ELASTIC BAND PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR
COMBINED FREE-WEIGHT AND ELASTIC BAND BENCH
PRESSES AND SQUATS
TODD C. SHOEPE, DAVID A. RAMIREZ, AND HAWLEY C. ALMSTEDT
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Natural Science, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California
ABSTRACT
Shoepe, TC, Ramirez, DA, and Almstedt, HC. Elastic band
prediction equations for combined free-weight and elastic band
bench presses and squats. J Strength Cond Res 24(1): 195–200,
2010—Elastic bands added to traditional free-weight tech-
niques have become a part of suggested training routines in
recent years. Because of the variable loading patterns of elastic
bands (i.e., greater stretch produces greater resistance), it is
necessary to quantify the exact loading patterns of bands to
identify the volume and intensity of training. The purpose of
this study was to determine the length vs. tension properties
of multiple sizes of a set of commonly used elastic bands to
quantify the resistance that would be applied to free-weight
plus elastic bench presses (BP) and squats (SQ). Five elastic
bands of varying thickness were affixed to an overhead support
beam. Dumbbells of varying weights were progressively added
to the free end while the linear deformation was recorded with
each subsequent weight increment. The resistance was plotted
as a factor of linear deformation, and best-fit nonlinear
logarithmic regression equations were then matched to the
data. For both the BP and SQ loading conditions and all band
thicknesses tested, R2 values were greater than 0.9623. These
data suggest that differences in load exist as a result of the
thickness of the elastic band, attachment technique, and type
of exercise being performed. Facilities should adopt their
own form of loading quantification to match their unique set of
circumstances when acquiring, researching, and implementing
elastic band and free-weight exercises into the training
programs.
KEY WORDS load, variable resistance, volume
Address correspondence to Todd C. Shoepe, tshoepe@lmu.edu.
24(1)/195–200
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
INTRODUCTION
I
n the perpetual endeavor to improve the efficiency of
training routines, new methods are constantly imple-
mented at all levels of strength and conditioning. In
recent years, one of these that has gained widespread
acceptance in training programs throughout the world is the
combination of elastic bands added to free-weight exercises
(3,9,11,16,17,20). Despite common use and anecdotal
support, controlled prospective research has been slow to
investigate the claim that this form of variable resistance
exercise is an effective training technique for improving
muscular strength and explosive power. Only recently have
findings begun to surface that support these practices
(1,5,10,12,15).
Arising from the sport of competitive powerlifting (16,17),
the addition of elastic bands to a traditional form of free-
weight resistance exercise is suggested to effectively alter
the kinetics of multijoint exercises such as the squat (14,19).
Although some evidence does not support this hypothesis
(6), the work of Wallace et al. (19) has demonstrated that, if
used with maximal voluntary effort (4,21), elastic bands allow
for higher forces and power outputs than free weights alone
during single bouts of squats. This evidence lends support
to the hypothesis that adding elastic bands to free weights
during multijoint exercise allows the lifter to encounter
greater peak torque and peak power during training and,
thus, provide a greater and more specific training stimulus to
explosive athletic activities.
If the addition of elastic bands to free-weight exercise
does alter the kinetics and improve the resulting training
effects of multijoint activities, then it becomes necessary
to investigate the exact loading patterns of these activities
to optimally assign training program variables. Although
simple in concept, this directive poses 3 specific areas of
concern: 1) the thickness of the elastic band, 2) the
attachment technique used, and 3) the type of exercise
being performed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to determine the length vs. tension properties of multiple
sizes of a set of commonly used, commercially available
elastic bands to accurately quantify the resistance applied to
free weight plus elastic resistance band squats (SQ) and
bench press (BP).
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2010 | 195
Elastic Band Loading Prediction Equations
Figure 1. Band and tape measure position used during data collection.
All measurements were taken to the nearest centimeter as measured from
the top of the support to the opposite side of the midpoint of the dumbbell
handle while the dumbbell was independently balanced in the horizontal
plane.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was undertaken to examine the exact loading
patterns of elastic bands commonly used in resistance training
Figure 2. The ‘‘choked’’ squat attachment configuration. This knotted
configuration is used when affixing one free end to the base of a squat
rack. The bar will then be draped over the opposite end of the band.
the TM
196 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
programs for strength and power development. Because the
method of band attachment differs between the BP and SQ,
it also determines the total thickness of elastic (resulting
number of band lengths) acting on the bar (see Figures 2–5).
Two sets of testing conditions were, therefore, performed
during a 1-day session in the on-campus recreational facility.
A major outcome of this study is the creation of prediction
equations for SQ and BP so that precise training loads can be
easily identified. For example, for exercise load prescription at
a later time, it would only be necessary to measure the length
of excursion for a given lifter (x) before inputting this value
into these equations to yield the amount of resistance (y) that
a given band would provide that lifter for that exercise. It is,
therefore, necessary to express our length measurements as
the independent variable and the resistance provided by the
band as the dependent variable to create useful predictions.
Procedures
Five elastic bands (Flex Bands, eliteFTS; London, Ohio) of
varying thickness (orange, red, black, purple, and green, listed
in increasing order of thickness) were brought to the facility,
and each was, in turn, affixed to the cross-beam of a squat rack.
A tape measure was attached to the cross-beam with the
baseline assigned to the furthest point of the fixed band end
with the free end hanging down toward the ground. After
resting length assessment, a single dumbbell was added to the
Figure 3. Complete band configuration as would be seen during the
squat exercise. Unlike the bench press, 2 bands are used with a ‘‘choked’’
(Figure 2) attachment to the base of the squat rack.

Figure 4. The draped bench press configuration. The middle of the band
is placed over the bar with the 2 free ends hanging down. The bar would
then pass through both loops created at the opposite end during the
bench press exercise.
band and balanced independent from human contact along
a horizontal plane. The newly attained length was measured
to the opposite side of the midpoint of the center of each
dumbbell (Figure 1). This end-to-end assessment of band
length was consistent for all bands and all trials. Load and
the deformation resulting from dumbbells of progressively
increasing size were recorded to the nearest 0.5 cm. This
process was repeated until the band length exceeded any
length of practical significance (.200 cm). This end point
is justified by the finding that no participants demonstrated
band lengths .180 cm in a separate training study involving
participants of average height with this methodology.
Figure 5. Band configuration as would be seen during the bench press
exercise. Notice that the band is wrapped under the cross-support with
no knot while both free ends are affixed to the barbell producing 4 lengths
of band resistance from the same band. This position is necessary
because of the length of the bands and the inability to tie either end to
a ground support on this equipment.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Figure 6. Band length and tension correlations plotted with best-fit
logarithmic curvilinear regression lines for the bench press configuration.
These data are acquired for a single band (n = 1) for each thickness
affixed as would occur during the bench press exercise (see Figure 4).
As stated previously, this testing process was performed
twice to account for the differing attachment conditions. First,
attachments as seen with SQ result in a knotted or ‘‘choked’’
configuration (Figure 2). This attachment method creates
a situation with one free end working to create the knot and
the other end acting on the dumbbell. This results in only 2
lengths of band contributing to the load per band (Figure 3).
With the BP configuration, the band was wrapped over the
cross-beam (Figure 4) such that both free ends were acting
on the dumbbell. This produces a condition resulting in 4
lengths of elastic per band (Figure 5) that would contribute to
the load during this exercise.
Statistical Analyses
All data were plotted as length vs. load curves, and nonlinear
logarithmic regression lines were fit to each banding
Figure 7. Band length and tension correlations plotted with best-fit
curvilinear regression lines for the squat configuration. These data are
acquired for a single band (n = 1) for each thickness affixed as would
occur during the squat exercise (see Figure 2).
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2010 | 197
Elastic Band Loading Prediction Equations
TABLE 1. Regression equations and R2 values for all bands in the bench press and squat attachment configurations.
Bench press
Regression equation
Orange y = 9.89 Ln(x) 2 37.89 R2
Red y = 20.75 Ln(x) 2 79.25 R2
Black y = 29.06 Ln(x) 2 111.86 R2
Purple y = 46.27 Ln(x) 2 178.80 R2
Green y = 109.81 Ln(x) 2 430.24 R2
x = linear band deformation (cm); y = resistance applied (kg); Ln = natural log.
condition, for which coefficients of determination (R2) for
regressions of all banding conditions were then created.
RESULTS
The original data for the BP band attachment and resulting
regression lines for all 5 bands are shown in Figure 6. For all
band conditions, the R2 values exceeded 0.9882. The bands,
in order of increasing tension at any given length, were as
follows: orange, red, black, purple, and green.
The original data for the SQ band attachment and resulting
regression lines for all 5 bands are shown in Figure 7. With the
exception of the thinnest band (orange) that demonstrated
an R2 = 0.9623, all band conditions exceeded an R2 = 0.9863.
The bands, in order of increasing tension at any given length,
were as follows: orange, red, black, purple, and green.
The prediction equations and R2 values for all bands and
loading conditions are shown in Table 1.
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates that a number of factors influence
the load that is applied to free-weight exercises when elastic
resistance is added. This study quantifies the large differences
in the applied load that occur as a result of the thickness of
the elastic band, the type of exercise being performed, and,
thus, the attachment technique used. These factors are further
complicated by the varying anthropometrics of different
lifters and the likely variance in elastic properties resulting
from the multiple manufacturers of elastic bands. The overall
combination of these factors is likely to lead to a great deal of
error in loading prescription unless each of these factors is, in
turn, accounted for.
In both attachment conditions, marked differences were
demonstrated between bands. This became more discrepant
at greater lengths and was particularly notable because the
assessed band lengths that would be used during combined
free-weight and elastic exercise would occur after the steep
phases of the curves. As part of another ongoing training
study of novice, male and female collegiate lifters of average
size, the assessed band lengths would be greater than 155 cm
the TM
198 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Squats
R2 Regression equation R2
= 0.992 y= 6.44 Ln(x) 2 26.47 R2 = 0.962
= 0.992 y= 10.25 Ln(x) 2 44.52 R2 = 0.981
= 0.994 y= 17.08 Ln(x) 2 74.64 R2 = 0.983
= 0.988 y= 23.79 Ln(x) 2 102.96 R2 = 0.989
= 0.991 y= 44.20 Ln(x) 2 191.82 R2 = 0.990
for the BP conditions and greater than 140 cm for the SQ
conditions (unpublished data). As an example, a participant
with a BP band reach of 155 cm would encounter a range
of 26–261 kg from the thinnest to the thickest band. The
same participant, with a SQ reach of 140 cm, would encounter
a range of 24–117 kg. Obviously, this large range of load would
greatly affect the volume and intensity of a program using
these techniques. With previous work supporting the idea
that only proportionately lighter band contributions might be
effective in increasing strength and power variables (5,6), the
regression equations from this study are, therefore, critical in
determining the proper integration of band and free weight
to be used during training sessions. This level of integration,
though as yet not clearly defined, is important because, as
Wallace et al. (19) have suggested, there exists a ‘‘ceiling for
the amount of resistance that can come from bands before
a decline in performance measures is observed.’’
A second major finding of this study is that the manner in
which the elastic band is affixed can drastically influence the
loading that would ensue. Dozens of equipment manufac-
turers produce slightly different designs of equipment such
as squat racks and benches. The manner in which a trainer
attaches bands to his or her varied equipment is likely to be
highly variable from facility to facility. We have demonstrated
that large differences are found between attachment config-
urations such that a single black band at the same length can
differ by as much as 13 kg at the practically relevant length of
140 cm. It is, therefore, likely that band-loading quantification
either should be performed in accordance with facility-
specific concerns or the strength and conditioning profession
should work toward adopting a universal means of
attachment.
Our third finding is that both BP and SQ attachment
configurations reveal exceptionally high R2 values when fitted
with nonlinear logarithmic lines of regression. This might
be in contrast to previous published work describing the
application of elastic plus free weight as being of a strictly
linear nature (9,18,19). This finding is particularly important
when taking into account one of the mechanical theories

of elastic band training. Because common extension exercises
such as SQ and BP, when performed to maximal effort
velocity, include a deceleration phase during the latter
portions of the range of motion (7,8,13), adding elastic band
resistance therefore allows for a variable resistance pattern
that might better match explosive mechanics. This is
theorized to occur because elastic effectively adds resistance
to the area of naturally occurring deceleration such that the
lifter might be allowed to continue to exert maximally until
lockout is achieved (2,3,19). Said another way, instead of
the lifter exhibiting nervous system inhibition to decelerate
the bar, he or she actually continues to maximally recruit
motor units until lockout is completed; the deceleration
therefore results from increased mechanical load, not
a diminishing nervous stimulus. Although these exercises
previously were assumed to be linear in nature, this study
provides evidence to the contrary and proposes high rates
of force development during the middle phases of the range
of motion giving way to a decreasing rate of loading in the
later phases of a multijoint extension exercise. It is further
suggested that a more complete kinetic and kinematic
analysis of the major elastic band plus free-weight exercises
be completed to further classify the loading effects of this
training technique.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The quantification of load is critical to goal-based exercise
prescription. Using these prediction equations in conjunction
with the individualized anthropometrics of the participant
gives a practitioner exact knowledge of the volume of
exercise during combined elastic band plus free-weight
exercise. For example, it can be ascertained that a person
with a BP reach of 175 cm (x) will incur a black band load of
38 kg (y) at the conclusion of the concentric phase (using
the equation: y = 29.064 Ln(x) 2 111.860). For SQ, the
black band resistance for a 145-cm band length (x) will be
10.5 kg (y), but this must be multiplied by 2 to account for
each of the 2 bands on either end of the barbell during this
type of exercise so that the total weight addition will be
21 kg at the conclusion of the concentric phase (using the
equation: y = 17.078 Ln(x) 2 74.643). Large differences in
the applied load exist as a result of 1) the thickness of the
elastic band, 2) the attachment technique used, 3) the type of
exercise being performed, 4) the individual anthropometrics
of the individual lifter, and 5) likely, the manufacturer of the
elastic band.
Because of these multiple factors at present, caution is
advised when acquiring, researching, and implementing
elastic band and free-weight exercises. Until further consensus
is developed to more consistently identify the exact loads that
are incurred during training with these methods, it is
recommended that each facility (or trainer) adopt its own
form of quantification to match its own unique set of
circumstances.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The bands used in this study were purchased online through
eliteFTS, and the authors maintain no professional affiliation
with this company at the time of this submission. The results
of the present study do not constitute endorsement of the
products of eliteFTS by the authors, Loyola Marymount
University, or the NSCA.
We would graciously like to thank Recreation Services
at Loyola Marymount and Dana McCaw along with every
single member of the I.N.V.E.S.T. (Investigating New
Variables in Exercise and Strength Training) research team,
including Adam Afflalo, Will Alvarenga, Noel Barragan,
Ashley Boyer, Bryce Brown, Jackie Canepa, Alex Cedillo,
Reese Cuddy, Erica Hanson, Phil Higgins, Crystal
Holley, Emileigh Ip, David Kohler, Brooke Lejeune-
Chanman, Landon Storaasli, Jen Topor, Sammy Torres,
and Sean Travis.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, CE, Sforzo, GA, and Sigg, JA. Combining elastic tension
with free weight resistance training ½Abstract
. Med Sci Sports Exerc
37: S186, 2005.
2. Anderson, CE, Sforzo, GA, and Sigg, JA. The effects of combining
elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 567–574, 2008.
3. Baker, D and Newton, RU. Methods to increase the effectiveness
of maximal power training for the upper body. Strength Cond J 27:
24–32, 2005.
4. Behm, DG and Sale, DG. Intended rather than actual movement
velocity determines velocity-specific training response. J Appl Physiol
74: 359–368, 1993.
5. Cronin, J, McNair, PJ, and Marshall, RN. The effects of bungy weight
training on muscle function and functional performance. J Sports Sci
21: 59–71, 2003.
6. Ebben, WP and Jensen, RL. Electromyographic and kinetic analysis
of traditional, chain, and elastic band squats. J Strength Cond Res 16:
547–550, 2002.
7. Elliott, BC, Wilson, GJ, and Kerr, GK. A biomechanical analysis
of the sticking region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21:
450–462, 1989.
8. Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Lowry, TM, Barrentine, SW, and
Andrews, JR. A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the
squat during varying stance widths. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 984–998,
2001.
9. Findley, BW. Point/counterpoint: training with rubber bands.
Strength Cond J 26(6): 68–69, 2004.
10. Ghigiarelli, J, Nagle, FG, Irrgang, J, Robertson, R, and Msylinksi, T.
The effects of a seven-week heavy elastic band weighted chain
program on maximum upper body strength and upper body power
in a sample of division 1-AA football players ½Abstract
. J Strength
Cond Res 21: e11, 2007.
11. Heinecke, M, Jovick, B, Cooper, Z, and Wiechert, J. Comparison of
strength gains in variable resistance bench press and isotonic bench
press ½Abstract
. J Strength Cond Res 18: 10, 2004.
12. Jakubiak, N and Saunders, DH. The feasibility and efficacy of
elastic resistance training for improving the velocity of the
Olympic Taekwondo turning kick. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1194–
1197, 2008.
13. Madsen, N and McLaughlin, T. Kinematic factors influencing
performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 16: 376–381, 1984.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2010 | 199
Elastic Band Loading Prediction Equations
14. Newton, RU, Robertson, M, Dugan, E, Hasson, C, Cecil, J, Gerber, A,
Hill, J, and Schwier, L. Heavy elastic bands alter force, velocity, and
power output during back squat lifts ½Abstract
. J Strength Cond Res
16: 1–18, 2002.
15. Rhea, MR, Kenn, J, and Peterson, M. The use of accommodating
resistance for the development of lower body power among college
athletes ½Abstract
. J Strength Cond Res 21: e25, 2007.
16. Simmons, LP. Chain reactions: accommodating leverages. Power-
lifting USA 19: 2–3, 1996.
17. Simmons, LP. Bands and chains. Powerlifting USA 22: 26–27,
1999.
the TM
200 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
18. Simoneau, GG, Bereda, SM, Sobush, DC, and Starsky, AJ.
Biomechanics of elastic resistance in therapeutic exercise programs.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 31: 16–24, 2001.
19. Wallace, BJ, Winchester, JB, and McGuigan, MR. Effects of
elastic bands on force and power characteristics during the
back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 20: 268–272, 2006.
20. Warpeha, JM. Accommodating resistance. NSCA Perform Train J
4: 22–23, 2002.
21. Young, WB and Bilby, GE. The effect of voluntary effort to
influence speed of contraction on strength, muscular power, and
hypertrophy development. J Strength Cond Res 7: 172–178, 1993.