• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Chin ups and hand placing

A

Achilles

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
765
Points
18
Is there any specific benefids on hand placing with the chin up. For example when I place mij hands wide do I target the V shape more than shoulder wide grip and does shoulder wide grip add more thickness or is this all a myth?
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Largely myth. I'll post more later.
 
philosopher

philosopher

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
3,002
Points
38
Interesting question. I remember reading something about wider than shoulder wide would be useless. I dunno when or were Ive red it. I dont even know if its true :S. Would like to see Tims thoughts.
 
Pickle

Pickle

Team Winklaar
VIP
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
4,609
Points
38
^i would also like to see tim naked and an article on this topic
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Not exactly a chinup/pullup study but it does sum it all up fairly well.

Basically the ones to compare are the wide grip anterior (pullup grip) and the suppinated grip (chinup grip). Bear in mind they didn't measure the biceps, rhomboids, trapezius and infraspinatus.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 539–546.

A Comparative Electromyographical Investigation of Muscle Utilization Patterns Using Various Hand Positions During the Lat Pull-down
JOSEPH F. SIGNORILE, ATTILA J. ZINK, and STEVEN P. SZWED

ABSTRACT

This study aimed at investigating the effects of different hand positions on the electromyographic (EMG) activity of shoulder muscles during the performance of the lat pull-down exercise. Ten healthy men performed 3 repetitions of the lat pull-down exercise using their experimentally determined 10RM (repetition maximum) weight. Four different common variations of the lat pull-down were used: close grip (CG), supinated grip (SG), wide grip anterior (WGA), and wide grip posterior (WGP). Normalized root mean square of the EMG (NrmsEMG) activity for the right posterior deltoid (PD), latissimus dorsi (LD), pectoralis major (PM), teres major (TM), and long head of the triceps (TLH) were recorded using surface electrodes and normalized using maximum voluntary contractions. Repeated measures analysis of variance for each muscle detected statistical differences (p < 0.05) in myoelectric activity among hand positions during both the concentric and eccentric phases of the exercise. During the concentric phase, NrmsEMG results for the LD included WGA > WGP, SG, CG. For the TLH: WGA > WGP, SG, CG and WGP > CG, SG. For the PD: CG, WGA, SG > WGP. For the PM: CG, WGA, SG > WGP.

During the eccentric phase, the LD produced the following patterns: WGA > WGP, SG, CG and WGP > CG. The TLH pattern showed WGA > SG and CG. For the PD: CG > WGA, WGP. The results indicate that changes in handgrip position affect the activities of specific muscles during the lat pull-down movement. Also, performance of the lat pull-down exercise using the WGA hand position produces greater muscle activity in the LD than any other hand position during both the concentric or eccentric phases of the movement.

Reference Data:Signorile, J.F., A.J. Zink, and S.P. Szwed. A comparative electromyographical investigation of muscle utilization patterns using various hand positions during the lat pull-down.

Key Words: latissimus dorsi, resistance training, muscular activity


Introduction

The act of pulling the arms down to the sides from an overhead position (or raising the body when the arms are secured overhead, as in pull-ups) does not play a major role in most sports. But to swimmers swimming freestyle (crawl), breaststroke, and butterfly; gymnasts performing on the rings, horizontal, parallel, and uneven bars; basketball players pulling down a rebound; and wrestlers executing specific holds and takedowns, this arm motion is essential (21). These sports contain movements, which rely heavily on the muscles that produce adduction of the shoulder joint. The major muscles involved in this movement include the latissimus dorsi (LD), teres major (TM), and pectoralis major (PM) (6, 8, 13, 16, 18). In addition to their importance for specific sports movements, the development of these muscles is also important to promote functional balance about the shoulder joint and the symmetry that is important to both bodybuilders and recreational lifters (3, 4, 7, 10, 15).

Many exercises can be prescribed for the strength development of the shoulder adductor muscles (1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 15). One such exercise is the lat pull-down (9–11, 14, 19–21). Several variations of this exercise are performed in weight rooms. These variations normally involve changes in hand position and range of motion (ROM) (1, 5, 12, 19–21). Many articles in both professional journals and the popular literature have offered differing opinions concerning the best hand and bar positions for targeting the LD during the performance of the lat pull-down exercise (1, 5, 12, 19–21). The differences in opinion among fitness professionals were further illustrated by an on-line poll held by the National Strength and Conditioning Association. When asked whether the front or back lat pull-down was superior at developing the LD, 150 members favored the back pull-down position, whereas 903 members voted for the front pull-down. Few controlled studies that have examined the lat pull-down exist (19), and no study has examined the effect of hand position on specific muscle recruitment patterns during the performance of the exercise. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 4 commonly used hand positions on the activity of selected shoulder muscles during the performance of the lat pull-down exercise.

Methods

Experimental Approach to the Problem
Articles in professional journals and fitness periodicals have argued the superiority of various handgrip positions for targeting the LD during the lat pull-down exercise (1, 5, 12, 19–21). We used 4 of the most commonly used handgrip positions to examine which handgrip elicited the highest level of electrical activity in the LD and 4 other accessory muscles. Electromyographical signals (EMG) were collected from each muscle during performance of the lat pull-down under each condition using the same cadence. According to convention, the root mean square of the EMG signal (rmsEMG) was used to quantify the average level of electrical activity produced during each condition (2). The signals were normalized to reduce the effect of variations in signal amplitude among muscles and subjects. These variations may result from differences in surface preparation, temperature, and other factors that affect the electrical impedance of the surface electrodes (2). Comparisons were made among handgrip positions within each muscle. All tests were performed on the same day, and the orders of both the exercise testing and the isometric contractions used for normalization were randomized to reduce the effect of any order effect. These procedures were designed to address the effectiveness of each exercise at targeting specific muscles because some controversy regarding their relative efficacy and safety still exists.

Subjects
Ten healthy men between the ages of 18 and 50 (27 ± 2.4 years) with a minimum of 1 year of weightlifting experience (5.9 ± 4.6 year) volunteered as subjects. Each subject completed a health history and exercise questionnaire and was screened for a history of back injury, chronic back pain, and musculoskeletal or neurological impairments. The testing procedures were approved by the University of Miami Subcommittee for the Protection of Human Subjects. All subjects completed a university-approved informed consent form before participation.

Equipment
Subjects performed the lat pull-down exercise on a standard lat pull-down cable system (Spartan, Minneapolis, MN), whereas EMG was recorded using a pair of disposable Ag/AgCl pregelled disk surface electrodes (Eaton Electrode, Manchester, MI) placed on the right posterior deltoid (PD), LD, PM, TM, and long head of the triceps (TLH). Electrode pairs were positioned immediately distal to the motor point, 2 cm apart, and parallel to the underlying muscle fibers, with the reference electrode placed upon the clavicle. Motor points were located using a low-voltage stimulator delivering progressively lower intensity 1-millisecond pulses at a rate of 0.5 Hz (17).

The skin surface at each site was shaved, rubbed with light abrasive paper, and cleaned with alcohol to remove dead surface tissue and oils that might reduce the fidelity of the signal.

Raw EMG signals were recorded using a wireless EMG telemetry system (Noraxon USA, Scottsdale, AZ) with an input impedance of 2 MΩ and a common mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of 100 dB. The gain was set at 2,000, with band pass filtering between of 1 and 500 Hz. The signals were sampled at a speed of 1,024 Hz, digitized using a 16-bit A/D converter (DataPac, Laguna Beach, CA) and stored using a microcomputer. Recorded signals were examined with the use of Lab View Software (DataPac, Laguna Hills, CA), and the root mean square of the rmsEMG was used to evaluate the amplitude of the signal as a measure of average muscle activity (2).

Procedure
Approximately 1 week before testing, subjects were pretested and height, weight, and limb length measurements were recorded. A tape measure was used to measure limb lengths as follows: hamate to the olecranon process for the forearm, olecranon process to acromian process for the upper arm, and acromian process to C7 for the biacromial diameter. A 10RM (repetition maximum) was determined for each subject during the lat pull-down performances using each of the 4 different common variations of the lat pull-down: close grip (CG), supinated grip (SG), wide grip anterior (WGA), and wide grip posterior (WGP). These positions are illustrated in Figure 1a–d . The CG pull-down was performed with a V-Bar and, therefore, grip width was fixed. The SG, WGA, and WGP were performed using a standard lat pull-down bar with the handgrip positions determined as follows: The SG was performed with a supinated handgrip, and the biacromial diameter was used to determine the distance between hands. Both WGA and WGP were performed with a pronated handgrip, and the distance between the hands was equal to the distance from the outside of a closed fist to the seventh cervical vertebra (C7). This was done with the arm abducted straight out to the side at shoulder level (similar to snatch grip width determination techniques). All anterior lifts (CG, SG, and WGA) were conducted from full arm extension to bar contact with the chest, and the posterior lift (WGP) was performed from full arm extension to bar contact with C7. All subjects were instructed to keep their scapulae retracted during the posterior lift to avoid excessive cervical flexion. They were also directed to maintain normal postural lordosis of the lumbar region during the anterior lifts.

On the testing day, maximum voluntary contractions (MVCs) of the muscles to be tested were determined by having the subject perform bilateral isometric contractions using the following procedures: PD, pulling backward against the cable using a seated row position with pronated grip, arms parallel to ground, and shoulders horizontally flexed to approximately 10°; LD, pulling downward using seated row position with SG, elbows held at approximately 90° and arms parallel to ground; PM, pushing medially while seated in a pec-fly machine (Nautilus, Independence, VA) with shoulder abducted to 90° and elbows flexed to 90°; TM, horizontally adducting the shoulder against manual resistance; TLH, performing a standing triceps push-down with a pronated grip and elbows bent at 90°. Each contraction was held constant for 6 seconds, and EMG data were collected for the last 3 seconds. The exercise order was randomly assigned, and subjects were given a minimum of 2 minutes rest between lifts to minimize the effects of fatigue.

Before testing each lift, the full ROM for that lift was determined, and a magnetic marker switch was placed on the structural supports of the lat pull-down machine at the top and bottom point of each subjects' range. A magnet was placed at the top of the weight stack, and an electric buzzer sounded as the weight stack passed the magnetic switches marking the bottom and top of each subject's ROM. The buzzer also produced a voltage spike recorded during the EMG collection to allow the separation of the lift into its concentric and eccentric phases. The subjects were instructed not to reverse the direction of the lift until the buzzer sounded. Subjects performed 3 repetitions of each condition in a controlled manner throughout their respective ROMs, with both the concentric and eccentric portions of the lift being executed for 2-second durations. Lift order was randomly assigned, and subjects were given 2 minutes rest between lifts to minimize the effects of fatigue.

Statistical Analyses
A single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect significant differences (p 0.05) between average 10RM loads used for each hand position. The rmsEMG for each muscle at each hand position was normalized using the rmsEMG of the MVC collected on the testing day. Separate repeated measures ANOVAs were used to detect significant differences (p 0.05) in mean normalized rmsEMG (NrmsEMG) values among the 4 hand positions during both the eccentric phase and concentric phases of the exercise. When appropriate, a Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc test was used to determine which hand positions differed in mean NrmsEMG activity for each muscle. All statistical procedures were conducted using the SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) statistical package.

Results

The average 10RM load determined for each of the conditions was WGA = 141.0 ± 21.8 lb; WGP = 131.0 ± 19.1 lb; CG = 141.0 ± 16.6 lb; and SG = 139.0 19.7 lb. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were detected among 10RM loads.

The mean NrmsEMG values for the LD, PM, PD, and TLH were statistically different (p 0.05) during the concentric phases of the exercises. The graphical representations of the mean NrmsEMG data for each muscle tested are presented in Figure 2 . Significantly greater NrmsEMG activity (p 0.05) was detected for the LD during the WGA position compared with the WGP, SG, and CG positions, whereas no significant differences were detected among the other 3 positions (Figure 2a ). For the PM, no significant differences in NrmsEMG were detected among the CG, SG, and WGA positions or among the SG, WGA, and WGP positions; however, significantly greater NrmsEMG activity was seen during the CG position compared with the WGP position (Figure 2b ). The PD showed similar NrmsEMG activity during the CG, SG, and WGA positions. The WGP position produced significantly less electrical activity in the PM than any of the other 3 positions (p 0.05) (Figure 2c ). The TLH demonstrated statistically greater NrmsEMG activity (p 0.05) for the WGA position compared with the WGP, CG, and SG positions (Figure 2d ). The WGP position also produced greater NrmsEMG activity in the TLH than either the CG or SG positions (Figure 2d ). No significant differences were detected between the CG and SG positions for the TLH. For the TM, no significant differences were found among any of the hand positions tested (Figure 2e ).

Significant differences in the mean NrmsEMG values for the LD, PD, and TLH were detected also during the eccentric phase of the exercise (p 0.05). The graphs of the mean NrmsEMG data for each muscle tested during the eccentric phase are presented in Figure 3 . Statistically greater NrmsEMG activity (p 0.05) was detected at the LD for the WGA position compared with the WGP, SG, and CG positions. The level of activity during the WGP position was not significantly greater than that produced during the SG position but was significantly greater than that produced during the CG position (Figure 3a ). For the PD, no significant differences were detected between the CG and SG positions or among the SG, WGA, and WGP positions. The PD did demonstrate greater NrmsEMG activity (p 0.05) during the CG position than during either the WGA or WGP hand positions (Figure 3c ). For the TLH no significant differences were seen between the WGA and WGP positions or among the WGP, SG, and CG positions. The TLH did show greater NrmsEMG activity (p < 0.05) for the WGA position compared with the SG and CG positions (Figure 3d ). No significant differences were detected in NrmsEMG among any of the hand positions for the PM or TM (Figure 3b,e ).

Discussion

Before examining the EMG activity for the selected muscles tested in the study, it is appropriate to examine the inherent differences that existed in the lifts themselves. The loads used during the performance of the lat pull-down for the WGA, CG, and SG positions (141 lb, 141 lb, and 139 lb, respectively) were greater than those used during the WGP (131 lb). Although this difference was not statistically significant, there was a trend toward the use of lower loads during the execution of the lat pull-down with the WGP hand position than with other positions. These data suggest that the performance of the lat pull-down with the bar pulled anteriorly (to the chest) provides some mechanical advantage, allowing greater loads to be moved during these exercises than when the bar is pulled posteriorly (to the back of the neck). A 10RM load, rather than a standardized load, was used for each condition in an attempt to ensure that maximal effort was given during each treatment. Additionally, the load used during training would be relative to the capacity of the muscles to work in that position and would not have the same absolute value for each hand position. Although a standardized load may have been representative of a maximal effort in some positions, it may not have had magnitude high enough to provide a maximal effort in other positions and would not have simulated actual lifting conditions. On average a 10-lb lighter load was used during the WGP handgrip position than during the 3 other handgrip positions. If these differences exist among the lifts as practiced under normal working conditions, the differences in rmsEMG activities for the specific muscles across lifting conditions can now be discussed.

Although no direct kinematic measurements were made during this study, generalized statements concerning the effect of various handgrips on the position of the upper arm at the glenohumeral joint can be made. These positions can provide some explanation for the recruitment patterns seen by the muscles crossing the shoulder joint and attaching to the humerus.

Data from the LD collected using each of the hand positions during both the eccentric and concentric phases of each lift indicate that the WGA position produced greater electrical activity than any other position tested. During the concentric phase of the lift, LD NrmsEMG was similar for all remaining hand positions, whereas during the eccentric portion of the lifts, the WGP and SG conditions produced similar results and the SG and CG conditions were also similar. But the WGP position did produce significantly higher NrmsEMG than the CG position. When comparing the WGA with the SG and CG, the WGA requires greater abduction and horizontal abduction than the other 2 conditions. The functions of the LD include adduction of the arm from an abducted position, horizontal abduction, and extension from a flexed position. Given these functions, it appears that the starting position for the WGA, which places the arm in a more horizontally abducted position throughout the exercise, increases the reliance on the LD compared with the SG and CG positions. Evidently, the WGP position, although it demands an even greater degree of horizontal abduction, does not require the individual to produce the same degree of extension that the WGA does because of its more linear movement track along the sagittal plane behind the neck. In the WGP position, there is also a greater level of shoulder girdle depression. This could increase the emphasis on the lower trapezius and rhomboid groups at the cost of LD activity. The results of this study agree with those reported by Wills et al. (19), which indicated that a wide grip, whether anterior or posterior, elicited a greater level of electrical activity in the LD than a CG. Those researchers also indicated that a wide anterior grip produced greater activity in the lateral portion of the LD than a wide posterior grip. Although the current study did show that the WGA position produced greater levels of activity than the WGP, it is not possible to make an exact comparison between the results because of the differences in electrode placement and experimental design between the 2 studies.

The NrmsEMG activity pattern for the TM, although it produced no significant differences among hand positions, did follow a pattern similar to that of the LD. Interestingly, the eccentric data for the TM reflect the concentric data for the LD and the eccentric TM data reflect those produced by the LD during the concentric phase of the lift. These similarities are expected because of the TM role as the muscle that assists the LD in adducting and extending the humerus. Its smaller size and more horizontal angle of pull may account, to some degree, for the more subtle changes seen among the hand positions for the TM compared with the LD. In addition, Kraemer and Schmotzer (9) noted that the maximal activity of the TM does not occur until 90° of humeral elevation, indicating that it would produce lower NrmsEMG activity than the LD throughout a large portion of the lift. Finally, its origin on the inferior third of the lateral border of the scapula reduces its level of activity when the scapula is not stabilized or when it is downwardly rotated.

The patterns seen for the TLH during the eccentric and concentric portions of the lifts are indicative of its function as an extensor of the humerus and its site of insertion at the infraglenoid tubercle below the inferior lip of the glenoid fossa of the scapula and the olecranon process of the ulna. For both the eccentric and concentric phases of the lifts, the WGA produced the highest levels of electrical activity. For the concentric phase this difference was significantly greater than all other conditions, whereas for the eccentric phase the WGA produced greater activation than the CG and SG but not significantly higher activity than the WGP condition. The WGP condition produced activity similar to that of the SG and CG conditions during the eccentric phase and produced significantly greater activity than these conditions during the concentric phase. The increased activity produced by the 2 wide grip positions may be due to the greater tension placed on the muscle because of its increased length as the humerus is abducted. Because the scapula are drawn further back during the WGP compared with the WGA, this length is somewhat reduced and the extensor function of the TLH is emphasized less. This fact, in conjunction with the lower NrmsEMG values expected during eccentric vs. concentric contractions may have been responsible for the lack of significance seen between the WGA and WGP positions during the eccentric phase of the lift.

For the PM the pattern is similar for both the eccentric and concentric phases. The electrical activity was greatest for the CG condition, followed by the SG, WGA, and WGP conditions. As with the other muscles examined in this study, this pattern was dictated by the muscle's biomechanical function. The PM's major functions are horizontal adduction, internal rotation, adduction, and flexion of the humerus. As can be seen from the firing pattern, the hand position emphasizing greatest horizontal adduction and internal rotation, the CG condition, produced the highest level of electrical activity in this muscle. As the humerus became more abducted (SG < WGA < WGP) the level of activity of the PM was reduced.

The PD has as its major functions, the movement of the arm straight posteriorly, horizontal abduction, and external rotation and works with the anterior and middle fibers to move the arm laterally away from the body. The CG position, which uses both internal rotation and horizontal adduction, developed the highest level of electrical activity in this muscle for all hand positions tested. This higher level of activity could be because the muscle is at its greatest length, and therefore is under its greatest tension, under this condition.

Different handgrip positions change the degree of external/internal rotation abduction/adduction and horizontal abduction/adduction about the glenohumeral joint during the execution of the lat pull-down exercise. This, in turn, affects the relative contributions by the muscles involved in the performance of the pull-down movement. Handgrip positions placing the humerus into greater degrees of horizontal abduction (WGA, WGP) place greater emphasis on the LD and TM, whereas positions which increase the level of horizontal adduction (CG, SG) elicit more NrmsEMG from the PD and PM. Overall the WGA position proved superior at targeting the LD, during both the eccentric and concentric phases of the lifts, than any other hand position.

Practical Applications

Because the primary purpose of the lat pull-down exercise is the development of increased strength during shoulder adduction, it is of great importance to prescribe the handgrip position that elicits the most activity from the muscle primarily involved with this downward movement, namely the LD. The results of this study indicate that the wide grip hand position with the bar pulled anteriorly to the chest (WGA) recruits more motor units, and therefore requires more work from the LD than any of the other conditions tested. Therefore, this handgrip position should be used to provide a greatest amount stimulus and a greater development of the LD than other handgrip positions. This finding may be especially important because it brings into question the necessity to use the WGP position, which has been cited as a condition that increases the potential for injury to both the glenohumeral joint and cervical spine.

But if the purpose for the prescription of the pull-down exercise is to develop overall strength during shoulder adduction, or if the athletic movement being trained for involves adduction with the arm located more anteriorly, then the strength professional should also include handgrip positions which elicit more activity from the PM. The results of this study indicate that the CG hand position recruits more activity from the PM. Therefore, incorporation of pull-down movements with a CG can increase the overall development of strength for shoulder adduction (5, 10).

References
1. Baechle, T.R., R.W. Earle, and W.B. Allerheiligen. Strength training and spotting techniques. In: Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994. pp. 345–400.

2. Basmajian, J.V., and C.J. De Luca. Muscles Alive: Their Functions Revealed by Electromyography. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1985.

3. Berger, R.A. Introduction to Weight Training. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984.

4. Bompa, T.O., and L.J. Cornacchia. Serious Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.

5. Crate, T. Analysis of the lat pulldown. Strength Cond. 19:(3) 26–29. 1997. Find this article on other systems

6. Daniels, L., and C. Worthingham. Muscle Testing: Techniques of Manual Examination. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company, 1972.

7. Hatfield, F.C., and M. Krotee. Personalized Weight Training for Fitness and Athletics: From Theory to Practice. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishers, 1984.

8. Kinzey, S. The lat pulldown. Strength Cond. 20:(2) 76 1998. Find this article on other systems

9. Kraemer, W.J., and P.J. Schmotzer. Kinesiology corner: The lat pull. Nat. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 2:(5) 42–43. 1980. Find this article on other systems

10. Kraemer, W.J., and S.J. Fleck. Strength Training for Young Athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1993.

11. Newton, H. The lat pulldown. Nat. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 20:(2) 76 1998. Find this article on other systems

12. Pierce, K.C. Straight-arm lat pulldown and push-up on balance board. Nat. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 20:(6) 52–53. 1998. Find this article on other systems

13. Seig, K.W., and S.P. Adams. Illustrated Essentials of Musculoskeletal Anatomy. Gainesville: Megabooks, 1985.

14. Signorile, J.F., R. Tuten, C. Moore, and V. Knight. Weight Training Everyone. Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks, 1993.

15. Tesch, P.A. Muscle Meets Magnet. Mansfield: BookMasters, 1993.

16. Thompson, C.W., and R.T. Floyd. Manual of Structural Kinesiology. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994.

17. Walthard, K.M., and M. Tchicaloff. Motor points. In: Electrodiagnosis and Electromyography. S. Licht, ed. Baltiamore: Waverly Press, 1961. pp. 153–170.

18. Weineck, J. Functional Anatomy in Sport. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Yearbook, 1990.

19. Wills, R., J.F. Signorile, A. Perry, L. Tremblay, and K. Kwiatkowski. Differences in EMG activity due to handgrip position during the lat pulldown. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:(5) S. 20 1994. Find this article on other systems

20. Yessis, M. Muscles: Narrow-grip pulldown. Muscle Fitness January:68–69. 1993.

21. Yessis, M. Front lat pull-down. Muscle Fitness March:37–39. 1997.
This one does to some extent.
Variations in muscle activation levels during traditional latissimus dorsi weight training exercises: An experimental study.
Gregory J Lehman,corresponding author1 Day Deans Buchan,2 Angela Lundy,2 Nicole Myers,2 and Andrea Nalborczyk2

Abstract
Background
Exercise beliefs abound regarding variations in strength training techniques on muscle activation levels yet little research has validated these ideas. The purpose of the study is to determine muscle activation level, expressed as a percent of a normalization contraction, of the latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii and middle trapezius/rhomboids muscle groups during a series of different exercise tasks.
Methods
The average muscle activity during four tasks; wide grip pulldown, reverse grip pull down [RGP], seated row with retracted scapula, and seated rows with non-retracted scapulae was quantified during two 10 second isometric portions of the four exercises. A repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test was used to determine the influence of exercise type on muscle activity for each muscle.
Results & Discussion
No exercise type influenced biceps brachii activity. The highest latissimus dorsi to biceps ratio of activation occurred during the wide grip pulldown and the seated row. Highest levels of myoelectric activity in the middle trapezius/rhomboid muscle group occurred during the seated row. Actively retracting the scapula did not influence middle trapezius/rhomboid activity.
Conclusion
Variations in latissimus dorsi exercises are capable of producing small changes in the myoelectric activity of the primary movers.
Keywords: EMG, exercise, back, latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii, rhomboids, trapezius


Background
Working the latissimus dorsi is considered a staple for most weight training programs. Latissimus dorsi exercises are advocated to provide muscle balance to chest and shoulder press exercises. Like many strength training exercises, beliefs persist regarding the influence of exercise variations on muscle recruitment patterns. Anecdotally, two beliefs assert that using a supinated grip during the performance of a pulldown will preferentially activate the biceps brachii over the latissimus dorsi when compared to the traditionally forward grip anterior pulldown. A second belief suggests that performance of the seated row increases activation of the middle trapezius/rhomboids when compared with the lat pulldown. It has also been suggested that the seated row performed with scapulae retraction may alter middle trapezius and rhomboid activity when compared with no scapular retraction. Little research has occurred investigating these claims.
Signoreli et al [1] investigated the influence of grip width and line of pull during the lat pulldown on latissimus dorsi and other muscle group's electromyographic (EMG) activity. The authors found that using a pronated wide grip while pulling anterior to the head resulted in the greatest myoelectric activity of the latissimus dorsi when compared to widegrip pulldowns pulled posterior to the head, pulldowns using a supinated grip and pulldowns using a close grip. This same trend was also found with the triceps muscle. The influence of these exercises on biceps brachii was not investigated.
Scapular retraction is often advocated during the performance of the seated row. It assumed that this position stabilizes the scapula and facilitates optimal shoulder movement. Scapula protraction is thought to tilt the glenoid fossa forward, influencing stability by tilting the glenoid fossa and changing the orientation of the inferior glenohumeral ligament [2,3]. Protraction of the scapula with the addition of the anterior load increases the strain on the inferior glenohumeral ligament [3]. The influence of scapular protraction on muscle activation patterns is unknown. One study [4] has investigated the middle trapezius activity during strength training exercises. The authors found that the one arm row activated the middle trapezius to 79% of its maximum [4] however, the authors did not state whether the subject was encouraged to retract the scapula or allow protraction.
Currently no studies have compared the influence of different shoulder extension/adduction exercises on lattissimus dorsi, biceps brachii and middle trapezius/rhomboid myoelectric activity. This study aims to determine the influence of forearm supination, angle of pull and scapula retraction during common latissimus dorsi exercises on the myoelectric activity of latissimus dorsi, middle trapezius and biceps brachii.


Methods
Subject Characteristics and Inclusion Criteria
Twelve healthy males (average age (standard deviation) 27.09 years(1.23), average height (SD) 179.08 cm(3.75), average weight (SD)78.25 kg (5.23)), with greater than 6 months of weight training experience, with out back pain or upper limb injuries were recruited from a convenience sample of college students. Subjects signed an informed consent form approved by the Internal Review Board of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC).
Study Protocol
The muscle activation level, expressed as a percentage of a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), of the Latissimus dorsi (LD), Biceps Brachii (BB) and middle trapezius/rhomboid muscle (MTR) groups during a series of different exercise tasks was quantified. Four different exercise tasks and three normalization procedures occurred during one test session.
Data Collection Hardware Characteristics
Disposable bipolar Ag-AgCl disc surface electrodes with a diameter of one cm were adhered bilaterally over the muscle groups with a centre to centre spacing of 2.5 cm. For the right biceps brachii electrodes were placed on the middle of the muscle belly when the elbow was flexed at 90 degrees. For the latissimus dorsi, electrodes were placed one cm lateral to the inferior border of the right scapula. A pair of electrodes was adhered superiorly to the skin above the middle trapezius and rhomboid minor between the spine of the scapula and the 2nd thoracic spinous process. Raw EMG was amplified between 1000 and 20,000 times depending on the subject. The amplifier had a CMRR of 10,000:1 (Bortec EMG, Calgary AB, Canada). Raw EMG was band pass filtered (10 and 1000 Hz) and A/D converted at 2000 Hz using a National Instruments data acquisition system and collected using EMG acquisition software (Delsys, Boston MA).
Normalization task procedure
Three different maximal voluntary contractions for the three muscle groups studied were collected for each subject. Subjects performed 1–2 practice MVCs before the collection of EMG. For the latissimus dorsi, subjects were required to perform a 3 second maximal isometric Lat pull down against an immovable resistance. For the biceps brachii subjects were required to perform a maximum isometric bicep curl (i.e. attempted elbow flexion) against an immoveable object with the arm at 90 degrees of flexion. The maximum voluntary contraction to recruit the MiddleTrapezius/Rhomboid muscle required the participants to perform a maximum isometric scapular retraction against experimenter provided manual resistance. The muscle activity during the exercise tasks was then subsequently expressed as a percentage of the peak activity found during the previously described normalization tasks.
Exercise tasks
During all exercises subjects used the same weight on a standard lat pulldown and seated row pulley machine. This weight was chosen by the subject based on their perceived ability to perform between 10 and 12 reps until failure for the pronated grip lat pulldown. For each exercise, two repetitions of a ten second isometric contraction were performed. Following each repetition, a three minute rest occurred. The two repetition protocol was then repeated for each exercise. The exercises performed were:
1. Wide grip pull down (WGP): From a seated position with the thighs restricted, subjects used an overhand grip on a straight pull down bar at 150% of the bi acromial distance (BAD). The weight was pulled into an isometric position with the arms at 90 degrees of shoulder flexion and elbow flexion. (Essentially a bar position which finds the bar 1–2 inches above eye level). Subjects held this position for 10 seconds.
2. Reverse grip pull down (RGP): From a seated position with thighs fixed subjects used an underhand grip on a straight bar at 100% BAD. The isometric contraction was held at a position with 90 degrees of shoulder forward flexion and 90 degrees of elbow flexion (Essentially a bar position which finds the bar 1–2 inches above eye level)
3. Seated row, shoulders retracted (SRR): Subjects started from a seated position, arms extended with forearms at a mid pronated position 6 inches apart. The participants pulled the weight to a position where the shoulder was at 0 degrees of flexion and 90 degrees of elbow flexion with maximal scapular retraction. During the isometric portion of the exercise, the subject was asked to approximate the shoulder blades (Retraction).
4. Seated Row, shoulders slack (SRR): Subjects performed the same movement as exercise #3 however the subject was instructed to allow the scapula to roll forward during the isometric hold portion of the exercise.
During all of these exercises the isometric portion (the portion that was analysed) was preceded by a concentric contraction that positioned the subjects arm and then followed by an eccentric contraction where the participant lowered the weight to the stack.
EMG Processing and data analysis
The root mean square (sliding window of 128 ms with an overlap of 64 ms) of the raw EMG during each exercise task and the normalization tasks was calculated using an EMG analysis software package (Delsys, Boston USA). The average activity was then calculated for the middle two seconds of the isometric portion of each exercise and repetition. The average of the two repetitions for each exercise was then calculated for each subject and presented as a percentage of the maximum activity found during the normalization tasks.
Statistical Analysis
Separate repeated-measures ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey tests were then used to determine the influence of exercise type on muscle activity within the latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii and middle trapezius/rhomboids.


Results
Table 1 shows the average activity found for each muscle for the four different exercise tasks. The latissimus dorsi musle activity was higher during the seated row with a protracted scapulae than the activity found during a wide grip pulldown and a reverse grip pulldown. The level of protraction/retraction did not influence latissimus dorsi activity during the seated row exercise. The level of forearm supination had no influence on latissimus dorsi activity during the pulldown exercise. Biceps brachii muscle activity was the same across exercises.
Table 1 Table 1
Average myoelectric activity (expressed as %MVC) for each muscle studied across 4 different shoulder extension exercises.
During the seated row the act of retracting the scapula did not influence middle trapezius/rhomboid muscle activity. However, performing the seated row with the scapula not retracted resulted in an increased myoelectric activity when compared with the reverse grip pulldown. A trend also existed for increased activity in the middle trapezius/rhomboids during the seated row with retraction although this was not statistically significant.
Significant differences were found when comparing the ratio between Latissimus Dorsi activity and Biceps Brachii activity across exercises. This ratio is the average ratio for each subject not the ratio of the group average. The wide grip lat pulldown had a siginificantly higher ratio than the reverse grip lat pulldown, as did the seated row with protracted scapula. A large variability was seen across subjects.


Discussion
The belief that a wide grip during the lat pulldown preferentially recruits the latissimus dorsi over the biceps brachii does not appear to be supported. Conversely, a supinated grip does not appear to preferentially activate the biceps. However, there was a statistically significant change in the latissimus dorsi: biceps brachii ratio between the two pulldown exercises. The statistically significant change in the latissimus dorsi to biceps ratio occurred because of the slight non-statistically significant decrease in latissimus dorsi activity when changing from the wide grip to the reverse grip position of the lat pulldown being coupled with the slight non-statistically significant increase in biceps activity when changing from the wide grip to the reverse grip lat pulldown exercise. These results suggest that slight changes occur when changing grip position but these changes are small and may have no weight training significance. To state, as many clinicians and personal trainers do, that the wide grip pulldown preferentially trains the back and the close grip supinated pulldown preferentially trains the biceps is unsupported. While not investigated in this study, differences in strength between the exercises may be due to the different mechanical advantages/disadvantages of one exercise or possibly to differences in the recruitment levels of the forearm flexors which may be most affected by grip position. Additionally, it appeared that the seated row slightly increased Latissimus Dorsi activity without decreasing Biceps Brachii activity as seen by no difference in the Latissimus Dorsi:Biceps Brachii ratio when compared with the wide grip lat pulldown. A related limitation to this study is that only one portion of the latissimus dorsi was studied. Previous research has demonstrated that functional differentiation within the latissimus dorsi exists [5]. However, this study investigated different exercises, it is possible that the muscle activation of the Latissimus Dorsi in our current study merely shifted to another portion of the muscle group when moving from the wide grip lat pulldown to the reverse grip or seated row. This deserves further study.
A second aim of the study was to determine the influence of scapula retraction during the seated row on Middle Trapezius/Rhomboids activity. While the seated row exercise did recruit the Middle Trapezius/Rhomboid to a greater extent than either lat pulldown exercises, actively retracting the scapula did not result in an increase activity of the Middle Trapezius/Rhomboids. This suggests that the Middle Trapezius/Rhomboids is active regardless of the position of the scapulae or another muscle functions to cause scapula retraction. It is possible that deep fibres of the rhomboid may become more active during the scapula retraction and this increased activity was not picked up by the electrodes or the lower trapezius may function to cause scapula retraction. The lower trapezius has been shown to be recruited to 74% MVC during shoulder horizontal extension [4].
A limitation of the study is related to the different amount of weight lifted by each subject. Participants were asked to choose a weight where they would experience muscle failure between 10–12 repetitions. Ten to twelve repetitions was chosen because this represents what is commonly done during many strength training programs. However, at this repetition level, the participant's muscle activity was often less than 30–40 % of the MVC. The moderately low level of muscle activity (30–40% MVC) during this repetition level suggests that large fast twitch fibres (Type II) may not be recruited during this exertion level, especially if fatigue and the associated Type II fibre recruitment is not achieved. Having participants choose their weight for repetitions suggest they may be cautious and underestimate their capabilities. This may carry over to strength training individuals who may underestimate their strength and lift loads at a less than optimum level for recruiting large muscle fibres.
Additionally, it is unknown whether the changes in muscle activation ratios between the latissimus dorsi and biceps brachii occurs at higher levels of muscle activation. Recruitment may be different near maximum exertion levels. It is possible that one muscle may achieve fatigue and maximum activation while the other does not achieve fatigue and is not maximally stressed. It is unknown whether it is the biceps or latissimus dorsi that is the limiting factor during the performance of the lat pulldown or seated row.

Conclusion
The wide grip lat pulldown demonstrated a small but non-significant increase in the activity of the latissimus dorsi compared with the supinated grip pulldown. This same small increase is seen in biceps muscle when using a supinated grip versus the wide grip during the lat pulldown. Due to the small changes in muscle activity there appears to be very little difference in muscle activity between the wide grip lat pulldown and the supinated grip lat pulldown for the biceps and latissimus dorsi muscles.
Additionally, the seated row while recruiting the latissimus dorsi and biceps brachii more or equally effectively as the lat pulldown also recruits the middle trapezius/rhomboid muscle group to a greater extent. Actively retracting the scapula does not appear to increase activation levels of the middle trapezius/rhomboid muscle group. However, from previous research this position does appear to provide superior shoulder stability.


References

*
Signorile JF, Attila ZJ, Szed SP. A Comparative Electromyographical Investigation of Muscle Utilization Patterns Using Various Hand Positions During the Lat Pull-down. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2002;16:539–546. doi: 10.1519/1533-4287(2002)016<0539:ACEIOM>2.0.CO;2. [PubMed]
*
Itoi E, Motzkin NE, Morrey BF. Scapular inclination and inferior stability of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992;1:131–139.
*
William M, Weiser MD, Thay Q Lee, William C, McMaster MD, Patrick J, McMahon MD. Effects of Simulated Scapular Protraction on Anterior Glenohumeral Stability. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1999;27:801–805. [PubMed]
*
Ekstrom RA, Donatelli RA, Soderberg GL. Surface electromyographic analysis of exercises for the trapezius and serratus anterior muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33:247–258. [PubMed]
*
Paton ME, Brown JM. Functional differentiation within latissimus dorsi. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;35:301–309. [PubMed]
This one is a biomechanical analysis link that is quite substantial:
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0000772/pugh_g.pdf

So as you see all the muscles are involved, especially the lats. But look at this:

The width is coming not from the lats but the teres major and the infraspinatus, the lats are much lower in the back and account for as much in the "thickness" as any thing.

So what hits them? Well the teres major wasn't really influenced by width or grip type. Lats are influenced slightly by a pronated grip (regardless of width). But you can't forget the other muscles and the fact that they are recruited slightly differently. Best to just use a comfortable pronated or supinated grip. Width doesn't really matter.

I'd recommend a suppinated grip of roughly shoulder width and pronated grip of between shoulder width and 2x shoulder width (as measured at the acromoniam process).

And no nudes for you Pickle!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Freako

El Freako

LIFT OR DIE
VIP
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,142
Points
38
stoned_20cat-1.jpg
 
philosopher

philosopher

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
3,002
Points
38
So extra wide or shoulder wide doesnt make much difference. In that case I would choose shoulder wide because your way stronger using that grip.
 
El Freako

El Freako

LIFT OR DIE
VIP
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,142
Points
38
But would it be beneficial to choose a wider grip because it makes it harder? Say if you can rip out 20 with a closer grip, so you go wider because you can only do 10.
 
philosopher

philosopher

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
3,002
Points
38
But would it be beneficial to choose a wider grip because it makes it harder? Say if you can rip out 20 with a closer grip, so you go wider because you can only do 10.

From what Tim posted it doesnt matter, at least not as much as I tought it would be. In the end I think it doesnt really matter how you place your hands as long as you try to maintain a descent ROM and use the principle of overload.
 
El Freako

El Freako

LIFT OR DIE
VIP
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,142
Points
38
So technically using a wider grip might be 'overload'?
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
A

Achilles

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
765
Points
18
Wow thanks for the awser Tim!
 
El Freako

El Freako

LIFT OR DIE
VIP
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,142
Points
38
Why not just hang a plate from your waist?

That's an obvious option but not what I was talking about. I'm wondering whether, if in the case that you can't add weight, doing wide-grip would be a viable option to make it harder. All the same muscles are used but you're at a mechanical disadvantage. It seems like there would be less bicep input.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
So technically using a wider grip might be 'overload'?

It would be overload to the teres major due to less potential action of the other muscles. But TM is only small.

This is why it is about a comfotable grip. Too wide and it starts to bother the shoulders, too narrow and you cause shear stress on the wrists and elbows.
 

Similar threads

Alexandoy
Replies
8
Views
2K
to7update
to7update
El Freako
Replies
0
Views
5K
El Freako
El Freako
robert.gaskins4
Replies
0
Views
2K
robert.gaskins4
robert.gaskins4
Arcane1129
Replies
29
Views
8K
DriDDeRz
D
Top