Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2016 Saeterbakkenetalelasticbandsandbenchpress JSCR
2016 Saeterbakkenetalelasticbandsandbenchpress JSCR
2016 Saeterbakkenetalelasticbandsandbenchpress JSCR
net/publication/281621756
CITATIONS READS
11 698
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Roland van den Tillaar on 01 June 2016.
T
ing 6 repetition maximum (6RM) squats using constant (free
raditional free-weight exercises provide constant
weights) or variable resistance (free weights + elastic
resistance in the range of movement (ROM).
bands). Twenty recreationally trained women were recruited Because of this constant resistance, in multijoint
with 4.6 6 2.1 years of resistance training experience and exercises, such as bench press and squat, there are
a relative strength (6RM/body mass) of 1.1. After a familiar- often regions in which subjects can produce less force than in
ization session identifying the 6RM loads, the participants other regions such as the sticking region (11,29,31). The stick-
performed 6RM squats using constant and variable resis- ing region is referred to as the region from the initial maxi-
tance in a randomized order. The total resistance in the vari- mum upward velocity to the region associated with the
able resistance group was similar to the constant resistance lowest concentric velocity of a barbell after which the barbell
in the presticking region (98%), but greater in the sticking velocity increases again (18) and has only been reported in
region (105%) and the poststicking region (113%). In addi- near-maximal to maximal loads during the upward movement
tion, the presticking barbell velocity was 21.0% greater using in multijoint exercises (9,10,17,24,28), or when fatigued
variable than constant resistance, but 22.8% lower in the (12,26,30,31). In this region, failure often occurs during lifting
poststicking region. No significant differences in muscle (9,17,24,30); however, in barbell heights above the sticking
region (poststicking region), more force can be produced (28).
electromyographic activity, time occurrence, and vertical dis-
It has been proposed that the cause of the sticking region
placement between the squat modalities were observed,
in multijoint exercises is a poor mechanical force position in
except for higher barbell displacement poststicking using
which the maximal force generation declines because of
variable resistance. It was concluded that, due to differences
reduced lengths and mechanical advantages of the muscles
in total resistance in the different regions performing variable involved (18,28,32). It has been demonstrated that some
compared with constant resistance, greater barbell velocity muscles (the pectoralis major, triceps, and deltoids during
was observed in the presticking region and lower resistance bench press) are responsible for getting the loads through
was observed in the poststicking region. However, the extra the sticking region (28,33,34). For example, van den Tillaar
resistance in the sticking and poststicking regions during the et al. (28) demonstrated that, in the bench press, some
variable resistance modality did not cause increased muscle muscles are more active and can produce more force in
activity. When performing squats with heavy resistance, the poststicking region than in the sticking region. Differ-
the authors recommend using variable resistance, but we ences in muscle activation were recently reported in squats
in the sticking region (29).
Thus, when performing free-weight exercises, there is
Address correspondence to Atle H. Saeterbakken, atle.saeterbakken@ a mismatch throughout the ROM between the torque
hisf.no. created by the weights and the muscles’ ability to produce
30(4)/945–952 torque because of the constant resistance. To maximize the
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research force and torque generation throughout the ROM, variable
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association resistance has been applied using cam-based machines,
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
METHODS
Figure 1. The placement of the elastic bands performing squats with Experimental Approach to the Problem
variable resistance. To compare the effect of elastic bands on kinematics and
muscle activation in 6RM free-weight back squats, repeated-
measures designing was conducted. After a familiarization
chains, or elastic rubber bands (5,19,22). These systems
session with the 6RM loads, the participants tested 6RM in
cause more force in regions in which the muscles can pro-
the back squat using constant resistance (free weights) and
duce more force (i.e., the poststicking region). However,
variable resistance (free weights + elastic bands) in a random-
there is controversial evidence regarding the effects of vari-
ized order. The barbell velocity, barbell displacement, the
able resistance. Comparably, increased muscle activation and
time spent in the different lifting regions, and associated
force output have been demonstrated using variable instead
muscle activation performing the 2 squat modalities were
of constant resistance throughout the ROM (1,2,16,36).
compared.
Increased resistance throughout the ROM increased the
stress and the neuromuscular activation in squats (15), which Subjects
might enhance the long-term training effects more than Twenty healthy recreationally trained women (mean age =
using constant resistance. However, to the best of our knowl- 23.3 6 2.6 years, age range = 21–27 years, mean stature =
edge, no studies have analyzed the sticking region compar- 1.68 6 0.06 m, mean body mass = 65.3 6 8.5 kg) who
ing effects of including elastic rubber bands, kinematics, and demonstrated a clear sticking region (29) in the sixth repe-
muscle activation in free-weight multijoint exercises. For tition using both constant and variable resistance were
example, Ebben and Jensen (8) reported similar muscle activ- included as participants in the study. All participants had
ity and ground reaction force comparing constant and resistance training experience (4.6 6 2.1 years) but were
not competitive powerlifters
or weightlifters. The partici-
pants were trained in back
squats twice a week as part of
their training program. The
participant’s relative strength
(6RM load/body mass) in
squats was 1.1. Seventy-two
hours before testing, the partic-
ipants were instructed to
refrain from any additional
resistance training.
Before the study, each sub-
ject was informed of the testing
procedures and possible risks,
and written consent was ob-
tained from each participant.
Figure 2. Relationship between the stretching length of the elastic band and the resistance provided by the The participants had to be free
elastic bands. of any musculoskeletal pain,
injury, or illness that might
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
746 6 107*
802 6 108*
research study was obtained from the local research ethics
697 6 106
Variable
committee (31359/3/SSA) and conformed to the latest
Procedures
The free-weight back squat was performed in a power rack
713 6 82
713 6 82
713 6 82
Constant
(Gym 2000, Modum, Norway) with an Olympic barbell
(diameter = 2.8 cm, length = 1.92 m). The exercise started
with fully extended knees and a natural sway in the lower
back, which was maintained throughout the entire execu-
tion. Using a self-paced but controlled tempo, the partici-
0.41 6 0.12
0.90 6 0.31
1.88 6 0.60
pants lowered themselves to 808 knee flexion (1808 fully
Variable
extended knee) measured with a protractor (femur–fibula).
TABLE 1. Kinematics of the sixth repetition for the variable and constant resistance modalities in free-weight back squats.
When the participants had the correct knee angle, a horizon-
tal elastic band was adjusted (4,25). The participants had to
Time (s)
touch the band (midthigh) in every repetition before starting
the concentric phase. A test leader gave oral confirmation
0.44 6 0.17
0.97 6 0.29
1.81 6 0.61
Constant
when the participants touched the band. If the participants
successfully lifted six repetitions, the loads were increased
until the true 6RM in the 2 squat modalities were achieved.
The interclass coefficient between the familiarization session
and experimental session was 0.952 using constant resistance
0.23 6 0.06*
0.43 6 0.17*
(free weights) and 0.912 using variable resistance (free
0.14 6 0.06
Variable
weights + elastic bands).
The procedures used in the squats performed with vari-
Velocity (m$s21)
able resistance were identical to the constant resistance
condition with 1 exception: 2 elastic bands (R.O.P.E.S 3002
Bungee, Norway) were attached at the bottom of the power
0.19 6 0.05
0.16 6 0.06
0.53 6 0.17
rack on both sides of the barbell creating variable resistance
Constant
ing the different concentric lifting phases was the sum of the
Constant
Poststicking
The testing order was randomized. The load in the 6RM test
was increased to either a load that resulted in failure to
complete the final repetition or to a load where the
participants and test leaders agreed that it was the true
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
Figure 3. The barbell kinematics in the sixth repetition in squat using constant or variable resistance. *Significant difference (p # 0.05) between the 2 squat
modalities in barbell speed in the different lifting regions.
6RM load. The 6RM was achieved within 1–4 attempts with mode rejection ratio of 100 dB. The EMG raw signal was then
4–5 minutes of rest between each attempt (13). Half of the bandpass-filtered (fourth-order Butterworth filter) with cut-off
participants started with the constant resistance, while the frequencies of 8 and 600 Hz. The bandpassed EMG signals
other half started with the variable resistance 6RM attempts. were converted to root mean square (RMS) signals using
After shifting from the first squat modality to the other, the a hardware circuit network (frequency response = 0–600 kHz,
participants executed 2 or 3 nonfatigue habitation sets (4–8 average constant = 100 milliseconds, total error = 6 0.5%).
repetitions at 50% of familiarization 6RM loads with 3 mi- Finally, the RMS-converted signal was sampled at 100 Hz
nutes of rest between each set). using a 16-bit A/D converter (AD637). A commercial software
The surface electromyographic (EMG) bipolar electrodes program (MuscleLab V8.13; Ergotest Technology AS) was
(contact diameter = 11 mm and center-to-center distance = used to analyze the stored EMG data.
20 mm) were positioned on the preferred foot (4) on the Only the final repetition of the 6RM lift was included in
vastus medialis (80% of the distal distance between the ante- the analyses because the sticking region occurs only during
rior spina iliaca superior and the joint space in front of the the upward phase at near-maximal load or fatigue
anterior border of the medial ligament), vastus lateralis (2/3 (9,17,29,31). A linear encoder (sampling frequency of 100
of the distal distance between the anterior spina iliaca supe- Hz, ET-Enc-02; Ergotest Technology AS) was attached to
rior and the lateral side of the patella), and biceps femoris the barbell during the squats to measure barbell velocity,
(50% of the distance between ischial tuberosity and the lat- lifting time, and vertical displacement. The linear encoder
eral epicondyle of the tibia) according to the SENIAMs synchronized the EMG measurements using MuscleLab
recommendations (14). Before the placement of the gel- 4020e (Ergotest Technology AS) and used to identify the
coated self-adhesive electrodes (Dri-Stick Silver Circular different lifting regions using the same approaches as previous
sEMG Electrodes AE-131; NeuroDyne Medical, Cambridge, studies (29,34). The following regions were identified and
MA, USA), the skin was shaved, washed with alcohol, and used to calculate the EMG activity: (a) the presticking region
abraded, as recommended in a previous study (14). from the lowest barbell position until the first barbell peak
A commercial EMG recording system was used to velocity (Vmax1), (b) the sticking region from the first barbell
measure EMG activation (MuscleLab 4020e, Ergotest Tech- peak velocity until the lowest barbell velocity (Vmin), and (c)
nology AS). To minimize the noise induced from external the poststicking region from the first located lowest barbell
sources through the signal cables, the EMG raw signal was velocity until the second barbell peak velocity (Vmax2) for the
amplified and filtered using a preamplifier located as close as sixth repetition (9,17). The mean muscle activity (RMS) of the
possible to the pickup point. The preamplifier had a common 3 regions was calculated and used for further analysis. The
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
the bench press (9,18). This is true even when greater peak However, when training with heavy resistance, maximal
barbell velocity (Vmax1) was observed with the variable resis- effort is only required at the beginning of the concentric
tance, which, theoretically, should lead to a greater vertical lifting phase: neuromuscular stress decreases throughout the
displacement in the presticking region. However, because of concentric phase. Theoretically, variable resistance may
the combination of a small time interval (0.41–0.44 seconds), provide near-maximal neuromuscular stress throughout the
low maximal barbell velocity (0.19–0.23 m$s21), and increas- whole ROM because of the increasing load in the concentric
ing resistance (with the variable resistance) in the presticking phase. However, this study did not demonstrate that variable
region, no significant differences in displacement were resistance training had an increased effect on muscle
observed. Because only the final repetition in 6RM in each activation in the sticking and poststicking regions because
squat modality was studied, the participants were close to of increased resistance when compared with constant
fatigue and near-maximal effort (28,29,33). This resulted in resistance. This was probably caused by the use of elastic
a sticking region for both squat modalities, which is in line bands that did not provide enough resistance in these
with the findings of earlier studies using multijoint exercises regions, whereas stability during the lift increased. Therefore,
as bench press (30,31) and back squats (29). the use of chains is suggested, because they also increase the
No difference in the EMG activity was observed between resistance during the lift, but not the stability. When
the variable and constant resistance, which was not hypoth- performing squats with heavy resistance, the authors rec-
esized, because the resistance increased significantly in the ommend including variable resistance with greater resistance
last region with more than 100 N. Normally, this would than used in this study.
result in higher EMG activity of the prime movers (3,21).
However, low differences in resistance between the 2 modal- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ities and the possible different lifting movement in the vari- This study was conducted without any funding from
able resistance condition could explain that EMG activity is companies or manufacturers or outside organizations. The
not different between the 2. The results are supported by results of this study do not constitute endorsement by
Ebben and Jensen (8) who reported similar quadriceps and National Strength and Conditioning Association.
hamstring activation comparing free-weight squats and
squats with variable resistance (elastic bands and chains). REFERENCES
Unfortunately, Ebben and Jensen (8) only analyzed the lift- 1. Aboodarda, SJ, Hamid, MSA, Muhamed, AMC, Ibrahim, F, and
Thompson, MW. Resultant muscle torque and electromyographic
ing movement in the eccentric and concentric phases and activity during high intensity elastic resistance and free weight
the results are therefore not comparable with those of this exercises. Eur J Sport Sci 13: 155–163, 2013.
study. The EMG activity of the biceps femoris and the vastus 2. Aboodarda, SJ, Shariff, MAH, Muhamed, AMC, Ibrahim, F, and
lateralis and medialis showed the same muscle activation Yusof, A. Electromyographic activity and applied load during high
intensity elastic resistance and nautilus machine exercises. J Hum
pattern as found by van den Tillaar et al. (17), in which the
Kinet 30: 5–12, 2011.
biceps femoris increased the EMG activity from the prestick-
3. Alkner, BA, Tesch, PA, and Berg, HE. Quadriceps EMG/force
ing to the sticking region, whereas the vastus muscles relationship in knee extension and leg press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:
decreased their activity in the poststicking region. However, 459–463, 2000.
both this study and the study by van den Tillaar et al. (17) 4. Andersen, V, Fimland, MS, Brennset, O, Haslestad, LR,
were limited by not including the glutei muscles. The gluteus Lundteigen, MS, Skalleberg, K, and Saeterbakken, AH. Muscle
activation and strength in squat and bulgarian squat on stable and
muscles are mainly responsible for the hip extension in mul- unstable surface. Int J Sports Med 35: 1196–1202, 2014.
tijoint exercises as the squat (6), and it can be speculated that 5. Bellar, DM, Muller, MD, Barkley, JE, Kim, CH, Ida, K, Ryan, EJ,
the EMG activity can be changed with variable resistance. Bliss, MV, and Glickman, EL. The effects of combined elastic- and free-
The majority of the participants refused to participate if the weight tension vs. free-weight tension on one-repetition maximum
strength in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 25: 459–463, 2011.
EMG measurement of the gluteus maximus was included.
6. Caterisano, A, Moss, RF, Pellinger, TK, Woodruff, K, Lewis, VC,
Therefore, it was not possible to include the EMG measure- Booth, W, and Khadra, T. The effect of back squat depth on the
ment of the gluteus maximus in this study. EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond
Future studies should include the EMG measurement of Res 16: 428–432, 2002.
the glutei muscles, use 3D analyses, and test 1RM to 7. Cohen, J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1988.
examine what the limitations are during squat lifting. In
addition, to improve the knowledge of what happens in the 8. Ebben, WP and Jensen, RL. Electromyographic and kinetic analysis
of traditional, chain, and elastic band squats. J Strength Cond Res 16:
muscles and kinematics using variable resistance, the authors 547–550, 2002.
suggest increasing the percentage resistance from the elastic 9. Elliott, BC, Wilson, GJ, and Kerr, GK. A biomechanical analysis of
bands or using chains in the total resistance group. the sticking region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 450–
462, 1989.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 10. Escamilla, RF, Francisco, AC, Fleisig, GS, Barrentine, SW,
Welch, CM, Kayes, AV, Speer, KP, and Andrews, JR. A three-
Heavy resistance training (i.e., squats) has been shown to be dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style
effective for improving maximal strength and jump heights. deadlifts. Med Sci Sport Exer 32: 1265–1275, 2000.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Comparison of Squat With Variable and Constant Resistance
11. Frost, DM, Cronin, J, and Newton, RU. A biomechanical evaluation 24. Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, Humphries, BJ, Wilson, GJ, Kraemer, WJ,
of resistance: Fundamental concepts for training and sports and Hakkinen, K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on
performance. Sports Med 40: 303–326, 2010. the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during
12. Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ and Sanchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 75: 333–342, 1997.
31: 347–352, 2010. 25. Saeterbakken, AH, Andersen, V, Kolnes, MK, and Fimland, MS.
13. Goodman, CA, Pearce, AJ, Nicholes, CJ, Gatt, BM, and Effects of replacing free weights with elastic band resistance in
Fairweather, IH. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle squats on trunk muscle activation. J Strength Cond Res 28: 3056–
activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable 3062, 2014.
surface. J Strength Cond Res 22: 88–94, 2008. 26. Sanchez-Medina, L and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Velocity loss as an
14. Hermens, HJ, Freriks, B, Disselhorst-Klug, C, and Rau, G. indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med
Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor Sci Sport Exer 43: 1725–1734, 2011.
placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10: 361–374, 2000. 27. Stevenson, MW, Warpeha, JM, Dietz, CC, Giveans, RM, and
15. Israetel, MA, McBride, JM, Nuzzo, JL, Skinner, JW, and Dayne, AM. Erdman, AG. Acute effects of elastic bands during the free-weight
Kinetic and kinematic differences between squats performed with barbell back squat exercise on velocity, power, and force production.
and without elastic bands. J Strength Cond Res 24: 190–194, 2010. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2944–2954, 2010.
16. Jakobsen, MD, Sundstrup, E, Andersen, CH, Aagaard, P, and 28. van den Tillaar, R, Saeterbakken, AH, and Ettema, G. Is the
Andersen, LL. Muscle activity during leg strengthening exercise occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing
using free weights and elastic resistance: Effects of ballistic vs potentiation in bench press?. J Sports Sci 30: 591–599, 2012.
controlled contractions. Hum Mov Sci 32: 65–78, 2013. 29. van den Tillaar, R, Andersen, V, and Saeterbakken, AH. The
17. Lander, JE, Bates, BT, Sawhill, JA, and Hamill, J. A comparison existence of a sticking region in free weight squats. J Hum Kinet 42:
between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sport 63–71, 2014.
Exer 17: 344–353, 1985. 30. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. A comparison of successful and
18. Madsen, N and McLaughlin, T. Kinematic factors influencing unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Med Sci Sports
performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Med Sci Exerc 41: 2056–2063, 2009.
Sports Exerc 16: 376–381, 1984. 31. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. The “sticking period” in
19. Manning, RJ, Graves, JE, Carpenter, DM, Leggett, SH, and a maximum bench press. J Sports Sci 28: 529–535, 2010.
Pollock, ML. Constant vs variable resistance knee extension 32. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. A comparison of muscle activity
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 397–401, 1990. in concentric and counter movement maximum bench press. J Hum
20. Marshall, PW and Murphy, BA. Increased deltoid and abdominal Kinet 38: 63–71, 2013.
muscle activity during Swiss ball bench press. J Strength Cond Res 20: 33. van den Tillaar, R and Saeterbakken, A. Effect of fatigue upon
745–750, 2006. performance and electromyographic activity in 6-RM bench press.
21. McBride, JM, Larkin, TR, Dayne, AM, Haines, TL, and Kirby, TJ. J Hum Kinet 40: 57–65, 2014.
Effect of absolute and relative loading on muscle activity during 34. van den Tillaar, R and Saeterbakken, AH. Fatigue effects upon
stable and unstable squatting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 5: 177–183, sticking region and electromyography in a six-repetition maximum
2010. bench press. J Sports Sci 31: 1823–1830, 2013.
22. McCurdy, K, Langford, G, Ernest, J, Jenkerson, D, and Doscher, M. 35. Van Soest, AJ, Bobbert, MF, and Van Ingen Schenau, GJ. A control
Comparison of chain- and plate-loaded bench press training on strategy for the execution of explosive movements from varying
strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball starting positions. J Neurophysiol 71: 1390–1402, 1994.
players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 187–195, 2009. 36. Walker, S, Peltonen, H, Avela, J, and Hakkinen, K. Kinetic and
23. Mina, MA, Blazevich, AJ, Giakas, G, and Kay, AD. Influence of electromyographic analysis of single repetition constant and variable
variable resistance loading on subsequent free weight maximal back resistance leg press actions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 21: 262–269,
squat performance. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2988–2995, 2014. 2011.
the TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats