scholarly journals Loading Range for the Development of Peak Power in the Close-Grip Bench Press versus the Traditional Bench Press

Sports ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Lockie ◽  
Samuel Callaghan ◽  
Ashley Orjalo ◽  
Matthew Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Factorial Anova ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Power Load ◽  
Power Loading ◽  
Partial Correlations ◽  
Load Peak

The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% biacromial distance) and has application for athletes performing explosive arm actions where the hands are positioned close to the torso. Limited research has investigated CGBP peak power. Twenty-six strength-trained individuals completed a one-repetition maximum TBP and CGBP. During two other sessions, subjects completed two repetitions as explosively as possible with loads from 20% to 90% for each exercise, with peak power measured by a linear position transducer. A factorial ANOVA calculated between- and within-exercise differences in peak power. Partial correlations controlling for sex determined relationships between absolute and relative strength and peak power load. Peak power for the TBP occurred at 50% 1RM, and 30% 1RM for the CGBP. There were no significant (p = 0.680) differences between peak power at each load when comparing the TBP and CGBP. For the within-exercise analysis, there were generally no significant differences in TBP and CGBP peak power for the 20–50% 1RM loads. There were no significant relationships between strength and peak power load (p = 0.100–0.587). A peak power loading range of 20–50% 1RM for the TBP and CGBP is suggested for strength-trained individuals.

scholarly journals A Preliminary Analysis of Relationships between a 1RM Hexagonal Bar Load and Peak Power with the Tactical Task of a Body Drag

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Lockie ◽  
Katherine Balfany ◽  
Jenna K. Denamur ◽  
Matthew R. Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
The Body ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Body Drag ◽  
Partial Correlations

AbstractA critical job task for law enforcement officers that should be influenced by strength is the body drag. This study analyzed relationships between absolute and relative strength measured by a one-repetition maximum hexagonal bar deadlift (1RM HBD), with body drags completed with 74.84 kg and 90.72 kg dummies. Twenty recreationally-trained individuals completed the 1RM HBD in one session, with peak power measured via a linear position transducer. Over two subsequent sessions, participants dragged the 74.84 kg and 90.72 kg dummies with two techniques. The first technique followed Californian standards, where participants wrapped their arms around the dummy and lifted it to standing before timing commenced. In the adapted technique, timing included the initial manipulation of the dummy. Participants dragged the dummy as quickly as possible over a 9.75 m distance. Partial correlations and linear regression (controlling for sex; p < 0.05) analyzed relationships between the HBD and body drags. The standard 74.84 kg body drag correlated with every HBD variable (r = -0.477 to -0.666), and was predicted by the absolute 1RM HBD (r2 = 0.467). The adapted 74.84 kg drag correlated with all HBD variables (r = -0.535 to - 0.754), and was predicted by peak power and the 1RM HBD (r2 = 0.758). Both 90.72 kg drags correlated with absolute and relative 1RM HBD (r = -0.517 to -0.670). Strength related to all body drags; peak power may be more important for drags with lighter loads. Strength training should be a focus in law enforcement to enhance drag performance.

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.

Power– and velocity–load relationships to improve resistance exercise performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 232 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel V Garnacho-Castaño ◽  
Arturo Muñoz-González ◽  
María A Garnacho-Castaño ◽  
José L Maté-Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Maximal Power Output ◽  
Power Load ◽  
The Military

Knowledge of the power– and velocity–load relationships is a key factor to guide loads during resistance training and optimize sports performance. This study compares mean velocity–, peak velocity– and power–load relationships, and determines the load which elicits maximal power output in the military press and bench press. Fifty-seven healthy, active men were randomly assigned to a bench press (n = 28) or military press (n = 29) group. In separate test sessions, concentric-only or eccentric-concentric sequences of each exercise were performed in random order as incremental isoinertial load tests. Both mean velocity and peak velocity were highly related with the load lifted (% 1RM) in both bench press and military press (mean velocity: R2 = 0.94 and 0.95; peak velocity: R2 = 0.93 and 0.93, respectively). The loads maximizing mean power and peak power output were similar for the eccentric-concentric versus concentric sequences in bench press and military press. The loads maximizing mean power and peak power were between 54% and 57.5% 1RM for the bench press and 59.8%–63.1% 1RM for the military press. For the bench press, no significant differences were observed in mean power from 30% to 80% 1RM and peak power from 30% to 95% 1RM. For the military press, no significant differences were observed in mean power from 40% to 80% 1RM and peak power from 30% to 90%/95% 1RM. The close relationship detected between mean velocity or peak velocity and load means that the % 1RM can be estimated according to mean velocity and peak velocity. In both exercises, a broad range of relative intensities could be used at which power output is not significantly different than that at maximized power output (mean = 30%/40%–80% 1RM; peak = 30%–90%/95%). Mean velocity lower than approximately 0.33 m s−1 for bench press and 0.4 m s−1 for military press, as well as peak velocity lower than approximately 0.4 m s−1 for bench press and 0.5 m s−1 for military press do not optimize power output responses. The eccentric action was a determining factor for increasing power output only in bench press.

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.

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 Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Bench Press: Considerations for Eccentric and Concentric Loading

Sports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Christopher B. Taber ◽  
Jared R. Morris ◽  
John P. Wagle ◽  
Justin J. Merrigan
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Multilevel Models ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
Experimental Session ◽  
Strength Ratio ◽  
Eccentric Load ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Consistent Performance ◽  
Concentric Loading

This study examined the effects of accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) on bench press velocities across a spectrum of concentric and eccentric loads. Ten strength trained men (bench press one-repetition maximum (1-RM): 124.3 ± 19.4 kg; relative strength ratio: 1.5 ± 0.2 kg∙body mass−1) participated. Subjects completed bench press repetitions using concentric loads from 30% to 80% 1-RM in 10% increments in each experimental session. The AEL protocols were implemented using 100% (AEL100) and 110% 1-RM (AEL110) loads during the eccentric action, while the eccentric load remained the same as the concentric for traditional loading (TRAD). Multilevel models analyzed the effects of each AEL protocol on concentric velocities across concentric loads (p < 0.05). Faster concentric velocities were observed at 30% 1-RM and 80% 1-RM with AEL100 compared to TRAD (p ≤ 0.05) but this effect was reduced for individuals moving the barbell through a greater displacement. Additionally, AEL110 presented a greater change in velocity from 30% to 80% 1-RM than TRAD (p ≤ 0.05). The AEL100 protocol resulted in faster concentric velocities throughout concentric loads of 30–80% 1-RM, but AEL110 may have been too great to elicit consistent performance enhancements. Thus, the efficacy of AEL at various concentric loads is dependent on the eccentric loading and barbell displacement.

scholarly journals A PILOT ANALYSIS: CAN THE BULGARIAN SPLIT-SQUAT POTENTIATE SPRINT ACCELERATION IN STRENGTH-TRAINED MEN?

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert George Lockie ◽  
Ashley Orjalo ◽  
Matthew Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Individual Variation ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
Sprint Performance ◽  
The Other ◽  
Repeated Measures Anova ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Position Transducer

This study determined whether a five repetition-maximum Bulgarian split-squat (5RM BSS) could potentiate a 0-5, 0-10, and 0-20 m (meter) sprint performance. Seven men were assessed in the 5RM BSS (a linear position transducer measured peak power [PP] and force [PF] for each leg), and completed two post activation potentiation (PAP) sessions. One session involved a control condition (CC) of 4 minutes (min) rest; the other the 5RM BSS. Participants were assessed in baseline sprints, and sprints of 15 seconds, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 min post-PAP intervention. A repeated measures ANOVA (p < 0.05) calculated significant changes in sprint times. The best potentiated time for each interval was also compared to the baseline. Spearman’s correlations (r; p < 0.05) calculated relationships between absolute and relative strength, PP and PF, with percent potentiation in sprint times. The BSS did not potentiate speed at any time, although there was great individual variation. The best 0-5 m time was significantly different from the baseline (p = 0.022), with no differences between PAP conditions. Significant correlations were found between strength and sprint potentiation at 16 min for the 0-5 m interval, and at 8 min and the best times for the 0-20 m interval (r = -0.786 to -0.893). There were correlations between PP and PF for each leg with sprint potentiation from 2-12 min across all intervals (r = -0.786 to -0.964). Stronger individuals who generate greater PP and PF in a 5RM BSS will be more likely to potentiate 20-m sprint performance.

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.

scholarly journals Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Using Reference Minimum Velocity Threshold Values in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
John F. T. Fernandes ◽  
Amelia F. Dingley ◽  
Amador Garcia-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Perez-Castilla ◽  
James J. Tufano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Young Group ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Velocity Threshold ◽  
Low Load ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Minimum Velocity

Background: This study determined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods when predicting one-repetition maximum (1RM) in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Methods: Two days after maximal strength testing, 20 young (age 21.0 ± 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 ± 6.7 years) resistance-trained males completed three repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row at loads corresponding to 20–80% 1RM. Using reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) values, the 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationships through multiple (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), two-point (20 and 80% 1RM), high-load (60 and 80% 1RM) and low-load (20 and 40% 1RM) methods for each group. Results: Despite most prediction methods demonstrating acceptable correlations (r = 0.55 to 0.96), the absolute errors for young and middle-aged groups were generally moderate to high for bench press (absolute errors = 8.2 to 14.2% and 8.6 to 20.4%, respectively) and bent-over-row (absolute error = 14.9 to 19.9% and 8.6 to 18.2%, respectively). For squats, the absolute errors were lower in the young group (5.7 to 13.4%) than the middle-aged group (13.2 to 17.0%) but still unacceptable. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reference MVTs cannot accurately predict the 1RM in these populations. Therefore, practitioners need to directly assess 1RM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document