Most Efficient Exercises (EMG Testing)

[future]

Well, thanks to EMG (Electromyography), we can now determine the best exercises for each muscle group. An EMG is a device that is used for measuring extremely small amounts of electricity generated by muscles below the surface of the skin. Let me explain how EMG works so you can get a better idea.

Two collectors called electrodes are placed on the surface of the skin above the muscle being tested. A computer determines the underlying electrical difference. These differences may indicate excessive muscle tension. For our purposes, the differences will also determine the percent of muscle fibers being stressed.

The following are the best exercises for each body part in order of most effective to least. Beside the number is the percentage of muscle fibers worked.

Chest

* Decline dumbbell bench press - 93%
* Incline dumbbell press - 91%
* Decline bench press - 89%
* Flat dumbbell bench press - 87%
* Flat barbell bench press - 85%

The flat barbell bench press, an exercise that is done by many beginners, is one of the least effective exercises. With chest, we can see that dumbbells are far superior to barbells.

Biceps

* One-arm preacher curl, *N/A
* Incline dumbbells, N/A
* Barbell curl w/ narrow grip, N/A

The best bicep exercises are the ones that isolate them. It is very hard to cheat on one-arm preacher curls and the incline dumbbell curls keep your biceps in a stretched position at the bottom.

Triceps

* Skull crushers on a decline bench, N/A
* Pushdowns w/ a rope, N/A

Skull crushers are an effective exercise, but doing them on a decline bench keeps them in constant tension through out the whole movement. With a rope, you can add an extra pushing out movement at the bottom of a pushdown.

Lats

* Bent over barbell rows - 93%
* One arm dumbbell rows - 91%
* T-bar rows - 89%
* Lat pulldown - 86%
* Seated pulley rows - 83%

I was surprised myself that pull-ups weren't one of the best exercises. The bent over row is the most effective exercise for the lats, and should be included in every back workout. It doesn't matter where they are, just include them.

Side Delts

* Incline dumbbell side laterals - 66%
* Standing dumbbell side laterals - 63%
* Seated dumbbell side laterals - 62%
* Cable side laterals - 47%

Many prefer to do their laterals seated because they can execute a more strict movement, but doing them in this fashion reduces the percent of muscle fibers being worked. Dumbbells prove to be more effective than cables.

Rear Delts

* Standing dumbbell bent laterals - 85%
* Seated dumbbell laterals - 83%
* Standing cable bent laterals - 77%

Same as with side delts.

Calves

* Donkey calf raise - 80%
* Standing one-leg calf raises - 79%
* Standing two-leg calf raises - 68%
* Seated calf raises - 61%

Donkey calf raises are a forgotten exercise that I rarely see people doing. If you have weak calves, you should definitely be doing these. The one-legged versions are more effective for calves than the two-legged versions.

Hamstrings

* Standing leg curls - 82%
* Lying leg curls - 71%
* Seated leg curls - 58%
* Sitff-legged-deadlift - 56%

Just like with calves, the one-legged hamstring exercises are more effective.

Quads

* Leg extension, N/A
* Squats, N/A
* Lunges, N/A

The leg extension is the most effective exercise here. The reason is because it's an isolation movement, and the quads are doing all of the work. Squats should be included in every workout. Even though they are one of the best compound movements, they still work the quads to a great deal. In recent studies, foot placement was shown to have little effect.

Abs

* Bicycle crunch maneuver, N/A
* Hanging leg raise, N/A
* Crunches on an exercise ball, N/A

In the bicycle maneuver, all the parts of the abdominals are being worked, upper, lower, and the obliques. The crunch on an exercise ball requires more stabilizer muscles.

We can conclude some ideas from these readings. An exercise can never work 100% of muscles fibers, which is why it is important to perform a variety of exercises and to change your workout every couple of weeks. Every exercise wasn't tested in this study, so it would be advisable to include some of these exercises in your routine and also experiment with others to see which gives you the best feeling. The exercises listed here are not necessarily the best mass-builders but they were proven to be the most effective.

* No studies were done that showed the percentage of muscle fibers being worked. However, studies were done to determine the most effective.

1. The science behind the physique: EMG Relived. http://www.tudorbumpa.com/org.htm
2. Fahey, Thomas EdD. 25 best lifts. December, 2001. http://www.musculardevelopment.com/new/25bestlifts.htm

 

[get456]

I can appreciate data like that... but I have done incline db's for ages and was up to 120lb dumbells for 6 reps.... with very little chest growth compared to the rest of my body.

I'll let you know if the 5x5 (with barbell flat and incline benching) creates any more growth

 

[BiggT]

Just to throw something out there. How much does everyone feel load matters? I always say load is king, from personal experience and others I have seen over the years. Maybe when hooked up to a machine, some iso movements recruit more fibers in an 'area', but honestly no study can tell me that leg curls build bigger, better-developed hamstrings than a Squat or an SLDL. And, yeah, I can see a dumbell press recruiting more fibers in an area of the pecs, but if a guy is d-bell pressing 100s x 3 sets of 10, thats 200lbs for 30 total reps. Then another guy flat benches 315 x 3 sets of 10, thats 315x 30 reps.

This is where my problem is with lifting when it comes to science......sometimes the findings of science don't add up with what you see in practice. You can't argue with testing results, but practically speaking guys who squat big weights generally have big legs, guys who piddle away on the leg curl machine and don't squat usually have small legs. Again, iso movements and "bodybuilding" workouts are inefficient in practice, and regardless of fiber recruitment a close grip bench, a rack lockout, a board press, dips, will all build the triceps more efficiently than pushdowns, skull crushers, and one arm reverse pulley pressdowns.

 

[get456]

Just to throw something out there. How much does everyone feel load matters? I always say load is king, from personal experience and others I have seen over the years. Maybe when hooked up to a machine, some iso movements recruit more fibers in an 'area', but honestly no study can tell me that leg curls build bigger, better-developed hamstrings than a Squat or an SLDL. And, yeah, I can see a dumbell press recruiting more fibers in an area of the pecs, but if a guy is d-bell pressing 100s x 3 sets of 10, thats 200lbs for 30 total reps. Then another guy flat benches 315 x 3 sets of 10, thats 315x 30 reps.

This is where my problem is with lifting when it comes to science......sometimes the findings of science don't add up with what you see in practice. You can't argue with testing results, but practically speaking guys who squat big weights generally have big legs, guys who piddle away on the leg curl machine and don't squat usually have small legs.

true and well put

 

[Protobuilder]

I would've liked to have seen emg variations on more barbell variations rather than a selection of various iso exercises. Side delts for example. Incline DB raises work them best out of the 4 iso exercises listed . .. where would BTN presses fit in? Or snatches?

And interesting point there BiggT. You may be able to 'isolate' a piece of the muscle when using a small weight . . . but when you hit 90% 1RM, you're firing the whole doggone muscle. So maybe an incline DB side lateral w/ 10 pounds will be "96%" on the emg . . . but would a 225 BTN strict press fire it in similar fashion? Even if it didn't, when we're talking about beginners trying to build mass (e.g., 95% of folks on the 'net who are trying to hit 200 lean pounds), they may start worrying about whether their 15 lb. DBs are at the right angle to get 96% of their fibers versus 88% with the incline. LoL For them (myself included), I think they'd be better off working on getting a 205 strict military rather than hoping to build, what? 2 pounds of muscle on their side delts?

 

[wakefib]

these findings mean absolutely jack all when it comes to functional strength.

 

[Madcow2]

In the scheme of building a physique or adding substantial muscle mass - this stuff is pointless - the 2nd you start thinking about muscles in isolation and not foundation level basic movements, you are screwed for this purpose. The name of that game will always be progressively loading the body through fundamental ranges of motion.

Where this stuff might make sense is in rebalancing an existing physique and working on aesthetic weak points. Also it will greatly depend upon the individual technique and leverages so common sense would likely serve you better.

Biggt, I'll always agree that load is king unless there is some huge mitigating circumstances like a machine or very limited range of motion. Bracing yourself against a floor (i,e. squatting/pulling through the feet) or a bench (flat/incline pressing) provides more stability and allows you to load the muscles more heavily - all else held equal, more tension is more stimulus. All muscles really do is pull and do mechanical work. The amount of tension applied is key (obviously sufficient range of motion, and sufficient total work so it can become a balancing act). Dumbells remove the bracing of a barbell, cut the weight/tension very significantly, and make the exercise harder. Certainly there is a bit more range of motion but it's not enough to offset. Now granted some people might just love them or how they feel but fundamental progress and stimulus as a rule will almost always be better with a barbell. Same with compound lifts - much greater loads and much greater tension possible.

 

[coolcolj]

some exercises like seated rows are better for fixing impingement problems vs barbell rows, and target the mid/low traps better

that's why you can't live on bread alone

 

[BodyByFinaplix]

Well even if this does not prove isolation movements are superior to compound movements, there is something else of interest here. Look at comparisons of compound movements. Both incline and decline dumbbell presses scored better than flat presses, and all three dumbbell presses scored higher than barbell bench presses.

Also, something we've talked about on this forum, that heavy rows are more effective for back mass than pulldowns and pullups. Look at the scores. Barbell and dumbbell rows both beat lat pulldowns by a considerable margin.

So some of this data could be useful.

 

[Madcow2]

Both incline and decline dumbbell presses scored better than flat presses, and all three dumbbell presses scored higher than barbell bench presses.

Just to clarify, the core issue here is that to a large degree it doesn't really matter terribly much about pec specific activation as long as one isn't a doofus doing upright rows for chest. The body is a system, it is best trained as a system, and to the degree that it develops, a great portion of it will be as a system. Just look at the curl boys, the training is certainly there for mega arms and yet their biceps do not continue to grow out of proportion to their bodies despite all the supperior EMG activation from all sorts of biceps isolation routines (exception being the genetically arm gifted but really development is still in genetic proportion just an extreme sample of genetics).

Everyone knows the flat bench is not the be all/end all of pec exercises because a large portion of the effort is on the triceps/delts/stabalizers and yet it is very obvious that this exercise at the foundation level is responsible for a HUGE amount of the pec development on the planet. And it's real simple - 1) fundamental range of motion for the body i.e. horizontal pushing 2) High levels of load/tension on the muscle fibers. As one becomes better at the exercise and the loads one subjects oneself to improve - the entire system experiences and adapts to greater and greater levels of tension. The pecs are part of that system and respond in line.

So while there can be a lot of value to exercise variety, assistance lifts, and isolation at different times. As far as creating a successful long-term development scheme, it is almost impossible to go wrong with barbell pressing. I'll also note that adjusting weights and programming for progression with a barbell is a HELL of a lot easier than a dumbell. Figure a 300lbs flat barbell presser can add 2.5lbs weights per side so dial it to 1.6% increments of adjustability. The same guy handling 100lbs dumbells has to do 5lbs per side so his jump is 5%. Now take the guy doing 150lbs and handling 45lbs dumbells (3.3% and 11.1% respectively). Very simply, setting up long successful runs of progressive overload via dumbells is difficult due to larger increments of adjustment and lower loads utilized.

This isn't to rip on dumbells or EMG or anything else, but it's about how the body actually adapts and develops so as not to misapply the information provided. That's probably the biggest thing BBIng has been doing wrong in the past few decades, taking isolated pieces of science far out of context and then misunderstanding the applications. That likely occurs simply because the level of training knowledge and physiology is so low. The idea of keeping training under 1hr to maximize anabolic results comes to mind (can we say untrained and starved individuals - results totally change with a modicum of training experience and some decent food stores). No one who really knows this stuff doesn't cringe at how bad some of this stuff is.