Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Biomechanics of The Push Up Implications For Resistance Training Programs
The Biomechanics of The Push Up Implications For Resistance Training Programs
The Biomechanics of The Push Up Implications For Resistance Training Programs
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
he push-up has long been advo- boxing (22), and martial arts (13), and
THE PUSH-UP IS WIDELY USED BY
FITNESS PROFESSIONALS TO
DEVELOP UPPER-BODY
STRENGTH, POWER, AND LOCAL
T cated as a means to assess local
muscular endurance of the upper
body. A variety of timed and untimed
they play a prominent role in the basic
training programs of the U.S. Military
(18). Plyometric push-ups are consid-
push-up tests are commonly employed ered essential for optimizing stretch-
MUSCULAR ENDURANCE. as part of a fitness assessment, and these shortening cycleinduced adaptations
ALTHOUGH THE LOAD DURING A tests have been validated across a wide for the upper body (21).
PUSH-UP IS LIMITED BY AN INDI- range of populations (23). Moreover, Although the load during a push-up is
VIDUALS BODYWEIGHT AND research shows a high correlation limited by an individuals bodyweight
ANTHROPOMETRY, MANY BIOME- between push-up ability and the number and anthropometry, many biomechan-
CHANICAL VARIATIONS OF THE of bench press repetitions performed as ical variations of the exercise can be
EXERCISE CAN BE PERFORMED. a percentage of body weight (1), thus performed to alter muscle activity by
THESE VARIATIONS MAY INVOLVE providing an efficient and inexpensive providing either a lesser or greater
ALTERING HAND AND FOOT POSI- alternative to free weight testing. challenge to the target musculature.
TIONS, WHICH IMPACTS MUSCLE In fitness settings, push-ups are widely These variations most often involve
RECRUITMENT PATTERNS AND used to develop upper-body strength, altering hand and foot positions, which
JOINT STRESSES. THE IMPLICA- power, and muscular endurance. They impacts muscle recruitment patterns
TIONS OF THESE VARIATIONS MAY are staple exercises in fitness and gym and joint stresses (3,15). Other varia-
BE OVERLOOKED WITH RESPECT classes; they are used by strength and tions include using various implements
TO THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND conditioning professionals to train such as unstable surfaces, suspension
GOALS OF THE CLIENT. athletes in sports such as baseball (10), training devices, and specially designed
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 41
One-On-One
Table 1
Biomechanical data pertaining to the standard push-up
push-up equipment. However, the to facilitate glenohumeral range of shoulder width) (9). It is commonly
implications of these variations often motion. Table 1 showcases biomechan- believed that the wide base activates
are not well understood with respect ical data found in the literature regard- the pectoralis major to a greater degree
to the individual needs and goals of ing the standard push-up exercise. than the other positions, whereas the
the client. Therefore, the purpose of Push-ups can be performed with a mul- narrow base optimizes the activation of
this column is 2-fold: first, to examine the triceps brachii (8). This is consistent
titude of variations to bring about dif-
the research pertaining to the biome- with the basic principles of applied anat-
ferent muscular recruitment patterns.
chanical aspects of the push-up; omy. Specifically, the pectoralis major is
The knee push-up shortens the lever,
second, to make practical recommen- a primary horizontal flexor, and flaring
which reduces bodyweight loading to
dations for their application to exercise the elbows would seemingly improve
54% in the top position and 62% in the
performance. the muscles length-tension relationship,
bottom position (19) and substantially
thereby facilitating its ability to generate
reduces prime mover (9) and core mus-
THE BIOMECHANICS OF THE greater force (12). On the other hand,
culature requirements (11).
PUSH-UP a narrow base with the elbows held
The standard push-up requires a general Perhaps the most popular variations close to the body would place the pec-
stiffening of the knee joints, hip joints, are achieved by altering hand position. torals in a biomechanically disadvanta-
pelvis, and spine to keep the body in Although a number of potential hand geous position, thus requiring greater
a straight line from head to feet while positions exist, the most common clas- force output from the triceps brachii.
the shoulders and elbows flex and sifications include wide base (150% However, electromyographic (EMG)
extend to raise and lower the body shoulder width), normal base (shoul- studies evaluating muscle recruitment
and the scapulae retract and protract der width), and narrow base (50% patterns during push-up performance
reaction force than all other push- where the unstable surface is the pri-
up variations. When expressed as mary base of support. From a muscle
a percentage of total body mass, the activation standpoint, it therefore
order from least to greatest load pro- appears to be more effective to perform
gressed from the hands elevated on exercises such as stability ball and
a 61.0-cm box (41% of bodyweight), BOSU push-ups in comparison with
to the knee push-up (49%), to the stable surface push-ups as long as torso
hands elevated on a 30.5-cm box angle remains constant and the hands
(55%), to the regular push-up (64%), are placed on the unstable piece of
to the feet elevated on a 30.5-cm box equipment rather than the feet.
(70%), and finally to the feet elevated Push-ups can also be performed with
Figure 5. Elastic band-resisted push-up. on a 61.0-cm box (74%). suspension devices and implements
Another push-up variation involves specially designed to facilitate changes
affects the muscular recruitment pat- the use of unstable surfaces. Compared in hand positions. Beach et al. (2)
terns. Shifting the torso forward relative with standard push-ups, BOSU (Hed- showed that suspended push-ups acti-
to the hands results in an increased pec- strom Fitness, Ashland, Ohio) push- vated more core musculature than
toralis major activity and a decreased ups have been shown to increase the standard push-ups. One such device,
triceps brachii activity compared with activity of some of the scapular stabil- the BOSU Perfect Push-up, is pur-
the normal base position. Shifting the izers, namely, the upper, mid, and ported to be biomechanically engi-
torso rearward relative to the hands lower trapezius fibers; however serratus neered to achieve better results from
results in slightly increased pectoralis anterior activity was diminished (20). push-up workouts. The efficacy of this
major and triceps brachii activity (9). Research by Lehman et al. (15) reported claim was investigated by Youdas et al.
that elevating the feet above the hands (24) who used EMG to evaluate the
Foot position also is often altered to had a greater stimulus on scapulothora- muscle activity in the Perfect Push-up
vary muscle recruitment. Recently, cic stabilizing musculature than placing versus standard push-ups. Muscle
Ebben et al. (5) assessed the peak ver- the hands on an unstable surface (i.e., activation was evaluated during the
tical ground reaction forces of push- stability ball). From a training perspec- performance of push-ups using 3 dif-
up variations including the standard tive, it is more challenging and demand- ferent hand positions: normal base,
push-up and those performed from ing for the shoulder girdle stabilizers to wide base, and narrow base. The
the knees, with feet elevated on perform push-ups with the feet elevated muscles studied included the triceps
a 30.5-cm box and a 61.0-cm box, on a bench and the hands on the brachii, pectoralis major, serratus
and with hands elevated on these ground than to perform push-ups with anterior, and posterior deltoids. Anal-
boxes. Push-ups with the feet ele- the hands on a stability ball and the feet ysis of EMG failed to show any sig-
vated produced a higher ground on the ground. nificant differences between the
Lehman et al. (14) found that push-ups groups, leading researchers to con-
with the hands placed on a stability ball clude that Perfect Push-up handgrips
significantly increased the activation of do not seem to increase the muscular
triceps brachii. Stability ball push-ups recruitment when compared with the
also increased pectoralis major, rectus standard push-ups.
abdominis, and external oblique activa- Finally, speed of movement can be
tion compared with push-ups on altered to change push-up biomechan-
a bench from the same angle, whereas ics. Explosive push-ups have been com-
push-ups with the feet placed on a sta- pared in terms of peak force, rate of
bility ball did not affect muscle activity force development, and peak impact
compared with push-ups with the feet force. Garcia-Masso et al. (7) examined
on a bench from the same angle. In the fall push-up (an explosive push-up
addition, Marshall and Murphy (16) starting from a tall-kneeling position,
showed that triceps brachii and falling to a knee push-up position, and
abdominal EMG activity was signifi- returning to the tall-kneeling position),
cantly greater when performing push- jump push-up (an explosive push-up
ups off stability balls compared with starting from standard position, where
stable surfaces from flat and elevated the upper body leaves the ground and
positions. These results indicate that becomes airborne before returning to
Figure 6. Chain push-up (draped over the stability ball seems to only increase standard position), and countermove-
back). the muscle activity during exercises ment push-up (a rapid push-up
muscle activity in overhead athletes with strength. J Strength Cond Res 14: 248 push-up for college-age women. Meas
symptoms of secondary shoulder 253, 2000. Phys Educ Exerc Sci 8: 203212, 2004.
impingement during closed chain 24. Youdas JW, Budach BD, Ellerbusch JV,
22. Wallace M and Flanagan S. Boxing:
exercises. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91: Stucky CM, Wait KR, and Hollman JH.
Resistance training considerations for
550556, 2010. Comparison of muscle-activation
modifying injury risk. Strength Cond J 21:
21. Vossen J, Kramer J, Burke D, and patterns during the conventional push-
3139, 1999.
Vossen D. Comparison of dynamic push- up and perfect pushup exercises.
up training and plyometric push-up 23. Wood H and Baumgartner T. Objectivity, J Strength Cond Res 24: 33523362,
training on upper body power and reliability, and validity of the bent-knee 2010.