This study compared the activation of the clavicular head and the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major and the anterior deltoid when performing the bench press at several different angles. Fifteen healthy male subjects participated in this study. Subjects performed the chest press exercise at 0 (flat bench), 28, 44, and 56 degrees above horizontal using 70% of their respective 1 repetition maximum for each angle. Electromyographic activity was recorded during each repetition. Activation of the clavicular head of the pectoralis major was significantly greater at 44 degrees compared to 0 degrees (p = 0.010), at 56 degrees compared to 0 degrees (p = 0.013), and at 44 degrees compared to 28 degrees (p = 0.003). Activation of the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major was significantly greater at 0 degrees compared to 28 degrees (p = 0.013), at 0 degrees compared to 44 degrees (p = 0.018), at 0 degrees compared to 56 degrees (p = 0.001), at 28 degrees compared to 56 degrees (p = 0.003), and at 44 degrees compared to 56 degrees (p = 0.001). Activation of the anterior deltoid was significantly greater at 28 degrees compared to 0 degrees (p = 0.002), at 44 degrees compared to 0 degrees (p = 0.012), and at 56 degrees compared to 0 degrees (p = 0.014). To optimize recruiting the involved musculature, it would seem that performing both the flat and incline chest press exercises is necessary.

The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and neuromuscular adaptations for dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) training and dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) training (resistance training employing an accentuated load during eccentric actions). Male subjects active in resistance training were assigned to either a DCER training group (n = 10) or a DAER training group (n = 8) for 9 weeks. Subjects in the DCER group performed 4 sets of 10 repetitions with a load of 75% concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM). Subjects in the DAER group performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions with a concentric load of 75% of 1RM and an eccentric load of approximately 120% of concentric 1RM. Three measures reflecting adaptation of elbow flexors and extensors were recorded pretraining and posttraining: concentric 1RM, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and specific tension. Strength was assessed at midtraining periods. No significant changes in muscle CSA were observed in either group. Both training groups experienced significant increases in concentric 1RM and specific tension of both the elbow flexors and extensors, but compared with DCER training, DAER training produced significantly greater increases in concentric 1RM of the elbow extensors. These results suggest that, for some exercises, DAER training may be more effective than DCER training in developing strength within a 9-week training phase. However, for trained subjects, neither protocol is effective in eliciting muscle hypertrophy.

Respiratory and metabolic responses to low-intensity, but not high-intensity, cycling in DE exceed FA. Practically, the greater responses during low-intensity exercise in DE could have implications for individuals with cardiopulmonary disease. Also, the elevated RPE during DE could impair performance in self-paced exercise.

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

No abstract