The Relationship of One Repetition Maximum between Flat Bench Press Exercise and Incline Bench Press Exercise

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.

Download Full-text

The Relationship Between Muscle Action and Repetition Maximum on the Squat and Bench Press in Men and Women

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research ◽

10.1519/jsc.0000000000000337 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 28 (9) ◽

pp. 2437-2442 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Shawn D. Flanagan ◽

Matthew D. Mills ◽

Adam J. Sterczala ◽

Jesse Mala ◽

Brett A. Comstock ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Muscle Action ◽

Men And Women ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

The Relationship

Download Full-text

Relationship of Barbell and Dumbbell Repetitions With One Repetition Maximum Bench Press in College Football Players

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research ◽

10.1519/jsc.0000000000003539 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽

Author(s):

Marc L. Heinecke ◽

Matthew L. Mauldin ◽

Monica L. Hunter ◽

J. Bryan Mann ◽

Jerry L. Mayhew

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

College Football ◽

Football Players ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Relationship Of

Download Full-text

Isometric Assessment of Muscular Function: The Effect of Joint Angle

Journal of Applied Biomechanics ◽

10.1123/jab.11.2.205 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 205-215 ◽

Cited By ~ 36

Author(s):

Aron J. Murphy ◽

Greg J. Wilson ◽

John F. Pryor ◽

Robert U. Newton

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Joint Angle ◽

Dynamic Performance ◽

Muscle Mechanics ◽

Upper Body ◽

Joint Angles ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Muscular Function ◽

And Performance ◽

The Relationship

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between isometric measures of muscular function at two different joint angles and dynamic performance. Thirteen experienced weight trainers performed two isometric tests in a bench press position, at elbow angles of 90 and 120°. Performance was assessed by a one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press and a series of upper body bench press throws at loads of 15, 30, and 60% of the 1-RM load. The results clearly show that changing the joint angle from 120 to 90° improved the relationship between most of the tests and performance by more than 100%, possibly due to differences in motor unit recruitment patterns and differing muscle mechanics (e.g., length-tension), at varying joint angles. It was suggested that the best angle at which to assess isometric function may be the joint angle at which peak force is developed in the performance of interest.

Download Full-text

Comparison Of The Relationship Of Oxygen Consumption/ Intensity For Bench Press And Squat

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ◽

10.1249/01.mss.0000401103.66854.4e ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 43 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 400

Author(s):

Liliane C. Aranda ◽

Vinicius O. Damasceno ◽

Patricia S. Panza ◽

Jeferson M. Vianna ◽

Augusto Pedretti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Oxygen Consumption ◽

Bench Press ◽

Relationship Of ◽

The Relationship ◽

Consumption Intensity

Download Full-text

Differences in the Load–Velocity Profile Between 4 Bench-Press Variants

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance ◽

10.1123/ijspp.2017-0158 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. 326-331 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Amador García-Ramos ◽

Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero ◽

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽

Francisco Javier Rojas ◽

Guy Gregory Haff

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Loading Test ◽

Mean Velocity ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Pooled Data ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Velocity Relationship ◽

The Individual ◽

Relationship Of ◽

Incremental Loading

Purpose: To compare the load–velocity relationship between 4 variants of the bench-press (BP) exercise. Methods: The full load–velocity relationship of 30 men was evaluated by means of an incremental loading test starting at 17 kg and progressing to the individual 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in 4 BP variants: concentric-only BP, concentric-only BP throw (BPT), eccentric-concentric BP, and eccentric-concentric BPT. Results: A strong and fairly linear relationship between mean velocity (MV) and %1RM was observed for the 4 BP variants (r2 > .96 for pooled data and r2 > .98 for individual data). The MV associated with each %1RM was significantly higher in the eccentric-concentric technique than in the concentric-only technique. The only significant difference between the BP and BPT variants was the higher MV with the light to moderate loads (20–70%1RM) in the BPT using the concentric-only technique. MV was significantly and positively correlated between the 4 BP variants (r = .44–.76), which suggests that the subjects with higher velocities for each %1RM in 1 BP variant also tend to have higher velocities for each %1RM in the 3 other BP variants. Conclusions: These results highlight the need for obtaining specific equations for each BP variant and the existence of individual load–velocity profiles.

Download Full-text

The Relationship Of Arm Span To Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction And 1rm Bench Press Performance.

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ◽

10.1249/01.mss.0000355940.36578.5f ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

pp. 456-457

Author(s):

Megan Williamson ◽

David Bellar ◽

Matt Muller ◽

Tiffany J. Patrick ◽

Jacob Barkley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Isometric Contraction ◽

Bench Press ◽

Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction ◽

Arm Span ◽

Press Performance ◽

Relationship Of ◽

The Relationship

Download Full-text

Reliability of the Load–Velocity Relationship Obtained Through Linear and Polynomial Regression Models to Predict the 1-Repetition Maximum Load

Journal of Applied Biomechanics ◽

10.1123/jab.2017-0266 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (3) ◽

pp. 184-190 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero ◽

G. Gregory Haff ◽

Francisco Javier Rojas ◽

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽

Amador García-Ramos

Keyword(s):

Coefficient Of Variation ◽

Regression Models ◽

Bench Press ◽

Polynomial Regression ◽

Maximum Load ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Velocity Relationship ◽

Polynomial Regression Models ◽

The Individual ◽

Relationship Of

This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of the load–velocity relationship between (1) linear versus polynomial regression models, (2) concentric-only versus eccentric–concentric bench press variants, as well as (3) the within-participants versus the between-participants variability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the 1-repetition maximum. The load–velocity relationship of 30 men (age: 21.2 [3.8] y; height: 1.78 [0.07] m, body mass: 72.3 [7.3] kg; bench press 1-repetition maximum: 78.8 [13.2] kg) were evaluated by means of linear and polynomial regression models in the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric bench press variants in a Smith machine. Two sessions were performed with each bench press variant. The main findings were: (1) first-order polynomials (coefficient of variation: 4.39%–4.70%) provided the load–velocity relationship with higher reliability than the second-order polynomials (coefficient of variation: 4.68%–5.04%); (2) the reliability of the load–velocity relationship did not differ between the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric bench press variants; and (3) the within-participants variability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the 1-repetition maximum was markedly lower than the between-participants variability. Taken together, these results highlight that, regardless of the bench press variant considered, the individual determination of the load–velocity relationship by a linear regression model could be recommended to monitor and prescribe the relative load in the Smith machine bench press exercise.

Download Full-text