## 3 Results  
The ANOVA showed a significant main effect of exercise on EMG activity (F(4.03,76.65) = 26.06, \(p<0.001\); np2 = 0.58). The barbell pullover exercise, at a 100% biacromial width, presented a statistically higher EMG activity (\(p\leq 0.01\)) than the straight arm pulldown exercises at 100% and 150% biacromial widths in all muscles except for the Italissums dorsi, which reported a significantly lower EMG activity (\(p\leq 0.001\)), and the triceps brachii, which did not show any significant differences among the exercises (\(p>0.05\)) (Figure 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Muscle** & **Concentric** & **Eccentric** & **Mean Difference (95\% CI)** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(d\)**-Cohen** \\ \hline PMUP & 165.23 \(\pm\) 59.20 & 118.93 \(\pm\) 51.77 & 46.30 \(\pm\) 32.51 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.42 \\ PMMP & 159.86 \(\pm\) 57.10 & 125.38 \(\pm\) 52.49 & 34.47 \(\pm\) 31.57 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.09 \\ PMLP & 191.97 \(\pm\) 61.74 & 143.11 \(\pm\) 44.49 & 48.86 \(\pm\) 41.08 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.18 \\ LD & 54.12 \(\pm\) 14.04 & 39.33 \(\pm\) 13.48 & 14.78 \(\pm\) 11.60 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.27 \\ AD & 67.50 \(\pm\) 29.45 & 45.26 \(\pm\) 20.74 & 22.23 \(\pm\) 24.12 & 0.001 & 0.92 \\ TB & 460.75 \(\pm\) 250.66 & 401.97 \(\pm\) 194.35 & 58.77 \(\pm\) 99.56 & 0.016 & 0.59 \\ RA & 155.70 \(\pm\) 132.21 & 137.20 \(\pm\) 83.06 & 18.50 \(\pm\) 66.50 & 0.029 & 0.27 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of EMG activity (expressed in \(\mu\)V) during the concentric and eccentric phases in the pullover exercise. Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Muscle** & **Concentric** & **Eccentric** & **Mean Difference (95\% CI)** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(d\)**-Cohen** \\ \hline PMUP & 57.07 \(\pm\) 23.96 & 35.41 \(\pm\) 12.29 & 21.66 \(\pm\) 14.86 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.45 \\ PMMP & 62.95 \(\pm\) 41.31 & 31.03 \(\pm\) 21.16 & 31.91 \(\pm\) 24.90 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.28 \\ PMLP & 104.46 \(\pm\) 90.94 & 52.47 \(\pm\) 39.98 & 51.98 \(\pm\) 55.71 & 0.001 & 0.93 \\ LD & 151.26 \(\pm\) 65.13 & 92.97 \(\pm\) 32.49 & 58.28 \(\pm\) 40.12 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.45 \\ AD & 37.56 \(\pm\) 14.21 & 27.96 \(\pm\) 9.45 & 9.60 \(\pm\) 7.17 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.33 \\ TB & 711.28 \(\pm\) 368.72 & 374.58 \(\pm\) 151.76 & 336.70 \(\pm\) 246.70 & \(<\)0.001 & 1.36 \\ RA & 82.45 \(\pm\) 108.31 & 42.51 \(\pm\) 36.93 & 39.93 \(\pm\) 74.74 & 0.027 & 0.53 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of EMG activity (expressed in \(\mu\)V) during the concentric and eccentric phases in the straight arm pulldown exercise at 100% biacromil width. Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD). Figure 2: Comparison of the EMG activity among the evaluated exercises: pullover and straight arm pulldown (expressed in %MVIC). PMUP—pectoralis major upper portion; PMMP—pectoralis major middle portion; PMLP—pectoralis major lower portion; LD—latissimus dorsi; AD—interior deltoid; TB—latissimus dorsi; AD—interior deltoid; TB—läcips brachii; RA—rectus abdominis. **\(p<\)0.01; ***\(p<\)0.001. When comparing the EMG activity of each muscle in each exercise, the ANOVA showed that in the barbell pullover exercise, at a 100% biacromial width, the PMMP, PMLP, TB, and RA showed the highest EMG activity. In the straight arm pulldown exercises at 100% and 150% biacromial widths, the greatest EMG activity appeared in the LD and TB muscles. The AD showed the lowest EMG activity in the three evaluated exercises (Figure 3).