Content uploaded by Michael P Reiman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael P Reiman
Content may be subject to copyright.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
A literature review of studies evaluating gluteus
maximus and gluteus medius activation during
rehabilitation exercises
Michael P. Reiman, PT, DPT, OCS, SCS, ATC, FAAOMPT, CSCS,
1
Lori A Bolgla, PT,
PhD, ATC,
2
and Janice K. Loudon, PT, PhD, SCS, ATC, CSCS
3
1
Doctor of Physical Therapy Division, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of
Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
2
Department of Physical Therapy, Georgia Health Sciences University, Augusta, GA, USA
3
Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City,
KS, USA
ABSTRACT
Recently, clinicians have focused much attention on the importance of hip strength for the rehabilitation of not
only patients with low back pain but also lower extremity pathology. Properly designing a rehabilitation program
for the gluteal muscles requires careful consideration of biomechanical principles, such as length of the external
moment arm, gravity, and subject positioning. Understanding the anatomy and function of these muscles also is
essential. Electromyography (EMG) provides a useful means to determine muscle activation levels during
specific exercises. Descriptions of specific exercises, as they relate to the gluteal muscles, are described. The
specific performance of these exercises, the reliability of such EMG measures, and descriptive figures are
also detailed. Of utmost importance to practicing clinicians is the interpretation of such data and how it can be
best used in exercise prescription when formulating a treatment plan.
INTRODUCTION
Strengthening of any muscle group requires careful
planning and a systematic progression from less chal-
lenging to more challenging exercises. The demand
of a particular exercise can be influenced by the
plane of movement, effects of gravity, speed of
motion, base of support, and type of muscle contrac-
tion. Clinicians should consider these factors when
designing and implementing strengthening exercises
for the gluteals. An appreciation of this muscle
group’s anatomy and function also deserves
attention.
Gluteal anatomy and function
The gluteus maximus (GMax) is the largest muscle of
the hip accounting for 16% of the total cross-sectional
area (Winter, 2005). It has several anatomical land-
marks, including the ilium, sacrum/coccyx, and sacro-
tuberous ligament as an origin (Kendall, McCreary,
and Provance, 1993). Eighty percent of the GMax
inserts into the ilio tibial band; the remainder inserts
in the distal portion of the femur’s gluteal tuberosity.
The GMax is a powerful hip extensor and lateral
rotator (Delp, Hess, Hungerford, and Jones, 1999).
It is often used to accelerate the body upward and
forward from a position of hip flexion ranging from
45° to 60° (e.g., sprinting, squatting, and climbing a
steep hill). In addition, the GMax is active during a
plant and cut maneuver to the opposite side
(Neumann, 2010).
The gluteus medius (GMed) is broad and fan
shaped, attaching to the superior ilium and inserting
Address correspondence to Michael P. Reiman, Doctor of Physical
Therapy Division, Department of Community and Family Medicine,
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
E-mail: reiman.michael@gmail.com
Accepted for publication 5 July 2011
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 28(4):257–268, 2012
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
ISSN: 0959-3985 print/1532-5040 online
DOI: 10.3109/09593985.2011.604981
257
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
on the lateral aspect of greater trochanter (Pfirrmann
et al, 2001). Anatomically, the GMed is divided into
three parts: 1) anterior; 2) middle; and 3) posterior,
each with separate branches from the superior
gluteal nerve.
As a whole, the GMed stabilizes the femur and
pelvis during weight-bearing activities with the great-
est GMed activation observed during the stance
phase of gait (Gottschalk, Kourosh, and Leveau,
1989; Lyons et al, 1983). Functionally, it generates
an exceptional amount of force given its size (Ward,
Winters, and Blemker, 2010).
The GMed a ccounts for 60% of the total hip
abductor muscle cross-sectional area (Clark and
Haynor, 1987). The three anatomical parts’ phasic
activity is based on fiber orientation (Gottschalk,
Kourosh, and Leveau, 1989). The anterior and middle
portions of the GMed help initiate hip abduction. The
anterior portion singly abducts, medially rotates, assis ts
with hip flexion, and is active when the base of support
is minimal (e.g., bridges, unilater al squat, later al
step-up) (Boudreau et al, 2009). It has been demon-
strated that there is an eightfold increase in medial
rotation leverage at 90° of flexion (Delp, Hess, Hunger-
ford, and Jones 1999). The posterior portion of the
muscle exten ds, abducts, and laterally rotates the hip.
Hip/gluteal weakness and pathology
Hip dysfunction (e.g., weakness and limited range of
motion) is one factor that has been associated with
low back and various lower extremity pathologies. A
moderate relationship currently exists between hip
dysfunction and low back pathology (Reiman,
Bolgla, and Lorenz, 2009), whereas a much stronger
relationship has been identified between hip dysfunc-
tion and knee pathology (Powers, 2010; Reiman,
Bolgla, and Lorenz, 2009).
Hip abduction and lateral rotation weakness has
been associated with patellofemoral pain syndrome
(PFPS). Ireland, Willson, Ballantyne, and Davis
(2003) revealed that females with PFPS demonstrated
26% less hip abductor and 36% less hip lateral
rotation strength than controls. Others have identified
similar trends (Bolgla, Malone, Umberger, and Uhl
2008; Piva, Goodnite, and Childs, 2005; Robinson
and Nee, 2007; Willson and Davis, 2009).
Powers (2003) has theorized that hip abductor and
lateral rotator weakness can lead to knee valgus, hip
adduction, and hip internal rotation, a position that
can place undue stress on lower extremity joints.
Ferber, Kendall, and Farr (2011) found that correct-
ing the hip strength deficits improves lower extremity
pain in runners.
Emerging data support the important role of the
GMax and GMed during athletic endeavors, and a
variety of strengthening exercises have been described.
The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a review
of the current literature regarding GMax and GMed
activation during rehabilitative exercises. It is our
intent that clinicians use this information to facilitate
a systematic approach for the development and
implementation of GMax and GMed strengthening
programs.
METHODS
A literature search was performed for experimental
studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic
reviews, narrative reviews, and meta-analyses using
the Medline (1966 to 05/2010), CINAHL (1982 to
05/2010), and Sports Discus (1975 to 05/2010)
databases. Search terms included hip; strengthening;
exercise; therapy; gluteus maximus; gluteus medius;
gluteal muscles; exertion; testing; electromyography
(EMG); electromyographic analyses; maximum
voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC); and
training, in all possible combinations. Sources also
were located by scanning reference lists from all
relevant articles.
Information from the various sources was com-
pared among authors for relevance of inclusion.
Primary inclusion criteria were studies investigating
EMG activity for either the GMax or GMed. Articles
were excluded if EMG analyses were not performed
for these two muscles. Additional exclusion criteria
for articles investigating EMG analyses were used to
minimize heterogeneity between studies. Additional
exclusion criteria included 1) studies/exercises
that measured EMG activity while adding additional
weight or resistance; 2) studies/exercises that
measured EMG activity while using machines/
equipment to modify the activity; 3) studies/exercises
that measured EMG activity only during the
eccentric phase of an exercise; 4) studies/exercises
that did not normalize EMG activity to a MVIC; 5)
studies/exercises t hat examined gender differences
(separate calculations for males for males and
females); and 6) studies/exercises that lacked detailed
information to discern proper inclusion/exclusion
criteria.
RESULTS
Six studies for the GMax (Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan,
and Greenway 2007; Blanpi ed, 1997; Distefano,
258 Reiman et al.
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
Blackburn, Marshall, and Padua 2009; Ekstrom, Do-
natelli, and Carp 2007; Ekstrom, Osborn, and Hauer
2008; Farrokhi et al, 2008) and four studies for the
GMed (Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan, and Greenway 2007;
Bolgla and Uhl, 2005; Distefano, Blackburn, Mar-
shall, and Padua 2009; Ekstrom, Donatelli, and
Carp 2007) met the inclusion criteria. To make mean-
ingful comparisons of EMG activation levels between
studies, we categorized activation into previously de-
scribed levels (low-level muscle activation at 0–20%
MVIC; moderate-level activation at 21–40% MVIC;
high-level activation 41–60% activation, and very
high-level activation at greater than 60%) (Escamilla
et al, 2010).
Appendix I lists the exercises included, EMG
activity, and measurement reliability (when available).
Appendix II provides a detailed description of each
study. To make meaningful comparisons of EMG
activity between studies, we summarized EMG data
for the GMax (Figure 1) and GMed (Figure 2)
during exercise from the lowest to highest activation
level. For exercises examined in a single study, we
reported their individual mean and standard
deviation. For exercises examined in more than one
study, we reported the pooled mean and its 90%
confidence interval (CI).
Gluteus maximus activation
Low-level activation (0–20% MVIC)
Three exercises met the criteria for inclusion in the
category of low-level activation (Figure 1). These exer-
cises included 1) Prone bridge/plank (9% ± 7%
MVIC); 2) Lunge with backward trunk lean (19% ±
12% MVIC); and 3) Bridging on Swiss ball (20% ±
14% MVIC).
Moderate-level activation (21–40% MVIC)
Seven exercises met the criteria for inclusion in the
category of moderate-level activation (Figure 1). The ex-
ercises in this category included 1) Side-lying hip
abduction (21% ± 16% MVIC); 2) Lunge with
forward trunk lean (22% ± 12% MVIC); 3) Bridging
on stable surface (25% ± 14% MVIC); 4) Clam
with 30° hip flexion (34% ± 27% MVIC); 5) Lunge-
neutral trunk position (36% MVIC; 90% CI [32, 40]);
FIGURE 1 Gluteus maximus percent maximum voluntary isometric contraction ranking of exercises.
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 259
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
6) Clam with 60° hip flexion (39% ± 24% MVIC); and
7) Unilateral bridge (40% ± 20% MVIC).
High-level activation (41–60% MVIC)
Nine exercises met the criteria for inclusion in the cat-
egory of high-level activation (Figure 1). These exer-
cises were 1) Sideways lunge (41% ± 20% MVIC);
2) Lateral step-up (41% MVIC; 90% CI [36, 46]);
3) Transverse lunge (49% ± 20% MVIC); 4) Quad-
ruped with contralateral arm/leg lift (56% ± 22%
MVIC); 5) Unilateral mini-squat (57% ± 44%
MVIC); 6) Retro step-up (59% ± 35% MVIC); 7)
Wall squat (59% MVIC; 90% CI [51, 67]); 8)
Single-limb squat (59% ± 27% MVIC); and 9)
Single-limb deadlift (59% ± 28% MVIC).
Very high-level activation (>60% MVIC)
One exercise met the criteria for inclusion in the very
high-level activation (Figure 1). This exercise was
Forward step-up (74% ± 43% MVIC).
Gluteus medius activation
Low-level activation (0–20% MVIC)
None of the included studies had any exercises
that met the criteria for inclusion in the category of
low-level activation.
Moderate-level activation (21–40% MVIC)
Eight exercises met the criteria for inclusion in the
category of moderate-level activation (Figure 2).
These exercises were 1) Prone bridge plank (27%
± 11% MVIC); 2) Bridging on stable surface (28%
± 17% MVIC); 3) Lunge-neutral trunk position
(34% MVIC; 90% CI [30, 38]); 4) Unilateral
mini-squat (36% ± 17% MVIC); 5) Retro step-up
(37% ± 18% MVIC); 6) Clam with 60° hip flexion
(38% ± 29% MVIC); 7) Sideways lunge (39% ±
19& MVIC); and 8) Clam with 30° hip flexion
(40% ± 38% MVIC).
FIGURE 2 Gluteus medius percent maximum voluntary isometric contraction ranking of exercises.
260 Reiman et al.
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
High-level activation (41–60% MVIC)
Nine exercises met the criteria for inclusion in the cat-
egory of high-level activation (Figure 2). The exercises
were 1) Lateral step-up (41% MVIC; 90% CI [37,
45]); 2) Quadruped with contralateral arm and leg
lift (42% ± 17% MVIC); 3) Forward step-up (44%
± 17% MVIC); 4) Unilateral bridge (47% ± 24%
MVIC); 5) Transverse lunge (48% ± 21% MVIC);
6) Wall squat (52% ± 22% MVIC); 7) Side-lying hip
abduction (56% MVIC; 90% CI [49, 63]); 8) Pelvic
drop (57% ± 32% MVIC); and 9) Single-limb deadlift
(58% ± 22% MVIC).
Very high-level activation (>60% MVIC)
Two exercises met criteria for inclusion into the cat-
egory of very-high level activation (Figure 2). These
exercises were 1) Single-limb squat (64% ± 24%
MVIC); and 2) Side-bridge to neutral spine position
(74% ± 30% MVIC).
DISCUSSION
Therapeutic exercise is one of the most important
interventions that clinicians prescribe for the treat-
ment of low back and lower extremity pathology.
Researchers (Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan, and Greenway,
2007; Bolgla and Uhl, 2005; Boudreau et al, 2009;
Distefano, Blackburn, Marshall, and Padua, 2009;
Krause et al, 2009) have used surface EMG to
quantify hip muscle activity during various activities
and exercises. They have theorized that exercises
requiring greater EM G activity will result in strength
gains. Clinicians can use this information because
strength gains of the active muscle(s) are expected
when EMG activity is greater than 40% MVIC
(Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan, and Greenway, 2007; Esca-
milla et al, 2010). The following sections provide an
explanation for the muscle activation levels, as
delineated in Figures 1 and 2, for the GMax and
GMed.
Gluteus maximus activation
Our review identified three low-level exercises, seven
moderate-level exercises, nine high-level exercises, and
one very high-level exercise for GMax activation. The
prone bridge/plank differed from the other exercises in
the low-level activation due to its static nature to main-
tain a neutral hip and spine position during this exercise.
The low activation (9% MVIC) most likely reflected the
GMax’s role as a hip and spine stabilizer.
Data for the five lunges suggested that trunk pos-
ition and movement direction can influence GMax
activity. Farrokhi et al (2008) reported 22% MVIC
GMax activation when subjects performed a forward
lunge with the trunk flexed forward relative to the
hip and pelvis. Compared to the trunk extended
lunge, the trunk flexed forward lunge was more
demanding because it placed the body’s center of
mass more forward relative to the hip joint’s axis of
rotation. This position change essentially increased
the external moment arm that resulted in an increased
external hip flexion torque. Therefore, subjects gener-
ated greater GMax activity to counteract the higher
hip flexion torque.
Our review included three variations of a bridging
exercise that specifically targeted the GMax’s role as
a dynamic hip extensor. Subjects performed the uni-
lateral and traditional bridges in a hook-lying position,
which effectively shortened the hamstrings to target
GMax activity. The unilateral bridge (40% MVIC)
had greater activation than the traditional bridge
(25% MVIC) because the GMax controlled multiple
planes of hip and pelvis movement when performing
the unilateral bridge. It is interesting that subjects gen-
erated less GMax activity (19% MVIC) during the
bridge on Swiss ball. This exercise differed from the
unilateral and traditional bridge because subjects per-
formed it with the knees extended. This position most
likely allowed for hamstring activation that assisted
with hip extension during the bridge on Swiss ball.
Besides the various lunge and unilateral bridge
exercises, the side-lyi ng hip abduction and clam exer-
cises all generated moderate GMax activity. Although
typically prescribed as exercises to strengthen the
GMed, they also can provide additional benefit for
the GMax. The side-lying hip abduction (21%
MVIC) generated less GMax activation than the
clam with 30° (34% MVIC) and 60° (39% MVIC)
of hip flexion. This relatively lower activation during
side-lying abduction likely reflected the GMax’s role
as a secondary hip abductor. The clam exercises dif-
fered from side-lying hip abduction because both
incorporated dynamic hip lateral rotation, another
important GMax action. As discussed in the GMed
section, both clam exercises generated GMed acti-
vation levels similar to the GMax. Therefore, clini-
cians should consider prescribing clam exercises if
the goal is to equally target the GMax and GMed.
The high-level activation tier of GMax muscle acti-
vation included mostly standing exercises. The side-
ways lunge and lateral step-up both had lower GMax
activation levels (41% MVIC) than the transverse
lunge (49% MVIC). The sideways lunge differed
because subjects performed this maneuver in the
frontal plane, whereas the transverse lunge incorpor-
ated movement in both the frontal and horizontal
planes. These patterns imposed greater demands on
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 261
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
the GMax to help maintain the pelvis in a level
position (as a hip abductor) and minimize knee
valgus collapse (as a hip lateral rotator). Therefore,
clinicians should consider trunk position relative to
the base of support as well as movement direction
when developing and implementing a progressive
strengthening program.
The quadruped with contralateral arm and leg lift
required 56% MVIC of GMax activity and highlighted
the GMax’s role as both a hip stabilizer and hip exten-
sor. Subjects were further challenged because the
GMax had to control multiple planes of movement
via the contralateral arm and leg lift. While clinicians
prescribe this exercise as part of a progressive spinal
stability program, patients with marked hip weakness
also may benefit from this exercise.
The remaining single-leg squats (single-limb dead-
lift, single-limb squat, wall squat, retro step-up, unilat-
eral mini-squat) generated relatively higher GMax
activity (57–59% MVIC) than the lateral step-up
because they incorporated a greater excursion of the
body’s center of mass away from the base of support
and movements in multiple planes. The front step-
up had the highest level of GMax activity (74%
MVIC), which most likely reflected an even greater
amount of body excursion to and from the base of
the support.
Gluteus medius activation
Our review identified eight moderate-level exercises,
nine high-level exercises, and two very high-level exer-
cises for GMed activation. The prone bridge/plank
again demonstrated the lowest level of GMed acti-
vation (27% MVIC) . Similar to the GMax, the static
nature to maintain a neutral hip and spine position
likely reflected the GMed’s role as a hip and spine
stabilizer.
Bridging on a stable surface (28% MVIC), lunge in
neutral trunk position (34% MVIC), unilateral
mini-squat (36% MVIC), and retro step-up (37%
MVIC) generated moderate-level GMed activation.
Subjects performed these exercises primarily in the
sagittal plane that required the GMed to maintain a
level pelvis. These findings suggest an important stabi-
lizing effect afforded by the GMed and the use of the
above listed exercises early in the rehabilitation
process to strengthen the GMed.
Other exercises in the moderate-level tier included
the clam exercises at 30° (40% MVIC) and 60° (38%
MVIC) of hip flexion as well as the sideways lunge
(39% MVIC). GMed activity generated during both
clam exercises was similar to that of the GMax
(34% and 39% MVIC at 30° and 60° of hip
flexion, respectively) during these exercises. It was
noteworthy that the clam exercises incorporated a
combination of hip abduction and lateral rotation.
Although the GMed is primarily responsible for hip
abduction, its posterior fibers also assist with hip
lateral rotation.
GMed activity during the lunges ranged from
34% to 48% MVIC. Subjects performed the
forward lunge in the sagittal plane, which would
explain its relatively lower amount of activity (34%
MVIC). However, GMed activation increased when
performing lunges in the frontal (39% MVIC for
the sideways lunge) and horizontal (48% MVIC
during the transverse lunge) planes. These exercises
were more dynamic than the front lunge and most
likely required greater GMed activity to maintain a
level pelvis position (as a hip abductor) and mini-
mize knee valgus collapse (as a hip lateral rotator).
It is interesting that subjects generated similar
GMax activity during the sideways (41% MVIC)
and transverse (49% MVIC) lunges as the GMed.
These findings further highlighted the synergistic
role that the GMax and GMed play during these
exercises. In summary, clinicians should ensure
that a patient with GMed weakness can correctly
perform a forward lunge before prescribing the side-
ways and transverse lunges.
The quadruped with contralateral arm and leg lift
(42% MVIC) and unilateral bridge (47% MVIC)
required high GMed activation. The increased chal-
lenge of controlling multiple planes of movement
most likely accounted for the relatively higher GMed
activity during these exercises. The clinician should
consider these exercises as a logical progression from
the clam exercises.
Except for the full single-leg squat, the wall squat
required the next highest GMed activity (52%
MVIC). This exercise differed from the unilateral
mini-squat, retro step-up, lateral step-up, and
forward step-up because subjects began the squat by
positioning the trunk against the wall and the stance
limb 15.2 cm away from the wall. This position effec-
tively placed the body’s center of mass posterior to the
base of support. Movement of the pelvis away from the
base of support would require greater activity of all
muscles around the hip, including the GMed, to
stabilize the pelvis (Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan, and
Greenway, 2007). These findings highlighted move-
ment of the body’s center of mass away from the
base of support as a logical exercise progression.
Side-lying hip abduction generated GMed
activation equal to 56% MVIC, which most likely
reflected this muscle’s role as a primary hip abductor.
While this exercise was in the high-level activation
tier, other standing exercises demonstrated similar
262 Reiman et al.
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
GMed muscl e activation levels (52–58% MVIC).
The standing exercises highlighted the GMed’s
importance in providing multi-planar stabilization
for the trunk/pelvis. These findings were clinically rel-
evant because subjects who cannot perform GMed
weight bear ing exercises may get similar benefit by
performing the side-lying exercise (Bolgla and Uhl
2005).
The pelvic drop and single-limb deadlift exercises
(57% and 58% MVIC, respectively) had the highest
relative activation in this exercise tier. The pelvic
drop exercise specifically targeted the GMed’s ability
to control pelvis-on-femur adduction and abduction,
which incorporated a combination of eccentric and
concentric muscle actions. The single-limb dead lift
task differed in that the GMed worked in an isometric
manner. Subjects performed this exercise by flexing
the hip enough to touch the long finger of one hand
on the ground. Like posterior displacement of the
body’s center of mass relative to the base of support,
anterior displacement from the stance limb would
require greater overall hip muscle activity. In
summary, these exercises would provide similar
strengthening effects as the others described above
and would provide clinicians another way for targeting
the GMed.
The very high-level tier of GMed activation
included the single-limb squat and the side-bri dge to
neutral spine position. Although the single-limb
squat is similar in some respects to exercises previously
described, subjects who performed the lunge, unilat-
eral mini-squat, and step-up exercises did so with
the trunk in a more vertical alignment over the
stance limb. This position differed from the single-
leg squat described by DiStefa no, Blackburn, Mar-
shall, and Padua (2009), who reported greater
GMed activity (64% MVIC) during a full single-leg
squat. Subjects in their study squatted low enough to
touch the long finger of one hand on the ground.
This larger excursion of the body’s center of mass
toward the ground would explain the relatively
higher GMed activity needed to stabilize the pelvis
and knee.
The side-bridge to neutral spine position exhibited
the highest GMed muscle activation (74% MVIC) of
all the exercises included in our review. Typically,
the lateral side-bridge exercise has represented a
more demanding spinal stabilization exercise targeting
the lateral abdominal muscles (Ekstrom, Donatelli,
and Carp, 2007; Ekstrom, Osborn, and Hauer,
2008). However, findings from this review further
highlight the stabilizing role of the GMed. The clini-
cian should carefully consider the prescription of this
and other high- to very-high level tier exercises later
in the rehabilitation process.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this review was to analyze studies that
have evaluated activation of the GMax and GMed
during rehabilitation exercises. Our findings showed
how changes in the trunk position, movement
direction, and base of support can affect EMG
activity. EMG activity for these muscles ranged from
9% to 74% MVIC. It is noteworthy that strength
gains are expected for activation levels equal to or
greater than 40% MVIC (Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan,
and Greenway, 2007; Escamilla et al, 2010).
However, clinicians can still use the lower-level acti-
vation exercises to facilitate neuromuscular activation
(Ayotte, Stetts, Keenan, and Greenway, 2007) and
progress patients with marked GMax and GMed
weakness to more demanding tasks. Finally, the
clinician should note that subjects who performed
exercises included in this review were healthy. It
remains elusive if similar findings would result in
patients with pathology.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no
conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible
for the content and writing of the article.
REFERENCES
Ayotte NW, Stetts DM, Keenan G, Greenway EH 2007 Electro-
myographical analysis of selected lower extremity muscles
during 5 unilateral weight-bearing exercises. Journal of Ortho-
paedic and Sports Physical Therapy 37: 48–55
Blanpied P 1997 Why won’t patients do their home exercise pro-
grams? Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
25: 101–102
Bolgla LA, Malone TR, Umberger BR, Uhl TL 2008 Hip strength
and hip and knee kinematics during stair descent in females with
and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. Journal of Orthopae-
dic and Sports Physical Therapy 38: 12–18
Bolgla LA, Uhl TL 2005 Electromyographic analysis of hip rehabi-
litation exercises in a group of healthy subjects. Journal of Ortho-
paedic and Sports Physical Therapy 35: 487–494
Boudreau SN, Dwyer MK, Mattacola CG, Lattermann C, Uhl TL,
McKeon JM 2009 Hip-muscle activation during the lunge,
single-leg squat, and step-up-and-over exercises. Journal of
Sport Rehabilitation 18: 91–103
Clark JM, Haynor DR 1987 Anatomy of the abductor muscles of the
hip as studied by computed tomography. Journal of Bone and
Joint Surgery (Am) 69: 1021–1031
Delp SL, Hess WE, Hungerford DS, Jones LC 1999 Variation of
rotation moment arms with hip flexion. Journal of Biomechanics
32: 493–501
Distefano LJ, Blackburn JT, Marshall SW, Padua DA 2009
Gluteal muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 39:
532–540
Ekstrom RA, Donatelli RA, Carp KC 2007 Electromyographic
analysis of core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 263
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
rehabilitation exercises. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Phys-
ical Therapy 37: 754–762
Ekstrom RA, Osborn RW, Hauer PL 2008 Surface electromyo-
graphic analysis of the low back muscles during rehabilitation ex-
ercises. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 38:
736–745
Escamilla RF, Lewis C, Bell D, Bramblet G, Daffr on J, Lambert S,
Pecson A, Imamura R, Paulos L, Andre ws JR 2010 Core muscle
activa tion during swiss ball and traditional abdominal exercises.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 40: 265–276
Farrokhi S, Pollard CD, Souza RB, Chen YJ, Reischl S, Powers CM
2008 Trunk position influences the kinematics, kinetics, and
muscle activity of the lead lower extremity during the forward
lunge exercise. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy 38: 403–409
Ferber R, Kendall K, Farr L 2011 Changes in knee biomechanics
after a hip-abductor strengthening protocol for runners with
patellofemoral pain syndrome. Journal of Athletic Training 46:
142–149
Gottschalk F, Kourosh S, Leveau B 1989 The functional anatomy of
tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius and minimus. Journal of
Anatomy 166: 179–189
Ireland ML, Willson JD, Ballantyne BT, Davis IM 2003 Hip strength
in females with and without patellofemoral pain. Journal of Ortho-
paedic and Sports Physical Therapy 33: 671–676
Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG 1993 Muscles: Testing
and function, 4th edn. London, Williams & Wilkins
Krause DA, Jacobs RS, Pilger KE, Sather BR, Sibunka SP, Hollman
JH 2009 Electromyographic analysis of the gluteus medius in five
weight-bearing exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 23: 2689–2694
Lyons K, Perry J, Gronley JK, Barnes L, Antonelli D 1983 Timing
and relative intensity of hip extensor and abductor muscle action
during level and stair ambulation. An EMG study. Physical
Therapy 63: 1597–1605
Neumann DA 2010 Kinesiology of the hip: A focus on muscular
actions. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
40: 82–94
Pfirrmann CW, Chung CB, Theumann NH, Trudell DJ, Resnick D
2001 Greater trochanter of the hip: Attachment of the abductor
mechanism and a complex of three bursae—MR imaging and
MR bursography in cadavers and MR imaging in asymptomatic
volunteers. Radiology 221: 469–477
Piva SR, Goodnite EA, Childs JD 2005 Strength around the hip and
flexibility of soft tissues in individuals with and without patello-
femoral pain syndrome. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports
Physical Therapy 35: 793–801
Powers CM 2003 The influence of altered lower-extremity kin-
ematics on patellofemoral joint dysfunction: A theoretical per-
spective. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
33: 639–646
Powers CM 2010 The influence of abnormal hip mechanics on knee
injury: A biomechanical perspective. Journal of Orthopaedic and
Sports Physical Therapy 40: 42–51
Reiman MP, Bolgla LA, Lorenz D 2009 Hip functions influence on
knee dysfunction: A proximal link to a distal problem. Journal of
Sport Rehabilitation 18: 33–46
Robinson RL, Nee RJ 2007 Analysis of hip strength in females
seeking physical therapy treatment for unilateral patellofemoral
pain syndrome. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy 37: 232–238
Ward SR, Winters TM, Blemker SS 2010 The architectural design
of the gluteal muscle group: Implications for movement and re-
habilitation. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy 40: 95–102
Willson JD, Davis IS 2009 Lower extremity strength and mechanics
during jumping in women with patellofemoral pain. Journal of
Sport Rehabilitation 18: 76–90
Winter D 2005 Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Move-
ment. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons
264 Reiman et al.
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
Appendix I. EMG (%MVIC) for Gluteal Strengthening Exercises.
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 265
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
266 Reiman et al.
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
Appendix II. Details of evaluated studies.
Study Exercise Included in Review Subjects
Ayotte et al. 2007 Gluteus Maximus
• Unilateral mini-squat
Twenty-three physically active Department of Defense beneficiaries (16 males, 7
females; mean ± SD age, 31.2 ± 5.8 years; mean ± SD height, 173.1 ± 10.1
cm; mean ± SD body mass, 77.0 ± 13.9 kg) volunteered for this study.
Inclusion
-Age range, 18–65 years
-Bilateral lower extremity range of motion within normal limits
-Bilateral lower extremity strength with manual muscle testing 5/5
-Able to perform single-limb balance with eyes open for 30 seconds
-Department of Defense beneficiary
Exclusion
-History of surgery for spine or lower extremities
-History of disease affecting the spine or lower extremities, such as diabetes,
peripheral neuropathy, stroke, arthritis, or fibromyalgia
-Unresolved lower extremity pathology or current pain in the spine or lower
extremities
-Taking any medications
Continued
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 267
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
Appendix II. Details of evaluated studies. Continued
Study Exercise Included in Review Subjects
Blanpied 1999 Gluteus Maximus
• Wall squat
Twenty asymptomatic women (age = 31.3 ± 6.9 years, height = 160.9 ± 4.1 cm,
mass = 58.1 ± 8.7 kg) subjects.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: No pathology, subjects over 170 cm tall were
excluded due to equipment size limitations.
Bolgla & Uhl, 2005 Gluteus Medius
• Pelvic drop
Sixteen healthy subjects (8 men, 8 women; mean ± SD age, 27 ± 5 years; mean ±
SD height, 1.7 ± 0.2 m; mean ± SD body mass, 76 ± 15 kg) volunteers.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: No lower extremity dysfunction and could safely
perform a single-leg stance on each lower extremity. Subjects were excluded if
they had a history of significant lower extremity injury or surgery in the
preceding year.
DiStefano et al, 2009 Gluteus Maximus
• Side-lying hip abduction
• Clam with 30° hip flexion
• Clam with 60° hip flexion
• Lunge
• Sideways lunge
• Transverse lunge
Gluteus Medius
• Side-lying hip abduction
• Clam with 30° hip flexion
• Clam with 60° hip flexion
• Lunge
• Sideways lunge
• Transverse lunge
Twenty-one healthy subjects (9 males, 12 females; mean ± SD age, 22 ± 3 years;
height, 171 ± 11 cm; mass, 70.4 ± 15.3 kg) volunteered to participate in this
study.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Subjects were recreationally active individuals
who participated in physical activity for at least 60 minutes, 3 days per week.
Ekstrom, Donatelli &
Carp, 2007
Gluteus Maximus
• Prone plank
• Unilateral bridge
• Quadruped with
contralateral arm and leg lift
• Lunge
• Lateral step-up
Gluteus Medius
• Side-lying hip abduction
• Prone plank
• Unilateral bridge
• Bridging on stable surface
• Quadruped with
contralateral arm and
leg lift
• Side-bridge to neutral spine
position
• Lunge
Thirty healthy subjects (19 males and 11 females; mean ± SD age 27 ± 8 years;
height,176 ± 8 cm; body mass, 74 ± 11 kg), participated in the study.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria:
Subjects were accepted for the study if they were in good health, with no
current or previous lower extremity or back problems. They were excluded if
they had low back or lower extremity pain, or any recent surgery.
Ekstrom, Osborn, &
Hauer, 2008
Gluteus Maximus
• Bridge on stable surface
• Bridging on Swiss ball
In group 1 there were 30 subjects (23 females, 7 males; mean ± SD height, 170 ±
6 cm; body mass, 64 ± 9 kg; age, 24 ± 4 years). Group 2 consisted of 29
subjects (12 females, 17 males; mean ± SD height, 175 ± 8 cm; body mass, 73
± 10 kg; age, 27 ± 8 years). In group 3 there were 30 subjects (20 females, 10
males; mean ± SD height, 171 ± 7 cm; body mass, 68 ± 9 kg; age, 26 ± 7
years).
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Subjects were accepted for the study if they were
in good health, with no current back or lower extremity problems. Subjects
were excluded if they had any previous back surgery.
Farrokhi et al, 2008 Gluteus Maximus
• Lunge
• Lunge with forward trunk
lean
• Lunge with backward trunk
lean
Ten healthy adults (5 males and 5 females) without a history of lower extremity
pain or pathology participated in this study (mean ± SD age, 26.7± 3.2 years).
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Subjects were excluded from participation if they
reported having any of the following: (1) previous history of knee surgery, (2)
history of traumatic patellar dislocation, or (3) neurological involvement that
would influence performing the required exercises. The average ± SD height
and mass of the subjects were 1.73 ± 0.07 m and 62.5 ± 9.8 kg, respectively.
268 Reiman et al.
Copyright © Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Physiother Theory Pract Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Regis University on 06/05/12
For personal use only.
