Latissimus dorsi

Reading time:

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

The latissimus dorsi originates along the length of the lower thoracic vertebrae, thoracolumbar fascia, the lowest three ribs, and the iliac crest of the pelvis. It inserts at the bicipital groove of the humerus. It has three main regions that vary in muscle morphology, architecture, size and moment arm lengths.

The latissimus dorsi is a primary shoulder extensor in the sagittal plane. It displays its largest moment arm lengths with the arm below horizontal. In this plane, the superior fibers display the largest moment arm lengths and the middle fibers display the smallest, implying that the superior fibers are most important for shoulder extension.

In the sagittal plane, peak moment arm lengths are displayed closer to the body by the middle region and furthest from the body in the inferior region, and in-between by the superior region. This may imply that exercises with peak contractions at different points in the total shoulder flexion range of motion are necessary in order to work all muscle fibers to a similar extent.

The latissimus dorsi is a primary shoulder adductor in the frontal plane and displays its largest moment arm lengths with the arm just below horizontal. In this plane, the superior and inferior fibers display the largest peak moment arm lengths, while the middle fibers display the smallest, implying that the superior and inferior fibers are most important for shoulder adduction.

In the frontal plane, peak moment arm lengths are displayed just below horizontal in all three regions. This may imply that exercises with peak contractions at just below the horizontal are most helpful for targeting the latissimus dorsi during this joint action.

The latissimus dorsi is a primary shoulder extensor in the scapular plane but the peak moment arm lengths vary widely between regions. In this plane, the superior and inferior fibers seem to have greater peak moment arm lengths than the middle fibers, implying that the superior and inferior fibers are most important for scapular plane shoulder extension.

In the scapular plane, the superior region seems to display peak moment arm length with the arms just below horizontal, while the middle and inferior regions display peak moment arm lengths with the arms close to the sides. This may imply that exercises with peak contractions at different points in the total shoulder flexion range of motion (both with arms at the horizontal and with arms close to the sides) are necessary in order to work all muscle fibers to a similar extent. 

Studies to date suggest that the latissimus dorsi displays a greater proportion of type II muscle fibers than type I muscle fibers. This may imply that training with higher speeds and heavier loads are beneficial for this muscle.

The latissimus dorsi is highly active during both the lat pull-down and pull-up exercises when relative load is equal. Also, there appears to be no difference in muscle activity between vertical and horizontal pulling exercises performed with similar loads.

During vertical pulling exercises, the latissimus dorsi muscle activity does not appear to be affected by grip width, stability at the hand, or type of external resistance used. However, using a pronated grip during vertical pulling and using internal cues does produce greater muscle activity.

During horizontal pulling exercises (rowing), latissimus dorsi muscle activity appears not to be affected by stability surface at the hand, or by whether full scapular retraction is performed. However, it is greater during those exercises that do not rely on stabilising the lower back (like chest supported or seated rows) and also when using a supinated rather than a pronated grip.

The latissimus dorsi displays high muscle activity in static postures when performing shoulder extension with the arm near the body and during manual-resisted mid-range rowing. The muscle activity of the medial and lateral regions of the latissimus dorsi are affected by muscle action (e.g. medial region greater during lateral trunk bending, lateral region greater during rowing).

Unstable surfaces appear not to affect latissimus dorsi muscle activity, while smaller shoulder joint angles (regardless of plane) appear to display greater muscle activity during maximal contractions.  


CONTENTS

Full table of contents

Anatomy

Moment arms

Muscle architecture

Muscle fiber type

Electromyography

References

CONTRIBUTORS

To see the authorship and review status of this page, click HERE. To contribute to this page, please click HERE.


ANATOMY

PURPOSE

This purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the anatomy of the latissimus dorsi muscle.

ORIGINS & INSERTIONS

Introduction

The origins and insertions describe where muscles are attached to the skeleton, via connective tissue. Basic conclusions can be drawn about the function of muscles from their origins and insertions, although muscle moment arms (see the next section) are more informative for this purpose. The origins and insertions of the latissimus dorsi span the posterior and lateral aspects of the back, connecting the upper limbs to the core and pelvis. On first inspection, the latissimus dorsi has a number of attachment sites that span a relatively large distance, including the lower thoracic spine, lumbar and sacral spine, lower ribs, superior aspect of the iliac, and in some cases the inferior scapula (Vleeming et al. 1995; Bogduk et al. 1998), and it even reaches the superior iliac spine of the pelvis and extends to the lower body, connecting with the gluteus maximus, via the thoracolumbar fascia (Carvalhais et al. 2013).

Origins 

Traditionally, the origins of the latissimus dorsi have been described as including: the lower thoracic spinous process, thoracolumbar junction, the posterior third of the superior surface of the iliac crest of the pelvis, tenth to the twelfth ribs, and even the inferior angle of the scapula. More recent investigations have found that the latissimus dorsi is connected with the gluteus maximus of the opposite hip via the thoracolumbar fascia (Bogduk et al. 1998; Carvalhais et al. 2013).

Insertions

The insertion of the latissimus dorsi attaches to the floor of the intertubercular sulcus, otherwise known as the anterior-medial aspect of the bicipital groove. The latissimus dorsi is found to twist under the teres major to insert more anteriorly, while more recent investigation shows that in some cases (25%) the latissimus dorsi and teres major tendons fuse before their respective insertions (Goldberg et al. 2009).

 

OVERALL WEIGHT & SIZE

Introduction

The size and weight of muscles can be measured in various different ways. The most common ways to measure muscle size are by volume or by anatomical cross-sectional area. In addition, muscle weight and size can be presented either in absolute terms or relative to other muscles.

Muscle weight

Very limited data exists on the weight of the latissimus dorsi. Gerling et al. (2013) reported data on 12 cadavers aged between 45 and 83 years and found that mean muscle weight was 170.4g while the range in weight ranged between 120 – 260.5g.

Muscle volume

It appears that the latissimus dorsi is one of the largest muscles in the upper body by volume, measuring 262.3cm3 (Holzbaur et al. 2007).

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

The latissimus dorsi originates along the length of the lower thoracic vertebrae, thoracolumbar fascia, the lowest three ribs, and the iliac crest of the pelvis. It inserts at the bicipital groove of the humerus.

Given its many and varied attachment points, it is likely to be involved in many functions. However, it seems to function primarily as a shoulder extensor (sagittal plane) and shoulder adductor (frontal plane) to bring the arms downwards and towards the body when elevated.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu


 

MUSCLE MOMENT ARMS

[Read more about: moments]

PURPOSE

This purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the muscle moment arms of the latissimus dorsi muscle in each of the main planes of movement.

 

MUSCLE MOMENT ARMS: SAGITTAL PLANE

Overall moment arm lengths

The peak moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi muscle overall ranges between -40.0mm to -0.1mm depending on two factors: which region of the muscle is being measured, and the exact joint angle. The negative moment arm implies that the function is to produce shoulder extension (towards the body). Keuchle et al. (1997) reported the whole latissimus dorsi displayed its peak moment arm length at approximately 40 – 50 degrees of shoulder flexion (arm below horizontal) and measured around -40mm. Ackland at al. (2008) found that the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length between 30 – 53 degrees, depending on the region of the muscle being tested. It therefore appears that the latissimus dorsi is a prime mover during shoulder extension in the sagittal plane, in combination with the teres major and posterior deltoid (Ackland et al. 2008). Also, since the latissimus dorsi displays its peak moment arm at approximately 30 – 53 degrees, it seems that this muscle displays its greatest force-producing potential for shoulder extension when the arm is below horizontal.

Differences between regions

Very little research has compared the effect of latissimus dorsi muscle region on moment arm length. However, the moment arm lengths do appear to be different between the three main regions. Ackland et al. (2008) reported that the peak moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi was displayed between 30 – 53 degrees of shoulder flexion depending on the muscle region measured. The superior fibers of the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length of 22.1mm at 45 degrees of shoulder flexion (midway below horizontal) and a minimum moment arm length of -0.1mm at 120 degrees (arms above the head). The middle fibers of the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length of -7.8mm at 30 degrees (arms close to the sides) and a minimum moment arm length of 0.7mm at 98 degrees of shoulder flexion (arms just above horizontal). The inferior fibers displayed a peak moment arm length of -10.8mm at a shoulder flexion angle of 53 degrees and a minimum moment arm length of -2.9mm at 120 degrees (arms above the head). Therefore, the superior fibers display the largest moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi, while the middle fibers display the smallest. Also, peak moment arm lengths of the superior, middle and inferior regions are displayed at 45, 30 and 53 degrees, respectively.

Effect of change in range of motion 

OVERALL

As discussed above, in the sagittal plane the latissimus dorsi overall displays a peak moment arm length between 30 – 50 degrees and a minimum moment arm length at 120 degrees of shoulder flexion (Keuchle et al. 1997; Ackland et al. 2008). In other words, the moment arm length increases as the arm moves from overhead and towards the hips. Keuchle et al. (1997) reported that the moment arm length actually increases linearly between 80 and 65 degrees of shoulder flexion from approximately -33mm to -40mm but then plateaus between 50 and 40 degrees. Then, as the shoulder moves below 40 degrees of flexion, the moment arm length starts to fall again gradually until it results in a moment arm length of -28mm at 0 degrees of flexion. Ackland et al. (2008) described a similar curve whereby the peak moment arm length is displayed around 40 – 50 degrees.

SUPERIOR REGION

As explained above, the superior latissimus dorsi fibers display a peak moment arm length of -22.1mm at 45 degrees of shoulder flexion (arms close to the body) and a minimum moment arm length of 0.1mm at 120 degrees (arms overhead). The moment arm length increases between 120 degrees and 60 degrees of shoulder flexion. Between 60 and 50 degrees the moment arm length levels-off and displays a short plateau between 45 and 35 degrees. Between 35 and 0 degrees the moment arm length appears to decrease linearly until reaching approximately 12.0mm at 0 degrees of flexion.

MIDDLE REGION

As explained above, the middle latissimus dorsi fibers display a peak moment arm length of -7.8mm at 30 degrees of shoulder flexion (arms close to the body) and a minimum moment arm length of -0.7mm at 98 degrees (arms above horizontal). The moment arm length displays a plateau region between 120 and 80 degrees measuring less than -5mm. Between 80 degrees and 40 degrees the moment arm length linearly increases and reaches a plateau around 30 degrees where its peak moment arm length is displayed. Between 30 – 0 degrees the moment arm length decreases from -7.8mm to -5.0mm.

INFERIOR REGION

As explained above, the inferior fibers of the latissimus dorsi muscle display a peak moment arm length of -10.8mm at 53 degrees of shoulder flexion and a minimum moment arm length of -2.9mm at 120 degrees. The moment arm length displays a plateau between 120 – 100 degrees of shoulder flexion. Between 100 – 60 degrees of shoulder flexion the moment arm length increases linearly approximately -5.0mm to -10.0mm. Between 60 and 40 degrees, the moment arm length displays a plateau where the peak moment arm length is reported at 53 degrees. Between 40 and 10 degrees the moment arm length approaches less than the 5mm.

Effect of glenohumeral rotation

The latissimus dorsi displays an overall average moment arm length in the sagittal plane at 90 degrees of flexion (arm held horizontal) of 10.0mm. The peak moment arm is displayed at 80 degrees of internal rotation (thumb point inwards) measuring 12.5mm, while its minimum moment arm is displayed at 0 degrees of rotation (thumbs up) measuring 6.0mm (Keuchle et al., 2000). Therefore, it appears that the latissimus dorsi also functions as a glenohumeral internal rotator and displays its greatest contribution at end-range of motion internal rotation.

Summary points

The latissimus dorsi is a primary shoulder extensor in the sagittal plane and displays its largest moment arm lengths with the arm below horizontal. The superior fibers display the largest moment arm length and the middle fibers display the smallest. Peak moment arm lengths are displayed closer to the body by the middle region and furthest from the body in the inferior region, and in-between by the superior region.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

MUSCLE MOMENT ARMS: FRONTAL PLANE 

Overall moment arm lengths

The peak moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi muscle overall ranges between -38.0mm to -3.3mm, again depending on what region of the muscle is being measured and the joint range. Keuchle et al. (1997) reported the latissimus dorsi muscle displayed its peak moment arm length at approximately 60 – 90 degrees of shoulder abduction (arm below or just at horizontal) measuring -38 to -40mm. Ackland at al. (2008) found that the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length between 64 – 71 degrees, depending on the region of the muscle being tested and ranging between -29.9mm to -38.6mm. Therefore, it appears that the latissimus dorsi is a prime mover during shoulder adduction in the frontal plane, in combination with the teres major (Ackland et al. 2008). While the latissimus dorsi displays its peak moment arm at approximately 64 to 71 degrees, it appears that the muscle displays its greatest force producing potential when the arm is mid-range of shoulder abduction and the relationship between the moment arm length and the joint angle resembles a bell-curve.

Differences between regions

Very little research has compared the effect of latissimus dorsi muscle region on moment arm length. Even so, the moment arm lengths appear to be different between the different regions. Ackland et al. (2008) reported that the peak moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi was displayed between 64 – 71 degrees of shoulder abduction depending on the muscle region measured. The superior fibers of the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length of 29.9mm at 71 degrees of shoulder abduction (slightly below horizontal) and a minimum moment arm length of -4.4mm at 10 degrees. The middle fibers of the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length of -38.6mm at 64 degrees (slightly lower than superior fibers) and the minimum moment arm length was 16.9mm at 10 degrees. The inferior fibers displayed a peak moment arm length of 38.1mm at a shoulder flexion angle of 71 degrees, while the minimum moment arm length was -3.3mm at 10 degrees. Therefore, it seems that the superior and inferior fibers display the largest peak moment arm lengths of the latissimus dorsi for shoulder adduction, while the middle fibers display the smallest. Also, peak moment arm lengths of the superior, middle and inferior regions are displayed at 71, 64 and 71 degrees, respectively.

Effect of change in range of motion

OVERALL

The latissimus dorsi displays a peak moment arm length for shoulder adduction in the frontal plane between 60 – 90 degrees (arms horizontally out to the sides) and a minimum moment arm length at 0 degrees (arms by the sides) (Keuchle et al. 1997; Ackland et al. 2008). However, it also appears that the latissimus dorsi moment arm length is lower at both end ranges of motion during shoulder abduction, and therefore resembles a bell-shaped curve with the largest moment arm lengths in mid-range. Keuchle et al. (1997) reported the change in moment arm length from 90 degrees of abduction (arms horizontal) to 55 degrees of abduction (arms pointing down). They reported that the moment arm length is unchanged between 90 – 55 degrees of shoulder abduction, displaying a moment arm length of approximately -38.0 to -40.0mm. Between 55 degrees and 25 degrees, the moment arm decreases gradually where it then appears to decrease linearly from 35.0mm to 20mm towards 0 degrees of abduction. In contrast, Ackland et al. (2008) described a less plateaued region around the mid-range but also reviewed the entire range of motion. They reported that the moment arm length linearly increases between 120 degrees and between 80 – 60 degrees, where a shorter plateau is displayed, before a linear decrease in moment arm length as the shoulder moves towards 0 degrees of shoulder abduction.

SUPERIOR REGION

As described above, the superior latissimus dorsi fibers display a peak moment arm length at 71 degrees of shoulder flexion measuring -29.9mm, while its minimum moment arm length is displayed at 0 degrees (arm by side) measuring -4.4mm. The moment arm length increases between 0 degrees and 70 degrees of shoulder abduction. A small plateau between 65 and 75 exists where the peak moment arm length lies. Between 75 and 120 degrees the moment arm length appears to decrease linearly until reaching approximately -15.0mm at 120 degrees of abduction (arms overhead).

MIDDLE REGION

As described above, the middle latissimus dorsi fibers display a peak moment arm length at 64 degrees of shoulder abduction of -38.6mm and a minimum moment arm length at 10 degrees of -16.9mm. The moment arm length linearly increases between 0 degrees and 60 degrees of abduction. A short plateau region exists between 60 and 70 degrees where the peak moment arm lies. Between 70 and 120 degrees of abduction the moment arm length linearly decreases before reaching a moment arm length of -20.0mm.

INFERIOR REGION

As described above, the inferior fibers of the latissimus dorsi muscle display a peak moment arm length at 71 degrees of shoulder abduction of -38.1mm and a minimum moment arm length at 10 degrees of -3.3mm. The moment arm length appears to linearly increase between 0 degrees and 65 degrees of shoulder abduction (below horizontal). Between 65 and 80 degrees a small plateau is shown where the peak moment arm lies. Between 80 degrees and 120 degrees the moment arm linearly decreases until it reaches approximately -20.0mm.

Effect of glenohumeral rotation

The latissimus dorsi displays an overall average moment arm length in the frontal plane at 90 degrees of flexion (arm held outwards horizontally) of 11.3mm. The peak moment arm is displayed at -20 degrees of external rotation (thumb point outwards) measuring 12.0mm, while its minimum moment arm is displayed at -80 degrees of rotation (thumbs up) measuring 4.0mm (Keuchle et al., 2000). Therefore, it appears that the latissimus dorsi functions as a glenohumeral internal rotator and displays its greatest contribution from -20 degrees of external rotation to 60 degrees of internal rotation.

Summary points

The latissimus dorsi is a primary shoulder adductor in the frontal plane and displays its largest moment arm lengths with the arm just below horizontal. The the superior and inferior fibers display the largest peak moment arm lengths, while the middle fibers display the smallest. Peak moment arm lengths are displayed just below the point where the arms are horizontal in all regions.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

MUSCLE MOMENT ARMS: SCAPULAR PLANE

Overall moment arm lengths

The peak moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi muscle overall ranges between -21.1 to -45.0mm depending on what region of the muscle is being measured and the joint angle. Keuchle et al. (1997) reported the latissimus dorsi muscle displayed its peak moment arm length at between 30 – 40 degrees of shoulder flexion (arms below or just at horizontal), measuring 43.0 – 45.0mm. Ackland at al. (2008) found that the latissimus dorsi displayed a peak moment arm length between 10 – 71 degrees, depending on the region of the muscle being tested. It therefore appears that the latissimus dorsi is a prime mover during shoulder extension in the scapula plane, in combination with the teres major (Ackland et al., 2008). While the latissimus dorsi displays its peak moment arm over a large range of motion (10 to 71 degrees), it is likely that the muscle displays its greatest force producing potential when the arm is below horizontal.

Differences between regions

OVERALL

Very little research has compared the effect of latissimus dorsi muscle region on moment arm length. However, the moment arm lengths appear to be different between the different regions. Ackland et al. (2008) reported that the peak moment arm length of the latissimus dorsi was displayed in a wide range between 10 – 71 degrees of shoulder flexion depending on the muscle region measured. While the superior fibers appear to display a peak moment arm length at greater angles of shoulder flexion (71 degrees), the middle and inferior fibers displayed peak moment arm lengths at much smaller (10 degrees) shoulder angles.

DIFFERENT REGIONS

The superior fibers of the latissimus dorsi appear to display a peak moment arm length of -31.5mm at 71 degrees (arms slightly below horizontal) and a minimum moment arm length of -7.8mm at 10 degrees (arms close to the sides). The middle fibers of the latissimus dorsi display a peak moment arm length of -21.0mm at 10 degrees (arms close to the sides) and a minimum moment arm length of 6.4 mm at 120 degrees (arms above the head). The inferior fibers display a peak moment arm length of 28.9mm at 10 degrees (arms close to the sides) and a minimum moment arm length of -9.9mm at 120 degrees (arms above the head). Therefore the data indicates that the latissimus dorsi displays peak moment arm lengths between 10 – 71 degrees of shoulder flexion depending on the region measured. The three regions of the latissimus dorsi appear to function similarly as primary shoulder extensors in the scapular plane (although the superior and inferior fibers seem to have greater peak moment arm lengths than the middle fibers) while displaying peak moment arm lengths at very different joint angles. In the scapular plane, peak moment arm lengths of the superior, middle and inferior regions are displayed at 71, 10 and 10 degrees, respectively.

Effect of change in range of motion

The latissimus dorsi displays a moment arm length that peaks between 10 – 71 degrees, while its lowest moment arm length is displayed at both 0 degrees and 120 degrees of shoulder flexion depending on the region being measured (Keuchle et al. 1997; Ackland et al. 2008). It appears that the latissimus dorsi moment arm length displays lower moment arm lengths at both end ranges of motion during shoulder extension in the scapular plane, and therefore resembles a bell-shaped curve with the largest moment arm lengths at mid-range. Keuchle et al. (1997) reported the change in moment arm length from 100 degrees of flexion (arms slightly above horizontal) to 40 degrees (arms pointing down) showed a gradual increase. They report that the moment arm length changed between 100 and 40 degrees of shoulder abduction from approximately -30.0 to -43.0mm. Between 40 degrees and 25 degrees the moment arm held a plateau where it then appears to decrease linearly from -34.0mm to -35.0mm towards 0 degrees of abduction. However, the change in moment arm length with change in range of motion data are not made available by Ackland et al. (2008) and therefore no clear conclusions can be drawn.

Effect of glenohumeral rotation

The latissimus dorsi displays an overall average moment arm length in the frontal plane at 90 degrees of flexion (arm held outwards horizontally) of 10.9mm. The peak moment arm is displayed between 0 and 20 degrees of internal rotation (thumb point up and in) measuring 12.0mm, while its minimum moment arm is displayed at -60 degrees of rotation (thumbs up) measuring 7.0mm (Keuchle et al., 2000). The moment arm length appears to resemble a shallow bell-curve with the peak moment arm at mid-range between -60 degrees external rotation and 80 degrees of internal rotation. Therefore, it appears that the latissimus dorsi functions as a glenohumeral internal rotator and displays its greatest contribution from -20 degrees of external rotation to 80 degrees of internal rotation.

Summary 

The latissimus dorsi is a primary shoulder extensor in the scapular plane but the peak moment arm lengths vary widely between regions. The superior region seems to display peak moment arm length with the arms just below horizontal, while the middle and inferior regions display peak moment arm lengths with the arms close to the sides. The superior and inferior fibers seem to have greater peak moment arm lengths than the middle fibers.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE

[Read more about: muscle architecture]

PURPOSE

This purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the muscle architecture of the latissimus dorsi muscle.

PENNATION ANGLE

The pennation angle appears to differ between the three different regions of the latissimus dorsi. Langenderfer (2004) compared the pennation angle between the superior, middle and inferior fibers and reported pennation angles of 25, 19 and 21 degrees, respectively. Therefore, the superior region is the most pennate, while the middle region is the least pennate.

FASCICLE LENGTH

The latissimus dorsi muscle fascicle length is the longest of all upper body muscles. Again, this muscle architecture parameter differs between three three regions, and the inferior fibers display the greatest length. Overall, fascicle length appears to range between 183.5 – 243.5mm (Langenderfer, 2004).

PHYSIOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA

A number of studies have investigated the physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) of the latissimus dorsi. Langenderfer (2004) compared the regions of the latissimus dorsi reporting that the superior, middle and inferior fibers displayed PCSA of 2.11, 2.58 and 2.61 cm2, respectively, indicating that the middle and inferior fibers may be capable of producing more force than the superior fibers.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

The latissimus dorsi includes three regions that vary in morphology and architecture, and size. The inferior fibers display the longest fascicle lengths. The middle and inferior fibers display greater physiological cross-sectional area than the superior fibers. However, the superior fibers are more heavily pennated than the middle and inferior fibers.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

 

MUSCLE FIBER TYPE

[Read more about: muscle fiber type]

PURPOSE

This section provides a summary of the muscle fiber type of the latissimus dorsi muscle.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

Muscle fiber type of the latissimus dorsi may be of interest to the strength and conditioning coaches in order to tailor their resistance-training program accordingly, especially if muscle hypertrophy is important. Johnson (2007) reported that the latissimus dorsi displays 51% type I muscle fibers. Similarly, Srinivasan et al. (1973) reported the latissimus dorsi was comprised of 48% type I muscle fibers. In contrast, Paoli et al. (2013) reported the latissimus dorsi muscle displays only 28 – 33% type I muscle fibers and therefore tended to be more fast twitch. Importantly, these researchers investigated the thoracic and superficial region of the latissimus dorsi that is most involved in dynamic athletic movement. Comparing the effect of gender, Paoli also found that men displayed a smaller proportion of type I (and type I hybrid) muscle fibers than women (26.5 vs. 40.6%). Therefore, the data appears to indicate the latissimus dorsi displays at least moderately a greater proportion of type II muscle fibers and therefore may respond better to training with heavy loads and faster speeds.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS 

Studies to date suggest that the latissimus dorsi displays a greater proportion of type II muscle fibers than type I muscle fibers. This may imply that training with higher speeds and heavier loads are beneficial for this muscle.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

ELECTROMYOGRAPHY

[Read more about: electromyography]

PURPOSE

This section provides a summary of the electromyography (EMG) activity studies into the latissimus dorsi.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

Among sports scientists, it is widely accepted that electromyography (EMG) activity levels can provide a way for determining the best exercises for training a muscle. This is because EMG activity represents the extent to which the individual motor units within a muscle are active during a joint action. In non-fatigued muscles, the extent to which motor units are active determines the tensile force that is produced and this tensile force produces the mechanical loading that is thought to be one of the key drivers for long-term muscular adaptations (Schoenfeld, 2010).

MULTI-JOINT RESISTANCE TRAINING EXERCISES

Introduction

Several studies have directly compared compound the muscle activity of the latissimus dorsi across a range of resistance training exercises including the deadlift, horizontal and vertical upper-body pulling, as well as exercises utilising different load types, body posture and stability requirements. In general, it seems that compound exercises that include shoulder extension or adduction feature as the best exercises for creating overall latissimus dorsi muscle activity. In practical terms, the latissimus dorsi appears to produce its greatest muscle activity during vertical pulling exercises such as pull-downs and pull-ups regardless of grip width or forearm orientation, as well as during horizontal pulling exercises that include greater shoulder extension action such as the inverted row. Therefore, the latissimus dorsi muscle is highly active during many upper-body pulling exercises and may be maximised by using heavy loads and a mix of horizontal and vertical pulling.

Comparison of compound exercises

DEADLIFTS

Comparing deadlifts with different grips, Beggs et al. (2011) compared the conventional deadlift performed with a double overhand (pronated) or mixed (one hand pronated, one hand supinated) grip on latissimus dorsi muscle activity during sets with 60 and 80% of 1RM load. They reported that greater load displayed significantly superior latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the double overhand condition, as well as for the mixed grip. At 80% of 1RM, no difference was found between the double overhand and mixed grip regards to latissimus dorsi muscle activity.

PULL UPS, PULL DOWNS AND ROWS

Comparing the effect of closed and open chain vertical pulling exercises, Doma et al. (2013) explored the muscle activity during pull-ups and lat pull-downs. They reported no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity when relative load (8RM) was equal. Lehman et al. (2004) compared the seated row to the wide grip lat pull-down during an isometric trial performed with a load equal to the 12RM of the lat pull-down. They reported that the seated row displayed significantly greater latissimus dorsi muscle activity than the lat pull-down. In contrast, Handa et al. (2005) compared the lat pull-down (medium width pronated grip) to the seated row (medium width pronated grip) performed with 70% of 1RM load and found no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between exercises. Therefore, it is unclear whether horizontal or vertical upper-body pulling exercises display superior latissimus dorsi muscle activity.

Summary

The latissimus dorsi is highly active during both the lat pull-down and pull-up exercise when relative load is equal, while there appears to be no difference between vertical and horizontal pulling exercises performed with comparable loads.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

 

VERTICAL PULLING

Effect of lat pull-down technique

A number of studies have investigated the latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat pull-down exercise performed with different techniques. It appears that the latissimus dorsi displays similar muscle activity regardless of hand-grip width, pulling angle, forearm orientation and load-type, while a wide pronated grip may produce greater muscle activity than a close supinated grip.

Effect of pulling angle

Several studies have compared latissimus dorsi muscle activity when performing either the front or rear lat pull-down exercises and most have found that it makes no difference. Handa et al. (2005) found that latissimus dorsi muscle activity was no different between the front and rear lat pull-down. Sperandei et al. (2009) compared the front and rear lat pull-down, as well as the lat pull-down performed with a V-bar attachment that allowed the hands to move solely in the frontal plane. They reported that the lat pull-down performed with 80% of 1RM load displayed similar latissmus dorsi muscle activity between all three conditions. Pugh et al. (2003) compared latissimus dorsi muscle activity between the front and rear lat pull-down. They also used motion capture and divided the concentric action into two phases, being the initial part until the glenohumeral abduction angle reached 90 degrees, and the second part from glenohumeral adduction and below 90 degrees. They reported a significant difference in muscle activity between phase 1 and phase 2 (23% vs. 74%), which indicates that the latissimus is most activated when approaching its peak moment arm lengths, but no difference was found between front and rear lat pull-downs. Finally, Signorile et al. (2002) compared a 10RM front and rear lat pull-downs with a wide grip (equal to the distance between the fist and the cervical spine with the arm held straight out to the side of the body). They reported that latissimus dorsi muscle activity was greater when performing the wide grip lat pull-down to the front compared with the lat pull-down to the rear. The 10RM loads were not significantly different but the average load lifted during the front lat pull down tended to be greater (141 vs. 131lbs.) than the lat pull-down to the rear.

Effect of grip width

Few studies have investigated the effect of grip width on latissimus dorsi muscle activity when performing the lat pull-down exercise. Andersen et al. (2014) compared the lat pull-down performed with a narrow, medium and wide grip. The grip widths were standardised to shoulder width (biacromial width) and subjects performed the lat pull-down with grips widths that equated to 1, 1.5 and 2 times shoulder width for 6RM loads. The researchers found no difference in 6RM loads between the narrow and medium grip conditions, while both narrow and medium were performed with a statistically greater load. However, no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity was found between the conditions. Lusk et al. (2010) compared the pronated and supinated lat pull-down exercise with narrow (shoulder width) and wide grips (distance between the 5th fingers in the anatomical position) performed with 70% of 1RM load. They reported no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between narrow and wide grips in either forearm condition. Overall, therefore, the research seems to indicate that latissimus dorsi muscle activity is not affected by grip width during the lat pull-down.

Effect of forearm orientation

Few studies have investigated the effect of forearm orientation on latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat pull-down exercise. Lusk et al. (2010) compared the lat pull-down performed with a pronated and supinated hand-grip on latissimus dorsi muscle activity. They reported that latissimus dorsi muscle activity was greater during the pronated lat pull-down compared with the supinated pull-down. In contrast, Lehman et al. (2004) compared the lat pull-down performed with either a wide (150% biacromial width) pronated grip or a supinated medium (100% biacromial width) grip width during isometric contractions with the bar positioned at approximately eye level. They reported that latissimus dorsi muscle activity was no different between conditions. However, both exercises were performed with a load that equalled a 12RM of the pronated wide grip, and thus the exercise may have been performed at different relative loads. Additionally, the study altered both forearm orientation as well as grip width. Signorile et al. (2002) compared the supinated grip (100% biacromial width) with a neutral grip using a V-bar attachment. They found no different in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between these conditions. Signorile et al. (2002) also compared the wide grip pronated lat pull-down and reported significantly greater latissimus dorsi muscle activity than both the neutral and supinated conditions. The 10RM load was similar (141, 141, 139) between the wide grip pronated, neutral grip and supinated, respectively. Overall, therefore, the research appears to indicate that performing the lat pull-down with a pronated grip produces greater latissimus dorsi activity than narrow, supinated and neutral grip conditions.

Effect of load-type during lat pull-down exercise

Very little data exists regarding the effect of load-type on latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat pull-down. One study to date has compared isoinertial load with elastic resistance. Bergquist et al. (2015) compared latissimus dorsi muscle activity when performing the lat pull-down with a traditional cable system or elastic resistance with a load that equalled the 10RM. However, they reported no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between the two conditions.

Effect of instructional cueing 

Very little data exist regarding the effect of instruction during common latissimus dorsi exercises. However, one study has investigated the use of expert instruction on latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat pull-down exercise. Controlling for a learning effect, the researchers found that giving instruction in the form of verbal cueing and palpation, latissimus dorsi muscle activity was greater compared with basic instruction (84% vs. 71% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) levels) when performing the lat pull-down with 30% of 1RM load.

 

Effect of pull-up technique

Very limited data is available to determine the effect of pull-up technique on latissimus dorsi muscle activity. Snarr et al. (2013) compared the pull-up with a pronated grip performed with a controlled concentric and eccentric action to the kipping pull-up performed with vertical momentum initiated from the hips. This research indicates that the latissimus dorsi displays superior muscle activity during the pull-up compared with the kipping pull-up.

Effect of equipment during pull-up exercise

Comparing the effect of equipment, Escalante et al. (2015) explored the effect of using wrist straps during the pull-up on muscle activity in subjects habitually strength training for more than 12 months. They reported no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity when comparing 5 repetitions (102% vs. 107% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) levels) with and without the use of wrist straps.

Effect of stability during pull-up exercise

Comparing the effect of stability during the pull-up, Snarr et al. (2013) compared the traditional pull-up performed with a pronated grip to the towel pull up performed with a neutral grip and pull-ups with a pronated grip using suspension straps. They report no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between the conditions, indicating that the type of surface grip used during pull-ups has little to no effect on muscle activity of the latissimus dorsi. Youdas et al. (2010) compared the latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the pull-up, chin-up and freely rotating-handled pull-up. The report no difference in muscle activity of the latissimus dorsi between exercises. Therefore collectively, the data appears to indicate that during pull-ups performed with comparable loads, changes in stability and forearm motion do not affect latissimus dorsi muscle activity.

Effect of forearm orientation during pull-up exercise 

Comparing the effect of forearm orientation, Youdas et al. (2010) compared the pronated grip pull-up and supinated grip chin-up. They report that the pronated grip pull up produced comparable (120% vs. 117% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) levels) latissimus dorsi muscle activity compared with the supinated chin-up exercise. Snarr et al. (2013) compared the pronated pull-up to the neutral grip towel pull-up. They report similar muscle activity between the pronated grip bar pull-up and the neutral grip towel pull-up (84% vs. 87% of MVIC levels). This indicates that forearm orientation does not affect latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the pull-up.

Summary

During vertical pulling, latissimus dorsi muscle activity does not appear to be affected by grip width, stability at the hand, or elastic resistance compared with isoinertial load. However, it does appear that using a pronated grip and internal focus via cueing does produce greater muscle activity.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

HORIZONTAL PULLING  

Comparison between horizontal rowing exercises 

Comparing different types of rowing movements, Fenwick et al. (2009) compared exercises with varying degrees of spine loading on the latissimus dorsi muscle activity. When comparing the inverted row with the barbell bent over row, they reported superior latissimus dorsi muscle activity when performing the inverted row. Additionally, they reported superior muscle activity during the inverted row compared with the single arm cable row. Lastly, the barbell bent over row produced greater muscle activity than the single arm cable row. The researchers matched the loading between exercises relative to the inverted row (mass of individual e.g. 100kg – mass of individual when performing inverted row e.g. 40kg = 60kg) and therefore may not reflect the relative load of each exercise used in resistance training. Similarly, Handa et al. (2005) compared the barbell bent over row to the cable-seated row performed with 70% of 1RM load. They reported superior latissimus dorsi muscle activity when performing the seated row compared with the barbell bent over row. These findings may indicate that latissimus dorsi muscle activity is greatest during horizontal pulling (rowing) exercises that do not rely on stabilising the lower back.

Effect of horizontal row technique 

Comparing the effect of technique, Lehman et al. (2004) compared the latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the cable-pulley seated row performed with and without full retraction of the scapula at the peak contraction region. They reported no significant difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity (37% vs. 30% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) levels) between the seated row with and without full scapula retraction but the data did show a trend towards greater muscle activity with full scapula retraction.

Effect of load-type during horizontal row exercise

Very little data exists regarding the effect of load-type on latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat pull-down. One study to date has compared isoinertial load with elastic resistance. Bergquist et al. (2015) compared latissimus dorsi muscle activity when performing the single arm row with a traditional cable system or elastic resistance with a load that equalled the 10RM. They reported no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between the two conditions.

Effect of stability during horizontal row exercise 

Very little data exists comparing the latissimus dorsi muscle activity between exercises under more and less stabile conditions. Snarr et al. (2013) compared the inverted row performed with the hands attached to a barbell or suspension handles set at equal height. They reported no difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity between conditions.

Effect of forearm orientation during horizontal row exercise

Comparing the effect of forearm orientation, Youdas et al. (2015) compared the inverted row exercise performed with either a supinated or pronated grip on latissimus dorsi muscle activity. They reported that the inverted row performed with a supinated grip produced superior (94% vs. 79% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) levels) latissimus dorsi muscle activity compared to the pronated grip inverted row variation.

Summary

During horizontal pulling exercises (rowing), latissimus dorsi muscle activity appears not to be affected by stability surface at the hand, or by whether full scapular retraction is performed. However, it is greater during those exercises that do not rely on stabilising the lower back (like chest supported or seated rows) and also when using a supinated rather than a pronated grip.

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu

REHABILITATION EXERCISES

Comparing isometric latissimus dorsi exercises

Comparing isometric exercises, Park et al. (2013) investigated a number of static postures to elicit high muscle activity (MVC) in the latissimus dorsi. The researchers compared 5 exercises including, lying-prone shoulder extension, lying-prone shoulder depression, L-sit, upper body bending while lying on side (lateral flexion), and the lat pull-down exercise. They report lying-prone shoulder extension displayed the greatest muscle activity than other exercises except lat pull-down where extension tended to be greater. The data indicates that the latissimus dorsi muscle is highly active during shoulder extension with the arm near the side of the body. Park et al. (2015) investigated a number of exercises that would elicit a MVC of the lateral and medial latissimus dorsi muscle. The researchers this time compared a number of exercises that utilised the upper-body weight as leverage including static inverted row, L-sit, trunk extension (static horizontal back extension), static lateral flexion of the trunk (static horizontal flexion). They reported that the lateral bending displayed significantly greater lateral latissimus dorsi muscle activity than the trunk extension and inverted row exercise, and tended to be greater than the L-sit. In contrast, the inverted row displayed superior muscle activity in the medial latissimus dorsi than the trunk extension and L-sit, and tended to be greater than the lateral bending exercise. Beaudette et al. (2014) compared a number of manual-resisted isometric postures to elicit an MVC in the latissimus dorsi including manual-resisted lying-prone shoulder extension, bent-over row at neutral shoulder flexion, static adduction and internal rotation with arm horizontal, and static adduction with arm horizontal. They reported that the static row (94%) and shoulder extension (86%) produced significantly greater muscle activity compared to the static adduction with and without static internal rotation.

Effect of stable and labile surfaces

Comparing the effect of stability, McGill et al. (2014) investigated a number of exercises utilising stable or instable surfaces, specifically using a horizontal bar compared with suspension handles on latissimus dorsi muscle activity. The researchers compared exercises including the pull-up, chin-up, active shoulder retraction, and variations of the inverted row that modified the exercise via pulling angle, single vs. double arm, and starting position. They report the mean latissimus dorsi muscle activity ranged between 2 – 85% of MVC, likely due to the greater momentum or lesser load present in some of the exercises. The researchers note that labile surfaces did not appear to affect latissimus dorsi muscle activity.

Effect of shoulder joint angle and plane of motion

Comparing the effect of shoulder joint angle, Park et al. (2013) explored the difference in latissimus dorsi muscle activity during three angles (60, 90 and 120 degrees) of shoulder elevation in the frontal, sagittal and scapular plane. They report that the highest muscle activity was displayed in the frontal plane at 60 degrees of shoulder abduction (90.5%), while overall muscle activity tended to be greater at all planes of motion at 60 degrees. Both 60 degrees and 90 degrees displayed significantly greater muscle activity than exertions at 120 degrees. Further, muscle activity tended to be similar between planes of motion at the same shoulder elevation. Therefore, the data tends to support that the latissimus dorsi displays its greatest force producing capabilities with the arm below horizontal, and is highly active in the frontal, scapular and sagittal planes.

Summary

The latissimus dorsi displays high muscle activity during static postures when performing shoulder extension with the arm near the body and during manual-resisted mid-range rowing.

The muscle activity of the medial and lateral regions of the latissimus dorsi are affected by muscle action (e.g. medial region greater during lateral trunk bending, lateral region greater during rowing).

Unstable surfaces appear not to affect latissimus dorsi muscle activity, while smaller shoulder joint angles (regardless of plane) appear to display greater muscle activity during maximal contractions.  

Abstract Contents References Back to site menu


REFERENCES

  1. Ackland, D. C., Pak, P., Richardson, M., & Pandy, M. G. (2008). Moment arms of the muscles crossing the anatomical shoulder. Journal of Anatomy, 213(4), 383-390. [PubMed]
  2. Andersen, V., Fimland, M. S., Wiik, E., Skoglund, A., & Saeterbakken, A. H. (2014). Effects of grip width on muscle strength and activation in the lat pull-down. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(4), 1135-1142. [PubMed]
  3. Becker, M. H., Wermter, T. B., Brenner, B., Walter, G. F., & Berger, A. (2000). Comparison of clinical performance, histology and single-fiber contractility in free neurovascular muscle flaps. Journal of reconstructive microsurgery, 16(7), 525-534. [PubMed]
  4. Beaudette, S. M., Unni, R., & Brown, S. H. Isometirc and dynamic activation characteristics of the human latissimus dorsi muscle. [PubMed]
  5. Beggs, L. A. (2011). Comparison Of Muscle Activation And Kinematics During The Deadlift Using A Double‐Pronated And Overhand/Underhand Grip. [Citation]
  6. Bischoff, E. (1863). Einige Gewichts-und Trockenbestimmungen der Organe des menschlichen Körpers. Ztschr. f. rat. Med, 20(75-118), 472. [Citation]
  7. Bogduk, N., Johnson, G., & Spalding, D. (1998). The morphology and biomechanics of latissimus dorsi. Clinical Biomechanics, 13(6), 377-385. [PubMed]
  8. Breteler, M. D. K., Spoor, C. W., & Van der Helm, F. C. (1999). Measuring muscle and joint geometry parameters of a shoulder for modeling purposes. Journal of biomechanics, 32(11), 1191-1197. [PubMed]
  9. Carvalhais, V. O., de Melo Ocarino, J., Araújo, V. L., Souza, T. R., Silva, P. L. P., & Fonseca, S. T. (2013). Myofascial force transmission between the latissimus dorsi and gluteus maximus muscles: an in vivo experiment. Journal of biomechanics, 46(5), 1003-1007. [PubMed]
  10. Davidse, J. H. L., Van Der Veen, F. H., Lucas, C. M. H. B., Penn, O. C. K. M., Daemen, M. J. A. P., & Wellens, H. J. J. (1998). Structural alterations in the latissimus dorsi muscles in three patients more than 2 years after a cardiomyoplasty procedure. European heart journal, 19(2), 310-318. [PubMed]
  11. Doma, K., Deakin, G. B., & Ness, K. F. (2013). Kinematic and electromyographic comparisons between chin-ups and lat-pull down exercises. Sports Biomechanics, 12(3), 302-313. [PubMed]
  12. Escalante, G., Chaney, C., Stuckey, S., Alvarez, P. H., & Dabbs, N. C. (2015). The effects of Versa Gripps® during pull-ups on surface electromyography in strength trained males. Medicina Sportiva: Journal of Romanian Sports Medicine Society, 11(3), 2601. [Citation]
  13. Fenwick, C. M., Brown, S. H., & McGill, S. M. (2009). Comparison of different rowing exercises: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and stiffness. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(2), 350-358. [PubMed]
  14. Gerling, M. E., & Brown, S. H. (2013). Architectural analysis and predicted functional capability of the human latissimus dorsi muscle. Journal of anatomy, 223(2), 112-122. [PubMed]
  15. Goldberg, B. A., Elhassan, B., Marciniak, S., & Dunn, J. H. (2009). Surgical anatomy of latissimus dorsi muscle in transfers about the shoulder. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ), 38(3), E64-7. [PubMed]
  16. Handa, T., Kato, H., Hasegawa, S., Okada, J., & Kato, K. (2005). Comparative electromyographical investigation of the biceps brachii, latissimus dorsi, and trapezius muscles during five pull exercises. Japanese Journal of Physical Fitness and Sports Medicine, 54(2), 159-168. [Citation]
  17. Holzbaur, K. R., Murray, W. M., Gold, G. E., & Delp, S. L. (2007). Upper limb muscle volumes in adult subjects. Journal of biomechanics, 40(4), 742-749. [PubMed]
  18. Johnson, M., Polgar, J., Weightman, D., & Appleton, D. (1973). Data on the distribution of fibre types in thirty-six human muscles: an autopsy study. Journal of the neurological sciences, 18(1), 111-129. [PubMed]
  19. Kuechle, D. K., Newman, S. R., Itoi, E., Morrey, B. F., & An, K. N. (1997). Shoulder muscle moment arms during horizontal flexion and elevation. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 6(5), 429-439. [PubMed]
  20. Kuechle, D. K., Newman, S. R., Itoi, E., Niebur, G. L., Morrey, B. F., & An, K. N. (2000). The relevance of the moment arm of shoulder muscles with respect to axial rotation of the glenohumeral joint in four positions. Clinical biomechanics, 15(5), 322-329. [PubMed]
  21. Langenderfer, J., Jerabek, S. A., Thangamani, V. B., Kuhn, J. E., & Hughes, R. E. (2004). Musculoskeletal parameters of muscles crossing the shoulder and elbow and the effect of sarcomere length sample size on estimation of optimal muscle length. Clinical Biomechanics, 19(7), 664-670. [PubMed]
  22. Lehman, G. J., Buchan, D. D., Lundy, A., Myers, N., & Nalborczyk, A. (2004). Variations in muscle activation levels during traditional latissimus dorsi weight training exercises: An experimental study. Dynamic Medicine, 3(1), 4. [PubMed]
  23. Lusk, S. J., Hale, B. D., & Russell, D. M. (2010). Grip width and forearm orientation effects on muscle activity during the lat pull-down. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1895-1900. [Pubmed]
  24. Paoli, A., Pacelli, Q. F., Cancellara, P., Toniolo, L., Moro, T., Canato, M., … & Reggiani, C. (2013). Myosin isoforms and contractile properties of single fibers of human latissimus dorsi muscle. BioMed research international, 2013. [PubMed]
  25. Park, S. Y., & Yoo, W. G. (2013). Comparison of exercises inducing maximum voluntary isometric contraction for the latissimus dorsi using surface electromyography. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(5), 1106-1110. [PubMed]
  26. Park, S. Y., & Yoo, W. G. (2014). Differential activation of parts of the latissimus dorsi with various isometric shoulder exercises. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 24(2), 253-257. [PubMed]
  27. Park, S. Y., & Yoo, W. G. (2013). Selective activation of the latissimus dorsi and the inferior fibers of trapezius at various shoulder angles during isometric pull-down exertion. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(6), 1350-1355. [PubMed]
  28. Park, S. Y., Yoo, W. G., An, D. H., Oh, J. S., Lee, J. H., & Choi, B. R. (2015). Comparison of isometric exercises for activating latissimus dorsi against the upper body weight. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 25(1), 47-52. [PubMed]
  29. Pugh, G. M. G. (2003). A Biomechanical Comparison of the Front and Rear Lat Pull-down Exercise (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). [Citation]
  30. Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857-2872.[PubMed]
  31. Shiino, K. (1913). Schultergelenkbewegungen und schulermuselarbeit. Arch Anat Physiol. (Suppl.) 1-88 [Citation]
  32. Snarr, R. L., Hallmark, A., Casey, J., Nickerson, B., & Esco, M. R. (2015). Electromyographic comparison of pull-up variations. Conference paper. [Citation]
  33. Snyder, B. J., & Leech, J. R. (2009). Voluntary increase in latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat pull-down following expert instruction. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(8), 2204-2209. [PubMed]
  34. Sperandei, S., Barros, M. A., Silveira-Júnior, P. C., & Oliveira, C. G. (2009). Electromyographic analysis of three different types of lat pull-down. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(7), 2033-2038. [PubMed]
  35. Srinivasan, R. C., Lungren, M. P., Langenderfer, J. E., & Hughes, R. E. (2007). Fiber type composition and maximum shortening velocity of muscles crossing the human shoulder. Clinical Anatomy, 20(2), 144-149. [PubMed]
  36. Thiele, F. W. (1884) Gewichtsbestimmungen zir entwickeung muskelsystems und skelettes menschen. Ksl Leop-Carol Deuchen Akad d Naturforscher, 46, 139-47 [Citation]
  37. Veeger, H. E. J., Van Der Helm, F. C. T., Van Der Woude, L. H. V., Pronk, G. M., & Rozendal, R. H. (1991). Inertia and muscle contraction parameters for musculoskeletal modelling of the shoulder mechanism. Journal of biomechanics, 24(7), 615-629. [Pubmed]
  38. Vleeming, A., Pool-Goudzwaard, A. L., Stoeckart, R., van Wingerden, J. P., & Snijders, C. J. (1995). The Posterior Layer of the Thoracolumbar Fascia| Its Function in Load Transfer From Spine to Legs. Spine, 20(7), 753-758. [PubMed]
  39. Weber, E. F. (1851). Ueber die Langenverhaltnisse der Fleischfasern der Muskeln im allgemeinen. Berichte uber die Verhandlungen der Koniglich Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipsig, Mathematisch-physische Classe. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. [Citation]
  40. Youdas, J. W., Amundson, C. L., Cicero, K. S., Hahn, J. J., Harezlak, D. T., & Hollman, J. H. (2010). Surface electromyographic activation patterns and elbow joint motion during a pull-up, chin-up, or perfect-pullup™ rotational exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3404-3414. [Citation]
Abstract Contents References Back to site menu