Content uploaded by Lee E Brown
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lee E Brown on Jan 01, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMPARISON OF CONCENTRIC AND ECCENTRIC BENCH
PRESS REPETITIONS TO FAILURE
STEPHEN B. KELLY,
1
LEE E. BROWN,
2
STEVEN P. HOOKER,
3
PAMELA D. SWAN,
3
MATTHEW P. BUMAN,
3
BRENT A. ALVAR,
4
AND LAURIE E. BLACK
5
1
Department of Kinesiology, Vanguard University, Costa Mesa, California;
2
Center for Sport Performance, California State
University, Fullerton, California;
3
School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona;
4
Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah; and
5
College of Allied Health, California Baptist University,
Riverside, California
ABSTRACT
Kelly, SB, Brown, LE, Hooker, SP, Swan, PD, Buman, MP,
Alvar, BA, and Black, LE. Comparison of concentric and
eccentric bench press repetitions to failure. J Strength Cond
Res 29(4): 1027–1032, 2015—Eccentric muscle actions
(ECC) are characterized by muscle lengthening, despite
actin-myosin crossbridge formation. Muscles acting eccentri-
cally are capable of producing higher levels of force compared
with muscles acting concentrically. The purpose of this study
was to determine whether ECC bench press yields greater
strength than concentric (CON) as determined by 1 repetition
maximum (1RM). Additionally, a comparison was made exam-
ining differences in the number of repetitions to failure at dif-
ferent relative intensities of 1RM. Thirty healthy men (age =
24.63 65.6 years) were tested for 1RM in CON and ECC
bench press and the number of repetitions completed at 60,
70, 80, and 90% 1RM. For CON repetitions, the weight was
mechanically lowered to the chest, and the participant pressed
it up until the elbows were fully extended. The ECC bench
press consisted of lowering a barbell from a fully extended
elbow position to the chest in a continuous controlled manner
for 3 seconds as determined by electronic metronome. Paired
t-tests showed that ECC 1RM (115.99 631.08 kg) was sig-
nificantly (p#0.05) greater than CON 1RM (93.56 626.56
kg), and the number of repetitions completed at 90% 1RM was
significantly (p#0.05) greater in ECC (7.67 63.24) as com-
pared with CON (4.57 62.21). There were no significant
differences in number of completed repetitions during CON
and ECC bench press at 60, 70, and 80% 1RM. These data
indicate that ECC actions yield increased force capabilities
(;120%) as compared with CON in the bench press and
may be less prone to fatigue, especially at higher intensities.
These differences suggest a need to develop unique strategies
for training eccentrically.
KEY WORDS resistance, strength, fatigue
INTRODUCTION
Eccentric (ECC) muscle actions occur when the
force exerted by working muscle is less than that
of an external resistance. This is characterized by
muscle lengthening, despite actin-myosin cross-
bridge formation. Thus, the separation of myosin from actin
is mechanical rather than chemical (11). This is in contrast to
concentric (CON) muscle actions, during which the muscle
shortens as actin filaments are pulled over myosin filaments.
During CON actions, crossbridges are separated through the
cleaving of an ATP molecule. The chemical reaction of
a CON muscle action results in less muscular damage than
ECC muscle action.
ECC actions, when emphasized during resistance training,
may elicit greater strength adaptation (4,18,23) muscular
hypertrophy (13,14,23), and acute increases in subsequent
CON force capabilities (8,21) and favorable acute inflamma-
tory response (13) compared with traditional ECC/CON
actions and CON muscle actions alone. Studies also suggest
that muscles are less prone to fatigue when acting eccentri-
cally (6,10). Based on the emergence of research supporting
the utilization of ECC muscle actions for a variety of out-
comes, programs that emphasize ECC actions through resis-
tance training methods have become increasingly popular.
As evidence of the effectiveness of ECC training emerges,
it is important to ensure that basic scientific principles of
traditional training are applied. A training program using
a prescribed number of sets and repetitions with a specified
intensity remains the most effective way to maximize the
benefits of resistance training and improve the likelihood of
desired adaptations (12,20). This is generally done by mea-
suring or predicting an individual’s 1 repetition maximum
(1RM) in a particular exercise and using that value to deter-
mine submaximal intensities to be used during training.
Address correspondence to Stephen B. Kelly, stephen.kelly@vanguard.
edu.
29(4)/1027–1032
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1027
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
A number of tables have appeared in the literature (1,7,19),
which may be useful for estimating 1RM based on the num-
ber of repetitions an individual is able to complete with
a given weight. Alternately, the tables can be used for esti-
mating the number of repetitions an individual should be
able to achieve given their 1RM and the percentage of that
1RM they are lifting. These tables are designed through pre-
diction equations extrapolating norms from data, which have
been collected in research studies. Tables suggesting weights
and repetitions per different percentages of 1RM provide
information useful in program design, minimization of injury
potential, and creating a time-efficient reference tool for use
in the manipulation of training variables such as volume and
intensity. However, each of these tables is designed for use
with traditional muscle actions, which consists of an ECC
action immediately followed by a CON action. In these
ECC/CON movements, the limiting factor in whether or
not the repetition is successful is nearly always the CON
action. This is attributed to the fact that ECC force capabil-
ities are 120–200% of CON force capabilities (2,9,10,15,16).
It is unclear how increased force capability and seemingly
greater resistance to fatigue (6,10) translates to the number
of repetitions, which can be completed eccentrically, as com-
pared with existing norms in the research, which describe
ECC/CON repetitions. This study seeks to address the prac-
tical question of how the physiological differences between
CON and ECC muscle actions relate to performance in
a common exercise.
No known literature exists, which describes a prediction
equation for ECC-only muscle actions, and as previous
research suggests, muscles performing ECC actions may
respond differently than muscles acting concentrically
(4,10,17). It remains to be examined whether CON and
ECC muscle actions react similarly in terms of repetitions to
failure at the same relative intensity. Therefore, it is important
to understand the unique characteristics of ECC muscle ac-
tions, including force capabilities, fatigue patterns, neural pat-
terns, and training adaptations to ECC-emphasized exercise.
The purpose of this study was to determine differences
between CON 1RM and ECC 1RM values on the bench
press and to examine the number of repetitions completed
at each percentage of 1RM between CON and ECC muscle
actions. These comparisons offer a practical examination of
how CON and ECC muscle actions may require unique train-
ing strategies for maximal health and performance adaptation.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
One repetition maximum loads were measured in the bench
press exercise for both CON and ECC actions. A mechanical
hoist allowed for the load to be passively lowered to the
chest (CON) or raised to the starting position (ECC). One
repetition maximum values were compared between muscle
actions. Loads of 60, 70, 80, and 90% mode-specific 1RM
were then lifted to volitional failure. The number of
repetitions completed at each intensity was compared
between muscle actions. This design allows for comparison
of 1RM data, as well as the mode-specific patterns of fatigue
as expressed in repetitions completed.
Subjects
Thirty men (age = 24.63 65.6 years, age range 19–40 years;
height = 178.61 66.58 cm; mass = 83.72 611.43 kg) with
a self-report of at least 1 year of resistance training experi-
ence volunteered to participate in this study. Resistance
training experience was defined as having performed the
bench press exercise a minimum average of once per week
during the past year. The specific training goals of the partic-
ipants’ previous programs (i.e., hypertrophy, strength, and
muscular endurance) were not considered, nor were the
typical volume, intensity, rest, or frequency (beyond
the minimum once weekly criteria). Exclusion criteria
included orthopedic injuries and pain in the upper extremities
within the past year, current hypertension (defined as resting
blood pressure higher than 160/90 mm Hg), and cardiovas-
cular risk factors as reported as one or more items selected on
the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire. Before partic-
ipation, all subjects read and signed an informed consent
approved by the university Institutional Review Board.
Procedures
This study consisted of 6 testing sessions per participant over
a 4-week period at approximately the same time of day for
each individual. Study participants were asked to maintain
a consistent routine before each test session in terms of diet,
hydration, and rest. Participants were measured for anthro-
pometric measures of height, and mass. After anthropomet-
ric measures in the initial session, and before lifting in each
subsequent session, participants performed a general warm-
up by pedaling a Monark cycle ergometer (Monark, Varberg,
Sweden) for 5 minutes at 90 rpm. During each session, the
cycle ergometer warm-up was followed by a specific bench
press warm-up consisting of 10, 5, and 3 repetitions at self-
selected, but increasing, loads for a traditional bench press
exercise (characterized as the ECC [lowering] action imme-
diately followed by the CON action [raising]). Repetitions
were completed in succession without rest with 1-minute
rest between sets.
The initial 2 sessions included testing 1RM in either CON
or ECC bench press in random order as determined by flip
of a coin. Participants were allowed to practice each method
of lift with the unloaded barbell to become accustomed to
the timing of the lifts and familiar with the procedures. The
CON bench press was performed with the participant supine
on a bench and pushing the barbell from a resting position
on the chest to complete extension of the elbows. The
weight was passively lowered to the chest before each
repetition through mechanical hoist (2000 lb Minsize
Electric Rope Hoist; Northern Tool and Equipment,
Burnsville, MN) mounted on a 2000-lb capacity gantry
crane (Figure 1). A failed CON repetition was defined as
Concentric vs. Eccentric Bench Press
1028
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the participant being unable to completely extend the elbows
to complete the movement. The ECC bench press consisted
of lowering a barbell with weight from a fully extended elbow
position to the chest in a continuous, smooth, controlled
manner for 3 seconds as determined by a Korg MA-30 Ultra
Compact digital metronome (Korg, Melville, NY). The barbell
and weight were then returned to the starting position
through the mechanical hoist. A failed ECC repetition was
defined as the participant being unable to control the velocity
of the descent of the bar at any time or allowing the barbell to
touch the chest before the full 3-second count expired. This
protocol is similar to those reported in previous studies (5,16).
Participants were given 2- to 5-minute rest between 1RM
attempts as per National Strength and Conditioning Associa-
tion guidelines (1). Two to six attempts were performed to
determine each participant’s 1RM load. The greatest weight
attained in each lift was used as the 1RM.
The third through sixth sessions included the warm-up
protocols followed by the maximal repetition testing. Each
of the 4 testing days was used to determine the number of
repetitions the participant was able to complete for 1 ECC
and 1 CON percentage (60, 70, 80, and 90%) of each
respective 1RM. The order of exercise and percentage of
1RM was randomized without replacement. Percentage
values of either ECC or CON were written on strips of
paper the participants blindly picked when they arrived for
testing. Participants were aware of the percentage and
amount of weight they were using. Once a specific percent-
age/test combination was performed, it was removed from
the choice selections for the subsequent visits until each
participant completed each percentage for each CON and
ECC tests. All sets were performed to volitional failure,
defined as the first failed repetition in the set. Ten minutes of
rest were given between testing sets at all percentages. The
number of repetitions completed at each percentage of 1RM
was recorded.
To ensure the safety of all participants, trained spotters
were used during all warm-up and testing sets on the bench
press. Additionally, at the commencement of each testing
session, the mechanical hoist was lowered to the appropriate
height, with the barbell lightly touching the participant’s
chest. The cable was marked with a small piece of tape,
indicating where the operator should stop the hoist. This
ensured the cable would prevent the bar from falling onto
the participant in the event of a failed lift. Gym chalk was
available for participants who wished to use it but was not
mandatory.
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 19.0; SPSS,
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data were examined for normality
using test statistics for skewness and kurtosis as well as visual
inspection of the data. Data, which were not normally
distributed, were transformed using a natural logarithmic
transformation for analysis and back-transformed for pre-
sentation. Intraclass correlation coefficients were performed
for 1RM, and repetitions to failure. Paired t-tests were used to
determine differences between CON and ECC 1RM. Paired
t-tests were also used to determine differences in number of
repetitions completed at each
1RM percentage (60, 70, 80,
and 90%) between CON and
ECC.
RESULTS
Concentric 1 Repetition
Maximum vs. Eccentric 1
Repetition Maximum
Intraclass correlation coeffi-
cients for 1RM was 0.964 (p,
0.01). A paired t-test showed
significantly (p#0.05) greater
1RM in ECC (115.99 631.08
kg) when compared with CON
(93.56 626.56 kg) muscle
Figure 1. Bench press and crane setup.
TABLE 1. Concentric (CON) and eccentric (ECC) 1RM descriptives.*
Mean (kg) 6SD Skewness
SE of
skewness Kurtosis
SE of
kurtosis
CON 1RM†93.56 626.56 1.27 0.427 1.324 0.833
ECC 1RM†115.99 631.08 0.874 0.427 0.141 0.833
lnCON 1RMz5.29 60.26 0.715 0.427 0.01 0.833
lnECC 1RMz5.51 60.26 0.367 0.427 20.434 0.833
*1RM = 1 repetition maximum.
†Data before logarithmic transformation.
zData after logarithmic transformation (ln = natural log).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1029
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
actions. These data indicate ECC strength was approximately
124% of that of CON strength (Table 1).
Repetitions Completed for CON vs. ECC
Intraclass correlation coefficients for repetitions to failure
was significant (p#0.05) but low (0.478). Paired t-tests
revealed significantly (p#0.05) greater number of repeti-
tions completed at 90% 1RM for ECC = 7.67 63.24 when
compared with CON = 4.57 62.21 muscle actions. There
were no significant differences between the number of rep-
etitions completed concentrically and eccentrically at any
other intensity (Figure 2).
DISCUSSION
This study examined differences between CON and ECC
bench press in terms of 1RM and the number of repetitions
completed at various percentages (60, 70, 80, and 90%) of
mode-specific 1RM. Overall, the findings were (a) ECC
1RM was significantly (p#0.05) greater than CON 1RM,
(b) a significant (p#0.05) difference between the number of
repetitions completed at 90% of mode-specific 1RM, and (c) no
differences between the number of repetitions completed at any
of the other mode-specific 1RM relative intensities.
Based on previous research (2,9,10,15,16), it was hypoth-
esized that ECC 1RM would be approximately 120% of
CON 1RM. These data support this as ECC 1RM was
approximately 124% of CON 1RM, a statistically significant
(p#0.05) difference. Our confirmatory results establish the
present research design (5),
particularly the protocol for
testing ECC repetitions, as
a valid measure of ECC
strength.
No known studies compare
the number of repetitions par-
ticipants can complete in the
bench press exercise with an
equated relative load concentri-
cally and eccentrically. Studies
comparing fatigue patterns
between CON and ECC muscle
actions have been performed
using isokinetic dynamometry
(3,17,18,22), but testing the
number of repetitions com-
pleted before volitional failure,
as characterized by the inability
to complete a repetition, is dif-
ficult and has not been previ-
ously done to the best of our
knowledge. However, previous
research has focused on de-
creases in muscular force as
a result of repeated bouts of
CON and ECC exercise as
measured by isokinetic dynamometry, but as previously
stated, not on how many repetitions actually completed.
Tesch et al. (22) showed no force decreases as a result of 3
bouts of 32 maximum voluntary ECC repetitions, as com-
pared with the same number of CON repetitions, which re-
sulted in 34–47% decreases in force. Binder-Macleod and Lee
(3) showed very different patterns of fatigue between CON
and ECC exercise over the course of 180 invoked knee ex-
tensions, with CON resulting in a very sharp decline in force
over the first 40 repetitions and no further force decreases
after the 80th repetition, and ECC showing a linear decrease
from the 15th to the 180th repetition. Muscle actions were
invoked at 20% of maximum voluntary isometric force. Force
outputs were statistically greater in ECC actions than CON
actions for both of these studies.
Taken together, these studies indicate that not only can
the muscle produce more force eccentrically but also it can
maintain force production over a longer period of time under
ECC conditions as compared with CON. What is unclear,
however, is whether this apparent heightened resistance to
fatigue results in a greater number of ECC repetitions that
can be completed in a free weight exercise when compared
with CON repetitions, particularly under the same relative
intensities. A key difference between isokinetic dynamome-
try and free weights revolves around the possibility of a failed
repetition: a participant may exhibit fluctuations of force
throughout a set of isokinetic exercise but will still be able to
complete the prescribed number. Conversely, if there is
Figure 2. Comparison of repetitions to failure (mean 6SD) by percentage 1RM between concentric (CON) and
eccentric (ECC). *Significantly greater than CON. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.
Concentric vs. Eccentric Bench Press
1030
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
a sufficient decrease in force during a set of free weight
exercise, the repetition will be unsuccessful and the set
terminated.
This study indicates that with an equated load (i.e., equal
percentage of mode-specific 1RM), there is a significant
difference between the number of repetitions that can be
completed concentrically and eccentrically at 90% 1RM.
There were no differences in repetitions to failure at any
other relative intensity of 1RM. This seems to support
existing research, which suggests differences between CON
and ECC actions in terms of fatigue rate. Studies by Enoka
(10), Tesch et al. (22), and Binder-Macleod and Lee (3) all
indicated that muscles acting eccentrically are slower to
fatigue. What is unclear throughout the research, however,
is how this slower fatigue rate, which was observed largely
through isokinetic testing and EMG data translates to actual
repetitions of an exercise an individual is able to perform.
The issue remains unclear as noted by the fatigue curves
displayed in this study indicating similar rates of fatigue
between CON and ECC muscle actions at the tested relative
intensities.
This is the first known study to directly measure ECC
1RM and test participants at various intensities of that 1RM
using free weights. This allows for a truly equated testing
load, which has not been present in studies that estimated
ECC 1RM (15) or used isokinetic dynamometry (3,22). With
an equated load, differences between CON and ECC perfor-
mance capabilities are minimized. Research is still unclear
regarding an accepted methodology for the duration of ECC
repetitions, with previous studies ranging from 2 seconds
(15) to 4 seconds (23). Such a wide range of time under
tension during a repetition could lead to major differences
in the number of repetitions completed. We felt 3 seconds
(16) was an appropriate duration for ECC repetitions, but
acknowledge further research is required to determine the
optimal amount of time under tension during ECC exercise.
Our data show that under free weight conditions and with
an equated load, there remains a different failure rate
between CON and ECC actions. The fact that there was
a significant difference at 90% 1RM, followed by decreasing
differences at 80, 70, and 60% seems to be similar to the
pattern of fatigue reported by Binder-Macleod and Lee (3).
Because of the nature of ECC muscle actions, particularly
in the bench press exercise, it can be difficult to distinguish
between a successful and an unsuccessful repetition. Because
the weight is lowered toward the chest due to gravity, the
participant must control the descent throughout the range of
motion for a repetition to be deemed successful. Because of
the difficulty determining the success of an ECC repetition,
there are very few known studies (5) examining ECC 1RM
or ECC repetitions to failure using free weights. Hollander
et al. (16) tested ECC 1RM in a number of exercises, includ-
ing bench press, using a similar protocol to ours using
a weight stack. A failed repetition is fairly easy to distinguish
whether the muscle is acting concentrically. In the standard
bench press exercise, if a failure occurs during the CON
phase, the bar will stop ascending and will eventually
descend back toward the chest. Another factor, which com-
plicates ECC testing with free weights, is the necessity of
returning the weight to the starting position without requir-
ing a CON muscle action. This can only be done with 1 or
more spotters or mechanical assistance (16), as was used in
this study. This can prove challenging for researchers.
With these issues considered, the research team set forth
the guidelines for determining a “successful” ECC repetition.
The subject was to lower the bar toward the chest in
a smooth continuous motion over a 3-second duration in
cadence with a digital metronome. The 3-second ECC
phase was selected as an average between previously re-
ported methods, which ranged from 2 seconds (15) to 4
seconds (23). Hollander et al. (16) also tested ECC 1RM
using a 3-second repetition set to a metronome. In our study,
the same tester was responsible for determining the success
of every repetition for every participant to maximize intra-
rater reliability. Thus, the use of a single trained tester and
digital metronome minimized error in determining the suc-
cess of a repetition.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Eccentric muscle actions are a part of daily living and
a large component of many sport and occupational
demands. Because they are often performed sequentially
with less forceful CON actions, ECC muscle actions are
often underloaded and, therefore, undertrained. Training
with an emphasis on ECC actions yields greater strength
and hypertrophic gains than in programs in which ECC
actions are not emphasized. With greater training potential
for strength increases, hypertrophic gains, and the fre-
quency with which ECC muscle actions are required in
daily life and sport, it seems intuitive that a comprehensive
training program includes exercises, which emphasize ECC
muscle actions. More research is required to establish
proper training protocols regarding frequency, intensity,
and rest required for ECC actions due to differences in
force capabilities, fatigue patterns, and potential muscular
damage. Our findings offer further evidence that muscles
acting eccentrically produce greater force than those acting
concentrically. Our data also indicate differences in the
patterns of fatigue between muscle action. Strength and
conditioning professionals should attempt to account for
these potential differences as they design resistance training
programs.
REFERENCES
1. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.
2. Bamman, MM, Shipp, JR, Jiang, J, Gower, BA, Hunter, GR,
Goodman, A, McLafferty, CL Jr, and Urban, RJ. Mechanical load
increases muscle IGF-I and adrogen receptor mRNA concentrations
in humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 280: E383–E390, 2001.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1031
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3. Binder-Macleod, SA and Lee, SCK. Catchlike property of human
muscle during isovelocity movements. J Appl Physiol (1985) 80:
2051–2059, 1996.
4. Brandenburg, JP and Docherty, D. The effects of accentuated
eccentric loading on strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural
adaptations in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 16: 25–32,
2002.
5. Carothers, KF, Alvar, BA, Dodd, DJ, Johanson, JC, Kincade, BJ, and
Kelly, SB. Comparison of muscular strength gains utilizing eccentric,
standard, and concentric resistance training protocols. J Strength
Cond Res 21(Suppl 1): 1, 2010.
6. Caruso, JF, Skelly, WA, Cook, TD, Gibb, GJ, Mercado, DR, and
Meier, ML. An isokinetic investigation of contractile mode’s effect
on the elbow flexors. J Strength Cond Res 15: 69–74, 2001.
7. Chapman, PP, Whitehead, JR, and Binkert, RH. The 225-lb reps-to-
fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press
performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 12:
258–261, 1998.
8. Doan, BK, Newton, RU, Marsit, JL, Triplett-McBride, NT,
Koziris, LP, Fry, AC, and Kraemer, WJ. Effects of increased
eccentric loading on bench press 1RM. J Strength Cond Res 16: 9–13,
2002.
9. Drury, DG, Stuempfle, KJ, Mason, CW, and Girman, JC. The effects
of isokinetic contraction velocity on concentric and eccentric
strength of the biceps brachii. J Strength Cond Res 20: 390–395, 2006.
10. Enoka, RM. Eccentric contractions require unique activation
strategies by the nervous system. J Appl Physiol (1985) 81:
2339–2346, 1996.
11. Flitney, FW and Hirst, DG. Cross-bridge detachment and
sarcomere “give” during stretch of active frog’s muscle. J Physiol 276:
449–465, 1978.
12. Garber, CE, Blissmer, B, Deschenes, MR, Franklin, BA,
Lamonte, MJ, Lee, IM, Nieman, DC, and Swain, DP; American
College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and
maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor
fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing
exercise. Med Sci Sports and Exerc 43: 1334–1359, 2011.
13. Harvey, T, Shelmadine, BD, Moreillon, JJ, Liang, J, Greenwood, L,
Greenwood, M, Kreider, R, and Willoughby, D. Effects of
concentric and eccentric muscle contractions on IL-6 signaling in
human skeletal muscle and downstream regulation of Hsp-72 gene
expression. J Strength Cond Res 24(Suppl 1): 1, 2010.
14. Hather, BM, Tesch, PA, Buchanan, P, and Dudley, GA. Influence of
eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance. Acta
Physiol Scand 143: 177–185, 1991.
15. Hollander, DB, Kilpatrick, MW, Ramadan, ZG, Reeves, GV,
Francois, M, and Kraemer, RR. Load rather than contraction type
influences rate of perceived exertion and pain. J Strength Cond Res
22: 1184–1193, 2008.
16. Hollander, DB, Kraemer, RR, Kilpatrick, MW, Ramadan, ZG,
Reeves, GV, Francois, M, Hebert, EP, and Tryniecki, JL. Maximal
concentric and eccentric strength discrepancies between young men
and women for dynamic resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 21:
37–40, 2007.
17. Hortobagyi, T, Devita, P, Money, J, and Barrier, J. Effects of standard
and eccentric overload strength training in young women. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 33: 1206–1212, 2001.
18. Hortobagyi, T, Hill, JP, Houmard, JA, Fraser, DD, Lambert, NJ, and
Israel, RG. Adaptive responses to muscle lengthening and
shortening in humans. J Appl Physiol (1985) 80: 765–772, 1996.
19. Landers, J. Maximum based on reps. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 6:
60–61, 1985.
20. Peterson, MD, Rhea, MR, and Alvar, BA. Applications of the dose-
response for muscular strength development: A review of meta-
analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription.
J Strength Cond Res 19: 950–958, 2005.
21. Sheppard, JM and Young, K. Using additional eccentric loads to
increase concentric performance in the bench throw. J Strength Cond
Res 24: 2853–2856, 2010.
22. Tesch, PA, Dudley, GA, Duvoisin, MR, Hather, BM, and Harris, RT.
Force and EMG signal patterns during repeated bouts of concentric
or eccentric muscle actions. Acta Physiol Scand 138: 263–271, 1990.
23. Vikne, H, Refsnes, PE, Ekmark, M, Medbo, JI, Gundersen, V, and
Gundersen, K. Muscular performance after concentric and eccentric
exercise in trained men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1770–1781, 2006.
Concentric vs. Eccentric Bench Press
1032
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
