The Effects of the "Sling Shot" Device on Bench Press Performance, Mechanical Properties of Muscle, and Movement Kinematics.

ABSTRACT: Wojdala, G and Krzysztofik, M. The effects of the "sling shot" device on bench press performance, mechanical properties of muscle, and movement kinematics. J Strength Cond Res 37(4): 780-786, 2023-This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the sling shot support device at various external loads and intensities of effort, taking into account acute changes in power performance, mechanical muscle properties, and bench press kinematics. For this purpose, 12 resistance-trained men (age: 27.1 ± 4.2 years, body mass: 90.3 ± 16.9 kg, bench press [BP] 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 112.7 ± 23.1 kg) (resistance training experience: 6.9 ± 3.8 years) participated in the study. Each subject completed 2 experimental sessions that differed in the use of the sling shot (SS) or nonuse (CONT) of the SS and an appropriate external load. The 2 experimental sessions consisted of the 1RM test, 3 sets of 2 repetitions of BP with the load increased in each set (50-70-90% 1RM), and a fourth set of the BP efforts to muscle failure with a 70% 1RM load. Before and after each set, the changes in triceps brachii oscillation frequency and stiffness were assessed by means of myotonometry. Results indicated a significant main effect of the SS to increase peak power ( p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.733). Furthermore, a significantly higher 1RM (129 ± 26 vs. 113 ± 23 kg, p < 0.001, effect size [ES]: 0.63), number of repetitions (15 ± 3 vs. 13 ± 2, p = 0.013, ES: 0.76), and time under tension (34 ± 10 vs. 29 ± 6 seconds, p = 0.017, ES: 0.59) were found during the set to failure for SS in comparison to the CONT condition. Moreover, there was a significant main effect of time to increase oscillation frequency ( p = 0.001; η 2 = 0.666) and stiffness ( p = 0.002; η 2 = 0.613) from pre- to postset measure. In addition, the main effect of the side ( p = 0.034; η 2 = 0.348) was reported to show higher stiffness on the dominant than on the nondominant side in the CONT condition. The results suggest that an independent 1RM measurement and a correspondingly higher workload are required to take full advantage of the SS device. Moreover, the SS can also be used successfully to increase training volume and the involvement of nondominant limbs during a bench press.

Impact of movement tempo on bar velocity and time under tension in resistance exercises with different external loads.

The goal of the study was to determine the differences between volitional and maximal movement tempo during resistance exercise. Ten healthy men volunteered for the study (age = 26.4 ± 4.8 years; body mass = 93.8 ± 9.6 kg; barbell squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) = 175 ± 16.7 kg; bench press 1RM = 140.5 ± 26.8 kg). In a randomized order, the participants performed six sets of the barbell squat and the bench press exercise at progressive loads from 40% to 90%1RM (step by 10%) under two testing conditions: with volitional movement tempo or with maximal movement tempo. The three-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant multi-interaction effect for time under tension (p < 0.001), peak bar velocity (p = 0.04) and for mean bar velocity (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant main effect of movement tempo for time under tension (p < 0.001), peak bar velocity (p < 0.001) and for mean bar velocity (p < 0.001). The post hoc analysis for main effect of tempo revealed that time under tension was significantly longer for volitional compared to maximal tempo (0.84 vs 0.67 s, respectively), peak bar velocity was significantly higher for maximal compared to volitional tempo (1.24 m/s vs 0.90 m/s, respectively), and mean bar velocity was significant higher for maximal compared to volitional tempo (0.84 m/s vs 0.67 m/s, respectively). The presented results indicate that there were significant differences between volitional and maximal movement tempos in time under tension and bar velocity (peak and mean), as well as significant differences in those variables between the two exercises. Therefore, the velocity of movement and time under tension is related to movement tempo, external load and type of exercise used.

Acute impact of blood flow restriction on strength-endurance performance during the bench press exercise.

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) at 70% of full arterial occlusion pressure on strength-endurance performance during the bench press exercise. The study included 14 strength-trained male subjects (age = 25.6 ± 4.1 years; body mass = 81.7 ± 10.8 kg; bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) = 130.0 ± 22.1 kg), experienced in resistance training (3.9 ± 2.4 years). During the experimental sessions in a randomized crossover design, the subjects performed three sets of the bench press at 80% 1RM performed to failure with two different conditions: without BFR (CON); and with BFR (BFR). Friedman's test showed significant differences between BFR and CON conditions for the number of repetitions performed (p < 0.001); for peak bar velocity (p < 0.001) and for mean bar velocity (p < 0.001). The pairwise comparisons showed a significant decrease for peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity in individual Set 1 for BFR when compared to CON conditions (p = 0.01 for both). The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the time under tension (p = 0.02). A post-hoc comparisons for the main effect showed a significant increase in time under tension for BFR when compared to CON (p = 0.02). The results of the presented study indicate that BFR used during strength-endurance exercise generally does not decrease the level of endurance performance, while it causes a drop in bar velocity.

A Comparison of Electromyographic Inter-Limb Asymmetry During a Standard Versus a Sling Shot Assisted Bench Press Exercise.

The objective of this study was to compare peak surface electromyography (sEMG) activity of selected muscles along with inter-limb asymmetries between a control (CONT) and a Sling shot assisted (SS) bench press exercise. Ten resistance-trained males with at least three-year experience in resistance training (22.2 ± 1.9 years, 88.7 ± 11.2 kg, 179.5 ± 4.1 cm, bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) = 127.3 ± 25.9 kg) performed the flat bench press exercise under two conditions at selected loads (85% and 100% of 1RM assessed without the SS). Peak sEMG amplitude of triceps brachii, pectoralis major, and anterior deltoid was recorded for the dominant and the non-dominant side of the body during each attempt. The comparison between the dominant and the non-dominant side was carried out using the limb symmetry index (LSI(%) = (2*(XR - XL)/(XR + XL))*100%) where XR = values of the right side and XL = values of the left side. There was a main effect of condition (p = 0.004; η2 = 0.64) and the load (p = 0.004; η2 = 0.63) for the triceps brachii LSI in parallel with a main effect of condition (p = 0.003; η2 = 0.42) for the anterior deltoid LSI. Post hoc analysis for the main effect of condition showed significant differences in the LSI between the CONT and SS conditions for the triceps brachii (p = 0.003; 1.10% vs. -8.78%) as well as for the anterior deltoid muscles (p = 0.03; 12.91% vs. 9.23%). The results indicate that the assistance of the Sling shot significantly affects the sEMG activity pattern on both the dominant and non-dominant sides of the body while influencing inter-limb asymmetries.

Acute Effects of Different Blood Flow Restriction Protocols on Bar Velocity During the Squat Exercise.

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols (continuous and intermittent) on peak bar velocity (PV) and mean bar velocity (MV) during the squat exercise at progressive loads, from 40 to 90% 1RM. Eleven healthy men (age = 23.4 ± 3.1 years; body mass = 88.5 ± 12.1 kg; squat 1RM = 183.2 ± 30.7 kg; resistance training experience, 5.7 ± 3.6 years) performed experimental sessions once a week for 3 weeks in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR), with intermittent BFR (I-BFR), and with continuous BFR (C-BFR). During the experimental session, the participants performed six sets of the barbell squat exercise with loads from 40 to 90% 1RM. In each set, they performed two repetitions. During the C-BFR session, the cuffs were maintained throughout the training session. During the I-BFR, the cuffs were used only during the exercise and released for each rest interval. The BFR pressure was set to ∼80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Analyses of variance showed a statistically significant interaction for MV (p < 0.02; η2 = 0.18). However, the post hoc analysis did not show significant differences between particular conditions for particular loads. There was no significant condition × load interaction for PV (p = 0.16; η2 = 0.13). Furthermore, there were no main effects for conditions in MV (p = 0.38; η2 = 0.09) as well as in PV (p = 0.94; η2 = 0.01). The results indicate that the different BFR protocols used during lower body resistance exercises did not reduce peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity during the squat exercise performed with various loads.

Relationships between Linear Sprint, Lower-Body Power Output and Change of Direction Performance in Elite Soccer Players.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between linear sprint, power output obtained during a squat and change of direction (COD) performance. Fifteen elite soccer players participated in this study (age = 21.7 ± 0.72 years, body mass = 74.9 ± 9.11 kg, body height = 180.4 ± 7 cm, training experience = 9 ± 1.5 years). To examine these correlations a following battery of tests were carried out: 20-m linear sprint, one-repetition maximum (1RM) squat strength, peak power output obtained during a squat at 50% 1RM and time obtained in two 20-m COD tests with different angles of direction change (90° and 135°). In addition, COD deficits (90°-CODDEF and 135°-CODDEF) for both COD tests were calculated. The Spearman's rank order correlation showed a nearly perfect statistical relationship between the 90°-COD and the 90°-CODDEF (r = 0.9; p < 0.001). In the case of 90°-CODDEF, there was a large statistical relationship with 135°-CODDEF (r = 0.59; p = 0.021). Moreover, there was a nearly perfect statistical relationship between 135°-COD and 135°-CODDEF (r = 0.91; p < 0.001). The statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) relationship between 20-m linear sprint time, power output obtained during a squat at 50% 1RM, 1RM squat strength level and both COD test, as well as both COD deficits were found. Results of the present study showed that 20-m linear sprinting speed, 1RM squat strength, power output obtained during squat at 50% 1RM and COD ability at 90° and 135° angles, are separate physical qualities. Moreover, it seems that COD deficit provides a more isolated measure of COD ability than the COD tests alone and does not must be limited to a specific angle, but provides knowledge about the COD ability in a range of other angles, at least concerning 90° and 135° COD angles.

Impact of the "Sling Shot" Supportive Device on Upper-Body Neuromuscular Activity during the Bench Press Exercise.

The aim of this study was to compare the muscle activity between the sling shot assisted (SS) and control (CONT) flat barbell bench press for selected external loads of 70%, 85%, 100% one-repetition maximum (1RM). Ten resistance-trained men participated in the study (age = 22.2 ± 1.9 years, body mass = 88.7 ± 11.2 kg, body height = 179.5 ± 4.1, 1RM in the bench press = 127.25 ± 25.86 kg, and strength training experience = 6 ± 2.5 years). Evaluation of peak muscle activity of the dominant body side was carried out using surface electromyography (sEMG) recorded for the triceps brachii, pectoralis major, and anterior deltoid during each attempt. The three-way repeated measure ANOVA revealed statistically significant main interaction for condition x muscle group (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.569); load x muscle group (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.709); and condition x load (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.418). A main effect was also observed for condition (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.968); load (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.976); and muscle group (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.977). The post hoc analysis for the main effect of the condition indicated statistically significant decrease in %MVIC for the SS compared to CONT condition (74.9 vs. 88.9%MVIC; p < 0.01; ES = 0.39). The results of this study showed that using the SS significantly affects the muscle activity pattern of the flat bench press and results in its acute decrease in comparison to an equal load under CONT conditions. The SS device may be an effective tool both in rehabilitation and strength training protocols by increasing stability with a reduction of muscular activity of the prime movers.

Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods.

BACKGROUND: Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency of advanced RT techniques and methods in comparison to traditional approaches. METHODS: MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from 1996 to September 2019 for all studies investigating the effects of advanced RT techniques and methods on muscle hypertrophy and training variables. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria and were consequently included for the quality assessment and data extraction. RESULTS: Concerning the time-efficiency of training, the use of agonist-antagonist, upper-lower body supersets, drop and cluster sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, employment of fast, but controlled duration of eccentric contractions (~2s), and high-load RT supplemented with low-load RT under blood flow restriction may provide an additional stimulus and an advantage to traditional training protocols. With regard to the higher degree of mechanical tension, the use of accentuated eccentric loading in RT should be considered. Implementation of drop sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, low-load RT in conjunction with low-load RT under blood flow restriction could provide time-efficient solutions to increased metabolic stress. CONCLUSIONS: Due to insufficient evidence, it is difficult to provide specific guidelines for volume, intensity of effort, and frequency of previously mentioned RT techniques and methods. However, well-trained athletes may integrate advanced RT techniques and methods into their routines as an additional stimulus to break through plateaus and to prevent training monotony.