Effect of Unstable Loads on Stabilizing Muscles and Bar Motion During the Bench Press

A comparison of muscle activation and concomitant intermuscular coupling of antagonist muscles among bench presses with different instability degrees in untrained men

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.

Electromyographic Comparison of Five Lower-Limb Muscles between Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises among Trained Men

Resistance-training exercises can be classified as either single- or multi-joint exercises and differences in surface electromyography (EMG) amplitude between the two training methods may identify which muscles can benefit from either training modality. This study aimed to compare the surface EMG amplitude of five hip- and knee extensors during one multi-joint (leg press) and two single-joint exercises (knee extension and kickback). Fifteen resistance-trained men completed one familiarization session to determine their unilateral six repetitions maximum (6RM) in the three exercises. During the following experimental session, EMG amplitudes of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, gluteus maximus and biceps femoris of the left leg were measured while performing three repetitions on their respective 6RM loads. The multi-joint exercise leg press produced higher EMG amplitude of the vastus lateralis (ES = 0.92, p = 0.003) than the single-joint exercise knee extension, whereas the rectus femoris demonstrated higher EMG amplitude during the knee extension (ES = 0.93, p = 0.005). The biceps femoris EMG amplitude was higher during the single-joint exercise kickback compared to the leg press (ES = 2.27, p < 0.001), while no significant differences in gluteus maximus (ES = 0.08, p = 0.898) or vastus medialis (ES = 0.056, p = 0.025 were observed between exercises. The difference in EMG amplitude between single- and multi-joint exercises appears to vary depending on the specific exercises and the muscle groups tested. Leg press is a viable and time-efficient option for targeting several hip- and knee extensors during resistance training of the lower limbs, but the single-joint exercises may be preferable for targeting the rectus femoris and biceps femoris.

Muscle activation with swinging loads in bench press

The aim of the study was to compare the EMG amplitude in bench press (stable loads) to bench press using loads moving in anteroposterior and mediolateral directions. Seventeen resistance-trained men, with 9.4±4.7 years of resistance training experience were recruited. After a familiarization session assessing 1 repetition maximum (RM) in the bench press, participants performed: 1) bench press with traditional stable loading 2) bench press with loads (2x5kg) attached as pendulums swinging forward/backwards and 3) left/right in randomized order. The total load was 70% of the 1RM load. Electromyography was measured in the pectoralis major, anterior- and posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, triceps brachii and external obliques. Using stable loads, the pectoralis major demonstrated lower EMG amplitude compared to the two unstable conditions. In the external obliques, the stable conditions demonstrated lower EMG amplitude than the swing in the mediolateral direction, but not the anteroposterior direction. There were no differences between two swinging loads or the three conditions for the triceps brachii, biceps brachii, anterior deltoid or posterior deltoid. In conclusion, swinging in bench press resulted in similar EMG amplitude in the shoulder- and arm muscles, but greater pectoralis and external oblique (only mediolateral swing) activity compared to bench press.

Muscle activity in asymmetric bench press among resistance-trained individuals

Purpose

To determine the effects of asymmetric loads on muscle activity with the bench press.

Method

Seventeen resistance-trained men performed one familiarization session including testing one repetition maximum (1RM) and three 5 repetition maximum (RM) lifts; using symmetric loads, 5% asymmetric loads, and 10% asymmetric loads. The asymmetric loading (i.e., reduced load on one side) was calculated as 5% and 10% of the subject`s 1RM load. In the experimental session, the three conditions of 5RM were conducted with electromyographic activity from the pectoralis major, triceps brachii, biceps brachii, anterior deltoid, posterior deltoid, and external oblique on both sides of the body.

Results

On the loaded side, asymmetric loads reduced triceps brachii activation compared to symmetric loads, whereas the other muscles demonstrated similar muscle activity between the three conditions. On the de-loaded side, 10% asymmetry in loading resulted in lower pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and biceps brachii activation compared to 5% asymmetric and symmetric loading. On the de-loaded side, only pectoralis major demonstrated lower muscle activation than symmetric loads. Furthermore, asymmetric loads increased external oblique activation on both sides compared to symmetric loads.

Conclusions

Asymmetric bench press loads reduced chest and shoulder muscle activity on the de-loaded side while maintaining the muscle activity for the loaded side. The authors recommend resistance-trained participants struggling with strength imbalances between sides, or activities require asymmetric force generation (i.e., alpine skiing or martial arts), to implement asymmetric training as a supplement to the traditional resistance training.

Kettlebell training in clinical practice: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A scoping review of scientific literature on the effects of kettlebell training. There are no authoritative guidelines or recommendations for using kettlebells within a primary care setting. Our review objectives were to identify the extent, range and nature of the available evidence, to report on the types of evidence currently available to inform clinical practice, to synthesise key concepts, and identify gaps in the research knowledge base.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA-ScR Checklist, we conducted a search of 10 electronic databases from inception to 1 February 2019. There were no exclusions in searching for publications. A single reviewer screened the literature and abstracted data from relevant publications. Articles were grouped and charted by concepts and themes relevant to primary care, and narratively synthesised. Effect sizes from longitudinal studies were identified or calculated, and randomised controlled trials assessed for methodological quality.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and twenty-nine records were identified to 1 February 2019. Four hundred and ninety-six were screened and 170 assessed for eligibility. Ninety-nine publications met the inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were typically trivial to small. One trial used a pragmatic hardstyle training program among healthy college-age participants. Two trials reported the effects of kettlebell training in clinical conditions. Thirty-three studies explicitly used 'hardstyle' techniques and 4 investigated kettlebell sport. Also included were 6 reviews, 22 clinical/expert opinions and 3 case reports of injury. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies using a modified Downs & Black checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

A small number of longitudinal studies, which are largely underpowered and of low methodological quality, provide the evidence-informed therapist with little guidance to inform the therapeutic prescription of kettlebells within primary care. Confidence in reported effects is low to very low. The strength of recommendation for kettlebell training improving measures of physical function is weak, based on the current body of literature. Further research on reported effects is warranted, with inclusion of clinical populations and investigations of musculoskeletal conditions common to primary care. There is a need for an externally valid, standardised approach to the training and testing of kettlebell interventions, which better informs the therapeutic use of kettlebells in primary care.