Review

Perceptual and Motor Skills

Electrical Activity of 0(0) 1–10

! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Powerhouse Muscles sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0031512516684079
During the Teaser journals.sagepub.com/home/pms

Exercise of Pilates
Using Different Types
of Apparatus

Débora da Rocha Werba1, Débora Cantergi1,

Leandro Tolfo Franzoni1, Alex de Oliveira Fagundes1,
Jefferson Fagundes Loss1, and Aline Nogueira Haas1

Abstract
We compared the electrical activity of certain powerhouse muscles—External
Oblique, Multifidus, Adductor Longus, and Gluteus Medius—during the teaser exer-
cise of the Pilates Method, performed on various types of apparatus—the Mat,
Reformer, and Wall Unit. Fifteen female practitioners of the Classic Pilates Method
(32.6  7.7 years old; 21.9  1.9 body mass index) performed the teaser in each
situation while electromyographic (EMG) and kinematic data were collected. Root
mean square values of the flexion phase were compared. All muscles showed higher
EMG activity in Reformer compared with Wall Unit, and Multifidus, Adductor
Longus, and Gluteus Medius showed higher EMG activity in Mat compared with
Wall Unit. No difference was found between Reformer and Mat.

Keywords
biomechanics, electromyography, muscles, Pilates

1
School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Corresponding Author:
Aline Nogueira Haas, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, Rua Felizardo, 750, Bairro Jardim Botânico, CEP:90690-200, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande
do Sul, Brazil.
Email: alinehaas02@hotmail.com
2 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Introduction
The Pilates Method is a muscle conditioning technique that focuses on core
strengthening (Akuthota, Ferreiro, Moore, & Fredericson, 2008; Akuthota &
Nadler, 2004). As a low-impact resistance method, Pilates may be practiced by
people seeking to be physically active, in need of rehabilitation, or by athletes
wishing to improve performance (Sacco et al., 2005). Six principles (control,
concentration, centering, precision, breathing, and fluidity) guide the exercises
generating body stabilization by controlling the center (Aparı́cio & Pérez, 2005;
Siler, 2000). To Joseph Pilates, the core, called powerhouse, is the center where
movement originates (Siler, 2000). Powerhouse muscles include the abdominal
muscles (Rectus Abdominis, External and Internal Oblique, and Transversus
Abdominis), low back muscles (Erector Spinae group, Transverso Spinalis
group, and Quadratus Lumborum), hip extensor (Gluteus Maximus,
Hamstrings, and Adductor Magnus), hip flexors (Iliopsoas, Rectus Femoris,
Sartorius, Tensor Fascia Latae, and the adductors of the thigh), and the
pelvic floor musculature (including the Perineal) (Muscolino & Cipriani,
2004b). Powerhouse muscles support the trunk, improve posture and balance,
and stabilize the spine and body, even when movement occurs in the extremities
(Akuthota & Nadler, 2004; Aparı́cio & Pérez, 2005; Bliss & Teeple, 2005;
Muscolino & Cipriani, 2004a).
Pilates exercises may be performed on the Mat or on specific other types of
apparatus, like Cadillac (or its adaptation, Wall Unit), Reformer, Chairs, and
Barrels. On the Mat, the body weight acts as resistance (Aparı́cio & Pérez, 2005;
Siler, 2000), while other types of apparatus use springs that may resist or assist the
movement (Muscolino & Cipriani, 2004b; Sacco et al., 2005). Similar kinematic
activity is used in exercises on the Mat or on the different types of apparatus, but
small changes in body and springs position influence the resistance torques and
change muscle activity (Melo, Gomes, Silva, Bonezi, & Loss, 2011; Queiroz,
Cagliari, Amorim, & Sacco, 2010; Sacco et al., 2005; Silva, Melo, Gomes,
Bonezi, & Loss, 2009; Souza, Cantergi, Mendonça, Kennedy, & Loss, 2012).
The teaser is a classical Pilates exercise that develops strength and endurance
of the powerhouse anterior muscles and contributes to trunk and limbs control
and balance (Aparı́cio & Pérez, 2005; Isacowitz & Clippinger, 2010; Siler, 2000).
The teaser can be performed on several types of apparatus including the Wall
Unit, Reformer, and Mat. Although differences in the teaser method have been
studied before, there is no consensus regarding muscle activity on different types
of apparatus. One study compared the teaser between the Mat and the Cadillac
and found higher rectus abdominis activity with the Cadillac (Souza et al., 2012),
while another study (Dias et al., 2014) found higher rectus abdominis activity
with the Mat and higher External Oblique (EO) activity with the Cadillac. Effect
sizes for both studies were calculated according to Cohen (1988); Souza et al.
(2012) presented an effect size of .95, and Dias et al. (2014) reported .66 for
Rectus Abdominis and .17 for EO.
Werba et al. 3

These differences highlight the importance of further investigation concerning

powerhouse muscle activity in the teaser with different types of apparatus. Thus,
this study compared the electric activity of EO muscles, Multifidus (MU),
Adductor Longus (AL), and Gluteus Medius (GM) during the teaser exercise,
performed with the Mat, Reformer, and Wall Unit. We hypothesized that these
muscles would present higher activity when the teaser exercise was performed
with the Reformer, compared with Mat and Wall Unit and higher activity with
the Mat, compared with the Wall Unit.

Method
Participants
Fifteen healthy females (32.6  7.7 years old; 58.7  5.8 kg; 163  0.06 cm;
21.9  1.9 body mass index), with over 18 months experience in Classical
Pilates took part in the study. All participants gave signed informed consent
prior to data collection. The study was approved by the university’s Ethics
Committee.

Exercise Description
The teaser was performed in a supine position with the legs elevated. In the
flexion phase, starting with knees flexed, the subject inhales while lifting the
trunk, lifts arms over the head, and extends the knees with the legs adducted
throughout, up to a 90 angle between the trunk and lower limbs in a balanced
position supported by the base of the pelvis. In the flexion phase, a posterior
pelvic tilt occurs due to the oblique muscles contraction (Dias et al., 2014). In the
extension phase, subjects exhale returning to the initial position, lowering the
arms and trunk starting with the lower vertebrae, and flexing the knees, still
keeping legs adducted.
When the teaser is performed on the Mat, external load is imposed by
the weight of the limbs (Figure 1(a)). With the Reformer, the subject is

Figure 1. End of the flexion phase in the Mat (a), Reformer (b), and Wall Unit (c).
4 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

lying over a box and performs the movement holding handles attached to
the cart with a spring generating resistance (Figure 1(b)). With the Wall
Unit, the subject holds a bar attached to a spring in an upper position
(Figure 1(c)).

Experimental Design
Each participant performed five repetitions of the teaser on Mat, Reformer, and
Wall Unit in order randomized by draw. A 4-second continuous metronome
dictated the rhythm of execution (2 seconds in each phase). Breathing was
guided by verbal command. Five-minute intervals between series were observed
to avoid fatigue.

External Load
All participants used the same spring’s configuration in the Wall Unit and
Reformer, equivalent to the load used by intermediate practitioners. On the
Wall Unit, a spring (k ¼ 0.374 kg/cm) was fixed above the subject’s head, assist-
ing trunk flexion, especially at the start of the movement, when spring tension is
higher. On the Reformer, a spring (k ¼ 0.19 kg/cm) was used, offering a resist-
ance that increases as the individual flexes the trunk while holding the handles,
pulling the spring.

Data Collection
Electromyography (EMG) (2000 Hz, Miotool 800 Miotec, common mode rejec-
tion ratio >110 dB at 60 Hz, input impedance >100 Gohms, gain was set at 100)
and kinematics (15 Hz) data were simultaneously collected with Miograph soft-
ware (Miotec Biomedical Equipments Ltd, Porto Alegre, Brazil). EMG signals
were recorded on the right side of the body following SENIAM project guide-
lines (Hermens, Freriks, Disselhorst-Klug, & Rau, 2000). Pairs of self-adhesive
surface electrodes (Kendall, Meditrace – 100; Ag/AgCl, diameter 2.2 cm) were
positioned in bipolar configuration; 25 mm apart (Basmajian & De Luca, 1985;
Hermens et al., 2000) on EO, between the iliac crest and L3 (Ng, Kippers,
Parnianpour, & Richardson, 2002), MU, at L5 level, aligned to a line from
posterior to superior iliac spine and L1-L2 interspace, GM, halfway between
the iliac crest and the greater trochanter (Hermens et al., 2000), and AL, in the
proximal third of the line between pubic symphysis and adductor tubercle
(Claiborne, Timmons, & Pincivero, 2009). A reference electrode was positioned
on tibia tuberosity. For normalization, two maximum voluntary isometric con-
tractions (MVICs) of each muscle were collected (5 seconds long, with 3-minute
interval). MVICs’ positions were as Escamilla et al. (2006) for EO; Hermens
et al. (2000) for MU and GM; and Konrad (2005) for AL. The root mean square
Werba et al. 5

(RMS) value of the three central seconds of each MVIC was calculated, and the
highest value was used as reference for normalization.

Analysis Procedures
Images from a webcam were analyzed qualitatively in software Dvideow
(Figueroa, Leite, & Barros, 2003), identifying the beginning and end of the
flexion phase, from the removal of the head and shoulders until the change of
direction of the trunk, for the three central repetitions. EMG signal was pro-
cessed on BIOMEC SAS 1.1 software (homemade software—www.ufrgs.br/
biomec) with a third-order digital Butterworth band pass filter and with cutoff
frequencies between 20 and 500 Hz. EMG was cut in the flexion phases using the
time information from the qualitative analysis from the images of the webcam,
and RMS value was calculated for each muscle for the entire flexion phase (2
seconds rectangular window).

Statistical Treatment
Because data normality was not confirmed with the Shapiro–Wilk test (p < .001),
the Friedman test was used to compare EMG from each muscle between Wall
Unit, Mat, and Reformer apparatus types. Dunn’s post hoc analysis was used
when needed. Effect size (r) was calculated for each comparison. The adopted
significance level was .05. IBM SPSS 20 software was used.

Results
Figure 2 presents the EMG of each muscle in each apparatus. EO (2(2) ¼ 8.933,
p ¼ .011) was different between Reformer and Wall Unit (p ¼ .013, r ¼ .51), but
no differences were found between the Wall Unit and Mat (p ¼ .08, r ¼ .39) and
the Reformer and Mat (p ¼ 1.0, r ¼ .13). MU (2(2) ¼ 58.536, p < .001) was dif-
ferent between the Reformer and Wall Unit (p < .001, r ¼ .83) and Mat and Wall
Unit (p < .001, r ¼ .87), but no differences were found between the Reformer and
Mat (p ¼ 1.0, r ¼ .36). AL (2(2) ¼ 12.101, p ¼ .002) was different between the
Reformer and Wall Unit (p ¼ .034, r ¼ .31) and the Mat and Wall Unit (p ¼ .003,
r ¼ .46), but no differences were found between the Reformer and Mat (p ¼ 1.0,
r ¼ .19). GM (2(2) ¼ 12.816, p ¼ .002) was different between the Reformer and
Wall Unit (p ¼ .029, r ¼ .32) and the Mat and Wall Unit (p ¼ .002, r ¼ .65), but
no differences were found between the Reformer and Mat (p ¼ 1.0, r ¼ .15).

Discussion
This study compared the EMG activity of four powerhouse muscles during the
teaser exercise using the Reformer, Wall Unit, and Mat. As expected, the Wall
6 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation of EMG activity of the muscle analyzed in the
different apparatus. For each muscle, different letters represent statically significant
differences between apparatus (p < .05).

Unit showed lower activity of the muscles analyzed in almost all comparisons.
However, no differences were found in muscle activity between the Reformer
and Mat. Muscle activity is related to the imposed challenge, which, in turn, has
to do with the torques acting on the body (Loss et al., 2010). In this study, the
external load was variable, possibly differentially influencing the different elec-
trical activity in the muscles. However, since differences in the loads between
exercises are intrinsic characteristics of the Pilates Method, this factor was not
separately analyzed. With the Mat, the external load originates from the weight
of the segments. With the Reformer and the Wall Unit, springs determine the
external load for resisting and assisting movements, respectively. Thus, while the
potent torque in the exercise in the Mat and Reformer was performed only by
the muscles, in the Wall Unit, the spring acts in the same direction as the potent
torque, decreasing the need for muscular activity.
Werba et al. 7

Of the muscles evaluated in this study, only the EO was previously assessed in
prior literature. Dias et al. (2014) evaluated the teaser in the Mat, Reformer, and
Chair, but no significant difference was found during the flexion phase of the
exercise between these apparatus types. This corroborates the study’s results in
the comparison of the teaser between the Mat and Reformer. The EO performs
trunk rotation and, if activated bilaterally, trunk flexion, and participates in
pelvis stabilization. In the teaser exercise, trunk flexors are the main agonists
of the movement. Considering the external load of the springs, we would expect
a higher activity of this muscle when the teaser was performed with the
Reformer and the Mat, when compared with the Wall Unit. However, only
the higher activity with the Reformer compared with the Wall Unit was con-
firmed. Trunk flexion exercises performed on unstable surfaces increase abdom-
inal muscle activity, especially the EO muscle, when compared with the same
exercise performed on a stable surface (Vera-Garcia, Grenier, & McGill, 2000).
In our study, EO showed greater activity with the teaser on the Reformer’s
sliding platform, when compared with the Wall Unit. This may be due to the
characteristics of the external load with each apparatus. While with the
Reformer the springs attached to the moving platform act against the move-
ment, resisting it, with the Wall Unit, the spring is being held from above, aiding
the movement.
No studies were found that evaluated the MU, AL, and GM during the teaser
exercise. In the present study, the MU showed a similar pattern between appar-
atus types, with greater muscle activity during the teaser exercise with the
Reformer and the Mat, when compared with the Wall Unit. When activated
bilaterally MU performs trunk extension, unilaterally acts in the rotation to the
contralateral side and lateral inclination to the ipsilateral side. It is also a pri-
mary stabilizer of the spine along with the abdominal muscles. In the teaser
exercise, the individual balances in the base of the pelvis, stretching the muscles
of the lower back, causing the pelvis to tilt posteriorly. This posture decreases
the demand of the MU muscles, which may explain the lower activity of MU.
Studies on other Pilates’ exercises found high activity of MU in positions where
anterior pelvic tilt occurred and stabilization was necessary. Loss et al. (2010)
found increased EMG of the MU muscles in the hip extension exercise in the
Wall Unit apparatus. Queiroz et al. (2010) found increased EO and Gluteus
Maximus activity and decreased MU activity in the knee stretch exercise,
when posterior pelvis tilt and trunk flexion occurred.
AL performs hip adduction and GM performs hip abduction, acting in the
teaser exercise to stabilize the pelvis. Similar results were found for both muscles.
No significant differences were found between Reformer and Mat, but both had
higher activity than the Wall Unit. The resistance external loads in each appar-
atus may explain this result.
The main limitations of this study were only analyzing the concentric phase of
the exercise and failing to quantify cross-talk between muscles. Future studies
8 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

should address both flexion and extension phases of the exercise. We did not
exhaust all the possibilities the Pilates Method offers to perform the teaser exer-
cise. New studies might also explore the performance of the teaser in situations
other than the Pilates Method.
The Pilates Method has several exercises for training each muscle group, with
small differences between them. In past years, some of these particularities have
been research learning how different loads influence powerhouse muscle activity
in the teaser exercise will give Pilates instructors new information to guide their
decisions. The teaser is usually introduced in the Cadillac or Wall Unit, with the
springs’ assistance aiding the learning process of the movement (Rossi et al.,
2014). From these results, the exercise in the Reformer, with an unstable base
and spring resistance, offers an increased challenge to the EO muscle in relation
to the exercise on the Mat. This is important data for determining what exercise
will best emphasize abdominal muscle training.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Akuthota, V., Ferreiro, A., Moore, T., & Fredericson, M. (2008). Core stability exercise
principles. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 7(1), 39–44.
Akuthota, V., & Nadler, S. F. (2004). Core strengthening. Archives of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, 85, 86–92.
Aparı́cio, E., & Pérez, J. (2005). O auteˆntico me´todo pilates: A arte do controle. São Paulo:
Planeta do Brasil.
Basmajian, J. V., & De Luca, C. J. (1985). Muscles alive: Their functions revealed by
electromyography (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Bliss, L. S., & Teeple, P. (2005). Core stability: The centerpiece of any training program.
Current Sports Medicine Reports, 4(3), 179–183.
Claiborne, T. L., Timmons, M. K., & Pincivero, D. M. (2009). Test–retest reliability of
cardinal plane isokinetic hip torque and EMG. Journal of Electromyography and
Kinesiology, 19(5), e345–e352.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dias, J. M., de Oliveira Menacho, M., Mazuquin, B. F., Obara, K., Mostagi, F. Q. R. C.,
Lima, T. B., . . . Cardoso, J. R. (2014). Comparison of the electromyographic activity
of the anterior trunk during the execution of two Pilates exercises – teaser and long-
spine – for healthy people. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 24(5),
689–697.
Werba et al. 9

Escamilla, R. F., Babb, E., DeWitt, R., Jew, P., Kelleher, P., Burnham, T., . . . Imamura,
R. T. (2006). Electromyographic analysis of traditional and nontraditional abdominal
exercises: Implications for rehabilitation and training. Physical Therapy, 86(5),
656–671.
Figueroa, P. J., Leite, N. J., & Barros, R. M. (2003). A flexible software for tracking of
markers used in human motion analysis. Computer Methods and Programs in
Biomedicine, 72(2), 155–165.
Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., & Rau, G. (2000). Development of
recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 10(5), 361–374.
Isacowitz, R., & Clippinger, K. (2010). Pilates anatomy. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Konrad, P. (2005). The ABC of EMG: A practical introduction to kinesiological electro-
myography. Scottsdale, AZ: Noraxon.
Loss, J. F., Melo, M. O., Rosa, C. H., Santos, A. B., La Torre, M., & Silva, Y. O. (2010).
Electrical activity of external Oblique and Multifidus muscles during the hip flexion-
extension exercise performed in the Cadillac with different adjustments of springs and
individual positions. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 14(6), 510–517.
Melo, M. O., Gomes, L. E., Silva, Y. O., Bonezi, A., & Loss, J. F. (2011). Assessment of
resistance torque and resultant muscular force during Pilates hip extension exercise
and its implications to prescription and progression. Brazilian Journal of Physical
Therapy, 15(1), 23–30.
Muscolino, J. E., & Cipriani, S. (2004a). Pilates and the ‘‘powerhouse’’—I. Journal of
Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 8(1), 15–24.
Muscolino, J. E., & Cipriani, S. (2004b). Pilates and the ‘‘powerhouse’’—II. Journal of
Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 8(2), 122–130.
Ng, J. K., Kippers, V., Parnianpour, M., & Richardson, C. A. (2002). EMG activity
normalization for trunk muscles in subjects with and without back pain. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(7), 1082–1086.
Queiroz, B. C., Cagliari, M. F., Amorim, C. F., & Sacco, I. C. (2010). Muscle activation
during four Pilates core stability exercises in quadruped position. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(1), 86–92.
Rossi, D. M., Morcelli, M. H., Marques, N. R., Hallal, C. Z., Gonçalves, M., LaRoche,
D. P., . . . Navega, M. T. (2014). Antagonist coactivation of trunk stabilizer
muscles during Pilates exercises. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies,
18(1), 34–41.
Sacco, I. C., Andrade, M. S., Souza, P. S., Nisiyama, M., Cantuária, A. L., Maeda, F.
Y., . . . Pikel, M. (2005). Método pilates em revista: Aspectos biomecânicos de movi-
mentos especı́ficos para reestruturação postural – Estudos de caso. Revista Brasileira
de Cieˆncia e Movimento, 13(4), 65–78.
Siler, B. (2000). The Pilates body: The ultimate at home guide to strengthening, lengthening,
and toning your body—without machines. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Silva, Y. O., Melo, M. O., Gomes, L. E., Bonezi, A., & Loss, J. F. (2009). Analysis of the
external resistance and electromyographic activity of hip extension performed accord-
ing to the Pilates method. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 13(1), 82–88.
10 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Souza, E. F. D., Cantergi, D., Mendonça, A., Kennedy, C., & Loss, J. F. (2012).
Electromyographic analysis of the rectus femoris and rectus abdominis muscles
during performance of the hundred and teaser Pilates exercises. Revista Brasileira de
Medicina do Esporte, 18(2), 105–108.
Vera-Garcia, F. J., Grenier, S. G., & McGill, S. M. (2000). Abdominal muscle response
during curl-ups on both stable and labile surfaces. Physical Therapy, 80(6), 564–569.

Author Biographies
Débora da Rocha Werba, PT, Specialist in Pilates, PMA/CT, is affiliated to
School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Débora Cantergi, PE, MSc, PhD, is affiliated to The Mechanics of Movement

Research Group, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Leandro Tolfo Franzoni, PE, is affiliated to School of Physical Education,

Physiotherapy and Dance, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Alex de Oliveira Fagundes, PE, MSc, is affiliated to School of Physical

Education, Physiotherapy and Dance, Federal University of Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil.

Jefferson Fagundes Loss, PhD, is affiliated to The Mechanics of Movement

Research Group, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Dance,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Aline Nogueira Haas, PE, PhD, PMA-CT, is affiliated to Research Group in

Art, Body and Education, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and
Dance, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.