Bridging the Gap: Bench ‘The bench press is the current topic for the NSCA Journal feature “Bridging the Gap.” Drs. ‘Tom McLaughlin and Nels Madsen discuss the factors influencing performance and injury risk in the bench press. In the companion article, Dave Williams presents the practical applications of training football linemen in the bench press. Bench press techniques of elite heavyweight powerlifters Thomas M, McLaughlin, Ph.D. Director of Strengt Sports Medicine Research Laboratory Golden Ocala Country Club Ocala, Florida /Fiuness Biomechanics and Nels H. Madsen, Ph.D. Department of Mechanical Engineering ‘Auburn University Alabama TPs bene pres one of ihe mon widely sed weight raining exercises 1 is an integral part of the taining programs for most athletes In many sport partculerly football, bench press capacity Is alo used as a performance measure However, despite the widespread use of thisexerese, heres renearch svai- able regarding its performance ‘Recently an investigation was completed whieh explored the kinematic factors Influencing perlormance and injury risk jn the bench press exercise (2). In that Study, performance characteristics were fentrsted fortwo subject groups silar body weights and sizes [Experts — world class powerliters(N = 19} ody weight SS TN, (Now: 100 N = 22.518) Upper Body Lenggh X = 486m; and Novices —reereational weight trainers (N = 17} ‘weight X = 756N, Upper Body Length = 493m} Thekineticeflerences between groups wore: a) Expert subjects Tied 70% more weight; however, the Ailference in peak force exerted while Towering the bar was only 43% (b) The diference in peak force exerted while Taising the bar was only 48%; (c) The Gliference in minimmsforce exerted while "alsing the bar was 67%; and (d) There ‘vas no significant difference in torque equired at the shoulder. The relevant Kiematicdlilerences were: (a) The expert group maintained a smaller bar speed ‘while lowering the bar: (b) The expert group used a bar path loser tothe shoul- fers: and (@) The expert group used 2 lllerent sequence of bar movements. “The inflaene of physics sive expecially ‘body weight} on bench press performance has not yet been explored. The bench press investigation discussed above (2) ontrastd novices with expert poweriers ‘vera lower body weight range than found for many athletes (X= 736-775N}), The typical weight of football Kineman athe college or profesional level is at least TOON. Consequently, iis of imterest to Tookat the bench press teehniguesof skilled bench pressers of comparable body weights twas the parpose ofthis study to examine the Linematie and kinetic factor inluencing performance and injury risk fora group of elite heavyweight poverliters. Methods ‘The film rialsofthe individuals making up the expert group were selected froma library of high speed mean of national and world level powerlifting meets, The SCA Journal August September 1984 44 film rials analyzed were chosen based on {he blowing eritria (a) The lifters had to be competing in one ofthe following weight classes 242 Th. 275 Ib. Super hheavyweight; (b) The end ofthe bar had tobe clearly visible throughout the lif (6) The lift had to be completed succes Iully:(€) The weight lifted ranked ia the top ten bench presses worldwide at the time ofthe lift; and (e) Hore than one film of the same individual met all ofthe other criteria, only the most recent was Included, Using these criteria, the expert ‘group consisted of mine subjects (Whree tach from the 242 Ib, 275 Ib and super heavyweight classes} Subject characteris. ties are described in Table 1. ‘A motor-driven Locam 6 min camera sway sted to recordal it: Camera location sas 10 61m from the plane af motion of The end ofthe bar and uch that the optical axiswasapprosimately 0.2 mdirecily above Tine through the ters glenohsmeral Joints, Camera speeds ranged from 963 fo 1052 fps. The processed film were analyzed witha sont digitization system, ‘The location of the end of the bar was digivzed every other frame, The location ofthe end ofthe bar in real life units was (Continued, page 62)Bench Press — Techniques (Continued fom page 44) ‘obtained from the digitizer units by com: parison with the digitized coordinates of fn object of known length positioned in the plan of mation. A cubic spline (3,6) fitting technique was used to obtain ana lytical expressions for trajectory of the brass funtion fine, These expressions were dilferentiated to obtain te velocity tnd acceleration ofthe bar. Newton's aes ‘were used foobiain theme force exerted bythe lifter on the bur. The definition of work was used to obtain values for the rate of work being done by the Kir on the barat various instants, Values for the position ofthe bar were obtained relative to two reference points. In one case the Feference point wast lowest position of the bar (subsequently relerred to as the thes) In the other case, the reference point was the apparent location of the flenohumeral joint Perspective calcula tions indicated that, depending upon camera distance and subject body width (shoulder to shoulder distance), the truc location ofthis reference point was 0.22 = (0.006m directly above the glenohumeral joint. This reference poim willbe subse ‘quently relerred to es the shoulder. An NSCA Journal Binder Each binder holds 1 volume year (6 issues) approximation tothe torque re theshoulder wa obtained by ecu the moment of the lofce exerted om the bar about the shoulder. The measure of upper body length used was the apparent ‘distance between the subject's glenohr- mera joint and the greater trochanter of np. Perspective calculations indicated that depending upon thecamera distance and thesubjeets body width the calculated Gistance was 0.90 02 times the actual distance. Al forces and torques refer to the total force or torque produced by the liter (ie, both arms included}. Ponerliting meet ste 1 19785r. National 2 1978 Se. Nationals 31978 Sr. Nationale 41980 World Serie 5 1979S. Nationale 6 7 8 ° 1978 Se. Nationals 1980 World Series 1980 World Series 1980 World Serer All of the quantities described above (as well as time) were evsuated at nine Enstants for each ll. Those nine instants in the sequence in which they occur, a¢ well as the number and name by which they are identified in the figures and tables shown in Figure I, were: Li) STRT ~ The start of the Hilt, when thearmsarefully extended andthe bar [2] MXVI— Theinstantatwhich he bar achieves its largest downward velocity Bae weight(N)Bodyweight(} 2403.0 10769 25050 10769 23790 10769 25540 ues 2354.0 1248 25500 wai04 23322 13617 23320 15580 2540 19373 X= ites Coaches’ Notebook Notebook includes yellow legal pad $5.00 + postage Send orderto: NSCA, P.O, Box 81410, Lincoln, NE68501 Mailing information Name — Endose check ___ Notebooks at $5 ~ Total —__ ‘ormoney order for Address —___ fullamount Allow —Bindersat $5= Total ___ sreetand number a6 weeks for +5150 a delivery postage ay Sate ze ‘Total Enclosed —__ SCA Journal August September 1984 6(SIMXAL — Theinstantatyhich the bar achieves its largest upward acceleration ‘bile sts being lowered [4)CHST — ‘The instantat which the bar reaches the chest [S]MXAR — The fist local maximom of ‘the upward acceleration ofthe bar alter iereaches the ches, [6] MXVR ~ The ist local maximum of ‘he upward velocity of the Bar afer it reaches the chet [T)MINAR = The first local minimum of the vertical acceleration ofthe br alter Tereaches the chest, (8) MINVR — The fest local minimum of the upward velocity of the bar alter it reaches the chest, [9] END ~ The end of the it, when the arm are again fully extended and the bars at rer, 11 is important to note that although ‘thematureofthe bench pres (down, pause, and backup again guaranteesthe existence of nstants(1}(6]and (9), instars (7) and [8] need not be distinct from the end of the Lift The existence ofa distinc mini- tim of upward bar velocity while the bar was being raised was proposed based ‘om studies of the squat exercise (4, 5) “This pattern has hen found to characterize lighter bench pressers (2 “The purpose of thie study was to in vestigate the performance of the bench prest by heavy, high skilled liters To that end, the means of selected kinematic and Kinetic quantities were calelated The limited amount of data on heavy subjects prevented any meaningfl statis ‘eal comparisons with the data on subjects of lighter body weight (2). Diret com pariton with the means for the lighter ‘weight groups, however, did raise some interesting sues. For this reason the mean values reported in (2) are repented here. Resules ‘Theexperimental reals supported the existence of the fine structure in the kinematics ofthe bench press reported in Qh. All nine subject exhibited a distinct minimum of vertical acceleration whil Talking the bar. Newton's laws indicate thatthe instant of minimum vertical bar fcceleation ie also the instant at which the lifter is exerting minimum lores on the bar. For his reason (24,5 the positon ofthe bar at this instant wil be relerced to asthe sticking point For the heavy expert group, selected Linetc results are presented in Table 2 and selected kinematic data areshown in Table 5 Additionally, for comparison ppurpores, the means forthe light expert Eroup and light novice group of (2) are Sls included in these tables Figure 1. Locations of characteristic instants and angles during the bench press (Idealized only); where{1}= STRT,(2] = MXVL,[3]= MXAL [4]=CHST,[5]= MXAR,[6]= MIXVE, (7] = MNAR, [8] = MNVR. and (9] = END: Angles are with respect to horizontal, where tis from STRT to MKVL, 82s rom MXVL to CHST, 63's rom (CHST to MXVR, 61s from MXVR to MNVE, and 85s {rom MNVR to END. See text for further description of these characteristic instants and angles. Geo | once exeRTEDON BAR == Figure 2 Force/ttne plots for representative subjects from three groups. Time 0. s pint of chest contact with bar (instant (4] = CHT), ("taken from data used in (2), 6 SCA Journal August September 1984Bench Press — Techniques Asshown in Table 2 and Figure 2,the similar trend regarding the sequence of forces exerted on the bar by the heavy bar movements to that shown by thelight ‘expertgrouplollowedeverysimilartrend experts (2) Thiscanbe een inthe vale: towhatwasseen in(2)tocharacterize the Tor the angle of the bar relative to the Tightexpers In particular therewasless horizontal atthe various instants in the difference between the maximum and lit (Table $ and Figure 8) The heavy ‘minimumforessexertedon thebarduring experts also maintained a fairy similar raising for the expert groups compared angle of bar descent and ascent (eneans te the novices. The heavy experts were ranging {rom about 62-66° throughout liking 90% more weight withabody weight lif Inkey areas ofthe it, the ditlrences increase of 6% relative to the lighter between the angles of both expert group, experts: However. the torques estimated and the novice group were sll drame atthe shoulder forthe heavy experts at tially evident. It ir interesting, thovgh, allpastionsevaluatedwereapproximately that at these positions the ight experts tor above wie the value reported for did have smaller angular values. In Table the other two groups. The power values 3, thebar accelerations followed thesame obtzined forthe heavy experts were also dramatic trend for the heavy experts as generally over 20% higher than those the expertsin(2). Finally, thetimesof the Feported for the two lighter groups descent and ascent were noteworthy in TnTable8 ivan bescenthatthehenvy tht the hey experts lowered the bar more slowly than the light experts but ‘expertsmaintained aherizonalbar posi. Tore slowly than th tion further fom the shoulder than dia thelightexpersof(2,andacuallysiilar —Diseusion. to the light novice group of that same In general, the trends in performance study. The heavy expert group had a demonstrated by the elite heavyweight e+ novice bone HEAVY EXPERT Soove LIGHT EXPERT 2¢ 2 ‘Shoulder 2 3 Origin —x(m) Figure . Comparative mesn bar paths - rising the bar, (& = Light Experts, & = Heavy Experts @ = Novices where * indicates data taken from(2)}Instants marked are: = CHST, 5 = MXAR, 6= MXVR,7= MNAR,#= MNVR,9= END. See text for further description of these characteristic instants, Not also that angles in Table $ can be seen implicily in this figure. NSCA Journal August September 1984 6 powerliftes are very similar to what was Teported in (2 or light expert powerlfers fontrasted to light novices. The forees Spplied to the bar at key points in the bench press follow a similar trend, the sequence of movements used are much the same for both expert groups, and the degree of control in Towering the bar is ‘Similar. Overall, the majority of observa ons reported jn (2) that characterized skilled bench presing were replicated here, despite the incrensed body weight and sizeof this study's subject (One notable difference, however, be- ‘ween the results of thir study and (2) Involves the torques produced at the shoulder. A quick look at Table 2 indi= fats that dey are about twice as large as reported for the lighter groups. The heavier group was iting 30% more weight and their upper body length was ‘9% larger (508 mt 466) than the light ‘exper group. I geometrically and tempor- ally smslar techniques were wed by the ‘wo groups, an increase in torque at the shoulders of 42% would be expected. Clearly, amuch lager increase occurred. ‘Thelact hat shoulder torque requirements increase faster than bar weight, gests the ratio ofbar weight to body weight should be smaller for 8 large lifter th fora small liter to produce equivalent workouts. Further research s required to tesablish this equivalency level For some eaton the larger lilte is positioning the bar farther from his shoulders relative to is body size than is the smaller lifter ‘What may explain the large increase in torque is the competitive restriction in Ihand grip spacing to 32 inches, which may prevent the heavier lifters from maintaining geometric similarity with stnaller lifer, With s narrower (relative to their body size) grip, the heavier lifters are faced with a choice of increasing ‘movement at the elbow by increasing ‘elbow flexion or of increasing shoulder torque by displacing the bar path ho lnontally away rom theshoulder- Appar ently, most large liters opt forthe second Slternative, This leds tothe intriguing Situation that while the weight lifted 1 not increasing as fast as the body weight, the shoulder torque, which determines ‘the muscle loading, is increasing Taster than bodyweight Itmay bethatthe heavier Titer is roplicating the technique of the smaller liter as far_as permitted by the rules ofpowerliing. This doesnot mesh that wider grips will necessarily reduce the torgue a the shoulder. This is det mined primarily by bar location and acceleration, These are the important parameters independent of grip widthAnother significant difference in the done on thebarto time required to itt, resultsofthisstudy when eomparedto(2) This is arger than the increase expected lies in the values obtained for power from the increased weight lifted alone ‘output. The values reported hereareover However, this is reasonable based on 50% greater than those given im (2) This Olympie lifting results (1) where there is ‘suuelorboththemaximuminsantaneous a end for greater power outputs with power(meximum productof forceon the increased body weight for any given bar and bar velocity) and average power movement. Since the heavy elite powe during the rising phase (ratio of work lifters have greater body mass one woul Heavy Ligh? Light’ experts experts novices ( (N=19) (N=17) Bar weight (N) zuo2 Wed. 985. Body weight (N) 12425 75786. Bar weight/body weight 192 236 132 Force exerted on bar (N) ‘Maxioum while lowering - MXAL** 2305.8 198.33. ‘Maximom while raising = MXAR 25207 2008. 1348, Minimurn while caiting - MNAR 236 15, ot ‘Torque produced at shoulder (Nm) ‘Ghest = CHST 01 Be 255, 326 ies, 175 3003 13887, Rate of work done on bar (Nmn/s) Maximum daring raising ns4 46. a8. ‘Average during raising Aus. 37. 248 ‘Tate from ference (2) Sc text for more dete decripcon of dhe abbreviated insta Table 2, Selected kinetic measures. Heavy Light" experts experts (N29) (NEI9) ‘Horizontal distance from shoulder to bar 198 ayo At maximum force exertion - MXAR aso ‘Atmaximum bar velocity - MXVR it ole ‘At minimum force exertion - MNAR a3 078 lata ‘At minimum bar velocity = MNVR. 9 ous “ase ‘Angle of dspaleement with horizontal (°) (of bar fom instant co instant from stare STRT. ‘To maximum downward velocity-MXVL(@)"" 652-673. TO Ta chest CHST (83) sil The 764 ‘To maximum bur velocity - MXVR (63) 648603 Bk To minimum bar velocity - MNVR (@4) 20 8 13 ‘To end of lit- END (23) 661 721667 Bar accelerations (rn) ‘Maximum while lovering - MXAL 33 ‘Maximum while raising" MXAR ro 384 Minimum while raising - MNAR ae Time(s) From start STRT to chest- CHST 2 e116 From chest - CHST to.end - END ro 331176 ‘Taken rom reference (2 ‘See text or more dete descripon fds abbrevsed instant, ‘Angles (8185) are relative to Figure 1 ‘Table 3. Selected kinematic measures. expect thatthe greater muscle size would permit greater strength and power pro- Aluction: This reflected inthe lat that tren though the heavy experts lifted about 50% more weight than the ight experts, they required seconds less (Table 3) 10 push the bar up. ‘Regarding shill n bench pressing, tis of interest to note thatthe Tight expert poverlifters of 2) may be more proficient st bench press technique than their heavy ‘counterparts The bar meight/body weight ratio was significantly larger fortis group (Table2). The light experts did push the har upat shorter lower angles relative to thehorizontal and maintain bar pathcloser toiheshoulders However, excepto these differences, which appear to be largel Size dependent, the heavy expert powe liters demonstrate very similar techniques inbench pres performance as compared to novice lifters (2). So, eventhough our hheavy group may not be as skilled asthe lighter expert. powerlifters in bench resing, he techniques used were very Conclusions Ingeneral,thetechniques used by elite heavyweight powerlifers in the bench pres were very similar to those reported fn(2}for elite lighter powerlifters Power ‘outputs were greater for heavy subject Pethaps the most important result, how: ever, wasthat torques about the shoulder ‘an be expected to be larger for bigger Athlete inthe bench press There maybe 2 noed for possible extra training of the ‘shoulder musculature or greater emphasis fon techniques (horizontal bar path pore tion, ete) to help accommodate these higher torques. Appreciation given to DivesfedProduts Corporation, Ine, Ope, Albums for partial suppor ofthis projec, References 1. Garhanmer JG. 1860. Power production by Omi whiter Md 3a Sor 2 Madsen 8° Hand TM. Meaughln 1984 tnd injury rik i the bench pss exerci eS Sport ond Exes In press, 5. Metauphiin, TMC.) Dillman, snd. Tavdnet 177 Biomechanical analy wih ‘ibesplie neione Ret Que 4570-582 Metsughio, TMC} Dillman and TJ Lardner 19 A kinematic mosel ol pear teunce nthe paral og Med 5 Spors Metsu. TMT J Latdner and ©} De Quee 1588 Miller NR Re Shapiro, and TM, MeLaughlin 198A technique fr obtaining Spatial Linemati parameters of sgmentsof omechunialytemetromeinemsiograph fesldats J Bomedhonic: 1939047 LNSCA Journal August September 1984