scholarly journals Relationships between Mechanical Variables in the Traditional and Close-Grip Bench Press

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Lockie ◽  
Samuel J. Callaghan ◽  
Matthew R. Moreno ◽  
Fabrice G. Risso ◽  
Tricia M. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Force Velocity ◽  
The One

Abstract The study aim was to determine relationships between mechanical variables in the one-repetition maximum (1RM) traditional bench press (TBP) and close-grip bench press (CGBP). Twenty resistance-trained men completed a TBP and CGBP 1RM. The TBP was performed with the preferred grip; the CGBP with a grip width of 95% biacromial distance. A linear position transducer measured: lift distance and duration; work; and peak and mean power, velocity, and force. Paired samples t-tests (p < 0.05) compared the 1RM and mechanical variables for the TBP and CGBP; effect sizes (d) were also calculated. Pearson’s correlations (r; p < 0.05) computed relationships between the TBP and CGBP. 1RM, lift duration, and mean force were greater in the TBP (d = 0.30-3.20). Peak power and velocity was greater for the CGBP (d = 0.50-1.29). The 1RM TBP correlated with CGBP 1RM, power, and force (r = 0.685-0.982). TBP work correlated with CGBP 1RM, lift distance, power, force, and work (r = 0.542-0.931). TBP power correlated with CGBP 1RM, power, force, velocity, and work (r = 0.484-0.704). TBP peak and mean force related to CGBP 1RM, power, and force (r = 0.596-0.980). Due to relationships between the load, work, power, and force for the TBP and CGBP, the CGBP could provide similar strength adaptations to the TBP with long-term use. The velocity profile for the CGBP was different to that of the TBP. The CGBP could be used specifically to improve high-velocity, upper-body pushing movements.

scholarly journals RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ARM SPAN AND THE MECHANICS OF THE ONE-REPETITION MAXIMUM TRADITIONAL AND CLOSE-GRIP BENCH PRESS

2018 ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Robert G. Lockie ◽  
Samuel J. Callaghan ◽  
Ashley J. Orjalo ◽  
Matthew R. Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Positive Relationship ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Triceps Brachii ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Arm Span ◽  
Prime Movers ◽  
The One

The traditional bench press (TBP), performed with a grip width that maximizes strength, is a popular exercise for developing the upper-body. The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the TBP often used to emphasize the triceps brachii over prime movers such as the pectoralis major. An individual’s arm span (AS; distance between the middle fingers of each hand while the arms are outstretched) could affect the mechanics of each exercise, which may be exacerbated by the change in grip. This study investigated relationships between AS and TBP and CGBP mechanics in resistance-trained men. Twenty-one participants completed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) TBP and CGBP. The TBP was performed with the preferred grip (measured relative to biacromial distance [BAD]), and the CGBP with a grip width of 95% BAD. A linear position transducer measured: lift distance; peak and mean power, velocity, and force; the distance and time when peak power occurred; and work. Pearson’s correlations (r; p < 0.05) computed relationships between AS and TBP and CGBP mechanics. There were significant positive relationships between AS and TBP lift distance and work (r = 0.46 and 0.51, respectively). For the CGBP, there was a significant positive relationship between AS and work (r = 0.48). There were no other significant correlations between AS and lift mechanics. Resistance-trained men with a longer AS may move the bar further and perform more work in the 1RM TBP and CGBP. This could influence how coaches measure training volume, and intensity for individuals with different AS.

Force–Velocity Relationship of Upper Body Muscles: Traditional Versus Ballistic Bench Press

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Slobodan Jaric ◽  
Paulino Padial ◽  
Belén Feriche
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Maximum Force ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Force Velocity ◽  
Relationship Of

This study aimed to (1) evaluate the linearity of the force–velocity relationship, as well as the reliability of maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), slope (a), and maximum power (P0); (2) compare these parameters between the traditional and ballistic bench press (BP); and (3) determine the correlation of F0 with the directly measured BP 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Thirty-two men randomly performed 2 sessions of traditional BP and 2 sessions of ballistic BP during 2 consecutive weeks. Both the maximum and mean values of force and velocity were recorded when loaded by 20–70% of 1RM. All force–velocity relationships were strongly linear (r > .99). While F0 and P0 were highly reliable (ICC: 0.91–0.96, CV: 3.8–5.1%), lower reliability was observed for V0 and a (ICC: 0.49–0.81, CV: 6.6–11.8%). Trivial differences between exercises were found for F0 (ES: < 0.2), however the a was higher for the traditional BP (ES: 0.68–0.94), and V0 (ES: 1.04–1.48) and P0 (ES: 0.65–0.72) for the ballistic BP. The F0 strongly correlated with BP 1RM (r: 0.915–0.938). The force–velocity relationship is useful to assess the upper body maximal capabilities to generate force, velocity, and power.

Effects of an 8-Week In-Season Upper Limb Elastic Band Training Programme on the Peak Power, Strength, and Throwing Velocity of Junior Handball Players

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (03) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
Ghaith Aloui ◽  
Souhail Hermassi ◽  
Mehrez Hammami ◽  
Nawel Gaamouri ◽  
El Ghali Bouhafs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
National Level ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Elastic Band ◽  
Team Handball ◽  
Force Velocity

Abstract Background Team handball is an intense sport with special requirements on technical and tactical skills as well as physical performance. The ability of handball players to make repeated powerful muscular contractions in pushing and throwing the ball is crucial to success. Objective This study investigated the effects of elastic band training on upper body peak power output, ball throwing velocity, and local muscle volume of junior handball players. Materials and Methods Thirty handball players (a single national-level Tunisian team) were randomly assigned to a control group (CG; n = 15) and an experimental group (EG; n = 15). Pre- and post-interventional measurements included force-velocity tests, one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and pull-over strength, ball throwing velocity in three types of throw (jumping shot, 3-step running throw, and standing throw), and anthropometric estimates of limb volumes. The EG additionally performed an elastic band training programme twice a week for 8 weeks immediately before engaging in regular handball training. The control group underwent no additional elastic band training. Results The EG demonstrated greater improvements in absolute and relative peak power (p < 0.001; 49.3 ± 22.9 % and 47.9 ± 24.6 %, respectively), 1RM strength (p < 0.001; 25.3 ± 2.2 % and 44.1 ± 9.0 % for 1RM bench press and pull over, respectively), and throwing velocity in all three types of ball throws (p < 0.001; 25.1–26.1 %), compared to the CG (3.9–4.4 %). Limb volumes increased significantly (p = 0.001, 8.0 ± 7.5 %) in the EG, with no significant change (p = 0.175, 2.6 ± 7.0 %) in the CG. Conclusions We conclude that additional elastic band training performed twice a week for 8 weeks improves measures relevant to game performance, particularly strength, power, and ball throwing velocity.

Maintenance of Velocity and Power With Cluster Sets During High-Volume Back Squats

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 885-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Tufano ◽  
Jenny A. Conlon ◽  
Sophia Nimphius ◽  
Lee E. Brown ◽  
Laurent B. Seitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Maximal Velocity ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Cluster Set ◽  
Cluster Sets ◽  
Force Velocity

Purpose:To compare the effects of a traditional set structure and 2 cluster set structures on force, velocity, and power during back squats in strength-trained men.Methods:Twelve men (25.8 ± 5.1 y, 1.74 ± 0.07 m, 79.3 ± 8.2 kg) performed 3 sets of 12 repetitions at 60% of 1-repetition maximum using 3 different set structures: traditional sets (TS), cluster sets of 4 (CS4), and cluster sets of 2 (CS2).Results:When averaged across all repetitions, peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), and mean power (MP) were greater in CS2 and CS4 than in TS (P < .01), with CS2 also resulting in greater values than CS4 (P < .02). When examining individual sets within each set structure, PV, MV, PP, and MP decreased during the course of TS (effect sizes 0.28–0.99), whereas no decreases were noted during CS2 (effect sizes 0.00–0.13) or CS4 (effect sizes 0.00–0.29).Conclusions:These results demonstrate that CS structures maintain velocity and power, whereas TS structures do not. Furthermore, increasing the frequency of intraset rest intervals in CS structures maximizes this effect and should be used if maximal velocity is to be maintained during training.

Relationship Between Throwing Velocity, Muscle Power, and Bar Velocity During Bench Press in Elite Handball Players

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mário C. Marques ◽  
Roland van den Tillaar ◽  
Jason D. Vescovi ◽  
Juan José González-Badillo
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Muscle Power ◽  
Dynamic Strength ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Team Handball ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Maximal Dynamic Strength

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between ball-throwing velocity during a 3-step running throw and dynamic strength, power, and bar velocity during a concentric-only bench-press exercise in team-handball players.Methods:Fourteen elite senior male team-handball players volunteered to participate. Each volunteer had power and bar velocity measured during a concentric-only bench-press test with 26, 36, and 46 kg, as well as having 1-repetition-maximum (1-RMBP) strength determined. Ball-throwing velocity was evaluated with a standard 3-step running throw using a radar gun.Results:Ball-throwing velocity was related to the absolute load lifted during the 1-RMBP (r = .637, P = .014), peak power using 36 kg (r = .586, P = .028) and 46 kg (r = .582, P = .029), and peak bar velocity using 26 kg (r = .563, P = .036) and 36 kg (r = .625, P = .017).Conclusions:The results indicate that throwing velocity of elite team-handball players is related to maximal dynamic strength, peak power, and peak bar velocity. Thus, a training regimen designed to improve ball-throwing velocity in elite male team-handball players should include exercises that are aimed at increasing both strength and power in the upper body.

Differences in the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and arched bench press in competitive powerlifters

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Francisco Javier Villar Macias ◽  
Pedro Á. Latorre-Román ◽  
Juan A. Párraga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
The One

scholarly journals A new physical performance classification system for elite handball players: cluster analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iker J. Bautista ◽  
Ignacio J. Chirosa ◽  
Joseph E. Robinson ◽  
Roland van der Tillaar ◽  
Luis J. Chirosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Performance ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
National Level ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Countermovement Jump ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Squat Jump ◽  
Power Load ◽  
The Mean

Abstract The aim of the present study was to identify different cluster groups of handball players according to their physical performance level assessed in a series of physical assessments, which could then be used to design a training program based on individual strengths and weaknesses, and to determine which of these variables best identified elite performance in a group of under-19 [U19] national level handball players. Players of the U19 National Handball team (n=16) performed a set of tests to determine: 10 m (ST10) and 20 m (ST20) sprint time, ball release velocity (BRv), countermovement jump (CMJ) height and squat jump (SJ) height. All players also performed an incremental-load bench press test to determine the 1 repetition maximum (1RMest), the load corresponding to maximum mean power (LoadMP), the mean propulsive phase power at LoadMP (PMPPMP) and the peak power at LoadMP (PPEAKMP). Cluster analyses of the test results generated four groupings of players. The variables best able to discriminate physical performance were BRv, ST20, 1RMest, PPEAKMP and PMPPMP. These variables could help coaches identify talent or monitor the physical performance of athletes in their team. Each cluster of players has a particular weakness related to physical performance and therefore, the cluster results can be applied to a specific training programmed based on individual needs.

scholarly journals The effect of self-selecting the number of repetitions on motor performance and psychological outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aviv Emanuel ◽  
Itai Har-Nir ◽  
Itzhak Rozen Smukas ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Motor Performance ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Force Production ◽  
Psychological Outcomes ◽  
The Self ◽  
Considerable Variability ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Bar Velocity

In resistance-training, the number of repetitions can be either fixed and predetermined (e.g., 3 sets of 10 repetitions), or selected by the trainee during ongoing sets (e.g., 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions). The first approach is more goal-focused while the latter is more autonomy-focused. Here we compared between these two approaches on motor performance and psychological outcomes. Nineteen resistance-trained subjects (10-males) first completed one repetition-maximum (RM) tests in the barbell-squat and bench-press, and were familiarized with the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). In the next two counterbalanced sessions, subjects completed two sets of the squat and bench-press using 70%1RM, and two sets of the IMTP. In the predetermined session, subjects completed 10 repetitions in all sets, and in the self-selected session, subjects chose how many repetitions to complete out of an 8-12 range. Bar-velocity was measured in the squat and bench-press, and force production in the IMTP. Enjoyment, perceived-autonomy, and approach-preferences were collected post-sessions. We observed comparable bar-velocity, force production, and enjoyment in both conditions (all BF01&gt;2.1), and an even approach-preferences split. However, in the self-selected condition, subjects demonstrated considerable variability in the number of repetitions and reported greater perceived-autonomy. Given the similarities between approaches, both can be used with this cohort based on their personal-preference. Yet, we note that the self-selected approach has two distinct benefits: the variability in the number of repetitions completed suggests that subjects regulated their efforts, and the higher perceived autonomy could lead to long-term improvements in motor and psychological outcomes.

scholarly journals The Effects of the Movement Tempo on the One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Wilk ◽  
Artur Golas ◽  
Piotr Zmijewski ◽  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Aleksandra Filip ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Test Procedures ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

AbstractDifferent tempos of movement can be used during resistance training, but programming them is often a trial-and-error practice, as changing the speed at which the exercise is performed does not always correspond with the tempo at which the 1-repetition-maximum occurred. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of different movement tempos during the bench press (BP) exercise on the one-repetition maximum (1RM) load. Ninety men (age = 25.8 ± 5.3 years, body mass = 80.2 ± 14.9 kg), with a minimum one year of resistance training experience took part in the study. Using a randomized crossover design, each participant completed the BP 1RM test with five different movement tempos: V/0/V/0, 2/0/V/0, 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0. Repeated measures ANOVA compared the differences between the 1RM at each tempo. The 1RM load was significantly greater during V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 compared to 5/0/V/0, 8/0/V/0, and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the 1RM load was significantly greater during 5/0/V/0 compared to 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p < 0.01), but there were no differences between either V/0/V/0 and 2/0/V/0 (p = 0.92) or between 8/0/V/0 and 10/0/V/0 (p = 0.08). Therefore, different movement tempos used during training should be accompanied by their own tempo-specific 1RM testing, as slower eccentric phases significantly decrease maximal concentric performance. Furthermore, 1RM test procedures should include information about the movement tempo used during the test protocol. In addition, the standardization of the tempo should be taken into account in investigations that use the 1 RM test to assess the effects of any treatment on maximal muscle strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document