McMahon, G, Kennedy, R, and Burden, A. No effect of interset palm cooling on acute bench press performance, electromyography amplitude or spectral frequencies in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 37(3): 555-563, 2023-Previous research has suggested that cooling distal to the working agonist muscles during the interset rest periods of high-intensity resistance exercise may facilitate improved performance through increased agonist activation. However, these studies have used inappropriate electromyography (EMG) normalization techniques. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare 2 palm-cooling conditions with a thermoneutral condition during high-intensity resistance exercise and subsequent effects on exercise performance, EMG amplitude, and spectral frequencies using appropriate normalization methodologies. Eleven healthy, resistance-trained, young men (20-36 years old) performed 4 sets of bench press exercise to exhaustion at 80% 1RM each separated by 3 minutes of passive recovery. Palm-cooling (10° C [TEN] or 15° C [FTN]) or thermoneutral (28° C [CON]) conditions were applied for 60 seconds during the recovery interval of each set in a randomized, double-blind fashion, with 4 days of recovery between experimental conditions. Palm temperature was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the TEN and FTN conditions compared with CON. Number of repetitions and mean power in the bench press declined significantly after each set in all conditions (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in any bench press performance or EMG-related variables between any of the conditions. Palm cooling at either 10 or 15° C had no effects on bench press performance compared with a thermoneutral condition, with no observable effects on neuromuscular responses during exercise. Therefore, cooling is not currently recommended as an ergogenic strategy to enhance acute bench press performance during high-intensity resistance training. 

No Effect of Interset Palm Cooling on Acute Bench Press Performance, Electromyography Amplitude, or Spectral Frequencies in Resistance-Trained Men

Abstract McMahon, G, Kennedy, R, and Burden, A. No effect of interset palm cooling on acute bench press performance, electromyography amplitude or spectral frequencies in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 37(3): 555–563, 2023—Previous research has suggested that cooling distal to the working agonist muscles during the interset rest periods of high-intensity resistance exercise may facilitate improved performance through increased agonist activation. However, these studies have used inappropriate electromyography (EMG) normalization techniques. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare 2 palm-cooling conditions with a thermoneutral condition during high-intensity resistance exercise and subsequent effects on exercise performance, EMG amplitude, and spectral frequencies using appropriate normalization methodologies. Eleven healthy, resistance-trained, young men (20–36 years old) performed 4 sets of bench press exercise to exhaustion at 80% 1RM each separated by 3 minutes of passive recovery. Palm-cooling (10° C [TEN] or 15° C [FTN]) or thermoneutral (28° C [CON]) conditions were applied for 60 seconds during the recovery interval of each set in a randomized, double-blind fashion, with 4 days of recovery between experimental conditions. Palm temperature was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the TEN and FTN conditions compared with CON. Number of repetitions and mean power in the bench press declined significantly after each set in all conditions (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in any bench press performance or EMG-related variables between any of the conditions. Palm cooling at either 10 or 15° C had no effects on bench press performance compared with a thermoneutral condition, with no observable effects on neuromuscular responses during exercise. Therefore, cooling is not currently recommended as an ergogenic strategy to enhance acute bench press performance during high-intensity resistance training.

Hinge exercises are critical to building a balanced resistance training program in concert with 'knee-dominant' (e.g., squat, lunge) exercises. Biomechanical differences between various straight-legged hinge (SLH) exercises may alter muscle activation. For example, a Romanian deadlift (RDL) is a closed-chain SLH, while a reverse hyperextension (RH) is open-chain. Likewise, the RDL offers resistance via gravity while the cable pull-through (CP) offers redirected-resistance through a pulley. A deeper understanding of the potential impact of these biomechanical differences between these exercises may improve their application to specific goals. Participants completed repetition-maximum (RM) testing on the RDL, RH, and CP. On a follow-up visit, surface electromyography of the longissimus, multifidus, gluteus maximus, semitendinosus, and biceps femoris, muscles that contribute to lumbar/hip extension, was recorded. After a warm-up, participants completed maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs) in each muscle. They then completed five repetitions of the RDL, RH, and CP at 50% of estimated one RM. Testing order was randomized. A one-way, repeated-measures ANOVA test was used in each muscle to compare activation (%MVIC) across the three exercises. Shifting from a gravity-(RDL) to a redirected-resistance (CP) SLH significantly decreased activation in the longissimus (-11.0%), multifidus (-14.1%), biceps femoris (-13.1%), and semitendinosus (-6.8%). Alternately, changing from a closed-(RDL) to an open-chain (RH) SLH significantly increased activation in the gluteus maximus (+19.5%), biceps femoris (+27.9%), and semitendinosus (+18.2). Alterations in the execution of a SLH can change muscle activation in lumbar/hip extensors. 

A Comparison of Muscle Recruitment Across Three Straight-Legged, Hinge-Pattern Resistance Training Exercises.

The reverse hyperextension exercise is used to strengthen posterior chain musculature without axially loading the spine; however, there are no suggestions for loading. Twenty recreationally active individuals (13 males and 7 females; aged 25.4 [2.5] y; height 1.76 [0.09] m; mass 79.3 [15.8] kg) performed 2 sets of 10 repetitions with 50%, 100%, and 150% of bodyweight. Surface electromyography measured erector spinae, gluteus maximus, and biceps femoris activity. Motions of the trunk, lower extremities, and reverse hyperextension exercise pendulum were tracked. A 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze differences. Few differences were found between 100% and 150% loads; however, heavier loads resulted in increased hip (5.0°) and trunk (4.0°) flexion compared with the 50% load. Similar patterns emerged for peak and integrated muscle activity, with erector spinae and gluteus maximus activity greater in the 100% and 150% loads than in the 50% load, and biceps femoris activation increasing as load increased. Peak force significantly (P < .001) increased with 100% (28% [31%]) and 150% (34% [40%]) loads compared with the 50% load. Findings suggest the reverse hyperextension exercise targets posterior chain musculature, but increasing loads does not linearly increase force and muscle activation.

Effect of Load on Muscle Activity, Kinematics, and Force Production During the Reverse Hyperextension Exercise.

The aims of this study were to compare muscle activation of the erector spinae (ES), gluteus maximus (GMax), and biceps femoris (BF) during the hyperextension (HE) and reverse-HE (RHE) exercises. Ten subjects (age, 23 ± 4 years; height, 175.9 ± 6.9 cm; mass, 75.2 ± 9.7 kg) had electromyography (EMG) electrodes placed on the ES, GMax, and BF muscles in accordance with SENIAM (Surface EMG for Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles) guidelines. Subjects performed 3 maximum voluntary isometric contraction trials of lumbar extension and hip extension using a handheld and isokinetic dynamometer, respectively, to normalize the EMG during the HE and RHE exercises. Three repetitions of each exercise were executed in a randomized order. High reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.925) was observed with low variability (coefficient of variation [CV] < 10%) in all but the GMax during the extension phase of the HE (CV = 10.64%). During the extension and flexion phases, the RHE exhibited significantly greater (p ≤ 0.024; 34.1-70.7% difference) peak EMG compared with the HE in all muscles tested. Similarly, the RHE resulted in significantly greater mean EMG compared with the HE (p ≤ 0.036; 28.2-65.0% difference) in all muscles except the BF during the flexion phase (p = 9.960). Therefore, the RHE could be considered as a higher-intensity exercise for the posterior chain muscles compared with the HE, potentially eliciting greater increases in strength of the posterior chain muscles. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association.]

Electromyographical differences between the hyperextension and reverse-hyperextension

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Robert Alejo

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Electromyographical differences between the hyperextension and reverse-hyperextension