High-Density Electromyography Excitation in Front vs. Back Lat Pull-Down Prime Movers.

The current study compared the spatial excitation of the primary muscles during the lat pull-down exercise with the bar passing in front (front-LPD) or behind the neck (back-LPD) using high-density electromyography. Fourteen resistance trained men performed a front-LPD or a back-LPD within a non-fatiguing set with 8-RM as the external load. The muscle excitation centroid of latissimus dorsi, middle trapezius, pectoralis major, biceps brachii, triceps brachii and posterior deltoid muscles were recorded during the ascending and the descending phase. During the descending phase, the front-LPD showed superior excitation of the latissimus dorsi (ES = 0.97) and the pectoralis major (ES = 1.17), while in the ascending phase, the back-LPD exhibited superior excitation of the latissimus dorsi (ES = 0.63), and the front-LPD showed superior excitation of the biceps brachii (ES = 0.41) and the posterior deltoid (ES = 1.77). During the descending phase, the front-LPD showed a more lateral centroid of the latissimus dorsi (ES = 0.60), the biceps brachii (ES = 0.63) and the triceps brachii (ES = 0.98), while the centroid was more medial for the middle trapezius (ES = 0.58). The centroid of the middle trapezius was also more medial in the front-LPD during the ascending phase (ES = 0.85). The pectoralis major centroid was more cranial in the front-LPD for both the descending (ES = 1.58) and the ascending phase (ES = 0.88). The front-LPD appears to provide overall greater excitation in the prime movers. However, distinct spatial excitation patterns were observed, making exercise suitable for the training routine.

Synergistic difference in the effect of stretching on electromechanical delay components.

This study investigated the synergistic difference in the effect of stretching on electromechanical delay (EMD) and its components, using a simultaneous recording of electromyographic, mechanomyographic, and force signals. Twenty-six healthy men underwent plantar flexors passive stretching. Before and after stretching, the electrochemical and mechanical components of the EMD and the relaxation EMD (R-EMD) were calculated in gastrocnemius medialis (GM), lateralis (GL) and soleus (SOL) during a supramaximal motor point stimulation. Additionally, joint passive stiffness was assessed. At baseline, the mechanical components of EMD and R-EMD were longer in GM and GL than SOL (Cohen's d from 1.78 to 3.67). Stretching decreased joint passive stiffness [-22(8)%, d = -1.96] while overall lengthened the electrochemical and mechanical EMD. The mechanical R-EMD components were affected more in GM [21(2)%] and GL [22(2)%] than SOL [12(1)%], with d ranging from 0.63 to 1.81. Negative correlations between joint passive stiffness with EMD and R-EMD mechanical components were found before and after stretching in all muscles (r from -0.477 to -0.926; P from 0.007 to <0.001). These results suggest that stretching plantar flexors affected GM and GL more than SOL. Future research should calculate EMD and R-EMD to further investigate the mechanical adaptations induced by passive stretching in synergistic muscles.

Biceps Brachii and Brachioradialis Excitation in Biceps Curl Exercise: Different Handgrips, Different Synergy.

The current study analyzed the excitation of biceps brachii, brachioradialis, and anterior deltoid during bilateral biceps curl performed with different handgrips. Ten competitive bodybuilders performed bilateral biceps curl in non-exhaustive 6-rep sets using 8-RM with the forearm in supinated, pronated, and neutral positions. The ascending and descending phase of each variation was separately analyzed using the normalized root mean square collected using surface electromyography. During the ascending phase, (i) biceps brachii excitation was greater with the supinated compared to the pronated [+19(7)%, ES: 2.60] and neutral handgrip [+12(9)%, ES: 1.24], (ii) the brachioradialis showed greater excitation with the supinated compared to the pronated [+5(4)%, ES: 1.01] and neutral handgrip [+6(5)%, ES: 1.10], (iii) the anterior deltoid excitation was greater with the pronated and neutral handgrip compared to the supinated condition [+6(3)% and +9(2)%, ES: 2.07 and 3.18, respectively]. During the descending phase, the anterior deltoid showed greater excitation in the pronated compared to the supinated handgrip [+5(4)%, ES: 1.02]. Changing the handgrips when performing biceps curl induces specific variations in biceps brachii and brachioradialis excitation and requires different anterior deltoid interventions for stabilizing the humeral head. Practitioners should consider including different handgrips in the biceps curl routine to vary the neural and mechanical stimuli.

Is the Interpolated-Twitch Technique-Derived Voluntary Activation Just Neural? Novel Perspectives from Mechanomyographic Data.

PURPOSE: Voluntary activation (VA) determined by interpolation-twitch technique could be affected by the characteristics of the in-series elastic components. To overcome this possible bias, a novel approach based on the mechanomyographic (MMG) signal to detect voluntary activation (VA MMG ) has been proposed. We examined the changes in VA and VA MMG after passive stretching to check the influence of neural and mechanical factors in the force output. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy men underwent VA assessment using the interpolated-twitch technique before and after unilateral passive stretching of the plantarflexors (five 45-s on + 15-s off). In addition to the force signal, the MMG signal was detected on gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, and soleus. From the force and MMG signal analysis, VA and VA MMG were calculated in the stretched and contralateral nonstretched limbs. Joint passive stiffness was also defined. RESULTS: In the stretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (mean ± SD = +18% ± 10%, P < 0.001, ES = 1.54) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-22% ± 8%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.75), maximum voluntary contraction (-15% ± 7%, P < 0.001, ES = -0.87), VA (-7% ± 3%, P < 0.001, ES = -2.32), and VA MMG (~-5% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.26/-1.14). In the contralateral nonstretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (+10% ± 6%, P < 0.001, ES = 0.80) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-3% ± 2%, P = 0.041, ES = -0.27), maximum voluntary contraction (-4% ± 3%, P = 0.035, ES = -0.24), VA (-4% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.77), and VA MMG (~- 2% ± 1%, P < 0.05, ES = -0.54/-0.46). The stretch-induced changes in VA correlated with VA MMG ( R ranging from 0.447 to 0.583 considering all muscles) and with joint passive stiffness (stretched limb: R = 0.503; contralateral nonstretched limb: R = 0.530). CONCLUSIONS: VA output is overall influenced by both neural and mechanical factors, not distinguishable using the interpolated-twitch technique. VA MMG is a complementary index to assess the changes in VA not influenced by mechanical factors and to examine synergistic muscles.