Can the Cambered Bar Enhance Acute Performance in the Bench Press Exercise?

The Effect of Different Weight Plate Widths (Bumper vs. Standard) on the Biomechanics of the Bench Press

ABSTRACT

Fiedler, MJ, Triplett, NT, Hamilton, KC, Needle, AR, and van Werkhoven, H. The effect of different weight plate widths (bumper vs. standard) on the biomechanics of the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): e143-e149, 2024-Anecdotal evidence suggests that bumper plates impact lifts in powerlifting and weightlifting differently than standard cast iron plates, but whether biomechanical differences exist between lifts using bumper versus standard plates has not been investigated. Eleven resistance-trained subjects performed the bench press at 70, 80, and 90% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) while being blinded to whether they were lifting with bumper or standard plates. Motion data were captured by an 8-camera motion capture system, and electromyography (EMG) data were recorded for the anterior deltoid, pectoralis major, and triceps brachii. Repeated-measures analysis of variances showed a significant main weight effect for time under tension (p < 0.001), total work (p < 0.001), and muscle activity through EMG (across all muscles; p < 0.001) and a significant weight × joint interaction effect for average joint moment (p < 0.001) and peak joint moment (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences observed between the different weight plates for any of the measures. The main finding of the study suggests that there are no biomechanical differences between using bumper plates compared with standard plates during the bench press lift.

The Impact of Range of Motion on Applied Force Characteristics and Electromyographic Activity during Repeated Sets of Bench Press Exercise

This study examined the effects of range of motion (ROM) on applied force, power output and surface electromyographic (sEMG) responses during repeated sets of bench press exercise executed as fast as possible. Ten resistance trained men performed three sets to momentary failure with two-min rest intervals under three different ROM conditions: (a) full ROM (FULL), (b) TOP, at the top half of ROM, and (c) BOTTOM, at the bottom half of ROM. Mean and peak force were higher in TOP compared to FULL and BOTTOM (mean force: 817 ± 80 vs. 657 ± 98 vs. 623 ± 122 N, respectively, p < 0.001) with no differences between FULL and BOTTOM. During repeated sets, large decreases were found in peak (by 29.4 to 45.3%) and mean power (by 55.5 to 64.7%) from the first to the last repetitions. However, the decrease in mean force was only 2% (p < 0.01) and decreases in peak force ranged from 6.7 and 8.8% to zero, indicating the velocity loss was the main contributor to fatigue in power output. Although force and power output in set 3 were unchanged in BOTTOM, mean power output decreased significantly, suggesting that lower performance and fatigue may be related to the longer muscle length. Fatigue was accompanied by an increase in sEMG activity and a decrease in median frequency in all muscles, with triceps brachialis sEMG reflecting more the force and power differences among ROMs. In conclusion, fatigue depends on velocity rather than force loss during bench press exercise at different ROMs.

Fatigue and Metabolic Responses during Repeated Sets of Bench Press Exercise to Exhaustion at Different Ranges of Motion

This study compared the acute effects of different ranges of motion (ROM) on fatigue and metabolic responses during repeated sets of bench press exercise. Ten resistance trained men performed three sets to momentary failure with two-min rest intervals at three different ROM: full ROM (FULL), and partial ROM in which the barbell was moved either at the bottom half (BOTTOM) or the top half (TOP) of the full barbell vertical displacement. In TOP, a higher load was lifted, and a higher total number of repetitions was performed compared to FULL and BOTTOM (130 ± 17.6 vs. 102.5 ± 15.9 vs. 98.8 ± 17.5 kg; 55.2 ± 9.8, 32.2 ± 6.5 vs. 49.1 ± 16.5 kg, respectively p < 0.01). Work per repetition was higher in FULL than TOP and BOTTOM (283 ± 43 vs. 205 ± 32 vs. 164 ± 31 J/repetition, p < 0.01). Mean barbell velocity at the start of set 1 was 21.7% and 12.8% higher in FULL compared to TOP and BOTTOM, respectively. The rate of decline in mean barbell velocity was doubled from set 1 to set 3 (p < 0.01) and was higher in FULL than both TOP and BOTTOM (p < 0.001). Also, the rate of mean barbell velocity decline was higher in BOTTOM compared to TOP (p = 0.045). Blood lactate concentration was similarly increased in all ROM (p < 0.001). Training at TOP ROM allowed not only to lift a higher load, but also to perform more repetitions with a lower rate of decline in mean barbell velocity. Despite the lower absolute load and work per repetition, fatigue was higher in BOTTOM than TOP and this may be attributed to differences in muscle length.

A Comparison of Basic Training Variables in the Standard and Cambered Bar Bench Press Performed to Volitional Exhaustion

The objective of this study was to compare the impact of cambered and standard barbells used during the bench press exercise on the number of performed repetitions and mean velocity during a bench press training session that included 5 sets performed to volitional failure at 70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) (for each barbell type). An additional objective was to determine whether there would be any difference in neuromuscular fatigue assessed by peak velocity changes during bench press throws performed 1 and 24 hours after the cessation of each session. The research participants included 12 healthy resistance-trained men. Participants performed 5 sets of the bench press exercise to volitional failure against 70% of 1RM with the cambered or standard barbell. The Friedman's test showed an overall trend of a significant decrease in the mean velocity (p < 0.001) and a number of performed repetitions (p < 0.001) from the first to the fifth set (p < 0.006 and p < 0.02, respectively for all) under both conditions, yet neither bar showed significant differences between the corresponding sets. Two-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of time (p < 0.001) for peak velocity during the bench press throw. The post-hoc comparisons showed significantly lower peak velocity during the bench press throw one hour after the bench press compared to pre (p = 0.003) and 24-hour post intervention (p = 0.007). Both barbells caused a similar decrease in peak barbell velocity during the bench press throw performed one hour after the bench press training session, with values returning to baseline 24 hours later. This indicates that bench press workouts with either a standard or a cambered barbell present the same training demands.

Evaluation of Ibuprofen Use on the Immune System Indicators and Force in Disabled Paralympic Powerlifters of Different Sport Levels

Background: Paralympic powerlifting (PP) training is typically intense and causes fatigue and alterations in the immune system. Objective: To analyze whether IBU would affect performance and the immune system after training in PP. Methodology: 10 athletes at the national level (NL) and 10 at the regional level (RL) participated in the study, where force and blood indicators were evaluated after training. The study took place over three weeks: (1) familiarization and (2 and 3) comparison between recovery methods, with ibuprofen or placebo (IBU vs. PLA), 800 mg. In the evaluation of the force, the peak torque (PT), fatigue index (FI), and blood immune system biomarkers were analyzed. The training consisted of five sets of five repetitions with 80% of one maximum repetition (5 × 5, 80% 1RM) on the bench press. Results: The PT at the national level using IBU was higher than with PLA (p = 0.007, η2p = 0.347), and the FI in the NL was lower with IBU than with PLA (p = 0.002, η2p = 0.635), and when comparing the use of IBU, the NL showed less fatigue than the regional level (p = 0.004, η2p = 0.414). Leukocytes, with the use of IBU in the NL group, were greater than in the RL (p = 0.001, η2p = 0.329). Neutrophils, in the NL with IBU, were greater than in the RL with IBU and PLA (p = 0.025, η2p = 0.444). Lymphocytes, in NL with IBU were lower than in RL with IBU and PLA (p = 0.001, η2p = 0.491). Monocytes, in the NL with IBU and PLA, were lower than in the RL with IBU (p = 0.049, η2p = 0.344). For hemoglobin, hematocrit, and erythrocyte, the NL with IBU and PLA were higher than the RL with IBU and PLA (p < 0.05). Ammonia, with the use of IBU in the NL, obtained values higher than in the RL (p = 0.007), and with the use of PLA, the NL was higher than the RL (p = 0.038, η2p = 0.570). Conclusion: The training level tends to influence the immune system and, combined with the use of the IBU, it tends to improve recovery and the immune system.

The impact of resistance exercise range of motion on the magnitude of upper-body post-activation performance enhancement

Background

Various studies have used different exercise protocols as post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) stimulus; however, little attention has been given to the effects of exercise range of motion on the PAPE effect and subsequent performance enhancement. This study aimed to compare the PAPE responses induced by the bench press performed with different ranges of motion on subsequent bench press throw performance.

Methods

Ten resistance-trained males (age: 26 ± 3 years; body mass: 93.2 ± 9.4 kg; height: 181 ± 6 cm; experience in resistance training: 6.3 ± 2.4 years; relative bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) 1.54 ± 0.2 kg/body mass) performed four experimental sessions consisting of a single set of the bench press at 80%1RM until mean barbell velocity dropped by 10% as the conditioning activity (CA) with a (1) standard, (2) cambered, (3) and reversed cambered barbell or a control condition in which the participants did not perform any CA. To assess the PAPE effect, single-sets of 2 repetitions of the bench press throw at 30%1RM were performed before and after the CA at the following time points: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 min.

Results

The two-way ANOVA (4 conditions × 2time points) showed a significant interaction for peak power (p < 0.001; η² = 0.556) and peak velocity (p = 0.001; η² = 0.457). The standard barbell bench press CA led to the greatest performance enhancement in peak power (p = 0.001; ES = 0.54) and in peak velocity (p = 0.002; ES = 0.71) within the examined conditions.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the range of motion of the CA has a significant impact on the magnitude of the PAPE response, and the greatest effect can be reached when the range of motion of the CA and the subsequent explosive task is similar.

Range of motion of resistance exercise affects the number of performed repetitions but not a time under tension

The resistance training volume along with the exercise range of motion has a significant impact on the training outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to examine differences in training volume assessed by a number of performed repetitions, time under tension, and load-displacement as well as peak barbell velocity between the cambered and standard barbell bench press training session. The participants performed 3 sets to muscular failure of bench press exercise with the cambered or standard barbell at 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). Eighteen healthy men volunteered for the study (age = 25 ± 2 years; body mass = 92.1 ± 9.9 kg; experience in resistance training 7.3 ± 2.1 years; standard and cambered barbell bench press 1RM > 120% body mass). The t-test indicated a significantly higher mean range of motion for the cambered barbell in comparison to the standard (p < 0.0001; ES =  -2.24). Moreover, there was a significantly greater number of performed repetitions during the standard barbell bench press than cambered barbell (p < 0.0001) in a whole training session, while no difference was found in total time under tension (p = 0.22) and total load-displacement (p = 0.913). The two-way repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant barbell × set interaction effect for peak velocity (p = 0.01) and a number of repetitions (p = 0.015). The post-hoc analysis showed a significantly higher number of repetitions for standard than cambered barbell bench press in set 1 (p < 0.0001), set 3 (p < 0.0001) but not in set 2 (p = 0.066). Moreover, there was a significantly higher peak velocity during the cambered than standard barbell bench press in set 1 (p < 0.0001), and set 2 (p = 0.049), but not in set 3 (p = 0.063). No significant differences between corresponding sets of the standard and cambered barbell bench press in time under tension and load-displacement were found. However, concentric time under tension was significantly higher during cambered barbell bench press in all sets (p < 0.05) when compared to the standard barbell bench press, while eccentric time under tension was significantly lower during the cambered than standard barbell bench presses only in the set 3 (p = 0.001). In summary, this study briefly showed that measuring training volume by the number of performed repetitions is not reliable when different exercise range of motion is used.