Content uploaded by Simon Pearson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simon Pearson on Mar 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Kinematics and kinetics of the bench-press and bench-pull
exercises in a strength-trained sporting population
SIMON N. PEARSON
1
, JOHN B. CRONIN
1,2
, PATRIA A. HUME
1
, &
DAVID SLYFIELD
3
1
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand,
2
School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, and
3
Emirates Team New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
(Received 26 August 2008; accepted 6 May 2009)
Abstract
Understanding how loading affects power production in resistance training is a key step in identifying
the most optimal way of training muscular power – an essential trait in most sporting movements.
Twelve elite male sailors with extensive strength-training experience participated in a comparison of
kinematics and kinetics from the upper body musculature, with upper body push (bench press) and pull
(bench pull) movements performed across loads of 10–100% of one repetition maximum (1RM). 1RM
strength and force were shown to be greater in the bench press, while velocity and power outputs were
greater for the bench pull across the range of loads. While power output was at a similar level for the two
movements at a low load (10% 1RM), significantly greater power outputs were observed for the bench
pull in comparison to the bench press with increased load. Power output (P
max
) was maximized at higher
relative loads for both mean and peak power in the bench pull (78.6 ^ 5.7% and 70.4 ^ 5.4% of 1RM)
compared to the bench press (53.3 ^ 1.7% and 49.7 ^ 4.4% of 1RM). Findings can most likely be
attributed to differences in muscle architecture, which may have training implications for these muscles.
Keywords: Performance, power, sailing, strength
Introduction
Muscular power, the product of force and velocity (Harman, 1993; Hamill and Knutzen,
1995), has been identified as an important factor in the performance of many sporting
activities (Sale, 1991; Harman, 1993; Abernethy et al., 1995; Lyttle et al., 1996) and has
been the subject of substantial research. Resistance training has been identified as one factor
which plays an important role in the development of muscular power (Pearson et al., 2000),
although there is still considerable conjecture in the literature as to the most efficient method
of achieving this goal (Cron in et al., 2001). In order to understand how muscular power can
best be developed using resistance training, it is important to understand how the
manipulation of different parameters can influence power output. One factor that is of
particular interest is the influence of load, and in particular the load that maximizes muscular
power output (P
max
) (Wilson et al., 1993; McBride et al., 2002; Cronin and Sleivert, 2005).
ISSN 1476-3141 print/ISSN 1752-6116 online q 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14763140903229484
Correspondence: S. N. Pearson, Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, Faculty of Health and Environmental
Sciences, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: simon.pearson@aut.ac.nz
Sports Biomechanics
September 2009; 8(3): 245–254
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
P
max
is considered by many researchers to be important in improving muscular power
capability, and therefore the performance of various sporting movements, however, Cronin
and Sleivert (2005) have identified a number of issues within the curren t available research
into the power-load relationship. Along with various methodological inconsistencies present
in the literature (incl uding contraction type, peak versus mean power), the variation in the
power-load spectrum and P
max
load observed across populations and movements,
necessitates situation-specific research and prohibits generalization of results (Cronin and
Sleivert, 2005; Harris et al., 2007).
Within the sphere of power-load research to date, the vast majority of studies have been
conducted using derivatives of two movements or exercises: the bench-press exercise in the
upper body (Cronin and Sleivert, 2005; Cronin et al., 2007) and the squat in the lower body
(Cronin and Sleivert, 2005; Harris et al., 2007). While these exercises certainly represent key
movements for many sporting activities, there are other movement patterns which also
warrant examination. The bench pull, also known as the prone row, is another key multi-
articular exercise used in the conditioning of athletes across a variety of sports (Sharp et al.,
1988; Kramer et al., 1993; Liow and Hopkins, 2003), and as such a better understanding of
the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of this movement will be of benefit to the
neuromuscular development of athletes. The bench-pull is essentially a direct contrast to the
bench-press movement, being performed by pulling the bar towards the chest from a prone
horizontal position (shoulder extension, elbow flexion), compared to the supine, push-based
motion of the bench press (shoulder flexion, elbow extension).
To date there has been no research examining the power-load relationship in the bench-
pull exercise, although one recent study has examined the similarly pull-based seated row
(Cronin et al., 2007) in elite rowers while (Kawamori et al., 2005) studied the power-load
relationship in the hang power clean, a whole body exercise with heavy dependence on upper
body pulling. Some key differences were observed between the kinematics and kinetics of
these pull-based exercises and those reported previously for the bench press. Most notable
amongst these was the difference in the power-load relationship, with power output
maximized at higher relative loads in the pull-base d movements (row ¼ 81% of 1RM; power
clean ¼ 70% of 1RM) compared to the push-based bench press. However, a limitation of
both studies was that only the single movement was examined, and while there is
considerable bench-press research with which to draw comparison, issue s with varying
samples and methodologies mean that making certain assumptions and conclusions is
problematic. The aim of this study therefore was to determine the power-load relationship of
a push-based upper body shoulder horizontal flex ion/push movement (bench press) and a
pull-based extension/pull movement (bench pull/prone row) in a strength-trained sporting
population. Examining this relationship in an identical population will enable a direct
comparison of the power-load characteristics associated with each of these movements.
Methods
Approach to the problem
This study was designed to examine and compare the biomechanical characteristics of the
power-load relationship in the bench-press and bench-pull exercises. A Smith machine was
instrumented to allow measurement of the kinematics and kinetics of the bar and weights
during performance of the exercise. A spectrum of loads ranging from 10 – 100% of an
individual’s one repetition maximum (1RM) were used to model the full range power-load
relationship by fitting a quadratic curve.
S. N. Pearson et al.246
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
Subjects
Twelve elite -level male sailors from the E mirates Team New Zeala nd Ameri ca’s
Cup syndicate participated in this study. As part of their sailing role all sailors performed
grinding; a cyclic high-load, high-intensity upper body activity involving both push-based
forward grinding and pull-based backward grinding. The sample size was small due to the
elite nature of the participants, and therefore restricts the level of statistical power.
The sailor’s mean (^ s) age, body mass, and height were 33.9(^ 5.5) years,
97.8(^ 12.5) kg, and 186.0(^ 7.1) cm. All participants had an extensive strength-training
background (minimum of three years) and the bench-press and bench-pull exercises were
commonly used as part of their training program. All subjects provided written, informed
consent within the guidelines of the AUT University Ethics Committee.
Equipment
Testing was performed on a modified Smith machine, which incorporates a bar fixed using
low-friction linear bearings so that it can only slide vertically (Figure 1). A linear position
transducer (Unimeasure, Oregon) was attached to the bar and measured bar displacement
with an accuracy of 0.1 mm . These data were sampled at 500 Hz and relayed to a Labview
(National Instruments, Texas) based acqui sition and analysis program.
Procedures
Each participant completed a 60-minute testing session involving both the bench-press and
bench-pull exercises (Figure 2). Familiarisation was conducted through a self-determined,
exercise-specific warm up typically consisting of 3–4 warm-up sets of the particular exercise
using progressively heavier loads. Following the warm up, the individuals’ 1RM (Smith
machine, concentric-only) was determined to the nearest 2.5 kg. The spectrum of loads for
Figure 1. Testing set-up for the power-load spectrum of the bench-press exercise.
Kinematics and kinetics of the bench-press and bench-pull exercises 247
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
the power testing were then determined from 10– 100% of 1RM at 10% intervals. Single
repetitions of each load were performed in ascending order, with the instruction that each lift
should be performed as explosively as possible without releasing the bar (in the bench press).
All lifts were concentric-only, with the bench press initiated f rom mechanical stops
positioned ,30 mm off the sailor’s chest, and the bench pull initiated from a supported
supine position. Two potential issues in regard to the presentation order of loads are the
effects of fatigue and/or potentiation on later lifts in the sequence. In order to hopefully avoid
such an occurrence each lift was separated by a rest period of 1 – 2 minutes (increasing with
load), which was considered to be of a sufficient duration to minimise any order effects.
Evidence that any possible fatigue effects were in fact minimal was confirmed by the sailor’s
ability to repeat their determined 1RM effort from the start of the session in the last of their
ordered lifts (100% of 1RM), however the possibility of either fatigue or potentiation
influencing the results, even if only in a small way, must be acknowledged.
Data and statistical analyses
Displacement-time data were filtered using a low pass Butterworth filter with a cut- off
frequency of 6 Hz, and then differentiated to determine instantaneous velocity, acceleration,
force (using additional load information) and power output data over the range of motion for
each load condition. It shoul d be acknowledged that there is likely to be slight
underestimation in the calculation of force, as it will not include the force required to
overcome any friction of the Smith machine. However, as the Smith machine system is
specifically designed to have low levels of friction it is expected that any effect is likely to be
less than the biological variability of the user and therefore have minimal effect on the overall
findings. An assertion supported by previous findings that the measu res of force determined
using this methodology have been previously validated and found to correlate highly with
force plate measures across a range of movements, loads, and testing conditions (Chiu et al.,
2004; Cronin et al., 2004).
Descriptive statistics for all variables are represented as mean and standard deviations.
P
max
values and power drop-off around P
max
were calculated using the line estimation
function (least squares method) in Microsoft Excel. Presence of significant systematic
discrepanc y between measures from the ben ch p ress and bench pull was determined using a
two-tailed unpaired t-test (a level of p # 0.05).
Results
Set-up specific determination of 1RM performance resulted in mean 1RM scores of
119.7 ^ 23.9 kg for the bench press and 99.4 ^ 15.4 kg for the bench pull. Table I displays
the mean force, velocity, and power output values of all participants for the concentric phase
of a single repetition for the ben ch press and bench pull across the range of relative loads.
Mean force values were higher for the bench-press/flexion movement while mean velocity
values were greater for the bench-pull/extension movement. In addition, while both
Figure 2. Structure of the testing session.
S. N. Pearson et al.248
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
Table I. Kinematic and kinetic measures (mean ^ s) for the bench press and bench pull exercises throughout a range of loads (%1RM).
Load Bench press Bench pull P-value (difference)
%1RM Velocity (m/s) Force (N) Power (W) Velocity (m/s) Force (N) Power (W) Vel. Force Power
10% 0.95 ^ 0.14 122 ^ 29 117 ^ 36 1.20 ^ 0.16 102 ^ 15 125 ^ 32 0.001 0.055 0.615
20% 0.85 ^ 0.15 234 ^ 49 199 ^ 61 1.17 ^ 0.14 198 ^ 31 235 ^ 63 0.000 0.056 0.189
30% 0.72 ^ 0.10 354 ^ 70 253 ^ 57 1.06 ^ 0.12 293 ^ 45 315 ^ 80 0.000 0.027 0.051
40% 0.61 ^ 0.10 473 ^ 96 286 ^ 65 0.99 ^ 0.07 389 ^ 64 387 ^ 82 0.000 0.028 0.005
50% 0.52 ^ 0.10 592 ^ 124 306 ^ 75 0.88 ^ 0.05 488 ^ 75 432 ^ 82 0.000 0.030 0.001
60% 0.44 ^ 0.09 708 ^ 146 303 ^ 64 0.79 ^ 0.06 573 ^ 87 454 ^ 89 0.000 0.019 0.000
70% 0.34 ^ 0.05 829 ^ 167 284 ^ 64 0.73 ^ 0.04 685 ^ 103 499 ^ 88 0.000 0.026 0.000
80% 0.24 ^ 0.05 942 ^ 187 225 ^ 55 0.65 ^ 0.05 779 ^ 119 506 ^ 86 0.000 0.026 0.000
90% 0.15 ^ 0.04 1049 ^ 216 153 ^ 50 0.53 ^ 0.04 878 ^ 131 468 ^ 80 0.000 0.038 0.000
100% 0.09 ^ 0.03 1176 ^ 232 105 ^ 38 0.47 ^ 0.03 984 ^ 147 462 ^ 78 0.000 0.033 0.000
Note: Measurements are the mean value of the sample for the concentric phase of a single repetition.
Kinematics and kinetics of the bench-press and bench-pull exercises 249
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
movements followed the typical force-velocity relationship, the patterns of how these
characteristics related to each other differed. Analysis of group means showed that force
values maintained a linear relationship throughout the range of loads; with values for the
bench pull approximately 17% lower relative to the comparative force values of the bench
press. However, wh en bench-pull velocity values were expressed relative to comparative
bench-press velocities, they increased in an exponential manner as relative load increased;
this exponential increase influenced the power output (see Figure 3). This resulted in the
mean velocity for the concentric phase of the bench pull being 526% greater than the bench
press at the 100% 1RM and mean power being 442% higher at the same load.
The average (across all participants) power output for bench press and bench pull across
the spectrum of loads can be observed in Figure 4. Power was at a similar level for the two
movements at low load (10% of 1RM), but with increasing load a substantially greater
increase in power was observed for the bench pull in comparison to the bench press. Mean
power output was maximised at a significantly higher loa d ( p , 0.001) for the bench pull
(78.6 ^ 5.7% 1RM) than the bench press (53.3 ^ 1.7% 1RM). A similar disparity in P
max
values were found for peak power, although the relative load at which maximum values
occurred was significantly lower for both the bench pull (70.4 ^ 5.4%; p , 0.001) and
bench press (49.7 ^ 4.4%; p ¼ 0.003). In addition, reduction in power output either side of
P
max
was significantly lower for the bench pull at both 10% ( p , 0.001) and 20%
( p , 0.001) of load each side of P
max
. Power output drop-off at 10% from P
max
load was
1.6% for the bench pull and 3.2% for the bench press, while drop-off at 20% from P
max
was
6.5% for the bench pull and 12.9% for the bench press.
Discussion
The most no table finding of this study was the divergent power-load spectrum profiles of the
bench press and bench pull. Muscular power output was higher for the bench pull
Figure 3. Differences in the group means for force, velocity and power in the bench press and bench pull, with
bench-pull values presented as a percentage of equivalent bench-press values.
S. N. Pearson et al.250
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
throughout the entire load range, and significantly higher at loads of 40% 1RM and over.
This in itself was unexpected given the higher absolute loads (, 17%) being lifted in the
bench press, which should result in higher forces and generally be linked to higher power
outputs, as is seen within exercises (stronger individuals having greater power output). Given
that power is the product of force and velocity it would seem that the combination of these
two variables in power production m ay be dependent on the muscles/movement used as
evidenced in this agonist-antagonist pairing. Though speculative, the greater velocities and
subsequent power outputs observed in the bench-pull movement may be attributed to the
differing muscle architecture. That is, previous research (Lieber and Friden, 2000) has
shown that the greater fibre lengths and longitudinal fibre arrangement of the primary
movers used in exercises such as the bench-pull exercise (i.e. latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii,
brachialis) are characterised by faster shorte ning velocities, whereas the primary movers for
exercises such as the bench press (i.e. pectoralis major, triceps brachii) are characterised by
shorter fibre lengths, greater pennation angles, and subsequently g reater force capability.
For the bench pull it seems that velocity is a more important contributor to power output.
Furthermore it is evident that, as relative load increased, the benefits gained from the greater
velocity-generating capability of the musculature used in the bench pull greatly out-weighed
the deficit in force production compared to the bench-press musculature in terms of
maximising power output.
Another explanation for the discrepancy between power outputs may be that the bench
pull and bench press have different strength curves (mechanical advantages). Strength
curves are classified into three categories: ascending, descending and bell-shaped, which are
deter mined by the force-angle (torque) relationship within the musculoskeletal system
(Kulig et al., 1984). Findings by Murphy et al. (1995) indicate that the bench press has an
ascending strength curve, meaning that maximum strength and greatest force production
occurs near the apex of the lift. In comparison, individua l muscle strength curves (Kulig et al.,
1984) suggest that the bench pull is a descending-strength curve exercise where maximum
Figure 4. Comparison of the power-load spectrum for the bench press and bench pull. Curves are presented for both
mean and maximum power from a single repetition for all sailors (averaged).
Kinematics and kinetics of the bench-press and bench-pull exercises 251
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
strength is produced at the start of the lift. Given this relationship, the ability of the muscles
to produce higher forces/ accelerations earlier in the bench-pull motion seemingly assist the
relevant musculature to overcome the inertia of the load, which results in greater velocity and
power output throughout the movement. Furthermore, this ability to overcome the inertial
load seems of increasing advantage as load increases.
Further differences between exercises were also evident when the relative loads at wh ich
P
max
occurred were compared. P
max
loads for the bench press of around 50% 1RM for both
mean and peak power, along with a power output drop-off of , 3% for a 10% variation in
load, were consistent with previous research which has reported P
max
loads of 30– 60% 1RM
in both the directly comparable concentric-only bench press (Izquierdo et al., 1999; Cronin
et al., 2001; Izquierdo et al., 2002) as well as the more explosive rebound (stretch-shorten
cycle) and throw bench press derivatives (Newton et al., 1997; Baker, 2001; Baker et al.,
2001; Siegel et al., 2002). In contrast P
max
occurred at a much heavier load for the bench
pull; 78.6% 1RM for mean power and 70.4% for peak power. Similar findings have been
reported in the two other stu dies to examine the power-load spectrum in an upper-body pull
movement, with P
max
for mean power occurring at 81% of 1RM in the seated row (Cronin
et al., 2007) and at 70% 1RM for the hang power clean (Kawamori et al., 2005). In addition,
similar trends have been shown in situ for a single muscle fibre, with Edgerton et al. (1986)
attributing the differences obse rved between power outputs and P
max
loads in muscle groups
of the lower limb to differences in muscle architecture (fibre length, type and arrangement).
Although Edgerton et al. (1986) reporte d flexor P
max
(59%) to occur at a higher relative load
than extensor P
max
(45%) at the knee, the higher values again corresponded with the action
involving more fusiform muscles with greater fibre length. In te rms of these results it seems
that the functional character istics of the uppe r body “pull” musculature are indeed
substantially different from those of the muscles responsible for the “push” movement.
However, it should be noted that both studies examining the upper-body pull movement
in vivo used elite, male, resistance-trained performers. Although it seems reasonably clear
from the limited evidence available that P
max
occurs at a higher relative load in upper-body
pull movements compared to push, it may not be possible to generalise the magnitude of
these differences to other populations, especially given that P
max
has been shown to be
transient in relation to training status (Cronin and Sleivert, 2005).
Conclusions
Force-, velocity- and power-generating character istics of the shoulder extensor and elbow
flexor muscles responsible for the bench-pull movement were substantially different from
the shoulder flexor and elbow extensor muscles responsible for the bench-press movement.
The bench pull produced greater velocities and power outputs, along with exhibiting a higher
relative load for P
max
– findings which may be due to differences in muscle architecture.
The disparate characteristics of the upper-body push an d pull movements examined in this
study may have implications in terms of the way different muscle groups or movement patterns
are trained. In particular it may be pertinent to advocate higher relative loads in res istance
training in upper-body pull (compared to push) movements where power development is of
importance, however further train ing studies are necessary to validate this recommendation.
When targeting power in resistance training exercises, key points for consideration from
this study are:
(1) P
max
is not only individual but also exercise-specific and needs to be assessed in such a
manner.
S. N. Pearson et al.252
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
(2) Different loads are required to maximise peak and mean power so the functional
significance of each must therefore be evaluated with training design.
In terms of the specific (sailing) population used in this study, it is possible that greater
performance benefits can be derived by altering upper-body training loads for forward
(push-based) and backward (pull-based) grinding in order to more efficiently stimulate the
development of muscular power.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Tertiary Education Commission (New Zealand) and
Emirates Team New Zealand. Thanks are given to the sailors and support crew at Emirates
Team New Zealand for their participation and assistance with this research. The authors
have no professional relationships with any companies or manufacturer s identified in this
study.
References
Abernethy, P., Wilson, G., and Logan, P. (1995). Strength and power assessment. Issues, controversies and
challenges. Sports Medicine, 19 (6), 401 –417.
Baker, D. (2001). Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and college-aged rugby
league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15 (1), 30–35.
Baker, D., Nance, S., and Moore, M. (2001). The load that maximizes the average mechanical power output during
explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15 (1),
20– 24.
Chiu, L. Z. F., Schilling, B. K., Fry, A. C., and Weiss, L. W. (2004). Measurement of resistance exercise force
expression. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 20, 204– 212.
Cronin, J., McNair, P. J., and Marshall, R. N. (2001). Developing explosive power: A comparison of technique and
training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4 (1), 59 –70.
Cronin, J., and Sleivert, G. (2005). Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training on
improving athletic perfor mance. Sports Medicine, 35 (3), 213– 234.
Cronin, J. B., Hing, R. D., and McNair, P. J. (2004). Reliability and validity of a linear position transducer for
measuring jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18 (3), 590– 593.
Cronin, J. B., Jones, J. V., and Hagstrom, J. T. (2007). Kinematics and kinetics of the seated row and implications for
conditioning. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21 (4), 1265–1270.
Edgerton, V. R., Roy, R. R., Gregor, R. J., and Rugg, S. G. (1986). Morphological basis of skeletal muscle power
output. In N. L. Jones, N. McCartney, and A. J. McComas (Eds.), Human muscle power (pp. 43 –59).
Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.
Hamill, J., and Knutzen, K. M. (1995). Biomechanical basis of human movement. Balimore, MD: Williams and
Wilkins.
Harman, E. (1993). Strength and power: A definition of terms. National Strength and Conditioning Association
Journal, 15 (6), 18 –20.
Harris, N. K., Cronin, J. B., and Hopkins, W. G. (2007). Power outputs of a machine squat-jump across a spectrum
of loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21 (4), 1260 –1264.
Izquierdo, M., Hakkinen, K., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Ibanez, J., and Gorostiaga, E. M. (2002). Effects of long-term
training specificity on maximal strength and power of the upper and lower extremities in athletes from different
sports. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87 (3), 264– 271.
Izquierdo, M., Ibanez, J., Gorostiaga, E., Garrues, M., Zuniga, A., Anton, A. et al. (1999). Maximal strength and
power characteristics in isometric and dynamic actions of the upper and lower extremities in middle-aged and
older men. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 167 (1), 57–68.
Kawamori, N., Crum, A. J., Blumert, P. A., Kulik, J. R., Childers, J. T., Wood, J. A. et al. (2005). Influence of
different relative intensities on power output during the hang power clean: Identification of the optimal load.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19 (3), 698– 708.
Kinematics and kinetics of the bench-press and bench-pull exercises 253
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
Kramer, J. F., Morrow, A., and Leger, A. (1993). Changes in rowing ergometer, weight lifting, vertical jump and
isokinetic performance in response to standard and standard plus plyometric training programs. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 14 (8), 449 –454.
Kulig, K., Andrews, J. G., and Hay, J. G. (1984). Human strength curves. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews,
12, 417–466.
Lieber, R. L., and Friden, J. (2000). Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture. Muscle and
Nerve, 23 (11), 1647 –1666.
Liow, D. K., and Hopkins, W. G. (2003). Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak sprint performance.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35 (7), 1232 –1237.
Lyttle, A. D., Wilson, G. J., and Ostrowski, K. J. (1996). Enhancing performance: Maximal power versus combined
weights and plyometrics training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10 (3), 173–179.
McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., and Newton, R. U. (2002). The effect of heavy- vs. light-load
jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. Jour nal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
16 (1), 75– 82.
Murphy, A. J., Wilson, G. J., Pryor, J. F., and Newton, R. U. (1995). Isometric assessment of muscular function:
The effect of joint angle. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11 (2), 205 –215.
Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., Humphries, B. J., Wilson, G. J., Kraemer, W. J., and Hakkinen, K. (1997). Influence
of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during
explosive upper-body movements. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 75 (4),
333– 342.
Pearson, D., Faigenbaum, A., Conley, M., and Kraemer, W. J. (2000). The National Strength and Conditioning
Association’s basic guidelines for the resistance training of athletes. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 22 (4),
14– 27.
Sale, D. G. (1991). Testing strength and power. In J. D. MacDougall, H. A. Wenger, and H. J. Green (Eds.),
Physiological testing of the high-performance athlete (pp. 21 –106). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sharp, M. A., Harman, E., Vogel, J. A., Knapik, J. J., and Legg, S. J. (1988). Maximal aerobic capacity for repetitive
lifting: Comparison with three standard exercise testing modes. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology, 57 (6), 753–760.
Siegel, J. A., Gilders, R. M., Staron, R. S., and Hagerman, F. C. (2002). Human muscle power output during upper-
and lower-body exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16 (2), 173 –178.
Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., and Humphries, B. J. (1993). The optimal training load for the
development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25 (11), 1279– 1286.
S. N. Pearson et al.254
Downloaded By: [Pearson, Simon N.] At: 09:35 22 September 2009
