+Model

YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2014) xxx, xxx—xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/ctim

Core muscle function during specific

yoga poses
Meng Ni a, Kiersten Mooney b, Kysha Harriell a,
Anoop Balachandran a, Joseph Signorile a,∗

a
Laboratory of Neuromuscular Research and Active Aging, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL,
United States
b
BalaVinyasa Yoga, Naples, FL, United States

KEYWORDS Summary
Objective: To assess the potential use of 11 yoga poses in specific training and rehabilitation
Electromyography;
programs via examination of the muscle activation patterns in selected trunk and hip muscles.
Yoga;
Design: Repeated-measures descriptive study.
Rehabilitation
Setting: University laboratory, US.
Participants: : Thirty healthy yoga practitioners with more than 3 months yoga practice expe-
rience (mean age ± SD, 32.0 ± 12.3 y; 8 M/22 F) participated.
Interventions: : Surface electromyographic signals of upper rectus abdominis, lower rectus
abdominis, longissimus thoracis, external oblique abdominis and gluteus maximum muscle were
recorded in 11 yoga poses: Halfway lift, Forward fold, Downward facing dog, Upward facing dog,
High plank, Low plank, Chair, Mountain with arms down, Mountain with arms up, Warrior 1 (both
sides).
Main outcome measures: : Root mean square values of each muscle during each pose, normalized
by the maximal voluntary contraction.
Results: There were significant main effects of pose (p < .001) and muscle (p < .001), and a
significant pose × muscle interaction (p = .001). The post hoc analysis revealed unique patterns
for the five muscles of interest for each of the 11 poses (p < .024).

Abbreviations: EMG, electromyography; RAU, upper fibers of rectus abdominis; RAL, lower fibers of rectus abdominis; LT, Longissimus
thoracis; EOA, external oblique abdominis; GM, gluteus maximum; MVC, maximum voluntary contraction.
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Miami, 1507 Levante Ave, Rm MO114, Coral Gables,

FL 33146, United States. Tel.: +1 305 284 3105; fax: +1 305 284 4183.
E-mail address: jsignorile@miami.edu (J. Signorile).

0965-2299/$ — see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 M. Ni et al.

Conclusions: Variations in core muscle firing patterns depend on the trunk and pelvic positions
during these poses. Training programs can be developed by choosing particular poses to target
specific core muscles for addressing low back pain and declines in performance. The High plank,
Low plank and Downward facing dog poses are effective for strengthening external oblique abdo-
minis, Chair and Warrior 1 poses for targeting gluteus maximum, and Chair and Halfway lift poses
for strengthening longissimus thoracis. And these three muscles could be strengthened by the
Upward facing dog pose.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The core, or the lumbopelvic-hip complex, acts as an
anatomical and functional linkage for the transfer of force
from the distal segments throughout the body.1 The core is
composed of a number of muscles, and strengthening these
muscles is critical for providing local and global stabiliza-
tion of trunk.2 More precisely, the hip muscles support the
trunk structures and play a significant role in force transfer
from the lower extremity upward through the spine.3 Mus-
cular atrophy of the paraspinal muscles,4,5 excessive loads
on the lumbar spine,6 poor endurance7 and imbalance of
hip extensors8 are associated with back injuries and lower
extremity instability. Core stability is also an important com-
ponent for enhancing athletic performance9 and reducing
the probability of back injury,10 improving functionality,11
and augmenting responses to training and therapy.12
Strengthening and stabilization exercises have been uti-
lized to increase core strength and stability, decrease spinal
and pelvic viscosity, and facilitate motor patterns.10 Several
intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effects
of core training on pain attenuation13,14 and performance.15
In addition to more traditional techniques, alternative con-
ditioning methods such as Tai Chi, yoga and Pilates have also
been employed.16
Yoga, originated in ancient India, aims to improve health
conditions and address a wide range of health issues. The
practice of yoga poses, or asanas, was developed as an
approach to align, strengthen, and balance the structures of
body.17 Yoga asanas consist of the basic positions of stand-
ing, sitting, forward bend, back bend, twisting, inversion,
and lying down. Although yoga has been used to enhance
dynamic control of the stabilizing muscles and reduce lower
back pain18 through increased hip19 and spinal flexibility,20
the muscle activation patterns employed during specific
yoga poses have yet to be investigated. Of special interest
in the current study were the Vinyasa poses most commonly
used to increase trunk muscle strength and balance, thereby
improving stability and maximizing kinetic chain interac-
tions between the upper and lower extremities.21
The objective of this study was to assess the potential
use of 11 yoga poses in specific training and rehabilitation
programs via examination of the muscle activation patterns
in selected trunk and hip muscles. We hypothesized that dif-
ferent poses would produce unique variations in core muscle
activation patterns that could provide guidelines for design-
ing exercise prescriptions for training and rehabilitation.
Methods
Participants
A total of 30 yoga practitioners participated in the
study (8 men, 22 women; mean age ± SD, 32.0 ± 12.3
y; mean weight ± SD, 62.3 ± 8.1 kg; mean height ± SD,
1.68 ± .075 m). Subjects were recruited on a voluntary basis
through fliers, and personal contacts at yoga studios and
wellness centers. The initial criterion for inclusion into the
study was that the individual must have practiced yoga for
more than three months or possessed a yoga instructor cer-
tification. Additionally, subjects must have participated in
yoga training at least one time per week for at least three
months, and must have been capable of completing the yoga
sequence used in this study without assistance. Individuals
with musculoskeletal and neurologic impairments, or exist-
ing or unresolved injuries that would limit movement in any
way, were excluded from participating in this study. The
length of time the subjects in our sample had been practic-
ing yoga was 5.7 ± 5.5 years. All participants were informed
of experimental procedures and completed a written con-
sent approved by the University’s Subcommittee for the Use
and Protection of Human Subjects. A power analysis using
an effect size of 0.25, an ˛ value of 5% and a power of 95%
yielded a minimal sample size requirement of 20.
Procedures
When the subjects arrived at the laboratory, they were
asked to complete the consent form and health question-
naire. They were then allowed to warm up by performing
the Vinyasa (breath synchronized movement) Yoga Sun Salu-
tation A three times and Sun Salutation B twice at a
self-determined pace. Following the warm-up, electrodes
were placed on the skin over the muscles of interest on the
participant’s dominant side (27 right handed/3 left handed).
A total of 5 muscle groups were tested, upper fibers of
rectus abdominis (RAU), lower fibers of rectus abdominis
(RAL), longissimus thoracis (LT), external oblique abdomi-
nis (EOA) and gluteus maximum (GM) muscle. To allow
normalization of electromyography (EMG) data across sub-
jects and collection days, 3 s maximal voluntary contractions
(MVC) targeting each muscle were performed and EMG data
from that muscle were collected. Following preparation and

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Core muscle function during specific yoga poses 3

Table 1 Normalized rmsEMG amplitude for core muscles.

Upper fibers of Lower fibers of Longissimus External Gluteus

rectus rectus thoracis oblique maximus
abdominis abdominis abdominis

Pose
Halfway lift .077 ± .015 .060 ± .010 .288 ± .027 .224 ± .035 .155 ± .022
Forward fold .145 ± .026 .133 ± .030 .057 ± .011 .308 ± .070 .183 ± .029
Downward facing dog .080 ± .013 .067 ± .011 .123 ± .023 .383 ± .087 .203 ± .058
Upward facing dog .150 ± .035 .099 ± .015 .337 ± .058 .660 ± .121 .410 ± .185
High plank .270 ± .068 .225 ± .035 .143 ± .069 .784 ± .097 .175 ± .038
Low plank .155 ± .030 .135 ± .039 .258 ± .088 .697 ± .102 .164 ± .039
Chair .085 ± .015 .057 ± .010 .320 ± .039 .287 ± .054 .168 ± .033
Mountain arms up .112 ± .023 .085 ± .019 .940 ± .020 .415 ± .081 .226 ± .048
Mountain arms down .087 ± .018 .064 ± .011 .105 ± .016 .318 ± .049 .155 ± .029
Dominant side warrior 1 .119 ± .027 .057 ± .011 .244 ± .036 .392 ± .072 .397 ± .070
Non-dominant side warrior 1 .082 ± .015 .066 ± .015 .212 ± .030 .363 ± .057 .671 ± .252
All Normalized rmsEMG values (relative to MVC) are reported as mean ± SE.

normalization procedures, each subject was asked to per-
form 11 of the Vinyasa Yoga Sun Salutation poses maintaining
each for a period of 15 s. The sequences in which poses
were performed were randomized for each subject to
minimize any order effect that may have resulted due
to fatigue or post-activation potentiation produced by
previous poses. The 11 poses are: Halfway lift (Urdhva
Mukha Uttanasana), Forward fold (Uttanasana), Downward
facing dog (Adho Mukha Svanasana), Upward facing dog
(Urdhva Mukha Svanasana), High plank (Dandasana), Low
plank (Chaturanga Dandasana), Chair (Utka.tasana), Moun-
tain arms up (Urdhva Hastasana), Mountain arms down
(Tadasana), Dominant side warrior 1 (Virabhadrasana I) and
Non-dominant side warrior 1 pose.
EMG measurement procedures
Disposable bipolar electrodes (Noraxon USA, Scottsdale, AZ)
were positioned using established landmarks for the follow-
ing muscles: RAU, 3 cm from the sagittal plane and 5 cm
above the umbilicus22 ; RAL, 3 cm from the sagittal plane
and 5 cm below the umbilicus22 ; LT, parallel to the spine
and 4 cm from the L1 spine process over the muscle mass23 ;
EOA, midway between the anterior superior iliac spine and
the rib cage at a slightly oblique angle24 ; GM, half the dis-
tance between the trochanter (hip) and the sacral vertebrae
in the middle of the muscle on an oblique angle at the level
of the trochanter or slightly above.24 After electrode place-
ment sites were established, the skin surface at each site
was shaved, rubbed with a disposable, light abrasive paper,
and cleansed with alcohol to remove dead surface tissues
and oil that had the potential to reduce the strength and
quality of the signal. The electrodes were then positioned
parallel with the underlying muscle fibers, as determined by
the pennation of the muscle.
Five channels of raw EMG data were collected using a
wireless EMG telemetry system (BTS Bioengineering, Milano,
Italy) at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz, using band-pass filtering
between 1 and 500 Hz, digitized using a 16-bit A/D converter,
amplified (gain = 2000, CMRR > 110 bB@50—60 Hz), and
stored on a personal computer.
To allow normalization the EMG signals across subjects,
poses and days, a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) was
performed for each muscle while EMG data were recorded.
Each maximum contraction was held for 5 s and repeated
3 times for each muscle, with an intervening 30-second
passive recovery period.23 The MVC exercise performed tar-
geting the rectus abdominis (RA) muscle was a curl-up
against maximal manual resistance applied by the tester on
the subjects’ shoulder.25 The MVC exercise for the LT was a
prone trunk extension performed at the end range of motion
against a supramaximal load applied at the upper thoracic
area.26 For the EOA, the subject performed an oblique curl-
up, attempting to move the resisted shoulder toward the
opposite knee while this movement was prevented through
the application of manual resistance.26 The MVC test for the
GM was performed in the standing position, with a strap
placed just above the knee. Subjects were asked to flex the
knee approximately 1.57 rad and push the thigh posteriorly
against the strap, attempting to extend the thigh.27
EMG data analysis
Recorded EMG signals from each muscle were analyzed using
a dedicated Labview Software program (National Instru-
ments, Austin, TX). The root mean square of the EMG signal
(rmsEMG) collected from the third to thirteenth second
of each 15 s pose period was used as a measure of aver-
age muscle activity for each muscle during that pose. All
data collected during the poses were normalized using the
rmsEMG values collected during the middle 3 s of each 5 s
MVC.
Statistical analyses
Data were analyzed using a 5 (muscle) × 11 (pose) repeated-
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). This analysis was
designed to examine the difference in muscle activities
by muscle groups and poses. When statistically significant

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 M. Ni et al.

main effects or interactions were detected, Bonferroni post
hoc tests were used to determine the sources of these
differences.28 The threshold for significance was set at
p < 0.05.
Results
Normalized EMG values (mean ± SE) for all muscles across
poses are presented in Table 1. Significant differences among
muscles for each pose are shown in the figures associated
with each pose.
There were significant main effects of pose (p < .001,
!2 = .318) and muscle (p < .001, !2 = .214), and a significant
pose × muscle interaction (p = .001, !2 = .134). The post hoc
analysis revealed that unique patterns of difference were
seen for the five muscles of interest for each of the 11 poses
(p < .024). Table 1 presents the means and standard errors
of the NrmsEMG values for each muscle during each pose.
In the Halfway lift pose (Fig. 1a), the longissimus tho-
racis, external oblique abdominis and gluteus maximum
showed significantly higher muscle activities than the upper
and lower fibers of rectus abdominis (p < .002), and the LT
also generated significantly higher muscle activity than the
GM (p < .024).
In the Forward fold pose (Fig. 1b), the EOA and GM gener-
ated significantly higher muscle activities than LT (p < .018).
In the Downward facing dog pose (Fig. 2a), the EOA showed
significantly higher activity than RAU and RAL (p < .018). In
the Upward facing dog pose (Fig. 2b), the LT and EOA pro-
duced significantly higher muscle activities than RAU and
RAL (p < .019). In the High plank pose (Fig. 2c), the EOA pro-
duced significantly greater electrical activity than all other
muscles (p < .001). In the Low plank pose (Fig. 2d), the EOA
produced significantly higher activity level than RAU, RAL
and GM (p < .001). In the Chair pose (Fig. 3a) , the RAU,
LT, EOA and GM produced significantly higher activity levels
than RAL (p < .003). In the Mountain arms up (Fig. 3b) and
arms down (Fig. 3c) pose, the EOA produced significantly
greater muscle activities than RAU, RAL and LT (p < .006). In
the Dominant side warrior 1 pose (Fig. 3d), the LT, EOA and
GM produced significantly greater activities than the RAU
and RAL (p < .022); while in the Non-dominant side warrior 1
pose (Fig. 3e), the LT and EOA muscle produced significantly
higher EMG levels than the RAL, and the EOA generated
significantly greater muscle activity than the RAU (p < .009).
Discussion
We examined the activity levels of selected trunk and hip
muscles during 11 poses commonly used during yoga train-
ing. The results supported our hypothesis that different
poses would produce variations in the core muscle activa-
tion patterns. These findings can be beneficial for targeting
specific muscles during training and rehabilitation programs
designed to strengthen and stabilize the core.
The Halfway lift pose (Fig. 1a) produced a level of mus-
cle activity in the LT higher than activity levels seen for
the RA or GM. The LT originates on the lumbar vertebrae
and the sacrum and iliac crest and inserts on thoracic verte-
brae 1 through 12. It is activated during trunk extension.29
In the Halfway lift pose, the spine is parallel to the ground
or slightly extended and the pelvis is in the anteverted
(forward rotated) position producing increased LT activity.
The structure and function of the LT also explain its low
activity level during the Forward fold pose where the trunk
is in forward flexion (Fig. 1b). When comparing these two
poses, the activity level of the RA was nearly twice as great
during the Forward fold versus the Halfway lift due to the
increased need to activate this trunk flexor to produce a
deeper forward bend.6,29
The Downward facing dog (Fig. 2a) is a recovery pose in
the Vinyasa sequence, and is used to stretch the backs of
the legs and shoulders. Our results reveal the importance of
the EOA and GM in holding this position.
In the Upward facing dog pose (Fig. 2b), the hip is
extended and internally rotated, and the trunk is extended.
Based on our results, the increased activity level of the GM
was necessary to support these movement patterns. Given
that this pose can effectively target the GM, it could be a
tool for improving lower extremity alignment during single
leg support30 and reducing the potential for lower extremity
injury,31 such as damage to the knee ligaments.32 During this
pose, the LT generated significantly higher muscle activities
than RAU and RAL. This back extension pose stretches the
anterior aspect of trunk muscles and mobilizes the posterior
trunk musculature. Although this pose may not be appro-
priate for alleviating acute lower back pain,33 it may still
be an effective intervention to reduce chronic lower back
pain.34,35 This pose also could be used as an exercise for
strengthening the EOA.
In the High plank (Fig. 2c) and Low plank (Fig. 2d) poses,
the EOA activity levels were the highest seen for any poses;
however, the activity levels for the RAU and RAL were rela-
tively low compared to the values seen for the EOA. Our
results differ from those noted by Ekstrom et al.,23 who
reported that the EOA and RA produced activity levels of
43% and 47%MVC for the prone-bridge pose, and suggested
this exercise might not be appropriate to strengthen the
abdominal muscles. The differences in the activation levels
between the two studies may be attributed to the differ-
ence in the pose characteristics. The prone-bridge pose is a
plank pose supported at the elbows, whereas the High and
Low plank poses requires hand-support with elbow straight
and flexed to 1.57 rad, respectively. Because of the smaller
base of support inherent in the High and Low plank poses,
the activity levels of EOA would be expected to exceed that
seen with the prone-bridge plank since these higher activ-
ity levels would be required to maintain the stability of the
core segment. In contrast, Stokes et al. reported no signifi-
cant differences in activation levels among the RA, erector
spinae and GM, indicating that the co-contraction of these
muscles may have augmented core stability by increasing
axial load and inducing greater intervertebral stiffness36 ;
however, elevated axial loading of the lumbar spine may
cause lower back pain.37 In our study, no external load was
applied to the spine and the LT was activated to reduce flex-
ing the pelvis and maintain the back in the plank position.
Additionally, the GM contracted to retrovert (backward rota-
tion) the pelvis and the RAU and RAL were used to keep the
hip in a neutral position.
In the Chair pose (Fig. 3a), the hip was in a flexed posi-
tion and GM activity was modest. This counterbalanced the
forward tilt of the pelvis and created a stable foundation

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Core muscle function during specific yoga poses 5

Figure 1 Normalized root mean square of the EMG signal for the core muscles during forward bending poses including the Halfway
lift (a), and Forward fold (b). Upper fibers of rectus abdominis (RAU), lower fibers of rectus abdominis (RAL), Longissimus thoracis
(LT), external oblique abdominis (EOA) and gluteus maximus (GM). **greater than RAU and RAL, †greater than RAU, RAL and GM,
§greater than LT.

for the trunk structures. This is important when transferring
forces from the lower extremities to the trunk and adjus-
ting activation levels of key lower extremity muscles during
physical activity.38 During this pose contraction of the EOA
also created a retroverted torque to resist hip flexion and
stabilize the pelvis. Additionally, the moderately high activ-
ity level seen for the LT was consistent with the level of trunk
extension required for the Chair pose. However, the muscle
activation levels for the LT and RAU were similar, which is
not consistent with previous findings which indicated that
RA muscle activity showed low activity levels during trunk
extension.39 This may be due to the small degree of trunk
extension during the Chair pose which required an equally
low level of RA and LT co-contraction to stabilize the spine.
In the Mountain pose with arms down (Fig. 3c), a start-
ing position of the Vinyasa flow, the lack of significant
difference between the RA and LT activity suggests that
co-contraction of the core muscles was required to stabi-
lize the lumbopelvic-hip segment. Co-contraction of muscles
on the dorsal and ventral aspects of the trunk increases
intra-abdominal pressure and produces significant trunk
stiffness.3 This pattern was also apparent during the Moun-
tain pose with arms up (Fig. 3b). These two standing poses
are designed to elevate the back, open the pelvic region,
and compress the ribcage to increase stabilization. The sig-
nificantly higher muscle activity in EOA compared to RAU,
RAL and LT indicates that pelvis is moving to a retroverted
position. This assertion is supported by the findings of
Queiroz et al.,40 that pelvic retroversion requires an
increase in EOA activity.
In the warrior 1 pose (Fig. 3d and e), the hip and knee
of the dominant and non-dominant sides were respectively
flexed and extended, while the spine was kept extended.
When the front leg was flexed, the back-leg GM was acti-
vated to extend and externally rotate the hip producing a
very high activity level. This pose could be an effective tool
for increasing GM strength; however, the level of GM activity
during the non-dominant side warrior 1 did not produce sig-
nificantly higher activity than other muscle groups; this may
have been due to the high variation in the activation pattern
of this muscle among subjects. Meanwhile, contracting the
LT maintained a limited level of back extension, which could
potentially develop muscular endurance and reduce fatigue.
Therefore, this pose could be an effective treatment for
chronic lower back pain, where individuals show a reduc-
tion in muscle endurance and great fatigability compared
with healthy controls.41
When examining the levels of activation of the LT, OEA
and GM, our results meet the criteria stated by Cresswell
et al.,42 who noted that contractions as low as 25% of MVC
could effectively increase support offered by muscles that
stabilize the lower back. McGill et al.,43 have presented an
even more conservative goal of 10% MVC as an effective
level of activation to improve trunk muscle performance

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 M. Ni et al.

Figure 2 Normalized root mean square of the EMG signal for the core muscles during the downward facing dog (a), upward facing
dog (b), high plank (c), and low plank (d). Upper fibers of rectus abdominis (RAU), lower fibers of rectus abdominis (RAL), longissimus
thoracis (LT), external oblique abdominis (EOA) and gluteus maximus (GM). **greater than RAU and RAL, †greater than RAU, RAL
and GM, ‡greater than RAU, RAL, LT and GM.

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Core muscle function during specific yoga poses 7

Figure 3 Normalized root mean square of the EMG signal for the core muscles during Chair (a), mountain pose arms up (b),
mountain pose arms down (c), dominant side warrior (d), and non-dominant side warrior (e). Upper fibers of rectus abdominis
(RAU), lower fibers of rectus abdominis (RAL), longissimus thoracis (LT), external oblique abdominis (EOA) and gluteus maximus
(GM). *greater than RAL, **greater than RAU and RAL. §§greater than RAU, RAL and LT.

Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 M. Ni et al.
Figure 3
for stability during activities of daily living. In contrast to
the increased levels of activity seen in these three muscles,
increases in activation of the URA and LRA were limited,
indicating that the poses examined should be supplemented
using other poses or exercises if the goal is the targeting of
the RA musculature.
While the current study provides insight into the target-
ing of specific muscles for training and rehabilitation, the
research was conducted using healthy yoga practitioners.
These finding may not be generalizable to other populations
such as persons without yoga experience, older individuals
or patients undergoing rehabilitation for specific injuries
or disease states. Additionally, our study provides results
related to muscle activity levels but suffers from a lack of
kinematic or kinetic data. Therefore, we suggest that future
studies examine specific yoga poses in special populations
and that these studies include biomechanical analyses.
Conclusion
Our study provides data on the core muscle activation pat-
terns during the eleven most commonly practiced yoga
poses. Variation in core muscle firing patterns depends on
the trunk and pelvic positions in these poses. The High plank,
Low plank and Upward facing dog poses could be used as
effective exercises for strengthening external oblique abdo-
minis. The Chair, Upward facing dog and Warrior 1 poses
appear effective for building gluteus maximus strength.
The Chair, Halfway lift and Upward facing dog poses could
be appropriate to develop muscle strength for longissiums
Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
(Continued)
thoracis. By selectively choosing particular poses, preven-
tion and rehabilitation programs can be developed that
address strength and endurance insufficiencies in specific
muscle groups that might, for instance, cause low back pain
and declines in performance. Clinicians can feel secure in
using the poses presented in this study for both preven-
tative and rehabilitative purposes since they reach critical
activation levels necessary to generate improvements, but
do not provide levels of activation that may put the core
muscles and related structures at high levels of risk for
injury.
Conflict of interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of inter-
est associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have
influenced its outcome.
References
1. Kibler WB, Press J, Sciascia A. The role of core stability in ath-
letic function. Sports Med 2006;36:189—98.
2. Bergmark A. Stability of the lumbar spine: a study in mechanical
engineering. Acta Ortho Scand Suppl 1989;230:1—54.
3. Willson JD, Dougherty CP, Ireland ML, Davis IM. Core stability
and its relationship to lower extremity function and injury. J
Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005;13:316—25.
4. Hultman G, Nordin M, Saraste H, Ohlsèn H. Body composition,
endurance, strength, cross-sectional area, and density of MM
+Model
YCTIM-1308; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Core muscle function during specific yoga poses
erector spinae in men with and without low back pain. J Spinal
Disord 1993;6:114—23.
5. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Multifidus muscle recovery is
not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back
pain. Spine 1996;21:2763—9.
6. McGill SM. A revised anatomical model of the abdominal mus-
culature for torso flexion efforts. J Biomech 1996;29:973—7.
7. Beckman SM, Buchanan TS. Ankle inversion injury and hypermo-
bility: effect on hip and ankle muscle electromyography onset
latency. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:1138—43.
8. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, Feinberg JH, Prybicien M, Stitik TP,
DePrince M. Relationship between hip muscle imbalance and
occurrence of low back pain in collegiate athletes: a prospective
study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:572—7.
9. Hedrick A. Training the trunk for improved athletic perfor-
mance. Strength Cond J 2000;22:50.
10. Akuthota V, Nadler SF. Core strengthening. Arch Phys Med Reha-
bil 2004;85:86—92.
11. Guzmán J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bom-
bardier C. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back
pain: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322:1511—6.
12. Bono CM. Low-back pain in athletes. J Bone Joint Sur Am
2004;86:382—96.
13. Koumantakis GA, Watson PJ, Oldham JA. Trunk muscle stabiliza-
tion training plus general exercise versus general exercise only:
randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back
pain. Phys Ther 2005;85:209—25.
14. Hayden JA, Van Tulder MW, Tomlinson G. Systematic review:
strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in
chronic low back pain. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:776—85.
15. Cissik JM. The role of core training in athletic performance,
injury prevention, and injury treatment. Strength Cond J
2011;33:10—5.
16. Gray G. Chain reaction festival. Adrian (MI): Wynn Marketing;
1996.
17. Robert-McComb J. Yoga: a modality in complementary therapy.
ACSM’ s Certified News 2009;19:1—3.
18. Cramer H, Lauche R, Haller H, Dobos G. A systematic review
and meta-analysis of yoga for low back pain. Clin J Pain
2012;29:450—60.
19. Williams K, Abildso C, Steinberg L, Doyle E, Epstein B, Smith
D, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficacy of Iyengar
yoga therapy on chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2009;34:2066—76.
20. Galantino ML, Bzdewka TM, Eissler-Russo JL, Holbrook ML,
Geigle P, et al. The impact of modified Hatha yoga on chronic
low back pain: a pilot study. Altern Ther Health Med 2004;10:
56—9.
21. Long R. Anatomy for Vinyasa flow and standing poses. 1st ed.
Plattsburgh, NY: Bandha Yoga Publications; 2010.
22. Moraes AC, Pinto RS, Valamatos MJ, Valamatos MJ, Pezarat-
Correia PL, Okano AH, et al. EMG activation of abdominal
muscles in the crunch exercise performed with different exter-
nal loads. Phys Ther Sport 2009;10:57—62.
23. Ekstrom R, Donatelli R, Carp K. Electromyographic analysis of
core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation exer-
cises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37:754—62.
24. Criswell E. Cram’s introduction to surface electromyography.
Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2010.
Please cite this article in press as: Ni M, et al. Core muscle function during specific yoga poses. Complement Ther Med
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.01.007
9
25. Lehman GJ, McGill SM. Quantification of the differences in elec-
tromyographic activity magnitude between the upper and lower
portions of the rectus abdominis muscle during selected trunk
exercises. Phys Ther 2001;81:1096—101.
26. Kendall F, McCreary E, Provance P, Rodgers M, Romani W. Mus-
cles, testing and function with posture and pain. Baltimore,
MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
27. Boudreau SN, Dwyer MK, Mattacola CG, Lattermann C, Uhl TL,
McKeon JM. Hip-muscle activation during the lunge, single-
leg squat, and step-up-and-over exercises. J Sport Rehab
2009;18:91—103.
28. Steel RG, Torrie JH. Principles and procedures of statistics, a
biometrical approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha,
Ltd.; 1980.
29. Cholewicki J, Vanvliet Iv JJ. Relative contribution of trunk
muscles to the stability of the lumbar spine during isometric
exertions. Clin Biomech 2002;17:99—105.
30. Winter D, Eng J, Ishac M, Craik R, Oatis C. A review of kinetic
parameters in human walking. Gait analysis: theory and appli-
cation. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1995. pp. 252—270.
31. Leetun DT, Ireland ML, Willson JD, Ballantyne BT, Davis IM. Core
stability measures as risk factors for lower extremity injury in
athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36:926—34.
32. Ireland ML. The female ACL: why is it more prone to injury.
Orthop Clin North Am 2002;33:637—51.
33. Malmivaara A, Häkkinen U, Aro T, Heinrichs M, Koskenniemi
L, Kuosma E, et al. The treatment of acute low back pain—
–bed rest, exercises, or ordinary activity. N Engl J Med
1995;332:351—5.
34. Rittweger J, Just K, Kautzsch K, Reeg P, Felsenberg D. Treatment
of chronic lower back pain with lumbar extension and whole-
body vibration exercise: a randomized controlled trial. Spine
2002;27:1829—34.
35. Rissanen A, Alaranta H, Alaranta H. Effect of intensive training
on the isokinetic strength and structure of lumbar muscles in
patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 1995;20:333—40.
36. Stokes IA, Gardner-Morse M. Spinal stiffness increases with axial
load: another stabilizing consequence of muscle action. J Elec-
tromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13:397—402.
37. Marras WS, Ferguson SA, Burr D, Davis KG, Gupta P. Spine load-
ing in patients with low back pain during asymmetric lifting
exertions. Spine J 2004;4:64—75.
38. Bobbert MF, van Zandwijk JP. Dynamics of force and muscle
stimulation in human vertical jumping. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1999;31:303—10.
39. Cresswell AG, Grundstrom H, Thorstensson A. Observations
on intra-abdominal pressure and patterns of abdominal intra-
muscular activity in man. Acta Physiol Scand 1992;144:409—18.
40. Queiroz BC, Cagliari MF, Amorim CF, Sacco IC. Muscle activa-
tion during four pilates core stability exercises in quadruped
position. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:86—92.
41. Kankaanpää M, Taimela S, Laaksonen D, Hänninen O, Airaksinen
O. Back and hip extensor fatigability in chronic low back pain
patients and controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:412—7.
42. Cresswell A, Oddsson L, Thorstensson A. The influence of sud-
den perturbations on trunk muscle activity and intra-abdominal
pressure while standing. Exp Brain Res 1994;98(2):336—41.
43. McGill S. Low back disorders: evidenced-based prevention and
rehabilitation. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetic Publishers.