Content uploaded by Ronald Snarr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronald Snarr on Jun 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Electromyographical analysis of a traditional and kipping pull-up
Abstract and Figures
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the electromyographical (EMG) activity of the latissimus dorsi (LD), posterior deltoid (PD), middle trapezius (MT), and biceps brachii (BB) while performing two pull-up variations. Resistance-trained men and women (n = 13, age = 24.26 ± 6.24) volunteered to participate in this study. All participants performed a traditional pull-up (PU) along with a popular variation (i.e., kipping pull-up (KP)). Each pull-up was performed for three repetitions. Normalized (%MVC) EMG values were recorded for each muscle group during each of the variations. The KP provided significantly lower muscular activation values within all muscles examined compared to the PU. The average decreases in muscular activation for the KP when compared to the PU were 10.6% for the LD, 11.5% for the PD, 22% for the PD, and 13.4% for the BB. The KP employs the assistance of the lower body, with an emphasis on the hip joint, to create a power “swing” to aid in propelling the body upwards towards the bar to complete the movement. By employing lower body momentum, the upper body had less of a musculature demand in order to pull the body upwards towards the bar, thereby resulting in significantly lower EMG values compared to the PU. Practitioners should take note that both the and PU and KP variation may provide sufficient values in select muscular groups necessary to achieve improvements in muscular strength and endurance of the shoulder joint and girdle complex. However, if a greater pull-up challenge is warranted then individuals should choose the traditional PU which may provide a greater muscular demand.
Figures - uploaded by Ronald Snarr
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Ronald Snarr
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Exercises that are often used in training programs to improve upper body pulling strength and muscular endurance include the seated lat-pulldown, assisted pull-up/chin-up machine, Baumgartner Modified Pull-up, Band/partner-assisted pull-ups, kipping pull-ups, suspended pull-ups, etc. Baumgartner and Gaunt [4] Halet, Mayhew, Murphy and Fanthorpe [5], Johnson, Lynch, Nash, Cygan and Mayhew [6]; Ronai & Scibek [7], Snarr, Casey, Hallmark and Esco [8], Snarr, Hallmark, Casey and Esco [9]. While all of these exercises utilize the pulling motion, some are likely more similar to the traditional pull-up exercise than others. ...
... kipping) integrate a greater amount of momentum when performing the pulling action than that of the traditional pullup from a dead hang. As previous research has reported, the muscular demand of the upper body is significantly lower when performing kipping pull-ups when compared to that of traditional pull-ups Snarr [8]. Therefore, exercises of this nature will also not be used as alternative pulling exercises for this study (e.g. ...
... pronated, supinated, etc.) and movement techniques (e.g. behind the neck versus in front of the neck, PU with rings, kipping PU, etc.) for the PU and lat-pulldown exercises Andersen [15], Dickie [10], Lusk [11], Signorile [12], Snarr [8], Snarr [9], Sperandei [13], Youdas [22]. This made it difficult to compare current EMG data to that of previously published data, specifically with the k-LP variation. ...
This study determined the extent of electromyographic (EMG) activity of the latissimus dorsi (LD), middle trapezius (MT), posterior deltoid (PD), and biceps brachii (BB) while performing the inverted row (IR) with and without a suspension training (ST) device. Eleven men and 4 women participated in this study. Each subject performed 4 repetitions of the IR with and without a ST device while EMG activity was recorded for each of the studied musculature. There were no significant differences in EMG activity of the LD, MT, and PD between each exercise (P>0.05). However, EMG activity of the BB was significantly greater (P<0.05) with the IR compared to the suspension inverted row(SIR).The results of this study demonstrated no significant differences in the selected musculature of the posterior chain (i.e., LD, MT, and PD) between the IR and the SIR. Therefore, it appears that the ST device provided a suitable alternative to traditional equipment (e.g., a Smith machine) when targeting the posterior musculature analyzed in this study with the IR. However, BB activity was significantly lower when performing the IR with the ST device compared to the traditional approach.
There is very limited scientific data concerning suspension training. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the electromyographic activity of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and triceps brachii between a suspension push-up and traditional push-up. Twenty-one apparently healthy men (n = 15, age = 25.93 ± 3.67 years) and women (n = 6, age = 23.5 ± 1.97 years) volunteered to participate in this study. All subjects performed four repetitions of a suspension push-up and a traditional push-up where the order of the exercises was randomized. The mean peak and normalized electromyography of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and triceps brachii were compared across the two exercises. Suspension push-ups elicited the following electromyographic values: pectoralis major (3.08 ± 1.13 mV, 69.54 ± 27.6 %MVC), anterior deltoid (5.08 ± 1.55 mV, 81.13 ± 17.77 %MVC), and triceps brachii (5.11 ± 1.97 mV, 105.83 ± 18.54 %MVC). The electromyographic activities during the traditional push-up were as follows: pectoralis major (2.66 ± 1.05 mV, 63.62 ± 16.4 %MVC), anterior deltoid (4.01 ± 1.27 mV, 58.91 ± 20.3 %MVC), and triceps brachii (3.91 ± 1.36 mV, 74.32 ± 16.9 %MVC). The mean peak and normalized electromyographic values were significantly higher for all 3 muscles during the suspension push-up compared to the traditional push-up (p < 0.05). This study suggests that the suspension push-up elicited a greater activation of pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and triceps brachii when compared to a traditional push-up. Therefore, suspension push-ups may be considered an advanced variation of a traditional push-up when a greater challenge is warranted.
This study determines the test-retest reliability and equivalence reliability (i.e., defined as consistency of 2 tests designed to measure the same construct) of the push-up and the modified pull-up tests from both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced frameworks. Sixty-two (30 boys and 32 girls) 5th- and 6th-grade students (mean age = 11.4 0.9 years) were administered 2 test trials for both the push-up and modified pull-up tests following a 4-week fitness unit. The norm-referenced test-retest reliability estimates, using intraclass correlations from a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), were consistently high for 2 trials of both the push-up and modified pull-up (R = .99) and also high for 1 trial (R = .98 for push-up, R = .97 for modified pull-up). Moderately high correlations between the push-up and modified pull-up were obtained (r .74). Criterion-referenced reliability was estimated with proportion of agreement (Pa), modified kappa (Kq), and Phi coefficient using the FITNESSGRAM(r) standards (Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, 1999). Criterion-referenced test-retest reliability estimates were high for the push-up (Pa = .97, Kq = .94) and the modified pull-up (Pa = .95, Kq = .90). Equivalence reliability estimates were considerably lower between push-up and modified pull-up test Trial 1 (Pa = .69, Kq = .38, and Phi = .50) and test Trial 2 (Pa = .71, Kq = .42, and Phi = .52). Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced test-retest reliability estimates in this study were acceptable. However, criterion-referenced equivalence reliability findings were not acceptable. Equating of standards between fitness tests designed to measure the same component of fitness should be examined.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS COLUMN IS TO PROVIDE BASIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERSONAL TRAINERS AND STRENGTH COACHES ON HOW TO INTEGRATE KETTLEBELL TRAINING INTO THEIR CLIENTS' EXERCISE PROGRAMS. THIS COLUMN REVIEWS THE CURRENT LITERATURE ON KETTLEBELL TRAINING AND EXAMINES POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR STRENGTH, POWER, MUSCULAR ENDURANCE, AND FAT LOSS. RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROVIDED AS TO HOW KETTLEBELLS CAN BE EFFECTIVELY INTEGRATED INTO EXERCISE PROGRAM DESIGN. TECHNIQUE FOR PROPER AND SAFE PERFORMANCE OF SOME OF THE BASIC KETTLEBELL EXERCISES IS ADDRESSED.
THE PULL-UP IS A MULTI-JOINT UPPER-BODY EXERCISE THAT CAN INCREASE SHOULDER GIRDLE STABILITY, UPPER-BODY MUSCULAR PULLING STRENGTH, AND PERFORMANCE OF ACTIVITES REQUIRING HIGH LEVELS OF RELATIVE STRENGTH. THIS EXERCISE AND ITS VARIATIONS CAN BE PROGRESSED, REGRESSED, AND PERFORMED THROUGHOUT A TRAINING YEAR. THIS COLUMN PROVIDES A DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND FIGURES OF THE PROPER EXERCISE TECHNIQUE FOR A PULL-UP.
Field tests of upper body muscular strength and endurance (UBMSE) are often administered to children, but little is known about the determinants of performance on these tests. Therefore the purpose of this investigation was to examine potential determinants of performance on several common field tests of UBMSE including pull-ups, flexed-arm hang, push-ups, and two types of modified pull-ups. Subjects were 56 girls and 38 boys, ages 9 to 11 years. Potential determinants assessed were age, height, weight, gender, % fat, physical activity, and laboratory measures of muscular strength and endurance. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the laboratory measures of UBMSE failed to account for significant fractions of variance in performance on four of the five tests. However, % fat was significantly associated with performance on four of five tests. These results indicate that factors other than muscular strength and endurance account for most of the variance in performance, and that % fat appears to be a ...