Muscle Activity Patterns do not Differ Between Push-Up and Bench Press Exercises

Electromyography of shoulder muscles in individuals without scapular dyskinesis during closed kinetic chain exercises on stable and unstable surfaces: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Unstable surfaces are commonly utilized to enhance the flexibility of the musculoskeletal system for achieving training or rehabilitation goals. However, their effects on shoulder muscle activation during various push-up (PU) exercises have not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to synthesize electromyography (EMG) data of shoulder muscles in individuals without scapular dyskinesis performing different PU exercises on both stable and unstable surfaces.

Methods

A systematic online search was conducted in electronic databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, up to January 16, 2024, using predefined sets of keywords. Out of the 1,971 titles and abstracts screened, 80 articles were reviewed in detail by two independent researchers to check the eligibility, of which 28 eligible studies were ultimately included. Following assessment of the quality and risk of bias, the studies were categorized based on exercises and muscle groups, and a meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed to estimate the overall effect size.

Results

The use of unstable surfaces led to a decrease in anterior deltoid activity during PU [P = 0.032; I2 = 91.34%; SMD = -0.630 (95% CI -1.205, -0.055)], an increase in pectoralis major activity during PU [P = 0.006; I2 = 63.72%; SMD = 0.282 (95% CI 0.079, 0.484)], as well as during knee PU [P = 0.018; I2 = 32.29%; SMD = 0.309 (95% CI 0.052, 0.565)], and an increase in triceps brachii activity during PU [P = 0.000; I2 = 85.05%; SMD = 0.813 (95% CI 0.457, 1.168)], knee PU [P = 0.000; I2 = 0.00%; SMD = 0.589 (95% CI 0.288, 0.891)], as well as during push-up plus [P = 0.006; I2 = 13.16%; SMD = 0.563 (95% CI 0.161, 0.965)]. However, the use of unstable surfaces did not show a significant effect on the EMG activity of the pectoralis major during push-up plus [P = 0.312; I2 = 22.82%; SMD = 0.207 (95% CI -0.194, 0.609)].

Conclusions

Unstable surfaces can modulate muscle activity in different PU exercises, while the effects on the targeted muscles depend on the type of exercise. The findings of this review provide a framework based on the level of activity of each shoulder muscle during different PU exercises, which can help coaches, trainers, and sports therapists select the most suitable type of PU for designing training or rehabilitation programs. Particularly, the most suitable exercise for increasing anterior deltoid activity is PU on a stable surface. To concurrently increase activity of the pectoralis major and triceps brachii, adding unstable surfaces under hands during knee PU and standard PU is recommended.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021268465.

Upper body strength endurance evaluation: A comparison between the handgrip strength and three body weight tests

BACKGROUND: The hand-grip strength test has been widely adopted to evaluate upper limb strength. Other field based tests as push-ups and pull-ups are commonly used for the same purpose. It is however unclear if these may be used interchangeably for upper body strength evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate strength endurance of the upper body and understand which test could be the most appropriate for upper body evaluation. METHODS: Thirty-eight healthy young male participants were tested with three tests comprised of: 1) push-ups (PS), 2) pull-ups (PL) and 3) parallel dips (PD) performed to exhaustion. Grip strength (GS), total number of repetitions, time-to-complete the test, repetition cadence and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were also retrieved for investigation. RESULTS: Repetitions, time-to-complete the test and repetition cadence significantly differed across the three tests (p< 0.001). No difference in the RPE was present. No correlation was present between GS and the other tests. No correlation was present between RPE and performance values and time-to-complete the tests. BMI was positively correlated to RPE in all tests. All tests strongly correlate to each other (PS vs. PL r= 0.55; PS vs. PD r= 0.64; PL vs. PD r= 0.70) and to time-to-complete the test (PS r= 0.79; PL r= 0.69; PD r= 0.66). Only the results of the PD correlate to their respective repetition cadence (r= 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: GS is not suitable to evaluate strength endurance. PS, PL and PD are all suitable to evaluate strength endurance. However, PD may be preferred to evaluate the upper body, if velocity also needs to be taken into account.

Push-Ups are Able to Predict the Bench Press 1-RM and Constitute an Alternative for Measuring Maximum Upper Body Strength Based on Load-Velocity Relationships

The aims of this study were firstly to compare the similarity in upper-body muscle activation between the bench press and push-up at similar loads, and secondly to establish a 1-RM prediction equation between the two exercises based upon the load-velocity relationship. Twenty resistance-trained male athletes (age 22.5 ± 5.24 years, body mass 83.7 ± 10.7 kg, body height 1.80 ± 0.06 m) performed push-ups and bench presses with four different loads. Push-ups were performed without a weight vest and with a 10-20-30 kg weight vest. Bench presses were performed at 50-80% of athletes' assumed 1 repetition max (1-RM) in 10 kg steps, while a linear encoder measured performance during the exercises. A load-velocity relationship was established as a product of the load and velocity for the push-up and bench press per participant and the equation was used to establish a predicted 1-RM. Mean muscle activation of eight upper body muscles was recorded for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate an extremely large association between the predicted 1-RM loads performed with the push-up and bench press (r = 0.93) in experienced resistance trained men. Furthermore, most muscles showed similar activations between the two exercises with the different loads except the deltoid and biceps brachii muscles. It may be concluded that it is possible to predict a cross-over 1-RM between the two exercises based upon the load-velocity relationship in each exercise, and that training push-ups largely targets the same muscles as the bench press except the deltoid and biceps muscles. For coaches and athletes, the use of this method is a low cost and time-effective alternative for standard 1-RM bench press testing to predict maximal upper body strength.

Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between Push-up and Bench Press

The purpose of this study was to compare the similarity in kinematics and upper-body muscle activation between push-up and bench press exercises over a range of loads. Twenty resistance-trained subjects (age 22.5±5.24 yrs, body mass 83.7±10.7 kg, height 1.80±0.06 m) executed bench presses and push-ups with 4 different loads. Bench press was executed at 50–80% of their assumed 1 repetition max in steps of 10 kg, while push-ups were executed without a weight vest and with a 10–20–30 kg weight vest. A linear encoder measured kinematics (displacement, time, average and peak velocity) during the exercises at each load, together with mean and maximal muscle activation of 8 upper body muscles and their timing for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate no differences in kinematics and muscle activation between the two exercises and that the different loads had the same effect upon both push-up and bench press in experienced resistance-trained men. For coaches and athletes, push-ups and bench presses for strength training can be used interchangeably. By using a weight vest, push-ups can mimic different loads that are similar to different intensities in the bench press that can be used to train strength demands.