Are the flat and arched bench press really similar?

Assessment of asymmetry at different intensities between conventional and paralympic powerlifting athletes

Powerlifting competitions require consistent and symmetric lifting of heavy loads and maximal effort, in which, asymmetric lifting results in trial invalidation. Symmetry during this very high intensity movement is determinant to athletes' performance and success in competitions. This study aimed to compare the asymmetry between Conventional Powerlifting athletes (CP) and Paralympic (PP) athletes at intensities of 45 and 80% 1RM before and after a training session. Twenty-two male athletes (11 CP: 29.84 ± 4.21 and 11 PP: 30.81 ± 8.05 years old) participated in this study. Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), Maximum Velocity (Vmax) and Power during the concentric and eccentric phases were evaluated at 45%-1RM before and after a training session. For the intensity of 80%-1RM, MPV, Vmax and Power were measured in the first and last series (5 series of 5 repetitions: 5X5) of a training session. PP athletes demonstrated lower velocity and greater symmetry at 45%-1RM, but higher velocity and less asymmetry at 80%-1RM, when compared to CP. The data indicated that PP athletes tend to be slower at lower intensities, faster at higher intensities in absolute values, and have greater symmetry than CP.

Force-velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition

BACKGROUND

Due to the absence of evidence in the literature on Paralympic Powerlifting the present study investigated various methods to assess bench press maximum repetition and the way each method influences the measurement of minimum velocity limit (MVT), load at zero velocity (LD0), and force-velocity (FV).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the precision of the multi-point method using proximal loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one repetition maximum; 1RM) compared to the four-point method (50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM) and the two-point method using distant loads (40 and 80% and 50 and 80% of 1RM) in in the MVT, LD0, and FV, in bench press performed by Paralympic Powerlifters (PP).

METHODS

To accomplish this, 15 male elite PP athletes participated in the study (age: 27.7 ± 5.7 years; BM: 74.0 ± 19.5 kg). All participants performed an adapted bench press test (free weight) with 6 loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM), 4 loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), and 2 loads (40-80% and 50-80% 1RM). The 1RM predictions were made by MVT, LD0, and FV.

RESULTS

The main results indicated that the multiple (4 and 6) pointsmethod provides good results in the MVT (R2 = 0.482), the LD0 (R2 = 0.614), and the FV (R2 = 0.508). The two-point method (50-80%) showed a higher mean in MVT [1268.2 ± 502.0 N; ICC95% 0.76 (0.31-0.92)], in LD0 [1504.1 ± 597.3 N; 0.63 (0.17-0.86)], and in FV [1479.2 ± 636.0 N; 0.60 (0.10-0.86)].

CONCLUSION

The multiple-point method (4 and 6 points) and the two-point method (40-80%) using the MVT, LD0, and FV all showed a good ability to predict bench press 1RM in PP.

Are sEMG, Velocity and Power Influenced by Athletes' Fixation in Paralympic Powerlifting?

The bench press is performed in parapowerlifting with the back, shoulders, buttocks, legs and heels extended over the bench, and the use of straps to secure the athlete to the bench is optional. Thus, the study evaluated muscle activation, surface electromyography (sEMG), maximum velocity (MaxV) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and power in paralympic powerlifting athletes under conditions tied or untied to the bench. Fifteen experienced Paralympic powerlifting male athletes (22.27 ± 10.30 years, 78.5 ± 21.6 kg) took part in the research. The sEMG measurement was performed in the sternal portion of the pectoralis major (PMES), anterior deltoid (AD), long head of the triceps brachii (TRI) and clavicular portion of the pectoralis major (PMCL). The MaxV, MPV and power were evaluated using an encoder. Loads of 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% 1RM were analyzed under untied and tied conditions. No differences were found in muscle activation between the tied and untied conditions; however, sEMG showed differences in the untied condition between AD and TRI (F (3112) = 4.484; p = 0.005) in the 100% 1RM load, between PMCL and AD (F (3112) = 3.743; p = 0.013) in 60% 1RM load and in the tied condition, between the PMES and the AD (F (3112) = 4.067; p = 0.009). There were differences in MaxV (F (3112) = 213.3; p < 0.001), and MPV (F (3112) = 248.2; p < 0.001), between all loads in the tied and untied condition. In power, the load of 100% 1RM differed from all other relative loads (F (3112) = 36.54; p < 0.001) in both conditions. The tied condition seems to favor muscle activation, sEMG, and velocity over the untied condition.

Paralympic Powerlifting as a Sustainable Way to Improve Strength in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury and Other Disabilities

Background: in Paralympic Powerlifting (PP), athletes with a spinal cord injury (SCI) and other disabilities (OD) compete together. However, athletes with SCI are at a disadvantage in terms of force production and transfer. Objective: to analyze the strength and the dynamic and static indicators, at different intensities, tied and untied in athletes with SCI and OD. Methods: the sample presented 10 OD (28.30 ± 4.92 years) and 10 SCI (30.00 ± 4.27 years), classified competitors, and eligible to compete in the sport (all males). Maximum isometric force (MIF); time to MIF (Time); rate of force development (RFD); impulse, variability, and fatigue index (FI); and the dynamic tests of Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), Velocity Maximum (Vmax), and Power with loads of 40, 60, and 80% of 1 Repetition Maximum (1 RM), respectively. Results: there were no differences between OD and SCI in dynamic and isometric strength indicators. In MPV, there was an 80% difference between tethered and untethered SCI (p = 0.041). In VMax, there were differences in SCI between tethered and untethered, 40% (p = 0.004) and 80% (p = 0.023), respectively. There were no differences in the other intensities. Conclusion: PP training seems to be a sustainable way to promote strength gains in SCI, since there were no differences between athletes with SCI and OD, as practitioners of Paralympic Powerlifting.

Static and Dynamic Strength Indicators in Paralympic Power-Lifters with and without Spinal Cord Injury

BACKGROUND

In Paralympic powerlifting (PP), athletes with and without spinal cord injury (SCI) compete in the same category. Athletes with SCI may be at a disadvantage in relation to the production of muscle strength and the execution of motor techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the indicators force, dynamic and static, at different intensities, on performance in athletes with and without SCI.

METHODS

The sample was composed of two groups of PP athletes: SCI (30.57 ± 4.20 years) and other deficiencies (OD; 25.67 ± 4.52 years). Athletes performed a test of maximum isometric force (MIF), time to MIF (Time), rate of force development (RFD), impulse, variability and fatigue index (FI), dynamic tests Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), Maximum Velocity (Vmax) and Power.

RESULTS

There were differences in the SCI in relation to OD, 50% 1RM (p < 0.05), in relation to MPV and Vmax. There were no differences in the static force indicators. Regarding EMG, there were differences between the SCI triceps in relation to the previous deltoid (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

We concluded that the static and dynamic strength indicators are similar in Paralympic powerlifting athletes with spinal cord injury and other disabilities.

Evaluation of Strength and Muscle Activation Indicators in Sticking Point Region of National-Level Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes

BACKGROUND

The sticking region is considered an intervening factor in the performance of the bench press with high loads.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the strength indicators in the sticking point region in Powerlifting Paralympic athletes.

METHODS

Twelve Brazilian Powerlifting Paralympic athletes performed maximum isometric force (MIF), rate of force development (RFD), time at MIF, velocity, dynamic time in sticking, and surface electromyography in several distances from the bar to the chest.

RESULTS

For velocity, there was a difference between the pre-sticking and sticking region (1.98 ± 0.32 and 1.30 ± 0.43, p = 0.039) and dynamic time between the pre-sticking and the sticking region (0.40 ± 0.16 and 0.97 ± 0.37, p = 00.021). In static test for the MIF, differences were found between 5.0 cm and 15.0 cm (CI 95% 784; 1088; p = 0.010) and between 10.0 cm and 5.0 cm (CI 95% 527; 768; p < 0.001). Regarding the RFD, differences were found (CI 95% 938; 1240; p = 0.004) between 5.0 cm and 25.0 cm and between 10.0 cm and 25.0 cm (CI 95% 513; 732; p < 0.001). In relation to time, there were differences between 5.0 cm and 15.0 cm (CI 95% 0.330; 0.515; p < 0.001), 5.0 cm, and 25.0 cm (CI 95% 0.928; 1.345; p = 0.001), 10.0 cm and 15.0 cm (p < 0.05) and 15.0 cm and 25.0 cm (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the muscles in electromyography, although the triceps showed the highest muscle activation values.

CONCLUSIONS

The maximum isometric force, rate of force development, time, velocity, and dynamic time had lower values, especially in the initial and intermediate phases in the sticking region.