The surface electromyogram (EMG) comprises the sum of the electrical contributions made by the active motor units to the interference signal detected by electrodes placed on the skin overlying the muscle. Because it provides a global measure of motor unit activity, this signal is a valuable tool for assessing the level of muscle activation.The analysis of the surface EMG in the frequency domain has been used in some instances, such as fatiguing contractions, to provide an indirect measure of the relative changes in average muscle fiber conduction velocity (19) or in the profile of the intracellular action potential (6). In addition to these applications, the spectral characteristics of the surface EMG have been used to infer motor unit recruitment strategies and the fiber-type composition of a muscle. Higher characteristic spectral frequencies are associated with a greater proportion of type II fibers (20, 21) and changes in EMG spectral variables are used to infer the recruitment of faster or slower motor units (3,26).The capacity of surface EMG spectral properties to provide information about motor unit recruitment or the proportion of fiber types is based on the rationale that higher threshold (and type II) motor units produce surface action potentials with larger relative energy at higher frequencies than lower threshold (and type I) motor units.Because in these applications the main determinant of the frequency content of an action potential is assumed to be its conduction velocity (28), the crucial issue in this debate is the validity of two assumptions: 1) average conduction velocity of the active motor units is related to fiber-type proportions, and 2) changes in the spectral properties of the surface EMG are associated with changes in average conduction velocity.Fiber-type composition and average muscle fiber conduction velocity. There are several physiological details that confound this association. First, the two main fiber types do not have distinct conduction velocities in humans, but rather conduction velocity has a continuous distribution with a single peak (25). Second, average conduction velocity of muscle fiber action potentials can differ among populations of motor units due to differences in fiber diameter and independent of changes in fiber-type proportions (4). Third, the number of muscle fibers innervated by a motor unit has a skewed distribution. For example, the first dorsal interosseus muscle comprises an equal number of type I and II fibers, but ϳ84% of the motor units have slow contraction times and are fatigue resistant (7). Fourth, the conduction velocity of muscle fiber action potentials can change by ϳ20% with variation in discharge rate (24) and the range of discharge rates varies with recruitment threshold in a population of motor units (2). Fifth, the conduction velocity of muscle fiber action potentials varies with fiber length (15).Experimental evidence: fiber-type composition vs. muscle fiber conduction velocity. The significance of the physiological limitations discussed in...