European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 79–84 | Cite as

Surface electromyograms of agonist and antagonist muscles during force development of maximal isometric exercises—effects of instruction

  • Ridha Sahaly
  • Henry Vandewalle
  • Tarak Driss
  • Hugues Monod
Original Article


Surface integrated electromyograms (iEMG) of agonist and antagonist muscles were studied during the rising phase of maximal isometric efforts (elbow flexion, unilateral and bilateral leg extension) to explain the difference in maximal rate of force development (MRFD) with a hard-and-fast instruction (instruction I) and a fast instruction (instruction II ). Force and EMG were simultaneously recorded in 24 athletes and iEMG were computed at MRFD and during different phases of force development (P 0–25, P 25–50, P 50–75, P 75–90 and P 90–100). A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (muscle × instruction) showed that the value of iEMG at MRFD was significantly higher with instruction II for elbow flexion, unilateral and bilateral leg press exercises (F>4.9; P<0.04). The effect of instruction upon iEMG of the agonist muscles corresponding to the different phases of the force development was significant for elbow flexion (F=4.2; P<0.05 ) unilateral (F>6.4; P<0.02) and bilateral leg extension (F>9 and P<0.006 for soleus and vastus lateralis; but F=3.2 and P=0.08 for vastus medialis). There was a significant interaction between instruction and phase of force development (F>2.6; P<0.05 ): iEMG was significantly higher with instruction II at the beginning of force development (P 0–25) for all the muscles (except the soleus muscle during the bilateral leg exercise) but not at higher force (P 75–90 and P 90–100). The steeper force development with instruction II can be explained by the better activation of the agonist muscles at the beginning of force development. A lower co-activation of the antagonist muscles does not explain the improvement in MRFD as the iEMG of the antagonist muscles was not lower with instruction II but was proportional to the activation level of the agonist muscle.


Isometric contraction Electromyography Muscle physiology 


  1. Adrian ED, Bronk DW (1929) The discharge of impulses in motor nerve fibres. II. The frequency of discharge in reflex and voluntary contractions. J Physiol (Lond) 67:119–151Google Scholar
  2. Bemben MG, Clasey JL, Massey BH (1990) The effect of the rate of muscle contraction on the force-time curve parameters of male and female subjects. Res Q Exerc Sport 61:96–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carolan B, Cafarelli E (1992) Adaptations in coactivation after isometric resistance training. J Appl Physiol 73:911–917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Christ CB, Boileau RA, Slaugher MH, Stilman RJ, Cameron JA (1993) The effect of test protocol instruction on the measurement of muscle function in adult women. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18:502–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. DeLuca CJ, LeFever RS, McCue MP, Xenakis AP (1982) Behavior of human motor units in different muscles during linearly varying contractions. J Physiol (Lond) 329:113–128Google Scholar
  6. Grimby L, Hannerz J, Borg J, Hedman B (1981) Firing properties of single human motor units on maintained maximal voluntary effort. In: Human muscle fatigue: physiological mechanisms. Ciba Foundation Symposium 82. Pitman, London, pp 157–165Google Scholar
  7. Häkkinen K, Komi PV, Alén M (1985) Effect of explosive type strength training on isometric force-and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fiber characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Acta Physiol Scand 125:587–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Koryak Y (1998) Effect of 120 days of bed-rest with and without countermeasures on the mechanical properties of the triceps surae muscle in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol 78:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kots I (1986) Sport physiology (in Russian). Fiscultura i sport, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  10. Kukulka CG, Clamann HP (1981) Comparison of the recruitment and discharge properties of motor units in human brachial biceps and adductor pollicis during isometric contractions. Brain Res 219:45–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Marsden CD, Meadows JC, Merton PA (1971) Isolated single motor units in human muscle and their rate of discharge during maximal voluntary effort. J Physiol (Lond) 217:12P–13PGoogle Scholar
  12. Sahaly R, Vandewalle H, Driss T, Monod H (2001) Maximal voluntary force and rate of force development in humans—importance of instruction. Eur J Appl Physiol 85:345–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Tanji J, Kato M (1972) Discharge of single motor units at voluntary contraction of abductor digiti minimi muscle in man. Brain Res 45:590–593PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ridha Sahaly
    • 1
  • Henry Vandewalle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tarak Driss
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hugues Monod
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Physiologie du Travail et du SportFaculté de Médecine Pitié-SalpêtrièreParisFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Biomécanique et de PhysiologieINSEPParisFrance
  3. 3.UFR STAPS (EA 2931)Université Paris X Nanterre CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations