EMG Results

[Old and Grey]

This was ripped off a study by Dr. Tudor Bompa. It does not include all the exercises I would have liked to have seen but is a good general guide:

CHEST
Pectoralis Major
Decline dumbell bench press: 93
Decline bench press (olympic): 89
Push-ups between benches: 88
Flat dumbell bench press: 87
Flat bench press: 85
Flat dumbell flys: 84

Pectoralis Minor
Incline dumbell bench press: 91
Incline bench press (olympic): 85
Incline dumbell flys 83:
Incline bench press (Smith): 81

SHOULDERS
Medial Deltoids
Incline dumbell side laterals: 66
Standing dumbell side laterals: 63
Seated dumbell side laterals: 62
Cable side laterals: 47

Posterior Deltoids

Standing dumbell bent laterals: 85
Seated dumbell side laterals: 83
Standing cable bent laterals: 77

Anterior Deltoids

Seated Front Dumbell Press: 79
Standing Front Dumbell Raises: 73
Seated Front Barbell Press: 61

BACK
Latissimus Dorsi
Bent over barbell rows: 93
One arm dumbell rows: 91
T-bar rows: 89
Lat pulldowns (front): 86
Seated pulley rows: 83

BICEPS
Biceps Brachii (long head)
Biceps Preacher Curls (olympic bar): 90
Incline Seated Dumbell Curls (alternate): 88
Standing Biceps Curl (olympic bar/narrow grip): 86
Standing Dumbell Curls (alternate): 84
Concentration Dumbell Curls: 80
Standing Biceps Curls (olympic bar/wide grip): 63
Standing E-Z Biceps Curls (wide grip): 61

TRICEPS
Triceps Brachii (outer head)

Decline Triceps Extensions (olympic bar): 92
Triceps Pressdowns (angled bar): 90
Triceps Dip Between Benches 87:
One-Arm Cable Triceps Extensions (reverse grip): 85
Overhead Rope Triceps Extensions: 84
Seated One-Arm Dumbell Triceps Extensions (neutral grip): 82
Close-Grip Bench Press (olympic bar): 72

LEGS
Rectus Femoris (quadricep)
Safety Squats (90-degree angle, shoulder-width stance): 88
Seated Leg Extensions (toes straight): 86
Hack Squats (90-degree angle, shoulder-width stance): 78
Leg Press (110-degree angle): 76
Smith Machine Squats (90-degree angle, shoulder-width stance): 60

Biceps Femoris (hamstring)
Standing Leg Curls: 82
Lying Leg Curls: 71
Seated Leg Curls: 58
Modified Hamstring Deadlift: 56

Semitendinosus (rear thigh)
Seated Leg Curls: 88
Standing Leg Curls: 79
Lying Leg Curls: 70
Modified hamstring Deadlift: 63

Gastrocnemius (calf)
Donkey Calf Raises: 80
Standing Single-leg Calf Raises: 79
Standing Calf Raises: 68
Seated Calf Raises: 61

 

[k_dean_curtis]

Interesting, similar to previous studies. What I would like to see is the EMG rating of all these muscles for big 6 compounds. E.G. for squat, show quad, glute, adductor, abductor, gastroc, etc. This would tell us what isolations are necessary.

 

[Jester]

Interesting, similar to previous studies. What I would like to see is the EMG rating of all these muscles for big 6 compounds. E.G. for squat, show quad, glute, adductor, abductor, gastroc, etc. This would tell us what isolations are necessary.

Yes & no.

Load and activation are both the concern here. Biceps is a great example of EMG being fools gold. Chins and rows will give you far bigger bi's than a preacher curl will.

I'd really like them to show how well smaller muscles activate during compounds.

And sadly, nothing for the traps here.

 

[Old and Grey]

It's definitely missing a lot. I would like to make up a table to show how effectively each compound exercises hit which muscle but I haven't found enough information to do it.

 

[Sci]

while it is interesting, those emg results are highly unreliable. Where on the trainees were the sensors attached? What % of their maximum strength was used? Did the test subjects have to exert themselves harder on some exercises than others, because of the loading used?

Unfortunately, as fun and interesting as these studies are, they are pretty much USELESS. I wouldn't take them as any kind of hard evidence of anything.

 

[Jester]

I wouldn't describe them as 'useless'. I'd label them with the 'indicative' tag and keep them in mind.

Obviously there's a lot about the literal method that you want answered, but if we make the presumption that those boxes were ticked (for the sake of argument/discussion) then there's still something worth keeping compartmentalised somewhere in your mind.

All they're really helpful for, upper-ceiling wise, is contributing to exercise selection choice.

For me they're more interesting, than pragmatic.

 

[Sci]

I wouldn't describe them as 'useless'. I'd label them with the 'indicative' tag and keep them in mind.

Obviously there's a lot about the literal method that you want answered, but if we make the presumption that those boxes were ticked (for the sake of argument/discussion) then there's still something worth keeping compartmentalised somewhere in your mind.

All they're really helpful for, upper-ceiling wise, is contributing to exercise selection choice.

For me they're more interesting, than pragmatic.

Unfortunately, I have looked at other emg studies, and often-times there are conflicting results. Simply by changing the loading used, an emg test result will be entirely different with the same exercise, not to mention that different test subjects will give off different readings on the same exercise.
"useless" was a bit harsh, but really after seeing emg studies with totally conflicting results, I have pretty much abandoned them as an exercise selection tool.

 

[FistOfFury]

Bryan's comments on emg -

EMG reflects the level of "electrical" activation
of the muscle. As such it is a good indicator of
how hard a muscle is contracting. However,
it isn't perfect. Having done EMG research myself
while in school (Ex phys labs) I know that there are inherent weaknesses to the methods.

Nevertheless, if you want to know
how much electrical activity is going on in a muscle (or at
least a certain part of that muscle), EMG is the best we've got.

In a very real sense, EMG is a result of voluntary
effort. So, the harder you try to contract the
muscle, the greater EMG activity you will see,
regardless of how heavy it is. This brings in a

great deal of between-subject, and between-trial error in measurements.

EMG is also greatly affected by practice or coordination. A person who is not well practiced at

a given exercise will often display erratic EMG read outs.

Fatigue also changes EMG readouts. The more fatigue there is, the greater the EMG amplitude.

Keep in mind as well that during eccentric contractions, EMG amplitude goes down
significantly, yet at the same time, the eccentric portion of an exercise presents a greater
stimulus for growth than the concentric portion.

EMG as a tool specifically relating to bodybuilding (muscle growth) is not an accurate indicator

of the efficacy of a given exercise to induce growth. The efficacy of any exercise is determined

by the load, the duration, and the condition of
the tissue at the time the load is applied.


For the lats, the load is limited by your strength level and degree of stretch during loading. The

duration is limited by your “strength-endurance”, and time in the stretched position. The
condition of the muscle is determined by what you have done with your lats in the last 6 weeks

or so.

So, speaking in general (i.e. simplified) and acute
(i.e. one training session) terms, the heavier
any lat exercise becomes, the more effective
it will become. The more volume you do at that
weight, the more effective that session will be.
The greater the stretch experienced by the lat
and the longer you hold it, the more effective that exercise will be. And finally, the longer its

been since you trained your lats, the more effective that session will be.

On a personal note, nothing has been as effective as the weighted eccentric chins/pull-ups at the

end of an HST cycle for putting on real thickness on my lats.

 

[Jester]

Unfortunately, I have looked at other emg studies, and often-times there are conflicting results. Simply by changing the loading used, an emg test result will be entirely different with the same exercise, not to mention that different test subjects will give off different readings on the same exercise.
"useless" was a bit harsh, but really after seeing emg studies with totally conflicting results, I have pretty much abandoned them as an exercise selection tool.

For sure.

Ideally I would prefer to have, let's say, 7 or 8 studies (1000 in a perfect world, but who has that time? ) and do a quick stat check on the mean, mode and median averages for the exercises/muscles you're interested in. Then decide if you trust it or not.


Re: Bryan's remarks - definitely agree re: weighted chins/pulls (and in general).

 

[k_dean_curtis]

re: Chins and rows will give you far bigger bi's than a preacher curl will.

Alex, I do not want to sound argumentative, but this statement does not sound scientifically valid. Any exercise will stress the muscle, whether isolation or not. The bottom line is the degree of tension on said muscle. There is currently another whole thread on the premise that one has to do rear deltoid and rotator cuff isolations specifically because compounds do not work them well enough.

Now if this statement is referring to overall program design, allowing for more ROI of compounds vs many isolations then I can relate. Can you clarify what you meant?

 

[Sci]

re: Chins and rows will give you far bigger bi's than a preacher curl will.

Alex, I do not want to sound argumentative, but this statement does not sound scientifically valid. Any exercise will stress the muscle, whether isolation or not. The bottom line is the degree of tension on said muscle. There is currently another whole thread on the premise that one has to do rear deltoid and rotator cuff isolations specifically because compounds do not work them well enough.

Now if this statement is referring to overall program design, allowing for more ROI of compounds vs many isolations then I can relate. Can you clarify what you meant?

I agree. While chins and such may indeed stress the biceps well, so will preacher curls and other isolations. Alex is rightly enthusiastic about compounds, but I think he is wrong about isolations being less effective.

The only reason I don't do preacher curls currently is because I am mainly concerned with my lats, and biceps are a secondary concern that get worked plenty withbmy lats. If my biceps were a priority, I would definitely be doing some preacher curls or other curls, to be sure I was hitting them as much as possible.

 

[Jester]

Happy to agree to disagree on this one

I will, however, offer a parting shot @ Sci , re: your biceps-growth without an isolation to be seen :O






I think isolations are excellent for glycogen retention in those smaller muscle groups, as well as injury prevention (for a variety of reasons).

 

[Sci]

Muscle is muscle. It contracts. Doesn't matter how many joints are involved. Wether a compound pull like a pull-up, or an single-joint movement like a curl, the biceps muscle has to contract just the same.

Of course, doing only compounds will grow my arms. But then again, so will doing only isolations!

There is nothing magic about multijoint exercises.

 

[Old and Grey]

Click link above to see the proven results of Isolations vs Compounds!


O&G

 

[Sci]

<img src="http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2245"/>

Click link above to see the proven results of Isolations vs Compounds!

O&G

Lol.

I prefer compounds myself. But isolations are also great for calves, arms, etc.

 

[Jester]

Muscle is muscle. It contracts. Doesn't matter how many joints are involved. Wether a compound pull like a pull-up, or an single-joint movement like a curl, the biceps muscle has to contract just the same.

Of course, doing only compounds will grow my arms. But then again, so will doing only isolations!

There is nothing magic about multijoint exercises.

Isolations are excellent exercises to stand in front of a mirror

I promise that your arms will get bigger doing the compounds than they would on just iso's. Load being applied would be the difference.

But as I said, we can happily disagree here

 

[Sci]

Isolations are excellent exercises to stand in front of a mirror

I promise that your arms will get bigger doing the compounds than they would on just iso's. Load being applied would be the difference.

But as I said, we can happily disagree here

I'll agree to the point that I will continue with just compounds for as long as possible. I admit it, compounds arm movements are natural and I am pretty sure I can grow huge arms doing weighted chins and dips.

But... I have seen guys who do nothing but curls, and they have large biceps, yet hardly any muscle mass elsewhere. Sure it looks stupid to me, but the point is that bicep curls cause bicep hypertrophy just as much as chin-ups , etc.

The only reason that chin-ups allow higher loading is because the much larger lats and back muscles are doing much of the work... Duh.

 

[Jester]

Smaller muscles get the tension on the compounds (obviously accounting for exercises that work them, ala deads don't do a lot for triceps )

Anyway ... totally agree about the mirror nerds. They have no quads, no back, no glutes or calves, usually minimal chest work. Just shoulders and biceps ... so weird.

 

[Nagels]

Smaller muscles get the tension on the compounds (obviously accounting for exercises that work them, ala deads don't do a lot for triceps )

Anyway ... totally agree about the mirror nerds. They have no quads, no back, no glutes or calves, usually minimal chest work. Just shoulders and biceps ... so weird.

All show and no go Calves - Hams -Glutes -Traps and Lats , from an symmetrical and functional point of view the posterior chain is all imo. I would however concede that properly thought out and applied isolation exercises will also do a lot for these areas without the need for further heavy compounds...but only after a foundation has been built through compounds.