1
Table of Contents
Basic Set Up
5
Scapular Retraction
5
Leg Positioning
7
Grip Width
7
Bar Path
10
Range of Motion
14
How Close Should You Train to Failure on the Bench Press? + Rep Tempo Discussion
22
Proximity to Failure for Muscle Growth
22
Rep Tempo for Muscle Growth
25
Rep Tempo for Strength
25
Proximity to Failure for Strength
26
Zooming In on Lowering Speed
Lowering Speed for Muscle Growth
Lowering Speed for Strength
27
27
28
How Heavy Should You Lift on the Bench Press?
How Heavy for Muscle Growth?
How Heavy for Strength?
What About Periodization?
30
30
32
33
How Many Sets on the Bench Press?
Sets for Muscle growth
34
34
Sets for Bench Press Strength
36
How Often Should You Train the Bench Press?
Training Frequency for Muscle Growth
Training Frequency for Strength
37
37
38
How Long to Rest Between Bench Press Sets?
Rest Interval Durations for Muscle Growth
Rest Interval Durations for Strength
38
38
39
Why Training for Muscle Growth Probably Benefits Strength in the Long-Term
40
How Effective Is the Barbell Bench Press for Muscle Growth?
Chest Development
Triceps Development
Anterior Deltoid Development
41
41
47
50
Training Breaks Do Not Harm Strength and Muscle Growth From the Bench Press
51
2
Antagonist Supersets or Stretching for Better Bench Press Performance
Antagonist Supersets
Antagonist Stretching
Why the Performance Benefit?
54
54
57
59
Do Antagonist Supersets and Stretching Lead to Greater Gains?
59
Can You Change Muscle Activation on the Flat Barbell Bench Press?
61
Alternatives to the Flat Barbell Bench Press
The Dumbbell Bench Press
Stability Differences
Strength on the Dumbbell vs Barbell Bench Press
Muscle Recruitment Between the Dumbbell and Barbell Bench Press
Muscle Growth Between the Dumbbell and Barbell Bench Press
Another Dumbbell Bench Press Variation
The Smith Machine Bench Press
Stabilization Differences
Bar Path Differences
Can You Lift Heavier On the Smith Machine or Barbell Bench Press?
Smith Machine to Barbell Bench Press Carryover
Muscle Recruitment Between the Smith Machine and Barbell Bench Press
Muscle Growth Between the Smith Machine and Barbell Bench Press
The Push-Up
Muscle Growth Outcomes Between the Push-Up and Bench Press
Other Muscle Comparisons Between the Push-Ups and Barbell Bench Press
Overloading the Push-Up and Bench Press
Push-Up and Bench Press Carryover
The Abdominals and Serratus Anterior
65
65
66
66
67
69
70
72
72
72
75
76
78
79
81
81
85
86
90
93
The End
95
References:
95
3
The flat barbell bench press is probably the single most popular gym exercise.
Honestly, this is great. As we'll uncover soon, it's clear the flat barbell bench press is a
powerful muscle and strength builder.
Furthermore, the flat barbell bench press is one of the three powerlifting exercises. So,
powerlifters automatically must frequently train this exercise.
In this e-book, we'll deconstruct the scientific literature on how to ensure you're maximizing
strength and/or hypertrophy with the flat barbell bench press. From execution to training
variables.
Let's get into it.
4
Basic Set Up
Of course, the flat barbell bench press requires three things:
1. A suitable bench
2. A barbell
3. Yourself
First things first, you lay on the bench, and get yourself in a position to unrack the barbell to
begin bench pressing.
Before unracking, however, you may want to ensure your scapular and feet are positioned to
your preference.
Scapular Retraction
Scapular retraction refers to pulling your shoulder blades back. Your chest sticks out when
you do this.
The potential benefits of scapular retraction during the bench press are a few:
1) It's assumed scapular retraction places the shoulder into a safer position
2) It reduces the range of motion you have to move the barbell through, making it easier to
lift heavier loads (this point is relevant to those wishing to maximize bench press strength,
such as powerlifters)
3) It actually results in you attaining a greater stretch of the chest at the bottom of the lift, as
scapular retraction stretches out the chest. This can be highly favorable for muscle
hypertrophy, as we'll uncover in more detail later.
4) It creates a tight compact body structure that can help ensure more powerful and
consistent repetitions.
5
Feel free to experiment around and establish a scapular retraction comfortable to you. Some
folks may wish to combine scapular retraction with scapular depression (locking the shoulder
down).
Scapular retraction will naturally cause a degree of spinal arching.
For those who purely wish to max their bench press strength, you may wish to try and arch
even further (provided your spine is healthy and flexible enough), as this will further reduce
your range of motion and thus allow you to lift heavier loads.
It is possible to arch to quite extreme degrees. In fact, there's a good chance you've seen
videos of powerlifters with crazy arches that result in a tiny range of motion.
Now, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong. If you're a powerlifter, I guess you got to
do what you got to do.
6
However, if you're someone who just wants to get recreationally strong on the bench press, I
think it's best to not excessively reduce the range of motion. Getting strong in a decent range
of motion seems most sensible.
As for those purely using the flat barbell bench press as a muscle-building tool, I think simply
allowing the natural arch that occurs with scapular retraction is the best way to do things.
Reducing the range of motion any further would probably not be the best thing, as long
ranges of motion tend to be highly effective for muscle development (1).
Leg Positioning
Leg positioning during the bench press comes down to your preferences and goals.
If you're looking to max bench press strength, using something called "leg drive" is probably
beneficial.
As implied, leg drive utilizes some power and push from your legs to aid force output,
presumably slightly increasing your bench press strength and power.
Feel free to experiment around with your optimal foot position to create the best leg drive.
For those after muscle development purely, leg drive is not needed if you don't want it. Some
may counter this by saying "leg drive lets you lift heavier weights and thus experience more
hypertrophy".
However, the reason you can lift heavier is thanks to the contribution from your legs, not
added tension and force generation from the upper body muscles.
Moreover, we'll discuss this more later, but heavier loads do not necessarily mean a better
hypertrophy stimulus. Think about it, very tiny partial range of motion bench press training
allows you to use very heavy loads, but it would almost certainly be very poor for muscle
development.
Grip Width
We progress to getting your hands on the bar.
What's the best grip width to use?
Let's first examine this question for those looking to max their strength.
A classic 1992 study out of the USA by Wagner et al. (2) recruited 24 men who could flat
barbell bench press at least 125% of their bodyweight.
Subjects were tested on the maximum load they could lift with 6 different grip widths:
7
1) 95% shoulder width
2) 130% shoulder width
3) 165% shoulder width
4) 200% shoulder width
5) 235% shoulder width
6) 270% shoulder width
Subjects were strongest with the 165 to 200% grip widths compared to the narrower and
width grips.
8
Now, these results are specific to the average of the 24 men, but I think the results do tend
to reflect the case for most people.
That is, most people tend to be strongest with fairly wide grips (165-200% shoulder width),
but not narrower or excessively wide grips.
What about grip widths for those with muscle-building goals?
For those wishing to maximize chest development, some research indicates the chest has
the greatest leverage at 40 to 50 degrees of horizontal flexion (3).
For those unaware, horizontal flexion is a motion where your arms are pulled across your
chest. As shown in the image below:
9
During the bench press, the grip width you use determines the amount of horizontal flexion
used (and so it stays the same throughout the execution of the exercise, as your grip width
does not change).
Generally, 40 to 50 degrees of horizontal flexion would equate to a 150-200% shoulder width
grip for most folks. So this grip width may be optimal for chest development.
For maximizing triceps development for the bench press, narrower grips will certainly enable
this. The reason for this is narrower grips results in greater amounts of elbow extension, a
prime function of the triceps muscle.
Finally, it's worth mentioning regardless of the grip used, although we can manipulate grip
width to preferentially target one muscle over another, all grip widths are still going to do a
good job at hitting the chest, triceps, and anterior deltoid.
Bar Path
All of the following information applies to both strength and muscle-building goals.
It's most likely best to avoid lowering the barbell directly straight down.
10
The reason for this is it might not be the best for long-term shoulder health, as some data (4)
indicates repetitive movements at 90 degrees of shoulder abduction (the position would be
at the end of a straight lowering bar path) could increase acute and chronic shoulder injury
risk.
Thus, a lowering bar path like something below is preferred (and this lowering bar path tends
to be what elite bench pressers use):
With the lifting phase, things get interesting.
11
Classic research by McLaughlin (5) established novice lifters tend to lift straight upwards and
then back, like this:
Elite lifters did not do this, rather they lifted straight back and then up, like this:
The elite lifters bar path is more efficient, likely because it makes the exercise easier on the
shoulders.
12
Let me explain.
During the bench press, your shoulders have to work the hardest when the barbell is away
from the line of your shoulders.
For instance, see the two images below. The first one depicts the barbell being in line with
the shoulders, this position is fairly easy to hold. Conversely, the second picture depicts the
barbell away from the line of the shoulders, this position is harder to hold, as your shoulders
are now having to work harder.
These principles remain in play during the motions of a bench press. At the end of the
lowering phase (assuming the normal lowering bar path), as the bar is farthest away from
the line of your shoulders, the shoulders are going to be working their hardest.
By using the elite lifters lifting bar path (pushing the bar back initially), you quickly reduce the
distance between the barbell and your shoulder line, thereby quickly reducing the demands
placed on your shoulders, making the completion of the lifting phase easier.
Contrastingly, the novice lifters, by lifting straight up initially, the barbell remains the farthest
distance away from the shoulder line, meaning the shoulders have to continue working their
hardest.
Now, it's worth mentioning this ideal bar path (lifting back and then up) is most easily
executed during hard repetitions, where the barbell is moving slowly because you're nearing
failure or you're using heavier loads.
With very easy repetitions (when you're far from failure and/or using light loads), it's not
really feasible to execute the mentioned bar path, as it's too easy to move the bar.
Research by Wilson et al. (6) demonstrates this. They found that when elite powerlifters
performed a one-rep max, the lowering and lifting bar paths were executed as described in
McLaughlin’s research.
13
However, when performing a repetition with an 81% one-rep max load, although the lowering
phase was more or less the same, the lifting phase was not. Rather, the lifting phase looked
pretty much like the reverse of the lowering phase.
Based on all this, with hard repetitions, ensure you utilize that efficient bar path. But with
easier repetitions, don't sweat it (just reverse the lowering path).
Range of Motion
We've already alluded to range of motion when discussing scapular retraction.
Overall, with whatever scapular retraction and/or arching you're going with, it's probably your
safest bet to largely train with a full range of motion for muscle and strength gains.
A 2022 study out of Spain by Martinez-Cava et al. (7) demonstrates the potency of a full
range of motion bench press.
49 trained men were allocated into one of four groups: a full group, 2/3rd group, 1/3rd group,
and control group.
We won't mention the control group any further, they did not train and expectedly made no
gains.
All groups trained the smith machine barbell bench press twice a week for a total of 10
weeks.
The full group lowered the bar from full elbow lockout all the way down to the chest and back
up (a full range of motion).
The 2/3rd group lowered the bar from full elbow lockout to only 2/3rds of the way down to the
chest before pressing back up.
The 1/3rd group lowered the bar from full elbow lockout to only 1/3rd of the way down to the
chest before pressing back up.
All subjects lifted with a maximum lifting velocity, and a controlled lowering speed.
The training variables used are detailed below. Of course, the relative loads (% of one-rep
max) are specific to the range of motion being trained.
Before and after the study, all groups tested their one-rep max on the full range of motion,
2/3rd range of motion, and 1/3rd range of motion bench press.
14
The researchers opted to express one-rep max gains relative to the participant’s body
weight.
What they found was the full group saw the greatest gains in one-rep max to bodyweight
ratios for all three bench press variations. Also, the 2/3rd group saw greater one-rep max to
bodyweight ratio gains compared to the 1/3rd group.
Stated another way, training with the full range of motion bench press (which is what the full
group did) was the most effective for increasing full range of motion, 2/3rd range of motion,
and 1/3rd range of motion bench press strength.
These results are highly interesting and go against the principle of specificity.
For those unaware, the principle of specificity states you see the most strength gains on
what you train.
So with this study, we would have expected the full group to see the greatest gains on the
full range of motion bench press (this did happen).
We would have expected the 2/3rd group to see the greatest strength gains on the 2/3rd
range of motion bench press (this did not happen).
We would also have expected the 1/3rd range of motion group to see the greatest strength
gains on the 1/3rd range of motion bench press (this did not happen either).
Why does this study violate the principle of specificity?
15
We can't be certain, as no mechanistic stuff was examined in the study, but could muscle
growth explain this?
Unfortunately, the researchers did not measure muscle growth, but it's almost certain the full
group would have experienced the most muscle growth.
Muscle growth (at least when it is achieved via an increase in contractile components in the
muscle) benefits your strength.
The reason I confidently say the full group likely experienced the most muscle growth is that
the literature consistently finds when compared to partial range of motions that train muscles
in a short position (which is what the 2/3rd and 1/3rd groups did), a full range of motion tends
to be better for muscle growth (1).
Stretch is likely a large factor here. A full range of motion bench press involves you lowering
the barbell all the way down to the chest. The chest is stretched here and it's producing high
contractile forces, and stretch coupled with high contractile forces is something that seems
to be powerful for stimulating muscle growth (8) (9) (10) (11).
Now, I should restate the Martinez-Cava study did have subjects use a smith machine.
There are differences between the smith machine and free weight barbell bench press, so
this is a limitation of our discussion.
Yet, I don't think these differences would be large enough to say the results do not apply to
free-weight barbell bench pressing.
Another limitation is when overviewing the rest of the research, there are two other relevant
studies, and one of them conflicts with the findings of Martinez-Cava to a small degree.
Specifically, this is a 2004 study out of the USA by Massey et al (12).
56 men were recruited. Their precise training experience was not explicitly stated, but the
researchers broadly said the subjects ranged from those who worked out frequently at
moderately high-intensity levels to those who worked out occasionally or infrequently.
Subjects were assigned to either a full, partial, or combined group.
All groups trained twice per week for 10 weeks.
The full group trained with a full range of motion on the barbell bench press, for 3 sets of 15
repetitions with a 65% one-rep max load (the load was relative to their full range of motion
one-rep max).
The partial group only trained with the top 2-5 inches of the barbell bench press range of
motion, for 3 sets of 15 repetitions with 100% of their full range of motion one-rep max.
16
The combined group trained with both the full range of motion and partial range of motion
bench presses. The first 5 weeks involved 2 sets on the partial bench press followed by 1 set
on the full range of motion bench press per session. The final 5 weeks reversed this, such
that 2 sets on the full range of motion bench press followed by 1 set on the partial range of
motion bench press were performed.
By the end of the study, increases in full range of motion bench press one-rep max strength
were similar between all three groups. No other strength measures were taken.
Thus, this study somewhat conflicts with the Martinez Cava paper in that a partial range of
motion was no less effective than a full range of motion for increasing full range of motion
bench press strength.
Now, the other study alluded to (which did not conflict with Martinez Cava) was actually
another paper by Massey et al. also (13).
The study design was exactly the same as the one just mentioned, the only differences
being the subjects were 29 women (not 56 men).
This specific paper established the full group saw the greatest increases in full range of
motion bench press one-rep max strength gains versus the partial and combined groups.
Nevertheless, when overviewing the three current range of motion bench press studies,
though there's some small conflict here, all three of them found training with a full range of
motion was not worse for any outcome.
Due to this, predominantly training with a full range of motion bench press is likely your
safest bet.
17
Now, does this mean partial range of motion bench press training is utterly useless?
Not necessarily.
Firstly, for those using the bench press as a tool for muscle growth, partial range of motion
bench pressing at the bottom portion is likely still going to be highly great for gains.
Recall it's likely the primary reason why a full range of motion bench press is great for
hypertrophy is thanks to the stretch it achieves of the chest at the bottom.
Yet, a partial range of motion at the bottom portion is still going to achieve this stretch.
The literature strongly indicates partial ranges of motion that train muscles at stretched
positions are highly effective for stimulating muscle hypertrophy (way more so than partial
ranges of motions that train muscles in a shortened position) (8) (9) (10).
In fact, if you've followed any of my content for a while elsewhere, you'll know that one study
by Pedrosa et al. (8) actually found a partial range of motion leg extension at stretched
positions produced overall more quadriceps growth versus a full range of motion!
18
Now, this is only one study and only the leg extension was trained. Thus we cannot be
certain if this applies to the flat barbell bench press, future research is required.
At the very least though, partial range of motion bench press training at the bottom position
is presumably going to evoke substantial muscle development.
I interestingly came across footage of Arnold more or less training with a partial range of
motion bench press at the bottom portion.
The second situation where a partial range of motion bench press training may be viable is
for those with sticking regions near the lockout of the exercise.
19
The sticking point of an exercise is the hardest part of the range of motion. When lifting near
maximal loads or nearing failure, it’s the part of the range of motion where the weight moves
the slowest despite maximal or constant effort.
When you fail to complete a repetition, you would fail within this sticking point.
For most individuals, it seems the sticking point for the barbell bench press is closer to the
bottom and middle portion of the full range of motion. At around the 30-50% point in the
lifting phase (14).
For these individuals, it’s logical that partial range of motion bench press training at the top
portion, which is past the sticking point, would not benefit or enhance full range of motion
bench press strength.
However, there is evidence some individuals do not actually display a sticking point in the
bench press, even at maximal efforts (14). These individuals are challenged uniformly
throughout the full range of motion, and they could experience failure at any stage.
Furthermore, the grip width you use seems to also impact sticking points.
One paper (2) found that using an approximate 1.65x shoulder-width grip (we’ll call this a
medium grip) resulted in a sticking point closer to lockout than using a 2.25x shoulder-width
grip (a wide grip) or 0.95x shoulder-width grip (a narrow grip).
Based on this, if you’re an individual who does not have a consistent sticking point and/or
your sticking point is closer to lockout (perhaps due to grip width), it’s possible that added
partial range of motion bench press training near the top region could be beneficial for
eventually enhancing your full range of motion strength.
Now, some of you may be thinking “Wait a minute, didn’t the Martinez-Cava et al. study find
that full range of motion bench press training was superior for increasing partial range of
motion bench press strength compared to training with that partial range of motion itself?”.
This is true, and it is a limitation of the suggestion I’m putting forth.
However, recall the subjects in the Martinez-Cava study only had 6 months of training
experience.
I also speculated why the Martinez-Cava study violated the principle of specificity. Namely,
greater muscle growth produced by full range of motion bench press training might explain
this.
Yet, in more trained individuals, it may be harder to violate the principle of specificity.
A 2011 study from Australia by Clark et al. (15) potentially supports this.
20
22 men with an average bench press one-rep max of 107kg were recruited. Now, it’s not
clear if this referred to a free-weight barbell bench press or a smith machine bench press.
But either way, these subjects were likely more trained than Martinez-Cava subjects.
Subjects were assigned to a variable or full range of motion group.
Both groups trained on the smith machine bench press twice per week for 5 weeks.
The full range of motion group, each session, trained 4 sets of full range of motion bench
press repetitions.
The variable range of motion group, each session, trained 1 set of full range of motion bench
press repetitions, 1 set of 3/4th range of motion repetitions, 1 set of half range of motion
repetitions, and 1 set of 1/4 repetitions.
Before and after the study, both groups used a custom-made isokinetic bench press
machine to perform 2 sets of 5 concentric only (the lifting phase only) repetitions.
The average force produced was measured during 3 different phases of the repetitions.
The first phase was from 25-50% of the lifting phase, the second phase was from 50% to
75% of the lifting phase, and the third phase was from 75% to 100% of the lifting phase.
The researchers found that neither group experienced statistically significant increases in
force produced during the first and second phases of the repetitions. However, for the third
phase, the variable range of motion group did increase the force they produced, whereas the
full range of motion group did not.
As a result, this study indicates variable range training (which consisted of some full and
partial range of motion sets) effectively increased the force subjects could generate at the
top portion of the bench press range of motion. Full range of motion-only training did not do
this.
Therefore, for trained individuals who have no real sticking point and/or have their sticking
point closer to lockout (perhaps due to grip width), it’s possible partial range of motion bench
press training near the top range of motion could be beneficial for ultimately enhancing full
range of motion bench press strength.
21
How Close Should You Train to Failure
on the Bench Press? + Rep Tempo
Discussion
Proximity to Failure for Muscle Growth
There are currently two studies comparing how training at different proximities to failure on
the bench press influences muscle growth, specifically chest hypertrophy (16) (17).
Both these studies were conducted by the same research group, and were "velocity-based
studies".
They had subjects train the smith machine flat barbell bench press
with a maximal lifting velocity (they aimed to press the barbell up as fast as they could).
Before going any further, yes, a smith machine was used.
I mention this earlier, there are differences between the smith machine and free weight
barbell bench press, but there are also more similarities.
I'm highly skeptical that any of the differences would actually change the results or
applicability of this study in any way. After all, proximity to failure is proximity to failure.
Trained subjects stopped their set of repetitions once their lifting velocity slowed down by a
certain percentage relative to the first repetition.
All subjects trained in the exercise for 3 sets per session with loads ranging from 70-85%
one-rep max, twice a week for 10 weeks.
There were four groups:
● 0% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 0%
relative to the first rep on a set. Of course, this group ended up performing only one
rep per set across all the loads trained.
● 15% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 15%
relative to the first rep on a set. Generally, this equates to performing around 30% of
the maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load (18)
● 25% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 25%
relative to the first rep on a set. Generally, this equates to performing around 50% of
the maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load (18)
● 50% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 50%
relative to the first rep on a set. Generally, this equates to performing around 75-80%
of the maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load (18)
22
In one of the studies, the 0% group saw the lowest chest gains, while the 15% group saw the
second lowest chest gains, whereas the 25% and 50% groups both saw the best chest gains
and gains were similar between both these groups.
However, in the other study, chest gains were greatest for the 50% group versus all other
groups (0% saw the lowest, followed by 15% and then 25%).
Therefore, these studies suggest getting closer to failure is largely better for muscle growth
with the bench press.
Although a 25% velocity loss seemed fine in one study, a velocity loss of 50% seemed to be
more reliable for muscle growth.
As we mentioned, a 50% velocity loss generally equates to performing 75-80% of the
maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load (18).
23
Given the subjects trained with loads ranging from 70-85% one-rep max, performing 75-80%
of the maximum number of repetitions you can generally equate to leaving 3 to 0 reps in
reserve.
Just in case this confuses anyone, "reps in reserve" simply refers to how many reps you
could have performed further. For example, 3 reps in reserve suggest you could have
performed an additional 3 full repetitions.
0 repetitions in reserve indicates you could not have performed any more full repetitions, this
is not quite failure as leaving 0 repetitions in reserve suggests you did not attempt to perform
that additional repetition on which you would have failed.
Now, although the two studies just overviewed suggest leaving 3 to 0 repetitions in reserve
may be more reliable for muscle growth, neither of them explored training to failure.
Could training to actual failure be even better for muscle growth?
Unfortunately, we don't have any direct research on the bench press exploring this, but the
answer is most likely not.
Other research (conducted on exercises other than the bench press) suggests leaving 3 to 0
repetitions in reserve is similarly effective to training to failure (19).
So overall, getting to or close to failure (leaving at most 3 repetitions in reserve) may be
needed to truly optimize muscle growth from bench press training.
Needless to say, you're going to want to make sure this is done safely.
If you have access to spotters, this is great.
If you bench press in a rack that can save you from failed repetitions, this is also great.
If you don't necessarily have practical access to these things, you may be more comfortable
training further from failure.
As we know, leaving 3 repetitions in reserve is viable. If you're someone with good
experience and can accurately judge your proximity to failure on the bench press, then this
can work. But please stay safe.
However, remember that although leaving 3 or fewer repetitions in reserve may be optimal
for muscle growth, leaving more repetitions in reserve will still certainly be effective.
Recall one of the studies established that a 25% velocity loss (performing 50% of the
maximum number of repetitions you can) was still highly effective and comparable to a 50%
velocity loss for chest growth.
Thus, I think training with 5 to 8 repetitions in reserve can still be worthwhile for muscle
growth purposes.
24
Rep Tempo for Muscle Growth
What about rep tempo for muscle growth?
Many have suggested slower repetition tempos could be better for muscle growth, due to a
longer time under tension accumulated.
For those unaware, time under tension is simply the duration of your set of repetitions.
However, I strongly believe the data demonstrates time under tension is overrated for
muscle growth.
It seems so long as you get to or close to failure (3 or fewer repetitions in reserve), a wide
range of repetition tempos (that ultimately produce different times under tension) are viable
for muscle growth.
Moreover, think about it. If a longer time under tension was definitively superior for muscle
growth, higher repetition numbers would be superior for building muscle. As we'll see shortly,
this is not the case.
Nevertheless, putting some precise numbers to this, a 2016 meta-analysis by Schoenfeld et
al. (20) found individual rep tempos between 0.5 to 8 seconds were similarly effective for
muscle growth (again, when these repetitions were performed to or close to failure).
With the bench press specifically, a 2022 study out of Brazil found training with a 3-second
rep duration was similar to training with a 6-second rep duration for chest and triceps growth
(21).
Based on this data, provided you are getting to or close to failure, feel free to train with
whatever rep tempo you wish.
Now, if you opt to train further from failure (perhaps leaving 8 to 5 repetitions in reserve), I
actually think aiming for more explosive-style repetitions might be better.
There is some evidence (albeit not on the bench press), finding when training very far from
failure, lifting with explosive tempos (precisely on the lifting phase) produces more muscle
growth (22) (23) (24).
Moreover, recall in one of the studies finding similar chest gains between a 25% and 50%
velocity loss, a maximal intended lifting velocity was used (17).
Rep Tempo for Strength
To maximize strength adaptations, lifting with a maximal intended speed (specifically the
lifting phase) is likely going to be your best bet.
25
In fact, one study (25) found with the smith machine bench press, lifting with a maximal
intended speed resulted in double the increases in smith machine bench press one-rep max
(18.2% vs 9.7%) versus lifting with half of your maximal speed.
Proximity to Failure for Strength
When you lift with a maximal intended speed, you likely do not need to train to failure to
maximize strength adaptations.
A 2006 study out of Spain by Izquierdo et al. (26) had subjects train a program involving the
smith machine bench press with a maximal lifting speed. Ultimately, one-rep max strength
gains on the exercises were similar between a group that trained with repetitions to failure
and another group that performed approximately 50% of the maximum repetitions they could
with a given load.
Fascinatingly, another 2022 study out of Spain by Rodiles-Guerrero et al. (16) indicates
training to failure might be suboptimal for strength gains.
We've overviewed the details of this study already, as it was one of the velocity-based
studies exploring how stopping at different velocity loss thresholds impacted chest growth.
As a reminder, there were four groups:
● 0% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 0%
relative to the first rep on a set. Of course, this group ended up performing only one
rep per set across all the loads trained
● 15% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 15%
relative to the first rep on a set. Generally, this equates to performing around 30% of
the maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load
● 25% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 25%
relative to the first rep on a set. Generally, this equates to performing around 50% of
the maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load
● 50% group who stopped their repetitions once their lifting velocity decreased by 50%
relative to the first rep on a set. Generally, this equates to performing around 75-80%
of the maximum number of repetitions you can with a given load
Ultimately, increases in smith machine bench press one-rep max gains were greatest for the
25% group.
26
Thus, this data indicates training nearer to failure may not always be better for strength
adaptations. Although of course, this study's finding technically conflicts with the mentioned
Izquierdo study, as training to failure was no worse than performing 50% of the max reps you
could in that study.
In any event, both these studies at least indicate that provided a maximal intended lifting
speed is used, performing approximately 50% of the maximum number of reps you can is
sufficient for maximizing bench press strength adaptations.
There have been a couple of other studies exploring how different proximities to failure
influence bench press strength. The issue with these studies is they made no mention of the
lifting speeds used. Even so, allow us to briefly note them.
A 2021 study by Karsten et al. (27) still found performing 50% of the max number of reps
you can produced similar free weight barbell bench press strength gains to training to failure.
Another 2005 study out of Australia by Drinkwater et al. (27) actually found that training to
failure to be superior for free weight barbell bench press strength gains versus performing
50% of the max number of reps you can. But again, given tempo was not mentioned, I think
it's likely maximal lifting speeds were not used.
Zooming In on Lowering Speed
Allow us to focus more on the lowering speed one may want to use on the bench press.
Lowering Speed for Muscle Growth
27
It's long been speculated that slowing down the lowering phase of an exercise could be
advantageous for muscle growth.
Unfortunately, there's no research exploring this with the bench press specifically. When
looking at other exercises, the research is conflicting.
Two studies have found with a preacher curl and using a 1-second lifting tempo, using a
4-second lowering tempo tended to be better for biceps gains versus using a 1-second
lowering tempo (29) (30).
A limitation is the differences in both these studies were not statistically significant, indicating
it’s not clear if the differences between groups reflect a true difference or are just a result of
random variation between groups.
A study out of Japan found with a back squat and using a 2-second lifting tempo, thigh size
gains were similar between using a 2-second lowering and 4-second lowering tempo (31).
Another study out of Brazil (32) found with leg extensions and using a 1-second lifting
tempo, rectus femoris and vastus lateralis gains were similar between using a 2-second
lowering and 4-second lowering tempo, but vastus medialis gains were greater for the
4-second lowering versus 2-second lowering tempo.
Muddying things even further, a study out the USA (33) found with leg extensions and using
a 1-second lifting tempo, gains in anterior thigh at one region were similar between using a
1-second lowering and 3-second lowering tempo, but gains at another region of the anterior
thigh were actually greater with the faster 1-second lowering tempo.
All in all, more research is needed to elucidate the effects of manipulating the lowering
phase duration.
Due to there being no clear answer, I think it's best for individuals to use whatever lowering
speed they wish if the aim is to maximize muscle growth.
Lowering Speed for Strength
We've already noted you likely want to be lifting with a maximal speed, but let's take a look at
the effects of different lowering speeds on bench press strength adaptations.
A 2020 study out of Poland by Wilk et al. (34) had trained women perform the flat barbell
bench press with a maximal intended lifting speed.
Subjects were able to lift the most load when they used a 2-second lowering tempo
compared to a 4-second and 6-second lowering tempo.
Other research also suggests faster lowering tempos (mainly in the range of 1 to 2 seconds)
permit greater bench press power and velocity compared to slower tempos (35) (36).
28
These findings are quite logical.
Within your muscle contractile units, there exists an elastic element (called titin).
When your muscles get stretched, as they would be during the lowering phase of an
exercise, titin stretches and produces passive tension (37).
A rubber band may help you understand passive tension. When you stretch a rubber band, it
produces passive tension to resist the stretch.
Moreover, when you let the rubber band go, it quickly snaps back into its resting shape.
Titin operates in a comparable manner.
Here's the key point, it's likely titin is able to produce greater passive tension when the
muscle is stretched at a faster speed (faster lowering tempos).
So this greater passive tension by titin produced during faster lowering tempos probably
explains why subjects tend to be better for bench press performance.
Having said all of this, I should make it clear I'm not recommending superfast lowering
tempos (divebombing).
The reason for this is technique is crucial for strength. You want your technique to be
efficient and dialed in repetition to repetition. Superfast lowering tempos can make it hard to
do this.
29
Resultantly, I think it's best for individuals to establish a lowering tempo that's fast but still
controlled (1-2 second range).
When looking at elite powerlifters with impressive bench press strength, they tend to do this.
Their lowering tempo is controlled but far from slow.
How Heavy Should You Lift on the Bench
Press?
So far, we've established recommendations for proximity to failure and rep tempo.
But how heavy should you lift on the bench press for strength or muscle growth?
Of course, how heavy you lift also relates to what number of reps you perform. Fewer reps
can be performed with heavier loads, while more reps can be performed with light loads.
How Heavy for Muscle Growth?
There's now a substantial number of studies demonstrating that for building muscle, a wide
range of loads is similarly effective.
Specifically, the literature largely suggests that provided you execute your repetitions to or
close to failure (3 to 0 repetitions in reserve), loads between 30% to 80% one-rep max are
similarly effective (38).
The flat barbell bench press is no exception. A 2013 study out of Japan by Ogasawara et al.
(39) found chest growth was similar between training with repetitions to volitional failure with
either a 30% or 80% one-rep max load.
What rep ranges do these translate to?
Very generally, individuals can perform between 30-40 repetitions with a 30% one-rep max
load. While with an 80% one-rep max load, individuals very generally perform between 7 to
12 repetitions.
Thus, so long as you're getting to or close to failure, similar muscle growth can be expected
in the 7-40 rep range.
What about reps below 7?
Unfortunately, the current literature is unclear on whether fewer than 7 repetitions can
efficiently maximize muscle growth.
30
The table below summarizes all the current research examining reps below 7 for building
muscle (only the Kubo study explored the bench press along with chest growth).
As we can see, most of them find fewer than 7 reps to be no less effective than higher
repetition numbers.
The problem, however, is most of them had confounders. The subjects performing fewer
than 7 reps performed a notable number of greater sets and/or rested longer between sets.
These are confounders because as we'll come to see, more sets (up to a point) and resting
longer between sets tends to be better for muscle growth.
Virtually all of the other studies we've noted finding similar muscle growth between the 7-40
rep range did not involve these confounders (subjects performed the same number of sets
and used the same rest interval duration between sets).
Nevertheless, if your goal is to maximize muscle growth from the flat barbell bench press
efficiently, staying within the 7-40 rep range is probably your safest bet.
31
However, if you prefer training with fewer than 7 reps but you want to ensure high levels of
muscle growth, performing a greater number of sets may be prudent. As an example, in the
above table, we can see a Kubo et al. study finding similar chest growth between training the
flat barbell bench press with 7 sets of 4 reps, 4 sets of 8 reps, and 3 sets of 12 reps (all of
these involved 2 minutes of rest between sets).
How Heavy for Strength?
The overall literature suggests that training with heavier loads promotes greater strength
adaptations, with a number of them demonstrating this applies to the flat barbell bench
press. (38)
Applying some numbers to this, training with 80% or heavier loads is superior to lighter loads
(40). Thus, having a bulk of your training performed with fewer than 7 repetitions is likely
ideal for developing flat barbell bench press strength.
As an example, a 2016 study out of the USA (41) found in trained men, training the flat
barbell bench press for 2-4 reps with probably around a 90% one-rep max load was superior
for increasing one-rep max versus training with 8-12 repetitions (a 75% one-rep max load
was likely used here).
These findings make sense. If your aim is to maximize the loads you can lift on the flat
barbell bench press, training with heavier loads should optimize this.
So all in all, training heavy loads with fewer than 7 reps is recommended.
32
Although remember for strength, training to failure isn't essential and executing these
repetitions with a maximal lifting intended speed is favorable.
What About Periodization?
Periodization is a way to organize your training into different "phases" with the ultimate aim
of potentiating long-term adaptations.
Periodization commonly involves varying rep ranges (and thus relative loads) you train within
across a program. Could this be superior to training with only one rep range (i.e.
non-periodized regimens)?
Let's examine this.
Two very common forms of periodization in the world, and explored in the research, are
linear periodization and undulating periodization.
Very broadly, linear periodization involves increasing the relative loads you train with across
training weeks.
For example, let's say we have a 12-week training program.
The first 4 weeks could be an "endurance" phase whereby you train with sets of 30
repetitions (with 30%1RM loads).
The next 4 weeks could be a "traditional hypertrophy" phase where you train with sets of 10
repetitions (with 80%1RM loads).
The final 4 weeks could be a "strength phase" where you train with sets of 5 repetitions
(with 85%1RM + loads).
Just to be clear, although individuals commonly consider "endurance phases" to involve 15 +
reps, remember these rep ranges are no less effective for muscle growth. Moreover,
"traditional hypertrophy style" training of sets of 10 reps is perfectly fine for gains, but it is no
more effective than higher rep ranges.
Undulating periodization, very generally, involves varying your loads and rep ranges on a
much shorter time frame (commonly within a week).
For example, let's say you train three times per week.
Day 1 may be "endurance" style training with sets of 30 repetitions, day 2 may be "traditional
hypertrophy" style training with sets of 10 repetitions, and day 3 may be "strength" style
training with sets of 5 repetitions.
For muscle growth, the literature indicates that periodization regimens are similarly effective
to non-periodized regimens (42).
33
For strength, the research does actually find that periodization regimens produce greater
gains versus non-periodization (42) (43).
However, a major limitation of the research finding this is the periodization programs
ultimately involved more frequent training with heavier loads versus the non-periodization
programs (44).
For example, a non-periodized program may have involved only sets of 10 reps. While a
periodized program involved training with sets of 5, 10, and 15 repetitions (either in a linear
or undulating model).
We can see the periodized group involved more training with heavier loads (they trained with
sets of 5 reps at various points).
This is a confounder as we know training with heavier loads tends to produce greater
strength gains (recall that we noted training with 5 or fewer reps with heavier loads produces
more strength versus training with higher repetitions with lighter loads).
Thus, the periodization per se may not be the cause of the greater strength gains, but rather
the higher load training.
It would be more favorable, for illustration, if the non-periodized group trained with only sets
of 5, and then compared this to a periodization group involving training with sets of 5, 10,
and 15 reps.
Unfortunately though, the current literature simply has not done this.
Due to this, it's currently unclear whether periodization truly induces greater strength gains.
More research is required.
Moreover, it's worth noting that virtually all studies assessing how periodization compares to
non-periodization last 12 weeks or less. So this is a limitation that should be noted too.
Longer duration studies could yield different results.
How Many Sets on the Bench Press?
Sets for Muscle growth
For optimizing muscle growth, the literature generally suggests that 10-20 weekly sets per
muscle group may be ideal on average. (45)
Untrained individuals would probably want to be closer to the 10-set side, whereas trained
individuals could benefit more from the 20-set side of things.
34
To be clear, these sets are "working" sets that involve repetitions performed to or close to
failure in the 7-40 rep range (as we know these are the most hypertrophic and efficient),
warm-up sets are not included here.
Thus, performing multiple sets on the flat barbell bench press is probably favorable for
muscle development.
How many sets precisely will depend on what other exercises you employ in your routine, so
unfortunately there's no definitive answer.
For example, let's say you'd like to perform 12 weekly sets for your chest.
Perhaps 6 of these sets come from the flat barbell bench press, and another 6 from the
cable cross-over.
Having said all of this, it's still important to remember even though 10-20 weekly sets per
muscle group are more favorable than fewer sets on average, a low number of sets still
confers a great benefit.
For example, take a look at the graph below from a 2017 meta-analysis by Schoenfeld et al.
(46)
Although performing fewer than 9 weekly sets per muscle group did not produce as much
muscle growth as performing 9 or a greater number of sets, the differences are certainly not
super large.
Furthermore, there's good evidence even in trained individuals, as little as 3-9 weekly sets
per muscle group still induces muscle growth (47) (48) (49) (50). So just know low set
numbers are still viable.
35
As a final point here, there's some evidence that as individuals progressively become more
trained, gradually increasing the number of sets they perform is beneficial for sustaining and
promoting more muscle growth (51) (52).
Thus, increasing the number of sets you perform on the flat barbell bench press over time
may be useful for muscle development.
Sets for Bench Press Strength
There are a few studies demonstrating that a low number of sets may be sufficient for
strength gains in both untrained and trained individuals.
A 1997 study out of Australia by Ostrowski et al. (49) found in trained men, flat barbell bench
press strength gains did not differ between training with either 1, 2, or 4 sets of the exercise
per session. This study only had subjects train the flat barbell bench press only once a week,
but they did involve numerous other exercises (such as incline and decline bench pressing),
muddying things.
A 2003 study out of Norway by Paulsen et al. (53) found in untrained men training the flat
barbell bench press three times per week, strength gains on the exercise did not differ
between training with 1 or 3 sets per session. The other upper body exercises included in
this study were the overhead press, row, and lat pulldown.
A 2013 study out of Scotland by Baker et al. (54) found similar things in trained individuals.
That is, when training the flat barbell bench press three times per week, strength gains on
the exercise were similar between training with either 1 or 3 sets per session. The other
upper body exercises included in this study were the inclined bench press, dumbbell flyes,
biceps curl with barbell, biceps curl with dumbbells, hammer curl with dumbbells, seated
shoulder press behind neck, lateral raises, and upright row.
Finally, a 2019 study out of the USA by Schoenfeld et al. (50) found in trained men
performing the flat barbell bench press three times per week, strength gains on the exercise
did not differ between performing either 1, 3, or 5 sets per session. The other upper body
exercises trained in this study were the overhead press, lat pulldown, and seated row.
Having detailed these studies, there are 2 other studies suggesting multiple sets may be
better for strength adaptations.
A 2015 study out of Brazil by Radaelli et al. (55) found in trained men performing the flat
barbell bench press three times per week, strength gains on the exericse were greater when
training with 3-5 sets per session versus 1 set per session. The other upper body exercises
trained in this study were the lat pulldown, seated press, biceps curl, and triceps extension.
A 2019 study out of Brazil by Brigatto et al. (56) found in trained men performing the flat
barbell bench press twice per week, strength gains were greater when performing 8 sets per
session, versus either 6 or 4 sets per session (the 6 sets was also greater than the 4 sets). A
36
few other upper body exercises were trained in this study, including the dumbbell fly, lat
pulldown, and a few arm isolation movements.
What are we to make of all this research?
Well, it's evident most of the research suggests training a single set on the flat barbell bench
press per session is highly effective, with only two suggesting benefits to higher set
numbers.
What I recommend is for people to experiment. Strength, unlike muscle growth, is much
easier to track (you know when you're lifting heavier or performing more reps than usual).
Try out lower set numbers and see how it works for you. If not, try out higher set numbers.
Similar to the discussion on muscle growth, it's possible that progressing your set numbers
as you become more and more trained could be beneficial for sustaining long-term strength
adaptations.
How Often Should You Train the Bench
Press?
Training Frequency for Muscle Growth
Unfortunately, there's no direct research exploring the relationship between flat barbell bench
press training frequency and measures of chest, triceps, or anterior deltoid muscle growth.
Nonetheless, let's brief the overall literature on training frequency and muscle growth.
A 2018 meta-analysis out of the USA by Schoenfeld et al. (57) found that when overall
training volume (in the form of the number of sets performed) was equated, training
frequency did not affect muscle growth.
All types of splits were comparably effective (such as bro splits, full body routines, and
upper/lower regimes).
An important note is that the majority of studies in this analysis had subjects train each
muscle group with 12 or fewer weekly sets.
So with these volumes, there's no optimal number of days to train a muscle or exercise (like
the bench press) on. Select whatever you're comfortable with.
With higher volumes (training more than 12 weekly sets per muscle group), the research is
conflicting. Some find training a muscle or exercise with higher frequencies to be better (58),
others lower frequencies (59) (60), and some with no differences between frequencies (61)
(62).
37
Due to this conflicting data, we cannot arrive at any definitive conclusions on how many days
per week you may want to train a muscle/exercise if you're performing more than 12 weekly
sets per muscle group. Select whatever you're comfortable with.
Training Frequency for Strength
In studies equating the number of sets performed on the flat barbell bench press per week,
strength gains on the exercise seem to be similar between a wide range of training
frequencies (from one to five days per week) (63) (64) (65) (67) (68).
It's worth noting most of these studies had subjects perform far fewer than 10 weekly sets on
the flat barbell bench press.
We've already noted that low set numbers are likely viable for gaining significant strength. In
this case, this literature seemingly indicates you're free to select however many days you
would like to distribute these set numbers across.
Unfortunately, there are limited data exploring the strength effects of different bench press
training frequencies with higher volumes. But, lower frequency training might not be that
practical.
Recall that heavier load and lower rep training (5 or fewer reps) is more favorable for
increasing strength.
Imagine you want to perform 12 weekly sets on the flat barbell bench press.
Training the exercise only once a week requires you to perform all 12 of these sets in one
session. Those later sets are going to be performed under quite a bit of fatigue. For muscle
growth, this may not necessarily be bad. But for strength, it would be difficult to sustain lifting
heavy relative loads (the load may have to be notably reduced).
Compare this to performing 4 sets on the flat barbell bench press three times per week.
You're still accumulating 12 weekly sets, but more of your sets are fresher, leading to a
better capacity to deal with heavier relative loads.
How Long to Rest Between Bench Press
Sets?
Of course, this section only applies to people that are performing multiple bench press sets
in a session.
Rest Interval Durations for Muscle Growth
For muscle growth, short rest intervals are often purported to be optimal for building muscle.
38
This hypothesis seemingly comes from research demonstrating that short rest intervals
between sets (1 minute or less) produce greater acute increases in anabolic hormones
(growth hormone being the main one) (69).
The problem, however, is that we now know acute spikes in anabolic hormones do not
correlate with long-term muscle growth (70).
Thus, assessing the research comparing different rest intervals for muscle growth is a much
better way to figure out optimal rest durations between sets.
All in all, the literature seems to suggest with compound exercises (the bench press is of
course a compound exercise) that longer rest intervals (2.5 to 3 minutes) produce more
muscle growth versus shorter rest durations (1.5 minutes or less). This holds true in both
untrained and trained individuals (71) (72) (73) (74).
So counter to common recommendations, resting 2.5 to 3 minutes between compound
exercise sets is likely going to be more favorable for muscle development.
Rest Interval Durations for Strength
A 2018 review study out of Australia by Grgic et al. (75) assessed all the current literature on
the effects of different rest interval durations on strength outcomes.
Interestingly, training experience seems to matter.
Untrained individuals seem to see similar strength gains between short (1 minute or less)
and longer rest intervals (longer than 2 minutes).
Conversely, trained individuals see better strength adaptations when using longer (2 minutes
or more) versus short rest intervals (1 minute or less).
These results do not seem to be impacted by the exercise in question, and thus likely apply
to the bench press.
For example, a 2009 study out of the USA by Buresh et al. (73) found in untrained
individuals, flat barbell bench press strength gains did not differ between a group resting 1
minute between sets and another group resting 2.5 minutes between sets.
But, a 2016 study out of the USA by Schoenfeld et al. (41) found in trained individuals, flat
barbell bench press strength gains were greater for subjects resting 3 minutes between sets
as opposed to 1-minute rest intervals.
39
Why Training for Muscle Growth
Probably Benefits Strength in the
Long-Term
So far, we've distinguished between training variables you may want to use on the flat
barbell bench press for building either muscle or strength.
Yet, for those wishing to truly maximize their bench press strength, it's very likely including
some muscle growth style training is beneficial in the long term.
Now, there are ongoing debates in the research regarding how much muscle growth
contributes to strength.
But I feel there's solid data and rationale suggesting over the long-term (many years),
muscle growth absolutely plays a role in your strength capacity.
Firstly, we need to understand that one of the main ways muscles grow is via increasing the
number of contractile elements a muscle fiber has. With all else equal, more contractile
elements equal greater force capacity and thus strength (76).
Secondly, some studies have found in powerlifters, there are strong positive correlations
between indicators of muscle or lean mass and strength on the flat barbell bench press (77)
(78) (79).
Moreover, a 2021 study (80) observed in elite powerlifters (who flat barbell bench pressed an
average of 151kg or 332lbs) that lean mass was one of the strongest predictors of flat
barbell bench press strength.
Now, these are correlations. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Yet, given the logic we just mentioned (that muscle growth via more contractile elements
increases force capacity), I feel comfortable speculating greater muscle mass is causative of
the greater strength.
On the basis of this, including "muscle growth" training blocks, or simply including muscle
growth style training concurrently with your strength training, is prudent for those wanting to
maximize strength.
Let's now transition to overviewing some other interesting research surrounding the flat
barbell bench press.
40
How Effective Is the Barbell Bench Press
for Muscle Growth?
Chest Development
The chest refers to an array of muscles that connect the thorax to the shoulder and upper
arm. These include the pectoralis major, pectoralis major, subclavius muscle, and serratus
anterior.
From this point forth, we'll only be mentioning the pectoralis major. Not only is this the
muscle that makes up the bulk of the chest, people also tend to use this muscle
synonymously with the chest.
Interestingly, there's no universal agreement on how many divisions the pectoralis major has
(81).
Some researchers consider the pectoralis major as having three heads: a clavicular head, a
sternal head, and a costal head. You can consider the clavicular head as the upper region,
the sternal head as the middle region, and the costal head as the lower region.
Yet, other researchers consider the pectoralis major as only having two heads: a clavicular
head and a sternocostal head.
In any event, I personally believe the former (three heads) is a better representation of the
pectoralis major, especially for muscle-building discussions.
The reason for this is the three heads do not share completely identical functions during
movements, and so can be considered separate to a degree (82).
With these details out the way, how effective is the flat barbell bench press for developing
the three pectoralis major heads?
41
A 2013 study out of Japan by Ogasawara et al. (83) involved having untrained men train the
flat barbell bench press for 3 sets of 10 repetitions with a 75% one-rep max load (using 2-3
minutes of rest between sets), three times per week for a total of 6 months.
A 2x shoulder width grip was utilized on the barbell, and one-rep max on the exercise was
re-tested every 3 weeks to readjust the 75% one-rep max training loads.
Before and after the 6 training months, the researchers measured pectoralis major
cross-sectional area at 25% (upper region), 50% (middle region), and 75% (lower region) of
the muscle length.
Overall, all three regions grow significantly and fairly comparably. The three regions
increased by 36-40% in cross-sectional area.
42
Now, this study was conducted on previously untrained individuals.
But another 2022 study out of Australia by Davies et al. (84) suggests similar things in
trained individuals.
Specifically, trained men performed the barbell bench press for 4 sets of 5 reps with an 85%
one-rep max load (using 5 minutes of rest between sets), twice per week for 8 weeks.
Unfortunately, the grip width on the bench press was not specified. One-rep max load was
retested every 2 weeks, allowing the readjustment of the training load.
The researchers measured the thickness of the pectoralis major in three regions: between
the spaces of ribs 2 and 3 (upper region), between the spaces of ribs 3 and 4 (middle
regions), and between the spaces of ribs 4 and 5 (lower region).
43
All three regions responded well, demonstrating 7-10% increases in thickness.
Of course, the reason these overall percentage gains are notably lower than the Ogasawara
study is that this study was done in trained individuals and only lasted 8 weeks.
So in total, the literature suggests the flat barbell bench press notably grows all three
pectoralis major regions.
These findings raise a potentially interesting question.
It's far from uncommon for individuals to feel their upper chest is underdeveloped despite flat
barbell bench press training. Given the data we've overviewed, why would this be the case?
44
I think there could be a potential explanation.
In the two studies, we detailed the relative upper, middle, and lower pectoralis major gains
experienced as a result of flat barbell bench press training, and concluded the movement
seems to evoke great growth in these three regions.
You can think of relative gains in terms of percentage changes.
However, in absolute gains, it actually seems the flat barbell bench press grows the upper
pectoralis major region less than the middle and lower regions. You can think of absolute
gains in terms of measurement unit changes.
To properly understand this, let us first more thoroughly explore the data from the
Ogasawara study.
Below are the before and after training pectoralis major cross-sectional area measurements
for the upper, middle, and lower regions.
As we know, in terms of percentage changes (relative gains) all three regions experienced
near equal changes (in the ranges from 36-40%).
However, in terms of centimeters squared gains ( absolute gains), the upper region only
experienced a gain of 5.5 centimeters squared, whereas both the middle and lower region
approximately saw a 10 centimeters squared gain.
This is interesting, why are the percentage gains similar between all three regions, yet the
absolute gains show the middle and lower regions grew nearly double the amount versus the
upper region?
45
The baseline absolute measurements explain this. Notice how before the study, the middle
and lower regions are similarly sized (25-27 centimeters squared) but the upper region is
quite a bit smaller (at around 15 centimeters squared).
With the same relative gains (percentage changes), the smaller the number you begin with,
the lower absolute gains (measurement units) it experiences.
Therefore, the reason the upper pectoralis major region sees less absolute growth but
similar relative growth is simply because it is smaller to begin with compared to the middle
and lower pectoralis major regions.
The same case can be found in the Davies study.
All three regions experienced fairly comparable percentage increases.
Yet, increases in absolute gains (which in this case is only centimeters, as thickness, a
one-dimension measure, was explored in this study) were lower for the upper region versus
the middle and lower regions.
These two studies demonstrate most individuals tend to have an upper pectoralis major
smaller in size than the middle and lower regions to begin with, likely creating the
appearance the upper pectoralis major is underdeveloped.
If this is a problem for an individual, that is, they wish for their upper pectoralis major region
to be the same or greater size (in absolute measurements) to the middle and lower regions,
they would want to train additional exercises that preferentially stimulate the upper pectoralis
major region to help accentuate its growth.
Possible exercises that accomplish this include (but are not limited to) the incline barbell
bench press, incline dumbbell bench press, elevated feet push-ups, and low cable chest fly.
46
All these exercises involve horizontal flexion (the flat barbell bench press also involves this),
which is generally the function of all regions of the pectoralis major.
More critically though, they also involve a higher degree of shoulder flexion versus the flat
barbell bench press, and the upper region of the pectoralis major specifically likely assists
the anterior deltoid in shoulder flexion (82), thereby likely meaning these four exercises
recruit the upper pectoralis major region more than the middle and lower regions.
Triceps Development
The triceps consist of the lateral, medial, and long head.
47
The function of the triceps is elbow extension, and this motion occurs in the flat barbell
bench press.
A 2020 study out of Brazil by Brandao et al. (85) gives us an insight into how effective the
barbell bench press may be at developing the triceps.
They had previously untrained men train the flat barbell bench press for 3 to 5 sets to failure
with an 80% one-rep max load (using 2 minutes of rest between sets), twice per week for 10
weeks.
A 2x shoulder-width grip was used.
It was established the lateral and medial triceps heads grew fairly well (particularly the lateral
head), while the long head saw very little growth.
48
This finding is further supported by a 2013 study out of Japan by Wakahara et al. (86).
They measured activation of the three triceps heads (via t2 weighted imaging) during
dumbbell bench pressing with a neutral grip, and established the long head saw notably
lower activation versus the lateral and medial head.
Now, this specific Japanese study did use the dumbbell bench press with a neutral grip, but
the idea that bench pressing of any kind minimally stimulates the long head is very logical.
You see, the long head is what we call a two-joint muscle. Not only does it cross over the
elbow joint, but it also crosses over the shoulder joint.
49
The two other triceps heads (the lateral and medial heads) only cross over the elbow joints.
As the long head crosses over the shoulder joint, it's actually involved in shoulder extension.
Shoulder extension occurs during the lowering phase of any bench press, so the long head
shortens and will be unable to contract further and contribute much to the lifting phase.
Some of you may be wondering about close grip bench pressing. It's very likely close grip
bench pressing would target the lateral and medial heads even more (but lower chest
recruitment). Yet, I believe it would still likely not grow the long head much more, as the
close grip bench press still involves shoulder extension during the lowering phase.
So all in all, bench press training is going to do well at developing the lateral and medial
heads, but not the long head.
What exercises grow the long triceps head?
Triceps skullcrushers, pushdowns, and overhead extensions are all exercises that have
been documented in the literature to develop the long head well (85) (87).
Anterior Deltoid Development
The anterior deltoid is one part of the deltoid. The other parts of the deltoid are the middle
and rear heads.
50
The main function of the anterior deltoid is shoulder flexion, the main function of the middle
deltoid is shoulder abduction, and the main function of the rear deltoid is shoulder extension
(82).
As the bench press involves shoulder flexion, the anterior deltoid is the main deltoid muscle
recruited in this exercise.
Unfortunately, there's no long-term research exploring how much the anterior deltoid grows
in response to bench press training of any kind.
Yet, I'm going to speculate it grows fairly well. There are at least electromyographic studies
establishing the anterior deltoid displays fairly high excitation levels in the flat barbell bench
press (88) (89) (90) (91).
I should also note that as incline bench press training involves a greater degree of shoulder
flexion versus the flat barbell bench press, this exercise likely does an even better job at
stimulating the anterior deltoid (88).
Training Breaks Do Not Harm Strength
and Muscle Growth From the Bench
Press
Fascinatingly, there's some evidence suggesting that training breaks regular training breaks
do not compromise strength and muscle growth from flat barbell bench press training.
In fact, as we'll uncover shortly, it potentially could be beneficial in the long-term.
51
A 2013 study out of Japan by Ogasawara et al. (83) recruited 14 previously untrained men
and assigned them to a continuous or periodic group.
The continuous group trained for 24 weeks straight, while the periodic group alternated
between training for 6 weeks and completely resting for 3 weeks for a full 24 weeks.
During the training weeks, both groups trained 3 times per week, with each session
consisting of training the bench press for 3 sets of 10 repetitions with a 75% one-rep max
load, with 2-3 minutes of rest between sets.
Note, the 75% one-rep max load was updated every 3 weeks.
By the end of the 24 training weeks, triceps growth, pectoralis major growth, and bench
press one-rep max strength gains were similar between both the continuous and periodic
groups.
That is, despite the periodic group training 25% less (due to the training breaks they took)
they still saw similar gains to the continuous group by the 24th week.
The graphics tell us how this was possible.
For all the measurements (pectoralis major growth, triceps growth, and bench press
strength) the continuous group continued making gains across the 24 weeks, but we can see
their gains progressively slowed and become less as time went on.
For example, during the first 6 weeks, the continuous group increased their pectoralis major
size by around 15%. But by the last 6 weeks of training, they only increased their pectoralis
major size further by approximately 5%.
52
Conversely, the periodic group lost some muscle and strength during their rest weeks, but
once they resumed training, their gains increased at a greater and faster amount versus the
continuous group, ultimately resulting in similar gains by the 24th week.
In fact, the periodic group continued to experience a similar amount of gains throughout their
training weeks, their gains did not slow down and become less.
For example, during the first 6 weeks, the periodic group increased their pectoralis major
size by around 15%, and by the last 6 weeks of training, they again increased their pectoralis
major size by around a further 15-20%.
Here's an interesting question: what happens if this study continued beyond 6 months?
Given the continuous group gains gradually slowed down, while the periodic group continued
experiencing similar gains across their training weeks, it’s very possible the periodic group
would surpass the gains of the continuous group at some point.
In other words, training breaks could enhance your long-term muscle and strength gains.
Other research suggests that training breaks (even 10 days) can resensitize the anabolic
pathways responsible for muscle growth (92).
This very thing could be one reason why the periodic group saw a faster rate of gains upon
returning from training breaks.
Of course, I should mention although the Ogasawara study was done merely on the flat
barbell bench press, you would expect the findings to hold for any exercises.
Some of you may be wondering about deloads.
For the unaware, deloads are where a person reduces volume and/or intensity for typically a
week, so deloads and training breaks aren't the same.
Even so, could deloads be sufficient for potentially resensitizing anabolic pathways response
for muscle growth?
Unfortunately, there's no research exploring this, so we simply cannot answer this for the
time being.
Nevertheless, I still think more research is needed overall to truly determine the
effectiveness of training breaks.
The Ogasawara study did also have one potentially notable limitation.
Namely, no periodization was utilized. When training, both groups trained thrice a week
performing 3 sets of 10 repetitions on the flat barbell bench press with a 75% one-rep max
load.
53
Perhaps if some kind of periodized regimen was used, the continuous group's gains may not
have slowed down so much.
Yet, as we've established earlier, the research on periodization is very limited, and we cannot
conclusively say periodization is optimal based on the current evidence.
Ultimately, I think a person could experiment with training breaks if they wish. At the least, I
believe this data should make you rest assured that time off from training isn't bad
whatsoever.
Antagonist Supersets or Stretching for
Better Bench Press Performance
Antagonist Supersets
For those unaware, antagonist supersets involve you performing two exercises that train
opposing muscle groups back to back.
Example include:
● The barbell row with the bench press
● The overhead press with a pull-up
● The leg curl with the leg extension
● A biceps exercise with a triceps exercise
Quite interestingly, there's some evidence that antagonist supersets could increase your
performance capacity, and this includes the flat barbell bench press.
Demonstrating this is a 2015 study out of Brazil by Paz et al. (93).
A traditional protocol involved performing three sets on the bench press, followed by three
sets on the seated row. They rested 2 minutes between sets.
The superset protocol involved supersetting the bench press and seated row for three sets.
The two exercises were performed with very minimal rest between the two movements (it
took them 10 seconds to transition between the two movements). They rested two minutes
between supersets.
This setup meant the traditional protocol took 16 minutes to complete, whereas the superset
protocol took 8.5 minutes to complete.
Volume load on both exercises was greater for the superset protocol.
54
Volume load is calculated by multiplying sets, reps, and load. Given both groups performed 3
sets and used 10-rep max loads, the greater volume load for the supersets would be
explained by them being able to perform more repetitions.
Other research also demonstrates that antagonist supersets can increase performance on
the trained exercises (95) (96) (97).
Moreover, it's worth emphasizing these studies involved agonist supersets where you rest
minimally between the two trained exercises.
Overall, this seems to be advantageous for performance gains, employing rest durations
between the two movements may not yield performance increases (but it's not detrimental
either).
A 2014 study out of Brazil by Maia et al. (94) demonstrates this with the leg curl and leg
extension.
They found that compared to performing leg extensions only, performing leg curls before the
leg extensions increased the number of repetitions that could be completed on the leg
extension. Furthermore, the lower the rest between the two movements, the better the rep
performance on the leg extension.
55
Specifically, performing the leg extensions immediately after the leg curls outperformed
using a 30-second, 1-minute, 3-minute, and 5-minute rest between the two exercises.
On top of this data, we also have a 2010 study out of Australia (98) indicating that resting a
fair bit between supersetted exercises does not produce performance increases.
A superset condition performed 3 supersets of bench pulls with bench presses, but used 2
minutes of rest between the supersets, resulting in 4 minutes of rest between the identical
exercises.
A traditional condition performed 3 sets on the bench pull followed by 3 bench press sets,
with 4 minutes of rest between sets.
Both groups performed reps to failure with a 4 rep-max load on the exercises.
Overall, volume load was not statistically different between the conditions.
56
Now, I should mention that although this superset protocol didn't increase performance, it still
was quicker to complete than the traditional protocol.
So if an individual doesn't want to perform antagonist supersets with minimal rest between
the two exercises, having some rest between the two movements can still be effective for
saving time.
Antagonist Stretching
57
If an individual cannot or does not want to perform antagonist supersets, but still wants a
potential method to increase performance, antagonist stretching is potentially an effective
alternative.
Antagonist stretching is where you stretch an opposing muscle group immediately before an
exercise.
Examples include:
● Stretching the back muscles before the bench press
● Stretching the chest before back exercises
● Stretching the hamstrings before leg extensions
● Stretching the triceps before a biceps exercise
Three studies from Brazil, designed virtually the same, find that stretching the chest
immediately before seated rows increased seated row rep performance versus performing
only seated rows with passive rest between and before sets (97) (99) (100).
The results of these three studies are shown in the graphs below. As we can see, rep
performance (on the seated row) was enhanced by performing antagonist stretching (of the
chest).
Unfortunately, there's no direct research exploring antagonist stretching on flat barbell bench
press performance. But a 2019 study from the UK (101) established that stretching the back
muscles prior to performing a bench throw on the smith machine increased power output.
Thus, I think it's quite probable antagonist stretching could benefit flat barbell bench press
performance (as well as other exercises).
58
Why the Performance Benefit?
Why do antagonist supersets and stretching benefit rep performance?
It's not precisely clear, but a hypothesis is it reduces antagonistic co-activation (94).
During any movement, the antagonist and agonist muscles produce force. This co-activation
is believed to provide joint stability.
Take a leg extension, we all know the quadriceps are producing force to perform the
exercise, but the hamstrings contract to a degree for knee joint stability.
By performing antagonist supersets or stretching, you may reduce the antagonist
coactivation, resulting in the agonist muscle producing greater force.
With the leg extension example, performing leg curls or stretching the hamstrings may
decrease its coactivation in the leg extension, allowing the quadriceps to produce more
force.
Some may be thinking, given antagonist co-activation provides joint stability, could
antagonist supersets or stretching be unsafe?
The truth is I don't know the definitive answer, but there's reason to believe it's perfectly fine.
Firstly, none of the aforementioned studies reported adverse effects of antagonist supersets
or stretching.
Additonally, we know that strength training, in the long-term, chronically decreases
antagonist co-activation anyway, and this is one factor that contributes to long-term strength
gains (102).
Do Antagonist Supersets and Stretching
Lead to Greater Gains?
Given the literature indicates antagonist supersets and stretching can increase session
performance, does it lead to greater long-term adaptations?
Unfortunately, there's no solid data that can help answer this question.
In our case, the only relevant study is a 2009 one out of Australia by Robbins et al. (103).
It looked at antagonist supersets only, not antagonist stretching.
The design of the protocol was similar to the short-term Australia study we noted earlier.
59
Both groups trained the bench pull, along with either the bench press or bench throw
depending on the session.
The traditional group performed all bench pull sets first then moved to the bench press or
bench throw. They rested 4 minutes between sets.
The superset group supersetted the bench pull and bench press/throw sets, with 2 minutes
of rest between the supersetted exercises and 4 minutes of rest between the same exercise.
The exact sets and reps used varied throughout the study, but were of course the same for
both groups.
Overall, the traditional group session was around 20 minutes, while the superset group
session lasted 10 minutes.
After 8 weeks, bench press and bench pull one-rep max strength gains were not statistically
different between both groups.
The percentages do seem to favor the superset group for the bench pull, but this difference
may be due to random chance as it was not statistically significant.
Nonetheless, this study did not have subjects perform antagonist supersets with minimal rest
between the two exercises, rather 2 mins of rest were used between the two exercises.
We already established this does not increase performance, so similar strength gains are
probably expected.
60
At the least, the study shows agonist supersets can save time without compromising
strength gains.
Muscle gains were unfortunately not assessed in this study.
Evidently, more quality future research is needed to establish whether antagonist supersets
of stretching can enhance long-term adaptations.
Nonetheless, an individual may wish to experiment with either antagonist supersets or
stretching. Perhaps you may be able to notice the performance gains, and who knows,
maybe more long-term gains?
Can You Change Muscle Activation on
the Flat Barbell Bench Press?
In isolation exercises (exercises with motion at only one joint), more or less all the load is
distributed to the isolated muscle group.
For example, in a standing triceps overhead extension, the triceps take on virtually all the
load. Of course, bones, tendons, and other synergistic and stabilization muscles also
technically are loaded, but we can ignore this for our purposes.
In compound exercises, contrastingly, we know the load is distributed among multiple
muscle groups.
In the flat barbell bench press, we know the triceps, anterior deltoid, and pectoralis major
take on the majority of the load.
The nervous system of one individual may distribute 30% of the total load to the pectoralis
major, 40% to the triceps, and 30% to the anterior deltoid.
Yet, a fascinating question is whether a person could change this activation pattern.
Using the above example, could that individual somehow change their muscle recruitment
distribution such that 40% of the total load goes to the pectoralis major, 40% to the triceps,
and 20% to the anterior deltoid?
A fascinating 2020 study from Poland by Stronska et al. (91) suggests something like this
may be possible.
27 men with an average barbell bench press of 105.2kg were recruited, all subjects could
bench at least 120% of their respective body weights.
During maximal isometric barbell bench press contractions (performed with the elbows
flexed to 90 degrees and the upper arm perpendicular to the floor), and 3 reps with an 85%
61
one-rep max load on the flat barbell bench press, surface EMG recorded muscle activation
from the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and triceps.
For each subject, the researchers noted out of the pectoralis major, triceps, and anterior
deltoid, which one displayed the lowest relative activation on the tests.
Resultantly, three groups were formed:
● Those with the lowest relative anterior deltoid activation (the anterior deltoid group)
● Those with the lowest relative pectoralis major activation (the pectoralis major group)
● Those with the lowest relative triceps activation (the triceps group)
Then, subjects went on to perform targeted isolation training for their respective lowest
activation muscle, performing 3 exercises per session, each for 4 sets of 10-15 repetitions to
failure, 3x per week for 6 weeks.
The anterior deltoid group trained the upright row, lateral raise, and front raise.
The pectoralis major group trained dumbbell flys, machine flys, and cable chest flys.
The triceps group trained barbell skull crushers, cable overhead extensions, and incline skull
crushers.
Note, all three groups also performed 3 sets with a 4 rep-max load on the barbell bench
press each week to ensure strength did not attenuate.
All three groups re-measured their activation levels during the isometric and 85% one-rep
max bench press tests.
To keep things condensed, I’ll just present the results of the surface EMG recordings from
the 3 reps on an 85% one-rep max bench press.
Focusing on the anterior deltoid group first, compared to before the study, they saw a
significant increase in anterior deltoid relative activation with a concurrent significant
decrease in pectoralis major and triceps relative activation.
62
The pectoralis major group, compared to before the study, saw a significant increase in
relative pectoralis major activation, with a significant decrease in triceps and anterior deltoid
relative activation.
The triceps group, compared to before the study, saw a significant increase in relative triceps
activation, with a significant decrease in pectoralis major relative activation and a
non-significant change in anterior deltoid relative activation.
63
Stated another way, this study indicates performing exclusive targeted isolation training for a
certain muscle group ultimately increases its relative activation during a compound exercise,
with a corresponding decrease or negligible change in the other involved muscle groups.
Now, this is only one study.
Moreover, surface EMG (electromyography) has limitations. We've been implying that this
measures muscle activation. Yet, this is not entirely accurate. Instead, it approximates
neuromuscular excitation (a few steps behind actual muscle activation) (104).
On top of this, there are many cases where surface EMG research can be inaccurate (104).
Despite these limitations, the consistency of the findings is noteworthy in my opinion. The
anterior deltoid group saw elevated anterior deltoid EMG recordings, the triceps group saw
elevated triceps EMG recordings, and the pectoralis major group saw elevated pectoralis
major EMG recordings.
Overall, hopefully we get more research in this interesting area.
For the time being, if an individual really wishes to alter their muscle activation during the flat
barbell bench press (or any other exercise), they may wish to experiment with this method.
Perhaps you want to recruit the pectoralis major more than you already do in the flat barbell
bench press. In an attempt to do this, you may perform extra additional pectoralis major
isolation training for a while (while minimizing anterior deltoid and triceps training).
64
Alternatives to the Flat Barbell Bench
Press
If you aim to maximize your strength on the flat barbell bench press, needless to say,
spending a good amount of training on this exercise is going to be required. In this sense,
the only application of alternatives would be as accessory work or for times you cannot flat
barbell bench press (holidays and other specific injuries).
However, for muscle growth, the fact is there is no "must do" exercise.
A wide range of exercises can be effective, so alternatives, in this case, can literally be
considered a replacement.
The flat barbell bench press is a horizontal pushing exercise, so all the following alternatives
are aptly horizontal pushes.
The Dumbbell Bench Press
There are many different ways you can perform the dumbbell bench press, but the following
discussion focuses on the one where you begin with the dumbbell together and then move
them away from each other in the lowering phase.
In all of the research we’ll be assessing, this seems to have been the dumbbell bench press
style used.
We'll make mention of another version a little later.
65
Stability Differences
When comparing how a barbell bench press feels to a dumbbell bench press, one of the
most apparent differences is stability.
Both of your hands comfortably hold on to the barbell (a single object). Moreover, there are
only so many ways you can move the barbell due to its structure.
Contrastingly, each of your hands independently holds on to a dumbbell, creating more
freedom of movement. You can move the two dumbbells asymmetrically (your left hand does
a movement with a dumbbell that is different from the movement performed with the
dumbbell in the right hand).
Does any of this matter for hypertrophy outcomes?
Some believe that greater stabilization requirements are more beneficial. It’s hypothesized
that greater instability necessities greater muscle activation, resulting in a more powerful
stimulus for muscle mass.
However, there are also opposing thoughts to this notion. Some believe that excessive
instability may hinder one’s ability to truly produce muscle force, thereby actually preventing
an optimal stimulus for muscle hypertrophy.
We’ll explore these ideas more in the muscle recruitment and hypertrophy outcomes section.
Strength on the Dumbbell vs Barbell Bench Press
Unsurprisingly, people are generally stronger on the barbell bench press.
A 2011 study out of Norway by Saeterbakken et al. (105) found that in individuals with an
average of 4.6 years of training experience, one-rep max on the barbell bench press was
significantly greater than one-rep max on the dumbbell bench press.
Unfortunately, they did not provide the exact values, only a graph that is pretty hard to
decipher.
When assessing the number of repetitions an individual can perform between a dumbbell
and barbell bench press with a given load, it’s also unsurprising to find that performance is
superior with the barbell variation.
A 2021 study out of the USA by Heinecke et al. (106) had college football players perform
repetitions to failure on the dumbbell and barbell bench press with a 91kg load (so with the
dumbells, each dumbbell was 45.5kg).
66
On average, subjects performed 13.8 repetitions with the barbell, but only 12.5 with the pair
of dumbbells.
Of course, this isn’t a massive difference, but it is a difference nonetheless.
The discussed differences in stabilization are likely one of the reasons why you can perform
better on the barbell bench press.
However, there is also another (less talked about) reason that may play a role here, relating
to the triceps. We’ll touch on this in the (next) muscle recruitment section.
Muscle Recruitment Between the Dumbbell and Barbell Bench
Press
In addition to if stabilization differences could impact muscle recruitment, I have come across
arguments suggesting that the motions used during a dumbbell bench press may be
conducive to greater chest recruitment.
Dumbbell bench presses may involve more horizontal flexion (bringing your arms towards
the midline of your body), a primary function of the chest.
With the dumbbell bench press style we’re discussing, after the lowering phase, you press
and bring the dumbbells together (more horizontal flexion, as your arms get closer to the
midline of your body).
Contrastingly, with a barbell bench press, given your hands do not move on the barbell
during the execution of the movement, the arms stay at more or less the same distance
away from the midline of the body.
Indeed, a 2017 study from Brazil by Farias et al. (107) found that the dumbbell bench press
elicited greater chest recruitment compared to the barbell bench press.
As a note, recruitment was measured (and averaged) from the middle repetitions of 4 sets
with a 10 rep-max load.
However, two other studies do not support this.
A 2011 study out of Norway by Saeterbakken et al. (105) found that during a one-rep max on
both exercises, there was similar recruitment of the chest between the dumbbell and barbell
bench press.
Similarly, a 2005 study from the USA by Welsch et al. (108) found that during the first 3 reps
with a 6 rep-max load, recruitment of the chest was similar between the dumbbell and
barbell bench press.
67
So, although it’s far from overwhelming, the slight majority of evidence suggests that the
dumbbell and barbell bench press induce similar chest recruitment.
Why might this be?
Although the dumbbell bench press may involve more horizontal flexion, it may just be
insignificant for chest recruitment.
Aside from the chest, the anterior deltoid and triceps are the two other muscles heavily
involved in the bench press.
How does the recruitment of these muscles compare between the dumbbell and barbell
bench press?
The studies by Saaterbakken et al. and Welsch et al. explored anterior deltoid recruitment.
They both found the dumbbell and barbell bench press elicited similar recruitment of this
muscle.
As for the triceps, Saeterbakken et al. and Farias et al. both found that dumbbell bench
pressing produced lower recruitment of this muscle group compared to barbell bench
pressing.
This finding makes sense for 2 reasons.
The barbell bench press involves lateral forces, something the triceps heavily contribute
towards.
Let me explain this further.
Most people typically only think of vertical forces with the bench press. That is the force
generated to lift the bar (or dumbbell) up.
However, with a barbell bench press, individuals actually also generate lateral forces.
Lateral forces are forces directed away from the center of the body.
Think of lateral forces as trying to tear the barbell apart with both of your hands during a
barbell bench press. Your left hand is applying force left, while your right hand is applying
force right.
In a barbell bench press, lateral forces are around 25% of the vertical forces (109).
As mentioned, the triceps play a heavy role in producing this lateral force (109).
With a dumbbell bench press, it’s more or less impossible to apply meaningful lateral forces
(you can’t tear the two dumbbells away from each other). If you tried, you’d throw the
dumbbells on either side of you to the floor.
68
The fact you cannot apply meaningful lateral forces to the dumbbell bench press may further
explain why individuals are weaker on this exercise compared to a barbell bench press.
The other reason why the triceps may not be heavily involved in the dumbbell bench press is
due to the greater stability.
We already introduced the concept of antagonistic co-activation earlier on. As a reminder, it's
where the antagonist produces force in addition to the agonist muscle during a movement.
Greater instability may create higher antagonist co-activation levels.
With the dumbbell bench press, the greater instability at the elbow joint may cause greater
biceps recruitment versus the barbell variation (something supported by the Saeterbakken et
al. study), and this can limit the force produced by the triceps.
Muscle Growth Between the Dumbbell and Barbell Bench Press
Despite there being some differences between the dumbbell and barbell bench press, there
are many similarities.
For one, both movements more or less involve similar motions at the shoulder and elbow
joints, and both are typically executed with a similar range of motion.
Moreover, as just established, both likely similarly recruit the chest and anterior deltoid
muscles.
Consequently, I think it’s highly likely the dumbbell and barbell bench press would similarly
grow the chest and anterior deltoid.
For the triceps, though, the barbell bench press is most likely superior, thanks to the reasons
outlined already.
Some may be thinking of the stability differences and if this can impact hypertrophy.
All in all, differences in stability do not seem to be immensely important for muscle mass
outcomes.
A study by Schwanbeck et al. (110) compared a machine-only program to a free weight-only
(barbells and dumbbells) program.
69
Of course, machines provide the most stable environment while free weights are the most
unstable.
Muscle hypertrophy outcomes were similar between both groups, indicating stability
differences do not play a significant role in building muscle.
As a result, the fact dumbbell bench presses are more unstable than barbell bench presses
is likely neither advantageous nor disadvantageous for building muscle mass.
Another Dumbbell Bench Press Variation
Another somewhat popular way is performing the dumbbell bench press is with a neutral
grip, as depicted in the image below:
70
Contrasting to the dumbbell bench press we've been discussing thus far (where you begin
with the dumbbells together and then move them away from each other on the lowering
phase), this neutral grip probably activates the triceps nicely.
Indeed, recall in the section discussing how the bench press impacts triceps growth, we
mentioned a 2013 study out of Japan by Wakahara et al. (86).
This study found the triceps (specifically the lateral and medial heads) were activated well,
while the long head was not activated much (we've already established why all bench press
variations minimally recruit this muscle).
71
As for other muscles, I think it's possible chest recruitment may slightly be decreased with
this variation, as horizontal flexion is lowered.
Yet, there's no research I'm aware of that can validate this, nor is there research exploring
how anterior deltoid recruitment looks like with this variation.
The Smith Machine Bench Press
Throughout, we have used research performed on the smith machine to establish potential
training recommendations.
I justified this by saying although there are differences between the smith machine and
barbell bench press, there are more similarities.
Let's overview some of the differences and similarities.
Stabilization Differences
One of the most apparent differences between the smith machine and barbell bench press is
the difference in stability.
When using a barbell, you have freedom of movement. Consequently, when carrying out a
specific movement, such as the bench press, a fair degree of muscle stabilization and
control is required.
Conversely, the smith machine does not enable completely free movement of the bar, only
up and down motions. Resultantly, less muscle stability is required to carry out an exercise
like the bench press.
For many, this stability difference is foundational to why they believe the smith machine is
inferior.
We noted this with the dumbbell vs barbell comparison, but It’s hypothesized that greater
stability requirements elicits greater activation of the working muscles, thereby making it a
more powerful stimulus for strength and hypertrophy adaptations.
In a moment, we’ll again verify these claims in the muscle recruitment and muscle growth
section.
Bar Path Differences
Aside from stability differences, both exercises can differ in bar paths.
We've already established what ideal bar paths with the flat barbell bench press look like.
72
With a smith machine bench press, your path is restricted to whatever the smith machine
permits.
There exist different types of smith machines, but they typically only allow you to press with
a more or less vertical line.
When viewing the smith machine from the side, some are designed in a way that results in a
slightly diagonal up and down line.
73
In any event, it's probably best not to press up and down on the smith machine with the bar
directly over your shoulder line.
Doing this will result in you being at 90 degrees of shoulder abduction in the lowest position,
we already noted how some research (4) suggests repetitive movements in this position may
be unfavorable for shoulder joint health.
As a consequence, I recommend individuals start and initiate the lowering phase of the
bench press with the bar over their mid/lower chest region. Doing so will prevent you from
assuming a 90-degree shoulder abduction position in the lowest position.
74
Can You Lift Heavier On the Smith Machine or Barbell Bench
Press?
It’s often thought that individuals should be able to lift much heavier loads on the smith
machine.
After all, the smith machine involves fewer muscle stability requirements, meaning
individuals should easily exert more force without stabilization problems.
Although this seems very logical, the research doesn’t actually support this.
The studies I’m aware of have either found that individuals could lift heavier loads on the
barbell bench press, or there were non-significant differences in the loads lifted between the
two exercises.
A 2005 study from the USA by Correterman et al. (111) found that in individuals with at least
1 year of training experience, they could barbell bench press an average of 78.3kg, while
they could smith machine bench press an average of 67.4kg.
Similarly, a 2011 study from Norway by Saeterbakken et al. (105) found in men with an
average of 4.6 years of training experience, barbell bench press one-rep max was
significantly greater compared to a smith machine bench press one-rep max. Unfortunately,
they did not state the exact values, rather a graph that is pretty hard to decipher the precise
value was provided.
75
A 2010 study from the USA by Schick et al. (112) found that in trained and untrained
subjects, smith machine bench press one-rep max values were not statistically different from
barbell bench press one-rep max values. Unfortunately, the exact values were not given.
Finally, a 2020 study from Canada by Schwanbeck et al. (110) found that in men and women
with an average of 2.5 years of training experience, smith machine and barbell bench press
one-rep maxes were also similar.
The men averaged a smith machine one-rep max of 88kg and a barbell one-rep max of
83kg.
The women averaged a smith machine one-rep max of 41.5kg and a barbell one-rep max of
39kg.
So in total, it seems that individuals can either lift heavier loads on the barbell bench press or
a similar amount between the exercises.
Although the smith machine requires less stability, its constricted bar path could be one
factor that explains these findings.
In addition, specificity could be in play. A few of these studies were conducted on individuals
with training experience, and I think it's likely the trained individuals tended to train the
barbell bench press more than the smith machine bench press. Doing so likely results in
their free weight barbell strength outpacing smith machine barbell strength over time.
Smith Machine to Barbell Bench Press Carryover
How well do the smith machine and barbell bench press carry over to one another?
Quite well, a 2020 study from Canada by Schwanbeck et al. (110) finds.
We already detailed this study in the dumbbell section, but only noted the muscle growth
findings.
Recall, that they had two groups: a free weight and a machine group.
Both groups trained for 8 weeks.
The free weight group included training the barbell bench press and incline barbell bench
press, whereas the machine group included training the smith machine bench press and
smith machine incline bench press.
By the end of the 8 weeks, both groups actually experienced similar increases in barbell
bench press one-rep max strength.
76
In other words, training the smith machine bench press was as similarly effective as training
the barbell bench press for increasing barbell bench press one-rep max.
As for increases in smith machine one-rep max, although both groups experienced
respectable gains, increases were greater for the machine group.
According to the principle of specificity (you get better at what you train the most), we’d
expect the free weight group to have gained more strength on the barbell bench press
(which didn’t happen – the machine group was similarly effective), while the machine group
should have experienced the greatest gains on smith machine bench press strength (this did
happen).
77
However, an important consideration is that this study was only 8 weeks in duration.
In the long run, I think the principle of specificity would almost certainly hold true.
That is, to gain the most strength on the barbell bench press, training it would be superior to
training only the smith machine bench press.
And of course, as already shown in this 8-week study, training the smith machine bench
press was required to best increase smith machine bench press strength.
Muscle Recruitment Between the Smith Machine and Barbell Bench
Press
Earlier we mentioned it’s hypothesized greater stability requirements (with a barbell) elicit
greater activation of the working muscles.
However, for the main muscle groups involved in the bench press (chest, triceps, and
anterior deltoids), the evidence does not support this.
A 2011 study from Norway by Saterbakken et al. (105) found that when measuring muscle
recruitment during a one-rep max on both exercises, recruitment of the chest, anterior
deltoids, and triceps was similar between a smith machine and barbell bench press.
Likewise, a 2010 study from the USA by Schick et al. (112) found that when subjects
performed 2 reps at a 70% one-rep max load, or 90% one-rep max load, recruitment of the
chest and anterior deltoids were similar between the smith machine and barbell bench press.
A 2017 study from Brazil by Farias et al. (107) additionally found similar recruitment of the
chest and triceps between the smith machine and barbell bench press. Interestingly though,
recruitment of the anterior deltoid was greater in the smith machine bench press.
Nevertheless, the majority of the evidence indicates that the smith machine bench press can
induce similar recruitment of the main muscles (chest, triceps, and anterior deltoids) to the
barbell bench press.
However, for stabilizing muscles, the bench press probably results in more activation.
For instance, returning to the Saeterbakken et al. study (105), recruitment of the middle
deltoid was greater with the barbell bench press.
This is likely because, with a barbell bench press, the middle deltoid plays a role in
stabilizing the bar, whereas with a smith machine, this stabilization requirement is minimal.
78
Muscle Growth Between the Smith Machine and Barbell Bench
Press
Although there are some differences between the smith machine bench press and barbell
bench press, there are way more similarities between these two movements.
Both exercises can involve a similar overall range of motion at the shoulder and elbow joints.
Also, as established, both exercises produce similar recruitment of the main muscles (chest,
triceps, and anterior deltoids).
Collectively, these two ideas suggest that the smith machine and barbell bench press result
in similar tension on the chest, triceps, and anterior deltoids.
As tension is currently the best-understood mechanism of muscle hypertrophy (113), this
indicates that both exercises should result in similar hypertrophy of the chest, triceps, and
anterior deltoids.
Unfortunately, there is no long-term study comparing muscle growth outcomes between the
smith machine and barbell bench press.
But, the long-term 2022 study from Canada by Schwanbeck et al. we've already covered is
relevant.
Remember this study established similar muscle growth outcomes between a free weight
only and machine-only program (chest, triceps, and anterior deltoid growth was unfortunately
not assessed).
Looking back at the programs used, we can see that both the free weight and machine
groups performed similar movements, it’s just the free weight group performed these
movements with barbells and dumbbells, whereas the machine group performed them with
machines (including smith machines).
79
Consequently, the study serves as pretty good evidence that smith machines have the
potential to produce similar muscle growth to barbells, supporting the idea that a smith
machine bench press should induce similar hypertrophy of the main muscles to the barbell
bench press.
As for stabilization muscles, it’s plausible the barbell bench press would induce greater
hypertrophy.
However, I don’t believe this is a strong reason for using the barbell over the smith machine
for hypertrophy aims.
It’s extremely unlikely the stabilization muscles would be experiencing anything remotely
close to a near maximal stimulus during a barbell bench press, ultimately making it
inconsequential.
For example, as we detailed, the barbell bench press likely elicits greater recruitment of the
middle deltoid to the smith machine bench press.
The stimulus provided to the middle deltoid via the barbell bench press is likely nothing
compared to exercises that carry out the middle deltoid’s function (shoulder abduction).
Regardless of if you train with a barbell or smith machine bench press, exercises that involve
shoulder abduction (like lateral raises variations) are going to be necessary to maximally
develop the middle deltoid.
80
The Push-Up
The good old push-up can likely be considered an alternative to the flat barbell bench press.
Fortunately, we actually have two long-term studies comparing the push-up and flat barbell
bench press for muscle growth. Let's overview them.
Muscle Growth Outcomes Between the Push-Up and Bench Press
The first study is a 2017 one from Japan by Kikuchi and Nakazato (114).
18 young men with at least a year of resistance training experience were allocated into a
bench press or push-up group.
Both groups trained twice per week for 8 weeks.
Each session, the bench press group trained the flat barbell bench press for 3 sets of
repetitions to failure with a 40% one-rep max load, using 2 minutes of rest between sets.
The push-up group, each session, utilized a push-up variation that was roughly equivalent in
resistance to a 40% one-rep max bench press load. For some subjects, this meant a regular
push-up, whereas for others this was some kneeling push-up variation.
Regardless of the push-up variation used, the movement was carried out for 3 sets of
repetitions to failure, using 2 minutes of rest between sets.
Some people may be scratching their heads at the use of a 40%1RM resistance. But
remember for muscle growth purposes, provided you perform your repetitions to or close to
failure (as was done in this study) loads between 30% and 80%1RM are similarly effective.
The researchers found increases in pectoralis major and triceps thickness were similar
between the bench press and push-up groups.
81
However, biceps thickness only significantly increased in the bench press group.
This finding is quite intriguing. Most people would presume that neither the bench press nor
push-ups should grow the biceps, as they act as an antagonistic muscle, not agonist, during
these exercises.
What could explain this finding?
I’m not entirely certain, but the barbell bench press necessitates a fair degree of stabilization
to smoothly move the barbell, perhaps the biceps actively contract to some degree to
82
contribute towards this stabilization, thereby explaining its measurable enhancements in
thickness.
Nevertheless, for the agonist muscles (at least the pectoralis major and triceps), the findings
of this study indicate with all other training variables equal, the push-up can produce similar
growth to the flat barbell bench press.
The second study is a 2018 one from the USA by Kotarsky et al (115).
23 men between the ages of 18 and 45, with 2-6 months of resistance training experience,
were assigned to a bench press or push-up group.
Both groups trained three times per week for 4 weeks.
The bench press group performed the flat barbell bench press with a load they could
complete for 3 sets of 6 repetitions. Over the following sessions, once they could
successfully complete 3 sets of 8 repetitions with this load for 2 consecutive sessions, they
increased the load by 4.5kg and reverted to performing 3 sets of 6 repetitions.
The push-up group had access to numerous push-up variations, ordered according to
difficulty level, and divided into double-arm or single-arm variations.
If a subject could perform any of the single-arm variations for 3 sets of 3 repetitions, they
commenced training with this variation. If not, they commenced training with a double-arm
variation they could execute for 3 sets of 6 repetitions.
For those using a single-arm variant, over the following sessions, once they successfully
progressed to performing it for 3 sets of 4 repetitions for 2 sessions in a row, they
progressed to performing the next level while reverting to using 3 sets of 3 repetitions.
83
For those using a double-arm variant, over the following sessions, once they successfully
progressed to performing it for 3 sets of 8 repetitions for 2 sessions in a row, they
progressed to performing the next level. If this next level was still a double-arm variation,
they used 3 sets of 6 repetitions, whereas if it was a single-arm variation, they used 3 sets of
3 repetitions.
Curiously, neither group experienced statistically significant increases in pectoralis major
thickness. Despite this, the numerical mean increased in both groups.
This could be due to a couple of reasons. Firstly, the study was only 4 weeks, which is a very
short duration. A longer duration would probably result in statistically significant findings.
Secondly, as is unfortunately the case with most resistance training studies, the sample size
was small. Small sample sizes can impact the ability to detect changes between and within
groups.
Nevertheless, despite it not being classified as statistically significant, the numerical mean
for pectoralis major thickness did increase in both groups.
Intriguingly, the percentages favor the push-up group. We can’t read into this too much,
simply because as noted, it wasn’t statistically significant, and the sample sizes were small.
Perhaps these percentage differences are simply explained by the push-up group containing
subjects, on average, with a higher responsivity to training, rather than the push-up being
superior to the bench press for muscle growth.
What we can probably conclude from this study, on the other hand, is that the bench press
evidently did not display considerable superiority versus the push-up for muscle hypertrophy.
84
Other Muscle Comparisons Between the Push-Ups and Barbell
Bench Press
To summarize thus far, one paper by Kikuchi and Nakazato established that with all other
training variables equivalent, push-ups produced alike growth of the pectoralis major and
triceps to bench pressing.
Another study by Kotarsky et al., despite being quite a limited study with notable
considerations, at the very least suggests the bench press was evidently not considerably
superior to the push-up for pectoralis major growth.
If we were to combine these findings with other acute data and reasoning, and it seems in all
likelihood, push-ups likely have the capacity to produce similar hypertrophy of the pectoralis
major, triceps, and anterior deltoid to the bench press.
For one, the push-up and bench press are biomechanically alike. Both involve shoulder
horizontal flexion and extension, as well as elbow flexion and extension.
On top of this, the degree of range of motion that occurs is probably quite comparable
between the two exercises. With a barbell bench press, the bar travels from a position of
elbow lockout to a position where it contacts the chest region.
Comparably, a regular push-up requires you to lower from a position of elbow lockout to a
position where the chest region contacts the ground surface.
Considering these aforementioned points, it's unsurprising EMG studies have, for the most
part, found push-ups and bench pressing elicit similar muscle recruitment of the agonistic
muscles (pectoralis major, triceps, and anterior deltoid) when load-equated.
A 2020 Canadian study by Alizadeh et al. (116) found between a bodyweight push-up and
an equivalently loaded flat barbell bench press, both performed with the same hand-spacing
distance, recruitment of the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid was similar during the
concentric and eccentric phases of the exercises. However, lateral head triceps excitation
seemed to be slightly lower during the concentric phase of the push-up versus the bench
press.
Another 2020 study by Tillar and Ball (89) had subjects perform four different load-equated
conditions on the bench press and push-up.
The push-up was performed with bodyweight, a 10kg, 20kg, and 30kg weighted vest, while
the flat barbell bench press was performed with four different loads that equated to each one
of the push-up conditions.
Additionally, it’s worth mentioning the push-up was performed with handles using a pronated
grip that replicated the grip used during the flat barbell bench press.
85
Recruitment of the sternal and clavicular pectoralis major, long and lateral triceps brachii,
were similar between both exercises at each load-equated condition. However, anterior
deltoid recruitment seemed to be greater during the concentric phase on the bench press
versus the concentric phase of the push-up. Also, medial triceps head excitation was greater
during the eccentric phase of the bench press compared to the eccentric phase of the
push-up.
Finally, another paper by Tillar (90) used the exact same design.
This time around, recruitment of all of the measured regions of the pectoralis major, anterior
deltoid, and triceps was similar between the load-equated push-up and bench press
conditions.
Therefore, considering the totality of the existing EMG literature, though there are some
differences and disagreements between studies, the push-up and bench press seems to
induce similar recruitment of the agonistic muscles when load-equated.
Combining the current EMG literature with the two previously detailed long-term studies, as
well as the fact both exercises are biomechanically alike, it seems we have good grounds to
hypothesize the push-up and bench press have the capacity to probably produce similar
muscle growth in the agnostic muscles.
Overloading the Push-Up and Bench Press
It’s worth discussing a potential long-term problem with the regular push-up.
As you get stronger and build muscle from the stimuli provided by your exercises, you’re
going to want to overload your exercises in some form in order to consistently maintain a
high muscle-building stimulus. This is known as progressive overload.
With the flat barbell bench press, such overload can easily be accomplished. As you get
stronger and bigger, you can increase the number of repetitions you perform with a given
load, but more importantly, you also can increase the load you train with.
With the regular push-up, the number of repetitions you perform can be increased.
86
However, there likely comes a point where doing this becomes suboptimal for stimulating
hypertrophy. Recall we detailed how the literature demonstrates loads between 30% and
80% one-rep max elicit similar hypertrophy outcomes, provided repetitions are executed to
or close to failure.
It’s unclear if loads lighter than 30% one-rep max still can optimize hypertrophy. There are
existing data suggesting it might not (117).
Very generally, individuals can perform approximately up to 40 repetitions with a 30%
one-rep max load. Therefore, it follows that if an individual performs more than 40 repetitions
on the regular push-up, no longer might muscle hypertrophy be optimally stimulated.
What’s the solution to this?
One solution is to progress via using harder and harder push-up variations. Recall this was
the strategy utilized in the Kotarsky study.
There exist an array of push-up variations with varying difficulty levels.
For example, a 2011 study from the USA by Ebben et al. (118) examined what percentage of
a person’s bodyweight they pushed during a few different push-up variations.
Approximately 64% of a person’s body weight was pushed during a regular push-up.
Elevating your hands decreased this percentage while elevating your feet increased this
percentage.
Furthermore, a kneeling push-up required a subject to push approximately 49% of their body
weight.
87
This data can aid us in figuring out how an individual can progressively overload the push-up
in the long run.
In addition to these aforementioned push-up variations, as seen in the Kotarsky study,
single-arm push-up variations can also be highly useful for individuals who’ve progressed to
a level where double-arm variations no longer adequately challenge them.
Other potentially notable push-up variations include explosive push-up variations, such as
the clap or superman push-ups, push-ups with handles to increase the range of motion, as
well as push-ups with gymnastic rings.
88
Having detailed all of this, there is potentially an unforeseen concern when an individual
progresses via using harder and harder push-up variations.
Namely, different push-up variations likely distribute your bodyweight load across the
agonistic muscles differentially. This might not align with what you want.
For example, as detailed a moment ago, elevating your feet has you push a higher
percentage of your body weight versus a regular push-up.
However, it’s also quite plausible push-ups with elevated feet shift the loading to your upper
chest and anterior deltoids more, thereby possibly reducing the stimulus the mid to lower
chest region experiences.
Additionally, many single-arm variations, potentially due to reduced shoulder horizontal
flexion demands, may not recruit the chest to the degree a person would want to. Moreover,
although I’m not certain, single-arm variations are seemingly quite triceps dominant.
These points may be insignificant for those that mainly care about getting better and
progressing with push-ups.
But for those using the push-up as a muscle growth tool, this differential recruitment between
different push-up variations may be slightly unideal.
89
Weighted push-ups can probably solve this.
Specifically, aiming to progressively overload the push-up via additional weights (either
through a weighted vest, plates, plates in a backpack, or some other method) can likely be
highly effective for making the push-up a stable and solid muscle hypertrophy stimulus.
Recall earlier we presented two studies by Tillar that found weighted push-ups, for the most
part, managed to elicit alike muscle recruitment of the agonistic muscles to equivalently
loaded bench pressing.
Now, in theory, there could come a point where weighted push-ups become slightly less
practical.
Namely, performing 50-70kg weighted push-ups is probably feasible, but beyond this point, it
may become tricky to practically use heavier loads.
However, there still exist solutions.
With the additional weight, adding in paused repetitions, using deficit style push-ups to
increase the range of motion, or even something like gymnastic rings can be tools to further
progressive overload.
Additionally, although potentially more triceps dominant, working on weighted single-arm
push-ups variations would plausibly still be a great stimulus for the pectoralis major and
anterior deltoid.
It’s also worth noting again that repetitions up to 40, so long as they are executed to or close
repetitions from failure, are effective for stimulating muscle growth.
As a result, progressing heavily weighted push-ups into the higher rep ranges will likely still
be powerful for stimulating muscle hypertrophy.
For example, let’s say you’ve worked up to performing 50kg weighted push-ups for sets of 8
repetitions, and you wish to no longer add further external load as it isn’t practical. From
here, your new goal might be to hit sets of 30 repetitions with this 50kg weighted push-up.
The main point I’m attempting to illustrate here is that although the bench press is far simpler
to progressive overload in the long run, there are many routes in which an individual can
successfully overload the push-up long-term.
Push-Up and Bench Press Carryover
The literature implies the push-up has a fantastic carry-over to bench press strength.
90
We’ve already overviewed the details of the Kikuchi and Nakazato, as well as the Kotarsky
studies. Yet, I haven’t mentioned that in both of these studies, one-repetition max on the flat
barbell bench press was evaluated before and after the training durations.
In both studies, increases in this measure were not statistically different between the
push-up and bench press groups.
However, the percentage increases seem to meaningfully favor the bench press group. I
think it’s probably likely the small sample sizes in both studies compromised the ability to
detect this change as significant.
91
The reason I say this is because it’s of course very logical training the bench press is what
would increase your bench press strength the most.
Even so, the data nevertheless demonstrates the push-up respectably improves bench
press strength.
What about the reverse of this? How well does bench press training carry over to push-up
performance?
Let us briefly return to the Kotarsky study. Remember, they used a variety of push-up
variations. Before and after the study, both the push-up and bench press groups were tested
on which level they could comfortably perform.
By the end of the study, the push-up group managed to increase the level they could
comfortably perform significantly, while although the bench press group also increased the
level they could execute, it was much smaller in magnitude and statistically significantly less
than the push-up group.
Hence, although bench press training can help push-up strength, it may not produce
pronounced increases.
Although it’s worth remembering this Kotarsky study was only 4 weeks in duration, longer
durations may change this.
Generally, I think it’s probably quite likely bench press training will have measurable positive
effects on push-up performance long-term.
92
The Abdominals and Serratus Anterior
We’ve primarily been discussing the similarities between the push-up and bench press,
namely their similar biomechanical demands, muscle recruitment, muscle growth, and
carry-over potential.
But, there still are some differences between these two exercises.
The push-up likely recruits and develops the abdominal muscles to a greater extent than the
flat barbell bench press.
Illustrating this, a 2014 study from Spain by Calatayud et al. (119) found that a regular
push-up produced significantly greater recruitment of the rectus abdominis and external
oblique versus the flat barbell bench press performed with an 85% one-rep max load.
These findings are logical. A push-up gets you into a plank position that necessitates
abdominal recruitment to support and stabilize the trunk.
Opposingly, the flat barbell bench press has you rest your trunk on a bench, meaning the
abdominal muscles need not be recruited as much.
In addition to this, the push-up likely does a superior job to the bench press for developing
the serratus anterior.
93
One of the functions of the serratus anterior is the protraction of the shoulder blades.
During a well-executed push-up, the shoulder blades move freely throughout the movement.
Specifically, the shoulder blades retract during the lowering phase and protract during the
lifting phase, enabling serratus anterior recruitment.
Conversely, a well-executed flat barbell bench press typically has your shoulder blades
retracted and pinned down into the bench, meaning no protraction occurs.
94
The End
Hey!
Thank you for making it all the way to the end! I truly hope this e-book was informative and
helpful in some way :)
References:
1) Pallarés, J. G., Hernández-Belmonte, A., Martínez-Cava, A., Vetrovsky, T., Steffl, M.,
& Courel-Ibáñez, J. (2021). Effects of range of motion on resistance training
adaptations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian journal of
medicine & science in sports, 31(10), 1866–1881. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14006
2) Wagner, L. L., Evans, S. A., Weir, J. P., Housh, T. J., & Johnson, G. O. (1992). The
Effect of Grip Width on Bench Press Performance, International Journal of Sport
Biomechanics, 8(1), 1-10.
3) Kuechle, D. K., Newman, S. R., Itoi, E., Morrey, B. F., & An, K. N. (1997). Shoulder
muscle moment arms during horizontal flexion and elevation. Journal of shoulder and
elbow surgery, 6(5), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1058-2746(97)70049-1
4) Green, Carly M. CSCS; Comfort, Paul MSc, CSCS. The Affect of Grip Width on
Bench Press Performance and Risk of Injury. Strength and Conditioning Journal:
October 2007 - Volume 29 - Issue 5 - p 10-14
5) McLaughlin Research - https://ditillo2.blogspot.com/search?q=bar+path
6) Wilson, Gregory & Elliott, Bruce & Kerr, Graham. (1989). Bar Path and Force Profile
Characteristics for Maximal and Submaximal Loads in the Bench Press. International
Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 5. 390-402. 10.1123/ijsb.5.4.390.
7) Martínez-Cava, A., Hernández-Belmonte, A., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Morán-Navarro, R.,
González-Badillo, J. J., & Pallarés, J. G. (2022). Bench Press at Full Range of Motion
Produces Greater Neuromuscular Adaptations Than Partial Executions After
Prolonged Resistance Training. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 36(1),
10–15. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003391
8) Pedrosa, G. F., Lima, F. V., Schoenfeld, B. J., Lacerda, L. T., Simões, M. G., Pereira,
M. R., Diniz, R., & Chagas, M. H. (2022). Partial range of motion training elicits
favorable improvements in muscular adaptations when carried out at long muscle
lengths. European journal of sport science, 22(8), 1250–1260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1927199
9) Sato, S., Yoshida, R., Kiyono, R., Yahata, K., Yasaka, K., Nunes, J. P., Nosaka, K., &
Nakamura, M. (2021). Elbow Joint Angles in Elbow Flexor Unilateral Resistance
Exercise Training Determine Its Effects on Muscle Strength and Thickness of Trained
and Non-trained Arms. Frontiers in physiology, 12, 734509.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.734509
10) McMahon, G., Morse, C. I., Burden, A., Winwood, K., & Onambélé, G. L. (2014).
Muscular adaptations and insulin-like growth factor-1 responses to resistance training
95
are stretch-mediated. Muscle & nerve, 49(1), 108–119.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23884
11) Oranchuk, D. J., Storey, A. G., Nelson, A. R., & Cronin, J. B. (2019). Isometric
training and long-term adaptations: Effects of muscle length, intensity, and intent: A
systematic review. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 29(4),
484–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13375
12) Massey, C. D., Vincent, J., Maneval, M., Moore, M., & Johnson, J. T. (2004). An
analysis of full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the development
of strength in untrained men. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 18(3),
518–521. https://doi.org/10.1519/13263.1
13) Massey, C. D., Vincent, J., Maneval, M., & Johnson, J. T. (2005). Influence of range
of motion in resistance training in women: early phase adaptations. Journal of
strength and conditioning research, 19(2), 409–411.
https://doi.org/10.1519/R-14643.1
14) Kompf, J., & Arandjelović, O. (2017). The Sticking Point in the Bench Press, the
Squat, and the Deadlift: Similarities and Differences, and Their Significance for
Research and Practice. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 47(4), 631–640.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0615-9
15) Clark, R. A., Humphries, B., Hohmann, E., & Bryant, A. L. (2011). The influence of
variable range of motion training on neuromuscular performance and control of
external loads. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 25(3), 704–711.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c6a0ff
16) Rodiles-Guerrero, L., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J., Alcazar, J.,
Rodriguez-López, C., Sánchez-Moreno, M., Alegre, L. M., León-Prados, J. A., &
Pareja-Blanco, F. (2022). Specific Adaptations to 0%, 15%, 25%, and 50%
Velocity-Loss Thresholds During Bench Press Training. International journal of sports
physiology and performance, 17(8), 1231–1241.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0481
17) Pareja-Blanco, F., Alcazar, J., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J.,
Rodriguez-Lopez, C., Hidalgo-de Mora, J., Sánchez-Moreno, M., Bachero-Mena, B.,
Alegre, L. M., & Ortega-Becerra, M. (2020). Effects of velocity loss in the bench press
exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy.
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 30(11), 2154–2166.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13775
18) Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Yáñez-García, J. M., Sánchez-Medina, L., Mora-Custodio, R.,
& González-Badillo, J. J. (2020). Relationship Between Velocity Loss and Repetitions
in Reserve in the Bench Press and Back Squat Exercises. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 34(9), 2537–2547.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002881
19) Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Orazem, J., & Sabol, F. (2022). Effects of resistance
training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and
hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of sport and health
science, 11(2), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007
20) Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D. I., & Krieger, J. W. (2015). Effect of repetition duration
during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(4), 577–585.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0304-0
96
21) Martins-Costa, H. C., Lacerda, L. T., Diniz, R., Lima, F. V., Andrade, A., Peixoto, G.
H., Gomes, M. C., Lanza, M. B., Bemben, M. G., & Chagas, M. H. (2022).
Equalization of Training Protocols by Time Under Tension Determines the Magnitude
of Changes in Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 36(7), 1770–1780.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004004
22) Nogueira, W., Gentil, P., Mello, S. N., Oliveira, R. J., Bezerra, A. J., & Bottaro, M.
(2009). Effects of power training on muscle thickness of older men. International
journal of sports medicine, 30(3), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1104584
23) Hisaeda H, Nakamura Y, Kuno S, et al. Effect of high-speed resistance training on
muscle cross-sectional area and speed of movement. Jpn J Phys Fit Sport.
1996;45(2):345–56.
24) Young, Warren B.; Bilby, Glenn E.. The Effect of Voluntary Effort to Influence Speed
of Contraction on Strength, Muscular Power, and Hypertrophy Development. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research: August 1993 - Volume 7 - Issue 3 - p
172-178
25) González-Badillo, J. J., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Gorostiaga, E.
M., & Pareja-Blanco, F. (2014). Maximal intended velocity training induces greater
gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training.
European journal of sport science, 14(8), 772–781.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.905987
26) Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A.,
Kraemer, W. J., French, D. N., Eslava, J., Altadill, A., Asiain, X., & Gorostiaga, E. M.
(2006). Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure
on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of applied
physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 100(5), 1647–1656.
https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01400.2005
27) Karsten, B., Fu, Y. L., Larumbe-Zabala, E., Seijo, M., & Naclerio, F. (2021). Impact of
Two High-Volume Set Configuration Workouts on Resistance Training Outcomes in
Recreationally Trained Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 35(Suppl
1), S136–S143. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003163
28) Drinkwater, E. J., Lawton, T. W., Lindsell, R. P., Pyne, D. B., Hunt, P. H., & McKenna,
M. J. (2005). Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
gains in elite junior athletes. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 19(2),
382–388. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-15224.1
29) Kojić, F., Ranisavljev, I., Ćosić, D., Popović, D., Stojiljković, S., & Ilić, V. (2021).
Effects of resistance training on hypertrophy, strength and tensiomyography
parameters of elbow flexors: role of eccentric phase duration. Biology of sport, 38(4),
587–594. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2021.99323
30) Pereira, Paulo Eduardo & Motoyama, Yuri & Esteves, Gilmar & Quinelato, William &
Botter, Luciano & Tanaka, Kelvin & Azevedo, Paulo. (2016). Resistance training with
slow speed of movement is better for hypertrophy and muscle strength gains than
fast speed of movement. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology. 5.
37-43.
31) Shibata, K., Takizawa, K., Nosaka, K., & Mizuno, M. (2021). Effects of Prolonging
Eccentric Phase Duration in Parallel Back-Squat Training to Momentary Failure on
Muscle Cross-Sectional Area, Squat One Repetition Maximum, and Performance
97
Tests in University Soccer Players. Journal of strength and conditioning research,
35(3), 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002838
32) H.S.M. Azevedo, P., G. D. Oliveira, M., & J. Schoenfeld, B. (2022). Effect of different
eccentric tempos on hypertrophy and strength of the lower limbs. Biology of Sport,
39(2), 443-449. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2022.105335
33) Pearson, J., Wadhi, T., Barakat, C., Aube, D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Andersen, J. C.,
Barroso, R., Ugrinowitsch, C., & De Souza, E. O. (2022). Does Varying Repetition
Tempo in a Single-Joint Lower Body Exercise Augment Muscle Size and Strength in
Resistance-Trained Men?. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 36(8),
2162–2168. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003953
34) Wilk, M., Gepfert, M., Krzysztofik, M., Mostowik, A., Filip, A., Hajduk, G., & Zajac, A.
(2020). Impact of Duration of Eccentric Movement in the One-Repetition Maximum
Test Result in the Bench Press among Women. Journal of sports science & medicine,
19(2), 317–322.
35) Carzoli, J. P., Sousa, C. A., Belcher, D. J., Helms, E. R., Khamoui, A. V., Whitehurst,
M., & Zourdos, M. C. (2019). The effects of eccentric phase duration on concentric
outcomes in the back squat and bench press in well-trained males. Journal of sports
sciences, 37(23), 2676–2684. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1655131
36) Wilk, M., Golas, A., Krzysztofik, M., Nawrocka, M., & Zajac, A. (2019). The Effects of
Eccentric Cadence on Power and Velocity of the Bar during the Concentric Phase of
the Bench Press Movement. Journal of sports science & medicine, 18(2), 191–197.
37) Herzog W. (2018). The multiple roles of titin in muscle contraction and force
production. Biophysical reviews, 10(4), 1187–1199.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-017-0395-y
38) Lopez, P., Radaelli, R., Taaffe, D. R., Newton, R. U., Galvão, D. A., Trajano, G. S.,
Teodoro, J. L., Kraemer, W. J., Häkkinen, K., & Pinto, R. S. (2021). Resistance
Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review
and Network Meta-analysis. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 53(6),
1206–1216. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002585
39) Ogasawara, Riki & Loenneke, Jeremy & Thiebaud, Robert & Abe, Takashi. (2013).
Low-Load Bench Press Training to Fatigue Results in Muscle Hypertrophy Similar to
High-Load Bench Press Training. International Journal of Clinical Medicine. 4.
114-121. 10.4236/ijcm.2013.42022.
40) Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Strength and
Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of strength and conditioning research,
31(12), 3508–3523. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200
41) Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., & Peterson, M. (2016). Differential
Effects of Heavy Versus Moderate Loads on Measures of Strength and Hypertrophy
in Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of sports science & medicine, 15(4), 715–722.
42) Moesgaard, L., Beck, M. M., Christiansen, L., Aagaard, P., & Lundbye-Jensen, J.
(2022). Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in
Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 52(7), 1647–1666.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1
43) Williams, T. D., Tolusso, D. V., Fedewa, M. V., & Esco, M. R. (2017). Comparison of
Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A
98
Meta-Analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 47(10), 2083–2100.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y
44) Nunes, J. P., Ribeiro, A. S., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Cyrino, E. S. (2018). Comment on:
"Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal
Strength: A Meta-Analysis". Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 48(2), 491–494.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0824-x
45) Baz-Valle, E., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Alix-Fages, C., & Santos-Concejero, J.
(2022). A Systematic Review of The Effects of Different Resistance Training Volumes
on Muscle Hypertrophy. Journal of human kinetics, 81, 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0017
46) Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-response relationship
between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of sports sciences, 35(11), 1073–1082.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
47) Bickel, C. S., Cross, J. M., & Bamman, M. M. (2011). Exercise dosing to retain
resistance training adaptations in young and older adults. Medicine and science in
sports and exercise, 43(7), 1177–1187.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318207c15d
48) Heaselgrave, S. R., Blacker, J., Smeuninx, B., McKendry, J., & Breen, L. (2019).
Dose-Response Relationship of Weekly Resistance-Training Volume and Frequency
on Muscular Adaptations in Trained Men. International journal of sports physiology
and performance, 14(3), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0427
49) Ostrowski, Karl J.; Wilson, Greg J.; Weatherby, Robert; Murphy, Peter W.; Lyttle,
Andrew D.. The Effect of Weight Training Volume on Hormonal Output and Muscular
Size and Function. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: August 1997 Volume 11 - Issue 3 - p 148-154
50) Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Krieger, J., Grgic, J., Delcastillo, K., Belliard, R., &
Alto, A. (2019). Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not
Strength in Trained Men. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 51(1),
94–103. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001764
51) Aube, D., Wadhi, T., Rauch, J., Anand, A., Barakat, C., Pearson, J., Bradshaw, J.,
Zazzo, S., Ugrinowitsch, C., & De Souza, E. O. (2022). Progressive Resistance
Training Volume: Effects on Muscle Thickness, Mass, and Strength Adaptations in
Resistance-Trained Individuals. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 36(3),
600–607. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003524
52) Scarpelli, M. C., Nóbrega, S. R., Santanielo, N., Alvarez, I. F., Otoboni, G. B.,
Ugrinowitsch, C., & Libardi, C. A. (2022). Muscle Hypertrophy Response Is Affected
by Previous Resistance Training Volume in Trained Individuals. Journal of strength
and conditioning research, 36(4), 1153–1157.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003558
53) Paulsen, G., Myklestad, D., & Raastad, T. (2003). The influence of volume of
exercise on early adaptations to strength training. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 17(1), 115–120.
https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017<0115:tiovoe>2.0.co;2
54) Baker, J. S., Davies, B., Cooper, S. M., Wong, D. P., Buchan, D. S., & Kilgore, L.
(2013). Strength and body composition changes in recreationally strength-trained
individuals: comparison of one versus three sets resistance-training programmes.
BioMed research international, 2013, 615901. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/615901
99
55) Radaelli, R., Fleck, S. J., Leite, T., Leite, R. D., Pinto, R. S., Fernandes, L., & Simão,
R. (2015). Dose-response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local
muscular endurance, and hypertrophy. Journal of strength and conditioning research,
29(5), 1349–1358. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000758
56) Brigatto, F. A., Lima, L., Germano, M. D., Aoki, M. S., Braz, T. V., & Lopes, C. R.
(2022). High Resistance-Training Volume Enhances Muscle Thickness in
Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 36(1),
22–30. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003413
57) Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., & Krieger, J. (2019). How many times per week should a
muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and
meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency.
Journal of sports sciences, 37(11), 1286–1295.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906
58) Zaroni, R. S., Brigatto, F. A., Schoenfeld, B. J., Braz, T. V., Benvenutti, J. C.,
Germano, M. D., Marchetti, P. H., Aoki, M. S., & Lopes, C. R. (2019). High
Resistance-Training Frequency Enhances Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained
Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 33 Suppl 1, S140–S151.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002643
59) Bartolomei, S., Nigro, F., Malagoli Lanzoni, I., Masina, F., Di Michele, R., & Hoffman,
J. R. (2021). A Comparison Between Total Body and Split Routine Resistance
Training Programs in Trained Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research,
35(6), 1520–1526. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003573
60) Lasevicius, T., Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Laurentino, G., Tavares, L. D., & Tricoli, V.
(2019). Similar Muscular Adaptations in Resistance Training Performed Two Versus
Three Days Per Week. Journal of human kinetics, 68, 135–143.
https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0062
61) Brigatto, F. A., Braz, T. V., Zanini, T., Germano, M. D., Aoki, M. S., Schoenfeld, B. J.,
Marchetti, P. H., & Lopes, C. R. (2019). Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on
Neuromuscular Performance and Muscle Morphology After 8 Weeks in Trained Men.
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 33(8), 2104–2116.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002563
62) Evangelista, A. L., Braz, T. V., La Scala Teixeira, C. V., Rica, R. L., Alonso, A. C.,
Barbosa, W. A., Reis, V. M., Baker, J. S., Schoenfeld, B. J., Bocalini, D. S., & Greve,
J. (2021). Split or full-body workout routine: which is best to increase muscle strength
and hypertrophy?. Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 19, eAO5781.
https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2021AO5781
63) Arazi, Hamid & Asadi, Abbas. (2011). Effects of 8 weeks equal-volume resistance
training with different workout frequency on maximal strength, endurance and body
composition. International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering. 5.
64) Brazell-Roberts JV, Thomas LE. Effects of weight training frequency on the
self-concept of college females. J Appl Sports Sci Res. 1989;3(2):40–3
65) Candow DG, Burke DG. Effect of short-term equal-volume resistance training with
different workout frequency on muscle mass and strength in untrained men and
women. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(1):204–7
66) Hunter GR. Changes in body composition, body build and per- formance associated
with different weight training frequencies in males and females. Natl Strength Cond
Assoc J. 1985;7(1):26–8.
100
67) McLester JR, Bishop P, Guilliams ME. Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of
equal-volume resistance training in experi- enced subjects. J Strength Cond Res.
2000;14(3):273–81.
68) Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, et al. Influence of resistance training
frequency on muscular adaptations in well- trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
2015;29(7):1821–9
69) Kraemer, W. J., Noble, B. J., Clark, M. J., & Culver, B. W. (1987). Physiologic
responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods. International
journal of sports medicine, 8(4), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1025663
70) Fink, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Nakazato, K. (2018). The role of hormones in muscle
hypertrophy. The Physician and sportsmedicine, 46(1), 129–134.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2018.1406778
71) Longo, A. R., Silva-Batista, C., Pedroso, K., de Salles Painelli, V., Lasevicius, T.,
Schoenfeld, B. J., Aihara, A. Y., de Almeida Peres, B., Tricoli, V., & Teixeira, E. L.
(2022). Volume Load Rather Than Resting Interval Influences Muscle Hypertrophy
During High-Intensity Resistance Training. Journal of strength and conditioning
research, 36(6), 1554–1559. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003668
72) Schoenfeld, B. J., Pope, Z. K., Benik, F. M., Hester, G. M., Sellers, J., Nooner, J. L.,
Schnaiter, J. A., Bond-Williams, K. E., Carter, A. S., Ross, C. L., Just, B. L.,
Henselmans, M., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Longer Interset Rest Periods Enhance
Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of strength
and conditioning research, 30(7), 1805–1812.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001272
73) Buresh, R., Berg, K., & French, J. (2009). The effect of resistive exercise rest interval
on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training. Journal of strength
and conditioning research, 23(1), 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318185f14a
74) Fink, J. E., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2017). Acute and
Long-term Responses to Different Rest Intervals in Low-load Resistance Training.
International journal of sports medicine, 38(2), 118–124.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-119204
75) Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Skrepnik, M., Davies, T. B., & Mikulic, P. (2018). Effects
of Rest Interval Duration in Resistance Training on Measures of Muscular Strength: A
Systematic Review. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 48(1), 137–151.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0788-x
76) Taber, C. B., Vigotsky, A., Nuckols, G., & Haun, C. T. (2019). Exercise-Induced
Myofibrillar Hypertrophy is a Contributory Cause of Gains in Muscle Strength. Sports
medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 49(7), 993–997.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01107-8
77) Ye, X., Loenneke, J. P., Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L. M., Thiebaud, R. S., Kim, D.,
Bemben, M. G., & Abe, T. (2013). Relationship between lifting performance and
skeletal muscle mass in elite powerlifters. The Journal of sports medicine and
physical fitness, 53(4), 409–414.
78) Brechue, W. F., & Abe, T. (2002). The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle
architecture in powerlifting performance. European journal of applied physiology,
86(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-001-0543-7
79) Keogh, J. W., Hume, P. A., Pearson, S. N., & Mellow, P. J. (2009). Can absolute and
proportional anthropometric characteristics distinguish stronger and weaker
101
powerlifters?. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 23(8), 2256–2265.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b8d67a
80) Reya, M., Škarabot, J., Cvetičanin, B., & Šarabon, N. (2021). Factors Underlying
Bench Press Performance in Elite Competitive Powerlifters. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 35(8), 2179–2186.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003097
81) Fung, L., Wong, B., Ravichandiran, K., Agur, A., Rindlisbacher, T., & Elmaraghy, A.
(2009). Three-dimensional study of pectoralis major muscle and tendon architecture.
Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 22(4), 500–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20784
82) Hik, F., & Ackland, D. C. (2019). The moment arms of the muscles spanning the
glenohumeral joint: a systematic review. Journal of anatomy, 234(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12903
83) Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Ishii, N., & Abe, T. (2013). Comparison of muscle
hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training. European
journal of applied physiology, 113(4), 975–985.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2511-9
84) Davies, T. B., Halaki, M., Orr, R., Mitchell, L., Helms, E. R., Clarke, J., & Hackett, D.
A. (2022). Effect of Set-Structure on Upper-Body Muscular Hypertrophy and
Performance in Recreationally-Trained Male and Female. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 36(8), 2176–2185.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003971
85) Brandão, L., de Salles Painelli, V., Lasevicius, T., Silva-Batista, C., Brendon, H.,
Schoenfeld, B. J., Aihara, A. Y., Cardoso, F. N., de Almeida Peres, B., & Teixeira, E.
L. (2020). Varying the Order of Combinations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises
Differentially Affects Resistance Training Adaptations. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 34(5), 1254–1263.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003550
86) Wakahara, T., Fukutani, A., Kawakami, Y., & Yanai, T. (2013). Nonuniform muscle
hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training session. Medicine and
science in sports and exercise, 45(11), 2158–2165.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182995349
87) Maeo, S., Wu, Y., Huang, M., Sakurai, H., Kusagawa, Y., Sugiyama, T., Kanehisa, H.,
& Isaka, T. (2022). Triceps brachii hypertrophy is substantially greater after elbow
extension training performed in the overhead versus neutral arm position. European
journal of sport science, 1–11. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2022.2100279
88) Rodríguez-Ridao, D., Antequera-Vique, J. A., Martín-Fuentes, I., & Muyor, J. M.
(2020). Effect of Five Bench Inclinations on the Electromyographic Activity of the
Pectoralis Major, Anterior Deltoid, and Triceps Brachii during the Bench Press
Exercise. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(19),
7339. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197339
89) van den Tillaar, R., & Ball, N. (2020). Push-Ups are Able to Predict the Bench Press
1-RM and Constitute an Alternative for Measuring Maximum Upper Body Strength
Based on Load-Velocity Relationships. Journal of human kinetics, 73, 7–18.
https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0133
90) Tillaar R. (2019). Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between Push-up
and Bench Press. Sports medicine international open, 3(3), E74–E81.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1001-2526
102
91) Stronska, K., Golas, A., Wilk, M., Zajac, A., Maszczyk, A., & Stastny, P. (2020). The
effect of targeted resistance training on bench press performance and the alternation
of prime mover muscle activation patterns. Sports biomechanics, 1–15. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1752790
92) Jacko, D., Schaaf, K., Masur, L., Windoffer, H., Aussieker, T., Schiffer, T., Zacher, J.,
Bloch, W., & Gehlert, S. (2022). Repeated and Interrupted Resistance Exercise
Induces the Desensitization and Re-Sensitization of mTOR-Related Signaling in
Human Skeletal Muscle Fibers. International journal of molecular sciences, 23(10),
5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105431
93) Paz, G. A., Robbins, D. W., de Oliveira, C. G., Bottaro, M., & Miranda, H. (2017).
Volume Load and Neuromuscular Fatigue During an Acute Bout of
Agonist-Antagonist Paired-Set vs. Traditional-Set Training. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 31(10), 2777–2784.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001059
94) Maia, M. F., Willardson, J. M., Paz, G. A., & Miranda, H. (2014). Effects of different
rest intervals between antagonist paired sets on repetition performance and muscle
activation. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 28(9), 2529–2535.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000451
95) Antunes, L., Bezerra, E. S., Sakugawa, R. L., & Dal Pupo, J. (2018). Effect of
cadence on volume and myoelectric activity during agonist-antagonist paired sets
(supersets) in the lower body. Sports biomechanics, 17(4), 502.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2017.1413130
96) Paz, G. A., Maia, M. F., Salerno, V. P., Coburn, J., Willardson, J. M., & Miranda, H.
(2019). Neuromuscular responses for resistance training sessions adopting
traditional, superset, paired set and circuit methods. The Journal of sports medicine
and physical fitness, 59(12), 1991–2002.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.19.09586-0
97) Paz, Gabriel & Willardson, Jeffrey & Simão, Roberto & Miranda, Humberto. (2013).
Effects of different antagonist protocols on repetition performance and muscle
activation. Medicina Sportiva. 17. 362-370. 10.5604/17342260.1068221.
98) Robbins, D. W., Young, W. B., Behm, D. G., Payne, W. R., & Klimstra, M. D. (2010).
Physical performance and electromyographic responses to an acute bout of paired
set strength training versus traditional strength training. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 24(5), 1237–1245.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181cc60ec
99) Miranda, Humberto & Maia, Marianna & Paz, Gabriel & Costa, Pablo. (2015). Acute
Effects of Antagonist Static Stretching in the Inter-Set Rest Period on Repetition
Performance and Muscle Activation. Research in sports medicine (Print). 23. 37-50.
10.1080/15438627.2014.975812.
100) Paz, Gabriel & Maia, M. & Whinchester, J. & Miranda, Humberto. (2016).
Strength performance parameters and muscle activation adopting two antagonist
stretching methods before and between sets. Science & Sports. 31.
10.1016/j.scispo.2016.01.011.
101)
Elliott, D., & Massey, D. (2020). Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on
upper-body agonist power. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,
15(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119884441
102) Balshaw, T. G., Massey, G. J., Maden-Wilkinson, T. M., Lanza, M. B., & Folland,
J. P. (2019). Neural adaptations after 4 years vs 12 weeks of resistance training vs
103
untrained. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 29(3), 348–359.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13331
103) Robbins, D. W., Young, W. B., Behm, D. G., & Payne, W. R. (2009). Effects of
agonist-antagonist complex resistance training on upper body strength and power
development. Journal of sports sciences, 27(14), 1617–1625.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903365677
104) Vigotsky, A. D., Halperin, I., Trajano, G. S., & Vieira, T. M. (2022). Longing for a
Longitudinal Proxy: Acutely Measured Surface EMG Amplitude is not a Validated
Predictor of Muscle Hypertrophy. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 52(2), 193–199.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01619-2
105) Saeterbakken, A. H., van den Tillaar, R., & Fimland, M. S. (2011). A comparison
of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different
stability requirements. Journal of sports sciences, 29(5), 533–538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.543916
106) Heinecke, M. L., Mauldin, M. L., Hunter, M. L., Mann, J. B., & Mayhew, J. L.
(2021). Relationship of Barbell and Dumbbell Repetitions With One Repetition
Maximum Bench Press in College Football Players. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 35(Suppl 1), S66–S71.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003539
107) Farias, D. A., Willardson, J. M., Paz, G. A., Bezerra, E. S., & Miranda, H. (2017).
Maximal Strength Performance and Muscle Activation for the Bench Press and
Triceps Extension Exercises Adopting Dumbbell, Barbell, and Machine Modalities
Over Multiple Sets. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 31(7), 1879–1887.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001651
108) Welsch, E. A., Bird, M., & Mayhew, J. L. (2005). Electromyographic activity of the
pectoralis major and anterior deltoid muscles during three upper-body lifts. Journal of
strength and conditioning research, 19(2), 449–452. https://doi.org/10.1519/14513.1
109) Duffey, M. J., & Challis, J. H. (2011). Vertical and lateral forces applied to the bar
during the bench press in novice lifters. Journal of strength and conditioning
research, 25(9), 2442–2447. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182281939
110) Schwanbeck, S. R., Cornish, S. M., Barss, T., & Chilibeck, P. D. (2020). Effects of
Training With Free Weights Versus Machines on Muscle Mass, Strength, Free
Testosterone, and Free Cortisol Levels. Journal of strength and conditioning
research, 34(7), 1851–1859. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003349
111) Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. (2005). Comparison of muscle
force production using the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and
squat exercises. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 19(1), 169–176.
https://doi.org/10.1519/14433.1
112) Schick, E. E., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., Judelson, D. A., Khamoui, A. V., Tran,
T. T., & Uribe, B. P. (2010). A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith
machine and free weight bench press. Journal of strength and conditioning research,
24(3), 779–784. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181cc2237
113) Wackerhage, H., Schoenfeld, B. J., Hamilton, D. L., Lehti, M., & Hulmi, J. J.
(2019). Stimuli and sensors that initiate skeletal muscle hypertrophy following
resistance exercise. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 126(1),
30–43. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00685.2018
104
114) Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2017). Low-load bench press and push-up induce
similar muscle hypertrophy and strength gain. Journal of exercise science and
fitness, 15(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2017.06.003
115) Kotarsky, C. J., Christensen, B. K., Miller, J. S., & Hackney, K. J. (2018). Effect of
Progressive Calisthenic Push-up Training on Muscle Strength and Thickness. Journal
of strength and conditioning research, 32(3), 651–659.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002345
116) Alizadeh, S., Rayner, M., Mahmoud, M., & Behm, D. G. (2020). Push-Ups vs.
Bench Press Differences in Repetitions and Muscle Activation between Sexes.
Journal of sports science & medicine, 19(2), 289–297.
117) Lasevicius, T., Ugrinowitsch, C., Schoenfeld, B. J., Roschel, H., Tavares, L. D.,
De Souza, E. O., Laurentino, G., & Tricoli, V. (2018). Effects of different intensities of
resistance training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy.
European journal of sport science, 18(6), 772–780.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1450898
118) Ebben, W. P., Wurm, B., VanderZanden, T. L., Spadavecchia, M. L., Durocher, J.
J., Bickham, C. T., & Petushek, E. J. (2011). Kinetic analysis of several variations of
push-ups. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 25(10), 2891–2894.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31820c8587
119) Calatayud, J., Borreani, S., Colado, J. C., Martin, F., & Rogers, M. E. (2014).
Muscle activity levels in upper-body push exercises with different loads and stability
conditions. The Physician and sportsmedicine, 42(4), 106–119.
https://doi.org/10.3810/psm.2014.11.2097
105