Cited by 67Muscle activation and electromyography studiesSports Performance and TrainingLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Muscle Activation and Strength in Squat and Bulgarian Squat on Stable and Unstable Surface

Andersen, V., Fimland, M., Brennset, Ø., Haslestad, L., Lundteigen, M., Skalleberg, K., Saeterbakken, A.·2014·International Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare muscle activity using the same relative resistance in squats and Bulgarian squats on stable and unstable surface. Muscle strength and activity were assessed by 6-repetition maximum and concomitant surface electromyography. A cohort of 15 resistance-trained males performed the exercises on the floor or a foam cushion in randomized order. The muscle activity was greater in biceps femoris (63-77%, p<0.01) and core muscle external obliques (58-62%, p<0.05) for the Bulgarian squat compared to regular squats, but lower for rectus femoris (16-21%, p<0.05). Only Bulgarian squat showed differences concerning the surface, e. g. the unstable surface reduced the activation of erector spinae (10%, p<0.05) and biceps femoris (10%, p<0.05) compared to a stable surface. There were similar activations in the vasti muscles and rectus abdominis between the different exercises (p=0.313-0.995). Unstable surfaces resulted in a load decrement of 7% and 10% compared to stable surfaces (p<0.001). In conclusion, the squat was somewhat favorable for the activation of agonists, whereas Bulgarian squat was advantageous for the antagonist and somewhat for core muscles. Bulgarian- and regular squats complement each other, and it may be useful to include both in a periodized resistance training program.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0034-1382016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Andersen, V., Fimland, M., Brennset, Ø., Haslestad, L., Lundteigen, M., Skalleberg, K., & Saeterbakken, A.
Affiliations
  • Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane (NO)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Faculty of Teacher Education and Sport, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Norway
Corresponding author
Andersen, V.
Venue
International Journal of Sports Medicine
Published
2014-09-25
Volume
35
Issue
14
Pages
1196-1202
ISSN
  • 0172-4622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-3964
OpenAlex
W2042373732
Cited by
67
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Keywords
squatting, muscle activation, muscle strength, unstable surfaces, foam cushion, resistance training, biceps femoris, rectus abdominis, erector spinae, external oblique, agonist and antagonist muscles, load reduction, periodization
MeSH terms
Adult, Electromyography, Floors and Floorcoverings, Humans, Leg, Male, Weight Lifting, Muscle, Skeletal, Cross-Over Studies, Sports Equipment, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult, Torso

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review