Biomechanical differences between hip thrust and glute bridge for hip extensors

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical characteristics of two similar exercises used to strengthen hip extensors: the Hip Thrust and the Glute Bridge. Ten resistance-trained participants were recruited and performed three repetitions of each exercise in a randomized order at 80% of their one repetition maximum of the Hip Thrust. Kinematic and kinetic variables were assessed. Significant differences were found between the Hip Thrust and Glute Bridge for the concentric phase in time (0.8 ± 0.14 s vs. 0.58 ± 0.07 s; p < .002), vertical displacement (35.65 ± 3.4 cm vs. 15.45 ± 4.82 cm; p < .002), total displacement (39.36 ± 4.03 cm vs. 19.22 ± 5.63 cm; p<.002), displacement vector magnitude (36.68 ± 3.51 cm vs. 17.84 ± 5.42 cm; p < .002), displacement vector angle (102.18 ± 6.32 deg vs. 61.79 ± 11.08 deg; p < .002), vertical positive impulse (1315.28 ± 300.34 Ns vs. 940.65 ± 93.59 Ns; p < .002), and total impulse (1422.11 ± 321.59 Ns vs. 1024.02 ± 105.48 Ns; p < .002). All effect sizes ranged between 1.59 and 4.64. These results suggest that the Hip Thrust is better suited for sports that require the application of strength from smaller hip angles or higher ranges of motion, and the Glute Bridge allows a higher force application close to the hip lockout. However, due to the training experience of our sample, these results should only be extrapolated to resistance trained males.

El objetivo de este estudio es comparar las características de dos ejercicios similares que se usan para desarrollar la fuerza de los extensores de cadera: el Hip Thrust y el Glute Bridge. Diez sujetos experimentados en el entrenamiento de fuerza realizaron tres repeticiones de cada ejercicio usando el 80% de su repetición máxima en el Hip Thrust. Se evaluaron variables cinéticas y cinemáticas. Se hallaron diferencias significativas entre el Hip Thrust y el Glute Bridge en la duración de la fase concéntrica (0.8 ± 0.14 s vs. 0.58 ± 0.07 s; p <.002), desplazamiento vertical (35.65 ± 3.4 cm vs. 15.45 ± 4.82 cm; p <.002), desplazamiento total (39.36 ± 4.03 cm vs. 19.22 ± 5.63 cm; p <.002), magnitud del vector de desplazamiento (36.68 ± 3.51 cm vs. 17.84 ± 5.42 cm; p <.002), ángulo del vector de desplazamiento (102.18 ± 6.32 deg vs. 61.79 ± 11.08; deg; p <.002), impulso vertical positivo (1315.28 ± 300.34 Ns vs. 940.65 ± 93.59 Ns; p < .002), e impulso total (1422.11 ± 321.59 Ns vs. 1024.02 ± 105.48 Ns; < .002). Todos los tamaños del efecto estuvieron entre 1.59 y 4.64.