Performing the inclined bench press, the hit point of the barbell was more superior to the sternum than the other bench positions. This resulted in a lower elbow position (Figure 1b) compared with the flat and declined bench positions. In addition, the motion pathway of the barbell was more vertical with an inclined bench position than a reversed C observed in the flat bench press (van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2010). Finally, greater activation in the BB may have resulted in reduced TB activation (Saeterbakken et al., 2011). All these factors taken together may have contributed to the BB and TB results. Similar TB results to the present study have been already reported (Barnett et al., 1995) but, unfortunately, Barnett et al. (1995) did not include an EMG measurement of the BB. To the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies have included measurement of the EMG activity in the BB when examining the effect of different bench positions making our results difficult to compare with previous studies.
Bench Press Pakistan
With regard to the effect of the bench position, this study found similar activation between the flat and the other two bench positions examined in the AD, which is in contrast to Barnett et al. (1995) and Trebs et al. (2010) who demonstrated increased activation with increasing inclination. From the anatomical position of the shoulder joint, the incline bench position may result in a shoulder flexion rather than a flat abduction, which may benefit a greater AD activation. However, the unique selection of participants (competition level bench press athletes) may have resulted in similar neural activation of the flat bench press compared with the inclined and declined bench positions.
Despite a 45% difference in LD muscle activation between the incline and decline positions, no statistical difference was observed for any of the bench press positions, which may be due to low statistical power. A decline bench position would suggest a greater activation of the LD to avoid a flat barbell pathway, as demonstrated elsewhere (Barnett et al., 1995).
Lower 6-RM loads were observed on an inclined bench press when compared to the flat and decline bench press positions, which is supported by previous studies (Glass and Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al., 2010). The difference in vertical displacement and training specificity explains the different 6-RM loads observed (Glass and Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al., 2010).
Biceps brachii was the only muscle which demonstrated lower activation using the narrow grip than the medium and wide grip width. Using a narrow grip, the elbows tended to adduct towards the trunk, thereby increasing the sagittal flexion and reducing the transverse flexion of the shoulder joint which could have contributed to the reduced biceps brachii contribution in results. In addition, a lower elbow position was observed using the narrow grip which may independently have affected the results. Finally, lower BB activation at a narrow grip may reflect inhibitory drive to this muscle in order to avoid co-contraction of the TB acting as a glenohumeral joint stabilizer, and affecting force generation and therefore successful execution of the elbow extension action. To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the BB activation in the bench press with different grip width and these results are therefore difficult to compare with previous research. Surprisingly, no differences in TB activation were observed between the three grips. Previous studies have demonstrated greater activation using a narrow grip compared to a wide grip (Barnett et al., 1995; Lehman, 2005). However, both above mentioned studies used resistance-trained participants, but not competing bench press athletes. Participants in this study were bench press trained athletes and their specialized training background may have enabled positioning adjustment towards maximal prime mover activation, independently of grip widths.
In the present study, no significant differences were observed in prime movers (PM, TB and AD) or the antagonists (PD and LD) when comparing the wide, medium and narrow grip widths. The unique selection of participants who perform multiple bench press training sessions per week may explain these EMG results (Hakkinen et al., 1987). The present EMG results are partly supported by previous studies using participants who trained recreationally. For example, Lehman (2005) and Barnett et al. (1995) demonstrated similar PM activation (sternocostal part), examining grip widths comparable to the present study. Greater activation of the PM using a wide grip than when using a narrow grip was reported by Clemons and Aaron (1997). In contrast, Barnett et al. (1995) demonstrated greater activation in the clavicular part of the PM using a narrow grip compared to a wide grip. The contrasting results of the PM activation between the present and previous studies could be explained by the different bench press levels of the participants (Barnett et al., 1995; Clemons and Aaron, 1997; Lehman, 2005), using similar absolute loads and not similar relative intensity between the different grip widths (Clemons and Aaron, 1997; Lehman, 2005), performing no-fatigue sets (Barnett et al., 1995), analyzing only the concentric lifting phase (Clemons and Aaron, 1997) and analyzing the mean prime muscles activation and not single muscles (Clemons and Aaron, 1997). To the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies have examined the PD or LD during the bench press with different grip widths. The results are therefore difficult to compare with previous studies.
