Acute effects of elastic bands on the barbell kinematics and sticking region in the bench press exercise

Objectives: This study investigates the biomechanics of the bench press and overhead press exercises by modeling the trunk and upper limbs as a kinematic chain of rigid links connected by revolute joints and actuated by single- and two-joint muscles, with motion constrained by the barbell. The aims were to (i) assess the different contributions of shoulder and elbow torques during lifting, (ii) identify the parameters influencing joint loads, (iii) explain the origin of the sticking region, and (iv) validate the model against experimental barbell kinematics. Methods: Equations of motion and joint reaction forces were derived analytically in closed form. Dynamic simulations produced vertical barbell velocity profiles under various conditions. A waveform similarity analysis was used to compare simulated profiles with experimental data from maximal bench press trials. Results: The sticking region occurred when shoulder torque dropped below a critical threshold, resulting in a local velocity minimum. Adding elbow torque reduced this dip and shifted the velocity minimum from 38 cm to 23 cm above the chest, although it prolonged the time needed to overcome it. Static analysis revealed that grip width and barbell constraint had a greater effect on shaping the sticking region than muscle architecture parameters. Elbow extensors contributed minimally during early lift phases but became dominant near full extension. Model predictions showed high similarity to experimental data in the pre-sticking (SI = 0.962, p = 0.028) and sticking (SI = 0.949, p = 0.014) phases, with reduced, non-significant similarity post-sticking (SI = 0.881, p > 0.05) due to the assumption of constant torques. Conclusions: The model offers biomechanical insight into how joint torques and barbell constraints shape movement. The findings support training strategies that target shoulder strength early in the lift and elbow strength near lockout to minimize sticking and improve performance.

Ocaña-García, Á, Herrero-Atiénzar, JM, López-Gullón, JM, Bonacasa, B, and Bayonas-Ruiz, A. A velocity-based approach to variable resistance training in the bench press: repetitions to failure and level of effort. J Strength Cond Res 40(3): 272-282, 2026-This study analyzed the use of elastic bands in the bench press exercise within a velocity-based training approach to explore its application in variable resistance training (VRT) in regard to the level of effort methodology. Therefore, we aimed to (a) investigate the intersubject and intrasubject variability in the number of repetitions to failure ( n RM) across 3 one-repetition maximum percentages (%1RM) and 2 load configurations using elastic bands: 25% (B25) and 50% (B50) of the load from bands; (b) examine the relationship between the number of repetitions completed and velocity loss reached; (c) assess the mean propulsive velocity associated to each %1RM and elastic bands contribution; and (d) study the influence of the subject's strength level on these parameters. After determining the individual 1RM, 26 subjects with low ( n = 9), medium ( n = 9), and high ( n = 8) relative strength levels completed 2 rounds of n RM tests against their 60, 70, and 80% 1RM with B25 and B50 configurations in the bench press. Number of repetitions to failure increased with band contribution (B50 > B25, p < 0.01) and showed moderate intersubject variability (coefficients of variation = 16%) and very low intrasubject ( SEM ≤ 1.4 repetitions) variability for all the strength levels, %1RM, and band contributions analyzed. A very high correlation ( R2 = 0.910-0.935) between the number of repetitions completed and the percentage of velocity loss reached (from 5 to 65%) was found. These findings support the use of the level of effort as a reliable and practical tool for programming VRT.

The aim of the study was to examine the sticking region and concomitant neuromuscular activation of the prime movers during six-repetition maximum (RM) bench pressing. We hypothesised that both peak velocities would decrease and that the electromyography (EMG) of the prime movers (deltoid, major pectoralis and triceps) would increase during the pre-sticking and sticking region during the six repetitions due to fatigue. Thirteen resistance-trained males (age 22.8 ± 2.2 years, stature 1.82 ± 0.06 m, body mass 83.4 ± 7.6 kg) performed 6-RM bench presses. Barbell kinematics and EMG activity of pectoralis major, deltoid anterior, and triceps brachii during the pre-, sticking and post-sticking region of each repetition in a 6-RM bench press were analysed. For both the sticking as the post-sticking region, the time increased significantly from the first to the sixth repetition. Vertical barbell height at the start of sticking region was lower, while the height at the end of the sticking region and post-sticking region did not change during the six repetitions. It was concluded that in 6-RM bench pressing performance, the sticking region is a poor mechanical force region due to the unchanged barbell height at the end of the sticking region. Furthermore, when fatigue occurs, the pectoralis and the deltoid muscles are responsible for surpassing the sticking region as indicated by their increased activity during the pre- and sticking region during the six-repetitions bench press.

Grip width has been found to affect lifting performance, especially around the sticking region; however, little is known about the kinetics and muscle activities that could explain these differences in performance. This study aimed to investigate the effects of grip width on the joint, barbell kinematics, and horizontal kinetics, analyzed in tandem with the effects of muscle activation around the sticking region in the one repetition maximum (1-RM) barbell bench press. Fourteen healthy bench press-trained males (body mass: 87.8 ± 18.4, age: 25 ± 5.4) performed 1-RM with a small, medium, and wide grip width. The participants bench pressed 109.8 ± 24.5 kg, 108.9 ± 26.4 kg, and 103.7 ± 24 kg with the wide, medium, and narrow grip widths. Furthermore, the wide grip width produced 13.1–15.7% lateral forces, while the medium and narrow grip widths produced 0.4–1.8 and 8.5–10.1% medially directed forces of the vertical force produced during the sticking region, respectively. Horizontal forces did not increase during the sticking region, and the resultant forces decreased during the sticking region for all grip widths. The wide and medium grip widths produced greater horizontal shoulder moments than the narrow grip width during the sticking region. Hence, the wide and medium grip widths produced similar shoulder and elbow joint moments and moment arm at the first located lowest barbell velocity. Furthermore, triceps medialis muscle activity was greater for the medium and narrow grip widths than the wide grip width. This study suggests that the sticking region for the wide and medium grip widths may be specific to the horizontal elbow and shoulder joint moments created during this region. Therefore, when the goal is to lift as much as possible during 1-RM bench press attempts among recreationally trained males, our findings suggest that bench pressing with a wide or medium grip width may be beneficial.

The barbell bench press is often performed at different repetition maximums (RM). However, little is known about the last repetition of these repetition maximums in terms of movement kinematics and electromyographic activity in the bench press. This study compared kinematics and electromyographic activity during the last repetition of 1-RM, 3-RM, 6-RM, and 10-RM on the barbell bench press. Twelve healthy recreationally bench press-trained males (body mass: 84.3 ± 7.8 kg, age: 23.5 ± 2.6 years, height: 183.8 ± 4.2 cm) performed the bench press with a self-chosen grip width with four different repetition maximums. The participants bench pressed 96.5 ± 14.1, 88.5 ± 13.0, 81.5 ± 12.3, and 72.8 ± 10.5 kg with the 1-RM, 3-RM, 6-RM, and 10-RM. No differences were found between the bench press conditions in kinematic or electromyographic activity, except for the 10-RM, where a higher barbell velocity was observed at peak barbell deacceleration and first minimum barbell velocity (p ≤ 0.05) compared to the 1-RM and 3-RM. Overall, triceps medialis activity increased, whereas biceps brachii activity decreased from the pre-sticking to post-sticking region for all bench conditions (p ≤ 0.05). Since slower barbell velocity was observed in the sticking region for the 1-RM and 3-RM conditions compared to the 10-RM condition, we suggest training with these repetition maximums to learn how to grind through the sticking region due to the principle of specificity when the goal is to enhance maximal strength.

The bench press (BP) is a widely used exercise in strength training. Despite numerous studies on muscle activation during BP, little is known about individual muscle frequency changes during the sticking region (SR). This study aimed to evaluate muscle activation during 1 repetition maximum (RM) and 4RM BP in 24 male participants experienced with BP exercise. Electromyography was used to measure muscle activity in various muscles during pre-sticking, sticking, and post-sticking phases, with kinematic data aiding in phase differentiation. Our findings revealed a significant decrease in muscle activation frequency as participants moved from the pre-sticking to the sticking and then to the post-sticking phases (p&lt;0.01). This decline was evident in both 1RM and 4RM conditions, indicating muscle exhaustion that persisted even after the SR. The SR of the BP is the most challenging part of the exercise, resulting in a decrease in muscle frequency during this phase in both 1RM and 4RM repetitions. It indicates exhaustion of the muscles which persisted even in the post-sticking phase, highlighting the challenging nature of the exercise. This study presents insights into muscle activity during the BP, which can help understanding the impact of each exercise phase on muscle frequency.

The bench press and pushup are commonly used for training upper body muscular strength and endurance. Although they are often used interchangeably, differences between the two relative to body mass load are unknown. Furthermore, sex differences may exist due to anthropometric body mass specificity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the pushup and bench press when performing repetitions to failure with an equated load. On day 1, 25 recreationally trained subjects (16 men, age = 23.00 ± 2.36 years, height = 178.19 ± 9.61 cm, mass = 74.80 ± 13.44 kg; 9 women, age = 23.11 ± 2.71 years, height = 160.78 ± 5.95 cm, mass = 53.63 ± 5.60 kg), performed a one repetition maximum bench press and an isometric pushup on a force plate to determine bodyweight load supported in both the up and down positions. Grip width on the bench press was measured as the distance between middle fingers and was used for hand placement during pushups. For the down position, a safety squat device was placed on the right triceps to signal that the upper arms were parallel to the ground, while for the up position, triceps were perpendicular to the floor. Days 2 and 3 consisted of performing repetitions to failure for either the bench press or pushup exercise with a load that was equal to the average relative bodyweight force of the up and down pushup positions. For the pushup, subjects followed a 60 beats per minute tempo and the test was terminated if they failed to complete a full repetition; they could not maintain cadence or there were three faults in form. For the bench press, they followed the same 60 s tempo and the test was terminated if they failed to complete a full repetition or could not maintain cadence. A 2 (exercise: bench press, pushup) × 2 (sex: men, women) mixed factor ANOVA demonstrated no interaction, but there were significant (P &lt; 0.05) main effects for exercise and sex where more repetitions were performed in the pushup (19.36 ± 11.68 reps) than the bench press (11.40 ± 8.38 reps) exercise. Also, men performed significantly more repetitions to failure (men =20.22 ± 8.20 reps, women = 6.78 ± 5.69 reps). For combined sexes, there was a significant (P &lt; 0.05), strong relationship (r = 0.82) between bench press and pushup repetitions to failure. For men, there was a significant (P &lt; 0.05), strong relationship (r = 0.81), while for women, there was a moderate relationship (r = 0.76). Men had significantly (P &lt; 0.05) greater bench press one repetition maximum (men = 99.29 ± 23.98 kg, women = 42.17 ± 8.88 kg), percentage of body mass supported as an average of the up and down positions (men = 74.33 ± 2.57%, women = 69.70 ± 2.63%) and bench press one repetition maximum relative to their body mass (men = 1.32 ± 0.22%, women = 0.79 ± 0.13%). The bench press and pushup are two distinct upper body exercises for repetitions to failure due to upper body musculature and body position sex differences. Choice of the pushup or bench press exercise should be based on training goal and sex.

The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the muscle activation and concomitant intermuscular coupling of antagonist muscles among bench presses with different instability degrees. Twenty-nine untrained male college students performed bench press exercises at an intensity of 60% 1 RM on three conditions: small unstable bench press with Smith machine (SBP), medium unstable bench press of free weight (FWBP), and large unstable bench press with increased instability by suspending the load with elastic bands (IIBP). One-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare integrated EMG activity values of the biceps brachii (BB), posterior deltoid (PD), long head of the triceps brachii (TB), anterior deltoid (AD), upper portion of the pectoralis major (PM) muscles, and phase synchronization index (PSI) of BB-TB and PD-AD antagonist muscle pairs. A higher integrated EMG of BB muscle was found during bench press with a more unstable condition. IIBP showed a higher integrated EMG of prime movers (TB, AD, and PM) and stabilizing of BB than SBP and FWBP. PSI between muscle pairs of BB-TB in the gamma frequency band was higher in SBP than the other bench presses with unstable conditions, which may be related to the optimal “internal model” for antagonist muscles during bench press exercise. Therefore, IIBP training may be an effective accessory exercise to maintain a higher level of muscle activation across primary and stabilizing muscles with a lighter load for untrained men, while SBP may be a suitable bench press exercise for untrained participants who have not developed the neuromuscular adaptations necessary for correct stabilization of the elbow joint.

This study aimed (1) to explore the spatio-temporal phases of the execution of the bench press (BP) exercise based on barbell acceleration and power; (2) to describe barbell velocity, acceleration, mechanical power, and mechanical work at different load intensities; and (3) to analyse differences in kinematic and mechanical parameters. Twenty-one men (21.4 ± 1.5 years; 175.1 ± 6.7 cm; 75.8 ± 7.7 kg; 1RM: 91.7 ± 13.7 kg) and nine women (21.7 ± 2.3 years; 163.3 ± 10.8 cm; 57.2 ± 6.8 kg; 1RM: 38.9 ± 10.5 kg) were evaluated during the eccentric and concentric phases of the BP at different load intervals: interval 1 (55 to 75% 1RM), interval 2 (&gt;75 to 85% 1RM) and interval 3 (&gt;85 to 100% 1RM). Both temporal (duration) and mechanical variables (velocity, acceleration, mechanical power and mechanical work of the barbell) were determined using the Xsens MVN Link System. Mechanical variables were compared among the three different intervals. Interval 3 displayed greater duration compared to intervals 1 and 2. Barbell acceleration and power showed four different phases of BP movement, corresponding to the second and third phases of the exercise, bar braking (eccentric) and bar acceleration (concentric), respectively; the first and fourth phases are mainly determined by gravity instead of muscle intervention. Velocity and acceleration were different among the three different intervals during both the eccentric and concentric phases (p &lt; 0.05). No differences were found between intervals 2 and 3 in mechanical power or mechanical work during the eccentric phase. In conclusion, the BP exercise has four phases considering barbell acceleration and power. The maximum and mean velocity and acceleration during BP performance decrease as load intensity increases. Maximum and mean mechanical power, and mechanical work, decrease progressively in the second and third intervals for both the eccentric and concentric phases. Thus, kinematics and mechanical parameters vary depending on load intensities.

The current study aims to verify the effects of three specific warm-ups on squat and bench press resistance training. Forty resistance-trained males (19–30 years) performed 3 × 6 repetitions with 80% of maximal dynamic strength (designated as training load) after one of the following warm-ups (48 h between): (i) 2 × 6 repetitions with 40% and 80% of the training load (WU), (ii) 6 × 80% of training load (WU80), or (iii) 6 × 40% of the training load (WU40). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV), velocity loss (VL), peak velocity (PV), time to achieve PV, power, work, heart rates, and ratings of perceived exertion were analyzed. In squat exercises, higher MPV were found in WU80 compared with WU40 (2nd set: 0.69 ± 0.09 vs. 0.67 ± 0.06 m.s−1, p = 0.02, ES = 0.80; 3rd set: 0.68 ± 0.09 vs. 0.66 ± 0.07 m.s−1, p = 0.05, ES = 0.51). In bench press exercises, time to PV was lower in WU compared with WU40 (1st set: 574.77 ± 233.46 vs. 694.50 ± 211.71 m.s−1, p < 0.01, ES = 0.69; 2nd set: 533.19 ± 272.22 vs. 662.31 ± 257.51 m.s−1, p = 0.04, ES = 0.43) and total work was higher (4749.90 ± 1312.99 vs. 4631.80 ± 1355.01 j, p = 0.01, ES = 0.54). The results showed that force outputs were mainly optimized by WU80 in squat training and by WU in bench press training. Moreover, warming-up with few repetitions and low loads is not enough to optimize squat and bench press performances.

The target of this study was to investigate the acute effect of a supramaximal augmented eccentric load on the kinematics and myoelectric activity during the concentric phase of the lift in a traditional bench press. Ten resistance-trained males (age 24 ± 6.4 years, height 1.80 ± 0.07 m, body-mass 87.2 ± 16.9 kg) performed two repetitions at 110/85% of the 1-RM in the dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) group and two repetitions at 85/85% of the 1-RM for the control group in a traditional bench press. The barbell kinematics, joint kinematics and myoelectric activity of eight muscles were measured in the eccentric phase and the pre-sticking, sticking and post-sticking regions. The main findings were that the sticking region started at a lower barbell height and that a lower barbell velocity was observed in the sticking region during the second repetition in the DAER condition compared to the control condition. Additionally, the lateral deltoid muscle and clavicle part of the pectoralis were more active during the eccentric loading compared to the control condition for the second repetition. Furthermore, higher myoelectric activity was measured during the second repetition in the sticking region for the eccentric loading condition in both pectoralis muscles, while the sternal parts of the pectoralis and anterior deltoid were more active during the second repetition of the control condition in the post-sticking region. Based on our findings, it can be concluded that the supramaximal loading in the descending phase with 110% of the 1-RM in the bench press does not have an acute and positive effect of enhanced performance in the ascending phase of the lift at 85% of 1-RM. Instead, fatigue occurs when using this eccentric load during a bench press.

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.

Merrigan, JJ and Martin, JR. Is the OUTPUT sports unit reliable and valid when estimating back squat and bench press concentric velocity? J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2069-2076, 2022-This study evaluated the reliability and concurrent validity of the OUTPUT sports inertial unit to measure concentric velocity of free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. Eleven men and women performed back squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing. One week later, subjects performed 3 repetitions of each exercise with 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% 1RM (18 total repetitions). The OUTPUT and 4 cable extension transducers (criterion) simultaneously recorded the mean and peak velocity. The OUTPUT had acceptable reliability for all loads except 85% 1RM for back squat and bench press (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72-0.96, coefficient of variation = 0.03-0.12). High systematic biases existed for the mean and peak velocity for the back squat and bench press, according to Bland-Altman plot's wide limits of agreement and ordinary least products regressions. According to Bland-Altman plots, OUTPUT tended to overestimate bench press velocity and overestimate back squat velocity at slower velocities. Least products regression analyses determined proportional bias existed for the mean and peak velocity of the back squat and peak velocity of the bench press. In conclusion, researchers and practitioners are advised not to compare velocity estimates of the OUTPUT unit with criterion devices because these methods cannot be used interchangeably. However, because of the demonstrated reliability when estimating the mean and peak velocity, strength and conditioning practitioners may find the OUTPUT unit valuable for monitoring performance of the back squat and bench press exercises. Yet, caution should be taken when evaluating loads ≥85% 1RM.

During the last years, post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) has gained notorious popularity due to the capacity to improve the acute rate of force development (RFD) using different strategies with different muscle contraction regimes as conditioning stimuli. The aim of the present study was to analyse the role of a maximal isometric post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) protocol in performance and its effects on the kinematics of the sticking region. Twenty-one trained participants (age 26.4 ± 5.4 years) underwent two experimental sessions: an experimental session consisting of a single set and a single repetition of the bench press at the 93% of 1RM (which is considered a traditional conditioning activity to induce PAPE) (TRAD) and an isometric experimental session (ISO) consisting of 15 maximal voluntary isometric contractions in the sticking region of the medium grip bench press lasting 1 s with a 1 s rest interval between contractions. Both TRAD and ISO experimental conditions improved performance from post0 to post4, post8, post12 and post16, but only the ISO condition improved performance from the start of the lift to the start of the sticking region from pre to post (p < 0.001), and only the ISO condition improved maximum (p = 0.005) and minimum (p = 0.025) peak velocities. The results of this study suggest that short duration maximal voluntary isometric contractions improve the velocity of the lift prior to the initiation of the sticking region, which ultimately improves the impulse and facilitates the lift.

The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. Twelve male experienced powerlifters (age 27.7 ± 8.8 years, mass 91.9 ± 15.4 kg) were tested in one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press with a narrow, medium and wide grip. Joint kinematics, timing, bar position and velocity were measured with a 3D motion capture system. All participants showed a clear sticking region with all three grip widths, but this sticking region was not found to occur at the same joint angles in all three grip widths, thereby rejecting the hypothesis that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width. It is suggested that, due to the differences in moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint in the sticking region, there still might be a poor mechanical region for total force production that is joint angle-specific.