The aim of the study was to compare the EMG activity performing 6RM competition style bench press (flat bench-wide grip) with 1) medium and narrow grip widths on a flat bench and 1) inclined and declined bench positions with a wide grip. Twelve bench press athletes competing at national and international level participated in the study. EMG activity was measured in the pectoralis major, anterior and posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, triceps brachii and latissimus dorsi. Non-significant differences in activation were observed between the three bench positions with the exception of 58.5-62.6% lower triceps brachii activation, but 48.3-68.7% greater biceps brachii activation in the inclined bench compared with the flat and declined bench position. Comparing the three grip widths, non-significant differences in activations were observed, with the exception of 25.9-30.5% lower EMG activity in the biceps brachii using a narrow grip, compared to the medium and wide grip conditions. The 6-RM loads were 5.8-11.1% greater using a medium and wide grip compared to narrow grip width and 18.5-21.5% lower in the inclined bench position compared with flat and declined. Comparing the EMG activity during the competition bench press style with either the inclined and declined bench position (wide grip) or using a narrow and medium grip (flat bench), only resulted in different EMG activity in the biceps- and triceps brachii. The 6RM loads varied with each bench press variation and we recommend the use of a wide grip on a flat bench during high load hypertrophy training to bench press athletes.

Andersen, V, Fimland, MS, Mo, D-A, Iversen, VM, Vederhus, T, Rockland Hellebø, LR, Nordaune, KI, and Saeterbakken, AH. Electromyographic comparison of barbell deadlift, hex bar deadlift, and hip thrust exercises: a cross-over study. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 587-593, 2018-The aim of the study was to compare the muscle activation level of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and erector spinae in the hip thrust, barbell deadlift, and hex bar deadlift; each of which are compound resisted hip extension exercises. After 2 familiarization sessions, 13 resistance-trained men performed a 1 repetition maximum in all 3 exercises in 1 session, in randomized and counterbalanced order. The whole ascending movement (concentric phase), as well as its lower and upper parts (whole movement divided in 2), were analyzed. The hip thrust induced greater activation of the gluteus maximus compared with the hex bar deadlift in the whole (16%, p = 0.025) and the upper part (26%, p = 0.015) of the movement. For the whole movement, the biceps femoris was more activated during barbell deadlift compared with both the hex bar deadlift (28%, p < 0.001) and hip thrust (20%, p = 0.005). In the lower part of the movement, the biceps femoris activation was, respectively, 48% and 26% higher for the barbell deadlift (p < 0.001) and hex bar deadlift (p = 0.049) compared with hip thrust. Biceps femoris activation in the upper part of the movement was 39% higher for the barbell deadlift compared with the hex bar deadlift (p = 0.001) and 34% higher for the hip thrust compared with the hex bar deadlift (p = 0.002). No differences were displayed for the erector spinae activation (p = 0.312-0.859). In conclusion, the barbell deadlift was clearly superior in activating the biceps femoris compared with the hex bar deadlift and hip thrust, whereas the hip thrust provided the highest gluteus maximus activation.

This study examined the effects of two or four weekly campus board training sessions among highly accomplished lead climbers. Sixteen advanced-to-elite climbers were randomly allocated to two (TG2), or four weekly campus board training sessions (TG4), or a control group (CG). All groups continued their normal climbing routines. Pre- and post-intervention measures included bouldering performance, maximal isometric pull-up strength using a shallow rung and a large hold (jug), and maximal reach and moves to failure. Rate of force development (RFD; absolute and 100ms) was calculated in the rung condition. TG4 improved maximal force in the jug condition (effect size (ES) = 0.40, p = 0.043), and absolute RFD more than CG (ES = 2.92, p = 0.025), whereas TG2 improved bouldering performance (ES = 2.59, p = 0.016) and maximal moves to failure on the campus board more than CG (ES = 1.65, p = 0.008). No differences between the training groups were found (p = 0.107–1.000). When merging the training groups, the training improved strength in the rung condition (ES = 0.87, p = 0.002), bouldering performance (ES = 2.37, p = 0.006), maximal reach (ES = 1.66, p = 0.006) and moves to failure (ES = 1.43, p = 0.040) more than CG. In conclusion, a five-week campus board training-block is sufficient for improving climbing-specific attributes among advanced-to-elite climbers. Sessions should be divided over four days to improve RFD or divided over two days to improve bouldering performance, compared to regular climbing training.

The aim of the study was to compare muscle activity using the same relative resistance in squats and Bulgarian squats on stable and unstable surface. Muscle strength and activity were assessed by 6-repetition maximum and concomitant surface electromyography. A cohort of 15 resistance-trained males performed the exercises on the floor or a foam cushion in randomized order. The muscle activity was greater in biceps femoris (63-77%, p<0.01) and core muscle external obliques (58-62%, p<0.05) for the Bulgarian squat compared to regular squats, but lower for rectus femoris (16-21%, p<0.05). Only Bulgarian squat showed differences concerning the surface, e. g. the unstable surface reduced the activation of erector spinae (10%, p<0.05) and biceps femoris (10%, p<0.05) compared to a stable surface. There were similar activations in the vasti muscles and rectus abdominis between the different exercises (p=0.313-0.995). Unstable surfaces resulted in a load decrement of 7% and 10% compared to stable surfaces (p<0.001). In conclusion, the squat was somewhat favorable for the activation of agonists, whereas Bulgarian squat was advantageous for the antagonist and somewhat for core muscles. Bulgarian- and regular squats complement each other, and it may be useful to include both in a periodized resistance training program.

The aim of the study was to examine the effects of full-body elastic resistance band training in young female team handball players. 12 players (16.5±0.7 years, 166±5.0 cm, 65.9±8.8 kg) completed an 11-week control period followed by a 9-week elastic resistance band training period. The training program, consisting of 6 exercises, was incorporated into the teams’ regular handball training sessions 3 times per week. Each exercise was performed with 3 sets of 6–10 explosive repetitions (5–9 on the Borg CR10 Scale®). The maximal power output in squat and bench press, jump height, throwing velocity and repeated agility run was tested before and after the control and training periods. The elastic resistance band period had greater improvement vs. the control period for countermovement jump with or without arm swing (10% vs. –6 to –2%) and power output at lighter loads (10 to 12% vs. –6 to 0%). For the 3 throwing velocity tests, there were tendencies towards increased velocity in the elastic resistance band period compared to the control period ( p =0.07–0.10). For the repeated agility run, there was a reduction in the mean and fastest time compared to the training period (2 to 3% vs. –1 to 1%). In conclusion, a brief, elastic resistance band training program, incorporated into the regular handball training sessions, improved explosive lower-limb performance in young female handball players more than handball training alone.