A Comparison of Muscle Activity in Concentric and Counter Movement Maximum Bench Press

Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the kinematics and muscle activation patterns of regular free-weight bench press (counter movement) with pure concentric lifts in the ascending phase of a successful one repetition maximum (1-RM) attempt in the bench press. Our aim was to evaluate if diminishing potentiation could be the cause of the sticking region. Since diminishing potentiation cannot occur in pure concentric lifts, the occurrence of a sticking region in this type of muscle actions would support the hypothesis that the sticking region is due to a poor mechanical position. Eleven male participants (age 21.9 ~ 1.7 yrs, body mass 80.7 ~ 10.9 kg, body height 1.79 ~ 0.07 m) conducted 1-RM lifts in counter movement and in pure concentric bench presses in which kinematics and EMG activity were measured. In both conditions, a sticking region occurred. However, the start of the sticking region was different between the two bench presses. In addition, in four of six muscles, the muscle activity was higher in the counter movement bench press compared to the concentric one. Considering the findings of the muscle activity of six muscles during the maximal lifts it was concluded that the diminishing effect of force potentiation, which occurs in the counter movement bench press, in combination with a delayed muscle activation unlikely explains the existence of the sticking region in a 1-RM bench press. Most likely, the sticking region is the result of a poor mechanical force position.

[1]  G A Wood,et al.  Optimal stiffness of series elastic component in a stretch-shorten cycle activity. , 1991, Journal of applied physiology.

[2]  A. Saeterbakken,et al.  A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements , 2011, Journal of sports sciences.

[3]  Roland van den Tillaar,et al.  The “sticking period” in a maximum bench press , 2010, Journal of sports sciences.

[4]  B C Elliott,et al.  A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. , 1989, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[5]  B T Bates,et al.  A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. , 1985, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[6]  William J. Kraemer,et al.  Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements , 1997, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[7]  G. Ettema,et al.  A comparison of successful and unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. , 2009, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[8]  A. Saeterbakken,et al.  Is the occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press? , 2012, Journal of sports sciences.

[9]  G J Wilson,et al.  Stretch-shorten cycle compared with isometric preload: contributions to enhanced muscular performance. , 1998, Journal of applied physiology.

[10]  B. Freriks,et al.  Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. , 2000, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[11]  Lars Engebretsen,et al.  Risk Factors for Injuries in Football , 2004, The American journal of sports medicine.

[12]  T. Mclaughlin,et al.  Kinematic factors influencing performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. , 1984, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[13]  G A Wood,et al.  The effect on performance of imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle movement. , 1991, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.