Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular activation during bench press exercise

This study compared the muscular activation of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid and triceps brachii during a free-weight barbell bench press performed at 0°, 30°, 45° and –15° bench angles. Fourteen healthy resistance trained males (age 21.4 ± 0.4 years) participated in this study. One set of six repetitions for each bench press conditions at 65% one repetition maximum were performed. Surface electromyography (sEMG) was utilised to examine the muscular activation of the selected muscles during the eccentric and concentric phases. In addition, each phase was subdivided into 25% contraction durations, resulting in four separate time points for comparison between bench conditions. The sEMG of upper pectoralis displayed no difference during any of the bench conditions when examining the complete concentric contraction, however differences during 26–50% contraction duration were found for both the 30° [122.5 ± 10.1% maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)] and 45° (124 ± 9.1% MVIC) bench condition, resulting in greater sEMG compared to horizontal (98.2 ± 5.4% MVIC) and –15 (96.1 ± 5.5% MVIC). The sEMG of lower pectoralis was greater during –15° (100.4 ± 5.7% MVIC), 30° (86.6 ± 4.8% MVIC) and horizontal (100.1 ± 5.2% MVIC) bench conditions compared to the 45° (71.9 ± 4.5% MVIC) for the whole concentric contraction. The results of this study support the use of a horizontal bench to achieve muscular activation of both the upper and lower heads of the pectoralis. However, a bench incline angle of 30° or 45° resulted in greater muscular activation during certain time points, suggesting that it is important to consider how muscular activation is affected at various time points when selecting bench press exercises.     

A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements

The purpose of this study was to compare one-repetition maximum (1-RM) and muscle activity in three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements (Smith machine, barbell, and dumbbells). Twelve healthy, resistance-trained males (age 22.7 ± 1.7 years, body mass 78.6 ± 7.6 kg, stature 1.80 ± 0.06 m) were tested for 1-RM of the three chest-press exercises in counterbalanced order with 3-5 days of rest between the exercises. One-repetition maximum and electromyographic activity of the pectoralis major, deltoid anterior, biceps, and triceps brachii were recorded in the exercises. The dumbbell load was 14% less than that for the Smith machine (P ≤ 0.001, effect size [ES] = 1.05) and 17% less than that for the barbell (P ≤ 0.001, ES = 1.11). The barbell load was ～3% higher than that for the Smith machine (P = 0.016, ES = 0.18). Electrical activity in the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid did not differ during the lifts. Electrical activity in the biceps brachii increased with stability requirements (i.e. Smith machine 相似文献   

A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare one-repetition maximum (1-RM) and muscle activity in three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements (Smith machine, barbell, and dumbbells). Twelve healthy, resistance-trained males (age 22.7 ± 1.7 years, body mass 78.6 ± 7.6 kg, stature 1.80 ± 0.06 m) were tested for 1-RM of the three chest-press exercises in counterbalanced order with 3–5 days of rest between the exercises. One-repetition maximum and electromyographic activity of the pectoralis major, deltoid anterior, biceps, and triceps brachii were recorded in the exercises. The dumbbell load was 14% less than that for the Smith machine (P ≤ 0.001, effect size [ES] = 1.05) and 17% less than that for the barbell (P ≤ 0.001, ES = 1.11). The barbell load was ～3% higher than that for the Smith machine (P = 0.016, ES = 0.18). Electrical activity in the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid did not differ during the lifts. Electrical activity in the biceps brachii increased with stability requirements (i.e. Smith machine <barbell <dumbbells; P ≤ 0.005; ES = 0.57, 1.46, and 2.00, respectively), while triceps brachii activity was reduced using dumbbells versus barbell (P = 0.007, ES = 0.73) and dumbbells versus Smith machine (P = 0.003, ES = 0.62). In conclusion, high stability requirements in the chest press (dumbbells) result in similar (pectoralis major and anterior deltoid), lower (triceps brachii) or higher (biceps brachii) muscle activity. These findings have implications for athletic training and rehabilitation.     

The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press

The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. Twelve male experienced powerlifters (age 27.7 ± 8.8 years, mass 91.9 ± 15.4 kg) were tested in one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press with a narrow, medium and wide grip. Joint kinematics, timing, bar position and velocity were measured with a 3D motion capture system. All participants showed a clear sticking region with all three grip widths, but this sticking region was not found to occur at the same joint angles in all three grip widths, thereby rejecting the hypothesis that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width. It is suggested that, due to the differences in moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint in the sticking region, there still might be a poor mechanical region for total force production that is joint angle-specific.     

Relationships among peak power output,peak bar velocity,and mechanomyographic amplitude during the free-weight bench press exercise

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among mechanomyographic (MMG) amplitude, power output, and bar velocity during the free-weight bench press exercise. Twenty-one resistance-trained men [one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press = 125.4 ± 18.4 kg] performed bench press muscle actions as explosively as possible from 10% to 90% of the 1-RM while peak power output and peak bar velocity were assessed with a TENDO Weightlifting Analyzer. During each muscle action, surface MMG signals were detected from the right and left pectoralis major and triceps brachii, and the concentric portion of the range of motion was selected for analysis. Results indicated that power output increased from 10% to 50% 1-RM, followed by decreases from 50% to 90% 1-RM, but MMG amplitude for each of the muscles increased from 10 to 80%1-RM. The results of this study indicate that during the free-weight bench press exercise, MMG amplitude was not related to power output, but was inversely related to bar velocity and directly related to the external load being lifted. In future research, coaches and sport scientists may be able to estimate force/torque production from individual muscles during multi-joint, dynamic constant external resistance muscle actions.     

Influence of different attentional focus on EMG amplitude and contraction duration during the bench press at different speeds

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether using different focus affects electromyographic (EMG) amplitude and contraction duration during bench press performed at explosive and controlled speeds. Eighteen young male individuals were familiarized with the procedure and performed the one-maximum repetition (1RM) test in the first session. In the second session, participants performed the bench press exercise at 50% of the 1RM with 3 different attentional focuses (regular focus on moving the load vs contracting the pectoralis vs contracting the triceps) at 2 speed conditions (controlled vs maximal speed). During the controlled speed condition, focusing on using either the pectoralis or the triceps muscles increased pectoralis normalized EMG (nEMG) by 6% (95% CI 3–8%; p = 0.0001) and 4% nEMG (95% CI 1–7%; p = 0.0096), respectively, compared with the regular focus condition. Triceps activity was increased by 4% nEMG (95% CI 0–7%; p = 0.0308) at the controlled speed condition during the triceps focus. During the explosive speed condition, the use of different focuses had no effect. The different attentional focus resulted in comparable contraction duration for the measured muscles when the exercise was performed explosively. Using internal focus to increase EMG amplitude seems to function only during conditions of controlled speed.     

Is the occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press?

In this study we investigated if the occurrence of the sticking region was a result of diminishing potentiation (coinciding delayed muscle activation) or the result of a mechanically poor region in which the muscles can produce less force. A regular one-repetition maximum (1RM) free-weight bench press was compared with isometric bench presses performed at 12 different positions. A lower force at the sticking region compared to the other regions in the isometric bench presses would confirm the mechanically-poor-position hypothesis. Twelve resistance-trained males (age 21.7 ± 1.3 years, mass 78 ± 5.8 kg, height 1.81 ± 0.05 m) were tested in 1RM and in isometric contractions in bench press in 12 different positions, indicated by the vertical distance between barbell and sternum, covering the whole range of motion during the concentric phase. Barbell kinematics and muscle activity were registered. In both types of executions a region of lower force output was observed, which supports the mechanically-poor-position hypothesis. Electromyographic activity of four muscles showed the same pattern in the isometric and 1RM attempts. It was concluded that diminishing effect potentiation could not explain the existence of the sticking region.     

Effects of agonist–antagonist complex resistance training on upper body strength and power development

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the chronic effects on strength and power of performing complex versus traditional set training over eight weeks. Fifteen trained males were assessed for throw height, peak velocity, and peak power in the bench press throw and one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and bench pull exercises, before and after the eight-week programme. The traditional set group performed the pulling before the pushing exercise sets, whereas the complex set group alternated pulling and pushing sets. The complex set training sessions were completed in approximately half the time. Electromyographic (EMG) activity was monitored during both test sessions in an attempt to determine if it was affected as a result of the training programme. Although there were no differences in the dependent variables between the two conditions, bench pull and bench press 1-RM increased significantly under the complex set condition and peak power increased significantly under the traditional set condition. Effect size statistics suggested that the complex set was more time-efficient than the traditional set condition with respect to development of 1-RM bench pull and bench press, peak velocity and peak power. The EMG activity was not affected. Complex set training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to efficiency and strength development.     

The influence of isometric preload on power expressed during bench press in strength-trained men

The purpose of this study was to compare the power expressed during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained men following different pre-activation conditions. Twenty-two trained men (age 24.1?±?1.7 years, height 178.6?±?6.1?cm, body mass 81.1?±?10.6?kg) completed a maximal effort bench press (1-RM) test (100.0?kg?±?8.1?kg). In a subsequent assessment, each participant performed concentric bench press movements with loads of 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of their 1-RM preceded by either a concentric contraction (CC), a low isometric preload (LIP; 70% 1-RM) or a high isometric preload (HIP; 100% 1-RM) conditions. All movements were performed in a Smith machine with a settable quick-release device. Participants performed all three conditions in randomized fashion. Results indicated that power outputs during the bench press exercise following HIP were significantly (p?<?0.05) greater than CC at 20% 1-RM (+9%), 30% 1-RM (+16%) and 40% 1-RM (+14%), and LIP at 20% 1-RM (+4%), 30% 1-RM (+20%) and 40% 1-RM (+15%). No differences were found between conditions at 50% 1-RM. Area under the force–power curve with HIP was greater (p?<?0.05) than with CC and LIP. In conclusion, results of this study indicate that the use of a HIP (100% 1-RM) in trained participants results in significantly greater power output during the concentric phase of a multi-joint exercise when compared to standard concentric movement.     

Have we underestimated the kinematic and kinetic benefits of non-ballistic motion?

Explosive upper-body movements, with which the load is not thrown (non-ballistic), may comprise a phase during which forces are produced in opposition to the motion of the load. Thirty men completed three test sessions (free weight, ballistic, and pneumatic), each consisting of a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) and four explosive repetitions of a bench press at six loads (15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1-RM). The end of the lifting phase for the non-ballistic conditions (free weight and pneumatic) was defined by: the point of peak barbell displacement and the point at which the vertical force became negative (positive work). When analysed by peak displacement, the ballistic condition elicited significantly greater mean velocity, force, and power at loads of 15-60% 1-RM compared with the free weight condition. When the period of negative work was removed, the mean free weight velocity, force, and power at loads below 60% 1-RM increased. Consequently, the only differences between the free weight and ballistic conditions were found at loads of 15% and 30% 1-RM. Including a period of negative work may underestimate all kinematic and kinetic variables dependent on the time to, or position of, the end of the lifting phase, for non-ballistic efforts.     

Have we underestimated the kinematic and kinetic benefits of non-ballistic motion?

Explosive upper-body movements, with which the load is not thrown (non-ballistic), may comprise a phase during which forces are produced in opposition to the motion of the load. Thirty men completed three test sessions (free weight, ballistic, and pneumatic), each consisting of a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) and four explosive repetitions of a bench press at six loads (15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1-RM). The end of the lifting phase for the non-ballistic conditions (free weight and pneumatic) was defined by: the point of peak barbell displacement and the point at which the vertical force became negative (positive work). When analysed by peak displacement, the ballistic condition elicited significantly greater mean velocity, force, and power at loads of 15–60% 1-RM compared with the free weight condition. When the period of negative work was removed, the mean free weight velocity, force, and power at loads below 60% 1-RM increased. Consequently, the only differences between the free weight and ballistic conditions were found at loads of 15% and 30% 1-RM. Including a period of negative work may underestimate all kinematic and kinetic variables dependent on the time to, or position of, the end of the lifting phase, for non-ballistic efforts.     

Instructions to adopt an external focus enhance muscular endurance

The influence of internal (movement focus) and external (outcome focus) attentional-focusing instructions on muscular endurance were investigated using three exercise protocols with experienced exercisers. Twenty-three participants completed a maximal repetition, assisted bench-press test on a Smith's machine. An external focus of attention resulted in significant (p < .05) improvements in performance compared to the internal focus of attention, but not the control condition. Seventeen participants completed repetitions to failure at 75% 1-RM on free bench press and squat exercises. In both tasks, externally focused instructions resulted in significantly greater repetitions to failure than control and internal focus conditions (p < .05). These results support previous research showing beneficial effects of externally focused instructions on movement efficiency.     

The influence of deformation on barbell mechanics during the clean pull

For simplicity of biomechanical analyses, the weightlifting barbell is typically modelled as a rigid, nondeformable object. Most coaches and weightlifters, however, are aware of the elastic nature of the barbell, and its influence on the successful completion of lifting attempts. Variables such as velocity, work performed, and power output are indicators of the quality of performance during the snatch, clean, and related weightlifting pulling movements. The aim of this study was to establish whether differences exist in determining these biomechanical parameters when the centre of the barbell is analysed compared with each end of the barbell. Nine men performed three maximal-effort repetitions in the clean pull exercise at 85% of their self-reported single repetition maximum (1-RM) clean (90-155 kg) using a barbell instrumented for mechanical analysis. Results indicated that peak barbell speed was 5-30% (P < 0.05) lower for the centre of the barbell than the ends. Although differences (P < 0.05) in kinetic and potential energy were found between the centre and ends of the bar, differences between total work performed were small (< 6%; P < 0.05) and no differences were observed for average power (P > 0.05). Although approximately the same work and power occur for the centre and ends of the barbell, they manifest as different kinematics as a result of the elastic nature of the equipment. The elastic characteristics should be considered when selecting instrumentation and variables for research involving barbells. Coaches should be aware of the elasticity of barbells, including selecting appropriate viewing angles as well as understanding how deformation may affect the ends of the barbell relative to the centre.     

Reliability of EMG normalisation methods for upper-limb muscles

Abstract

The study investigated different electromyographic (EMG) normalisation methods for upper-limb muscles. This assessment aimed at comparing the EMG amplitude and the reliability of EMG values obtained with each method. Eighteen male tennis players completed isometric maximal voluntary contractions and dynamic strength exercises (push-ups and chin-ups) on three separate test sessions over at least 7 days. Surface EMG activity of nine upper body muscles was recorded. For each muscle, an analysis of variance for repeated measures was used to compare maximal EMG amplitudes between test conditions. The intra-class correlation coefficient, the coefficient of variation and the standard error of measurement were calculated to determine the EMG reliability of each condition. On the basis of a compromise between maximal EMG amplitude and high reliability, the chin-ups appeared to be the optimal normalisation method for M. latissimus dorsi, M. posterior deltoid, M. biceps brachii, M. flexor carpi radialis and M. extensor carpi radialis. The push-ups seemed relevant to normalise M. anterior deltoid and M. triceps brachii activity, while isometric maximal voluntary contraction remained the most appropriate method for M. pectoralis major and M. middle deltoid. Thus, original methods are proposed to normalise EMG signal of upper-limb muscles.     

The influence of deformation on barbell mechanics during the clean pull

For simplicity of biomechanical analyses, the weightlifting barbell is typically modelled as a rigid, non-deformable object. Most coaches and weightlifters, however, are aware of the elastic nature of the barbell, and its influence on the successful completion of lifting attempts. Variables such as velocity, work performed, and power output are indicators of the quality of performance during the snatch, clean, and related weightlifting pulling movements. The aim of this study was to establish whether differences exist in determining these biomechanical parameters when the centre of the barbell is analysed compared with each end of the barbell. Nine men performed three maximal-effort repetitions in the clean pull exercise at 85% of their self-reported single repetition maximum (1-RM) clean (90–155 kg) using a barbell instrumented for mechanical analysis. Results indicated that peak barbell speed was 5–30% (P < 0.05) lower for the centre of the barbell than the ends. Although differences (P < 0.05) in kinetic and potential energy were found between the centre and ends of the bar, differences between total work performed were small ( < 6%; P < 0.05) and no differences were observed for average power (P > 0.05). Although approximately the same work and power occur for the centre and ends of the barbell, they manifest as different kinematics as a result of the elastic nature of the equipment. The elastic characteristics should be considered when selecting instrumentation and variables for research involving barbells. Coaches should be aware of the elasticity of barbells, including selecting appropriate viewing angles as well as understanding how deformation may affect the ends of the barbell relative to the centre.     

Caffeine ingestion acutely enhances muscular strength and power but not muscular endurance in resistance-trained men

The goal of this randomized, double-blind, cross-over study was to assess the acute effects of caffeine ingestion on muscular strength and power, muscular endurance, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain perception (PP) in resistance-trained men. Seventeen volunteers (mean?±?SD: age?=?26?±?6 years, stature?=?182?±?9?cm, body mass?=?84?±?9?kg, resistance training experience?=?7?±?3 years) consumed placebo or 6?mg?kg^?1 of anhydrous caffeine 1?h before testing. Muscular power was assessed with seated medicine ball throw and vertical jump exercises, muscular strength with one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat and bench press exercises, and muscular endurance with repetitions of back squat and bench press exercises (load corresponding to 60% of 1RM) to momentary muscular failure. RPE and PP were assessed immediately after the completion of the back squat and bench press exercises. Compared to placebo, caffeine intake enhanced 1RM back squat performance (+2.8%; effect size [ES]?=?0.19; p?=?.016), which was accompanied by a reduced RPE (+7%; ES?=?0.53; p?=?.037), and seated medicine ball throw performance (+4.3%, ES?=?0.32; p?=?.009). Improvements in 1RM bench press were not noted although there were significant (p?=?.029) decreases in PP related to this exercise when participants ingested caffeine. The results point to an acute benefit of caffeine intake in enhancing lower-body strength, likely due to a decrease in RPE; upper-, but not lower-body power; and no effects on muscular endurance, in resistance-trained men. Individuals competing in events in which strength and power are important performance-related factors may consider taking 6?mg?kg^?1 of caffeine pre-training/competition for performance enhancement.     

Normobaric hypoxia increases the growth hormone response to maximal resistance exercise in trained men

This study examined the effect of hypoxia on growth hormone (GH) release during an acute bout of high-intensity, low-volume resistance exercise. Using a single-blinded, randomised crossover design, 16 resistance-trained males completed two resistance exercise sessions in normobaric hypoxia (HYP; inspiratory oxygen fraction, (FiO₂) 0.12, arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) 82?±?2%) and normoxia (NOR; FiO₂ 0.21, SpO₂ 98?±?0%). Each session consisted of five sets of three repetitions of 45° leg press and bench press at 85% of one repetition maximum. Heart rate, SpO₂, and electromyographic activity (EMG) of the vastus lateralis muscle were measured throughout the protocol. Serum lactate and GH levels were determined pre-exposure, and at 5, 15, 30 and 60?min post-exercise. Differences in mean and integrated EMG between HYP and NOR treatments were unclear. However, there was an important increase in the peak levels and area under the curve of both lactate (HYP 5.8?±?1.8 v NOR 3.9?±?1.1?mmol.L^?1 and HYP 138.7?±?33.1 v NOR 105.8?±?20.8?min.mmol.L^?1) and GH (HYP 4.4?±?3.1 v NOR 2.1?±?2.5?ng.mL^?1 and HYP 117.7?±?86.9 v NOR 72.9?±?85.3?min.ng.mL^?1) in response to HYP. These results suggest that performing high-intensity resistance exercise in a hypoxic environment may provide a beneficial endocrine response without compromising the neuromuscular activation required for maximal strength development.     

Changing the stability conditions in a back squat: the effect on maximum load lifted and erector spinae muscle activity

The aim of this study was to identify how changes in the stability conditions of a back squat affect maximal loads lifted and erector spinae muscle activity. Fourteen male participants performed a Smith Machine (SM) squat, the most stable condition, a barbell back (BB) squat, and Tendo-destabilizing bar (TBB) squat, the least stable condition. A one repetition max (1-RM) was established in each squat condition, before electromyography (EMG) activity of the erector spinae was measured at 85% of 1-RM. Results indicated that the SM squat 1-RM load was significantly (p = 0.006) greater (10.9%) than the BB squat, but not greater than the TBB squat. EMG results indicated significantly greater (p < 0.05) muscle activation in the TBB condition compared to other conditions. The BB squat produced significantly greater (p = 0.036) EMG activity compared to the SM squat. A greater stability challenge applied to the torso seems to increase muscle activation. The maximum loads lifted in the most stable and unstable squats were similar. However, the lift with greater stability challenge required greatest muscle activation. The implications of this study may be important for training programmes; if coaches wish to challenge trunk stability, while their athletes lift maximal loads designed to increase strength.     

The effects of eccentric phase duration on concentric outcomes in the back squat and bench press in well-trained males

ABSTRACT

The velocity and magnitude in which the eccentric phase of an exercise is completed directly affects performance during the concentric phase. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of eccentric phase duration on concentric outcomes at 60% and 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the squat and bench press. Sixteen college-aged, resistance-trained males completed 1RM testing, established normative eccentric durations, and performed fast (0.75 times normative) and slow (2.0 times normative) metronome-controlled eccentric duration repetitions. Outcome measures assessed during the concentric phase were: average concentric velocity (ACV), peak concentric velocity (PCV), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), range of motion (ROM), and barbell path. Eccentric duration was significantly and inversely correlated with ACV at 60% (r = ?0.408, p = 0.004) and 80% (r = ?0.477, p = 0.001) of 1RM squat. At 60% of 1RM squat, both fast and slow eccentric conditions produced greater (p < 0.001) PCV than normative duration with fast also producing greater PCV than slow (p = 0.044). Eccentric duration had no impact on RPE, ROM, or barbell path. Our results report for the first time that resistance-trained males performing a deliberately faster eccentric phase may enhance their own squat and bench press performance.     

Validity and reliability of a linear positional transducer across commonly practised resistance training exercises

This study investigated the validity and reliability of the GymAware PowerTool (GPT). Thirteen resistance trained participants completed three visits, consisting of three repetitions of free-weight back squat, bench press, deadlift (80% one repetition maximum), and countermovement jump. Bar displacement, peak and mean velocity, peak and mean force, and jump height were calculated using the GPT, a three-dimensional motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corporation; 150 Hz), and a force plate (Kistler; 1500 Hz). Least products regression were used to compare agreeability between devices. A within-trial one-way ANOVA, typical error (TE; %), and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) were used to assess reliability. Regression analysis resulted in R² values of >0.85 for all variables excluding deadlift mean velocity (R² = 0.54–0.69). Significant differences were observed between visits 3-2 for bench press bar displacement (0.395 ± 0.055 m; 0.383 ± 0.053 m), and deadlift bar displacement (0.557 ± 0.034 m; 0.568 ± 0.034 m). No other significant differences were found. Low to moderate TE (0.6–8.8%) were found for all variables, with SWC ranging 1.7–7.4%. The data provides evidence that the GPT can be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, however, care should be taken when monitoring deadlift performance.