24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Bench press and push-up at comparable levels of muscle activity results in similar strength gains.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Electromyography (EMG) exercise evaluation is commonly used to measure the intensity of muscle contraction. Although researchers assume that biomechanically comparable resistance exercises with similar high EMG levels will produce similar strength gains over the long term, no studies have actually corroborated this hypothesis. This study evaluated EMG levels during 6 repetition maximum (6RM) bench press and push-up, and subsequently performed a 5-week training period where subjects were randomly divided into 3 groups (i.e., 6RM bench press group, 6RM elastic band push-up group, or control group) to evaluate muscle strength gains. Thirty university students with advanced resistance training experience participated in the 2-part study. During the training period, exercises were performed using the same loads and variables that were used during the EMG data collection. At baseline, EMG amplitude showed no significant difference between 6RM bench press and band push-up. Significant differences among the groups were found for percent change (Δ) between pretest and posttest for 6RM (p = 0.017) and for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (p < 0.001). Six repetition maximum bench press group and 6RM elastic band push-up group improved their 1RM and 6RM (Δ ranging from 13.65 to 22.21) tests significantly with similar gains, whereas control group remains unchanged. Thus, when the EMG values are comparable and the same conditions are reproduced, the aforementioned exercises can provide similar muscle strength gains.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Adaptations to Strength Training

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk factors for training-related injuries among men and women in basic combat training.

            Past investigations indicate that training-related injuries are associated with certain performance-oriented measures of physical fitness and certain lifestyle characteristics. This study examined associations between injuries, direct (physiological) measures of physical fitness, and lifestyle characteristics. Subjects were 756 men and 474 women performing the standardized activities involved in U.S. Army Basic Combat Training (BCT). Before BCT, a subsample of subjects (182 men and 168 women) were administered a series of tests that included a treadmill running test (peak VO2), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (for body composition), several measures of muscle strength, a hamstring flexibility test, and a vertical jump. A questionnaire addressed smoking habits and prior physical activity. All subjects were administered the Army Physical Fitness test consisting of push-ups, sit-ups, and a 3.2-km run. Gender, age, stature, and body mass were obtained from physical examination records. Injuries incurred during BCT were transcribed from medical records; for each medical visit, the diagnosis, anatomical location, disposition (final outcome of visit), and days of limited duty were recorded. Women had over twice the injury rate of men. For men and women, fewer push-ups, slower 3.2-km run times, lower peak VO2, and cigarette smoking were risk factors for time-loss injury. Among the men only, lower levels of physical activity before BCT and both high and low levels of flexibility were also time-loss injury risk factors. Multivariate analysis revealed that lower peak VO2 and cigarette smoking were independent risk factors for time-loss injury. Lower aerobic capacity and cigarette smoking were independently associated with a higher likelihood of injury in both men and women during a standardized program of physical training. Further studies are needed to assess associations between injury and body composition and muscular strength.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rest interval between sets in strength training.

              Strength training has become one of the most popular physical activities for increasing characteristics such as absolute muscular strength, endurance, hypertrophy and muscular power. For efficient, safe and effective training, it is of utmost importance to understand the interaction among training variables, which might include the intensity, number of sets, rest interval between sets, exercise modality and velocity of muscle action. Research has indicated that the rest interval between sets is an important variable that affects both acute responses and chronic adaptations to resistance exercise programmes. The purpose of this review is to analyse and discuss the rest interval between sets for targeting specific training outcomes (e.g. absolute muscular strength, endurance, hypertrophy and muscular power). The Scielo, Science Citation Index, National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE, Scopus, Sport Discus and CINAHL databases were used to locate previous original scientific investigations. The 35 studies reviewed examined both acute responses and chronic adaptations, with rest interval length as the experimental variable. In terms of acute responses, a key finding was that when training with loads between 50% and 90% of one repetition maximum, 3-5 minutes' rest between sets allowed for greater repetitions over multiple sets. Furthermore, in terms of chronic adaptations, resting 3-5 minutes between sets produced greater increases in absolute strength, due to higher intensities and volumes of training. Similarly, higher levels of muscular power were demonstrated over multiple sets with 3 or 5 minutes versus 1 minute of rest between sets. Conversely, some experiments have demonstrated that when testing maximal strength, 1-minute rest intervals might be sufficient between repeated attempts; however, from a psychological and physiological standpoint, the inclusion of 3- to 5-minute rest intervals might be safer and more reliable. When the training goal is muscular hypertrophy, the combination of moderate-intensity sets with short rest intervals of 30-60 seconds might be most effective due to greater acute levels of growth hormone during such workouts. Finally, the research on rest interval length in relation to chronic muscular endurance adaptations is less clear. Training with short rest intervals (e.g. 20 seconds to 1 minute) resulted in higher repetition velocities during repeated submaximal muscle actions and also greater total torque during a high-intensity cycle test. Both of these findings indirectly demonstrated the benefits of utilizing short rest intervals for gains in muscular endurance. In summary, the rest interval between sets is an important variable that should receive more attention in resistance exercise prescription. When prescribed appropriately with other important prescriptive variables (i.e. volume and intensity), the amount of rest between sets can influence the efficiency, safety and ultimate effectiveness of a strength training programme.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Strength Cond Res
                Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association
                1533-4287
                1064-8011
                Jan 2015
                : 29
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ] 1Laboratory of Physical Activity and Health, Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; and 2National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Article
                10.1519/JSC.0000000000000589
                24983847
                c21e083a-6d72-4571-83af-4d2ed20bf0e9
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content137

                Cited by32

                Most referenced authors461