reduced ground contact times resulting in an improved stride frequency. Training for improved acceleration should be directed towards using coaching instructions and drills that specifically train such movement adaptations.
The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that exercise of maximal intensity (M) (50 continuous jumps) induces a smaller degree of low frequency fatigue in humans than eccentric intermittent exercise (E) (50 "eccentric" jumps). The main finding of the study is that only after the E exercise there was a statistically significant (P<0.05) decrease in the quadriceps muscle contraction force induced by stimulating the muscle at 1-50 Hz. After E exercise the force induced by low frequency stimulation (1-20 Hz) increased more significantly (P<0.05) than in the case of high frequency stimulation (50 Hz). This is indicative of the fact low frequency arose in the muscle. Two min after the end of E and M exercises the height of vertical jump and maximal voluntary contraction force were no different from their respective pre-exercise values. Following the E and M exercises there was no change in relative twitch force post-tetanic potentiation. This points to the fact that "metabolic" fatigue induced by performing exercise of maximal intensity can partially compensate for the decrease in muscle contraction force in the case of low frequency fatigue.
Selected kinematic variables in the performance of the Gold and Silver medalists and the eighth-place finisher in the men's 200-meter sprint final at the 1984 Summer Olympic Games were investigated. Cinematographic records were obtained for all track running events at the Games, with the 200-meter performers singled out for initial analysis. In this race, sagittal view filming records (100 fps) were collected at the middle (125-meter mark) and end (180-meter mark) of the performance. Computer-generated analysis variables included both direct performance variables (body velocity, stride rate, etc.) and upper and lower body kinematics (upper arm position, lower leg velocity, etc.) that have previously been utilized in the analysis of elite athlete sprinters. The difference in place finish was related to the performance variables body horizontal velocity (direct), stride rate (direct), and support time (indirect). The critical body kinematics variables related to success included upper leg angle at takeoff (indirect), upper leg velocity during support (direct), lower leg velocity at touchdown (direct), foot to body touchdown distance (indirect), and relative foot velocity at touchdown.
This investigation was designed to determine the test-retest reliability of a functional one legged hop test for distance in individuals with and without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Twenty subjects (X = 20.85 years) with no prior history of lower extremity injury, and 13 subjects (X = 22.40 years) with ACL reconstruction participated in this study. Testing occurred on two separate days with at least 24 h between testing sessions. The subjects executed a protocol consisting of a 5-min warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by three separate trial hops. This was followed by three separate hops which were measured and recorded. The distance travelled for each hop was measured using a standard measuring tape. The same protocol was then repeated on the contralateral limb. The leg tested first was randomized with each subject. The subjects were then asked to return on the second day, wearing the same pair of athletic shoes, and repeat the identical protocol. The mean of the three hops were used in data analysis. Paired t-tests revealed no significant difference between the dominant and non-dominant legs on either pre-test or post-test in subjects with healthy knees. A significant difference was found when comparing involved to uninvolved limb on both the pre-lest and post-test in patients with ACL reconstruction. There was no significant difference found from pre-test to post-test on either the dominant or non-dominant legs in healthy subjects or from the involved to uninvolved in patients with ACL reconstruction. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) revealed values of 0.92 and 0.96 for dominant and non-dominant legs, respectively. For individuals with ACL reconstruction, ICC values were 0.89 for both the involved and uninvolved limb. The results of this study suggest that the one legged hop test for distance is a reliable test for both young adults with healthy knees and those who have had ACL reconstruction. This test, along with others, may aid clinicians in determining whether patients are ready to return to prior level of activity.