puxadapronadaediferentesposicoesdasmaos

Prévia do material em texto

EFFECTS OF GRIP WIDTH ON MUSCLE STRENGTH AND
ACTIVATION IN THE LAT PULL-DOWN
VIDAR ANDERSEN,1 MARIUS S. FIMLAND,2,3 ESPEN WIIK,1 ANDERS SKOGLUND,1 AND
ATLE H. SAETERBAKKEN
1
1Faculty of Teacher Education and Sport, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway; 2Department of Public
Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; and
3Hysnes Rehabilitation Center, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
ABSTRACT
Andersen, V, Fimland, MS,Wiik, E, Skoglund, A, and Saeterbakken,
AH. Effects of grip width on muscle strength and activation in the
lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 1135–1142, 2014—
The lat pull-down is one of the most popular compound back
exercises. Still, it is a general belief that a wider grip activates
the latissimus dorsi more than a narrow one, but without any
broad scientific support. The aim of the study was to compare
6 repetition maximum (6RM) load and electromyographic (EMG)
activity in the lat pull-down using 3 different pronated grip widths.
Fifteen men performed 6RM in the lat pull-down with narrow,
medium, and wide grips (1, 1.5, and 2 times the biacromial dis-
tance) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. The 6RM
strengths with narrow (80.3 6 7.2 kg) and medium grip (80 6
7.1 kg) were higher than wide grip (77.3 6 6.3 kg; p = 0.02).
There was similar EMG activation between grip widths for latissi-
mus, trapezius, or infraspinatus, but a tendency for biceps brachii
activation to be greater for medium vs. narrow (p = 0.09), when
the entire movement was analyzed. Analyzing the concentric
phase separately revealed greater biceps brachii activation using
the medium vs. narrow grip (p = 0.03). In the eccentric phase,
there was greater activation using wide vs. narrow grip for latissi-
mus and infraspinatus (p # 0.04), and tendencies for medium
greater than narrow for latissimus, and medium greater than wide
for biceps (both p = 0.08), was observed. Collectively, a medium
grip may have some minor advantages over small and wide grips;
however, athletes and others engaged in resistance training can
generally expect similar muscle activation which in turn should
result in similar hypertrophy gains with a grip width that is 1–2
times the biacromial distance.
KEY WORDS EMG, resistance training, biceps brachii,
latissimus dorsi
INTRODUCTION
A
ppropriate exercise selection is critical to achieve
the aims of any resistance training program. One
of the most popular exercises for the back muscles
is the lat pull-down. Being a 2-joint exercise con-
sisting of an adduction in the shoulder and a flexion in the
elbow, the lat pull-down involves several muscles in the
upper body, although it is primarily used to train the latissi-
mus dorsi (11). This strength exercise has similarities to
movements in sports such as climbing, different strokes in
swimming, and performing the rings in gymnastics (21).
There seems to be a general belief among trainers that a wide
grip activates the latissimus dorsi more than a narrow one;
however, this relies more on a myth than scientific research
(3). Training regimens based on beliefs instead of scientific
evidence could lead to suboptimal gains.
There have been several studies examining the muscle
activation during different variations of the lat pull-down
(8,10,11,21,22,24). However, to our knowledge, only 1 study
examined the differences in muscle activations between dif-
ferent grip widths in the pronated, anterior pull-down (11),
which is the most common version of the exercise (3,21).
Lusk et al. (11) examined muscle activation in the pull-down
with 4 different grip variations; wide and narrow pronated
and supinated grip. Two sets of 5 repetitions at 70% of 1
repetition maximum (1RM) were performed with each grip.
Lusk et al. (11) reported similar muscle activation in latissi-
mus dorsi, the middle trapezius, and the biceps brachii
between wide and narrow pronated grips. However,
although not entirely comparable, Signorile et al. (21) found
a higher activation of the latissimus dorsi with a wide ante-
rior grip compared with other grips (close grip, supinated
grip, and wide posterior grip) using 10RM-loads.
The effects of pronated grip widths in the anterior lat pull-
down are not yet fully determined: The study by Lusk et al.
only assessed 2 grip widths and had no familiarization session
before the 1RM test. Also, the participants used the same
absolute rather than relative load in all the different grips, and
finally the sets were not performed until or close to failure.
The 2 latter methodological limitations make it difficult to
transfer the findings to real life training as intensity usually is
Address correspondence to Vidar Andersen, vidar.andersen@hisf.no.
28(4)/1135–1142
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
� 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1135
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
prescribed relative to muscular
strength in the trained exercise,
and people engaged in resis-
tance training usually perform
exercises (close) to failure. The
importance of using equal rela-
tive loads when comparing dif-
ferent exercises is emphasized
in several recent original studies
(17,15,16,19) and a recent
review (5).
As the results of previous
studies are conflicting, suffer
from various methodological
limitations, and have not as-
sessed the effects of grip widths
for the lat pull-down as exten-
sively as this investigation, the
aim of the study was to com-
pare the 6RM load and elec-
tromyographic (EMG) activity
in the lat-pull down using 3
different grip widths. Our
hypothesis was that using the
same relative load would pro-
vide similar muscle activations,
but that the 6RM load would
decrease with increasing grip
Figure 1. Different grip widths in the lat pull-down: wide (A), medium (B), and narrow (C).
Figure 2. Start (A) and stop (B) of the concentric phase in the lat pull-down.
Comparison of Loading and Muscle Activity in Lat Pull-Down
1136 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
Figure 3. Normalized electromyographic activation of the whole movement (A), the concentric phase (B), and the eccentric phase (C) of the biceps brachii,
latissimus dorsi, trapezius, and infraspinatus during 6RM in the lat pull-down performed with 3 different grip widths. Values are given as mean 6 SD.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1137
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
AV
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
widths because the lever arm increases when the grip
becomes wider.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A within-participant repeated-measures design was used to
examine the 6RM strength and concomitant EMG activity
in anterior lat pull-down using narrow, medium, and wide
pronated grip widths, defined as 1, 1.5, and 2 times the bi
acromial distance (BAD), respectively (Figure 1). The par-
ticipants took part in 1 session approximately 1 week before
the experimental test to familiarize the participants with the
procedures and identify the 6RM load for the different grip
widths. The exercise test order was randomized and coun-
terbalanced for each participant and was identical in the
habituation and experimental tests. To simulate a set in a typ-
ical workout, the participants performed a 6RM test (1,4,9),
which corresponds to approximately 85% of 1RM (3) and is
a recommended intensity for increasing muscle strength and
hypertrophy (2,14). By using equal relative load for each
exercise with heavy loads performed to volitional failure,
we can assess the practical significance of how the indepen-
dent variable, grip width, affects the dependent variable,
muscle activation. This is important knowledge for athletes
and coaches.
Subjects
Sixteen healthy (age, 24 6 4 years; body mass, 81 6 8 kg;
stature, 180 6 1 cm; and BAD, 34.6 6 2.2 cm) resistance-
trained (experience, 6 6 3 years) men volunteered for the
study. Exclusion criteria were musculoskeletal pain, unfamil-
iarity with the exercise, injury or illness that might reduce
maximal effort, pain during testing or less than 6 months of
resistance training experience (11,17). One person dropped
out without giving any further reason; so, a total number of
15 participants completed the study. The participants were
instructed to refrain from any additional resistance training
targeting the upper body 48 hours before testing. The sub-
jects were instructed to maintain their normal diet, hydra-
tion, and sleeping habits during the experiment. Before the
habituation session, all participants provided informed writ-
ten consent. Ethical approval was obtained from the regional
research ethics committee and conformed to the latest revi-
sion of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study had approval
by the Institutional Review Board, and all appropriate con-
sent pursuant to law was obtained before the start of the
study.
Experimental Testing
The habituation and strength testing session took place during
the spring of 2012. First, the BAD was measured. Each
participant stood up against a whiteboard while the acromion
was palpated at both sides and marked at the whiteboard. The
BAD was defined as the distance between the 2 marks (10).
After a progressive warm-up (13,19), consisting of 10 repeti-
tions at estimated 20% of 6RM, 6 repetitions at 50% of approx-
imately 6RM, and 4 repetitions at 85% of approximately 6RM,
the 6RM attempts were started. The start load was set at
approximately 90–95% of estimated 6RM and increased by
2.5 or 5 kg until 6RM was achieved (2–4 attempts).
One week later, the experimental testing took place. The
testing time of the day was at the convenience of the
participants, but always
between 10 AM. and 6 PM. The
warm-up was conducted as
described above. Next, 6RM
of each of the 3 exercises was
performed in a randomized
and counterbalanced manner
with concomitant recordings
of EMG, bar displacement,
and angle movements
(described below). Each repeti-
tion started with the arms was
fully extended and was com-
plete when the bar was below
the chin (Figures 2A, B). Three
to 5 minutes of rest was given
between each attempt (6,20).
In the case of an unsuccessful
series, the load was slightly
reduced, or longer rest periods
were given. The participants
had to retract their scapulas
and were instructed
to minimize the movement of
Figure 4. Six repetition maximum loads in the lat pull-down performed with 3 different grip widths. Values are
given as mean 6 SD.
Comparison of Loading and Muscle Activity in Lat Pull-Down
1138 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
their truncus and hip. In the beginning of the lift, when the
arms were straight, no movement of the truncus was al-
lowed. In the end of the concentric phase, as the bar ap-
proached the chin, a minor movement in the hip was
accepted, so that participants would be able to perform the
exercise in the way they were used to. To control the move-
ment in the hip, a twin-axis goniometer (SS21L; Biopac
System, Inc., Goletta, CA, USA) was placed along the femur
and truncus. The accuracy of the goniometer was 628 mea-
sured over 908. The participants were instructed to lift in
a controlled and moderate tempo, but were not allowed to
shorten the lifting distance by lifting their chin (Figure 2B).
A linear encoder (Ergotest Technology AS, Langesund,
Norway, sampling frequency of 100 Hz) was used to control
the lifting time and identify the beginning and end of the
concentric and eccentric lifting phases. The linear encoder
and the goniometer were synchronized with the EMG
recording system (MuscleLab 4020e; Ergotest Technology
AS). To analyze the vertical position, lifting time, and hip
angle, a commercial software (MuscleLab V8.13; Ergotest
Technology AS) was used.
Electromyographic Measurements
The skin was prepared (shaved, washed with alcohol, and
abraded) for the placement of gel coated self-adhesive
electrodes (Dri-Stick Silver circular sEMG Electrodes AE-
131; NeuroDyne Medical, Cambridge, MA, USA) before the
experimental tests (11,21). The electrodes (11-mm contact
diameter) were placed along the presumed direction of the
underlying muscle fibre with center-to-center distance of
2 cm on the 4 muscles (biceps brachii, trapezius, latissimus
dorsi, and infraspinatus) according to the recommendations
by SENIAM (7). The electrodes were placed on the domi-
nant side of the participants (17,18).
To minimize noise induced from external sources through
the signal cables, the raw EMG signal was amplified and
filtered using a preamplifier located as near the pickup point
as possible. The preamplifier had a common mode rejection
ratio of 100 dB. The raw EMG signal was then band-pass
filtered (fourth-order Butterworth filter) 8–600 Hz. The fil-
tered EMG signals were converted to root mean square
(RMS) signals using a hardware circuit network (frequency
response 0–600 kHz, averaging constant 100 ms, total
error 60.5%). Finally, the RMS converted signal was sam-
pled at 100 Hz using a 16-bit A/D converter (AD637).
A commercial software (MuscleLab V8.13; Ergotest Tech-
nology AS) was used to analyze the stored EMG data. The
mean of each concentric, eccentric, and entire repetition of
the first to sixth repetitions was used to calculate the RMS
EMG. All EMG data were normalized to the best (highest
EMG activity) of 2 isometric maximal voluntary contrac-
tions (MVCs) before the experimental test. The MVCs were
performed with the medium grip at 908 angle in the elbow
joint with 60-second rest between the attempts. Each MVC
lasted for 3 seconds (10,12).
T
A
B
L
E
1
.
Li
ft
in
g
tim
e
an
d
hi
p
an
g
le
in
na
rr
o
w
,
m
ed
iu
m
,
an
d
w
id
e
g
rip
s
d
ur
in
g
6
R
M
in
th
e
la
t
p
ul
l-d
o
w
n.
*
N
ar
ro
w
g
rip
M
ed
iu
m
g
rip
W
id
e
g
rip
C
o
n.
†
E
cc
.
T
o
ta
l
C
o
n.
E
cc
.
T
o
ta
l
C
o
n.
E
cc
.
T
o
ta
l
Li
ft
in
g
tim
e
(s
)
7
.9
61
.8
9
.2
6
2
.2
1
7
.5
6
3
.7
7
.8
6
1
.6
9
.7
6
2
.7
1
7
.9
6
4
,0
7
.2
6
1
.5
9
.2
6
2
.5
1
6
.9
6
3
.6
H
ip
an
g
le
(in
d
eg
re
es
)
1
9
6
6
2
1
1
9
8
6
2
1
1
9
6
6
2
6
1
9
5
6
2
0
1
9
7
6
2
0
1
9
4
6
2
4
1
9
9
6
2
2
2
0
1
6
2
2
2
0
0
6
3
2
*V
al
ue
s
ar
e
g
iv
en
as
m
ea
n
6
S
D
.
†
C
o
n.
=
co
nc
en
tr
ic
p
ha
se
;
E
cc
.
=
ec
ce
nt
ric
p
ha
se
;
T
o
ta
l
=
co
nc
en
tr
ic
an
d
ec
ce
nt
ric
p
ha
se
s.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1139
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
Statistical Analyses
To analyze the influence of the independent variable (grip
width), 2-way ([3 grip widths 3 4 muscles] and [3 grip
widths3 6RM load]) repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to assess differences in the 2 dependent
variables (muscle EMG amplitude and 6RM load). When
differences were detected by ANOVA, paired t-test with
Bonferroni post hoc corrections were applied to determine
where the differences lay. Differences in load, lifting time,
and hip angle were assessed with 1-way repeated-measures
ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc corrections for multiple
group comparisons. Statistical analyses were performed
with SPSS version 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
All results were presented as means 6 SDs and Cohen’s
d effect size (ES). An ES of 0.2 was considered small,
0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large. Statistical significance was
accepted at p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Comparing the EMG activity of the whole movement of the
6 repetitions (concentric and eccentric phases) revealed
similar muscle activation of all muscles for the 3 grips (p =
0.092–0.96) (Figure 3A). Still, a tendency toward greater
activation of the biceps brachii was observed using medium
compared with narrow grip (61 6 12% vs. 56 6 10%; p =
0.092; ES = 0.38).
In the concentric phase, activation of biceps was greater
using medium compared with narrow grip (87 6 17% vs.
81 6 14%; p = 0.03; ES = 0.44) (Figure 3B). No other
significant differences were observed.
In the eccentric phase, latissimus dorsi and infraspinatus
had greater EMG activity using wide compared with narrow
grip (57 6 14% vs. 54 6 13%; p = 0.04; ES = 0.14 and 91 6
48% vs. 89 6 46%; p = 0.02; ES = 0.07). There was a ten-
dency toward greater EMG activation of the biceps brachii
using medium compared with wide grip (31 6 17% vs. 28 6
15%; p = 0.08; ES = 0.19). Furthermore, latissimus dorsi had
a tendency toward greater EMG activity using medium
compared with narrow grip (58 6 16% vs. 54 6 13%; p =
0.08; ES = 0.18; Figure 3C).
The 6RM load using wide grip was approximately 4%
lower than medium grip (77.3 6 6.3 kg vs. 80.3 6 7.2 kg; p =
0.021; ES = 0.44) and approximately 4% lower than narrow
grip (77.3 6 6.3 kg vs. 80.0 6 7.1 kg; p = 0.02; ES = 0.4;
Figure 4). There were similar loads using narrow and
medium grip widths (80.0 6 7.1 kg vs. 80.3 6 7.2 kg;
p = 1.00).
There were similar lifting times (p = 0.75) and hip angle
(p = 0.84) for the different grips during the tests (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
Generally, similar muscle activation was obtained with
narrow, medium, and wide pronated grips in the anterior
lat pull-down. However, a medium grip may have some-
minor advantages over small and wide grips as biceps brachii
had greater activity using a medium compared with a narrow
grip in the concentric phase, and there was a tendency for
the same in the entire movement. In the eccentric phase,
medium grip provided either higher or equally high muscle
activation for all muscles. In addition, the 6RM load was
lower when using a wide grip compared with medium or
narrow grip.
A wider grip reduces the flexion and extension of the
elbow and increases the shoulder abduction compared with
a narrow grip altering the working conditions of the muscles.
One might expect that this would lead to a higher activation
of the latissimus dorsi and infraspinatus using a wide grip
and biceps brachii using a narrow grip. However, our results
did not support this notion. Rather, they validated the results
reported by Lusk et al. (11) who examined 2 different pro-
nated grip widths in the anterior lat pull-down. Because
those authors used the same absolute and not relative inten-
sity, there was uncertainty about the validity of their conclu-
sion. Indeed, our findings of lower absolute strength with
a wide grip show the importance of strength assessment
across grip widths.
Other notable differences between Lusk et al. and our
study are that we used heavier loads that also were lifted to
failure (6RM that corresponds to;85% 1RM) as opposed to
performing only 5 repetitions with 70% of 1RM. Further-
more, we examined 3 pronated grip widths, whereas pre-
vious studies have used only 1 (10,21,22) or 2 (11).
Moreover, the definition that Lusk et al. used for the wide
grip was probably more like our medium grip. Hence, we
add to the existing literature by including wider grips than
the previously examined.
The differences found in load lifted between the wide and
the 2 other grips cannot be explained by less muscle
activation. However, biomechanical properties (10) may
contribute to the differences in 6RM load. The lever arm
from the shoulder joint increases as the grip gets wider,
which increases the torque, and therefore probably causes
the reduction in loading using the wide grip.
In contrast to the present study and Lusk et al. (11),
Signorile et al. (21) reported greater latissimus dorsi activa-
tion, both in the concentric and eccentric phases, using
a wide anterior pronated grip compared with 2 different
narrow grips, with the same relative intensity. The narrow
grips were a semi-supinated grip using a V-bar, and a supi-
nated grip with BAD between the hands. The wide grip
was defined as the distance from outside of the closed fist
to the seventh cervical vertebra. Because of the differences in
grip definitions, arm rotation, and lifting to fatigue, it is dif-
ficult to compare our results with the findings of Signorile
et al. (21). However, it is more likely that the differences in
muscle activation in Signorile et al. (21) are a result of arm
rotation rather than grip width (11). The higher activation in
the eccentric phase is in line with our results, but we found
no differences in the concentric phase, which could be
because of differences in arm rotation or loading.
Comparison of Loading and Muscle Activity in Lat Pull-Down
1140 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
Several studies have included activation measurements of
the synergist biceps brachii, when investigating the whole
movement using different grip widths in the lat pull-down
(11,21,22), but to our knowledge, no one has investigated the
concentric and the eccentric phases separately. One could
expect a higher activation of the biceps brachii with a nar-
rower grip because this would increase the flexion of the
elbow. On the contrary, we found, in the concentric phase,higher activation using the medium grip compared with the
narrow grip. In the eccentric phase, there was a tendency of
higher activation with the medium compared with the wide
grip. These results could indicate that when using a pronated
grip, medium width is optimal for activating the biceps bra-
chii. When combining the 2 phases, there was still a tendency
for higher activation using medium grip, whereas no differ-
ences were reported in the earlier studies (10,11,23).
In conclusion, there was no major difference in activation
for latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii, infraspinatus, or trapezius
when performing 6RM in the anterior lat pull-down with
narrow, medium, and wide anterior grip widths. However,
the 6RM load lifted was lower using a wide compared with
a small or medium grip. Still, there was some weak evidence
that a medium grip may have some advantages over narrow
or wide grip.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The lat pull-down with pronated grip is a popular back
exercise, but there is no consensus on what the optimal grip
width is. This study suggests that a medium grip may have
some minor advantages over a narrow or wide one;
however, athletes and others engaged in resistance training
can generally expect similar muscle activation which in turn
should result in relatively similar strength and hypertrophy
gains with small to wide grip widths (1–2 times the biacro-
mial distance). We observed lower absolute strength with
a wide grip, probably because of biomechanical factors.
Hence, if it is considered beneficial to lift as heavy absolute
loads as possible, we recommend a narrow or medium grip
width. The results of this study are highly valid for real world
training as the resistance trained participants in the study
used the same relative intensity in all conditions and lifted
heavy loads to failure (6RM). In contrast, previous studies
suffered from methodological weaknesses, such as not
matching intensity between exercises and not using heavy
loads or lifting to failure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the participants for their positivity
and participation in the study. This study was conducted
without any funding from companies or manufacturers or
outside organizations.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. The
recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and
maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in
healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 975–991, 1998.
2. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression
models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
41: 687–708, 2009.
3. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. National Strength and Conditioning
Association (U.S.). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
4. Bird, SP, Tarpenning, KM, and Marino, FE. Designing resistance
training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: A review of the
acute programme variables. Sports Med 35: 841–851, 2005.
5. Clark, DR, Lambert, MI, and Hunter, AM. Muscle activation in the
loaded free barbell squat: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res 26:
1169–1178, 2012.
6. Goodman, CA, Pearce, AJ, Nicholes, CJ, Gatt, BM, and
Fairweather, IH. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle
activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable
surface. J Strength Cond Res 22: 88–94, 2008.
7. Hermens, HJ, Freriks, B, Disselhorst-Klug, C, and Rau, G.
Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor
placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10: 361–374, 2000.
8. Koyama, Y, Kobayashi, H, Suzuki, S, and Enoka, RM. Enhancing
the weight training experience: A comparison of limb kinematics
and EMG activity on three machines. Eur J Appl Physiol 109: 789–
801, 2010.
9. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674–688, 2004.
10. Lehman, GJ, Buchan, DD, Lundy, A, Myers, N, and Nalborczyk, A.
Variations in muscle activation levels during traditional latissimus
dorsi weight training exercises: An experimental study. Dyn Med 3:
4, 2004.
11. Lusk, SJ, Hale, BD, and Russell, DM. Grip width and forearm
orientation effects on muscle activity during the lat pull-down. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 1895–1900, 2010.
12. Marshall, PW, McEwen, M, and Robbins, DW. Strength and
neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high
intensity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:
3007–3016, 2011.
13. Paoli, A, Marcolin, G, and Petrone, N. The effect of stance width on
the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles
during back squat with different bar loads. J Strength Cond Res 23:
246–250, 2009.
14. Peterson, MD, Rhea, MR, and Alvar, BA. Maximizing strength
development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-
response relationship. J Strength Cond Res 18: 377–382, 2004.
15. Saeterbakken, AH and Fimland, MS. Effects of body position and
loading modality on muscle activity and strength in shoulder
presses. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1824–1831, 2013.
16. Saeterbakken, AH and Fimland, MS. Electromyographic activity
and 6-RM strength in bench press on stable and unstable surfaces.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 1101–1107, 2013.
17. Saeterbakken, AH and Fimland, MS. Muscle activity of the core
during bilateral, unilateral, seated and standing resistance exercise.
Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 1671–1678, 2012.
18. Saeterbakken, AH and Fimland, MS. Muscle force output and
electromyographic activity in squats with various unstable surfaces.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 130–136, 2013.
19. Saeterbakken, AH, van den Tillaar, R, and Fimland, MS. A
comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-
press exercises with different stability requirements. J Sports Sci 29:
533–538, 2011.
20. Schwanbeck, S, Chilibeck, PD, and Binsted, G. A comparison of free
weight squat to Smith machine squat using electromyography. J
Strength Cond Res 23: 2588–2591, 2009.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 | 1141
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -
21. Signorile, JF, Zink, AJ, and Szwed, SP. A comparative
electromyographical investigation of muscle utilization patterns
using various hand positions during the lat pull-down. J Strength
Cond Res 16: 539–546, 2002.
22. Snyder, BJ and Leech, JR. Voluntary increase in latissimus dorsi
muscle activity during the lat pull-down following expert
instruction. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2204–2209, 2009.
23. Sperandei, S, Barros, MA, Silveira-Junior, PC, and Oliveira, CG.
Electromyographic analysis of three different types of lat pull-down.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 2033–2038, 2009.
24. Youdas, JW, Amundson, CL, Cicero, KS, Hahn, JJ, Harezlak, DT,
and Hollman, JH. Surface electromyographic activation patterns
and elbow joint motion during a pull-up, chin-up, or perfect-pullup
rotational exercise. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3404–3414, 2010.
Comparison of Loading and Muscle Activity in Lat Pull-Down
1142 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 http://journals.lw
w
.com
/nsca-jscr by B
hD
M
f5eP
H
K
av1zE
oum
1tQ
fN
4a+
kJLhE
Z
gbsIH
o4X
M
i0hC
yw
C
X
1A
W
nY
Q
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dRyi7T
vS
F
l4C
f3V
C
4/O
A
V
pD
D
a8K
K
G
K
V
0Y
m
y+
78=
 on 08/25/2023
Conteúdo licenciado para Ivna -