Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/49746305
CITATIONS READS
48 2,042
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Marius Steiro Fimland on 26 May 2014.
Author name
As an author you are required to secure permission if you want to reproduce any copyrighted
material in your article. For further details, please visit http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/
preparation/permission.asp. Please confirm that:
. permission has been sought and granted to reproduce the material in both print and online
editions of the journal; and
. any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.
Please confirm that affiliation details for all authors are present and correct.
No Author Queries.
devia 11/12/10 10:03 RJSP_A_543916 (XML)
60
A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press
5 exercises with different stability requirements
65
1 1 2
ATLE H. SAETERBAKKEN , ROLAND VAN DEN TILLAAR , & MARIUS S. FIMLAND
10
1
Faculty of Teacher Education and Sports, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway and 2Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
70
(Accepted 26 November 2010)
15
Abstract 75
The purpose of this study was to compare one-repetition maximum (1-RM) and muscle activity in three chest-press exercises
with different stability requirements (Smith machine, barbell, and dumbbells). Twelve healthy, resistance-trained males (age
20 22.7 + 1.7 years, body mass 78.6 + 7.6 kg, stature 1.80 + 0.06 m) were tested for 1-RM of the three chest-press exercises in
counterbalanced order with 3–5 days of rest between the exercises. One-repetition maximum and electromyographic activity
of the pectoralis major, deltoid anterior, biceps, and triceps brachii were recorded in the exercises. The dumbbell load was
14% less than that for the Smith machine (P 0.001, effect size [ES] ¼ 1.05) and 17% less than that for the barbell 80
(P 0.001, ES ¼ 1.11). The barbell load was *3% higher than that for the Smith machine (P ¼ 0.016, ES ¼ 0.18). Electrical
activity in the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid did not differ during the lifts. Electrical activity in the biceps brachii
25 increased with stability requirements (i.e. Smith machine 5barbell 5dumbbells; P 0.005; ES ¼ 0.57, 1.46, and 2.00,
respectively), while triceps brachii activity was reduced using dumbbells versus barbell (P ¼ 0.007, ES ¼ 0.73) and dumbbells
versus Smith machine (P ¼ 0.003, ES ¼ 0.62). In conclusion, high stability requirements in the chest press (dumbbells) result
in similar (pectoralis major and anterior deltoid), lower (triceps brachii) or higher (biceps brachii) muscle activity. These 85
findings have implications for athletic training and rehabilitation.
30 Keywords: Electromyography, resistance exercise, free weights, bench press, one-repetition maximum
55
Correspondence: A. H. Saeterbakken, Faculty of Teacher Education and Sports, Sogn og Fjordane University College, PB 133, N-6851 Sogndal, Norway.
E-mail: atle.saeterbakken@hisf.no
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2010.543916
2 A. H. Saeterbakken et al.
115 press using free weights than machines at 60% but Two weeks before the experimental test, partici-
not 80% of 1-RM. Welsch and colleagues (Welsch, pants had three habituation sessions to identify 1-
Bird, & Mayhew, 2005) compared barbell and RM for each of the three chest-press exercises. Each
dumbbell bench press (6-RM loads) and reported session was separated by 3–5 days. The order in 175
no differences in the neuromuscular activity of the which the exercises were performed was fully
120 pectoralis major and anterior deltoid muscles. The counterbalanced. Participants 1 and 7, 2 and 8, 3
EMG activity was maintained despite the dumbbell and 9, 4 and 10, 5 and 11, and 6 and 12 performed
load being only *63% of the barbell load. This the exercises in identical order. The exercises were
suggests that increased neural drive was required to performed in the same order in the habituation 180
stabilize the dumbbell. However, Welsch and col- sessions and the experimental test. A 4-min rest
125 leagues did not record EMG activity of the agonist/ period was given between attempts (Schwanbeck,
synergist triceps brachii and antagonist biceps brachii Chilibeck, & Binsted, 2009). Before each 1-RM test,
muscles. Thus, it is unclear how the increased a 10-min warm-up was performed on a cycle
stability requirement and the reduced absolute load ergometer at *60 rev min–1 and self-selected 185
that can be lifted with dumbbells compared with intensity (75–125 W) followed by four warm-up sets:
130 barbell chest-press influence the neuromuscular (1) 20 repetitions at 30% of 1-RM, (2) 12 repetitions
activity of the biceps brachii and triceps brachii. at 50% of 1-RM, (3) 6 repetitions at 70% of 1-RM,
Thus the purpose of the present study was to and (4) 1 repetition at 85% of 1-RM. The percentage
examine the 1-RM strength and EMG activity in of the 1-RM was estimated based on the self- 190
chest-press using a free barbell (conventional bench reported 1-RM of the participants in each of the
135 press), a Smith machine, and dumbbells. It was three exercises. A 3-min rest period was given
hypothesized that: (1) the increased stability require- between warm-up sets (Goodman et al., 2008).
ment would result in lower 1-RM strength (kg) (i.e. The tempo of each 1-RM lift was self-selected.
dumbbells 5free barbell 5Smith machine), and (2) Similarly, the position of the hands on the barbell 195
EMG activity would be similar in each chest-press was individually selected, but the forefinger had to be
140 exercise since 1-RM was tested in each exercise. inside the marks on the standard Olympic bar used.
Positioning of the hands was identical in the barbell
and Smith machine exercises. The position of the
Methods arms was individually selected using the dumbbells. 200
The participants achieved 1-RM for the three
Participants
145 exercises in 3–6 attempts. The hips, shoulders, neck,
Twelve healthy, resistance-trained males (age and head had to be in contact with the bench for each
22.7 + 1.7 years, body mass 78.6 + 7.6 kg, stature of the exercises, with the feet on the floor, shoulder
1.80 + 0.06 m) participated in the study. The width apart. Two test-leaders acted as spotters and 205
participants, none of whom was a competitive power assisted the participants in the preload phase by
150 lifter, had 4.6 + 2.2 years of strength-training ex- lifting the barbell or dumbbells and stabilizing the
perience. All participants were accustomed to the weight until participants had fully extended arms.
three exercises and performed them as part of their On audio command, the participants lowered the
regular training programme. Participants were ex- barbell to the middle of the sternum until it touched 210
cluded from the study if they had musculoskeletal the chest (eccentric phase). During dumbbell tests,
155 pain, an illness or injury that might reduce maximal a 2-mm wide rubber band was placed on each
effort during testing. The participants were in- dumbbell. In the eccentric phase, the band was
structed to refrain from any additional resistance stretched and had to touch the chest to make sure
training exercises that targeted the chest, shoulders, the participants lowered the weights to the same 215
and upper arm muscle groups 72 h before testing. position as for the barbell. After lowering the
160 Prior to the study, the participants were informed of weights to the chest, the participants had to lift
the test procedures and possible risks, and written the barbell/dumbbells back to the starting position
consent was obtained. Ethics approval was obtained with fully extended elbows (concentric phase). No
from the local research ethics committee and bouncing of the weights was allowed. If the dumb- 220
conformed to the latest revision of the Declaration bells or barbell were not lifted at the same vertical
165 of Helsinki. position in the concentric phase, the lift was not
considered successful.
Procedure
225
Recordings
A within-participants crossover design was used to
170 examine 1-RM-related EMG activity in the barbell, A linear encoder (Ergotest Technology AS, Lange-
dumbbell, and Smith machine chest presses. sund, Norway) was used to assess the vertical
Comparison of three chest-press exercises 3
400
345
405
350
410
strength using the Smith machine versus a barbell decreased requirements of stabilization of these
(Cotterman, Darby, & Skelly, 2005). muscles in the descending phase withn the Smith 515
The difference in 1-RM strength between the free machine (McCaw & Friday; 1994). Madsen and
460 barbell and the Smith machine is similar to that McLaughlin (1984) reported maintenance of control
reported by Cotterman et al. (2005) – that is, a when lowering the bar as one of five factors that
higher 1-RM strength with the barbell. Cotterman affects bench-press performance. However, with
et al. (2005) reported differences in 1-RM strength different requirements of stability, there were no 520
both for men (*11%) and women (*22%) among differences in time spent in the different lifting
465 the exercises, which were much greater than in the phases and it would therefore have little influence on
present study. However, these differences could the differences in neuromuscular activity (Table I).
simply be because of the inexperience of the In the concentric phase, there was no difference
participants. In the study of Cotterman et al. for the anterior deltoid and pectoralis muscles 525
(2005), 72% of the participants had never used a (Figure 3b). These two muscles are prime movers
470 Smith machine for bench press, whereas 97% of the in the three exercises, which shows that the activity of
participants had used the free barbell previously. In these muscles is similar when lifting 1-RM (Schick
the present study, all participants had experience et al., 2010; van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2010; Welsch
with all three exercises, though the free barbell was et al., 2005). Differences between the concentric and 530
preferred by the participants for their daily training, eccentric phase indicate greater neural drive to
475 and the results could be attributable to training- stabilize the weights in the eccentric phase.
specific adaptation. There were several differences in the EMG activity
As regards the second hypothesis of no differences of the triceps brachii and biceps brachii among the
in EMG activity, we anticipated that reduced 1-RM three chest-press exercises (Figure 2). When the 535
strength would be compensated by increased stabi- eccentric and concentric phases were analysed
480 lization demands of the muscles. In line with the separately (Figures 3a and 3b), lower activity was
hypothesis, EMG activity of the pectoralis major and observed for the triceps brachii only in the concentric
the anterior deltoid muscles was similar for all three phase with dumbbells. The biceps brachii stabilizes
exercises when an overall mean value was taken for movement during the three exercises (Lehman et al., 540
both lifting phases (Figure 2). However, EMG 2006). Thus differences in neuromuscular activity of
485 activity in the biceps brachii and triceps brachii the biceps brachii – that is, higher activity in the
differed among exercises, indicating different de- eccentric and concentric phase with dumbbells than
mands on activation patterns. The EMG activity of in the other exercises (Figures 3a and 3b) – is a result
the triceps brachii was lower, while that of the biceps of the increased stabilizing function of this muscle 545
brachii was greater with the dumbbells than both during the exercise. However, it should be noted that
490 barbell and Smith machine (Figure 2). There was we used only one pair of electrodes on each of the
greater biceps brachii antagonist co-activation with muscles (biceps and triceps). Since these muscles
the dumbbells than both the Smith machine and free have multiple heads, other parts of these muscles
bar. This is probably attributable to the increased could have been active during the different lifts, thus 550
stabilization demands for this exercise to maintain influencing the differences observed in our study.
495 the integrity of the joint (Lehman, MacMillan, The present results are limited by testing only 1-
MacIntyre, Chivers, & Fluter, 2006). Furthermore, RM and cannot be generalized to other strength-
it might be that the reduced triceps brachii EMG training programmes. Surface EMG has inherent
activity during dumbbells lifting is a result of technical limitations and can provide only an 555
reciprocal inhibition that arises from increased arm- estimate of neuromuscular activation. There is an
500 flexor activation (Folland & Williams, 2007). The inherent risk of crosstalk from neighbouring muscles,
dumbbell chest press is typically used as a supple- even if a small inter-electrode distance were to be
ment to more frequently used chest-press exercises, used. Further research should investigate the neuro-
such as the free barbell. Based on the present results, muscular pattern of exercises with different require- 560
this could have influenced the neuromuscular ment of stability with loads that are more typically
505 activation of the biceps brachii and triceps brachii employed in resistance training (e.g. 6- to 12-RM).
more than the Smith machine and free barbell. In conclusion, this study has shown differences in
The EMG activity of the pectoralis differed in the 1-RM strength (i.e. dumbbells 5Smith machine 5
concentric and eccentric phases of the exercises, free barbell) and differences in neuromuscular 565
whereas that of the anterior deltoid muscle differed activity for the arm flexor/extensor muscles, but not
510 in the eccentric phase (Figure 3a). The activity of for the prime movers, among the three chest-press
these muscles was lower during the eccentric phase exercises. As the stability requirements increased, the
for the Smith machine than for the barbell and neuromuscular activity of the biceps brachii in-
dumbbells. This can be explained again by the creased. Dumbbell lifting was accompanied by 570
6 A. H. Saeterbakken et al.
greater biceps brachii activity, but less activity of the Garhammer, J. (1981). Free weight equipment for the develop-
triceps brachii. The prime movers showed similar ment of athletic strength and power, part I. National Strength
and Conditioning Association Journal, 3, 24–26.
EMG activity while lifting 1-RM, but less in the Goodman, C. A., Pearce, A. J., Nicholes, C. J., Gatt, B. M., &
630
descending phase using the Smith machine than with Fairweather, I. H. (2008). No difference in 1RM strength and
575 barbell and dumbbells chest-press. This indicates muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and
that greater neural drive is required to stabilize unstable surface. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
22, 88–94.
weights in the eccentric phase. During rehabilitation,
Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., & Rau, G.
it may in some cases be beneficial to achieve high (2000). Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors 635
levels of muscle activation while lifting a lighter and sensor placement procedures. Journal of Electromyogrogra-
580 external load. However, strength trainers/coaches phy and Kinesiology, 10, 361–374.
should be aware that the dumbbell chest press does Kornecki, S., Kebel, A., & Siemieński, A. (2001). Muscular co-
not activate the triceps brachii to the same extent as operation during joint stabilisation, as reflected by EMG.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 84, 453–461.
conventional bench press or bench press performed Lehman, G. J., MacMillan, B., MacIntyre, I., Chivers, M., & 640
in a Smith machine. Fluter, M. (2006). Shoulder muscle EMG activity during push
585 up variations on and off a Swiss ball. Dynamic Medicine, 5, 7.
Madsen, N., & McLaughlin, T. (1984). Kinematic factors
Acknowledgements influencing performance and injury risk in the bench exercise.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 376–381.
We would like to thank the participants together with Marshall, P. W., & Murphy, B. A. (2006). Increased deltoid and
645
Alexander Hansen, Kjetil Myklebust, and Sigurd J. abdominal muscle activity during Swiss ball bench press.
590 Bergstom for assistance in participant recruitment Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20, 745–750.
and data collection. McCaw, S. T., & Friday, J. J. (1994). A comparison of muscle
activity between a free weight and machine bench press. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8, 259–264.
Norwood, J. T., Anderson, G. S., Gaetz, M. B., & Twist, P. W. 650
References
(2007). Electromyographic activity of the trunk stabilizers
595 Anderson, K. G., & Behm, D. G. (2004). Maintenance of EMG during stable and unstable bench press. Journal of Strength
activity and loss of force output with instability. Journal of and Conditioning Research, 21, 343–347.
Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 637–640. Schick, E. E., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., Judelson, D. A.,
Behm, D. G., & Anderson, K. G. (2006). The role of instability Khamoui, A. V., Tran, T. T. et al. (2010). A comparison of
muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight 655
with resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 20, 716–722. bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24,
600 Behm, D. G., Leonard, A. M., Young, W. B., Bonsey, A. C., & 779–784.
MacKinnon, S. N. (2005). Trunk muscle electromyography Schwanbeck, S., Chilibeck, P. D., & Binsted, G. (2009). A
activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. Journal of comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine using
Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 193–201. electromyography. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
23, 2588–2591.
660
Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. (2005).
Comparison of muscle force production using the Smith van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2010). The ‘‘sticking point’’ in
605 machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. bench press. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 529–535.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 169–176. Welsch, E. A., Bird, M., & Mayhew, J. L. (2005). Electromyo-
Folland, J. P., & Williams, A. G. (2007). The adaptations to graphic activity of the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid
strength training: Morphological and neurological contribu- muscles during three upper-body lifts. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 19, 449–452. 665
tions to increased strength. Sports Medicine, 37, 145–168.
610
670
615
675
620
680
625