SURFACE ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC ACTIVATION
PATTERNS AND ELBOW JOINT MOTION DURING
TM
A PULL-UP, CHIN-UP, OR PERFECT-PULLUP
ROTATIONAL EXERCISE
JAMES W. YOUDAS, COLLIER L. AMUNDSON, KYLE S. CICERO, JUSTIN J. HAHN, DAVID T. HAREZLAK,
AND JOHN H. HOLLMAN
Program in Physical Therapy, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
ABSTRACT
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-
PullupTM rotational exercise. J Strength Cond Res 24(12): 3404
3414, 2010This study compared a conventional pull-up and
chin-up with a rotational exercise using Perfect
PullupTM twisting
handles. Twenty-one men (24.9 6 2.4 years) and 4 women
(23.5 6 1 years) volunteered to participate. Electromyographic
(EMG) signals were collected with DE-3.1 double-differential
surface electrodes at a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz. The EMG
signals were normalized to peak activity in the maximum voluntary
isometric contraction (MVIC) trial and expressed as a percentage.
Motion analysis data of the elbow were obtained using Vicon
Nexus software. One-factor repeated measures analysis of
variance examined the muscle activation patterns and kinematic
differences between the 3 pull-up exercises. Average EMG muscle
activation values (%MVIC) were as follows: latissimus dorsi (117
130%), biceps brachii (7896%), infraspinatus (7179%), lower
trapezius (4556%), pectoralis major (4457%), erector spinae
(3941%), and external oblique (3135%). The pectoralis major
and biceps brachii had significantly higher EMG activation during
the chin-up than during the pull-up, whereas the lower trapezius
was significantly more active during the pull-up. No differences
were detected between the Perfect
PullupTM with twisting handles
and the conventional pull-up and chin-up exercises. The mean
absolute elbow joint range of motion was 93.4 6 14.6, 100.6 6
14.5, and 99.8 6 11.7 for the pull-up, chin-up, and rotational
exercise using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles, respectively.
For each exercise condition, the timing of peak muscle activation
was expressed as a percentage of the complete pull-up cycle. A
Address correspondence to James W. Youdas, youdas.james@mayo.edu.
24(12)/34043414
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
3404 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
general pattern of sequential activation occurred suggesting that
pull-ups and chin-ups were initiated by the lower trapezius and
pectoralis major and completed with biceps brachii and latissimus
dorsi recruitment. The Perfect
PullupTM rotational device does not
appear to enhance muscular recruitment when compared to the
conventional pull-up or chin-up.
KEY WORDS muscle activation, motion analysis, kinematics
INTRODUCTION
T
he pull-up maneuver has been used as a perfor-
mance measure to assess physical fitness and
muscular strength and endurance of the shoulder
(25,30). The concentric or up-phase of the pull-up
exercise begins when the performer grasps a horizontal
overhead bar and then uses muscles of the shoulderarm
forearm complex to lift his or her body mass so that the feet
leave the floor and the nose or chin is elevated above the bar.
Subsequently, during the eccentric or down phase, the
performer lowers his or her body mass to the start position.
The ability to successfully perform multiple repetitions of
a pull-up is dependent upon a performers body mass (8,39),
muscle strength, and movement style. Traditionally, the pull-
up has been used to assess the degree of physical fitness in
adolescents (36) and in men and women who attend the US
military service academies (17,38,40).
Rehabilitation or fitness professionals are concerned with
the level of balance between upper body pressing and pulling
performance. Excessive emphasis on pressing movements in
upper extremity resistance training may increase the likeli-
hood of shoulder complex trauma such as rotator cuff injury
or strain (6,14). The strength ratio between upper body
pulling and pressing strength can be determined clinically by
using the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and pull-
up. This ratio was reported to be about 100% (5). By
periodically assessing the ratio of press-to-pull, rehabilitation
professionals or coaches, can monitor an athletes physical
training to help preserve a more balanced shoulder complex
and prevent injury. At first glance the conventional pull-up or
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

chin-up appears straightforward to perform. However, the up exercise? (b) Would the concentric phase of a combined
mechanical demands placed upon the muscles of the shoulder pull-up and chin-up performed using the Perfect
PullupTM
armforearm complex and trunk could be readily modified by twisting handles demonstrate significantly greater absolute (end
simply changing the position of the handgrip from one of positionstart position) elbow joint sagittal plane range of
a forward grasp in which the forearms are pronated and the motion (ROM) when compared to a conventional pull-up or
palms are directed away from the face (pull-up) to a reverse chin-up exercise? (c) Will there be a significant difference in the
grasp whereby the forearms are supinated and the hands are temporal sequence of peak back, shoulder, arm, and abdominal
directed toward the face (chin-up). Despite the familiarity with muscle activation expressed as a percentage of the complete
the pull-up and chin-up exercise, movement scientists or fitness pull-up and chin-up cycle among the 3 exercise conditions?
professionals have a paucity of information on muscle acti-
vation patterns and kinematics associated with the conven-
tional pull-up and chin-up exercise. METHODS
Surprisingly only 1 report was found which described the Experimental Approach to the Problem
muscle activation patterns of the shoulder and arm muscles Electromyography is used to record motor unit activity
during the performance of a pull-up and chin-up (33). Four within a muscle or group of muscles. Researchers in health
healthy volunteers (3 men and 1 woman) whose ages ranged and wellness professions use EMG to observe differences in
from 21 to 53 years (mean 6 SD = 33.5 6 15 years) performed muscle activity between exercise conditions (24,25). Accord-
multiple repetitions of either a pull-up or chin-up. Surface ing to Distefano et al. (13), investigators have discovered
electrodes were used to record electromyographic (EMG) higher EMG signals correspond with larger strength gains.
signals from 7 muscles during the concentric or shortening
phase of the pull-up and chin-up exercise. The EMG signals
were filtered, full-wave-rectified, and integrated, but the
activation patterns were not normalized to a maximum voluntary
isometric contraction (MVIC). The investigators divided the
EMG tracings into 3 equal parts to display the initial, middle, and
final phase of the pull-up and chin-up. According to the
investigators, the teres major, upper portion of the pectoralis
major, biceps brachii, infraspinatus, and latissimus dorsi were
active during the early phase of the exercise. During the middle
phase, EMG activity of the latissimus dorsi and teres major
was pronounced, whereas activation of the pectoralis major
and biceps brachii declined. During the final phase, EMG
activity of the latissimus dorsi and infraspinatus muscles
remained high, whereas the other 5 muscles showed a marked
decline. Despite this information, we presently do not know
the relative activation of a given muscle during the pull-up and
chin-up exercise when normalized to a MVIC. Furthermore,
to our knowledge, no report has provided kinematic data
regarding movement of the shoulderarmforearm complex
during the performance of a pull-up and chin-up procedure.
Manufacturers of novel strength training devices often
claim their product will produce improved results when
compared to conventional strength training procedures. The
new Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles are designed to rotate
360 upon a stationary base. Recently, the originator of the
Perfect
PullupTM unit claimed the devices distinctive rotation
handles move with the arms natural motion to improve
strength, balance, flexibility, and endurance, while reducing risk
of muscle strain and injury. Presently, no one has investigated
these claims. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer Figure 1. The free-standing pull-up and chin-up apparatus was
the following 3 questions. (a) Would the concentric phase of constructed out of solid steel with the vertical bars measuring 1.9 m in
a combined pull-up and chin-up performed using the length and the horizontal bar measuring 0.9 m in length and 0.03 m in
diameter. The base of the apparatus measured 0.91 m by 0.99 m. The
Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles demonstrate significantly diameter of the horizontal bar was suitable for secure placement of the
greater EMG activation of back, shoulder, arm, and abdominal Perfect
PullupTM handgrip devices.
musculature when compared to a conventional pull-up or chin-

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3405

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Muscle Activation During Pull-Up Exercises

(g) biceps brachii. Electromyo-

graphic data were analyzed
with Delsys software by pro-
cessing the root mean square
(RMS) algorithm and normal-
izing values to an MVIC. Mo-
tion analysis was used to
describe sagittal plane upper
extremity kinematic data of
the elbow during the pull-
up/chin-up exercises. Both
Figure 2. An anterior (A) and posterior (B) view of the electromyographic (EMG) electrode and motion analysis EMG and motion analysis data
reflective marker placement locations. Anteriorly EMG electrodes (A) were placed on the biceps brachii, pectoralis were combined to determine
major, and external oblique of the subjects dominant side. Posteriorly (B) EMG electrodes were placed on the lower a temporal relationship be-
trapezius, infraspinatus, latissimus dorsi, and erector spinae.
tween muscle activation and
elbow flexion ROM through-
out the pull-up cycle. The
The conventional pull-up is typically performed with independent variables examined were the 3 aforementioned
a pronated forearm grip on the horizontal bar with the pull-up exercises. The dependent variables were the
hands shoulder width apart. The chin-up is a variation normalized EMG values of the 7 muscles and the kinematic
whereby a supinated forearm grip on the horizontal bar is elbow data. The question that we sought to answer was as
used in place of a pronated one. The Perfect
PullupTM uses follows: Do the Perfect
PullupTM handles require increased
patented rotating handles to combine the conventional pull- EMG activation compared to the conventional pull-up and
up with the chin-up. The subject started by using a pronated chin-up exercises?
forearm grip and subsequently supinated the forearm while
advancing the body mass in an upward direction. We Subjects
examined 7 muscles recruited during a conventional pull-up, Twenty-one men (24.9 6 2.4 years) and 4 women (23.5 6 1.0
chin-up, and Perfect
PullupTM including the following: (a) years) volunteered to participate. The average height, weight,
lower trapezius, (b) latissimus dorsi, (c) infraspinatus, (d) and body mass index (BMI) of the subjects were 180 6 3.7 cm,
erector spinae, (e) pectoralis major, (f ) external oblique, and 76 6 13 kg, and 23 6 3 kg
m21, respectively. All subjects
demonstrated upper extremity
ROM within normal limits and
self-reported the ability to per-
form all 3 pull-up exercises. A
sample size of 22 subjects was
required to detect a mean dif-
ference in EMG recruitment of
10% MVIC (effect size = 0.20)
between conditions with a sta-
tistical power (1 2 b) equal to
0.80 at a = 0.05 (20). At the
time the study was completed,
64% (n = 16) of subjects
engaged in an upper extremity
weight training program that
included some form of back
exercises (pull-ups, lat pull-
downs, or seated rows). In
addition, 84% (n = 21) of
Figure 3. The pull-up (A) began when the subject grasped the horizontal bar with palms facing away from the subjects were actively strength
subject and elbows in terminal extension. Next, the subject flexed his/her knees to about 90 so he or she was training at least 23 times per
suspended from the pull-up/chin-up apparatus by the upper extremities and the lower extremities were nonweight- week. Subjects self-reporting
bearing. The subject began the up or concentric phase of the pull-up by lifting the torso until the nose was raised
just superior to the horizontal bar (B), whereupon the down phase began as the torso was lowered to the start a history of the following upper
position. Subjects performed 3 consecutive repetitions of the pull-up. extremity conditions were ex-
cluded from the study: (a)
the TM

3406 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

days over the last 6 months;

and (c) current complaints of
neuromuscular pain, numbness,
or tingling in the upper extrem-
ity, neck, or back during the
pull-up screening. The study
procedures were approved by
the Mayo Institutional Review
Board, Mayo Clinic, Rochester,
MN, USA. Before enrollment
in the study all subjects pro-
vided written informed consent
and completed a survey that
assessed their current level of
physical activity.

Instrumentation
Raw EMG signals were col-
Figure 4. The chin-up (A) began when the subject grasped the horizontal bar with palms facing the subject and
elbows in terminal extension. Next the subject flexed his/her knees to about 90 so he or she was suspended from lected with BagnoliTM DE 3.1
the apparatus by the upper extremities and the lower extremities were nonweight-bearing. The subject began the up double-differential surface
or concentric phase of the chin-up by lifting the torso until the nose was raised just superior to the horizontal bar (B), EMG sensors (Delsys Inc.,
whereupon the down phase began as the torso was lowered to the start position. Subjects performed 3
consecutive repetitions of the chin-up. Boston, MA, USA). The sensor
contacts were made from
99.9% pure silver bars 10 mm
previous shoulder subluxation, dislocation, or fracture; (b) in length and spaced 10 mm apart and encased within
a history of joint instability, tendinitis, bursitis, impingement, preamplifier assemblies measuring 41 3 20 3 5 mm. The
adhesive capsulitis, neurovascular complications, or any preamplifiers had a gain of 10 V/V. The combined
condition that limited physical activity for greater than 2 preamplifier and main amplifier permitted a gain from 100
to 10,000. The common mode
rejection ratio was 92 dB at 60
Hz, and input impedance was
.1,015 V at 100 Hz. Data were
collected at a sampling fre-
quency of 1,000 Hz. Raw
EMG signals were processed
with EMG works Data Ac-
qusition and Analysis software
(Delsys Inc.).
Three-dimensional motion
analysis was performed with
a computer-aided Vicon MX
motion analysis system with 5
high-resolution MX20+ infra-
red digital cameras (Vicon Mo-
tion Systems, Oxford, United
Kingdom). Kinematic data were
TM
Figure 5. The Perfect
Pullup handles consisted of a soft cell foam handle with a width of 14.5 cm and a height of 24 sampled at 100 Hz. Spherical
cm. Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles were designed to rotate 360 upon a stationary base. The diameter of the reflective markers were placed
horizontal bar of the pull-up and chin-up apparatus safely secured the twisting handles while the subject performed on specific anatomic landmarks
a combined pull-up/chin-up. The combined pull-up and chin-up (A) began when the subject grasped the
TM
Perfect
Pullups twisting handles with palms facing away from the subject and elbows in terminal extension. Next, the to model each subjects torso
subject flexed his or her knees to about 90 so he or she was suspended from the pull-up and chin-up apparatus by the and upper extremities. Cameras
upper extremities and the lower extremities were nonweight bearing. The subject began the up or concentric phase of were positioned so that each
the combined pull-up and chin-up by lifting the torso and supinating the forearms until the elbows reached terminal
flexion (B). The down phase began as the torso was lowered to the start position accompanied by forearm pronation. marker was detected by a min-
Subjects performed 3 consecutive repetitions of the combined pull-up and chin-up. imum of 2 cameras throughout
the task. Vicon Nexus software

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3407

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Muscle Activation During Pull-Up Exercises

The base of the apparatus

measured 0.91 m 3 0.99 m.
The diameter of the horizontal
bar was suitable for secure
placement of the Per-
fect
PullupTM handgrip devices.

Procedures
Data were collected in a re-
search laboratory at the Mayo
Clinic in Rochester, MN, USA.
All subjects wore appropriate
attire to permit correct place-
ment of EMG electrodes and
motion analysis reflective
markers. To allow optimal
Figure 6. Mean (6SD) normalized electromyographic (EMG) activation of back, shoulder, arm, and abdominal EMG reading, the subjects skin
musculature expressed as a percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) during a pull-up, chin-
up, or rotational exercise with Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles. External oblique (EO); erector spinae (ES); was abraded with an alcohol
pectoralis major (PM); lower trapezius (LT); infraspinatus (ISP); biceps brachii (BB); and latissimus dorsi (LD). *p , wipe until erythema was at-
0.05; **p , 0.01. tained. Electrodes were then
placed superficially parallel to
the direction of the muscle
was used to quantify upper extremity kinematics in the fibers on the subjects hand-dominant side. A ground
sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes of motion. Raw electrode was placed ipsilaterally on the medial malleolus.
kinematic data were processed and smoothed with a Woltring The gain on the Delsys EMG instrumentation was set
quintic spline filter at a mean square error of 20 mm. individually for each muscle by having each subject perform
The manufacturer of the Perfect
PullupTM device intended an informal manual muscle break test for 2- to 3-second hold
the apparatus be installed in a standard residential doorway; times. The MVICs of each muscle were then collected by
however, this was not possible because the doorway to our using formal manual muscle testing techniques as described
laboratory opened into a busy corridor. Instead a free-standing by Hislop and Montgomery (21). Palm, wrist, and elbow
pull-up apparatus was constructed out of solid steel with the widths and shoulder-offset measurements were recorded
vertical bars measuring 1.9 m in length and the horizontal bar with a hand-held caliper to satisfy anthropometric input
measuring 0.9 m in length and 0.03 m in diameter (Figure 1). values specified by the motion analysis software. Twenty-
seven spherical motion analysis
reflective markers were placed
on the subject (Figure 2).
Markers were placed bilaterally
as follows: (a) dorsum of the
hand on the middle of the third
metacarpal, (b) ulnar and radial
styloid processes, (c) middle
lateral forearm, (d) lateral epi-
condyle, (e) deltoid tuberosity,
(f ) tip of the acromion process,
(g) anterior superior iliac spine,
and (h) posterior superior iliac
spine. Markers were also placed
on the (i) sternal notch, (j)
xiphoid process, (k) spinous
processes of C7 and T10, and
(l) middle of the scapular spine
Figure 7. Sequential timing of mean (6SE) peak muscle activation of the pull-up is expressed as a percentage of of the dominant side. Subjects
the complete exercise cycle. Brackets indicate the results of statistically significant multiple comparisons. External
oblique (EO); erector spinae (ES); pectoralis major (PM); lower trapezius (LT); infraspinatus (ISP); biceps brachii
donned a head band with 4
(BB); and latissimus dorsi (LD). *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01. equidistantly spaced markers.
With the subject standing in
the TM

3408 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Figures 35, respectively. A 2-

minute rest period was pro-
vided for each subject between
exercise conditions.

Statistical Analyses
An intraclass correlation coeffi-
cient (ICC3,1) was used to
estimate the testretest reliabil-
ity of the EMG recordings. A 1-
factor repeated measures anal-
ysis of variance (ANOVA) with
Bonferroni corrections ad-
dressed question 1 whereby
we examined differences in
EMG activation (%MVIC) for
Figure 8. Sequential timing of mean (6SE) peak muscle activation of the chin-up is expressed as a percentage of a specific muscle group among
the complete exercise cycle. Brackets indicate the results of statistically significant multiple comparisons. External the 3 exercise conditions. Sim-
oblique (EO); erector spinae (ES); pectoralis major (PM); lower trapezius (LT); infraspinatus (ISP); biceps brachii
(BB); and latissimus dorsi (LD). *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01. ilarly, a 1-factor repeated-meas-
ures ANOVA with Bonferroni
corrections also addressed
the anatomic position, a 10-second static trial was recorded question 2 where we compared the absolute elbow joint
to establish baseline muscle activity. Education on appro- ROM across the 3 exercise conditions. Lastly, question 3
priate cadence of the pull-up, chin-up, or rotational exercise explored the temporal sequence of muscle activation for each
using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles using a metro- of the 3 exercise conditions and was tested with a repeated-
nome (50 b
min21) was provided. Subjects began each measures (3 conditions 3 7 muscles) ANOVA. Post hoc
exercise in the anatomical position and performed 3 analysis of the condition 3 muscle interaction on timing of
consecutive cycles of each of the 3 randomized pull-up peak muscle activation as a percentage of the complete pull-
exercises. The pull-up, chin-up, and rotational exercise using up cycle was performed. Simple effects tests with Bonferroni
the Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles are illustrated in correction were used to handle multiple comparisons. For all
3 ANOVAs, we used a level of
significance of p # 0.05. All
data were analyzed with SPSS
15.0 for Windows software
(SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS
Reliability
During the pull-up testretest
procedure, EMG recordings
from 8 subjects were separated
by 2 weeks. The ICCs for the 7
muscles were as follows: (a)
infraspinatus0.77; (b) biceps
brachii0.64; (c) lower trape-
zius0.64; (d) external oblique
0.57; (e) erector spinae0.48; (f )
latissimus dorsi0.35; and (f )
pectoralis major0.35.
Figure 9. Sequential timing of mean (6SE) peak muscle activation of the rotational exercise with Perfect
PullupTM Electromyographic Exercise
twisting handles is expressed as a percentage of the complete exercise cycle. Brackets indicate the results of Data
statistically significant multiple comparisons. Abbreviations: external oblique (EO); erector spinae (ES); pectoralis
major (PM); lower trapezius (LT); infraspinatus (ISP); biceps brachii (BB); and latissimus dorsi (LD). *p , 0.05; **p , During the concentric phase,
0.01. statistically significant differen-
ces existed between the

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3409

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Muscle Activation During Pull-Up Exercises

Figure 10. The left column expresses raw electromyographic (EMG) activity for each muscle studied from a representative subject during the performance
rotational exercise of a with Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles. The right column displays the timing at which peak activation of a muscle occurred expressed as
a percentage of the complete exercise cycle for the pull-up, chin-up, and rotational exercise with Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles.

the TM

3410 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

conventional pull-up and the chin-up exercises as follows: (a)
the lower trapezius had greater activation (p = 0.006) in the
conventional pull-up when compared to the chin-up (mean
difference = 10.8% MVIC, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.8
18.8% MVIC, effect size = 0.51); (b) the pectoralis major had
greater activation (p = 0.009) in the chin-up when compared
to the pull-up (mean difference = 13.6% MVIC, 95% CI = 3.0
24.3% MVIC, effect size = 0.3); and (c) the biceps brachii had
greater activation (p = 0.03) in the chin-up when compared to
the pull-up (mean difference = 17.9% MVIC, 95% CI = 1.5
34.2% MVIC, effect size = 0.54). Values of mean peak
activation (percentage) data for the 3 exercise conditions are
contained in Figure 6.
Elbow Joint Range of Motion Data
During the concentric phase, we observed a statistically
significant difference in absolute elbow joint sagittal plane
ROM among the 3 pull-up/chin-up exercises (F2,30 = 4.13, p =
0.03); however, Bonferroni tests for multiple comparisons did
not detect significant pairwise differences (Figure 7). Mean
absolute elbow joint ROM was 93.4 6 14.6, 100.6 6 14.5,
and 99.8 6 11.7 for the pull-up, chin-up, and combined pull-
up/chin-up performed using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting
handles, respectively.
Muscle Recruitment during the 3 Exercises
The temporal order of peak motor unit recruitment was
visualized from RMS processed EMG data to determine the
temporal sequence of selected back, shoulder, arm, and
abdominal muscles during the complete pull-up cycle for
each of the 3 conditions. Timing of peak EMG activation was
expressed as a percentage of a complete pull-up, chin-up, or
rotational exercise cycle using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting
handles. A repeated measures (3 conditions 3 7 muscles)
ANOVA detected a statistically significant muscle 3
conditions interaction (F2,276 = 2.83, p = 0.021), which
indicated the presence of differences in the order of peak
activation among the pull-up conditions. Sequential muscle
activation expressed as a percentage of the complete pull-up
cycle and the results of multiple comparisons are displayed in
Figures 79 for the pull-up, chin-up, and combined pull-
up/chin-up using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles,
respectively. On average (Figure 10) a complete cycle for
each of the 3 exercise conditions lasted about 2,500
milliseconds. The midpoint of each exercise cycle occurred
at the point of termination of elbow flexion and signified the
completion of the concentric or up-phase of the cycle.
Additionally, the timing at which peak activation of a muscle
occurred ranged from 12% to 44% of the cycle.
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, no one has normalized EMG activity for
the pull-up/chin-up exercise to % MVIC, so the primary
purpose of this study was to compare the magnitude of action
of the 7 muscles across the 3 exercise conditions to determine
if the pull-up/chin-up mode of exercise influenced muscle
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
recruitment. On the basis of EMG activation data, DiGiovine
et al. (12) classified relative muscular demand into 4
categories: low (,20% MVIC), moderate (2040% MVIC),
high (4160% MVIC), and very high (.60% MVIC).
Moreover, the scheme proposed by DiGiovine et al. agreed
with other investigators who contended the threshold value
for promoting muscle strength gains during therapeutic
exercise required muscle activation greater than 5060%
MVIC (1,4,28). Therefore, we chose to use the EMG signal
amplitude (%MVIC) as a method to discuss the relative
exercise intensity of the back, shoulder, arm, and trunk
muscles when comparing a pull-up, chin-up, and rotational
exercise using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles.
The external oblique and erector spinae muscles provide
muscular-based or core stability to the trunk under
destabilizing external forces (3). Both the external oblique
and erector spinae are classified as extrinsic muscular
stabilizers because they attach partially or totally to the ribs
and pelvis, which lie outside the vertebral column (29). During
the concentric phase the magnitude of EMG activity for the
external oblique ranged from 31 6 24% MVIC for the pull-up
to 35 6 24% MVIC for the chin-up, whereas the magnitude of
EMG activity for the erector spinae ranged from 39 6 31%
MVIC for the pull-up to 41 6 24% for the chin-up. Both
external oblique and erector spinae muscles demonstrated
moderate muscle activity (3040% MVIC), but at a level of
recruitment that would not be considered appropriate for
strength training (1,4,28). During the pull-up and chin-up
exercise the external oblique and erector spinae assisted with
stabilization of individual spinal segments within the vertebral
column and provided a firm base for the superficial back
muscles to move the upper extremities (29). Therefore, on the
basis of moderate muscle EMG signal amplitude we would
consider the pull-up and chin-up exercise to be useful for
promoting endurance training of these extrinsic muscular
stabilizers of the trunk (15). Similar to this study results, other
investigators have reported EMG signal amplitudes less than
40% MVIC and appropriate for endurance training when
healthy subjects perform a variety of core rehabilitation
exercises (abdominal crunch, supine bridge, lunge, bent-knee
sit-up, active hip abduction in side lying, and quadruped arm
and lower extremity lift) that activate the external oblique and
erector spinae muscles (15,18,19).
The 5 muscles of the shoulder and arm examined in the
present studypectoralis major, lower trapezius, infraspinatus,
latissimus dorsi, and biceps brachii,displayed high to very
high muscle activation at a level that would be appropriate for
strength training (1,4,28). Activation of the pectoralis major
ranged from 44 6 27% MVIC for the pull-up to 57 6 36%
MVIC for the chin-up. Compared to values from this study,
other investigators have recorded larger magnitudes of
pectoralis major muscle activation during upper extremity
weight-bearing exercise. For example, Townsend et al. (37)
found pectoralis major EMG signal amplitudes of 64 6 63%
MVIC and 84 6 42% MVIC for a conventional push-up and
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3411
 Muscle Activation During Pull-Up Exercises
seated press-up, respectively, whereas Cogley et al. (9)
reported mean activation of 94 6 8% MVIC during the
concentric phase of a conventional push-up with hands at
shoulder width. Similar to the pectoralis major, the lower
fibers of the trapezius in this study displayed high muscle
activation ranging from 45 6 22% MVIC for the chin-up to
56 6 21% MVIC for the pull-up. Other investigators have
reported higher values for the lower trapezius using non-
weight-bearing exercises. Moseley et al. (27) and Ekstrom
et al. (16) both recorded relatively high EMG activity (60 6
22% MVIC and 63 6 41% MVIC, respectively) during
elevation of the arm in the scapular plane above 120 using
dumbbell weights. Myers et al. (28) reported lower trapezius
EMG activity of 88 6 51% MVIC during external rotation of
the shoulder against rubber-tubing resistance with both the
arm abducted and elbow simultaneously flexed to 90. Lastly,
Ekstrom et al. (16) recorded peak lower trapezius muscle
activation (97 6 16% MVIC) using a dumbbell load during
prone arm raise overhead in line with the muscle fibers.
In this study, the infraspinatus muscle developed very high
EMG signals that varied from 71 6 52% MVIC for the
rotational exercise using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting
handles to 79 6 56% MVIC for the pull-up. Reinhold et al.
(32) studied common shoulder external rotation exercises
and found side-lying external rotation at 0 abduction against
dumbbell resistance produced the peak amount of activity
(62 6 13% MVIC) for the infraspinatus muscle. Earlier
Townsend et al. (37) reported infraspinatus muscle activation
of 88 6 25% MVIC when healthy subjects performed prone
horizontal shoulder abduction in external rotation with the
elbow fully extended against dumbbell resistance. Using
a weight-bearing upper extremity exercise, Decker et al. (11)
discovered that a push-up with a plus activated the
infraspinatus muscle at a level of 104 6 54% MVIC. The
plus movement occurred when the performer pushed his or
her upper back toward the ceiling at the conclusion of the
traditional up-phase of the push-up. The plus movement has
been credited for additional recruitment of motor units
within the serratus anterior and rotator cuff muscles (37).
The biceps brachii produced very high EMG signals that
varied from 78 6 32% MVIC for the pull-up to 96 6 34% MVIC
for the chin-up. The chin-up exercise generated greater
activation of the biceps brachii when compared to the pull-
up because the forearm was supinatedpalms facing the
subjectwhen gripping the horizontal bar. Movement scientists
have reported the biceps brachii muscle develops its maximal
EMG signal (7) and peak torque production (31) with
simultaneous elbow flexion and supination. Dynamic upper
extremity activities requiring elbow flexion have shown a range
of EMG activation signals from the biceps brachii. For
example, Koukoubis et al. (23). reported EMG signals were
33 6 12% MVIC when experienced rock climbers performed
finger-tip pull-ups with the forearms pronated. DiGiovine et al.
(12) documented that skilled baseball pitchers activated the
biceps brachii at a value of 44 6 32% MVIC during the arm
the TM
3412 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
acceleration phase of throwing, whereas Ryu et al. (34)
recorded biceps brachii activation of 86% MVIC during the
acceleration phase of the tennis forehand.
Of the 7 muscles examined in this study during the pull-up
and chin-up procedures, the latissimus dorsi clearly developed
the greatest EMG signals ranging from 117 6 46% MVIC for
the chin-up to 130 6 53% MVIC for the rotational exercise
using the Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles. In comparison,
during the arm acceleration phase of baseball pitching (12) the
latissimus dorsi elicited 88 6 53% MVIC activation. The push-
up plus (11) and press-up (37), both traditional upper
extremity weight-bearing exercises, were reported to generate
49 6 25% MVIC and 55 6 27% MVIC activation of the
latissimus dorsi, respectively. Furthermore, Signorile et al. (35)
discovered that a wide grip anterior lat pull-down exercise
normalized to a percentage of each subjects 10RM resulted in
muscle activation of 108 6 8% MVIC.
Data from this study revealed a performer of a pull-up, chin-
up, or rotational exercise with the Perfect
PullupTM twisting
handles required about 100 of absolute elbow joint sagittal
plane ROM to successfully complete the exercise. Using data
supplied by Antinori et al. (2), we estimated 9 healthy
subjects (5 men and 4 women) required about 120 of
absolute elbow sagittal plane motion to execute a pull-up.
The discrepancy between kinematic elbow data from the
present study and those of Antinori et al. could be attributed
to differences in methodology. Our data were captured with
a computer-aided Vicon MX motion analysis system,
whereas Antorini et al. used a videocamera connected to
a videorecorder. Meanwhile, Morrey et al. (26) reported
a healthy person required a 100 functional arc (30130)
to accomplish routine activities of daily living. Neither a pull-
up nor chin-up would be considered a routine activity of daily
living, but performance of the exercise is well within the
expected normal sagittal plane elbow joint ROM.
We proposed the following rationale to justify a muscles peak
activation during the temporal sequence of the pull-up and chin-
up cycle. All 7 muscles studied displayed EMG activity
throughout the duration of the cycle for each exercise condition
particularly during the concentric phase. The lower trapezius
was activated early in the 3 pull-up/chin-up exercises at an
average of 14.7% of the pull-up cycle and a magnitude of
recruitment ranging from 45 6 22% MVIC for the chin-up to 56
6 21% MVIC for the pull-up. At the start of the concentric phase
of the cycle, the scapula is positioned close to maximum upward
rotation. With the subjects hand gripping the horizontal bar and
the torso suspended from the pull-up and chin-up apparatus, the
scapula is relatively fixed when compared to the trunk thus
reversing the action of lower trapezius. The oblique inferome-
dial-directed muscle fiber orientation allows the lower trapezius
to assist with elevation of the trunk. Judging by visual observation
trunk elevation initiated the exercise cycle in preparation for
shoulder adduction.
Overall, the second muscle recruited was the pectoralis
major with peak activation occurring at 18.0% of the pull-up

cycle and a magnitude of recruitment that ranged from 44 6
27% MVIC for the pull-up to 57 6 36% MVIC for the chin-
up. According to Jenkins (22), the sternocostal portion of
the pectoralis major muscle extends the shoulder at the
glenohumeral joint when the arm is in a flexed position, and,
therefore, it is reasonable to assume why the pectoralis major is
active early in the pull-up or chin-up cycle. This finding is in
agreement with the report of Ricci et al. (33) whereby the
lower fibers (sternocostal) of the pectoralis major are activated
early in the initial thrust of the pull-up cycle.
The erector spinae was recruited at 23.9% of the pull-up
cycle with a magnitude of muscle activation that ranged from
39 6 31% MVIC for the pull-up to 41 6 24% for the chin-up.
The erector spinae served 2 primary purposes during the
exercise cycle. As the subject approached the bar during the
concentric phase of the pull-up, back extension was necessary
to permit the subjects head to clear the horizontal bar.
Moreover, the erector spinae also assisted with stabilization of
the pelvis which provided the latissimus dorsi a stable fixation
site to pull from later in the exercise cycle.
The fourth muscle recruited was the infraspinatus at 29.6% of
the cycle with a magnitude of recruitment that varied from 71
6 52% MVIC for the rotational exercise using the
Perfect
PullupTM twisting handles to 79 6 56% MVIC for
the pull-up. Neumann (29) commented that during a pull-up
exercise the infraspinatus functioned as an arm adductor and
extensor. Furthermore, the infraspinatus also provided dy-
namic shoulder stability to centralize the humeral head against
the rigidity of the anterior structures of the shoulder (29).
The biceps brachii was the fifth muscle recruited at 32.4% of
the pull-up cycle and a magnitude of recruitment that ranged
from 78 6 32% MVIC for the pull-up to 96 6 34% MVIC for
the chin-up. With the forearm complex stabilized as the
subject grasped the bar, the biceps brachii flexed the elbow
with reverse action by pulling the humerus toward the fixed
forearm. In contrast to data from this study, Ricci et al. (33)
commented that the biceps brachii was active during the
initial thrust of the pull-up exercise, although the muscle was
less active during the remainder of the pull-up cycle.
The penultimate muscle to reach peak muscle activation
was the external oblique at 36.4% of the pull-up cycle and
a magnitude of activation that varied from 31 6 24% MVIC
for the pull-up to 35 6 24% MVIC for the chin-up. This
muscle primarily functioned as a core stabilizer throughout all
3 exercises. We postulated the late activation displayed in the
chin-up was a result of relative trunk flexion when subjects
elevated their nose above the horizontal bar near the
completion of the concentric phase of the exercise cycle.
The last muscle to reach peak activation was the latissimus
dorsi at 37.3% of the pull-up cycle with a magnitude of activation
ranging from 117 6 46% MVIC for the chin-up to 130 6 53%
MVIC for the rotational exercise using the Perfect
PullupTM
twisting handles. This muscle functioned to complete trunk
elevation through reverse activation, which is made possible by
pelvic stabilization from the erector spinae and external oblique.
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
The latissimus dorsi also completed adduction and hyperex-
tension of the shoulder to finish the concentric phase of the
exercise cycle. Results from this study are consistent with the
findings by Ricci et al. (33) whereby the most pronounced
activity of the latissimus dorsi is at the completion of the
concentric phase of the pull-up or chin-up cycle.
We identified an assortment of limitations in our study. As
with all motion analysis, reflective markers are designed to
measure skeletal kinematics; however, they are indirectly
measuring joint angles via skin movement. Soft tissue artifact
was inevitable because the only way to truly measure skeletal
kinematics is through the use of needle penetration into bone. In
addition, as with all EMG systems there is the potential for skin
artifact and crosstalk. We minimized this by using standard
EMG electrode placement as described by Cram and Kassman
(10). The skin was wiped with alcohol, and shaved if needed, to
clean the skin of oil and debris. Tape reinforced the EMG
electrodes preventing the sensor from falling off the desired
muscle motor point. Additionally, we used double-differential
electrodes vs. single-differential electrodes which served to
minimize the potential for crosstalk. To increase generalizabil-
ity, future research should include subjects with varying age,
activity level, BMI, and gender. Future research should examine
joint forces to confirm the manufacturers claim that joint
contact forces are minimized because of the Perfect
PullupsTM
twisting handles allowing the arm to move in a natural motion
to improve strength, balance, flexibility, and endurance, while
reducing the risk of muscle strain and injury.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The pull-up or chin-up exercise can be used to train muscles used
regularly in activities of daily living that involve pulling motions
(shoulder extension combined with elbow flexion) of the upper
extremity. Back, shoulder, arm, and trunk muscle activation
patterns and elbow joint kinematic information are of interest to
physical therapists and other fitness professionals when pre-
scribing variations of the pull-up and chin-up exercise to their
clients. Excessive emphasis placed on pressing movements in the
upper extremity may increase the likelihood of shoulder
complex trauma such as rotator cuff injury or strain. To prevent
this, pulling movements should be incorporated in rehabilitation
programs to achieve a balance between pressing and pulling
performance. The 7 muscles of the back, shoulder, arm, and
trunk examined in the present study during the pull-up and chin-
up displayed high to very high muscle activation at a level that
would be appropriate for strength training (1,4,28). Based upon
normalized EMG activity alone, the rotational exercise using
Perfect
PullupTM twisting handgrips is not preferable to
a conventional pull-up or chin-up when the goal is to produce
muscle strengthening of back, shoulder, arm, and trunk muscles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this project came from the Mayo Program in
Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Ro-
chester, MN, USA. The authors disclose they have no
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3413
 Muscle Activation During Pull-Up Exercises
professional relationship with the company that manufac-
tures the Perfect
PullupTM device. The results of this study do
not constitute endorsement of the Perfect
PullupTM device by
the authors or the National Strength and Conditioning
Association. The authors wish to thank Mr. Mike Ilse for
constructing the free-standing pull-up and chin-up apparatus.
REFERENCES
1. Andersen, LL, Magnusson, SP, Nielsen, M, Haleen, J, Poulsen, K, and
Aagaard, P. Neuromuscular activation in conventional therapeutic
exercises and heavy resistance exercises: Implications for rehabil-
itation. Phys Ther 86: 683697, 2006.
2. Antinori, F, Felici, F, Figura, F, Marchetti, M, and Ricci, B. Joint moments
and work in pull-ups. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 28: 132137, 1988.
3. Axler, CT and McGill, SM. Low back loads over a variety of
abdominal exercises: Searching for the safest abdominal challenge.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 29: 804811, 1997.
4. Ayotte, NW, Stetts, DM, Keenan, G, and Greenway, EH. Electro-
myographical analysis of selected lower extremity muscles during 5
unilateral weight-bearing exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:
4855, 2007.
5. Baker, DG and Newton, RU. An analysis of the ratio and
relationship between upper body pressing and pulling strength.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 594598, 2004.
6. Barlow, JC, Benjamin, BW, Birt, PJ, and Hughes, CJ. Shoulder
strength and range-of-motion characteristics in bodybuilders.
J Strength Cond Res 16: 367372, 2002.
7. Basmajian, JV and Latif, MA. Integrated actions and functions of the
chief flexors of the elbow: A detailed electromyographic analysis.
J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 39: 11061118, 1957.
8. Chandler, T, Ware, JS, and Mayhew, JL. Relationship of lat-pull
repetitions and pull-ups to 1-RM lat-pull strength in male athletes.
J Hum Mov Stud 41: 2537, 2001.
9. Cogley, RM, Archambault, TA, Fibeger, JF, Koverman, MM,
Youdas, JW, and Hollman, JH. Comparison of muscle activation
using various hand positions during the push-up exercise. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 628633, 2005.
10. Cram, JR and Kasman, GS. Introduction to Surface Electromyography.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers Inc, 1998.
11. Decker, MJ, Hintermeister, RA, Faber, KJ, and Hawkins, RJ. Serratus
anterior muscle activity during selected rehabilitation exercises. Am J
Sports Med 27: 784791, 1999.
12. DiGiovine, NM, Jobe FW, Pink, M, and Perry, J. An electromyo-
graphic analysis of the upper extremity in pitching. J Shoulder Elbow
Surg 1: 1525, 1992.
13. Distefano, LJ, Blackburn, JT, Marshall, SW, and Padua, DA. Gluteal
muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 39: 532540, 2009.
14. Durall, CJ, Manske, RC, and Davies, GJ. Avoiding shoulder injury
from resistance training. Strength Cond J 23: 1018, 2001.
15. Ekstrom, RA, Donatelli, RA, and Carp, KC. Electromyographic
analysis of core trunk, hip and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation
exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37: 754762, 2007.
16. Ekstrom, RA, Donatelli, RA, and Soderberg, GL. Surface electro-
myographic analysis of exercises for the trapezius and serratus
anterior muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33: 247258, 2003.
17. Enlisted Opportunities. (2009). Available at: http://www.airforce.
com/opportunities/enlisted/careers/general/pararescue-apprentice-
males-only/. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from US Air Force.
18. Escamilla, RF, Lewis, C, Bell, D, Bramlet, G, Daffron, J, Lambert, S,
Pecson, A, Imamura, R, Paulos, L, and Andrews, JR. Core muscle
activation during swiss ball and traditional abdominal exercises.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40: 265276, 2010.
the TM
3414 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
19. Escamilla, RF, McTaggart, MSC, Fricklas, EJ, DeWitt, R, Kelleher, P,
Taylor, MK, Hreljac, A, and Moorman, CT. An electromyographic
analysis of commercial and common abdominal exercises: Implications
for rehabilitation training. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36: 4557, 2006.
20. Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, and Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral
and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39: 175191, 2007.
21. Hislop, HJ and Montgomery, J. Muscle Testing: techniques of Manual
Examination. St. Louis, MO: Saunders, 2007.
22. Jenkins, DB. Hollinsheads Functional Anatomy of the Limbs and Back
(9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier, 2009.
23. Koukoubis, TD, Cooper, LW, Glisson, RR, Seaber, AV, and Feagin,
JA. An electromyographic study of arm muscles during climbing.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 3: 121124, 1995.
24. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, and Cafarelli, E. American College of
Sports Medicine position stand: Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364380, 2002.
25. Marshall, SJ, Darkin, JA, Sallis, JF, and McKenzie, TL. Tracking of
health-related fitness components in youth ages 9 to 12. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 30: 910916, 1998.
26. Morrey, BF, Askew, LJ, and Chao, EY. A biomechanical study of normal
functional elbow motion. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 63: 872877, 1981.
27. Moseley, JB, Jobe, FW, Pink, M, Perry, J, and Tibone, J. EMG analysis
of the scapular muscles during a shoulder rehabilitation program. Am
J Sports Med 20: 128134, 1992.
28. Myers, JB, Pasquale, MR, Laudner, KG, Sell, TC, Bradley, JP, and
Lephart, SM. On-the-field resistance-tubing exercises for throwers:
An electromyographic analysis. J Ath Train 40: 1522, 2005.
29. Neumann, DA. Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System: Foundations
for Physical Rehabilitation (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 2010.
30. Pate, RR, Burgess, ML, Woods, JA, Ross, JG, and Baumgartner, T.
Validity of field tests of upper body muscular strength. Res Q Exerc
Sport 64: 1724, 1993.
31. Provins, KA and Salter, N. Maximum torque exerted about the
elbow joint. J Appl Physiol 7: 393398, 1955.
32. Reinhold, MM, Wilk, KE, Fleisig, GS, Zheng, N, Barrentine, SW,
Chmielewski, T, Cody, RC, Jameson, GG, and Andrews, JR.
Electromyographic analysis of the rotator cuff and deltoid
musculature during common shoulder external rotation exercises.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 34: 385394, 2004.
33. Ricci, B, Figura, F, Felici, F, and Marchetti, M. Comparison of male
and female functional capacity in pull-ups. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
28: 168175, 1988.
34. Ryu, RKN, McCormick, J, Jobe, FW, Moynes, DR, and Antonelli, DJ.
An electromyographic analysis of shoulder function in tennis
players. Am J Sports Med 16: 481485, 1988.
35. Signorile, JF, Zink, AJ, and Szwed, SP. A comparative electromyo-
graphical investigation of muscle utilization patterns using various hand
positions during the lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 16: 539546, 2002.
36. The Presidents Challenge. (1993). Available at: http://www.presi-
dentschallenge.org. Accessed April 19, 2010.
37. Townsend, H, Jobe, FW, Pink, M, and Perry, J. Electromyographic
analysis of the glenohumeral muscles during a baseball rehabilitation
program. Am J Sports Med 19: 264272, 1991.
38. US Naval Special Warfare/Navy Special Operations Physical
Training Guide. (June 5, 2005). Available at: http://www.navy.com/
m/pdf/eod/PST_TrainingGuideJUN07.pdf. Retrieved April 19,
2010, from Americas Navy.
39. Vanderburgh, PM and Edmonds, T. The effect of experimental
alterations in excess mass on pull-up performance in fit young men.
J Strength Cond Res 11: 230233, 1997.
40. Zielinski, T. (March 25, 2010). Air Cav infantry Soldiers compete in
company challenge. Available at: http://www.army.mil/-news/
2010/03/25/36327-air-cav-infantry-soldiers-compete-in-company-
challenge/. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from US Army.