JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES

2019, VOL. 37, NO. 3, 277–284

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1496517

Power output in traditional and ballistic bench press in elite athletes: Influence of
training background
a
Irineu Loturco , Lucas A. Pereiraa, Ronaldo Kobala and Michael R. McGuiganb,c
a
NAR - Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, São Paulo, Brazil; bSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University
of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; cSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to compare the power production in traditional bench-press (TBP) and ballistic bench- Accepted 26 June 2018
throw (BBT) exercises. Furthermore, we assessed the differences in velocity, force, and power outputs
KEYWORDS
between TBP and BBT. Finally, we tested the differences between the loads used to optimize power Optimal loads; bench press
(optimum power load; OPL) in both exercises, using three distinct power-variables: mean power (MP), throw; neuromechanical;
mean propulsive power (MPP), and peak power (PP). Sixty athletes from different sports were divided bar-velocity; propulsive
into two groups, according to their training characteristics: hypertrophy-based trained athletes (HTA), phase
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.

Introduction maximum dynamic strength. Similar results were found in a

study examining the effects of two different 8-week training
It is clear from the literature that explosive exercises can
programmes (i.e., jump squats vs. traditional resistance training)
maximize muscle activation over the entire concentric phase
in elite volleyball players with a trend toward greater enhance-
of the lift, which likely reflects in higher levels of mechanical
ment in vertical jump performance observed in the ballistic
work (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2011a; Zehr & Sale, 1994).
training group (Newton, Kraemer, & Häkkinen, 1999). That
Indeed, several studies performed on this topic have already
said, it seems clear that certain ballistic movements are effective
shown that ballistic movements (e.g., bench throw and jump
for promoting positive neuromuscular adaptations in different
squat) are able to generate greater force and power outputs
populations, which also appears to be independent of the
when compared to traditional non-ballistic strength-power
individual training background.
exercises (i.e., bench press and half squat) (Cormie,
Despite this established effectiveness and ability to pro-
McGuigan, & Newton, 2010, 2011b). In part, this phenomenon
duce muscle power, there is a scarcity of data comparing the
may be explained by the absence of decelerating phases
chronic or acute effects of upper-limb ballistic and traditional
during these movements, which requires subjects to acceler-
resistance exercises in highly trained subjects. For instance, in
ate throughout “the complete range of motion to the projec-
a study performed with professional rugby players, West,
tion point” (i.e., takeoff or release), increasing the relative
Cunningham, Crewther, Cook, and Kilduff (2013) verified that
values of mean and peak velocities, and thus the power
ballistic bench throws (BBT) (executed with 30% of 1 repetition
production (Cormie et al., 2011b).
maximum [1RM]) elicit similar increases in peak power output
This enhanced capacity to generate power frequently serves
to a traditional heavy resistance exercise preloading stimulus
as the rationale for the inclusion of these exercises in training
(traditional bench press [TBP] at 87% of 1RM). Zaras et al.
programs designed to develop sport-specific skills. For example,
(2013) reported that shot-put performance may be improved
Mcevoy and Newton (1998) reported significant improvements
similarly after 6 weeks of strength or ballistic power training in
in throwing speed and base running performance following a
novice male throwers. Of note, a comprehensive review on
10-week ballistic training intervention (i.e., bench throws and
this topic indicated that the acute increases in power tasks
jump squats) in elite baseball players. Winchester et al. (2008)
induced by ballistic exercises are not dissimilar to those
also demonstrated the effectiveness of jump squats for increas-
induced by heavy resistance exercises (Maloney, Turner, &
ing peak power and rate of force development in moderately
Fletcher, 2014). Lastly, and no less importantly, it must be
trained subjects, independently of changes in peak force and
emphasized that: (1) training for one specific physical quality

CONTACT Irineu Loturco irineu.loturco@terra.com.br. NAR - Nucleus of High Performance in Sport. Av. Padre José Maria, 555 - Santo Amaro, 04753–060
São Paulo, SP, Brazil
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
278 I. LOTURCO ET AL.
(e.g., power) may affect the performance of a secondary qual-
ity (e.g., maximum strength), and (2) the optimal power devel-
opment seems to be dependent on a sequential and
progressive resistance training program (i.e., hypertrophy,
strength, and then muscle power) (Zamparo, Minetti, & Di
Prampero, 2002). Therefore, it may be premature to conclude
(at least for the upper limbs) that ballistic movements are
always superior to traditional exercises to maximize and
develop muscle power.
In fact, some studies have revealed conflicting results
regarding the mechanical differences between TBP and BBT
exercises. Cronin, McNair, and Marshall (2001) found no differ-
ences in peak acceleration and peak force between TBP and
BBT. In an additional study concerning the force-velocity rela-
tionship and its respective implications for training and
research, the same authors did not report significant differ-
ences in average force production among various types of TBP
and BBT, although greater force outputs were recorded using
higher loading intensities across all techniques (Cronin,
McNair, & Marshall, 2003). More recently, Loturco et al.
(2017c) observed that National team rugby players were able
to produce higher power outputs during TBP, when compared
to its ballistic variation. The reasons behind this trend are still
controversial but may be related to the training routine
adopted by these athletes, who regularly perform hypertrophy
training sessions as part of their practice, with the primary
objective of increasing muscle size. The features of this train-
ing scheme (i.e., high number of sets, moderate to heavy
loads, short rest periods, and low-velocity exercises) might
have influenced the functional adaptations of the players,
compromising their ability to apply force at higher velocities,
and thus their performance in ballistic movements (Loturco,
2018). Nevertheless, this argument is speculative and requires
further research.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the per-
formance obtained by athletes at different training phases or
with different training objectives (i.e., power-based trained
athletes group [PTA] versus hypertrophy-based trained ath-
letes group [HTA]) in TBP and BBT exercises. Considering our
extensive experience with professional athletes and previous
observations on this issue, we hypothesized that the PTA
would perform better in the ballistic variation, whereas the
HTA would produce higher power outputs in the TBP.
Methods
Testing procedures
This cross-sectional descriptive study aimed to compare the
performance obtained by athletes from different sports disci-
plines in TBP and BBT exercises. They performed the TBP and
BBT exercises on the same day, in a randomized order. To
perform the tests, athletes arrived at the sports laboratory
prior to the first training session of the week after a rest period
of at least 24-h, in a fasting state for at least 2-h, avoiding
alcohol and caffeine consumption for at least 24-h before the
tests. All athletes were previously familiarized with the testing
procedures due to their constant assessments in our facilities.
A standardized warm-up was performed before the tests,
comprising moderate to light self-selected running for 5-min,
and sub-maximal attempts at each exercise.
Participants
Sixty athletes from different sports disciplines participated in
this study. Athletes were divided into two groups according to
their strength-power training characteristics as follows: hyper-
trophy-based trained athletes (HTA: n = 31 [24 men and 7
women]; 27.1 ± 4.8 years; 76.1 ± 15.7 kg; 175.3 ± 8.6 cm) which
included athletes who had systematically performed hypertro-
phy training programmes for at least 12 weeks (three to five
times a week), using a high number of sets (i.e., > 16 sets),
moderate heavy to heavy loads (i.e., > 70% of 1RM), short rest
periods (i.e., ~ 60 s), and low velocity exercises; and power-
based trained athletes (PTA: n = 29 [25 men and 4 women];
25.3 ± 5.7 years; 80.6 ± 13.4 kg, 178.1 ± 9.5 cm) which included
athletes who had usually performed power oriented training
sessions for at least 12 weeks (three to five times a week),
using a low number of sets (i.e., > 12 sets), light to moderate
loads (i.e., 30–45% of 1RM), long rest periods (i.e., > 180 s), and
high velocity exercises (i.e., loaded and unloaded plyometrics).
The sample (including both HTA and PTA groups) comprised
professional athletes involved in national and international
competitions, including members of Brazilian national teams,
a boxing Olympic champion, a two times Karate World cham-
pion, Pan-American champions, former Ultimate Fighting
Championship (UFC) belt owners, and Olympic and Pan-
American medalists, in 10 different sports disciplines, thus
attesting to their high level of competitiveness. All participants
signed an informed consent form prior to study participation
and the study was approved by the local Ethics Committee.
Power outputs in the bench press and bench throw
exercises
Bar-power outputs were measured in the TBP and BBT exer-
cises; all performed on a Smith-Machine (Hammer Strength
Equipment, Rosemont, IL, USA). Athletes performed the TBP
and BBT exercises on the same day, in a randomized order,
with a 30-min interval between exercises. The athletes were
instructed to execute three repetitions at maximal velocity for
each load, with a 5-min interval provided between sets. The
test started at a load corresponding to 30% of the individual
body mass (BM). A load of 5% of BM was gradually added in
each set until a clear decrement in the mean power (MP),
mean propulsive power (MPP), and/or peak power (PP) was
observed. The load associated with the highest power output
was considered as the load at the “optimum power zone”
(OPZ). During the BBT, the athletes were instructed to lower
the bar in a controlled manner until the barbell lightly
touched their chest and then to throw the bar as fast as
possible. In the TBP exercise, the subjects were also instructed
to move the load as fast as possible; however, they could not
lose contact with the bar. To determine the power outputs, a
linear transducer (T-Force, Dynamic Measurement System;
Ergotech Consulting S.L., Murcia, Spain) was attached at the
lateral extremity of the Smith-Machine bar. Comparison of the
bar-velocities between the TBP and BBT exercises was
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 279

performed using three different velocity based outcomes, as Results

follows: MV – mean bar velocity value calculated during the
entire concentric phase of each repetition; MPV – mean bar
velocity value calculated during the propulsive phase, defined
as that portion of the concentric action during which the
measured acceleration is greater than acceleration due to
gravity; and PV – the highest bar velocity value registered at
a particular instant (1-ms) during the concentric phase
(Sanchez-Medina, Gonzalez-Badillo, Perez, & Pallares, 2014;
Sanchez-Medina, Perez, & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2010). A detailed
description of this procedure can be found elsewhere (Loturco
et al., 2017a, 2015, 2017c). Based on the MPV associated with
the OPZ, the BP 1RM was calculated using the predictive
equation previously established by Gonzales-Badillo and
Sanchez-Medina (2010). In addition, bar force and power out-
comes (mean force [MF], mean propulsive force [MPF], peak
force [PF], mean power [MP], mean propulsive power [MPP],
and peak power [PP]; calculated under the same criteria estab-
lished for bar velocity measures) associated with the OPZ were
also retained for data analysis. Finally, the time to peak velo-
city and time to peak power variables (i.e., time related vari-
ables) associated with the first load (30% of the athlete’s BM)
and with the load at the OPZ were also used in the data
analysis.
Statistical analysis
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). To
analyze the differences in the variables tested between TBP
and BBT exercises or between the PTA and HTA groups, mag-
nitude-based inferences (Batterham & Hopkins, 2006) and
dependent or independent t tests were performed. The quan-
titative chances of the tested exercises or groups having
higher, similar, or lower values between each other were
assessed qualitatively as follows: < 1%, almost certainly not;
1% to 5%, very unlikely; 5% to 25%, unlikely; 25% to 75%,
possible; 75% to 95%, likely; 95% to 99%, very likely; > 99%,
almost certain. If the chances of having better and poorer
results were both > 5%, the true difference was assessed as
unclear. The level of significance for the parametric t tests was
set as P < 0.05. A customized spreadsheet available at: www.
sportsci.org/index.html was used for the magnitude-based
inferences analysis. Test-retest reliability for all velocity out-
puts in the TBP and BBT exercises for both groups of athletes
was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC), and standard error of esti-
mate (SEM).
All data presented normal distribution. No meaningful or sig-
nificant differences were observed for age, height, or weight
between the two groups. Table 1 demonstrates the test-retest
reliability for all velocity outputs in the TBP and BBT exercises
for both groups of athletes. The HTA presented a likely higher
relative 1RM than the PTA (1.48 ± 0.53 kg.kg−1 vs.
1.22 ± 0.38 kg.kg−1; P < 0.05; for HTA and PTA, respectively).
The OPZ corresponded to 33.2 ± 12.4% and 30.0 ± 8.5% of
1RM for the TBP and BBT exercises, respectively, in the HTA
group, and 31.2 ± 9.6% and 30.6 ± 10.2% of 1RM for the TBP
and BBT exercises, respectively, in the PTA group. No mean-
ingful or significant differences were observed between
groups in either TBP or BBT with respect to the OPZ
% (P > 0.05). Figure 1 shows the comparison of the power
outputs (i.e., MP, MPP, PP) between the TBP and BBT exercises
for both groups. Figure 2 depicts the comparison of the force
related variables between the TBP and BBT exercises for both
groups. Figure 3 demonstrates the comparison of the velocity-
based measures between the TBP and BBT exercises for the
two groups.
Figure 4 depicts the comparison of the loads corresponding
to the OPZ between the TBP and BBT exercises in both groups
of athletes. The load at the OPZ for the TBP exercises was likely
higher than in the BBT for the HTA group (10% of mean
difference), while for the PTA group the difference in the
loads between the two exercises was rated as unclear (2%
mean difference). Table 2 shows the comparison of the velo-
city-based outcomes using a load of 30% BM between the PTA
and HTA groups in the two exercises tested. Table 3 shows
time related variables using a load corresponding to 30% of
BM and at the OPZ between the PTA and HTA groups in the
TBP and BBT exercises.
Discussion
This study compared the power production in two different
types of bench press exercises, namely the TBP and BBT. As
expected, the main finding was that the HTA were able to
generate greater values of muscle power in the TBP, whereas
the PTA performed better in the BBT. This is the first study to
demonstrate that a hypertrophy-based training program may
significantly impair the individual’s ability to apply force
against lower loads and at higher velocities in upper body
exercises, thus affecting the power production during ballistic
exercises.

Table 1. Test-retest reliability for all velocity outputs in the traditional bench press (TBP) and ballistic bench throw (BBT) exercises for both groups of athletes.
CV (95% CI) ICC (95% CI) SEM
TBP BBT TBP BBT TBP BBT
HTA MV 6.92 (5.12; 8.73) 6.04 (4.58; 7.50) 0.97 (0.93; 0.98) 0.98 (0.95; 0.99) 0.08 0.07
MPV 7.31 (5.41; 9.22) 6.31 (4.55; 8.07) 0.95 (0.90; 0.98) 0.96 (0.92; 0.98) 0.10 0.10
PV 8.02 (6.86; 9.17) 7.31 (5.92; 8.69) 0.98 (0.97; 0.99) 0.98 (0.96; 0.99) 0.10 0.13
PTA MV 5.54 (4.21; 6.96) 5.31 (4.27; 6.34) 0.90 (0.78; 0.95) 0.97 (0.94; 0.99) 0.08 0.06
MPV 6.45 (5.22; 7.68) 5.48 (4.20; 6.76) 0.92 (0.83; 0.96) 0.96 (0.91; 0.98) 0.09 0.10
PV 7.44 (6.45; 8.44) 6.62 (5.46; 7.78) 0.96 (0.92; 0.98) 0.97 (0.94; 0.99) 0.11 0.12
Note: HTA: hypertrophy trained athletes; PTA: power trained athletes; MV: mean velocity: MPV: mean propulsive velocity; PV: peak velocity; CV: coefficient of
variation; CI: confidence intervals; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; SEM: standard error of estimate.
280 I. LOTURCO ET AL.

Figure 1. Comparison of mean power (MP), mean propulsive power (MPP), and peak power (PP) between the traditional bench press (TBP) and ballistic bench throw
(BBT) exercises for power trained and hypertrophy trained athletes (PTA and HTA, respectively). VL: very likely and significant difference between exercises, P < 0.05;
AC: almost certainly and significant difference between exercises, P < 0.05.

Figure 2. Comparison of mean force (MF), mean propulsive force (MPF), and peak force (PF) between the traditional bench press (TBP) and ballistic bench throw
(BBT) exercises for power trained and hypertrophy trained athletes (PTA and HTA, respectively). VL: very likely and significant difference between exercises, P < 0.05;
AC: almost certainly and significant difference between exercises, P < 0.05.

Figure 3. Comparison of mean velocity (MV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and peak velocity (PV) between the traditional bench press (TBP) and ballistic bench
throw (BBT) exercises for power trained and hypertrophy trained athletes (PTA and HTA, respectively). The differences between exercises were all rated as unclear
and non-significant P > 0.05.
Some previous investigations have also shown conflicting used to execute the exercise (ballistic or non-ballistic varia-
results when comparing ballistic and traditional exercises. For tions of bench press) across a wide range of loads (from 30 to
example, a classic study by Cronin et al. (2003) described that 80% of 1RM). Nevertheless, greater force outputs were pro-
the average force production was unaffected by the technique gressively recorded using higher loads, for all exercise
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 281

Importantly, in a subsequent communication (Loturco, 2018),

Figure 4. Comparison of the loads corresponding to the optimum power zone
between the traditional bench press (TBP) and ballistic bench throw (BBT)
exercises for power trained and hypertrophy trained athletes (PTA and HTA,
respectively). L: likely and significant difference between exercises, P < 0.05.
variations. Lake, Lauder, Smith, and Shorter (2012) did not find
differences in mean force and mean power between ballistic
jump squat and non-ballistic back squat, suggesting that these
results can challenge “common perceptions of ballistic super-
iority for power development”. A key point to consider is that,
in both studies, the authors observed significant differences in
favor of ballistic exercises when analyzing velocity outputs,
indicating that throwing conditions can optimize the move-
ment velocity against the same respective loads, and therefore
should be preferred over traditional exercises to improve func-
tional performance at higher speeds.
A recent investigation involving top-level rugby players
also found similar results related to movement velocities,
indicating that the “optimum power zone” (i.e., range of
loads able to maximize muscle power) in the BBT indeed
occurs at higher bar-velocities compared to the TBP (Loturco
et al., 2017c). Furthermore, it was detected that, at least for
these group of athletes in a given training period, the resul-
tant power for the TBP was greater than that for the BBT.
the author revealed that these “mechanical phenomenon”
occurred not only when examining the outcomes related to
the propulsive phase of the lift (which includes a short-period
when the bar is released), but also when analyzing the mean
power values obtained during the entire concentric phase or
until the peak bar-velocity (i.e., immediately before the begin-
ning of the bar flight-phase). Although it must be recognized
that the calculation method will significantly impact the bar-
velocity determination (and thus the respective power mea-
sure), it seems that this occurrence is not related to the type of
variable considered during the measurements, but rather to a
decreased capacity of these athletes to apply higher levels of
force at higher velocities (when compared to the PTA), which
compromises their actual performance during explosive move-
ments. These findings provide a possible indication that some
specific training adaptations can potentially affect the theore-
tical superiority of ballistic exercises to generate greater power
outputs.
The findings of the current study are in line with the later
hypothesis, since the HTA produced higher levels of muscle
power in TBP (in comparison to BBT), for all the power vari-
ables analyzed (MP, MPP, and PP). It is worthwhile emphasis-
ing that this group was composed of athletes who had been
regularly performing hypertrophy-based training programs for
at least 12 weeks, with a minimum frequency of 4 times per
week. As mentioned, this training approach (characterised by
a high number of sets, repetitions to failure at moderate-heavy
to heavy loads, short rest periods, and low-velocity exercises)
might hamper the development of strength-power capabilities
more related to the low-force, high-velocity portion of the
force-velocity curve, whereas it appears to improve the neu-
romechanical qualities more associated with the high-force,
low-velocity muscle contractions (Baker, 1995; Baker, 2001;
Castillo et al., 2012; McBride, Triplett-McBride, Davie, &
Newton, 2002). Indeed, previous research that has combined
some characteristics of this method (e.g., heavy loads, several
sets, repetitions to or close to failure) have shown that

Table 2. Comparison of velocity-based variables using a load corresponding to 30% of the athlete’s body mass between power and hypertrophy trained athletes in
the traditional bench press and ballistic bench throw exercises.
Traditional Bench Press Ballistic Bench Throw
PTA HTA PTA HTA
MV 30% BM (m.s−1) 1.24 ± 0.12 1.26 ± 0.22 1.44 ± 0.19 1.36 ± 0.23L
MPV 30% BM (m.s−1) 1.33 ± 0.16 1.32 ± 0.25 1.60 ± 0.25 1.50 ± 0.27L
PV 30% BM (m.s−1) 2.38 ± 0.32 2.39 ± 0.43 2.71 ± 0.24 2.56 ± 0.48L
Note: PTA: power trained athletes; HTA: hypertrophy trained athletes; MV: mean velocity, MPV: mean propulsive velocity; PV: peak velocity; BM: body mass. LLikely
and significantly different from PTA, P < 0.05.

Table 3. Comparison of time related variables using a load corresponding to 30% of the athlete’s body mass and at the optimum power zone between power and
hypertrophy trained athletes in the traditional bench press and ballistic bench throw exercises.
Traditional Bench Press Ballistic Bench Throw
PTA HTA PTA HTA
Time to peak velocity (ms) 30% BM 316.5 ± 47.7 333.4 ± 77.0P 321.4 ± 53.0 340.4 ± 63.2P
OPZ 332.7 ± 60.5 351.1 ± 84.3P 343.4 ± 57.5 366.9 ± 65.9L
Time to peak power (ms) 30% BM 263.7 ± 51.6 275.7 ± 81.9 260.3 ± 51.3 280.1 ± 70.3P
OPZ 281.6 ± 64.2 295.4 ± 92.6 283.6 ± 58.9 306.7 ± 74.2P
Note: PTA: power trained athletes; HTA: hypertrophy trained athletes; BM: body mass; OPZ: optimum power zone. PPossibly and significantly different from PTA,
P < 0.05; LLikely and significantly different from PTA, P < 0.05.
282 I. LOTURCO ET AL.
subjects exposed to these stimuli may even present significant
decreases in their ability to perform high-velocity activities,
such as unloaded vertical jumps or maximal short sprints
(McBride et al., 2002; Pareja-Blanco, Sanchez-Medina, Suarez-
Arrones, & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2017). Although the mechanisms
behind these responses are not completely understood, it can
be speculated that hypertrophy-based programs result in sig-
nificant reductions in contraction velocities, which is sup-
ported by a large number of studies showing the specificity
of force-velocity adaptations (Andersen & Aagaard, 2010;
Behm & Sale, 1993; Cormie et al., 2011a, 2011b; Dinn &
Behm, 2007).
The data reported here clearly demonstrate how specific
training adaptations may affect performance in upper body
ballistic and traditional exercises. For example, when analyzing
the BBT outputs, it can be noted that the HTA attained lower
bar velocities for all the measured variables (MV, MPV, and PV),
and spent more time reaching both peak velocity (+ 6%) and
peak power (+ 8%) than the PTA under the lightest loading
condition (30% BM). This finding favors the athletes more
prone to apply force at higher velocities (i.e., PTA). Moreover,
the HTA achieved the optimum power zone in the TBP with a
meaningfully heavier load (10%) than the one used to achieve
the same zone in the BBT. On the other hand, the PTA used
similar loads to achieve the optimum zones in both the TBP
and BBP. Considering that both groups presented the same
bar-velocities at the optimum power zone (Figure 3), it may be
concluded that the HTA has the ability to move heavier loads
with the same velocity in the TBP, which also denotes a
velocity-specific training response in this group. These find-
ings reveal that athletes who train under hypertrophy-based
conditions during a particular phase are likely to develop a
reduced capability to rapidly accelerate light loads, while pre-
senting a relatively increased capacity to generate higher
levels of power at higher loads, lower velocities (mechanical
condition that favors the TBP) (Loturco, 2018; Loturco et al.,
2017c).
To some extent, our data are in accordance with the results
of Cronin et al. (2003), who indicated that different variations
of BBT do not necessarily produce greater force outputs than
TBP. In fact, at the OPZ, the force production – for all the
assessed variables (Figure 2) – was superior in the TBP.
Although more research is needed to clarify the exact nature
of this phenomenon, it may be speculated that the load plays
a key role in modulating the force application throughout
these exercises, with the kinematic variables (i.e., acceleration
and velocity) assuming a less dominant influence in this
mechanical relation. Therefore, to provide more precise com-
parisons of ballistic and traditional exercises, it is essential to
assess their outputs over a comprehensive range of loads,
which likely reduces the probability of committing errors of
accuracy during data collection and interpretation. These data
emphasise the necessity to systematically evaluate athletes
from different sport disciplines and training backgrounds,
who usually develop very specific adaptations, according to
their individual characteristics and workout routines. For elite
athletes, the use of general concepts in which some notions of
uniformity are implied might be extremely inadequate and,
more importantly, ineffective.
The results of this study confirm previous findings that the
optimum power zones always occur at narrow ranges of bar-
velocities (Loturco et al., 2015, 2017c). Of note, this phenom-
enon appears to be independent of relative strength level,
exercise-type, sport discipline, or training background
(Loturco et al., 2017b, 2016b, 2018; Sanchez-Medina et al.,
2010). Thus, coaches interested in increasing the strength-
power related qualities in their athletes through the use of
optimum power loads are encouraged to use the bar-velocity
reference values reported here and in other studies (Loturco
et al., 2015, 2017c). This information is of practical importance
for sports practitioners, due to the established effectiveness,
applicability, and timesaving characteristics of the optimum
power loads (Loturco et al., 2016a; Wilson, Newton, Murphy, &
Humphries, 1993). It is worthwhile noting that this loading
range and the force-velocity profile usually fluctuate during a
given training period (e.g., microcycle), emphasizing the
necessity of performing frequent measurements to properly
determine the load for maximum mechanical power produc-
tion (Banyard, Nosaka, & Haff, 2017; Kawamori & Haff, 2004).
Finally, it is important to highlight that: (1) tests were per-
formed on a Smith-machine, thus limiting the extrapolation of
our findings to other exercise settings (e.g., free-weight exer-
cises), and (2) outputs were collected from the barbell, using a
linear position transducer; therefore, our results do not repre-
sent the total power of the system and cannot be compared
with force plate data. In this sense, it must still be remem-
bered that in several sport tasks the level of performance is
directly related to the power applied by the athlete to an
external implement or to the opponent (Gabbett, Jenkins, &
Abernethy, 2011; Loturco et al., 2017c; Meir, Newton, Curtis,
Fardell, & Butler, 2001; Reid & Schneiker, 2008).
We recognize that this study is limited by the very particu-
lar and unique characteristics of the sample, totally composed
of top-level athletes from different sports disciplines, including
Olympic Champions and medalists, World and Pan-American
Champions and medalists, and international and national
competitors well-classified in their respective rankings and
confederations, which could compromise the extrapolation
of our data for less trained subjects. Nevertheless, it is essential
to contrast these data with the more standardized and uni-
form concepts, to provide coaches and researchers with
detailed information regarding the distinct traits of these indi-
viduals at the extreme edge of human performance. These
steps are critical to design training programs and practices
that will effectively serve this population.
Conclusions
Ballistic exercises are widely recognized by their inherent capa-
city to produce muscle power and should undoubtedly be used
to improve the capability to produce greater force outputs at
higher velocities. Nonetheless, it seems that in highly trained
athletes, some specific resistance training approaches (e.g.,
hypertrophy-based programs) may reduce the ability to apply
force against lighter loads, thus affecting performance during
upper-body ballistic movements. For these subjects, the tradi-
tional bench press is able to generate higher levels of muscle
power than its ballistic variation, and this is independent of the

power outcome used to compare the exercises. These results
have very important applications in more applied settings. For
example, if the subject presents this mechanical characteristic
and must be able to apply force against very-light loads (or even
in unloaded conditions) as rapidly and forcefully as possible, the
coach is encouraged to rethink the workout routine, possibly
implementing training schemes which prioritize explosive exer-
cises performed at very-high velocities (e.g., ballistic throw
movements). On the other hand, athletes who are required to
generate greater force and power outputs against moderate to
heavy loads, may also use traditional bench press (performed at
optimum power loads) to develop these specific neuromecha-
nical qualities. Importantly, independent of the main objective
of the training, due to their unique characteristics, elite athletes
must be assessed regularly. For this selected group of subjects,
general assumptions can be very misleading and ineffective.
Experimental interventions should be conducted to test the
effectiveness of traditional bench press and ballistic bench
throws in improving the strength-power qualities of top-level
athletes, as well as assessing the transference of their respective
neuromechanical adaptations to more specific motor skills (e.g.,
punching or throwing ability).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Irineu Loturco http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-2568
References
Andersen, J. L., & Aagaard, P. (2010). Effects of strength training on muscle
fiber types and size; consequences for athletes training for high-inten-
sity sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20(S2),
32–38.
Baker, D. (1995). Selecting the appropriate exercises and loads for speed-
strength development. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 3(2), 8–16.
Baker, D. (2001). A series of studies on the training of high-intensity
muscle power in rugby league football players. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 15(2), 198–209.
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Reliability and validity of the
load-velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(7), 1897–1904.
Batterham, A. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2006). Making meaningful inferences
about magnitudes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 1(1), 50–57.
Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Velocity specificity of resistance training.
Sports Medicine, 15(6), 374–388.
Castillo, F., Valverde, T., Morales, A., Pérez-Guerra, A., De León, F., & García-
Manso, J. M. (2012). Maximum power, optimal load and optimal power
spectrum for power training in upper-body (bench press): A review.
Revista Andaluza De Medicina Del Deporte, 5(1), 18–27.
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010). Adaptations in athletic
performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(8), 1582–1598.
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011a). Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: Part 2 - training considerations for improving
maximal power production. Sports Medicine, 41(2), 125–146.
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011b). Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: Part 1-biological basis of maximal power pro-
duction. Sports Medicine, 41(1), 17–38.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 283
Cronin, J., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2001). Developing explosive
power: A comparison of technique and training. Journal of Science
and Medicine in Sport, 4(1), 59–70.
Cronin, J. B., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2003). Force-velocity analysis of
strength-training techniques and load: Implications for training strat-
egy and research. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1),
148–155.
Dinn, N. A., & Behm, D. G. (2007). A comparison of ballistic-movement and
ballistic-intent training on muscle strength and activation. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2(4), 386–399.
Gabbett, T. J., Jenkins, D. G., & Abernethy, B. (2011). Correlates of tackling
ability in high-performance rugby league players. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 25(1), 72–79.
Gonzales-Badillo, J. J., & Sanchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347–352.
Kawamori, N., & Haff, G. G. (2004). The optimal training load for the
development of muscular power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 18(3), 675–684.
Lake, J., Lauder, M., Smith, N., & Shorter, K. (2012). A comparison of ballistic
and nonballistic lower-body resistance exercise and the methods used
to identify their positive lifting phases. Journal of Applied Biomechanics,
28(4), 431–437.
Loturco, I. (2018). Authors’ response to letter to the editor Bar velo-
cities capable of optimising the muscle power in strength-power
exercises. by Loturco, Pereira, Abad, Tabares, Moraes, Kobal,
Kitamura & Nakamura (2017) Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(14),
1602–1606.
Loturco, I., Kobal, R., Kitamura, K., Fernandes, V., Moura, N., Siqueira, F., . . .
Pereira, L. A. (2017a). Predictive factors of elite sprint performance:
Influences of muscle mechanical properties and functional parameters.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, In Press doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002196.
Loturco, I., Kobal, R., Moraes, J. E., Kitamura, K., Cal Abad, C. C., Pereira, L.
A., & Nakamura, F. Y. (2017b). Predicting the maximum dynamic
strength in bench press: The high precision of the bar velocity
approach. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(4),
1127–1131.
Loturco, I., Nakamura, F. Y., Kobal, R., Gil, S., Pivetti, B., Pereira, L. A., &
Roschel, H. (2016a). Traditional periodization versus optimum training
load applied to soccer players: Effects on neuromuscular abilities.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(13), 1051–1059.
Loturco, I., Nakamura, F. Y., Tricoli, V., Kobal, R., Abad, C. C., Kitamura, K., . . .
Gonzales-Badillo, J. J. (2015). Determining the optimum power load in
jump squats using the mean propulsive velocity. PLoS One, 10(10),
e0140102.
Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Abad, C. C., Tabares, F., Moraes, J. E., Kobal, R., . . .
Nakamura, F. Y. (2017c). Bar velocities capable of optimising the muscle
power in strength-power exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(8),
734–741.
Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Cal Abad, C. C., Gil, S., Kitamura, K., Kobal, R., &
Nakamura, F. Y. (2016b). Using bar velocity to predict the maximum
dynamic strength in the half-squat exercise. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 11(5), 697–700.
Loturco, I., Suchomel, T., Kobal, R., Arruda, A. F. S., Guerriero, A., Pereira, L.
A., & Pai, C. N. (2018). Force-velocity relationship in three different
variations of prone row exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, In Press doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002543.
Maloney, S. J., Turner, A. N., & Fletcher, I. M. (2014). Ballistic exercise as a
pre-activation stimulus: A review of the literature and practical applica-
tions. Sports Medicine, 44(10), 1347–1359.
McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U. (2002). The
effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of
strength, power, and speed. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 16(1), 75–82.
Mcevoy, R. P., & Newton, R. U. (1998). Baseball throwing speed and base
running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance training. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 12(4), 216–221.
Meir, R., Newton, R., Curtis, E., Fardell, M., & Butler, B. (2001). Physical
fitness qualities of professional rugby league football players:
284 I. LOTURCO ET AL.
Determination of positional differences. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 15(4), 450–458.
Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J., & Häkkinen, K. (1999). Effects of ballistic
training on preseason preparation of elite volleyball players. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(2), 323–330.
Pareja-Blanco, F., Sanchez-Medina, L., Suarez-Arrones, L., & Gonzalez-
Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training
on performance in professional soccer players. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(4), 512–519.
Reid, M., & Schneiker, K. (2008). Strength and conditioning in tennis:
Current research and practice. Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport, 11(3), 248–256.
Sanchez-Medina, L., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Perez, C. E., & Pallares, J. G.
(2014). Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs.
bench press exercises. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(3),
209–216.
Sanchez-Medina, L., Perez, C. E., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2010). Importance
of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 31(2), 123–129.
West, D. J., Cunningham, D. J., Crewther, B. T., Cook, C. J., & Kilduff, L. P.
(2013). Influence of ballistic bench press on upper body power output
in professional rugby players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 27(8), 2282–2287.
Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., & Humphries, B. J. (1993). The
optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic perfor-
mance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(11), 1279–1286.
Winchester, J. B., McBride, J. M., Maher, M. A., Mikat, R. P., Allen, B. K., Kline,
D. E., & McGuigan, M. R. (2008). Eight weeks of ballistic exercise
improves power independently of changes in strength and muscle
fiber type expression. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
22(6), 1728–1734.
Zamparo, P., Minetti, A. E., & Di Prampero, P. E. (2002). Interplay among
the changes of muscle strength, cross-sectional area and maximal
explosive power: Theory and facts. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 88(3), 193–202.
Zaras, N., Spengos, K., Methenitis, S., Papadopoulos, C., Karampatsos, G.,
Georgiadis, G., . . . Terzis, G. (2013). Effects of strength vs. ballistic-
power training on throwing performance. Journal of Sports Science &
Medicine, 12(1), 130–137.
Zehr, E. P., & Sale, D. G. (1994). Ballistic movement: Muscle activation
and neuromuscular adaptation. Canadian Journal of Applied
Physiology, 19(4), 363–378.
Copyright of Journal of Sports Sciences is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.