Literature DB >> 18830619

A comparison of the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free weight resistance.

David Michael Frost1, John Barry Cronin, Robert Usher Newton.   

Abstract

Pneumatic devices provide a resistance comprising minimal mass, possibly affording greater movement velocities, compared to free weight, while reducing the influence of momentum. Thirty men completed three testing sessions [free weight (FW), ballistic (BALL) and pneumatic (P)] each consisting of a one repetition maximum (1RM) and six sets (15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90% 1RM) of four explosive repetitions of a bench press. Dependent variables were expressed as mean and as a percentage of the concentric displacement. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were evaluated using two way repeated measures ANOVAs with Holm-Sidak post hoc comparisons. On average, the mean and peak P velocity were 36.5 and 28.3% higher than FW, and 22.9 and 19.1% higher than the BALL movements. The FW and BALL peak force were both significantly higher than the P (26.3 and 22.7% for FW and BALL, respectively). BALL mean power output was significantly higher than the FW and P at loads of 15 and 30% 1RM; however, between loads of 60-90% 1RM the highest mean power was produced with a P resistance. A 15% 1RM load maximized the peak power for each condition and no significant differences were found between the P and BALL. For loads of 45-90% 1RM the force, power and muscle activity were higher during the last 10-20% of the concentric displacement when subjects employed the P resistance. In summary, pneumatic resistance may offer specific advantages over loads comprising only mass (FW and BALL), although not without its own limitations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18830619     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-008-0821-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  32 in total

1.  The role of maximal strength and load on initial power production.

Authors:  J B Cronin; P J McNair; R N Marshall
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.411

2.  Differences in strength and power among junior-high, senior-high, college-aged, and elite professional rugby league players.

Authors:  Daniel Baker
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Muscle force and activation under stable and unstable conditions.

Authors:  David G Behm; Kenneth Anderson; Robert S Curnew
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Quantifying muscle patterns and spine load during various forms of the push-up.

Authors:  Stephanie Freeman; Amy Karpowicz; John Gray; Stuart McGill
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.411

5.  Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis during the jump squat: impact of load.

Authors:  Prue Cormie; Jeffrey M McBride; Grant O McCaulley
Journal:  J Appl Biomech       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.833

6.  The isokinetic concept of exercise.

Authors:  H J Hislop; J J Perrine
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1967-02

7.  Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships.

Authors:  B M Moss; P E Refsnes; A Abildgaard; K Nicolaysen; J Jensen
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1997

8.  Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements.

Authors:  R U Newton; A J Murphy; B J Humphries; G J Wilson; W J Kraemer; K Häkkinen
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1997

9.  Comparison of muscle force production using the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises.

Authors:  Michael L Cotterman; Lynn A Darby; William A Skelly
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: influence of resistance and gender.

Authors:  Gwendolyn A Thomas; William J Kraemer; Barry A Spiering; Jeff S Volek; Jeffrey M Anderson; Carl M Maresh
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.775

View more
  4 in total

1.  The Acute Effects of Attaching Chains to the Barbell on Kinematics and Muscle Activation in Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men.

Authors:  Roland van den Tillaar; Atle Hole Saeterbakken; Vidar Andersen
Journal:  J Funct Morphol Kinesiol       Date:  2022-05-04

2.  Predicting muscular strength using demographics, skeletal dimensions, and body composition measures.

Authors:  Sean T Stanelle; Stephen F Crouse; Tyler R Heimdal; Steven E Riechman; Alexandra L Remy; Bradley S Lambert
Journal:  Sports Med Health Sci       Date:  2021-02-15

Review 3.  A systematic review of surface electromyography analyses of the bench press movement task.

Authors:  Petr Stastny; Artur Gołaś; Dusan Blazek; Adam Maszczyk; Michał Wilk; Przemysław Pietraszewski; Miroslav Petr; Petr Uhlir; Adam Zając
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Fast and ballistic contractions involve greater neuromuscular power production in older adults during resistance exercise.

Authors:  Emmet J Mc Dermott; Thomas G Balshaw; Katherine Brooke-Wavell; Thomas M Maden-Wilkinson; Jonathan P Folland
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-04-16       Impact factor: 3.346

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.