Content uploaded by Déborah de Araújo Farias
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Déborah de Araújo Farias on Oct 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
MAXIMAL STRENGTH PERFORMANCE AND MUSCLE
ACTIVATION FOR THE BENCH PRESS AND TRICEPS
EXTENSION EXERCISES ADOPTING DUMBBELL,
BARBELL,AND MACHINE MODALITIES OVER
MULTIPLE SETS
DE
´BORAH DE ARAU
´JO FARIAS,
1,2
JEFFREY M. WILLARDSON,
3
GABRIEL A. PAZ,
1
EWERTTON DE S. BEZERRA,
2,4
AND HUMBERTO MIRANDA
1
1
School of Physical Education and Sports, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
2
Human Performance
Laboratory (LEDEHU), Physical Education and Physiotherapy College, Amazonas Federal University, Manaus, Brazil;
3
Department of Kinesiology and Sports Studies, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois; and
4
Biomechanics Laboratory,
Sports Center (CDS), Santa Catarina Federal University, Floriano
´polis, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Farias, DdA, Willardson, JM, Paz, GA, Bezerra, EdS, and
Miranda, H. Maximal strength performance and muscle activa-
tion for the bench press and triceps extension exercises
adopting dumbbell, barbell and machine modalities over
multiple sets. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1879–1887,
2017—The purpose of this study was to investigate muscle
activation, total repetitions, and training volume for 3 bench
press (BP) exercise modes (Smith machine [SMBP], barbell
[BBP], and dumbbell [DBP]) that were followed by a triceps
extension (TE) exercise. Nineteen trained men performed 3
testing protocols in random order, which included: (P1) SMBP
+ TE; (P2) BBP + TE; and (P3) DBP + TE. Each protocol
involved 4 sets with a 10-repetition maximum (RM) load, imme-
diately followed by a TE exercise that was also performed for 4
sets with a 10RM load. A 2-minute rest interval was adopted
between sets and exercises. Surface electromyographic activ-
ity was assessed for the pectoralis major (PM), anterior deltoid
(AD), biceps brachii (BB), and triceps brachii (TB). The results
indicated that significantly higher total repetitions were
achieved for the DBP (31.2 63.2) vs. the BBP (27.8 6
4.8). For the TE, significantly greater volume was achieved
when this exercise was performed after the BBP (1,204.4 6
249.4 kg) and DBP (1,216.8 6287.5 kg) vs. the SMBP
(1,097.5 6193 kg). The DBP elicited significantly greater
PM activity vs. the BBP. The SMBP elicited significantly greater
AD activity vs. the BBP and DBP. During the different BP
modes, the SMBP and BBP elicited significantly greater TB
activity vs. the DBP. However, the DBP elicited significantly
greater BB activity vs. the SMBP and BBP, respectively. Dur-
ing the succeeding TE exercise, significantly greater activity of
the TB was observed when this exercise was performed after
the BBP vs. the SMBP and DBP. Therefore, it seems that the
variation in BP modes does influence both repetition perfor-
mance and muscle activation patterns during the TE when
these exercises are performed in succession.
KEY WORDS electromyography, free weights, resistance
training
INTRODUCTION
The bench press (BP) is a resistance exercise which
has been widely used to optimize the performance
of the upper extremities with the aim to increase
muscle strength, hypertrophy, or athletic perfor-
mance. The BP can be performed with different equipment
such as a traditional barbell, dumbbells, or a Smith machine
(8). These BP modes have been examined in prior investi-
gations with respect to different training methods (3,16) and
muscle activation patterns (3,19).
Krosshaug (10) conducted a kinetic analysis of the BP
exercise using dumbbells and a barbell. The author noted
that when using dumbbells, external reaction forces were
transmitted through the grip straight downward because
of gravitational pull; whereas, when using a barbell, the
external reactive forces had a medial-lateral component
due to friction. Therefore, the barbell BP (BBP) exercise is
influenced by both gravitational force and a lateral force-
vector (;25% of the gravitational force), which may require
greater triceps brachii (TB) activation (7,19). Using
Address correspondence to Humberto Miranda, humbertomiranda01@
gmail.com.
31(7)/1879–1887
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1879
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
dumbbells, the gravitational force vector requires an
increase in the internal torque produced by the stabilizing
musculature of the shoulder, possibly eliciting greater acti-
vation of the long head of the biceps brachii (BB). However,
for the BBP, the vertical force is distributed at the midpoint
of the bar, requiring less stabilization of the shoulder mus-
culature. Such a condition might be responsible for the
increase in muscle activation of the TB (10).
Saeterbakken et al. (19) compared maximal strength and
surface electromyographic (SEMG) activity of the pectoralis
major (PM), anterior deltoid (AD), BB, and TB for 3 differ-
ent BP modes (barbell, dumbbell, and Smith machine) in
trained men. It was observed that the BBP showed the great-
est values for maximal strength. In terms of muscle activity,
the BP performed with dumbbells showed lower activation
levels for the TB and higher activation levels for the BB.
During the eccentric phase, the PM, AD, BB, and TB
showed lower muscle activity for the Smith machine.
To our knowledge, the first study to examine different
SEMG responses for the BP exercise using different modes
was conducted by McCaw and Friday (14). This study aimed
to calculate the values of integrated electromyographic activ-
ity for the PM, anterior and medial deltoid, triceps, and BB
during the ascending and descending phases of the BP. The
authors compared low (60%) and high (80%) intensity loads
of 1-repetition maximum (RM) when using a free weight
barbell or Smith machine. An increase in the integrated
SEMG activity was observed in the anterior and medial
deltoid muscles when using the free weight barbell for the
low load condition. The increased activation during the free
weight condition was theorized to be due to greater stabi-
lizing requirements of the shoulder musculature.
Schick et al. (20) analyzed the myoelectric activity of the
PM and anterior and medial deltoid muscles during the con-
centric phase of the BP exercise using a free weight barbell
or Smith machine with moderate (70% 1RM) and high (90%
1RM) intensity loads in 12 novice and 14 experienced lifters.
The authors found that there was greater activation of the
medial deltoid using the barbell, but there were no significant
differences for the PM and AD, irrespective of intensity and
the training experience level.
In a practical sense, resistance exercise programming is
often structured so that 1 or 2 primary muscles are trained
during a given workout session (e.g., plan A: chest and
biceps or plan B: back and triceps; or plan A: chest and
triceps and plan B: back and biceps). Depending on the BP
mode used, slightly different force vectors will act during the
movement, which may influence the strength performance
and SEMG activity not only during the BP but also during
a succeeding exercise.
Although there are studies in which different modes of the
BP were investigated (19,20,23), a gap exists in the literature
regarding the influence of different modes on repetition per-
formance and muscle activation. Additionally, to our knowl-
edge, no studies have examined repetition performance and
muscle activation when an exercise such as a triceps exten-
sion (TE) is performed immediately after different BP
modes. This is often the case in practical scenarios when
the objective of a workout session is to train the PM and
TB muscles. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
investigate muscle activation, total repetitions, and training
volume for 3 BP exercise modes (Smith machine, barbell,
and dumbbell) that were followed by a TE exercise per-
formed on a pulley system. We hypothesized that the free
weight modes of BP (i.e., barbell and dumbbell) would
increase the level of fatigue in the agonist (PM, AD, and
TB) and stabilizing musculature (BB) vs. the Smith machine
BP (SMBP), and cause a greater decrease in performance
during the succeeding TE exercise (2,8).
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
After assessment of 10RM loads for the BP and TE, 3
sessions were conducted with 48 hours between sessions.
Each session consisted of 4 sets of a given BP mode followed
by 4 sets of a TE performed on a pulley system. The sessions
consisted of the following protocols in random order: (P1)
SMBP plus TE (SMBP + TE); (P2) BBP plus TE (BBP +
TE); and (P3) dumbbell BP (DBP) plus TE (DBP + TE). The
total repetitions and volume were recorded for each BP
mode in conjunction with the TE; as well as SEMG activity
for the PM, AD, TB, and BB.
Subjects
Nineteen healthy men with previous resistance training
experience participated in this study (Table 1). All subjects
were active in approximately 1–3 hours of recreational resis-
tance training with a training frequency of 3–6 days per
week. There was no control over nutritional intake. Subjects
TABLE 1. Demographical characteristics and
10RM loads.*
Measure Mean 6SD
Age (y) 27.9 64.5
Stature (m) 1.72 60.1
Body mass (kg) 80.3 69.2
BMI (kg$m
22
) 26.9 61.9
Resistance training experience 7.6 64.6
BBP 10RM load (kg) 81.5 69.9†z
MBP 10RM load (kg) 74.6 68.1
DBP 10RM load (kg) 70.3 68.5
TE 10RM load (kg) 35.1 64.4
*BMI = body mass index; BP = bench press; DBP =
dumbbell BP; MBP = machine BP; TE = triceps exten-
sion.
†Significant difference vs. machine BP.
zSignificant difference vs. dumbbell BP.
Muscle Activation and Strength Performance
1880
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
were excluded from this study if they had any functional
limitations (e.g., orthopedic or cardiovascular) that would
be contraindicated by performance of the experimental pro-
tocol. The inclusion criteria consisted of the following: being
male, age ranging between 20 and 40 years old, and at least 6
months resistance training experience with a frequency of at
least 3 times a week.
The University Ethics Committee approved the project
and subjects read and signed an informed consent form
under the protocol CAE 26604714.4.0000.5020, as Resolu-
tion 466/2012 of the National Health Council for research
on human subjects. Subjects were instructed to refrain from
any additional resistance training targeting the upper body
muscles during the data collection.
Ten Repetition Maximum Load Determination
The 10RM load was determined for each subject for the
SMBP, BBP, DBP, and TE. The 10RM tests were con-
ducted over 6 sessions, with 48 hours between sessions, and
in the following order: sessions 1 and 4—SMBP + TE, ses-
sions 2 and 5—BBP, and sessions 3 and 6—DBP. All
machine-based exercises were performed on Life Fitness
equipment (Brunswick Company, Franklin Park, IL,
USA).Duringthe10RMtesting,amaximumoffive
10RM attempts were performed for each exercise on
a given day, with a five-minute rest between attempts and
a 10 minutes rest between exercises (SMBP and TE) (21). A
biacromial distance was adopted to standardize the grip
width. During the tests and retests, the body segments
(head, shoulder girdle, and hips) remained flat on the bench
(19). Because different speeds of movement execution can
influence the myoelectric activity, a metronome controlled
the movement at a constant pace of 4 seconds per repeti-
tion (2 seconds for the concentric phase and 2 seconds for
the eccentric phase) (9). Two researchers assisted subjects
by lifting the barbell or dumbbells and stabilizing the
weight until subjects had fully extended their arms (initial
phase). The eccentric phase consisted in lowering the bar-
bell until it touched the chest (eccentric phase) (19).
To minimize possible errors in the 10RM tests, the
following strategies were adopted: (a) subjects received
standardized instructions on exercise technique, (b) the
exercise technique of subjects during all testing sessions
was monitored and corrected as needed, (c) subjects
received verbal encouragement during testing (12), and (d)
the mass of all weight plates, bars (Smith machine and free
barbell), and dumbbells used was determined with a precision
scale. The sum of the 10RM loads for the Smith machine
and barbell was realized through the sum of the weight
plates + the barbell weight. For the dumbbell, the sum of
the 10RM loads was considered the sum of the 2 dumbbells
combined. The heaviest load achieved on either of the test
days was recorded as the 10RM.
Exercise Sessions
Forty-eight hours after the last 10RM testing session,
subjects performed the first of 3 experimental protocols in
a randomized design on nonconsecutive days: (P1) SMBP
TABLE 2. BP repetition performance and volume for each mode.*
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Total repetitions Volume Fatigue index (%)
BBP 9.2 61.2 7.1 61.1 5.9 61.2 5.4 61.6 27.8 64.8 2,193.4 6327.8 58.4 612.2
MBP 10.3 61 7.7 61.5 6.4 61.3 6 61.5 30.5 64.6 2,269.8 6377.1 58 614.5
DBP 10.3 61.4 8 61.3†6.6 61 6.2 61.1 31.2 63.2†2,265.7 6437.4 60.9 612.3
*BBP = barbell BP; DBP = dumbbell BP; MBP = machine BP.
†Significant difference vs. BBP.
TABLE 3. Triceps extension repetition performance and volume after each BP mode.*
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Total repetitions Volume Fatigue index (%)
BBP + TE 9.6 61.5 8.9 61.5 8 61.4†7.6 61.8†34.4 65.9 1,204.4 6249.4†80.4 616.1†
MBP + TE 9.6 61.3 8.2 61.4 6.8 61.1 6.5 61.5 31.3 64.3 1,097.5 6193.0 58 614.5
DBP + TE 9.8 61.5 9.2 61.9†8.1 61.7†7.2 61.6†34.3 65.7†1,216.8 6287.5†72.2 612.4†
*BBP = barbell BP; DBP = dumbbell BP; MBP = machine BP; TE = triceps extension.
†Significant difference vs. MBP + TE.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1881
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
plus TE (SMBP + TE); (P2) BBP plus TE (BBP + TE); and
(P3) DBP plus TE (DBP + TE). A 48-hour rest interval was
given between each experimental session. Although Macha-
do et al. (11) reported that a 72-hour recovery interval is
required for muscle repair, recovery, and adaptation for
trained practitioners who perform multiple RM sets; this
study used only 2 exercises for analysis, which involved
a smaller total training volume, and we believed that a 48-
hour rest interval between protocols provided sufficient
recovery.
Figure 1. Comparison of pectoralis major activity between BP modes; †significant difference vs. barbell BP (p #0.05); BP: bench press.
Figure 2. Comparison of anterior deltoid activity between BP modes; *significant difference vs. machine BP (p #0.05); BP: bench press.
Muscle Activation and Strength Performance
1882
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Each experimental session was preceded by a warm-up set
of 20 repetitions at 40% of the 10RM load for the BP mode
selected for that day. A 2-minute rest interval was given
following the warm-up set and before beginning each
experimental protocol. Each BP mode was performed for 4
sets and was followed by performance of 4 sets of the TE. All
sets were performed for a RM (muscular failure), using 100%
of the 10RM load and with 2-minute rest intervals between
sets and exercises. As in the 10RM test, during the exercise
sessions, a metronome controlled the movement at a con-
stant pace of 4 seconds per repetition (2 seconds for the
concentric phase and 2 seconds for the eccentric phase).
Training Volume
The equation: (set 3repetition 3load) was used to calculate
the training volume for each exercise, set, and protocol. The
fatigue index was calculated using the equation proposed by
Dipla et al. (6) F= ([repetitions performed on the fourth set/
repetitions performed on the first set] 3100), where greater
fatigue resistance was indicated by higher percentages.
Surface Electromyography
Before the experimental procedure, the skin was shaved,
washed with alcohol, and abraded for the placement of the
bipolar surface electrodes (Kendal Medi Trace 200; Tyco
Healthcare, Pointe-Claire, Canada). The electrodes were
placed on the right side of the body (15). After electrode
positioning, impedance was verified and accepted with less
than 5 kV(22). The impedance was observed between pairs
of electrodes using a signal frequency of 25 Hz. For acquisi-
tion of muscle activity, surface signals were collected using
a MyoSystemTM 1400A with 8 input channels. The EMG
signal was filtered with a band pass between 20 and 450 Hz.
The sampling rate of the signal was 1,000 Hz. Skin prepara-
tion included shaving hair, abrading, and cleaning the surface
with alcohol. Elastic tape was applied to ensure electrode
and cable placement and provide cable strain relief. Surface
electrodes were connected to an amplifier and streamed
continuously through an analog-to-digital converter to
a windows-compatible notebook computer.
Surface electromyographic data for the PM, AD, TB, and
BB muscles were collected during all BP modes and the TE
exercise. Electrodes were placed according to the recom-
mendations of Cram, Kasman, and Holtz (5). For the PM,
the electrodes were placed midway between the axilla and
the areola. For the AD, the electrodes were placed approx-
imately 4 centimeters below the clavicle parallel to the mus-
cle fibers of the AD. For the BB, the electrodes were
positioned at the midpoint of the muscle belly, in the longi-
tudinal direction of the fibers. For the TB, the electrodes
were placed parallel to the muscle fibers, about 2 cm lateral
from the midline of the arm, about 50% of the distance
between the acromion and the olecranon processes.
Data Processing
Root mean square of SEMG signal processing was calcu-
lated over a 125-millisecond moving window and used on
Figure 3. Comparison of triceps brachii activity between BP modes; *significant difference vs. machine BP (p #0.05); †significant difference vs. barbell BP
(p #0.05); BP: bench press.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1883
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
all SEMG data for the duration of the exercise obtained
relative to all exercise modes (PM, AD, BB, and TB), in
which the signal amplitude and muscle activity was
presented as a percentage of the peak. The myoelectric
activity was quantified by the peak of SEMG muscle
activity during the performance of each exercise, set, and
protocol for each muscle. The SEMG values were deter-
mined by an average of the SEMG values of 3 central
repetitions of each set. Normalization was performed using
the highest peak SEMG value (24).
Statistical Analyses
Test–retest reliability of 10RM loads and EMG spectral
parameters were assessed using the intraclass correlation
coefficient {ICC = [MSb 2MSw]/[MSb + (k 21) MSw]},
where MSb = mean-square between, MSw = mean-square
within, and k= average group size. The Shapiro–Wilk test
and homoscedasticity (Bartlett criterion) showed that all
variables presented normal distribution and homoscedas-
ticity. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance
were used to determine whether there were significant
main effects or interactions between BP modes in the rep-
etitions per set, total repetitions, volume, fatigue index,
and muscle activity. Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni
correction were applied when necessary. The level of sta-
tistical significance was set at p#0.05 for all tests. The
statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 20.0
(Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
The test–retest ICC of the EMG measures for the 4
monitored muscles ranged between 0.91 and 0.97. Sig-
nificant differences were noted in 10RM loads between
BP modes where the BBP .SMBP .DBP (F= 12.90;
p= 0.002) (Table 1). For the BP, significant main effects
were noted between modes in the repetitions per set (F=
159.21; p= 0.0001) and total repetitions (F= 3.75; p=
0.033) (DBP .SMBP and BBP). Significantly, higher
total repetitions were achieved for the DBP (31.2 63.2)
vs. the BBP (27.8 64.8). No difference was noted
between SMBP and DBP (Table 2). However, no signifi-
cant differences were noted between BP modes for the
volume and fatigue index.
For the TE, significant main effects were noted in the
repetitions per set (F= 7.30; p= 0.002), total repetitions
(F=76.91;p= 0.0001), volume (F= 7.340; p=0.002),and
fatigue index (F=5.806;p= 0.007). For the TE, signifi-
cantly greater training volume and total repetitions was
observed when this exercise was performed after the BBP
and DBP vs. the SMBP, respectively (Table 3). Fatigue
index was significantly higher under following BBP and
DBP vs. SMBP, respectively.
The PM muscle presented higher activity under DBP vs.
BBP conditions over the 4 sets performed (Figure 1). No
difference was noted between DBP and SMBP or between
BBP and SMBP, respectively (p.0.05). For AD muscle, the
Figure 4. Comparison of biceps brachii activity between BP modes; *significant difference vs. machine BP (p #0.05); †significant difference vs. barbell BP
(p #0.05); BP: bench press.
Muscle Activation and Strength Performance
1884
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
SMBP showed higher muscle activity vs. DBP and BBP
during set 2 and set 4. Thus, greater muscle activity was also
noted between SMBP vs. BBP during set 3 (Figure 2).
The TB muscle presented higher activity under BBP and
SMBP vs. DBP over the 4 sets performed (p#0.05; Figure
3). No difference was noted between BBP and SMBP con-
ditions. For the BB muscle, greater activity was observed
under DBP vs. SMBP and BBP over the 4 sets, respectively
(Figure 4). Greater BB muscle activity was also noted under
BBP vs. MBP condition over the 4 sets.
Considering the TE exercise, greater TB muscle activity
was noted under BBP vs. MBP and DBP over the 4 sets
performed, respectively (Figure 5). However, the SMBP pre-
sented higher muscle activity than DBP condition during set
1, and lower muscle activity than DBP during set 4, respec-
tively. The BB muscle showed higher muscle activity under
SMBP vs. BBP over the 4 sets. Thus, the DBP presented
greater muscle activity vs. BBP during sets 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. No difference was noted between BBP and
DBP during set 4.
Figure 5. Comparison of triceps brachii and biceps brachii activity during a triceps extension exercise after each BP mode. *significant difference vs. machine
BP (p #0.05); †significant difference vs. barbell BP (p #0.05). BP: bench press.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1885
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate strength
performance (total repetitions and volume) and muscle
activation for 3 BP modes that were followed by a TE on
a pulley system. We hypothesized that the free weight modes
of BP (i.e., barbell and dumbbell) would increase the level of
fatigue in the agonist (PM, AD, and TB) and stabilizing
musculature (BB) vs. the SMBP, and cause a greater decrease
in performance during the succeeding TE exercise (2,8).
However, our hypothesis was rejected in that the total vol-
ume achieved for the TE exercise was significantly greater
when following the BBP and DBP vs. the SMBP.
These findings can be explained by the relatively higher
activation level of the PM and lower activation level of the
TB during the DBP vs. the SMBP. Thus, when the TE was
performed after the DBP, the TB was in a lesser fatigued
state, enabling greater volume vs. when this exercise was
performed after the SMBP. As for the BBP, relatively lower
activity of the PM and similar activity of the TB was
evident in comparison with the SMBP. Fewer total
repetitions and lesser volume were noted during the BBP
vs. the SMBP. However, during the succeeding TE, the
activity of the TB was significantly greater when following
theBBPvs.theSMBP,whichmayhaveenabledsignifi-
cantly greater volume.
Regarding the 10RM loads, the BBP was significantly
higher vs. the SMBP and DBP. These findings were
consistent with Saeterbakken et al. (19) who observed
a higher 1RM load when the BP was performed with a bar-
bell vs. Smith machine and dumbbells. Although the DBP
presented the lowest 10RM load, surprisingly, this mode
showed the greatest total repetitions and fatigue resistance
(comparing the repetitions completed on the fourth set vs.
the first set). One possible explanation for these results might
be the fact that subjects who participated in this study used
dumbbells with greater regularity vs. the other BP modes.
The SMBP elicited significantly greater activity of the
AD vs. the BBP and DBP; and also significantly greater
activity of the TB vs. the DBP. Duffey and Challis (7)
observed that during the BP, the lateral force vector trans-
mitted to the bar through the grip accounted for approxi-
mately 25% of the load, which would elicit greater elbow
extensor torque. Although not assessed in this study, the
lateral force vector applied to the bar during the SMBP
may have elicited greater activity of the TB. Another expla-
nation for these findings is the single degree of freedom
inherent with the SMBP, allowing displacement of the
bar in only the vertical direction. At the end of the down-
ward portion of the movement (i.e., the bar must touch the
chest), the shoulder joints internally rotate, which may
elicit greater recruitment of the ADs (4).
However, the findings of this study were in contrast to
McCaw and Friday (14) who found no significant differences
in the integrated electromyographic activity of the PM and
AD muscles when comparing 80% 1RM for the BP exercise
using a barbell or Smith machine. Additionally, Shick et al.
(20) found greater activation of the medial deltoid for a BBP,
but no significant differences in pectorals major and AD
activity vs. a SMBP. However, none of these studies aimed
to compare strength performance (total repetitions and vol-
ume) as in this study, which would ultimately determine the
training outcomes.
The DBP also elicited significantly greater activity of the
PM vs. the BBP, and BB vs. the BBP and SMBP. Such
findings are consistent with the greater instability inherent
for the DBP vs. the BBP and SMBP. Krousshaug (10) found
that for the DBP, vertical reactive forces transmitted down-
ward through the handgrip, increase the internal torque re-
quirements of the shoulder stabilizing muscles, thereby
promoting greater activation of the BB. The absence of a lat-
eral force vector with the DBP results in lesser recruitment of
the TB with the shift in emphasis to the PM (10,17).
As the TE was performed with a pulley and had no
variations, the 10RM load remained constant through the
protocols (35.1 64.4 kg). For the TE, significant differences
were observed in total repetitions and training volumne (TV)
when this exercise was preceded by the BBP (total repeti-
tions = 34.4 65.9; TV = 1,204.4 6249.4 kg) and DBP (total
repetitions = 31.3 64.3; TV = 1,216.8 6287.5 kg) vs. the
SMBP (total repetitions = 31.3 64.3; TV = 1,097 6193 kg).
It can be inferred that, since the highest volume among the
BP modes was achieved for the SMBP, the TB muscles were
pre-exhausted for the succeeding TE. In absolute terms, the
SMBP also elicited the highest activity of the TB, which
suggests that these muscles may have been fatigued before
the onset of the succeeding TE exercise.
Greater antagonistic co-activation was observed when the
TE was performed after the SMBP and DBP, as evidenced
by the greater activity of the BB and concomitantly lower
activity of the TB. The main purpose of antagonistic co-
activation is to increase joint stability to prevent injury (18).
Antagonistic muscles produce a torque in the opposite direc-
tion to the movement performed by the agonist muscles (1).
Moreover, a high level of activation of the antagonistic
muscles can reciprocally inhibit activity and force produc-
tion of agonist muscles (13). When the TE was performed
after the DBP, significantly greater total repetitions and vol-
ume were achieved vs. when the TE was performed after the
SMBP. However, during the DBP, there was significantly
greater co-activation of the antagonistic BB vs. during the
SMBP, which appeared to reciprocally inhibit the TB and
facilitate compensatory activity in the PM.
This study was the first to our knowledge to analyze the
performance of different BP modes on strength performance
and muscle activation in combination with a succeeding TE.
Therefore, the results of this study can be readily applied in
practical scenarios because the PM and triceps are often
trained together in a split routine for the purpose of muscle
building. This study demonstrated that different BP modes
Muscle Activation and Strength Performance
1886
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(Smith machine, barbell, and dumbbell) result in different
patterns of muscle activity and strength performance (PM,
AD, TB, and BB), but also elicited different patterns of
muscle activity and strength performance during a succeed-
ing TE exercise.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study suggest that the best combination of
exercises to promote the highest overall training volume was
the DBP followed by the TE. From a muscle activation
perspective, the DBP elicited the greatest activity of the PM
and BB, whereas the Smith machine elicited the greatest
activity of the AD and TB muscles. However, if any BP
mode is combined with a TE on a pulley, then the BBP
might be the preferred choice to elicit greater activity of the
TB. It is important to note the exercise sequence when
program planning, so that a practitioner can place greater
emphasis on the target musculature.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. H. Miranda thanks the Research and Development
Foundation of Rio de Janeiro State (FAPERJ). The authors
thank the Companhia Athletica Manauara and Studio 5 unit
and the Norte Fitness gym for releasing the space for data
collection and also the Foundation for Research Support of
the State of Amazonas (FAPEAM/Brazil) for the master
scholarship conceded to D. d. A. Farias.
REFERENCES
1. Baratta, R, Solomonow, M, Zhou, BH, Letson, D, Chuinard, R, and
D’Ambrosia, R. Muscular coactivation. The role of the antagonist
musculature in maintaining knee stability. Am J Sports Med 16: 113–
122, 1988.
2. Behm, DG and Anderson, KG. The role of instability with resistance
training. J Strength Cond Res 20: 716–722, 2006.
3. Brennecke, A, Guimara
˜es, TM, Leone, R, Cadarci, M, Mochizuki, L,
Sima
˜o, R, Amadio, AC, and Serra
˜o, JC. Neuromuscular activity
during bench press exercise performed with and without the
preexhaustion method. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1933–1940, 2009.
4. Carpes, FP, Bini, RR, Diefenthaeler, F, and Vaz, MA. Functional
Anatomy [in Portuguese]. Sa
˜o Paulo, Brazil: Phorte Editora, 2011.
5. Cram, JR, Kasman, GS, and Holtz, J. Introduction to Surface
Electromyography. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen publishers Inc, 1998.
6. Dipla, K, Tsirini, T, Zafeiridis, A, Manou, V, Dalamitros, A, Kellis, E,
and Kellis, S. Fatigue resistance during high-intensity intermittent
exercise from childhood to adulthood in males and females. Eur J
Appl Physiol 106: 645–653, 2009.
7. Duffey, MJ and Challis, JH. Vertical and lateral forces applied to the
bar during the bench press in novice lifters. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2442–2447, 2011.
8. Garhammer, J. Strength training modes: Free weight equipment for
the development of athletic strength and power-part I. Strength Cond
J3: 24–26, 1981.
9. Gentil, P, Oliveira, E, de Araujo Rocha Junior, V, do Carmo, J, and
Bottaro, M. Effects of exercise order on upper-body muscle
activation and exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1082–
1086, 2007.
10. Krosshaug, T. Revealing “secrets”of strength training exercises with
kinetic analyses. In: 8th International Conference on Strength Training
(ICTS 2012). Oslo, Norway, Marco Machado, 2012. pp. 81–83.
11. Machado, M, Koch, AJ, Willardson, JM, Pereira, LS, Cardoso, MI,
Motta, MKS, Pereira, R, and Monteiro, AN. Effect of varying rest
intervals between sets of assistance exercises on creatine kinase and
lactate dehydrogenase responses. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1339–1345,
2011.
12. Maia, MF, Willardson, JM, Paz, GA, and Miranda, H. Effects of
different rest intervals between antagonist paired sets on repetition
performance and muscle activation. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2529–
2535, 2014.
13. Maynard, J and Ebben, WP. The effects of antagonist prefatigue on
agonist torque and electromyography. J Strength Cond Res 17: 469–
474, 2003.
14. McCaw, ST and Friday, JJ. A comparison of muscle activity between
a free weight and machine bench press. J Strength Cond Res 8: 259–
264, 1994.
15. McGill, S M, Cannon, J, and Andersen, JT. Analysis of pushing
exercises: Muscle activity and spine load while contrasting
techniques on stable surfaces with a labile suspension strap training
system. J Strength Cond Res 28: 105–116, 2014.
16. Miranda, F, Sima
˜o,R,Rhea,M,Bunker,D,Prestes,J,Leite,RD,
Miranda, H, de Salles, BF, and Novaes, J. Effects of linear vs. daily
undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and
submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1824–1830,
2011.
17. Pinto, RS, Cadore, EL, Correa, CS, Cordeiro da Silva, BG, Alberton,
CL, Lima, CS, and Carlos de Moraes, A. Relationship between
worload and neuromuscular activity in the bench press exercise. Med
Sportiva 17: 1–6, 2013.
18. Robbins, DW, Young, WB, Behm, DG, and Payne, WR. Agonist-
antagonist paired set resistance training: A brief review. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 2873–2882, 2010.
19. Saeterbakken, AH, Van Den Tillaar, R, and Fimland, MS. A
comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-
press exercises with different stability requirements. J Sport Sci 29:
1–6, 2011.
20. Schick, EE, Coburn, JW, Brown, LE, Judelson, DA, Khamoui, AV,
Tran, TT, and Uribe, BP. A comparison of muscle activation
between a Smith machine and free weight bench press. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 779–784, 2010.
21. Sima
˜o, R, Farinatti Pde, T, Polito, MD, Maior, AS, and Fleck, SJ.
Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed
and perceived exertion during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond
Res 19: 152–156, 2005.
22. Tarata, MT. Mechanomyography versus electromyography, in
monitoring the muscular fatigue. Biomed Eng Online 2: 3, 2003.
23. Welsch, EA, Bird, M, and Mayhew, JL. Electromyographic activity
of the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid muscles during three
upper-body lifts. J Strength Cond Res 19: 449–452, 2005.
24. Wright, GA, Delong, TH, and Gehlsen, G. Electromyographic
activity of the hamstrings during performance of the leg curl, stiff-
leg deadlift, and back squat movements. J Strength Cond Res 13: 168–
174, 1999.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1887
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.