Ballistic Bench Press Research Articles

Sex differences in the determination of prescribed load in ballistic bench press.

Introduction: The objectives of the present study were twofold: first, to identify the specific relative load at which the concentric motion transforms into a purely propulsive action among women, and second, to compare the load-velocity relationships between men and women during the bench press throw. Methods: Fourteen men and fourteen women participated in a test where they progressively increased the load until reaching their one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press exercise. Linear regression models were employed to elucidate the relationships between load and velocity, as well as load and the propulsive phase (% of total concentric time). Additionally, ANCOVA was utilized to compare the linear regression models between men and women. Results: The results revealed strong and linear associations between load and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) for both men and women, as well as between load and the propulsive phase. Notably, there were significant differences in MPV and the propulsive phase concerning load between men and women. Women transitioned into a fully propulsive concentric phase at approximately 80% of their 1RM, while men achieved this entirely propulsive phase at around 85% of their 1RM. Furthermore, women exhibited reduced velocities when handling lighter relative loads compared to men. Conversely, women demonstrated higher velocities when dealing with loads exceeding 85% of their 1RM in contrast to their male counterparts. Discussion: These findings hold notable implications for prescribing bench press throw loads for women, which should differ from those recommended for men. Further studies are necessary to validate the efficacy of the proposed load recommendations.

Acute Effect of L-Citrulline Supplementation on Resistance Exercise Performance and Muscle Oxygenation in Recreationally Resistance Trained Men and Women.

L-citrulline serves as a nitric oxide precursor with the potential to increase blood flow and improve resistance exercise performance, yet more research is needed to examine its ergogenic potential. To examine the effect of L-citrulline supplementation on resistance exercise performance, muscle oxygenation, and the subjective perception of effort, energy, focus, fatigue, and muscle pump, eighteen resistance-trained men (n = 11) and women (n = 7) (21.4 ± 1.8 years; 172.3 ± 7.5 cm; 76.9 ± 10.8 kg) were randomly assigned for supplementation with 8 g of L-citrulline (CIT) or a placebo (PL) in a cross-over fashion one hour prior to testing. Participants completed an isometric mid-thigh pull test (IMTP), a ballistic bench press protocol [two sets of two repetitions at 75% 1-repetition maximum (1 RM) with maximum ballistic intent], and a strength-endurance bench press protocol [five repetition-maximum sets at 75% 1RM]. Barbell velocity and power were measured via a linear position transducer during the ballistic protocol, while the repetitions completed, volume load and muscle oxygenation were quantified during the strength-endurance protocol. Subjective measures were assessed at the baseline and immediately pre- and post-exercise. Repeated measures of the analysis of variance and Bayesian equivalents revealed no significant interactions, providing evidence favoring the null hypothesis (BF10 < 1) for IMTP (PL 497.5 ± 133.6 vs. CIT 492.5 ± 129.4 N), barbell velocity, and power, and repetitions completed (PL 36.7 ± 7.2 vs. CIT 36.9 ± 8.1 repetitions). There were also no significant interactions for muscle oxygenation parameters or subjective measures except perceived fatigue. Women reported greater fatigue across all time points compared to men (~1.88 au, p = 0.045, BF10 = 0.2). The results indicate that a single 8 g dose of L-citrulline did not enhance isometric force production, muscle endurance, or muscle oxygenation parameters during the protocol implemented in this study.

The effect of upper body sprint interval training on golf drive performance

Improving golf fitness is one way to improve club head velocity and subsequently golf performance. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of a three-week upper-body sprint training (SIT) program on power output and golf performance. Eleven golfers (handicap: 5.5±2.8) completed the SIT intervention. This was a self-controlled experiment with three testing points (pre-control, post-control and post-intervention) where subjects completed a ballistic bench press, upper-body Wingate and golf testing session. Significant improvements were observed (13.3-15.5%) in peak and mean power production during the Wingate post-intervention in comparison to pre- and post-control time points (P<0.05). This was replicated in peak power for the ballistic bench press for both peak power (P<0.05), but significance for mean power was only observed between post-control and post-intervention (P<0.05) (improvements of 6.1-8.5%). These improvements were not seen consistently in golf performance variables measured, with no significance identified for the 7-iron and significant improvements (P<0.05) observed in Carry Distance (2.2%) and Ball Velocity (1.4%) between pre-control and post-intervention. Lack of golf performance improvements could be because of the natural variation in club-head velocity across sessions or the inability of subjects to utilise their power gains during the golf swing. Longer SIT interventions may be needed to observe improvements in golf performance.

The effect of a controlled mandible position mouthguard on upper body strength and power in trained rugby athletes – A randomized within subject study

BackgroundIt is widely accepted that mouthguards are effective for injury protection in sports. However, findings on the effects of mouthguards in strength and power production remains controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether controlled-mandible position mouthguards influence strength and power production in well trained athletes. MethodsTwenty-two male amateur rugby players (25 ± 3.84 yrs; 1.92 ± 0.07 m; 93.91 ± 11.99 kg) volunteered for this study. Every participant performed an 1RM bench press test (113.20 ± 16.83 kg) to determine his maximal strength. In a randomized order, a ballistic bench press using 40% of the obtained 1RM (44.93 ± 6.76 Kg) was performed in a guided bar attached to a linear position transducer (LPT) for the following conditions: a) no mouthguard (CON); b) controlled mouthguard (MCM - jaw in centric relation); c) non-controlled mouthguard (NCM) and d) occlusal splint (OS). Vertical dimension of occlusion was also assessed for each of the testing conditions. ResultsAthletes using a controlled mouthguard demonstrate a significant (p < 0.05) higher peak acceleration and peak force than those using no mouthguard. Additionally, when analysing the results of vertical dimension of occlusion, a significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between controlled mouthguard and the other tested conditions. ConclusionControlled mouthguards enhance peak force and peak acceleration in the ballistic bench press exercise without negatively affecting any other measure assessed in this study. We speculate that this is possibly due to an increased stability of temporomandibular joint.

The force-velocity profile as determinant of spike and serve ball speed in top-level male volleyball players.

Understanding the relationship between mechanical variables derived from actions such as jumping, sprinting, or ballistic bench press throwing and sport-specific performance moves is of scientific and practical interest for strength and conditioning coaches for improving training programs. We examined the association between mechanical variables derived from the force-velocity (FV) profiles of the aforementioned actions and spike and serve ball speeds in elite volleyball players. Twenty-two male elite volleyball players (age: 24.3 ± 4.5 years; height: 1.89 ± 0.06 m; body mass: 86.3 ± 8.6 kg) were tested in two sessions. Squatting, sprinting, and bench press throwing FV profiles were determined in the first session, while spike and serve ball speeds were assessed in the second session. The theoretical maximal force (F0) of vertical jumping, the theoretical maximal velocity of sprinting, and the F0 of bench press throwing in ascending order, were strongly associated (rs range 0.53–0.84; p<0.05) with spike and serve ball speeds. These mechanical variables explained 20%-36% of the variability in spike and serve ball speeds, with a greater influence on the serve speed. These results suggest that assessing jumping, sprinting, and bench press throwing force-velocity profiles might help provide player-specific training programs and optimize performance in these technical-tactical actions in male elite volleyball players.

Not All Physical Performance Tests Are Related to Early Season Match Running Performance in Professional Rugby League.

Glassbrook, DJ, Fuller, JT, Wade, JA, and Doyle, TLA. Not all physical performance tests are related to early season match running performance in professional rugby league. J Strength Cond Res 36(7): 1944-1950, 2022-This study aimed to determine which physical tests correlate with early season running performance. Sixteen professional rugby league players performed the 30-15 intermittent fitness test (IFT), 1.2-km time trial, 1 repetition maximum (RM) barbell back squat, isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), countermovement jump (CMJ), barbell squat jump (SJ), and ballistic bench press throw (BBP). Bivariate Pearson's correlations and linear regression were used to compare physical tests with peak match running intensities recorded by a portable Global Positioning System and represented by peak match velocity and acceleration, as well as peak 1-, 4-, 6-, and 8-minute instantaneous acceleration/deceleration periods of play. Significant (p < 0.05) negative correlations (r = -0.55 to -0.60) were observed between the IFT and relative 1-, 4-, 6-, and 8-minute peaks, and between the relative 1RM back squat and relative 1-, 4-, 6-, and 8-minute peaks. Significant positive correlations (r = 0.52-0.84) were observed between the following physical tests and match performance pairs: IFT and peak acceleration; relative 1RM back squat and peak acceleration; SJ peak power (relative and absolute) and peak acceleration; CMJ peak force (relative and absolute) and peak acceleration; CMJ peak power (relative and absolute) and peak acceleration and 1-, 4-, 6-, and 8-minute peaks; and relative BBP peak power and peak velocity and peak acceleration. The results of this study highlight that not all generic tests of physical qualities are related to peak match running performance and only those with significant correlations are likely to be able to indicate how players may perform during match-play.

Determining the One Repetition Maximum in the Ballistic Bench Press Exercise.

Loturco, I, McGuigan, MR, Suchomel, T, Freitas, TT, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Pereira, LA, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Determining the one repetition maximum in the ballistic bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 34(12): 3321-3325, 2020-The purpose of this study was to determine the relative load (% of one repetition maximum [1RM]) at which the concentric action becomes entirely propulsive in the bench press (BP) exercise and verify whether this relative load varies between athletes with different strength levels. Twenty-eight professional athletes (Olympic boxers, professional mixed martial arts fighters, and elite rugby players) performed a progressive loading test up to their 1RM in the BP exercise (BP-1RM). Athletes were ordered according to their relative strength values and equally divided into 2 different groups: "low" (≤1.34) and "high" (≥1.38) strength levels. An independent t-test was used to compare the variables between groups. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. No significant differences were observed between the groups for the mean propulsive velocity attained at 1RM and for the maximum load that required braking action during the execution of the traditional BP exercise (effect size = 0.27 and 0.15, respectively; p > 0.05). Our results revealed that at 80% 1RM the concentric action can already be considered as 100% propulsive in the BP exercise. Importantly, this occurrence was independent of strength level. Therefore, this relative strength measure (i.e., 80% BP-1RM) may be used as a reference for the 1RM in the BP throw.

Positive Relationships Between Golf Performance Variables and Upper Body Power Capabilities.

Sorbie GG, Glen J, and Richardson AK Positive relationships between golf performance variables and upper body power capabilities. J Strength Cond Res 35(12S): S97-S102, 2021-The importance of lower body and trunk strength and power, as well as upper body strength in golf is well documented; however, the relationship between upper body power and golf performance has yet to be determined. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate the relationships between golf performance and upper body power. Thirteen golfers (mean ± SD: age: 30 ± 7 years and handicap: 6.1 ± 4.9) participated in the study. Club head velocity (CHV) and ball velocity were measured during the golf test. To assess upper body power, subjects completed a ballistic bench press and upper body Wingate test. Pearson product-moment correlations were used to assess the relationships between golf performance and upper body power. The results demonstrated that there were strong relationships between ballistic bench press and CHV and ball velocity when using the driver (r > 0.6-0.7), and moderate-to-strong relationships (r > 0.4-0.6) when using the 7-iron. Strong relationships were found between the upper body Wingate test and CHV and ball velocity (r > 0.5-0.8) when using the driver and 7-iron. As a result of the findings, strength and conditioning coaches may use both the ballistic bench press test and the Wingate test as a primary assessment to measure the effectiveness of upper body training interventions with the aim of improving golf performance. Although, when performing the golf swings at higher velocities (i.e., with the driver), the ballistic bench press may be more beneficial.

Comparison of Mechanical Outputs Between the Traditional and Ballistic Bench Press: Role of the Type of Variable.

Pestaña-Melero, FL, Jaric, S, Pérez-Castilla, A, Rojas, FJ, and García-Ramos A. Comparison of mechanical outputs between the traditional and ballistic bench press: role of the type of variable. J Strength Cond Res 34(8): 2227-2234, 2020-This study aimed to comprehensively explore the differences in mechanical outputs between the bench press (BP) and the bench press throw (BPT) exercises performed by 21 men (age: 22.0 ± 4.2 years, body mass: 73.4 ± 7.7 kg, height: 177.2 ± 8.0 cm, and concentric-only [C-O] BP 1 repetition maximum: 81.3 ± 6.8 kg) against a fixed external load of 27 kg using both the (C-O) and eccentric-concentric (E-C) execution techniques. The types of variables collected by means of a linear velocity transducer were the traditional mean values (i.e., from the first positive velocity until the barbell reaches maximum height), mean propulsive values (i.e., from the first positive velocity until the barbell acceleration become lower than gravity), mean values of the acceleration phase (i.e., from the first positive velocity until the barbell acceleration become negative), and maximum values (i.e., the highest instantaneous value of the concentric phase) of force, velocity, and power. The magnitude of the effect sizes (the negative sign indicates a higher value for the BP as compared to the BPT) ranged from -0.10 to -2.19 for force, 0.28 to 1.30 for velocity, and -0.73 to 0.67 for power variables, remaining mainly similar for the (C-O) and (E-C) execution techniques. These results highlight that the comparison of force, velocity, and power outputs between the BP and BPT exercises is largely affected by the type of variable considered. The shortcomings of linear position transducers in accurately determining the end point of the concentric phase suggest that the maximum values, particularly the maximum velocity, should be reported to assess ballistic performance.

The Effects of Ballistic and Nonballistic Bench Press on Mechanical Variables.

Moir, GL, Munford, SN, Moroski, LL, Davis, SE. The effects of ballistic and nonballistic bench press on mechanical variables. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3333-3339, 2018-The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of ballistic and nonballistic bench press performed with loads equivalent to 30 and 90% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) on mechanical variables. Eleven resistance-trained men (age: 23.0 ± 1.4 years; mass: 98.4 ± 14.4 kg) attended 4 testing sessions where they performed one of the following sessions: (a) 3 sets of 5 nonballistic repetitions performed with a load equivalent to 30% 1RM (30N-B), (b) 3 sets of 5 ballistic repetitions performed with a load equivalent to 30% 1RM (30B), (c) 3 sets of 4 nonballistic repetitions with a load equivalent to 90% 1RM (90N-B), or (d) 3 sets of 4 ballistic repetitions with a load equivalent to 90% 1RM (90B). Force plates and a 3-dimensional motion analysis system were used to determine the velocity, force, power output (PO), and work during each repetition. The heavier loads resulted in significantly greater forces applied to the barbell (mean differences: 472-783 N, p < 0.001), but lower barbell velocities (mean differences: 0.85-1.20 m·s, p < 0.001) and PO (mean differences: 118-492 W, p ≤ 0.022). The ballistic conditions enhanced the mechanical variables only at the lower load, with 30B producing significantly greater force (mean difference: 263 N, p < 0.001), velocity (mean difference: 0.33 m·s, p < 0.001), and PO (mean difference: 335 W, p < 0.001) compared with 30N-B. Furthermore, the increase in PO across the 3 sets in 30B was significantly different from all other conditions (p = 0.013). The total mechanical work performed was significantly greater for the conditions with the heavier loads compared with those with the lighter loads (mean differences: 362-5,600 J, p < 0.001) and that performed during the ballistic conditions was significantly greater than that performed during the nonballistic conditions with the same load (mean differences: 945-1,030 J, p < 0.001). Ballistic bench press may be an effective exercise for developing PO, and multiple sets may elicit postactivation potentiation that enhances force production. However, these benefits may be negated at heavier loads.

The addition of very light loads into the routine testing of the bench press increases the reliability of the force-velocity relationship.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine whether the addition of very light loads for modeling the force–velocity (F–V) relationship during the bench press (BP) exercise can confirm its experimental linearity as well as to increase the reliability and concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters (maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F–V slope, and maximum power (Pmax)).MethodThe F–V relationship of 19 healthy men were determined using three different methods: (I) 6-loads free method: six loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 1–8–29–39–49–59 kg), (II) 4-loads free method: four loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg), and (III) 4-loads Smith method: four loads performed during the ballistic bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg).ResultsThe linearity of the F–V relationship was very high and comparable for the three F–V methods (p = 0.204; median Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99). The three methods were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: 6-loads free (coefficient of variation (CV) range = 3.6–6.7%) > 4-loads Smith (CV range = 4.6–12.4%) > 4-loads free (CV range = 3.8–14.5%). The higher reliability of the 6-loads free method was especially pronounced for F–V slope (CVratio ≥ 1.85) and V0 (CVratio ≥ 1.49) parameters, while the lowest difference in reliability was observed for F0 (CVratio ≤ 1.27). The 6-loads free and 4-loads free methods showed a very high concurrent validity respect to the 4-loads Smith method for F0 and Pmax (r ≥ 0.89), a moderate validity for the F–V slope (r = 0.66–0.82), and a low validity for V0 (r ≤ 0.37).DiscussionThe routine testing of the F–V relationship of upper-body muscles through the BP exercise should include trials with very light loading conditions to enhance the reliability of the F–V relationship.

Power output in traditional and ballistic bench press in elite athletes: Influence of training background

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to compare the power production in traditional bench-press (TBP) and ballistic bench-throw (BBT) exercises. Furthermore, we assessed the differences in velocity, force, and power outputs between TBP and BBT. Finally, we tested the differences between the loads used to optimize power (optimum power load; OPL) in both exercises, using three distinct power-variables: mean power (MP), mean propulsive power (MPP), and peak power (PP). Sixty athletes from different sports were divided into two groups, according to their training characteristics: hypertrophy-based trained athletes (HTA), thirty-one athletes performing hypertrophy training programmes for (at least) 12-weeks; and power-based trained athletes (PTA), twenty-nine athletes performing power-oriented training sessions for (at least) 12-weeks. Magnitude-based inferences were used to test for differences between groups. Independent of the variable analyzed (MP, MPP, or PP), the PTA produced greater power values in BBT, whereas the HTA generated higher outputs during TBP. The OPL in the HTA was likely heavier in TBP than in BBT, whereas no differences related to this variable were found in the PTA. Despite the apparent superiority of ballistics to produce power, it seems that in elite athletes, the strength-power training routine might affect the ability to apply high forces at very-high velocities.

Evaluation of Muscle Mechanical Capacities Through the Two-Load Method: Optimization of the Load Selection.

Pérez-Castilla, A, Jaric, S, Feriche, B, Padial, P, and García-Ramos, A. Evaluation of muscle mechanical capacities through the 2-load method: Optimization of the load selection. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1245-1253, 2018-Recent research has revealed that the force-velocity relationship obtained from the "2-load method" (i.e., functional movements tested against just 2 external loads) could be a feasible method for the selective assessment of muscle force, velocity, and power-producing capacities. The study investigated the reliability and concurrent validity of the outcomes of the 2-load method observed from (a) farther vs. closer data points (20-70% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 30-60% 1RM, and 40-50% 1RM) and (b) force-biased (50-70% 1RM) vs. velocity-biased (20-40% 1RM) data points. Twenty-two men were tested on a ballistic bench press throw performed against 6 incremental loads ranging from 20 to 70% of the bench press 1RM. The 2-load methods were constructed based on pairs of individually selected external loads and compared with the outcome of the force-velocity regression method applied to all 6 loads. The reliability and validity of the force-velocity relationship parameters decreased with the proximity of the data points (40-50% 1RM < 30-60% 1RM < 20-70% 1RM). The velocity-biased and force-biased loads (i.e., lighter and heavier loads, respectively) revealed a similar but relatively moderate reliability and validity. Overall, the farthest pair of loads (i.e., 20% 1RM and 70% 1RM) revealed the highest reliability (CV = 5.5%, ICC = 0.89) and validity (r = 0.98) among all the 2-load methods evaluated. These results demonstrate that the 20-70% 1RM 2-load method could be a feasible approach for testing individual muscle mechanical capacities, whereas the observed outcomes could be most reliable and valid when obtained from the farthest pairs of applied loads.

The acute effect of strength exercises at different intensities on intraocular pressure.

This study aimed to determine the effect of two basic strength exercises with progressive loads on intraocular pressure (IOP). Seventeen (out of 20 recruited) physically active male military officers (46±4.77years) performed the jump squat and the ballistic bench press exercises, in counterbalanced order, with four and five progressive loads, respectively. IOP was measured with a rebound tonometer before and after each of the corresponding loads. IOP linearly increases with heavier loads for the jump squat (r=0.976) and the ballistic bench press (r=0.991) exercises. A significant IOP elevation was observed during the jump squat test (p<0.001), and Bonferroni-Holm correction revealed that ~75% of one repetition maximum (RM) was able to promote significant changes in IOP with respect to the other three loads (all corrected p values <0.05), whereas the load corresponding to ~65%RM and ~60%RM induced a significant IOP rise when compared with the load of ~50%RM (corrected p-values of 0.43 in both cases). For its part, IOP significantly increases with the bench press test (p<0.001), and performing the ~50%RM load was enough to induce significant IOP changes (corrected p-value <0.01). Acute performance of jump squat and ballistic bench press lead to a significant increase of IOP, and 5min of rest are enough to recover baseline IOP values. There is a strong linear association between the increase in load and the IOP rise for both exercises, and bench press execution produces a significantly higher IOP increase when compared with the jump squat for the same relative loads.

A Simple Method for Assessing Upper-Limb Force-Velocity Profile in Bench Press.

To analyze the reliability and validity of a field computation method based on easy-to-measure data to assess the mean force ([Formula: see text]) and velocity ([Formula: see text]) produced during a ballistic bench-press movement and to verify that the force-velocity profile (F-v) obtained with multiple loaded trials is accurately described. Twelve participants performed ballistic bench presses against various lifted mass from 30% to 70% of their body mass. For each trial, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were determined from an accelerometer (sampling rate 500Hz; reference method) and a simple computation method based on upper-limb mass, barbell flight height, and push-off distance. These [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] data were used to establish the F-v relationship for each individual and method. A strong to almost perfect reliability was observed between the 2 trials (ICC > .90 for [Formula: see text] and .80 for [Formula: see text], CV% < 10%), whatever the considered method. The mechanical variables ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) measured with the 2 methods and all the variables extrapolated from the F-v relationships were strongly correlated (r2 > .80, P < .001). The practical differences between the methods for the extrapolated mechanical parameters were all <5%, indicating very probably no differences. The findings suggest that the simple computation method used here provides valid and reliable information on force and velocity produced during ballistic bench press, in line with that observed in laboratory conditions. This simple method is thus a practical tool, requiring only 3 simple parameters (upper-limb mass, barbell flight height, and push-off distance).

Reliability of power and velocity variables collected during the traditional and ballistic bench press exercise

This study aimed to examine the reliability of different power and velocity variables during the Smith machine bench press (BP) and bench press throw (BPT) exercises. Twenty-two healthy men conducted four testing sessions after a preliminary BP one-repetition maximum (1RM) test. In a counterbalanced order, participants performed two sessions of BP in one week and two sessions of BPT in another week. Mean propulsive power, peak power, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity at each tenth percentile (20–70% of 1RM) were recorded by a linear transducer. The within-participants coefficient of variation (CV) was higher for the load–power relationship compared to the load–velocity relationship in both the BP (5.3% vs. 4.1%; CV ratio = 1.29) and BPT (4.7% vs. 3.4%; CV ratio = 1.38). Mean propulsive variables showed lower reliability than peak variables in both the BP (5.4% vs. 4.0%, CV ratio = 1.35) and BPT (4.8% vs. 3.3%, CV ratio = 1.45). All variables were deemed reliable, with the peak velocity demonstrating the lowest within-participants CV. Based upon these findings, the peak velocity should be chosen for the accurate assessment of BP and BPT performance.

The Effects of Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Bench Press on Mechanical Work and Oxygen Uptake

The Effects of Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Bench Press on Mechanical Work and Oxygen Uptake

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

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.

Effect of Different Interrepetition Rest Periods on Barbell Velocity Loss During the Ballistic Bench Press Exercise.

This study investigated the effect of introducing different interrepetition rest (IRR) periods on the ability to sustain maximum bench press throw velocity with a range of loads commonly used to develop upper-body power. Thirty-four physically active collegiate men (age: 21.5 ± 2.8 years; body mass: 75.2 ± 7.2 kg; height: 176.9 ± 4.9 cm) were tested during 2 consecutive weeks. During the first week, the maximum dynamic strength (repetition maximum [RM]) in bench press exercise was determined (RM = 76.7 ± 13.2 kg). The following week, 3 testing sessions were conducted with 48 hours apart in random order. In each day of evaluation, only 1 load (30%RM, 40%RM, or 50%RM) was assessed in the bench press throw exercise. With each load, subjects performed 3 single sets of 15 repetitions (15-minute interset rest) with 3 different sets configurations: continuous repetitions (CR), 6 seconds of IRR (IRR6), and 12 seconds of IRR (IRR12). The decrease of peak velocity (PV) was significantly lower for IRR12 compared with CR and IRR6 at least since the repetition 4. No differences between CR and IRR6 protocols were found until the repetition 7 at 30%RM and 40%RM and until the repetition 5 at 50%RM. The decrease of PV during the CR protocol was virtually linear for the 3 loads analyzed (r > 0.99); however, this linear relationship became weaker for IRR6 (r = 0.79-0.95) and IRR12 (r = 0.35-0.87). These results demonstrate that IRR periods allow increasing the number of repetitions before the onset of significant velocity losses.

Reliability Analysis of Traditional and Ballistic Bench Press Exercises at Different Loads.

The purpose of this study was to determine test–retest reliability for peak barbell velocity (Vpeak) during the bench press (BP) and bench press throw (BPT) exercises for loads corresponding to 20–70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). Thirty physically active collegiate men conducted four evaluations after a preliminary BP 1RM determination (1RM·bw-1 = 1.02 ± 0.16 kg·kg-1). In counterbalanced order, participants performed two sessions of the BP in one week and two sessions of the BPT in another week. Recovery time between sessions within the same week was 48 hours and recovery time between sessions of different weeks was 120 hours. On each day of evaluation the individual load-velocity relationship at each tenth percentile (20–70% of 1RM) in a Smith machine for the BP or BPT was determined. Participants performed three attempts per load, but only the best repetition (highest Vpeak), registered by a linear position transducer, was analysed. The BPT resulted in a significantly lower coefficient of variation (CV) for the whole load–velocity relationship, compared to the BP (2.48% vs. 3.22%; p = 0.040). Test–retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from r = 0.94–0.85 for the BPT and r = 0.91–0.71 for the BP (p < 0.001). The reduction in the biological within-subject variation in BPT exercise could be promoted by the braking phase that obligatorily occurs during a BP executed with light or moderate loads. Therefore, we recommend the BPT exercise for a most accurate assessment of upper-body velocity.