# EMG Studies on muscle groups



## god hand (Dec 27, 2005)

Thought some might find this interesting.

The results of the EMG studies show which exercises produce the greatest amount of stimulation within each target muscle group. The following table displays these results.

IEMG max motor-unit activation

Exercise/% EMG Muscle Stimulation

Pectoralis major:
Decline dumbbell bench press - 93
Decline bench press (Olympic bar) - 89
Push-ups between benches - 88
Flat dumbbell bench press - 87
Flat bench press (Olympic bar) - 85
Flat dumbbell flys - 84

Pectoralis minor:
Incline dumbbell bench press - 91
Incline bench press (Olympic bar) - 85
Incline dumbbell flys - 83
Incline bench press (Smith machine) - 81

Medial deltoids:
Incline dumbbell side laterals - 66
Standing dumbbell side laterals - 63
Seated dumbbell side laterals - 62
Cable side laterals - 47

Posterior deltoids:
Standing dumbbell bent laterals - 85
Seated dumbbell bent laterals - 83
Standing cable bent laterals - 77

Anterior deltoids:
Seated front dumbbell press - 79
Standing front dumbbell raises - 73
Seated front barbell press - 61

Biceps:
Biceps preacher curls (Olympic bar) - 90
Incline seated dumbbell curls (alternate) - 88
Standing biceps curls (Olympic bar/narrow grip) - 86
Standing dumbbell curls (alternate) - 84
Concentration dumbbell curls - 80
Standing biceps curls (Olympic bar/wide grip) - 63
Standing E-Z biceps curls (wide grip) - 61

Triceps:
Decline triceps extensions (Olympic bar) - 92
Triceps pressdowns (angled bar) - 90
Triceps dip between benches - 87
One-arm cable triceps extensions (reverse grip) - 85
Overhead rope triceps extensions - 84
Seated one-arm dumbbell triceps extensions (neutral grip) - 82
Close-grip bench press (Olympic bar) - 72

Latissimus dorsi:
Bent-over barbell rows - 93
One-arm dumbbell rows - 91
T-bar rows - 89
Lat pulldowns to the front - 86
Seated pulley rows - 83

Quadriceps:
Squats (parallel depth, shoulder-width stance) - 88
Seated leg extensions (toes straight) - 86
Hack Squats (90 degree angle, shoulder-width stance) - 78
Leg press (110 degree angle) - 76
Smith machine squats (90 degree angle, shoulder-width stance) - 60

Hamstrings:
Seated leg curls - 88
Standing leg curls - 79
Lying leg curls - 70
Stiff Legged Deadlifts - 63

Calves:
Donkey calf raises - 80
Standing one-leg calf raises - 79
Standing two-leg calf raises - 68
Seated calf raises - 61

Most of these results are laughable


----------



## Tier (Dec 27, 2005)

Off Topic: Is that Sanders in your avatar? I met him a few times, I used to live in the same city as him, cool dude, drove a range rover for some odd ass reason back then.


----------



## gopro (Dec 27, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Thought some might find this interesting.
> 
> The results of the EMG studies show which exercises produce the greatest amount of stimulation within each target muscle group. The following table displays these results.
> 
> ...



Please explain exactly why they are laughable.


----------



## GFR (Dec 27, 2005)

Just shows you EMG Studies on muscle groups are bull sh1t


----------



## PWGriffin (Dec 27, 2005)

I don't know....it all looks as if it could stand to reason to me...mostly that dumbells are superior to BB....due to the fuller ROM.


----------



## Yanick (Dec 27, 2005)

> EMG
> 
> Lawrence and DeLuca (1983, cited in Enoka and Fuglevand, 1993), suggest that EMG measurements during a MVIC are known to be somewhat unreliable. Howard and Enoka (1991, cited in Enoka and Fuglevand, 1993) found that on three repetitions of a knee extensor MVIC the average EMG varied substantially while the force remained constant. The authors therefore cautioned against using EMG as a direct representation of the activation of motor units of a muscle at high forces such as during an MVIC. The EMG recordings from surface electrodes are a result of summation of randomly occurring action potentials from numerous motor units. According to an unpublished dissertation by Fuglevand (1989, cited in Enoka and Fuglevand, 1993, p222), a motor unit action potential is influenced by:
> 
> ...



From Here


----------



## Mudge (Dec 28, 2005)

PWGriffin said:
			
		

> I don't know....it all looks as if it could stand to reason to me...mostly that dumbells are superior to BB....due to the fuller ROM.



Why is that superior?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 28, 2005)

I thought that an exericse with a greater ROM recruited more fibers and was, generally, superior than an exercise a lesser ROM.

But I guess there's a trade off, you can get a greater ROM (and additional use of stabalizer muscles) when using DBs but you can use a greater load when using BBs.  Come to think of it, I guess that neither is better than the other, they're just different.


----------



## god hand (Dec 28, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Please explain exactly why they are laughable.


Concentration dumbbell curls - 80? Please! More like a 100


----------



## gopro (Dec 28, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Concentration dumbbell curls - 80? Please! More like a 100



Why because YOU feel them more than other movements? That is meaningless.

Nobody said that EMG studies are the holy grail of bodybuilding, but they do have their place in teaches us how certain exercises, grips, and angles affect our muscles.


----------



## P-funk (Dec 28, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Why because YOU feel them more than other movements? That is meaningless.
> 
> Nobody said that EMG studies are the holy grail of bodybuilding, but they do have their place in teaches us how certain exercises, grips, and angles affect our muscles.






I love godhand.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 28, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Why because YOU feel them more than other movements? That is meaningless.
> 
> Nobody said that EMG studies are the holy grail of bodybuilding, but they do have their place in teaches us how certain exercises, grips, and angles affect our muscles.



No no, he's right.  His ability to determine the amount of electrical activity occuring in a muscle is superior to that of scientific measuring equipment.

My take on EMGs is that they mean something, but probably not by themselves.  Tension is a precursor to growth, not electrical activity.  I think it would be highly beneficial to study the correlation between tension and electrical activity that occurs in a muscle to see how much information an EMG can truly provide.


----------



## PWGriffin (Dec 28, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Why is that superior?



They prolly aren't.  But I think you can get a fuller muscle contraction in the pecs with DB presses of any angle...But everybody's different...I've seen great results with both.


----------



## gopro (Dec 28, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> No no, he's right.  His ability to determine the amount of electrical activity occuring in a muscle is superior to that of scientific measuring equipment.
> 
> My take on EMGs is that they mean something, but probably not by themselves.  Tension is a precursor to growth, not electrical activity.  I think it would be highly beneficial to study the correlation between tension and electrical activity that occurs in a muscle to see how much information an EMG can truly provide.



He probably can speak to the dead as well.

I agree, I would love to see a study like you have mentioned. My personal opinion is that EMG is more useful to bodybuilding than many people think, and that electrical activity and tension are well correlated. Hopefully we will see some evidence of this in the future.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 28, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> He probably can speak to the dead as well.
> 
> I agree, I would love to see a study like you have mentioned. My personal opinion is that EMG is more useful to bodybuilding than many people think, and that electrical activity and tension are well correlated. Hopefully we will see some evidence of this in the future.



Indeed.  As for now, I think EMG studies are still useful to some degree.  It does seem to me like they would definitely have some kind of relationship, even if it isn't linear.


----------



## gopro (Dec 29, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Indeed.  As for now, I think EMG studies are still useful to some degree.  It does seem to me like they would definitely have some kind of relationship, even if it isn't linear.


----------



## god hand (Dec 29, 2005)

..............


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 30, 2005)

You would have to think that say 92% stimulation of a muscle group would be a function of power than anything else.  You could activate 92% of your fibers in a given exercise, but if 92% is activated for only 1 second and then only 40% are activated for the remainder of the repetition, and the lift takes 3 seconds, it is relatively worthless.


----------



## Arnold (Dec 30, 2005)

for those of you that say they are "useful" tell me how YOU use them in your own personal training?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 30, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> for those of you that say they are "useful" tell me how YOU use them in your own personal training?



Owned.


----------



## gopro (Dec 30, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> for those of you that say they are "useful" tell me how YOU use them in your own personal training?



Well, I am not going to get into the debate of working sections of a muscle again because it is useless to do so here.


----------



## Arnold (Dec 30, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Well, I am not going to get into the debate of working sections of a muscle again because it is useless to do so here.



Neither am I...but who in their right mind goes into the gym and says "hmmm...I am on triceps today so I will do tricep pushdowns since EMG studies showed more muscle fiber stimulation than close grip bench press."


----------



## P-funk (Dec 30, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Neither am I...but who in their right mind goes into the gym and says "hmmm...I am on triceps today so I will do tricep pushdowns since EMG studies showed more muscle fiber stimulation than close grip bench press."




An EMG study will, 9 times out of 10, show an exercise that you are not used to doing with more fiber stimulation.  So, if you do flat BB bench press for 8 straight weeks you will show a larger amount of fiber stimulation on the incline BB bench press.  But, after you adapt to that for a few weeks it will change again once you move onto something else.

I don't understand how anyway would use the EMG in their training either.  The only thing it seems to be beneficial for is to prove to you that you need to vary your exerises to prevent your body from adapting to certain movements.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 30, 2005)

You guys don't believe there is any kind of relationship between tension and electrical activity?


----------



## P-funk (Dec 30, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You guys don't believe there is any kind of relationship between tension and electrical activity?




I believe there is.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 30, 2005)

There is definitely a relationship, whether or not it is strong remains to be seen.  I would say that a greater TUT leads to greater activity, but greater activity doesn't lead to greater TUT.

An explosive lift would lead to a very high level of activity, but the TUT is small.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 30, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> There is definitely a relationship, whether or not it is strong remains to be seen.  I would say that a greater TUT leads to greater activity, but greater activity doesn't lead to greater TUT.
> 
> An explosive lift would lead to a very high level of activity, but the TUT is small.



Yeah, fair enough.  I see your point.  It would definitely help to see the training age and tempo used for these exercises listed.


----------



## gopro (Dec 30, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> There is definitely a relationship, whether or not it is strong remains to be seen.  I would say that a greater TUT leads to greater activity, but greater activity doesn't lead to greater TUT.
> 
> An explosive lift would lead to a very high level of activity, but the TUT is small.



Well obviously an EMG would only be useful if the relative load and TUT is kept constant throughout all exercises within a given body part. It would be moronic to do it any other way.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 30, 2005)

Indeed.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 31, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Well obviously an EMG would only be useful if the relative load and TUT is kept constant throughout all exercises within a given body part. It would be moronic to do it any other way.



Yes, but then your results are only valuable lifting at that speed.  If there is a relationship between TUT and EMG activity, you would use the same muscle lifting at different speeds.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 31, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Yes, but then your results are only valuable lifting at that speed.  If there is a relationship between TUT and EMG activity, you would use the same muscle lifting at different speeds.



Tension increases as the concentric lifting speed increases as well though.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 31, 2005)

Yes, a U-shaped graph would be how it would pan out.


----------



## gopro (Dec 31, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Yes, but then your results are only valuable lifting at that speed.  If there is a relationship between TUT and EMG activity, you would use the same muscle lifting at different speeds.



1. If you watch most people in the gym train, lifting speed is pretty much constant...about a 1-2 second eccentric...a pause of zero to one second...and a concenctric of X to 1 second.

2. I agree that studies should be done using a few different "reasonable" lifting speeds and results compared.

3. I am more concerned with results regarding areas of the muscle showing the most activity.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 31, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> 3. I am more concerned with results regarding areas of the muscle showing the most activity.




You mean like upper/lower, etc?


----------



## P-funk (Dec 31, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You mean like upper/lower, etc?


----------



## gopro (Dec 31, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You mean like upper/lower, etc?



Upper/Lower
Short Head/Long Head
Inner/Outer
Anterior/Lateral/Posterior

Depends on the muscle.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 2, 2006)

gotcha


----------



## topolo (Jan 2, 2006)

Dale leave Gp alone. I won't stand for you harassing him.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 2, 2006)

I wasn't harassing him, I believe that you can activate the sternal and clavicular heads of the pec major separately.  It is at least physiologically possible, whether it happens remains to be seen.


----------



## topolo (Jan 2, 2006)

One could theorize that it is physiologically possible but I know of no evidence to support the conclusion that the heads can be activated separately.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 2, 2006)

Is there evidence that it does not happen?


----------



## topolo (Jan 2, 2006)

Yes, but it is a secret.......you have to be a mason.


----------



## gopro (Jan 2, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> One could theorize that it is physiologically possible but I know of no evidence to support the conclusion that the heads can be activated separately.



The best evidence is empirical.


----------



## topolo (Jan 2, 2006)

gopro said:
			
		

> The best evidence is empirical.



Not really GP, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Having said that, if you say it is true........I believe you!


----------



## gopro (Jan 2, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> Not really GP, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Having said that, if you say it is true........I believe you!



Well, there is a slight difference between eyewitness testimony of an event, and the visual data collected over 15 years of observation


----------



## topolo (Jan 2, 2006)

gopro said:
			
		

> Well, there is a slight difference between eyewitness testimony of an event, and the visual data collected over 15 years of observation




As I said earlier......if you say it, I believe it.


----------



## gopro (Jan 3, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> As I said earlier......if you say it, I believe it.



Well, thank you for the confidence you have in me my friend!


----------

