The Effects of Specialized Exercise Variables for the Purpose of Maximizing Absolute Strength on the Bench Press

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between muscular overcoming, yielding, and holding during training for absolute strength on the bench press. Currently, the majority of absolute strength training is performed with the emphasis on overcoming. Methods of using yielding and holding for the development of absolute strength, based on a specific muscle by muscle basis, are used only by a handful of physical preparation coaches. This study pitted the two methods against each other. Each group performed the exact same exercises. Both groups concentrated on overcoming when training the chest, shoulders, and triceps. Group 1 emphasized yielding and holding when training the rest of the body’s muscles while Group 2 focused on overcoming with every muscle group. After a six-week training period, the mean percentage increase for Group 1 was 2.64 percent more than Group 2. Furthermore, the mean pound increase for Group 1 was 11.66 pounds more than Group 2. These numbers suggest that when exercising for absolute strength, training muscles specifically for the completion of a concrete motor task is significantly more effective.

The subjects

Each subject of this study was required to equal or exceed specific requirements in order to lower the variables of change. All eight test subjects were male. They had to have at least two years of experience with the bench press. At the beginning of the study, all subjects had to have an absolute maximum bench press effort of at least 200 pounds. Arm length (measured from the AC joint to the knuckle) had to be at least 25 inches. Participants had to be at least 70 inches tall and weigh at least 185 pounds.

The mean age of the accepted subjects was 32 years old. The mean arm length was 26 inches, mean height was 72 inches, and mean body weight was 227 pounds. The beginning mean bench press maximum was 274 pounds. The groups were then split evenly according to these variables.

Life factors were taken into consideration when choosing subjects as well. All subjects had full-time jobs and family obligations. The goal with choosing subjects was to simulate the average working-class, American male.

The workouts

Participants were given a three-day a week lifting program. Proper form was considered paramount by the instructors. All workouts began with a warm up consisting of self-myofascial release, active mobility, and core strength.

Both groups focused on the overcoming portion of movements involving the pectorals, front deltoids, and triceps. For the rest of the body’s muscles, Group 1 held or yielded against resistance while Group 2 continued to concentrate on overcoming.

The program was designed with the sole purpose of increasing absolute strength on the bench press. It was designed as a workout that busy men with full-time jobs and families and a limited amount of time allotted for exercise could perform while increasing their absolute strength. If an individual missed a workout (which was rare), he was asked to perform weekly workouts two and three on the same day at the next opportunity.

Weekly Workout 1: For both groups, the first workout of each week consisted of the bench press, pull-ups, dips, preacher curls, and stretching. The workout focused on the muscles of the upper body.

The main muscle movers on the bench press are the pectorals, front deltoids, and triceps. The bench press percentages of maximum varied by week. Week 1 consisted of three sets of 80 percent of the beginning bench press maximum for five repetitions. Week 2 consisted of three sets of three repetitions at 85 percent, Week 3 was three sets of three repetitions at 90 percent, Week 4 was three sets of four at 85 percent, and Week 5 was three sets of two reps with one set each of 85 percent, 90 percent, and 95 percent. Participants completed a fourth set with the rep range designed for that week but at a lower percentage of the three preceding sets. On every week, participants completed a fifth “burnout” set of push-ups, dumbbell chest presses, or machine flies to absolute fatigue immediately following the fourth set. Day 1 of Week 6 was the ending test day, performed exactly six weeks after initial testing.

The second exercise was pull-ups. The major muscle groups involved in pull-ups are the latissimus dorsi and the biceps. Group 1 completed six sets of five repetitions. They focused on the yielding eccentric phase of the movement, lowering their body for eight seconds on each repetition. Group 1 members then either jumped or used external manual assistance to get their chin over the bar in order to complete the next repetition. Group 2 completed six sets of five repetitions. They focused on the overcoming concentric portion of the movement at a moderate pace (4–5 total seconds per repetition).

The next exercise was dips (a triceps dominant movement). Both groups completed four sets of five repetitions at a moderate pace, concentrating on the overcoming concentric portion of the movement. Subjects were encouraged to add extra resistance with a weight bearing belt.

The last exercise of Workout 1 of each week was preacher curls (an arm biceps dominant movement). Group 1 performed four sets of five repetitions and focused on the yielding eccentric portion of the exercise for eight seconds. They used spotters to assist them pull the weight back up to the top position. They were encouraged to use more weight than they could overcome because joints have different overcoming, yielding, and holding strengths at different angles (4). Group 2 completed four sets of five repetitions at a moderate pace, concentrating on overcoming. See Exhibits A and B for a Day 1 example workout.

Weekly Workout 2: The second workout of each week focused on the lower body, more specifically the posterior chain (hamstrings, gluteus maximus, and spinal erectors). Each exercise in this workout trained these specific muscles.

Group 1 completed four sets of hyperextensions, reverse hyperextensions on a Swiss ball, leg curls, and abdominal work. The group held the hyperextensions, reverse hyperextensions, and leg curls at the point of greatest tension. The time under tension decreased per week and the weight held increased. A sample Group 1 member on the leg curl held 100 pounds for 30 seconds in Week 1, 110 pounds for 25 seconds in Week 2, 130 pounds for 20 seconds in Week 3, 150 pounds for 15 seconds in Week 4, and 170 pounds for 10 seconds in Week 5. See Exhibit C for an example of this workout.

Group 2 completed barbell deadlifts, hyperextensions, leg curls, and abdominal work. The focus on all exercises was overcoming. They performed four sets of five repetitions on the deadlift, four sets of five repetitions on the hyperextensions, and four sets of eight repetitions on the leg curls. Group 2 members were encouraged to increase the loads and total weight volume on a weekly basis. See Exhibit D for an example of this workout.

Weekly Workout 3: The third workout of each week focused on the upper body with depth jumps included for both groups to maintain explosive leg strength. The workout consisted of the push press, inverted body rows, weighted close-grip push-ups, and a phasic cable chest press.

The push press exercise develops explosive power in the hips and shoulders. For both groups, the emphasis of the exercise was on quickly overcoming the concentric portion of the movement. With a barbell, participants completed four sets of five repetitions. Subjects were encouraged to increase weight volume on a weekly basis.

The inverted body row works the muscles of the upper back, latissimus dorsi, and arm biceps. The rows were completed on the barbell of a Smith machine. Group 1 completed four sets of five repetitions, emphasizing the eccentric portion of the movement and yielding for eight seconds on each repetition. Group 2 completed six sets of five repetitions with the focus on the overcoming concentric portion of the movement. Both groups were encouraged to increase the difficulty of this exercise weekly by either lowering the bar or elevating the feet.

A weighted close grip push-up improves the strength of the triceps, front deltoids, and pectorals. Both groups performed four sets of five repetitions with at least a 45-pound weight plate placed on the back. The movement was completed at a moderate pace.

The final exercise of the week was the phasic chest press (performed on the cable cross). It is designed to build dynamic endurance in the chest, shoulders, and triceps. Participants were asked to perform as many repetitions as possible in 60 seconds for three sets. See Exhibits E and F for examples of this workout.

Results

The lowest increase as an individual, including both groups, was 3.5 percent and the highest increase was 10 percent. As a whole, each participant increased his maximum bench press by 6.4 percent with the average maximum bench press effort increasing from 274 pounds to 291 pounds.

In Group 1, the average increase in absolute strength on the bench press was 7.72 percent and 23.23 pounds. The highest increase in Group 1 came from the same individual and was 10 percent and 35 pounds. The lowest increase in Group 1 from one individual was 4.28 percent and 15 pounds.

In Group 2, the average increase in absolute strength on the bench press was 5.8 percent and 11.67 pounds. The highest increase in absolute strength from one individual was 7.5 percent and 15 pounds. The lowest increase in Group 2 was 3.5 percent and 10 pounds, tied by two individuals.

One individual in Group 2 had a higher percentage increase in absolute strength than one individual in Group 2. Every other member of Group 1 increased their maximum greater than the highest increase in Group 2.

As a whole, Group 1 improvements in the bench press outperformed Group 2 by 2.64 percent. The mean pound increase in Group 1 was 11.66 pounds greater than the mean pound increase of Group 2.

Discussion

The evidence provided in this study suggests that training muscles specific to the solution of a concrete motor task, in this case the bench press, provides a better training effect than training all of the body’s muscles in the same fashion. The evidence is further supported by the work of Dr. Yuri Verkhoshansky (1) and in neuromuscular studies (2).

An individual’s absolute strength increases as their body weight increases and absolute strength can decrease with weight loss (3). Therefore, a large increase or decrease in body weight could have skewed the results of this study. No participant lost more than three pounds or gained more than two pounds during the six-week testing period.

An individual with an arm length under 24 inches long has a significant advantage over those with arms 27 inches or longer. An individual with 24-inch arms with a 300-pound maximum bench press completes 7200 inch-pounds of work. An individual with 27-inch arms only has to have a maximum bench press of 266 pounds to create 7200 inch-pounds of work. In this study, no individual had arms shorter than 25 inches, with the longest arm length being 27 inches. Seventy-five percent of the test subjects had arm lengths of 26 inches.

Before being accepted into this study, all individuals had to have a minimum maximum bench press of 200 pounds. If an individual completed an absolute strength test on the bench press of 100 pounds and increased it to 115 over the course of a six-week period, the improvement would be 15 percent whereas an individual with a bench press from 300 to 315 only increased by 5 percent.

The notion of trainability was considered. A highly trained athlete or someone new to strength training can distort results of studies of these types. The improvement graphs of both of these types of individuals is slowed (5), meaning they improve rather quickly and then results slow down. The highest trained athlete and the lowest trained athlete were placed in different groups and recorded the greatest improvements in their perspective groups.

This study does have two potential drawbacks. The first is a lack of a high number of participants and the second is due to total work volume. The lack of a great number of participants was accepted because of the specific requirements designed to minimize varying numbers. Volume was thought to be even at the onset of the program.

An increase in total volume (sets X reps X weight X time under tension) improves the training effect of exercise programs (6). Training volume for the chest, shoulders, and triceps was even for both groups.

The variation is with the rest of the body’s muscles. Individuals in both groups performed sets of pull-ups, completing six sets of five repetitions. However, Group 1 focused on yielding for eight seconds, giving approximately ten seconds per repetition, 50 seconds per set, and 300 seconds of total work. Group 2 emphasized the overcoming portion of the exercise, averaging five seconds per repetition, giving 25 seconds per set, and 125 seconds of total work. Therefore, when performing pull-ups, inverted body rows, and arm curls, Group 1 executed 175 seconds more time under tension on those exercises combined per week.

When training the posterior chain on weekly Workout 2, Group 2 achieved a time under tension of approximately 136 work seconds a week. Group 1 averaged 240 work seconds for the same muscles. All exercises combined, Group 1 averaged approximately 279 seconds more time under tension per week. Volume will need further testing.

The volume numbers combined with the increases in maximum bench press efforts suggest that yielding and holding can provide an increase in absolute strength, which has previously conflicting study results (7, 8). Further testing is needed and will be studied in the summer of 2011.

References:

1. Verkhoshanksy YV (1977) Fundamentals of Special Strength-Training in Sport. Fizkultura I Sport, Moscow. English translation by Andrew Charniga, Jr. (1986) Elite Fitness Systems.
2. Sheperd Roberta B (2001)“Exercise and Training to Optimize Functional Motor Performance in Stroke: Driving Neural Reorganization?” School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia (8):1–2.
3. Kanyevsky VV (2003) “The Dependence Between the Weightlifter’s Absolute and Relative Strength on Weight Class.” The Russian Weightlifting Library. Sportivny Press.
4. Baye Andrew M (1998) “Isometrics, Timed Static Contractions and Static Holds.” Mikementzer.com, Mike Mentzer Co, Inc.
5. Olbrecht J (1995) The Science of Winning: Planning, Periodization and Optimizing Swim Training. U.K. Publishing and Distribution.
6. Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (2010) “Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men.” Pub Med, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health 9;5(8):e12033.
7. Department of Exercise Science, Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio (1996) “Muscle Torque in young and older untrained and endurance trained men.” Pub Med, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health 51(3):B195–201.
8. Centro de Investigación y Medicina del Deporte. Gobierno de Navarra, Navarra, Spain (1999) “Maximal strength and power characteristics in isometric and dynamic actions of the upper and lower extremities in middle-aged and older men.” Pub Med, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health 167(1):57–68.

Print PDF

Be Sociable, Share!

•