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

net/publication/274010566

Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular activation during

bench press exercise

Article · March 2015

DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1022605 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

45 12,263

3 authors:

Jakob D Lauver Trent E Cayot

Coastal Carolina University University of Indianapolis
30 PUBLICATIONS   148 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Barry W Scheuermann
University of Toledo
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,873 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Influence of the addition of BFR during endurance cycling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jakob D Lauver on 22 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver]
On: 26 March 2015, At: 06:03
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular

activation during bench press exercise
a a a
Jakob D. Lauver , Trent E. Cayot & Barry W. Scheuermann
a
Department of Kinesiology, Cardiopulmonary and Metabolic Research Laboratory,
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA
Published online: 23 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Jakob D. Lauver, Trent E. Cayot & Barry W. Scheuermann (2015): Influence of bench angle
on upper extremity muscular activation during bench press exercise, European Journal of Sport Science, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2015.1022605

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2015.1022605

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 European Journal of Sport Science, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2015.1022605

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular

activation during bench press exercise

JAKOB D. LAUVER, TRENT E. CAYOT, & BARRY W. SCHEUERMANN

Department of Kinesiology, Cardiopulmonary and Metabolic Research Laboratory, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

Abstract
This study compared the muscular activation of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid and triceps brachii during a free-
weight barbell bench press performed at 0°, 30°, 45° and –15° bench angles. Fourteen healthy resistance trained males (age
21.4 ± 0.4 years) participated in this study. One set of six repetitions for each bench press conditions at 65% one repetition
maximum were performed. Surface electromyography (sEMG) was utilised to examine the muscular activation of the
selected muscles during the eccentric and concentric phases. In addition, each phase was subdivided into 25% contraction
durations, resulting in four separate time points for comparison between bench conditions. The sEMG of upper pectoralis
displayed no difference during any of the bench conditions when examining the complete concentric contraction, however
differences during 26–50% contraction duration were found for both the 30° [122.5 ± 10.1% maximal voluntary isometric
contraction (MVIC)] and 45° (124 ± 9.1% MVIC) bench condition, resulting in greater sEMG compared to horizontal
(98.2 ± 5.4% MVIC) and –15 (96.1 ± 5.5% MVIC). The sEMG of lower pectoralis was greater during –15° (100.4 ± 5.7%
MVIC), 30° (86.6 ± 4.8% MVIC) and horizontal (100.1 ± 5.2% MVIC) bench conditions compared to the 45° (71.9 ±
4.5% MVIC) for the whole concentric contraction. The results of this study support the use of a horizontal bench to achieve
muscular activation of both the upper and lower heads of the pectoralis. However, a bench incline angle of 30° or 45°
resulted in greater muscular activation during certain time points, suggesting that it is important to consider how muscular
activation is affected at various time points when selecting bench press exercises.

Keywords: Resistance training, electromyography, muscular activation

Introduction in extension of the shoulder from the flexed position

(Moore & Agur, 2007). Based on these actions and
Exercise selection is one component of a resistance-
the ability of the shoulder joint to move through a
training programme that is vital to the principle of
wide range of motion (ROM), several variations
specificity (Baechle, Earle, & National Strength &
Conditioning Association (U.S.), 2008), with differ- have been made to the bench angle during bench
ent exercises eliciting different muscular activation. press exercises in an effort to optimise the activation
Muscular activation is important during an exercise of the two different heads of the pectoralis major
programme as it has been shown to be an important (Baechle et al., 2008; Barnett et al., 1995). Therefore,
stimulus for the development of muscle strength and a greater understanding of the effect that bench angle
mass (Trebs, Brandenburg, & Pitney, 2010). Bench has on muscle activation will aid in the design of
press is one of the most commonly prescribed upper- effective upper extremity exercise programmes.
body exercises aimed at increasing strength and Barnett, Kippers, and Turner (1995) examined the
specifically targeting the pectoralis major (Barnett activity of the upper and lower heads of the pectoralis
et al., 1995; Welsch, Bird, & Mayhew, 2005). The major during bench press exercise performed at
main actions of the two heads of the pectoralis major various bench angles. The authors found that hori-
when working in combination is horizontal adduction zontal bench (0°) exercise resulted in the greatest
and medial rotation of the humerus (Moore & Agur, activation of the lower pectoralis major, but found
2007). However, when acting alone, the upper head no difference in upper pectoralis activation between
aids in flexion of the shoulder and the lower head aids horizontal bench and 40° (Barnett et al., 1995).

Correspondence: Barry W. Scheuermann, Department of Kinesiology, Cardiopulmonary and Metabolic Research Laboratory, University of
Toledo, Mail Stop 119, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH 43606, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

© 2015 European College of Sport Science

 2 J. D. Lauver et al.

More recently, Trebs et al. (2010) found that com- Review Board and was in accordance with guide-
pared to horizontal bench press, a bench angle of 44° lines set forth by the Declaration of Helsinki. All
and 56° resulted in greater activation of the upper participants were free of neuromuscular disorders
pectoralis. However, Trebs et al. (2010) found no prior to participation. Similar inclusion criteria
difference in upper pectoralis activation between 28° were employed from a previous investigation (Trebs
and horizontal bench, and similar to Barnett et al. et al., 2010) as participants had to be able to com-
(1995) observed the highest activation of the lower plete a one repetition maximum (1 RM) greater
pectoralis during horizontal bench (Trebs et al., than their body weight during horizontal barbell
2010). Although the methodological approaches of bench press, have resistance-training experience
previous investigations (Barnett et al., 1995; Glass & (≥12 months) and be free of any injuries within the
Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al., 2010) vary slightly last 12 months.
(i.e., bench angles and equipment) participants were
tested using the same relative resistance load during
Procedures
all bench conditions. Muscle activation may be
effected with a change in the absolute resistance load Participants reported to the laboratory on two sep-
(Basmajian & De Luca, 1985) regardless of change in arate occasions with at least 48 hours between
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

bench angle and/or body position, which is an sessions. Participants were asked to refrain from
important consideration as alterations in the bench any upper extremity resistance training for 48 hours
angle during bench press are utilised in an effort to and any strenuous exercise for 24 hours prior to each
elicit the greatest muscle activation of either the upper session (Trebs et al., 2010). During the first session
or lower pectoralis major. anthropometric data were collected. Body fat com-
While previous investigations have systematically position percentage was determined utilising a three-
examined muscle activation during various bench site (chest, abdominal, thigh) skin-fold measurement
press conditions they have examined activation throu- technique (Jackson & Pollock, 1978). In addition,
ghout the complete lift. During any resistance exercise the typical barbell grip width used when performing
a complete ROM is important, however throughout resistance exercise was recorded for each participant.
the ROM there may be potential differences in the The participants then performed a five-minute
level of muscle activation. This could have the poten- warm-up on a stationary cycle (Body Solid, BFSB
tial to attenuate any difference in muscle activation 10, Forest Park, IL; Glass & Armstrong, 1997;
observed during the complete lift between bench Trebs et al., 2010). Two sets (10 repetitions, 6
angle conditions as differences in activation may repetitions) of horizontal barbell bench press at self-
have been evident throughout different time points selected intensities were completed (Trebs et al.,
of contractions. Therefore, it was the primary pur- 2010). Following the warm-up, participants were
pose of the present investigation to compare the asked to complete a 1 RM. One RM was defined as
changes in muscle activation at various time points the successful completion of one repetition of hori-
across contraction phases (concentric, eccentric) zontal barbell bench press throughout a full ROM
during free-weight barbell bench press at varying with the greatest amount of external load (Baechle
bench angles (–15°, 0°, 30°, 45°) while maintaining et al., 2008). The participants were provided three to
the same absolute resistance load. The results of the five minutes of recovery between 1 RM attempts
present investigation will lead to a better understand- (Baechle et al., 2008; Trebs et al., 2010). All
ing of the effect of bench angle on muscle activation participants obtained their 1 RM within five
during bench press exercise and thus will aid in attempts. Once the 1 RM was determined all
selection of variations in bench press exercise to deve- participants performed a familiarisation set (six
lop upper extremity strength and musculature. repetitions) at each of the bench conditions (–15°,
0°, 30°, 45°) in order to familiarise participants with
the procedure for the second session.
Methods During the second session surface electromyogra-
phy (sEMG) electrodes were used to assess muscular
Participants
activation. To evaluate kinematics during each of the
Fourteen healthy resistance trained males (age = bench press conditions, two video cameras (Micro-
21.4 ± 0.4 years, height = 1.76 ± 0.03 m and weight soft Life Cam Studio, Redmond, WA; Sony Handy
= 86.2 ± 3.36 kg, 8.7 ± 0.97% body fat) participated Cam DCR-SX45, Tokyo, Japan) were arranged to
in this study. All participants provided written infor- record the sagittal and frontal planes of movement at
med consent after having the experimental proce- a rate of 25 frames per second. The participants
dures, exercise protocol and possible risks associated completed a warm-up utilising the procedure from
with participation explained. The experimental pro- session 1. The participants then performed two max-
tocol was approved by the University’s Institutional imal voluntary isometric contractions [5 s contraction
 Influence of bench angle on the muscular activation 3

and 2 min recovery; maximal voluntary isometric line, midway between the acromioclavicular joint of
contraction (MVIC)] for each of the target muscles. the shoulder and the sternoclavicular joint of the
The MVIC testing order was randomised between sternum, over the second and fifth intercostals spaces,
participants. MVIC was performed in order to respectively (Glass & Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al.,
normalise the exercising sEMG data. Following the 2010). The sEMG electrode for the anterior deltoid
final MVIC attempt, five minutes of recovery was was placed over the mid-belly of the muscle approxi-
provided prior to the bench press exercise. mately 4 cm below the clavicle (Cram, Kasman, &
Participants completed one set of six repetitions Holtz, 1998). The sEMG electrode for the lateral
for each of the barbell bench press conditions (–15°, triceps brachii was placed over the mid-belly of the
0°, 30° and 45°) at a resistance equivalent to 65% 1 lateral head midway between the acromion process of
RM. Bench conditions were randomised between the scapula and the olecranon process of the ulna
participants and five minutes of recovery was pro- (Cram et al., 1998). A ground electrode was placed on
vided between sets to minimise fatigue (Baechle the seventh cervical spinous process.
et al., 2008). The duty cycle for each repetition Raw sEMG signals were collected at a sampling
included a two-second eccentric phase followed by a frequency of 1000 Hz. During signal processing a
two-second concentric phase (Barnett et al., 1995). band-pass filter (10 Hz–500 Hz) and root means
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

In agreement with previous studies (Barnett et al., square (RMS) smoothing (50-millisecond window)
1995; Glass & Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al., 2010), was utilised (Myoresearch XP 1.07 Master Edition,
standard contraction duration methods were used by Noraxon, Scottsdale, AZ). The sEMG signal was
setting a metronome to provide the participants with divided into concentric and eccentric phases with the
an audible cue for the intended duty cycle. The use of the frontal plane video, which was simulta-
participants were asked to maintain a barbell grip neously collected, and time aligned with the sEMG
width of 150% of their measured biacromial width signal in Myoresearch. Each phase was further sub-
and complete a full ROM. Grip width was controlled divided into 25% contraction duration bins, result-
as it may effect muscular activation (Lehman, 2005) ing in four separate time points per contraction
and 150% of biacromial width was utilised as it was phase. This was done in order to observe any possible
not significantly different than self-selected grip width. differences in muscle activation at different time
points throughout the completion of each contraction
between bench conditions. The RMS values were
Surface electromyography (sEMG) techniques normalised using the averaged MVIC amplitudes of
sEMG was obtained from the primary movers inclu- each respective muscle.
ding the upper and lower pectoralis major, anterior
deltoid and lateral triceps brachii using dual silver/ Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)
silver-chloride electrodes (Product #272, Noraxon, assessment
Scottsdale, AZ) with a fixed inter-electrode spa-
cing of 2 cm. Each of the sEMG electrodes was For each of the randomised MVIC attempts the
connected to a Telemyo 8-Channel Transmitter participant lied in a supine position on a horizontal
(Telemyo 900, Noraxon, Scottsdale, AZ) which bench. A strap was placed across the hips to reduce
transmitted the signal wirelessly to a Telemyo any movement during the MVIC attempts. The par-
Receiver (Telemyo 900, Noraxon, Scottsdale, AZ). ticipant was asked to provide maximal force against
The skin was shaved and cleansed with an alcohol manual resistance for a five-second duration and
pad in order to reduce inter-electrode resistance. completed two MVIC attempts for each movement.
The sEMG electrodes for the upper and lower Strong verbal encouragement was provided to the
pectoralis major were placed on the midclavicular subject during each of the MVIC attempts. Two
minutes of recovery was provided following each
MVIC attempt.
Table I. Mean kinematic data (±SD) For the upper and lower pectoralis major MVIC
the participant was asked to horizontally abduct with
Concentric the shoulder and elbow flexed at 90°. The particip-
Bench Initial shoulder contraction Eccentric phase
ant provided maximal force while attempting to
condition angle (degrees) duration (sec) duration (sec)
horizontally adduct the arm (Chopp, Fischer, &
−15° 62.7 ± 4.9*** 1.52 ± .23*,** 1.88 ± .24 Dickerson, 2010; Hodder & Keir, 2013). During
0° 76.29 ± 5.5*** 1.67 ± .19* 1.85 ± .20 the anterior deltoid MVIC the participant was asked
30° 105.17 ± 4.9*** 1.86 ± .33 1.78 ± .16 to flex the elbow to 90° so that his hand was pointed
45° 117.88 ± 6.1*** 2.03 ± .49 1.77 ± .17
upwards. The participant was then asked to make a
*Significantly different than 45°; **significantly different than 30°; closed fist with the hand of the flexed arm and
***significant difference between all conditions. provide maximal force against manual resistance,
 4 J. D. Lauver et al.

attempting to produce shoulder flexion (Chopp et al., brachii. In addition, two-way ANOVA with repeated
2010; Hodder & Keir, 2013). During the triceps measures was utilised to examine the effects of bench
brachii MVIC the participant was asked to flex the condition (–15°, 0°, 30°, 45°) and contraction phase
elbow to 90°. The participant was then asked to (concentric, eccentric) on the muscle activation of
provide maximal force attempting to extend the the upper pectoralis major, lower pectoralis major,
elbow while manual resistance was provided. anterior deltoid and lateral triceps brachii during the
entire contraction duration. All significant ANOVAs
were followed by Tukey post hoc tests in order to
Kinematics
locate significantly different means. Differences in
Markers were utilised to locate the points of interest the participants’ normal grip width and 150% bia-
in the sagittal plane of movement. Markers were cromial grip width were compared using a paired
placed on the participants via two-sided tape after t test. The level of significance was set priori at p ≤
palpating the following anatomical landmarks: olecr- 0.05. All values are presented as the mean ± stan-
anon process of the ulna, acromion process of the dard deviation (SD).
scapula and greater trochanter of the femur. In
addition markers where placed on the barbell to track
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

motion in the sagittal plane. The shoulder flexion Results

angle was measured prior to each eccentric con-
Upper pectoralis major sEMG
traction utilising Dartfish Connect 5.5 (Dartfish,
Alpharetta, GA). The shoulder angle was defined as The upper pectoralis major displayed significantly
the angle made by olecranon process, acromion greater muscle activation during the concentric
process and greater trochanter markers (Table I). phase compared to the eccentric phase during the
complete contraction for all tested bench conditions
(–15°, 0°, 30°, 45°) (Figure 1a, 1b). During the
Statistical analyses
concentric phase of the contraction the muscle
All data were analysed using NCSS statistical soft- activation of the upper pectoralis major was greater
ware (NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, Utah). Three-way during 30° (117.5 ± 49.2% MVIC) compared to –
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated mea- 15° (102.6 ± 27.7% MVIC). However, during 26–
sures was used to examine the effects of bench 50% of the contraction duration, both the 30° (122.5
condition (–15°, 0°, 30°, 45°), contraction duration ± 38.0% MVIC) and 45° (124.8 ± 34.2% MVIC)
(0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–100%) and contrac- bench conditions resulted in greater upper pectoralis
tion phase (concentric, eccentric) on the muscle major activation compared to horizontal (98.2 ±
activation of the upper pectoralis major, lower 20.2% MVIC) and –15° (96.1 ± 20.6% MVIC)
pectoralis major, anterior deltoid and lateral triceps (Figure 1b).

Figure 1. (a) Activation of the upper pectoralis across eccentric phase durations. (b) Activation of the upper pectoralis across concentric
contraction durations.
*Significantly greater muscular activation compared to 45° bench condition; +significantly greater muscular activation compared to –15°
bench condition; ◊significantly greater muscular activation compared to 0° bench condition.
 Influence of bench angle on the muscular activation 5

During the eccentric phase, the upper pectoralis duration, whereas the difference between –15° (112.3
major elicited greater muscle activation during –15° ± 47.2% MVIC) and 30° was only present during 76–
(72.5 ± 27.3% MVIC) and horizontal (76.4 ± 21.2% 100% of the contraction duration.
MVIC) bench conditions compared to 45° (56.5 ± The lower pectoralis major displayed similar results
21.2% MVIC) during the entire phase (Figure 1b). during the entire eccentric phase, as –15° (72.7 ±
The horizontal bench condition resulted in greater 19.5% MVIC), horizontal (68.5 ± 15.3% MVIC) and
muscle activation than 45° across entire the eccentric 30° (39.3 ± 10.7% MVIC) bench conditions resulted
phase, while the –15 was greater than 45° during 0– in greater muscle activation compared to 45°(27.7 ±
25% (54.0 ± 18.1% MVIC, 41.1 ± 13.8% MVIC) 9.5% MVIC). These differences observed between –
and 76–100% (71.8 ± 22.3% MVIC, 56.1 ± 24.8% 15°, horizontal and 45° remained across the entire
MVIC) contraction duration (Figure 1a). contraction duration (0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%,
76–100%). The 30° bench condition (48.2 ± 21.5%
MVIC) resulted in greater muscle activation com-
pared to 45° (31.3 ± 12.4% MVIC) during 25–50%
Lower pectoralis major sEMG contraction duration (Figure 2b).
The lower pectoralis major displayed significantly
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

greater muscle activation during the concentric

phase compared to the eccentric phase during the Anterior deltoid sEMG
complete contraction for all test bench conditions The anterior deltoid displayed significantly greater
(–15°, 0°, 30°, 45°). Compared to the 45° bench muscle activation during the concentric phase com-
(71.6 ± 4.5% MVIC), the muscle activation of lower pared to the eccentric phase during the complete
pectoralis was greater during –15° (99.6 ± 22.5% contraction for the 30° and 45° bench conditions.
MVIC), horizontal (98.4 ± 19.9% MVIC) and 30° The muscle activation of anterior deltoid was less
(85.9 ± 19.0% MVIC) bench conditions when during –15° (58.3 ± 30.7% MVIC) compared to
examining the whole concentric contraction and both horizontal (76.0 ± 37.0% MVIC) and incline
remained evident across all contraction durations bench conditions [90.9 ± 44.3% MVIC (30°), 97.5
(0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–100%). The muscle ± 39.3% MVIC (45°)] when examining the whole
activation during horizontal and –15° were both concentric contraction. In addition, greater muscle
greater than the 30° bench condition during the whole activation of the anterior deltoid resulted from the
contraction. The observed difference in muscle activa- incline conditions (30°, 45°) compared to horizontal
tion between horizontal and 30° was evident during during the whole concentric contraction. The differ-
0–25% (0° = 119.1 ± 26.7% MVIC; 30° = 101.3 ± ence between horizontal and –15° occurred at 51–
28.3% MVIC) and 76–100% (0° = 108.9 ± 45.3% 75% and 76–100% of the contraction duration. The
MVIC; 30° = 83.1 ± 39.4% MVIC) of the contraction difference between 45° and horizontal was apparent

Figure 2. (a) Activation of the lower pectoralis across eccentric phase durations. (b) Activation of the upper lower across concentric
contraction durations.
*Significantly greater muscular activation compared to 45° bench condition; #significantly greater muscular activation compared to 30°
bench condition.
 6 J. D. Lauver et al.

across all contraction durations; however, the differ- horizontal, –15°, 30° and 45° bench conditions
ence between horizontal and 30° occurred at 0–25% found in the present study is in agreement with
and 26–50% of the contraction duration (Figure 3b). previous studies (Barnett et al., 1995; Glass &
Examining the entire eccentric phase, the muscle Armstrong, 1997). However, Trebs et al. (2010)
activation of anterior deltoid was greater during 45° found that bench angles of 44° and 56° resulted in
(74.7 ± 31.2% MVIC), 30° (68.0 ± 32.0% MVIC) greater activation of the upper pectoralis compared to
and horizontal (56.4 ± 28.9% MVIC) compared to – a horizontal bench, which is in contrast to the
15° (39.2 ± 19.0% MVIC). Furthermore, the 45° findings of this study. This may be explained by the
bench condition resulted in greater muscle activation use of a Smith machine in the study conducted by
of the anterior deltoid compared to the horizontal Trebs et al. (2010), where as a free-weight barbell
condition. The difference between 45° and horizontal was utilised in this study. When utilising a Smith
was evident during 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–100% of machine the path of the bar is restricted in the vertical
the contraction duration, while 30° resulted in greater plane during movement due to the guides of the
activation compared to horizontal during 76–100% Smith machine (Trebs et al., 2010), thereby prevent-
of the contraction duration. In addition the hori- ing the normal “S” or reverse “C” pattern that the bar
zontal bench condition resulted in greater activation usually takes during a free-weight bench press (Cot-
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

compared to the –15° during 26–50, 51–75% and terman, Darby, & Skelly, 2005; Trebs et al., 2010).
76–100% of the contraction duration (Figure 3a). In addition to examining the activation over the
complete concentric phase we examined the activa-
tion at four separate contraction duration time points
Lateral triceps brachii sEMG to examine the possible differences in muscular
activation throughout different time points of the
The lateral triceps brachii displayed significantly
lift. There was no difference in upper pectoralis
greater muscle activation during the concentric
activation over the whole concentric phase but there
phase compared to the eccentric phase during the
were differences during 26–50% completion of the
complete contraction for all test bench conditions
concentric phase (Figure 1b). This difference may
(–15°, 0°, 30°, 45°). During the concentric contrac-
have occurred during this interval due to the increase
tion, the incline conditions (30°, 45°) resulted in
in shoulder flexion (Table I), which is also supported
greater muscle activation (30° = 114.3 ± 26.3%
by the finding of increased activation of the anterior
MVIC; 45° = 117.8 ± 28.5% MVIC) of the lateral
deltoid. The anterior deltoid activation was greater
triceps brachii compared to the –15° (102.2 ± 26.5%
during 45° compared to both horizontal and –15°,
MVIC) bench condition. Furthermore, 45° elicited a
while 30° was only greater than –15°. However,
greater lateral triceps brachii muscle activation com-
during the first 50% of the concentric phase the 30°
pared to horizontal (106.0 ± 28.7% MVIC) during
bench resulted in greater anterior deltoid activation
the entire concentric contraction. The difference
than the horizontal (Figure 3b).
between the incline conditions (30°, 45°) and –15°
In contrary to Barnett et al. (1995) we did not find
occurred during 26–50%, 51–75% and 76–100% of
any difference in activation between horizontal and –
the contraction duration. The difference between
15° bench conditions for lower perctoralis activation.
45° and horizontal was present during 51–75% and
When the bench angle increased from horizontal,
76–100% of the contraction duration, while the
the level of activation of the lower pectoralis decreased
difference between 30° and horizontal occurred at
which is in agreement with previous research (Barnett
76–100% of the contraction duration. There was no
et al., 1995; Glass & Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al.,
difference in muscle activation of the lateral triceps
2010). However, when examining the different time
brachii during the eccentric contraction at any tested
points the difference between horizontal and 30°
bench angles.
bench condition was not evident across all times
points. These results demonstrate that even though
muscle activation is different when examining the
Kinematic data
whole contraction that there are differences through-
The normal handgrip width (0.63 ± 0.02 m) utilised out the contraction or lift. These differences between
by the experienced resistance trained subjects was not conditions and time points are important to consider
significantly different from the experimental handgrip since muscle activation is an important stimulus for
width (0.65 ± 0.01 m) used in the present study. the development of muscle strength and mass (Trebs
et al., 2010).
Interestingly, during the eccentric phase the hori-
Discussion
zontal bench resulted in greater activation of both
The lack of a difference in the concentric muscular the lower and upper pectoralis compared to 45°.
activation of the upper pectoralis between the This could have interesting applications as eccentric
 Influence of bench angle on the muscular activation 7
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

Figure 3. (a) Activation of the anterior deltoid across eccentric phase durations. (b) Activation of the anterior deltoid across concentric
contraction durations.
+Significantly greater muscular activation compared to –15° bench condition; ◊significantly greater muscular activation compared to 0°
bench condition.

training has been shown to result in greater gains greatest activation of the lower pectoralis. This could
in both muscle strength and muscle mass (Roig suggest that horizontal bench press results in the
et al., 2009). Eccentric training is of interest from a greatest demand on the lower pectoralis. However, it
mechanical perspective as muscles are capable of is important to consider the joint angle and position
achieving higher absolute forces when contracting as this can effect muscle architecture and therefore,
eccentrically compared to concentrically (Hather, the ability to generate force. Lower activation of the
Tesch, Buchanan, & Dudley, 1991; Roig et al., 2009). upper pectoralis and the anterior deltoid during a
In this study, the concentric muscular activation of horizontal bench press could be due to the joint
the lateral triceps brachii was greater at the 45° bench angle and movement since these muscles are more
compared to the horizontal bench, which is in con- proficient at performing shoulder flexion rather
trast to Barnett et al. (1995). One possible reason for than horizontal adduction (Moore & Agur, 2007;
this difference is hand space or grip width. Lehman Trebs et al., 2010). In contrast, as the bench angle
(2005) showed that moving from a wide grip to a increased from –15° to 45° there was a decrease in
narrow grip width increased neuromuscular activa- activation of the lower pectoralis while the activation
tion of the triceps brachii and decreased the muscular of the anterior deltoid increased. These findings
activation of the lower head of the pectoralis major. could suggest that as the bench angle increases there is
Handgrip was controlled to 150% of biacromial width less horizontal adduction and more flexion occurring
in the present study which was different from Barnett at the glenohumeral joint. This is further supported by
et al. (1995) who controlled grip width at 100% and the significant increase in the initial shoulder flexion
200% biacromial width, as well as previous studies angle that occurred as the bench angle increased in
that did not control grip width (Glass & Armstrong, this study (Table I).
1997; Trebs et al., 2010). A primary factor that will affect the activation level
When examining the differences in activation it is of a muscle is the force requirement. In the current
important to consider that in any exercise that invo- study, the same absolute load was lifted at each
lves the activation of multiple muscles in a complex bench angle in an effort to eliminate the differences
movement pattern the muscular activation of a single in external load as a confounding factor affecting the
muscle will be dependent on the activation of amplitude of the sEMG signal. This is in contrast to
synergistic muscles. It is also important to remember previous studies that used different absolute loads
that the activation of a muscle will depend on factors (i.e., same relative loads) at each tested bench angle
such as the movement being performed, joint angle (Barnett et al., 1995; Glass & Armstrong, 1997;
and the muscle architecture (Freund & Budingen, Trebs et al., 2010). Change in the absolute load
1978). During the horizontal bench press the prim- between bench conditions could have affected the
ary movement at the shoulder joint is horizontal muscular activation regardless of the change in
adduction, which in this study resulted in the bench angle as it would have changed the force
 8 J. D. Lauver et al.

requirement. Previous studies found that as the References

incline angle increased, the absolute 1 RM load Baechle, T. R., Earle, R. W., & National Strength & Conditioning
achieved decreased (Trebs et al., 2010). This reduc- Association (U.S.). (2008). Essentials of strength training and
tion in absolute force between bench conditions conditioning (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Barnett, C., Kippers, V., & Turner, P. (1995). Effects of variat-
could have contributed to the decrease in muscular
ions of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five
activation of the lower head of the pectoralis major shoulder muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
that was found as the bench angle increased (Barnett 9, 222–227
et al., 1995; Glass & Armstrong, 1997; Trebs et al., Basmajian, J. V., & De Luca, C. J. (1985). Muscles alive: Their
functions revealed by electromyography (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD:
2010). In agreement with previous investigations
Williams & Wilkins.
(Barnett et al., 1995; Glass & Armstrong, 1997; Trebs Chopp, J. N., Fischer, S. L., & Dickerson, C. R. (2010). On the
et al., 2010), the present study found a similar trend of feasibility of obtaining multiple muscular maximal voluntary
decreasing activation of the lower pectoralis activation excitation levels from test exertions: A shoulder example. Journal
of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 20, 896–902. doi:10.1016/j.
as the bench angle increased demonstrating that
jelekin.2009.10.002
bench angle, joint position and movement may play Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. (2005). Compar-
a more significant role in muscle activation of the ison of muscle force production using the Smith machine and
Downloaded by [University of Toledo], [Jakob Lauver] at 06:03 26 March 2015

lower pectoralis than the load lifted. Interestingly, the free weights for bench press and squat exercises. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 169–176
study conducted by Trebs et al. (2010) demonstrated
Cram, J. R., Kasman, G. S., & Holtz, J. (1998). Introduction to
greater activation of the upper pectoralis during the surface electromyography. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
44° and 56° conditions compared to horizontal even Freund, H.-J., & Budingen, H. J. (1978). The relationship
with the reduction in absolute load. between speed and amplitude of the fastest voluntary contrac-
tions of human arm muscles. Experimental Brain Research, 31
The results of this study support the use of a hori-
(1), 1–12. doi:10.1007/BF00235800
zontal bench position to achieve muscular activation Glass, S., & Armstrong, T. (1997). Electromyographical activity
of both the upper and lower heads of the pectoralis of the pectoralis muscle during incline and decline bench
major during both the concentric and eccentric presses. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11,
163–167.
phases of the lift. However, a bench incline angle of
Hather, B. M., Tesch, P. A., Buchanan, P., & Dudley, G. A. (1991).
30° or 45° resulted in greater muscular activation Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations
during specific time points throughout the contrac- to resistance training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 143,
tion. The results suggest that an incline bench angle 177–185. doi:10.1111/j.1748-1716.1991.tb09219.x
Hodder, J. N., & Keir, P. J. (2013). Obtaining maximum muscle
of 30° is more beneficial than 45° as it resulted in the
excitation for normalizing shoulder electromyography in dyna-
same upper pectoralis activation but 30° resulted in mic contractions. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,
great lower pectoralis activation. In addition, a –15° 23, 1166–1173. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.06.012
bench did not result in greater activation of either Jackson, A. S., & Pollock, M. L. (1978). Generalized equations for
predicting body density of men. British Journal of Nutrition, 40,
head of the pectoralis, thus there is no added benefit
497–504. doi:10.1079/BJN19780152
of include a –15° bench press in conjunction with a Lehman, G. J. (2005). The influence of grip width and forearm
horizontal bench. The results of the present invest- pronation/supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during
igation demonstrate the importance of considering the flat bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 19, 587–591.
the effects of muscle activation throughout different
Moore, K. L., & Agur, A. M. R. (2007). Essential clinical anatomy
time points of the contraction/lift as variations may (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
be evident. These results suggest that in an effort to Roig, M., O'Brien, K., Kirk, G., Murray, R., McKinnon, P.,
optimise a resistance-training programme with the Shadgan, B., & Reid, W. D. (2009). The effects of eccentric
versus concentric resistance training on muscle strength and
goal of improving muscle strength and development
mass in healthy adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
of the pectoralis major, it would be beneficial to British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 556–568. doi:10.1136/
include horizontal bench press and an incline bench bjsm.2008.051417
of 30°. The use of a decline or 45° incline bench Trebs, A. A., Brandenburg, J. P., & Pitney, W. A. (2010). An
electromyography analysis of 3 muscles surrounding the shoul-
would have little or no added benefit.
der joint during the performance of a chest press exercise at
several angles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24,
1925–1930. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddfae7
Acknowledgements Welsch, E. A., Bird, M., & Mayhew, J. L. (2005). Electromyo-
graphic activity of the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid
The authors would like to thank the subjects for muscles during three upper-body lifts. Journal of Strength and
volunteering to participate in this study. Conditioning Research, 19, 449–452.

View publication stats