This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library]

On: 14 March 2015, At: 11:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Grip and Forearm Position

Effects on Tests of Static
and Dynamic Upper Body
Endurance
a a a
Carl Gabbard , Patrick Patterson & Jerry Elledge
a
Department of Health and Physical Education ,
Texas A&M University , College Station , TX , 77843 ,
USA
Published online: 08 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Carl Gabbard , Patrick Patterson & Jerry Elledge (1981)
Grip and Forearm Position Effects on Tests of Static and Dynamic Upper Body
Endurance, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52:2, 174-179, DOI:
10.1080/02701367.1981.10607855

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1981.10607855

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
 indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015
 RESEARCH QUARTERLY
FOR EXERCISE AND SPORT
1981, Vol. 52, No.2, pp. 174-179

Grip and Forearm Position Effects on Tests of Static

and Dynamic Upper Body Endurance

CARL GABBARD, PATRICK PATTERSON,

and JERRY ELLEDGE
Texas A&M University
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015

The effects of grip and forearm position on two tests of upper body muscular
endurance were investigated in 109 male subjects 18-21 years of age. Subjects
were systematically presented 12 tasks: six pull-up and six straight-arm hang
grip and forearm variations. Each of the six tasks for both endurance tests
represented a different combination of grip (thumb over bar and thumb under
bar) and forearm position (pronated, supinated and semi-pronated). Task
results were analyzed utilizing 2 X 3 (grip x forearm) ANOVA with repeated
measures on the two factors. Analysis of pull-up data revealed that the
semi-pronated and supinated forearm positions were not statistically different
from each other, but superior to the pronated condition. Results of
straight-arm hang performance revealed a significant difference between
grips at the semi-pronated position, with the "thumb under bar" being
superior. Results for forearm positions at grips indicated a significant
difference for the "thumb under bar," with the pronated and semi-pronated
positions being superior to the supinated position. For forearm positions at
"thumb over bar," the pronated condition was significantly different from the
semi-pronated and supinated positions. Thumb position trends and
kinesiological mechanical analysis did foster general recommendations for use
of the "thumb over bar" for pull-ups and the "thumb under bar" position for
the straight-arm hang.

Key uiords: strength, pull-up, muscular endurance, kinesiology.

Carl Gabbard, Patrick Patterson, and Jerry Elledge are all members of the Department of
Health and Physical Education, Texas A&M University, College Station.TX 77843.
Requests for reprints or inquiries should be sent to Dr. Carl Gabbard, Director, Child
Movement Center, Department of Health and Physical Education, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843. This study was supported by a grant from Texas A&M University
College of Education.

174
 Gabbard, Patterson and Elledge 175

A potential factor in the performance of upper body strength and endurance tasks
is the position of the hands. Forearm position has been investigated relative to
physical fitness test items such as pull-ups, flexed-arm hang, and the straight-arm
hang. However, differences of opinion are found as to which forearm positions are
the most efficient; pronated (palms forward), supinated (palms facing), or semi-
pronated (palms facing each other). Recent studies have shown the supinated
forearm position to be superior in the performance of pull-ups and the flexed-arm
hang (Ash, 1971; Piscopo, 1974; Williams, 1972). It was noted by the same authors
that some existing physical fitness tests currently prescribe the pronated forearm
position. Mechanical and electromyographical analyses of the pull-up task suggest
that the supinated and semi-pronated forearm positions are more efficient than the
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015

pronated (Basmajian, 1967; Thompson, 1973; Wells, 1971).

Although the straight-arm hang has been the subject of scientific inquiry (Basma-
jian & Travill, 1961; Brantner & Basmajian, 1975; Gabbard, Kirby, & Patterson,
1979), little is known about the effects of forearm or thumb position (grip) on
performance. Elkus and Basmajian (1973) compared performance of hanging by the
hands using gauntlets in the pronated and supinated forearm positions and reported
a general trend favoring pronation.
Gabbard and Patterson (1980) while investigating grip preferences ofchildren and
adults moving on ladder apparatus positioned at 45°, 90°; and 1800, reported two
frequently utilized grip-preferences: thumb over the bar and thumb under the bar.
Since no literature was found which systematically investigated the effects of thumb
(grip) and/or forearm position on selected tests of upper body endurance, the
following study was proposed.
The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the effects ofthumb (over and
under the bar) and forearm positions (pronated, supinated, and semi-pronated) on
performance of selected static and dynamic upper body endurance tests.

Procedure
Male students (N= 109) ranging in age from 18-21 years enrolled in wrestling
classes at Texas A&M University were systematically (to eliminate order effect)
presented 12 tasks. Each task was a variation based upon forearm position (pronated,
supinated, semi-pronated), grip (thumb over the bar or under the bar), and upper
body endurance test (pull-ups and straight-arm hang), six variations for each endur-
ance test. Each of the 12 task variations was performed by each subject on different
days, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for four weeks.
For pronated and supinated forearm positions (on both tests of endurance), a
horizontal gymnastics bar (3 cm diameter bar size) was utilized, while for the semi-
pronated position a horizontal ladder (3 cm diameter) was provided. Figure 1
illustrates four of the six selected forearm and thumb position combinations.
For the pull-up tasks the subject assumed a straight-arm hanging position with the
specified grip, hands shoulder width apart, and pulled his body upward until the chin
cleared the bar. For the semi-pronated tasks, the subject'S chin had to clear an '
imaginary line drawn across the two rungs of the horizontal ladder which the subject
was grasping. The subject then returned to a fully extended hanging position. The
subject repeated this as many times as possible with his score being the number of
complete pull-ups performed. Two trials were given for each forearm/thumb combi-
nation with approximately 10-15 minutes rest between trials. The highest score ofthe
 176 The Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport, Vol. 52, No.2

}-~l , I

A (
\ \. ';/\'
(\}
rt
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015

\
,
I " \

f ~
..-- :
( )7/ ~4;" I

I,'I
\ \\
\
)

I o) (
c I
Figure 1-lIIustratlons of selectec:l thumb and forearm positions; (A) pronated "thumb over
bar," (8) supinated "thumb under bar," (C) semi-pronated "thumb under bar," (D) supi-
nated "thumb over bar."

two trials was used in the analysis. Swinging and snap-up type movements were
controlled by holding an extended arm in front of the subject's thighs.
For the static endurance test (straight-arm hang), a digital .01 second stop clock
(Lafatette Model #54015) was used to time the subjects. Carbonate of magnesia was
used by the subjects to decrease slippage. The subjects stood on a chair, then secured
the assigned grip and forearm position for that trial and stepped offthe chair. The
time began the moment the subject stepped off the chair until the loss of grip by one
or both hands from the bar. The subjects were not informed of their times until the
conclusion of the study. Two trials were given for each forearm/thumb combination
with the highest score being used in the analysis.
The pull-up and straight-arm hang scores were analyzed in separate 2 x 3 (grip x
forearm) ANOVA with repeated measures on the two factors. Where applicable,
simple main effects analyses and the Duncan's new multiple range tests were used to
locate significant differences at the .05 level of significance.

Results
Graphic representations of means for the 12 performance conditions are pre-
sented in Figure 2. The 2 x 3 (grip x forearm) ANOVA with repeated measures on
the two factors for pull-ups revealed a significant main effect for forearm conditions
[F (2,216) = 4.65, P < .01] while the main effects for grips and grip x forearm
interaction failed significance. The Duncan's new multiple range test for forearm
conditions indicated that the semi-pronated and supinated performances were
superior to the pronated position.
 Gabbard, Patterson and Elledge 177
115

15
thumb under bar

...on';>
14
110 -------,
/
<,

~
~ 13 """,
o
'"
w -,
-,
'"
~
z 12
100
/
,/
rhumb over bal
"
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015

11
95'---'-- '-- ----'-
pronated semi pronated supruated pronated serm pronated supmated

FOREARM POSITION FOREARM POSITION

Figure 2-....n values for pull-up and straight-arm hang performances.

The 2 x 3 ANOVA for straight-arm hang indicated a significant main effect for
both grip[F (1,108) = 10.93, P< .001] and forearm conditions [F (2,215) = 9.98, P<
.001] and a grip x forearm interaction [F (1,432) = 11.34,p < .0001]. Simple main
effects analysis of grips across forearm positions [F (1,432) = 8.88, P< .0 I] revealed a
significant difference between grips at the semi-pronated position, with the "thumb
under bar" being superior. Simple main effects for forearm position grips [F (2,234)
= 14.91, p'< .01] resulted in a significant difference in forearm position for the
"thumb under bar," with the pronated and semi-pronated being superior to the
supinated position. Within the profile for forearm positions at the "thumb over bar"
[F (2,324) = 18.37, P < .01] the pronated was significantly different from the
semi-pronated and supinated. There was no statistical difference between the semi-
pronated and supinated "thumb over bar" grip.

Discussion
Results indicating the supinated and semi-pronated forearm posinons to be
superior to the pronated positions on a pull-up task are consistent with previous
investigations (Ash, 1971; Basmajian, 1967; Piscopo, 1974; Williams, 1972).
The results of straight-arm performances indicated that the pronated and semi-
pronated "thumb under bar" positions and pronated "thumb over bar" were signifi-
cantly superior to the supinated and semi-pronated "thumb over bar" and the
supinated "thumb under bar" positions. Concerning significant thumb position
differences within forearm conditions, the semi-pronated "thumb under bar" posi-
tion produced significantly greater results than the "thumb over bar" position. This
difference may be attributed to several factors. The muscles of the upper arm in a
straight-arm hang position become more active in certain perspectives. The semi-
pronated position has been described as the natural position of the forearm, and the
position of greatest advantage for most functions of the upper arm (Basmajian,
1978). The biceps brachii, brachialis, anconeus, brachioradialis, and triceps are all
active in the straight-arm hang in the semi-pronated position of the forearm. In the
forearm, the extrinsic muscles ofthe hand are those involved with the "thumb under
bar" grip. Also the pronator quadratus and pronator teres are both active in the
 178 The Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 52, No.2

pronated or semi-pronated position. Movements involving flexion of the metacar-

pophalangeal joints employ both the extensors and flexors for stability of the wrist
through reciprocal innervation (Backdahl & Carlsoo, 1961). It is also known that the
thenar muscles are more involved with a "thumb under bar" grip than the "thumb
over bar" grip (Basmajian, 1967). With the addition of some of the muscles of the
thumb (i.e., abductor pollicis, opponens pollicis, flexor pollicis brevis, and flexor
pollicis longus) that show action in the "thumb under bar" grip, one might surmise
that hang time might be significantly increased merely through the use of an in-
creased number of muscles. In both the other forearm positions, the "thumb under
bar" also produced greater mean performances, but not statistically significant. This
lends some support to the "thumb under bar" trend for a hanging (grasping) task.
In comparing the pull-up and straight-arm hang performances, which are charac-
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015

terized by some physiological similarities (i.e., hanging by the hands), it is interesting

to note two points: (a) pull-up performances were all greater (although not statisti-
cally) using the "thumb over bar" grip, and the straight-arm hang results indicated
greater performances using the "thumb under bar" position, and (b) the pronated
forearm position produced the greatest results for the straight-arm hang and the
lowest means for the pull-up performances.
The present evidence and related literature indicate that the pull-up task is not
primarily a grasping one, as the straight-arm hang appears to be (Basmajian, 1967;
Piscopo, 1974). The stronger grasping grip, "thumb under bar," did produce greater
results across all three forearm positions, just as "thumb over bar" position was
consistent across forearm positions for pull-ups, where the primary muscular func-
tion is not in the hands. A possible explanation for the results obtained for forearm
position during pull-ups is that the biceps is active during flexion of the supinated
forearm under all conditions, while playing a very small role in elbow flexion with the
forearm pronated. As well, Bankov and Jorgensen (1969) demonstrated that in both
isometric and dynamic contraction, the maximum strength of the elbow flexors is
smaller when the forearm is in a pronated position.
Aside from new information concerning thumb and forearm position effects on
two selected endurance tasks, the authors wish to recommend a possible practical use
of the evidence. Existing physical fitness assessments using pull-ups, flexed-arm
hang, and possibly the straight-arm hang, often specify forearm positions to be used
(evidence presented may add insight for future changes in some batteries), but few, if
any, instruct the participant in thumb position to be utilized. As previously stated,
Gabbard and Patterson (1980) found that thumb position varied across subjects while
hanging from and moving across a horizontal bar. Although generally the results of
thumb position for pull-ups and straight-arm hang (except semi-pronated straight-
arm position) will not significantly change performance scores across forearm posi-
tions, certainly a recommendation could be made from the results, in light of the
trends evidenced. An upper body endurance task not investigated that necessitates
additional research is the flexed arm hang or other hang type performance tasks
which do not have standardized thumb position incorporated in their norms.
In conclusion, thumb position effects revealed only one statistically significant
difference and that was at the straight-arm hang semi-pronated forearm position
where the "thumb under bar" grip was superior. Thumb position trends and
kinesiological-mechanical analysis did foster recommendations that the "thumb over
bar:' grip was possibly superior for pull-ups and the "thumb under bar" position
might produce greater results for the straight-arm hang. For pull-ups, the semi-
 Gabbard, Patterson and Elledge 179

pronated and supinated forearm positions produced significantly greater scores

than the pronated position, where as in the straight-arm hang, the pronated and
semi-pronated (thumb under bar) revealed significantly greater results than the
supinated or semi-pronated (thumb over bar) position.

References
AAHPER Youth Fitness Test Manual. Washington, D. C.: American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation, 1976.
Ash, S. G. The effects of three forearm positions on ann strength of ninth and tenth grade girls.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of New York at Buffalo, 1971.
Backdahl, M., & Carlsoo, S. Distribution of activity in muscles acting on the wrist (an e1ec-
tromyographic study). Acta Morphologica Neerlando-Scandinavica, 1961, 4, 136-144.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 11:04 14 March 2015

Bankov, S., & Jorgensen, K. Maximum strength of elbow flexors with pronated and supinated
forearm. Communication ofthe Donish National Association ofInfantile Paralysis, 1969, No. 29.
Basmajian, J. V. Muscles alive. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1967.
Basmajian, J. V. Muscles alive (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1978.
Basmajian, J. V., & Travill, A. Electromyography of the pronator muscles in the forearm.
Anatomical Record, 1961, iss, 45-59.
Brantner, J. N., & Basmajian, J. V. Effects of training on endurance in hanging by the hands.
Journal of Motor Behavior, 1975, 7, 131-134.
Elkus, R., & Basmajian,J. V. Endurance in hanging by the hands. American Journal of Physical
Medicine, 1973,52,124-127.
Gabbard, C. P., Kirby, T., & Patterson, P. E. Reliability of the straight-arm hang for testing
muscular endurance among children 2 to 5. Research Quarterly, 1979,50,735-738.
Gabbard, C. P., & Patterson, P. E. Grip preferences ofchildren and adults on ladder apparatus.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1980, in press.
Piscopo, J. Assessment of forearm positions upon upper arm and shoulder girdle strength
performance. Kinesiology IV, 1974,53-57.
Thompson, C. W. Manual of structural kinesiology (7th ed.). St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1973.
Wells, K. Kinesiology (5th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1971.
Williams, R. J. The effects of three forearm positions on ann strength offifth and sixth grade buys.
Unpublished master's thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1972.

Submitted: July 9, 1980

Accepted:January 19, 1981