Bar Path and Force Profile Characteristics for Maximal and Submaximal Loads in the Bench Press Gregory J. Wilson, Bruce C. Elliott, and Graham K. Kerr “The bar movement characteristics of 10 elite powerlifers were analyzed while bench pressing a maximum load and a submaximal load ina simulated com- petition using high-speed cinematography. Significant differences in bar path and alterations to the general free profile of movement were evident asthe load was increased. These movement discrepancies resulted inthe following. ‘conclusions being drawn with reference to the bench press movement: (8) “The movement pattern adopted during the performance of an $1% maximum Toad was not specific to that which was utilized during the maximal load. () Based upon the concepts of specificity of traning and testing, the use of the popular one-repetition maximum test to quantify strength changes de- rived from submaximal training eppeared invalid. This occurrence is further ‘accentuated when te testing protocol is conducted ona bench press machine. (6) The design of "isotonic" bench press machines appeared to be load specific. Further, the development of bench press machines that would allow ‘a number of bar paths to be pursued appear to representa significant im- provement over existing models. ‘The bench press is a popular exercise that is performed to develop the upper body musculature. It is recognized by the National Strength and Conditioning ‘Association in the U.S. as the most widely used of any weight training exercise ‘and is a component ofthe sport of powerlifting. Competitive performance of the bench press, as defined by the International Powerlifting Federation (1984), in- volves taking a bar with the arms extended at the elbow joint while lying on a ‘bench. The bar is then lowered to the chest. After a momentary pause (approxi- mately 1 sec) when the bar is motionless on the chest, the bar is symmetrically raised until the arms are fully extended at the elbow joint to complete the lift. This article is based on a study first reported inthe Journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise tiled ““A Biomechanical Analysis ofthe Sticking Region in the Bench Press,"” 1989, Vol. 21, pp. 450-462. ‘The authors are with the Department of Human Movement and Recreation Studies, University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6009, Western Australi 390acteristics | Loads iott, analyzed while imulated com- \ces in bar path ‘evident a the 1 the folowing movement: (a) 31% maximum maximal load. esting, the use sth changes de- “ence is further press machine. red to be load at would allow significant im ‘develop the upper 1 and Conditioning. bt training exercise performance of the eration (1984), in- ‘at while lying on a ary pause (approxi- ar is symmetrically complete the lif. Medicine and Science ticking Region in the xd Recreation Studies, lis LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 391 In analyzing the underlying mechanisms of the sticking region in the bench press movement, Eliott, Wilson, and Kerr (1989) reported alterations in bar path Jind force profile characteristics between bench presses performed at differing oads, This observation contradicted similar data presented by Lander, Bates, Sawhill, and Hamill (1985). The purpose of the present study was to further analyze the data from the study by Eliot et al. (1989) so that the bar path and force profile characteristics of a single repetition maximum and submaximal (81% ‘of maximal load) bench press, performed by elite powerlifters, could be com- pared. The analysis subsequently considered the performance differences between Toads with reference to the concepts of specificity of training and testing, and the design of bench press machines. The 81% submaximal load was selected as it approximates a standard training load used by many recreational lifters ‘The effect of load variations on the kinematics and kinetics of the squat movement were analyzed by Hay, Andrews, and Vaughan (1982). The applied force-time profile produced by the subjects during the squat motion was remarkably similar to that observed for the bench press movement (Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; McLaughlin, Dillman, & Lardner, 1977). Hay et al. (1982) also reported substantial changes in technique as the load increased from 40 to 60% and then to 80% of four-repetition maximum (RM). These technique alterations signifi- ‘cantly altered the torque requirements about each of the joints such thatthe perfor- ‘mance of the movement changed substantially as the load was increased. For ‘example, as the Ioad was increased from 40 to 80% of four RM, the trunk in- ‘creased its forward inclination toward the horizontal by approximately 10%. This Significant change in technique altered the kinetics of the movement such that "the hip extensors assumed markedly more than their share of the increased load and the knee extensors markedly less"” (Hay et al., 1982, p. 103). Methods Subjects ‘Ten male elite bench pressers, who had recorded maximum lifts ranging from 1471.5 N to 2403.4 N (150-245 kg), served as the subjects inthis study. They were at least Australian state championship level and included three national record holders, one Commonwealth record holder, and one former world record holder. Subjects ranged from the 75-kg to the super-heavyweight (over 125 kg) body ‘mass classifications and were in training at the time of testing (Table 1), ‘Administration and Filming Procedures Subjects estimated the maximum weight they believed they could successfully ‘bench press on the day of the testing. The sequence of weights tobe lifted, follow- ing a warm-up, was then calculated based on percentages of perceived maximum, ‘The fist lift attempted represented 80% of perceived maximum, the second 95% of perceived maximum, and the third 100% of perceived maximum, A fourth ‘and fifth load representing 103 and 105% of perceived maximum, respectively, Were included if the 100% effort was attained. Each subsequent attempt from 80 to 108% of perceived maximum was only performed ifthe preceding attempt twas successful. Each subject was allowed as much warm-up as desired prior to the first load and continued lifting the progressively heavier loads until a failed attempt was recorded. All attempts were filmed at a nominal rate of 100 Hz by392 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR Table 1 Loads Pressed, Subjects’ Previous Personal Best, and Relationship of Loads to Maximal Successfully Completed Load Max Previous successtul —Falled personal toad load (a) (8) (a) (98) kg) OH) 125 1825 86.1 1575 100 165.0 1048 1600 1016 110 1600 842 190.0 100 2000 1055 190.0 100 0 118.0 836 1375 100 145.0 1055 150.0 109.1 75 1925 855 1850 100 185.0 1066 165.0 1065, 7% 1250 78.1 160.0 100 165.0 103.1 1575 98.4 825 140.0 80.0 175.0 100 1225 1083 1800 1029 0 165.0 846 195.0 100 2000 1026 2022 1038 110 165.0 2450 0 1275 750 1700 100 175 1044 180.0 1059 0 1450 763 190.0 100 1975 1039 2000 108.3 408 813 1700 100 1775 1045 1830 1037 Indicates current Commonwealth or Australian National Bench press record holder. ‘Note. PJ. was injured on his second load and discontinued the experiment. ‘Loads lifted are presented in kg rather than Newtons for ease of interpretation, ‘2 16-mm Photosonics high-speed camera attached to a rigid tripod and fitted with «lens of 25-mm focal length. The camera was positioned in line withthe bar's plane of motion. AA L-meter rule divided into 0.1-m sections was filmed prior to the experi- ‘ment in line with the proximal (tight) end of the bar, with reference to the camera, nd in the bar's plane of motion. This provided the necessary scaling factor for positional data, An electronic sweep-hand clock, divided into 0.02-see intervals, ‘was positioned in the camera's field of view to enable film speed calibration, ‘The following landmarks were highlighted with a white marker of I-cm diameter to enhance the accuracy of the subsequent film analysis: (a) middle of the right end of the bar, and (b) most lateral portion of the acromion process of the right scapula. These points were circled in black paint so thatthe location was evident from the camera orientation. The specifi point digitized was the apparent geometric center of the point of interest. Collection of Data and the Experimental Schedule Inan attempt to simulate a familiar lifting environment, subjects, who were dressed in standard International Powerlifting Federation competitive apparel, were tested in pairs, typically with their training partner. One subject performed the press the other spotted and encouraged him. Standard competition style bench Loans presse: the bu encour standa the tes put as rest pe Analy Toave ward began, the bai ment t frames dual p Sidwal of SH ject to where of the the prc ravi to com tests. ‘Them: Iift wa the per classifi lifted ( Apple A.cons liftove tative : phase, 28 poyDN) ELLIOTT, AND KERR LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 393 presses were performed. Trials in which rule infringements occurred (raising of| a the buttocks, uneven arm extension, raising of heels) were repeated. eee Researchers and nonlifting subjects were instructed to give the lifter vocal ted Load ‘encouragement prior to and throughout the lift. Although this was difficult to Standardize, itis an integral aspect of a powerlifting competition. Throughout Previous the testing procedure subjects were instructed to perform at as wed personal put as possible, irrespective ofthe lift being attempted. Subjects who were given Ded best fs much recovery time as desired between atempts typically required a 5-to 8-min 8) tka) (6) rest period between lifts. ~ Analysis and Treatment of Film Data 1048 1600 1016 foas| ionic! soa ‘To avoid spurious movements being generated during the pause period, the down- fon decal ward and upward phases ofthe Lit were digitized separately. The downward phase foes 1650 1085 began jut prior tothe downward movement of the bar and ended 10 frames after {oat ters ‘se the ar lay motionless onthe chest. Digitizing for the upward phase ofthe move- fora je00 1029 ment began 10 frames prior tothe initial movement off the chest and ended 10 102.6 202.2 103.8 frames after the bar reached its maximal distance from the chest. A second-order 245.0 dual pass Butterworth recursive digital filter similar to that developed by Winter, a Ss oak ‘Sidwall, and Holson (1974) was used to smooth the data at a cutoff frequency jos m0 1063 Sivall 04s 1890 1097 ‘The instantaneous vertical component of the force applied (F) by the sub- ject to the bar was calculated using the following formula: 2108s record holders F(t) = mea(tl) + meg (for i = 1 ton) ‘experiment. interpretation where ti = time of data point, m = mass of the system, a = vertical acceleration of the bar, determined by double differentiation of smoothed position data via the process of simple finite difference calculus (Miller & Nelson, 1973), 8 = gravitational acceleration, n = number of data points. tvipod and fitted with "A one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (loads) was used in line withthe bar's to compare the position of the bar and the force applied at selected positions throughout the lift. The level of significance was chosen to be 0.05 forall statistical d prior to the experi- tem, 7 erence to the camera, ary sealing factor for Results and Discussion 10 0.02-see intervals, 1m speed calibration ‘The maximal lift successfully attempted (100% load) and the initial submaximal hite marker of I-em lift was analyzed for each subject. Table 1 presents the maximum mass lifted, ralysis: (@) middle of the personal best mass ever lifted by the subject, and each lfter's body weight ne acromion process classification. The mean submaximal lift represented 81.3% of the maximum mass itso that the location lifted (see Table 1), int digitized was the Aeplied Force ‘A consistent force profile for the ascent of the bar was recorded for the 100% lift over all subjects. Figure 1 depicts the applied force time curve for a represen- 1s, who were dressed tative subject. The force curve for a maximal lift is divided into an acceleration apparel, were tested phase, a sticking region, a maximum strength region, and a deceleration phase performed the press as proposed by Lander et al. (1985). 1petition style bench ‘The relative duration of the phases and regions of the bench press for the394 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR Ker: Forces exerted by the lifter at: Chest, Peak Acceleration Peak Velocity Minimum Acceleration Minimum Velocity Peak Acceleration 4... Maxteun Displacement cn Sticking Region J---- —--§ -->> O2 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 Time (s) Figure 1 — Applied force-time curve from a representative subject for the ascent pphase of a maximal load. 100% condition and for the 90% effort reported by Lander et a. (1985) are shown in Table 2. Despite the differences in percentage of maximum lifted between these ‘two studies, the relative duration of the acceleration phase, sticking region, maxi- ‘mum strength region, and deceleration phase were not significantly different. The vertical positions of selected events in the bench press for the 100% condition also supported data in the literature, as shown in Table 3. ‘The force profile for the 81% load differed from that described for the 100% condition, with only 3 of the 10 subjects exhibiting any resemblance tothe former ‘movement pattern. The other 7 subjects produced a set of consistent force patterns, depicted in Figure 2, which consisted of an acceleration phase and a deceleration phase but without a sticking region or maximum strength region. These subjects produced large forces relative to bar weight during the acceleration phase (aver- ‘age peak force 112.1% of bar weight) and then partially coasted throughout the ‘remainder of the movement. Subjects producing this movement pattern spent an LOADS IN Tr ‘Note. Time i Compar for the Max. force Min. force Min. velocity “Position ist “Lander ot average of 4 51.7% of 81% force « that involve compared t Lande mum whichLUOTT, AND KERR ati Decelerati Phase |_--- ---8 ">> | 16 18 lect for the ascent (1985) are shown ted between these ing region, maxi- ity different. The 100% condition ibed for the 100% ince to the former ant force patterns, nid a deceleration 1. These subjects ition phase (aver- sd throughout the { pattern spent an LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 395 Table 2 ‘Comparison of Phase Data for the 100% Load Compared With Data From Lander et al. (1985) Absolute Relative times (sec) times (96) Lander otal Mu 8D Mie 20) ae ao) Acloration ‘has ose 0.08 6268 15839 steking region 06s 029 28 80 20 109 Max. strength region on ose 3161068 2 79 Deceleration hase 055 0.35 ea tl wo 42 Total 22707 Note. Time is expressed relative to total movement time. Table 3 Comparison of Relative Vertical Positions (in %) of Selected Events for the 100% Load Compared With Data From Lander et al. (1985) ‘and Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) Lander ot al Madsen & MoLaughiin Max. force 208° 1.58 26 Min force 347 339 Min, velocity 473 24 502 “Position is relative tothe vertical dstance from chest to completion of it; “Lander etal di not report this instance. average of 48.3% of total ascent time in the acceleration phase and the remaining 51.7% of the time in the deceleration phase. The 3 subjects not typical of the 81% force curve illustrated in Figure 2 presented an applied force-time history that involved only a minimal sticking region and maximum strength region, as ‘compared to the typical 100% force curve depicted in Figure 1 Lander etal. (1985) observed a movement pattern ata load of 75% of maxi- ‘mum which involved an acceleration phase and deceleration phase as well as a396 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR wer Forces exerted by the Vifter at Obes beak Regeteration ‘elect axinum Displacement 1 2 5 1800 a 01 0203 04 05 06 07 080910 1112 1314 1S Time (5) Figure 2 — Applied force-time curve from a representative subject for the ascent phase of an 81% maximal load. sticking region and a maximum strength region. Furthermore, the specific move- iment pattern observed was similar to that reported for the 90% load from that study and the results of the 100% lift in the present study. The differences ob- served in force profile between this study and data from Lander et al. (1985) for the submaximal loads (81 and 75%, respectively) may be at least partially due to order effects. The study conducted by Lander et al. (1985) involved the performance of five trials at the 75% load after performing five trials at the 90% load. Subsequently, subjects’ performance during the lighter load may have been affected by fatigue. Alternatively, the similarity between movement patterns may 'be attribuied to proactive transfer, whereby the repeated performances of the 90% load affected the subsequent movement pattern employed during the 75% trials. Bar Path ‘The path ofthe bar is depicted in Figures 3 and 4 for the 81 and 100% loads, respectively. The descent and ascent phases of the bar utilize different paths. This ‘ecurrence has been previously reported by Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) and is particularly evident fr the 100% load where the descent path is distinctly more vertical than the upward motion. The upward movement of the bar forthe 100% load corresponded closely with data presented by McLaughlin and Madsen (1984), ‘The bar path during ascent differed between the load conditions (Figure 5). ‘As the load increased, and thus the need to reduce the moment arm of the load bout the shoulder axis became increasingly important, there was a trend toward LOADS INT Yom) ‘ 0 28. Py 0 6 2JN, ELLIOTT, AND KERR LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 397 Yea) co Vitter ats = 1 Start i 2 Peak negative acceleration 7 - 5 Peak velocity 3 4 Peak positive acceleration 5 Ghest d 6 First peak acceleration 36 \ 7 Peak velocity tT 8 End 2 28 2a na ns ra sbject for the ascent 20 the specific move- . 0% load from that 16. “he differences ob- Inder et al. (1985) . 'e at least partially its 1985) involved the - } ‘e trials at the 90% oad may have been a ‘ment patterns may : ese ances of the 90% es 1g the 75% trials, — Standard deviation al and 100% loads, (ferent paths. This ughlin (1984) and stinctly more i—t - bar for the 100% e Figure 3 — Mean bar path in the sagittal plane for the 81% lift.388 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR Loabs x oo ¥ . t i ¢ i > ‘ 3 © . t cc) 10 * of standard deviation af at swouder Lp pp shou mos rig tea org toga opera to eg tome eemr ea Figure 4 — Mean bar path in the sagittal plane for the 100% lit.SON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 309 ros Shoulder 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 & xo) ee Horizontal Displacenent (a) 0.40. negative acceleration velocity positive acceleration 0.36. peak acceleration ¥ velocity e Sm acceleration r velocity t 1'poak acceleration 4 0.32 ¢ i D028 1 a 0.2, 7 ones e . a n 0.20 t (m) \ 0.16. x 2 S “ ti 0.1 kev: 1 Chest, 0.08 2 Peak Acceleration 3 Peak Velocity 4 Minimum Acceleraton 5 Minimum Velocity & Peak Acceleration M.S.. 0.04, 7 Maximum Displacement i | Figure S — Mean ascent bar paths inthe sagittal plane forthe 81% and 100% loads.400 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR increased horizontal displacement toward the shoulder. The bar was displaced horizontally by a mean of 0.13 m during ascent for the maximal load, compared with 0.09 m for the 81% load. This significant increase in horizontal bar move- ‘ment for the 100% load occurred primarily during the sticking region (Figure 5, points 3-5). Subsequently, at the completion of the lifts the horizontal distance from bar to shoulder axis was significantly shorter for the maximal load as com- pared with the 81% load. Conclusions and Applications Data have been presented which illustrate that substantial differences occur in ‘both bar path and force profile between a maximal load and a submaximal load ‘which approximates a common training resistance. These data are similar in con- cept to that reported forthe squat by Hay et al. (1982). The movement pattern adopted during the performance of an 81% one-RM load was therefore not specific to that which is adopted during a maximal load. Subsequently, the training effect ‘ained from performing an 81% one-RM load that could conceivably be trans- ferred to a maximum lift, based on the concept of specificity of training, would necessarily be suboptimal. In raining, however, multiple repetition sets are usually performed with a submaximal load. Frykman etal. (1988) reported significant ‘differences in the techniques adopted between the second repetition and the final repetition of an exhaustive submaximal st of leg extensions. Thus, although the first repetition of an 81% one-RM load is performed with & movement pattern nonspecific to a maximal load, the influence of fatigue may alter the technique adopted so that lifts later inthe set may more closely resemble the maximal effort inboth the patter of force and the bar path. Further research is required to evaluate the effect of fatigue on the specificity of movement techniques adopted during submaximal loads to those employed with maximal lifts. Itis a common practice to examine the effectiveness of muliple-repetition + abmaximal traning routines via changes in one-RM tests (Berger, 1962a, 1962, 1963; DeLome, Ferris, & Gallagher, 1952; Gettman, Ward, & Hagan, 1982; Wilmore etal, 1978). However, given the movement differences that occur as the load was altered in the bench press and the squat movements (Hay et al., 1982), this experimental paradigm, atleast in these instances, would appear be of questionable validity. A more specific and thus valid criterion measure may be the average or maximum force produced during the performance of a one- maximum-effort repetition at the training load. ‘The problems in using a one-RM test as a strength criterion are accentuated ifthe testing is conducted on a bench press machine (Gettman et al, 1982; Wilmore t al., 1978). This is because the bench press is a stretch/shorten cycle move- ment whereby the underlying musculature undergoes initial eccentric stretching followed by a concentric shortening motion. Such prestretching movements are considered to augment the concentric phase of motion through a recoil of stored clastic strain energy in combination with additional, reflexively induced, myoe- lectric activity (Bosco, Tarkka, & Komi, 1982; Komi, 1984; Shorten, 1987). Lander et al. (1985) and Elliott et al. (1989) suggested thatthe stretch/shorten cycle nature of the bench press movement lent itself to the storage and subsequent release of elastic strain energy. The problem with using a one-RM test asa criterion LOADS IN THE Bi measure of mus press performec ‘ment begins fro incorporate the: to the testing sit tive wo strength to the performa Montoner, 198. ‘The resul ‘mercial isotonic based on the of the load whi ‘match the maxi phase is therefe theoretically th entire lif. ‘Such mac ‘motion is simile with a variety : have all report: al, 1989; Lanc Madsen, 1984) submaximal anc machines was I ranges between their force prot Bench prt be common ot the ascent path dependent (Figt (Figure 4). Th McLaughlin (1¢ in bar path acto: ing differences signed to allow to be pursued t ‘existing models Berger, RLA. (If ‘Quarteriy, Berger, RA. (If ‘Quarterly, Berger, R.A. (If Quarterly, Bosco, C., Komi ofthe traitVVILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR er. The bar was displaced e maximal load, compared 'se in horizontal bar move- sticking region Figure 5, ifts the horizontal distance + the maximal load as com: ions antial differences occur in vad and a submaximal load vese data are similar in con- 2). The movement pattern -d was therefore not specific quently, the training effect ould conceivably be trans- ccificity of training, would le repetition sets are usually {1988) reported significant nd repetition and the final sions. Thus, although the [with a movement pattern tue may alter the technique semble the maximal effort arch is required to evaluate techniques adoped during ‘ness of multiple-repettion ssts Berger, 1962a, 1962b, a, Ward, & Hagan, 1982; ut differences that occur as wt movements (Hay et al, stances, would appear 10 ali criterion measure may the performance of a one~ ‘heriterion are accentuated ‘man etal, 1982; Wilmore retch/shorten cycle move- initial eccentric stretching ‘stretching movements are through a recoil of stored eflexively induced, myoe- ni, 1984; Shorten, 1987). ced that the stretch/shorten the storage and subsequent aone-RM testas a criterion LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS ah measure of muscular strength arises since typically the first repetition of a bench ress performed on a machine doesnot involve an eccentric phase, as the move rent begins from the chest. However, the second and subsequent repetitions do ‘peorporae the stretch/shorten cycle, Therefore most of the training isnot specific tothe testing situation. Furthermore, the criterion measure of strength is insensi- tive to strength adaptations derived from neural and/or mechanical origins related to the performance of the stretch/shorten cycle (Bosco, Komi, Pulli,Pittera, & Montoner, 1982; Komi, 1986). “The results from this study raise some question as to the design of com- mercial isotonic bench press machines. These machines presumably are designed based on the standard force profile of movement with a variable moment arm of the load which alters length such that the torque of the machine is varied to ‘match the maximum tarque-producing profile of an average lifter. The ascent phase is therefore no longer limited by the existence of a sticking region, and theoretically the exercising muscles can be worked at maximum throughout the entire lift ‘Such machines can only be developed effectively if the force profile of motion is similar between individuals. Research performed using maximal loads ‘with a variety of individuals such as novice, skilled, light, and heavy powerlifters have all reported a force profile similar to that depicted in Figure 1 (Elliott et al., 1989; Lander et al., 1985; Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; McLaughlin & Madsen, 1984), However, the existence of vastly different force profiles for the submaximal and the maximal loads suggested that the design of such bench press ‘machines was load specific. Subsequently, manufacturers should specify the load ranges between which the machine was designed such that individuals can match their foree profile to that for which the machine has been modeled. Bench press machines are also designed on a fixed bar path that tends to ‘be common to both the descent and ascent phases. Data presented illustrate that the ascent path of the bar adopted by the lifter during the movement was load dependent (Figure 5) and that the descent and ascent phases have different paths (Figure 4). This latter finding supports previous research by Madsen and MeLatighlin (1984). These researchers have further reported substantial changes in bar path across skill levels. McLaughlin and Madsen (1984) provide data depict- ing differences in bar path between heavy and light elite lifters. A machine de- signed to allow for a number of different paths during the bench press movement to be pursued by the lifter would therefore be a significant improvement over existing models. References Berger, R.A. (19622). Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research Quarterly, 33, 168-181. Berger, R.A. (19628). Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research Quarterly, 33, 334-338. Berger, R.A. (1963). Comparative effets of three weight training programs. Research Quarterly, 34, 396-398. Bosco, €., Komi, P-V., Puli, M., Pitera, C., & Montoner, H. (1982). Considerations ‘ofthe traning of the elastic potential of the human skeletal muscle, VII VI, 75-80.402 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR Bosco, C., Tarkka, I, & Komi, P.V. (1982). Effet of elastic energy and myoelectrical ‘potential of triceps surna during stretch-shortening cycle exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 3, 137-140. DeLorne, T-L., Ferris, BJ., & Gallagher, J.R. (1952). Archives of Physical Medicine, 33, 86-92. Elliot, B.C., Wilson, G.J., & Kerr, G.K. (1989), A biomechanical analysis of the ‘ticking region in the bench press. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, (450-462). Frykman, P., Rosenstein, R., Harman, E., Rosenstein, M., Kraemer, W., Falkel,J., ‘& Maresh, C. (1988). Effects of fatigue during weightifting exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 2(5), 57-5. Geman, L-R., Ward, P., & Hagan, R-D. (1982). A comparison of combined running ‘and weight training with circuit weight training. Medicine and Science in Sports ‘and Exercise, 14, 229.234. Hay, J.G., Andrews, J.G.,.& Vaughan, C.L. (1982). The biomechanics of strength-training exercises. Proceedings ofthe 1th International Conference of Sport, Physical Edu- cation, Recreation and Dence (Vol. 7) (pp. 99-109). Kinesiological Sciences. International Powerlifting Federation. (1984). Technical rules as adopted by the .P.F. Congress, Dallas. Komi, P.V. (1984), Physiological and biomechanical correlates of muscle function: Effects of muscle structure and stretch-shortening cycle on force and speed. Exer- cise and Sport Science Reviews, pp. 81-121. ‘Komi, P.V. (1986). Training of muscle strength and power: Interaction of neuromotoric, hypertrophic and mechanical factors. Imernational Jounal of Sport Medicine, 7, 10-15. Lander, I.E, Bates, B.T., Sawhill,J.A., & Hamill J. (1985). A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17, 344-353, Madsen, N.H., & McLaughlin, T.M. (1984). Kinematic factors influencing performance ‘and injury risks in the bench press exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 376-381, MeLaughlin, T1M,, Dillman, C.., & Lardner, TJ. (1977). A kinematic model of perfor- ‘mance inthe parallel squat by champion poweelifters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 9, 128-133. MeLaughlin, T.M., & Madsen, N.H. (1984, Aug./Sept.). Bench press techniques of el heavyweight powerliers, National Sirength and Conditioning Association Journal, pp. 62-65. Miller, D.L, & Nelson, R.C. (1973). Biomechanics of spor. Philadelphia: Lea & Febige. Shorten, M.R. (1987). Muscle elasticity and human performance. Med. Sports Sci., 25, 1-1 Wilmore, J.H., Parr, RB, Girandola, R.N., Ward, P., Vodak, P.A., Barstow, T.J., Pipes, T.V., Romero, G.T., & Leslie, P. (1978). Physiological alterations conse ‘quent to circuit weight training. Medicine and Science in Sports, 10(2), 79-84. Winter, D.A., Sidvall, H.G., & Holson, D.A. (1974). Measurement and reduction of noise in kinematies of locomotion. Journal of Biomechanics, 7, 157-159. Then dimen cltow devele celera! with t pen: ables eibuti topro: ing be Afill ‘motion reqt kinetic facte ‘dynamics aj ‘ment by the reflects the of motion, tribute to it Tink the mot ever, the m: are in turn Michac Medicine and ‘Malibu, CA, University, F