1

EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

Can We Really Feel It? The Relationship Between Electromyographic Activity and
Perceived Activation and Intensity for the Upper Body Exercises
Ezgi SEVILMIS1, Ozan ATALAG2, Eda BAYTAS3, Melih BALYAN4, Erdal BINBOGA5

1
Asst. Prof. Ezgi SEVILMIS, Girne American University, Faculty of Sport Science,
Department of Coaching Education. E-mail: ezgi.sewilmis@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0003-
0895-6544

2
Asst. Prof. Ozan ATALAG, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Department of Coaching
Education. E-mail: ozan@hawaii.edu ORCID: 0000-0002-0437-4996

3
Eda BAYTAS, Siirt University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Department of
Coaching Education. E-mail: edabaytas@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0003-2963-0199

4
Assoc. Prof. Melih BALYAN, Ege University, Faculty of Sport Science, Department of
Coaching Education. E-mail: melih.balyan@ege.edu.tr ORCID: 0000-0002-3833-7456

5
Assoc. Prof. Erdal BINBOGA, Ege University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of
Biophysics. E-mail: erdal.binboga@ege.edu.tr. ORCID: 0000-0003-1666-7304

Corresponding author:

Assoc. Prof. Erdal BINBOGA, Ege University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of

Biophysics. E-mail: erdal.binboga@ege.edu.tr
 2
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

Abstract

Understanding the activation of muscles during exercises is a critical factor when designing
training programs. This study investigated the relationship between electromyography (EMG)
activation and perceived activation for upper body exercises performed at 4-6 repetition
maximums (RMs). Thirteen male soccer players with at least 1 year of resistance training
experience completed two testing sessions. In the first session, loads for six exercises were
determined. In the second session, EMG activity was measured for seven muscles during the
exercises, and participants rated their perceived muscle activation. Results showed that
certain muscles were more active than others during specific exercises. However, there was
no significant relationship between perceived and EMG muscle activation. These findings
suggest that perceived activation may not accurately reflect actual agonist muscle activation
measured via EMG. Practitioners targeting specific muscle groups with exercises may
consider using EMG measurements or previous research on muscle activation via EMG.
Keywords: Electromyography, resistance training, upper body exercises, perceived
activation, maximum voluntary contractions. Keywords: Electromyography, resistance
training, upper body exercises, perceived activation, maximum voluntary contractions.

1.Introduction

Resistance exercises are a crucial component of strength training programs and have been

shown to have numerous positive effects on health outcomes (Westcott et al., 2012;

Suchomel et al., 2018). These exercises are known to increase physical fitness and promote

muscle strength, power, and lean muscle mass (Krzysztofik et al., 2019; Schoenfeld et al.,

2021). During resistance exercises, specific agonist and synergist muscles contract, with the

electrical activity in the nervous system initiating these contractions. Electromyography

(EMG) is a method used to measure this electrical activity objectively during exercises. It
 3
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
can also be used to evaluate the contraction and relaxation strategies and sequences, as well

as the contraction intensities of skeletal muscles. EMG has been a popular tool in exercise

science for almost four decades and is still widely used to determine muscular activation,

exercise intensity, and movement patterns (Ahmad et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021).

Despite the numerous benefits of resistance exercises, monitoring the objective and

subjective intensity of these exercises and prescribing the loads accordingly can be a

challenge for athletes, coaches, and researchers. When the internal training load can be

objectively determined, adaptations to training become more apparent, rest periods can be

adjusted accordingly, and the overall risk of injury can be reduced (Bourdon et al., 2017).

While knowing the activation level of specific muscles or muscle groups during resistance

training exercises is considered an essential factor for developing muscle strength and

hypertrophy, EMG analysis is neither practical nor feasible for the majority of the

population. As a result, most practitioners rely on subjective measures of sensation provided

by the somatosensory system.

To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated the extent to which

athletes accurately perceive muscle activation during exercise. In the present study, we aim

to investigate the relationship between EMG activation and perceived activation for various

upper body exercises performed with loads corresponding to 4-6 repetition maximums

(RMs). Specifically, we hypothesize that soccer players do not have a strong correlation

between their EMG activation and perceived activation during upper body exercises, and

that they may not have awareness of the intensity of their muscle activation during exercise.

Materials and Methods

 4
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
2.1. Participants

Thirteen male sub-elit soccer players who resistance train 3 times a week for at least 1

year, ranging from 18 to 35 years old joined this study (Table 1). Participants who did not

have any acute or chronic neuromuscular diseases or psychiatric disorders took part in the

study. The present study was approved by the local university Ethics Committee, and all data

was collected in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

The mean age of the participants in the study was 23.38 ± 3.77 years, training age was

11.53 ± 3.28 years, strength training experience was 4.30 ± 3.47 years, height was 177.23 ±

4.83 cm, average body weight 75.04 ± 8.73 kg and their body mass index (BMI) was 23.83 ±

2.03 (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Participants.

Parameters Mean ± SD Min Max

Age (year) 23,38±3,77 21,0 34,0

Training Age (year) 11,53±3,28 6,0 20,0

Strength Training Experience (year) 4,30±3,47 1,0 15,0

Height (cm) 177,23±4,83 170,0 184,0

Weight (kg) 75,04±8,73 63,30 89,00

BMI (kg/m2) 23,83±2,03 20,20 26,87

Body mass index (BMI) = body mass/height2, (kg/m2).

Values are the Mean ± SD.
2.2. Experimental Procedure

The test protocol consisted of two sessions (Figure 1). First testing session started

with the anthropometric measurements of the participants at 2pm. Following this, participants

ran 8 minutes with 6 km/h speed on the treadmill and 12 minutes dynamic stretching

exercises for the lower, upper extremities and trunk were applied and the standardized warm-
 5
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
up was completed by performing squat, good morning and dead lift exercises with an empty

bar. Loads that correspond to 4-6 repetition maximums for 6 different exercises: Lat pull

down (LPD), Barbell bent over row (BBOR), Dumbbell row (DR), Barbell pull over (BPO),

Dumbbell reverse fly (DRF), Dumbbell concentration curl (DCC) were found.

On the second testing session (after 48 hours after the first testing session; at the same

time of day as the first testing session), after the standardized warm-up protocol as first

testing session electrodes were placed on the muscles of; Triceps Brachii (TB), Deltoid

Posterior (DP), Pectoralis Major (PM), Trapezius middle (TM), Latissimus Dorsi (LD),

Biceps Brachii (BB), Brachioradialis (BO), Deltoid Anterior (DA) following the SENIAM

guidelines. Isometric maximum voluntary contractions (iMVC) were measured afterwards.

During the iMVC measurements, participants were asked to contract their muscles with

maximum effort, three times with periods of 5 s, with rests of 2 min between the contractions.

iMVC positions are shown in the figure 2 below. In the main part of the 2 nd testing session,

participants performed 4-6 repetitions with the loads determined in the first session with 3

min rest for five upper body exercises. All exercise positions were performed in a

standardized manner for each participant. During each exercise, electromyographic (EMG)

activity of 3 pre-determined muscles were recorded. The athletes were asked to focus on the

muscles during exercises and after completing 4 to 6 repetitions to failure, they rated the

subjective activation of each muscle separately for the related exercises on a scale of 1 to 10.

The experimental procedures were verbally explained to the participants before they signed

the informed consent.

 6
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the experimental setup.

2.3. Electrode Placements and iMVC Measurements

Electrodes were placed on the dominant side (right/left) muscles in accordance with

the SENIAM guidelines (Hermens et al., 2000). Each location is shown in Table 2.

Latissimus Dorsi: After the medial of the latissimus dorsi muscle was palpated, the first

electrode was placed and the second electrode was attached to its lower diagonal with a

distance of 2 cm. The dominant side was aligned with the edge of the bench with the shoulder

and upper extremity placed of the bench during the iMVC measurements. The participant was

then asked to flex their elbow 90 degrees and extend their elbow as much as force as possible.

The researchers applied resistance to the distal humerus providing stabilization.

Deltoid Posterior: After the deltoid posterior muscle was palpated, the first electrode

was placed and the second electrode was attached 2 cm inferiorly. Standing in front of a wall,

participants were asked to turn their backs to the wall with the non-dominant leg placed

roughly half a step in front and the dominant leg in the back. They were then instructed to

push the wall by hyperextending the shoulder without flexing the elbow.

Trapezius Middle: After the medial of the trapezius muscle was palpated, the first

electrode was placed and the second electrode was attached laterally at a distance of 2 cm.

The same position to measure the latissimus dorsi muscle was used to measure iMVC.
 7
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
Pectoralis Major: After the sternal part of the pectoralis major muscle was palpated,

the first electrode was placed and the second electrode was attached laterally at a distance of

2 cm. The participants were asked to face the 25 cm wide wall and to push it medially by

placing their palmars on the right and left sides of the column. During the iMVC

measurement the trunk was neutral, while the shoulders were abducted at around 60 degrees

and elbow joints were flexed at 90 degrees.

Triceps Brachii: After finding the medial of the triceps brachii muscle by palpation,

the first electrode was placed and the second electrode was attached inferiorly with a distance

of 2 cm. Participants sit upright on a chair and place their palmars on the desk in front of

them with their elbows flexed around 90 degrees. They were instructed to push the table

downwards with maximum force.

Biceps Brachii: After finding the medial of the biceps brachii muscle by palpation, the

first electrode was placed and the second electrode was inserted under it with a distance of 2

cm. Participants sit upright in a chair and place their palms under the table in front of them,

with supination on their wrists. 90 degrees of flexion was provided at the elbow and they

pushed the table up. At this time 2 researchers applied force on the table so that the table

would not move from its place. With this method, iMVC values of brachioradialis and deltoid

anterior muscles were recorded.

Brachioradialis: After finding the medial of the brachioradialis muscle by palpation,

the first electrode was placed, and the second electrode was inserted under it with a distance

of 2 cm.

Deltoid Anterior: After finding the deltoid anterior muscle by palpation, the first

electrode was placed, and the second electrode was inserted under it with a distance of 2 cm.
 8
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

Figure 2. iMVC positions

a: iMVC measurement for TB, b: iMVC measurement for TM and LD, c: iMVC measurement for
PM, d: iMVC measurement for DP. e: iMVC measurement for BB, f: iMVC measurement for BO, g:
iMVC measurement for DA. Not: Fotoğraflar yeniden (Tanımlara uygun şekilde)çekilecek

Figure 3. EMG recordings during exercises

a: DR exercise, b: BBOR exercise, c: LPD exercise, d: BPO exercise, e: DRF exercise f: DCC
exercise

Not: Fotoğraflar yeniden (Tanımlara uygun şekilde)çekilecek

Table 2. Electrode Placement

Exercise Muscle 1 Muscle 2 Muscle 3

LPD Latissimus Dorsi (medial) Deltoid (posterior) Trapezius (medial)
BBOR Latissimus Dorsi (medial) Deltoid (posterior) Trapezius (medial)
DR Latissimus Dorsi (medial) Deltoid (posterior) Trapezius (medial)
BPO Triceps Brachii (medial) Deltoid (posterior) Pectoralis Major
(medial)
DRF Deltoid (posterior) Trapezius (medial) Pectoralis Major
(medial)
 9
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
DCC Biceps Brachii (medial) Deltoid (anterior) Brachioradialis (medial)
LPD: Lat Pull Down, BBOR: Barbell Bent Over Row, DR: Dumbbell Row, BPO: Barbell Pull Over, DRF:
Dumbbell Reverse Fly, DCC: Dumbbell Concentration Curl.

2.4. Kinematic Description of Exercises

LPD: Participants sit in the LPD machine’s seat with hips and knees flexed at 90 degrees.

They fixed themselves with the adjustable cushion. Shoulders were flexed at around 180

degrees to reach the bar overhead. Neck was extended slightly during the exercise, allowing

participants to pull the bar underneath the chin.

BBOR: During the standing position, participants held the bar using a double overhand grip

and approximately 70-80 degrees of flexion occurred in the hip to ensure the horizontal

position of the torso. The bar was pulled towards thenavel until it touched the body and then

it was lowered back to the starting position under control.

DR: Roughly 90 degree hip flexion (back parallel to the bench) non dominant leg and hand

on the bench while dumbbell was pulled straight up until the dumbbell made contact with the

torso then it was lowered back to the starting position under control.

BPO: Participants lie prone on the bench. The Z barbell was grasped from behind with a

pronated grip with the help of two researchers and with 90 degrees of flexion in the shoulder

joint, the bar was lifted up to get ready for the exercise. With 90 degree elbow flexion the bar

slightly downloaded and then it was reached slowly upper the bar backed to the starting

position under control.

DRF: During the standing position, participants held the dumbbells and approximately 10

degrees of flexion occurred in the knee joint and 70-80 degrees of flexion in hip joint to

ensure the horizontal position of the torso. Participants flexed their hips to about 70-80

degree while they were instructed to keep their knees soft. They were instructed to lift the
 10
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
dumbbells to the sides whilst maintaining that position (extending the shoulder horizontally)

and then lower it to the starting position slowly.

DCC: During the siting position, participants held the dumbbells. The feet were flat to the

floor, at around shoulder-width apart with their toes pointing slightly outwards approximately

10-15 degree. The upper part of dominant arm rested vertically on the inner part of the

dominant thigh. The dumbbell raised towards chest until 10 degrees of elbow flexion occur

and then it was lowered back to the starting position under control.

Surface EMG is an experimental technique for examining the electrical activity of

muscles. In the preparation of EMG measurements, the electrode sites were shaved, skin was

abraded without skin damage, cleaned with alcohol and an abrasion gel applied to reduce the

resistance between the skin and electrodes below 10 kΩ. After that, two Ag/AgCl disposable

surface electrodes were placed on the muscles in accordance with the SENIAM guidelines

(Hermens et al., 2000). After the electrodes were placed, an avometer was used to determine

whether the resistance between the skin and the electrodes fall below 10 kΩ or not. When a

value above 10 kΩ was observed, the electrode was removed, the skin was abraded again,

cleaned with alcohol, and the electrode was placed by applying gel. The ground electrode was

placed on the right carpal bone. Both active and reference electrodes were connected to the

Nexus 10 (Mark II, Mind Media) bio-signal recorder with carbon-coated cables. The carbon-

coated cables provide active shielding for minimizing noise level and movement artefacts.

The Nexus 10 Mark II recorded EMG data at a rate of 1,024 sample(s) in 24-bit resolution

applying a band pass filter between 20 Hz and 500 Hz. The EMG voltages were calculated

and expressed in microvolts. The data was transmitted to the computer via Bluetooth and

posed no safety hazard to participants.

2.6.EMG Analysis
 11
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
The raw surface EMGs from the iMVC measurements were analyzed using a root

mean square (rms) algorithm to determine the iMVCs. The peak-to-peak rms-EMG

amplitudes were measured, and the highest peak rms-EMG values were used as the

normalization reference value and defined as 100% iMVC. Mean values were taken for

dynamic efforts whereas the peak values were taken for iMVC. The mean value was created

by calculating the average of the EMG values recorded during performing 4 to 6 repetition of

the exercises. % iMVC was calculated using the following formula; [%MVC= (Mean Value

EMG/ Peak values EMG) x100].

2.7. Perceived Activation Scale

A scale was used to determine the perceived activation on muscles with the electros

attached on them during exercises. (Table 3). The numbers on the scale represent a range of

activation levels from 1 (Nothing at all) to 10 (very very active). Participants were asked to

give 0 points when they thought the activation at muscle during the exercise was extremely

weak, and 10 when they thought it was extremely active. At the end of each exercise, the

athletes marked a score from the scale for perceived activation.

Table 3. Perceived Activation Scale

Rating Descriptor

1 Nothing at all
2 Very very little active
3 A little active
4 Somewhat active
5 Moderate
6 Active
7 Quite active
 12
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
8 Very active
9 Very very active
10 Extremely active

2.8. Statistical analysis

To analyse the obtained data set, the %MVC values of the three predetermined muscles

for each exercise and the perceived activation levels given for each muscle were calculated.

SPSS 22 (IBM Corporation, New York, USA) package program was used in the statistical

analysis of all data. The Shapiro Wilk test was used to examine whether the obtained data

showed a normal distribution. Since the variance–covariance assumption was provided in the

Mauchyl Sphericity test, the Sphericity Assumed test was used. Then, we conducted a series

of repeated measures ANOVAs to explore whether %MVC values differed significantly

between three predetermined muscles for each exercise. Paired sample t-tests with a

Bonferroni correction were performed after a significant result of repeated measures

ANOVA. In this respect, the standard confidence interval (.05) was divided by the number of

t-tests employed as post hoc. In order to examine the relationship between the %MVC of the

muscle group performing the movement during exercise and the perceived intensity level, the

Pearson correlation test was used for normally distributed data, and the Spearman correlation

test for data that was not normally distributed. The significance level was accepted as p<0.05

in statistical analyses.
 13
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
3.Results

3.1. Differences Between %MVC Values of Muscles During Exercise

The results of repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated that there was a significant

difference between the EMG values of muscles during LPD, BBOR, BPO, DRF, DCC

exercises (p<.001). It was shown that %MVC values of LD and TM were higher than DP in

LPD exercise (p<.001). However, there was no significant difference between LD and TM

muscles during LPD exercise (p>.005). The %MVC value of TM in BBOR exercise were

higher compared to LD (p<.005). There was no significant difference between %MVC values

of muscles during DR exercise (p>.005). The %MVC value of TB was significantly higher

compared to other two muscles (DP, PM) in BPO exercise (p<.001). In addition, the %MVC

value of DP was least during this exercise (p<.005). It was shown that %MVC values of DP

and TM were higher than PM in DRF exercise (p<.001). However, there was not a significant

difference between DP and TM muscles during this exercise (p>.005). It was shown that

%MVC values of BB and BO were higher than DA in DCC exercise (p<.001). However,

there was not a significant difference between BB and BO muscles during DCC exercise

(p>.005) (Table 2).

 14
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
Table 5. %MVC Values of Agonist and Synergist Muscles in Exercise

a b c
Exercise Muscle Groups Mean ± SD p F
p
LD (1) 40,18 ±10,84 0,00* 36,43 0,00* 0,00* 0,09
Lat Pull Down DP (2) 11,58±1,33
TM (3) 30,14±10,61
LD (1) 33,00±11,32 0,02* 4,44 1,000 0,12 0,03*
Barbell Bent Over Row DP (2) 34,66±8,29
TM (3) 43,43±8,97
LD (1) 39,67±9,43 0,17 1,87 0,998 0,749 0,42
Dumbbell Row TM (2) 37,00±8,23
DP (3) 33,32±8,92
TB (1) 43,95±12,62 0,00* 51,11 0,00* 0,009* 0,00*
Barbell Pull Over DP (2) 12,16±9,05
PM (3) 22,32±7,18
DP (1) 38,20±9,04 0,00* 74,65 0,360 0,00* 0,00*
Dumbbell Reverse Fly TM (2) 43,85±10,04
PM (3) 9,41±2,48
BB (1) 46,49±13,44 0,00* 34,51 0,00* 0,00* 0,49
Dumbbell Concentration Curl DA (2) 19,62±7,76
BO (3) 42,09±7,47

a = Comparison between muscles 1. and 2. b = Comparison between muscles 2. and 3. c = Comparison between
muscles 1. and 3. LD = Latissimus Dorsi, DP = Deltoid Posterior, TM = Trapezius Middle, TB = Triceps
Brachii, PM = Pectoralis Major, DA = Deltoid Anterior, BB = Biceps Brachi, BR = Brachioradialis.

Figure 4. %MVC Values of Muscles During Exercises

 15
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

3.2. Relationship Between Perceived Activation and %MVCs in Each Muscle During
Exercises

While the relationship between the perceived activation levels of the muscles by the athletes

during the exercises and the %MVC of the muscles is assessed, there were not any correlation. The

correlation graph in the LPD exercise is presented in figure 5. There was not a relationship between

perceived level of the muscle activation score of LD and %MVC (r:0,220; p>0.05), perceived level

of the muscle activation score of DP and %MVC (r:-0.007; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle

activation score of TM and %MVC (r:-0.014; p>0.05) in LPD exercises. There were any

relationship between perceived level of the muscle activation score of LD and %MVC (r:-0,072;

p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation score of DP and %MVC (r:-0,486; p>0.05),

perceived level of the muscle activation score of TM and %MVC (r:0,008; p>0.05) in BBOR

exercises. There was not found any relationship between perceived level of the muscle activation

score of LD and %MVC (r:-0,0216; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation score of TM

and %MVC (r:0,188; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation score of DP and %MVC

(r:0,034; p>0.05) in DR exercises. There was not any relationship between perceived level of the

muscle activation score of TB and %MVC (r:-0,305; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle

activation score of DP and %MVC (r:-0,023; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation

score of PM and %MVC (r:0,169; p>0.05) in BPO exercises. Any relationship was not found

between perceived level of the muscle activation score of TB and %MVC (r:-0,305; p>0.05),

perceived level of the muscle activation score of DP and %MVC (r:-0,023; p>0.05), perceived level

of the muscle activation score of PM and %MVC (r:0,169; p>0.05) in BPO exercises. There was

also not a relationship between perceived level of the muscle activation score of DP and %MVC

(r:0,388; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation score of TM and %MVC (r:0,362;

p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation score of PM and %MVC (r:-0,116; p>0.05) in
 16
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
DRF exercises. In addition, there was not found any relationship between perceived level of the

muscle activation score of BB and %MVC (r:0,261; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle

activation score of DA and %MVC (r:0,261; p>0.05), perceived level of the muscle activation score

of BO and %MVC (r:-0,019; p>0.05) in DCC exercises.

Figure 5. Correlation Between Perceived Activation and %MVC’s in Muscles.

 17
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

4. Discussion

In the present study, we aimed to explore the relationship between the EMG activation

and the perceived activation in the muscle for various upper body exercises that are

performed with loads that correspond to 4-6 RMs. Our study findings revealed which muscles

most active in these 6 upper body exercises. In addition, the finding showed that there were

not any correlation between the perceived activation in the muscles during exercises and the

EMG values. Thus, it was determined that the soccer players may not aware of how active

their muscles during upper body exercises.

 18
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

Conclusion
 19
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Ege University Scientific Research Project Coordination Unit for supporting
this project with TGA-2020-21702 reference number. We are also greatful to all the students
participating in the study.

Ethics Approval

This project was approved by the Ege University Medical Research Ethics Committee, İzmir,
Turkey with 20-2T/27 reference number. All data was collected in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were informed about the details of the study and all
provided written informed consent.
 20
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES
References

1. Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Rau, G. (2000). Development of

recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of
Electromography and Kinesiology, 10 (5), (361-374).
2. Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., Bellon, C. R., Stone, M. H. (2018). The importance of
muscular strength: training considerations. Sport Medicine, 48(4), (765–785).
3. Westcott, W. L. (2012). Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training
on health. Exercises in Medicine, 11(4), (209-216).
4. Bourdon, P. C., Cardinale, M., Murray, A., Gastin, P., Kellmann, M., Varley, M. C.,
Gabbett, T. J., Coutts, A. J., Burgess, D. J., Gregson, W., Cable, N. T. (2017).
Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 12(2), (2161-2170).

5. Krzysztofik, M., Wilk, M., Wojdala, G., Golas, A. (2019). Maximizing muscle
hypertrophy: A systematic review of advanced resistance training techniques and
methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24),
(1-14).
6. Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Every, D. W. V., Plotkin, D. L. (2021). Loading
recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: A re-
examination of the repetition continuum. Sports, 9(2), (1-25).
7. Fu, J., He, Y., Jiang3, S., Tao, Z., Wen, Y., Yi, X. (2021). EMG-based Monitoring
Muscle Contraction Force to Determine Most Effective Exercise. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 2011, (1-10).
8. Ahmad, I., Ansari, F., Dey, U. K. (2020). A review of EMG recording technique.
International Journal of Engineering Science Technology, 4(2), (530-539).
 21
EMG, PERCEIVED ACTIVATION, STRENGTH EXERCISES

Figure Legends

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the experimental setup.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.