GRIP WIDTH AND FOREARM ORIENTATION EFFECTS

ON MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING THE LAT PULL-DOWN

STEPHEN J. LUSK, BRUCE D. HALE, AND DANIEL M. RUSSELL
Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University—Berks, Reading, Pennsylvania

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

D
Lusk, SJ, Hale, BD, and Russell, DM. Grip width and forearm uring a lat pull-down (LPD), the humerus is
orientation effects on muscle activity during the lat pull-down. adducted under load via a pulley system. This
J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 1895–1900, 2010—Based on exercise is commonly employed in an effort
electromyographic (EMG) studies, an anterior (in front of the to strengthen the latissimus dorsi (LD) muscle,
hence its name, and is also expected to activate the
face) wide grip with a pronated forearm has been recom-
rhomboids, middle trapezius (MT), and biceps brachii (BB)
mended as the optimal lat pull-down (LPD) variation for
muscles. There are several different variations of body
strengthening the latissimus dorsi (LD) (Signorile, JF, Zink, A,
position, grip width, and forearm orientation that can be
and Szwed, S. J Strength Cond Res 16: 539–546, 2002; employed. The bar can be pulled down in front of the face
Wills, R, Signorile, J, Perry, A, Tremblay, L, and Kwiatkowski, K. (anterior LPD) or behind the head (posterior LPD), the hands
Med Sci Sports Exerc 26: S20, 1994). However, it is not clear can be narrowly or widely spaced, and the radioulnar joint
whether this finding was because of grip width or forearm can be pronated or supinated. Yet research to determine the
orientation. This study aimed to resolve this issue by comparing optimal variation of the LPD for particular muscle
wide-pronated, wide-supinated, narrow-pronated, and narrow- development is limited. Currently, much of the literature on
supinated grips of an anterior LPD. Twelve healthy men the strength-building capacity of this exercise is based on
performed the 4 grip variations using an experimentally personal beliefs and experiences (3,4,16), although a few
determined load of 70% of 1 repetition maximum. Two trials investigations have used electromyography (EMG) to
quantify the amount of activity in different muscles during
of 5 repetitions were analyzed for each grip type. Participants
different types of LPDs (10,12,14,15). These studies have
maintained a cadence of 2-second concentric and 2-second
provided several scientifically based weight training recom-
eccentric phases. The grip widths were normalized for each
mendations, but questions remain about the most effective
individual by using a wide grip that corresponded to their combination of grip width and forearm orientation.
carrying width and a narrow grip that matched their biacromial Research has led to the general consensus that the anterior
diameter. Surface EMG of the LD, middle trapezius (MT), and LPD is preferred to the posterior LPD. Most studies
biceps brachii (BB) was recorded, and the root mean square of comparing the activity of the LD under both conditions
the EMG was normalized, using a maximum isometric voluntary have found that the anterior LPD elicits greater muscle
contraction. Repeated-measures analysis of variance for each activation (by EMG) than the posterior LPD (11,12,14). Only
muscle revealed that a pronated grip elicited greater LD activity 1 study failed to observe any significant difference in muscle
than a supinated grip (p , 0.05), but had no influence of grip activity between anterior and posterior LPDs (15). There
type on the MT and BB muscles. Based on these findings, an have also been safety concerns that pulling down the bar
behind the head puts the arm into horizontal abduction with
anterior LPD with pronated grip is recommended for maximally
excessive external rotation, placing unnecessary stress on the
activating the LD, irrespective of the grip width (carrying width
anterior shoulder (4,9,16). Functionally, it would also appear
or biacromial diameter).
that the anterior LPD more closely mimics activities of daily
KEY WORDS EMG, latissimus dorsi, pronation, supination living than the posterior LPD. Because of these past results
and safety concerns, the current research investigation
focused only on variations of the anterior LPD.
A wide grip front pull (anterior) has been proposed as the
most effective LPD variation for the developing the LD (12).
Address correspondence to Dr. Bruce Hale, bdh1@[Link]. This claim is based solely on 2 EMG studies comparing a wide
24(7)/1895–1900 grip-pronated forearm position (wide-pronated [WP]) with
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research a narrow grip–supinated forearm position (narrow supinated
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association [NS]), which have found significantly greater LD activation

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1895

Lat Pulldown Grip Variations

with WP than NS (12,15). However, 1 EMG study failed to from the fist to the seventh cervical vertebrae (12). In an effort
observe any significant difference in LD activity between WP to use an anthropometric measure that relates to a wide-grip
and NS conditions (10). These contradictory results may be LPD, we employed Ôcarrying width.Õ This is the distance
explained by 2 major differences in experimental design. between the hands (left to right fifth metacarpophalangeal
Firstly, EMG was recorded during an isometric contraction joint) when standing in the anatomical reference position.
(10) in contrast to EMG of concentric and eccentric phases of A standard LPD bar was used for all grips. To standardize the
the LPD (12,15). Recording EMG during isotonic muscle weight across conditions, 70% of 1RM was determined from
actions provides a better assessment of the amount of muscle participants performing a test of 1RM according to ACSM
activity during a typical LPD exercise. Secondly, participants guidelines (1) at least 48 hours before testing. Because
selected their own workload (10), with most performing at a previous study (12) found no significant difference for
about 30–40% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereas the 10RM between WP and NS grips (,1 kg), we used a single
workload was experimentally controlled in the other 2 studies 1RM test. Although the LPD is primarily used to develop the
at 10RM (12) and 70% of maximum voluntary contraction LD, it is also performed to train the MT and BB (9,10,14).
(MVC) (15). It is more valid to assess muscle activity at a level Therefore, EMG signals were recorded from the LD,
close to typical training workloads (e.g., 70% of 1RM as per MT, and BB muscles. In accordance with previous research,
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines the root mean square of each EMG signal (rmsEMG) was
[1] for strength training), rather than 30–40% of 1RM. employed to quantify the average muscle activity (10,12,15).
These criticisms suggest that the observation of greater LD The rmsEMG for each participant and condition was then
activity for the WP than the NS grip (12,15) is a more normalized to the rmsEMG of an isometric MVC. The
valid and reliable finding for providing isotonic exercise normalized rmsEMG was then compared across conditions
recommendations. by using a 2 3 2 (width 3 orientation) repeated-measures
However, the recommendation that a wide grip is preferred analysis of variance (ANOVA) separately for each muscle.
over a narrow grip (12,13) cannot be directly drawn from This experimental design permits an empirical test of which
the finding of an advantage of WP over NS. In addition combination of grip width and forearm orientation elicits the
to varying the grip width between conditions (7), the forearm most activity in the LD, MT, and BB.
orientation (pronation vs. supination) was altered too.
Subjects
Therefore, the benefit of WP over NS on LD activation could
Participants were 12 men aged 19–30 with an average age =
arise from grip width, forearm orientation, or some combi-
22.7 6 3.1 years. The participants’ average mass was 85.86 6
nation of the 2. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to
11.94 kg, and their average height was 1.82 6 0.10 m. The
resolve this dilemma by comparing all 4 possible combinations
average biacromial diameter for all participants was 0.40 6
of grip width and forearm orientation in a fully balanced
0.03 m, and the average carrying width was 0.76 6 0.06 m.
design: WP, wide supinated (WS), narrow pronated (NP), and
The average 1RM for all participants was 99.46 6 19.58 kg.
NS. These combinations have not been previously tested, we
Participants were all free of known musculoskeletal problems
only hypothesize that WP will activate LD more than NS.
of the upper body. This study only examined participants who
This study will also assess MT and BB, because these muscles
were previously familiar with the LPD lift and currently lifted
are also believed to be trained during an LPD (9,10,14).
weights on a regular basis but were not competitive
METHODS bodybuilders, weightlifters, or powerlifters. All subjects were
tested during the 2008 fall semester at the Berks Campus
Experimental Approach to the Problem
of Pennsylvania State University. The Institutional Review
Although the anterior WP grip has been recommended as the
Board for the use of human subjects of the Pennsylvania State
most effective and safest type of LPD (12), it is not clear
University granted permission for this study. Participants
whether this is because of the particular grip width or
signed an informed consent after being informed of the
forearm orientation used, as previous studies have
experimental risks of the study and before any data collection.
confounded these variables. The current study employed
a balanced design to compare grip width (wide vs. narrow), Equipment
forearm orientation (pronated vs. supinated), and any Participants used a standard lat bar on the LPD station of
interaction, by testing WP, WS, NP, and NS anterior grips. a 4-Stack Multi-Jungle weight machine (Model SM40; Life
The sequence of these conditions was randomized in an Fitness, Schiller Park, IL, USA). An auditory quartz
effort to negate any possible effects of practice or fatigue. metronome (Model XB700; Franz Mfg. Co. Inc., East Haven,
To normalize grip width for different sized individuals, we CT, USA) was used to provide a consistent cadence
standardized the grip width based on anthropometric throughout the study. Disposable Ag–AgCl pregelled snap
measures. As with previous research, the biacromial diameter electrodes (EL501; BIOPAC Systems, Inc., Goleta, CA) were
was used as the narrow grip width (10,12). There is no placed in pairs over the skin, and parallel to the fibers, of the
standard width for a wide grip. One study employed 150% of LD, MT, and BB muscles. The LD electrodes were positioned
biacromial diameter (10), whereas another used the distance obliquely (25° above the horizontal) and 0.04 m below the
the TM

1896 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | [Link]

inferior angle of the scapula (6). The MT electrodes were prescribed. After ensuring that participants were comfortable
placed 0.03 m lateral to the second spinous process of the performing the LPD as directed, a 1RM test was performed
thoracic spine with the electrodes placed parallel to muscle according to ACSM guidelines (1). The grip width for the
fibers (5). The second thoracic vertebra was located by 1RM was standardized with all participants placing the
palpating for the seventh cervical vertebrae and counting the second phalanx on each hand at the bend in the bar with
spinous processes in a descending fashion until the second a pronated grip.
thoracic vertebrae was located and marked. If differentiating The EMG testing session took place at least 48 hours after
the seventh cervical vertebrea was problematic, the partic- initial testing, and the participants were instructed not to
ipant was instructed to bend the head forward to differentiate exercise until final testing was completed. The EMG
the most prominent cervical vertebrea from the first thoracic equipment was set up and zeroed before being connected
vertebra (13). The BB electrodes were placed one-third the to the electrodes that were placed on each participant. The
distance from the cubital fossa to the acromion process (17). participants performed the 4 conditions (WP, WS, NP,
Ground electrodes were placed on the acromion process and NS) in a random order, using 70% of 1RM load. The
(1 electrode) and the spine of the scapula (2 electrodes). cadence of 2-second concentric and 2-second eccentric
The skin sites were initially prepared by shaving the hair phases was prescribed by an auditory beep and visual flash of
and abrading the skin, before cleaning with an alcohol swab. a metronome. Participants performed 2 trials of 5 repetitions
The distance between the electrode centers was standardized for each condition before moving onto the next, with a
at 0.0375 m. Three shielded lead sets (SS2; BIOPAC Systems 2-minute rest between each trial and condition.
Inc.) connected the electrodes to a 4-channel remote moni- The participants were again instructed visually and verbally
toring system (TEL100M-C; BIOPAC Systems Inc), which how to perform an LPD. The thigh restraint pads were
has an impedance of 2 MV and a common mode rejection adjusted so the thigh and leg formed a 90° angle with the feet
ratio of 110 dB. All of the leads were taped in place with a loop flat on the floor (8). The participants were instructed to be
on the skin and further secured with an elastic bandage slightly extended at the hips to prevent any collisions with
around the participant’s torso and upper arm to reduce the bar and head and to pull the lat bar down in a straight
interference and were examined for stability during a simu- vertical plane from a slightly flexed position to the
lated pull-down. The remote monitoring system was con- participant’s chin in a slow and controlled manner (9). The
nected to a data acquisition and analysis system (MP100; lat bar was lowered for them, and they remained seated for
BIOPAC Systems Inc.). The experimenters controlled data the entire testing session. Participants started with the elbows
acquisition and postprocessing via AcqKnowledge software slightly flexed and the bar pulled down to the chin for
(version 3.7.3 for Windows; BIOPAC Systems Inc.) running all conditions. Although this meant the amplitude of the
on a microcomputer. Data were collected at a sampling rate of movements was not identical across conditions, it ensured
500 Hz, and the raw EMG signals were amplified by a gain the lifts were functionally equivalent. The movement was
set at 1,000. initiated with scapular depression and retraction, which was
held throughout the length of the repetitions until the bar
Procedures reached the resting position (4,9). The participants were then
During the initial visit, the following anthropometric instructed to begin performing the lifts. The participants were
measurements were taken: height, weight, biacromial di- told not to pause at each metronome beep, but slowly transi-
ameter, and carrying width. Biacromial diameter was tion between the lifting and lowering phases, and requested
measured from the lateral aspect of the left to the right to inspire on the eccentric, and expire on the concentric
acromion processes using anthropometric tape. Carrying muscle actions. With participants performing the LPD
width was measured by asking the participants to stand with correctly and at the right tempo, 5 repetitions were recorded,
the palm of their hands facing the sides of their legs. Then the making up a 20-second trial. If a participant failed to perform
participants were asked to supinate their radioulnar joints correctly, the trial was repeated after a 2-minute rest.
so that the palms faced forward, whereas the humeri were After testing all conditions, participants performed an
maintained beside the body (similar to the anatomical isometric maximum exertion. The isometric exercise was an
reference position). From this position, the carrying width LPD with the shoulders abducted p/2 rad and both elbows
was measured from the left fifth metacarpophalangeal joint flexed p/2 rad. Participants placed the second phalanx on
to the right fifth metacarpophalangeal joint, using anthropo- each hand at the bend in the bar, with a pronated grip, as
metric tape. The carrying width was used as the wide done for the 1RM test.
grip (W), whereas the biacromial diameter was used as the
narrow grip (N) in this study. Electromyographic Analyses
After recording the anthropometric measures, the exercise For each trial and muscle, the raw EMG signal was amplified
protocol was described. Although participants were familiar by a gain of 1,000 and filtered using a 10-Hz high pass filter
with an LPD exercise, the specific technique, inhalation and (PE). The filtered EMG signal was then smoothed and
exhalation rhythm for lifting, and metronome pacing were rectified by calculating the root mean square (rmsEMG) for

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1897

Lat Pulldown Grip Variations

procedures were performed

using SPSS statistical software
version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chica-
go, IL, USA), and the alpha
level was selected as p # 0.05.
Intraclass correlation coeffi-
cients (ICCs) were computed
for NrmsEMG of each muscle
separately. All 3 dependent
variables indicated strong con-
sistency (ICC 0.87, 0.85, and
0.76 for LD, MT, and BB
muscles, respectively).

RESULTS
No significant difference was
found for LD activity between
the wide and narrow grips (p =
0.711, power = 0.064). In con-
trast, there was a significant
Figure 1. Mean (n = 12) normalized root mean square electromyography (NrmsEMG) for the latissimus dorsi (LD)
main effect for forearm orien-
during different grip widths (wide and narrow) and forearm orientations (pronated and supinated). The brackets A tation on NrmsEMG of the LD
and B indicate a significant main effect of grip orientation (*p , 0.05), revealing that pronated grips produced (p = 0.012, power = 0.776). The
greater LD activation than supinated grips, irrespective of grip width.
LD demonstrated greater acti-
vation during a pronated hand
grip (M = 0.67) than a supinated
hand grip (M = 0.63) (see
Figure 1 and Table 1). The
TABLE 1. Mean and SDs (n = 12) of NrmsEMG for LD, MT, and BB during WP, WS, interaction of grip width and
NP, and NS.*
hand orientation had no signif-
WP WS NP NS icant effect on LD activation
(p = 0.185, power = 0.253). The
LD 0.671† 6 0.142 0.617† 6 0.130 0.664† 6 0.154 0.640† 6 0.154 statistical analyzes of the
MT 0.578 6 0.204 0.553 6 0.211 0.537 6 0.168 0.543 6 0.171
BB 0.377 6 0.098 0.424 6 0.115 0.427 6 0.151 0.434 6 0.147 NrmsEMG of MT and BB
muscles revealed no significant
*NrmsEMG = normalized root mean square electromyography; LD = latissimus dorsi; MT = main effects or interactions (see
middle trapezius; BB = biceps brachii; WP = wide-pronated grip; WS = wide-supinated grip,
NP = narrow-pronated grip; NS = narrow-supinated grip. Table 1).
†Pronated grips produced greater activation than supinated grips (p , 0.05).
DISCUSSION
In agreement with previous
literature, a WP grip LPD
a 30-data sample moving window (0.06 seconds). The average elicited greater LD muscle activity than an NS grip LPD
rmsEMG was then computed for the 2 20-second trials under (12,15). However, our findings indicated this was because of
each condition. The raw EMG signal for each muscle during using a pronated forearm orientation, not a wide grip width
the maximal isometric contraction was processed in the same as proposed by others (12,15). Previous studies based their
way as above, except that an average was computed for only 1 conclusions by comparing WP with NS, so that the results
second of maximal activity to avoid effects of fatigue. To obtained could have been because of grip width, forearm
normalize the data (normalized root mean square of each orientation or a combination of the 2. To avoid this concern,
EMG signal [NrmsEMG]), the average rmsEMG for each we employed a fully balanced design to compare WP, WS,
condition was divided by the average rmsEMG for the NP, and NS conditions. In contrast with prior recommen-
maximal isometric contraction. dations, grip width did not significantly influence the LD, and
Statistical Analyses neither was an interaction of grip width and orientation
Normalized root mean square of each EMG signal was observed. The only significant finding indicated that the LD
analyzed separately for each muscle by 32 3 2 (Width 3 was more active under a pronated grip than a supinated grip.
Orientation) repeated-measures ANOVAs. All statistical Hence, our results for identical conditions match previous
the TM

1898 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | [Link]

studies of an isotonic LPD (12,15). The only findings they pull-up is similar to the LPD, we propose that a pronated
contradict are those for an isometric LPD, which found no LPD grip creates a larger joint moment at the shoulder than
differences in the LD between WP and NS grips (10). a supinated grip, which in turn requires greater LD activity to
It would seem that results from an EMG analysis of isometric lift the same load.
muscle actions are not necessarily applicable to an isotonic
exercise. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The different types of grip failed to significantly influence
With the main goal of an LPD being to develop the LD
the EMG data for the MT and BB muscles. These findings
muscles, it is important to know which variation best activates
agree with an earlier study that compared WP with NS and
this muscle. The findings from this study indicate that
failed to observe any significant difference in muscle
a pronated grip is optimal for training the LD in an anterior
activation (10), but as noted above, those findings were
LPD. Contrary to the claim that a wide grip is best (12,15), the
based on an isometric LPD. It might have been predicted that
findings here show that there is no difference between
with a supinated grip the BB has a more efficacious angle of
narrow and wide grip widths with a pronated grip
pull, but there is no training advantage for the BB between
orientation. Prior research has identified safety concerns
the different types of grip tested.
and reduced LD muscle activity for a posterior LPD (12).
It is also useful to look at the amount of NrmsEMG for each
Taking these results together, we conclude that an anterior
muscle, which indicates the proportion of maximum activity
LPD with a pronated grip is recommended for safely and
and therefore provides an estimate of the relative activity of
optimally training the LD, irrespective of the grip width
each muscle. On average, the LD was activated at 65% of an
(either carrying width or biacromial diameter). Although the
isometric MVC, whereas the MT and BB were activated at
MT and BB were active at similar levels for the different grip
55 and 42%, respectively. Because the LPD was performed
types of LPD, other exercises are likely to better train these
using a load of 70% 1RM, these results would indicate that the
muscles.
LD was being activated at appropriate training levels. In
contrast, it would seem that both the MT and BB were
activated at lower levels. This suggests that all 4 grip types ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
primarily activated the LD, and to a lesser extent the MT and This study was funded by a Division of Science Undergrad-
BB. Therefore, an LPD is best employed to strengthen the LD uate Research Grant, The Pennsylvania State University
and is not an optimal exercise for developing the MT or Berks, Reading, PA.
BB muscles.
We hypothesize that the LD is more active during REFERENCES
a pronated grip vs. a supinated grip because of a greater joint 1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise
moment at the shoulder. Previous research has suggested that Testing and Prescription. (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott,
a WP grip involves greater abduction and horizontal Williams, & Wilkins, 2006.
abduction than an NS grip, which in turn leads to more 2. Antinori, F, Felici, F, Figura, F, Marchetti, M, and Ricci, B.
Joint moments and work in pull-ups. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
LD activity (12). However, the finding here that grip width 28: 132–137, 1988.
had no significant effect on the electrical activity of the
3. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. Essentials of Strength Training and
muscles contradicts this proposal. With the LD being less Conditioning Resistance Training. (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
active during a supinated grip, it might be expected that other Kinetics, 2000.
muscles would compensate by being more active. Surpris- 4. Crate, T. Analysis of the lat pull down. J Strength Cond Res
ingly, both MT and BB were active at similar levels for all 19: 26–29, 1996.
4 grips. Also, in another EMG study, which compared WP 5. Ekstrom, RA, Soderberg, GL, and Donatelli, RA. Normalization
procedures using maximum voluntary isometric contractions for the
and NS grips, none of the muscles (pectoralis major, posterior serratus anterior and the trapezius muscles during surface EMG
deltoid, triceps brachii, and teres major) assessed were more analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 15: 418–428, 2004.
active during an NS grip. These findings suggest that 6. Escamilla, RF, Babb, E, Dewitt, R, Jew, P, Kelleher, P, Burnham, T,
a pronated grip places the shoulder at a mechanical Busch, J, D’Anna, K, Mowbray, R, and Imamura, RT. Electromyo-
graphic analysis of traditional and nontraditional abdominal
disadvantage that requires greater LD activity but does not exercises: Implications for rehabilitation and training. Phys Ther
affect the MT or BB muscles. A biomechanical analysis of 85: 656–671, 2006.
joint moments during a pull-up (2) provides an explanation 7. Funk, DA, An, KN, Morrey, BF, and Daube, JR. Electromyographic
for our results. The analysis revealed that using a pronated analysis of muscles across elbow joint. J Orthop Res 5: 529–538, 1987.
grip leads to a larger overall perpendicular distance between 8. Graham, JF. Front lat pulldown. Strength Cond J 25: 42–43, 2003.
the shoulder joint and pull-up bar than a supinated grip, 9. Lantz, J and McNamara, S. Modifying the latissimus pull-down exercise
causing a greater joint moment at the shoulder. In addition, for athletes with shoulder injury. Strength Cond J 25: 67–69, 2003.
the wrist and elbow joints, and shoulder girdle were not 10. Lehman, GJ, Buchan, DD, Lundy, A, Myers, N, and Nalborczyk, A.
Variations in muscle activation levels during traditional latissimus
found to be significantly involved during the pull-up, nor dorsi weight training exercises: An experimental study. Dyn Med
were they influenced by the forearm orientation. Because the 3: 4, 2004.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1899

Lat Pulldown Grip Variations

11. Pugh, GM. A biomechanical comparison on the front and rear lat pull- brachii, latissimus dorsi, and trapezius muscles during five pull
down exercise. Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 2003. exercises. Jpn J Phys Fitness Sports Med 54: 159–168, 2005.
12. Signorile, JF, Zink, A, and Szwed, S. A comparative electromyo- 15. Wills, R, Signorile, J, Perry, A, Tremblay, L, and Kwiatkowski, K.
graphical invesigation of muscle utilization patterns using various hand Differences in EMG activity due to handgrip position during the lat
positions during the lat pull down. J Strength Cond Res pulldown. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26: S20, 1994.
16: 539–546, 2002. 16. Yessis, M. Front lat pull-down. Muscle Fitness March: 37–39,
13. Smith, LK, Weiss, EL, and Lehmkuhl, LD. Brunnstrom’s Clinical 1997.
Kinesiology. (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis, 1996. 17. Zipp, P. Recommendations for the standardization of lead positions
14. Tooru, H, Hiroto, K, Shin, H, Jun’ichi, O, and Kiyotada, K. in surface electromyography. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
Comparative electromyographical investigation of the biceps 26: 41–54, 1982.

the TM

1900 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research