Muscular outputs during dynamic bench press under stable versus unstable conditions

Previous studies have suggested that resistance training exercise under unstable conditions decreases the isometric force output, yet little is known about its influence on muscular outputs during dynamic movement. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of an unstable condition on power, force, and velocity outputs during the bench press. Twenty male collegiate athletes (mean age, 21.3 +/- 1.5 years; mean height, 167.7 +/- 7.7 cm; mean weight, 75.9 +/- 17.5 kg) participated in this study. Each subject attempted 3 sets of single bench presses with 50% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) under a stable condition with a flat bench and an unstable condition with a Swiss ball. Acceleration data were obtained with an accelerometer attached to the center of a barbell shaft, and peak outputs of power, force, and velocity were computed. Although significant loss of the peak outputs was found under the unstable condition (p < 0.017), their reduction rates remained relatively low, approximately 6% for force and 10% for power and velocity outputs, compared with previous findings. Such small reduction rates of muscular outputs may not compromise the training effect. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm whether the resistance training under an unstable condition permits the improvement of dynamic performance and trunk stability.     

Importance of upper-limb inertia in calculating concentric bench press force

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of upper-limb inertia on the force-velocity relationship and maximal power during concentric bench press exercise. Reference peak force values (Fpeakp) measured with a force plate positioned below the bench were compared to those measured simultaneously with a kinematic device fixed on the barbell by taking (Fpeakt) or not taking (Fpeakb) upper-limb inertia into account. Thirteen men (27.8 +/- 4.1 years, 184.6 +/- 5.5 cm, 99.5 +/- 18.6 kg) performed all-out concentric bench press exercise against 8 loads ranging between 7 and 74 kg. The results showed that for each load, Fpeakb was significantly less than Fpeakp (P < 0.0001), whereas no significant difference was found between Fpeakp and Fpeakt. The values of maximal force (F0), maximal velocity (V0), optimal velocity (Vopt), and maximal power (Pmax), extrapolated from the force- and power-velocity relationships determined with the kinematic device, were significantly underestimated when upper-limb inertia was ignored. The results underline the importance of taking account of the total inertia of the moving system to ensure precise evaluation of upper-limb muscular characteristics in all-out concentric bench press exercise with a kinematic device. A major application of this study would be to develop precise upper-limb muscular characteristic evaluation in laboratory and field conditions by using a simple and cheap kinematic device.     

Influence of exercise order in a resistance-training exercise session

The order of resistance exercises within a training session may have a vital impact on the quality of the constituent exercises performed. However, very few studies have documented the specific influence of exercise order. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of exercise order on back squat performance in the context of a whole-body workout. Nine resistance-trained male subjects (age: 24 +/- 4 years, body mass: 81.5 +/- 15.3 kg, resistance-training experience: 7 +/- 4 years) performed the back squat exercise (4 sets at 85% of 1 repetition maximum) on 2 separate occasions in a balanced, crossover design. During one protocol, the squat exercise was performed first (protocol A); during the other protocol, it was performed after a whole-body resistance-exercise session (protocol B). Number of repetitions, average power, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were collected during each set of the squat exercise. All subjects performed significantly (p < 0.01) more repetitions during set 1 when they performed protocol A (8.0 +/- 1.9 repetitions) compared with protocol B (5.4 +/- 2.7 repetitions). The average power for each set was higher during protocol B compared with protocol A. There were no significant differences in RPE values between the 2 protocols. In conclusion, performing the barbell back squat first in an exercise session allowed the completion of more total repetitions. However, this study showed that performing the squat exercise after a whole-body workout session may result in greater power output if the squat is preceded by a power exercise (i.e., hang pull). This phenomenon may have been due to postactivation potentiation.     

A comparison of 3 different rest intervals on the exercise volume completed during a workout

The purpose of this research was to compare differences between 3 different rest intervals on the squat and bench press volume completed during a workout. Fifteen college-aged men volunteered to participate in this study (age 20.73 +/- 2.60 years; body mass 80.73 +/- 10.80 kg). All subjects performed 3 testing sessions, during which 4 sets of the squat and bench press were performed with an 8 repetition maximum (8RM) load. During each testing session, the squat and bench press were performed with a 1, 2, or 5-minute rest interval between sets. Volume was defined as the total number of repetitions completed over 4 sets for each rest condition. Statistical analysis was conducted separately for the squat and bench press. One-way repeated analyses of variance with Bonferroni post hocs demonstrated significant differences between each rest condition for both exercises tested (p < 0.05). The 5-minute rest condition resulted in the highest volume completed, followed in descending order by the 2- and 1-minute rest conditions. The ability to perform a higher volume of training with a given load may stimulate greater strength adaptations.     

Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output during upper-body complex power training

This study investigated the effect on upper-body power output of manipulating resistances during contrast or complex power training. This power-training strategy typically entails the athlete alternating sets of a heavy resistance in a strength-oriented exercise with sets of lighter resistances in a power-oriented exercise. Sixteen rugby league players, who were experienced in power training and who performed complex training on a regular basis, served as subjects for this study and were divided equally into a control (Con) or experimental (Exp) group. Both groups were pre- and posttested for power output while performing explosive bench press throws in a Smith machine with a resistance of 50 kg (BT P50). The Exp group performed an intervention strategy of a 6-repetition set of bench presses with a resistance of 65% of 1 repetition maximum (65% 1RM) between tests. At the pretest occasion, no differences were observed between the groups in power output; however, at the posttesting, a significant difference in power output was observed between the groups in the BT P50. The 4.5% increase in the power output recorded during the posttesting BT P50 for the Exp group was determined to be significantly different from all other scores (p < or = 0.05). These data indicate that the performance of a set of heavy resistance strength training exercise between power training sets will acutely enhance power output in the second power training set. This effect has been previously theorized as possibly due to some combination of acute neural or mechanical adaptations.     

Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: influence of resistance and gender

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes were tested to determine the load at which maximal mechanical output is achieved. Athletes performed power testing at 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70% of individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the squat jump, bench press, and hang pull exercises. Additionally, hang pull power testing was performed using free-form (i.e., barbell) and fixed-form (i.e., Smith machine) techniques. There were differences between genders in optimal power output during the squat jump (30-40% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) and bench throw (30% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) exercises. There were no gender or form interactions during the hang pull exercise; maximal power output during the hang pull occurred at 30-60% of 1RM. In conclusion, these results indicate that (a) gender differences exist in the load at which maximal power output occurs during the squat jump and bench throw; and (b) although no gender or form interactions occurred during the hang pull exercise, greater power could be generated during fixed-form exercise. In general, 30% of 1RM will elicit peak power outputs for both genders and all exercises used in this study, allowing this standard percentage to be used as a starting point in order to train maximal mechanical power output capabilities in these lifts in strength trained athletes.     

Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during complex training

The efficient coordination of agonist and antagonist muscles is one of the important early adaptations in resistance training responsible for large increases in strength. Weak antagonist muscles may limit speed of movement; consequently, strengthening them leads to an increase in agonist muscle movement speed. However, the effect of combining agonist and antagonist muscle exercises into a power training session has been largely unexplored. The purpose of this study was to determine if a training complex consisting of contrasting agonist and antagonist muscle exercises would result in an acute increase in power output in the agonist power exercise. Twenty-four college-aged rugby league players who were experienced in combined strength and power training served as subjects for this study. They were equally assigned to an experimental (Antag) or control (Con) group and were no different in age, height, body mass, strength, or maximal power. Power output was assessed during bench press throws with a 40-kg resistance (BT P40) with the Plyometric Power System training device. After warming up, the Con group performed the BT P40 tests 3 minutes apart to determine if any acute augmentation to power output could occur without intervention. The Antag group also performed the BT P40 tests; however, an intervention strategy of a set of bench pulls, which is an antagonistic action to the bench throw, was performed between tests to determine if this would acutely affect power output during the second BT P40 test. Although the power output for the Con group remained unaltered between test occasions, the significant 4.7% increase for the Antag group indicates that a strategy of alternating agonist and antagonist muscle exercises may acutely increase power output during complex power training. This result may affect power training and specific warm-up strategies used in ballistic sports activities, with increased emphasis placed upon the antagonist muscle groups.     

Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes

The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of training leading to repetition failure in the performance of 2 different tests: 6 repetition maximum (6RM) bench press strength and 40-kg bench throw power in elite junior athletes. Subjects were 26 elite junior male basketball players (n = 12; age = 18.6 +/- 0.3 years; height = 202.0 +/- 11.6 cm; mass = 97.0 +/- 12.9 kg; mean +/- SD) and soccer players (n = 14; age = 17.4 +/- 0.5 years; height = 179.0 +/- 7.0 cm; mass = 75.0 +/- 7.1 kg) with a history of greater than 6 months' strength training. Subjects were initially tested twice for 6RM bench press mass and 40-kg Smith machine bench throw power output (in watts) to establish retest reliability. Subjects then undertook bench press training with 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, using equal volume programs (24 repetitions x 80-105% 6RM in 13 minutes 20 seconds). Subjects were assigned to one of two experimental groups designed either to elicit repetition failure with 4 sets of 6 repetitions every 260 seconds (RF(4 x 6)) or allow all repetitions to be completed with 8 sets of 3 repetitions every 113 seconds (NF(8 x 3)). The RF(4 x 6) treatment elicited substantial increases in strength (7.3 +/- 2.4 kg, +9.5%, p < 0.001) and power (40.8 +/- 24.1 W, +10.6%, p < 0.001), while the NF(8 x 3) group elicited 3.6 +/- 3.0 kg (+5.0%, p < 0.005) and 25 +/- 19.0 W increases (+6.8%, p < 0.001). The improvements in the RF(4 x 6) group were greater than those in the repetition rest group for both strength (p < 0.005) and power (p < 0.05). Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes.     

No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface

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.     

An examination of strength and concentric work ratios during variable range of motion training

Variable range of motion (ROM) training consists of partial ROM resistance training with the countermovement being performed at a different phase of the movement for each set. In this study, we assessed the effect of this method of training on peak force, load lifted, and concentric work performed. Six male subjects with resistance training backgrounds (age 20.2 +/- 1.3 years, height 179.4 +/- 4.6 cm, weight 89.6 +/- 9.9 kg, 6-repetition maximum [6RM] bench press 92.5 +/- 14.3 kg) participated in this study. Testing consisted of 6RM bench press strength tests during full (FULL), three quarter ((3/4)), one half ((1/2)), and one quarter ((1/4)) ROM from full elbow extension bench press performed on a Smith machine. The 6RM load, peak force (PF), and concentric work (W) performed during each ROM was examined using a one-way analysis of variance performed at an alpha level of p < 0.05. The 6RM load increased significantly as the ROM was decreased for all tests (FULL = 92.5 +/- 14.3 kg, (3/4) = 102.1 +/- 14.3 kg, (1/2) = 123.3 +/- 23.6 kg, (1/4) = 160.9 +/- 26.2 kg). PF during each test was significantly higher during the (1/4) (1924.8 +/- 557.9 N) and (1/2) (1859.4 +/- 317.1 N) ROM from full elbow extension bench press when compared with the (3/4) (1242.2 +/- 254.6 N) and FULL (1200.5 +/- 252.5 N) ROM exercise. Although higher force levels were evident, the restriction in barbell displacement resulted in a subsequent reduction in W as the lifting ROM was reduced. These results suggest that variable ROM resistance training results in increased force production as the ROM diminishes.     

Smith machine counterbalance system affects measures of maximal bench press throw performance

Equipment with counterbalance weight systems is commonly used for the assessment of performance in explosive resistance exercise movements, but it is not known if such systems affect performance measures. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using a counterbalance weight system on measures of smith machine bench press throw performance. Ten men and 14 women (mean ± SD: age, 25 ± 4 years; height, 173 ± 10 cm; weight, 77.7 ± 18.3 kg) completed maximal smith machine bench press throws under 4 different conditions (2 × 2; counterbalance × load): with or without a counterbalance weight system and using 'light' or 'moderate' net barbell loads. Performance variables (peak force, peak velocity, and peak power) were measured using a linear accelerometer attached to the barbell. The counterbalance weight system resulted in significant (p < 0.001) reductions in measures of peak force (mean difference ± standard error: light: -112 ± 20 N; moderate: -140 ± 23 N), peak velocity (light: -0.49 ± 0.10 m·s; moderate: -0.33 ± 0.07 m·s), and peak power (light: -220 ± 43 W; moderate: -143 ± 28 W) compared with no counterbalance system for both load conditions. Load condition did not affect absolute or percentage reductions from the counterbalance weight system for any variable. In conclusion, the use of a counterbalance weight system reduces accelerometer-based performance measures for the bench press throw exercise at light and moderate loads. This reduction in measures is likely because of an increase in the external resistance during the movement, which results in a discrepancy between the manually input and the actual value for external load. A counterbalance weight system should not be used when measuring performance in explosive resistance exercises with an accelerometer.     

Test-retest reliability of barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise

The purpose of this study was to calculate test-retest reliability statistics for peak barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise for loads corresponding to 10-90% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Twenty-one healthy, resistance-trained men (mean ± SD age = 23.5 ± 2.7 years; body mass = 90.5 ± 14.6 kg; 1RM bench press = 125.4 ± 18.4 kg) volunteered for this study. A minimum of 48 hours after a maximal strength testing and familiarization session, the subjects performed single repetitions of the free-weight bench-press exercise at each tenth percentile (10-90%) of the 1RM on 2 separate occasions. For each repetition, the subjects were instructed to press the barbell as rapidly as possible, and peak barbell velocity was measured with a Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (model 2,1) and corresponding standard errors of measurement (expressed as percentages of the mean barbell velocity values) were 0.717 (4.2%), 0.572 (5.0%), 0.805 (3.1%), 0.669 (4.7%), 0.790 (4.6%), 0.785 (4.8%), 0.811 (5.8%), 0.714 (10.3%), and 0.594 (12.6%) for the weights corresponding to 10-90% 1RM. There were no mean differences between the barbell velocity values from trials 1 and 2. These results indicated moderate to high test-retest reliability for barbell velocity from 10 to 70% 1RM but decreased consistency at 80 and 90% 1RM. When examining barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise, greater measurement error must be overcome at 80 and 90% 1RM to be confident that an observed change is meaningful.     

Effect of two different rest period lengths on the number of repetitions performed during resistance training

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 different rest period lengths during a resistance training session with the number of repetitions completed per set of each exercise, the volume completed over 3 sets of each exercise, and the total volume during a training session. Fourteen experienced, weight-trained men volunteered to participate in the study. All subjects completed 2 experimental training sessions. Both sessions consisted of 3 sets of 8 repetitions with an 8 repetition maximum resistance of 6 upper body exercises performed in a set manner (wide grip lat pull-down, close grip pull-down, machine seated row, barbell row lying on a bench, dumbbell seated arm curl, and machine seated arm curl). The 2 experimental sessions differed only in the length of the rest period between sets and exercises: 1 session with a 1-minute and the other with a 3-minute rest period. For all exercises, results demonstrate a significantly lower total number of repetitions for all 3 sets of an exercise when 1-minute rest periods were used (p < or = 0.05). The 3- and 1-minute protocols both resulted in a significant decrease from set 1 to set 3 in 4 of the 6 exercises (p < or = 0.05), whereas the 1-minute protocol also demonstrated a significant decrease from set 1 to set 2 in 2 of the 6 exercises (p < or = 0.05). The results indicate that, during a resistance training session composed of all upper body exercises, 1-minute rest periods result in a decrease in the total number of repetitions performed compared with 3-minute rest periods between sets and exercises.     

Excess postexercise oxygen consumption following acute aerobic and resistance exercise in women who are lean or obese

Seventeen women were divided into lean (19.5 +/- 0.5 years; 22.2 +/- 0.6 kg.m(-2)) and obese (20.4 +/- 0.5 years; 34.9 +/- 2.1 kg.m(-2)) groups. On completion of a submax cycle ergometer test and 10-repetition maximum (10RM) of 5 exercises on a Smith machine, subjects returned for 2 exercise sessions during menses. Session 1 consisted of performing 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% of the predetermined 10RM for the following exercises: squat, calf raises, bench press, upright row, and shoulder press. Session 2 consisted of cycling at 60-65% VO2max for a duration that would expend the same number of calories as the resistance session. Postexercise respiratory exchange ratio and EPOC magnitude/duration were similar for both groups. These findings indicate that women who are lean or obese will respond similarly to exercise at similar relative intensities and that aerobic and resistance exercise of equal caloric expenditure will elicit similar EPOC responses.     

Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat

Measurement of power output during resistance training is becoming ubiquitous in strength and conditioning programs, but there is great variation in the methods used. The main purposes of this study were to compare the power output values obtained from 4 different methods and to examine the relationships between these values. Male semiprofessional Australian rules football players (n = 30) performed hang power clean and weighted jump squat while ground reaction force (GRF)-time data and barbell displacement-time data were sampled simultaneously using a force platform and a linear position transducer attached to the barbell. Peak and mean power applied to the barbell was obtained from barbell displacement-time data (method 1). Peak and mean power applied to the system (barbell + lifter) was obtained from 3 other methods: (a) using GRF-time data (method 2), (b) using barbell displacement-time data (method 3), and (c) using both barbell displacement-time data and GRF-time data (method 4). The peak power values (W) obtained from methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 were (mean +/- SD) 1,644 +/- 295, 3,079 +/- 638, 3,821 +/- 917, and 4,017 +/- 833 in hang power clean and 1,184 +/- 115, 3,866 +/- 451, 3,567 +/- 494, and 4,427 +/- 557 in weighted jump squat. There were significant differences between power output values obtained from method 1 vs. methods 2, 3, and 4, as well as method 2 vs. methods 3 and 4. The power output applied to the barbell and that applied to the system was significantly correlated (r = 0.65-0.81). As a practical application, it is important to understand the characteristics of each method and consider how power output should be measured during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.     

Increased number of forced repetitions does not enhance strength development with resistance training

Some research suggests that strength improvements are greater when resistance training continues to the point at which the individual cannot perform additional repetitions (i.e., repetition failure). Performing additional forced repetitions after the point of repetition failure and thus further increasing the set volume is a common resistance training practice. However, whether short-term use of this practice increases the magnitude of strength development with resistance training is unknown and was investigated here. Twelve basketball and 10 volleyball players trained 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, completing either 4 x 6, 8 x 3, or 12 x 3 (sets x repetitions) of bench press per training session. Compared with the 8 x 3 group, the 4 x 6 protocol involved a longer work interval and the 12 x 3 protocol involved higher training volume, so each group was purposefully designed to elicit a different number of forced repetitions per training session. Subjects were tested on 3- and 6-repetition maximum (RM) bench press (81.5 +/- 9.8 and 75.9 +/- 9.0 kg, respectively, mean +/- SD), and 40-kg Smith Machine bench press throw power (589 +/- 100 W). The 4 x 6 and 12 x 3 groups had more forced repetitions per session (p < 0.01) than did the 8 x 3 group (4.1 +/- 2.6, 3.1 +/- 3.5, and 1.2 +/- 1.8 repetitions, respectively), whereas the 12 x 3 group performed approximately 40% greater work and had 30% greater concentric time. As expected, all groups improved 3RM (4.5 kg, 95% confidence limits, 3.1- 6.0), 6RM (4.7 kg, 3.1-6.3), bench press throw peak power (57 W, 22-92), and mean power (23 W, 4-42) (all p < or = 0.02). There were no significant differences in strength or power gains between groups. In conclusion, when repetition failure was reached, neither additional forced repetitions nor additional set volume further improved the magnitude of strength gains. This finding questions the efficacy of adding additional volume by use of forced repetitions in young athletes with moderate strength training experience.     

Physical performance and cardiovascular responses to an acute bout of heavy resistance circuit training versus traditional strength training

Circuit training effectively reduces the time devoted to strength training while allowing an adequate training volume to be achieved. Nonetheless, circuit training has traditionally been performed using relatively low loads for a relatively high number of repetitions, which is not conducive to maximal muscle size and strength gain. This investigation compared physical performance parameters and cardiovascular load during heavy-resistance circuit (HRC) training to the responses during a traditional, passive rest strength training set (TS). Ten healthy subjects (age, 26 +/- 1.6 years; weight, 80.2 +/- 8.78 kg) with strength training experience volunteered for the study. Testing was performed once weekly for 3 weeks. On day 1, subjects were familiarized with the test and training exercises. On the subsequent 2 test days, subjects performed 1 of 2 strength training programs: HRC (5 sets x (bench press + leg extensions + ankle extensions); 35-second interset rest; 6 repetition maximum [6RM] loads) or TS (5 sets x bench press; 3-minute interset rest, 6RM loads). The data confirm that the maximum and average bar velocity and power and the number of repetitions performed of the bench press in the 2 conditions was the same; however, the average heart rate was significantly greater in the HRC compared to the TS condition (HRC = 129 +/- 15.6 beats x min(-1), approximately 71% maximum heart rate (HRmax), TS = 113 +/- 13.1 beats x min(-1), approximately 62% HRmax; P < 0.05). Thus, HRC sets are quantitatively similar to traditional strength training sets, but the cardiovascular load is substantially greater. HRC may be an effective training strategy for the promotion of both strength and cardiovascular adaptations.     

The acute effects of prior dynamic resistance exercise using different loads on subsequent upper-body explosive performance in resistance-trained men

The purpose of this study was to determine if explosive upper-body performance could be improved when it was preceded by conditioning contraction protocols that incorporate resistance exercise. Providing that performance was enhanced, it was also the intention to determine the optimal conditioning contraction load for enhancing performance. Eight recreationally trained men completed 4 experimental sessions. Each session consisted of a warm-up, 3 bench press throws (pre), a conditioning protocol, and 3 bench press throws (post). The different conditioning protocols consisted of 5 bench press repetitions using 100, 75, or 50% of 5 repetition maximum (5RM) strength. The fourth protocol, in which no repetitions were completed, acted as a control. Participants performed each conditioning protocol on a different day, and the order in which the protocols were performed was randomized. Average power, assessed during the bench press throws, was determined for the starting segment and the end segment (point of bar release) for each throw. Comparisons in average power, for each segment of the bench press 1RM, were made between the pre- and postconditioning protocol bench press throws. None of the conditioning protocols had an effect on bench press throw performance in either of the 2 segments of the movement. The results suggest there is no performance advantage when explosive upper-body movement is preceded by resistance exercise of varying loads. Alternatively, the performance of a set of resistance exercise did not compromise explosive upper-body performance. Considering this, training methods that combine both resistance exercise and plyometric-like exercise may offer a practical and time-efficient training system.     

Postactivation potentiation: effect of various recovery intervals on bench press power performance

Postactivation potentiation (PAP) is a strategy used to improve performance in power activities. The aim of this study was to determine if power during bench press exercise was increased when preceded by 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the same exercise and to determine which time interval could optimize PAP response. For this, 11 healthy male subjects (age, 25 ± 4 years; height, 178 ± 6 cm; body mass, 74 ± 8 kg; bench press 1RM, 76 ± 19 kg) underwent 6 sessions. Two control sessions were conducted to determine both bench press 1RM and power (6 repetitions at 50% 1RM). The 4 experimental sessions were composed of a 1RM exercise followed by power sets with different recovery intervals (1, 3, 5, and 7 minutes), performed on different days, and determined randomly. Power values were measured via Peak Power equipment (Cefise, Nova Odessa, S?o Paulo, Brazil). The conditions were compared using an analysis of variance with repeated measures, followed by a Tukey test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. There was a significant increase in PAP in concentric contractions after 7 minutes of recovery compared with the control and 1-minute recovery conditions (p < 0.05). Our results indicated that 7 minutes of recovery has generated an increase in PAP in bench press and that such a strategy could be applied as an interesting alternative to enhance the performance in tasks aimed at increasing upper-body power performance.     

The effect of rest interval length on bench press performance with heavy vs. light loads

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effect of 3 different rest intervals on multiple sets of the bench press exercise performed with heavy vs. light loads. Sixteen resistance-trained men performed 2 testing sessions each week for 3 weeks. During the first testing session each week, 5 consecutive sets of the bench press were performed with 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and with a 1-, 2-, or 3-minute rest interval between sets. During the second testing session each week the same procedures were repeated with 50% of 1RM. The total repetitions completed and the sustainability of repetitions were compared between rest conditions and between loads. For each load, resting 3 minutes between sets resulted in significantly greater total repetitions vs. resting 2 minutes (p = 0.000) or 1 minute (p = 0.000) between sets. However, the sustainability of repetitions was not significantly different between loads (p = 0.849). These results can be applied to weekly bench press workouts that undulate between heavy (i.e., 80% 1RM) and light (i.e., 50% 1RM) intensities. When the training goal is maximal strength development, 3 minutes of rest should be taken between sets to avoid significant declines in repetitions. The ability to sustain repetitions while keeping the intensity constant may result in a higher training volume and consequently greater gains in muscular strength.