Content uploaded by Andrew Vigotsky
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Vigotsky on Jan 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001249
ACCEPTED
Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
Greater electromyographic responses do not imply greater motor
1
unit recruitment and ‘hypertrophic potential’ cannot be inferred
2 3
4
We read with interest the study by Looney et al. (13), investigating the effects of load on 5
electromyography (EMG) amplitude and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) during squats taken 6
to muscular failure. There are numerous interesting takeaways from this study, including the 7
similar RPE outcomes of different loads when sets are taken to failure; however, we demur with 8
the authors’ interpretation of the findings. 9
10
In the title and the body of the article, the term motor unit (MU) recruitment is used 11
synonymously with EMG amplitude. This is an incorrect assumption, but regrettably a common 12
mistake in sports and exercise science. We find this mistake being made especially when dealing 13
with fatiguing and dynamic conditions, such as those investigated by Looney et al. (13). In fact, 14
Enoka and Duchateau (7) recently described how numerous studies have misinterpreted surface 15
EMG signals by inferring specific MU recruitment. More than two decades previously, De Luca 16
(4) stated, “To its detriment, electromyography is too easy to use and consequently too easy to 17
abuse.” Looney et al. (13) state that MU firing rate decreases with fatigue (10, 15) and 18
consequently that the increase in EMG amplitude is caused by increased MU recruitment (19-21) 19
and have applied that same logic to the subsequent interpretation of the findings, as the authors 20
repeatedly state that the greater EMG amplitude observed in the heavier conditions is indicative 21
of greater MU recruitment. Regrettably, the interpretation of EMG is not so straightforward. 22
Moreover, different quadriceps muscles may utilize different neural strategies to maintain force 23
ACCEPTED
Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
generation during repeated concentric contractions (6), which makes the findings of Looney et 24
al. (13) particularly difficult to interpret. 25
26
Although EMG amplitude is influenced by MU recruitment, MU recruitment cannot be inferred 27
from changes in surface EMG amplitude. The recruitment threshold of high threshold MUs is 28
reduced during sustained, fatiguing contractions (1) and the subsequent recruitment of these 29
MUs assists in the maintenance force production. However, MU cycling may momentarily de-30
recruit fatigued MUs in order to reduce fatigue (22). This means that, in scenarios that require 31
less force output, such as low-load conditions, there may be lower simultaneous MU recruitment 32
compared to high-load conditions. Ultimately, a comparable complement of the MU population 33
of a particular muscle may be recruited, but not simultaneously as in high-load conditions. This 34
would explain the observation of reduced peak EMG amplitude in low-load training, as reported 35
by Looney et al. (13). These factors, including the reduced recruitment threshold of high 36
threshold MUs, in addition to MU cycling during fatiguing contractions, may also explain other 37
recent work showing differences in peak amplitude measured during surface EMG for high- and 38
low-load conditions (12, 16). 39
40
EMG amplitude during fatiguing conditions can be extraordinarily misleading, as EMG 41
measures consist not only of multiple neural components (MU recruitment, rate coding, and 42
possibly MU synchronization), but also of multiple peripheral constituents: muscle fiber 43
propagation velocity and intracellular action potentials (5). Intracellular action potentials are of 44
particular interest during fatiguing conditions, as the ensuing increase in length of intracellular 45
action potentials may augment surface EMG signals, despite a decrease in intracellular action 46
ACCEPTED
Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
potential magnitude. These inherent limitations make it impossible to discern MU recruitment 47
from increases in EMG amplitude during fatiguing, dynamic conditions (2, 5, 8, 9). It may be 48
true that greater loads induce greater MU recruitment, but in order to measure this, more 49
advanced methods are needed, such as spike-triggered averaging (3) or initial wavelet analysis 50
followed by principal component classification of major frequency properties and optimization 51
to tune wavelets to these frequencies (11). 52
53
In addition to our concerns regarding the confusion of EMG amplitude with MU recruitment, we 54
note that inferring chronic adaptations from acute, mechanistic variables is very difficult. Looney 55
et al. (13) suggest that their findings support the use of heavier loads for hypertrophy. Such a 56
conclusion is unwarranted, as the literature does not currently differentiate between the long-57
term effects of heavy and light loads on increases in muscular size (18). Data from Mitchell et al. 58
(14) also demonstrated comparable growth of type I and II fibers following 10 weeks of strength 59
training at either low (30%-1RM) or high-loads (80%-1RM). If the differential EMG amplitude 60
between high and low-load training observed by Looney et al. (13) and others (12, 16) is 61
representative of greater recruitment of presumably high threshold MUs, then one would expect 62
a differential hypertrophic response between low and high threshold MUs, which is presently not 63
supported. In fact, from an evidence-based perspective, Schoenfeld et al. (18), in their meta-64
analysis, showed no difference between studies that have employed lighter or heavier loads to 65
induce hypertrophy. A recent study by the same author confirmed that this was true even in well 66
trained participants (17). Thus, longitudinal trials are clearly needed to elucidate these 67
mechanisms, in addition to comparing individual loading with combined loading schemes. 68
69
ACCEPTED
Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
The findings of Looney et al. (13) provide more data that unequal EMG amplitudes are obtained 70
during fatiguing contractions with low- and high-load conditions and the novel finding that both 71
conditions elicit similar RPE. What these data do not provide, however, is evidence that heavier 72
load contractions recruit more MUs and that this can be inferred to result in greater hypertrophy. 73
We hope that our letter helps put these findings into a clearer perspective. 74
75 Andrew D. Vigotsky, BS 76 Arizona State University 77 Phoenix, AZ 78 79 Chris Beardsley, MSc 80 Strength and Conditioning Research Limited 81 London, UK 82 83 Bret Contreras, MA 84 Auckland University of Technology 85 Auckland, New Zealand 86 87 James Steele, PhD 88 Southampton Solent University 89 Southampton, UK 90 91 Dan Ogborn, PhD 92 McMaster University 93 Hamilton, Ontario 94 95 Stuart M. Phillips, PhD 96 McMaster University 97 Hamilton, Ontario 98 99 100 References 101 1. Adam A and De Luca CJ. Recruitment order of motor units in human vastus lateralis 102 muscle is maintained during fatiguing contractions. J Neurophysiol 90: 2919-2927, 2003. 103 2. Behm DG, Leonard AM, Young WB, Bonsey WA, and MacKinnon SN. Trunk muscle 104 electromyographic activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond Res 105 19: 193-201, 2005. 106 3. Boe SG, Stashuk DW, and Doherty TJ. Motor unit number estimation by decomposition-107 enhanced spike-triggered averaging: control data, test-retest reliability, and contractile 108 level effects. Muscle Nerve 29: 693-699, 2004. 109
ACCEPTED
Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
4. De Luca CJ. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech 13: 110 135-163, 1997. 111 5. Dimitrova NA and Dimitrov GV. Interpretation of EMG changes with fatigue: facts, 112 pitfalls, and fallacies. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13: 13-36, 2003. 113 6. Ebersole KT, O'Connor KM, and Wier AP. Mechanomyographic and electromyographic 114 responses to repeated concentric muscle actions of the quadriceps femoris. J 115 Electromyogr Kinesiol 16: 149-157, 2006. 116 7. Enoka RM and Duchateau J. Inappropriate interpretation of surface EMG signals and 117 muscle fiber characteristics impedes progress on understanding the control of 118 neuromuscular function. J Appl Physiol (1985): jap 00280 02015, 2015. 119 8. Ertas M, Stalberg E, and Falck B. Can the size principle be detected in conventional 120 EMG recordings? Muscle Nerve 18: 435-439, 1995. 121 9. Freund HJ. Motor unit and muscle activity in voluntary motor control. Physiol Rev 63: 122 387-436, 1983. 123 10. Harwood B, Choi I, and Rice CL. Reduced motor unit discharge rates of maximal 124 velocity dynamic contractions in response to a submaximal dynamic fatigue protocol. J 125 Appl Physiol (1985) 113: 1821-1830, 2012. 126 11. Hodson-Tole EF and Wakeling JM. Variations in motor unit recruitment patterns occur 127 within and between muscles in the running rat (Rattus norvegicus). J Exp Biol 210: 2333-128 2345, 2007. 129 12. Jenkins ND, Housh TJ, Bergstrom HC, Cochrane KC, Hill EC, Smith CM, Johnson GO, 130 Schmidt RJ, and Cramer JT. Muscle activation during three sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 131 1RM resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2015. 132 13. Looney DP, Kraemer WJ, Joseph MF, Comstock BA, Denegar CR, Flanagan SD, 133 Newton RU, Szivak TK, DuPont WH, Hooper DR, Hakkinen K, and Maresh CM. 134 Electromyographical and Perceptual Responses to Different Resistance Intensities in a 135 Squat Protocol: Does Performing Sets to Failure With Light Loads Recruit More Motor 136 Units? J Strength Cond Res, 2015. 137 14. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK, and 138 Phillips SM. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic 139 gains in young men. J Appl Physiol (1985) 113: 71-77, 2012. 140 15. Mottram CJ, Jakobi JM, Semmler JG, and Enoka RM. Motor-unit activity differs with 141 load type during a fatiguing contraction. J Neurophysiol 93: 1381-1392, 2005. 142 16. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Willardson JM, Fontana F, and Tiryaki-Sonmez G. Muscle 143 activation during low- versus high-load resistance training in well-trained men. Eur J 144 Appl Physiol 114: 2491-2497, 2014. 145 17. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, and Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- 146 Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-147 Trained Men. J Strength Cond Res, 2015. 148 18. Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, and Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations in low-149 versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European journal of sport science: 150 1-10, 2014. 151 19. Smilios I, Hakkinen K, and Tokmakidis SP. Power output and electromyographic activity 152 during and after a moderate load muscular endurance session. J Strength Cond Res 24: 153 2122-2131, 2010. 154
ACCEPTED
Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
20. Stock MS, Beck TW, and Defreitas JM. Effects of fatigue on motor unit firing rate versus 155 recruitment threshold relationships. Muscle Nerve 45: 100-109, 2012. 156 21. Toigo M and Boutellier U. New fundamental resistance exercise determinants of 157 molecular and cellular muscle adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol 97: 643-663, 2006. 158 22. Westad C, Westgaard RH, and De Luca CJ. Motor unit recruitment and derecruitment 159 induced by brief increase in contraction amplitude of the human trapezius muscle. J 160 Physiol 552: 645-656, 2003. 161 162