Backseat Inclination Affects the Myoelectric Activation During the Inclined Leg Press Exercise in Recreationally Trained Men.

ABSTRACT: Marchetti, PH, Gomes, WA, Da Silva, JJ, Magalhaes, RA, Teixeira, LFM, and Whiting, WC. Backseat inclination affects the myoelectric activation during the inclined leg press exercise in recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): e541-e545, 2023-Changes in the angle between the seat and backrest during the inclined leg press (ILP) exercise may influence myoelectric activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the myoelectric activity between 2 different angles between the seat and backrest (90° and 125°) during the ILP exercise in recreationally trained men. Fifteen young, resistance-trained men (age: 26.8 ± 5.3 years, height: 173.8 ± 6.6 cm, total body mass: 81.6 ± 7.6 kg) performed 1 set of 10 repetitions at 70% of their body mass during the ILP exercise using 2 different angles between the seat and backrest (ILP90° and ILP125°). Surface electromyography (peak RMS 90 and iEMG) was used to measure the myoelectric activity of the vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), and gluteus maximus (GM). A paired t test was used to measure differences in knee and hip joint displacement, peak RMS 90 , and iEMG between ILP90 and ILP125. The hip angle presented a greater displacement during the ILP125 when compared with ILP90 ( p < 0.001), considering a similar knee joint displacement. For the VL, there was observed greater myoelectric activation (peak RMS 90 and iEMG) during ILP125 when compared with ILP90 ( p < 0.05). For the BF, there was observed greater myoelectric activation (peak RMS 90 and iEMG) during ILP90 when compared with ILP125 ( p < 0.05). However, GM did not present differences between ILP90 and ILP125. In conclusion, the angle between the seat and backrest (ILP90 or ILP125) altered the myoelectric activation of the VL and BF with no difference for the GM.

Different Knee and Ankle Positions Affect Force and Muscle Activation During Prone Leg Curl in Trained Subjects.

ABSTRACT: Marchetti, PH, Magalhaes, RA, Gomes, WA, da Silva, JJ, Stecyk, SD, and Whiting, WC. Different knee and ankle positions affect force and muscle activation during prone leg curl in trained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 35(12): 3322-3326, 2021-Different joint positions for biarticular muscles may affect force and muscular activity during single-joint exercises. The aim of this study was to compare the maximal isometric contractions and muscle activation in 2 different knee and ankle positions during prone leg curl exercise in trained subjects. Fifteen resistance-trained men (27 ± 4 years, 178.80 ± 5.72 cm, 86.87 ± 12.51 kg) were recruited. The peak force (PF) and muscle activation of biceps femoris, gastrocnemius lateralis (GL), and soleus lateralis (SL) were measured during knee flexion at 0 and 90° and maximal dorsiflexion (D) or plantarflexion (P). Three maximal voluntary isometric contractions of 5 seconds were performed for each combination of knee and ankle positions. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variances were used for all dependent variables. For PF, there was a significant difference between ankle positions (D × P) at 90° (p = 0.009) and knee positions (0 × 90°) for D (p < 0.001) and P (p < 0.001). Peak force was greater with the knee at 0° and the ankle maximally dorsiflexed. For GL, there was a significant difference between ankle (D × P) at 0° (p = 0.002) and knee positions (0 × 90°) for D (p = 0.005). Gastrocnemius lateralis activation was greater with the knee at 90° of flexion and the ankle maximally dorsiflexed. For SL, there was a significant difference between ankle positions (D × P): at 90° (p = 0.001) and at 0° (p = 0.002). Soleus lateralis is more active in plantarflexion irrespective of the knee joint position. Isometric contractions with full knee extension produce more strength regardless of the ankle position; neither the knee position nor the ankle position may influence the activity of the hamstrings.

Muscle Activation Differs Between Partial and Full Back Squat Exercise With External Load Equated.

Changes in range of motion affect the magnitude of the load during the squat exercise and, consequently, may influence muscle activation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate muscle activation between the partial and full back squat exercise with external load equated on a relative basis between conditions. Fifteen young, healthy, resistance-trained men (age: 26 ± 5 years, height: 173 ± 6 cm) performed a back squat at their 10 repetition maximum (10RM) using 2 different ranges of motion (partial and full) in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. Surface electromyography was used to measure muscle activation of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus, erector spinae, soleus (SL), and gluteus maximus (GM). In general, muscle activity was highest during the partial back squat for GM (p = 0.004), BF (p = 0.009), and SL (p = 0.031) when compared with full-back squat. There was no significant difference for rating of perceived exertion between partial and full back squat exercise at 10RM (8 ± 1 and 9 ± 1, respectively). In conclusion, the range of motion in the back squat alters muscle activation of the prime mover (GM) and stabilizers (SL and BF) when performed with the load equated on a relative basis. Thus, the partial back squat maximizes the level of muscle activation of the GM and associated stabilizer muscles.

Kinematic and sEMG Analysis of the Back Squat at Different Intensities With and Without Knee Wraps.

The purposes of this study were to measure the acute effects of knee wraps (KWs) on knee and hip joint kinematics, dynamic muscle activation from the vastus lateralis (VL) and gluteus maximus (GM), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) during the back squat exercise at 2 different intensities. Fourteen resistance-trained men (age: 24 ± 4 years, height: 176 ± 6 cm, body mass: 81 ± 11 kg, back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 107 ± 30 kg, 3 ± 1 year of back squat experience) performed 1 set of 3 repetitions under 4 different conditions, to a depth of approximately 90 degrees of knee joint flexion, and in random order: KWs at 60% 1RM (KW60), KWs at 90% 1RM (KW90), without knee wraps (NWs) at 60% 1RM (NW60), and NWs at 90% 1RM (NW90). The dependent variables obtained were vertical and horizontal bar displacement, peak joint angle in the sagittal plane (hip and knee joints), concentric and eccentric muscle activation (by integrated electromyography) from the VL and GM, and RPE. For muscle activity, there were significant decreases in the VL NWs at 60% 1RM (p = 0.013) and a significant increase NWs at 90% 1RM (p = 0.037). There was a significant increase in VL muscle activity at 90% 1RM, when compared with 60% 1RM (KW: p = 0.001, effect size (ES) = 1.51 and NW: p < 00.001, ES = 1.67). There was a decrease in GM muscle activity NWs only at 60% 1RM (p = 0.014). There was a significant increase in GM muscle activity at 90% 1RM, when compared with 60% 1RM (KW: p < 0.001 and NW: p < 0.001). For peak hip joint flexion angle, there was significant decreases between intensities (90% 1RM < 60% 1RM) only to NWs condition (p = 0.009), and there was greater knee flexion NWs for both intensities: 60% 1RM (p < 0.001) and 90% 1RM (p = 0.018). For normalized vertical barbell displacement, there were significant differences between intensities when using KWs (p = 0.022). There were significant differences in RPE between 60 and 90% 1RM for each condition: KWs (p < 0.001) and NWs (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the use of KWs results in decreased muscle activation of the VL at the same intensity (90% 1RM).

Differences Between Pullover and Pulldown Exercises on Maximal Isometric Force and Myoelectric Activity in Recreationally-Trained Men.

The aim of the present study was to compare the myoelectric activation and peak force (PF) between pullover (PO) and pulldown (PW) exercises in different shoulder joint positions during maximal isometric contractions (0o, 45o, 90o, 135o, and 180°). Fifteen young, healthy, resistance-trained men were recruited. The participants performed three maximal voluntary isometric contractions for each exercise at five shoulder joint positions. The myoelectric activation (iEMG) from pectoralis major (PM); latissimus dorsi (LD); posterior deltoid (PD), and PF were measured. For PF, there were significant main effects for exercise and joint positions (p < 0.001). For iEMG PM, there was significant a main effect for joint positions (p < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between exercises and joint positions (p < 0.001). For iEMG LD, there was a significant main effect for joint positions (p < 0.001). There was no significant interaction between exercises and joint positions. For iEMG PD, there was a significant main effect for joint positions (p < 0.001). There was no significant interaction between exercises and joint positions. For RPE, there were no significant differences between exercises and joint positions. The study concludes that specific shoulder joint positions affect PF production and iEMG during both exercises. RPE was not affected.

Different volumes and intensities of static stretching affect the range of motion and muscle force output in well-trained subjects.

The manipulation of the volume and intensity of static stretching (SS) can affect the range of motion (ROM) and muscle force output. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of two different SS protocols with different intensities (50% and 85% POD) and volumes (120-s and 240-s) on ROM, peak force, and muscle activity during maximal isometric leg curl exercise in well-trained participants. Fifteen young males (age:27.5 ± 6.1years, height:175.6 ± 4.7cm, and body mass:81.5 ± 10.4kg, 6 ± 2 years of resistance training experience) performed passive hip flexion with two different SS protocols: six stretches of 40-s, with 15-sec rest between each stretch at 50% of the point of discomfort (POD) and three stretches of 40-s, with 15-sec rest between each stretch at 85%POD. The passive hip flexion ROM, biceps femoris muscle activation (integrated electromyography: IEMG), and knee flexors force were monitored during a 3-s maximal voluntary isometric leg curl exercise. ROM increased between pre- and post-intervention for both SS protocols (50%POD: p = 0.016, Δ% = 4.6% and 85%POD: p < 0.001, Δ% = 11.42%). Peak force decreased between pre- and post-intervention only for 85%POD (p = 0.004, Δ% = 23.6%). There were no significant IEMG differences. In conclusion, both SS protocols increased ROM, however, the high-intensity and short-duration SS protocol decreased peak force.

Balance and Lower Limb Muscle Activation between In-Line and Traditional Lunge Exercises.

In-line and traditional lunge exercises present differences in technique as lower limb positioning (anterioposterior), and medio-lateral (ML) balance may differentially affect primary and stabilizer muscles. The purposes of this study were to examine ML balance and muscle activation in anterior and posterior leg positions between in-line and traditional lunge exercises. Fifteen young, healthy, resistance-trained men (25 ± 5 years) performed 2 different lunge exercises (in-line and traditional) at their 10 repetition maximum in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. Surface electromyography measured muscle activation of the vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, gluteus maximus, and gluteus medius. ML balance was measured with a Wii Fit Balance Board. The vastus lateralis activity was not significantly different between exercises or leg positions. The biceps femoris activity was not significantly different between exercises, however, it was significantly greater in the anterior compared to the posterior position for the in-line (p = 0.003), and traditional lunge (p < 0.001). The gluteus maximus activity was not significantly different between exercises, however, it was significantly greater in the anterior compared to posterior position for the in-line (p < 0.001) and traditional lunge (p < 0.001). ML balance was significantly greater in the in-line exercise in the anterior limb (p = 0.001). Thus, both in-line and traditional lunge exercises presented similar overall levels of muscle activation, yet the anterior limb generated the highest biceps femoral and gluteus maximus muscle activation when compared to the posterior limb. The in-line lunge presents greater ML balance when compared to the traditional lunge exercise.