Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of muscle activity in concentric and counter movement maximum bench press.
J Hum Kinet. 2013; 38:63-71.JH

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Teacher Education of Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger Norway.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24235985

Citation

van den Tillaar, Roland, and Gertjan Ettema. "A Comparison of Muscle Activity in Concentric and Counter Movement Maximum Bench Press." Journal of Human Kinetics, vol. 38, 2013, pp. 63-71.
van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. A comparison of muscle activity in concentric and counter movement maximum bench press. J Hum Kinet. 2013;38:63-71.
van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2013). A comparison of muscle activity in concentric and counter movement maximum bench press. Journal of Human Kinetics, 38, 63-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2013-0046
van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. A Comparison of Muscle Activity in Concentric and Counter Movement Maximum Bench Press. J Hum Kinet. 2013;38:63-71. PubMed PMID: 24235985.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of muscle activity in concentric and counter movement maximum bench press. AU - van den Tillaar,Roland, AU - Ettema,Gertjan, Y1 - 2013/10/08/ PY - 2013/11/16/entrez PY - 2013/11/16/pubmed PY - 2013/11/16/medline KW - EMG KW - bench press KW - kinematics KW - muscle KW - potentiation SP - 63 EP - 71 JF - Journal of human kinetics JO - J Hum Kinet VL - 38 N2 - 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. SN - 1640-5544 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24235985/A_comparison_of_muscle_activity_in_concentric_and_counter_movement_maximum_bench_press_ L2 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24235985/ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.