Bench press and pushup repetitions to failure with equated load

Abstract

The bench press and pushup are commonly used for training upper body muscular strength and endurance. Although they are often used interchangeably, differences between the two relative to body mass load are unknown. Furthermore, sex differences may exist due to anthropometric body mass specificity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the pushup and bench press when performing repetitions to failure with an equated load. On day 1, 25 recreationally trained subjects (16 men, age = 23.00 ± 2.36 years, height = 178.19 ± 9.61 cm, mass = 74.80 ± 13.44 kg; 9 women, age = 23.11 ± 2.71 years, height = 160.78 ± 5.95 cm, mass = 53.63 ± 5.60 kg), performed a one repetition maximum bench press and an isometric pushup on a force plate to determine bodyweight load supported in both the up and down positions. Grip width on the bench press was measured as the distance between middle fingers and was used for hand placement during pushups. For the down position, a safety squat device was placed on the right triceps to signal that the upper arms were parallel to the ground, while for the up position, triceps were perpendicular to the floor. Days 2 and 3 consisted of performing repetitions to failure for either the bench press or pushup exercise with a load that was equal to the average relative bodyweight force of the up and down pushup positions. For the pushup, subjects followed a 60 beats per minute tempo and the test was terminated if they failed to complete a full repetition; they could not maintain cadence or there were three faults in form. For the bench press, they followed the same 60 s tempo and the test was terminated if they failed to complete a full repetition or could not maintain cadence. A 2 (exercise: bench press, pushup) × 2 (sex: men, women) mixed factor ANOVA demonstrated no interaction, but there were significant (P < 0.05) main effects for exercise and sex where more repetitions were performed in the pushup (19.36 ± 11.68 reps) than the bench press (11.40 ± 8.38 reps) exercise. Also, men performed significantly more repetitions to failure (men =20.22 ± 8.20 reps, women = 6.78 ± 5.69 reps). For combined sexes, there was a significant (P < 0.05), strong relationship (r = 0.82) between bench press and pushup repetitions to failure. For men, there was a significant (P < 0.05), strong relationship (r = 0.81), while for women, there was a moderate relationship (r = 0.76). Men had significantly (P < 0.05) greater bench press one repetition maximum (men = 99.29 ± 23.98 kg, women = 42.17 ± 8.88 kg), percentage of body mass supported as an average of the up and down positions (men = 74.33 ± 2.57%, women = 69.70 ± 2.63%) and bench press one repetition maximum relative to their body mass (men = 1.32 ± 0.22%, women = 0.79 ± 0.13%). The bench press and pushup are two distinct upper body exercises for repetitions to failure due to upper body musculature and body position sex differences. Choice of the pushup or bench press exercise should be based on training goal and sex.

Keywords

Gender muscular endurance sex differences strength upper-body exercise

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Calatayud

Borreani

Colado

et al.

Muscle activity levels in upper-body push exercises with different loads and stability conditions. Phys Sportsmed 2014; 42: 106–119.

Calatayud

Borreani

Colado

et al.

Bench press and push-up at comparable levels of muscle activity results in similar strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 246–253.

Krol

Golas

Sobota

. Complex analysis of movement in evaluation of flat bench press performance. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2010; 12: 93–98.

Baumgartner

Chung

et al.

Objectivity, reliability, and validity for a revised push-up test protocol. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2002; 6: 225–242.

Eurich

Brown

Coburn

et al.

Performance differences between sexes in the pop-up phase of surfing. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 2821–2825.

Ratamess

Chiarello

Sacco

et al.

The effects of rest interval length on acute bench press performance: The influence of gender and muscle strength. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 1817–1826.

Mier

Amasay

Capehart

et al.

Differences between men and women in percentage of body weight supported during push-up exercise. Int J Exerc Sci 2014; 7: 161–168.

Artur

Adam

Przemyslaw

et al.

Changes of bioelectrical muscle activity during ascending phase flat bench pressing. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2014; 117: 488–491.

Hetzler

Schroeder

Wages

et al.

Anthropometry increases 1 repetition maximum predictive ability of NFL-225 test for division IA college football players. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 1429–1439.

10.

Mayhew

Ball

Arnold

et al.

Relative muscular endurance performance as a predictor of bench press strength in college men and women. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1992; 6: 200–206.

11.

Invergo

Ball

Looney

. Relationship of push-ups and absolute muscular endurance to bench press strength. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1991; 5: 121–125.

12.

Haff

Triplett

. Essentials of strength training and conditioning, 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2015.

13.

Moon

Tobkin

Smith

et al.

Anthropometric estimations of percent body fat in NCAA division I female athletes: A 4-compartment model validation. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 1068–1076.

14.

Jackson

Pollock

Ward

. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 175–181.

15.

Jackson

Pollock

. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr 1978; 40: 497–504.

16.

Brown

Weir

. ASEP procedures recommendation I: Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol Online 2001; 4: 1–21.

17.

Mukaka

. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012; 24: 69–71.

18.

Linnamo

Pakarinen

Komi

et al.

Acute hormonal responses to submaximal and maximal heavy resistance and explosive exercises in men and women. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 566–571.

19.

McManis

Baumgartner

Wuest

. Objectivity and reliability of the 90° push-up test. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2000; 4: 57–67.

20.

Contreras

Schoenfeld

Mike

et al.

The biomechanics of the push-up: Implications for resistance training programs. Strength Cond J 2012; 34: 41–46.

21.

Norwood

Anderson

Gaetz

et al.

Electromyographic activity of the trunk stabilizers during stable and unstable bench press. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 343–347.

22.

Duffey

Challis

. Fatigue effects on bar kinematics during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 556–560.

23.

Suprak

Dawes

Stephenson

. The effect of position on the percentage of body mass supported during traditional and modified push-up variants. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 497–503.