RELATIONSHIP OF LAT-PULL REPETITIONS AND PULL-UPS TO MAXIMAL LAT-PULL AND PULL-UP STRENGTH IN MEN ANDWOMEN DOUG JOHNSON,1 JAMES LYNCH,1 KEDREN NASH,1 JOE CYGAN,1 1 AND JERRY L. MAYHEW2,3 Human Performance Laboratory, Quincy University, Quincy, Illinois; 2Human Performance Laboratory, Truman State University; and 3Department of Physiology, Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, Kirksville, Missouri ABSTRACT Johnson, D, Lynch, J, Nash, K, Cygan, J, and Mayhew, JL. Relationship of lat-pull repetitions and pull-ups to maximal latpull and pull-up strength in men and women. J Strength Cond Res 23(3): 1022–1028, 2009—To determine the relationships among selected shoulder pulling strength and endurance maneuvers, college men (n = 35) and women (n = 23) were evaluated for 1-repetition maximum (1RM) lat-pull (LPmax), 1RM pull-up (PUmax), lat-pull repetitions-to-fatigue using 80% of 1RM (LPreps), and pull-up repetitions at 80% of 1RM (PUreps). PUmax was determined by adding to or counter-weighting the body mass to achieve one repetition. Men and women performed the 1RM with significantly more weight relative to body mass in the PUmax (1.16 6 0.15 and 0.73 6 0.09, respectively) than in the LPmax (0.93 6 0.17 and 0.55 6 0.11, respectively). The correlation between LPmax and PUmax was higher in men (r = 0.78; p , 0.01) than in women (r = 0.44; p . 0.05). Women performed significantly more PUreps (10.5 6 2.2) than men (8.1 6 1.9) but were equivalent to men in the LPreps (10.0 6 2.4 and 9.9 6 2.5, respectively). Men performed significantly more LPreps than PUreps, whereas the women were equivalent. Body composition components (lean body mass [LBM] and %fat) affected LPmax and PUmax to a greater degree in men than in women. Maximal strength performance in each lift in each sex could be predicted using the analogous muscular endurance exercise or body composition components. INTRODUCTION M K EY W ORDS gender difference, muscular endurance, performance prediction Address correspondence to Doug Johnson,
[email protected]. 23(3)/1022–1028 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association uscular strength and endurance of the shoulders are essential for successful completion of many athletic and occupational tasks. Various approaches to testing both strength and endurance have been developed as a means of assessing athletic readiness (1,14,22), as well as occupational screening for safety and to insure adequate job compatibility (5,21,25). The most common test method for assessing strength is considered to be the one repetition maximum (1RM), whereas muscular endurance can be evaluated by resistance exercise repetitions or calisthenic exercises. The 1RM technique requires the movement of a maximal weight through a full range of motion in a selected exercise. Specialized equipment and considerable familiarization training may be required to accurately assess the 1RM in various exercises. However, many occupations do not rely on maximal strength as much as they require muscular endurance. Muscular endurance is typically expressed in absolute or relative terms, with both approaches requiring the completion of as many repetitions as possible within a time limit or to muscle fatigue. The absolute endurance method uses a fixed amount of weight based on some criterion for the group being evaluated. The relative endurance method often uses a percent of the 1RM or body mass to determine the load to be lifted. Calisthenic endurance tests typically involve lifting all or part of the body mass as many times as possible within a specified time frame or to muscle fatigue in a movement that mimics a resistance exercise. Muscular endurance lifts or calisthenic exercises have been used previously to predict 1RM strength with varying degrees of success. Whereas most investigations have focused on prediction of bench press strength from push-up performance (8,9,23), other exercises have received limited attention concerning the relationship between muscular endurance and strength (4,6,7,16,30). One of those exercises that is widely used in training programs and as measures of upperbody pulling strength is the latissimus dorsi pull-down, commonly known as a lat-pull. A specially designed machine allows the individual to sit with support across the thighs to stabilize the lower body while pulling a horizontal bar 1022 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. unweighted pullups were not significantly related to 1RM lat-pull (r = 20. The analogous calisthenic exercise to the lat-pull is the pull-up.0 6 7. Tex.7 83. Houston. Mean and SD for physical and performance characteristics of the participants. LP/PU ratio = 1-RM lat-pull/1-RM pull-up.2* 52.99 0. Chandler et al. The individual is typically limited to the use of body mass as the resistance. Whereas several studies have reported that lat-pull repetitions can be used effectively to predict 1 RM lat-pull strength in men (3.15 9. M/W ratio = men/women ration.5 91. .4 184. and the horizontal bar was pulled downward in front TABLE 1.73 6 0.96 6 0.14* 50.1 6 6. A pronated grip 30–40 cm wider than shoulder width was used throughout testing.3 6 3. Furthermore. although weight can be added via a weighted vest or belt to achieve greater resistance (15.33 1. VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2009 | 1023 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation.8 171.91 0.46 2.7). (7) noted that lat-pull repetitions to fatigue (RTF at 60% of 1RM) were moderately related to 1RM lat-pull (r = 0.3 6 1. Seat height was adjusted to allow the subject to start the lift with the arms fully extended.) with support across the top of the quadriceps. In this exercise.Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research downward from an extended overhead arm position (15).6* 0.5 6 15.13 1.5 10.8* 68. *p .07 1. there is a dearth of information in the research literature on many of these types of shoulder pulling activities.47 2.2 6 12. The study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board.69 1.9 6 2.39 6 0.54 0. the lat-pull exercise was used as part of their program.19).3* 37. Therefore. Pro-Maxima Fitness. Considering the few studies on the lat-pull exercise. One Repetition Maximum Lat-Pull Test The 1RM lat-pull (LPmax) was performed using a seated latpull machine (Pro-Maxima.93 6 0.org METHODS Experimental Approach to the Problem The pulling motion of the shoulder musculature is a common maneuver for many individuals in industrial and athletic settings. These motions often require the individual to lift heavy loads or manipulate the body weight.9 Women (n = 23) 20.8 6 6. Each participant had completed either a basic 12-week strength training course within the last year or had 2 years of strength training experience. and each subject was well versed in its performance.27 6 0.nsca-jscr.23 1. Currently.03 1.0 1.17 1.29 6 0.5 6 2. 0.15 1.11* 0.01. it would benefit the strength and conditioning specialist to explore the relationships among analogous shoulder pulling resistance and calisthenic exercises.6 6 15.7) and women (4.7 6 17.5 8.71 6 0. Variable Age (y) Height (cm) Weight (kg) LBM (kg) %fat 1-RM lat-pull (kg) 1-RM lat-pull per kg 1-RM lat-pull per kg LBM 1-RM pull-up (kg) 1-RM pull-up per kg 1-RM pull-up per kg LBM LP/PU ratio Lat-pull repetitions at 80% 1RM Pull-ups at 80% 1RM Men (n = 35) 21.0 6 1. model FW-4.5 6 7.5 6 7.77 LBM = lean body mass. the individual grips a stationary bar overhead and pulls the body mass upward to the bar. Such a device allows the careful addition of weight to achieve the desired degree of resistance loading.2* M/W ratio 1. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.16) of diverse ages and training backgrounds.05) in athletic men.59 1.11* 1. In both instances.09* 0.7 6 4. It was only when pull-up repetitions were combined with body mass that 1RM lat-pull could be predicted (r = 0.6* 0.34 0.04 6 0. the TM | www.1 6 1.4 10.2* 23.2 0.16 6 0. RM = repetition maximum.72).01). Subjects Fifty-eighty college students (35 men and 23 women) volunteered to participate after having all aspects of the study explained and giving their informed consent.16 104.46) but not to pullups (r = 0. the purpose of this study was to determine the relationships of lat-pull and pull-up repetitions to both maximal lat-pull and pull-up performances in young men and women.3 81. Equipment developments have produced pull-up machines that will allow a counterweighted reduction in body mass to achieve pull-up repetitions for those individuals unable to lift their own body mass.31* 10. We sought to evaluate several similar shoulder pulling maneuvers to determine the relationships among them and to assess differences between the ability of men and women to perform these tasks. Subject characteristics are given in Table 1.55 6 0. few studies have compared lat-pull and pull-up performances (3.08 1.0 6 2.9 6 3. The reliability of this testing method has previously been noted to range from 0. and the bar was required to be pulled to a point inferior to the chin during Figure 1. additional counter weight was added or subtracted to achieve a single repetition. If the pull-up was successfully completed. Starting position for the lat-pull. Depending on the ease of completing this repetition. and 1 repetition was performed. Ending position for the lat-pull.99 (3. After a warm-up. Muscular Endurance Tasks The 1RM pull-up (PUmax) was performed on a standard horizontal bar or a counter-weighting machine (Pro-Maxima. The maximum weight lifted was recorded as the LPmax. The head was maintained in a neutral position.94 to 0. preventing the chin from being lifted to achieve a complete repetition (Figures 1 and 2). 2. 1024 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. and another attempt was made with additional weight. the participant attempted a single pull-up with an additional Muscular endurance repetitions in the lat-pull (LPreps) were assessed using the same apparatus with a load equivalent to 80% of the LPmax. If the participant was not able to complete at least one pullup. This procedure was followed until the subject could not lift the weight through a full range of motion. a 5-minute rest was given (29).Shoulder Strength of the head until it reached a point inferior to the chin (15. Depending on the ease of completion of the lift. model PL-26) using a pronated grip 10–20 cm wider than shoulder width (19).1 kg was added.19). Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. which was usually achieved in 3 to 4 attempts. a counter-weighing machine was used to reduce the amount of body mass lifted to achieve a complete pull-up range of motion.3 to 9. After a 5-minute recovery (29). One Repetition Maximum Pull-Up Test weight.11. This was continued until the subject was not able to lift the body mass and the weight load through the full pull-up range of motion. The subject performed the repetitions at a self-regulated pace (17) but was never allowed more than a 2-second pause between repetitions.20). a weight was selected based on the judgment of the lifter and the investigator. resistance was added in the form of a dumbbell held between the knees. A 20% reduction in body mass was used for the initial lift. .4. If the participant could perform more than 1 pull-up repetition. and a 5-minute rest was given (29) before another single repetition was attempted. The arms were extended fully during the eccentric phase of the movement. The hand position was the same as used in the LPmax. A warm-up using light weight and 2 submaximal sets of 5– 10 repetitions at 60–70% of estimated 1RM was given before testing. Both the weighted and counter-weighted PUmax were achieved within 3–5 attempts. Figure 2. 16 20. Correlation coefficients* Variables Age (y) Height (cm) Weight (kg) LBM (kg) %fat 1-RM lat-pull (kg) 1-RM pull-up (kg) Lat-pull repetitions Pull-up repetitions 2 0.07 20.16 0. and thigh for women.00 6 20.20 0.41 20.05 20.18 0. . although the pace of the exercise was not regulated (17).49 0. VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2009 | 1025 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation.30 20.09 9 0. The resistance for the weighted pull-ups was set at 80% of the PUmax for each participant and achieved by either adding weight to the body mass via suspending dumbbells between the knees or by counter-weighting the body mass using the counter-weighted machine. Three measurements were taken at each site.39 0.75 0.32 0.09 LBM = lean body mass. 0.25 0.Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM | www. and thigh for men and the triceps. The subject was allowed to rest no more than 2 seconds between repetitions.42 0. and the average used to represent the site.28 0.19 0. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. RM = repetition maximum.25 0. *r = 0.25 LBM = lean body mass.14 20.55 0.10 0.06 20.nsca-jscr.38 0.96 (3.23 0.17 0.11 20.21 0.29 0.57 0.03 3 20.11 0.15 0.22 0.15 20.88 5 20.03 0.53 significance at p .13 0.62 0. TABLE 3. Pull-up repetitions at 80% of 1RM (PUreps) were evaluated using the same devices as for the PUmax and performed using the standard form executed from a dead hang position (19).01. The sum of skinfolds was used to predict density.31 20.76 0.06 7 20.78 8 0.92 and 0.67 0. Body Composition Assessment Body composition was assessed for each participant using the gender-specific 3-site Jackson-Pollock skinfold equations (12).33 3 20.98 5 0.15 9 20. The sites used were the chest.03 0.40 20.19 20. abdomen.07 20.17 0.19 0. each concentric phase.05 20. Only those repetitions meeting these criteria were counted.25 0.64 0. and predicted density was converted to %fat using the Siri equation (27).01. and only those pull-ups where the chin reached the bar were counted. Using a pronated grip with the hands in the same position as used during the PUmax.44 8 0.org TABLE 2.47 0. the subject pulled upward until the inferior portion of the chin was above the bar with the head held in a neutral position.12 7 20.11 0.61 6 20.31 4 20.47 4 20.4). RM = repetition maximum. Correlation coefficients* Variables Age (y) Height (cm) Weight (kg) LBM (kg) %fat 1-RM lat-pull (kg) 1-RM pull-up (kg) Lat-pull repetitions Pull-up repetitions 2 20. The arms were required to return to the fully extended position on each movement. 0.08 0. The reliability of a typical pull-up test is usually between 0.17 0.00 20.13 0.35 0. suprailiac.11 0. Lean body mass (LBM) was estimated as: body mass 3 (1 2 %fat/100).34 20. *r = 0. Correlations among physical and performance characteristics of men (n = 35). Correlations among physical and performance characteristics of women (n = 23).43 significance at p . there was no significant different in LPmax or PUmax between men and women.22 LBM (kg) 2 1. than women.97 lat-pull RepWt (kg) +1.4 1-RM lat-pull (kg) = 1.71 %fat + 22.04 pull-up RepWt (kg) 2 4. All tests were considered at the 0.63 0.8 88.2 Combined group (n = 58) 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 1. both LBM and %fat were selected (Table 4).2 91.82 0.6 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 1.7 92.0 18.9 81.0 1-RM lat-pull (kg) = pull-up RepWt (kg) + 15.91 0.7 11.5 1-RM lat-pull (kg) = 0.2 68.3 60. However. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to hold the effect of certain variables constant while observing the difference between sexes and performance variables.4 14. Body mass and LBM were significantly related to both LPmax and PUmax in men (Table 2) but only to PUmax in women (Table 3).1 R 0.3 7.94 R2 3 100* 67.6 6. 0 = women) + 3.0 8.2 1-RM lat-pull (kg) = 0.2 18. men were 46 and 34% stronger.05 level.7 7. RepWt = repetition weight.39 %fat + 18. however. when step-wise multiple regression was used to predict LPmax and PUmax from body composition components in men. †CV = (SEE/mean 3 100).03 lat-pull RepWt (kg) + 1.72 1.6 1-RM lat-pull (kg) = 0.43 0. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Equation Men (n = 35) 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 1.83 0.9 9.4 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 1.0 17. if the gender differences in both LBM and %fat were held constant using ANCOVA. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the independent variables and their contributions to the common variance for the best prediction of each maximal strength performance.0 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 0.12 lat-pull reps + 32.99 pull-up RepWt (kg) + 0.5 92. Relative body fat was not significantly related to either maximal lift or maximal repetitions in either sex.1 sex (1 = men.54 LBM (kg) 2 1. .44 0.65 LBM (kg) + 27. Expressing the strength performances relative to body mass or LBM reduced the difference between the sexes but did not eliminate it. However.14 LBM (kg) 2 9.8 CV† 8. 0 = women) + 9.3 11.99 LBM (kg) 2 1.4 39. Multiple regression equations to predict 1-repetition maximum (RM) lat-pull and 1-RM pull-up.19 lat-pull reps + 18.56 lat-pull RepWt (kg) + 0. RESULTS MANOVA revealed that men were significantly different from women on all variables except age and LPreps (Table 1).03 lat-pull RepWt (kg) + 1.43 lat-pull reps + 0.96 0.6 14.6 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 1. RM = repetition maximum. 1026 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation.4 9.25 LBM (kg) 2 1.8 19.96 0. In women.61 lat-pull reps + 19. *Coefficient of determination (%). respectively. LBM was the only significant TABLE 4.9 Women (n = 23) 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 0.65 0.0 10.2 92.1 6.0 42.2 6.7 sex (1 = men. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the relationships among pertinent variables within each sex.0 13.1 11.76 %fat + 24.2 11.5 CV = coefficient of variation.78 0.7 10.7 SEE*(kg) 8.90 0. When LPmax and PUmax were expressed relative to LBM.3 8.5 1-RM pull-up (kg) = 0.8 9.1 8.96 0. Women performed significantly more PUreps at 80% of 1RM and had a greater LPmax:PUmax ratio than men.0 8.9 10.24 LBM (kg) 2 1.Shoulder Strength Statistical Analyses Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine significant differences between sexes.39 %fat + 18. LBM = lean body mass. the accuracy of the pull-up prediction equations to estimate LPmax was increased by incorporating LBM only in men (Table 4). with the findings of Ball (3) concerning the use of PUreps to estimate LPmax. Although they concluded that the wide-grip position with the bar pulled anterior to the body elicited greater muscle activation. (18) noted that the lat-pull activated the latissimus dorsi to a greater degree than the middle trapzius. sex as a variable (0 = women and 1 = men) was not selected as a significant factor in identifying performance in PUmax.Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research predictor. Ball (3) noted that whereas the addition of arm length and arm circumference to pull-up performance improved the prediction of LPmax (R = 0.51). Lehman et al. rhomboids.00 kgÁkg21 body mass (range = 0. we concur with Ball (3) that this may offer no advantage over the simple measurement of LPmax.21). there may be biomechanical differences with regard to line of pull that could influence mechanical advantage and muscle activation. In the combined sample. In the later phase of the movement. 0. When submaximal repetitions in the analogous exercise were used to estimate maximal strength performance in the other exercise.67–0.14.1. Interestingly.40) from the current results (r = 20.7 to 109. In the remaining 29 men. However. relegating the contribution from LBM to 40%. Yet we cannot exclude the idea that significant differences in upper-body musculature could play a major part in performance difference in both men and women in pulling exercises. LBM contributed 91% to the known variance in PUmax. and the two exercises may often be substituted for one another in resistance training or fitness testing. their objective was to identify the muscle activity when using four different hand positions and widths in the lat-pull. and biceps brachii. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. the additional anthropometric measurements required for his equation made it no more practical than performing the actual measurement of LPmax. Because our pull-ups were performed with 80% of 1RM. a gender code (1 = men. only pull-up RepWt was selected as a significant predictor. The gender code accounted for 60% of the known variance in LPmax performance. who had over twice as much relative body fat. Even if sex was partialled out of our relationship between LPmax and PUreps. endurance. infraspinatus. citing the dependence on moving the total body mass to achieve success as a major problem. Four men (11%) and all 23 women in the current study were unable to perform one unweighted pull-up. only pull-up RepWt was selected as a significant variable predicting LPmax. Vanderburgh and Edmonds (28) suggested that unweighted pull-ups in men were more a function of relative body fat content than a function of LBM. In LPmax. the TM | www. The muscles active during the early phase of the movement are the teres major.5.99). In LPmax. LBM was the only body composition element to make a significant contribution to the prediction of PUmax.58 to 0. In the current study. the resulting prediction equations were different between the sexes (Table 4). In addition. When the two samples were combined. and it was selected only in PUmax. Because of the limits imposed by body composition on pullups. sex accounted for 60% of the known variance (R2 3 100 = 83%). However.nsca-jscr. and latissimus dorsi (24). and teres major are the major muscles active (24). upper portion of the pectoralis major. Obviously. Previous electromyography (EMG) analysis of the pull-up has shown that the major portion of the work is accomplished by the shoulder musculature (2. (24) questioned the use of pull-ups as a test for shoulder extension strength. Neither body composition component reached a significant level of inclusion for predicting LPmax. allowing LBM (83%) and %fat (17%) to account for all of the known variance (R2 3 100 = 92%). Lat-pull repetition weight (RepWt) and LPreps were better predictors of PUmax in men than in women. however.1 kg) and relative (0. Signorile et al. what would assist in solving these discrepancies would be an isolated measurement of upper-body musculature because it is known that women have a smaller proportion of their total muscle mass located in the upper body VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2009 | 1027 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. the 4 men had considerable variation in absolute (72. or both are required (1. and it was better in men than in women. 0 = women) had to be added to the regression analysis to allow any body composition elements to be selected to predict LPmax. In predicting PUmax. no identification of the relative amounts and sequencing of motor activity in the major muscles involved was provided.05). yet were capable of performing at least one pull-up. (26) observed the muscle activity involved in a lat-pull.75 kgÁkg21) 1RM lat-pull.24). in our women. submaximal lat-pull repetitions may provide a wider variation in performance and give a better indication of the functional capacity of the shoulder musculature. the correlation remained negative (r = 20.72). Despite being unable to perform one pull-up. in part. The results of the current study agreed. Ricci et al. It seems obvious that an EMG study comparing the lat-pull and pull-up needs to be done to identify similarities and differences in muscle activation and sequencing. LBM still contributed over 82% to the known variance in PUmax prediction. The correlation between PUreps and LPmax in Ball’s mixed-gender sample was significantly different (r = 0. in our men. p .10. Because the estimate of LBM would typically require the measurement of several skinfolds and the derivation of LBM from predicted %fat. whereas LBM accounted for the remaining 40%. it is not possible to make direct comparisons with their study. 16 (46%) had relative lat-pull values . whereas %fat contributed only 9%. infraspinatus.org DISCUSSION Pull-ups are considered to be the analogous exercise to latpulls (19). . When the sexes were combined. biceps brachii. leaving lat-pull RepWt to explain 82% and LPreps to explain only 2%. sex explained 16% of the known variance (R2 3 100 = 92%). Ironically. This might have significant implications in industrial/occupational performance screening where shoulder strength. the latissimus dorsi. Male muscle strength response to two methodologies for 1RM testing. F. 2004. PF and Hortobagyi. Whereas the two exercises seem similar in their motion. J Strength Cond Res 11: 230–233. MD. Ball. 2004. 105 and 134–135. Ball. and Ricci. Maximal eccentric and concentric strength discrepancies between young men and women for dynamic resistance exercises. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Men and women use a variety of upper-body exercises in their resistance training programs. and McKenzie. Joint movements and work in pull-ups. 1989. 16. LL. and Mayhew. Comparison of male and female functional capacity in pull-ups. Ball. SH. Kuramoto. Lahey. Edmundo. 25. BF. 8. Body composition from fluid spaces and density: analysis of methods. Rev Brasileria Cin Des Hum 9: 177–182. 1985. Zink. Hart. Wagner. Signorile. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 175– 182. 1990. 223–244. 2007. JF. 3. Fitness changes of naval women following aerobic based programs featuring calisthenic or circuit weight training exercises. Prediction of development of fatigue during a simulated ambulance work task from physical performance tests. JM and Bressel. Berry. Marchetti. EP. Antinori. 1995. K. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. ZG. Lombardi. Sharkey. MA. Varallo. Brown. TE. EJ. Hollander. Kilpatrick. TE. Skeletal mass and distribution in 468 men and women 18–88 yr. BL and Nelson. AL. TE. Practical Measurements for Evaluation in Physical Education (4th ed. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 16–21. 15. Reeves. When training loads are set relative to 1RM values. 17. GV. Ware. Brozek. Chandler. 11. 1991. RJ. each exercise may be providing a unique training stimulus to the muscle groups used in their performance. 30. BS. CL. DW and Hobbs. and Glass. SD. AJ. and Ross. 29. J. Mo J Health Phys Educ Recreation Dance 6: 53– 59. 1988. Estimations of upper-body musculature might also go a long way in explaining the variability among men in upperbody strength and muscular endurance exercise performance. DA. 7. Pushups as a measure of upper body strength. 1028 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. and Mittlemen. TE. DB. 1993. A. Barnekow-Bergkvist. 18. 1996. J Human Mov Stud 41: 25–37. Willardson. Jobe. AK and Payne. ZM. Frost. VP. Braith. Jackson. U. Sarkin. Pushups as a measure of upper body strength in males. Ergonomics 47: 1238– 1250. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 132–138. 26.down. In: Techniques for Measuring Body Composition. 1994. Angquist. Washington. This is one of the first studies to use the counter-weighting pull-up device to assess differences between men and women in muscle strength and endurance performance. JL. ML. and thus. Janssen. 6. J Strength Cond Res 18: 567–571. T. Variations in muscle activation levels during traditional latissimus dorsi weight training exercises: an experimental study. and Antonelli. JP. and Nalborczyk. Soukup. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 54: 244–249. Devlin. Relationship between pushup performance and 1-RM bench press strength in high school students. Lundy. JL. 27. 1995. 1998. Fine wire electromyography analysis of muscles of the shoulder during swimming. Buchan. Johnson. RR. Altchek. FW. WR. Weir. J and Henschel. WE. KA. Beginning Weight Training. and Szwed. Heymsfield. 1961. T. The predictability of muscular strength and endurance from calisthenics (Abstract). JS. DR. IA: W. Ricci. Vanderburgh. PM and Edmonds. pp. and Marchetti. . New York: MacMillan.C. Marshall. 2007. and Ball. and Timson. B and Rothwell. 21. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 28: 168–175. SP. M. Kraemer. 10. Figura. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 28: 132– 137. (1989). JE. J Human Mov Stud 18: 287–294. Relationship of lat-pull repetitions and pull-ups to 1-RM lat-pull strength in male athletes. Figura. Lachance. Arnold. Rsmadian. the latpull and the pull-up have received only limited attention in the scientific literature. Using a counter-weighted pulling device might be especially advantageous for women because our results indicate the pull-up is not analogous to the lat-pull. AM. Mayhew. RW. 1994. RW. 2002. JL. F. A. Henderson. Pers Psych 60: 431–473. MM. JK. F. Hebert. The effect of rest interval length on repeated maximal bench presses. Francois. T. 1996. 5. 23. Pp. J Strength Cond Res 9: 277. 2. Graves. N. Siri. Res Q Exerc Sport 66: 168–172. T. 2001. 19. AS. 1993. and Pollock. TL. DD. Maior. F. Res Q Exerc Sport 64: A–39. TE. E. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Marcinik. Moynes. Sallis. Matoso. 14. Myers. JL. 28. ML. 1997. 9. O’Brien. SJ. MW. C. 4. M. B. the counter-weighting devices can make a major contribution by allowing those individuals with limited upper-body pulling strength to increase their training potential. this study provides sufficient documentation of differences in the factors contributing to their performance to indicate that they should not be used interchangeably. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: S79. and Johansson.). The relationship of relative muscular endurance to maximal lifting capacity in college men and women (Abstract). JA. Van Vleet. VG. 20. J Strength Cond Res 8: 58–60. MW. VA. Among these exercises. Because body composition and the distribution of muscle mass in the body seem to play prominent roles in the performance of these exercises. R. GJ. JE. and Ward. Validation and field evaluation of a work capacity test for wildland firefighters (Abstract). The effect of experimental alterations in excess mass on pull-up performance in fit young men. Am J Sports Med 14: 7–11. De Oliveira. AGS. DC: National Academy of Science. M. AT. Tracking of health-related fitness components in youth ages 9–12. Field measures of strength and fitness predict firefighter performance on physically demanding tasks. Lehman. and Tryniecki. Effect of training on relationship between maximal and submaximal strength. 1980. Aasa. 12. 24. JC. and Bowen. 13. TJ. and Matic. Predicting the 10 repetition maximum for the free weight parallel squat using the 45° angled leg press. Leggett. 1986. Ward. 2001. 1988. Dyn Med 3: 4–8. and Housh. 2004. Perry. Felici. JJ. JA. Felici. J Strength Cond Res 8: 76–79. 1989. Evaluation and management of shoulder instability in the elite overhead thrower. B. A eds. 2007. J Strength Cond Res 16: 539– 546. 2000. Orthop Clin North Am 32: 423–430. M. I. Pollock. D. J Appl Physiol 89: 81–88. 22. Wang. H. T. F. A. it seems that women can perform pull-up repetitions at the same level as men. Influence of cadence on muscular performance during push-up and pull-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res 21: 34–40. A comparative electromyographical investigation of muscle utilization patterns using various hand positions during the lat pull. MD. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 910–916. Dubuque. Predicting muscular strength in women: a preliminary study. Hodgdon.Shoulder Strength (13). REFERENCES 1. and Minari. Mayhew.