These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Flat-Back vs. Arched-Back Bench Press: Examining the Different Techniques Performed by Power Athletes.
    Author: Bartolomei S, Caroli E, Coloretti V, Rosaci G, Cortesi M, Coratella G.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2024 Jul 01; 38(7):1200-1205. PubMed ID: 38551927.
    Abstract:
    Bartolomei, S, Caroli, E, Coloretti, V, Rosaci, G, Cortesi, M, and Coratella, G. Flat-back vs. arched-back bench press: Examining the different techniques performed by power athletes. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1200-1205, 2024-The International Powerlifting Federation recently changed the regulations concerning the bench press (BP) technique, not allowing an accentuated dorsal arch anymore. We investigated the difference between the flat-back vs. arched-back BP performed by competitive powerlifters as concerns the following parameters: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and barbell displacement; (b) mean and peak barbell velocity and power, and (c) the excitation of the prime movers. Fifteen highly resistance trained individuals (BP 1RM/body mass ratio: 1.38 ± 0.18) performed the flat-back and arched-back BP at their 50, 70, and 90% of the respective 1RM and performed each lift with the intent to maximally accelerate the barbell. Barbell displacement and velocity, power, and the excitation of the upper and lower pectoralis and triceps brachii were assessed. The 1RM was greater with the arched-back BP (+4.2 Kg, 95% confidence intervals + 0.0/+8.4, effect size [ES]: 0.22), whereas the barbell displacement was greater with the flat-back BP for all loads (ES from 0.40 to 0.61). Greater mean (+0.052 m·s -1 , 0.016/0.088, ES: 0.42) and peak barbell velocity (+0.068 m·s -1 , +0.026/0.110, ES: 0.27) were observed in the flat-back BP, whereas power did not differ. The excitation of upper and lower pectoralis was similar, while an overall trend for an increased activation of triceps brachii was noted in the arched-back vs. flat-back BP. Interestingly, no between-load difference in the excitation of upper and lower pectoralis was observed ( p > 0.05). Depending on the training purposes, both flat-back and arched-back BP may be used. The present outcomes may assist practitioners and competitive powerlifters to inform training session.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]