Many strength and conditioning coaches utilize the good morning (GM) to strengthen the hamstrings and spinal erectors. However, little research exists on its electromyography (EMG) activity and kinematics, and how these variables change as a function of load. The purpose of this investigation was to examine how estimated hamstring length, integrated EMG (IEMG) activity of the hamstrings and spinal erectors, and kinematics of the lumbar spine, hip, knee, and ankle are affected by changes in load. Fifteen trained male participants (age = 24.6 ± 5.3 years; body mass = 84.7 ± 11.3 kg; height = 180.9 ± 6.8 cm) were recruited for this study. Participants performed five sets of the GM, utilizing 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) in a randomized fashion. IEMG activity of hamstrings and spinal erectors tended to increase with load. Knee flexion increased with load on all trials. Estimated hamstring length decreased with load. However, lumbar flexion, hip flexion, and plantar flexion experienced no remarkable changes between trials. These data provide insight as to how changing the load of the GM affects EMG activity, kinematic variables, and estimated hamstring length. Implications for hamstring injury prevention are discussed. More research is needed for further insight as to how load affects EMG activity and kinematics of other exercises.

The modified Thomas test was developed to assess the presence of hip flexion contracture and to measure hip extensibility. Despite its widespread use, to the authors’ knowledge, its criterion reference validity has not yet been investigated. The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion reference validity of the modified Thomas test for measuring peak hip extension angle and hip extension deficits, as defined by the hip not being able to extend to 0º, or neutral. Twenty-nine healthy college students (age = 22.00 ± 3.80 years; height = 1.71 ± 0.09 m; body mass = 70.00 ± 15.60 kg) were recruited for this study. Bland–Altman plots revealed poor validity for the modified Thomas test’s ability to measure hip extension, which could not be explained by differences in hip flexion ability alone. The modified Thomas test displayed a sensitivity of 31.82% (95% CI [13.86–54.87]) and a specificity of 57.14% (95% CI [18.41–90.10]) for testing hip extension deficits. It appears, however, that by controlling pelvic tilt, much of this variance can be accounted for (r = 0.98). When pelvic tilt is not controlled, the modified Thomas test displays poor criterion reference validity and, as per previous studies, poor reliability. However, when pelvic tilt is controlled, the modified Thomas test appears to be a valid test for evaluating peak hip extension angle.