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

net/publication/365620091

The Effects of Offset Loading Versus Traditional Loading in the Bench Press
Exercise on Muscle Thickness and Strength in Trained Males

Article in Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise · November 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s42978-022-00217-6

CITATIONS READS

0 341

7 authors, including:

Salvatore Loduca Matthew H Sharp

Robosport Technologies, LLC Applied Science and Performance Institute
5 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jacob M Wilson Charlie Ottinger

Applied Science and Performance Institute Applied Science and Performance Institute
194 PUBLICATIONS 6,846 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Hmb position stand View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salvatore Loduca on 21 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978-022-00200-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Effects of Offset Loading Versus Traditional Loading in the Bench

Press Exercise on Muscle Thickness and Strength in Trained Males
Matthew Sharp1

Received: 14 April 2022 / Accepted: 13 September 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Purpose This study compared the effects of offset loading (OSL) versus traditional loading (TDL) in the bench press exer-
cise on pectoral muscle thickness and bench press strength over a 4-week mesocycle. Methods: Twenty male participants
aged 18–45 years with at least 5 years of bench press experience and a bench press one-repetition maximum equal to or
greater than their body mass were randomly assigned to OSL and TDL groups. Before and after the 4-week mesocycle,
pectoral muscle thickness was assessed via ultrasonography and muscle strength was assessed by bench press one-repetition
maximum. Effects were explored with two-way mixed ANOVA and non-clinical magnitude-based inferences. Results: No
group-by-time interaction was detected for any variable (P > 0.05). When compared to small magnitudes, the pectoralis
major muscle thickness changes were likely greater in OSL compared to TDL for the dominant (ES = 0.70; 87% likely
greater) and nondominant pectoralis (ES = 0.77; 91% likely greater) as well as the sum of both pectorals (ES = 0.80; 92%
likely greater). Similarly, a likely greater effect for absolute (ES = 0.57; 82% likely) and relative (ES = 0.67; 85% likely)
bench press strength was seen with OSL. Conclusion: Magnitude-based inferences interpreted here support the notion that
OSL may be an advantageous training modality to enhance pectoral muscle thickness and bench press strength.

Keywords Resistance training · Offset loading · Bilateral movement · Asymmetrical loading · Performance

Introduction exercise both with and without the imposition of muscle

Strength training is a common practice undertaken by both
the competitive athlete and fitness enthusiast. Athletes and
practitioners utilize strength training in an effort to improve
relevant physical skills, such as muscular power, strength
or endurance. Strength training for sport includes a variety
of unilateral (one limb) and bilateral (two limbs simultane-
ously) exercises that are employed in a sport specific man-
ner [2]. However, recent research has uncovered that limb
dominance can influence muscular involvement in bilateral
resistance training exercises and sporting movements. More
specifically, when participants perform a bench press exer-
cise, their dominant side muscles achieve a greater level
of muscle activation than their nondominant muscles [30].
Similar findings have been uncovered with the barbell squat
Matthew Sharp
msharp@theaspi.com
1
Research Division, Applied Science and Performance
Institute, 33607 Tampa, FL, USA
fatigue [24]. Over time, this asymmetry in muscle activa-
tion can lead to a muscular imbalance (due to specificity)
and even injury due to overreliance on the dominant limb
[12, 37].
Muscle imbalances between dominant and nondominant
limbs are common in high-level athletes [37]. Moreover,
repetitive tasks due to sport and position specific practice
can exacerbate these asymmetries due to overreliance on
the dominant limb [12]. These progressively increasing dis-
crepancies between limbs are potentially predicated by the
relatively permanent nature of unconsciously stored instruc-
tions for movement [29]. Therefore, the very practice that
improves performance (training) also serves as a catalyst for
greater injury susceptibility [37], and sport specific training
could intensify this stimulus [28, 34, 35].
Due to these concerns and similar considerations, numer-
ous strength training techniques and modalities have been
brought to the forefront of strength and conditioning which
have been proposed to mitigate a shortcoming of traditional
strength or sport training. A novel technique, termed “offset
loading” or “asymmetrical loading”, may be the next unique

13

training method used by practitioners to potentially reduce
asymmetries and improve bilateral performance in their
clients or athletes. Offset, or asymmetrical, loading is the
practice of offsetting a planned portion of a given training
load towards one side of a resistance implement (typically
a barbell) [27, 41], thereby creating a “loaded” or “heavier”
side and a “de-loaded” or “lighter” side.
Jarosz et al. [27] were the first to demonstrate the acute
neuromuscular adaptations to offset loading (OSL) in
the bench press. These researchers discovered that OSL
(“loaded”/“heavier” on the nondominant side) with as little
as 2.5% of the total load led to increased muscle activation
in the nondominant muscles. When compared to traditional
loading (TDL), this led to a more symmetrical activation
of nondominant and dominant muscle groups. Saeterbak-
ken et al. [41] reported similar results by finding that OSL
can influence acute muscle activation by increasing activa-
tion in the muscle exposed to the heavier offset load. Since
muscle activation is often regarded as a measure of neural
drive [8], it is clear that OSL in the bench press may be a
viable option to modify asymmetrical neural drive patterns
between limbs during strength training. Additionally, this
unique training method may influence long-term adapta-
tions (i.e., muscle strength and hypertrophy) due to these
acute changes in muscle activity and the novelty of the load-
ing pattern. Seminal research from Barnett et al. [10] dem-
onstrated that performing incline bench press causes greater
muscle activation of the clavicular head of the pectoralis
major. Furthermore, recent research has reported that sub-
jects performing incline bench press exhibited significantly
greater changes in upper pectoral muscle thickness com-
pared to subjects performing horizontal bench press [16].
Thus, it is plausible that increases in neural drive elicited by
different bench press modalities may mediate hypertrophic
adaptations; however, no studies to date have examined this
outcome with offset loading.
Indeed, the current literature investigating OSL is mini-
mal; therefore, the proverbial door is left open for further
investigation. In fact, the two aforementioned studies [27,
41] are the only ones to date that have investigated the acute
effects of OSL, and both studies are consistent with report-
ing higher muscle activation in muscles exposed to the
heavier side of the offset load. This leads to the following
question: does higher muscle activation previously reported
to be induced by OSL enhance hypertrophy and strength
outcomes relative to TDL. Hence, the purpose of this study
was to compare the effects in pectoralis major muscle thick-
ness and muscle strength from OSL to that of TDL in the
bench press exercise. Additionally, we also observed the
impact of OSL on perceptual measures of recovery, exer-
tion, and mental effort relative to TDL.
13
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
Methods
Study Participants
Participants were recruited via social media advertisements
as well as electronic communications with previous study
participants at the laboratory. Thirty participants volun-
teered but only 21 qualified for the study. The inclusion
criteria were males aged 18 to 45 years; at least 5 years of
resistance training experience with the barbell bench press,
and a bench press one repetition maximum (1RM) of at least
their body mass; English literate, and the ability and will-
ingness to sign an informed consent form. Exclusion crite-
ria were musculoskeletal injury within 6 months of study
enrollment, prior use of OSL techniques; history of drug,
alcohol, or anabolic steroid use; daily usage of non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drug; or any serious health ailments that
would impair study participation (thrombosis, high blood
pressure, arrhythmias). For study enrollment, all partici-
pants signed an informed consent form detailing the pro-
cedures and inherent risk of the study, which was approved
by an external Institutional Review Board and in agreement
with the Declaration of Helsinki [48]. A total of 20 of 21
enrolled participants completed the study, as one partici-
pant of the TDL group did not attend post-testing. Partici-
pants were instructed to maintain their habitual diet and
refrain from ergogenic aid consumption during the training
period. Baseline descriptive characteristics for the 20 par-
ticipants that completed the study can be found in Table 1.
Height and body mass were confirmed using a stadiometer
(Seca, Model 217; Chino, CA, USA) and body composi-
tion variables were collected via multi-frequency bioelectri-
cal impedance (InBody 770 Body Composition Analyzer;
Cerritos, CA, USA) following an overnight fast (≥ 10 h).
Prior to the body composition assessment, participants were
given a manufacturer supplied antibacterial tissue (NaCl
0.9%, antimicrobial) to wipe the hands and feet to reduce
surface bacteria and control surface electrical conductivity.
Study Design and Protocol
Following enrollment and approximately 1 week prior to
pre-testing, participants underwent one familiarization ses-
sion and one baseline session separated by at least 48 h to
understand particulars of testing procedures and generate
baseline data. Day one of familiarization included numeri-
cal scales used to assess perceptual measures, body and
hand positioning for the bench press, bench press warm-
up protocol, and bench press exercise session protocol. To
familiarize themselves with a bench press exercise session,
all participants performed the bench press exercise for 3
sets of 10 repetitions at 60% of their self-estimated 1RM.
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise

Table 1 Participant baseline descriptive characteristics

Variable OSL (n = 11) TDL (n = 9) ES (90%CI) Inference P-value
Age (year) 29.18 ± 6.23 29.89 ± 5.62 −0.12 (−0.86, 0.62) Unclear (25/32/43) 0.795
Height (cm) 181.49 ± 6.36 180.90 ± 5.79 0.10 (−0.64, 0.83) Unclear (42/32/26) 0.833
Body Mass (kg) 91.37 ± 14.00 87.23 ± 10.07 0.33 (−0.42, 1.07) Unclear (61/26/13) 0.467
Body Fat (%) 17.17 ± 4.69 17.23 ± 4.81 −0.01 (−0.75, 0.73) Very likely trivial 0.886
(0/99/1)
Fat Mass (kg) 15.69 ± 6.37 15.03 ± 5.32 0.11 (−0.63, 0.85) Unclear (42/33/25) 0.806
Fat-Free Mass (kg) 75.68 ± 9.13 72.20 ± 7.62 0.41 (−0.34, 1.15) Unclear (67/23/10) 0.374
Bench Press Experience (year) 11.00 ± 5.73 10.67 ± 4.95 0.06 (−0.68, 0.80) Unclear (38/35/27) 0.892
Bench Press 1RM (kg) 119.32 ± 25.49 110.73 ± 20.42 0.37 (−0.38, 1.11) Unclear (64/24/12) 0.424
1RM:BM (kg) 1.31 ± 0.21 1.27 ± 0.15 0.22 (−0.53, 0.95) Unclear (52/31/17) 0.615
D-PM MT (cm) 2.74 ± 0.47 2.70 ± 0.51 0.08 (−0.65, 0.81) Unclear (40/33/27) 0.863
ND-PM MT (cm) 2.73 ± 0.48 2.69 ± 0.48 0.08 (−0.66, 0.82) Unclear (40/33/27) 0.862
ΣMT (cm) 5.47 ± 0.93 5.39 ± 0.98 0.08 (−0.66, 0.82) Unclear (40/34/26) 0.860
Data are mean ± standard deviation. ES (90%CI) = the within-group standardized mean difference and its 90% confidence interval. D-PM
MT dominant pectoralis major muscle thickness, ND-PM MT nondominant pectoralis major muscle thickness, ΣMT sum of dominant and non-
dominant muscle thickness values, Bench Press 1RM bench press one-repetition maximum, 1RM:BM ratio of one-repetition maximum to body
mass (relative strength measure). The observed ES was evaluated at 0.2 for a small magnitude inference. P-value is from parametric, two-tailed,
unpaired t-test

The 3 sets were randomized in loading styles as one set was
performed with OSL on the dominant side, one with OSL
on the nondominant side, and one with TDL. The perceived
recovery status (PRS) scale was administered before initi-
ating the control session and rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) and mental effort (ME) scales were assessed 5 min
after the control session. On the baseline testing day, muscle
thickness (MT) of the dominant and nondominant pectoralis
major (D-PM and ND-PM, respectively) was measured, and
participants completed an assessment for bench press 1RM.
Pectoral dominance corresponded to hand dominance,
which was determined by which hand participants use dur-
ing throwing.
After completing pre-testing, participants were quartile
ranked based on the sum of MT (D-PM plus ND-PM thick-
ness) and participants within each quartile were randomly
assigned to TDL and OSL groups in a counterbalanced fash-
ion using an online software [44] used in prior research [7,
47]. Assessment evaluators were blinded to the participant’s
condition. Following randomization, participants under-
went OSL or TDL on the bench press twice a week, for 4
weeks (8 sessions). All participants completed training ses-
sions on the same two days each week (Mon/Thurs or Tue/
Fri). Additionally, participants performed their respective
training groups at the same time of day on every visit to
the lab (± 1 h). During this training program, participants
were instructed to refrain from upper body pressing exer-
cises utilizing the chest musculature as the primary mover
(e.g., incline and decline bench press, chest flies, push-ups,
dips, and variations thereof). For each training session, par-
ticipants completed 5 sets on the bench press with 2 min rest
between sets. This rest period length was chosen as previous
reviews have suggested shorter rest periods may optimize
hypertrophy whereas long rest periods may improve strength
to a greater degree [18]. Thus, the selection of an interme-
diate rest period may allow for optimal adaptation in both
traits. The repetition scheme progressed from 12 repetitions
per set in Week 1 to 6 repetitions per set in Week 4, with an
increase in intensity each week to promote strength adapta-
tions. In the OSL group, the offset load distribution was ran-
domized between the right and left sides of the barbell for
sets 1–4 with the load being reset to balanced distribution on
the 5th set (mimicking TDL). Participants were blinded to
the randomization order of offset loads, which was chosen
to reduce the impact of prior knowledge of load placement
that may have led some participants to immediately com-
pensate for the offset load. Prior to each training session,
participants completed the PRS scale and, 5 min following
each session, they provided RPE and ME using standard-
ized numerical scales. After completing 8 training sessions
in a 4-week period, participants returned to the laboratory
on Week 5 for post-testing. Post-testing was completed
48–72 h following the last training session and consisted of
MT measurements and bench press 1RM.
Muscle Thickness
Two-dimensional, B-mode ultrasound (GE LOGIQ P6,
General Electric Company; Boston, MA, USA) imaging
with a 12 MHz broad-spectrum linear-matrix array trans-
ducer (Model ML6-15, General Electric Company; Boston,
MA, USA) was used to assess MT of the D-PM and ND-PM
with participants lying supine. Water soluble hypoaller-
genic ultrasound gel (Aquasonic® CLEAN® Ultrasound
Gel, Parker Laboratories, INC; Fairfield, NJ, USA) was
applied to the transducer to optimized spatial resolution and

13

Fig. 1 Example ultrasonographic
image of pectoralis major muscle
thickness. Yellow dashed line
represents onscreen digital
calipers used for pectoralis major
muscle thickness measure-
ment (2.62 cm in this example).
AT subcutaneous adipose tissue,
PM pectoralis major muscle,
IIC internal intercostal muscle
then placed at the marked measurement site with minimal
force to avoid compression. Clavicle length was measured
with a Gulick tape measure (Blue Jay™; Middetown, NY,
USA) with participants laying supine with the elbow fully
extended and the shoulder fully adducted to mimic the ana-
tomical position. In this position a distinguishable mark was
made at the clavicle midpoint. The ultrasound transducer
was perpendicularly placed beneath the clavicle midpoint
between the third and fourth costas of the rib cage [36, 49]
and onscreen electronic calipers with a single perpendicular
line from bottom to the top of the muscle sheath (between
the superior and inferior layer of the facia) were used to
measure MT of the D-PM and ND-PM. An example of a
resulting image is provided in Fig. 1. Two images for MT
were captured and measured to the nearest 0.01 cm. The
resulting measurements of the two images were averaged
and used for data analysis. Additionally, the sum of both
pectoral MT sites (ΣMT) was used for analysis. The MT
assessments were performed at the same time of the day
at pre-testing and post-testing. In an attempt to minimize
training-induced muscle swelling, images were obtained
48–72 h after the latest training session before the com-
mencement of the study and 48–72 h after the last train-
ing session at the end of the study. This time window was
adapted from other research assessing muscle hypertrophy
via ultrasonography [4, 19, 40], and this is consistent with
research showing that an acute increase in MT returns to
baseline levels within 48 h following a resistance training
13
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
session in trained individuals [11]. Additionally, to improve
reliability, images were saved prior to making the measure-
ment at pre-testing and images were notated for the distinct
point along the fascia where the measurement was taken on
the images using the crosshair tool from the manufacturer’s
software to ensure the same measurement location at post-
testing. The intraclass coefficient of variation and typical
error for PM-MT was computed to be 1.5% and 0.04 cm,
respectively, which was determined prior to the start of the
study by assessing ten different participants with similar
characteristics to the current participants on three different
occasions separated by 24 h. Using the variance compo-
nents from a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the
ICC and 95% confidence interval was calculated at 0.992
(0.987 to 0.998).
ICC = σ 2 (b) /(σ 2 (b) + σ 2 (w))
σ 2 (w) = pooledvariancewithinsubjects
σ 2 (b) = pooledvariancebetweensubjects
One-Repetition Maximum Muscular Strength
Symmetrically loaded bench press 1RM was determined
at pre-testing. All participants performed a standard-
ized warm-up that involved 5-min on a cycle ergometer
at approximately 140 W followed by a general dynamic
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
warm-up that included movements for both the lower and
upper body. Following the general warm-up, participants
began a specific warm-up on the bench press by perform-
ing 10 repetitions at 40% self-estimated 1RM, 8 repetitions
at 60% self-estimated 1RM, 5 repetitions at 70% self-esti-
mated 1RM, and 3 repetitions at 80% self-estimated 1RM
with 2-min of rest given between each warm-up set. The
self-estimated 1RM was the load that the participant himself
estimated to be his one repetition maximum on the sym-
metrically loaded bench press [21]. After the specific warm-
up, participants began performing single rep attempts at
90% of their estimated 1RM. Five minutes rest were given
between each attempt and each successful attempt resulted
in an additional 2.5–10 kg added to the next attempt. This
procedure continued until participants reached either actual
or voluntary failure on a selected load (i.e., if a participant
declined the next attempt, the highest previous successful
attempt was considered their 1RM). All participants reached
their bench press 1RM within 4 attempts. No supportive
equipment of any kind was allowed during bench press 1RM
testing. Hand spacing on the barbell was controlled at 150%
biacromial width [22] for all participants and thumbs were
required to be wrapped around the bar. A successful attempt
required the participants to keep their back, head, shoulders,
and buttocks in contact with the bench at all times and feet
flat on the floor during the lift and the barbell had to touch
the xiphoid process and return to the starting position with
full elbow extension without any bouncing of the barbell or
assistance from the spotters [23]. Two experienced spotters
(National Strength and Conditioning Association-Certified
Strength and Conditioning Specialists) were present for all
attempts to ensure safety and judge successful attempts.
Verbal encouragement was given to all participants dur-
ing 1RM attempts. All 1RM testing was performed using a
20.4 kg power barbell and standard power rack (EliteFTS;
London, OH, USA). Using the variance components from a
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the ICC and 95%
confidence interval was calculated at 0.997 (0.994 to 0.999).
Perceptual Measures
The perceptual measures collected in this trial were per-
ceived recovery status (PRS) scale, rating of perceived exer-
tion (RPE) and mental effort (ME). For assessing perceptual
measures, standard instructions and anchoring procedures
were explained during the familiarization session. The PRS
is a numerical scale from 1 to 10 with visual descriptors
of “very poorly recovered” “adequately recovered” and
“very well recovered” for perceived recovery are presented
at numbers 0, 5, and 10, respectively. The PRS scale was
administered to participants following the bench press
warmup, prior to the training session [32]. The purpose of
Table 2 Bench press exercise prescription
Week % 1RM Repetitions Sets Rest (min)
1 60% 12 5 2
2 65% 10 5 2
3 70% 8 5 2
4 75% 6 5 2
1RM one-repetition maximum
the scale was to assess the participant’s recovery from the
previous exercise session.
RPE was collected approximately 5 min after the com-
pletion of every training session using the CR-10 Borg RPE
scale [14] so that the fatigue from the final bench press set
did not influence the RPE rating. Participants were asked
to select a number on the scale to rate their overall effort. A
rating of 0 was said to be no effort (rest) and a rating of 10
was considered to be maximal effort.
To assess ME, an adapted version of the Paas scale, a
9-point numerical scale ranging from 1 to 9, was used. This
scale was shown to be reliable in a study testing problem
solving and cognitive load [38] and has since been used
to explore the effectiveness of graphical representation in
learning [26]. For this study, the scale was used to assess
ME during the training sessions. Five minutes follow-
ing bench press cessation, the participants were instructed
to “Please rate the mental effort required to complete the
workout.” The rating descriptors are: 1 = very, very low
mental effort; 2 = very low mental effort; 3 = low mental
effort; 4 = rather low mental effort; 5 = neither low nor high
mental effort; 6 = rather high mental effort; 7 = high mental
effort; 8 = very high mental effort; 9 = very, very high mental
effort. All perceptual measures were collected in isolation
from other participants to promote accuracy and recorded as
arbitrary units (a.u.).
Training Intervention
Prior to each training session, participants completed a stan-
dardized warm-up protocol that began with a general warm-
up (cycle ergometer and dynamic warm-up) then a specific
warm-up (20% 1RM × 15, 40% 1RM × 10, 60% 1RM × 5).
Then, participants began their prescribed load and repeti-
tion scheme as described in Table 2. Offset load distribu-
tions were set such that there was approximately 52.5% of
the adjustable load on the loaded side and approximately
47.5% on the de-loaded side (Table 3) for a 5% offset. For
example, a prescribed load of 60% of a 118 kg 1RM would
be set at 70.8 kg. The adjustable load is the prescribed
load (70.8 kg) minus the barbell mass of 20.4 kg, equal-
ing 50.4 kg of adjustable load. Adjusting to the balanced
load used in TDL would amass 25.2 kg on each side. In
OSL, a 50.4 kg adjustable load would create a loaded side
13

Table 3 Offset loading examples
1RM (kg) 60% 1RM Adjustable Loaded Side De-
(kg) Load (kg) (kg) Loaded
Side
(kg)
100.0 60.0 39.6 20.8 18.8
120.0 72.0 51.6 27.1 24.5
140.0 84.0 63.6 33.4 30.2
60% 1RM 60% of one-repetition maximum
of 26.5 kg and a de-loaded side of 23.9 kg, accounting for
52.5% and 47.5% of the adjustable load, respectively. All
loads were rounded to the nearest 0.2 kg. The TDL group
maintained a balanced load distribution for all sessions. In
the OSL group, loaded and de-loaded sides were randomly
applied to the dominant and non-dominant sides for sets
1–4 such that each side (dominant and non-dominant) was
equally exposed to each loaded outcome (loaded and de-
loaded) within each training session. The 5th set of every
OSL session was reverted back to balance load (mimicking
TDL). In both OSL and TDL groups, whenever participants
failed to complete their prescribed repetitions in a given set,
the absolute load was reduced by 10% for the following set.
Bench press volume was calculated for each session as (vol-
ume = load × reps × sets).
Statistical Analysis
Raw data for muscle strength, muscle thickness, and per-
ceptual measures are presented as mean ± standard deviation
(SD). Normality and variance were assured via the Shapiro
Wilk and Levene’s test, respectively. Baseline characteris-
tics, cumulative volume load, and overall study averages of
perceptual measures were compared between groups using
parametric, two-tailed, unpaired t-test. A two-way mixed
ANOVA was performed on dependent variables of strength
and muscle thickness assuming group (i.e., TDL and OSL)
and time (i.e., Pre and Post) as fixed factors and participants
as a random factor. In the event of a significant F value, a
post hoc test with Tukey’s adjustment was applied for mul-
tiple comparison purposes. The alpha level was set at 0.05.
Magnitudes of mean changes were assessed by standard-
ization (i.e., an effect size; the mean difference divided by the
appropriate SD). For between-group comparisons, Cohen’s
d effect sizes were calculated as (M1 minus M2) / SDpooled
where M1 and M2 are the mean differences (Post minus Pre)
for each group and SDpooled is the pooled standard devia-
tion of the changes from each group. For within-group mean
changes, Cohen’s dz effect sizes were calculated by dividing
the mean difference (Post minus Pre) by the SD of the mean
differences. Perceptual measures and bench press volume
data are reported as the overall study average and Cohen’s
d effect sizes were determined by (M1 minus M2) / SDpooled
13
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
where M1 and M2 are the overall study averages for OSL and
TDL, respectively, and SDpooled is the pooled standard devi-
ation from each group. Uncertainty in all outcome measures
was expressed with 90% confidence intervals (CI). Non-
clinical magnitude-based inferences were used to provide
an interpretation for all differences with inferences based on
the standardized thresholds for small, moderate, and large
differences set at 0.2, 0.6, and 1.2 of the standardized mean
differences. The chance of the difference being substantial
or trivial was interpreted using the following scale: possibly,
25%–75%; likely, 75%–95%; very likely, 95%–99.5%; and
most likely, > 99.5%. If the qualitative chances of the effect
being greater or lower were both greater than 5%, the effect
was assessed as unclear. Otherwise, the effect was inter-
preted as the observed chance [25].
Results
No differences were found between groups for character-
ization parameters (P > 0.05, Table 1) or baseline 1RM
(P = 0.427), 1RM:BM (P = 0.615), ΣMT (P = 0.860), MT
of the D-PM (P = 0.863) or N-PM (P = 0.862). No dif-
ferences were detected for cumulative volume load
(OSL: 27,057.1 ± 5642.3 kg, TDL: 25,077.3 ± 4673.7 kg;
P = 0.411). The percentage of prescribed repetitions com-
pleted was 96.0% ± 5.9% and 97.6% ± 3.5% for the OSL
and TDL groups, respectively (failed normality testing;
nonparametric Mann Whitney P = 0.858). Additionally,
the attendance for the training sessions was 100% for both
groups.
There were no group-by-time interactions for MT of the
D-PM (P = 0.136) or ND-PM (P = 0.085), ΣMT (P = 0.071),
bench press 1RM (P = 0.179), or 1RM:BM (P = 0.142).
Time effects were detected for each of the 5 aforemen-
tioned hypertrophy and strength variables (each variable
P < 0.001). No differences were found between groups for
overall study averages in RPE (OSL: 6.61 ± 1.41, TDL:
5.81 ± 1.88 a.u.; P = 0.292), ME (OSL: 5.84 ± 1.54, TDL:
4.91 ± 2.06 a.u.; P = 0.261), or PRS (OSL: 7.52 ± 0.81, TDL:
7.68 ± 0.76 a.u.; P = 0.652).
Using non-clinical magnitude-based inferences, no
clear substantial differences were found between groups
for characterization parameters (Table 3) or for cumu-
lative volume load [OSL: 27,057.1 ± 5642.3 kg, TDL:
25,677.3 ± 4673.7 kg; ES (90%CI) = 0.26 (−0.48, 1.01);
unclear, 55/29/16].
Both study groups were independently evaluated (Post
vs. Pre) for their likelihood of obtaining small (0.2), moder-
ate (0.6), and large (1.2) changes in dependent variables for
muscle thickness and strength (Table 4). There were most
likely (100/0/0) small magnitude increases for all muscle
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise

Table 4 Within-group data for muscle strength and thickness with inferences evaluated at small, moderate, and large magnitudes
Variable Group Pre Post ∆ (90%CI) ES (90%CI) Inferences at Different Magnitudes
Post vs. Pre
Small Moderate Large
D-PM OSL 2.74 ± 0.47 3.07 ± 0.55 0.33 (0.20, 1.39 (0.66, Most likely + Very likely + Possibly +/triv-
MT 0.46) 2.07) (100/0/0) (99/1/0) ial (72/28/0)
(cm) TDL 2.70 ± 0.51 2.90 ± 0.5 0.20 (0.12, 1.40 (0.58, Most likely + Very likely + Possibly +/triv-
0.28) 1.18) (100/0/0) (98/2/0) ial (73/27/0)
ND-PM OSL 2.73 ± 0.48 2.99 ± 0.46 0.26 (0.16, 1.47 (0.72, Most likely + Very likely + Likely +
MT 0.35) 2.18) (100/0/0) (99/1/0) (80/20/0)
(cm) TDL 2.69 ± 0.48 2.83 ± 0.51 0.13 (0.06, 1.00 (0.30, Very likely + (98/2/0) Likely + Possibly +/triv-
0.21) 1.66) (88/12/0) ial (73/27/0)
ΣMT OSL 5.47 ± 0.93 6.05 ± 1.00 0.59 (0.40, 1.70 (0.88, Most likely + Most likely + Likely +
(cm) 0.78) 2.46) (100/0/0) (100/0/0) (93/7/0)
TDL 5.39 ± 0.98 5.72 ± 1.00 0.33 (0.18, 1.27 (0.49, Most likely + Very likely + Possibly +/triv-
0.48) 2.00) (100/0/0) (97/3/0) ial (59/41/0)
1RM OSL 119.32 ± 25.49 127.58 ± 26.73 8.26 (5.76, 1.81 (0.96, Most likely + Most likely + Very likely +
(kg) 10.76) 2.60) (100/0/0) (100/0/0) (96/4/0)
TDL 110.73 ± 20.42 116.01 ± 19.93 5.28 (2.24, 1.07 (0.35, Very likely + (98/2/0) Likely + Possibly triv-
8.33) 1.75) (90/10/0) ial/+ (36/64/0)
1RM:BM OSL 1.31 ± 0.21 1.40 ± 0.22 0.09 (0.07, 2.43 (1.39, Most likely + Most likely + Very likely +
(kg) 0.11) 3.41) (100/0/0) (100/0/0) (99/1/0)
TDL 1.27 ± 0.15 1.32 ± 0.13 0.05 (0.02, 00.9) 0.95 (0.26, 1.60) Very likely + (97/3/0) Likely + Likely Trivial
(83/17/0) (24/76/0)
Pre and Post data are mean ± SD. ∆ (90%CI) mean delta change (Post minus Pre) and its 90% confidence interval. ES (90%CI) the within-group
standardized mean difference and its 90% confidence interval, D-PM MT dominant pectoralis major muscle thickness, ND-PM MT nondomi-
nant pectoralis major muscle thickness, ΣMT sum of dominant and nondominant muscle thickness values, 1RM bench press one-repetition
maximum, 1RM:BM ratio of one-repetition maximum to body mass (relative strength measure). The observed ES was evaluated at 0.2, 0.6, and
1.2 for inferences for small, moderate and magnitudes, respectively

thickness and strength variables in the OSL group and the
inference for a small increase in the TDL group ranged from
very likely to mostly likely. For muscle thickness outcomes,
very likely to most likely moderate increases were pro-
duced in the OSL group and likely to very likely moderate
increases were produced in the TDL group. There were pos-
sibly to likely large increases in muscle thickness outcomes
in the OSL group and the TDL group produced a possible
large increase. The change in relative strength (1RM:BM)
and absolute strength (1RM) was likely to most likely a
moderate increase in both groups. Furthermore, the OSL
group very likely produced a large magnitude increase in
both of these strength measures whereas this evaluation was
likely to possibly trivial in the TDL group.
There was likely a small difference in the changes from
Pre to Post between the two groups for all muscle thick-
ness and strength variables (Table 5). When evaluating Pre
to Post changes between groups at a moderate magnitude,
D-PM MT, ND-PM MT, ΣMT, and 1RM:BM were possibly
greater/possibly the same (trivial) in the OSL group com-
pared to the TDL group (Table 5). Between-group differ-
ences evaluated at large magnitudes were unclear and did
not yield substantial differences.
When evaluated at small magnitudes, overall study
RPE [OSL vs. TDL: 6.61 ± 1.41 vs. 5.81 ± 1.88 a.u; ES
(90%CI) = 0.45 (− 0.3, 1.21); 72/23/5] and overall study
ME [5.84 ± 1.54 vs. 4.91 ± 2.06 a.u.; ES (90%CI) = 0.48
(− 0.27, 1.24); 74/21/5] were possibly greater in the OSL
group compared to the TDL group. Overall study PRS was
unclear [7.52 ± 0.81 vs. 7.68 ± 0.76; ES (90%CI) = − 0.19
(− 0.90, 0.52); 19/50/51]. No clear substantial differences
were found when evaluating perceptual measures at moder-
ate and large magnitudes.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this experiment was to investigate
the hypertrophy and strength adaptations to OSL compared
to TDL in the bench press exercise. Our secondary purpose
was to observe the impact of OSL on perceptual measures
of PRS, RPE, and ME relative to TDL. The findings did not
yield an interaction effect for any variables assessing muscle
hypertrophy or strength, and overall study averages of per-
ceptual measures were not different between groups. How-
ever, magnitude-based inference analyses indicated likely
beneficial effects for OSL compared to TDL for all strength
and hypertrophy variables and possibly greater effects for
RPE and ME. Thus, according to our findings, it is plausible
to assume that a four-week mesocycle of OSL can enhance
adaptations in hypertrophy and strength and our findings

13

Table 5 Between-group data for muscle strength and thickness
Variable ∆ (90%CI)
D-PM MT (cm) 0.14 (− 0.01, 0.29)
ND-PM MT (cm) 0.13 (0.01,0.24)
ΣMT (cm) 0.26 (0.02, 0.49)
1RM (kg) 2.97 (− 0.71, 6.66)
1RM:BM (kg) 0.03 (− 0.01,0.07)
∆ (90%CI) Post minus Pre between-group differences and its 90% confidence interval, ES (90%CI) between-group (OSL vs. TDL) standardized
mean difference and its 90% confidence interval; D-MT dominant pectoralis major muscle thickness, ND-MT nondominant pectoralis major
muscle thickness, ΣMT sum of dominant and nondominant muscle thickness values, 1RM bench press one-repetition maximum, 1RM:BM ratio
of one-repetition maximum to body mass (relative strength measure). The observed ES was evaluated at 0.2 and 0.6 for inferences for small and
moderate magnitudes, respectively
may be used to justify its inclusion in strength and condi-
tioning programs.
Muscle Thickness
We report favorable likelihoods for each group to small
and moderate increases in muscle thickness outcomes. The
groups began to differ when evaluated at a large magnitude
as the OSL was likely to produce this magnitude of change
for ND-PM MT and ΣMT whereas the TDL group possi-
bly produced this magnitude. When comparing groups, we
report a likely greater effect (evaluated at a small magnitude)
in OSL over TDL for MT in the ND-PM (9.5% vs. 5.0%)
and D-PM (12.3% vs. 7.7%) muscles, and ΣMT (11.0%
vs. 6.4%). The greater MT seen in the OSL group may be
attributed to the novel training stimulus of OSL. Practitio-
ners often examine training volume in respect to hypertro-
phy adaptations [42], however, in our study, no differences
in training volume were found between groups. Fonseca et
al. [20] previously demonstrated that utilizing a variety of
novel exercises was more effective at inducing hypertrophy
in the quadriceps muscles as opposed to employing a single
volume-matched exercise (barbell squats).
The novelty of a loading pattern and its effects on muscu-
lar hypertrophy is not completely understood. Mechanical
tension is likely the primary driving stimulus of muscu-
lar hypertrophy [45], thus, training variables designed to
maximize mechanical tension are presumed to induce
greater hypertrophy. Importantly, muscles experience this
mechanical tension at the individual muscle fiber level
through somatosensory receptors called mechanoreceptors.
13
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
ES (90%CI) Inferences at Different Magnitudes
OSL vs. TDL
Small Moderate
0.70 (− 0.06, 1.47) Likely + (87/10/3) Possibly
+/trivial
(59/41/0)
0.77 (0.05, 1.48) Likely + (91/8/2) Possibly
+/trivial
(66/34/0)
0.80 (0.08, 1.51) Likely + (92/7/1) Possibly
+/trivial
(68/32/0)
0.57 (− 0.15, 1.29) Likely + (82/15/3) Possibly
trivial/+
(47/52/1)
0.67 (− 0.11, 1.45) Likely + (85/12/3) Possibly
+/trivial
(56/43/1)
The primary mechanism through which mechanoreceptors
detect mechanical tension is deformation of their plasma
membrane due to muscular force production [15]. There-
fore, for a muscle fiber to detect mechanical tension and,
eventually, undergo hypertrophic remodeling, a muscle
fiber likely must be activated during a given exercise. This
can be inferred through previous research showing that the
most activated portion of a muscle exhibits the greatest
hypertrophy response following a long-term strength train-
ing program [46].
The necessity of mechanical tension as a driver of muscle
hypertrophy is underlined when comparing long-term train-
ing adaptations to endurance training and strength train-
ing. While both exercise modes can induce high levels of
metabolic stress and muscle damage, the discrepancy in
mechanical loading is a major difference between each type
of exercise [45]. Since the OSL group randomized the order
and placement of the offset load, a plausible theory is that
the increased load lifted by the PM muscles during OSL, as
well as higher muscle activation in the PM during dynamic
OSL repetitions, as evidenced by Jarosz et al. [27], led to
likely greater increases in PM thickness compared to TDL.
While these results certainly require further investigation
in future research, it is plausible that using OSL provides
a novel stimulus which can produce greater muscle hyper-
trophy over TDL. Importantly, these effects were observed
in as little as a 4-week mesocycle; interventions of greater
duration may discover more significant findings. Moreover,
it is also conceivable that the training status (1RM:BM ~ 1.3)
and experience (~ 10 years) of our participants underlined
the effect of the novel stimulus. It is unclear if untrained
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
or recreationally trained individuals would garner the same
hypertrophic benefits of OSL compared to TDL.
One-Repetition Maximum Muscular Strength
Both groups exhibited to mostly likely moderate increases
in bench press 1RM (7.1% vs. 4.9%) and 1RM:BM (6.9%
vs. 4.8%). When evaluated at a large magnitude, the strength
improvements in the OSL group remained very likely sub-
stantial and the TDL improvements were possibly trivial. In
the evaluation of a small magnitude of the between-group
differences, there was a likely greater increase for OSL com-
pared to TDL in bench press 1RM (82/15/3) and 1RM:BM
(85/12/3). These results are certainly interesting given the
chasm in bench press specificity between groups. By study
design, the OSL group only performed 20% of their training
volume with a symmetrical (TDL) bench press load. Thus,
it would have been reasonable to expect a greater increase
in bench press 1RM in the TDL group. However, it could
be interpreted from previous research that multiple varia-
tions of bench press training can improve 1RM in the TDL
bench press. More specifically, Langford et al. [31] found
that groups performing machine, barbell, isokinetic, and
water-filled log bench press training for 10-weeks were all
able to increase TDL bench press 1RM to a similar degree.
Thielen et al. [43] recently reported similar improvements
in squat 1RM in a group performing traditional squat train-
ing and a group undergoing suspended load squat training.
Intriguingly, the study participants utilized in this study were
collegiate baseball players with at least 2-years of resistance
training experience on average and a relative squat strength
of approximately 1.75 times body mass. Therefore, while
the specificity of strength improvement in resistance train-
ing is still a valid principle, it may not be regarded as a rule
in scenarios such as ours, Thielen et al. [43], or Langford
et al. [31]. Regardless, the degree of specificity differences
between OSL and TDL may not be great enough to produce
unique strength adaptations to each mode of bench press,
but this outcome certainly warrants further investigation.
The likely greater PM MT seen in the OSL group also
potentially influenced strength outcomes as Akagi et al.
[1] reported a significant relationship (r = 0.866; P < 0.001)
between PM cross-sectional area and bench press 1RM per-
formance. While it is generally believed that muscle size
more so influences 1RM performance of single joint exer-
cises that are not as reliant on skill [9], it is possible from the
results of Akagi [1] and our own that prime mover muscle
size still likely plays a large role in 1RM performance of the
bench press exercise.
Finally, progressive overload is a largely accepted princi-
ple of strength and conditioning and widely acknowledged
as a primary prerequisite to improvements in muscular
strength. Bompa and Buzzichelli [13] (pp. 41–52) note that
both changing exercises and changing loading patterns can
constitute a form of progressive overload. OSL likely falls
into one or both categories and, thus, may be instituted as
a form of progressive overload beyond TDL bench press
training. Due to the training experience of our participants,
the inherent progressive overload from OSL may have influ-
enced the likely greater strength gains seen in this group.
Perceptual Measures
An intriguing, but not unexpected, finding was reported in
regard to the perceptual measures of RPE and ME as the
OSL group showed a possibly greater effect in both mea-
sures compared to the TDL group. Due to the novelty of the
technique and the uncomfortable nature of the loading pat-
tern, it is conceivable that OSL provoked greater perceived
exertion despite a similar volume load to TDL. Greater RPE
has been reported when training on unstable versus stable
surfaces [3], suggesting that exercise with greater stability
requirements elevates exertion and this could be applied to
OSL in theory.
Mental effort can be defined as the degree of strain expe-
rienced by the mobilization of controlled cognitive process-
ing with limited energetic resources [39]. If a task requires
executive function or self-regulation, ME is needed the
instant the individual begins mobilizing the task. In exer-
cises performed at uncomfortable intensities, ME is neces-
sary to sustain neural drive and force output throughout the
bout [5] and inhibit the bodily afferences that emerge with
physical fatigue [6]. Thus, one potential influential factor
in the ME data may be that OSL is inherently more intense
than TDL. Indeed, Saeterbakken et al. [41] found that a 5%
offset load resulted in a 12% reduction in 1RM load relative
to a traditionally-loaded 1RM. While participants in both
groups achieved a similar number of successful repetitions
in each training session, participants in the OSL group may
have been training at a higher relative intensity due to the
disparity in 1RM load between 5% offset conditions and
traditionally-loaded bench press. An additional explana-
tion may lie within the inherent elaborate processing, which
may occur when comparing OSL to TDL. Specifically, we
adjusted loads on the final (5th) set in all OSL sessions to a
balanced (traditional) load as we believed that OSL would
force lifters to compare and contrast their previous OSL sets
to the final TDL set, thereby forcing their TDL bench press
back into a high cognitive effort phase in order to enhance
strength transfer. According to the elaborate processing
model, this comparison and contrast situation would induce
a more robust cognitive experience [33].
Finally, PRS measures between groups resulted in an
unclear effect. While the novelty of OSL may have impacted
13

this measure early on in the training protocol, previous
research has shown that the repeated bout effect can signifi-
cantly ameliorate muscle damage and perceived soreness
even following a single training session [17]. Therefore,
over a 4-week training program, one would not expect OSL
to result in higher levels of muscle soreness following the
initial sessions.
Study Limitations
As is common in strength training literature, a primary limi-
tation of this study is the small sample size. Indeed, this
limitation may make it difficult to apply our results to the
general population, however, research into OSL is certainly
in its infancy and future investigations will help develop a
deeper understanding of this novel training method. Fur-
thermore, the current study utilized participants who were
trained (1.31 and 1.26 1RM:BM for OSL and TDL, respec-
tively) and well experienced (~ 10 years on average) on
the barbell bench press exercise. Other populations (e.g.,
untrained, elderly, or adolescents) may experience force
imbalances from OSL to an extent that increases injury
risk. Therefore, the performance outcomes and the safety
of OSL should not be generalized to all populations. Also,
during participant recruitment, the authors did not account
for bench press training frequency prior to (< 6 months)
the commencement of the study. Even though both study
groups had similar bench press strength at baseline, and
similar training experience, it is possible that prior training
frequency could have been a confounding variable influenc-
ing the response to the training protocol.
Additionally, the length of the training period and not
conducting ultrasonography measures on secondary mov-
ers of the bench press (anterior deltoid and triceps brachii)
may be considered limitations. However, our results sug-
gest that adaptations took place in both groups, indicating
that 4-weeks appears to be sufficient for detecting resis-
tance training adaptations, but performing longer training
programs may provide further clarification of future results.
The PM was the only muscle group subjected to ultrasonog-
raphy as it is the primary mover of the criterion movement
in this study (barbell bench press).
Lastly, another limitation is the randomization of offset
loads in the OSL group. This method was chosen in order to
reduce participant anticipation of load position which may
have resulted in pre-planned compensation patterns. Impor-
tantly, the participants were blinded to the randomization
order of the offset loads. Future studies should endeavor to
better understand the use of targeted OSL, in which OSL
is employed in the case of a known asymmetry, which
may persist following musculoskeletal injuries, surgery,
or even sport-specific training. Since this is the first study
13
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
investigating adaptations to a training program involving
OSL, future studies should experiment with targeted OSL
to uncover a greater understanding of this novel training
method. For instance, a crossover study design implement-
ing OSL and TDL conditions may be useful in more long-
term studies to verify the theory that OSL is likely a form of
progressive overload.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated, for the first time, the training adap-
tations to OSL versus TDL in the barbell bench press exer-
cise. TDL has been well-established as a beneficial training
modality for muscular adaptations such as strength and
hypertrophy. The novelty in the current study is that magni-
tude-based analyses supported a likely beneficial effect from
OSL in muscle thickness and strength adaptations compared
to TDL; thus, suggesting a progressive exercise effect that
can be used to promote continual adaptations. The outcomes
of magnitude-based inferences reported in this investigation
permits sports practitioners and coaches the opportunity to
judge the practical relevance of OSL. While the concept
and application of OSL certainly merits future inquiry, OSL
is a unique training method that can be applied in strength
and conditioning settings to assist in optimizing hypertro-
phy and strength outcomes or when progressive overload
beyond the TDL bench press is required.
Future investigations should endeavor to confirm our
findings as well as uncover the long-term impacts of OSL on
injury risk and overall performance. Ultimately, an athlete
cannot display maximal physical skills while sidelined with
an injury, and any training modality that can alter injury risk
is worthy of study. OSL may be a novel training method
that reduces asymmetrical neural drive between dominant
and nondominant limbs, and further research is warranted
for investigating these long-term outcomes and effects on
injury rates in sport.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the participants
for their time and enthusiasm given to the study.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Matthew Sharp, Salvatore
LoDuca and Jacob Wilson; methodology, Matthew Sharp, Charlie Ot-
tinger, Matthew Stefan, Salvatore LoDuca, and Jacob Wilson; formal
analysis, Matthew Sharp and Jacob Wilson; investigation, Charlie Ot-
tinger, Matthew Sharp, Raad Gheith, Matthew Stefan; data curation,
Charlie Ottinger, Matthew Sharp, Raad Gheith and Matthew Stefan;
writing—original draft preparation, Charlie Ottinger, Matthew Sharp
and Jacob Wilson; writing—review and editing, Charlie Ottinger, Mat-
thew Sharp, Ryan Lowery, and Jacob Wilson; visualization, Matthew
Sharp; supervision, Matthew Sharp; project administration, Matthew
Sharp and Jacob Wilson; funding acquisition, Matthew Sharp and Ja-
cob Wilson. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
Consent to Participate: Informed consent was obtained from all par-
ticipants involved in the study.
Funding ASPI received funding from Offset Loading Ventures, LLC
for this study.
Data Availability Data will be made available upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics Approval: The study was conducted according to the guidelines
of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Advarra IRB (protocol
code: Pro00051660, date of approval: 2 August 2019).
Competing Interests The Applied Science and Performance Institute
received funding from Offset Ventures, LLC for this study. Funding
was not provided to a single author. Salvatore LoDuca (S.L.) is the
owner of Offset Loading Ventures, LLC. S.L. was involved in con-
ceptualizing the study and its methodology. S.L. did not interact with
study participants, nor was he involved in data collection, data cura-
tion, data analysis, data interpretation, or manuscript writing. The Ap-
plied Science and Performance Institute does not have any financial
interest with Offset Ventures, LLC.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Akagi R, Tohdoh Y, Hirayama K, Kobayashi Y. Relationship of
pectoralis major muscle size with bench press and bench throw
performances. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(6):1778–82.
2. Appleby BB, Cormack SJ, Newton RU. Specificity and Trans-
fer of Lower-Body Strength: Influence of bilateral or uni-
lateral lower-body resistance training. J Strength Cond Res.
2019;33(2):318–26.
3. Aranda LC, Vianna JM, Dutra ES, Werneck FZ, Novaes J da
Lima S, JRP de, Reis VMM de R dos. Circuit weight train-
ing on stable and unstable surfaces: differences in energy cost,
blood lactate and rate of perceived exertion. Am J Sports Sci.
2018:6(4):137–43.
4. Aube D, Wadhi T, Rauch J, Anand A, Barakat C, Pearson J,
Bradshaw J, Zazzo S, Ugrinowitsch C, De Souza EO. Progres-
sive resistance training volume: effects on muscle thickness,
mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained individuals.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(3):600–7. https://doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0000000000003524.
5. Audiffren M, André N. The exercise–cognition relationship: A
virtuous circle. J Sport Health Sci. 2019;8(4):339–47.
6. Audiffren M, André N. The strength model of self-control revis-
ited: Linking acute and chronic effects of exercise on executive
functions. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(1):30–46.
7. Ayala F, Sainz de Baranda P, De Ste Croix M, Santonja F. Compar-
ison of active stretching technique in males with normal and lim-
ited hamstring flexibility. Phys Ther Sport. 2013;14(2):98–104.
8. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, Morales-
Artacho AJ, McKeown A, Appleby CL, Folland JP. Changes in
agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all
contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance train-
ing. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117(4):631–40.
9. Bamman MM, Newcomer BR, Larson-Meyer DE, Weinsier
RL, Hunter GR. Evaluation of the strength-size relationship in
vivo using various muscle size indices. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2000;32(7):1307–13.
10. Barnett C, Kippers V, Turner P. Effects of variations of the bench
press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. J
Strength Cond Res. 1995;9(4):222–7.
11. Bartolomei S, Totti V, Nigro F, Ciacci S, Semprini G, Michele
RD, Cortesi M, Hoffman JR. A comparison between the recov-
ery responses following an eccentrically loaded bench press
protocol vs. regular loading in highly trained men. J Hum Kinet.
2019;68:59–67.
12. Blache Y, Monteil K. Contralateral strength imbalance between
dominant and non-dominant lower limb in soccer players. Sci
Sports. 2012;27:e1–8.
13. Bompa T, Buzzichelli C, Periodization. Theory and Methodology
of Training, 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2009.
14. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377–81.
15. Burkholder TJ. Mechanotransduction in skeletal muscle. Front
Biosci. 2007;12:174–91.
16. Chaves SFN, Rocha-JÚnior VA, EncarnaÇÃo IGA, Martins-
Costa HC, Freitas EDS, Coelho DB, Franco FSC, Loenneke JP,
Bottaro M, Ferreira-JÚnior JB. Effects of horizontal and incline
bench press on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained young
men. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(6):859–72.
17. Chen TC, Yang T-J, Huang M-J, Wang H-S, Tseng K-W, Chen
H-L, Nosaka K. Damage and the repeated bout effect of arm,
leg, and trunk muscles induced by eccentric resistance exercises.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29:725–35.
18. de Salles BF, Simão R, Miranda F, Novaes J, Lemos S, Willard-
son A JM. Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports
Med. 2009;39(9):765–77.
19. Evangelista AL, De Souza EO, Moreira DCB, Alonso AC, Teix-
eira CVLS, Wadhi T, Rauch J, Bocalini DS, Pereira PEDA, Greve
JMD. Interset stretching vs. traditional strength training: effects
on muscle strength and size in untrained individuals. J Strength
Cond Res. 2019;33:S159–66.
20. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, de Souza EO, Wilson JM,
Laurentino GC, Aihara AY, de Souza Leão AR, Ugrinow-
itsch C. Changes in exercises are more effective than in load-
ing schemes to improve muscle strength. J Strength Cond Res.
2014;28(11):3085–92.
21. Gomo O, Van Den Tillaar R. The effects of grip width on sticking
region in bench press. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(3):232–8.
22. Green CM, Comfort P. The Affect of grip width on bench
press performance and risk of injury. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;29(5):10–4.
23. Haff GG, Triplett NT. Essentials of strength training and condi-
tioning, 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2015.
24. Hodges SJ, Patrick RJ, Reiser RF. Effects of fatigue on bilateral
ground reaction force asymmetries during the squat exercise. J
Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(11):3107–17.
13

25. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive
statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–13.
26. Huang W, Eades P, Hong S-H. Measuring effectiveness of graph
visualizations: A cognitive load perspective. Inform Visualiza-
tion. 2009;8(3):139–52.
27. Jarosz J, Gołaś A, Krzysztofik M, Matykiewicz P, Strońska K,
Zając A, Maszczyk A. Changes in muscle pattern activity during
the asymmetric flat bench press (offset training). Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113912.
28. Kalata M, Maly T, Hank M, Michalek J, Bujnovsky D, Kun-
zmann E, Zahalka F. Unilateral and bilateral strength asymme-
try among young elite athletes of various sports. Med (Kaunas).
2020;56(12):E683.
29. Krakauer JW, Hadjiosif AM, Xu J, Wong AL, Haith AM. Motor
learning. Compr Physiol. 2019;9(2):613–63.
30. Krzysztofik M, Jarosz J, Matykiewicz P, Wilk M, Bialas M, Zajac
A, Golas A. A comparison of muscle activity of the dominant and
non-dominant side of the body during low versus high loaded
bench press exercise performed to muscular failure. J Electro-
myogr Kinesiol. 2021;56:102513.
31. Langford GA, McCurdy KW, Ernest JM, Doscher MW, Walters
SD. Specificity of machine, barbell, and water-filled log bench
press resistance training on measures of strength. J Strength Cond
Res. 2007;21(4):1061–6.
32. Laurent CM, Green JM, Bishop PA, Sjökvist J, Schumacker
RE, Richardson MT, Curtner-Smith M. A practical approach to
monitoring recovery: development of a perceived recovery status
scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(3):620–8.
33. Lin C-HJ, Fisher BE, Winstein CJ, Wu AD, Gordon J. Contex-
tual interference effect: elaborative processing or forgetting-
reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic
stimulation-induced effects on motor learning. J Mot Behav.
2008;40(6):578–86.
34. Luk H-Y, Winter C, O’Neill E, Thompson BA. Comparison of
muscle strength imbalance in powerlifters and jumpers. J Strength
Cond Res. 2014;28(1):23–7.
35. Maloney SJ. The Relationship between asymmetry and ath-
letic performance: A critical review. J Strength Cond Res.
2019;33(9):2579–93.
36. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Loftin M, Abe T. Time
course for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following
bench press training. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2012;4(4):217–20.
37. Opar DA, Williams MD, Timmins RG, Hickey J, Duhig SJ, Shield
AJ. Eccentric hamstring strength and hamstring injury risk in Aus-
tralian footballers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(4):857–65.
38. Paas F. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solv-
ing skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol.
1992;84(4):429–34.
13
View publication stats
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise
39. Paas FGWC, Van Merriënboer JJG. The efficiency of instruc-
tional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and per-
formance measures. Hum Factors. 1993;35(4):737–43.
40. Pearson J, Wadhi T, Barakat C, Aube D, Schoenfeld BJ, Ander-
sen JC, Barroso R, Ugrinowitsch C, De Souza EO. Does vary-
ing repetition tempo in a single-joint lower body exercise
augment muscle size and strength in resistance-trained men? J
Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(8):2162–68. https://doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.0000000000003953.
41. Saeterbakken AH, Solstad TEJ, Behm DG, Stien N, Shaw MP,
Pedersen H, Andersen V. Muscle activity in asymmetric bench
press among resistance-trained individuals. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2020;120(11):2517–24.
42. Schoenfeld B, Grgic J. Evidence-based guidelines for resistance
training volume to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength Cond
J. 2018;40(4):107–12.
43. Thielen SP, Christensen BK, Bond CW, Hackney KJ, Moen JT.
A comparison of the effects of a six-week traditional squat and
suspended load squat program in collegiate baseball players
on measures of athletic performance. Int J Kinesiol Sports Sci.
2020;8(4):51–8.
44. Urbaniak GC, Plors S. Research Randomizer. 2021. https://www.
randomizer.org/links/. Accessed 22 Mar 2021.
45. Wackerhage H, Schoenfeld BJ, Hamilton DL, Lehti M, Hulmi JJ.
Stimuli and sensors that initiate skeletal muscle hypertrophy fol-
lowing resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2019;126(1):30–43.
46. Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Sugisaki N, Murata K, Kanehisa H,
Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T, Yanai T. Association between regional
differences in muscle activation in one session of resistance exer-
cise and in muscle hypertrophy after resistance training. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2012;112(4):1569–76.
47. Wald I, Fruchter E, Ginat K, Stolin E, Dagan D, Bliese PD, Quar-
tana PJ, Sipos ML, Pine DS, Bar-Haim Y. Selective prevention
of combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder using attention
bias modification training: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol
Med. 2016;46(12):2627–36.
48. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declara-
tion of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving
human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.
49. Yasuda T, Fujita S, Ogasawara R, Sato Y, Abe T. Effects of low-
intensity bench press training with restricted arm muscle blood
flow on chest muscle hypertrophy: a pilot study. Clin Physiol
Funct Imaging. 2010;30(5):338–43.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.