The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% of biacromial distance (BAD)) and has potential application for athletes performing explosive arm actions from positions where the hands are held close to the torso. Limited research has investigated CGBP mechanics compared to the TBP. Twenty-seven resistance-trained individuals completed a one-repetition maximum TBP and CGBP. The TBP was performed with the preferred grip; the CGBP with a grip width of 95% BAD. A linear position transducer measured lift distance and duration; peak and mean power, velocity, and force; distance and time when peak power occurred; and work. Pre-sticking region (PrSR), sticking region, and post-sticking region distance and duration for each lift was measured. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to derive differences between TBP and CGBP mechanics (p < 0.01); effect sizes (d) were also calculated. A greater load was lifted in the TBP, thus mean force was greater (d = 0.16–0.17). Peak power and velocity were higher in the CGBP, which had a longer PrSR distance (d = 0.49–1.32). The CGBP could emphasize power for athletes that initiate explosive upper-body actions with the hands positioned close to the torso.

Lockie, RG, Moreno, MR, Lazar, A, Orjalo, AJ, Giuliano, DV, Risso, FG, Davis, DL, Crelling, JB, Lockwood, JR, and Jalilvand, F. The physical and athletic performance characteristics of Division I collegiate female soccer players by position. J Strength Cond Res 32(2): 334-343, 2018-Playing positions in soccer can exhibit different movement demands during a match, contributing to variations in physical and performance characteristics. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) soccer features different substitution rules when compared to FIFA-sanctioned matches, which could influence each players' characteristics. Therefore, this study determined the athletic performance characteristics of Division I female soccer players. Twenty-six players (3 goalkeepers; 8 defenders; 10 midfielders; 5 forwards) from the same squad completed assessments of: lower-body power (vertical and standing broad jump); linear (0-5, 0-10, 0-30 meter [m] sprint intervals) and change-of-direction (pro-agility shuttle; arrowhead change-of-direction speed test) speed; and soccer-specific fitness (Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test [YYIRT] levels 1 and 2). Players were split into position groups, and a Kruskal-Wallis H test with post hoc pairwise analyses (p ≤ 0.05) calculated significant between-group differences. There were no differences in age, height, or body mass between the positions. Midfielders had a faster 0-5 m time compared with the defenders (p = 0.017) and the goalkeepers (p = 0.030). The defenders (p = 0.011) and midfielders (p = 0.013) covered a greater YYIRT2 distance compared with the goalkeepers. There were no other significant between-position differences. Overall, Division I collegiate female players from the same squad demonstrated similar characteristics as measured by soccer-specific performance tests, which could allow for flexibility in position assignments. However, a relatively homogenous squad could also indicate commonality in training prescription, particularly regarding acceleration and high-intensity running. Strength and conditioning coaches may have to consider the specific movement demands of individual positions when training these capacities.

The study aim was to determine relationships between mechanical variables in the one-repetition maximum (1RM) traditional bench press (TBP) and close-grip bench press (CGBP). Twenty resistance-trained men completed a TBP and CGBP 1RM. The TBP was performed with the preferred grip; the CGBP with a grip width of 95% biacromial distance. A linear position transducer measured: lift distance and duration; work; and peak and mean power, velocity, and force. Paired samples t-tests (p < 0.05) compared the 1RM and mechanical variables for the TBP and CGBP; effect sizes (d) were also calculated. Pearson’s correlations (r; p < 0.05) computed relationships between the TBP and CGBP. 1RM, lift duration, and mean force were greater in the TBP (d = 0.30-3.20). Peak power and velocity was greater for the CGBP (d = 0.50-1.29). The 1RM TBP correlated with CGBP 1RM, power, and force (r = 0.685-0.982). TBP work correlated with CGBP 1RM, lift distance, power, force, and work (r = 0.542-0.931). TBP power correlated with CGBP 1RM, power, force, velocity, and work (r = 0.484-0.704). TBP peak and mean force related to CGBP 1RM, power, and force (r = 0.596-0.980). Due to relationships between the load, work, power, and force for the TBP and CGBP, the CGBP could provide similar strength adaptations to the TBP with long-term use. The velocity profile for the CGBP was different to that of the TBP. The CGBP could be used specifically to improve high-velocity, upper-body pushing movements.

Lockie, RG, Moreno, MR, Lazar, A, Risso, FG, Liu, TM, Stage, AA, Birmingham-Babauta, SA, Torne, IA, Stokes, JJ, Giuliano, DV, Davis, DL, Orjalo, AJ, and Callaghan, SJ. The 1 repetition maximum mechanics of a high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift compared with a conventional deadlift as measured by a linear position transducer. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 150-161, 2018-The high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD), a variation of the conventional deadlift (CD), is said to reduce the lift range of motion, which may change the mechanics of the lift. However, no research has investigated this. This study compared the mechanics between a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) CD and HHBD. Thirty-one strength-trained subjects (21 men, 10 women) completed a 1RM CD and HHBD. A linear position transducer measured lift distance, duration, and work; and peak and mean power, velocity, and force. The presence of a sticking region (SR) was determined for each lift. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) calculated differences between 1RM CD and HHBD mechanics. A one-way ANOVA compared the mechanics of each lift between subjects who exhibited an SR or not, and the SR between the CD and HHBD. Significance was set at p < 0.01. Subjects lifted a greater load in the HHBD (154.50 ± 45.29 kg) compared with the CD (134.72 ± 40.63 kg). Lift distance and duration were 22 and 25% shorter during the 1RM HHBD, respectively. The HHBD featured greater peak power and velocity, and peak and mean force; more work was done in the CD. Most subjects did not exhibit a CD (68%) or HHBD (77%) SR. There were no differences in CD or HHBD mechanics between subjects with or without an SR, and no differences in SR region distance or duration between the CD and HHBD. Greater force can be generated in the HHBD, which could have implications for strength-training adaptations over time.