Journal of

Functional Morphology
and Kinesiology

Article
Bilateral Biceps Curl Shows Distinct Biceps Brachii and
Anterior Deltoid Excitation Comparing Straight vs. EZ Barbell
Coupled with Arms Flexion/No-Flexion
Giuseppe Coratella 1, * , Gianpaolo Tornatore 1 , Stefano Longo 1 , Fabio Esposito 1,2 and Emiliano Cè 1,2

1 Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy
2 IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, 20161 Milan, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0280214653

Abstract: The present study investigated the excitation of the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid
during bilateral biceps curl performed using the straight vs. EZ barbell and with or without flexing
the arms. Ten competitive bodybuilders performed bilateral biceps curl in non-exhaustive 6-rep
sets using 8-RM in four variations: using the straight barbell flexing (STflex ) or not flexing the arms
(STno-flex ) or the EZ barbell flexing (EZflex ) or not flexing the arms (EZno-flex ). The ascending and
descending phases were separately analyzed using the normalized root mean square (nRMS) collected
using surface electro-myography. For the biceps brachii, during the ascending phase, a greater nRMS
was observed in STno-flex vs. EZno-flex (+1.8%, effect size [ES]: 0.74), in STflex vs. STno-flex (+17.7%,
ES: 3.93) and in EZflex vs. EZno-flex (+20.3%, ES: 5.87). During the descending phase, a greater nRMS
was observed in STflex vs. EZflex (+3.8%, ES: 1.15), in STno-flex vs. STflex (+2.8%, ES: 0.86) and in
EZno-flex vs. EZflex (+8.1%, ES: 1.81). The anterior deltoid showed distinct excitation based on the arm
flexion/no-flexion. A slight advantage in biceps brachii excitation appears when using the straight vs.
EZ barbell. Flexing or not flexing the arms seems to uniquely excite the biceps brachii and anterior
deltoid. Practitioners should consider including different bilateral biceps barbell curls in their routine
Citation: Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.;
to vary the neural and mechanical stimuli.
Longo, S.; Esposito, F.; Cè, E. Bilateral
Biceps Curl Shows Distinct Biceps
Keywords: elbow flexors; EMG; resistance training; weight training; bodybuilder; strength; root
Brachii and Anterior Deltoid
Excitation Comparing Straight vs. EZ
mean square
Barbell Coupled with Arms
Flexion/No-Flexion. J. Funct.
Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
jfmk8010013 Resistance training is considered a potent stimulus to increase strength [1] through
Academic Editor: Giuseppe neural [2] and structural adaptations [3]. In this practice, each exercise has a group of
Musumeci prime movers that are primarily stimulated during the movement [4]. Nevertheless, many
exercises can be performed in a multitude of variations and examining how each variation
Received: 14 December 2022 stimulates the targeted muscles differently is essential to plan the resistance training
Revised: 12 January 2023
sessions purposely [5–9].
Accepted: 17 January 2023
Among the exercises performed with intent to stimulate the upper limb muscles, the
Published: 19 January 2023
biceps curl is definitely one of the most common. Basically, a biceps curl consists of an
elbow flexion against an external resistance that, when constant, can be a dumbbell, a
barbell, a cable or a selectorized load on a gym device [10–15]. The biceps curl has its main
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
target in the elbow flexors, i.e., brachialis, brachioradialis and biceps brachii. However,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. while the first two are single-joint muscles, the biceps brachii can act as a wrist supinator
This article is an open access article and arm flexor [11,16]. Consequently, performing wrist supination and/or arm flexion, as
distributed under the terms and well as placing the wrist and/or the arm in a given position isometrically, can impact the
conditions of the Creative Commons biceps brachii excitation [11,15,17]. Moreover, the biceps curl can be performed unilaterally,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// e.g., using a dumbbell or cable alternating the limbs or performing a set with a given limb
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ first, or bilaterally, e.g., using two dumbbells simultaneously or a barbell. In the case of a
4.0/). bilateral biceps curl using a barbell, practitioners have two main options: the straight or

J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8010013 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jfmk

J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 2 of 11

the EZ barbell. The straight allows a supinated or pronated handgrip, while the handgrip
on the EZ barbell depends on its curvature and will be more neutral compared with a pure
supinated or pronated handgrip regardless.
The literature has previously investigated the excitation of the biceps curl prime
movers in a series of direct comparisons. For example, elbow flexion performed at different
arm flexion angles showed a greater biceps brachii excitation at the longer muscle, i.e., at
increased arm extension [15], as also reported in another study [17]. However, in these
studies the arm flexion was isometric but not dynamic, and in the practice the latter is
often performed, so the information about is scarce. In line with this, arm flexors such as
the anterior deltoid have not been extensively examined thus far. When comparing the
straight vs. the EZ barbell, the only previous study that has examined the difference in
biceps brachii excitation found no difference [12]. This study also split the exercise into
ascending and descending phases showing specific differences between the exercises [12].
The importance of investigating the two phases separately derives from the different acute
neural patterns [18–20], as well as the muscle damage and subsequent protective effects
when the descending phase is accentuated [21–23], in addition to long-term neural and
structural adaptations [24,25]. Moreover, when investigating muscle excitation in resistance
exercises, bodybuilders have shown a unique capacity to perform each repetition with a
consistent technique, making them suitable for this kind of study [26].
Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the muscle excitation of the biceps
brachii and anterior deltoid in different bilateral biceps curl variations, varying the barbell,
i.e., straight or EZ, and combining the barbell choice with performing or not performing
the arm flexion. To deepen the analysis, both the ascending and descending phase were
examined, and the biceps curl variations were performed by competitive bodybuilders.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design
The present investigation was designed as a cross-over, repeated-measures, within-
subject study and was conducted in line with previous studies from our laboratory [5–9].
The participants were involved in five different sessions (Figure 1). In the first session, the
participants were familiarized with the technique defined for each variation. In sessions
two and three in random order, the 8-RM [8] was determined for the biceps curl using
straight or EZ barbells, and for each barbell with or without the arm flexion. In the fourth
session, the participants were familiarized with the electrodes’ placement while performing
all the biceps curl variations. In the fifth session, the muscles’ maximum excitation was first
measured. Then, after a minimum of 30 min of passive recovery, the participants performed
a non-exhaustive set for each exercise in a random order, with an inter-set pause of 10 min.
Each session was separated by at least three days, and the participants were instructed to
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol.
avoid2023,
any8,further
x FOR PEER
formREVIEW
of resistance training for the entire duration of the investigation.
Overall, the present procedures were chosen to avoid any insurgence of fatigue, acute in
the range of minutes, or possible exercise-induced muscle damage in the range of days.

Figure 1. The study design.

Figure 1. The study design.
2.2. Participants
2.2. Participants
The present investigation was advertised by the investigators during some regional
The present
and national competitions, investigation
and to be included was
in theadvertised
study, the by the investigators
participants during some reg
had to compete
in regional competitions for a minimum of 5 years. Additionally, they had to beparticipants
and national competitions, and to be included in the study, the clini- h
compete in regional competitions for a minimum of 5 years. Additionally, they had
clinically healthy, without any reported history of upper-limb and lower-back m
injury or neurological or cardiovascular disease in the previous 12 months. To
possible confounding factors, the participants competed in the same weight cat
(Men’s Classic Bodybuilding < 80 kg, <1.70 m), according to the International Fede
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 3 of 11

cally healthy, without any reported history of upper-limb and lower-back muscle injury
or neurological or cardiovascular disease in the previous 12 months. To avoid possible
confounding factors, the participants competed in the same weight category (Men’s Classic
Bodybuilding < 80 kg, <1.70 m), according to the International Federation of Body Build-
ing Pro-League. The use of drugs or steroids is continuously monitored by a dedicated
authority under its regulations, removing the need for independent assessment in this
study. Thereafter, 10 male competitive bodybuilders (age 29.8 ± 3.0 years; body mass
77.9 ± 1.0 kg; stature 1.68 ± 0.01 m; training seniority 10.6 ± 1.8 years) were recruited for
the present procedures, in line with previous studies [6–9]. The participants were asked to
abstain from alcohol, caffeine or similar beverages in the 24 h preceding the test. After a
full explanation of the aims of the study and the experimental procedures, the participants
signed a written informed consent. They were also free to withdraw at any time. The
current design was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Università degli Studi di
Milano (CE 27/17) and performed following the Declaration of Helsinki (1964 and updates)
for studies involving human subjects. The individual in this manuscript has given written
informed consent to publish these case details.

2.3. Exercises Technique

The biceps curl variations were performed using a straight barbell (Technogym, Ce-
sena, Italy), or an EZ barbell (Technogym, Cesena, Italy). The technique of each exercise
is shown in Figures 1 and 2, and each exercise was performed standing. For the straight
barbell, the handgrip was supine with an inter-hand distance derived from the arms parallel
and the valgus of elbow, thus larger than the shoulder distance (Figure 2A). For the EZ
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12
barbell, the handgrip was orientated in a more neutral position following the EZ barbell
curvature, with an inter-hand distance of approximately shoulder width, depending on the
anthropometrics of each participant (Figure 2B).

Figure 2. The grip used for the straight (A) and the EZ barbell (B).
Figure 2. The grip used for the straight (A) and the EZ barbell (B).

Using either the straight or the EZ barbell, the biceps curl was performed not flexing
or flexing the humerus, for a total of four variations. Irrespective of the variation, and
following recent updates on appropriate descriptions of the resistance exercise technique
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 4 of 11

Using either the straight or the EZ barbell, the biceps curl was performed not flexing
or flexing the humerus, for a total of four variations. Irrespective of the variation, and
following recent updates on appropriate descriptions of the resistance exercise technique [4],
(i) the load was fixed as 8-RM, (ii) six repetitions were performed—not to failure—to avoid
fatigue, (iii) the action was performed with a full range of movement and (iv) with a tempo
of 1-2-1-2 s for the first isometric, the ascending, the second isometric and the descending
phase, respectively, so that (v) all dynamic phases were performed, while (vi) using an
external focus. In all four variations, the arms were close to the trunk. Notably, using the
barbell does not allow for a full elbow extension because the barbell will hit the thighs
during the descending phase, so the range of movement was stopped when the barbell
touched the thighs (Figure 3A). In the two variations in which the arms were not flexed
(straight or EZ barbell), the range of movement was based on the elbow flexion-extension
(Figure 3B). In the two variations which were flexed (straight or EZ barbell), this was
accompanied by a flexion of the arms (approximately 30◦ ) (Figure 3C). The participants
were instructed to avoid sagittal oscillations of the trunk or any movement of the lower
limbs
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. and
2023, 8, to exaggerate
x FOR the elevation of the scapulae, and the technique was checked by
PEER REVIEW
three operators. A visual feedback was provided to help the participants to follow the
tempo for each phase [5,9,27]. The set was repeated in case of disproportionate duration of
any phase, as for any disproportionate movement of the trunk or lower limbs.

Figure 3. For both the straight and the EZ barbell, the start of the movement (A) and the end of the
Figure
movement without (B)3.orFor both
with armthe straight
flexion (C).and the EZ barbell, the start of the movement (A) and the en
movement without (B) or with arm flexion (C).

2.4. 8-RM Protocol

The 8-RM was assessed using the same exercise technique described above, fol
previous procedures [8]. Briefly, after a standardized warm-up consisting of 3 × 1
titions of the biceps curl exercise using three incremental self-selected loads, the 8-R
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 5 of 11

2.4. 8-RM Protocol

The 8-RM was assessed using the same exercise technique described above, following
previous procedures [8]. Briefly, after a standardized warm-up consisting of 3 × 15 rep-
etitions of the biceps curl exercise using three incremental self-selected loads, the 8-RM
was determined incrementing the load until the eighth repetition corresponded to failure,
defined as the incapacity to perform the ascending phase [28]. Each attempt was separated
by at least 3 min of passive recovery. Strong standardized encouragements were provided
to the participants to maximally perform each trial.

2.5. Maximum Voluntary Isometric Excitation

The maximal voluntary isometric excitation of the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid
was measured in random order following the SENIAM (surface electromyography for
the non-invasive assessment of muscles) procedures [29]. The electrodes’ (mod H124SG
Kendall ARBO; diameter: 10 mm; inter-electrodes distance: 20 mm; Kendall, Donau,
Germany) placement was in line with the SENIAM recommendations [29]. The electrodes
were equipped with a probe (probe mass: 8.5 g, BTS Inc., Milano, Italy) that permitted the
detection and transfer of the surface electromyography (sEMG) signal by wireless modality.
The sEMG signal was acquired at 1000 Hz, amplified (gain: 2000, the impedance and the
common rejection mode ratio of the equipment are >1015 Ω//0.2 pF and 60/10 Hz 92 dB,
respectively) and driven to a wireless electromyographic system (FREEEMG 300, BTS
Inc., Milano, Italy) that digitized (1000 Hz) and filtered (filter type: IV-order Butterworth
filter, band-pass 10–500 Hz) the raw sEMG signals. The electrodes were placed on the
dominant limb.
The sEMG electrodes for the biceps brachii were placed on the line between the
medial acromion and the fossa at 1/3 from the fossa cubit [29]. The participants were then
instructed to flex the elbow with the hand supinated against manual resistance [29]. The
sEMG electrodes for the anterior deltoid were placed over the mid-belly of the muscle
approximately 4 cm below the clavicle [29]. The participants were then instructed to flex the
elbow to 90◦ so that the hand was pointed upwards and asked to make a closed fist with the
hand of the flexed arm and to provide maximal force to produce shoulder flexion against
manual resistance [8]. Each attempt lasted 5 s, and three attempts were completed for each
movement interspersed by 3 min of passive recovery [6,8]. The operators provided strong
standardized verbal encouragements. In line with previous procedures, the electrodes were
placed on the dominant limb [6,9,27].
To check for the appropriate electrode placements, the innervation zone shifts dur-
ing movements for each muscle were checked by means of an 8 × 8 semi-disposable
high-density electrodes matrix for sEMG detection (GR10MM0808 model, inter-electrode
distance of 10 mm, OtBiolettronica Turin, Italy), in line with previous procedures [5]. The
sEMG signal was acquired by a multichannel amplifier (EMG-USB model, OtBioelettronica,
Turin, Italy; input impedance of >90 MΩ; CMRR of >96 dB; EMG bandwidth of 10–500;
gain of 1000×). From the analysis of the sEMG signal, the innervation zone was identi-
fied, and the muscle area involved in the innervation zone shift during the exercises was
avoided. Thereafter, the high-density electrode matrix was removed and replaced by the
rounded electrodes.

2.6. Data Analysis

The sEMG signals from both the peak value recorded during the maximum voluntary
isometric activation and from the ascending and descending phases of each exercise were
analyzed in the time-domain, using a 25-ms mobile window for the computation of the
root mean square (RMS). For the maximum voluntary isometric activation, the average
of the RMS corresponding to the central 2 s was considered. During each exercise, the
RMS was calculated and averaged over the 2 s of the ascending and descending phase. To
identify the ascending and the descending phase, the sEMG was synchronized with an
integrated camera (VixtaCam 30 Hz, BTS Inc., Milano, Italy) that provided the duration of
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 6 of 11

each phase [8,9,27]. Such a duration was used to mark the start and end of each phase while
analyzing the sEMG signal. The sEMG data were averaged excluding the first and the last
repetition of each set, to achieve a more consistent technique and decrease the interference
of fatigue [30]. Afterward, the sEMG RMS of each muscle during each exercise was
normalized (nRMS) for its respective maximum voluntary isometric activation [6,8,9,27]
and inserted into the data analysis.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using a statistical software (SPSS 22.0, IBM,
Armonk, NY, USA). The normality of data was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test and all
distributions were normal (p > 0.05). Descriptive statistics (participants = 10) are shown
as the mean (SD). The differences in the nRMS were separately calculated for the biceps
brachii and anterior deltoid using a barbell (2 levels: straight and EZ) x arm flexion (2 levels:
arms flexed and not flexed) x phase (2 levels: ascending and descending phase) repeated-
measures ANOVA. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni’s correction
and reported as mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Significance was
set at α < 0.05. The magnitude of the interactions was calculated using partial eta squared
(η p 2 ) and interpreted as trivial (up to 0.009), small (0.010 to 0.059), medium (0.060 to 0.139)
and large (≥0.140) [31]. The pairwise differences are reported as the mean with a 95%
confidence interval with Cohen’s d effect size (ES), and ES was interpreted according
to Hopkins’ recommendations: 0.00–0.19: trivial; 0.20–0.59: small: 0.60–1.19: moderate;
1.20–1.99: large; ≥2.00: very large [32].

3. Results
Figure 4 shows the nRMS found in the biceps brachii. A significant and large barbell
x flexion x phase interaction was observed (F1,9 = 5.477, p = 0.044, η p 2 = 0.378). During
the ascending phase, a greater nRMS was observed when the arms were not flexed using
the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+1.8%, +0.6% to +2.9%, ES: 0.74). Moreover, a
greater nRMS was observed when flexing vs. not flexing the arms using both the straight
(+17.7%, +13.3% to +22.2%, ES: 3.93) and the EZ barbell (+20.3%, +16.8% to +23.8%, ES: 5.87).
During the descending phase, a greater nRMS was observed when the arms were flexed
using the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+3.8%, +0.1% to 7.5%, ES: 1.15). Moreover,
a greater nRMS was observed when not flexing vs. flexing the arms using both the straight
(+2.8%, +0.2% to 5.4%, ES: 0.86) and the EZ barbell (+8.1%, +4.8% to +11.4%, ES: 1.81). The
nRMS was greater (p < 0.05) during the ascending than the descending phase whatever the
exercise variation.
Figure 5 shows the nRMS found in the anterior deltoid. A non-significant but large
barbell x flexion x phase interaction was observed (F1,9 = 4.284, p = 0.068, η p 2 = 0.322).
However, significant and large barbell x flexion (F1,9 = 126.323, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.990 large)
and flexion x phase interactions (F1,9 = 711.0.36, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.988 large) were observed.
During the ascending phase, a greater nRMS was observed when the arms were not flexed
using the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+5.8%, +3.7% to +7.9%, ES: 2.91) and
when the arms were flexed using the EZ compared with the straight barbell (+10.8%, +6.2%
to +15.4%, ES: 2.34). During the descending phase, a greater nRMS was observed when
the arms were not flexed using the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+2.3%, +0.5% to
+4.6%, ES: 0.96) and when the arms were flexed using the EZ compared with the straight
barbell (+9.0%, +7.5% to +10.5%, ES: 3.15). The nRMS was greater when flexing compared
with not flexing the arms (p < 0.05) and during the ascending than the descending phase
(p < 0.05) whatever the exercise variation.
 (+17.7%, +13.3% to +22.2%, ES: 3.93) and the EZ barbell (+20.3%, +16.8% to +23.8%, ES:
5.87). During the descending phase, a greater nRMS was observed when the arms were
flexed using the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+3.8%, +0.1% to 7.5%, ES: 1.15).
Moreover, a greater nRMS was observed when not flexing vs. flexing the arms using both
the straight (+2.8%, +0.2% to 5.4%, ES: 0.86) and the EZ barbell (+8.1%, +4.8% to +11.4%,
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13ES: 1.81). The nRMS was greater (p < 0.05) during the ascending than the descending phase
7 of 11
whatever the exercise variation.

J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12

compared
Figure
Figure4.4.Thewith
The nRMSnotfor
nRMS flexing
for
thethethe
bicepsarms
biceps (p <is0.05)
brachii
brachii anda:during
is shown.
shown. p <the
p <a:0.05 ascending
0.05
vs. vs.
the EZthe than
EZ #: the
barbell;
barbell; descend-
#: p
p < 0.05 vs.< flexing
0.05 vs.
ing
the phase
arms; *:(p
p <
< 0.05)
0.05 whatever
vs. the the exercise
descending phase. variation.
flexing the arms; *: p < 0.05 vs. the descending phase.

Figure 5 shows the nRMS found in the anterior deltoid. A non-significant but large
barbell x flexion x phase interaction was observed (F1,9 = 4.284, p = 0.068, 𝜂p2 = 0.322). How-
ever, significant and large barbell x flexion (F1,9 = 126.323, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.990 large) and
flexion x phase interactions (F1,9 = 711.0.36, p < 0.001, 𝜂p2 = 0.988 large) were observed.
During the ascending phase, a greater nRMS was observed when the arms were not flexed
using the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+5.8%, +3.7% to +7.9%, ES: 2.91) and
when the arms were flexed using the EZ compared with the straight barbell (+10.8%,
+6.2% to +15.4%, ES: 2.34). During the descending phase, a greater nRMS was observed
when the arms were not flexed using the straight compared with the EZ barbell (+2.3%,
+0.5% to +4.6%, ES: 0.96) and when the arms were flexed using the EZ compared with the
straight barbell (+9.0%, +7.5% to +10.5%, ES: 3.15). The nRMS was greater when flexing

Figure ThenRMS
Figure5.5.The nRMS forfor
thethe anterior
anterior deltoid
deltoid is shown.
is shown. p <vs.
a: p <a:0.05 0.05
thevs.
EZthe EZ barbell;
barbell; p < 0.05 vs.
#: vs.
#: p < 0.05
flexing
flexingthe
thearms;
arms;*:*:p p< <
0.05 vs.vs.
0.05 thethe
descending
descendingphase.
phase.

4.Discussion
4. Discussion
Thepresent
The presentstudy
studywas
wasconceived
conceivedto toinvestigate
investigatethe
theexcitation
excitationofofthe
the biceps
biceps brachii
brachii and
anterior
and deltoid
anterior in different
deltoid biceps
in different barbell
biceps curl
barbell variations,
curl variations,exploring
exploringthe theeffects
effects of
of different
dif-
ferent barbells
barbells (straight
(straight or and
or EZ), EZ), different
and different techniques
techniques (flexing
(flexing or not
or not flexing
flexing thethe arms)
arms) during
during both
both the the ascending
ascending and descending
and descending phases.
phases. TheThe straightbarbells
straight barbellsinduced
induced a mod-
moderate
erate increase
increase in biceps
in biceps brachii
brachii excitation
excitation compared
compared with
with thethe
EZEZ barbell,while
barbell, whileflexing
flexingthe
thearms
arms induced
induced very very
largelarge increases
increases during
during the ascending
the ascending phase.
phase. Interestingly,
Interestingly, thethe biceps
biceps brachii
brachii wasexcited
was more more excited
when notwhen not flexing
flexing vs. flexing
vs. flexing the armstheduring
arms during the descending
the descending phase. As
phase. As concerns
concerns the deltoid,
the anterior anterior deltoid, the straight
the straight barbell barbell
induced induced more excitation
more excitation com- with
compared
pared with the EZ barbell when not flexing the arms and—in contrast—less excitation
when flexing the arms. The anterior deltoid was more excited when flexing vs. not flexing
the arms, and both the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid were more excited during the
ascending vs. the descending phase. Accordingly, the overall findings highlighted that
both the barbell and the arm flexion stimulate the biceps curl prime movers differently.
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 8 of 11

the EZ barbell when not flexing the arms and—in contrast—less excitation when flexing
the arms. The anterior deltoid was more excited when flexing vs. not flexing the arms,
and both the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid were more excited during the ascending
vs. the descending phase. Accordingly, the overall findings highlighted that both the
barbell and the arm flexion stimulate the biceps curl prime movers differently. Many novel
aspects of the study design, i.e., the examination of the excitation of the anterior deltoid,
the comparison between active arm flexion vs. no flexion and the population recruited
are quite novel in the literature; thus, when no comparison could be made, we provided
anatomical and biomechanical explanations for the present results.
The straight vs. EZ barbell allows for a more supinated grip, so as to theoretically favor
the biceps brachii which is a wrist supinator. However, such a theoretical superiority was
only visible during the ascending phase when not flexing the arms and during the descend-
ing phase when flexing the arms, and in both cases to only a moderate extent. A previous
study reported mostly equivalent biceps brachii excitation when directly comparing the
two barbells, also observing no difference in the brachioradialis excitation [12]. The slight
discrepancy between this and the present study may depend on both the load selected (60%
1-RM vs. 8-RM, respectively) and the participants’ backgrounds (3-yrs training experience
vs. competitive bodybuilders, respectively). However, while the supination recall for
greater biceps brachii excitation while flexing the elbow compared with the other two
elbow flexors brachioradialis and brachialis [16], it is possible that the dissimilar design be-
tween the straight and the EZ barbell might be not marked enough to highlight systematic
differences in biceps brachii excitation when the wrist is supinated or almost supinated.
While acknowledging that the non-significant barbell x flexion x phase interaction,
albeit with a large effect size, may derive from the limited sample size, the anterior deltoid
showed an interesting behavior as the factor of flexion appears to produce curious conse-
quences. Indeed, when not flexing the arms, a greater excitation was observed using the
straight vs. EZ barbell in both the ascending (ES: very large) and descending (ES: moderate)
phases. On the contrary, when flexing the arms, the anterior deltoid was more excited
using the EZ vs. straight barbell in both the ascending (ES: very large) and descending (ES:
very large) phases. Performing the biceps curl with the handgrip we chose as the technique
for the straight barbell, i.e., larger than the shoulders, forces the humerus to be greatly
externally rotated compared with the external rotation necessary to grip the EZ barbell.
Consequently, the anterior deltoid is much lengthened as it acts as an internal humerus
rotator [33]. The EMG signal appears to be sensitive to the muscle elongation, with a
greater signal observed at the longer muscle length [34]. Therefore, the greater external
rotation of the humerus without any other movement, i.e., when not flexing the arms, may
explain the greater excitation of the anterior deltoid using the straight vs. EZ barbell. In
contrast, flexing the arms greatly engages the anterior deltoid as the prime mover [33]. The
non-excessive external rotation using the EZ barbell may place the anterior deltoid in a
more favorable moment arm [33], recreating the “full can” position of the lateral raises [8].
This may explain the greater nRMS recorded during using the EZ vs. straight barbell.
When flexing the arms, the biceps brachii was more excited during the ascending
(ES: very large) and less excited during the descending phase (ES: moderate to large)
compared with not flexing the arms. In contrast, the anterior deltoid was markedly more
excited when flexing vs. not flexing the arms. During the ascending phase, the barbell must
be accelerated by the prime movers, and flexing the arms creates the context to emphasize
the work by the arm flexors, i.e., the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid in the case of the
present study. It may be argued that during the descending phase, the movement is mainly
controlled by an eccentric movement of the elbow flexors when the arms are not flexed,
while the inertia of the barbell requires a more collaborative control of the elbow and arm
flexors when returning from the biceps curl performed flexing the arms. Nonetheless, the
role of other important arm flexors such as the pectoralis major with its clavicular head
was not examined, and as such it is not possible to assert what role each arm flexor may
have had. Notably, the electrodes’ placement following the SENIAM recommendations did
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 9 of 11

not allow us to distinguish the short and the long head of the biceps brachii [29,35], so the
nRMS recorded here must be intended for biceps brachii as a whole, including its role in
both elbow and arm flexion.
The nRMS of both the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid were greater during the
ascending compared with the descending phase, whatever the biceps curl variation. The
neuromuscular uniqueness of the eccentric vs. concentric contraction [18–20], and the
additional use of the semi-passive and passive sarcomeres proteins [36–38], make the
eccentric contraction less expensive, with a lower nRMS recorded for a given load [39].
Therefore, using a constant external load is a sub-stimulus for the eccentric phase, since
it is tailored on the concentric capacity [40]. However, the present results show that the
biceps curl variations examined may have different neural patterns during the ascending or
descending phase, so it would be relevant to plan all of them in resistance training practice.
Some limitations accompany the present investigation. First, the excitation of the
brachioradialis was not recorded and would have provided deeper information about the
role of the elbow flexors. However, we followed the SENIAM recommendations, which
do not include the brachioradialis among the muscles clearly assessable by sEMG. Second,
we did not record the excitation of the pectoralis major, and this would have deepened
the aspects concerning the arm flexion. Third, the present results refer to the present
population and sample size and the detailed technique we used, and hence they should
not be generalized. Last, we are aware that the biceps curl includes many more variations
that remain to be examined.

5. Conclusions
The present study examined the excitation of the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid in
different bilateral biceps barbell curl variations. While the straight barbell appears slightly
advantageous compared with the EZ barbell as concerns the biceps brachii excitation, the
anterior deltoid was more excited using the straight barbell when not flexing the arms,
and more using the EZ barbell when flexing the arms. The arm flexion induced a greater
excitation of the anterior deltoid, while the biceps brachii was more excited during the
ascending phase, and less excited during the descending phase. Lastly, the ascending phase
excited the biceps brachii and anterior deltoid more than the descending phase.
In training practice, inserting different bilateral biceps barbell curl variations may be
considered to stimulate the prime movers differently. The combination of different barbells
and flexing/not flexing the arms can be used to vary the neuromuscular and mechanical
stimuli to the prime movers and to stimulate the prime movers in different ways. Moreover,
the ascending and descending phases appear to have different neural schemes and may be
performed together, or even separately with a tailored load for each one.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.C., F.E. and E.C.; methodology, G.T. and S.L.; formal
analysis, G.T.; data curation, G.T. and S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.C.; writing—review
and editing, G.C., G.T., S.L., F.E. and E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Università degli Studi di Milano (protocol
code CE 27/17 approved June 2017).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this
study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available on request to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the participants that volunteered for the present
investigation. The authors also thank Riccardo Padovan for his help in reviewing the literature.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 10 of 11

References
1. Suchomel, T.J.; Nimphius, S.; Bellon, C.R.; Stone, M.H. The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations. Sports
Med. 2018, 48, 765–785. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Duchateau, J.; Stragier, S.; Baudry, S.; Carpentier, A. Strength Training: In Search of Optimal Strategies to Maximize Neuromuscular
Performance. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2021, 49, 2–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Morton, R.W.; Colenso-Semple, L.; Phillips, S.M. Training for strength and hypertrophy: An evidence-based approach. Curr. Opin.
Physiol. 2019, 10, 90–95. [CrossRef]
4. Coratella, G. Appropriate reporting of exercise variables in resistance training protocols: Much more than load and number of
repetitions. Sport. Med.-Open 2022, 8, 99. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.; Longo, S.; Esposito, F.; Cè, E. An electromyographic analysis of Romanian, step-Romanian, and
stiff-leg deadlift: Implication for resistance training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1903. [CrossRef]
6. Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.; Longo, S.; Esposito, F.; Cè, E. Specific prime movers’ excitation during free-weight bench press
variations and chest press machine in competitive bodybuilders. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2020, 20, 571–579. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.; Longo, S.; Esposito, F. Front vs Back and Barbell vs Machine Overhead Press : An Electromyographic
Analysis and Implications For Resistance Training. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 825880. [CrossRef]
8. Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.; Longo, S.; Esposito, F.; Cè, E. An electromyographic analysis of lateral raise variations and frontal
raise in competitive bodybuilders. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6015. [CrossRef]
9. Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.; Caccavale, F.; Longo, S.; Esposito, F.; Cè, E. The Activation of Gluteal, Thigh, and Lower Back Muscles
in Different Squat Variations Performed by Competitive Bodybuilders : Implications for Resistance Training. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2021, 18, 772. [CrossRef]
10. Nunes, J.P.; Jacinto, J.L.; Ribeiro, A.S.; Mayhew, J.L.; Nakamura, M.; Capel, D.M.G.; Santos, L.R.; Santos, L.; Cyrino, E.S.; Aguiar,
A.F. Placing greater torque at shorter or longer muscle lengths? Effects of cable vs. barbell preacher curl training on muscular
strength and hypertrophy in young adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5859. [CrossRef]
11. Moon, J.; Shin, I.; Kang, M.; Kim, Y.; Lee, K.; Park, J.; Kim, K.; Hong, D.; Koo, D.; O’Sullivan, D. The effect of shoulder flexion
angles on the recruitment of upper-extremity muscles during isometric contraction. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2013, 25, 1299–1301.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Marcolin, G.; Panizzolo, F.A.; Petrone, N.; Moro, T.; Grigoletto, D.; Piccolo, D.; Paoli, A. Differences in electromyographic activity
of biceps brachii and brachioradialis while performing three variants of curl. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5165. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Cools, A.M.; Borms, D.; Cottens, S.; Himpe, M.; Meersdom, S.; Cagnie, B. Rehabilitation exercises for athletes with biceps
disorders and SLAP lesions: A continuum of exercises with increasing loads on the biceps. Am. J. Sport. Med. 2014, 42, 1315–1322.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Yasuda, T.; Loenneke, J.; Ogasawara, R.; Abe, T. Influence of continuous or intermittent blood flow restriction on muscle activation
during low-intensity multiple sets of resistance exercise. Acta Physiol. Hung. 2013, 100, 419–426. [CrossRef]
15. Oliveira, L.F.; Matta, T.T.; Alves, D.S.; Garcia, M.A.C.; Vieira, T.M.M. Effect of the shoulder position on the biceps brachii EMG in
different dumbbell curls. J. Sport. Sci. Med. 2009, 8, 24–29.
16. Naito, A. Electrophysiological studies of muscles in the human upper limb: The biceps brachii. Anat. Sci. Int. 2004, 79, 11–20.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Oliveira, A.S.; Gonçalves, M. Positioning during resistance elbow flexor exercise affects electromyographic activity, heart rate,
and perceived exertion. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 854–862. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Enoka, R.M. Eccentric contraction require unique activation strategies by the nervous system. J. Appl. Physiol. 1996, 81, 2339–2346.
[CrossRef]
19. Duchateau, J.; Enoka, R.M. Neural control of shortening and lengthening contractions: Influence of task constraints. J. Physiol.
2008, 586, 5853–5864. [CrossRef]
20. Duchateau, J.; Enoka, R.M. Neural control of lengthening contractions. J. Exp. Biol. 2016, 219, 197–204. [CrossRef]
21. Coratella, G.; Chemello, A.; Schena, F. Muscle damage and repeated bout effect induced by enhanced eccentric squats. J. Sport
Med. Phys. Fit. 2016, 56, 1540–1546.
22. Coratella, G.; Bertinato, L. Isoload vs isokinetic eccentric exercise: A direct comparison of exercise-induced muscle damage and
repeated bout effect. Sport Sci. Health 2015, 11, 87–96. [CrossRef]
23. Gibala, M.J.; MacDougall, J.D.; Tarnopolsky, M.A.; Stauber, W.T.; Elorriaga, A. Changes in human skeletal muscle ultrastructure
and force production after acute resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1995, 78, 702–708. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Coratella, G.; Beato, M.; Bertinato, L.; Milanese, C.; Venturelli, M.; Schena, F. Including the Eccentric Phase in Resistance Training
to Counteract the Effects of Detraining in Women : A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 3023–3031.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Coratella, G.; Milanese, C.; Schena, F. Unilateral eccentric resistance training: A direct comparison between isokinetic and
dynamic constant external resistance modalities. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2015, 15, 720–726. [CrossRef]
26. Maeo, S.; Takahashi, T.; Takai, Y.; Kanehisa, H. Trainability of Muscular Activity Level during Maximal Voluntary Co-Contraction:
Comparison between Bodybuilders and Nonathletes. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79486. [CrossRef]
27. Coratella, G.; Tornatore, G.; Longo, S.; Borrelli, M.; Doria, C.; Esposito, F.; Cè, E. The Effects of Verbal Instructions on Lower Limb
Muscles ’ Excitation in Back-Squat. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2020, 93, 429–435. [CrossRef]
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 13 11 of 11

28. Kompf, J.; Arandjelović, O. Understanding and Overcoming the Sticking Point in Resistance Exercise. Sports Med. 2016, 46,
751–762. [CrossRef]
29. Hermens, H.J.; Freriks, B.; Disselhorst-Klug, C.; Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor
placement procedures. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2000, 10, 361–374. [CrossRef]
30. Marri, K.; Swaminathan, R. Analyzing the influence of curl speed in fatiguing biceps brachii muscles using sEMG signals and
multifractal detrended moving average algorithm. Proc. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. EMBS 2016, 2016, 3658–3661.
[CrossRef]
31. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988.
32. Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise
Science. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–13. [CrossRef]
33. Escamilla, R.F.; Yamashiro, K.; Paulos, L.; Andrews, J.R. Shoulder muscle activity and function in common shoulder rehabilitation
exercises. Sports Med. 2009, 39, 663–685. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Alves, D.; Matta, T.; Oliveira, L. Effect of shoulder position on triceps brachii heads activity in dumbbell elbow extension exercises.
J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2018, 58, 1247–1252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Hermens, H.J.; Freriks, B.; Merletti, R.; Stegeman, D.; Blok, J.; Rau, G.; Disselhorst-Klug, C.; Hägg, G. European Recommendations
for Surface ElectroMyoGraphy Results of the SENIAM project. Roessingh Res. Dev. 2000, 10, 361–374.
36. Herzog, W. Why are muscles strong, and why do they require little energy in eccentric action? J. Sport Health Sci. 2018, 7, 255–264.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Herzog, W. Mechanisms of enhanced force production in lengthening (eccentric) muscle contractions. J. Appl. Physiol. 2014, 116,
1407–1417. [CrossRef]
38. Herzog, W.; Powers, K.; Johnston, K.; Duvall, M. A new paradigm for muscle contraction. Front. Physiol. 2015, 6, 174. [CrossRef]
39. Fang, Y.; Siemionow, V.; Sahgal, V.; Xiong, F.; Yue, G.H. Greater movement-related cortical potential during human eccentric
versus concentric muscle contractions. J. Neurophysiol. 2001, 86, 1764–1772. [CrossRef]
40. Coratella, G.; Schena, F. Eccentric resistance training increases and retains maximal strength, muscle endurance, and hypertrophy
in trained men. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, 1184–1189. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.