See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297046479

Electromyographic activity and 15RM load during

resistance exercises on stable and unstable
surfaces
ARTICLE JANUARY 2016

READS

21

6 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Francisco Zacaron Werneck

Jefferson Novaes

Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

17 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

220 PUBLICATIONS 537 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Marzo EDIR Da Silva-Grigoletto

Universidade Federal de Sergipe
88 PUBLICATIONS 320 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Francisco Zacaron Werneck

Retrieved on: 23 March 2016

114

Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline

February 2016
Volume 19 Number 1

Official Research Journal of

Editor-in-Chief
Tommy
the American
Boone, PhD,
Society
MBA
of
Exercise
Physiologists
Review
Board
Todd Astorino, PhD
ISSN 1097-9751
Julien Baker,
PhD
Steve Brock, PhD
Lance Dalleck, PhD
Eric Goulet, PhD
Robert Gotshall, PhD
Alexander Hutchison, PhD
M. Knight-Maloney, PhD
Len Kravitz, PhD
James Laskin, PhD
Yit Aun Lim, PhD
Lonnie Lowery, PhD
Derek Marks, PhD
Cristine Mermier, PhD
Robert Robergs, PhD
Chantal Vella, PhD
Dale Wagner, PhD
Frank Wyatt, PhD
Ben Zhou, PhD

Official Research Journal

of the American Society of
Exercise Physiologists

ISSN 1097-9751

JEPonline
Electromyographic Activity and 15RM Load during
Resistance Exercises on Stable and Unstable Surfaces
Liliane Cunha Aranda1, Marcelly Mancini1, Francisco Zacaron
Werneck2, Jefferson Da Silva Novaes3, Marzo Edir Da SilvaGrigoletto4, Jeferson Macedo Vianna5
1

Motor Evaluation Laboratory, Federal University of Juiz de Fora,

Juiz de Fora, Brazil, 2Sports Centre, Federal University of Ouro
Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil, 3Department of Gymnastics, Physical
Education Graduate Program, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4Physical Education Graduate Program,
Federal University of Sergipe, So Cristvo, Brazil, 5Department of
Sports, Physical Education Graduate Program, Federal University of
Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Aranda LC, Mancini M, Werneck FZ, Novaes JS, Grigoletto MES,
Vianna JM. Electromyographic Activity and 15RM Load during
Resistance Exercises on Stable and Unstable Surfaces. JEPonline
2016;19(1):114-123. The purpose of this study was to compare
electromyographic (EMG) activity and a 15-maximum repetition
(15RM) load in bench press (BP) and free squat (FS) on a stable
surface (SS) and an unstable surface (US). Nineteen healthy men
(age 24.65 3.48 yrs) volunteered for five testing sessions. The load
value for the FS on the SS was higher than on the US (83.9 18.67
kg vs. 70.3 10.07 kg, P=0.001). No significant difference was
observed between BP on either surface to load value (66 10.15 kg
vs. 64.2 8.63 kg, P=0.231). For EMG, no significant differences
were observed in the anterior deltoid (0.52 0.13 vs. 0.65 0.42,
P=0.06), pectoralis major (0.40 0.44 vs. 0.30 0.21, P=0.14),
biceps femoris (0.09 0.08 vs. 0.08 0.06, P=0.50), or vastus
lateralis (0.34 0.21 vs. 0.34 0.22, P=0.76) between conditions.
Thus, the findings indicate that an US produces similar muscle
activation as a SS produce using lower loads.
Key Words: Strength, Instability, Resistance exercise, EMG

115

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, gyms have focused on physical fitness and training using unstable surface
(US) for resistance exercises (RE), in which the traditional exercise machines for resistance
training share space with US equipment, such as the Swiss ball, BOSU ball, TRX, and
balance disks. Regarding the US, the neuromuscular system in the back is believed to be
more stimulated compared with traditional stable surface (SS) due to increased activation of
trunk stabilizing muscles (7). However, studies comparing muscle strength on SS and US
have reported conflicting results (6,12).
Bench press may be the most popular RE for the upper limbs among resistance training
practitioners. Recent studies have investigated bench press on SS and US (2,6,11,14). Uribe
et al. (14) reported similar electromyographic (EMG) activity in the anterior deltoid and
pectoralis major during 3 repetitions at 80% of 1 maximum repetition (RM) on a bench and
Swiss ball. Anderson and Behm (2) reported lower isometric strength on US (at ~60% of
1RM). However, no difference in EMG activity was observed in the pectoralis major, anterior
deltoid, triceps brachii, latissimus dorsi, or the rectus abdominis in the bench press exercise
on a bench or Swiss ball. Saeterbakken and Fimland (11) observed lower strength in 6RM on
US and similar EMG activity in the anterior deltoid, biceps brachii, and external oblique
muscles. In contrast, in the triceps brachii and pectoralis major, the authors observed higher
EMG activity on SS. In contrast, Goodman et al. (6) found no differences in 1RM strength
during bench press performed on the bench or Swiss ball or in EMG activity in the outer
portion of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, latissimus dorsi, external oblique, triceps
brachii, and biceps brachii muscles.
The free squat is a primary resistance training exercise for the lower limbs (3,8,12).
Saeterbakken and Fimland (12) investigated EMG activity in the rectus femoris, vastus
lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, soleus, rectus abdominis, external oblique and
erector spinae muscles during the free squat on the ground and different US (Power board,
BOSU and Balance Cone). Only the rectus femoris exhibited higher EMG activity on a SS.
In the other muscles, no differences were observed between the surfaces. McBride, Cormie,
and Deane (8) reported greater EMG activity in the vastus lateralis and the vastus medialis
during the isometric free squat on two balance disks with similar muscle activation for the
biceps femoris and medial head of the gastrocnemius. Regarding the development and peak
of isometric strength, these authors reported a lower value in the unstable condition
compared with the stable condition. Corroborating these results, Behm et al. (3) observed
lower isometric strength (70.5% and 20.2% for leg extension and plantar flexion, respectively)
sitting on the Swiss ball US. EMG activity in the quadriceps and plantar flexors was lower on
the US. In contrast, EMG activity in the hamstrings and tibialis anterior was higher on the US.
Most of these studies, except for Saeterbakken and Fimland (11), did not use strength tests
on both surfaces. In addition, studies analyzing strength and EMG activity during 15RM are
lacking. Such studies only report the maximal isometric force (2,8), 1RM dynamics (6), 6RM
dynamics (11), or 4-repetition dynamics (13). Therefore, due to the wide use of resistance
force in the dynamics of resistance training, a study analyzing 15RM strength and EMG
activity in different muscle groups on SSs and USs is an important contribution to RT.

116

Thus, this study compared EMG activity and load during 15RM in the bench press and free
squat on SSs and USs. We hypothesized that EMG activity would be higher and that strength
would be lower during conditions of instability during 15RM.
METHODS
Subjects
Nineteen healthy men (age, 24.65 3.48 yrs; height, 1.79 0.08 m; weight, 80.61 9.14 kg;
and percent body fat, 11.86 3.49%) with previous experience in resistance training (6 25
4.61 yrs) participated in the study. The sample was selected in a non-probabilistic manner
and allocated randomized. The inclusion criteria were: (a) men aged 19 to 30 yrs; (b) free
from musculoskeletal injury (which could hinder the tests); (c) negative answers to all items in
the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire/PAR-Q; and (d) familiarity with resistance
training for >12 months.
Subjects taking medication, alcohol, and/or who smoked; who presented with a history of
musculoskeletal disease and/or aggravation; or who had previous experience in resistance
training with US were excluded. The research project was approved by the Human Research
Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora through Opinion No.
204.521/2013 in accordance with the regulations of resolution 196/96 of National Council on
Ethics in Human Research and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects
signed an informed consent form according to National Health Council Resolution No.
196/96.
Procedures
The experimental protocol was performed on SSs and USs using the bench press exercise
on a bench (Righetto Fitness Equipment, Bench Press, SP, BR) and a Swiss ball (Mercur,
Gym Ball, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil). The subjects held a free bar while their shoulder blades
and head rested on the surface with their feet planted securely on the floor.
The subjects performed the free squat on the ground and on two balance disks (Pretorian,
Balance Cushion, SP, BR) on each foot (standing with the free bar supported by their back
and held by their hands) and performed the motion until the knee formed a 90 angle with the
ground between the thigh and leg.
In the first meeting, after measuring anthropometric variables, the subjects underwent a
series of familiarization exercises on the US. The subjects performed three sets of 15
repetitions at approximately 60% of the maximum perceived exertion and received instruction
regarding motor coordination and movement rhythm. In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th sessions,
the subjects were subjected specifically to tests and retests of 15RM, with an interval of 48 to
72 hrs between days. The surfaces were selected randomly. In the 6th and 7th sessions,
EMG activity was collected with a 24-hr interval between sessions. The surfaces were
selected randomly. The bench press was performed first, then, the free squat was performed.
For the bench press, the Swiss Ball (55, 65 or 75 cm) was used in accordance with the height
of the subjects (1.55-1.69, 1.70-1.87, and 1.88-2.03 m, respectively). The ball was inflated to
a pressure at which the footprint on the ground was the same as the diameter of the ball

117
according to the manufacturer's specifications. For free squatting, two balance disks (one on
each foot) were used and were inflated up to 6 cm for the performance of all tests according
to the manufacturers instructions.
The 15RM tests were performed on both platforms according to the preexisting protocol. A
warm-up was performed with 15 repetitions at 40-60% of the perceived maximum load for
15RM. After a 1-min rest, the subjects performed 5 repetitions at 60-80% of the perceived
maximum for 15RM. After a 1-min rest, the load test began. The subjects self-selected a load
that they felt approximated their individual 15RM. In the load test, each individual performed a
maximum of three attempts for each exercise, with a 5-min interval between attempts. After
the subjects performed the first attempt, the load was increased or decreased until reaching
15RM. A range of motion limiter was used to determine the start and end positions of each
exercise. After obtaining the load for the first exercise (bench press), the subjects rested for
10 min before the free squat tests.
To reduce the margin of error in the 15RM test, the following strategies were adopted: (a) an
orientation before the test to inform the subjects of the data collection routine; (b) instructions
on task performance and speed of the exercises (EMT-888 Tuner Metronome, SP, BR) with
1 sec to do the concentric phase and 2 sec to carry out the eccentric phase); (c) use of verbal
stimuli; and (d) the weights were previously calibrated on a precision scale. The load used for
determining 15RM was accomplished through the use of bars (Righetto Fitness Equipment,
SP, BR). The bars weighed 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 kg.
The retest aimed to assess the reliability of the load. The greatest weight obtained on both
days (test and retest) had a difference less than 5%. In cases of a greater difference, the
subjects were required to perform the test again to calculate the difference between sessions.
To reduce possible interferences during EMG signal acquisition, the subjects underwent skin
preparation with hair removal when needed and cleaning of the area with 70% alcohol prior to
recording. This technique was designed to reduce the impedance of the skin to a value of
less than 5k ohm () as measured using a digital multimeter (Icel Manaus MD-5011, SP,
BR).
Two electrodes (a channel) for each muscle were placed on the anterior deltoid and
pectoralis major for the bench press and the vastus lateralis and biceps femoris for the free
squat. Only the muscles on the right side were assessed. The monopolar reference electrode
was placed on the medial epicondyle of the right elbow. Ag / AgCl bipolar electrodes (Double
Electrodes Miotec, SP, BR) with 2 in of distance between the centers of the catchments
were used. All electrodes were placed according to the location for standard positioning
established by the European Recommendations for Surface Electromyography (SENIAN).
Additionally, to prevent displacement during the procedures, the cables were attached with
adhesive tape strips. The same researcher identified the anatomical points and placed the
electrodes. If the measured impedance was greater than 5k , the electrodes were removed
and the preparation procedures were performed again.
The determination of the electrode placement was performed only on the first day of testing.
An outline of the electrodes was made on the skin of the volunteers with a high fixation pen
(Faber Castel, Pilot 2.0 mm Az, Brazil) to ensure the same position in the subsequent test.

118
The electrode cables were connected to the signal conditioner of the (EMG System Brazil,
SP, BR) with a sampling frequency of 2000 Hz per channel, 14-bit resolution, and analog
anti-aliasing band-pass filter with a cutoff frequency between 20 and 500 Hz. The signal
conditioner was connected to an 11.1 V 2.2 mA/h Li-Ion battery. Microcomputers were also
used with their batteries to avoid interference of power oscillation (60 Hz in BR) on the data.
To collect the electromyographic signal, a series of 15RMs (with the loads obtained in the
strength tests) was performed for both exercises. The same execution speed, range of
motion, and randomization of the strength tests were used. The subjects performed a
maximal voluntary isometric action for 5 sec in both exercises, rested for 5 min and then
performed a series of 15RMs. The sequence was first performed for the upper limbs and,
then, for the lower limbs with a 5-min break between exercises.
The first heart sound was always excluded due to the possibility that unracking of bar and the
movement amplitude adjustment might be captured by the surface electromyography. The
second and third heart sounds were eliminated because the cadence was not appropriate in
these repetitions. A violation of the cadence also occurred when individuals approached the
fatigue state (the last sounds). Therefore, the sounds from the fourth heart sound to the
thirteenth repetition were used. The root mean square (RMS) variable was calculated from all
of the electromyographic signals related to 10 repetitions to ensure that the analyses were
performed with repetitions involving the correct cadence and techniques. Then, the variable
was normalized by the maximum RMS obtained during maximal voluntary isometric
contraction on a SS each subject. The clippings and other signal processing were performed
by specific routines developed in Matlab (Mathworks, Natick, USA).
Statistical Analyses
The Students t-test was used to assess differences in EMG activity and 15RM load of the
exercise protocols with SS and US. The data normality prerequisite was met according to the
Shapiro-Wilks test, with the Lilliefors significance correction. The reproducibility of the
measurements was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The results are
presented as the mean standard deviation. The effect size (ES) was calculated with
Cohen's d. Analyses were performed using SPSS software, version 20.0 (IBM Corp.,
Armonk, NY, USA) with a significance level of 5% (P = 0.05).
RESULTS
No significant differences were observed in 15RM load for the bench press on SS and US (66
10.15 kg vs. 64.2 8.63 kg, P = 0.231, ES = 0.19). However, the free squat load was
significantly higher on the SS compared with the US (83.9 18.67 kg vs. 70.3 10.07 kg, P =
0.001, ES = 0.94). High reproducibility coefficients were observed for the bench press on the
SS (0.98) and the US (0.94) and the free squat on the SS (0.94) and the US (0.93).

119

Figure 1. Mean Strength in 15 Maximum Repetitions (RM) for Bench Press in Stable
Surface (SS - bench) and Unstable surface (US - Swiss ball) and Free Squat (ground
and Balance Disks). *Significantly different from stable surface within exercise at P0.05.

Regarding the EMG variables, no significant differences were observed between the SS and
US during either exercise.

Figure 2. Mean EMG Activity, Root Mean Square (RMS) in the Anterior Deltoid (AD) and
Major Pectoralis (MP) on the Bench and with the Swiss Ball; Biceps Femoris (BF) and
Vastus Lateralis (VL) on the Ground and with Balance Disks (n=19).
The normalized values are presented in Table I.

120

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of the EMG Activity Root Mean Square (RMS) in
Resistance Exercises Performed on Stable and Unstable Surfaces (n = 19).

Anterior Deltoid
Pectoralis Major
Biceps Femoris
Vastus Lateralis

RMS Stable
(u.n.)

RMS Unstable
(u.n.)

P / ES

0.52 0.13
0.40 0.44
0.09 0.08
0.34 0.21

0.65 0.42
0.30 0.21
0.08 0.06
0.34 0.22

0.06 / 0.47
0.14 / 0.31
0.50 / 0.14
0.76 / 0.00

*Effect size (ES); Significantly different (P 0.05).

DISCUSSION
While there were no significant differences observed in 15RM load for the bench press on SS
and US, the free squat load was significantly higher on the SS compared to the US. For the
normalized EMG activation values of the anterior deltoid, pectoralis major, biceps femoris,
and vastus lateralis, no significant differences were observed between the stable and
unstable surfaces. Standardized data during maximal voluntary isometric contraction on the
SS were used because the non-normalized data did not indicate significant changes.
Saeterbakken and Fimland (11) reported greater load during 6RM for the bench press on the
SS and higher EMG activation of the pectoralis major and triceps brachii muscles on the flat
bench, which revealed that the increased instability on the Swiss ball did not require greater
muscle activation during the exercise (but a higher total load was lifted by subjects on the
SS). In contrast, in the present study, EMG activation in the anterior deltoids and pectoralis
major was not greater, even when performed with higher loads on a SS. Only the anterior
deltoid muscles had similar EMG activity in these two studies when comparing surfaces (as
confirmed in previous research) (2,6,14). Corroborating these findings, two previous studies
analyzed maximal isometric and dynamic contractions (1RM) and reported similar EMG
activity in the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, triceps brachii, and biceps brachii muscles
(2,6).
Studies analyzing dynamic contractions have obtained different results compared with the
findings observed here. Snar and Esco (13) analyzed EMG activity in the pectoralis major,
anterior deltoid, and triceps brachii in 21 men during arm flexion on the floor and the TRX.
Four repetitions were performed with body weight, and increased muscle activation was
observed in all muscles on the TRX. Supporting this study, one research performed 10 fly
repetitions on a SS (horizontal bench) and an US (Swiss ball) at 30% of the 1RM in both
conditions. EMG activity in the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid and serratus anterior was
significantly higher on the US (9). Limiting comparison factors in both studies included the
use of body weight alone, other unstable conditions, fewer repetitions, and very low load
percentage. The use of different surface types has indicated that the effect of instability on
EMG activity differs for many muscle groups.

121
Resistance training performed on an US requires less strength and muscle activation of the
primary muscles used for the movement analyzed. Kohler and colleagues (7) reported higher
EMG activity in the triceps brachii during the exercise performance sitting on a flat bench
compared with a Swiss ball. Behm and Anderson (3) demonstrated less EMG activation
(44%) in the quadriceps during leg extension on an US. The mechanism for decreased
activation in the primary muscles with instability can be theoretically confirmed by the
increased stress associated with balance demand (5). The movement-stabilizing musculature
may be more stimulated due to a greater requirement for exercise stabilization.
Another factor that can influence study results is the air pressure within some US devices, the
body weight of the subjects and the load lifted must be considered (given that both modify the
deformity level). Furthermore, the positioning of the upper limbs on the Swiss ball is an
important parameter to control because the individual supporting the head and dorsal region
gains greater stability (2,6).
Regarding EMG activity during the free squat, the results were similar in both conditions
because the load during 15RM decreased significantly during the US. This indicates that
relatively greater muscle activation is required to sustain a smaller load, which may be
explained by the degree of difficulty and instability of the subjects when performing the
exercise on the two balance disks.
In accordance with the free squat results observed in the present study, Saeterbakken and
Fimland (12) reported lower values of maximal isometric strength on the US compared with
the SS. Although EMG activity was similar, several studies (4,10,14) have demonstrated
higher EMG activity on the US. But, it is important to mention that the earlier studies used the
same absolute load value on both platforms and did not analyze a high number of repetitions,
which differs from the current study.
Researchers observed similar EMG activity in the vastus lateralis and biceps femoris
muscles, but with increased muscle activation in the soleus during free squatting on two
balance disks. Anderson and Behm (1) used the same absolute load on both surfaces. A
survey analyzed muscle activation during isometric free squatting on the floor using Dyna
disks, the Swiss ball, BOSU and the Wobble Board. Similar EMG activation was
observed in the rectus femoris, biceps femoris, and erector spinae. However, EMG activity in
the soleus was higher, and EMG activity in the rectus abdominis was lower when performed
on the Wobble Board and Swiss ball compared with the other conditions. Nevertheless, this
study was limited by only using body weight (15). The prescription of resistance training is
commonly performed with maximum repetition (i.e., 10RM or 15RM) or by a percentage of
1RM. Comparing relatively different loads becomes important for athletes and practitioners of
resistance training.
Limitations of this Study
This study has some limitations. Only subjects experienced in resistance training with no
experience on USs were recruited. Thus, the results cannot be generalized to all populations.
EMG activity in the stabilizing muscles was not monitored. Even if stabilizing muscles had
been analyzed in previous studies, these studies did not evaluate 15RM resistance training.

122
CONCLUSIONS
The increased instability in the bench press and free squat did not cause greater EMG
activation in the muscles analyzed. However, a considerable decrease in 15RM load was
observed for the free squat. This study has important applications for prescribing resistance
programs and exercise for recreational practitioners. The free squat exercise on two balance
disks can be performed with a low load to obtain the same EMG activation compared with a
15RM load. Therefore, using a lower load on an US can produce effects similar to higher
loads on SSs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Coordination of Undergraduate Improvement (Higher
Education Person Improvement Coordination, CAPES), a government office of the Ministry of
Education, for providing a scholarship. The authors also thank the participants for
volunteering for the study.
Address for correspondence: Liliane Cunha Aranda, MS, Motor Evaluation Laboratory,
Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil, zip-code 36033-180,
Email: lilianearanda@yahoo.com.br.

REFERENCES
1. Anderson K, Behm DG. Trunk muscle activity increases with unstable squat
movements. Can J Appl Physiol. 2005;30:33-45.
2. Anderson KG, Behm DG. Maintenance of EMG activity and loss of force output with
instability. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:637-640.
3. Behm DG, Anderson K, Curnew RS. Muscle force and activation under stable and
unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:416-422.
4. Behm DG, Leonard AM, Young WB, Bonsey WA, MacKinnon SN. Trunk muscle
electromyographic activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond
Res. 2005;19:193-201.
5. Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength training: Morphological and
neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports Med. 2007;37:145-168.
6. Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, Gatt BM, 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. 2008;22:88-94.

123
7. Kohler JM, Flanagan SP, Whiting WC. Muscle activation patterns while lifting stable
and unstable loads on stable and unstable surfaces. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;
24:313-321.
8. McBride JM, Cormie P, Deane R. Isometric squat force output and muscle activity in
stable and unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:915-918.
9. Melo B, Pirau A, Beltro N, Pitangui AC, Arajo R. The use of unstable surfaces
increases the electromyographic activity of the muscles of the pectoral girdle during
the flye. Brazilian Magazine of Physical Activity and Health. 2014;19:342.
10. Norwood JT, Anderson GS, Gaetz MB, Twist PW. Electromyographic activity of the
trunk stabilizers during stable and unstable bench press. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21:343-347.
11. Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Electromyographic activity and 6RM strength in bench
press on stable and unstable surfaces. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:1101-1107.
12. Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Muscle force output and electromyographic activity in
squats with various unstable surfaces. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:130-136.
13. Snarr RL, Esco MR. Electromyographic comparison of traditional and suspension
push-ups. J Hum Kinet. 2013;39:75-83.
14. Uribe BP, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Nguyen D. Muscle
activation when performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a
Swiss ball. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:1028-1033.
15. Wahl MJ, Behm DG. Not all instability training devices enhance muscle activation in
highly resistance-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1360-1370.

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