Muscle Activation during Push-Ups with Different Suspension Training Systems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze upper extremity and core muscle activation when performing push-ups with different suspension devices. Young fit male university students (n = 29) performed 3 push-ups each with 4 different suspension systems. Push-up speed was controlled using a metronome and testing order was randomized. Average amplitude of the electromyographic root mean square of Triceps Brachii, Upper Trapezius, Anterior Deltoid, Clavicular Pectoralis, Rectus Abdominis, Rectus Femoris, and Lumbar Erector Spinae was recorded. Electromyographic signals were normalized to the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Electromyographic data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance with a Bonferroni post hoc. Based upon global arithmetic mean of all muscles analyzed, the suspended push-up with a pulley system provided the greatest activity (37.76% of MVIC; p < 0.001). Individually, the suspended push-up with a pulley system also provided the greatest triceps brachii, upper trapezius, rectus femoris and erector lumbar spinae muscle activation. In contrast, more stable conditions seem more appropriate for pectoralis major and anterior deltoid muscles. Independent of the type of design, all suspension systems were especially effective training tools for reaching high levels of rectus abdominis activation. Key PointsCompared with standard push-ups on the floor, suspended push-ups increase core muscle activation.A one-anchor system with a pulley is the best option to increase TRICEP, TRAPS, LUMB and FEM muscle activity.More stable conditions such as the standard push-up or a parallel band system provide greater increases in DELT and PEC muscle activation.A suspended push-up is an effective method to achieve high muscle activity levels in the ABS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".