Surface electromyography (sEMG) is a popular research tool in sport and rehabilitation sciences. Common study designs include the comparison of sEMG amplitudes collected from different muscles as participants perform various exercises and techniques under different loads. Based on such comparisons, researchers attempt to draw conclusions concerning the neuro- and electrophysiological underpinning of force production and hypothesize about possible longitudinal adaptations, such as strength and hypertrophy. However, such conclusions are frequently unsubstantiated and unwarranted. Hence, the goal of this review is to discuss what can and cannot be inferred from comparative research designs as it pertains to both the acute and longitudinal outcomes. General methodological recommendations are made, gaps in the literature are identified, and lines for future research to help improve the applicability of sEMG are suggested.

While the NLMF literature is conflicting, certain variables appear to affect NLMF responses which can account for some of the discrepancies. Furthermore, the NLMF effects may be attributed to four different but interconnected pathways: neurological, biochemical, biomechanical and psychological.

Verbal instructions play a key role in motor learning and performance. Whereas directing one's attention toward bodily movements or muscles (internal focus) tends to hinder performance, instructing persons to focus on the movement outcome, or an external object related to the performed task (external focus) enhances performance. The study's purpose was to examine whether focus of attention affects maximal force production during an isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) among 18 trained athletes (8F & 10M). Athletes performed 3 IMTP trials a day for 3 consecutive days. The first day was a familiarization session in which athlete's received only control instructions. The following 2 days athletes received either control, internal, or external focus of attention instructions in a randomized, within-subject design. Compared to performance with an internal focus of attention, athletes applied 9% greater force when using an external focus of attention (p < 0.001, effect size [ES] = 0.33) and 5% greater force with control instructions (p = 0.001, ES = 0.28). A small positive 3% advantage was observed between performances with an external focus of attention compared with control instructions (p = 0.03, ES = 0.13). Focusing internally on body parts and/or muscle groups during a movement task that requires maximal force hinders performance, whereas focusing on an object external to the self leads to enhanced force production, even when using a simple multijoint static task such as the IMTP.