1

Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline

August 2021
Volume 24 Number 4

Editor-in-Chief
Official Research Journal of JEPonline
Tommy
the American
Boone, PhD,
Society
MBA of
Review Board
Exercise Physiologists
Todd Astorino, PhD
Electromyographic Activation of Pectoralis Major and
ISSN 1097-9751
Julien Baker, PhD Triceps Brachii during Dumbbell Pullover
Steve Brock, PhD
Lance Dalleck, PhD Marcio L. de Lacio1,2, Jonathan D. Teixeira1, João G. Vieira2, Derick
Eric Goulet, PhD
Robert Gotshall, PhD
Santana1, Guilherme D. Amorim1, Mariele A. Coelho1, Yuri A. C.
Alexander Hutchison, PhD Campos2, Marcelo R. Dias1,2, Patrícia Panza2, Jefferson Novaes3,
M. Knight-Maloney, PhD Jeferson M. Vianna2
Len Kravitz, PhD
James Laskin, PhD 1Laboratory of Exercise Physiology and Morphofunctional
Yit Aun Lim, PhD
Lonnie Lowery, PhD
Evaluation, Granbery Methodist College, Juiz de Fora, Brazil,
2Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of
Derek Marks, PhD
Cristine Mermier, PhD Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Brazil, 3Postgraduate Program in
Robert Robergs, PhD Physical Education, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio
Chantal Vella, PhD de Janeiro, Brazil
Dale Wagner, PhD
Frank Wyatt, PhD
Ben Zhou, PhD ABSTRACT
Lacio ML, Teixeira JD, Vieira JG, Santana D, Amorim GD,
Coelho MA, Campos YAC, Dias MR, Panza P, Novaes J, Vianna
JM. Electromyographic Activation of Pectoralis Major and Triceps
Official Research Journal
Brachii during Dumbbell Pullover. JEPonline 2021;24(4):1-11. The
of the American Society of purpose of this study was to compare the electromyographic activity
Exercise Physiologists of pectoralis major (PM), sternal (PMS) and clavicular portions
(PMC) and triceps brachii long portion (TB) muscles, with different
ISSN 1097-9751 elbow positions in the dumbbell pullover exercise. Thirteen males
participated in this study. Initially, anthropometric measurements and
10 repetition maximum test (10-RM) were performed. After initial
tests, on two non-consecutive days separated by 48 hours, the
electromyographic signal was collected in the dumbbell pullover
exercise with 90% 10-RM load, performed with elbow extension or
elbow flexion. In both elbow positions, the electromyographic
activation of TB was greater than PMC (P<0.05). However, in
relation to PMS, TB showed greater activation with elbow flexion (P
= 0.002). Greater activation was found in PMS compared to PMC
performed with elbow extension (P = 0.039). It was concluded that
TB showed greater muscle activation in the dumbbell pullover
exercise, regardless of elbow position. Also, the dumbbell pullover
with elbow extension showed greater PMS muscle activation.

Keywords: Resistance Training, Pectoralis Muscles, Surface

Electromyography, Torque
 2

INTRODUCTION

Resistance training (RT) is recommended for promoting musculoskeletal adaptations that

result in muscle hypertrophy and an increase in strength (1). However, as the individual
becomes experienced in RT, muscle growth tends to be attenuated (25). To reduce
attenuation and ensure maximization of muscle adaptations, the scientific literature has
proposed the manipulation of such variables as volume (26), intensity (24), duration of the
recovery interval between sets (10), exercise order (29), velocity of movement (9), range of
motion (20,23), and weekly training frequency (11). In addition, other strategies include
variation of implements through the use of different barbells and dumbbells (6,33), as well as
changes in handholds in which the exercises are performed (8,16,28).

The pullover exercise is characterized by flexion and extension of the glenohumeral joint
(5,6,15,18), and can be prescribed as a complementary exercise for the development of the
muscles of the anterior trunk (5). In this context, Marchetti and Uchida (18) and Borges et al.
(4) found a greater muscle activation of the pectoralis major (PM) when compared to the
latissimus dorsi. Yet, interestingly, Campos et al. (6) found no differences in the muscle
activity of the sternal fibers of the PM (PMS), the clavicular fibers of the PM (PMC), the long
head of the triceps (TB), the anterior and posterior fibers of the deltoid, the latissimus dorsi,
and the serratus anterior.

The exercise can be performed in different ways with handholds. The studies by Campos and
Silva (5) and Marchetti and Uchida (18), for example, used a straight bar with the elbows
extended. Campos et al. (6) used the dumbbell and the straight bar, both with elbow
extension. However, considering that the perpendicular distance between the movement axis
(joint center) to the point of resistance application (resistance arm) alters the muscular
demand (13), extending elbows during pullover execution can result in an increase in the
resistance arm that leads to greater torque in the target musculature. In contrast, when
flexing elbows, there is an increase in the activation of the TB due to the constant isometric
muscle work to maintain the 90° elbow angle (12). Thus, different elbow positions can change
the patterns of muscle activation and modify the magnitude of neuromuscular adaptations
(32), justifying the conduction of studies that evaluate muscle activation during movement
variations typical of RT.

Thus, considering that muscle activity plays a fundamental role in the selection of exercises
(30) and that its response can guide coaches and physiotherapists in choosing the most
appropriate movement in RT and rehabilitation programs (7), the purpose of the present
study was to compare the electromyographic activity of PMS, PMC, and TB muscles with
different elbow positions in the dumbbell pullover exercise.

The alternative hypothesis considers that there will be greater muscle activation in the PM
fibers with elbow extension due to the greater torque generated. However, for the TB, we
understand that due to the sustained isometric contraction throughout the movement with
elbow flexion, greater activation in this muscle is expected.
 3

METHODS

Subjects
Thirteen male university students participated in this study (age: 25.9 ± 3.0 years; body mass:
75.3 ± 10.4 kg; height: 175.1 ± 6.6 cm; BMI: 24.4 ± 2.0 kg·m-2) with a minimum experience of
12 months in RT. As inclusion criteria, the participants could not have any history of pain,
muscle and/or joint injury in the lower and upper limbs, and no limitations in the shoulder joint
range of motion. All participants negatively responded to the PAR-Q questions (27). After
agreeing to participate in the study, the participants signed the Free and Informed Consent
Form that was previously approved by the Research Ethics Committee Involving Humans at
the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (approval number 3.749.878).

Experimental Design
To compare the muscle activation of the PMS, PMC, and TB, the present study used a
crossover design with randomized order. During the first session, the participants were
assessed for body mass and height and, then they were informed of all procedures that
involved the data collection. During the second session, 10 repetition maximum test (10-RM)
with elbow extension and elbow flexion occurred to determine the load that would be used in
experimental sessions. During the third and fourth sessions, muscle activation data were
collected in the different ways of dumbbell pullover execution (Figure 1). For all sessions, an
interval from 48 to 72 hours was applied. All participants were instructed not to eat any type
of food containing alcohol or caffeine, and they were told not to perform any vigorous
exercise within a 24-hour period prior to the tests.

Figure 1. Dumbbell Pullover with Elbow Extension (a) and Elbow Flexion (b).

Anthropometric Evaluation
Initially, the participants performed anthropometric assessment for sample characterization.
Total body mass was measured using a digital scale (HBF-514C, OMRON®, Brazil). Height
 4

was determined using a wall stadiometer (Standard, Sanny®, Brazil). All measurements were
performed by a single evaluator experienced in the evaluation procedures.

Ten Repetition Maximum Test - 10-RM

The 10-RM test was performed using the dumbbell pullover exercise with elbow extension
and flexion. Tests were conducted in randomized order on non-consecutive days separated
by 48 hours. The test protocol followed the National Strength and Conditioning Association
recommendations (21). The participants were instructed to not exercise during the test days.
The 10-RM values were determined within 5 attempts with a 4-min rest interval.

To perform the exercises, the participants laid down on their backs on a bench (SMAB,
LifeFitness, Hungary). The head, back, and hips were in contact with the bench and the feet
were resting on the floor at all times. Each participant held the end of the dumbbell with both
hands at 90º angle between the arms and the trunk. The eccentric phase of the movement
consisted of shoulder flexion, keeping the elbows at 90º flexion during the entire range of
motion until the angle of 180º of the glenohumeral joint was reached, which was controlled by
a string that the participants touched when they reached full range of motion.

After reaching 180°, the concentric phase began, where the participants performed shoulder
extension until the dumbbell returned to its initial position (15). During both exercises,
movement was controlled using a digital goniometer (New Miotool, Miotec®, Brazil). To
minimize errors during the tests, all the participants received standard instructions on the
correct technique for performing the exercise. The tests were supervised by researchers, and
during the exercise the participants received verbal encouragement. In addition, standard
specific warm-up exercises consisting of 3 sets for 10, 5, and 3 repetitions with an estimated
progressive load (low, moderate, and high, respectively) were performed.

Experimental Sessions
At the beginning of the experimental sessions, the participants performed 10 repetitions of
each exercise as a warm-up, with loads adjusted to 45% of the 10-RM. After a 4-min rest
interval (21), the participants performed a single series of 10 repetitions with loads adjusted
to 90% of the 10-RM to collect electromyographic activity data. In both exercises, the same
range of motion was used. During all exercises, the movement speed (cadence) was
maintained at (2/0/2/0), that is, eccentric phase of 2-sec, 0-sec, or no interruption in the
transition phase, concentric phase of 2-sec, and 0-sec, that is, no rest before the next
repetition (34) using a digital metronome (DM50, Seiko S-Yard CO, Japan). The dumbbell
pullover was performed as described in the 10-RM test. For the execution of the dumbbell
pullover, the following materials and equipment were used: (a) dumbbells (Physicus®,
Auriflama, Brazil) with 20 cm in diameter, sizes ranging from 23 to 32.5 cm and a load from
12 to 32 kg, respectively; and (b) an adjustable bench (SMAB, LifeFitness, Hungary).

Electromyography Signal
The participants underwent trichotomy, abrasion, and skin cleaning with gauze and isopropyl
alcohol. Then, surface electrodes (model 2223 BR, 3M®, Campinas, Brazil) with conductive
gel and 1-cm diameter AgCl capture surface with 2-cm center-to-center distance were placed
in the direction of muscle fibers of the PMS, the PMC, and the TB muscles on the dominant
side (3) according to the recommendations of the electromyography atlas (2). For the PMS,
the electrodes were placed at a distance corresponding to 76% of the distance between the
 5

acromion process of the scapula and the xiphoid process of the sternum. For PMC, the
electrodes were placed at a distance corresponding to 40% of the distance between the
acromion and the xiphoid process. For the TB, the electrodes were placed at a distance
corresponding to 48% of the distance between the acromion and the medial epicondyle of the
humerus. A reference electrode was placed on the lateral epicondyle of the elbow on the
dominant side in each participant. To collect the electromyographic signal, a electromyograph
(New Miotool, Miotec®, Brazil) with 8 input channels, 16 bits of resolution, and a sampling
rate of 2000 Hz was used.

To analyze the data, the first and last repetitions were removed, starting from the raw signal,
in order to avoid interference from body adjustment and neuromuscular fatigue, respectively.
The electromyographic signal was processed using 4th order bandpass butterworth filter with
zero phase delay, cutoff frequency of 20-500 Hz and 60 Hz notch. Electromyographic signal
normalization occurred from the dynamic peak method, where the largest signal found in
dynamic contractions was used to relativize values (22). The signal amplitude was calculated
using root mean square with 100-ms movable window. For data analysis and processing, the
MiotecSuite 1.0 software (New Miotool, Miotec®, Brazil) was used.

Statistical Analyses

To adopt the type of statistics and sample distribution, the probability distribution function was
tested by the Shapiro-Wilk Test. To check homoscedasticity, the Levene Test was used.
Subsequently, descriptive parametric statistic was adopted through mean ± standard
deviation. Then, two-way ANOVA (position x muscles) was used to verify differences in
muscle electromyographic activation, followed by post-hoc Tukey analysis. Cohen f2 was
applied to estimate the effect size (ES), with effect magnitude classified as small (0.2),
moderate (0.6), or large (1.2) (14). For all analyses, the significance level adopted was 5%
(P<0.05), using the GraphPad statistical software (Prism 8.0.1, San Diego, CA, USA).

RESULTS

Electromyographic activation values are presented in the mean percentile of the root mean
square. Two-way ANOVA showed no interaction of the muscles with elbow positions [F (3,
36) = 1.2; P = 0.312] and between elbow positions [F (1, 12) = 1.0; P = 0.332] (Table 1), but
effect among the muscles was observed [F (3, 36) = 11; P<0.001].

Table 1. Comparison of the Electromyographic Activation between Elbow Positions.

Extension (%) Flexion (%) P-value ES

PMC 39.59  12.17 40.88  7.76 0.967 0.123

(46.94 – 32.23) (45.57 – 36.19) (small)
PMS 48.41  5.14 43.96  6.78 0.409 0.715
(51.51 – 45.30) (48.06 – 39.87) (moderate)
TB 54.22  6.38 56.09  7.90 0.910 0.253
(58.07 – 50.36) (60.86 – 51.32) (small)
Data presented as mean ± SD (95% CI); RMS = Root Mean Square; PMC = Pectoralis Major Clavicular Portion;
PMS = Pectoralis Major Sternal Portion; TB = Triceps Brachii Long Portion; ES = Effect Size
 6

In both positions, the electromyographic activation of the TB was greater than that of the
PMC (extension: P<0.001; flexion: P<0.001) (Figures 2 and 3). When compared to the PMS,
the TB showed greater activation with elbow flexion (P = 0.002) (Figure 3) and not with elbow
extension (P = 0.283) (Figure 2). Greater activation was found in the PMS when compared to
the PMC in elbow extension position (P = 0.039) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Electromyographic Activation with Elbow Extension. Data presented as mean ± SD;
RMS = Root Mean Square; PMC = Pectoralis Major Clavicular Fibers; PMS = Pectoralis Major Sternal Fibers;
TB = Triceps Brachii Long Head; *Significant difference in relation to the clavicular fibers of the pectoralis major
(P<0.05); # Significant difference in relation to the clavicular fibers of the pectoralis major (P<0.05).

Figure 3. Electromyographic Activation with Elbow Flexion. Data presented as mean ± SD;
RMS = Root Mean Square; PMC = Pectoralis major Clavicular Fibers; PMS = Pectoralis Major Sternal Fibers;
TB = Triceps Brachii Long Head; *Significant difference in relation to the clavicular and the sternal fibers of the
pectoralis major (P<0.05).
 7

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to compare the electromyographic activity of PMS,
PMC, and TB muscles with different elbow positions in the dumbbell pullover exercise. The
results found rejected the experimental hypothesis, since no significant differences were
observed in the muscles in the different elbow positions in the dumbbell pullover exercise.
However, when comparing the different muscles, it was observed that the TB had a greater
demand than the PMC, regardless of the elbow position.

The activation of the TB is substantially increased when the elbows are flexed against gravity
due to the constant isometric muscle work to maintain the elbow angle at 90° (12). The
constant isometric action of the TB may explain, in part, the greater muscle activation when
compared to the other muscles evaluated in this study, especially when under the action of
an external load (6). Similar results were found by Campos and Silva (5) who compared the
muscular activation of TB between the pullover exercise and the bench press exercise, both
performed with a barbell. These results highlight the importance of the TB in the extension
movement of glenohumeral joint (31).

Previous studies have shown a great difference in the activation of the PM when compared to
the latissimus dorsi, and the activation difference was approximately 90% (4,6,18). Campos
et al. (6), in addition to finding a higher activation in the TB, also demonstrated a greater
activation in the PM compared to the latissimus dorsi, while Borges et al. (4) demonstrated
greater activation in the PMS followed by the TB and the latissimus dorsi, respectively.
Considering these results, the small contribution of the latissimus dorsi in the extension
movement starting from 180º of the glenohumeral joint flexion can be highlighted (18), which
justifies the prescription of the dumbbell pullover movement for the development of the upper
and anterior body muscles.

The lack of studies comparing the electromyographic activation of the PMS and the PMC in
the dumbbell pullover prevents us from better understanding these results. Campos and Silva
(5) showed no differences in electromyographic activation among the different parts of the
PM. It could be speculated, as contextualized in our hypothesis, that the greater activation in
the PMS with elbow extension occurred due to a possible change in the length-tension
relationship provided by the dumbbell pullover exercise. Thus, different joint positioning
strategies adopted in the handling of implements may imply different muscular demands,
being of great relevance in the practical context.

Other factors may also influence the results when using the electromyography method. As an
example, electromyographic signal normalization is essential since it is used to normalize the
signal and the electrode placement reference point may directly interfere with the results.
Other studies (5,6) have reported different results in the same exercises. Borges et al. (4)
and Campos and Silva (5) used the method to normalize the electromyographic signal
through the dynamic peak, and Campos et al. (6) used the maximum voluntary isometric
contraction. According to Robertson et al. (22), the best way to normalize the signal during
dynamic contractions is through the dynamic peak, which was used in the present study. The
technique of using the maximum isometric voluntary contraction to normalize the
electromyographic signal may not be ideal, especially when the investigation requires
dynamic contractions. In fact, interpretation errors may be the result of normalization by
 8

maximum isometric voluntary contraction (19). An alternative to dynamic contractions is to

use the maximum electromyographic activity during some reference part of the contraction
itself. The maximum electromyography amplitude is represented as 100%, and the EMG
amplitudes in other parts of the movement cycle are normalized to this maximum value (22).

This is the first study to compare different positions of the elbow joint when performing the
dumbbell pullover exercise. Other studies have reported comparisons between different
exercises, such as the barbell pullover versus the barbell bench press (5), different positions
in the Ab Wheel Rollout (17), the barbell pullover versus the dumbbell pullover (6), and the
barbell bench press, the lat pull-down, and the triceps extension exercises (4).

Practical Application

Dumbbell pullover allows for a variation of movement for exercises aimed at developing the
chest musculature (specifically, the anterior and upper trunk muscles). Since most exercises
work by performing horizontal shoulder adduction, this exercise provides different stimuli for
muscle fibers by using shoulder extension. In addition, for individuals with some movement
limitation, discomfort or pain in the shoulder joint, the possibility of performing the exercise
with elbow flexion, that is, with better lever arm and without significant decrease in muscle
activation may be safer and more comfortable.

Limitations in this Study

Some limitations of the present study are the sample size, the use of other handholds, and
the way in which the electromyographic signal normalization should be highlighted (especially
since this procedure is still the reason for great divergence in the literature when dynamic
exercises are analyzed).

CONCLUSIONS

The triceps brachii showed great activation in the extension movement of the glenohumeral
joints during the dumbbell pullover exercise, regardless of the elbow position. However, it is
important to emphasize that the dumbbell pullover exercise with elbow extension presents
strong request from the sternal fibers of the pectoralis major. Therefore, the action of the
pectoralis major can be an important factor that should be taken into account when designing
training programs aimed at increasing maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy to the upper
and anterior trunk. However, further studies should be carried out with pullover exercise and
its many execution techniques and handholds (barbell, dumbbell, and cable), as well as with
different amplitudes to better explain its application in RT programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
João Guilherme Veira was financed in part with the MSc scholarship by the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. Yuri
Campos was financed in part with the PhD scholarship by the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
 9

Address for correspondence: João Guilherme Vieira, Postgraduate Program of the Faculty
of Physical Education and Sports of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil. Phone:
+55 32 98444-8415. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

1. ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in

resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687-708.

2. Barbero M, Merletti R, Rainoldi A. Atlas of Muscle Innervation Zones:

Understanding Surface Electromyography and Its Applications. Springer Science
& Business Media, 2012.

3. Behm DG, Leonard AM, Young WB, Bonsey WA, MacKinnon SN. Trunk muscle
electromyographic activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond
Res. 2005;19(1):193-201.

4. Borges E, Mezêncio B, Pinho J, Soncin R, Barbosa J, Araujo F, Gianolla F, Amadio C,

Serrão JC. Resistance training acute session: Pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi and
triceps brachii electromyographic activity. J Phys Educ. 2018;18(2):648-653.

5. Campos YAC, Silva SF. Comparison of electromyographic activity during the bench
press and barbell pullover exercises. Motriz. 2014;20(2):200-205.

6. Campos YAC, Souza HLR, Silva SF, Marchetti PH. The use of barbell or dumbbell
does not affect muscle activation during pullover exercise. Rev Bras Med Esporte.
2017;23(5):357-360.

7. Campos YAC, Vianna JM, Guimarães MP, Oliveira JLD, Hernández-Mosqueira C,

Silva SF, Marchetti PH. Different shoulder exercises affect the activation of deltoid
portions in resistance-trained individuals. J Hum Kinet. 2020;75:5-14.

8. Clemons JM, Aaron C. Effect of grip width on the myoelectric activity of the prime
movers in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(2):82-87.

9. Davies TB, Kuang K, Orr R, Halaki M, Hackett D. Effect of movement velocity during
resistance training on dynamic muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(8):1603-1617.

10. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic P, Krieger JW, Schoenfeld BJ. The effects of short versus
long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy:
A systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(8):983-993.

11. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, Lazinica B, Krieger JW, Pedisic Z. Effect of
resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(5):1207-1220.

12. Hall S. Basic Biomechanical. Guanabara Koogan, 2016.

 10

13. Hamill J, Knutzen KM, Ribeiro LB, Barbanti VJ. Biomechanical Basis of Human
Movement. Manole, 1999.

14. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies
in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3-13.

15. Leavy CM. Dumbbell pullover. Strength Condit J. 2004;26(2):48-49.

16. Lehman GJ. The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/supination on upper-
body myoelectric activity during the flat bench press. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19
(3):587-591.

17. Marchetti PH, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva JJ, Guiselini MA, Freitas FS, Pecoraro SL, Gomes
WA, Lopes CR. Muscle activation pattern during isometric ab wheel rollout exercise in
different shoulder angle-positions. MedicalExpress. 2015;2(4):1-5.

18. Marchetti PH, Uchida MC. Effects of the pullover exercise on the pectoralis major and
latissimus dorsi muscles as evaluated by EMG. J Appl Biomech. 2011;27(4):380-384.

19. Mirka GA. The quantification of EMG normalization error. Ergonomics. 1991;34(3):
343-352.

20. Newmire DE, Willoughby DS. Partial compared with full range of motion resistance
training for muscle hypertrophy: A brief review and an identification of potential
mechanisms. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(9):2652-2664.

21. NSCA. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. (4th Edition). Human
Kinetics, 2016.

22. Robertson DGE, Caldwell GE, Hamill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey S. Research Methods
in Biomechanics. Human Kinetics, 2013.

23. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J. Effects of range of motion on muscle development during
resistance training interventions: A systematic review. SAGE Open Med. 2020;8:1-8.

24. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations
between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(12):3508-3523.

25. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on
measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports
Med. 2016;46(11):1689-1697.

26. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly
resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(11):1073-1082.

27. Shephard RJ. PAR-Q, Canadian home fitness test and exercise screening
alternatives. Sports Med. 1988;5(3):185-195.
 11

28. Signorile JF, Zink AJ, Szwed SP. A comparative electromyographical investigation of
muscle utilization patterns using various hand positions during the lat pull-down. J
Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(4):539-546.

29. Simão R, de Salles BF, Figueiredo T, Dias I, Willardson JM. Exercise order in
resistance training. Sports Med. 2012;42(3):251-265.

30. Stastny P, Gołaś A, Blazek D, Maszczyk A, Wilk M, Pietraszewski P, Petr M, Uhlir P,

Zając A. A systematic review of surface electromyography analyses of the bench
press movement task. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171632.

31. Tiwana MS, Sinkler MA, Bordoni B. Anatomy, shoulder and upper limb, triceps muscle.
In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing Copyright, 2020.

32. Wakahara T, Fukutani A, Kawakami Y, Yanai T. Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy: Its

relation to muscle activation in training session. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(11):
2158-2165.

33. 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
(2):449-452.

34. Wilk M, Golas A, Stastny P, Nawrocka M, Krzysztofik M, Zajac A. Does tempo of

resistance exercise impact training volume? J Hum Kinet. 2018;62:241-250.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in JEPonline are those of the authors and are not attributable to
JEPonline, the editorial staff or the ASEP organization.