See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317495628

Muscle activation during resistance training with

no external load - effects of training status,
movement velocity, dominance, and...

Article in Physiology & Behavior June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.06.004

CITATIONS READS

0 1,588

7 authors, including:

Paulo Gentil Martim Bottaro

Universidade Federal de Gois University of Braslia
77 PUBLICATIONS 581 CITATIONS 289 PUBLICATIONS 2,045 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Matias Noll Mario Campos

Instituto Federal Goiano Universidade Federal de Gois
85 PUBLICATIONS 156 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Balance exercises Circuit View project

The Dynamic Spinal Posture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mario Campos on 15 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Accepted Manuscript

Muscle activation during resistance training with no external load

- effects of training status, movement velocity, dominance, and
visual feedback

Paulo Gentil, Martim Bottaro, Matias Noll, Scott Werner, Jessica

Cabral Vasconcelos, Aldo Seffrin, Mario Hebling Campos

PII: S0031-9384(17)30176-2
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.06.004
Reference: PHB 11822
To appear in: Physiology & Behavior
Received date: 1 May 2017
Revised date: 1 June 2017
Accepted date: 8 June 2017

Please cite this article as: Paulo Gentil, Martim Bottaro, Matias Noll, Scott Werner,
Jessica Cabral Vasconcelos, Aldo Seffrin, Mario Hebling Campos , Muscle activation
during resistance training with no external load - effects of training status, movement
velocity, dominance, and visual feedback. The address for the corresponding author was
captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Phb(2017), doi: 10.1016/
j.physbeh.2017.06.004

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Muscle activation during resistance training with no external load - effects of

training status, movement velocity, dominance, and visual feedback

Paulo Gentil1 , Martim Bottaro2 , Matias Noll3 , Scott Werner1 , Jessica Cabral
Vasconcelos1 , Aldo Seffrin1 , Mario Hebling Campos1

1 Faculdade de Educao Fsica e Dana, Universidade Federal e Gois, Goinia,

PT
Brasil

2 Faculdade de Educao Fsica, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, Brasil

RI
3 Instituto Federal Goiano, Ceres, Brasil

Corresponding author:
SC
NU
Paulo Gentil
MA

FEFD - Faculdade de Educao Fsica e Dana

Universidade Federal de Gois - UFG

ED

Campus Samambaia

Avenida Esperana s/n, Campus Samambaia- CEP: 74.690-900

T

Goinia - Gois - Brasil

EP

Phone/Fax: +55 062 3521-1105

C

Email: paulogentil@hotmail.com
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the acute effects of training status, movement velocity,

dominance, and visual feedback on muscle activation and rating of perceived exertion

(RPE) during resistance training with no external load (no-load resistance training;

PT
NLRT). Methods: Thirty-three men (17 untrained and 16 trained), performed elbow

flexions in four NLRT sessions: 1) slow velocity with EMG visual feedback, 2) slow

RI
velocity without EMG visual feedback, 3) fast velocity with EMG feedback, and 4) fast

SC
velocity without EMG feedback. RPE was measured using the Borg Discomfort scale.

EMG for the biceps and triceps were recorded for both arms. Results. EMG feedback
NU
had no influence on RPE. The peak and mean EMG values were not different for the
MA

biceps (93.811.5% and 5013.1%) and triceps (93.723.9% and 49.616.2%). The

results revealed a difference in the training status, with higher peak EMG for untrained
ED

than for trained participants (96.920% vs. 90.215.6%). However the values for mean

EMG were not different between the untrained and trained (50.315.7% vs.
T

49.213.7%) participants. There was no difference in the peak (92.819% vs.

EP

94.720.4%) and mean (49.8 15.0% vs. 49.7 14.5%) EMG values for the dominant
C

and non-dominant sides. Peak EMG values were not different between faster and slower
AC

velocities (93.619.6% and 93.917.8%). However, mean EMG was higher for slower

(50.514.4%) than for faster (48.515.4%) velocities. The peak and mean EMG during

contractions with (93.317.5% and 49.514.1%) and without visual feedback

(94.219.9% and 5015.4%) were not significantly different. Conclusion: NLRT

produces high levels of muscle activation independent of training, status, dominance,

movement velocity, and visual feedback.

Key Words: mechanotransduction; rehabilitation; muscle adaptation; muscle strength

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Introduction

The regular performance of resistance training (RT) has been prospectively

associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality 1 , which might be due to its effects on

muscle size and strength, which are both independently associated with decreased

PT
2-4
mortality . However, RT protocols that aim to increase muscle size and strength are

commonly associated with the use of moderate to high external loads (>65% of

RI
5,6
maximum strength) , which may not be feasible during some situations like

SC
hospitalization and injury or in the work place. NU
Many studies have shown that gains in muscle strength and size can occur with
7-10
the utilization of low loads and even during nonorthodox resistance activities, like
MA

11 12
walking and cycling . These studies suggest that effort, and not external load or total
10,13
work might be the key determinant to training adaptations . One of the most
ED

14
pertinent results seemed to come from a recent study by Counts et al. . The authors

compared the acute and chronic effects of traditional RT (TRT) and RT protocol
T
EP

performed without external load (no-load RT: NLRT) on muscle size and strength of

untrained young men. The study was performed using a contralateral design: one arm
C

trained with 70% of one repetition maximum (1RM) to failure, while the other
AC

performed NLRT (the participants were oriented to maximally contract the muscles

during the full range of motion, without any external load). According to the results,

TRT and NLRT resulted in similar gains in muscle size, although the increases in

muscle strength were higher with TRT. Moreover, electromyography (EMG) analysis

revealed similar levels of muscle activation in the elbow flexors with TRT and NLRT
14
. Nevertheless, based on these findings, NLRT could be used in a wide range of

situations (i.e., clinical setting, rehabilitation, and to prevent detraining).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

However, a few aspects in the acute findings from the NLRT require more
14
investigation. In the study by Counts et al. , surface electromyography (EMG) was

used to provide visual feedback to the participant to encourage greater activation during

each repetition. Previous studies have reported that visual feedback improves muscle
15-17
contraction . Therefore, considering that EMG feedback is not usually available in

the real world setting, it seemed important to investigate if muscle activation during

PT
NLRT would differ without EMG visual feedback. Another important point is that the

RI
14
participants in the study of Counts et al. trained unilaterally; however, previous

SC
studies have reported differences in muscle activation between the dominant and non-
18 19
dominant side , with a preferential use of the dominant side . For this reason, it
NU
would be important to know if NLRT would produce similar muscle activation in the

dominant and non-dominant sides when the exercise is performed bilaterally. Regarding
MA

movement velocity, during TRT, faster movements are usually associated with higher
20
levels of muscle activation ; however, during NLRT, the use of lower speeds could
ED

potentially increase motor unit activation.

T

Finally, training status might also be a confounding factor. Considering that RT has
EP

21,22
been associated with increased muscle activation , trained participants might be able

to produce higher levels of muscle activation during NLRT compared to untrained

C
AC

counterparts. Thus, in view of the aforementioned, the present study aimed to explore

the acute effects of training status, movement velocity, dominance, and visual feedback

on muscle activation and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during NLRT. We

hypothesized that muscle activity would be higher in trained participants, with EMG

feedback, in the dominant arm, and during lower movement velocities.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Materials and methods

Each participant visited the laboratory twice; the first visit was for

familiarization with the procedures, especially to control movement velocity. In the

second visit, the participants performed elbow flexions in four NLRT situations with a

PT
randomized counterbalanced Latin square design: 1) slow muscle action velocity with

EMG visual feedback, 2) slow muscle action velocity without EMG visual feedback, 3)

RI
fast muscle action velocity with EMG feedback, and 4) fast muscle action velocity

SC
without EMG feedback. During all situations, EMG for the biceps and triceps were

recorded for both arms, and both peak and mean root mean square (RMS) values were
NU
used for comparisons. After each situation, RPE was measured using the Borg
MA

Discomfort (CR10) scale.

The study involved 33 men; 17 untrained (21.472.65 years, 87.4121.50 kg,

ED

and 177.827.09 cm) and 16 trained (21.942.59 years, 80.7515.35 kg, and

175.887.60 cm). The volunteers were college students and affiliates of a local gym. To
T
EP

be classified as untrained, participants must have had no previous experience with RT.

Trained subjects had been regularly performing RT for at least 12 months (38.818.4
C

months). Participants were excluded if they had any history of neuromuscular,

AC

metabolic, hormonal, or cardiovascular disease that could be aggravated by the study

protocol or if they reported the use of any medication or ergogenic that could influence

neuromuscular function. Participants were fully informed about the experimental

procedures and all possible risks and discomforts related to the study. They all signed an

informed consent form, and the study protocol was approved by the institutional Ethics

Committee.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In both arms, EMG activity was recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii

muscles. After skin preparation, including shaving and abrasion with alcohol to
23
minimize impedance , pairs of electrodes were positioned in a bipolar configuration

(distance of 20 mm between electrodes) along the direction of the muscle fibers

according to the SENIAM recommendations (www.seniam.org). The reference

electrode was placed on the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebra (C7). EMG

PT
activity was measured using an EMG system with 4 channels (Miotool400, 14-bit

RI
resolution, Miotec-Equipamentos Biomdicos) and with a sampling frequency of 2000

SC
Hz per channel. After measurement, EMG signals were filtered using the Butterworth

filter with 20 Hz and 500 Hz cut-off frequencies for the lower and upper bandpass,
NU
respectively; and the RMS values were calculated while performing all repetitions.

The RMS values were normalized using the signal obtained during the
MA

maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). The participants performed the activity three

times, each for five seconds at the maximum isometric contraction, with three-minute
ED

intervals between each attempt. To perform the biceps brachii MVC, the participants
T

were seated with the knee and hip flexed at 90 on a Scott bench, holding a straight bar,
EP

with the arms flexed at 90, and the hands in the supine position; elbow flexion was

then performed. To perform the triceps brachii MVC, the participants also assumed the
C
AC

same position, but with a prone hand, and elbow extension was performed. The height

of the bar was adjusted by an external support in a Smith Machine and a total of 100 kg

weight was put on the bar to assure that it would not move during the isometric actions.

The researchers provided verbal encouragement to motivate the participants to produce

their maximal strength during the MVC test.

Ratings of discomfort were recorded immediately after each test using the CR10

scale. This scale was described to each participant as 0 representing no discomfort at all
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and 10 representing their previously felt worst discomfort. If the discomfort experienced

exceeded their previously felt worst discomfort, they could exceed 10.

Before testing, the volunteers participated in a familiarization session, where the

procedures were explained and trials were performed at a lower intensity to ensure

compliance with the proposed movement velocity. Participants were tested during four

NLRT situations on the same day. The situations were matched for time under tension

PT
and organized following a randomized and counterbalanced design, with 5 minutes of

RI
rest between each test. The tests were: 1) faster movement velocity with EMG feedback,

SC
2) faster movement velocity without EMG feedback, 3) slower movement velocity with

EMG feedback, and 4) slower movement velocity without EMG feedback. During the
NU
tests with faster movement velocity, the participants were instructed to perform ten

repetitions lasting two seconds in the concentric and two seconds in the eccentric phase,
MA

without pausing between contractions. During the tests with slower movement

velocities, five repetitions were performed lasting four seconds in the concentric and
ED

four seconds in the eccentric phase, without pausing between contractions. The
T

participants were instructed to maximally contract the elbow flexors during the full
EP

range of motion in all repetitions, to use a constant velocity, and to not rest between

repetitions in all situations. The number of repetitions was chosen to simulate the type
C
AC

of work and time under tension commonly performed in a traditional RT session. In the

tests with EMG visual feedback, the participant performed all repetitions while looking

at a monitor showing the EMG of the four muscles in real time. The investigators

explained the meaning of each signal before each test. During the tests without

feedback, the participant performed the exercises facing a wall. A digital metronome

was used to help in the control of movement velocity and verbal encouragement was

provided during all tests.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Normality of the data was confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Factorial

ANOVAs were performed to compare peak and mean EMG values among different

situations. The within-subject factors analyzed included muscle (biceps or triceps),

dominance (dominant or non-dominant), velocity (faster or slower), and feedback (with

or without). Training status was the between-subject factor. Multiple comparisons with

confidence interval adjustment via least-significant-difference methods were post hoc

PT
when necessary. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Statistical analyses

RI
were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 17.0 software

SC
(SPSS, Chicago, IL).
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Results

The results of peak EMG, mean EMG and RPE are presented in figures 1, 2 and

3, respectively. The summary of results from muscle activation is presented in table 1.

RPE was higher for the untrained than for trained participants [F(1,31) = 5.278;

PT
p = 0.029] and for slower than faster movements [F(1,31) = 8.051; p = 0.008]. EMG

RI
feedback [F(1,31) = 0.085; p = 0.773] had no influence on RPE. There were no

interactions among the variables.

SC
The peak EMG values were not different for the biceps (93.8 11.5%) and
NU
triceps (93.7 23.9%) [F(1,31) = 0.03, p = 0.956). There was no difference between

muscles for mean EMG values [F(1,31) = 1.31; p = 0.999]; the values were 50 13.1%
MA

and 49.6 16.2% for the biceps and triceps, respectively. Therefore, all analyses were

performed considering both muscles together.

ED

The results revealed a significant difference in training status [F(1,31) = 4.41; p

T

= 0.044], with higher peak EMG for untrained than for trained participants (96.9 20%
EP

vs. 90.2 15.6%). However the values for mean EMG were not different between the
C

untrained 50.3 15.7%) and trained (49.2 13.7%) participants [F(1,31) = 1.111; p =
AC

0.741].

There was no difference in the peak [F(1,31) = 0.562, p = 0.459) and mean EMG

values [F(1,31) = 0.000, p = 0.985] for the dominant and non-dominant sides. The

values for peak EMG were 92.8 19% for the dominant side and 94.7 20.4% for the

non-dominant side. The mean EMG values were 49.8 15.0% and 49.7 14.5% for the

dominant and non-dominant sides, respectively.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Peak EMG values were not different between the tested velocities (93.6 19.6%

and 93.9 17.8% for faster and slower, respectively) [F(1,31) = 0.160, p = 0.692].

However, mean EMG was higher for slower (50.5 14.4%) than for faster (48.5

15.4%) velocities [F(1,31) = 4.714, p = 0.038)

The peak EMG during contractions with (93.3 17.5%) and without visual

feedback (94.2 19.9%) were not significantly different [F(1,31) = 0.673, p = 0.418].

PT
Similarly, mean EMG values did not differ between situations (49.5 14.1% and 50

RI
15.4%, for with and without feedback, respectively).

SC
For peak EMG, there were no significant interactions among any variables.

However, there was a significant muscle*velocity*feedback interaction [F(1,31) =

NU
4.301 = p = 0.47] for mean EMG. Post hoc analysis revealed that the mean EMG for the
MA

biceps without feedback and triceps with feedback were higher for slower than for faster

velocities.
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Discussion

The results of the present study revealed that NLRT produced high levels of

muscle activation, as reflected in the peak and mean EMG values. There was no

difference in muscle activation between the biceps and triceps, which is in agreement

PT
14
with the findings by Counts et al. . This is expected, since both muscles have to be

highly activated in order to keep the movement controlled. Moreover, since no weight

RI
was used, it was necessary to extend the elbow in the "lowering" phase. Therefore, the

SC
exercise was not targeted at the elbow flexors alone, but rather to both the elbow flexors
14
and extensors. Confirming this suggestion, Counts et al. reported significant levels of
NU
triceps muscle activity when performing NLRT supposedly targeted at the elbow
MA

flexors. Therefore, if the purpose is to emphasize a given muscle during NLRT, is

seems necessary to execute the concentric phase and then return passively to the starting
ED

position.

Contrary to our hypothesis, untrained participants showed higher levels of peak

T
EP

EMG than trained subjects; however, mean EMG did not differ between the trained and

untrained participants. The higher peak EMG values combined with the similar mean
C

EMG values in untrained participants suggest a more irregular movement pattern, with
AC

higher oscillations during the movements. The regular performance of RT is associated

21,22
with increased muscle activation , such that trained participants have the ability to

recruit more motor units than the untrained; however, the results of the present study

showed similar muscle activation between both groups. The lack of a difference might

be related to the movement performed (elbow flexions), and neural adaptations might

not be evident in simple movements with a low degree of complexity.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

It is important to note that EMG values are expressed as a percentage of MVC. It

is possible that trained subjects might achieve higher levels of amplitude on the MVC,

and thus their no-load conditions would be lower when expressed as a percentage of

MVC. This might suggest that the use of raw values could be more appropriate to draw

inferences as they represent actual differences in the activation of the musculature.

However, raw EMG values are affected by many internal and external factors (skinfold

PT
thickness, subcutaneous fat, temperature, etc.) that can alter the relation between EMG

RI
and force during a voluntary contraction. Therefore, we opted to use normalized values
24

SC
as suggested by Burden .

We did not confirm our hypothesis that EMG feedback would influence muscle
NU
activation. It is possible that the strong verbal encouragement provided during the tests

was enough to induce higher efforts, which can explain the results in previous studies
MA

15-17
where verbal encouragement was not used . The similar RPE between tests with and

without feedback supports this suggestion that similar efforts were employed during the
ED

tests.
T

Considering that previous studies reported differences in muscle activation

EP

18
between the dominant and non-dominant side with a preferential use of the dominant
C

19
side , our hypothesis was that muscle activation would be higher on the dominant side.
AC

However, muscle activity was not different between the dominant and non-dominant

arm. One important implication of our finding is that NLRT can be performed

bilaterally, which would save time.

The results of our analysis showed no difference in peak EMG between

movements performed with different movement velocities, but higher mean EMG

values were obtained during slower movements. This confirms our hypotheses, but is in

contrast with previous studies using TRT, where higher levels of muscle activation were
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20,25,26
obtained with increasing velocity . We acknowledge that none of the velocities

used in the present study can be classified as fast, since the participants took four to

eight seconds to complete a repetition; however, differences between controlled

movements (2.8 vs. 5.6 seconds per repetition) have been previously reported by
20
Sakamoto & Sinclair . It has been suggested that during faster movements, the initial

acceleration results in the need for greater force, which might explain the higher EMG

PT
20,26
values . However, during NLRT, the participants performed maximum contractions

RI
during the entire movement and there were no need to move an external load, which

SC
might have resulted in different recruitment strategies compared to TRT. The lower

movement velocity may have allowed better concentration and higher effort, which is
NU
confirmed by the higher RPE during lower velocities.

Caution is required when extrapolating an acute effect onto a chronic change,

MA

27
especially because EMG cannot be necessarily linked to muscle hypertrophy .

However, it has been suggested that mechanotransduction, the translation of mechanical

ED

tension into a chemical signal that initiates a cascade of events responsible for inducing
T

28
muscle hypertrophy, is likely to occur only in muscle fibers activated during exercise .
EP

This suggests that high levels of muscle activation produced from repeated contractions
29
can provide sufficient stimulation to promote muscle hypertrophy , especially when
C
AC

combined with other factors, such as muscle damage, metabolic stress, muscle swelling,
14,28-31
etc. .

The clinical implications of NLRT are promising; however, it is important to

note that RPE was high in all situations. Moreover, it is important to evaluate the

cardiovascular stress associated with NLRT before applying it to people at

cardiovascular risk. In our study, the participants were constantly motivated to exert

maximum effort with strong verbal encouragement. It would be informative to ascertain

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

if NLRT would produce long-term significant results when performed without

supervision and/or verbal encouragement before advocating it as a home-based strategy.

Additional studies evaluating the effects of long-term NLRT on different exercises and

muscles groups might be of value to provide further insights into this strategy.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Conclusions

The results showed that NLRT produces high levels of muscle activation

independent of training, status, dominance, movement velocity, and visual feedback.

These extend previous results that have observed muscle activation and growth with no

PT
external loads and suggest that NLRT may be an uncomplicated and easy-to-implement

strategy, making it feasible for rehabilitation, prevention of musculoskeletal disorders,

RI
or training without specialized equipment in workplaces and clinical settings. Therefore,

SC
contracting a muscle without an external load apparently produces sufficient muscle

activation to induce muscle growth in a wide range of situations.

NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Practical applications

Both trained and untrained young men reported high levels of ratings of

perceived exertion during NLRT, but untrained men reported higher levels.

NLRT produces high levels of muscle activation independent of training status,

PT
dominance, movement velocity, and visual feedback.

NLRT may be an uncomplicated and easy-to-implement strategy, making it

RI
feasible for rehabilitation, prevention of musculoskeletal disorders, or training

SC
without specialized equipment in workplaces and clinical settings.
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgements

The study has no external financial support. None of the authors have any

financial interest in relation to this study or its results. The authors report no conflict of

interest. The research was approved by the Universidade Federal de Goias Ethics

PT
Committee.

RI
SC
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

1. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. Dose-dependent association between

muscle-strengthening activities and all-cause mortality: Prospective cohort study

among a national sample of adults in the USA. Arch Cardiovasc Dis.

PT
2016;109(11):626-633.

2. Ruiz JR, Sui X, Lobelo F, et al. Association between muscular strength and

RI
mortality in men: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a439.

SC
3. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. Determining the Importance of Meeting

Muscle-Strengthening Activity Guidelines: Is the Behavior or the Outcome of

NU
the Behavior (Strength) a More Important Determinant of All-Cause Mortality?
MA

Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(2):166-174.

4. Puthucheary ZA, Hart N. Skeletal muscle mass and mortality - but what about
ED

functional outcome? Crit Care. 2014;18(1):110.

5. ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression

T

models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
EP

2009;41(3):687-708.
C

6. McDonagh MJ, Davies CT. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to

AC

exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1984;52(2):139-

155.

7. Assuncao AR, Bottaro M, Ferreira-Junior JB, Izquierdo M, Cadore EL, Gentil P.

The Chronic Effects of Low- and High-Intensity Resistance Training on

Muscular Fitness in Adolescents. PloS one. 2016;11(8):e0160650.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, et al. Neither load nor systemic hormones

determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in

resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016:jap 00154 02016.

9. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, et al. Resistance exercise load

does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl

Physiol. 2012;113(1):71-77.

PT
10. Steele J, Fisher JP, Assuncao AR, Bottaro M, Gentil P. The role of volume-load

RI
in strength and absolute endurance adaptations in adolescent's performing high-

SC
or low-load resistance training. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2017;42(2):193-201.

11. Abe T, Kearns CF, Sato Y. Muscle size and strength are increased following
NU
walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-

walk training. J Appl Physiol. 2006;100(5):1460-1466.

MA

12. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T. Cycle training induces muscle

hypertrophy and strength gain: strategies and mechanisms. Acta Physiol Hung.
ED

2015;102(1):1-22.

13. Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, et al. Training to Fatigue: The Answer for
T
EP

Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy? Sports Med. 2016.

14. Counts BR, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, et al. The acute and chronic effects of "NO
C

LOAD" resistance training. Physiol Behav. 2016;164(Pt A):345-352.

AC

15. Luc BA, Harkey MH, Arguelles GD, Blackburn JT, Ryan ED, Pietrosimone B.

Measuring voluntary quadriceps activation: Effect of visual feedback and

stimulus delivery. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2016;26:73-81.

16. Toumi A, Jakobi JM, Simoneau-Buessinger E. Differential impact of visual

feedback on plantar- and dorsi-flexion maximal torque output. Appl Physiol

Nutr Metab. 2016;41(5):557-559.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17. Hwangbo PN. The effects of squatting with visual feedback on the muscle

activation of the vastus medialis oblique and the vastus lateralis in young adults

with an increased quadriceps angle. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(5):1507-1510.

18. Bilodeau M, Bisson E, Degrace D, Despres I, Johnson M. Muscle activation

characteristics associated with differences in physiological tremor amplitude

between the dominant and non-dominant hand. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.

PT
2009;19(1):131-138.

RI
19. Williams DM, Sharma S, Bilodeau M. Neuromuscular fatigue of elbow flexor

SC
muscles of dominant and non-dominant arms in healthy humans. J Electromyogr

Kinesiol. 2002;12(4):287-294.
NU
20. Sakamoto A, Sinclair PJ. Muscle activations under varying lifting speeds and

intensities during bench press. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(3):1015-1025.

MA

21. Hakkinen K, Kallinen M, Izquierdo M, et al. Changes in agonist-antagonist

EMG, muscle CSA, and force during strength training in middle-aged and older
ED

people. J Appl Physiol. 1998;84(4):1341-1349.

22. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise:

T
EP

mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med.

2006;36(2):133-149.
C

23. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of

AC

recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J

Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(5):361-374.

24. Burden A. How should we normalize electromyograms obtained from healthy

participants? What we have learned from over 25 years of research. J

Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010;20(6):1023-1035.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25. Keogh JWL, Wilson GJ, Weatherby RP. A Cross-Sectional Comparison of

Different Resistance Training Techniques in the Bench Press. J Strength and

Cond Res. 1999;13(3):247258.

26. Jakobsen MD, Sundstrup E, Andersen CH, Aagaard P, Andersen LL. Muscle

activity during leg strengthening exercise using free weights and elastic

resistance: effects of ballistic vs controlled contractions. Hum Mov Sci.

PT
2013;32(1):65-78.

RI
27. Vigotsky AD, Beardsley C, Contreras B, Steele J, Ogborn D, Phillips SM.

SC
Greater electromyographic responses do not imply greater motor unit

recruitment and 'hypertrophic potential' cannot be inferred. J Strength Cond Res.

NU
2015.

28. Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H, Spangenburg EE, Booth FW. Control of the size of
MA

the human muscle mass. Annu Rev Physiol. 2004;66:799-828.

29. Rudroff T, Staudenmann D, Enoka RM. Electromyographic measures of muscle

ED

activation and changes in muscle architecture of human elbow flexors during

fatiguing contractions. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2008;104(6):1720-1726.

T
EP

30. Farup J, de Paoli F, Bjerg K, Riis S, Ringgard S, Vissing K. Blood flow

restricted and traditional resistance training performed to fatigue produce equal

C

muscle hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25:754-763.

AC

31. Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T. Effects of blood flow restricted

low-intensity concentric or eccentric training on muscle size and strength. PloS

one. 2012;7(12):e52843.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1: Peak electromyographic amplitude (normalized using the signal obtained

during the maximum voluntary contraction) during different situations with no load

resistance training. * denotes a significant difference between conditions (p0.05)

Figure 2: Mean electromyographic amplitude (normalized using the signal obtained

PT
during the maximum voluntary contraction) during different situations with no load

resistance training.

RI
SC
Figure 3. Ratings of Perceived Exertion during different situations of no load resistance
NU
training. * denotes a significant difference between conditions
MA
T ED
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
Fig. 1
MA
T ED
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
Fig. 2
MA
T ED
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
Fig. 3
MA
T ED
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Summary of results from muscle activation during resistance training with no
external load.

Training status Side Velocity Feedback

EMG
Untrained Trained Dominant Non-dominant Faster Slower EMG Without

Peak
NS NS NS

PT
Mean NS NS

NS

RI
NS, no significant difference;

SC
- higher values for big arrows
NU
MA
T ED
C EP
AC

View publication stats