Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise
This study compared electromyographic (EMG) amplitude, the number of repetitions completed, and exercise volume during three sets to failure of high- (80% 1RM) versus low-load (30% 1RM) forearm flexion resistance exercise on a subject-by-subject basis. Fifteen men were familiarized, completed forear...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2015-09-01
|
| Series: | Sports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/4/269 |
| _version_ | 1798002491899510784 |
|---|---|
| author | Nathaniel D. M. Jenkins Terry J. Housh Samuel L. Buckner Haley C. Bergstrom Kristen C. Cochrane Cory M. Smith Ethan C. Hill Richard J. Schmidt Joel T. Cramer |
| author_facet | Nathaniel D. M. Jenkins Terry J. Housh Samuel L. Buckner Haley C. Bergstrom Kristen C. Cochrane Cory M. Smith Ethan C. Hill Richard J. Schmidt Joel T. Cramer |
| author_sort | Nathaniel D. M. Jenkins |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study compared electromyographic (EMG) amplitude, the number of repetitions completed, and exercise volume during three sets to failure of high- (80% 1RM) versus low-load (30% 1RM) forearm flexion resistance exercise on a subject-by-subject basis. Fifteen men were familiarized, completed forearm flexion 1RM testing. Forty-eight to 72 h later, the subjects completed three sets to failure of dumbbell forearm flexion resistance exercise with 80% (n = 8) or 30% (n = 7) 1RM. EMG amplitude was calculated for every repetition, and the number of repetitions performed and exercise volume were recorded. During sets 1, 2, and 3, one of eight subjects in the 80% 1RM group demonstrated a significant linear relationship for EMG amplitude versus repetition. For the 30% 1RM group, seven, five, and four of seven subjects demonstrated significant linear relationships during sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean EMG amplitude responses show that the fatigue-induced increases in EMG amplitude for the 30% 1RM group and no change in EMG amplitude for the 80% 1RM group resulted in similar levels of muscle activation in both groups. The numbers of repetitions completed were comparatively greater, while exercise volumes were similar in the 30% versus 80% 1RM group. Our results, in conjunction with those of previous studies in the leg extensors, suggest that there may be muscle specific differences in the responses to high- versus low-load exercise. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T11:54:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-65f033fea6a947df8fe2b1277e009df7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-4663 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T11:54:08Z |
| publishDate | 2015-09-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sports |
| spelling | doaj.art-65f033fea6a947df8fe2b1277e009df72022-12-22T04:25:14ZengMDPI AGSports2075-46632015-09-013426928010.3390/sports3040269sports3040269Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance ExerciseNathaniel D. M. Jenkins0Terry J. Housh1Samuel L. Buckner2Haley C. Bergstrom3Kristen C. Cochrane4Cory M. Smith5Ethan C. Hill6Richard J. Schmidt7Joel T. Cramer8Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USADepartment of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USADepartment of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS 38677, USADepartment of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0219, USADepartment of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USADepartment of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USADepartment of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USADepartment of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USADepartment of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 211 Ruth Leverton Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USAThis study compared electromyographic (EMG) amplitude, the number of repetitions completed, and exercise volume during three sets to failure of high- (80% 1RM) versus low-load (30% 1RM) forearm flexion resistance exercise on a subject-by-subject basis. Fifteen men were familiarized, completed forearm flexion 1RM testing. Forty-eight to 72 h later, the subjects completed three sets to failure of dumbbell forearm flexion resistance exercise with 80% (n = 8) or 30% (n = 7) 1RM. EMG amplitude was calculated for every repetition, and the number of repetitions performed and exercise volume were recorded. During sets 1, 2, and 3, one of eight subjects in the 80% 1RM group demonstrated a significant linear relationship for EMG amplitude versus repetition. For the 30% 1RM group, seven, five, and four of seven subjects demonstrated significant linear relationships during sets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean EMG amplitude responses show that the fatigue-induced increases in EMG amplitude for the 30% 1RM group and no change in EMG amplitude for the 80% 1RM group resulted in similar levels of muscle activation in both groups. The numbers of repetitions completed were comparatively greater, while exercise volumes were similar in the 30% versus 80% 1RM group. Our results, in conjunction with those of previous studies in the leg extensors, suggest that there may be muscle specific differences in the responses to high- versus low-load exercise.http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/4/269electromyographyskeletal musclemuscle fatigueresistance training intensitybiceps brachii |
| spellingShingle | Nathaniel D. M. Jenkins Terry J. Housh Samuel L. Buckner Haley C. Bergstrom Kristen C. Cochrane Cory M. Smith Ethan C. Hill Richard J. Schmidt Joel T. Cramer Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise Sports electromyography skeletal muscle muscle fatigue resistance training intensity biceps brachii |
| title | Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise |
| title_full | Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise |
| title_fullStr | Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise |
| title_full_unstemmed | Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise |
| title_short | Individual Responses for Muscle Activation, Repetitions, and Volume during Three Sets to Failure of High- (80% 1RM) versus Low-Load (30% 1RM) Forearm Flexion Resistance Exercise |
| title_sort | individual responses for muscle activation repetitions and volume during three sets to failure of high 80 1rm versus low load 30 1rm forearm flexion resistance exercise |
| topic | electromyography skeletal muscle muscle fatigue resistance training intensity biceps brachii |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/3/4/269 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nathanieldmjenkins individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT terryjhoush individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT samuellbuckner individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT haleycbergstrom individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT kristenccochrane individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT corymsmith individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT ethanchill individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT richardjschmidt individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise AT joeltcramer individualresponsesformuscleactivationrepetitionsandvolumeduringthreesetstofailureofhigh801rmversuslowload301rmforearmflexionresistanceexercise |