Electromyographic activation of superficial musculature during a suspension inverted row as compared to an inverted row

Robert M. Brannan, B.S.; Ronald L. Snarr Jr., B.S., CSCS; Michael R. Esco, Ph.D., CSCS*DHuman Performance Laboratory, Auburn University Montgomery, Montgomery, AL

Practical Applications

Introduction

Methods

Abstract

Purpose

HUMAN PERFORMANCE LABORATORY

Recent trends in fitness have leaned towards providing a greater

challenge to traditional resistance exercises in order to improve

functionality, balance, core strength and improve sports performance.

Suspension training, a new training modality, has emerged as a way to

perform traditional bodyweight and resistance exercises on unstable

equipment. Although, a majority of the literature on suspension and

instability training examines pushing movements (e.g., push-up and

squats), very little to no research has been done on pulling movements

while using these devices (e.g., inverted row). An inverted row is typically

performed using a smith machine or standard barbell placed upon a

stable rack.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the electromyographic

(EMG) activity of the middle-trapezius (MT), posterior deltoid (PD), biceps

brachii (BB), and latissimus dorsi (LD) while performing a suspension

inverted row [SIR] and traditional inverted row [IR].

The maximum values of electrical activity, mean peak EMG, for each

muscle group were recorded for each exercise performed. Middle

trapezius, posterior deltoid, and latissimus dorsi were found to have had

no significant difference during the IR and SIR The biceps brachii,

however, did elicit a significantly greater BB activation during the IR

compared to the SIR (Table 2).

Practitioners should take note that the suspension and traditional inverted

row provided similar activation levels when it came to the middle trapezius,

posterior deltoid and latissimus dorsi. Although, conventional training on

stable surfaces is adequate, suspension training may be useful when

attempting to imitate activities of daily living (ADL’s) and sports-specific

movements. Therefore, a suspended inverted row can provide a

substitution for the traditional inverted row. However, further research is

warranted to determine the affects of suspension training on additional

exercises (e.g., pull-ups) with a strong focus on primary and secondary

movers. 

References

1. Juker, D; McGill, S; Kropf, P; and Steffen, T. Quantitative intramusculature myoelectric activity of lumbar portions of psoas and the abdominal wall during a wide variety of tasks. Med Sci Sports Exer. 1998, 30: 301-310.

2. Kibele, A; and Behm, DG. Seven weeks of instability and traditional resistance training effects on strength, balance and functional performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2009, 23(9): 2443-2450.

3. Fenwick, CMJ, Brown, SHM, McGill, SM. Comparison of different rowing exercises: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and stiffness. J Strength Cond Res 23(2):350-358, 2009.

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

Stability, balance and coordination are all important factors when training

for specificity or mimicking activities of daily living.  Suspension training is

a newer form of instability training that can provide a way to perform

typical resistance exercises in an unstable environment.  Research in

stability training has mainly focused on the effects of an unbalanced

surface and core musculature activation.  Very few studies have focused

on the primary and secondary musculature targeted during specific pulling

exercises.  Therefore, movements such as the inverted row have a need

to be examined when an instability device is introduced to this exercise. 

PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation is to quantify the differences

in muscular activation during a suspension inverted row [SIR] and a

traditional inverted row [IR] across selected superficial musculature

(latissimus dorsi (LD), posterior deltoid (PD), middle trapezius (MT), and

biceps brachii (BB)).  METHODS: Fifteen men (n = 12) and women (n=3)

volunteered to participate in this study.  Subjects were asked to perform

four repetitions of both the inverted row (IR) and suspension inverted row

(SIR).  For this study, the order of the exercises was randomized.  Mean

peak EMG values were recorded for each muscle group during all

exercises performed.  RESULTS: The SIR provided the following values:

MT = 2.8496 ± 1.54681, PD = 3.5490 ± 1.61145, LD = 3.9143 ± 2.33725,

BB = 3.9482 ± 1.28421.  IR values were: MT = 3.0558 ± 1.89448, PD =

3.4137 ± 1.38606, LD = 3.7352 ± 2.14528, BB = 4.4814 ± 1.44295. 

CONCLUSION: This study found no significant differences between MT,

LD, and PD activation between the two exercises (p > 0.05).  However, IR

elicited a significantly greater BB activation compared to SIR (p < 0.05).

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:  Practitioners should take note that the

suspension and traditional inverted row provide similar activation levels,

except for the BB.  Therefore, suspension training can provide a

substitution for the traditional inverted row when necessary.  However,

further research is warranted to determine the affects of suspension

training on additional exercises with a strong focus on primary and

secondary movers. 

Fifteen apparently healthy men (n=12, ages 26.82 ± 4.02) and women

(n=3, ages 22.25 ± 0.96) volunteered to participate in this study. The

subjects performed four repetitions of SIR and IR each, where the order of

the exercises was randomized. Average peak EMG activity was recorded

and analyzed for both SIR and IR for the middle trapezius, posterior

deltoid, biceps brachii and latissimus dorsi. Descriptive statistics for all

subjects are in Table 1.

Electrode Placement

Biopac surface EMG electrodes were used in this investigation along with

Acqknowledge software to analyze peak EMG muscle activation. All

electrodes were placed on the right side of the body and parallel to the

direct line of action for the middle trapezius, posterior deltoid, biceps

brachii and latissimus dorsi. Posterior deltoid electrodes were placed 2 cm

below the lateral border of the spine of the scapula, spaced 2 cm apart

and angled toward the deltoid tuberosity. Middle trapezius electrodes

were placed 2 cm apart and parallel to the muscle fibers between the

thoracic vertebrae and the medial aspect of the spine of the scapula.

Electrodes for the biceps brachii were placed vertically 2 cm apart directly

over the muscle belly on the anterior aspect of the upper arm. Latissimus

Dorsi electrodes were placed approximately 4 cm beneath the inferior tip

of the scapula, half the distance between the lateral border of the torso

and the spine, spaced 2 cm apart and at an oblique angle (25o) following

the muscle fibers. The ground electrode was placed over the right anterior

superior iliac spine (ASIS).

Statistical Analysis

A MP150 BioNomadix Wireless Physiology Monitoring system was used

for this investigation in order to capture electromyographic activation

levels of the middle trapezius, posterior deltoid, biceps brachii and

latissimus dorsi. All activity was sampled at a rate of 1.0 kHz using

Acqknowledge 4.2 software (BIOPAC System, Inc., Goleta, CA).

SPSS/PASW Statistics version 19.0 (Somers, NY) was used to calculate

means and standard deviations for each of the muscles examined (i.e.,

PD and MT). The differences in mean peak EMG activation levels

between each muscle and exercises (IR, SIR) were determined through

paired sample T-Tests. A priori statistical significance was set to a value

of p < 0.05.

Results

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics (n = 15)

Conclusions

This study suggests that the MT, PD and LD were not significantly

different between the two exercises performed. However, IR elicited a

significantly greater BB activation compared to SIR (p < 0.05). During

certain bodyweight pushing exercises, suspension training can cause an

increased need for stability and balance. However, during pulling

movements, such as the IR, minimal stabilization may be required.

T h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s f u n d e d b y t h e S t u d e n t G o v e r n m e n t A s s o c i a t i o n a n d R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l a t A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y M o n t g o m e r y

MUSCLE IR (mean ± SD) SIR (mean ± SD)

Middle Trapezius 3.06 ± 1.89 2.85 ± 1.55

Posterior Deltoid 3.41 ± 1.39 3.55 ± 1.61

Biceps Brachii 4.48 ± 1.44 3.95 ± 1.28

Latissimus Dorsi 3.74 ± 2.15 3.91 ± 2.34

Table 2. Mean peak EMG values (mV)

Methods, cont.

MEN (mean ± SD) WOMEN (mean ± SD)

Height (cm) 178.82 ± 8.59 173.75 ± 5.68

Weight (kg) 82 ± 7.95 68 ± 7.57

BMI (kg/m2) 25.66 ± 2.08 22.50 ± 2.01

Introduction, cont.Therefore, by adding an unstable element to this exercise (i.e., suspension

device), it would be hypothesized to increase activation of the primary and

stabilization muscles used during the row (e.g., middle trapezius and

posterior deltoid).