Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001689

INFLUENCE OF SCAPULAR POSITION ON THE CORE MUSCULATURE

Brief running head: Scapular position in prone plank

ACTIVATION IN THE PRONE PLANK EXERCISE

TE

Juan M. Cortell-Tormo1, Miguel Garca-Jan1, Ivn Chulvi-Medrano1, Sergio HernndezSnchez2, ngel G. Lucas-Cuevas3, Juan Tortosa-Martnez1

Area of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Education. University of Alicante, Spain

Area of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine. Miguel Hernndez University, Spain

Laboratory of Sport Biomechanics (GIBD), Department of Physical Activity and Sports,

C
EP

University of Valencia, Spain

Corresponding author.

Juan M. Cortell-Tormo, PhD

Area of Physical Education and Sports. Faculty of Education. University of Alicante.

Carretera San Vicente del Raspeig s/n

03690 San Vicente del Raspeig - Alicante

Tel. +34 96 590 9676 - Fax +34 96 590 3721
e-mail: jm.cortell@ua.es

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

ABSTRACT
Prone plank is a widely used exercise in core stability training. Research has shown that pelvic
tilt plays an important role on the electromyographical (EMG) activation of core musculature.
However, the influence of scapular position on EMG activation is currently unknown.
Therefore, this study evaluated the influence of scapular position on the core muscles during a

prone plank. Surface electromyography of the rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO),
internal oblique (IO) and erector spinae (ES) was collected in fifteen participants (10 men, 5

TE

women). Four variations of the prone plank were evaluated: scapular abduction with anterior
(ABANT) and posterior (ABRET) pelvic tilt; and scapular adduction with anterior (ADANT)
and posterior (ADRET) pelvic tilt. Individual muscle EMG and overall EMG for each plank
exercise was analyzed. Joint positions were controlled with a 2D kinematic analysis. Ratings of

C
EP

perceived effort (RPE) were also registered. ADRET resulted in higher overall EMG activity
compared to ABANT (p=0.04) and ADANT (p=0.04). Moreover, ADRET resulted in greater
EMG activity compared to ADANT, ABANT, and ABRET for EO (p=0.000; p=0.000;
p=0.035), IO (p=0.000; p=0.000; p=0.005) and ES (p=0.019; p=0.001; p=0.014). Regarding
RA, ADRET was significantly higher compared to ADANT (p=0.002) and ABANT (p=0.005).
Finally, ADRET provoked a higher RPE compared to ABANT (p=0.000), ABRET (p=0.001)

and ADANT (p=0.015). These findings demonstrate the influence of the scapular and pelvic
position on the EMG response of the core muscle groups analyzed in this study, and highlight

the greater contribution of these muscles to the postural stabilizing demands during posterior
pelvic tilt positions, particularly when the scapulae are in adduction.
Keywords: Core Stability, Surface Electromyography, Bridge Exercise, Pelvic Tilt, Scapula.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

INTRODUCTION
Core stability is defined as the ability of the osteoarticular and muscular structures,
coordinated by the motor control system, to maintain or regain a position or trunk trajectory,
when it is subjected to internal or external forces (26). It is stated that core stability is a key
component not only in training programs aiming to improve health and physical fitness (1,3),
but also in clinical rehabilitation (13). A well-trained core is essential for optimal performance

and injury prevention (16). From a sport performance perspective, greater core stability provides
a foundation for greater force production in the upper and lower limbs (33). From a standpoint

injuries by enhancing spinal stability (36).

TE

of injury prevention, core stability strengthening may help decrease lumbar and lower limb

Stability of the trunk requires both passive stiffness, through the osseous and ligamentous

C
EP

structures, and active stiffness, which can be achieved through muscular cocontraction (1). This
cocontraction provides the necessary stability to the upper and lower limbs via the abdominal
fascial system as a result of the serape effect (1). Within this fascial system, the
thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) is an important structure that connects the lower limbs (via the
gluteus maximus) to the upper limbs (via the latissimus dorsi) (3). Consequently, the

lumbosacral region is biomechanically coupled to the arms and legs (32). Based on the
biomechanical properties of the TLF, the contraction of the trunk musculature (specifically of

the internal oblique and transversus abdominis) together with the latissimus dorsi, increases the
tension of the TLF. Thus, the pressure increases within the fascia tube, which may result in
enhanced stiffness of the lumbar spine and, together with the paravertebral and abdominal
mechanisms, could ultimately contribute to improve the stability of the spine (7,20).

Core stability exercises aim to promote the development of muscular coactivation patterns
that improve the stability of the spinal structures (15,18). Likewise, surface electromyography
(EMG) can be used to assess the effectiveness of stabilization exercises through the analysis of
the muscle activity intensity (27). The prone plank is a traditional bodyweight exercise designed
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

to increase core muscular strength, endurance and stability (20, 21). Previous research observed
that prone plank activates, among other musculature, the internal oblique (IO), rectus abdominis
(RA), external oblique (EO) and the erector spinae (ES) (12). The contribution of these muscles
to core stability is related to their ability to produce flexion, lateral flexion and rotation
movements as well as to control the external forces that cause extension, flexion and rotation of
the spine (11). Moreover, the internal and external obliques, and the transverse abdominis, when

TE

thereby providing functional stability to the lumbar spine (1).

activated together, increase the intra-abdominal pressure from the hoop created via the TLF,

The correct execution of this exercise involves maintaining the pelvis and spine in a neutral
position while controlling the natural curvature of the spine (21). However, abdominal muscle
activity has been found to be strongly influenced by the position of the pelvis during the

C
EP

execution of this exercise. In particular, a posterior pelvic tilt has been found to affect the
activation of the abdominal musculature (34). Although there are some studies that examined
the effects of a posterior pelvic tilt on the activation of the trunk musculature, the effects of an
anterior tilt as well as a neutral tilt of the pelvis have not been clearly elucidated (14, 29). As a
result, it is important to define more clearly the effects of the pelvic position, especially the

plank.

neutral and anterior tilt positions, on the activation of the core musculature during the prone

On the other hand, the scapulohumeral joint tends to experience abduction and protraction

during a prone plank. This scapular position could modify the inclination angles of the trunk via

the dynamic scapulohumeral rhythm (5), and could also modulate the EMG response of the core
musculature. If this was the case, it would have interesting practical applications, especially
considering the widespread use of the prone plank for training and testing the core muscles.
However, the influence of the position of the scapula on the activity of the core musculature
remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

position of the scapula on the electromyographic activity of the core muscles, while performing
different combinations of scapular and pelvic positions during a prone plank exercise.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
There are limited scientific studies to date analyzing the influence of the position of the

scapula on the activity of the core musculature. Therefore, this repeated-measures study was
designed to evaluate the influence of the position of the scapula on the electromyographic

TE

activity of four core muscles: rectus abdominis, external oblique, internal oblique, and erector
spinae; while performing different combinations of scapular and pelvic positions during a prone
plank exercise: plank performed with scapular abduction and anterior pelvic tilt (ABANT);
plank performed with scapular abduction and posterior pelvic tilt (ABRET); plank performed

C
EP

with scapular adduction and anterior pelvic tilt (ADANT); and plank performed with scapular
adduction and posterior pelvic tilt (ADRET). Moreover, all plank variations were recorded with
a 2D motion capture system to ensure that no postural changes occurred during the EMG data
collection. RPE was also collected at the end of each study condition.

Subjects

A convenience sample of fifteen healthy volunteers (10 males, 5 females), recruited from a

university population, was selected to participate in this study (mean SD age: 24.354.29
years; body mass: 68.979.28 kg; height: 1.730.11 m). Inclusion criteria included no history

of pain in the low back and previous experience performing the plank. All participants provided
written informed consent to participate in this study, which was approved by the University
Ethics Committee (UA-2015-10-15).

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Procedures
Study Protocol
Prior to the commencement of the study, a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
(NSCA-CSCS) provided a detailed description of the execution of the prone plank.
Subsequently, participants practiced the prone plank position and the different variations of the
study under supervision for as many times as needed in order to ensure a proper execution.

Real-time video feedback was provided to help participants perform the exercise properly. Once
participants were familiarized with the different exercises, body kinematics and surface

TE

electromyography (EMG) of the RA, EO, IO and ES were collected simultaneously while
performing a number of variations of the traditional prone plank: ABANT, ABRET, ADANT
and ADRET (Table 1). Images of the execution of the prone plank variation are provided in

C
EP

Figure 1.

Participants performed three sets of 10 second isometric contractions of each condition in a

randomized order. Randomization was performed using a Latin Square approach to minimize
any potential confounding effects of exercise sequence on results (24). Likewise, participants
rested for 5 minutes between exercises in order to minimize the influence of fatigue. The rating

of perceived exertion (OMNI-RES scale) (23) was also collected immediately after each 10-

second set for every plank condition.

**** Insert Table 1 Near Here****

**** Insert Figure 1 Near Here****

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

MVC and EMG data collection

The EMG signal of the RA, EO, IO and ES during the different plank variations was
recorded for 10 seconds by telemetry using the Mega WBA wireless system (Mega Electronics,
Kuopio, Finland). EMG signals were collected using pre-gelled disposable bipolar Ag-AgCl

surface electrodes (Arbo Infant Electrodes, Tyco Healthcare, Germany). Electrodes were placed
parallel to the muscle fibers with a centre-to-centre spacing of 3 cm (8). Prior to electrode

TE

placement, the skin was shaved and cleaned with alcohol wipes. Electrodes were placed on the
right side of the body following the SENIAM guidelines (10). Once the electrodes were placed,
participants were asked to perform different movements to test the quality of the EMG signal.
Signal was converted from analogue to digital using an A/D converter (National Instruments,

C
EP

New South Wales, Australia). Data were registered with the MegaWin software package
(MegaWin 3.0; Mega Electronics LTD, Kupio, Finland) with a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz
and were band pass filtered (12-450 Hz) using a fourth-order Butterworth filter. Then, the
average root-mean-square (RMS) value for each muscle was calculated (epoch = 10 seconds)
using the LabVIEW software (National Instruments, TX, USA). Apart from the EMG signal of
each individual muscle, the overall EMG activity (total intensity, TI) elicited during each

exercise was also analyzed. TI was defined as the sum of the normalized EMG value of all four

muscles measured in this study (14).

The EMG signal of the plank exercises was normalized as a percentage of a maximal

voluntary isometric contraction (MVC). For this purpose, two MVC were performed against
manual resistance for each muscle before the plank exercises and after standardized warm up (5
min cardiovascular exercise). This protocol has been described in a previous study (28). For the
abdominal muscles, participants produced maximal isometric efforts in trunk flexion for the
rectus abdominis (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC = 0.994), and also in lateral bend and
twist for external oblique and internal oblique (ICC = 0.997 and 0.992), respectively. For the
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

extensor muscles, maximal isometric trunk extensions were performed in the Biering-Sorensen
position for erector spinae (ICC= 0.975) (28). Each MVC was maintained for 5 seconds and a 5min rest was allowed between sets. The average RMS value of the two MVC was considered as
the reference value for normalization.

Kinematics data collection

Plank variations were recorded from the sagittal plane with a video camera (Qualisys,
Gothenburg, Sweden) to ensure that no postural changes occurred during the EMG data

TE

collection. The camera was placed at a distance of 145 cm from the participants and 55 cm
above the floor. The position of scapulae, lumbar spine and pelvis was controlled by placing 12
reflective markers on the following anatomic locations: scapulae: angulus inferior (AI),
trigonum scapulae (TS) and angulus acromialis (AA); spine: spinous processes of the lumbar

C
EP

spine (L1, L3, L5) and sacrum (S2); and pelvis: iliac crest and greater trochanter of the femur
(9,35). The distance between the anatomic points in the scapulae, lumbar spine and pelvis were
measured with the software Qualisys Tracking Manager (Qualisys, Gotheborg, Sweden) in
order to control the position adopted by the participants during each study condition.

Rating of Perceived Exertion Data Collection

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE), using an OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale (OMNI-

RES) of perceived exertion (23), was also used as a complementary measure of intensity for
each prone plank variation performed. RPE was collected immediately after each 10-second
prone plank variation to ensure that the perceived effort was only referred to that condition.
During the tests, participants reported their RPE while looking at a printed copy of the OMNIRES scale. All participants had been familiarized with this scale before the commencement of
this study.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). After
checking the normality of the data (Kolmogorov-Smirnov), a two-way repeated-measures
ANOVA (muscle x condition) was used to compare the EMG differences. Bonferroni post hoc
tests were used for pair-wise comparisons. The reliability of the MVC tests and exercises was
determined by a two-way random effects model intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with

95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Effect size was estimated
with Cohen's d (4). Effect sizes of 0.2 or less are interpreted as small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 or

TE

above as large (4). All variables are reported as mean SD.

RESULTS

The kinematic analysis showed that the distances between the anatomic scapular and lumbar

C
EP

spine did not change during the EMG data collection: AI in abduction (ABD) = 24.41 2.35
cm, AI in adduction (ADD) = 17.72 3.42 cm; TS in ABD = 19.06 2.53 cm and TS in ADD
= 13.45 2.5 cm.

Differences across muscles

Muscle activity of the RA, EO, IO, and ES across the prone plank variations are shown in
Table 2. EMG of ES was significantly lower compared to RA, EO, and IO in all conditions

analyzed. Moreover, RA, resulted in significantly lower muscle activity than IO during ADRET
(p=0.042, ES=0.816).
**** Insert Table 2 Near Here****

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Differences across conditions

The differences in EMG during each condition for all muscles analyzed are presented in
Figure 2. For the RA, the ADRET showed a higher EMG activity compared to ABANT and
ADANT. There was no significant difference between ADRET-ABRET (p=0.072; ES=0.765),
ADANT-ABANT (p=0.716; ES=0.160), ABANT-ABRET (p=0.261; ES=0.660), and ABRET-

ADANT (p=0.14; ES=0.733). For the EO, the ADRET condition elicited a higher EMG
compared to ADANT, ABANT, and ABRET. On the other hand, ABANT resulted in a

TE

reduction of muscle activation compared to ABRET. No significant differences between

ADANT and ABRET (p=0.059; ES=1.094) and ADANT-ABANT (p=0.763; ES=0.175) were
found. With respect to the IO, ADRET provoked a higher EMG activity than ADANT, ABRET
and ABANT. No significant differences between ABANT-ABRET (p=0.223; ES=0.695),

C
EP

ABANT-ADANT (p=0.930; ES=0.050), and ABRET-ADANT (p=0.192; ES=0.628) were

detected. For the ES, ADRED resulted in higher EMG compared to ADANT, ABRET, and
ABANT. No significant differences between ABANT-ABRET (p=0.341; ES=0.409), ABANTADANT (p=0.291; ES=0.511), ADANT-ABRET (p=0.917; ES=0.041) were found.

**** Insert Figure 2 Near Here****

Total intensity of each prone plank variation are shown in Table 3. ADRET shows significantly
higher differences respect to ADANT and ABANT. No differences were found between
ABRET-ABANT (p=0.356, ES=0.859), ABRET-ADANT (p=0.378, ES=0.853) and ABRETADRET (p=0.225, ES=0.714). Regard to RPE, ADRET showed statistical differences with
ABANT y ABRET. No significant differences were found in ABANT-ADANT p=0.085,
ES=0.616.
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

10

**** Insert Table 3 Near Here****

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the position of the scapulae on the
electromyographic activity of four core muscles (RA, EO, IO, ES) while performing different

TE

combinations of scapular and pelvic variations (ABANT, ABRET, ADANT, ADRET) during a
prone plank exercise. Results supported our hypothesis and showed that the scapular and pelvic
positions modulated the EMG responses of the core muscles analyzed. Particularly, ADRET
elicited the highest EMG response, both in terms of total intensity (TI) and within each

C
EP

individual muscle. This finding demonstrates the influence of the scapular position on the EMG
response of the core muscle groups analyzed in this study, and highlights the greater
contribution of these muscles to the postural stabilizing demands during posterior pelvic tilt
positions, particularly when the scapulae are in adduction.

Previous studies have reported that the abdominal muscle activity is dependent on the

position of the pelvis during the execution of the exercise (6,29,34). In particular, a posterior
pelvic tilt has been found to have a strong influence on the activation of the abdominal

musculature, essentially in RA and EO (24,34). Our results are consistent with these studies as
the highest muscle activation in our study was achieved during posterior tilt positions (ABRET
and ADRET). This finding could explain why some individuals with low physical condition or
when performing a plank under fatigue might be at risk to shift to an anterior pelvic tilt position,
instinctively searching for a position that involves a lower demand of the core stabilizers (17).
Future studies should control this shift towards a lower muscular activation, and monitor the
changes of the lumbopelvic alignment during the execution of the prone plank more accurately
to ensure the validity of the results (19).

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

11

To our knowledge, this is the first study that monitors the scapular position during the prone
plank exercise. Our findings showed that the scapular adduction and posterior pelvic tilt
position (ADRET) not only elicited the highest activity of the core muscles in terms of TI, but it
also provoked significant increases of OE, ES (p<0.05) and IO (p<0.01) muscle activity
compared to the other posterior pelvic tilt position (ABRET). Moreover, ADRET was
considered the most challenging position (RPE) (p<0.01). This result might also explain the

shift towards the scapular abduction and the hypercyphotic posture of the dorsal spine observed
during the study conditions. The relationship between the scapular adduction and posterior

TE

pelvic tilt seems to be synergistic and increase the activity of the core muscles since the scapular
adduction increases the intensity of the exercise and therefore the difficulty to maintain the
pelvis in the posterior pelvic tilt position.

C
EP

Several mechanisms may explain the differences in muscle activation between ADRET and
ABRET: 1) when ADD scapular is performed, the inclination angles of the prone plank would
be reduced and the spinal and pelvic torque in the sagittal plane would be modified; and 2)
when ADD scapular is performed, part of the tension generated by the fascial system is
disabled. Indeed, based on previous studies (1,3,30), we speculate that this reduction of tension

could be due to changes in the modulation of tension of the abdominal fascial system. This
system connects the lower limbs (via the gluteus maximus) with the upper limbs (via the

latissimus dorsi), through the TLF. This structure allows the effective load transfer between the
spine, pelvis, legs, and arms, in an integrated biomechanical system (30). According to previous
research addressing this system (31,32), from the muscles analyzed in this study, IO and EO are
attached into the TLF, and the latissimus dorsi has its origin on the posterior layer of the TLF
and its insertion in the humerus. The muscles that originate in the thoracolumbar fascia play an
important role in transmitting the load from the trunk to the arm and shoulder (30). In this sense,
the latissimus dorsi, attached laterally to the posterior layer of TLF, could draw this fascia
laterally and thereby exert an extensor moment on the lumbar spine (2,30). Moreover,
contraction of the transverse abdominis and internal oblique may also increase the fascial
Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

12

tension and intraabdominal pressure, thus creating a more rigid cylinder around the spine
(22,31). Finally, any external movement of the pelvis through the hip joint strongly influences
and modulates the tension of the TLF (31). Therefore, all these factors would modify the
external and internal dynamics-force and pressure of the fascial envelope.

Based on these facts, the scapular positions of abduction and adduction in the prone plank

exercise would modify the stretching of the latissimus dorsi, and ultimately influence the
stiffness of TLF. This hypothesis could explain the different EMG activity of IO and EO

TE

between ABRET and ADRET. In ABRET, the tension and stiffness of the overall fascial system
would be effectively maintained, by stretching and contraction of the latissimus dorsi and
gluteus maximus, which would decrease the muscular demands to optimize the stability of the
core. However, in ADRET, the partial reduction of the stretching of the latissimus dorsi would

C
EP

decrease the tension of TLF, and therefore, it would maintain the efficacy of the core stability
by increasing the abdominal muscular demands. Consequently, a greater coactivation of the
abdominal musculature would be required to produce an increase in the intra-abdominal
pressure from the hoop created via TLF (1,22). This greater coactivation of the abdominal
musculature would offset the lost tension and would finally recover the core stability. However,

future research is needed to test this hypothesis.

In summary, our findings demonstrate that the position of the scapula and pelvis in the prone

plank has a strong influence on the EMG activity of the core muscles and probably on the
abdominal fascial system. However, the mechanisms that explain these changes seem to depend
on the specific positions of both structures. The pelvic tilt plays a principal role in the EMG
response and likely in maintaining the tension and stiffness of the fascial system. The anterior
pelvic tilt reduces the EMG activation, regardless of the position of the scapula. This finding
could be due to the loss of tension and stiffness of the entire fascial system. However, future
studies are necessary to determine if the passive subsystem, composed by the lumbar spine and
the osseoligamentous structures, is the system that assumes the load transferred by this loss of

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

13

tension on the fascial and muscular active subsystem. If this was the case, the anterior pelvic tilt
positions could result in unsafe variants of the prone plank. Moreover, the low EMG and RPE
values obtained in the anterior pelvic tilt positions indicate that participants were not
significantly challenged by these variants of the prone plank, at least for the set duration used in
this study. However, when posterior tilt is adopted, changes in the scapular positions influence
the EMG response of core muscles. In this sense, when participants shifted towards ADRET,

the maintenance of the posterior pelvic tilt was strongly challenging. This result could be
explained by the fact that this position requires not only muscle activation, but also tension and

TE

stiffness of the overall fascial system. Therefore, these posterior pelvic tilt positions, mainly
ADRET, would be more challenging variants of the prone plank for practitioners.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

C
EP

Based on the results, our study demonstrated that scapular adduction and posterior pelvic tilt
position (ADRET) elicit the highest EMG response on the analyzed abdominal musculature
(RA, EO, IO, ES). This finding highlights the influence of the scapular and pelvic position on
the EMG response of the core musculature during the prone plank exercise. Although this was
an acute study and future follow-up studies are necessary to make more accurate exercise
prescription recommendations, our research provides some preliminary practical applications. If

the results of this study are confirmed, they could help strength and conditioning professionals
to understand better the modulation and control of the intensity of the prone plank exercise

based on the influence that changes in scapular and pelvic positions have on the activity of core
musculature. Moreover, our results also indicate that future studies aiming to evaluate the EMG
activation of the trunk musculature during bridging exercises should control not only the pelvic
position, but also the scapular position. Furthermore, when performing field tests to assess the
stability of the core stability and postural control of the lumbar spine by using the prone plank
exercise protocol, both the pelvic and scapular positions should be controlled in order to ensure
the validity of the measurements. Finally, future training follow-up studies will be needed to
explain the mechanisms responsible for the increased tension in the TLF that lead to an increase

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

14

of the functional properties and its potential to act on the trunk. Likewise, future research would
be necessary to describe the possible morphological adaptations in TLF after a core stability
training period.

REFERENCES
Akuthota, V and Nadler, SF. Core strengthening1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85: 8692,
2004.

2.

Bogduk, N, Johnson, G, and Spalding, D. The morphology and biomechanics of latissimus

dorsi. Clin Biomech 13: 377385, 1998.

3.

Borghuis, J, Hof, AL, and Lemmink, KAPM. The importance of sensory-motor control in
providing core stability: implications for measurement and training. Sports Med 38: 893
916, 2008.

4.

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

5.

Crosbie, J, Kilbreath, SL, Hollmann, L, and York, S. Scapulohumeral rhythm and

associated spinal motion. Clin Biomech 23: 184192, 2008.

6.

Drysdale, CL, Earl, JE, and Hertel, J. Surface Electromyographic Activity of the
Abdominal Muscles During Pelvic-Tilt and Abdominal-Hollowing Exercises. J Athl Train
39: 3236, 2004.

7.

Ebenbichler, GR, Oddsson, LI, Kollmitzer, J, and Erim, Z. Sensory-motor control of the
lower back: implications for rehabilitation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 18891898, 2001.

8.

Garca-Vaquero, MP, Moreside, JM, Brontons-Gil, E, Peco-Gonzlez, N, and VeraGarcia, FJ. Trunk muscle activation during stabilization exercises with single and double
leg support. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 22: 398406, 2012.

9.

Harlick, JC, Milosavljevic, S, and Milburn, PD. Palpation identification of spinous

processes in the lumbar spine. Man Ther 12: 5662, 2007.

C
EP

TE

1.

10.

Hermens, HJ, Freriks, B, Disselhorst-Klug, C, and Rau, G. Development of

recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol 10: 361374, 2000.

11.

Hibbs, AE, Thompson, KG, French, D, Wrigley, A, and Spears, I. Optimizing

performance by improving core stability and core strength. Sports Med 38: 9951008,
2008.

12.

Lehman, GJ, Hoda, W, and Oliver, S. Trunk muscle activity during bridging exercises on
and off a Swiss ball. Chiropr Osteopat 13: 14, 2005.

13.

Liemohn, WP, Baumgartner, TA, and Gagnon, LH. Measuring core stability. J Strength
Cond Res 9: 583586, 2005.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

15

Lucas-Cuevas, AG, Baltich, J, Enders, H, Nigg, S, and Nigg, B. Ankle muscle strength
influence on muscle activation during dynamic and static ankle training modalities. J
Sports Sci 34: 803810, 2016.

15.

McGill, S. Low back disorders: evidence-based prevention and rehabilitation. Champaign.

Illinois: Human Kinetics, 2002.

16.

McGill, S. Core training: Evidence translating to better performance and injury

prevention. Strength Cond J 32: 3346, 2010.

17.

McGill, SM. The biomechanics of low back injury: implications on current practice in
industry and the clinic. J Biomech 30: 465475, 1997.

18.

McGill, SM, Grenier, S, Kavcic, N, and Cholewicki, J. Coordination of muscle activity to

assure stability of the lumbar spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13: 353359, 2003.

19.

Mok, NW, Yeung, EW, Cho, JC, Hui, SC, Liu, KC, and Pang, CH. Core muscle activity
during suspension exercises. J Sci Med Sport 18: 189194, 2015.

20.

Mueller, G, Morlock, MM, Vollmer, M, Honl, M, Hille, E, and Schneider, E.

Intramuscular pressure in the erector spinae and intra-abdominal pressure related to
posture and load. Spine 23: 25802590, 1998.

21.

Panjabi, MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability
hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 5: 390396; discussion 397, 1992.

22.

Richardson, C, Jull, G, Hodges, P, and Hides, J. Therapeutic Exercise for Spinal

Segmental Stabilization in Low Back Pain. Churchill Livingstone. Philadelphia, 1999.

23.

Robertson, RJ, Goss, FL, Rutkowski, J, Lenz, B, Dixon, C, Timmer, J, et al. Concurrent
validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 35: 333341, 2003.

24.

Schoenfeld, BJ, Contreras, B, Tiryaki-Sonmez, G, Willardson, JM, and Fontana, F. An

electromyographic comparison of a modified version of the plank with a long lever and
posterior tilt versus the traditional plank exercise. Sports Biomech 13: 296306, 2014.

25.

Snarr, RL and Esco, MR. Electromyographical comparison of plank variations performed

with and without instability devices. J Strength Cond Res 28: 32983305, 2014.

26.

Vera-Garca, FJ, Barbado, D, Moreno-Prez, V, Hernndez-Snchez, S, Juan-Recio, C,

and Elvira, JLL. Core stability. Concepto y aportaciones al entrenamiento y la prevencin
de lesiones. Rev Andal Med Deporte 8: 7985, 2015.

27.

Vera-Garca, FJ, Barbado, D, Moreno-Prez, V, Hernndez-Snchez, S, Juan-Recio, C,

and Elvira, JLL. Core stability: evaluacin y criterios para su entrenamiento. Rev Andal
Med Deporte 8: 130137, 2015.

28.

Vera-Garcia, FJ, Moreside, JM, and McGill, SM. MVC techniques to normalize trunk
muscle EMG in healthy women. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20: 1016, 2010.

29.

Vezina, MJ and Hubley-Kozey, CL. Muscle activation in therapeutic exercises to improve

trunk stability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81: 13701379, 2000.

C
EP

TE

14.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

16

Vleeming, A, Pool-Goudzwaard, AL, Stoeckart, R, van Wingerden, JP, and Snijders, CJ.
The posterior layer of the thoracolumbar fascia. Its function in load transfer from spine to
legs. Spine 20: 753758, 1995.

31.

Vleeming, A and Willard, FH. Forceclosure and optimal stability of the lumbopelvic
region. Los Angeles: Worldcongress LBP Foundation, 2010. pp. 2335

32.

Willard, FH, Vleeming, A, Schuenke, MD, Danneels, L, and Schleip, R. The

thoracolumbar fascia: anatomy, function and clinical considerations. J Anat 221: 507536,
2012.

33.

Willardson, JM. Core stability training: applications to sports conditioning programs. J

Strength Cond Res 21: 979985, 2007.

34.

Workman, JC, Docherty, D, Parfrey, KC, and Behm, DG. Influence of pelvis position on
the activation of abdominal and hip flexor muscles. J Strength Cond Res 22: 15631569,
2008.

35.

Wu, G, van der Helm, FCT, (DirkJan) Veeger, HEJ, Makhsous, M, Van Roy, P, Anglin,
C, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints
for the reporting of human joint motionPart II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J
Biomech 38: 981992, 2005.

36.

Zazulak, BT, Hewett, TE, Reeves, NP, Goldberg, B, and Cholewicki, J. Deficits in
neuromuscular control of the trunk predict knee injury risk: a prospective biomechanicalepidemiologic study. Am J Sports Med 35: 11231130, 2007.

C
EP

TE

30.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authors have no financial affiliations (including research funding) or involvement with any
commercial organization that has a direct financial interest in the results of this study.

Furthermore, we report no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank the participants
for their time and effort. The results of this study do not constitute endorsement of the product

by the authors or the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

17

Figure Legends
Figure 1. Prone plank variations. ABANT (a) = plank with scapular abduction and anterior
pelvic tilt; ABRET (b) = plank with scapular abduction and posterior pelvic tilt; ADANT (c) =
plank with scapular adduction and anterior pelvic tilt; ADRET (d) = plank with scapular
adduction and posterior pelvic tilt.

Figure 2. Comparison of normalized electromyographic activity (%MVC) of the rectus

abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and erector spinae (ES) across

TE

prone plank variations.

ABANT = plank with scapular abduction and anterior pelvic tilt; ABRET = plank with scapular
abduction and posterior pelvic tilt; ADANT = plank with scapular adduction and anterior pelvic

C
EP

tilt; ADRET = plank with scapular adduction and posterior pelvic tilt.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

18

Table 1. Description of the prone plank variations.

Description

Traditional

Lie face-down with fists on the floor, feet shoulder width apart, and spine and

prone

pelvis in a neutral position. The elbows are spaced shoulder width apart directly

plank(24)

below the glenohumeral joint. Lift the body up on the forearms and toes.

Exercise

Exercise variations

ADANT

From the traditional prone plank, perform scapular abduction and posterior
pelvic tilt.

From the traditional prone plank, perform scapular adduction and anterior
pelvic tilt.

From the traditional prone plank, perform scapular adduction and posterior
pelvic tilt.

ADRET

pelvic tilt.

TE

ABRET

From the traditional prone plank, perform scapular abduction and anterior

C
EP

ABANT

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 2. Muscle activity (%MVC) in different prone plank variations.

RA

EO

IO

ES

Variations
MeanSD

CI

ICC

MeanSD

CI

ICC

MeanSD

CI

ICC

MeanSD

CI

ICC

ABANT

38.3625.69 22.041-54.69

0.92

35.0529.95

16.022-54.086 0.97

49.7624.02

34.499-65.024 0.95 4.741.48*

ABRET

53.2919.54 40.878-65.711

0.93

73.5331.11

53.76-93.304 0.96

70.4335.46

47.898-92.957 0.98 5.482.14*

4.122-6.846 0.89

ADANT

33.5634.31 11.76-55.364

0.97

40.2629.72

21.38-59.149 0.96

48.2729.72

25.94-70.606 0.94 5.561.73*

4.464-6.665 0.97

ADRET

77.4843.72 49.703-105.261 0.99

110.7865.76

TE

68.996-152.565 0.99 119.9260.28

3.804-5.682 0.77

81.613-158.220 0.97 7.442.10*

6.108-8.778 0.92

RA = rectus abdominis; EO = external oblique; IO = internal oblique; ES = erector spinae; ICC = intraclass

C
EP

correlation coefficient; ABANT = plank with scapular abduction and anterior pelvic tilt; ABRET = plank with
scapular abduction and posterior pelvic tilt; ADANT = plank with scapular adduction and anterior pelvic tilt;
ADRET = plank with scapular adduction and posterior pelvic tilt. SD = Standard Deviation; CI = Coefficient
Interval 95%

*Significantly lower compared to ABANT (RA p=0.001, EO p=0.000, IO p=0.000); ABRET (RA p=0.000, EO
p=0.000, IO p=0.000); ADANT (RA p=0.021, EO p=0.005, IO p=0.001) and ADRET (RA p=0.001, EO p=0.000,

IO p=0.000).

Significantly lower compared to IO (p=0.042).

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 3. Comparison of total intensity (%MVC) and RPE between prone plank variations.

TOTAL INTENSITY

RPE

CI

MeanSD

CI

ABANT

55.13533.85

1.264-109.006

4.571.828

ABRET

93.82256.186

4.418-183.227

5.211.672

ADANT

56.91630.33

8.654-105.179

5.752.006

4.48-7.02

ADRET

145.39588.255#

4.961-285.830

7.51.168*

6.76-8.24

MeanSD

3.52-5.63

TE

4.25-6.18

CI = Coefficient Interval 95%; ES = Effect Size; RPE = Rating of Perceived Exertion.

higher compared to ADANT (p=0.049, ES=1.492)

#Significantly

higher compared to ABANT (p=0.045, ES=1.478)

C
EP

Significantly

*Significantly higher compared to ADANT (p=0.015, ES=1.103)

higher compared to ABANT (p=0.000, ES=1.956)

Significantly

higher compared to ABRET (p=0.001, ES=1.613)

Significantly

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Figure 1
(a)

(b)

(d)

C
EP

TE

(c)

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Figure 2
RA

EO

p=0.005, ES=1.127
p=0.000, ES=1.582

p=0.002, ES=1.126

p=0.035, ES=0.769

140

80
60
40

0
ABANT

ABRET

ADANT

ADRET

IO

ABRET

ADANT

ADRET

p=0.001, ES=1.508

p=0.005, ES=1.034
p=0.000, ES=1.502

p=0.014, ES=0.925

12

C
EP

p=0.019, ES=0.982

10

180
160
140

% MVC

% MVC

ABANT

ES

p=0.000, ES=1.665

200

p=0.030, ES=1.260

TE

20

p=0.000, ES=1.477

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

100

% MVC

% MVC

120

120
100
80

8
6
4

60
40

20
0

ABRET

ADANT

ADRET

ABANT

ABRET

ADANT

ABANT

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

ADRET