Changes in EMG activity of the prime movers during 10 sets of the flat bench press performed to concentric failure

The objective of this study was to compare peak surface electromyography (sEMG) activity of selected muscles along with inter-limb asymmetries between a control (CONT) and a Sling shot assisted (SS) bench press exercise. Ten resistance-trained males with at least three-year experience in resistance training (22.2 ± 1.9 years, 88.7 ± 11.2 kg, 179.5 ± 4.1 cm, bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) = 127.3 ± 25.9 kg) performed the flat bench press exercise under two conditions at selected loads (85% and 100% of 1RM assessed without the SS). Peak sEMG amplitude of triceps brachii, pectoralis major, and anterior deltoid was recorded for the dominant and the non-dominant side of the body during each attempt. The comparison between the dominant and the non-dominant side was carried out using the limb symmetry index (LSI(%) = (2*(XR - XL)/(XR + XL))*100%) where XR = values of the right side and XL = values of the left side. There was a main effect of condition (p = 0.004; η2 = 0.64) and the load (p = 0.004; η2 = 0.63) for the triceps brachii LSI in parallel with a main effect of condition (p = 0.003; η2 = 0.42) for the anterior deltoid LSI. Post hoc analysis for the main effect of condition showed significant differences in the LSI between the CONT and SS conditions for the triceps brachii (p = 0.003; 1.10% vs. -8.78%) as well as for the anterior deltoid muscles (p = 0.03; 12.91% vs. 9.23%). The results indicate that the assistance of the Sling shot significantly affects the sEMG activity pattern on both the dominant and non-dominant sides of the body while influencing inter-limb asymmetries.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Electromyographic Inter-Limb Asymmetry during a Standard versus a Sling Shot Assisted Bench Press Exercise

Wojdała¹,

Trybulski²,

Bichowska³

et al. 2022

“…The main way to quantify the activity of each muscle group during different variations of the same exercise is the assessment of the electromyographic (EMG) signal, which measures the single muscle excitation during a given movement ( Vieira and Botter, 2021 ). The literature has therefore described how the main prime movers excite during different variations of many exercises, such as the bench press ( Cabral et al, 2022 ; Coratella et al, 2020b ; Jaworski et al, 2020 ; Rawska et al, 2019 ; Saeterbakken et al, 2021 ; Stastny et al, 2017 ; Strońska et al, 2018 ; Tsoukos and Bogdanis, 2023 ; Wojdala et al, 2022 ), the squat ( Clark et al, 2012 ; Coratella et al, 2021 ; van den Tillaar et al, 2019 ), the deadlift ( Andersen et al, 2019 ; Coratella et al, 2022 a; Martín-Fuentes et al, 2020 ), the overhead press ( Błażkiewicz and Hadamus, 2022 ; Coratella et al, 2022 b; Stronska et al, 2018 ), the biceps curl ( Coratella et al, 2023 a, 2023b; Marcolin et al, 2018 ), the rower ( Fujita et al, 2020 ), the lateral raise ( Coratella et al, 2020a ; Reinold et al, 2007 ), and the lat pull-down (LPD) ( Andersen et al, 2014 ; Signorile et al, 2002 ; Sperandei et al, 2009 ). Particularly, the LPD is used to stimulate the upper body muscles with a specific focus on the torso, i.e., the latissimus dorsi, the trapezius, the pectoralis major, the biceps brachii, the triceps brachii and the posterior deltoid, although, previous studies have not examined them all together, thus resulting in a partial view of the potential muscular benefits deriving from the incorporation of the LPD in the training routine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-Density Electromyography Excitation in Front vs. Back Lat Pull-Down Prime Movers

Padovan,

Toninelli,

Longo

et al. 2024

The current study compared the spatial excitation of the primary muscles during the lat pull-down exercise with the bar passing in front (front-LPD) or behind the neck (back-LPD) using high-density electromyography. Fourteen resistance trained men performed a front-LPD or a back-LPD within a non-fatiguing set with 8-RM as the external load. The muscle excitation centroid of latissimus dorsi, middle trapezius, pectoralis major, biceps brachii, triceps brachii and posterior deltoid muscles were recorded during the ascending and the descending phase. During the descending phase, the front-LPD showed superior excitation of the latissimus dorsi (ES = 0.97) and the pectoralis major (ES = 1.17), while in the ascending phase, the back-LPD exhibited superior excitation of the latissimus dorsi (ES = 0.63), and the front-LPD showed superior excitation of the biceps brachii (ES = 0.41) and the posterior deltoid (ES = 1.77). During the descending phase, the front-LPD showed a more lateral centroid of the latissimus dorsi (ES = 0.60), the biceps brachii (ES = 0.63) and the triceps brachii (ES = 0.98), while the centroid was more medial for the middle trapezius (ES = 0.58). The centroid of the middle trapezius was also more medial in the front-LPD during the ascending phase (ES = 0.85). The pectoralis major centroid was more cranial in the front-LPD for both the descending (ES = 1.58) and the ascending phase (ES = 0.88). The front-LPD appears to provide overall greater excitation in the prime movers. However, distinct spatial excitation patterns were observed, making exercise suitable for the training routine.

“…Range of motion (ROM) has recently been acknowledged as an important variable influencing strength and hypertrophic gains during resistance exercise ( Coratella, 2022 ). The bulk of literature on the impact of ROM on performance and adaptations during resistance exercise compared strength, surface electromyographic (sEMG) responses and fatigue between exercises performed with full and partial ROM ( Clark et al, 2008 ; Cobanoglu et al, 2021 ; Da Silva et al, 2017 ; Gillingham et al, 2023 ; Matykiewicz et al, 2023 ; Mendonça et al, 2021 ; Strońska et al, 2018 ). Depending on whether the partial ROM renders the muscles at longer or shorter length, the ability to exert force may increase or decrease ( Butterfield and Herzog, 2005 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Range of Motion on Applied Force Characteristics and Electromyographic Activity during Repeated Sets of Bench Press Exercise

Tsoukos,

Wilk,

Krzysztofik

et al. 2024

This study examined the effects of range of motion (ROM) on applied force, power output and surface electromyographic (sEMG) responses during repeated sets of bench press exercise executed as fast as possible. Ten resistance trained men performed three sets to momentary failure with two-min rest intervals under three different ROM conditions: (a) full ROM (FULL), (b) TOP, at the top half of ROM, and (c) BOTTOM, at the bottom half of ROM. Mean and peak force were higher in TOP compared to FULL and BOTTOM (mean force: 817 ± 80 vs. 657 ± 98 vs. 623 ± 122 N, respectively, p < 0.001) with no differences between FULL and BOTTOM. During repeated sets, large decreases were found in peak (by 29.4 to 45.3%) and mean power (by 55.5 to 64.7%) from the first to the last repetitions. However, the decrease in mean force was only 2% (p < 0.01) and decreases in peak force ranged from 6.7 and 8.8% to zero, indicating the velocity loss was the main contributor to fatigue in power output. Although force and power output in set 3 were unchanged in BOTTOM, mean power output decreased significantly, suggesting that lower performance and fatigue may be related to the longer muscle length. Fatigue was accompanied by an increase in sEMG activity and a decrease in median frequency in all muscles, with triceps brachialis sEMG reflecting more the force and power differences among ROMs. In conclusion, fatigue depends on velocity rather than force loss during bench press exercise at different ROMs.