Abstract
Anterior contraction of the core muscles for bracing and creating spinal stiffness has existed for centuries. This method of bracing, called Valsalva, referred to as Abdominal Contraction Bracing Method (CBM) in this study, is widely accepted and used for nearly any type of lifting. As CBM primarily contracts the Rectus & Transverse Abdominus, a newly developed bracing form called the Glass Cup Method (GCM) contracts the Rectus & Transverse Abdominus, External & Internal Oblique, and Quadratus Lumborum against strong Intra-Abdominal Pressure (IAP) via inhaling in specific mannerisms during the 6-step bracing process. PURPOSE: To compare electrical activity in muscles between the two bracing forms (CBM and GCM) and strength outcomes for a 1 Repetition Maximum (1RM) deadlift (DL). METHODS: Volunteers (8) were recruited to participate in a 1RM Hex bar (HB) DL experiment using both CBM and GCM. The study was approved by the Lamar University IRB. Cross assignment of bracing forms (CBM or GCM) was used to randomize their order. Day 1, volunteers fill out the PAR-Q, Informed Consent and receive their subject number determining the first form used. Day 2, subjects attempt up to 5 1RM lifts, after each 1RM lift, volunteers were given a 2-minute rest and asked if they want to proceed to the next attempt. Day 3, the same procedure was used with the other bracing technique. On GCM testing day, the subjects were taught how to perform GCM, warmed up with GCM and then performed 1RM attempts. During days 2 & 3, 10 Delsys Bluetooth EMGs are attached bilaterally to each muscle listed previously measuring the electrical activity during each 1RM DL attempt. Weight lifted for each 1RM attempt was recorded. RESULTS: Eight of the 12 subjects completed all three training sessions. The results (mean + sd) for 1RM are as follows: GCM (351.87 + 120.56) CBM (336.25 + 116.82). The average increase in weight lifted for GCM versus CBM was (15.62lbs, 4.64%) using GCM. The largest 1RM increase was 13.3% and all successful subjects experienced increases with GCM. There was a significant difference (t = 2.903, p= .023) between GCM and CBM. The EMG data also showed that electrical activity during GCM was a near-stable parabola while CBM showed unstable spikes. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results indicate GCM enhanced the subject’s stability and strength, allowing them to lift more weight as demonstrated by 1RM increases. Subjects stated they felt more stable and comfortable with GCM. LIMITATIONS: The Glass Cup Method requires 6 steps to gain full stability, and some subjects could not achieve all the steps. Hex bar inexperience also created some difficulty for the subjects.
Recommended Citation
Bellot, Michael H.; Chilek, Daniel; and Jordan, Shannon
(2026)
"A Comparison of the Abdominal Contraction Bracing Method (CBM) and the Glass Cup Abdominal Bracing Method (GCM),"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 2:
Iss.
18, Article 3.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss18/3