This article was downloaded by: [University of Exeter] On: 30 July 2015, At: 00:48 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press a
a
Olav Gomo & Roland van den Tillaar a
Department of Teacher Education and Sports, Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger, Norway Published online: 08 Jun 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Olav Gomo & Roland van den Tillaar (2015): The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1046395 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1046395
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1046395
The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press
OLAV GOMO & ROLAND VAN DEN TILLAAR Department of Teacher Education and Sports, Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger, Norway
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
(Accepted 27 April 2015)
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. Twelve male experienced powerlifters (age 27.7 ± 8.8 years, mass 91.9 ± 15.4 kg) were tested in one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press with a narrow, medium and wide grip. Joint kinematics, timing, bar position and velocity were measured with a 3D motion capture system. All participants showed a clear sticking region with all three grip widths, but this sticking region was not found to occur at the same joint angles in all three grip widths, thereby rejecting the hypothesis that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width. It is suggested that, due to the differences in moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint in the sticking region, there still might be a poor mechanical region for total force production that is joint angle-specific. Keywords: joint angle, powerlifters, force production
Introduction The bench press exercise is widely renowned as the best test of upper body strength and is a part of the strength sport powerlifting. It is an enormously popular exercise, yet fairly simple to perform. In accordance to the rules and regulations set by the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF), the lift is performed lying supine on a bench with the head, shoulders and buttocks in contact with the bench surface and the feet flat on the floor. The lift starts with straight arms, elbows locked out. The barbell is then lowered to the chest or abdominal area, before it is pushed in to straight arms and elbows locked out again at the end of the lift. Each year the IPF arranges World championships in bench press, and the lift is also a part of the Special Olympics, with contestants lifting over 300 kg without any supportive gear. When performing the bench press at a heavy load, Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) found that there occurs a point in the lift where the upward barbell movement decelerates or even stops before again accelerating. They named this point the sticking point, the first local minimum of the upward velocity (Tvmin), stating that at this position the lifters’ capacity to exert force might be substantially lower than in the nearby positions. Research done by Elliot,
Wilson, and Kerr (1989) also found the sticking point, but instead of naming it the sticking point, they named the region from peak velocity (Tvmax) to Tvmin sticking region. This definition has been seen as a more functional one when analysing a bench press, as there is a region in which the pushing force applied by the lifter to the bar is less than the gravity of the barbell, thereby creating a region of deceleration of the barbell, not merely a point. The reason why the sticking region is an interesting subject for research is the fact that this deceleration occurs only when performing the bench press with a near maximal to maximal load (Elliot et al., 1989; Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; Newton et al., 1997), thereby creating a constraint for performance in the bench press. The idea of the sticking region as a constraint for performance has resulted in a lot of research performed with the aim of trying to explain why the sticking region occurs. The leading explanation model for the sticking region is based on the idea that the sticking region is a mechanically disadvantageous region for force development (Elliot et al., 1989; Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; van den Tillaar, Sæterbakken, & Ettema, 2012). The reason for this mechanically disadvantageous region is hypothesised to be either the muscle length or the
Correspondence: Roland van den Tillaar, Department of Teacher Education, Nord Trøndelag University College, Odins veg 23, 7603 Levanger, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
2
O. Gomo & R. van den Tillaar
internal or external moment arms. Within this model of explanation, it was found that the external moment arms are more advantageous in the sticking region than in the region before and less advantageous than in the region after (Elliot et al., 1989), thereby rejecting the hypothesis that less advantageous external moment arms are the reason for the existence of the sticking region. van den Tillaar et al. (2012) showed, by conducting maximal 1-RM bench press and isometric bench presses at 12 different heights from sternum, a sticking region as indicated by a decreased force output in this region. They suggested that the sticking region, shown by the force-curve during a near maximal and maximal bench press, could be seen as the force-length curve of the muscle, thereby hypothesising that muscle lengths are the cause of the sticking region. One possible way to see if this hypothesis is true is to test the bench press with different grip widths and see if the sticking region occurs at the same joint angle, in the shoulder and elbow, independent of distance or time from the sternum. The joint angle would represent the length of the muscle; same joint angle would be approximately an equal muscle length for the involved muscles. Past research on grip width has primarily been done on strength output and muscle activation differences (Barnett, Kippers, & Turner, 1995; Lehman, 2005; McLaughlin, 1985). Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) and Wagner, Evans, Weir, Housh, and Johnson (1992) found that one is significantly stronger with a wide grip compared to a narrow grip. However, only Wagner et al. (1992) mentioned sticking region and grip width. They tested the bench press with six different grip widths and found that the sticking region began at a significantly higher point for a grip width of 169% of bi-acromial distance (BAD), than for a grip width of 270% of BAD. This may be an argument for the hypothesis that the sticking region occurs at the same joint angle, independent of distance from sternum, observed as the same joint angle at the elbow but with a wider grip and thus a lesser distance from sternum. However, in this study, no joint angles were measured or moment arms at the shoulder or elbow joint. This makes it difficult to state if the sticking region occurs at the same joint angles. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in bench press performance of experienced powerlifters. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles.
Methods Twelve healthy male powerlifters at the age of 19–41 years (Table I), with a 1-RM bench press record on a national level, were recruited for the study. National level was defined as having lifted the same as, or more than, the qualification weight for the national championships in their weight class and category. Amongst the participants were National, Nordic and European champions in powerlifting. Informed consent was obtained prior to all testing from all participants, in accordance with the recommendations of the local ethics committee and current ethical standards in sports and exercise research.
Procedure The three grip widths were performed in a randomly assigned order by each participant. The three grip widths being wide defined as preferred competition grip, narrow defined as bi-acromial distance and medium in the middle of the two (Barnett et al., 1995; Lehman, 2005; Wagner et al., 1992). Only three grip widths were used to avoid fatigue that can occur when performing with more grip widths (Wagner et al., 1992). After a general warm-up, including as many repetitions as the participant wanted with just the barbell, the participants conducted a standardised warm-up protocol with the first grip width. The protocol was 8 reps at 40% of the self-estimated one repetition maximum (1RMest), 6 reps at 60% of 1-RMest, 3 reps at 70% of 1-RMest and 2 reps at 80% of 1-RMest. The 1-RMest was the weight that the participant himself estimated to be his one repetition maximum at that grip width. After the warm-up protocol, the participants were tested at 95% of 1-RMest and 100% of 1-RMest; if the 100% lift was successful, the weight was raised by 2.5 kg or 5 kg, depending on the lifters feedback, until a miss or a near miss lift. Three attempts were performed in total with each grip width; the highest completed lift was used for further analysis. After the first 1-RM was established, the lifter was instructed to perform a warm-up set with 3 reps at 80% of 1-RMest at the second grip width. This set was supposed to work as an adaptation set to the new width. After the set, the lifter performed the same Table I. Characteristics of the participants. Minimum Maximum Mean Age (years) Bodyweight (kg) Wide grip width (cm) Medium grip width (cm) Narrow grip width (cm)
19 77.5 61 40.5 31
41 127 81 62.5 47
SD
27.73 8.82 91.85 15.41 74.54 9.75 56.79 6.04 39.17 3.51
Effect of grip width on sticking region in bench press
d shoulder
d elbow
Shoulder flexion
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
3
Elbow flexion
Shoulder abduction Figure 1. The joint angles and moment arms which were measured during the bench press. Adapted from van den Tillaar and Ettema (2009).
testing routine as with the first grip width. The same procedure was conducted with the last grip width: one adaptation set at 80% of 1-RMest and then a 95% and 100% test, plus possible increases if the lift was not a maximum lift. In general, the lifter was permitted 3–5 min of rest between each attempt in order to avoid fatigue. However, each participant decided himself when he felt ready (fully recovered from the last attempt) for a new attempt. The participants performed the bench press according to the rules and regulations set by the IPF, except that the requirement for a full stop on the chest was removed, they were allowed to touch and press, but no bounce was allowed.
velocity (vmin) and second peak velocity (v2nd max). These points constitute the start points of the different regions of the lift, v1st max being the start of sticking region, vmin the start of post-sticking region (and thereby also the end of sticking region) and v2nd max the start of the deceleration phase. Timing, barbell position, velocity, joint angles and resultant moment arms at the elbow and shoulder joint were calculated at these points in Matlab 6.1. Joint angles (shoulder flexion and abduction and elbow extension) were estimates of the anatomical angles calculated from lines formed between the centres of the reflective markers (van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009; Figure 1).
Recordings
Statistical analysis
A three-dimensional (3D) motion capture system (Qualysis, Gothenburg, Sweden) with six cameras was used to track reflective markers at a frequency of 500 Hz, creating a 3D positional measurement. The markers were placed, one on each side of the body, on the lateral tip of the acromion, on the lateral and medial epicondyle of the elbow, on the styloid process of the ulna and radius. There were also two markers placed on the middle of the bar, 20 cm apart, to track bar displacement. The points of the lift that were used for further analysis were the start of the upwards movement (v0), first peak velocity (v1st max), first local minimum
A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used with Bonferroni post hoc tests to assess differences in kinematics. When the assumption of sphericity was violated, the Greenhouse–Geisser adjustments of P values are reported. For the analysis of resultant moment arms, a two-way ANOVA 3 (grip width) × 4 (events: v0, v1st max, vmin, v2nd max) repeated measures design with Bonferroni post hoc tests was used. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS version 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All results are presented as means ± standard deviations if not otherwise stated. Effect size was
4
O. Gomo & R. van den Tillaar
evaluated with η2 (Eta partial squared) where 0.01 < η2 < 0.06 constitutes a small effect, a medium effect when 0.06 < η2 < 0.14 and a large effect when η2 > 0.14(Cohen, 1988).
The highest successful loads lifted by the participants with narrow, medium and wide grip were 122.1 ± 19.4 kg, 126.5 ± 21.6 kg and 131.5 ± 22.9 kg. There was no significant difference between 1-RM in narrow and medium grip (P = 0.146), but there was a significant difference in wide grip compared to medium and narrow grip (P ≤ 0.029). No significant differences were found for the time of occurrence at v1st max, vmin and v2nd max between the three grip widths (F2,22 ≤ 2.434, P ≥ 0.111, η2 ≤ 0.181, Figure 2A). However, velocity at v1st max was significantly different between the three 4.00
narrow medium wide
3.50
Time (s)
3.00
A
2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.40
Velocity (m/s)
0.35
*
B
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Height above chest (m)
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
Results
†
0.40
C
0.35 0.30
*
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10
*
0.05 0.00
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Event in bench press movement
Figure 2. (A) Time of occurrence, (B) Velocity and (C) bar position of v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two grip widths.
grip widths (F2,22 = 23.606, P < 0.0001, η2 = 0.682, Figure 2B) with no significant differences of velocity at vmin and v2nd max (F2,22 ≤ 3.102, P ≥ 0.065, η2 ≤ 0.220, Figure 2B). Post hoc comparisons showed that velocity at v1st max was significantly higher (P ≤ 0.001) with the narrow grip compared to the other two grip widths (Figure 2B). Also significant differences were found in the position of the barbell from the sternum at all points (v1st max, vmin and v2nd max) between the three grip widths (F2,22 ≥ 14.558, P ≤ 0.0001, η2 ≥ 0.570). Post hoc comparisons showed that the position of the barbell with the narrow grip was significantly higher at v1st max and vmin than with the other two grip widths (P ≤ 0.002, Figure 2C) and a significantly higher position at v2nd max with the narrow grip compared with the wide grip (P < 0.001, Figure 2C). Significant differences in elbow extension angle were found at v0, v1st max and vmin (F2,22 ≥ 6.16, P ≤ 0.007, η2 ≥ 0.36), but not at v2nd max (F2,22 = 1.92, P = 0.17, η2 = 0.15). Post hoc comparisons showed that at v0 and v1st max, the extension angle significantly differed across grip widths; narrow grip having the smallest extension angle followed by medium and then wide grip width (P < 0.01, Figure 3). It was also found that at vmin, the extension angle with medium grip was significantly lower than the other two grip widths (P < 0.033, Figure 3). Furthermore, significant differences in shoulder abduction angles were found between the three grip widths at v0 and v1st max (F.1.2,14.1 ≥ 6.554, P ≤ 0.017, η2 ≥ 0.375), but not at vmin and v2nd max (F2,22 ≤ 1.89, P ≥ 0.174, η2 ≥ 0.147). Post hoc comparisons showed that the abduction angle with narrow grip was significantly lower at v0 and v1st max compared to the two other grip widths (P ≤ 0.046, Figure 3). Shoulder flexion angles at v0, v1st max and vmin were significantly different (F2,22 ≥ 7.831, P ≤ 0.035, η2 ≥ 0.654) between the three grip widths (Figure 3), with no significant difference at v2nd max (F2,22 = 3.0, P = 0.07, η2 = 0.215). Post hoc comparisons showed that the flexion angle at the first three points was significantly higher with the narrow grip compared to the other two grip widths (Figure 3). At v2nd max, the flexion angle was only significantly higher with the narrow compared with the wide grip (P = 0.009, Figure 3), but not with the medium grip. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the shoulder joint showed in a two-way ANOVA 3 × 4 repeated measures design that there was a significant change in moment arm over the four points (F1.19,13.1 = 23.774, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.684), together with an effect of grip width (F1.237,13.608 = 53.735, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.830) and an interaction (F3.260,13.608 = 18.602, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.628).
5
140 120
* *
100 80
Resultant moment arm shoulder (m)
narrow medium wide
*
*
*
*
*
60 40 90
narrow medium wide
80
*
*
narrow
wide
*
0.40 0.35
0.30
medium
*
*
†
*
*
*
*
*
†
*
*
0.25
*
*
* 0.20
0.15
V0
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Figure 4. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the shoulder joint at v0, v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two points of the lift for all grip widths.
70 60
0.50
Event in bench press movement
50 40 30 narrow medium wide
100 80
†
*
60 40 20 0
*
*
–20 –40
V0
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Event in bench press movement
Figure 3. Joint angles at v0, v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two grip widths.
Since an interaction was found, a one-way ANOVA was performed with each grip width, which showed that there was a significant change of moment arm in all grips (F1.34,14.70 ≥ 9.12, P ≤ 0.006, η2 ≥ 0.453). Post hoc comparison showed that the moment arms differed significantly (P < 0.001, Figure 4) between the three grip widths in all four points, narrow being the smallest, followed by medium and wide. The moment arms decreased significantly from v1st max to vmin and to v2nd max in all grip widths (P < 0.02, Figure 4).The interaction which was found showed that the differences in moments arms between the three grip widths changed significantly different over the four points, i.e. with the narrow grip, the moments arm decreased more than the medium and the medium decreased more than the wide grip over the four points. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the elbow showed in a two-way ANOVA 3 × 4 repeated measures design that there was a significant change in
moment arm over the four points (F1.741,19.148 = 6.032, P < 0.012, η2 = 0.354), together with an effect of grip width (F2,22 = 5.707, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.342) and interaction (F3.262,35.880 = 22.193, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.669). A one-way ANOVA was performed with each grip width, which showed that there was a significant change of moment arm in the narrow (F1.40,15.45 = 36.155, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.767) and wide grip (F1.32,14.49 = 8.716, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.442) width during the four points, while no differences were found with the medium grip (F1.70,18.65 = 0.373, P = 0.67, η2 = 0.033). Post hoc comparisons showed that with the narrow grip, the moment arm first increases from v0 to v1st max (P = 0.011) and then decreases significantly from vmin to v2nd max (P < 0.0001), while the moment arm with the wide grip only decreased significantly from v0 to vmin (P = 0.016, Figure 5).
narrow
Resultant moment arm elbow (m)
Shoulder abduction angle (o) Elbow extension angle (o)
160
120
Shoulder flexion angle (o)
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
Effect of grip width on sticking region in bench press
medium
wide
0.12
†
0.10
*
*
0.08 0.06
†
*
†
*
0.04 0.02 0.00 V0
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Event in bench press movement
Figure 5. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint at v0, v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two points of the lift with this grip width.
6
O. Gomo & R. van den Tillaar
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. A clear sticking region was found in all participant’s 1-RM lifts with all three grip widths, which was in accordance with the literature (Elliot et al., 1989; Hamilton, 1995; Lander, Bates, Swahill, & Hamill, 1985; Newton et al., 1997; van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009, 2010; van den Tillaar et al., 2012). The main findings of this study were that the results did not concur with the proposed hypothesis that the sticking region was angle-specific. The narrow grip width had significantly smaller shoulder abduction angle and greater flexion angle than the two other grip widths at the start of the sticking region, and a greater shoulder flexion angle at the end of the sticking region. Elbow extension differed significantly between all grip widths at the start of the sticking region, but at the end only medium grip differed from the two others. The joint angles, for the wide grip, found in this study were similar to those found by van den Tillaar and Ettema (2010). For the medium and narrow grip, no earlier studies reported the joint angles during the sticking region, and therefore, it was not possible to compare. The elbows were moved laterally during the sticking region, which was also found by Lander et al. (1985), Elliot et al. (1989) and van den Tillaar and Ettema (2010). This caused a reduction of the resultant moment arm of the barbell about the shoulder joint, which is in agreement with the previous literature (Elliot et al., 1989; van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009, 2010). The resultant moment arm of the barbell about the elbow was not reduced significantly during the sticking region, but varied across grip widths (Figure 5). This might be an explanation for why the results of this study did not concur with the proposed hypothesis. The three different grip widths had different moment arms on the elbow in the sticking region. The greater moment arm on the elbow will logically create a higher degree of lateral forces and a lesser amount of the total forces produced put vertically on the barbell. Duffey and Challis (2011) found in novice lifters that the lateral force production in a bench press was between 22% and 29% of the vertical force produced. When relating this to the present study, we see that if the total force production is the same in all three grip widths throughout the lift, the differences in moment arms will cause the vertical forces to be different because of a greater lateral force. Thereby the region of a poor vertical force
production occurs at different joint angles as shown in the present study, while the region of a poor total force production still might be joint angle-specific. A closer look into the joint angles shows that there were some degrees of elbow extension, shoulder abduction and flexion that all the grip widths went through in the sticking region. For elbow extension, this was 87.3°– 91.25°; for shoulder abduction, it was 57.1°–64.4°; and for shoulder flexion, it was −6.7°–6.9° (Figure 3). At these degrees of extension, abduction and flexion, vertical force production was reduced in all three grip widths (sticking region). The reason why joint angles were not the same throughout the entire sticking region might, as explained above, could be the moment arms. However, in the present study, we were not able to measure the vertical and horizontal forces produced during the lifts to investigate if there is a region of poor total force production. Furthermore, by including the lateral forces as measured in the study of Duffey and Challis (2011), the direction of the total force production can be measured, which can show during the lift if this total force direction goes laterally, medially or directly through the elbow joint (Figure 6). These differences in direction of total
Figure 6. Schematic overview over lateral and vertical force production with same total force production, but with different grip width. The angle of the total force production could result in a moment arm laterally, right through or medially of the elbow joint as shown.
Effect of grip width on sticking region in bench press force would have major importance on the joint moment arms around the shoulder and especially the elbow joint. It could result in changing from a flexion to extension moment in the elbow joint and thereby have opposite functions for the involved muscles. Therefore, further research should be done with a device measuring the horizontal (lateral) forces on the barbell and vertical forces and different grip widths, thereby investigating if this hypothetical region of poor total force production is joint anglespecific. Disclosure statement
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Barnett, C., Kippers, V., & Turner, P. (1995). Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9, 222–227. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duffey, M. J., & Challis, J. H. (2011). Vertical and lateral forces applied to the bar during the bench press in novice lifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 2442–2447. Elliot, B. C., Wilson, G. J., & Kerr, G. K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 450–462.
7
Hamilton, N. (1995). Bar path in the bench press by wheelchair athletes. International Journal of Adapted Physical Educational research, 2, 61–69. Lander, J. E., Bates, B. T., Swahill, J. A., & Hamill, J. (1985). A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17, 344–353. Lehman, G. (2005). The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during the flat bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 587–591. Madsen, N., & McLaughlin, T. (1984). Kinematic factors influencing performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 376–381. McLaughlin, T. M. (1985). Grip spacing and arm position. Powerlifting U.S.A, 8, 24. Newton, R., Murphy, A. J., Humphries, B., Wilson, G., Kraemer, W., & Häkkinen, K. (1997). Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 75, 333–342. van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2009). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 2056–2063. van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2010). The “sticking period” in a maximum bench press. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 529–535. van den Tillaar, R., Sæterbakken, A. H., & Ettema, G. (2012). Is the occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press? Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 591–599. Wagner, L. L., Evans, S. A., Weir, J. P., Housh, T. J., & Johnson, G. O. (1992). The effect of grip width on bench press performance. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 8, 1–10. Wilson, G. J., Elliot, B. C., & Kerr, G. K. (1989). Bar path and force profile characteristics for maximal and submaximal loads in the bench press. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 5, 390–402.
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press a
a
Olav Gomo & Roland van den Tillaar a
Department of Teacher Education and Sports, Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger, Norway Published online: 08 Jun 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Olav Gomo & Roland van den Tillaar (2015): The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1046395 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1046395
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1046395
The effects of grip width on sticking region in bench press
OLAV GOMO & ROLAND VAN DEN TILLAAR Department of Teacher Education and Sports, Nord Trøndelag University College, Levanger, Norway
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
(Accepted 27 April 2015)
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. Twelve male experienced powerlifters (age 27.7 ± 8.8 years, mass 91.9 ± 15.4 kg) were tested in one repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press with a narrow, medium and wide grip. Joint kinematics, timing, bar position and velocity were measured with a 3D motion capture system. All participants showed a clear sticking region with all three grip widths, but this sticking region was not found to occur at the same joint angles in all three grip widths, thereby rejecting the hypothesis that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width. It is suggested that, due to the differences in moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint in the sticking region, there still might be a poor mechanical region for total force production that is joint angle-specific. Keywords: joint angle, powerlifters, force production
Introduction The bench press exercise is widely renowned as the best test of upper body strength and is a part of the strength sport powerlifting. It is an enormously popular exercise, yet fairly simple to perform. In accordance to the rules and regulations set by the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF), the lift is performed lying supine on a bench with the head, shoulders and buttocks in contact with the bench surface and the feet flat on the floor. The lift starts with straight arms, elbows locked out. The barbell is then lowered to the chest or abdominal area, before it is pushed in to straight arms and elbows locked out again at the end of the lift. Each year the IPF arranges World championships in bench press, and the lift is also a part of the Special Olympics, with contestants lifting over 300 kg without any supportive gear. When performing the bench press at a heavy load, Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) found that there occurs a point in the lift where the upward barbell movement decelerates or even stops before again accelerating. They named this point the sticking point, the first local minimum of the upward velocity (Tvmin), stating that at this position the lifters’ capacity to exert force might be substantially lower than in the nearby positions. Research done by Elliot,
Wilson, and Kerr (1989) also found the sticking point, but instead of naming it the sticking point, they named the region from peak velocity (Tvmax) to Tvmin sticking region. This definition has been seen as a more functional one when analysing a bench press, as there is a region in which the pushing force applied by the lifter to the bar is less than the gravity of the barbell, thereby creating a region of deceleration of the barbell, not merely a point. The reason why the sticking region is an interesting subject for research is the fact that this deceleration occurs only when performing the bench press with a near maximal to maximal load (Elliot et al., 1989; Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; Newton et al., 1997), thereby creating a constraint for performance in the bench press. The idea of the sticking region as a constraint for performance has resulted in a lot of research performed with the aim of trying to explain why the sticking region occurs. The leading explanation model for the sticking region is based on the idea that the sticking region is a mechanically disadvantageous region for force development (Elliot et al., 1989; Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; van den Tillaar, Sæterbakken, & Ettema, 2012). The reason for this mechanically disadvantageous region is hypothesised to be either the muscle length or the
Correspondence: Roland van den Tillaar, Department of Teacher Education, Nord Trøndelag University College, Odins veg 23, 7603 Levanger, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
2
O. Gomo & R. van den Tillaar
internal or external moment arms. Within this model of explanation, it was found that the external moment arms are more advantageous in the sticking region than in the region before and less advantageous than in the region after (Elliot et al., 1989), thereby rejecting the hypothesis that less advantageous external moment arms are the reason for the existence of the sticking region. van den Tillaar et al. (2012) showed, by conducting maximal 1-RM bench press and isometric bench presses at 12 different heights from sternum, a sticking region as indicated by a decreased force output in this region. They suggested that the sticking region, shown by the force-curve during a near maximal and maximal bench press, could be seen as the force-length curve of the muscle, thereby hypothesising that muscle lengths are the cause of the sticking region. One possible way to see if this hypothesis is true is to test the bench press with different grip widths and see if the sticking region occurs at the same joint angle, in the shoulder and elbow, independent of distance or time from the sternum. The joint angle would represent the length of the muscle; same joint angle would be approximately an equal muscle length for the involved muscles. Past research on grip width has primarily been done on strength output and muscle activation differences (Barnett, Kippers, & Turner, 1995; Lehman, 2005; McLaughlin, 1985). Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) and Wagner, Evans, Weir, Housh, and Johnson (1992) found that one is significantly stronger with a wide grip compared to a narrow grip. However, only Wagner et al. (1992) mentioned sticking region and grip width. They tested the bench press with six different grip widths and found that the sticking region began at a significantly higher point for a grip width of 169% of bi-acromial distance (BAD), than for a grip width of 270% of BAD. This may be an argument for the hypothesis that the sticking region occurs at the same joint angle, independent of distance from sternum, observed as the same joint angle at the elbow but with a wider grip and thus a lesser distance from sternum. However, in this study, no joint angles were measured or moment arms at the shoulder or elbow joint. This makes it difficult to state if the sticking region occurs at the same joint angles. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in bench press performance of experienced powerlifters. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles.
Methods Twelve healthy male powerlifters at the age of 19–41 years (Table I), with a 1-RM bench press record on a national level, were recruited for the study. National level was defined as having lifted the same as, or more than, the qualification weight for the national championships in their weight class and category. Amongst the participants were National, Nordic and European champions in powerlifting. Informed consent was obtained prior to all testing from all participants, in accordance with the recommendations of the local ethics committee and current ethical standards in sports and exercise research.
Procedure The three grip widths were performed in a randomly assigned order by each participant. The three grip widths being wide defined as preferred competition grip, narrow defined as bi-acromial distance and medium in the middle of the two (Barnett et al., 1995; Lehman, 2005; Wagner et al., 1992). Only three grip widths were used to avoid fatigue that can occur when performing with more grip widths (Wagner et al., 1992). After a general warm-up, including as many repetitions as the participant wanted with just the barbell, the participants conducted a standardised warm-up protocol with the first grip width. The protocol was 8 reps at 40% of the self-estimated one repetition maximum (1RMest), 6 reps at 60% of 1-RMest, 3 reps at 70% of 1-RMest and 2 reps at 80% of 1-RMest. The 1-RMest was the weight that the participant himself estimated to be his one repetition maximum at that grip width. After the warm-up protocol, the participants were tested at 95% of 1-RMest and 100% of 1-RMest; if the 100% lift was successful, the weight was raised by 2.5 kg or 5 kg, depending on the lifters feedback, until a miss or a near miss lift. Three attempts were performed in total with each grip width; the highest completed lift was used for further analysis. After the first 1-RM was established, the lifter was instructed to perform a warm-up set with 3 reps at 80% of 1-RMest at the second grip width. This set was supposed to work as an adaptation set to the new width. After the set, the lifter performed the same Table I. Characteristics of the participants. Minimum Maximum Mean Age (years) Bodyweight (kg) Wide grip width (cm) Medium grip width (cm) Narrow grip width (cm)
19 77.5 61 40.5 31
41 127 81 62.5 47
SD
27.73 8.82 91.85 15.41 74.54 9.75 56.79 6.04 39.17 3.51
Effect of grip width on sticking region in bench press
d shoulder
d elbow
Shoulder flexion
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
3
Elbow flexion
Shoulder abduction Figure 1. The joint angles and moment arms which were measured during the bench press. Adapted from van den Tillaar and Ettema (2009).
testing routine as with the first grip width. The same procedure was conducted with the last grip width: one adaptation set at 80% of 1-RMest and then a 95% and 100% test, plus possible increases if the lift was not a maximum lift. In general, the lifter was permitted 3–5 min of rest between each attempt in order to avoid fatigue. However, each participant decided himself when he felt ready (fully recovered from the last attempt) for a new attempt. The participants performed the bench press according to the rules and regulations set by the IPF, except that the requirement for a full stop on the chest was removed, they were allowed to touch and press, but no bounce was allowed.
velocity (vmin) and second peak velocity (v2nd max). These points constitute the start points of the different regions of the lift, v1st max being the start of sticking region, vmin the start of post-sticking region (and thereby also the end of sticking region) and v2nd max the start of the deceleration phase. Timing, barbell position, velocity, joint angles and resultant moment arms at the elbow and shoulder joint were calculated at these points in Matlab 6.1. Joint angles (shoulder flexion and abduction and elbow extension) were estimates of the anatomical angles calculated from lines formed between the centres of the reflective markers (van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009; Figure 1).
Recordings
Statistical analysis
A three-dimensional (3D) motion capture system (Qualysis, Gothenburg, Sweden) with six cameras was used to track reflective markers at a frequency of 500 Hz, creating a 3D positional measurement. The markers were placed, one on each side of the body, on the lateral tip of the acromion, on the lateral and medial epicondyle of the elbow, on the styloid process of the ulna and radius. There were also two markers placed on the middle of the bar, 20 cm apart, to track bar displacement. The points of the lift that were used for further analysis were the start of the upwards movement (v0), first peak velocity (v1st max), first local minimum
A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used with Bonferroni post hoc tests to assess differences in kinematics. When the assumption of sphericity was violated, the Greenhouse–Geisser adjustments of P values are reported. For the analysis of resultant moment arms, a two-way ANOVA 3 (grip width) × 4 (events: v0, v1st max, vmin, v2nd max) repeated measures design with Bonferroni post hoc tests was used. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS version 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All results are presented as means ± standard deviations if not otherwise stated. Effect size was
4
O. Gomo & R. van den Tillaar
evaluated with η2 (Eta partial squared) where 0.01 < η2 < 0.06 constitutes a small effect, a medium effect when 0.06 < η2 < 0.14 and a large effect when η2 > 0.14(Cohen, 1988).
The highest successful loads lifted by the participants with narrow, medium and wide grip were 122.1 ± 19.4 kg, 126.5 ± 21.6 kg and 131.5 ± 22.9 kg. There was no significant difference between 1-RM in narrow and medium grip (P = 0.146), but there was a significant difference in wide grip compared to medium and narrow grip (P ≤ 0.029). No significant differences were found for the time of occurrence at v1st max, vmin and v2nd max between the three grip widths (F2,22 ≤ 2.434, P ≥ 0.111, η2 ≤ 0.181, Figure 2A). However, velocity at v1st max was significantly different between the three 4.00
narrow medium wide
3.50
Time (s)
3.00
A
2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.40
Velocity (m/s)
0.35
*
B
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Height above chest (m)
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
Results
†
0.40
C
0.35 0.30
*
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10
*
0.05 0.00
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Event in bench press movement
Figure 2. (A) Time of occurrence, (B) Velocity and (C) bar position of v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two grip widths.
grip widths (F2,22 = 23.606, P < 0.0001, η2 = 0.682, Figure 2B) with no significant differences of velocity at vmin and v2nd max (F2,22 ≤ 3.102, P ≥ 0.065, η2 ≤ 0.220, Figure 2B). Post hoc comparisons showed that velocity at v1st max was significantly higher (P ≤ 0.001) with the narrow grip compared to the other two grip widths (Figure 2B). Also significant differences were found in the position of the barbell from the sternum at all points (v1st max, vmin and v2nd max) between the three grip widths (F2,22 ≥ 14.558, P ≤ 0.0001, η2 ≥ 0.570). Post hoc comparisons showed that the position of the barbell with the narrow grip was significantly higher at v1st max and vmin than with the other two grip widths (P ≤ 0.002, Figure 2C) and a significantly higher position at v2nd max with the narrow grip compared with the wide grip (P < 0.001, Figure 2C). Significant differences in elbow extension angle were found at v0, v1st max and vmin (F2,22 ≥ 6.16, P ≤ 0.007, η2 ≥ 0.36), but not at v2nd max (F2,22 = 1.92, P = 0.17, η2 = 0.15). Post hoc comparisons showed that at v0 and v1st max, the extension angle significantly differed across grip widths; narrow grip having the smallest extension angle followed by medium and then wide grip width (P < 0.01, Figure 3). It was also found that at vmin, the extension angle with medium grip was significantly lower than the other two grip widths (P < 0.033, Figure 3). Furthermore, significant differences in shoulder abduction angles were found between the three grip widths at v0 and v1st max (F.1.2,14.1 ≥ 6.554, P ≤ 0.017, η2 ≥ 0.375), but not at vmin and v2nd max (F2,22 ≤ 1.89, P ≥ 0.174, η2 ≥ 0.147). Post hoc comparisons showed that the abduction angle with narrow grip was significantly lower at v0 and v1st max compared to the two other grip widths (P ≤ 0.046, Figure 3). Shoulder flexion angles at v0, v1st max and vmin were significantly different (F2,22 ≥ 7.831, P ≤ 0.035, η2 ≥ 0.654) between the three grip widths (Figure 3), with no significant difference at v2nd max (F2,22 = 3.0, P = 0.07, η2 = 0.215). Post hoc comparisons showed that the flexion angle at the first three points was significantly higher with the narrow grip compared to the other two grip widths (Figure 3). At v2nd max, the flexion angle was only significantly higher with the narrow compared with the wide grip (P = 0.009, Figure 3), but not with the medium grip. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the shoulder joint showed in a two-way ANOVA 3 × 4 repeated measures design that there was a significant change in moment arm over the four points (F1.19,13.1 = 23.774, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.684), together with an effect of grip width (F1.237,13.608 = 53.735, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.830) and an interaction (F3.260,13.608 = 18.602, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.628).
5
140 120
* *
100 80
Resultant moment arm shoulder (m)
narrow medium wide
*
*
*
*
*
60 40 90
narrow medium wide
80
*
*
narrow
wide
*
0.40 0.35
0.30
medium
*
*
†
*
*
*
*
*
†
*
*
0.25
*
*
* 0.20
0.15
V0
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Figure 4. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the shoulder joint at v0, v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two points of the lift for all grip widths.
70 60
0.50
Event in bench press movement
50 40 30 narrow medium wide
100 80
†
*
60 40 20 0
*
*
–20 –40
V0
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Event in bench press movement
Figure 3. Joint angles at v0, v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two grip widths.
Since an interaction was found, a one-way ANOVA was performed with each grip width, which showed that there was a significant change of moment arm in all grips (F1.34,14.70 ≥ 9.12, P ≤ 0.006, η2 ≥ 0.453). Post hoc comparison showed that the moment arms differed significantly (P < 0.001, Figure 4) between the three grip widths in all four points, narrow being the smallest, followed by medium and wide. The moment arms decreased significantly from v1st max to vmin and to v2nd max in all grip widths (P < 0.02, Figure 4).The interaction which was found showed that the differences in moments arms between the three grip widths changed significantly different over the four points, i.e. with the narrow grip, the moments arm decreased more than the medium and the medium decreased more than the wide grip over the four points. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the elbow showed in a two-way ANOVA 3 × 4 repeated measures design that there was a significant change in
moment arm over the four points (F1.741,19.148 = 6.032, P < 0.012, η2 = 0.354), together with an effect of grip width (F2,22 = 5.707, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.342) and interaction (F3.262,35.880 = 22.193, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.669). A one-way ANOVA was performed with each grip width, which showed that there was a significant change of moment arm in the narrow (F1.40,15.45 = 36.155, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.767) and wide grip (F1.32,14.49 = 8.716, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.442) width during the four points, while no differences were found with the medium grip (F1.70,18.65 = 0.373, P = 0.67, η2 = 0.033). Post hoc comparisons showed that with the narrow grip, the moment arm first increases from v0 to v1st max (P = 0.011) and then decreases significantly from vmin to v2nd max (P < 0.0001), while the moment arm with the wide grip only decreased significantly from v0 to vmin (P = 0.016, Figure 5).
narrow
Resultant moment arm elbow (m)
Shoulder abduction angle (o) Elbow extension angle (o)
160
120
Shoulder flexion angle (o)
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
Effect of grip width on sticking region in bench press
medium
wide
0.12
†
0.10
*
*
0.08 0.06
†
*
†
*
0.04 0.02 0.00 V0
Vmax
Vmin
Vmax2
Event in bench press movement
Figure 5. Resultant moment arm of the barbell about the elbow joint at v0, v1st max, vmin and v2nd max with the three different grip widths. * Indicates a significant difference compared with the other two grip widths. † Indicates a significant difference between these two points of the lift with this grip width.
6
O. Gomo & R. van den Tillaar
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of the sticking region by examining how three different grip widths affect the sticking region in powerlifters’ bench press performance. It was hypothesised that the sticking region would occur at the same joint angle of the elbow and shoulder independent of grip width, indicating a poor mechanical region for vertical force production at these joint angles. A clear sticking region was found in all participant’s 1-RM lifts with all three grip widths, which was in accordance with the literature (Elliot et al., 1989; Hamilton, 1995; Lander, Bates, Swahill, & Hamill, 1985; Newton et al., 1997; van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009, 2010; van den Tillaar et al., 2012). The main findings of this study were that the results did not concur with the proposed hypothesis that the sticking region was angle-specific. The narrow grip width had significantly smaller shoulder abduction angle and greater flexion angle than the two other grip widths at the start of the sticking region, and a greater shoulder flexion angle at the end of the sticking region. Elbow extension differed significantly between all grip widths at the start of the sticking region, but at the end only medium grip differed from the two others. The joint angles, for the wide grip, found in this study were similar to those found by van den Tillaar and Ettema (2010). For the medium and narrow grip, no earlier studies reported the joint angles during the sticking region, and therefore, it was not possible to compare. The elbows were moved laterally during the sticking region, which was also found by Lander et al. (1985), Elliot et al. (1989) and van den Tillaar and Ettema (2010). This caused a reduction of the resultant moment arm of the barbell about the shoulder joint, which is in agreement with the previous literature (Elliot et al., 1989; van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2009, 2010). The resultant moment arm of the barbell about the elbow was not reduced significantly during the sticking region, but varied across grip widths (Figure 5). This might be an explanation for why the results of this study did not concur with the proposed hypothesis. The three different grip widths had different moment arms on the elbow in the sticking region. The greater moment arm on the elbow will logically create a higher degree of lateral forces and a lesser amount of the total forces produced put vertically on the barbell. Duffey and Challis (2011) found in novice lifters that the lateral force production in a bench press was between 22% and 29% of the vertical force produced. When relating this to the present study, we see that if the total force production is the same in all three grip widths throughout the lift, the differences in moment arms will cause the vertical forces to be different because of a greater lateral force. Thereby the region of a poor vertical force
production occurs at different joint angles as shown in the present study, while the region of a poor total force production still might be joint angle-specific. A closer look into the joint angles shows that there were some degrees of elbow extension, shoulder abduction and flexion that all the grip widths went through in the sticking region. For elbow extension, this was 87.3°– 91.25°; for shoulder abduction, it was 57.1°–64.4°; and for shoulder flexion, it was −6.7°–6.9° (Figure 3). At these degrees of extension, abduction and flexion, vertical force production was reduced in all three grip widths (sticking region). The reason why joint angles were not the same throughout the entire sticking region might, as explained above, could be the moment arms. However, in the present study, we were not able to measure the vertical and horizontal forces produced during the lifts to investigate if there is a region of poor total force production. Furthermore, by including the lateral forces as measured in the study of Duffey and Challis (2011), the direction of the total force production can be measured, which can show during the lift if this total force direction goes laterally, medially or directly through the elbow joint (Figure 6). These differences in direction of total
Figure 6. Schematic overview over lateral and vertical force production with same total force production, but with different grip width. The angle of the total force production could result in a moment arm laterally, right through or medially of the elbow joint as shown.
Effect of grip width on sticking region in bench press force would have major importance on the joint moment arms around the shoulder and especially the elbow joint. It could result in changing from a flexion to extension moment in the elbow joint and thereby have opposite functions for the involved muscles. Therefore, further research should be done with a device measuring the horizontal (lateral) forces on the barbell and vertical forces and different grip widths, thereby investigating if this hypothetical region of poor total force production is joint anglespecific. Disclosure statement
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 00:48 30 July 2015
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Barnett, C., Kippers, V., & Turner, P. (1995). Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9, 222–227. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duffey, M. J., & Challis, J. H. (2011). Vertical and lateral forces applied to the bar during the bench press in novice lifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 2442–2447. Elliot, B. C., Wilson, G. J., & Kerr, G. K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 450–462.
7
Hamilton, N. (1995). Bar path in the bench press by wheelchair athletes. International Journal of Adapted Physical Educational research, 2, 61–69. Lander, J. E., Bates, B. T., Swahill, J. A., & Hamill, J. (1985). A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17, 344–353. Lehman, G. (2005). The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during the flat bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 587–591. Madsen, N., & McLaughlin, T. (1984). Kinematic factors influencing performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 376–381. McLaughlin, T. M. (1985). Grip spacing and arm position. Powerlifting U.S.A, 8, 24. Newton, R., Murphy, A. J., Humphries, B., Wilson, G., Kraemer, W., & Häkkinen, K. (1997). Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 75, 333–342. van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2009). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 2056–2063. van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2010). The “sticking period” in a maximum bench press. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 529–535. van den Tillaar, R., Sæterbakken, A. H., & Ettema, G. (2012). Is the occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press? Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 591–599. Wagner, L. L., Evans, S. A., Weir, J. P., Housh, T. J., & Johnson, G. O. (1992). The effect of grip width on bench press performance. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 8, 1–10. Wilson, G. J., Elliot, B. C., & Kerr, G. K. (1989). Bar path and force profile characteristics for maximal and submaximal loads in the bench press. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 5, 390–402.
