PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2013 | 38 | 63-71
Article title

A Comparison of Muscle Activity in Concentric and Counter Movement Maximum Bench Press

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The purpose of this study was to compare the kinematics and muscle activation patterns of regular free-weight bench press (counter movement) with pure concentric lifts in the ascending phase of a successful one repetition maximum (1-RM) attempt in the bench press. Our aim was to evaluate if diminishing potentiation could be the cause of the sticking region. Since diminishing potentiation cannot occur in pure concentric lifts, the occurrence of a sticking region in this type of muscle actions would support the hypothesis that the sticking region is due to a poor mechanical position. Eleven male participants (age 21.9 ~ 1.7 yrs, body mass 80.7 ~ 10.9 kg, body height 1.79 ~ 0.07 m) conducted 1-RM lifts in counter movement and in pure concentric bench presses in which kinematics and EMG activity were measured. In both conditions, a sticking region occurred. However, the start of the sticking region was different between the two bench presses. In addition, in four of six muscles, the muscle activity was higher in the counter movement bench press compared to the concentric one. Considering the findings of the muscle activity of six muscles during the maximal lifts it was concluded that the diminishing effect of force potentiation, which occurs in the counter movement bench press, in combination with a delayed muscle activation unlikely explains the existence of the sticking region in a 1-RM bench press. Most likely, the sticking region is the result of a poor mechanical force position.
Keywords
Publisher

Year
Volume
38
Pages
63-71
Physical description
Dates
published
1 - 09 - 2013
online
08 - 10 - 2013
Contributors
  • Department of Teacher Education of Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger Norway, roland.tillaar@hint.no
  • Department of human Movement Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
References
  • Arnason A, Sigurdsson SB, Gudmundsson A, Holme I, Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Risk Factors for Injuries in Football. Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32(5): suppl. 5-16[Crossref]
  • Elliott BC, Wilson GJ, Kerr GK. A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med SciSports Exerc, 1989; 21(4): 450-462
  • Hamilton N. Bar path in the bench press by wheelchair athletes. Braz Int J Adapt Phys Educ Res, 1995; 2: 61-69.
  • Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Elect Kin, 2000; 10(5): 361-374[Crossref]
  • Lander JE, Bates BT, Swahill JA, Hamill J. A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1985; 17(3): 344-353[PubMed]
  • Madsen N, McLaughlin T. Kinematic factors influencing performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1984; 16(4): 376-381[PubMed]
  • McLaughlin T, Madsen N. Bench press techniques of elite heavyweight power lifters. National NSCA J, 1984; 6(4): 62-65
  • Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kreamer WJ, Häkkinen K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upperbody movements. Eur J Appl Physiol, 1997; 50(10): 311-320
  • Sæterbakken A, van den Tillaar R, Fimland M. A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements. J Sports Sci, 2011; 29(1): 1-6 [WoS]
  • van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. A comparison of kinematics and muscle activity between successful and unsuccessful attempts in bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2009; 41(11): 2056-2063
  • van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. The “sticking period” in bench press. J Sports Sci, 2010; 28: 529-535
  • van den Tillaar R, Sæterbakken A, Ettema G. Is the sticking region in bench press the result of diminishing potentiation? J Sports Sci, 2012; 30: 591-599[WoS]
  • Walshe AD, Wilson GJ. Ettema G. Stretch shorten cycle as compared to isometric preload: contributions to enhanced muscular performance. J Appl Physiol, 1998; 84: 97-106[PubMed]
  • Wilson GJ, Elliott BC, Wood GA. The effect of performance of imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1991; 23(3): 364-370[PubMed]
  • Wilson GJ, Wood GA, Elliott BC. Optimal stiffness of series elastic component in a stretch-shorten cycle activity. J Appl Physiol, 1991; 70: 825-833
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.-psjd-doi-10_2478_hukin-2013-0046
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.