Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between Push-up and Bench Press

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to compare the similarity in kinematics and upper-body muscle activation between push-up and bench press exercises over a range of loads. Twenty resistance-trained subjects (age 22.5±5.24 yrs, body mass 83.7±10.7 kg, height 1.80±0.06 m) executed bench presses and push-ups with 4 different loads. Bench press was executed at 50–80% of their assumed 1 repetition max in steps of 10 kg, while push-ups were executed without a weight vest and with a 10–20–30 kg weight vest. A linear encoder measured kinematics (displacement, time, average and peak velocity) during the exercises at each load, together with mean and maximal muscle activation of 8 upper body muscles and their timing for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate no differences in kinematics and muscle activation between the two exercises and that the different loads had the same effect upon both push-up and bench press in experienced resistance-trained men. For coaches and athletes, push-ups and bench presses for strength training can be used interchangeably. By using a weight vest, push-ups can mimic different loads that are similar to different intensities in the bench press that can be used to train strength demands.

Download Full-text

Validity and Reliability of Kinematics Measured with PUSH Band vs. Linear Encoder in Bench Press and Push-Ups

Sports ◽

10.3390/sports7090207 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. 207 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Roland van den Tillaar ◽

Nick Ball

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Peak Velocity ◽

Validity And Reliability ◽

Mean Velocity ◽

Movement Velocity ◽

Lower Velocity ◽

Linear Encoder ◽

Measurement Devices ◽

Level Of Agreement ◽

Push Up

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of a PUSH band device with a linear encoder to measure movement velocity with different loads during the push-up and bench press exercises. Methods: Twenty resistance-trained athletes performed push-up and bench press exercises with four different loads: without weight vest, 10-20-30 kg weight vest, bench press: 50–82% of their assumed 1 repetition maximum (1 RM) in steps of 10 kg. A linear encoder (Musclelab) and the PUSH band measured mean and peak velocity during both exercises. Several statistical analyses were used to investigate the validity and reliability of the PUSH band with the linear encoder. Results: The main findings of this study demonstrated only moderate associations between the PUSH band and linear encoder for mean velocity (r = 0.62, 0.70) and peak velocity (r = 0.46, 0.49) for both exercises. Furthermore, a good level of agreement (peak velocity: ICC = 0.60, 0.64; mean velocity: ICC = 0.77, 0.78) was observed between the two measurement devices. However, a significant bias was found with lower velocity values measured with the PUSH band in both exercises. In the push-up, both the linear encoder and PUSH band were deemed very reliable (ICC > 0.98; the coefficient of variation (CV): 5.9–7.3%). Bench press reliability decreased for the PUSH band (ICC < 0.95), and the coefficient of variance increased to (12.8–13.3%) for the velocity measures. Calculated 1 RM with the two devices was the same for the push-up, while in bench press the PUSH band under-estimated the 1 RM by 14 kg compared to the linear encoder. Conclusions: It was concluded that the PUSH band will show decreased reliability from velocity measures in a bench press exercise and underestimate load-velocity based 1 RM predictions. For training, the PUSH band can be used during push-ups, however caution is suggested when using the device for the purposes of feedback in bench press at increasing loads.

Download Full-text

Push-Ups are Able to Predict the Bench Press 1-RM and Constitute an Alternative for Measuring Maximum Upper Body Strength Based on Load-Velocity Relationships

Journal of Human Kinetics ◽

10.2478/hukin-2019-0133 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 73 (1) ◽

pp. 7-18

Author(s):

Roland van den Tillaar ◽

Nick Ball

Keyword(s):

Muscle Activation ◽

Bench Press ◽

Biceps Brachii ◽

Low Cost ◽

Body Height ◽

Upper Body ◽

Body Strength ◽

Velocity Relationship ◽

Upper Body Strength ◽

Push Up

AbstractThe aims of this study were firstly to compare the similarity in upper-body muscle activation between the bench press and push-up at similar loads, and secondly to establish a 1-RM prediction equation between the two exercises based upon the load-velocity relationship. Twenty resistance-trained male athletes (age 22.5 ± 5.24 years, body mass 83.7 ± 10.7 kg, body height 1.80 ± 0.06 m) performed push-ups and bench presses with four different loads. Push-ups were performed without a weight vest and with a 10-20-30 kg weight vest. Bench presses were performed at 50-80% of athletes’ assumed 1 repetition max (1-RM) in 10 kg steps, while a linear encoder measured performance during the exercises. A load-velocity relationship was established as a product of the load and velocity for the push-up and bench press per participant and the equation was used to establish a predicted 1-RM. Mean muscle activation of eight upper body muscles was recorded for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate an extremely large association between the predicted 1-RM loads performed with the push-up and bench press (r = 0.93) in experienced resistance trained men. Furthermore, most muscles showed similar activations between the two exercises with the different loads except the deltoid and biceps brachii muscles. It may be concluded that it is possible to predict a cross-over 1-RM between the two exercises based upon the load-velocity relationship in each exercise, and that training push-ups largely targets the same muscles as the bench press except the deltoid and biceps muscles. For coaches and athletes, the use of this method is a low cost and time-effective alternative for standard 1-RM bench press testing to predict maximal upper body strength.

Download Full-text

Comparison of CrossFit Barbara and classic resistance trainings for the protection of strength performance during off-season in kickboxers

Isokinetics and Exercise Science ◽

10.3233/ies-203190 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Cebrail Gençoğlu ◽

İlhan Şen

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Body Mass ◽

Body Fat ◽

Bench Press ◽

Body Fat Percentage ◽

Fat Percentage ◽

Strength Performance ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Before And After ◽

Push Up

BACKGROUND: The inability of athletes to train or the decrease in the intensity and frequency of training may cause athletes to lose performance. Particularly in view of the current COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining strength outside the normal framework provides an advantage to athletes for the next competitions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the CrossFit Barbara which can be applied easily at home during the off-season or some situations such as the epidemic limitation to classic resistance training methods used to maintain the strength performance of national kickboxers. METHODS: Forty-three national kickboxers, CrossFit (CF, n= 22), and resistance training (RT, n= 21), participated in this study. While CF performed 20 pull-ups, 30 push-ups, 40 sit-ups, and 50 squat exercises, RT performed bench press, lat pull down, leg press, biceps curl, and triceps extension exercises twice per week for six weeks. Before and after the six weeks, the following variables were measured; body mass (BM) and body fat percentage (FP), VO2max, bench press (BP), squat (SQ), leg strength (LS), hand grip strength (HGS), pull-up, push-up and counter movement jump (CMJ). RESULTS: BP (p< 0.001, F= 41.125, ηp2= 0.501), SQ (p< 0.001, F= 26.604, ηp2= 0.394), LS (p< 0.001, F= 15.234, ηp2= 0.271), push-up (p< 0.001, F= 31.978, ηp2= 0.438) and pull-up (p< 0.001, F= 24.410, ηp2= 0.373) values changed significantly in group-time interaction between CF and RT groups, while there was no significant difference for the BM (p= 0.198, F= 1.715, ηp2= 0.040), Fat (p= 0.265, F= 1.279, ηp2= 0.030), HGS (p= 0.665, F= 0.190, ηp2= 0.005, CMJ (p= 0.054, F= 3.946, ηp2= 0.088) and VO2max (p=0.747, F= 0.106, ηp2= 0.003). Furthermore, according to the before and after study values, BP, SQ, LS, and CMJ decreased significantly (p< 0.05) while BM, FP, HGS, VO2max, pull-up and push-up variables did not in the CF (p> 0.05). In the RT, the pull-up and push-up variables decreased significantly (p< 0.05) while there was no significant difference for BP, SQ, LS, HGS, VO2max, body mass, body fat percentage and CMJ (p> 0.05). CONCLUSION: CF Barbara workout was more effective in maintaining strength endurance performances, and RT in maintaining maximum strength performances. According to the individual performance needs of athletes, reasonable training method can be used to prevent performance decrement in the strength domain.

Download Full-text

Range of motion of resistance exercise affects the number of performed repetitions but not a time under tension

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-94338-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Michał Krzysztofik ◽

Patryk Matykiewicz ◽

Aleksandra Filip-Stachnik ◽

Kinga Humińska-Lisowska ◽

Agata Rzeszutko-Bełzowska ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Body Mass ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Bench Press ◽

Peak Velocity ◽

Training Session ◽

Training Volume ◽

Total Load ◽

Load Displacement

AbstractThe resistance training volume along with the exercise range of motion has a significant impact on the training outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to examine differences in training volume assessed by a number of performed repetitions, time under tension, and load–displacement as well as peak barbell velocity between the cambered and standard barbell bench press training session. The participants performed 3 sets to muscular failure of bench press exercise with the cambered or standard barbell at 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). Eighteen healthy men volunteered for the study (age = 25 ± 2 years; body mass = 92.1 ± 9.9 kg; experience in resistance training 7.3 ± 2.1 years; standard and cambered barbell bench press 1RM > 120% body mass). The t-test indicated a significantly higher mean range of motion for the cambered barbell in comparison to the standard (p < 0.0001; ES = −2.24). Moreover, there was a significantly greater number of performed repetitions during the standard barbell bench press than cambered barbell (p < 0.0001) in a whole training session, while no difference was found in total time under tension (p = 0.22) and total load–displacement (p = 0.913). The two-way repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant barbell × set interaction effect for peak velocity (p = 0.01) and a number of repetitions (p = 0.015). The post-hoc analysis showed a significantly higher number of repetitions for standard than cambered barbell bench press in set 1 (p < 0.0001), set 3 (p < 0.0001) but not in set 2 (p = 0.066). Moreover, there was a significantly higher peak velocity during the cambered than standard barbell bench press in set 1 (p < 0.0001), and set 2 (p = 0.049), but not in set 3 (p = 0.063). No significant differences between corresponding sets of the standard and cambered barbell bench press in time under tension and load–displacement were found. However, concentric time under tension was significantly higher during cambered barbell bench press in all sets (p < 0.05) when compared to the standard barbell bench press, while eccentric time under tension was significantly lower during the cambered than standard barbell bench presses only in the set 3 (p = 0.001). In summary, this study briefly showed that measuring training volume by the number of performed repetitions is not reliable when different exercise range of motion is used.

Download Full-text

Muscle Activation in Traditional and Experimental Barbell Bench Press Exercise: A Potential New Tool for Fitness Maintenance

Sports ◽

10.3390/sports7100224 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (10) ◽

pp. 224

Author(s):

Andrea Melani ◽

Giuliana Gobbi ◽

Daniela Galli ◽

Cecilia Carubbi ◽

Elena Masselli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Muscle Activity ◽

Professional Training ◽

Muscle Activation ◽

Bench Press ◽

Biceps Brachii ◽

Elbow Flexion ◽

Upper Body ◽

Triceps Brachii ◽

Extended Position ◽

Lower Load

Background: The bench press exercise (BP) is commonly practiced in both recreational and professional training. The weight is lowered from a position where the elbows are at a 90° angle at the start and <90° at the end of eccentric phase, and then returned to the elbows extended position. In order to focus the exercise more on the triceps brachii (TB) rather than the pectoralis major (PM), the inter-handle distance (IHD) is decreased diminishing the involvement of the PM in favor of the TB. Purpose: To improve performance of the exercise by reducing force dissociation and transmitting 100% of the external load to the muscle tissue we propose a prototype of the barbell with a bar on which two sleeves are capable of sliding. The dynamic modifications of the IHD keep the elbow flexion angle constant at 90°. Results: Analysis of the inter-handle distance (IHD) signals of the upper body muscles showed a marked increase in muscle activity using the experimental barbell for the PM (19.5%) and for the biceps brachii (173%). Conclusions: The experimental barbell increased the muscle activity typical of the bench press exercise, obtaining the same training induction with a lower load and consequently preventing articular stress.

Download Full-text