Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300392348
CITATIONS READS
0 251
7 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
High Intensity Interval- vs Resistance or Combined- Training for Improving Cardiometabolic Health in
Overweight Adults (Cardiometabolic HIIT-RT Study): A Factorial Randomised Controlled Trial View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mikel Izquierdo on 25 April 2016.
MEN
D
Running head: Recovery modality and strength recovery
TE
Laboratory of Muscle Strength, College of Physical Education, University of Braslia,
1
College of Physical Education, University of Braslia, Braslia, DF, Brazil
C
2
Federal Institute of Sudeste of Minas Gerais, Campus Rio Pomba, Rio Pomba, MG, Brazil
3
School of Physical Education, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
C
4
Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarre, Campus de Tudela, Tudela, Navarra,
Spain
A
5
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA
Campus Universitrio Darcy Ribeiro, Braslia. Postal code: 70910-900, Braslia, DF, Brazil. Phone/
This study investigated the time course of 96 h of muscle recovery after three different chest-
men (23.53.8 years) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 1) Smith machine
bench press; 2) barbell bench press; or 3) dumbbell bench press. Participants performed 8 sets
of 10 repetition maximum with 2 min rest between sets. Muscle thickness, peak torque (PT),
D
and soreness were measured pre, post, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h following exercise. There were no
differences in the time course of PT or muscle thickness values of the pectoralis major
TE
(p=0.98 and p=0.91, respectively) or elbow extensors (p=0.07 and p=0.86, respectively)
between groups. Muscle soreness of the pectoralis major was also not different between
groups (p>0.05). However, the Smith machine and barbell groups recovered from triceps
EP
brachii muscle soreness by 72 h post-exercise (p>0.05), while the dumbbell group did not
present any triceps brachii muscle soreness after exercise (p>0.05). In conclusion, resistance-
trained men experience similar muscle damage recovery following Smith machine, barbell
and dumbbell chest-press exercise. However, muscle soreness of the elbow extensors takes a
C
Key words: Strength training; Resistance exercise; Free weight; Bench press; Muscle
soreness.
A
INTRODUCTION
Exercise choice is a critical variable that strength and conditioning professionals must
take into consideration when designing resistance training programs (3). Exercise mode can
exercises), grip, width of hands and feet, range of motion, or type of device with different
previews studies have evaluated the effects of different modes of resistance exercise on acute
Free weight and machine exercises require distinct movement control (15, 27). Free
D
weights must be stabilized in the transverse, coronal and sagittal planes, while machines
utilize unidirectional guided movements (15, 27, 29). These differences in stability
TE
requirements influence muscle force production and neuromuscular activity (12, 15, 21-23,
27, 29). It has been observed that higher loads can be lifted in the squat when using a Smith
machine compared to free weights (12), while muscle activation is 34, 26 and 49% less in the
EP
gastrocnemius, biceps femoris, and vastus medialis, respectively, using a the Smith machine
(23). Conversely, studies have found higher loads lifted and higher muscle activation with a
free weight barbell chest press when compared to a Smith machine (15, 22, 27). There also
Muscular force production in a dumbbell chest press has been shown to be 17% less when
compared to a barbell, whereas muscle activation was higher with dumbbells (21). These
C
results indicate that levels of physiological stress and mechanical strain may be different
between free weights and machines for the same muscle group.
A
Muscle performance may be temporarily reduced for minutes, hours or several days
following resistance exercise (5). This reduction is partially due to the physiological stress
and mechanical strain on muscle tissue given the volume and intensity during heavy
Accordingly, the time course of muscle damage recovery is an important factor that can
affect the volume and intensity of subsequent training sessions. Additionally, an optimal
balance between training stimulus and recovery is essential to avoid overtraining and
D
Investigating the effects of exercise with different stability requirements on the time
course of muscle damage recovery may help strength and conditioning professionals to better
TE
design strength training programs across periodization cycles. However, to the best of the
authors knowledge, there are no studies that have investigated this on the long term time
based on the higher load lifted during a barbell chest press than with a machine or dumbbells
(21, 27), as the magnitude of muscle damage seems to be associated with exercise load (6, 9).
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the time course of muscle damage
C
recovery between three modes of chest press exercise with different stability requirements in
resistance-trained men.
C
METHODS
A
Volunteers were randomly assigned, using a random number table, into one of three
groups: 1) Smith machine bench press, 2) barbell bench press, or 3) dumbbell bench press.
To avoid the repeated bout effect on muscle damage levels and the time course of recovery,
the groups were independent and each volunteer only participated in one of the three groups.
10 repetition maximum (RM) load assessments. On the second visit, after 72 h, a velocity-
controlled 10RM re-test was performed. On the third visit, 72 h after the second, volunteers
performed their specific exercise training protocol. Indirect markers of muscle damage were
assessed before (pre), immediately after, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h following the training protocol.
D
To minimize circadian influences, subjects visited the laboratory at the same time each day.
Volunteers were instructed to not engage in any vigorous physical activity or unaccustomed
TE
exercise and to not take medications or food supplements during the entire study period.
Subjects
EP
Twenty-seven resistance-trained men (age: 23.5 3.8 years; height: 175 6.0 cm;
mass: 80.11 7.54 kg) volunteered to participate (Table 1). Volunteers had to be involved
with strength training for at least one year (4.36 3.12 years) without interruption to be
included in the study. In addition, they had to have a bench press 1RM higher than their body
C
weight. Participants were excluded if they had any history of neuromuscular, metabolic,
hormonal or cardiovascular disease or if they were taking any medication that could influence
C
hormonal or neuromuscular function. Participants were informed about the design and
experimental procedures of the study and all possible risks and discomforts related to the
A
procedures. They all signed an informed consent form approved by the local Institutional
Review Board and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
The load used by each training group was determined by velocity-controlled 10RM
testing according to Kraemer and Fry (14). Each group was tested according to their specific
With 60 s rest. Finally, their velocity-controlled 10RM load was determined with no more
than three attempts with 5 min rest between attempts. An electronic metronome was used to
control the velocity of each repetition, with 1-2 s for the concentric and 2-3 s for the eccentric
phase.
D
Training protocols
TE
The training protocols were composed of eight sets of 10 repetitions with 2 min rest
between sets. To avoid a severe drop in the number of repetitions, the initial load was 90% of
10RM. Moreover, in the fourth set, the load was reduced by 20%. Each repetition lasted
EP
approximately 4 s, with 1-2 s for the concentric and 2-3 s for the eccentric phase. Range of
motion was also controlled for all groups so that for the eccentric phase, they had to touch
their chest and return to a position with their elbows fully extended at the end of the
concentric phase. During the dumbbell chest-press, a plastic stick was placed in each
C
dumbbell bar and the sticks had to touch the chest at the end of the eccentric phase. In
addition, their neck, head, shoulders, and hips were kept in contact with the bench throughout
C
Muscle thickness of the right pectoralis major and triceps brachii were measured by
ultrasonography using B-Mode ultrasound (Philips-VMI, Ultra Vision Flip, model BF, Betin,
MG, Brazil). A water-soluble transmission gel was applied to the measurement site, and a
7.5-MHz ultrasound probe was placed perpendicular to the surface, without depressing the
skin. Volunteers were measured supine for the pectoralis major and prone for the triceps
and fourth rib under the midpoint of the clavicle (30). Triceps brachii was measured at 60%
of the distance from the acromial process of the scapula to the lateral epicondyle of the
humerus (30). Once the technician was satisfied with the quality of the image, it was frozen
on the monitor (7) then digitized and later analyzed with Image-J software (National Institute
of Health, USA, version 1.37). The measurement area was marked at baseline to assure that
D
the same location was assessed at each time point. Volunteers were asked to not clean the
mark. Muscle thickness was calculated as the distance from the subcutaneous adipose tissue
TE
muscle interface to the musclebone interface (1).
Volunteers performed 2 sets of 4 repetitions at 60/s for each exercise with 2 min of rest
between sets. For shoulder horizontal adduction, volunteers were positioned supine with belts
C
fastened across their trunk, pelvis and calf to minimize extraneous body movements (Figure
1). The acromial process was used as a marker to align the shoulder with the dynamometers
C
horizontal adduction (90 total range of motion). These procedures were in accordance with
A
For the elbow extensors, volunteers were seated with their arms placed over a Scott
Bench positioned close to the dynamometer, allowing a range of motion from 125 flexion to
5 of extension (120 total range of motion; Figure 2). The lateral epicondyle of the humerus
was used to align elbow rotation to the dynamometers lever arm. The forearm remained in a
neutral position throughout the test. Gravity correction was obtained by measuring the torque
Values for the isokinetic variables were automatically adjusted for gravity by the Biodex
Advantage software. Researchers provided verbal encouragement during all tests. Maximal
peak torque was defined as the highest torque value (N.m) recorded during the two sets.
D
Muscle soreness of the pectoralis major and triceps brachii were assessed using a 100-
mm visual analog scale with no soreness (0 mm) on one end and severe soreness (100
TE
mm) on the other. Volunteers rated their muscle soreness when the muscle was palpated by
the examiner, who applied pressure to the medial part of the pectoralis major and triceps
brachii with the third and fourth finger for approximately 3 s (28). The same examiner
EP
performed all test procedures for all subjects.
To measure subjective perceived muscular fatigue and recovery, subjects rated their
perception of physical fitness using a visual analog scale from 0 to 120 mm, where 0 mm was
maximum fatigue and not recovered and 100 mm was maximal physical fitness recovery,
C
compared to their fitness the week before the training protocol (2).
C
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as means standard deviations. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to
A
check for a normal distribution. Taking into account that peak torque and muscle thickness
data were normally distributed, a two-way 3x6 [group (Smith machine, barbell and dumbbell)
x time (pre, immediately post, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after exercise)] mixed factor ANOVA was
used to analyze peak torque and muscle thickness. Physical characteristics were analyzed by
a one-way ANOVA and training volume differences were analyzed by a two-way [3 groups x
8 training sets] mixed factor ANOVA. In the case of significant differences, a Fisher's Least
physical fitness data did not present a normal distribution, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney
(between groups) and Friedman (within group) tests were used to analyze these variables.
The significance level was set a-priori at P<0.05. Reliability of all measurements was
calculated by intraclass correlation coefficient values (ICC) using single values. Additionally,
the effect size calculation was used to determine the magnitude of each condition effect.
D
Cohens (11) ranges of 0.1, 0.25, and 0.4 were used to define small, medium, and large
values, respectively. SPSS software (version 17.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used
TE
for all data analyses.
RESULTS
EP
Training performance and physical characteristics
Physical characteristics and training status were not different between groups (p>0.05,
Table 1). Test-retest reliability ICCs for the Smith machine, barbell and dumbbell 10RM tests
C
were 0.96, 0.97 and 0.89, respectively. The load lifted by the dumbbell group (62.8 9.5 kg)
was 18.6% lower than the barbell group (74.5 12.5 kg, p=0.042) and 15.2% lower than the
C
Smith machine group (72.4 9.7 kg, p=0.05). However, the total amount of weight lifted
during each training protocol (10RM loading) did not differ between the Smith machine
A
(14218.0 3743.0 kg), barbell (14411.0 3986.9 kg) and dumbbell groups (12077.0
2915.0 kg) (F= 3.0, p= 0.69). In addition, there was no difference between groups for the
Test-retest reliability ICCs for peak torque, muscle thickness and muscle soreness of
the triceps brachii were 0.93, 0.93 and 0.86, respectively. Peak torque of the shoulder
between groups (17.1 % for the Smith machine, 16.3 % for the barbell and 16.9 % for the
D
shoulder horizontal adductors peak torque (F=0.43, p=0.93, power=0.22, =0.2) (Figure 4) or
pectoralis major muscle thickness (F=0.26, p=0.98, power=0.11, =0.15) (Figure 5). There
TE
were also no significant main effects for group for peak torque (F=0.31, p=0.74, power=0.09)
or muscle thickness (F=0.13, p=0.88, power=0.07). However, there were significant main
effects for time for peak torque (F=30.11, p<0.001, power=1) and muscle thickness (F=19.02,
EP
p<0.001, power=1). Each group recovered their shoulder horizontal adductor peak torque by
72 h after the exercise protocol (p>0.05), while pectoralis major muscle thickness returned to
There was no difference in pectoralis major muscle soreness between groups (p>0.05,
=0.11; Figure 6). All groups recovered by 96 h (Smith machine; 2=29.08, p<0.001; barbell:
C
Test-retest reliability ICCs for peak torque, muscle thickness and muscle soreness of
the pectoralis major was 0.96. Time course recovery of the elbow extensors is presented in
Table 2. There were no significant group-by-time interactions for elbow extensor peak torque
=0.2). There were also no significant main effects for group for elbow extensor peak torque
there were main effects for time for elbow extensor peak torque (F=14.99, p=0.001,
power=0.96) and muscle thickness (F=35.64, p<0.001, power=1). All groups recovered their
elbow extensor peak torque by 48 h (p>0.05), while triceps brachii muscle thickness returned
to baseline by 24 h (p>0.05).
D
The Smith machine and barbell groups recovered from elbow extensor muscle
soreness by 72 h (Smith machine; 2=17.49, p=0.002; barbell: 2=22.46, p<0.001), while the
TE
dumbbell group did not change throughout the entire 96 h (2= 11.84, p= 0.06). Moreover,
muscle soreness was higher in the barbell group at 24 and 48 h when compared with the
dumbbell group (p< 0.05). The effect size was medium (=0.25).
EP
Time course recovery of subjective physical fitness recovery
For subjective perception of training, the Smith machine and dumbbell groups
(Figure 7) but the barbell group did not recover till 96 h (2=31.33, p<0.001). Finally,
subjective physical fitness recovery was higher in the dumbbell group at 24 and 72 h when
C
compared to the barbell group (p<0.05). The effect size was small (=0.18).
A
DISCUSSION
relationship with workload, training volume (5, 8) and subsequent training stimulus. Thus,
three modes of chest press exercise with different stability requirements in resistance-trained
men. Our initial hypothesis was not confirmed, as there were no differences between groups
in recovery time or muscle thickness. However, when examining the two free-weight modes
(barbell vs. dumbbell), elbow extensor muscle soreness of the barbell group was higher and
took longer to recover than the Smith machine and dumbbell groups. In addition, despite
D
similar muscle strength recovery of the shoulder horizontal adductors and elbow extensors,
the barbell group demonstrated lower readiness (i.e., subjective perception of physical
TE
fitness) for training when compared to the other two groups.
Several studies have shown higher force production during free weight bench press
EP
when compared to a Smith machine bench press (12, 21, 27). Saeterbakken et al. (21)
observed that muscle strength (1RM) in a horizontal barbell chest press was 3% higher than
that for a Smith machine, and 17% higher than that for a dumbbell chest press. In addition,
muscle strength of a dumbbell chest press was 14% less than for a Smith machine. These
C
results are consistent with research by Tillaar et al. (27), who found that the highest 1RM
chest press strength was performed in the barbell chest press (106.4 15.5 kg), followed by
C
the Smith machine (103.6 14.8 kg) then dumbbells (89.5 13.7 kg). Another study also
reported greater 1RM strength in the barbell chest press in comparison to the Smith machine
A
(12). Although the present study did not show significant differences in training volume
between groups, our results are somewhat in agreement with those of previous studies,
because the load lifted (10RM) by the dumbbell group was 18.6 % lower than the barbell
accordance with previous studies that have evaluated muscle recovery after chest press
exercise in trained men (16, 28). Meneghel et al. (16) investigated changes in indirect
markers of muscle damage after 2 bouts of free weight eccentric bench press performed by
resistance-trained men. Their participants performed 4 sets of 8 eccentric actions (3 s for each
repetition) at 70% of their eccentric 1RM with 2 min rest between sets. Similar to the present
D
study, they reported a reduction of 10% in 1RM strength and peak muscle soreness of 3.8
mm following exercise. The results reported by Soares et al. (25) also corroborate our
TE
findings on the time course of recovery of the elbow extensors after a multi-joint exercise.
They observed that elbow flexor peak torque recovered at 24 and 72 h following multi-joint
exercise (seated row machine), in which elbow flexors were recruited as synergist muscles.
EP
Thus, according to Paulsen et al. (20), the muscle damage caused by each exercise in the
As this is the first study to compare the effects of a Smith machine, barbell and
C
dumbbell chest press on the time course of muscle recovery, the present findings cannot be
directly compared to previous studies. Taking into account the fact that resistance load can
C
affect muscle damage recovery (17, 18, 26), it was expected that the higher load in the barbell
chest press reported by previous studies (12, 21, 27) would result in higher muscle damage.
A
However, besides difference in load between modes in the present study, the volume lifted
throughout the 8 sets was similar between groups. These results are consistent with Uchida et
al. (28) who compared the effects of four different intensities of bench press on indirect
markers of muscle damage. They tested trained men with five intensities: 1) 50% (1RM), 2)
75%, 3) 90%, 4) 110%, and 5) control, while total volume was matched between groups.
Muscle soreness and plasma creatine kinase levels were not significantly different between
did not affect the magnitude of muscle soreness or blood markers of muscle damage. Thus, it
appears that training volume has an important influence on exercise-induced muscle damage
independent of instability and load requirements for the same muscle group. However, this
D
The Smith machine and barbell groups recovered from elbow extensor soreness 48 h
after exercise, whereas the dumbbell group did not present any muscle soreness at all. This
TE
difference may be related to the stability requirements of each exercise. Increased stability is
required with dumbbells compared to barbells which is most likely due to the separate
movement of the elbow joint, which can increase instability in the frontal and sagittal planes,
EP
thus shifting the muscle activation pattern (27). Higher muscle activation in the elbow flexors
has been seen in the chest press with different stability requirements (dumbbell higher than
barbell), while higher elbow extensor activity was observed in a barbell compared with a
dumbbell chest press (21, 27). Thus, the load imposed on elbow flexors (i.e., biceps) may be
C
greater with dumbbells than with a barbell, leading to a distinct and specific time course of
Another interesting result of the present study was that the subjective perception of
A
physical fitness (Figure 7) was higher in the barbell than the dumbbell group. The barbell
group took up to 96 h to recover, whereas the Smith machine and dumbbell groups took 72 h.
These results may suggest that the barbell imposed a higher physiological demand and are
similar to those of Ahtiainen et al. (2) where their trained volunteers took up to 144 h to
recover from five sets of 10RM leg press and four sets of 10RM squat exercises. However,
these findings require further investigation. Moreover, the present study is not without
In conclusion, different modes of chest press exercise required similar recovery time
for peak torque and muscle thickness in the shoulder horizontal adductors and elbow
extensors. Additionally, pectoralis muscle soreness recovery was not different between
D
modes. However, the time course of elbow extensor muscle soreness recovery was greater
after barbell compared to dumbbell exercise. Whether the similar muscle recovery observed
TE
in the present study would result in similar muscle adaptations remains unknown. Thus,
further study is necessary to understand what effects free weights vs. machines have on
muscle strength and hypertrophy gains. It is also important to evaluate muscle damage
EP
recovery in other populations, such as untrained volunteers, women and the elderly.
PRACTICAL APLICATION
C
The results of the current study suggest that coaches and strength professionals can
expect similar muscle damage recovery following Smith machine, barbell or dumbbell chest
C
press resistance exercise in trained men. However, they might not be able to perform strength
training at their maximal intensity until 72 h after 10RM dumbbell or Smith machine and 96
A
h after barbell bench press. Thus, strength and conditioning professionals should consider
focusing on regenerative training or lower load protocols, such as muscle power or muscular
endurance training, during the recovery period after heavy resistance exercise when maximal
muscle force remains reduced. Additionally, they can target other muscle groups during this
recovery time.
1. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, and Garzarella L. Time course for strength and
muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and
2. Ahtiainen JP, Lehti M, Hulmi JJ, Kraemer WJ, Alen M, Nyman K, Selnne H, Pakarinen
D
A, Komulainen A, Kovanen V, Mero AA, and Hkkinen K. Recovery after heavy
resistance exercise and skeletal muscle androgen receptor and insulin-like growth factor-I
TE
isoform expression in strength trained men. J Strength Cond Res 25: 767777, 2011.
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687-708, 2009.
EP
4. Andersen V, Fimland MS, Wiik E, Skoglund A, and Saeterbakken AH. Effects of grip
width on muscle strength and activation in the lat pull-down. J Strength Cond Res 28:
1135-1142, 2014.
5. Barnett A. Using recovery modalities between training sessions in elite athletes - Does it
C
6. Barroso R, Roschel H, Gil S, Ugrinowitsch C, and Tricoli V. Effect of the number and the
C
intensity of eccentric muscle actions on muscle damage markers. Rev Bras Med Esporte
7. Bemben MG. Use of diagnostic ultrasound for assessing muscle size. J Strength Cond
8. Bishop PA, Jones E, and Woods AK. Recovery from training: a brief review. J Strength
9. Chen TC, Nosaka K, and Sacco P. Intensity of eccentric exercise, shift of optimum angle,
and the magnitude of repeated-bout effect. J Appl Physiol 102: 992-999, 2007.
11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence
12. Cotterman ML, Darby LA, and Skelly WA. Comparison of muscle force production using
the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. J Strength Cond
D
Res 19: 169-176, 2005.
13. Glass SC and Armstrong T. Electromyographical activity of the pectoralis muscle during
TE
incline and decline bench presses. J Strength Cond Res 11: 163-167, 1997.
14. Kraemer WJ and Fry AC. Strength testing: Development and evaluation of methodology.
In: Physiological assessment of human fitness. Maud P and Foster C, eds. Champaign, IL:
EP
Human Kinetics, 2006, pp 119-150.
15. McCaw ST and Friday JJ. A comparison of muscle activity between a free weight and
16. Meneghel AJ, Verlengia R, Crisp AH, Aoki MS, Nosaka K, da Mota GR, and Lopes CR.
C
Muscle damage of resistance-trained men after two bouts of eccentric bench press
17. Nosaka K and Newton M. Difference in the magnitude of muscle damage between
maximal and submaximal eccentric loading. J Strength Cond Res 16: 202-208, 2002.
A
volumes of high and low intensity of eccentric exercise in relation to muscle damage and
19. Paulsen G, Mikkelsen UR, Raastad T, and Peake JM. Leucocytes, cytokines and satellite
cells: what role do they play in muscle damage and regeneration following eccentric
cells: what role do they play in muscle damage and regeneration following eccentric
21. Saeterbakken AH, van den Tillaar R, and Fimland MS. A comparison of muscle activity
and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements. J
D
22. Schick EE, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Tran TT, and Uribe BP.
A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench
TE
press. J Strength Cond Res 24: 779-784, 2010.
23. Schwanbeck S, Chilibeck PD, and Binsted G. A comparison of free weight squat to Smith
machine squat using electromyography. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2588-2591, 2009.
EP
24. Silva RT, Gracitelli GC, Saccol MF, Laurino CF, Silva AC, and Braga-Silva JL. Shoulder
strength profile in elite junior tennis players: horizontal adduction and abduction
25. Soares S, Ferreira-Junior JB, Pereira MC, Cleto VA, Castanheira RP, Cadore EL, Brown
C
LE, Gentil P, Bemben MG, and Bottaro M. Dissociated time course of muscle damage
26. Tiidus PM and Ianuzzo CD. Effects of intensity and duration of muscular exercise on
A
delayed soreness and serum enzyme-activities. Med Sci Sport Exer 15: 461-465, 1983.
27. Tillaar RV and Saeterbakken A. The sticking region in three chest-press exercises with
28. Uchida MC, Nosaka K, Ugrinowitsch C, Yamashita A, Martins E, Jr., Moriscot AS, and
Aoki MS. Effect of bench press exercise intensity on muscle soreness and inflammatory
activation when performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a
30. Yasuda T, Fujita S, Ogasawara R, Sato Y, and Abe T. Effects of low-intensity bench
press training with restricted arm muscle blood flow on chest muscle hypertrophy: a pilot
D
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TE
None. This study received no external funding. The authors declare no conflicts of
interest. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement of any product by the
EP
authors or the NSCA.
C
C
A
position.
Figure 2. Elbow extensor peak torque assessment. A. Initial position. B. Final position.
Figure 3. Number of repetitions in each set for Smith machine, barbell and dumbbell groups.
D
Figure 4. Mean SD of normalized shoulder horizontal adduction peak torque before (pre),
TE
immediately post, and 24-96 h following exercise in each group. (*) p<0.05, lower than pre.
Figure 5. Mean SD percent change from baseline of pectoralis major muscle thickness
EP
before (pre), immediately post, and 24-96 h following exercise in each group. (*) p< 0.05,
Figure 6. Mean SD of pectoralis major muscle soreness before (pre), immediately post, and
C
24-96 h following exercise in each group. (*) p<0.05, higher than pre.
C
Figure 7. Mean SD of subjective perception of physical fitness before (pre), and 24-96 h
following exercise in each group. (*) p<0.05, lower than pre. () p<0.05, lower than pre
A
Body mass (kg) 79.1 5.2 83.2 8.4 78.8 8.6 0.54
D
PT Shoulder (N.m) 116.5 18.1 121.9 22.9 127.2 23.4 0.58
TE
Resistance training experience (years) 4.2 3.1 4.8 3.5 4.0 3.1 0.86
Chest training sets per session 10.0 4.0 8.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 0.48
PT Shoulder: Peak torque of shoulder horizontal adductors. PT Elbow: Peak torque of elbow flexors.
EP
C
C
A
experimental group.
Smith 59.4 11.7 46.1 10.7* 56.7 9.5 58.7 8.4 61.5 8.4 60.7 7.7
PT (Nm) Barbell 65.3 16.3 53.2 10.8* 62.6 14.6 61.7 12.5 60.1 11.2 61.4 13.8
D
Dumbbell 65.3 15.4 57.8 13.9* 61.9 15.8 61.6 12.5 61.7 13.6 65.1 14.9
Smith 44.0 10.5 49.7 8.6* 44.8 9.3 44.5 9.1 44.5 9.5 44.1 8.7
TE
MT (mm) Barbell 44.2 8.8 50.8 8.8* 46.8 8.9 46.1 9.1 45.5 9.3 45.9 8.8
Dumbbell 37.2 5.1 43.4 5.9* 38.9 3.9 39.4 4.3 38.3 4.7 37.4 4.6
PT peak torque. MT muscle thickness. MS muscle soreness. (*) p< 0.05, lower than baseline. (#)