Clinical Anatomy 27:234–240 (2014)

ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION

Anatomy and Biomechanics of Gluteus Maximus

and the Thoracolumbar Fascia at the Sacroiliac
Joint
P.J. BARKER,1* K.S. HAPUARACHCHI,2 J.A. ROSS,3 E. SAMBAIEW,4
T.A. RANGER,1 AND C.A. BRIGGS5
1
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
2
Department of Orthopaedics, North Shore Hospital, Takapuna 0622, Auckland, New Zealand
3
Department of Surgery, Ballarat Base Hospital, Ballarat, Victoria 3350, Australia
4
Emergency Department, Lismore Base Hospital, Lismore, New South Wales 2479, Australia
5
Department of Anatomy & Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia

Biomechanical models predict that recruitment of gluteus maximus (GMax) will

exert a compressive force across the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), yet this muscle
requires morphologic assessment. The aims of this study were to document
GMax’s proximal attachments and assess their capacity to generate forces
including compressive force at the SIJ. In 11 embalmed cadaver limbs, attach-
ments of GMax crossing the SIJ were dissected and their fascicle orientation,
length and attachment volume documented. The physiological cross-sectional
area (PCSA) of each attachment was calculated along with its estimated maxi-
mum force at the SIJ and lumbar spine. GMax fascicles originated from the glu-
teus medius fascia, ilium, thoracolumbar fascia, erector spinae aponeurosis,
sacrum, coccyx, dorsal sacroiliac and sacrotuberous ligaments in all specimens.
Their mean fascicle orientation ranged from 32 to 45 below horizontal and
mean length from 11 to 18 cm. The mean total PCSA of GMax was 26 cm2
(range 16–36), of which 70% crossed the SIJ. The average maximum force
predicted to be generated by GMax’s total attachments crossing each SIJ was
891 N (range 572–1,215), of which 70% (702 N: range 450–1,009) could act
perpendicular to the plane of the SIJ. The capacity of GMax to generate an ex-
tensor moment at lower lumbar segments was estimated at 4 Nm (range 2–
9.5). GMax may generate compressive forces at the SIJ through its bony and
fibrous attachments. These may assist effective load transfer between lower
limbs and trunk. Clin. Anat. 27:234–240, 2014. VC 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Key words: gluteus maximus; sacroiliac joint; lumbar; biomechanics

INTRODUCTION *Correspondence to: Priscilla J Barker, Department of Anatomy

The proximal attachment of gluteus maximus
(GMax) to the thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) is unique to
humans (Stern, 1972) and proposed to contribute to
sacroiliac stability (“force closure”) as well as load
transfer between the limbs and trunk (Snijders et al.,
1993a,b; Vleeming et al., 1995). Fascicles of GMax
are reported to be perpendicular to the articular com-
and Developmental Biology, PO Box 13C, Monash University,
Clayton, Victoria 3800 Australia. E-mail: priscilla.barker@
monash.edu
Received 12 July 2012; Revised 22 January 2013; Accepted 27
January 2013
Published online 20 August 2013 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/ca.22233

C
V 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ponents of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) (Snijders et al.,
1993a). Despite this, GMax’s TLF attachment has not
been quantitatively documented nor has GMax’s force
generating capacity at the SIJ and lumbar spine been
estimated. Although GMax function may be altered in
patients with ipsilateral SIJ pain (Hungerford et al.,
2003) and pelvic belt placement across this region
(Vleeming et al., 1992) is indicated to brace the joint
for relief of pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (Mens
et al., 1996; Nilsson-Wikmar et al., 2005; Mens et al.,
2006) the proportion of GMax fascicles crossing the SIJ
(and dimensions of these attachments) is uncertain.
In vivo Doppler imaging of vibrations (DIV) and elec-
tromyographic (EMG) studies indicate that submaximal
isometric voluntary contraction of GMax (and other
muscles including biceps femoris and erector spinae)
increases sacroiliac stiffness (Wingerden et al., 2004).
In addition, GMax’s temporal recruitment is noted to be
delayed in patients with ipsilateral SIJ pain (Hungerford
et al., 2003). These findings suggest that GMax has an
influence on SIJ movement that may be impaired in the
presence of sacroiliac pain. The effect of a single muscle
on joint stiffness is however difficult to calculate using
in vivo studies, due to contraction of related muscles
(Hungerford et al., 2003; Wingerden et al., 2004).
Imaging studies can provide accurate estimates of
a muscle’s total physiological cross-sectional area
(PCSA 5 volume per unit length) applicable to a young
healthy population (Delp et al., 2001), yet cannot give
detail on the contribution of individual muscle attach-
ments. Morphologic studies are useful for biomechanical
modelling since they can isolate individual muscles and
attachments to determine quantitative estimates of the
force that each could generate across intervening joints.
PCSA measurements of muscles and fascicle angles are
required to produce force estimates. Morphological and
biomechanical analysis of latissimus dorsi indicated that
its capacity to influence the lumbar and SIJs (via the
TLF) is minimal (Bogduk et al., 1998), yet a similar
quantitative analysis is required for GMax.
Several studies have reported the total PCSA for
GMax at 30–70 cm2 (Friederich and Brand, 1990;
Klein Horsman et al., 2007; Ward et al., 2009) yet
these did not quantify the contribution that its compo-
nent attachments make across intervening joints.
Gross measures indicate GMax is the largest muscle
in the lower limb (Ito, 1996; Ward et al., 2009). Ana-
tomical reports indicate it takes origin from the ilium
and fascia over gluteus medius (GMed; also known as
the gluteal aponeurosis). It also originates from struc-
tures crossing the SIJ (6 lumbar spine); the TLF, erec-
tor spinae aponeurosis (ESA), sacrum, coccyx, and
posterior aspects of the long dorsal sacroiliac ligament
(LDSIL) and sacrotuberous ligament (STL) (Poirier,
1901; Frohse and Frankel, 1913; Testut and Latarjet,
1948; Williams et al., 1995). Distally, two-thirds of
GMax fascicles are reported to insert into the iliotibial
band and one-third to the gluteal tuberosity of the fe-
mur (Poirier, 1901; Frohse and Frankel, 1913; Testut
and Latarjet, 1948; Williams et al., 1995). Although
fascicle lengths of GMax are reported as (11–18 cm)
(Frohse and Frankel, 1913; Ward et al., 2009), none
of the above descriptions cite data on fascicle orienta-
tion of GMax (relative to the SIJ).
Anatomy & Biomechanics of Gluteus Maximus 235
The current study aimed to document features
(fascicle orientation, length and volume) of the proxi-
mal attachments of GMax crossing the SIJ, to esti-
mate their capacity for force generation at the SIJ and
lumbar spine. The attachment of GMax to the TLF was
documented in detail (for comparison with latissimus
dorsi’s TLF attachment). Deeper attachments were
noted more generally to give the relative proportion of
GMax’s proximal attachments crossing the SIJ.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
University research on cadaveric material is licensed
under the Human Tissue Act and was approved by the
Melbourne Research Office. GMax was exposed (by
removing overlying skin, subcutaneous tissue and
fascia) on eleven sides (bilaterally in five cadavers and
unilaterally in one) of six elderly embalmed cadavers
(2F, 4M, mean age 80 years, range 54–90). It was then
separated into its attachments using blunt dissection.
Authors 1–5 all contributed to dissection and measure-
ments under supervision of the first author. Repeat
measures were conducted by the first and fifth authors.
Specimens were prevented from drying during
dissection using a water-based wetting solution. Mean
fascicle orientation and length were measured for each
attachment, then its volume measured.
Attachments and Fascicle Orientation
A fascicle was defined as “a bundle of muscle fibres
with a discrete medial attachment” (Bogduk et al.,
1998), surrounded by perimysium. Fascicles attaching
to fibrous tissue (including the TLF and ESA) were
verified by their ability to visibly transmit tension to
these tissues using gentle manual tension. Deeper
bony attachments were identified by blunt dissection
and their attachments documented as they were
detached from bone. For each attachment, the orien-
tation of (three) fascicles from its upper, lower, and
mid-region were documented using a clear plastic
hinged protractor goniometer (GON040, Physio-med
Services Ltd, Derbyshire, England, accuracy: 61 ) and
averaged. The vertical axis was aligned with the spi-
nous process tips below, and the oblique axis in paral-
lel with the mid-region of the fascicle, between its
attachment points. These angles are reported as
acute from the horizontal axis for force resolution.
Length and Volume Measures
Attachments containing fascicles of similar length
were removed from between their myotendinous junc-
tions and laid straight (but not stretched) to record their
length, using a metal metric ruler (accuracy 61 mm).
The volume of each attachment was then measured by
observing water displacement (accuracy 65 mL) when
it was immersed in a 500 mL volumetric cylinder.
Force Resolution and Estimates
The PCSA of each attachment was then calculated
(dividing attachment volume by mean fascicle length)
236 Barker et al.
Fig. 1. Force resolution of GMax attachments.
F 5 maximum muscular force, Fx 5 compressive (trans-
verse) component of force, Fy 5 shear (vertical) compo-
nent of force.
and the maximum possible force it could generate
determined by applying a specific tension (stress)
value. A force coefficient of 49 N/cm2 (Bogduk et al.,
1992) was used to enable comparison of results with
those reported for latissimus dorsi (Bogduk et al.,
1998).
Trignometric vector analysis was used to resolve
the force into vertical (shear; Fy) and transverse
(compression; Fx) components in the coronal plane
(Fig. 1) to determine the effects of each attachment
at the SIJ and lumbar spine. The horizontal force vec-
tors for fascicles were summed to determine the max-
imum compressive force (sum Fx) of the attachment
at the SIJ. The extensor moment of GMax on lumbar
segments was calculated by multiplying its Fy vector
by a moment arm of 7 cm (Tracy et al., 1989).
Fig. 2. Fascicle angles of GMax attachments (white
arrows5 mean values). GMed 5 Gluteus medius,
TLF 5 Posterior layer of lumbar fascia (also to underlying
erector spinae aponeurosis, ESA), LDSIL 5 Long dorsal
Statistical Analysis and Repeatability
Paired t-tests were performed for differences in
angle, length and volume values between sides and in
the absence of differences, left and right results were
pooled. Measures of PCSA and Fx values were analyzed
graphically for any trends associated with sex and age.
Three separate measures of fascicle length and attach-
ment volume were documented bilaterally on two
specimens to evaluate measurement consistency. Prior
to repeat measures of volume, additional moisture was
removed from the muscle using paper towel.
RESULTS
Attachments and Fascicle Orientation
In all specimens, fascicles of GMax originated from
(in order, from superolateral to inferomedial and su-
perficial to deep) the GMed fascia, ilium, TLF, and
ESA, dorsal sacroiliac ligaments, sacrum, sacrotuber-
ous ligament, and coccyx (Fig. 2). The attachment of
GMax to the TLF was located between the lower bor-
der of the PSIS and a point just lateral (1–2 cm) to
the spinous process of S3, from an oblique (superolat-
eral) line of origin. Proximally, attaching fibres of the
TLF projected across the midline between the L3–S3
spinous processes. Fascicles of GMax arising from the
ESA passed deep to the lateral border of the TLF.
Mean fascicle orientation ranged from 32 (in upper to
mid attachments) to 45 (lower attachments; Table 1
and Fig. 2). Most fascicles of GMax inserted distally
sacroiliac ligament, STL 5 Sacrotuberous ligament).
[Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is
available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
 Anatomy & Biomechanics of Gluteus Maximus 237

TABLE 1. Architecture of Gluteus Maximus Attachments

Mean (range)
Percentage of
Gluteus maximus attachment Angle ( ) Length (cm) Volume (mL) total volume
GMed fascia 37 (24–56) 11.1 (8–15) 30 (13–52) 8
Ilium 34 (20–42) 13.7 (10–17) 67 (31–128) 17
TLF/ESA* 32 (25–40) 15.2 (12–20) 34 (16–73) 9
LDSIL* 35 (26–45) 15.2 (9–20) 36 (20–56) 9
Sacrum* 38 (26–60) 16.8 (12–23) 113 (48–221) 29
STL* 36 (27–50) 15.5 (11–19) 62 (19–118) 16
Coccyx* 45 (32–60) 18.3 (13–22) 47 (25–75) 12
Total (range) 389 (290–519) 100%
*Total of attachments crossing SIJ (lower 5) 292 (216–391)

* 5 attachments crossing the sacroiliac joint. n5 11 sides. GMed 5 Gluteus medius, TLF 5 Thoracolumbar fascia,
ESA 5 Erector spinae aponeurosis, LDSIL 5 Long dorsal sacroiliac ligament, STL 5 Sacrotuberous ligament.

into the iliotibial band at its aponeurotic origin over
the greater trochanter, while its most inferior fascicles
(approximately one-third) inserted into the gluteal
tuberosity.
Length and Volume Measures
Fascicle volumes are reported in millilitres (mL)
due to the technique of measurement (water displace-
ment). Mean (pooled left and right) length and volume
measures for each attachment are presented in Table
1. Fascicle lengths were greatest for sacral and coc-
cygeal attachments of GMax and least for fascicles
arising from the GMed fascia. The mean volume of
sacral attachments was also greatest (113 mL) fol-
lowed by iliac, STL and coccygeal attachments, with
remaining attachments (to dorsal sacroiliac ligaments,
TLF 1 ESA, GMed fascia) being almost equal in volume
(30–36 mL). The average total volume of GMax for
the six cadavers (pooled for sides) was 389 mL
(290–519 mL; Figs. 3 and 4).
crossed the SIJ. The average maximum force predicted
to be generated by GMax’s total attachments crossing
each SIJ (excluding iliac and GMed fascia attachments)
was 891 N (range 661–1210). Of this muscular force,
70% (702 N: range 520–955) could act perpendicular
to the plane of the SIJ (Table 2, Fig. 5). Sacral attach-
ments made the greatest (35.5%) contribution to SIJ
compression, followed by the STL (23.5%) with
remaining (TLF and ESA, LDSIL, coccygeal) attach-
ments each contributing 13–14% (Table 2, Fig. 5). Fas-
cicles attaching to the TLF or ESA were calculated to
produce a maximum sagittal shear (Fy) force of 59 N
(26–136), translating to an extensor moment of 4 Nm
(2–9.5) across lower lumbar (L3–L5) segments.
Repeatability
ICC’s for repeated measures were high for data on
GMax fascicle length (ICC 5 0.98) and attachment vol-
ume (ICC 5 0.94)

Force Estimates DISCUSSION

2
The mean total PCSA of GMax was 26 cm (range The large PCSA of GMax crossing the SIJ indicates
16–36), of which 70% (18.2/25.9 cm2—Table 2) that it may contribute to force closure at the SIJ

Fig. 4. Average PCSA of GMax attachments.

(n 5 six cadavers, 11 sides). Error bars indicate standard
deviation. GMe fascia 5 Gluteus medius, TLF/ESA 5 TLF/
Fig. 3. Mean total volumes of GMax. (n 5 six cadav- Erector spinae aponeurosis, ESA), LDSIL 5 Long dorsal
ers). Data for latter five cadavers is pooled for sides. sacroiliac ligament, STL 5 Sacrotuberous ligament).
238 Barker et al.

TABLE 2. Force Capacity of Gluteus Maximus Attachments

Mean (range)
Gluteus maximus Percentage contribution
attachment PCSA (cm2) Force (N) Fx (N) to SIJ compression
GMed fascia 2.7 (2–5) 132 (98–245) 104 (77–193)
Ilium 5.0 (2–10) 244 (98–490) 202 (81–404)
TLF/ESA* 2.3 (1–6) 114 (49–294) 98 (43–294) 14.0
LDSIL* 2.4 (2–4) 116 (98–196) 95 (79–158) 13.5
Sacrum* 6.6 (3–13) 322 (147–637) 249 (113–490) 35.5
STL* 4.2 (1–9) 207 (49–441) 165 (39–354) 23.5
Coccyx* 2.7 (1–5) 132 (49–245) 95 (35–176) 13.5
Total mean (range) 25.9 (16–36) 1,267 (784–1,764) 1,008 (625–1,406) 100%
Total* crossing 18.2 (13.5–25) 891 (661–1,210) 702 (520–955)
SIJ (lower 5*)
Percentage crossing 70% 70% 70%
SIJ (5Total*/Total)

* 5 attachments crossing the sacroiliac joint. n 5 11 sides. GMed 5 Gluteus medius, TLF 5 Thoracolumbar fascia,
ESA 5 Erector spinae aponeurosis, LDSIL 5 Long dorsal sacroiliac ligament, STL 5 Sacrotuberous ligament.

(Snijders et al., 1993a, b; Vleeming et al., 1995), with
14% of this force attributable to its attachment to the
TLF and ESA. Via the TLF, this attachment may also
generate a small extensor moment on lower lumbar
segments. These findings, together with EMG findings
indicating GMax is co-activated together with attached
(LD) and the underlying paraspinal muscles during
activities such as swimming, walking and running
(Lyons et al., 1983; Montgomery et al., 1994; Hashi-
moto et al., 2000; Mooney et al., 2001), support pro-
posals that transverse tension in the TLF may
distribute loads between the limbs and trunk and con-
tribute to stability at the SIJ as well as the hydraulic
amplifier effect. Tension on the TLF may also, to a
small extent, assist extension at lower lumbar
segments.
Attachments
In this study, GMax had a consistent and substan-
tial (10%) proximal attachment to the TLF and ESA
between the PSIS and S3, attaching via the TLF up to
the L3 vertebra. Although generally acknowledged in
anatomical texts (Williams et al., 1995; Sinnatamby,
1999), the fascial attachment has not previously been
Fig. 5. Comparative (%) contribution of GM’s
attachments for horizontal force generation at the SIJ.
(n 5 six cadavers, 11 sides).
quantified. Fascicles attaching to the TLF are located
in the region in which EMG activity of GMax is typically
recorded (Noe et al., 1992; Mooney et al., 2001;
Souza et al., 2001; Hungerford et al., 2003) and their
level corresponds with that at which pelvic belts are
placed (Vleeming et al., 1992) to brace the SIJ for
relief of pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (Mens
et al., 1996, 2006).
Distal attachments were as described in both cur-
rent and traditional anatomy texts (Poirier, 1901;
Frohse and Frankel, 1913; Testut and Latarjet, 1948;
Williams et al., 1995).
Fascicle Volume, Angle, and Length
Measures
The average total volume (389 mL) of GMax trans-
lates to 412 g [since density of muscle is 1.06 g/cm3;
(Mendez and Keys, 1960)] and was within the range
of previous reports of its weight from dissection stud-
ies of elderly cadavers (range 140–590 g; Frohse and
Frankel, 1913; Ito, 1996). Total PCSA (26 cm2) was
also within the range cited by previous studies [20–72
cm2 (Friederich and Brand, 1990; Klein Horsman
et al., 2007; Ward et al., 2009)] The wide range in
volume and PCSA measures (of both individual attach-
ments and total muscles) is also consistent with previ-
ous reports (Delp et al., 2001) and descriptions of
substantial variation in GMax’s architecture between
individuals (Nemeth and Ohlsen, 1985; Duda et al.,
1996).
The major factor influencing volume measures, and
subsequent force estimates, is likely to be muscle at-
rophy associated with age and disuse. This may
reduce estimates by up to 50% (Bogduk et al., 1998).
Other factors that may have influenced these meas-
ures are individual variation within this relatively small
sample size and the use of gross attachments rather
than fascicular measures of volume. The sample size
was limited by specimen availability and is consistent
with that of other dissection studies (Bogduk et al.,

1998). Measuring entire attachment volumes can
include small amounts of connective and neurovascu-
lar tissue, although this effect would be minor (com-
pared with the—opposite—effect of ageing). It may
also overlook minor differences in fascicle length,
slightly reducing PCSA data accuracy. Other studies
estimating muscle force—generating potential have
used gross measures of muscle mass with fascicle
length (Delp et al., 2001).
To the author’s knowledge, there is no existing data
with which to compare findings on fascicle orientation
of GMax. The more horizontally oriented upper fas-
cicles have increased capacity for compressive force
generation at the SIJ and the lower fascicles to gener-
ate hip extensor moment. There was no marked
change in orientation between superficial and deep
fascicles (e.g. from the STL). Average GMax fascicle
lengths (range 11–18 cm) correspond well with early
descriptions of 11.5 cm for upper fascicles and 17.5
cm for lower fascicles (Frohse and Frankel, 1913).
Other studies have similarly noted low variation
between specimens in fascicle length measures (Delp
et al., 2001). Fixation and storage in supine can
increase the horizontal orientation of fascicles, due to
flattening of GMax, and could lead to increased com-
pressive force estimates. This problem was overcome
by approximating the angle between fascicle attach-
ments during measurements.
Force Estimates
It is arguably more appropriate to use the upper
limit of the range of GMax force estimates for applica-
tion to a young healthy population. This provides
potential forces of 955 N compression at the SIJ
(Table 2), 14% (133 N) of which may occur via its TLF
attachment, and 9.5 Nm of lumbar extension
(moment), 4 Nm of which may occur via GMax’s TLF
attachment, during maximal contraction of GMax.
Although daily activities tend to recruit GMax at less
than 40% of its maximal activity (Nemeth et al.,
1984), moderate contraction of GMax (and other adja-
cent muscles) may still be effective in closure of the
SIJ (Wingerden et al., 2004). Biomechanical studies in
embalmed cadavers (Vleeming et al., 1992), healthy
subjects (Damen et al., 2002) and patients with preg-
nancy-related pelvic pain (Mens et al., 2006) indicate
that application of 50 N compression via a pelvic belt
across the SIJ (‘high position; just below the ASIS) at
the level of GMax’s TLF and sacral attachments, influ-
enced SIJ motion effectively. Biomechanical models
(Pel et al., 2008) support this proposal, suggesting
pelvic belts may “unload” other pelvic muscles and
ligaments.
Data on GMax’s PCSA and force estimates may be
compared with those reported for latissimus dorsi
(LD) from a similar elderly sample (Bogduk et al.,
1998). The mean total PCSA of GMax crossing the SIJ
is over four times larger than that noted for LD (mean
26: 6 cm2) and the PCSA of GMax crossing the lower
lumbar spine twice as large as that noted for LD (2.3:
1.1 cm2). Because of GMax’s more horizontal fascicle
orientation, its maximum predicted compressive
Anatomy & Biomechanics of Gluteus Maximus 239
capacity at the SIJ (955 N) in the current study is
almost 32 times that predicted for LD (30 N) at the
SIJ (Bogduk et al., 1998). This would cause substan-
tial (equivalent of almost 100 kg) compression.
GMax’s predicted maximal extensor moment of the
lumbar spine (9.5 Nm) is however only 1.5 times the
maximum extensor moment (6 Nm) predicted for LD
at the lumbar spine. This would produce less than 5%
of the moment required for a moderate heavy lift
(Bogduk et al., 1998), highlighting the need for con-
current erector spinae contraction. Colour DIV findings
also suggest that submaximal voluntary contraction of
GMax makes a greater (two to three times) contribu-
tion to SIJ stability than does contraction of LD (Wing-
erden et al., 2004) (although muscle cocontraction in
vivo makes quantitative comparisons difficult).
Calculation of forces at the SIJ and lumbar spine
performed here assume that GMax’s attachments to
the ESA and TLF acted as fixed attachments in the
coronal plane, although in reality these muscles are
curved across the paraspinal muscles and display
some movement across the midline (Vleeming et al.,
1995; Barker et al., 2004). In addition, GMax’s attach-
ments compressive force may be somewhat attenu-
ated where its attachments are facial (e.g., to the TLF
and iliotibial band). These factors might slightly
reduce the capacity of these attachments for effective
force generation, yet since the study aim was to
determine maximum force capacity, the linear vector
was considered acceptable. Finally, the specific ten-
sion value of 49 N/cm2 chosen to enable comparison
of the current results with those of Bogduk et al.
(1998) is toward the upper extreme of those cited in
the literature for vertebrate muscles (20–35 N/cm2)
(Pierrynowski, 1995). This might have led to overesti-
mation of GMax’s capacity for force generation, yet
would again be predicted to be more than corrected
for by the use of atrophied elderly specimens.
Substantiation of GMax’s force-generating capacity
at the SIJ is consistent with observations of its reflex
activation during electrical stimulation of the joint,
suggesting that GMax has a regulatory function
(Indahl et al., 1999). EMG studies indicate that
GMax’s force generating capacity may be recruited
during activities when the SIJ is subject to shear, such
as during the stance phase of gait (Lyons et al., 1983;
Hashimoto et al., 2000) and running (Montgomery
et al., 1994; Vakos et al., 1994; Jonhagen et al.,
1996). Biomechanical models predict that it has the
greatest potential of all lower limb muscles to contrib-
ute to support in gait (Anderson and Pandy, 2003)
and GM’s unique origin from the TLF in humans
(Stern, 1972) supports the proposed contribution of
this attachment to sacroiliac and lumbar support.
The current study presents data that may be
applied to biomechanical models and integrated with
existing anatomical, EMG, and DIV results. The find-
ings emphasise the need to consider all muscle
attachments in control of the lumbopelvic region and
in therapeutic exercise approaches. GMax is predicted
to have considerable (>700 N) capacity for compres-
sive force generation across the SIJ. Its bony and fi-
brous attachments may assist in effective load
transfer between the lower limbs and trunk.
240 Barker et al.
REFERENCES
Anderson FC, Pandy MG. 2003. Individual muscle contributions to
support in normal walking. Gait Posture 17:159–169.
Barker PJ, Briggs CA, Bogeski G. 2004. Tensile transmission across
the lumbar fasciae in unembalmed cadavers. Spine 29:129–138.
Bogduk N, Johnson G, Spalding D. 1998. The morphology and bio-
mechanics of latissimus dorsi. Clin Biomech 13:377–385.
Bogduk N, Macintosh JE, Pearcy MJ. 1992. A universal model of the
lumbar back muscles in the upright position. Spine 17:897–913.
Damen L, Spoor CW, Snijders CJ, Stam HJ. 2002. Does a pelvic belt
influence sacroiliac joint laxity? Clin Biomech 17:495–498.
Delp SL, Suryanarayanan S, Murray WM, Uhlir J, Triolo RJ. 2001.
Architecture of the rectus abdominis, quadratus lumborum, and
erector spinae. J Biomech 34:371–375.
Duda GN, Brand D, Freitag S, Lierse W, Schneider E. 1996. Variabili-
ty of femoral muscle attachments. J Biomech 29:1185–1190.
Friederich JA, Brand RA. 1990. Muscle fiber architecture in the
human lower limb. J Biomech 23:91–95.
Frohse F, Frankel M. 1913. Die muskeln des menschlichen beines.
In: von Bardeleben K, editor. Handbuch der Anatomie des Men-
schen. Jena: Gustav Fisher. p 454–455, 538, 637.
Hashimoto F, Ogawa R, Kameyama O. 2000. Control engineering
and electromyographic kinesiology analyses of normal human
gait. J Orthop Sci 5:139–149.
Hungerford B, Gilleard W, Hodges P. 2003. Evidence of altered lum-
bopelvic muscle recruitment in the presence of sacroiliac joint
pain. Spine 28:1593–1600.
Indahl A, Kaigle A, Reikeras O, Holm S. 1999. Sacroiliac joint
involvement in activation of the porcine spinal and gluteal mus-
culature. J Spinal Disord 12:325–330.
Ito J. 1996. Morphological analysis of the human lower extremity
based on the relative muscle weight. Okajimas Folia Anatomica
Japonica 73:247–251.
Jonhagen S, Ericson MO, Nemeth G, Eriksson E. 1996. Amplitude
and timing of electromyographic activity during sprinting. Scand
J Med Sci Sports 6:15–21.
Klein Horsman MD, Koopman HF, van der Helm FC, Prose LP, Veeger
HE. 2007. Morphological muscle and joint parameters for muscu-
loskeletal modelling of the lower extremity. Clin Biomech
22:239–247.
Lyons K, Perry J, Gronley JK, Barnes L, Antonelli D. 1983. Timing
and relative intensity of hip extensor and abductor muscle action
during level and stair ambulation. An EMG study. Phys Therapy
63:1597–1605.
Mendez J, Keys A. 1960. Density and composition of mammalian
muscle. Metabolism 9.
Mens JM, Damen L, Snijders CJ, Stam HJ. 2006. The mechanical
effect of a pelvic belt in patients with pregnancy-related pelvic
pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21:122–127.
Mens JM, Vleeming A, Stoeckart R, Stam HJ, Snijders CJ. 1996.
Understanding peripartum pelvic pain. Implications of a patient
survey. Spine 21:1363–1369.
Montgomery WH 3rd, Pink M, Perry J. 1994. Electromyographic anal-
ysis of hip and knee musculature during running. Am J Sports
Med 22:272–278.
Mooney V, Pozos R, Vleeming A, Gulick J, Swenski D. 2001. Exercise
treatment for sacroiliac pain. Orthopedics 24:29–32.
Nemeth G, Ekholm J, Arborelius UP. 1984. Hip load moments and
muscular activity during lifting. Scand J Rehabil Med 16:
103–111.
Nemeth G, Ohlsen H. 1985. In vivo moment arm lengths for hip ex-
tensor muscles at different angles of hip flexion. J Biomech
18:129–140.
Nilsson-Wikmar L, Holm K, Oijerstedt R, Harms-Ringdahl K. 2005.
Effect of three different physical therapy treatments on pain and
activity in pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain: a randomized
clinical trial with 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up postpartum.
Spine 30:850–856.
Noe DA, Mostardi RA, Jackson ME, Porterfield JA, Askew MJ. 1992.
Myoelectric activity and sequencing of selected trunk muscles
during isokinetic lifting. Spine 17:225–229.
Pel JJ, Spoor CW, Goossens RH, Pool-Goudzwaard AL. 2008. Biome-
chanical model study of pelvic belt influence on muscle and liga-
ment forces. J Biomech 41:1878–1884.
Pierrynowski MR. 1995. Analytic representation of muscle line of
action and geometry. In: Allard P, Stokes IA, Blanchi JP, editors.
Three-Dimensional Analysis of Human Movement. Champaign:
Human Kinetics Publishers. p 215–256.
Poirier P. 1901. Myologie. In: Poirer P, Charpy A, editors. Traite d’Anat-
omie Humaine. Paris: Masson et Compagnie. p 189–190, 497.
Sinnatamby CS. 1999. Last’s Anatomy: regional and applied, 10th
Ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone:119–120, 215–117.
Snijders CJ, Vleeming A, Stoeckart R. 1993a. Transfer of lumbosac-
ral load to iliac bones and legs. Part 1: Biomechanics of self-
bracing of the sacroiliac joints and its significance for treatment
and exercise. Clin Biomech 8:285–294.
Snijders CJ, Vleeming A, Stoeckart R. 1993b. Transfer of lumbo-
sacral load to iliac bones and legs. Part 2: Loading of the
sacroiliac joints when lifting in a stooped posture. Clin Biomech
8:295–301.
Souza GM, Baker LL, Powers CM. 2001. Electromyographic activity
of selected trunk muscles during dynamic spine stabilization
exercises. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82:1551–1557.
Stern JT Jr. 1972. Anatomical and functional specializations of the
human gluteus maximus. Am J Phys Anthropol 36:315–339.
Testut L, Latarjet A. 1948. Traite d’anatomie humaine, 9th Ed. Paris:
G. Doin & Compagnie. p 944–952, 1107–1109.
Tracy MF, Gibson MJ, Szypryt EP, Rutherford A, Corlett EN. 1989.
The geometry of the muscles of the lumbar spine determined by
magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 14:186–193.
Vakos JP, Nitz AJ, Threlkeld AJ, Shapiro R, Horn T. 1994. Electromyo-
graphic activity of selected trunk and hip muscles during a squat
lift. Effect of varying the lumbar posture. Spine 19:687–695.
Vleeming A, Buyruk HM, Stoeckart R, Karamursel S, Snijders CJ.
1992. An integrated therapy for peripartum pelvic instability: A
study of the biomechanical effects of pelvic belts. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 166:1243–1247.
Vleeming A, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Stoeckart R, van Wingerden JP,
Snijders CJ. 1995. The posterior layer of the thoracolumbar fas-
cia. Its function in load transfer from spine to legs. Spine 20:
753–758.
Ward SR, Eng CM, Smallwood LH, Lieber RL. 2009. Are current
measurements of lower extremity muscle architecture accurate?
Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1074–1082.
Williams PL, Bannister LH, Berry MM, Collins P, Dyson M, Dussek JE,
Ferguson MWJ, editors. 1995. Gray’s Anatomy. 38th Ed. New
York: Churchill Livingstone. p 875–876.
Wingerden JPV, Vleeming A, Buyruk HM, Raissadat K. 2004.
Stabilization of the sacroiliac joint in vivo: Verification of muscu-
lar contribution to force closure of the pelvis. Eur Spine J
13:199–205.