Original Research

Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics—The

Necessity of Measuring Lateral Barbell Forces
Lasse Mausehund,1 Amelie Werkhausen,1 Julia Bartsch,2 and Tron Krosshaug2
1
Department of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway; and 2Department of Sports Medicine, Oslo
Sports Trauma Research Center, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Oslo, Norway

Abstract
Mausehund, L, Werkhausen, A, Bartsch, J, and Krosshaug, T. Understanding bench press biomechanics—The necessity of
measuring lateral barbell forces. J Strength Cond Res 36(10): 2685–2695, 2022—The purpose of this study was to advance the
expertise of the bench press exercise by complementing electromyographic (EMG) with net joint moment (NJM) and strength
normalized NJM (nNJM) measurements, thus establishing the magnitude of the elbow and shoulder muscular loads and efforts.
Normalized NJMs were determined as the ratio of the bench press NJMs to the maximum NJMs produced during maximum
voluntary isokinetic contractions. Furthermore, we wanted to assess how changes in grip width and elbow positioning affected
elbow and shoulder NJMs and nNJMs, and muscle activity of the primary movers. Thirty-five strength-trained adults performed a
6–8 repetition maximum set of each bench press variation, while elbow and shoulder NJMs and EMG activity of 7 upper extremity
muscles were recorded. The results show that all bench press variations achieved high elbow and shoulder muscular efforts. A
decrease in grip width induced larger elbow NJMs, and larger EMG activity of the lateral head of the triceps brachii, anterior deltoid,
and clavicular head of the pectoralis major (p # 0.05). An increase in grip width elicited larger shoulder NJMs and nNJMs, and larger
EMG activity of the abdominal head of the pectoralis major (p # 0.05). In conclusion, all bench press variations may stimulate
strength gains and hypertrophy of the elbow extensors and shoulder flexors and horizontal adductors. However, greater adap-
tations of the elbow extensors and shoulder flexors may be expected when selecting narrower grip widths, whereas wider grip
widths may induce greater adaptations of the shoulder horizontal adductors.
Key Words: net joint moment, EMG, muscle activity, grip width, muscular effort

Introduction However, there is a scarcity of research on upper-body strength

exercises, which may be related to the challenges arising from
The bench press is one of the most frequently used strength
measuring forces acting on the upper extremities. To the best of
training exercises to develop upper-body strength, power, and
our knowledge, there are only 3 studies measuring NJMs during
hypertrophy and is commonly integrated in resistance training
the bench press (6,23,37), in all of which the external forces used
programs, both for sport performance (33), general fitness, as
to calculate the NJMs were assumed to act vertically downward
well as for injury prevention and rehabilitation (16). For the
proper understanding of bench press biomechanics and to infer from the point of force application. However, by using an
the neuromuscular adaptations which may be elicited by this instrumented barbell, more recent research has documented the
exercise and its variations, measurements of muscular loads and presence of lateral forces during the bench press, which accounted
muscular efforts are crucial. Measures of muscular loads, e.g., net for approximately 25% of the vertical forces (10). These lateral
joint moments (NJMs), describe the absolute net loading on forces will impact the moment arms and NJMs and must there-
muscle groups, whereas measures of muscular efforts, e.g., nor- fore be taken account of.
malized electromyography (EMG) and strength normalized NJMs provide information regarding absolute muscular loads
NJMs (nNJMs), describe the relative loading on muscle groups. but can hardly be used to make inferences about potential
Our current knowledge on bench press biomechanics is mainly strength training adaptations. To make such inferences possible,
based on EMG studies. However, considering the limitations NJMs must be expressed relative to the maximal NJM produced
associated with EMG, its sole use as an indicator of muscular during a maximal voluntary contraction, thereby establishing
effort is insufficient (36). Complementing EMG with NJM and nNJMs (3,5). To the best of our knowledge, only one study has
nNJM measurements is important for enhancing the un- reported nNJMs for strength exercises, specifically for the squat
derstanding of exercise biomechanics. (3), yet no such research exists for the bench press.
Many studies report NJMs during performance of lower-body Selecting appropriate exercises and exercise variations is an
strength exercises, such as the deadlift and the squat (34). important part of resistance training program design and involves
matching the demands of the exercise with the specific needs of
Address correspondence to Lasse Mausehund, [email protected]. the individual. This requires a thorough understanding of the
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear mechanical demands which the exercise imposes on the muscu-
in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on loskeletal system. One of the most common exercise variations of
the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr). the bench press involves the use of different grip widths. A good
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 36(10)/2685–2695 understanding of the biomechanical alterations which occur with
ª 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association changes of grip width is important for appropriate exercise

2685

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10

prescription. However, long-term training studies on this topic

are missing, and acute biomechanical research is limited and
conflicting. Whereas some EMG studies found no difference in
muscle activity of the triceps brachii across grip widths (9,29),
others reported larger activity with narrower grip widths
(1,4,21). The narrow grip width resulted also in higher activity of
the clavicular head of the pectoralis major in one study (1), yet 3
other studies found no effect of grip width (9,21,29). Whereas the
sternocostal head of the pectoralis major was not affected by grip
width in 2 studies (1,29), Lehman (21) found differences in favor
of a wide grip width. Conflicting results may be related to dif-
ferent methodological approaches, few subjects and the limita-
tions inherent in EMG measurements (8). In addition, previous
studies lack standardization and description of elbow positioning
during the narrow grip bench press, which can be performed with
either the elbows close to the body or away from the body. This in
turn is likely to impact the biomechanics of the exercise.
The first purpose of this study was to advance the expertise of
the bench press exercise by complementing EMG with NJM and
nNJM measurements, thus providing a thorough and compre-
hensive biomechanical analysis and establishing the magnitude of
the elbow and shoulder muscular loads and efforts. The second
purpose was to assess the effect of 4 different bench press exercise
variations on kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity of the
upper extremities. Specifically, we wanted to analyze how
changes in grip width and elbow positioning affected elbow and
shoulder NJMs and nNJMs, and normalized EMG activity of the
primary movers.

Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We used a cross-sectional, within-subjects design to assess kine-
matics, kinetics, and muscle activity of the upper extremities
during execution of the bench press exercise with different grip
widths and elbow positions (Figure 1). All subjects completed 2
Figure 1. Bench press exercise variations. From top to bot-
test sessions, separated by at least 72 hours. During the first ses- tom: medium grip width (BPM), wide grip width (BPW), narrow
sion, 3–10 repetition maximum (RM) was tested for all bench grip width keeping the elbows close to the body (BPNI), and
press variations, followed by familiarization with an isokinetic narrow grip width keeping the elbows away from the body
dynamometer. During the second session, synchronized kine- (BPNO).
matic, kinetic, and EMG data were collected during a 6–8RM set
of each exercise variation. Next, the subjects conducted maxi-
was approved by the ethical committee of the Norwegian School
mum voluntary isokinetic contractions (MVICs) for the elbow
of Sport Science, and all subjects signed a written informed
and shoulder joint. To allow for comparisons to be made across
consent form before inclusion. The study conformed to the latest
exercises and subjects, the same relative load (6-8RM,
revision of the Declaration of Helsinki.
i.e., approximately 80–85% of 1RM) was applied to all exercises.
Subjects were instructed to refrain from any upper-body re-
sistance training for 48 hours before testing. Both sessions were
supervised by a physical therapist and a research assistant. Procedures
The first test session started with collecting anthropometric data,
including height, biacromial distance, and arm length, followed
Subjects
by a demonstration of the testing criteria and standardized exe-
Thirty-five healthy adults, including 16 women and 19 men, cution of each exercise variation. Thereafter, subjects performed a
participated in this study (Table 1). Female and male subjects specific bench press warm-up, progressing from 10 to 20 repeti-
were required to be able to lift at least 0.7 times and 1.0 times their tions with barbell load alone, to 10 repetitions at 50% of their
body mass in the bench press, respectively. In addition, all sub- expected 6RM, 4 repetitions at 70%, 2 repetitions at 80%, and 1
jects had to be engaged in regular resistance training including the repetition at 90% (29). All warm-up sets were performed with the
bench press, for at least 6 months before data collection. Both medium grip width. After the warm-up, 3–10RM was tested for
powerlifters (n 5 13) and recreational strength-trained individ- all bench press variations, i.e., barbell load was adjusted until the
uals (n 5 22) were included. Subjects were excluded if they had maximum load was determined that could be lifted with correct
acute musculoskeletal injuries or pain, or if they failed to perform technique for 3–10 repetitions. Three–five minutes of rest was
the bench press variations in the prescribed manner. The study provided between RM trials and at least 5 minutes between

2686

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10 | www.nsca.com

Table 1 standardize the grip widths. The first (BPM) and second (BPW)
Subject characteristics (n 5 35).* bench press variation were performed with a medium (75° AB-
angle) and wide grip width (65° AB-angle), respectively. For the
Descriptive Mean 6 SD Range
third variation (BPNI), a narrow grip width (85° AB-angle) was
Age (y) 31.4 6 10.4 19–58
selected, and the elbows were kept close to the body. For the last
Height (m) 1.71 6 0.09 1.50–1.87
Body mass (kg) 79.9 6 16.0 55.3–123.3
variation (BPNO), the same grip width was chosen, but the el-
Biacromial distance (m) 0.36 6 0.03 0.30–0.41 bows were kept away from the body, with a shoulder abduction
No. of resistance training sessions† 4.1 6 1.1 1.5–6.0 angle of approximately 45° at the bottom position of the lift.
No. of bench press sessions† 2.3 6 1.3 0.3–6.0 Lifting criteria required all repetitions to be performed with a
1RM‡ to body mass ratio 1.22 6 0.28 0.74–1.84 consistent pace through the whole range of motion (ROM),
without stop or bouncing the barbell off the chest. The buttocks
*1RM 5 1 repetition maximum.
†Number of sessions per week during the last 6 months. were to be kept in constant contact to the bench and the feet
‡Estimated 1 repetition maximum (RM) for the medium grip width. placed against the floor. To better mimic typical training condi-
tions, exercise velocity was not predetermined. No performance
enhancing lifting equipment was allowed. A bench press rack
exercise variations. Exercise sequence was randomized for each with safety bars and 2 spotters provided safety during all RM sets.
subject. At the conclusion of the first test session, subjects were
familiarized with an isokinetic dynamometer. Both an elbow Measurements and Data Processing. All measurements were
extension and shoulder horizontal adduction movement were synchronously collected through a 16-bit analog-to-digital con-
performed with 3 sets of 1 repetition each and gradually in- version board (USB-2533; Measurement Computing Corpora-
creasing effort (approximately 50, 80, and 100% of maximal tion, Norton, MA), integrated to Qualisys Track Manager
effort, respectively). (version 2019.3; Qualisys AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) and further
The second test session started with attaching reflective processed in Matlab (version R2019a; MathWorks Inc.,
markers and surface electrodes. Subjects wore their preferred Natick, MA).
footwear, shorts, or tights and, in addition, women a sports bra.
After a static calibration trial, subjects repeated the specific bench Kinematics. Three-dimensional kinematic data were recorded
press warm-up from the first test session. Subsequently, RM trials with a 16-camera motion capture system (Oqus 400/700;
were conducted with the subjects’ estimated 7RM loads, calcu- Qualisys AB) sampling at 150 Hz. Twenty-eight reflective
lated using the bench press specific regression equation proposed markers (12.5–19 mm diameter) were placed bilaterally over the
by Reynolds et al. (27). If lifting criteria were met and a 6–8RM following anatomical landmarks (2): the heads of the second and
was accomplished, the subjects continued with the next exercise fifth metacarpal bone, the radial and ulnar styloid, the medial and
variation. If the exercise was not performed in the prescribed lateral epicondyle of the humerus, the most dorsal point on the
manner or if the number of repetitions was outside the 6–8RM acromioclavicular joint, the deepest point of the incisura jug-
range, the trial was repeated with the load adjusted when ularis, the xiphoid process, the anterior superior iliac spine, the
necessary. greater trochanter, the lateral epicondyle of the femur, the lateral
Finally, MVIC testing was conducted to normalize the NJM malleolus, the shoe over the fifth metatarsal bone, and both ends
and EMG measurements from the bench press to a maximal of the barbell (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://
reference value. We tested 2 joints of the right upper extremity links.lww.com/JSCR/A246). To ensure consistency, the same
(see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww. trained physical therapist was responsible for placing the markers
com/JSCR/A245): For the elbow joint, subjects were fastened in a on all subjects.
sitting position and instructed to produce maximal concentric The glenohumeral joint center location was calculated using
elbow extension torque from 135° to 0° elbow flexion with the the regression equation proposed by Rab et al. (25), which has
forearm in a neutral position. The MVIC for the shoulder joint been proven to be more reliable than other methods (24). Elbow
was acquired with subjects fastened in a supine position pro- and wrist joint centers were defined as the midpoints between the
ducing maximal concentric shoulder horizontal adduction torque medial and lateral epicondyle markers, and the radial and ulnar
from 220° to 90° shoulder horizontal adduction with the forearm styloid markers, respectively (39). Estimates of anatomical joint
in a supinated position. The movement order was counter- and segment angles were calculated in a 3-dimensional space from
balanced across subjects. For each movement, the subjects started lines formed between the joint centers (14). The elbow flexion and
with 2 warm-up sets with increasing effort (approximately 50 shoulder horizontal adduction angles as well as the forearm angle
and 80% of maximal effort, respectively), comprising 2 repe- were defined as depicted in Figure 2. The shoulder abduction
titions each. Next, 2 sets with maximal effort and 1 repetition angle was defined by the longitudinal axis of the humerus relative
each were performed, followed by a passive gravity correction to the sagittal plane of the thorax and the arching angle by the
measurement. 2 minutes of rest was provided between trials sternum (i.e., the line through the incisura jugularis and xiphoid
and test positions (11). In accordance with previous research process markers) relative to the horizontal plane. Vertical barbell
(11) and to resemble average bench press speed, movement velocity was determined by numerical differentiation of the
speed was set to 60°·s21. smoothed barbell position data through the process of finite dif-
ference calculus. As suggested by previous research (18), all ki-
Exercise Description. Four different bench press exercise varia- nematic and kinetic data were filtered using the same piecewise
tions, including 3 different grip widths and 2 elbow positions, polynomial smoothing spline (computed from a smoothing pa-
were performed (Figure 1). To provide comparable upper-body rameter of 0.001).
configurations across subjects with various anthropometrics, the
inner angle between the extended arm and the barbell (AB-angle) Kinetics. Kinetic data were collected at 1500 Hz by means of a
at the top position of the bench press exercise was used to custom-made instrumented barbell (Figure 3) capable of

2687

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10

Figure 2. Animated bench press figure of one representative subject at the bottom position of the
wide grip bench press. The left side illustrates the 3-dimensional joint and segment angles: a 5
shoulder horizontal adduction angle; b 5 elbow flexion angle; and g 5 forearm angle. The right
side illustrates the force vectors and moment arms: FV 5 vertical force component; FH 5
horizontal force component; FR 5 resultant force vector; dS 5 shoulder moment arm; dE 5
elbow moment arm. Produced by MuscleAnimations.

measuring horizontal forces acting along the bar, and by 2 force The maximum isokinetic moment-angle curve, which was de-
plates (AMTI LG6-4-1, Watertown, MA) positioned underneath termined from the highest moment values achieved at each in-
the bench and feet of the subject. Before subject recruitment, the stantaneous angle of the 2 repetitions, was used for calculating
instrumented barbell was calibrated, and its accuracy assessed nNJMs. Shoulder and elbow nNJMs were determined as the ratio of
(see Document, Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww. the NJMs generated during the bench press exercises to the maxi-
com/JSCR/A247). The vertical component (FV) of the force that mum NJMs that could be produced during the MVIC tests (3). To
was exerted on the barbell was derived from the force plate provide joint angle specific nNJM data, NJMs from the bench press
measurements (35), whereas the horizontal component (FH) was exercises and MVIC tests were matched for joint angle (3).
determined through the instrumented barbell (Figure 2). Both
force components were added to produce a resultant force vector Electromyography. Raw EMG data were acquired at 1500 Hz by
(FR), which then was decomposed into a vector positioned in the a 16-channel Noraxon TeleMyo Desktop Direct Transmission
forearm-upper arm plane and its orthogonal vector. The latter System (Noraxon USA, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ). Surface electrodes
vector, creating shoulder rotation NJMs, was excluded from were attached to 7 muscles of the right upper extremity, including
further analyses. The point of force application was defined to be 2 heads of the triceps brachii, the anterior deltoid, 3 portions of
located at the intersection between the barbell and the midline of the pectoralis major, and the biceps brachii (see Figure, Supple-
the hand (i.e., the line through the wrist joint center and the mental Digital Content 4, http://links.lww.com/JSCR/A248).
midpoint of the metacarpal bone markers). The external NJMs Before positioning the electrodes, the skin was shaved and cleaned
about the shoulder and elbow joints were calculated as the with isopropyl alcohol. Two pre-gelled Ag/AgCl electrodes
products of the resultant force vector (FR) and the respective (Covidien Kendall Disposable Surface EMG Electrodes; Bio-
moment arms (dS and dE). Medical Instruments, Clinton Township, MI; 10 mm2 circular
Maximum voluntary isokinetic contraction strength testing was conductive area) were attached to each muscle belly, parallel to
conducted in an isokinetic dynamometer (IsoMed 2000; D&R Ferstl the muscle fibers’ direction, and with an interelectrode distance of
GmbH, Hemau, Germany) using a sampling frequency of 600 Hz. 20 mm (12). The exact positioning and orientation of the

Figure 3. A schematic of the instrumented barbell capable of measuring lateral and medial forces
acting along the bar at each hand. The longitudinal (top) and transverse (bottom) cross sections
of the left barbell side are presented. The right side of the barbell is equivalent. The illustration is
not to scale. A) Plastic ring fixed to the barbell; (B) force transducer fixed to a plastic ring on either
side; (C) plastic ring and linear ball bearing rigidly attached to each other. Both have a frictionless
but tight fit to the barbell and are only fixed to the force transducer; (D) metal sleeve covering the
linear ball bearings; (E) second linear ball bearing; (F) strap connecting the metal sleeve (D) to the
plastic ring (C), thus permitting medial forces to be measured.

2688

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10 | www.nsca.com

electrodes for the triceps brachii (long and lateral head), biceps Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics
brachii, and anterior deltoid were in concordance with the rec- (Subscription version; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). Nor-
ommendations of the SENIAM (Surface EMG for Non-Invasive mality was assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test and visual inspection
Assessment of Muscles) project (12). The electrodes for the cla- of Q-Q plots. One-way repeated-measures analyses of variance
vicular and sternocostal head of the pectoralis major were posi- were conducted to detect statistically significant differences in
tioned according to Cram et al. (7). Based on anatomical studies kinetic, kinematic, and EMG variables between the bench press
(38), the electrodes for the abdominal head of the pectoralis major variations. In cases where the assumption of sphericity was vio-
were placed on a line between the axillary fold and the mamilla, as lated, as assessed by Mauchly’s test of sphericity, a Greenhouse-
close as possible to the mamilla but for female subjects slightly Geisser correction was applied. Significant main effects were
further lateral. Subsequent to fixating all electrodes, sensors, and followed up by pairwise post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni
cables, we inspected raw EMG baseline quality and performed corrections. The level of significance was set a priori at p # 0.05.
manual muscle function tests to ensure EMG signal validity (12). Results are presented as means 6 SD. For main effects, adjusted
Differential preamplifiers (overall gain, 500; common mode p-values and partial eta squared (h2p ) effect sizes are reported.
rejection ratio, .100 dB; input impedance, .100 Mohm; root-
mean-square baseline noise, ,1 mV) were used to eliminate ar-
tifacts. Electromyography signals were digitally band-pass fil- Results
tered using a zero-phase, recursive second-order Butterworth We observed a difference in 6RM load among bench press vari-
with high-pass and low-pass cut-off frequencies of 20 and 500 ations (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.54), with post-hoc tests revealing sig-
Hz, respectively (8), and smoothed by root mean square algo- nificantly greater loads being lifted during BPW (84.8 6 30.8 kg)
rithm with a 100-millisecond sliding window. In addition, the and BPM (84.0 6 30.5 kg) compared with BPNO (76.9 6 27.1
average EMG envelope was calculated for each MVIC trial using kg) and BPNI (75.8 6 27.9 kg).
a moving average filter with a 33 ms sliding window (31). Elec-
tromyography activity was normalized to the average of the peaks
obtained during the 2 MVIC trials. Kinetics
We found significant main effects for bench press condition for
mean (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.32) and peak (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.50)
Statistical Analyses
elbow NJMs, as well as for mean (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.70) and peak
All outcome measures were assessed over each entire bench press (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.78) shoulder NJMs (Table 2). The largest
repetition. The start and end of the eccentric and concentric elbow NJMs for BPW and BPM occurred in the middle of the
phases were determined using barbell velocity with thresholds of eccentric and concentric phases, whereas for the narrow grip
20.015 and 0.015 m·s21, respectively (28). We averaged the widths large elbow NJMs were also present at the lowest bar
outcome measures of the left and right side, and to avoid fatigue position (Figure 4). Peak shoulder NJMs were obtained at the
influencing the results, we used the first 3 repetitions of each bottom position of the lift for all bench press variations (Figure 4).
subject as the basis for all analyses. Mean and peak values were Elbow and shoulder moment arms differed statistically across
extracted and used for statistical comparisons. All time series data bench press conditions (elbow mean: p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.73; elbow
were interpolated to 101 points (50 points for the eccentric phase, peak: p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.72; shoulder mean: p , 0.001, h2p 5
1 point for the transition, and 50 points for the concentric phase), 0.42; and shoulder peak: p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.81) (Table 2). For all
and ensemble average curves were calculated. exercise variations, elbow moment arms peaked in the middle of

Table 2
Mean and peak kinetic variables during performance of the bench press with different grip widths and elbow positioning.*†
Medium Wide Narrow in Narrow out
Elbow NJM, mean (Nm) 28.9 6 11.2§{ 26.5 6 10.2‡║{ 29.4 6 12.1§{ 31.4 6 12.1‡§║
Elbow NJM, peak (Nm) 37.7 6 13.5§║{ 35.4 6 11.6‡║{ 40.0 6 15.1‡§{ 44.5 6 15.6‡§║
Shoulder NJM, mean (Nm) 66.6 6 29.7§║{ 69.6 6 31.5‡║{ 52.5 6 24.4‡§{ 57.0 6 24.9‡§║
Shoulder NJM, peak (Nm) 123.0 6 48.5§║{ 135.2 6 52.0‡║{ 94.7 6 38.3‡§ 99.0 6 40.0‡§
Elbow moment arm, mean (m) 0.072 6 0.014§║{ 0.064 6 0.015‡║{ 0.082 6 0.014‡§ 0.085 6 0.014‡§
Elbow moment arm, peak (m) 0.092 6 0.014§║{ 0.084 6 0.015‡║{ 0.105 6 0.014‡§ 0.106 6 0.016‡§
Shoulder moment arm, mean (m) 0.156 6 0.025║{ 0.155 6 0.029║ 0.140 6 0.023‡§{ 0.149 6 0.025‡,║
Shoulder moment arm, peak (m) 0.221 6 0.023§║{ 0.243 6 0.030‡║{ 0.195 6 0.019‡§ 0.198 6 0.021‡§
Resultant force, mean (N) 406.6 6 147.2§║{ 425.5 6 154.9‡║{ 355.7 6 131.0‡§{ 366.3 6 130.1‡§║
Lateral to vertical force ratio, mean 0.17 6 0.06§║{ 0.38 6 0.07‡║{ 0.01 6 0.05‡§{ 20.03 6 0.06‡§║
Elbow nNJM, mean (% MVIC) 64.1 6 17.2 63.7 6 17.4 60.6 6 12.8 62.4 6 13.4
Elbow nNJM, peak (% MVIC) 79.8 6 19.8{ 78.6 6 20.9{ 77.6 6 14.6{ 88.1 6 18.2‡§║
Shoulder nNJM, mean (% MVIC) 80.5 6 15.6║ 80.1 6 18.5║ 70.4 6 13.2‡§{ 76.7 6 15.1║
Shoulder nNJM, peak (% MVIC) 139.7 6 24.4§║{ 150.7 6 30.8‡║{ 112.2 6 17.2‡§ 117.9 6 23.1‡§
*NJM, net joint moment; nNJM, strength normalized net joint moment; MVIC, maximum voluntary isokinetic contraction.
†Values are means 6 SD.
‡Significant difference to medium grip width (p # 0.05).
§Significant difference to wide grip width (p # 0.05).
║Significant difference to narrow grip width, elbows in (p # 0.05).
{Significant difference to narrow grip width, elbows out (p # 0.05).

2689

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10

Figure 4. Net joint moments (top), moment arms (middle), and forces acting on the barbell (bottom) during the bench press with
different grip widths and elbow positioning. Data are time normalized to the eccentric and concentric phases and displayed as
ensemble average curves. Vertical lines represent the start and end of the eccentric and concentric phases. NJM 5 net joint
moment; elbow NJM 5 external elbow flexion NJM; shoulder NJM 5 external shoulder extension/horizontal abduction NJM.

the eccentric and concentric phases, and shoulder moment arms (Table 3). A significant main effect was found for mean (p 5 0.011, h2p
close to the bottom position of the lift (Figure 4). 5 0.13) and peak (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.28) activity of the anterior
There were significant main effects for bench press type for deltoid (Table 3). For the pectoralis major, main effects for bench press
mean resultant force (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.68) and mean lateral to type were significant for the clavicular head (mean: p , 0.001, h2p 5
vertical force ratio (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.97) (Table 2). Peak re- 0.29; peak: p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.23) and the abdominal head (mean: p
sultant forces and peak lateral to vertical force ratios occurred at , 0.001, h2p 5 0.25; peak: p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.22), yet not for the
the bottom and top position of the lift, respectively (Figure 4). sternocostal head (p $ 0.412, h2p 5 0.02–0.03) (Table 3). A difference
Mean elbow nNJMs were similar among bench press condi- in mean and peak activity of the biceps brachii was observed among
tions (p 5 0.224, h2p 5 0.04), yet peak elbow nNJMs (p 5 0.001, bench press conditions (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.39–0.42) (Table 3). All
h2p 5 0.20), and mean (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.33) and peak (p , muscles, apart from the biceps brachii (not presented because of low
0.001, h2p 5 0.65) shoulder nNJMs were significantly different activity), reached greater EMG activity during the concentric than the
(Table 2). eccentric phase for all bench press variations (Figure 5).

Muscle Activity Kinematics

EMG activity of the triceps brachii was significantly different across Bench press type affected peak elbow flexion angle and elbow flexion
bench press variations for the mean (p 5 0.001, h2p 5 0.18) and peak ROM (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.93–0.95), with significant differences
(p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.24) activity of the lateral head, but not for the occurring among all exercise variations. The peak elbow flexion
mean and peak activity of the long head (p $ 0.058, h2p 5 0.02–0.08) angle and ROM were largest for BPNO (114.1 6 7.6° and 88.4 6

2690

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10 | www.nsca.com

Table 3
Mean and peak electromyographic activity during performance of the bench press with different grip widths and elbow positioning.*†
Medium Wide Narrow in Narrow out
Triceps, lateral head, mean (% MVIC) 74.5 6 18.6§ 69.1 6 17.0‡║{ 76.0 6 18.3§ 77.9 6 20.7§
Triceps, lateral head, peak (% MVIC) 128.1 6 36.0§ 114.4 6 29.0‡║{ 131.7 6 33.6§ 131.8 6 37.3§
Triceps, long head, mean (% MVIC) 59.8 6 17.5 57.2 6 18.5 58.6 6 16.0 61.1 6 18.4
Triceps, long head, peak (% MVIC) 108.2 6 26.9 104.9 6 28.0 105.7 6 25.4 107.2 6 30.9
Anterior deltoid, mean (% MVIC) 59.0 6 19.3§ 52.4 6 17.4‡ 61.4 6 26.2 58.0 6 23.1
Anterior deltoid, peak (% MVIC) 112.6 6 33.2§ 97.3 6 30.8‡║{ 126.3 6 48.2§ 118.5 6 43.9§
Pectoralis, clavicular head, mean (% MVIC) 56.0 6 17.5§║ 52.4 6 14.6‡║{ 59.6 6 17.0‡§ 56.3 6 15.7§
Pectoralis, clavicular head, peak (% MVIC) 99.4 6 28.3§ 93.3 6 24.8‡║{ 105.1 6 25.5§ 102.9 6 28.4§
Pectoralis, sternocostal head, mean (% MVIC) 52.1 6 15.0 51.6 6 15.9 51.5 6 16.4 50.3 6 14.4
Pectoralis, sternocostal head, peak (% MVIC) 101.6 6 29.1 96.0 6 27.5 98.8 6 27.6 100.0 6 26.4
Pectoralis, abdominal head, mean (% MVIC) 61.1 6 24.8║{ 64.9 6 23.5║{ 54.6 6 24.7‡§ 53.7 6 22.2‡§
Pectoralis, abdominal head, peak (% MVIC) 112.4 6 43.2║{ 117.7 6 43.7║{ 99.7 6 45.1‡§ 101.4 6 38.9‡§
Biceps, mean (% MVIC) 10.6 6 5.6§║{ 12.2 6 5.9‡║{ 9.1 6 5.4‡§ 9.4 6 5.3‡§
Biceps, peak (% MVIC) 22.2 6 11.3§║{ 28.1 6 14.7‡║{ 16.3 6 9.4‡§ 16.3 6 9.0‡§
*MVIC, maximum voluntary isokinetic contraction.
†Values are means 6 SD.
‡Significant difference to medium grip width (p # 0.05).
§Significant difference to wide grip width (p # 0.05).
║Significant difference to narrow grip width, elbows in (p # 0.05).
{Significant difference to narrow grip width, elbows out (p # 0.05).

12.2°, respectively), followed by BPNI (110.3 6 7.1° and 86.2 6 accompanied by larger shoulder NJMs and nNJMs, and larger
11.5°, respectively), BPM (101.4 6 8.3° and 78.3 6 11.9°, re- EMG activity of the abdominal head of the pectoralis major.
spectively), and BPW (87.4 6 8.1° and 64.7 6 10.4°, respectively). Electromyography measurements are often used in isolation to
Peak shoulder horizontal adduction angles and shoulder horizontal describe the muscular efforts in the bench press exercise and its
adduction ROMs (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.91–0.97) differed significantly variations. However, the results of our study reveal considerable
across all bench press conditions, with values decreasing from BPNI differences between EMG and NJM measurements, giving us
(65.2 6 5.2° and 75.9 6 10.6°, respectively) to BPNO (64.0 6 5.1° different images of the loading profile in the bench press. For
and 70.2 6 8.5°, respectively), BPM (56.1 6 4.6° and 65.8 6 8.9°, instance, there is a lack of concordance between the shoulder
respectively), and BPW (47.0 6 4.4° and 56.5 6 8.6°, respectively). NJMs and pectoralis major activity at the bottom position of the
At the bottom position of the lift, shoulder horizontal adduction lift, i.e., high NJMs yet relatively low muscle activity, and in the
angles varied between 26.2° and 210.8°. The shoulder abduction middle of the concentric phase, i.e., relatively low NJMs yet high
angle at the bottom position of the lift (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.82) was muscle activity (Figures 4 and 5). The former discrepancy may be
different between all bench press conditions apart from BPM com- related to passive storage and release of elastic energy from the
pared with BPNO, with the largest angle present during BPW (66.1 muscle-tendon unit of the pectoralis major during the transition
6 7.0°), followed by BPM (59.3 6 8.2°), BPNO (56.5 6 7.0°), and from the eccentric to the concentric phase. Also, changes in
BPNI (37.9 6 7.2°). The mean forearm angle (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.96) muscle length and thickness during the bench press cycle may play
differed among all exercise variations, decreasing from BPW (12.5 6 a role, as previous research showed that larger muscle lengths
3.9°), to BPM (20.8 6 4.7°), BPNI (28.5 6 3.3°), and BPNO caused increased NJM production, yet reduced muscle activity
(216.5 6 3.9°). The mean arching angle (p , 0.001, h2p 5 0.58) during maximal isometric contractions (40). Such divergences
differed also among all exercise variations, with the largest angle underline the importance of complementing EMG with NJM and
occurring during BPW (32.3 6 5.5°), followed by BPM (29.9 6 nNJM measurements to improve our understanding of exercise
6.5°), BPNO (28.0 6 5.5°), and BPNI (25.8 6 4.8°). biomechanics.
The magnitude of the muscular forces elicited by a resistance
training exercise has a determining influence on strength and
hypertrophy adaptations (13). In our study, muscular efforts,
Discussion
i.e., nNJMs and normalized EMG activity, were measured to
This is the first study to include lateral barbell forces in the cal- estimate the relative forces produced by the elbow and shoulder
culation of NJMs and to integrate measurements of both NJMs, muscles during the bench press and to make assumptions about
nNJMs, and normalized EMG during execution of the bench potential strength training adaptations. Large peak elbow nNJMs
press exercise. As expected, the lateral barbell forces increased ($78% MVIC) and peak EMG activity of the triceps brachii
substantially with grip width and had major implications for the ($105% MVIC), as well as large peak shoulder nNJMs ($112%
moment arms and NJMs. All bench press variations achieved MVIC) and peak EMG activity of the anterior deltoid and pec-
high elbow and shoulder muscular efforts. Changes in grip width toralis major ($93% MVIC) indicate that all bench press varia-
and the accompanied changes in joint and segment kinematics tions are likely to confer beneficial effects on strength and
significantly impacted joint kinetics and muscle activity during hypertrophy of the elbow extensors and shoulder flexors and
the bench press exercise. Specifically, a decrease in grip width horizontal adductors. As expected, low peak EMG activity of the
induced larger elbow NJMs, as well as larger EMG activity of the biceps brachii (#28% MVIC) and the presence of external elbow
lateral head of the triceps brachii, anterior deltoid and clavicular flexion NJMs imply that the bench press does not stimulate the
head of the pectoralis major. An increase in grip width was biceps. Our results coincide with previous bench press research,

2691

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10

Figure 5. Electromyographic (EMG) activity of upper extremity muscles during the bench press with different grip widths and
elbow positioning. Data are time normalized to the eccentric and concentric phases and displayed as ensemble average curves.
Electromyographic activity is normalized to maximum voluntary isokinetic contractions (MVICs). Vertical lines represent the start
and end of the eccentric and concentric phases. TB 5 triceps brachii; PM 5 pectoralis major.

revealing EMG activity of the triceps brachii above 80% MVIC biomechanics. This is the first study to measure the lateral forces
and of the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid above 76% acting on the barbell during the bench press and to include these in
MVIC (32). the calculation of NJMs. We found a considerable increase of the
In terms of muscular loads, all bench press variations were lateral to vertical force ratio with grip width (Table 2). By con-
clearly shoulder dominant, with shoulder NJMs on average 2.1 trast, and against expectation of the author, Duffey (9) found a
times greater than elbow NJMs (Table 2). That implies that the slight decrease of the lateral to vertical force ratio as grip width
shoulder muscles were responsible for moving most of the load. increased. This finding is surprising as it contradicts basic me-
This is plausible, as 1.8–1.9 times larger NJMs could be generated chanical principles. Irrespective of grip width, his observed force
during the shoulder horizontal adduction than during the elbow ratio remained between 0.25 and 0.30 and was therefore larger
extension MVIC. However, in terms of muscular efforts, elbow than the ratio reported in our study for the medium grip width
extensors and shoulder horizontal adductors were more similarly (0.17), yet lower than the ratio for the wide grip width (0.38).
loaded, with shoulder nNJMs on average 1.2 times larger than In line with previous research (29,37), wide and medium grip
elbow nNJMs (Table 2), and normalized EMG activity of the widths permitted up to 12% more load to be lifted than narrow
elbow extensors on average 1.3 times larger than EMG activity of grip widths. Therefore, individuals aiming at enhancing their
the shoulder muscles (Table 3). We can therefore assume that the bench press performance should apply wider grip widths. Several
bench press is similar effective for training the elbow and shoulder factors may explain this difference in RM load. First, 14–26%
muscles. larger NJMs can be produced during a shoulder horizontal ad-
Force measurements are the basis for NJM calculations and are duction, the predominant shoulder movement during wider grip
therefore crucial for the proper understanding of exercise bench presses, as compared with a shoulder flexion (20), which

2692

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10 | www.nsca.com

prevails during narrow grip widths. Second, subjects displayed We found up to 15% larger EMG activity of the lateral head of
greater arching angles with increasing grip widths, thereby re- the triceps brachii for the narrow and medium grip widths com-
ducing the vertical displacement at the bottom position of the lift, pared with the wide grip width (Table 3). This coincides with
where shoulder moment arms and NJMs were largest. Third, results from Lehman (21), who even found larger activity during
wider grip widths permitted larger shoulder NJMs and nNJMs to the narrow grip width compared with the medium grip width, but
be generated and allowed for greater muscle activity of the ab- contradicts Duffey (9) revealing no differences across bench press
dominal head of the pectoralis major, indicating that a larger conditions. The absence of differences in EMG activity of the long
muscle mass was involved. triceps head in our study could be related to its different muscle
As expected, and in agreement with previous research function as compared with the lateral head, although Barnett
(9,14,29), a decrease in grip width induced larger peak elbow et al. (1) found a difference in long head activity in favor of a
flexion angles and ROM, larger shoulder horizontal adduction narrow grip width. In concordance with Saeterbakken et al. (29),
ROM, smaller forearm angles, as well as smaller shoulder ab- biceps brachii activity increased with grip width, yet Lehman (21)
duction angles at the bottom position of the lift. As performing and Duffey (9) found no differences. Conflicting EMG results
resistance training through a larger ROM has been shown to may be related to different methodological approaches, such as
confer beneficial effects on muscle growth (30), narrower grip differences in grip width, loading, training experience, processing
widths may yield greater hypertrophic adaptations. However, of the EMG signal, or whether the same absolute or relative load
this is probably only applicable to the elbow extensors, as narrow was applied. The well-known limitations of EMG measurements,
grip widths caused the elbow flexion ROM to increase toward the such as neighboring crosstalk and noise sensitivity (8), may also
bottom position of the lift, where high elbow NJMs were present. play their part. The increasing elbow NJM with decreasing grip
Contrarily, narrow grip widths caused the shoulder horizontal widths can explain the overall tendency toward larger triceps
adduction ROM to increase only toward the top position of the activity with narrower grip widths, with most of the NJM in-
lift, where shoulder NJMs were relatively low. crease appearing to be distributed on the lateral triceps head.
Most previous studies used biacromial distance (BAD) to The combined results of the NJMs, nNJMs, and EMG activity,
standardize grip widths and commonly applied 100% BAD, in addition to results of previous EMG studies, indicate that
150% BAD, and 200% BAD to the narrow, medium, and wide narrower grip widths, especially BPNO, induce larger elbow
grip width, respectively (1,4,9). We assumed that applying the muscular loads and efforts through a greater ROM. However,
same arm-barbell angle across subjects with various anthropo- less distinct differences in nNJMs and EMG activity with rela-
metrics would provide more homogenous upper-body kinematics tively low effect sizes, as well as partly contradicting results from
and lifting techniques than applying the same BAD. Compared previous EMG studies, indicate that the magnitude of the differ-
with previous studies, our grip widths were slightly wider for the ence in the elbow muscular effort is relatively small. Eventually,
narrow (112 6 4% BAD), medium (163 6 5% BAD), and wide slightly greater strength and hypertrophy adaptations of the tri-
(210 6 8% BAD) grip widths. ceps, possibly to a greater extent of the lateral head, may be
Larger effect sizes for the shoulder NJMs and nNJMs (h2p 5 expected when using narrower grip widths, especially when
0.33–0.78) than for the elbow NJMs and nNJMs (h2p 5 keeping the elbows away from the body. On the other side, nar-
0.04–0.50) indicate that the effect of grip width was more pro- rower grip widths and particularly BPNO, will also elicit larger
nounced on the shoulder muscular loads and efforts than on the elbow joint loading, especially at greater elbow flexion angles.
elbow muscular loads and efforts. Therefore, modifications of Therefore, individuals suffering from elbow pain or injury may be
grip width may influence strength and hypertrophy adaptations recommended to approach bench press training using wider grip
of the shoulder muscles to a greater extent than of the elbow widths initially.
muscles. Mean and peak shoulder NJMs increased by up to 43% (h2p 5
As grip width decreased, mean and peak elbow NJMs in- 0.70–0.78) with grip width (Table 2). This increase can be at-
creased by up to 26% (Table 2). This difference in elbow NJMs tributed to increasing shoulder moment arms and increasing re-
across grip widths (h2p 5 0.32–0.50) was prompted by an even sultant forces caused by the heavier loads being lifted with wider
larger difference in elbow moment arms (h2p 5 0.72–0.73), yet grip widths. Shoulder NJMs were not only affected by grip width
attenuated by the heavier loads being lifted with wider grip but also by elbow positioning during the narrow grip width. A
widths, resulting in larger resultant forces. Not only grip width larger mean shoulder moment arm, probably caused by the me-
but also elbow positioning during the narrow grip width affected dial force component acting on the bar, as well as a greater re-
mean and peak elbow NJMs. In the absence of differences in sultant force production, resulted in a 9% larger mean shoulder
elbow moment arms between BPNO and BPNI, the 7–11% larger NJM when keeping the elbows away from the body. During all
elbow NJMs elicited when keeping the elbows away from the bench press conditions, shoulder NJMs peaked at the bottom
body can be related to a larger force production during BPNO. It position of the lift, i.e., around 210° to 25° shoulder horizontal
should be noted that the elbow NJMs at the bottom position of adduction (Figure 4), suggesting that the largest strength gains of
the lift differed substantially across grip widths, with up to 140% the shoulder horizontal adductors and flexors may occur near this
larger NJMs during narrow grip bench presses (Figure 4). As range. In accordance with the shoulder NJMs, mean and peak
strength gains are generally joint angle specific (19), greater shoulder nNJMs generally increased with grip width (Table 2),
strength adaptations of the elbow extensors may be expected at with an increase by up to 34%.
larger elbow flexion angles, i.e., around 110°, when using narrow EMG activity of the anterior deltoid and the clavicular head of
grip widths, especially if the elbows are kept away from the body. the pectoralis major were up to 30 and 14% larger during the
For the medium and wide grip widths, elbow NJMs peaked at narrow and medium grip widths compared with the wide grip
around 70–80° elbow flexion, indicating that the largest strength width, respectively (Table 3). Their similar behavior with de-
gains may occur near this range. In accordance with the peak creasing grip widths can be explained by their common muscle
elbow NJM, the peak elbow nNJM was up to 14% larger for function, i.e., shoulder flexion, which becomes the predominant
BPNO than for all other conditions (Table 2). shoulder movement as grip width decreases. Contrary to our

2693

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10

findings, several previous studies (9,21,29) found no differences Finally, long-term training studies must be conducted to con-
among grip widths in neither of these muscles, yet Barnett et al. (1) firm that the observed differences in the muscular loads and ef-
found the same result for the clavicular head. The lack of differ- forts between the bench press variations translate into different
ences in these studies may be related to low statistical power training adaptations in terms of hypertrophy and strength.
because of few subjects. In agreement with previous research
(1,29), we found no difference in EMG activity of the sternocostal
head of the pectoralis major between bench press conditions. Practical Applications
Lehman (21), however, found larger activity with wider grip
widths. There is no previous research measuring EMG activity of Large elbow and shoulder muscular efforts indicate that all
the abdominal head of the pectoralis major during the bench press bench press variations can be used effectively to stimulate
with different grip widths. In our study, an up to 21% increase in strength gains and hypertrophy of the elbow extensors and
abdominal head activity with increasing grip width was found shoulder flexors and horizontal adductors. The effect of grip
and can be attributed to the change in movement pattern from width was more pronounced on the shoulder muscular loads
shoulder flexion with narrower grip widths toward shoulder and efforts than on the elbow muscular loads and efforts and
horizontal adduction with wider grip widths, which is a major modifications of grip width may therefore influence strength
muscle function of the abdominal head. Furthermore, a greater training adaptations of the shoulder muscles to a greater ex-
arching angle during wider grip widths may yield a degree of tent than of the elbow muscles. An increase in grip width
shoulder adduction which also matches the function of the ab- induced larger shoulder muscular loads and efforts and a de-
dominal head. The absence of an increase in sternocostal head crease in grip width larger elbow muscular loads and efforts.
activity with grip width, despite having a similar function as the Therefore, greater strength and hypertrophy adaptations of
abdominal head, may be related to its close vicinity to the cla- the shoulder horizontal adductors may be expected when
vicular head, whose activity decreases with grip width. selecting wider grip widths, whereas greater adaptations of the
The combined results of the NJMs, nNJMs, and EMG activity, elbow extensors and shoulder flexors may be elicited by nar-
in addition to results of previous EMG studies, indicate that wider rower grip widths. For targeting the elbow extensors even
grip widths induce larger shoulder muscular loads and efforts. more, elbows should be kept away from the body. Greater
This increase seems to be placed mainly on the abdominal head of joint loading contraindicates wide grip widths for individuals
the pectoralis major, whereas narrower grip widths place more with shoulder pain and narrow grip widths for individuals
load on the clavicular head and the anterior deltoid. Eventually, suffering from elbow pain. Finally, the choice of grip position
greater strength and hypertrophy adaptations of the abdominal for the bench press should also be determined in light of sport
head of the pectoralis major may be expected when using wider specificity and functionality. Integrating measurements of
grip widths, whereas narrower grip widths may yield greater NJMs, nNJMs, and normalized EMG enhances the un-
adaptations of the clavicular head and anterior deltoid. On the derstanding of exercise biomechanics and the inferences about
other side, wider grip widths will also elicit larger shoulder joint potential strength training adaptations and should therefore
loading and reduce the subacromial space because of a greater be adopted more frequently in strength training research.
degree of shoulder abduction (22). Therefore, individuals suf-
fering from shoulder pain or injury may be recommended to ap-
proach bench press training using narrower grip widths initially. Acknowledgments
The nNJMs measured in this study may overestimate the true
The authors thank all subjects for their commitment and
percentage of the shoulder and elbow muscles’ maximal strength
participation in the study. This study was conducted without
which was required during the bench press because NJMs mea-
any funding from manufacturers or outside companies, and the
sured during single-joint dynamometry may underestimate the
authors report no conflicts of interest. The results of this study do
actual maximal strength of the muscle group (5) and may be lower
not constitute endorsement by the National Strength and
than the NJMs which can be produced during multiple joint
Conditioning Association.
tasks (15).
Some limitations are related to the instrumented barbell used in
this study. First, the vertical force could not be measured sepa- References
rately at each hand and was therefore assumed to be equally
1. Barnett C, Kippers V, Turner P. Effects of variations of the bench press
distributed among the right and left hand. Second, the location of exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. J Strength Cond Res
the point of force application, i.e., the center of pressure, could 9: 222–227, 1995.
not be measured. Data from pilot testing, where subjects per- 2. Boser QA, Valevicius AM, Lavoie EB, et al. Cluster-based upper body
formed push-ups with push-up bars on a force plate, were used to marker models for three-dimensional kinematic analysis: Comparison
with an anatomical model and reliability analysis. J Biomech 72: 228–234,
make best possible assumptions about its precise location. Third, 2018.
the barbell diameter (52 mm) was larger than of a common 3. Bryanton MA, Kennedy MD, Carey JP, et al. Effect of squat depth and
Olympic bar (28 mm) and was therefore unfamiliar to the sub- barbell load on relative muscular effort in squatting. J Strength Cond Res
jects. However, barbell thickness did not influence bench press 26: 2820–2828, 2012.
performance in previous studies (26). 4. Calatayud J, Vinstrup J, Jakobsen MD, et al. Attentional focus and grip
width influences on bench press resistance training. Percept Mot Skills
Furthermore, we used a moment arm approach to calculate 125: 265–277, 2018.
simplified NJMs, thereby ignoring the inertia of the upper ex- 5. Chiu LZF. Biomechanical methods to quantify muscle effort during re-
tremity segments. However, this approach has been proven to sistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 32: 502–513, 2018.
highly correlate (r 5 0.95) with inverse dynamics calculations for 6. Chou PH, Lou SZ, Chen SK, et al. Elbow load during different types of
bench-press exercise. Biomed Eng 20: 185–189, 2008.
the lower extremities during sidestep cutting (17). The correlation 7. Cram JR, Kasman G, Holtz J. Atlas for electrode placement. In: Cram’s
is probably even higher for the bench press, as upper extremity Introduction to Surface Electromyography. Criswell E, ed. Mississauga,
masses and segment accelerations are substantially lower. ON: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. pp. 245–384.

2694

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Understanding Bench Press Biomechanics (2022) 36:10 | www.nsca.com

8. De Luca CJ. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl skin markers, CT-scans and intracortical pins: A comparison study. Med
Biomech 13: 135–163, 1997. Eng Phys 38: 290–296, 2016.
9. Duffey MJ. A Biomechanical Analysis of the Bench Press. A Dissertation 25. Rab G, Petuskey K, Bagley A. A method for determination of upper ex-
in Kinesiology. State College, PA: Department of Kinesiology, The Penn- tremity kinematics. Gait Posture 15: 113–119, 2002.
sylvania State University, 2008. pp. 1–119. 26. Ratamess NA, Faigenbaum AD, Mangine GT, et al. Acute muscular
10. Duffey MJ, Challis JH. Vertical and lateral forces applied to the bar during strength assessment using free weight bars of different thickness.
the bench press in novice lifters. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2442–2447, J Strength Cond Res 21: 240–244, 2007.
2011. 27. Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, Robergs RA. Prediction of one repetition
11. Ferreira DV, Gentil P, Ferreira-Junior JB, et al. Dissociated time course maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and an-
between peak torque and total work recovery following bench press thropometry. J Strength Cond Res 20: 584–592, 2006.
training in resistance trained men. Physiol Behav 179: 143–147, 2017. 28. Riemann BL, Lapinski S, Smith L, et al. Biomechanical analysis of the
12. Freriks B, Hermens HJ, Disselhorst-Klug C, et al. The recommendations anterior lunge during 4 external-load conditions. J Athl Train 47:
for sensors and sensor placement procedures for surface electromyogra- 372–378, 2012.
phy. In: European Recommendations for Surface Electromyography: 29. Saeterbakken AH, Mo DA, Scott S, et al. The effects of bench press var-
Results of the SENIAM Project. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, and Merletti R, iations in competitive athletes on muscle activity and performance. J Hum
et al, eds. Enschede: Roessingh Research and Development, 1999. pp. Kinet 57: 61–71, 2017.
13–54. 30. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J. Effects of range of motion on muscle development
13. Fry AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adapta- during resistance training interventions: A systematic review. SAGE Open
tions. Sports Med 34: 663–679, 2004. Med 8: 2050312120901559, 2020.
14. Gomo O, Van Den Tillaar R. The effects of grip width on sticking region in 31. Schwartz C, Tubez F, Wang FC, et al. Normalizing shoulder EMG: An
bench press. J Sports Sci 34: 232–238, 2016. optimal set of maximum isometric voluntary contraction tests considering
15. Hahn D, Olvermann M, Richtberg J, et al. Knee and ankle joint torque– reproducibility. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 37: 1–8, 2017.
angle relationships of multi-joint leg extension. J Biomech 44: 2059–2065, 32. Stastny P, Gołaś A, Blazek D, et al. A systematic review of surface elec-
2011. tromyography analyses of the bench press movement task. PLoS One 12:
16. Howe TE, Shea B, Dawson LJ, et al. Exercise for preventing and treating e0171632, 2017.
osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 33. Stodden DF, Galitski HM. Longitudinal effects of a collegiate strength and
Cd000333, 2011. conditioning program in American football. J Strength Cond Res 24:
17. Kristianslund E, Faul O, Bahr R, et al. Sidestep cutting technique and knee 2300–2308, 2010.
abduction loading: Implications for ACL prevention exercises. Br J Sports 34. Swinton PA, Lloyd R, Keogh JW, et al. A biomechanical comparison of the
Med 48: 779–783, 2014. traditional squat, powerlifting squat, and box squat. J Strength Cond Res
18. Kristianslund E, Krosshaug T, van den Bogert AJ. Effect of low pass fil- 26: 1805–1816, 2012.
tering on joint moments from inverse dynamics: Implications for injury 35. Tillaar RV, Saeterbakken AH, Ettema G. Is the occurrence of the sticking
prevention. J Biomech 45: 666–671, 2012. region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press? J Sports Sci
19. Lanza MB, Balshaw TG, Folland JP. Is the joint-angle specificity of iso- 30: 591–599, 2012.
metric resistance training real? And if so, does it have a neural basis? Eur J 36. Vigotsky AD, Halperin I, Lehman GJ, et al. Interpreting signal amplitudes
Appl Physiol 119: 2465–2476, 2019. in surface electromyography studies in sport and rehabilitation sciences.
20. Lategan L. Isokinetic norms for ankle, knee, shoulder and forearm muscles Front Physiol 8: 985, 2017.
in young South African men. Isokinet Exerc Sci 19: 23–32, 2011. 37. Wagner LL, Evans SA, Weir JP, et al. The effect of grip width on bench
21. Lehman GJ. The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/ press performance. Int J Sport Biomech 8: 1–10, 1992.
supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during the bench press. 38. Wickham JB, Brown JM. The function of neuromuscular compartments in
J Strength Cond Res 19: 587–591, 2005. human shoulder muscles. J Neurophysiol 107: 336–345, 2012.
22. Ludewig PM, Braman JP. Shoulder impingement: Biomechanical consid- 39. Williams S, Schmidt R, Disselhorst-Klug C, et al. An upper body model for
erations in rehabilitation. Man Therapy 16: 33–39, 2011. the kinematical analysis of the joint chain of the human arm. J Biomech
23. Madsen N, McLaughlin T. Kinematic factors influencing performance 39: 2419–2429, 2006.
and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16: 40. Worrell TW, Karst G, Adamczyk D, et al. Influence of joint position on
376–381, 1984. electromyographic and torque generation during maximal voluntary
24. Michaud B, Jackson M, Arndt A, et al. Determining in vivo sternocla- isometric contractions of the hamstrings and gluteus maximus muscles.
vicular, acromioclavicular and glenohumeral joint centre locations from J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 31: 730–740, 2001.

2695

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.