Accepted Manuscript

Electromyographic analysis of muscle activation during pull-up variations

James A. Dickie, James A. Faulkner, Matthew J. Barnes, Sally D. Lark

PII: S1050-6411(16)30297-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.11.004
Reference: JJEK 2033

To appear in: Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

Received Date: 15 March 2016

Revised Date: 1 November 2016
Accepted Date: 27 November 2016

Please cite this article as: J.A. Dickie, J.A. Faulkner, M.J. Barnes, S.D. Lark, Electromyographic analysis of muscle
activation during pull-up variations, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.11.004

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 1

Electromyographic analysis of muscle activation during pull-up variations.

James A. Dickie¹, James A. Faulkner¹ ², Matthew J. Barnes¹ and Sally D. Lark¹.

¹ School of Sport and Exercise

Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand

² Department of Sport and Exercise

University of Winchester, UK

Dr. Sally Lark

College of Health

Massey University

Private Bag 756

Wellington 6140,

New Zealand

Ph: +64 (0)4 801 5799 ext 63497

Fax: +64 (0)4 801 4994

Email: s.lark@massey.ac.nz

Introduction

The pull-up is a resistance exercise widely used in a variety of strength and conditioning

settings to promote muscular endurance or strength adaptations. However, despite familiarity

with the pull-up amongst fitness professionals to promote strength adaptation, there is a lack

of evidence demonstrating muscle activation during this exercise (Vanderburgh & Flanagan,

2000; Williams, Rayson, & Jones, 1999). Many fitness professionals work under the
 2

assumption that variations of pull-up exercises may train different muscles to differing

degrees (i.e. pronated grip pull-ups for latissimus dorsi adaptation), however, there is little

evidence to support this assumption (Leslie & Comfort, 2013). Additionally, uniformed

services (Police, Armed Forces) commonly use pull-up variants to train muscular strength, in

different muscles required to perform certain operational tasks, such as repelling and ladder

climbing. Hence, understanding how grip orientation may alter the level of muscle activation

is important when considering training specificity and efficiency. As there is limited evidence

regarding muscle activity throughout the movements (Ricci, Figura, Felici, & Marchetti,

1988; Youdas et al., 2010), a more thorough assessment of the movement pattern is

necessary. As such, research is required to compare peak (EMGPEAK) and average rectified

variable (EMGARV) muscle activation, and/or the engagement of particular muscles, during

pull-up variations.

The pull-up can be performed with many different grip widths and orientations, with each

placing different biomechanical demands on the associated musculature (Floyd, 2012). By

observing the mechanics and anatomy of a supinated grip pull-up (commonly referred to as a

chin-up) the orientation of the forearm infers that the biceps brachii should experience

greatest muscle activation of the elbow flexors. Conversely, one would expect a pronated grip

to increase brachialis muscle activation, and neutral grip to increase brachioradialis activation

(Floyd, 2012; Ronai & Scibek, 2014). Previous research has identified that muscle activation

greater than 50-60 %MVIC is required to promote strength adaptation (Andersen et al., 2006;

Kraemer et al., 2002; Youdas et al., 2010). Pull-up variants that result in differing levels of

muscle activation may inevitably promote different degrees of strength adaption in particular

muscles. Hence, it is important for fitness professionals to understand the level of muscle

activation in the shoulder-arm-forearm complex when prescribing variations of the pull-up

exercise (Leslie & Comfort, 2013).

 3

Ricci et al. (1988) analysed activation of seven shoulder and arm muscles during shoulder

width supinated and pronated grip pull-up exercises; results showed similar activation of

muscles irrespective of hand orientation. However, muscle activity was not normalised to a

percentage of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) as per best practice

guidelines for EMG studies (De Luca, 1997). Conversely, Youdas et al. (2010) demonstrated

significantly greater activation of the lower trapezius during pronated grip when compared to

supinated grip pull-ups; while the supinated grip revealed significantly greater activation of

the pectoralis major and biceps brachii when compared to the pronated grip. Additional

muscles may contribute to different grip orientations (Leslie & Comfort, 2013), however the

latter research only analysed four muscles.

Given the methodical limitations of previous studies, the purpose of this study is to assess the

relative EMGPEAK and EMGARV of the shoulder-arm-forearm complex during supinated grip,

pronated grip, neutral grip, and rope pull-up exercises. It was hypothesised that significant

differences in EMGPEAK and EMGARV would exist between pull-up variants due to differences

in positioning of the shoulder-arm-forearm complex between tasks.

Method

Participants

Nineteen strength trained males (24.9 ± 5 y; 1.78 ± 0.74 m; 81.3 ± 11.3 kg; 22.7 ± 2.5

kg·m¯²) participated in this research. Participants had engaged in regular resistance exercise

(> 3 days per week) for a minimum of six months prior to testing. All participants were free

from any musculoskeletal injury hindering participation in pull-up tasks. Ethical approval

was provided by the institutions Human Ethics Committee, and all participants received

verbal and written information prior to giving written consent.

EMG recording
 4

Disposable Ag-AgCl electrodes (Ambu, BlueSensor, Denmark) were placed in pairs over the

skin and parallel to the fibres of the biceps brachii, brachioradialis, middle deltoid, upper

pectoralis major, middle trapezius, lower trapezius, latissimus dorsi and infraspinatus

muscles; with an inter-electrode spacing of 0.02 m (Figure 1a & 1b). Prior to electrode

placement each participant’s skin was shaved of any hair with a disposable single use razor,

and vigorously cleansed with alcohol wipes until erythema was attained (Konrad, 2006). Raw

EMG signals were collected with TeleMyo DTS wireless surface EMG sensors (Noraxon,

Arizona, USA). Signals from the transmitter devices affixed to the skin were sent to a central

receiver via Bluetooth. Data was collected at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. Raw EMG signals

were processed and analysed using MyoResearch XP (Noraxon, Arizona, USA). The raw

EMG data was amplified by a gain of 1000 and filtered using a Lancosh FIR digital bandpass

filter set at 10-500 Hz and then smoothed to a 50 ms root mean square (RMS) algorithm for

EMGPEAK analysis. No data smoothing was performed for EMGARV analysis. A high definition

camera (Logitech, HD C615, Switzerland) sampling at 30 Hz was synchronized to the EMG

recording device via the MyoResearch XP software for analysis purposes.

****Insert Figure 1a and 1b about here****

The brachioradialis electrodes were positioned 0.03 m lateral, and 0.04 m below the

antecubital fossa. Electrodes for biceps brachii, middle deltoid, middle trapezius and lower

trapezius were placed over the belly of each muscle in accordance with the recommendations

of Hermens et al. (1999). Similarly, placement of the upper pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi

and infraspinatus were positioned using the recommendations of Bull, Ferreira, and Vitti

(2011), Hibbs, Thompson, French, Hodgson, and Spears (2011), and Waite, Brookham, and

Dickerson (2010), respectively. All electrode pairs were placed on the participants hand

dominant side, as motor control symmetry was assumed between both sides of the body

(McGill, Andersen, & Cannon, 2014).

 5

Normalisation

Familiarisation of all movements with visual EMG feedback was conducted, followed by a

five minute rest period prior to MVIC performed against manual resistance for each

movement (Hislop, Avers, Brown, & Daniels, 2014). This was in accordance with previously

published best practice (Ekstrom, Donatelli, & Carp, 2007; Lehman et al., 2005). The

movements for MVIC were adopted from Hislop et al. (2014) and are detailed in the

Supplementary Table. Participants performed three MVIC’s per muscle; all muscles were

tested in a randomised order (Ekstrom et al., 2007; Garcia-Vaquero, Moreside, Brontons-Gil,

Peco-Gonzalez, & Vera-Garcia, 2012). Each MVIC was held for five seconds, with one

minute rest between each repetition (Hibbs et al., 2011; Youdas et al., 2008). Peak EMG data,

recorded during the pull-up variants was normalised to the average EMGPEAK from three

MVIC’s. Additionally, EMGARV data recorded during the pull-up variants was normalised to

the average EMGARV of three, 3s timestamps (occurring in the middle of each MVIC) for each

MVIC performed.

Pull-up protocols

Testing was completed on a purpose built pull-up device with a bar diameter of 0.03 m.

Participants were familiarised to each pull-up exercise by performing three repetitions of each

grip orientation. Verbal instruction was provided to maintain correct technique throughout the

movement. All pull-up grip orientations were performed in a randomised order. Each pull-up

repetition was performed with a 2:2 concentric : eccentric tempo.

The pronated grip pull-up was performed with the hands positioned on a 25º angle below the

horizontal, and hands positioned 0.2 m outside the acromion processes.

 6

The neutral grip pull-up was performed with a neutral hand orientation on two parallel bars

separated 0.24 m.

The rope pull-up was performed on two lengths (0.15 m) of rope with knotted ends, separated

0.24 m apart, with a diameter of 0.032 m. Participants were required to grip the rope near the

knotted ends, with a neutral hand positioning.

Finally, the supinated grip pull-up was performed with the hands separated at biacromial

distance. Refer to Figures 2.a-d for images of grip orientations.

All EMG testing sessions took place within 24 hours of familiarisation; participants were

instructed not to exercise 48 hours prior to testing. A standardised warm up consisting of 60 s

light jogging, 60 s dynamic stretching of the shoulder girdle and glenohumearal joint , five

push ups and a further 60 s light jogging. Following five minutes of rest, participants

performed five repetitions of each pull-up variant (pronated, neutral grip, supinated and

rope), separated by five minutes rest between the different hand grips. Each pull-up started

with the elbows in full extension. Participants performed each pull-up variant, with exception

of the rope pull-up, until their nose was just superior to the horizontal bar. The upward phase

of the rope pull-up was completed when the participant’s elbows were by the side of their

torso, and pointing directly downwards. Each pull-up repetition was completed when the

participant had lowered their body to the starting position. Each pull-up task was performed

in a randomised order. Visual inspection of the EMG signal and synchronised video were

used to mark the concentric and eccentric phases of each movement.

****Insert Figures 2.a-d about here****

Data analysis
 7

From the five pull-up repetitions, and to ensure an accurate representation of EMG PEAK muscle

activity, data analysis was based upon the second, third and fourth repetition. Peak EMG for

each muscle, during each pull-up variant, was averaged over the three consecutive

repetitions; averaged data was then expressed as a percentage of MVIC (%MVIC). Average

rectified variable muscle activity characterises changes in signal amplitude over time and was

obtained by calculating the mean area under the EMG curve, and dividing by the elapsed time

taken to perform that particular movement. Thus providing data pertaining to the level of

muscle activity required over an entire movement. This method of EMG ARV analysis was

performed separately for the concentric and eccentric phases, and full repetition of the pull-up

variants. Visual inspection of EMG signal and synchronised video recordings were utilised to

determine start/stop of the concentric and eccentric phases of the movement.

Statistical analysis

A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each muscle were used to identify

differences in both the EMGPEAK and EMGARV between the supinated grip, pronated grip,

neutral grip, and rope pull-up exercises. Where appropriate, post hoc testing using Bonferroni

multiple comparison analysis was performed to identify the specific differences. Alpha was

set to P ≤ 0.05. Cohen’s d effect sizes (Cohen, 2013) were calculated for all comparisons and

reported only where moderate or large effect sizes were revealed. Effect sizes (ES) were

classified as small (ES = 0.20-0.49), moderate (ES =  0.50-0.79), and large (ES ≥ 0.80)

(Cohen, 2013). Paired T-Tests were also performed separately for each muscle and grip to

determine any differences in EMGARV between concentric and eccentric phases of each pull-

up variant. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc.,

Chicago, IL, USA).

 8

To ensure consistency for MVIC the coefficient of variation (CV) and intra-class coefficients

(ICC) were reported between each participant’s three trials, for each muscle for both EMGPEAK

and EMGARV (Rouffet & Hautier, 2008). The ICC‘s were calculated and reported using a

Two-way random model, single measure form (ICC [2,1]). The ICC’s were interpreted as

excellent (> 0.75), good (0.60 – 0.74) and fair (0.40 – 0.59) (Fleiss, 2011). The CV was

calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the three MVIC’s by the mean for each

particular muscle. The closer the CV to 0 the less variation observed between MVIC

normalisation trials (Eldridge, Ashby, & Kerry, 2006).

Results

The MVIC methods of normalisation displayed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.75) in all

muscles for EMGARV. During EMGPEAK normalisation the biceps brachii and middle trapezius

displayed good reliability (ICC 0.71 and 0.65), while all other muscles displayed excellent

reliability (ICC > 0.75) for both EMGPEAK and EMGARV. Intra-subject CV’s were lower in

EMGARV normalisation (0.09 - 0.13), than in the EMGPEAK normalisation (0.10 – 0.17). All

ICC’s and CV’s for each muscle are reported in Table 1.

****Insert Table 1 about here****

One-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for EMGPEAK of the middle trapezius

muscle (P = 0.008). Post hoc testing revealed that the middle trapezius was activated

significantly more during the pronated grip pull-up when compared to the neutral grip pull-up

(P = 0.004; ES = 1.19; Table 2). A significantly greater EMGARV was also observed for the

middle trapezius during a full repetition of the pronated grip compared to the neutral grip

pull-up (P = 0.001; ES = 1.29; Table 3). Statistical analysis of EMGPEAK and EMGARV for all

other muscles and grip orientations revealed no significant differences (P > 0.05).
 9

****Insert Table 2 and 3 about here****

Paired T-Tests revealed that concentric phases of all four pull-up variants resulted in

significantly greater EMGARV of the brachioradialis, biceps brachii, and pectoralis major in

comparison to the eccentric phase (all, P < 0.01; Table 4). In addition to the three muscles

mentioned above, the concentric phase of the pronated grip pull-up resulted in significantly

greater EMGARV for the middle deltoid (P = 0.001) and lower trapezius (P = 0.001). Similarly,

the lower trapezius displayed significantly greater EMGARV during the concentric phase of the

supinated grip (P = 0.018) and rope pull-up (P = 0.015) variants. As demonstrated in Table 4,

moderate to large effect sizes were reported between phases for a variety of muscles during

the four pull-up exercises.

****Insert Table 4 about here****

Discussion

This study sought to determine whether different pull-up grips resulted in differing levels of

EMGPEAK and EMGARV for particular muscles. With the exception of the middle trapezius,

results showed that EMGPEAK and EMGARV of the shoulder-arm-forearm complex was similar

irrespective of hand orientation during different variations of the pull-up exercise.

Accordingly, the present study refutes the research hypothesis, and the common belief

amongst fitness professionals, that differences in muscle activation would exist between pull-

up variants (Leslie & Comfort, 2013).

Although our results showed similar muscle activation of the biceps brachii to that reported

by Youdas et al. (2010) during supinated and pronated grip pull-ups, analysis revealed the

difference to be non-significant. Additionally, no significant differences existed for the upper

pectoralis major or lower trapezius muscles. Previous research reports that muscle activation
 10

greater than 50-60 %MVIC is required to promote strength adaptation (Andersen et al., 2006;

Kraemer et al., 2002; Youdas et al., 2010). Based on the observed EMGPEAK it may be inferred

that pronated grip, supinated grip, neutral grip and rope pull-ups may not result in muscle

activation sufficient to promote strength adaptation of the middle deltoid, upper pectoralis

major and lower trapezius. Similarly, the EMGPEAK observed in the middle trapezius during

supinated grip and neutral grip pull-ups is also below the previously identified level of

activation to promote strength adaptation. Although pull-up variants may not be suitable to

promote strength adaptation in the lower trapezius, they may be beneficial in the development

of the muscle as a stabiliser during this type of resistance training.

Interestingly, when analysing EMGARV during concentric and eccentric phases for each pull-

up variant, some significant differences were apparent. Muscle activity of the brachioradialis,

biceps brachii and pectoralis major was significantly higher during the concentric phase in

comparison to the eccentric phase. This indicates that the aforementioned muscles undergo

greater motor unit recruitment, and therefore exercise intensity, during the concentric phase

of the movement irrespective of pull-up grip. Comparatively, the middle trapezius, latissimus

dorsi and infraspinatus work at similar levels of EMGARV during concentric and eccentric

phases of each of the pull-up variations. The biceps brachii and brachioradialis appear to

function as prime movers during the concentric phase of each pull-up variant, whereas the

middle trapezius, latissimus dorsi and infraspinatus work consistently to control both the

concentric and eccentric phases.

When considering the full repetition EMGARV of the middle trapezius, a significant difference

was only observed between the pronated and neutral grip pull-ups. The large effect size (ES =

1.19) indicates a biological difference between the aforementioned pull-up variants, and may

be explained through differences in the line of action of the middle trapezius during a

pronated grip pull-up. However, as motion analysis was not recorded in this study, we can
 11

only speculate the reason for the large effect size. Although the middle trapezius was the

most common muscle that distinguished between pronated and neutral grip pull-ups, it was

not the most highly activated muscle (Table 1 and 2), whereas the brachioradialis was,

highlighting the importance of this muscle during all pull-up variants.

There remains a current lack of agreement on the most reliable method of normalisation

among EMG studies (Norcross, Blackburn, & Goerger, 2010). However, numerous studies

have identified that MVIC normalisation results in the least variability of data when

processing EMG (Bolgla & Uhl, 2005; Burden, 2010; Burden & Bartlett, 1999). As shown in

our reported ICC’s from the three MVIC trials we are confident that this method of

normalisation resulted in a consistent measure of EMG amplitude across trials. Using the

MVIC method, normalisation facilitates comparisons between muscles, participants and

exercises; however, when comparing between studies, the techniques used by investigators to

obtain their MVIC may remain a major delimiting factor for comparison (Burden, 2010).

Regardless of this, the good to excellent ICC’s and narrow CV’s demonstrated that the MVIC

procedure used in this present study was consistent across muscle groups and participants.

Given the methodical limitations of previous studies there is limited research examining the

degree of muscle activation during pull-up variants. The only significant differences in

observed EMGPEAK and EMGARV during an entire pull-up repetition existed in the middle

trapezius, which was not activated to a large percentage of MVIC in the researched

movements.

Limitations

Previous studies have utilised different protocols to obtain MVIC, making comparisons

between studies difficult (Lehman et al., 2004; Signorile, Zink, & Szwed, 2002; Youdas et al.

2010). In the presented research, MVIC was utilised as a reference for comparing to dynamic
 12

activities; however, precise guidelines were followed in order to reduce inter-individual

variability and increase reliability, as reflected in in our reported ICC’s and CV’s between

trials (Ekstrom et al., 2007; Hislop et al., 2014; Konrad, 2006). This research also required

participants to use a controlled tempo, whereas muscle activity patterns could be different had

participants been able to self-select their movement speed. Furthermore, there may be other

muscle groups not investigated in the present study but which may demonstrate greater

differences in EMG responses between the pull-up variants. Some differences in muscle

activation between participants may have resulted from differences in limb length. Our

method required hand positioning during the pronated grip pull-up to be 0.02 m outside the

acromion process. Although this standardisation procedure resulted in small variations of bi-

acromial distance between participants, differences in limb length may have resulted in a

wider or narrower grip for certain subjects, and is a limitation of this study. However, this

grip width is a standard hand position that many individuals performing this exercise would

employ (Leslie & Comfort, 2013).

Conclusion

This research showed that pronated grip pull-ups are superior in recruiting the middle

trapezius when compared to the neutral grip pull-up. Peak and EMGARV of the brachioradialis,

biceps brachii, middle deltoid, upper pectoralis major, lower trapezius, latissimus dorsi and

infraspinatus was similar across all other pull-up variations. Furthermore, EMGPEAK muscle

activation appears sufficient to promote adaptation in the brachioradialis, biceps brachii,

latissimus dorsi and infraspinatus muscles, regardless of hand orientation. The degree of

middle trapezius muscle activity during the pronated grip and rope pull-ups indicates that

these grip orientations may also promote strength adaptation of the aforementioned muscle.

However, this was not evident for the supinated and neutral grip pull-ups. Based on these
 13

findings it appears all four pull-up grips will elicit similar strength adaptions when

implemented in resistance training settings.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 14

References

Andersen, L. L., Magnusson, S. P., Nielsen, M., Haleem, J., Poulsen, K., & Aagaard, P.

(2006). Neuromuscular activation in conventional therapeutic exercises and heavy

resistance exercises: Implications for rehabilitation. Physical Therapy, 86(5), 683-

697.

Bolgla, L. A., & Uhl, T. L. (2005). Electromyographic analysis of hip rehabilitation exercises

in a group of healthy subjects. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical

Therapy, 35(8), 487-494.

Bull, M., Ferreira, M., & Vitti, M. (2011). Electromyographic validation of the muscles

deltoid (anterior portion) and pectoralis major (clavicular portion) in military press

exercises with middle grip. Journal of Morphological Sciences, 240-245.

Burden, A. (2010). How should we normalize electromyograms obtained from healthy

participants? What we have learned from over 25years of research. Journal of

Electromyography and Kinesiology, 20(6), 1023-1035.

Burden, A., & Bartlett, R. (1999). Normalisation of EMG amplitude: an evaluation and

comparison of old and new methods. Medical Engineering & Physics, 21(4), 247-257.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Academic press.

De Luca, C. J. (1997). The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. Journal of

Applied Biomechanics, 13(2), 135-163.

Ekstrom, R. A., Donatelli, R. A., & Carp, K. C. (2007). Electromyographic analysis of core

trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation exercises. Journal of

Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 37(12), 754-762. doi:

10.2519/jospt.2007.2471.
 15

Eldridge, S. M., Ashby, D., & Kerry, S. (2006). Sample size for cluster randomized trials:

effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method. International

Journal of Epidemiology, 35(5), 1292-1300.

Fleiss, J. L. (2011). Design and analysis of clinical experiments (Vol. 73): John Wiley &

Sons.

Floyd, R. T. (2012). Manual of structural kinesiology (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Garcia-Vaquero, M. P., Moreside, J. M., Brontons-Gil, E., Peco-Gonzalez, N., & Vera-

Garcia, F. J. (2012). Trunk muscle activation during stabilization exercises with single

and double leg support. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 22(3), 398-

406. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.02.017.

Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Merletti, R., Stegeman, D., Blok, J., Rau, G., . . . Hägg, G.

(1999). European recommendations for surface electromyography. Roessingh

Research and Development, 8(2), 13-54.

Hibbs, A. E., Thompson, K. G., French, D. N., Hodgson, D., & Spears, I. R. (2011). Peak and

average rectified EMG measures: Which method of data reduction should be used for

assessing core training exercises? Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,

21(1), 102-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.06.001.

Hislop, H. J., Avers, D., Brown, M., & Daniels, L. (2014). Daniels and Worthingham's

muscle testing: techniques of manual examination and performance testing (9th ed.).

Missouri.: Elsevier.

Konrad, P. (2006). The ABC of EMG: a practical introduction to kinesiological

electromyography. U.S.A: Noraxon.

Johnson, D., Lynch, J., Nash, K., Cygan, J., & Mayhew, J. L. (2009). Relationship of Lat-Pull

Repetitions and Pull-Ups to Maximal Lat-Pull and Pull-up Strength in Men and
 16

Women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(3), 1022-1028. doi:

10.1519/Jsc.0b013e3181a2d7f5.

Konrad, P. (2006). The ABC of EMG: a practical introduction to kinesiological

electromyography. U.S.A: Noraxon.

Kraemer, W. J., Adams, K., Cafarelli, E., Dudley, G. A., Dooly, C., Feigenbaum, M. S., . . .

Hoffman, J. R. (2002). American College of Sports Medicine position stand.

Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in

Sports and Exercise, 34(2), 364-380.

Lehman, G. J., Buchan, D. D., Lundy, A., Myers, N., & Nalborczyk, A. (2004). Variations in

muscle activation levels during traditional latissimus dorsi weight training exercises:

An experimental study. Dynamic Medicine, 3(1), 4. doi: 10.1186/1476-5918-3-4.

Lephart, S. M., & Henry, T. J. (1996). The physiological basis for open and closed kinetic

chain rehabilitation for the upper extremity. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 5, 71-87.

Leslie, K. L. M., & Comfort, P. (2013). The Effect of Grip Width and Hand Orientation on

Muscle Activity During Pull-ups and the Lat Pull-down. Strength and Conditioning

Journal, 35(1), 75-78. doi: 10.1519/Ssc.0b013e318282120e.

Lusk, S. J., Hale, B. D., & Russell, D. M. (2010). Grip Width and Forearm Orientation

Effects on Muscle Activity during the Lat Pull-Down. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1895-1900. doi: 10.1519/Jsc.0b013e3181ddb0ab.

McGill, S., Andersen, J., & Cannon, J. (2014). Muscle activity and spine load during anterior

chain whole body linkage exercises: the body saw, hanging leg raise and walkout

from a push-up. Journal of Sports Science, 1-8. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.946437.

Norcross, M. F., Blackburn, J. T., & Goerger, B. M. (2010). Reliability and interpretation of

single leg stance and maximum voluntary isometric contraction methods of

 17

electromyography normalization. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,

20(3), 420-425.

Ricci, B., Figura, F., Felici, F., & Marchetti, M. (1988). Comparison of Male and Female

Functional-Capacity in Pull-Ups. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,

28(2), 168-175.

Ronai, P., & Scibek, E. (2014). The Pull-up. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(3), 88-

90.

Rouffet, D. M., & Hautier, C. A. (2008). EMG normalization to study muscle activation in

cycling. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 18(5), 866-878.

Signorile, J. F., Zink, A. J., & Szwed, S. P. (2002). A comparative electromyographical

investigation of muscle utilization patterns using various hand positions during the lat

pull-down. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(4), 539-546.

Vanderburgh, P. M., & Flanagan, S. (2000). The backpack run test: A model for a fair and

occupationally relevant military fitness test. Military Medicine, 165(5), 418-421.

Waite, D. L., Brookham, R. L., & Dickerson, C. R. (2010). On the suitability of using surface

electrode placements to estimate muscle activity of the rotator cuff as recorded by

intramuscular electrodes. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 20(5), 903-

911.

Wilk, K. E., Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Andrews, J. R., & Boyd, M. L.

(1996). A comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity

during open and closed kinetic chain exercises. The American Journal of Sports

Medicine, 24(4), 518-527.

Williams, A. G., Rayson, M. P., & Jones, D. A. (1999). Effects of basic training on material

handling ability and physical fitness of British Army recruits. Ergonomics, 42(8),

1114-1124. doi: 10.1080/001401399185171.

 18

Youdas, J. W., Amundson, C. L., Cicero, K. S., Hahn, J. J., Harezlak, D. T., & Hollman, J. H.

(2010). Surface electromyographic activation patterns and elbow joint motion during

a pull-up, chin-up, or Perfect-Pullup (Tm) rotational exercise. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3404-3414. doi: 10.1519/Jsc.0b013e3181f1598c.

Youdas, J. W., Guck, B. R., Hebrink, R. C., Rugotzke, J. D., Madson, T. J., & Hollman, J. H.

(2008). An electromyographic analysis of the Ab-Slide exercise, abdominal crunch,

supine double leg thrust, and side bridge in healthy young adults: implications for

rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6),

1939-1946. doi: 10.1519/Jsc.0b013e31818745bf.

 19

James Dickie, MSc received his Masters degree in Science from Massey University in 2015.
He is currently embarking on a PhD in Sport Science, and also works as a strength and
conditioning coach with the Wellington Lions and Hurricanes rugby teams.

James Faulkner, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Physiology at the
University of Winchester. James attained his Bachelor’s (Hons) degree in Sport and Exercise
Sciences, and both his Master’s and Doctorate in Sport and Health Sciences at the University
of Exeter. Prior to his arrival at the University of Winchester, James worked as a Senior
Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Sciences at Massey University, New Zealand (2009-2014).

Matthew Barnes, PhD received his PhD from Massey University in 2012 and is a Senior
Lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise at Massey University. His research expertise is
in the field of sports performance, resistance exercise and skeletal muscle recovery.
 20

Sally Lark, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise at Massey
University. She attained two Bachelor of Science degrees from Auckland University, and
University of Salford and received a Masters of Medical Science from Queens University
Belfast. Sally received her PhD from Manchester Metropolitan University in 2001. Her
research expertise includes musculoskeletal physiology, clinical exercise physiology and
exercise assessment and rehabilitation.
21
22
23
24
 25

Table 1. ICC’s and CV’s for each muscle during EMGARV and EMGPEAK MVIC
normalisation.

PM BB BR MD MT LT LD IS

EMGARV

CV 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12

ICC 0.93 0.83 0.97 0.93 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.85

EMGPEAK

CV 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.13

ICC 0.93 0.71 0.94 0.89 0.65 0.88 0.93 0.84

CV = coefficient of variation; ICC = intra-class coefficient; EMGARV = average rectified variable electromyography; EMGPEAK = peak electromyography; BR =
brachioradialis; BB = biceps brachii; MD = middle deltoid; PM = upper pectoralis major; MT = middle trapezius; LT = lower trapezius; LD = latissimus dorsi; IS =
infraspinatus.

Table 2. Peak muscle activity expressed as %MVIC (± SD) of the shoulder-arm-forearm complex during four pull up variants.
BR BB MD PM MT LT LD IS
Pronated grip 97.4 (24.6) 81.3 (28.0) 12.7 (6.9) 27.9 (21.9) 60.1 (22.5) 47.5 (24.8) 56.1 (18.6) 56.4 (22.7)
Supinated 89.8 (24.6) 92.9 (31.7) 15.8 (13.8) 42.9 (24.1) 49.2 (17.2) 42.4 (19.4) 55.6 (23.9) 55.8 (22.5)
grip
 26

Neutral grip 93.5 (21.1) 93.0 (30.5) 23.4 (21.4) 45.0 (22.0) 37.1* (16.1) 40.9 (20.0) 52.1 (15.6) 52.1 (23.0)
Rope pull-up 96.2 (21.7) 91.1 (28.0) 23.1 (14.8) 35.4 (21.2) 51.2 (18.7) 40.7 (20.0) 57.8 (21.4) 61.1 (25.9)
* Muscle activity is significantly lower than highest reported peak EMG value for each particular muscle – P < 0.05
%MVIC = percentage of maximal voluntary isometric contraction; BR = brachioradialis; BB = biceps brachii; MD = middle deltoid; PM = upper pectoralis major; MT =
middle trapezius; LT = lower trapezius; LD = latissimus dorsi; IS = infraspinatus.

Table 3. Comparison of average rectified variable muscle activity expressed as %MVIC (± SD) during a full repetition (concentric and eccentric
phases) of pull-up variants.
BR BB MD PM MT LT LD IS
Pronated grip 79.4 (14.0) 52.7 (20.2) 7.8 (3.8) 13.7 (9.7) 48.0 (21.2) 29.6 (15.0) 40.8 (12.0) 47.5 (17.9)
Supinated grip 66.4 (19.9) 56.1 (26.6) 7.9 (5.0) 19.0 (12.1) 36.1 (12.1) 24.3 (14.1) 36.6 (15.3) 41.4 (17.5)
Neutral grip 73.1 (17.1) 59.1 (29.1) 10.4 (7.2) 22.9 (12.3) 27.4* (10.7) 23.3 (11.6) 33.7 (9.3) 40.0 (16.5)
Rope pull-up 71.4 (12.8) 53.5 (27.2) 11.6 (7.7) 16.3 (8.7) 37.6 (13.7) 22.2 (10.8) 42.1 (14.2) 47.7 (18.2)
* Muscle activity is significantly lower than highest reported ARV value for each particular muscle – P < 0.05.
%MVIC = percentage of maximal voluntary isometric contraction; BR = brachioradialis; BB = biceps brachii; MD = middle deltoid; PM = upper pectoralis major; MT =
middle trapezius; LT = lower trapezius; LD = latissimus dorsi; IS = infraspinatus.

Table 4. Comparison of average rectified variable muscle activity expressed as %MVIC (± SD) during concentric and eccentric phases of each pull-up
variant.
BR BB MD PM MT LT LD IS
Pronated grip
 27

CON 86.8** (17.3) 67.5** (24.7) 9.1** (4.6) 17.2** (12.4) 49.3 (19.9) 34.2** (17.2) 41.7 (12.1) 49.1 (20.9)
ECC 71.9 (15.7) 37.9 (18.0) 6.6 (3.2) 10.2 (7.5) 46.6 (25.5) 25.0 (13.8) 39.8 (15.6) 45.8 (18.0)
ES 0.90 1.39 0.64 0.70 0.12 0.59 0.14 0.17
Supinated grip
CON 75.5** (20.9) 73.5** (31.3) 8.0 (4.9) 27.4** (16.8) 35.1 (11.7) 27.3* (16.1) 36.7 (15.9) 41.8 (19.0)
ECC 57.3 (23.2) 38.8 (23.8) 7.8 (5.4) 10.7 (7.7) 35.1 (15.4) 21.3 (13.5) 36.4 (16.2) 40.9 (17.2)
ES 0.83 1.26 0.04 1.36 0.00 0.41 0.02 0.05
Neutral grip
CON 82.1** (17.4) 76.4** (33.4) 10.1 (7.5) 32.4** (17.4) 27.5 (12.4) 25.7 (16.7) 35.1 (8.5) 41.4 (18.0)
ECC 64.1 (19.2) 41.9 (27.9) 10.8 (7.3) 13.3 (18.1) 27.3 (10.4) 20.1 (9.3) 32.3 (11.4) 37.9 (16.1)
ES 0.98 1.13 0.09 1.08 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.19
Rope pull-up
CON 86.9** (17.3) 78.2** (36.3) 11.3 (7.9) 23.6** (12.5) 39.6 (13.9) 25.2* (13.6) 43.4 (15.0) 49.4 (19.6)
ECC 55.9 (12.5) 28.8 (19.0) 11.9 (8.1) 9.0 (5.8) 35.7 (14.9) 19.3 (9.3) 40.8 (16.8) 46.0 (17.9)
ES 2.08 1.79 0.08 1.60 0.27 0.52 0.16 0.18
** Muscle activity is significantly higher for the particular movement phase – P < 0.01.
* Muscle activity is significantly higher for the particular movement phase – P < 0.05.
Effect sizes are calculated between the phases for each muscle for each pull up variant.
ES = effect size; %MVIC = percentage of maximal voluntary isometric contraction; CON = concentric; ECC = eccentric; BR = brachioradialis; BB = biceps brachii; MD =
middle deltoid; PM = upper pectoralis major; MT = middle trapezius; LT = lower trapezius; LD = latissimus dorsi; IS = infraspinatus.