You are on page 1of 30

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300392348

Chest Press Exercises With Different Stability


Requirements Result In Similar Muscle Damage
Recovery In Resistance...

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research April 2016


DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001453

CITATIONS READS

0 251

7 authors, including:

Joo Ferreira Jnior Eduardo Lusa Cadore


Federal Institute of Education, Science and T Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
40 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS 157 PUBLICATIONS 1,226 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mikel Izquierdo Lee E Brown


Universidad Pblica de Navarra California State University, Fullerton
292 PUBLICATIONS 6,753 CITATIONS 704 PUBLICATIONS 2,671 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NEW METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO RTD EVALUATION IN RELATION TO HAMSTRING STRAIN


INJURIES IN FEMALE ATHLETES. A PRELIMINARY STUDY View project

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


1

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print


DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001453

CHEST PRESS EXERCISES WITH DIFFERENT STABILITY REQUIREMENTS

RESULT IN SIMILAR MUSCLE DAMAGE RECOVERY IN RESISTANCE TRAINED

MEN

D
Running head: Recovery modality and strength recovery

TE
Laboratory of Muscle Strength, College of Physical Education, University of Braslia,

Braslia, DF, Brazil

Diogo V. Ferreira1, Joo B. Ferreira-Jnior2, Saulo R. S. Soares1, Eduardo L. Cadore3, Mikel


EP
Izquierdo4, Lee E. Brown5, Martim Bottaro1

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

Corresponding Author: Diogo V. Ferreira, College of Physical Education, University of Braslia,

Campus Universitrio Darcy Ribeiro, Braslia. Postal code: 70910-900, Braslia, DF, Brazil. Phone/

Fax: 55 61 3107-2512. email: ferreira.diogov@gmail.com

Funding: The study received no external funding.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


1
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
Abstract

This study investigated the time course of 96 h of muscle recovery after three different chest-

press exercises with different stability requirements in resistance-trained men. Twenty-seven

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

longer time to recover after using a barbell chest-press exercise.


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

be manipulated by changing body posture, number of muscles utilized (single- or multi-joint

exercises), grip, width of hands and feet, range of motion, or type of device with different

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


2
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
stability requirements (i.e., free -weights, machines, elastic bands, etc.) (3, 4, 13). These

variations provide several options to design resistance training programs. Consequently,

previews studies have evaluated the effects of different modes of resistance exercise on acute

and chronic responses to strength training (3, 21, 27).

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

appears to be a difference within free weight exercises due to stabilization requirements.


C

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

resistance exercise. Longer-lasting impairment in muscle function characterized by a

reduction in range of motion, an increase in inflammatory response, muscle swelling and

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


3
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
delayed onset muscle soreness is termed exercise-induced muscle damage (5, 10, 19).

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

maximize training adaptations (5, 8).

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

course of muscle recovery (up to 96 h) in resistance-trained men. We hypothesized that using


EP
barbells would result in higher muscle damage and a longer recovery. The rationale for this is

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

Experimental Approach to the Problem

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.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


4
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
Participants came to the laboratory on seven occasions. The first visit consisted of

familiarization with the experimental procedures and anthropometric and velocity-controlled

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.

Velocity-controlled 10RM assessment

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


5
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
exercise and the load was adjusted with weight plates starting at 1kg. Volunteers warmed up

by performing 10 repetitions at 40% of their estimated 10RM, then 10 repetitions at 60%.

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

the exercise, with their feet on the floor.


A

Muscle thickness assessment

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


6
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
brachii, after resting 5 min. The pectoralis major was measured at the point between the third

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).

Peak torque assessment


EP
Unilateral peak torque of the shoulder horizontal adductors and elbow extensors were

measured by an isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex Medical, Inc., Shirley, NY, USA).

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

lever arm, allowing a physiological range of motion from 90 of horizontal abduction to 0 of

horizontal adduction (90 total range of motion). These procedures were in accordance with
A

work by Silva et al. (24).

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


7
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
exerted by the lever arm and the participants relaxed arm at full extension for both tests.

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.

Muscle soreness and subjective perception of muscular fatigue and recovery

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


8
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
Significant Difference (LSD) post hoc test was used. As muscle soreness and subjective

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

number of repetitions performed (F= 0.81, p= 0.64, Figure 3).

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


9
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
Time course recovery of shoulder horizontal adductors

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

horizontal adductors decreased immediately after resistance exercise with no differences

between groups (17.1 % for the Smith machine, 16.3 % for the barbell and 16.9 % for the

dumbbell, p=0.94). Additionally, there was no significant group-by-time interaction for

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

baseline by 24 h for all groups (p>0.05).


C

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

2= 31.05, p< 0.001; dumbbell: 2= 32.05, p< 0.001).


A

Time course recovery of the elbow extensors

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

(F=1.63, p=0.11, power=0.24, =0.38) or muscle thickness (F=0.48, p=0.90, power=0.19,

=0.2). There were also no significant main effects for group for elbow extensor peak torque

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


10
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
(F=0.66, p=0.52, power=0.18) or muscle thickness (F=2.08, p=0.15, power=0.38). However,

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

recovered by 72 h (Smith machine; 2=22.67, p<0.001; dumbbell: 2=25.41, p<0.001)


C

(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

Tracking the time course of muscle recovery is an important consideration when

designing periodized resistance training programs, especially in high-level sports, such as

competitive weightlifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding, because of its known negative

relationship with workload, training volume (5, 8) and subsequent training stimulus. Thus,

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


11
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
the purpose of this study was to compare the time course of muscle damage recovery between

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

group and 15.2% lower than the Smith machine group.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


12
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
The magnitude of muscle damage caused by each exercise in the current study was in

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

current study could be considered moderate, as overall, volunteers took 72 h to recover.

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


13
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
groups following exercise. According to the authors, the intensity of the bench press exercise

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

topic requires further investigation.

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

muscle soreness recovery.


C

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


14
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
limitation as muscular enzymes and biochemical inflammatory markers, were not measured.

Additionally, only young resistance-trained men were evaluated.

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.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


15
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
REFERENCES

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

women. Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 174-180, 2000.

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.

3. ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in

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

help? Sports Med 36: 781-796, 2006.

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

17: 397-400, 2011.


A

7. Bemben MG. Use of diagnostic ultrasound for assessing muscle size. J Strength Cond

Res 16: 103-108, 2002.

8. Bishop PA, Jones E, and Woods AK. Recovery from training: a brief review. J Strength

Cond Res 22: 1015-1024, 2008.

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.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


16
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
10. Clarkson PM and Hubal MJ. Exercise-induced muscle damage in humans. Am J Phys

Med Rehab 81: S52-S69, 2002.

11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

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

machine bench press. J Strength Cond Res 8: 259-264, 1994.

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

exercise. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2961-2966, 2014.


C

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

18. Paschalis V, Koutedakis Y, Jamurtas AZ, Mougios V, and Baltzopoulos V. Equal

volumes of high and low intensity of eccentric exercise in relation to muscle damage and

performance. J Strength Cond Res 19: 184-188, 2005.

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

exercise? Exerc Immunol Rev 18: 42-97, 2012.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


17
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
20. 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

exercise? Exerc Immunol Rev 18: 42-97, 2012.

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

Sports Sci 29: 533-538, 2011.

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

isokinetic evaluation. Br J Sports Med 40: 513-517, 2006.

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

recovery between single- and multi-joint exercises in highly resistance-trained men. J


C

Strength Cond Res 29: 2594-2599, 2015.

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

increasing degrees of freedom. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2962-2969, 2012.

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

mediators. J Sports Sci 27: 499-507, 2009.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


18
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
29. Uribe BP, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, and Nguyen D. Muscle

activation when performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a

Swiss ball. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1028-1033, 2010.

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

study. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 30: 338-343, 2010.

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


19
Exercise choice and muscle damage recovery
Figure 1. Shoulder horizontal adductor peak torque assessment. A. Initial position. B. Final

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,

higher than pre.

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

within barbell group. (#) p<0.05, higher than barbell group.

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


Table 1. Subjects physical characteristics and training status of each experimental group.

Smith machine Barbell Dumbbell


P value
group (n=9) group (n=9) group (n=9)

Age (years) 23.7 3.5 23.0 3.1 23.9 4.9 0.88

Body mass (kg) 79.1 5.2 83.2 8.4 78.8 8.6 0.54

Height (cm) 175 5 178 8 174 4 0.32

D
PT Shoulder (N.m) 116.5 18.1 121.9 22.9 127.2 23.4 0.58

PT Elbow (N.m) 59.4 11.7 65.3 16.3 65.3 15.4 0.61

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

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


Table 2. Time course recovery of elbow flexors following exercise protocol in each

experimental group.

Group Baseline Post 24 h 48 h 72 h 96 h

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

Smith 0 1.9 1.9* 1.3 1.9* 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.2

2.2 1.5*# 1.7 1.7*#


EP
MS (cm) Barbell 0 0.4 0.5 0

Dumbbell 0 0.8 1.1 0.2 0.7 0 0

PT peak torque. MT muscle thickness. MS muscle soreness. (*) p< 0.05, lower than baseline. (#)

p< 0.05, higher than dumbbell group.


C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association


D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association