not permitted.

It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other

REVIEWS
J SPORTS MED PHYS FITNESS 2015;55:604-8

Bench press exercise: the key points

J. PADULO 1, 2, G. LAFFAYE 3, A. CHAOUACHI 4, K. CHAMARI 2, 5

® A
T C
H DI
The bench press exercise (BPE) is receiving increasing in- 1University e Campus, Novedrate, Italy
terest as a field testing, training/therapeutic modality to im- 2Tunisian Research Laboratory
prove neuromuscular performance or to increase bone mass “Sports Performance Optimization”,
density. Several studies have been performed using BPE as National Center of Medicine and Science in Sport,

IG E
a standard for increasing upper-limb strength. For this pur-
pose, the position of the bar, the loads, the sets, the number of
repetitions, the recovery time in-between sets, the movement
Tunis, Tunisia
3UR CIAMS – Motor Control and Perception Group,
Department of Sport Sciences,
R M
speed, the muscular work and the use of the determination of Université Paris‑ Sud, Orsay, France
4AUT University, Sports Performance Research
the one repetition maximum (1-RM) are the classical tools in-
vestigated in the literature that have been shown to affect the Institute New Zeland, Auckland, New Zeland
5Aspetar, Qatar Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Hospital,
BPE effect on neuromuscular. The goal of the present short
P A

review is to make a picture of the current knowledge on the Research and Education Centre, Doha, Qatar
bench press exercise, which could be very helpful for a bet-
O V

ter understanding of this standard movement and its effects.

Based on the related literature, several recommendations on
these key points are presented here. study report can be understood by others at the level
C ER

Key words: Exercise - Muscle strength - Test taking skills. of important variables such as modalities’ precision
Y

and accuracy of measurements.10 This inclusion will

D uring the past decade there has been increas- allow drawing a picture of the current knowledge on
ing interest to the use of the Bench Press ex- the BPE, especially the elements that characterize
IN

ercise (BPE) as a simple test for assessing upper this movement in eight possible contexts: Position,
limb strength.1-3 Many BPE treatment studies also Load, Repetitions, Sets, Recovery, Speed, Muscular
aimed at improving some aspects of neuromuscu- work, and One Repetition Maximum (1-RM) testing.
M

lar performance.1, 2, 4-6 For instance, for a constant

load, a training program that is based on fast or slow
movements, induce different training adaptations.7, 8
Moreover, it has been shown that for identical train-
ing designs, just changing the recovery pattern dif-
ferently affected males and females strength devel-
opment.9 These examples all showed that the design
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
Position
The bench press typically employs the following
procedure: the subject lies supine on the bench with
flexed knees, dismounts the barbell from the rack
over upper chest using wide oblique overhand grip

of a training program impacts differently on the neu-

romuscular adaptations. However, a scientific study
can lead to scientific progress only if the resulting
Corresponding author. J. Padulo, Via Isimbardi 10, 22060, Novedrate
(CO), Italy. E-mail: sportcinetic@gmail.com
and lowers weight to mid-chest; then she/he pushes
the bar upward until arms are totally extended with
the head, hips, and feet remaining in contact with
the bench throughout the lift.11 The choice of the
grip width is of importance, because it influences the

604 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS June 2015
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
Bench press exercise PADULO
myoelectric activity 12 and the pronation/supination
forearm as well. Indeed, a narrow grip increases the
triceps brachii activity whereas a wide grip increases
the sternoclavicular portion of the pectoral major.12
The higher strength value occurring in a range of hand
spacing between 165-200% of the biacromial width.11
The standard warm-up technique is performed with a
supine (flat) bench press (BP) using free weights and
“touch-and-go” technique. Moreover, on the market
there are different benches with different inclina-
tions 13 and degrees of freedom.14 The standard mod-
® A
el should have a bench inclination of 0° (flat bench
press). The movement should be performed without
a rebound of the barbell. Indeed, using a rebound al-
T C
lows an increase in averaged velocity (+12.3%) and
force peak (from +5% to +14.1%).15-19 This gain is
H DI
primarily explained by (1) a better efficiency of the
stretch shortening cycle 16 which is different accord-
ing to the load and the time-dependent characteristics
IG E
of the motion and (2) by the fact that the rebound
BP movement coincide with the natural frequency of
R M
oscillation of the series elastic component.18 Some
authors used benches with Smith Machine 20 where
the guided barbell follows a linear secured path. In
this context, it is good to know the friction between
P A
the two (Steel) materials;21 in fact the coefficient of
friction between steel is 0.78 µrs for static friction and
O V
0.42 µrd for dynamic friction. Working on guided ma-
chines secures the subject, but arising the issue of the
C ER
friction that can vary depending on the fact that the
device is regularly under grease maintenance or not.
Y
Load
IN
Load is set in relation to the goals, age of the subject,
sex, and training experience. It could be expressed ei-
ther in % of the 1-RM, or in % of body weight/mass,
M
depending on the goal and the sample of the studies
(1-RM for novices is indeed more difficult to assess).
It is well known that a high load (>80% of 1-RM)
will induce recruitment of fast-twitch motor units 22
while a lighter load requires a lower contribution of
fast-twitch motor units and thus emphasizes more on
the slow twitch fibers.2 For novice lifters (first experi-
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ence) it is desirable to lower the load (<50% of body
weight, BW) as it enables them to get familiar with
the BP technique and to improve the muscle tendon
adaptation to the specific exercise gesture.2 Greater
experience would allow a selection of a higher load
Vol. 55 - No. 6 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 605
(>50% 1-RM) also in consideration of the training
macro-cycle.23 Moreover, except for novices, in all
other cases, the load should be normalized in relation
to 1-RM (%1-RM). Several authors have classified
the load related to the corresponding energy expendi-
ture: for large versus small muscle mass exercises,24
slow-to-moderate versus fast 25 and super-slow 26 lift-
ing velocities, high (80-90% of 1-RM), moderate (60-
70% of 1-RM), low intensity (20-50% of 1-RM),27
and high (multiple sets) versus low volume (low
number or even single sets).28 It has been shown that
after 60 years of age, the muscular strength tends to
decrease 29, 30 and that the same protocol (in relative
charge) has different effect on males and females for
the induced increase in strength 31 and changes in
bone mineral density,32 with higher benefits in males.
Repetitions
The repetitions paradigm represents the key point
related to: goals, training experience, and muscular
solicitation. The number of the repetition and load are
related, in fact the effect of the fatigue shown when
the muscular work is extended over time for push of
the barbell. Moreover Padulo et al. showed that the
number of the repetitions with the same load are also
related to the pushing speed of the barbell.2 Indeed,
when the speed is controlled and the number of the
repetition is not predefined, the limit can be related to
the subject’s ability to maintain a speed range 2 induc-
ing recruitment of fast-twitch motor units. Moreover,
the repetition can only be in pushing (positive work)
or negative and positive work of the barbell.33 Not by
chance that speed may change: slow repetitions (2
or 3-s per stroke) would do less repetitions than fast
ones (<1-s) self-selected.34 Usually in body building
training the number of the repetitions is always very
high (>10) because the goal is to perform slow and
continuous repetitions until exhaustion.
Sets
The sets and repetitions represent the key of the
BPE, the combination (sets and repetitions) deter-
mines the energy choice. The normalization of the
session on BPE for energetic threshold revealed that
the higher number of reps reduces the number of sets
and vice-versa. Particularly, when the recovery time
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
PADULO Bench press exercise
is high (>3’) the number of sets (at 75/85% 1-RM)
can be increased up to 6,35 while for short recovery
(<1’) intensity is decreased (15-55%); resulting in a
reduction of sets (<3) to maintain BPE performance.36
Besides, multiplying the repetitions (r) with the load
(l) it is possible to estimate the workload (wl) with a
simple equation (wl= r × l),37 so as to modulate the
load and repetitions to obtain similar workload.
Recovery
® A
Energetic metabolism during exercise is depend-
ent on ratio between work and recovery. In this case,
T C
the recovery is different in both sets and repetitions
respectively. A standard protocol during the sets is
H DI
no less than 2 min with very short recovery (<2 s)
between repetitions. Moreover, the combination of:
repetitions – sets and recovery will dictate the spe-
IG E
cific energy requirement (aerobic-anaerobic) and to
classify the intensity of exercise.10 The length (time)
R M
between each sets could affect the expected result
from the second to third sets, especially when the
recovery is lower than 2 min.35 According to Gentil
et al.38 it is useful to administer the passive recovery
P A
(work rest ratio) between sets calculating the recov-
ery in relation to the work time (i.e., 1:3 – 1:6). Fur-
O V
ther, another method consists in introducing a short
resting time (12<100-s) between the repetitions dur-
ing the same set, called “the cluster set configura-
C ER
tion” 9, 20, 39, 40, 41 by using single, doubles or triples
Y
configuration (e.g., 6 × 1 with 20-s rest, 3 × 2 with
50-s rest or 2 × 3 with 100-s rest.20 This method al-
lows to increase the training volumes,41 to attenuate
IN
the decrease in power and velocity through the set 40
and to increase the number of repetitions and the
total power output 20 in comparison with traditional
continuous repetition’ set design.
M
Speed
The speed at which the bar is lifted is another key
point in the BPE. Indeed, the variability can be solved
with individual speed.2 Bosco’ studies indicate that
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
the speed can be calculated with a Linear Encoder
(low cost tool) connected to the barbell and interfaced
with a computer.42 Considering that the upper limbs
are bound when the rocker arm touches the chest of
the subject (lowest point) and extended at the end
606 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS June 2015
of the thrust (upper point), the measurement of this
distance is very reproducible. Therefore, with a good
approximation the speed(s) m·s-1 can be calculated
using the equation: S= ∆d × ∆t-1 (∆d=measurement
of the displacement; ∆t-1=time in s). The acceleration
(A) m·s-2 can be calculated using the equation: A=∆S
× ∆t-1 (∆S=is the difference between the S of the con-
sidered elementary displacement and the S of the pre-
ceding elementary displacement). While the force (F
in Newton’s) can be calculate: F=(m × g) + (m × A);
where m is the load and g is the acceleration due to
gravity (9.81 m·s-2). The mechanical power (P) watts,
can therefore be calculated as: P= F × S (Watts).
Muscular work
The muscular activity during BPE is related to po-
sition, load, repetitions, sets, recovery, speed. Differ-
ent inclination (i.e., 56-44-28°) in relation to 0° (flat)
require a greater muscle strength 13 of the pectoralis
major and anterior deltoid. Different loads at constant
speed result in different muscle recruitment. More rep-
etitions cause a localized muscle fatigue while more
sets causes a total body fatigue.2 The selected recov-
ery time (repetitions/sets) can modify the muscular
activity causing a decrement in speed of movement or
time of execution;2 as well as high speed recruitment
fast-twitch fibers (>80% speed) with low reps.2
One repetition maximum (1-RM)
The 1-RM is the gold standard for muscular test-
ing and conditioning. Two methods have been used
for this purpose. The first method is to try to deter-
mine 1-RM in 3 to 5 trials with large recovery time
(3-5 min). As proposed by Kraemer et al.43 this will
be performed after an ascending warm-up from 40%
to 80% athlete’s estimated maximum. The other the
1-RM method to assess 1-RM is to predict it through
regression equation from several predictors, such as
the number of repetitions at sub-maximal loads,44, 45
anthropometric parameters,46-48 age, sex, ethnicity
and training status.
Concerning the link between sub-maximal repeti-
tions and 1-RM estimation, the higher the load with
which the sub-maximal set is performed, the more
accurate the prediction of the 1-RM. Indeed, the
5-RM is more accurate in predicting 1-RM than 10
or 20-RM.44 The range of repetition used in such test-
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
Bench press exercise PADULO
ing are usually ranging between 2 7, 49 and 15 reps.8
The equation are sometimes linear 44, 48-52 or non lin-
ear. They are all highly predictive (r>0.96) but the
linear equations seems to be more accurate except
the equation of Reynolds.48 Another way to predict
the 1-RM is to use a fixed load, which consists re-
peating a load to exhaustion. The most famous test is
the NFL-225, used by professional football players,
with a load of 102.3 kg (225 pounds).53-55 The 1-RM
(lb) is predicted as 1-RM (lb)=221.7+7.11 reps @
225 lb.56 The prediction is quite comparable to the
® A
previous ones (r=0.94) but necessitates a high level
in strength to repeat such a heavy load.
T C
1-RM estimation describes the mathematical re-
lationship between the number of repetitions per-
formed to fatigue, several methods are described:
H DI
—— Brzycki equation:49 Load (kg) ÷ [1.0278 -
(0.0278 × number of reps)]
—— Baechle equation:45 Load (kg) × [1 + (0.033 ×
number of reps)]
IG E
—— Landers equation:51 (100 × load (kg)) ÷ (101.3
R M
– 2.67123 × number of reps)
—— Epley equation:50 Load (kg) × (1 + 0.0333 ×
number of reps)
—— Lombardi equation:57 Load (kg) × number of
P A
reps (0.1)
—— Mayhew equation:8 (100 × load (kg)) ÷ [52.2 +
O V
(41.9 × e-0.055 × number of reps)]
—— O’Conner equation:52 Load (kg) × (1 + 0.025
C ER
× number of reps)
—— Wathen equation:58 (100) × load (kg)/48.8 +
Y
53.8 · e - 0.075 reps)
—— Kraemer equation:43 1st sets (8-10 reps) ×
IN
(Load 50% 1-RM e(estimated)) - 5’ of recovery - 2nd
sets (3-5 reps) × (load 75% 1-RM e) 5’ recovery - 3rd
sets (1-3 reps) × (load 90% 1-RM e).
As suggested by Kramer and Fry,43 they empha-
M
size that ongoing encouragement and communica-
tion with the subject during this testing is crucial to
obtain the best performance. Also estimated 1-RM
will have to be verified in the next two days. When
focusing on anthropometric parameters,46-48 the
body mass is correlated with the 1-RM (r=0.56) and
becomes highly correlated when expressed in lean
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
body mass (r=0.73 to 0.77). Others anthropomet-
ric parameters, such as arm girth, chest girth or re-
gional muscle mass 48 are also good 1-RM predictors
(r=0.56 to 0.83). The combination of having short
arms, large chest circumference and high muscular
Vol. 55 - No. 6 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 607
mass influence positively the prediction of 1-RM
bench press performance.47
Conclusions
The present articles synthesizes the current knowl-
edge about the use of the bench press 1-RM and
therefore can be of interest for the strength coaches
and sport scientists for better use of this simple field
test aiming at assessing upper limbs’ strength.
References
 1. Buitrago S, Wirtz N, Yue Z, Kleinoder H, Mester J. Mechani-
cal load and physiological responses of four different resistance
training methods in bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res
2013;27:1091-100.
 2. Padulo J, Mignogna P, Mignardi S, Tonni F, D’Ottavio S. Ef-
fect of different pushing speeds on bench press. Int J Sports Med
2012;33:376-80.
 3. van den TR, Ettema G. A comparison of successful and unsuc-
cessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2009;41:2056-63.
  4. Moras G, Rodriguez-Jimenez S, Busquets A, Tous-Fajardo J, Pozzo
M, Mujika I. A metronome for controlling the mean velocity during
the bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:926-31.
  5. Osteras H, Helgerud J, Hoff J. Maximal strength-training effects on
force-velocity and force-power relationships explain increases in
aerobic performance in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002;88:255-63.
  6. Judge LW, Burke JR. The effect of recovery time on strength per-
formance following a high-intensity bench press workout in males
and females. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010;5:184-96.
  7. Brzycki M. Assessing strength. Fitness Manage 2000;34-7.
  8. Mayhew JL, Ball TE, Arnold MD, Bowen J. Relative muscular en-
durance performance as a predictor of bench press strength in col-
lege men and women. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1992;6:200-6.
  9. Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, O’Bryant HS, Kilgore JL, Haff EE
et al. Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and dis-
placement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 2003;17:95-103.
10. Winter EM, Fowler N. Exercise defined and quantified according to
the Systeme International d’Unites. J Sports Sci 2009;27:447-60.
11. Garcia-Lopez D, Izquierdo M, Rodriguez S, Gonzalez-Calvo G,
Sainz N, Abadia O et al. Interset stretching does not influence the
kinematic profile of consecutive bench-press sets. J Strength Cond
Res 2010;24:1361-8.
12. Lehman GJ. The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/
supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during the flat bench
press. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19:587-91.
13. Trebs AA, Brandenburg JP, Pitney WA. An electromyography anal-
ysis of 3 muscles surrounding the shoulder joint during the perform-
ance of a chest press exercise at several angles. J Strength Cond Res
2010;24:1925-30.
14. Terzis G, Karampatsos G, Georgiadis G. Neuromuscular control
and performance in shot-put athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
2007;47:284-90.
15. Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Force-velocity analysis of
strength-training techniques and load: implications for training
strategy and research. J Strength Cond Res 2003;17:148-55.
16. Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Magnitude and decay of
stretch-induced enhancement of power output. Eur J Appl Physiol
not permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
PADULO Bench press exercise
2001;84:575-81.
17. Buddhadev HH, Vingren JL, Duplanty AA, Hill DW. Mechanisms
underlying the reduced performance measures from using equip-
ment with a counterbalance weight system. J Strength Cond Res
2012;26:641-7.
18. Wilson GJ, Wood GA, Elliott BC. Optimal stiffness of series elas-
tic component in a stretch-shorten cycle activity. J Appl Physiol
1991;70:825-33.
19. Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. The role of maximal strength
and load on initial power production. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2000;32:1763-9.
20. Lawton TW, Cronin JB, Lindsell RP. Effect of interrepetition rest
intervals on weight training repetition power output. J Strength
Cond Res 2006;20:172-6.
21. Lawton T, Cronin J, Drinkwater E, Lindsell R, Pyne D. The effect
® A
of continuous repetition training and intra-set rest training on bench
press strength and power. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2004;44:361-7.
22. Kawamori N, Haff GG. The optimal training load for the develop-
T C
ment of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 2004;18:675-84.
23. Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between
professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength
H DI
Cond Res 2001;15:30-5.
24. Kalb JS, Hunter GR. Weight training economy as a function of in-
tensity of the squat and overhead press exercise. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 1991;31:154-60.
25. Ballor DL, Becque MD, Katch VL. Metabolic responses during hy-
IG E
draulic resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1987;19:363-7.
26. Hunter GR, Seelhorst D, Snyder S. Comparison of metabolic and
heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional resistance training.
R M
J Strength Cond Res 2003;17:76-81.
27. Collins MA, Cureton KJ, Hill DW, Ray CA. Relation of plasma
volume change to intensity of weight lifting. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1989;21:178-85.
28. Haddock BL, Wilkin LD. Resistance training volume and post exer-
P A
cise energy expenditure. Int J Sports Med 2006;27:143-8.
29. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A. Muscle strength and serum testosterone,
O V
cortisol and SHBG concentrations in middle-aged and elderly men
and women. Acta Physiol Scand 1993;148:199-207.
30. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Acute hor-
mone responses to heavy resistance lower and upper extremity ex-
C ER
ercise in young versus old men. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
1998;77:312-9.
Y
31. Mayhew JL, Brechue WF, Smith AE, Kemmler W, Lauber D, Koch
AJ. Impact of testing strategy on expression of upper-body work
capacity and one-repetition maximum prediction after resistance
IN
training in college-aged men and women. J Strength Cond Res
2011;25:2796-807.
32. Almstedt HC, Canepa JA, Ramirez DA, Shoepe TC. Changes in bone
mineral density in response to 24 weeks of resistance training in col-
lege-age men and women. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25:1098-103.
M
33. Bosco C, Komi PV, Ito A. Prestretch potentiation of human skel-
etal muscle during ballistic movement. Acta Physiol Scand
1981;111:135-40.
34. Bottaro M, Machado SN, Nogueira W, Scales R, Veloso J. Effect
of high versus low-velocity resistance training on muscular fit-
ness and functional performance in older men. Eur J Appl Physiol
2007;99:257-64.
35. Senna G, Salles BF, Prestes J, Mello RA, Simao R. Influence of two
different rest interval lengths in resistance training sessions for up-
per and lower body. J Sports Sci Med 2009;8:197-202.
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
36. Ratamess NA, Falvo MJ, Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum
AD, Kang J. The effect of rest interval length on metabolic respons-
es to the bench press exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 2007;100:1-17.
37. Veloso J, Polito MD, Riera T, Celes R, Vidal JC, Bottaro M. [Effects
of rest interval between exercise sets on blood pressure after resist-
ance exercises]. Arq Bras Cardiol 2010;94:512-8.
38. Gentil P, Bottaro M, Oliveira E, Veloso J, Amorim N, Saiuri A et al.
608 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS June 2015
Chronic effects of different between-set rest durations on muscle
strength in nonresistance trained young men. J Strength Cond Res
2010;24:37-42.
39. Haff GG, Hobbs RT, Sands WA, Pierce KC, Stone MH. Cluster
training: A novel method for introducing training program varia-
tion. J Strength Cond Res 2008;30:67-76.
40. Hansen KT, Cronin JB, Newton MJ. The effect of cluster loading on
force, velocity, and power during ballistic jump squat training. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 2011;6:455-68.
41. Iglesias E, Boullosa DA, Dopico X, Carballeira E. Analysis of fac-
tors that influence the maximum number of repetitions in two upper-
body resistance exercises: curl biceps and bench press. J Strength
Cond Res 2010;24:1566-72.
42. Bosco C, Belli A, Astrua M, Tihanyi J, Pozzo R, Kellis S et al. A
dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 1995;70:379-86.
43. Kraemer WJ, Fry AC. Strength testing: development and evalua-
tion of methodology. Physiological assessment of human fitness. P.
Maud & C. Foster; 1995. p. 115-38.
44. Abadie BR, Wentworth M. Prediction of 1-RM strength from a 5-10
repetition submaximal strength test in college-aged females. J Exerc
Physiol 2000;3:1-5.
45. Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and condi-
tioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.
46. Caruso JF, Taylor ST, Lutz BM, Olson NM, Mason ML, Borgsmill-
er JA et al. Anthropometry as a predictor of bench press perform-
ance done at different loads. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26:2460-7.
47. Mayhew JL, Ball TE, Ward TE, Hart CL, Arnold MD. Relationships
of structural dimensions to bench press strength in college males. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness 1991;31:135-41.
48. Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, Robergs RA. Prediction of one repetition
maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and
anthropometry. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20:584-92.
49. Brzycki M. Strength testing: Predicting a one-rep max from reps to
fatigue. J Health Phys Ed Rec Dance 1993;64:88-90.
50. Epley B. Poundage chart. In: Boyd Epley Workout. Lincoln, NE:
Body Enterprises; 1985. p. 86.
51. Landers J. Maximum based on reps. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J
1985;6:60-1.
52. O’Connor B, Simmons J, O’Shea P. Weight training today. St Paul,
MN: West Publishing 1989.
53. Chapman PP, Whitehead J, Binkert R. The 225-lb reps-to fatigue
test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press performance. J
Strength Cond Res 1998;12:258-61.
54. Slovak JP. Cross-validation of NFL-225 tests for predicting 1 repeti-
tion maximum bench press performance for a college football team.
J Strength Cond Res 1999;14:433.
55. Welday J. Should you check for strength with periodic max lifts?
Scholas Coach 1998;57:49-68.
56. Mayhew JL, Ware JS, Cannon K, Corbett S, Chapman PP, Bemben
MG et al. Validation of the NFL-225 test for predicting 1-RM bench
press performance in college football players. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 2002;42:304-8.
57. Lombardi VP. Beginning weight training. Dubuque, IA: WC Brown;
1989.
58. Whisenant MJ, Panton LB, East WB, Broeder CE. Validation of
submaximal prediction equations for the 1 repetition maximum
bench press test on a group of collegiate football players. J Strength
Cond Res 2003;17:221-7.
Conflicts of interest.—The authors certify that there is no conflict of
interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed
in the manuscript.
Received on July 26, 2013.
Accepted for publication on February 12, 2014.
Epub ahead of print on May 13, 2014.