Content uploaded by Ronei S Pinto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronei S Pinto on May 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
714 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS July-August 2015
ed to move the humerus in relation to the scapula.
The anterior portion is a prime motor during exion
and horizontal adduction of the shoulder, while the
middle portion acts during abduction and horizon-
tal abduction and the posterior portion is recruited
during horizontal abduction.1, 2 Apart from hu-
merus motion, the deltoid resists to lower pulling
forces applied to the upper limb, improving joint
stability.3-5
An individual analysis of each portion of the del-
toid indicated that the anterior deltoid has the greatest
potential to joint destabilization.3 Traditional exer-
cises of strength training (e.g. bench press) have em-
phasis on the anterior deltoid by the predominance
of horizontal adduction movement of the shoulder,
which could provide a muscular imbalance between
individual portions of the deltoid and increase joint
instability. Therefore, strength training for the mid-
dle and posterior deltoid muscle could enhance its
role in gaining shoulder stabilization.
Strength training exercises have been assessed to
compare the use of single and multijoint exercises
and their effects in muscle recruitment.6-11 Informa-
tion gathered from these studies provided evidence
for improving strength training prescription and op-
timization of training programs.12, 13 The option for
multijoint exercises has been suggested for begin-
Aim. Although comparison between multi and single joint ex-
ercises has been conducted, there is insufcient evidence that
these exercises could lead to different muscle activations. The
aim of this study was to compare deltoid muscle activation
during multi and single joint exercises.
Methods. Twelve male participants (23.4±1.6 years) with at least
one year of strength training experience were assessed perform-
ing inclined lat pull-down, reverse peck deck and seated row ex-
ercises. Surface electromyography was used to measure activa-
tion of anterior, middle and posterior portions of deltoid muscle
during each exercise. Deltoid activation was recorded during
maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and during
dynamic isoinertial exercises of ten maximum repetitions for
inclined lateral pull-down, reverse peck deck and seated row.
Results. There was no difference in activation of the ante-
rior portion of deltoid muscle for any of the three exercises
(P=0.08). The middle portion presented greater activation
during the reverse peck deck (P=0.03) and during the seated
row (P=0.03) compared to the inclined lat pull-down. For the
posterior portion of deltoid muscle there was greater activa-
tion during the reverse peck deck (P=0.001) compared to the
seated row and to the inclined lat pull-down.
Conclusion. Results indicate that reverse peck deck and
seated row should be more appropriate for recruitment of
the middle portion of the deltoid muscle than the inclined lat
pull-down. Differently, the reverse peck deck should be pri-
marily used rather than the seated row and the lat pull-down
for recruitment of the posterior portion of the deltoid muscle.
K : Electromyography - Resistance training - Shoul-
der - Deltoid muscle.
The deltoid is a pennated muscle that covers the
shoulder joint by three portions that are recruit-
Exercise Research Laboratory
School of Physical Education
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
J SPORTS MED PHYS FITNESS 2015;55:714-21
R. DE AZEVEDO FRANKE, C. EHLERS BOTTON, R. RODRIGUES, R. SILVEIRA PINTO, C. SILVEIRA LIMA
Analysis of anterior, middle and posterior deltoid
activation during single and multijoint exercises
Corresponding author: R. de Azevedo Franke, Exercise Research Lab-
oratory (LAPEX), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS),
Rua Felizardo, 750 – Bairro Jardim Botânico, CEP: 90690-200, Porto
Alegre – RS, Brazil. E-mail: rodrigo_franke@hotmail.com
Anno: 2015
Mese: July-August
Volume: 55
No: 7-8
Rivista: THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
Cod Rivista: J SPORTS MED PHYS FITNESS
Lavoro: 4828-JSM
titolo breve: ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DUR-
ING SINGLE
primo autore: DE AZEVEDO FRANKE
pagine: 714-21
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE DE AZEVEDO FRANKE
Vol. 55 - No. 7-8 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 715
Lavoro: 4828-JSM
titolo breve: ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DUR-
ING SINGLE
primo autore: DE AZEVEDO FRANKE
pagine: 714-21
three portions of the deltoid during single and multi-
joint exercises involving shoulder horizontal abduc-
tion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare
activation of the three portions of the deltoid muscle
(anterior, middle and posterior) during single and
multijoint shoulder horizontal abduction exercises.
Materials and methods
This study compared the electromyographic activ-
ity (EMG) of the three portions of the deltoid (an-
terior, middle and posterior) in three different ex-
ercises (inclined lateral pull down, seated row and
reverse peck deck). Participants performed tests of
maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)
and ten maximal repetitions. Then, the three exer-
cises were performed with simultaneous acquisition
of the EMG signals.
Twelve healthy male participants (23.4±1.6 years;
177.2±2.3 cm; 78.9±16.2 kg; 15.4±4.2 % body
fat) familiarized with strength training (at least six
months of training) without shoulder injury history
have taken part in the study. To asses these infor-
mations, the participants answered a questionnaire
applied provided by researchers. The study was ap-
proved by the University Ethics Committee in Hu-
man Research (2008006) and all participants signed
an informed consent to take part in the study.
Procedures
Data was collected during three sessions that were
separated by 48 hours. During the rst session, meth-
ods and procedures of the study were introduced to
participants. Anthropometrics were then collected
for participants’ characterization. After that, muscle
activation was collected using surface electromyo-
graphy during three MVIC in the established posi-
tions, separated by ve minutes of rest.
In the second session, participants performed ten
maximum repetitions testing to estimate the load for
each exercise (inclined lateral pull-down [Figure 1],
seated row [Figure 2] and reverse peck deck [Figure
3]). Testing order was randomly selected and a resting
interval of ve minutes between trials was enforced.
In the third session, participants performed the three
exercises with the ten maximum repetitions load and
simultaneous recording of muscle activation.
ners because they require greater inter-muscle coor-
dination compared to single joint motions.12, 14, 15
Although differences in neuromuscular coordina-
tion may be expected comparing multi to single joint
exercises, the literature shows inconclusive results
about muscle activation. Major attention has been
given to assess activation of lower limb muscles with
conicting ndings from these studies.6-8, 10 For the
upper limb, only two studies had focus on the assess-
ment of shoulder horizontal adductors (i.e. pectora-
lis major and anterior deltoid) with no differences
in activation of these muscles comparing single to
multijoint exercises.9, 11
Based on this scenario, it is very important to un-
derstand how different portions of the deltoid are
activated in different exercises to establish a more
grounded rehabilitation and conditioning program,
and to date, no studies compared activation of the
Figure 1.—Inclined lateral pull-down exercise.
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
DE AZEVEDO FRANKE ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE
716 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS July-August 2015
and to perform only the required movements, to try
to minimize the contribution of other muscle groups.
Participants were verbally motivated 16 (24) during
the three trials of ve seconds of each test and a ve
minutes resting interval was enforced to postpone fa-
tigue effects.17, 18
Ten maximum repetitions test
Participants performed a ten maximum repetitions
test to determine the load used in each exercise. Pri-
marily, all participants warmed up in the target exer-
cise with minimum self-selected load. The load for
the ten repetitions test was changed until participants
achieved exhaustion in the tenth repetition and was
dened using the maximum of three trials. If a fourth
trial of ten repetitions would be required, a new ses-
sion was scheduled with the participants to avoid
MVIC
MVIC were performed using a crossover exer-
cise machine (World, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) in-
strumented with a load cell (Miotec - Equipamentos
Biomédicos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) in order to
collect force measurements with simultaneous EMG
records. Shoulder exion was used to record the
maximum force for the anterior portion of deltoid
with participants in upright position and the domi-
nant shoulder at 90° of exion. Shoulder horizontal
abduction was used to assess middle and posterior
portion of deltoid maximum force, when participants
were upright and the dominant shoulder were at 90°
of abduction. In both positions, participants were in-
structed to pull the machine cable with their hand
Figure 2.—Seated row exercise.
Figure 3.—Reverse peck deck exercise.
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE DE AZEVEDO FRANKE
Vol. 55 - No. 7-8 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 717
cises were computed for the second, fourth, sixth
and eighth trials during both the concentric and ec-
centric phases of motion. A an optic motion tracking
displacement sensor attached to the load cable of the
exercise machine (Miotec - Equipamentos Biomédi-
cos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) was employed to de-
ne the start and end of each repetition and the con-
centric and eccentric phases of motion. An average
of four RMS values was computed for each muscle
during each exercise and converted to percentages of
the MIVC.23, 24
Statistical analysis
Normality and sphericity of data distribution was
assessed via Shapiro-Wilk and Mauchly tests, re-
spectively. Correction factors of Greenhouse-Geis-
ser were used whenever appropriate. A one-way
ANOVA for repeated measures was used to com-
pare deltoid muscle (anterior, middle and posterior
portions) activation across exercises (seated row vs.
inclined lateral pull-down vs. reverse peck deck).
When between factors or interactions were found,
a Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was performed. Re-
sults about participants’ characterization are pre-
sented in the text as mean ± standard deviations and
results about the load in ten maximum repetition
tests and muscle activation in exercises in the gures
as mean±standard errors. All statistical procedures
were conducted in a statistical package (SPSS 17.0
for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and sig-
nicance was assumed for P<0.05.
Results
The load for the ten maximum repetitions test was
signicantly greater for the seated row compared to
the inclined lateral pull-down (P=0.01) and to the
reverse peck deck (P<0.01). The load during the in-
clined lateral pull-down was signicantly greater than
during the reverse peck deck (P=0.002) (Figure 4).
Signicant differences in activation for the ante-
rior portion of the deltoid were not observed com-
paring the three exercises (P=0.08) (Figure 5).
The middle portion of deltoid presented increased
activation during the reverse peck deck and the seat-
ed row compared to the inclined lateral pull-down
(P=0.03; P=0.03).
fatigue effects in load denition. A ve minute rest
was enforced between each ten repetitions trial.
The nal loads obtained on the ten maximum rep-
etitions tests were used in the exercises execution
with the simultaneous acquisition of EMG signals.
Order for performing the ten maximum repetitions
tests and to record muscle activation during exercis-
es was randomized.19
Muscle activation acquisition and signal processing
Surface electromyography was employed to meas-
ure the activation of the three portions of the del-
toid muscle during maximum isometric contractions
and during the inclined lat pull-down, reverse peck
deck and seated row exercises. A four channel elec-
tromyography system (Miotool 400, Miotec - Eq-
uipamentos Biomédicos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil)
was employed using bipolar conguration, sampling
signals at 2KHz and 14 bits of resolution. Electrodes
with 15mm radius (Kendall Mini Medi-Trace 100 -
Tyco Healthcare, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and 20 mm
of centre-to-centre distance were attached to the
skin on the muscle belly after careful shaving and
cleaning of the area with an abrasive cleaner and
alcohol swabs to reduce the skin impedance (lower
than 3KW) 20 measured using a digital multimeter.
Location for electrodes placement followed recom-
mendation from SENIAM.21 A reference electrode
placed over the skin at the clavicle to act as a neutral
site for the EMG signals. A transparent sheet was
used to mark the position of the electrodes in rela-
tion to anatomical locations to reduce between-days
variation in position of the electrodes.20, 22
EMG signals were exported from the data acqui-
sition software (Miograph - Equipamentos Biomé-
dicos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) for ofine analysis
(SAD 32 - developed by the Engineering School of
the local university). After gain compensation and
off-set correction, a band-pass digital lter (5th order
Butterworth with cut-off frequencies of 20-500Hz)
was applied to the signals. A section of one second
of the signal from each muscle was selected from the
MVIC force measurement assessed by the load cell
to compute the root mean square value (RMS) where
force signal was steady and maximum. This value
was then used for normalization of signals from the
ten repetitions of each exercise.
The RMS of each muscle during the three exer-
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
DE AZEVEDO FRANKE ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE
718 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS July-August 2015
line with our ndings. The anterior deltoid activation
can be justied as shoulder stabilization strategy via
coactivation 26 and low activation levels (under 20%
of MVIC) are in agreement with values reported in
the literature.27 Moreover, the level of co-activation
of the anterior deltoid was not modied during single
and multijoint exercises, which suggests the same
level of joint instability during the performance of
both types of exercises.
Differences comparing the inclined lateral pull-
down to the reverse peck deck and the seated row
may be due the single joint characteristic in the re-
verse peck deck and a double action required (shoul-
der isometric abduction and horizontal abduction) in
the seated row. The greater activation for the pos-
terior deltoid in the reverse peck deck could be ex-
plained by a restricted motion for the shoulder joint
compared to the inclined lateral pull-down and seat-
ed row. Greater activation is required in single joint
motion (compared to multi-joint) due the reduced
number of muscles involved.8 During multijoint ex-
ercises (i.e. inclined lateral pull-down and seated
row) the larger external force observed in our study
was potentially shared among elbow and shoulder
joint muscles. Possibly, similar activation for mid-
dle portion of deltoid compared to the reverse peck
deck was found at the seated row due the upper limb
position. In this exercise, there is need for sustaining
the upper arm at 90° of shoulder regular abduction in
For the posterior portion of deltoid, there was
greater activation during the reverse peck deck com-
pared to the seated row and to the inclined lateral
pull-down (P<0.01), without differences between
these last two exercises (P=0.22).
Discussion
The main ndings of this study were that: 1) the
posterior portion of deltoid was largely recruited
during the reverse peck deck (single joint exercise)
compared to the seated row and inclined lateral pull-
down (multijoint exercises); 2) the middle portion of
deltoid was mostly recruited during the reverse peck
deck and the seated row than during the inclined lat-
eral pull-down; 3) the anterior portion of deltoid had
minimal activation during the three exercises.
Various primary and secondary actions have been
suggested for each portion of the deltoid muscle.1,
2 Therefore, it is possible that the three portions of
deltoid may be activated in opposite actions. For the
anterior portion, it is intuitive to relate the low ac-
tivations recorded in the three exercises to the role
of this portion in shoulder exion and horizontal ad-
duction (opposite to the required actions). Ferreira et
al.25 observed that any exercise with focus on shoul-
der horizontal abduction elicited low levels from the
anterior portion of the deltoid muscle, which is in
Figure 4.—Load (kg) from participants (mean±SEM) during the
ten maximum repetitions test during the seated row, the inclined
lateral pull-down and the reverse peck deck. aSignicant differ-
ences to inclined lateral pull-down; bsignicant differences to the
reverse peck deck (P≤0.05).
Figure 5.—Activation of the three portions of the deltoid (mean
± SEM) during the three assessed exercises. aDifference to the
inclined lateral pull-down; bDifference to the seated row (P≤0.05).
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE DE AZEVEDO FRANKE
Vol. 55 - No. 7-8 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 719
joint exercise (all performed in machines) resulting
in greater activation for the posterior deltoid in the
single joint exercise.
Likewise, Welsch et al.11 did not nd differences
in activation of pectoralis major and anterior por-
tion of deltoid during barbell bench press, dumbbell
bench press or dumbbell y exercises. However, the
authors indicated that differences in elbow exion
angle during the dumbbell y execution may have
led to discrepancies. An alteration in elbow exion
angle may have changed the resistant torque during
the exercise and limited their results.
Apart from using machines with resistive weight
guided by cables, the reverse peck deck machine
employs a cam system. This system changes the mo-
ment arm of the resistive load throughout the range
of motion and consequently the torque required to
perform a single joint exercise, according to the mus-
cle moment arms.8, 31 To our knowledge, none of the
previous studies referred to the use of cam system in
single joint exercises machines, except for Enocson
et al.,8 who linked the greater muscle contribution to
the existence of an eccentric pulley in the exercise
machine, which enforces our results, since the condi-
tions and results were similar.
To a certain level, our results could not be fully
related to most studies because they had focus on
lower limb exercises.6-8, 10 Others assessed shoulder
horizontal adductors during upper body exercises 9, 11
which is limited compared to our approach where as-
sessments of the muscle group that acts in the shoul-
der horizontal abduction were conducted. Therefore,
our study expands the existing knowledge in muscle
function during strength training exercises.
Our option for using the maximum repetitions
testing is because it is the most common choice in
previous studies.8-11 Another reason is the greater ap-
plication for strength training prescription. However,
an increased number of repetitions could lead to
greater muscle activation due to fatigue effects in the
EMG signals.10, 17, 32 Previous studies with similar
methods 6, 7 opted for using only two maximum rep-
etitions to minimize fatigue effects. In these studies,
leg press exercise and knee extensions performed
in a machine did not differ in terms of quadriceps
muscle activation, which may be explained by the
reduced number of repetitions and consequently,
minor fatigue inuence, resulting in a different ac-
tivation pattern. This is a possible reason to explain
order to perform horizontal abduction by primary ac-
tion of the middle and posterior portions of deltoid1,2
and minimize the action of other muscles. That re-
quires a double action from middle portion of deltoid
(isometric abduction and dynamic horizontal ab-
duction) which leads to comparable activation than
single joint exercises (e.g. reverse peck deck), since
whenever a muscle is required to perform two simul-
taneous actions, greater activation is required.19 Dif-
ferently, in the reverse peck deck and in the inclined
lateral pull-down, gravitational force may not lead to
an isometric action, due to the handles and position
of the trunk and upper limbs, respectively.
A previous study showed similar activation levels
comparing the machine chest y (single joint exer-
cise) to the bench press (multijoint exercise) 9 whilst
another study observed greater activation for vastus
medialis and lateralis during squats compared to
knee extensions.10 These studies compared exercises
using free-weights (bench press and squat) to oth-
ers performed in exercise machines with a lead for
the resistive weight (machine chest y and knee ex-
tensor machine). Free-weight exercises may require
additional muscle activation to sustain body balance
compared to exercise machines.28-30 Thus, the in-
creased activation for the free weight exercises may
have similar activation level to the observed during
exercises performed in machines, even for single
joint exercises. Differently, in our study all exercises
were performed in exercise machines and did not re-
quire additional muscle recruitment to sustain body
balance, which may have elicited the larger muscle
requirement to perform single joint than multijoint
exercises.
Load can also be an intervenient factor in the re-
sults. Signorile et al.10 justied the greater activation
during squats to the greater load used in this exercise
compared to the load used during knee extensions.
In this case, the load and the exercise characteristic
(free weight) contributed to greater activation. Al-
though multijoint exercises are normally performed
with greater loads, Junior et al.9 showed greater
load for the machine chest y than the barbell bench
press. In this study, the activation may have been
favored by the load in the single joint exercise and
by the free weight in the multijoint exercise, pro-
viding no signicant difference between exercises.
In the present study, the absolute load was greater
in both multijoint exercises compared to the single
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
DE AZEVEDO FRANKE ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE
720 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS July-August 2015
bulk tissues and deltoid to static inferior glenohumeral stability. J
Shoulder Elb Surg 1994;3:313-9.
6. Alkner B, Tesch P, Berg H. Quadriceps EMG/force relationship in knee
extension and leg press. Med Sci Sport Exer 2000;32:459-63.
7. Damirchi A, Jalali M, Rahmaninia F, Mohebi H. Comparison of
EMG Activity of Knee Extensor Muscles in Knee Extension and
Leg Press. J Mov Sci Sport 2008;1:7-12.
8. Enocson AG, Berg HE, Vargas R, Jenner G, Tesch PA. Signal in-
tensity of MR-images of thigh muscles following acute open- and
closed chain kinetic knee extensor exercise - index of muscle use.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2005;94:357-63.
9. Júnior VAR, Gentil P, Oliveira E, do Carmo J. Comparação entre a
atividade EMG do peitoral maior, deltóide anterior e tríceps braqui-
al durante os exercícios supino reto e crucixo. Rev Bras Med Es-
porte 2007;13:51-4.
10. Signorile JF, Weber B, Roll B, Caruso J, Lowesteyn I, Perry A. An
eletromyographical comparison of the squat and knee extension ex-
ercises. J Strength Cond Res 19948:178-83.
11. Welsch EA, Bird M, Mayhew JL. Electromyographic activity of the
pectoralis major and anterior deltoid muscles during three upper-
body lifts. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19:449-52.
12. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign: Human Kinects; 2004.
13. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance train-
ing: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sport Exer
2004;36:674-88.
14. Baechle T, Earle R. Essentials of strength training and conditioning.
Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2008.
15. Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, Dudley GA, Dooly C, Fei-
genbaum MS et al. American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults.
Med Sci Sport Exer 2002;34:364-80.
16. McNair PJ, Depledge J, Brettkelly M, Stanley SN. Verbal encour-
agement: effects on maximum effort voluntary muscle: action. Brit
J Sports Med 1996;30:243-45.
17. Basmajian JV, Luca CJD. Muscles alive: their functions revealed by
electromyography. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1985.
18. De Luca CJ. Myoelectrical manifestations of localized muscular fa-
tigue in humans. Crit Rev Biomedl Eng 1984;11:251-79.
19. Signorile JF, Zink AJ, Szwed SP. A comparative electromyo-
graphical investigation of muscle utilization patterns using vari-
ous hand positions during the lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res
2002;16:539-46.
20. Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, Minetti AE, Cerretelli P. Changes
in force, cross-sectional area and neural activation during strength
training and detraining of the human quadriceps. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 1989;59:310-9.
21. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G
et al. European recommendations for surface electromyography.
Roessingh Research and Development: The Netherlands; 1999.
22. Hakkinen K, Komi PV. Electromyographic changes during strength
training and detraining. Med Sci Sport Exer 1983;15:455-60.
23. Escamilla RF, Babb E, DeWitt R, Jew P, Kelleher P, Burnham T et
al. Electromyographic analysis of traditional and nontraditional ab-
dominal exercises: implications for rehabilitation and training. Phys
Ther 2006;86:656-71.
24. Kalmar JM, Cafarelli E. Central excitability does not limit post-
fatigue voluntary activation of quadriceps femoris. J Appl Physiol
2006;100:1757-64.
25. Ferreira MI, Bull ML, Vitti M. Electromyographic validation of ba-
sic exercises for physical conditioning programmes. I. Analysis of
the deltoid muscle (anterior portion) and pectoralis major muscle
(clavicular portion) in rowing exercises with middle grip. Electro-
myogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;35:239-45.
26. Suzuki M, Shiller DM, Gribble PL, Ostry DJ. Relationship between
cocontraction, movement kinematics and phasic muscle activity in
single-joint arm movement. Exp Brain Res 2001;140:171-81.
the fact that these studies did not found signicant
differences between single and multijoint exercises,
unlike the present study.
However, it is speculated that muscle activation
levels does not depend exclusively of single or multi-
joint exercise characteristics. The number of actions
performed by the same muscle in an exercise, the
active muscle group and their mechanical proper-
ties, the characteristics of the exercise machine or
equipment used, among other aspects may inuence
muscle recruitment. Thus, it is necessary to consider
these aspects when comparing single and multijoint
exercises.
Conclusions
Our ndings indicated that the seated row, the in-
clined lateral pull-down and the reverse peck deck
leads to similar low levels of activation for the anterior
portion of deltoid muscle due the fact that this portion
has antagonist action in the assessed movements. On
the other hand, seated row was effective in recruiting
the middle portion of the deltoid muscle because they
combine two primary actions of this muscle. The re-
verse peck deck was effective in recruiting the middle
and the posterior portions of the deltoid muscle. This
result provides evidence, for these exercises, that sin-
gle joint exercises should optimize the contribution of
less muscle mass and improve the contribution of each
muscle, rather than a multijoint exercise when force is
shared among more muscles.
For an advanced stage of training programs look-
ing for improvements in strength for the middle and
posterior portions of the deltoid, it is recommended
the option for single joint exercises, rather than mul-
tijoint exercises. That should enhance gains in mus-
cle strength compared to multijoint exercises.
References
1. Rasch PJ, Burke RK. Kinesiology and applied anatomy: The science
of human movement. London: Henry Kimpton Publishers; 1978.
2. Smith LK, Weiss EL, Lehmkuhl LD. Brunnstrom’s clinical kinesi-
ology. Philadelphia: FA Davies; 1996.
3. Ackland DC, Pandy MG. Lines of action and stabilizing potential of
the shoulder musculature. J Anat 2009;215:184-97.
4. Halder AM, Zhao KD, Odriscoll SW, Morrey BF, An KN. Dy-
namic contributions to superior shoulder stability. J Orthopaed Res
2001;19:206-12.
5. Motzkin NE, Itoi E, Morrey BF, An KN. Contribution of passive
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ANALYSIS OF ANTERIOR, MIDDLE AND POSTERIOR DELTOID ACTIVATION DURING SINGLE DE AZEVEDO FRANKE
Vol. 55 - No. 7-8 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 721
32. Vollestad NK. Measurement of human muscle fatigue. J Neurosci
Meth 1997;74:219-27.
Funding.—The authors would like to thank Coordenação de Aper-
feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES-Brazil) and Con-
selho Nacional de Pesquisa (CNPq-Brazil) for nancial support and all
volunteers for their participation in this project.
Conicts of interest.—The authors certify that there is no conict of in-
terest with any nancial organization regarding the material discussed
in the manuscript.
Received on September 11, 2013.
Accepted for publication on June 18, 2014.
Epub ahead of print on June 20, 2014.
27. Kellis E. Quantication of quadriceps and hamstring antagonist ac-
tivity. Sports Med 1998;25:37-62.
28. McCaw ST, Friday JJ. A comparison of muscle activity between
a free weight and machine bench press. J Strength Cond Res
1994;8:259-64.
29. Schick EE, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV,
Tran TT et al. A comparison of muscle activation between a
Smith machine and free weight bench press. J Strength Cond Res
2010;24:779-84.
30. Schwanbeck S, Chilibeck PD, Binsted G. A comparison of free
weight squat to Smith machine squat using electromyography. J
Strength Cond Res 2009;23:2588-91.
31. Folland J, Morris B. Variable-cam resistance training machines: do
they match the angle - torque relationship in humans? J Sports Sci
2008;26:163-69.
MINERVA MEDICA
COPYRIGHT®
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.