A comparison of muscle activation and concomitant intermuscular coupling of antagonist muscles among bench presses with different instability degrees in untrained men

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the muscle activation and concomitant intermuscular coupling of antagonist muscles among bench presses with different instability degrees. Twenty-nine untrained male college students performed bench press exercises at an intensity of 60% 1 RM on three conditions: small unstable bench press with Smith machine (SBP), medium unstable bench press of free weight (FWBP), and large unstable bench press with increased instability by suspending the load with elastic bands (IIBP). One-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare integrated EMG activity values of the biceps brachii (BB), posterior deltoid (PD), long head of the triceps brachii (TB), anterior deltoid (AD), upper portion of the pectoralis major (PM) muscles, and phase synchronization index (PSI) of BB-TB and PD-AD antagonist muscle pairs. A higher integrated EMG of BB muscle was found during bench press with a more unstable condition. IIBP showed a higher integrated EMG of prime movers (TB, AD, and PM) and stabilizing of BB than SBP and FWBP. PSI between muscle pairs of BB-TB in the gamma frequency band was higher in SBP than the other bench presses with unstable conditions, which may be related to the optimal “internal model” for antagonist muscles during bench press exercise. Therefore, IIBP training may be an effective accessory exercise to maintain a higher level of muscle activation across primary and stabilizing muscles with a lighter load for untrained men, while SBP may be a suitable bench press exercise for untrained participants who have not developed the neuromuscular adaptations necessary for correct stabilization of the elbow joint.

Electromyographic Activity of the Pectoralis Major Muscle during Traditional Bench Press and Other Variants of Pectoral Exercises: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The most sensitive points in the studies were: evaluator blinding, participant blinding, randomization of studies, and the form of allocation of participants. This resulted in 23 studies included in synthesis with 6 subgroups classification [23,30,35,[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. Study characteristics are provided in Table 2.…”

“…In relation to the analysis on the activation of the pectoralis, comparing the PB exercise with any other exercise, in Figure 6A the activation of the clavicular pectoralis is shown and in Figure 6B the activation of the sternal pectoralis. A total of six studies compare the activation of the pectoral in the traditional BP with another exercise type (push-ups [30,48,62], dumbbell [50,58], elastic resistance [30], chest press [50], and others [58,60]). In relation to the analysis comparing the activation of the pectoral muscle in a stable situation vs. an unstable situation, Figure 5A shows the analysis for the activation of the pectoral muscle in the concentric phase, Figure 5B for the eccentric phase and Figure 5C for all joint action.…”

“…No difference in chest activation was shown for eccentric phase In relation to the analysis on the activation of the pectoralis, comparing the PB exercise with any other exercise, in Figure 6A the activation of the clavicular pectoralis is shown and in Figure 6B the activation of the sternal pectoralis. A total of six studies compare the activation of the pectoral in the traditional BP with another exercise type (pushups [30,48,62], dumbbell [50,58], elastic resistance [30], chest press [50], and others [58,60]). The analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the activation of the clavicular portion when comparing the PB with another exercise; however, there is a greater activation in the sternal pectoralis in the variable exercise (SMD = 4.04; 95% ICI 0 = 1.74; 6.35) (Figure 6).…”