Published online: 05.09.

2019

Training & Testing Thieme

Tillaar Rolandvan den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 00: 00–00

Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between

Push-up and Bench Press

Author
Roland van den Tillaar

Affiliation Abs trac t

Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, The purpose of this study was to compare the similarity in kin-
Nord University, Levanger, Norway ematics and upper-body muscle activation between push-up
and bench press exercises over a range of loads. Twenty resist-
Key words ance-trained subjects (age 22.5 ± 5.24 yrs, body mass
peak velocity, mean velocity, resistance training, strength 83.7 ± 10.7 kg, height 1.80 ± 0.06 m) executed bench presses
and push-ups with 4 different loads. Bench press was executed
received 18.06.2019 at 50–80 % of their assumed 1 repetition max in steps of 10 kg,
revised 20.07.2019 while push-ups were executed without a weight vest and with
accepted 07.08.2019 a 10–20–30 kg weight vest. A linear encoder measured kine-
matics (displacement, time, average and peak velocity) during
Bibliography the exercises at each load, together with mean and maximal
DOI https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1001-2526 muscle activation of 8 upper body muscles and their timing for
Published online: 2019 each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study
Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81 demonstrate no differences in kinematics and muscle activa-
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York tion between the two exercises and that the different loads had
ISSN 2367-1890 the same effect upon both push-up and bench press in experi-
enced resistance-trained men. For coaches and athletes, push-
Correspondence ups and bench presses for strength training can be used inter-
Prof. Roland van den Tillaar changeably. By using a weight vest, push-ups can mimic
Sports Sciences and Physical Education different loads that are similar to different intensities in the
Nord University bench press that can be used to train strength demands.
Odins veg 23
7603 Levanger
Norway
Tel.: + 47/976/62 913, Fax: + 47/7411/2 001
roland.v.tillaar@nord.no

Introduction 1-RM) so much that it is possible to gain maximal muscular strength

The push-up and bench press are two popular exercises used to in advanced lifters [3]. Calatayud et al. [3] showed that by using
train upper body strength [3, 16]. The selection of which exercise similar loads in bench press and push-up, similar increases in
to use is largely dependent on movement capabilities, the athlete’s strength occur. The reasoning behind this is that a similar amount
goal, relative strength levels, and the availability of equipment [10]. of neuromuscular activation would result in similar gains.
In bench press, a barbell and weights are necessary for training, There are only a few studies that have compared possible neuro-
whereas push-ups are in general performed with body weight as a muscular similarities and differences between the bench press and the
load. In training, both exercises are used, but bench press is most- push-up [1, 3, 10]. Although Blackard et al. [1] and Calatayud et al. [3]
ly used to assess maximal muscular strength [21, 23], whereas found no differences in neuromuscular activation between the two
push-ups are mainly used to target muscular endurance [8]. How- exercises in the long head of the triceps, pectoralis major, and anteri-
ever, by using elastic bands or weight vests in push-ups, it is also or deltoid, Gottschall et al. [10] found that the anterior deltoid and bi-
possible to increase the intensity ( > 80 % of 1-repetition maximum: ceps brachii were more activated during the bench press than push-

E74 Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81
ups. This contrast in findings may be due to the variation in the push- weight vest and with the 10–20–30 kg weight vest (Titan Fitness,
up exercise used. Blackard et al. [1] and Gottschall et al. [10] compared Memphis, TN, USA); and the bench press at ~50–80 % of the partici-
muscle activity during unloaded push-ups and equalised bench press pant’s self-estimated 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) in steps of 10 kg.
weight to the same total load between the two exercises, whereas Ca- The different loads were given in either an increasing or decreasing
latayud et al. [3] investigated only the pectoralis major and anterior order to each participant, and three repetitions per load were per-
deltoid muscles during a 6-RM bench press compared with elastic formed. The participants performed the bench press according to the
band-loaded 6-RM push-ups. Thus, the equivalency of the load lifted rules and regulations set by the International Powerlifting Federation
is a limiting factor in establishing the neuromuscular differences be- (IPF), except that they were allowed to touch and press without a full
tween the exercises. All of these studies compared only one push-up stop, but no bounce was allowed. During the bench press, each par-
load with an equalised bench press load with only the mean neuro- ticipant used their preferred grip width, which was held constant at
muscular activation [10] of a limited number of muscles [1, 3]. Timing the different loads; this width was the same as that used for the push-
of maximal activation of the muscles was not included, nor was there ups, i. e., ~150 % of the bi-acromion distance [11]. To simulate the
any kinematic analysis (velocity, displacement, movement time) to same depth and same grip width as in the bench press, the push-up
compare the specificity of the two exercises. Thus, it is not known if handles used were positioned so that the grip was the same as in the
muscle activation and kinematics behave the same between push-ups bench press, and the participants had to lower their chest to the height
and bench presses over a range of loads. This information is interest- of the push-up handles, which mimics the barbell. The test leader con-
ing for athletes, physical therapists and trainers to select or include trolled this every time.
push-ups during a strength training program, because the use of
weight vests in push-ups is a feasible and cost-effective option that Measurements
may be used as an alternative to the bench press exercise [3]. The push-up handles were placed on a strain gauge force plate (Er-
Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the similarity gotest Technology AS, Langesund, Norway), and sampling was per-
in kinematics and muscle activation between a bench press and a formed at a frequency of 1000 Hz. Before the participant took the
push-up over a similar range of loads. Based upon Calatayud et al. push-up handles, the force plate was reset. The participant placed
[3] and Blackard et al. [1], it was hypothesised that similar loads be- their feet behind the plate at the same height as the force plate. To
tween the two exercises would result in similar kinematics and measure the absolute load and percentage of body weight
muscle activation. ( + weight vest) that had to be lifted during the different push-up
conditions, the initial ground reaction force was used when the par-
ticipant grasped the handles and was in the start position for the
Materials and Methods push-up.
A linear encoder (ET-Enc-02, Ergotest Technology AS, Porsg-
Participants runn, Norway) was attached around the subject’s neck with a col-
Twenty resistance-trained subjects (age: 22.5 ± 5.24 yrs, body lar when performing a push-up and the barbell when performing
height 1.80 ± 0.06 m, body mass 83.7 ± 10.7 kg) participated in the bench presses, directly vertical to the ground. It measured at a res-
study. Each participant was informed of the testing protocol and olution of 0.019 mm and counted the pulses with a 5-millisecond
possible risks, and written consent was obtained prior to the study. interval vertical displacement in relation to the lowest point of the
The study complied with the current ethical regulations for research barbell (zero distance). The exercises were divided into two phas-
[12], was approved by the Regional Ethical Committee, and con- es: the downward and upward phase, identified using the linear en-
formed to the latest revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. coder. Average upward velocity was calculated from the lowest bar-
bell position over the chest and chest to the ground in the push-up
Experimental design to the highest positions by using a five-point differential filter with
To compare kinematics, muscle activation, and timing of these be- Musclelab v10.5.67 software (Ergotest Technology AS, Porsgrunn,
tween push-ups and bench presses within subjects, a repeated- Norway). The maximal measurement error of velocity due to the
measures design was used in which all subjects conducted both ex- system was less than 0.9 % and the coefficient of variation was 2.3 %
ercises with four different loads in a randomised order. [2]. Movement time, distance, and peak and average velocity in the
downward and upward phase were measured together with the
Procedures timing of maximal downward and upward velocity.
One week prior to the test session, the participants visited the labora- Wireless electromyography (EMG) was recorded by using a Mus-
tory for a session to become familiar with the equipment and proto- clelab 6000 system and analysed by Musclelab v10.5.67 software
col. Because participants had never before performed push-ups while (Ergotest Technology AS, Langesund, Norway). The skin was shaved,
wearing a weight vest, they were familiarised with using one with dif- abraded, and washed with alcohol before placement of the gel-coat-
ferent weights in particular. In the test session, height and body mass ed self-adhesive electrodes (Dri-Stick Silver circular sEMG Electrodes
were first measured before starting a general warm-up of 5 min of jog- AE-131, NeuroDyne Medical, USA). The electrodes (11 mm contact
ging on a treadmill, followed by several push-up attempts with the diameter and a 2 cm centre-to-centre distance) were placed along
weight vest and then the bench press. After the warm-up, half of the the presumed direction of the underlying muscle fibre according to
participants were assigned to perform the bench press condition, the recommendations by the Surface ElectroMyoGraphy for the Non-
while the other half started with the push-up condition. Each condi- Invasive Assessment of Muscles (SENIAM) project [13, 20]. The elec-
tion was performed with four different loads: the push-up without the trodes were placed on the right upper limb positioned on the belly

Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81 E75
 Training & Testing Thieme

of the anterior and medial deltoid; the lateral, medial, and long head
of the triceps brachii; the sternal and clavicular part of the pectora- 1.5
Upward
lis major; and the biceps brachii. To minimise noise from the sur- *
1 *
roundings, the raw EMG signal was amplified and filtered using a pre- *
amplifier located close to the sampling point. The EMG signals were *
0.5
converted to root mean square (RMS) EMG signals using a hardware

Time (s)
circuit network (frequency response 20–500 kHz, averaging con- 0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
stant 100 ms, total error ± 0.5 %). The peak and mean RMS EMG sig-
nals of each muscle during the upward phase of the lift with each – 0.5

load were used for further analysis, except for the biceps brachii in
–1
which the mean and peak activity was used of the downward phase
†
because the greatest activity occurred in this phase [21, 22]. No nor- – 1.5 Downward
malisation of the EMG signals was necessary because all measure- 0.8 Upward
ments per participant were performed in one session and only a with-
0.6 * *
in-subject design was used [21, 22]. In addition, the timing of peak * *
EMG signals was collected to identify eventual differences in timing 0.4

Displacement (m)
between the two exercises over the different loads. Timing was cal-
0.2
culated as relative to the whole down/upward movement time to
make it possible to compare timing over the different loads. The force 0.0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
plate, linear encoder and EMG were all synchronised by the Muscle-
– 0.2
lab 6000 system. * *
* *
– 0.4
Statistical analysis
– 0.6 Downward
To compare kinematics and muscle activation between the two ex-
2.0
ercises with the different loads, a 2 (exercise: push-up vs. bench Upward *
1.5
*
press) × 4 (load: four different loads in each exercise) analysis of *
variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was used for each 1.0 *
of the muscles. Where the sphericity assumption was violated, we 0.5 *
Velocity (m/s)

have reported Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected p-values in the re- *

* *
0.0
sults. Post hoc tests using the Holm-Bonferroni probability adjust- 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
* *
ment were used to identify differences. In addition, a 2 (exercise: – 0.5

push-up vs. bench press) × 4 (load: four different loads in each ex- – 1.0
ercise) × 7 (different muscles) ANOVA with repeated measurements *
– 1.5 *
was used to assess the timing of the different muscles related to *
*
Downward
each other. The effect size used and reported in this study was par- – 2.0
Load (kg)
tial eta squared (η2), where 0.01 ≤ η2 < 0.06 constituted a small ef-
Push-up Bench press
fect, 0.06 ≤ η2 < 0.14 constituted a medium effect, and η2 < 0.14
constituted a large effect [4]. The level of significance was set at
▶Fig. 1 Mean ( ± standard deviation) total time, distance, average
p ≤ 0.05 for all tests and the analyses were carried out with SPSS
and peak velocity downward and upward at each load of push-up
Statistics v25 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). and bench press averaged over all participants. * indicates a signifi-
cant difference with all other loads for both exercises at the p ≤ 0.05
level. † indicates a significant difference between these two loads for
Results both exercises at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
In the 4 push-up conditions, the absolute loads that had to be lift-
ed were from 52.3 ± 6.8–76.7 ± 6.8 kg, which was from 62.6–65.1 %
of the subjects’ body mass ( + weight vest) that had to be lifted. Also, no significant effect of exercise (F ≤ 2.53, p ≥ 0.128, η2 ≤ 0.11)
No significant effect of exercise (F ≤ 0.25, p ≥ 0.623, η2 ≤ 0.01) was found for any of the mean and maximal muscle activities (▶Fig. 2).
for any of the kinematic parameters was found (▶Fig. 1), whereas, A significant effect of load (F ≥ 4.08, p ≤ 0.031, η2 ≥ 0.18) was found for
as expected, load had a significant effect upon all kinematic vari- the mean muscle activities of the sternal part of the pectoralis major,
ables (F ≤ 0.25, p ≥ 0.623, η2 ≤ 0.01) and no significant interaction anterior deltoid, and the long head of the triceps brachii, together with
effect (F ≤ 1.73, p ≥ 0.19, η2 ≤ 0.08). Post hoc comparisons showed the peak muscle activation of the long head of the triceps brachii. For
that displacement, peak downward, peak and mean upward veloc- the other muscles, no significant effect of load was found (F ≤ 2.49,
ity decreased in both the downward and upward phases with each p ≥ 0.114, η2 ≤ 0.11), nor was any significant interaction effect observed
increasing load, whereas the mean downward velocity decreased (F ≤ 1.95, p ≥ 0.151, η2 ≤ 0.11). Post hoc comparisons showed that only
only with the two heaviest loads (▶Fig. 1). The total time in the up- mean muscle activity for the sternal part of the pectoralis major in-
ward phase increased with each load, whereas the time in the creased only between loads 2 and 3, for the anterior deltoid between
downward phase increased only from load 2–4 (▶Fig. 1). loads 2 and 4, and for the maximal activity of long head of triceps bra-

E76 Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81
 Pectoralis major clavicular part Pectoralis major sternal part
600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200
†
100 100

0 0
Anterior deltoid Medial deltoid
900 450

800 400

700 350
Peak
600 300

500 250

400 200
†
300 150

200 100 Mean

100 50
Muscle activity (mV)

0 0
Triceps brachii lateral head Triceps brachii long head
800 800
†
700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300 *
* *
200 200
*

100 100

0 0

1 200 Triceps brachii medial head 700 Biceps brachii

1 000 600

500
800
400
600
300
400
200

200 100

0 0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Load (kg)
Push-up Bench press

▶Fig. 2 Mean ( ± standard error of the mean) and peak muscle activation of all muscles during the upward phase (biceps brachii activation in down-
ward phase) of the lifts at each load and exercise averaged over all participants. . * indicates a significant difference in muscle activation with all other
loads for both exercises at the p ≤ 0.05 level. → indicates a significant increase in muscle activation from this load to all those to the right of the
arrow at the p < 0.05 level.

chii between loads 1 and 3. The mean muscle activity of the long head A significant effect in the timing of peak downward and upward ve-
of the triceps brachii increased significantly for every load (▶Fig. 2). locity (F ≥ 4.34, p ≤ 0.024, η2 ≥ 0.19) was found. Furthermore, the tim-
ing of peak muscle activation between muscles (F = 4.16, p = 0.001,

Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81 E77
 Training & Testing Thieme

η2 = 0.20) and load (F = 18.0, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.51) was significant, but Kinematics changed mostly in the upward phase with increas-
no significant effect of exercise (F = 0.09, p = 0.762, η2 < 0.01) or any ing external load, which is in accordance with Gonzalez-Badillo and
interaction effects (F ≤ 2.35, p ≥ 0.099, η2 ≤ 0.12) were found. When Sanchez-Medina [9] and Newton et al. [18], who showed that peak
the effect of load per muscle was evaluated, a significant effect was and average velocity decreased with increasing load. However, the
found for all muscles except the biceps brachii (p = 0.698) and medial total distance down and upwards declined with increasing external
deltoid (p = 0.50) (▶Fig. 3). Post hoc comparisons revealed that, when load (▶ Fig. 1), indicating that the load also affected the starting
timing was averaged over all loads and exercises, peak muscle activa- position. The difference was only 0.04 m between the lifts with the
tion occurred at almost the same time for all muscles, except for the lowest and heaviest loads. These differences were probably caused
triceps medial head in which peak activation occurred significantly by not lowering the trunk or barbell fully to avoid losing control at
later than in all other muscles except the long head of the triceps. Fur- the lowest point or had been caused by the large loads not allow-
thermore, the anterior deltoid and lateral triceps brachii peak activa- ing for full shoulder protraction at the start of the movements. This
tion occurred significantly earlier than the peak activation of the long was also shown by the earlier occurrence of peak downward veloc-
head of the triceps brachii (▶Fig. 4). When viewed per condition and ity with increasing load (▶ Fig. 3). Furthermore, the upward dis-
load, the timing of peak activation occurred significantly later in the tance was on average 0.04 m longer than the downward phase,
lift from load 1–2 (pectoralis, anterior deltoid, and lateral triceps bra- which indicates that the participants performed this upward phase
chii) and from load 2–3 (other two triceps muscles). Also, a significant with full effort. The longer movement time upward is also visible
increase from load 3–4 was found for the sternal part of the pectora- in relatively later occurrence of peak muscle activation of most
lis major. The timing of peak downward velocity occurred earlier, muscles with increasing load (▶Fig. 3), which was probably caused
whereas the peak upward velocity occurred later with increasing loads by the existence of a sticking region [7]. A sticking region is a re-
(▶Fig. 3). gion in which velocity decreases after the initial peak velocity and
occurs with increasing load. It is the weakest point during the up-
ward phase of a lift [7, 22]. Velocity increases again once the stick-
Discussion ing point is passed.
The purpose of this study was to investigate if kinematics and mus- The timing of maximal peak activation of most muscles in both
cle activation are similar between bench press and push-up exer- exercises occurred at around 30–40 % of the upward phase of the
cises over a similar range of loads. The main findings of this study lift, which is around where the sticking point is. To pass this point,
demonstrate no differences in kinematics and muscle activation which is the weakest point of the lift, it is important to have maxi-
between the two exercises and that the different loads had the mal activation of the muscles. The later occurrence of the peak ac-
same effect upon both push-up and bench press exercises. tivation of the medial head of the triceps was probably caused by
As expected, the displacement and the mean and peak velocity the fact that this muscle, together with the long head, are only
decreased, and movement times increased in both phases for both moderately pennated and thereby less strong than the lateral head
exercises with no differences between the two exercises (▶Fig. 1). of the triceps, which reaches its peak activation earlier [15]. Fur-
That there was no difference in kinematics between the two exer- thermore, due to the origin of the long head of the triceps on the
cises is explainable by the fact that there were no neuromuscular intraglenoid tubercle, this muscle could also cause a shoulder ex-
differences in any of the measured muscles between the two exer- tension moment, especially when active at the lowest point of the
cises, indicating that similar loads result in similar neurological re- lift. Therefore, peak activation of this muscle has to occur later be-
sponses for push-ups and bench presses. This was also found by cause it works more as a shoulder stabiliser [14].
Blackard et al. [1] and Calatayud et al. [3], who compared only one With increasing load from ~50–80 %, not all muscles increased
load (unweighted push-ups) between the two exercises. In the pre- their neuromuscular activation. It seems that mainly the long head
sent study, over the whole range of external loads, the kinematics of the triceps brachii, the anterior deltoid and the sternal part of
and muscle activation between the two exercises behaved the the pectoralis major significantly increased their activation [17, 18].
same, indicating that push-ups with weight vests can be used in- These muscles are responsible for overcoming the external load
terchangeably with the bench press to enhance upper body with increasing demands. These muscles are also the limiting fac-
strength. Earlier it was suggested that because push-ups are seen tor in maximal bench press lifting [22, 24], whereas other muscles
as a closed kinetic chain exercise and the bench press as an open are more accountable for stability [19].
kinetic chain exercise [1, 5], the result would be different muscle Some limitations to the present study are that only loads be-
activity between the two exercises owing to different stability con- tween 50 and 80 kg were used and not maximal loads. However, it
cerns in the distal segments [6]. In an open kinetic chain exercise is difficult to get weight vests for this population that are heavy
(bench press), the distal segment, in this case the hands, is not fixed enough to reach maximal loading. Furthermore, in the present
to the floor and therefore would require more muscle activity to study, activation was measured in only a few muscles that are main-
stabilise the load on the end of the segment than in a closed kinet- ly responsible for elbow extension and shoulder flexion; no mus-
ic chain like push-ups [6]. However, as indicated by Dillman and cles that stabilise the trunk and pelvis were assessed. Gottschall
Murray [5], if the direction and mass of loading in both exercises et al. [10] showed that the rectus abdominis has a significantly
are similar, the electromyographic activity of the primary muscle higher activation during a push-up than a bench press, with the ex-
groups involved would be comparable. In the present study, the planation that the trunk is supported during the open kinetic chain
kinematics were the same, thus muscle activation would also be exercise (bench press), so there is little need for core activation.
the same, as shown. Based on this finding, Gottschall et al. [10] suggested that push-

E78 Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81
 Downward velocity Upward velocity
100
90
80
70 †
60 †
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pectoralis major clavicular part Pectoralis major sternal part
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 †

20 †
†
10
0
100 Anterior deltoid Medial deltoid

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 †
0
100 Triceps brachii lateral head Triceps brachii long head
90
80
70
60
†
50
40 †
30
20
10
0
Triceps brachii medial head Biceps brachii
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 †
20
10
Downward part
0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Load (kg)
Push-up Bench press

▶Fig. 3 Mean ( ± standard deviation) timing of occurrence of peak muscle activation of all muscles during the upward phase (biceps brachii activa-
tion in downward phase) of the lifts at each load and exercise averaged over all participants.→ indicates a significant change in timing of occurrence
of peak muscle activation from this load to all those to the right of the arrow at the p < 0.05 level.

Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81 E79
 Training & Testing Thieme

60

55 †

Timing maximal muscle activity

50

in upward part (%)

45
*

40

35

30

25

20
Anterior Triceps Pectoralis Medial Pectoralis Triceps Triceps
deltoid lateral head sternal part deltoid clavicular part long head medial head

▶Fig. 4 Mean ( ± standard error of the mean) timing of peak muscle activation of the muscles during the upward phase when averaged over all
loads, exercises, and all participants.← indicates a significant change in timing of occurrence of peak muscle activation between this muscle and all
those to the left of the arrow at the p < 0.05 level.

ups (closed kinetic chain exercise) may be more effective for inte- References
grative or functional movement training if the athlete is strong
enough to execute a normal push-up. Thus, when the level of the [1] Blackard DO, Jensen RL, Ebben WP. Use of EMG analysis in challenging
kinetic chain terminology. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 443–448
athlete is not high enough ( < 63 % of body mass) to perform a nor-
mal push-up, the bench press could be used to increase strength. [2] Bosco C, Belli A, Astrua M, Tihanyi J, Pozzo R, Kellis S, Tsarpela O, Foti C,
Manno R, Tranquilli C. A dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic
However, when the strength is high enough, both bench press and/
muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1995; 70: 379–386
or push-ups with a weight vest or other extra resistance (e. g. com-
[3] Calatayud J, Borreani S, Colado JC, Martin F, Tella V, Andersen LL.
bined with elastic bands) to mimic similar loads can be used inter- Bench press and push-up at comparable levels of muscle activity
changeably to increase strength [3]. Push-ups with a weight vest results in similar strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29:
are recommended because they also target the core muscles and 246–253
are easier and cheaper to use in training. [4] Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988; 174
[5] Dillman CJ, Murray TA. Biomechanical differences of open and closed
Conclusion chain exercises with respect to the shoulder. J Sport Rehab 1994; 3:
228–238
Based upon the findings of the present study, we can conclude that
[6] Duscha BD, Cipriani DJ, Roberts CP. A review of open vs. closed kinetic
no differences in kinematics and muscle activation were found be-
chain exercise for lower extremity rehabilitation. Clin Exerc Physiol
tween the bench press and push-ups over a range of loads in expe- 1999; 1: 57
rienced resistance-trained athletes, and that the different loads had
[7] Elliott BC, Wilson GJ, Kerr GK. A biomechanical analysis of the sticking
the same effect upon both push-up and bench press. Therefore, it region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 450–462
is possible to use the bench press and loaded push-up interchange- [8] Garcia-Masso X, Colado JC, Gonzalez LM, Salva PAU, Alves J, Tella V,
ably when training the upper body. Triplett NT. Myoelectric activation and kinetics of different plyometric
push-up exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 2040–2047
[9] Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Sanchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a
Acknowledgements measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med
Thanks go to Sigve Knarbakk for the data collection and to the par- 2010; 31: 347–352

ticipants who contributed to this study. This study was conducted [10] Gottschall JS, Hastings B, Becker Z. Muscle activity patterns do not
differ between push-up and bench press exercises. J Appl Biomech
without any funding from companies, manufacturers or outside
2018; 34: 442–447
organisations.
[11] Gouvali MK, Boudolos K. Dynamic and electromyographic analysis in
variations of push-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 146–151

Conflict of Interest [12] Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Standards for ethics in sport and
exercise science research: 2018 update. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38:
1126–1131
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[13] Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of
recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement proce-
dures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000; 10: 361–374

E80 Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81
[14] Landin D, Thompson M. The shoulder extension function of the triceps [19] Saeterbakken A, van den Tillaar R, Fimland M. A comparison of muscle
brachii. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011; 21: 1601–1605 activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different
[15] Langenderfer J, Jerabek SA, Thangamani VB, Kuhn JE, Hughes RE. stbility requirements. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 533–538
Musculoskeletal parameters of muscles crossing the shoulder and [20] Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Muscle force output and electromyo-
elbow and the effect of sarcomere length sample size on estimation of graphic activity in squats with various unstable surfaces. J Strength
optimal muscle length. Clin Biomech 2004; 19: 664–670 Cond Res 2013; 27: 130–136
[16] Mayhew JL, Ball TE, Arnold MD, Bowen JC. Push-ups as a measure of [21] van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. A comparison of successful and unsuccess-
upper body strength. J Appl Sport. Sci Res 1991; 5: 16–21 ful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009;
[17] McCaw ST, Friday JJ. A comparison of muscle activity between free 41: 2056–2063
weight and machine bench press. J Strength Cond Res 1994; 8: [22] van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. The “sticking period” in a maximum
259–264 bench press. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 529–535
[18] Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kreamer WJ, [23] van den Tillaar R, Saeterbakken A. Effect of fatigue upon performance
Häkkinen K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the and electromyographic activity in 6-RM bench press. J Hum Kin 2014;
kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during 40: 57–65
explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997; 50: [24] van den Tillaar R, Saeterbakken AH, Ettema G. Is the occurrence of the
311–320 sticking region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press?
J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 591–599

Tillaar R den. Comparison of Kinematics and … Sports Medicine International Open 2019; 3: E74–E81 E81