Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Jan; 22(1):88-94.JS

Abstract

Exercise or Swiss balls are increasingly being used with conventional resistance exercises. There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of this approach compared to traditional resistance training on a stable surface. Previous studies have shown that force output may be reduced with no change in muscle electromyography (EMG) activity while others have shown increased muscle EMG activity when performing resistance exercises on an unstable surface. This study compared 1RM strength, and upper body and trunk muscle EMG activity during the barbell chest press exercise on a stable (flat bench) and unstable surface (exercise ball). After familiarization, 13 subjects underwent testing for 1RM strength for the barbell chest press on both a stable bench and an exercise ball, each separated by at least 7 days. Surface EMG was recorded for 5 upper body muscles and one trunk muscle from which average root mean square of the muscle activity was calculated for the whole 1RM lift and the concentric and eccentric phases. Elbow angle during each lift was recorded to examine any range-of-motion differences between the two surfaces. The results show that there was no difference in 1RM strength or muscle EMG activity for the stable and unstable surfaces. In addition, there was no difference in elbow range-of-motion between the two surfaces. Taken together, these results indicate that there is no reduction in 1RM strength or any differences in muscle EMG activity for the barbell chest press exercise on an unstable exercise ball when compared to a stable flat surface. Moreover, these results do not support the notion that resistance exercises performed on an exercise ball are more efficacious than traditional stable exercises.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Goodman CA
Centre for Ageing, Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport, School of Human Movement, Recreation and Performance, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. goodmanc@unimelb.edu.au
Pearce AJ
No affiliation info available
Nicholes CJ
No affiliation info available
Gatt BM
No affiliation info available
Fairweather IH
No affiliation info available

MeSH

AdultCohort StudiesElectromyographyFemaleHumansMaleMuscle ContractionMuscle StrengthPectoralis MusclesPhysical Education and TrainingPhysical FitnessRange of Motion, ArticularSensitivity and SpecificitySurface PropertiesWeight Lifting

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18296960

Citation

Goodman, Craig A., et al. "No Difference in 1RM Strength and Muscle Activation During the Barbell Chest Press On a Stable and Unstable Surface." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 22, no. 1, 2008, pp. 88-94.
Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, et al. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):88-94.
Goodman, C. A., Pearce, A. J., Nicholes, C. J., Gatt, B. M., & Fairweather, I. H. (2008). No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815ef6b3
Goodman CA, et al. No Difference in 1RM Strength and Muscle Activation During the Barbell Chest Press On a Stable and Unstable Surface. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):88-94. PubMed PMID: 18296960.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. AU - Goodman,Craig A, AU - Pearce,Alan J, AU - Nicholes,Caleb J, AU - Gatt,Brad M, AU - Fairweather,Ian H, PY - 2008/2/26/pubmed PY - 2008/4/9/medline PY - 2008/2/26/entrez SP - 88 EP - 94 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 22 IS - 1 N2 - Exercise or Swiss balls are increasingly being used with conventional resistance exercises. There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of this approach compared to traditional resistance training on a stable surface. Previous studies have shown that force output may be reduced with no change in muscle electromyography (EMG) activity while others have shown increased muscle EMG activity when performing resistance exercises on an unstable surface. This study compared 1RM strength, and upper body and trunk muscle EMG activity during the barbell chest press exercise on a stable (flat bench) and unstable surface (exercise ball). After familiarization, 13 subjects underwent testing for 1RM strength for the barbell chest press on both a stable bench and an exercise ball, each separated by at least 7 days. Surface EMG was recorded for 5 upper body muscles and one trunk muscle from which average root mean square of the muscle activity was calculated for the whole 1RM lift and the concentric and eccentric phases. Elbow angle during each lift was recorded to examine any range-of-motion differences between the two surfaces. The results show that there was no difference in 1RM strength or muscle EMG activity for the stable and unstable surfaces. In addition, there was no difference in elbow range-of-motion between the two surfaces. Taken together, these results indicate that there is no reduction in 1RM strength or any differences in muscle EMG activity for the barbell chest press exercise on an unstable exercise ball when compared to a stable flat surface. Moreover, these results do not support the notion that resistance exercises performed on an exercise ball are more efficacious than traditional stable exercises. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18296960/No_difference_in_1RM_strength_and_muscle_activation_during_the_barbell_chest_press_on_a_stable_and_unstable_surface_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -