Krzysztofik Michal, Zajac Adam, Żmijewski Piotr, Wilk Michal
Institute of Sport Sciences, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Katowice, Poland.
Jozef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Front Physiol. 2020 Oct 20;11:577400. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.577400. eCollection 2020.
The main goal of this study was to assess the impact of the cambered bar (CB) during the bench press exercise on power output and bar velocity when compared to a standard bar (SB). Ten healthy strength-trained men (age = 27.9 ± 3.7 years; body mass = 90.1 ± 12.5 kg; resistance training experience = 6.5 ± 2.7 years; bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) = 118.5 ± 21 kg) performed a single set of 3 repetitions of the bench press exercise with an SB and a CB at 50%1RM to assess differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV), range of motion (ROM), and positive work time under load (TUL) between conditions. The -test indicated significantly higher mean ROM for the cambered bar in comparison to the standard bar (52.7 vs. 44.9 cm; < 0.01; ES = 1.40). Further, there was a significantly higher PP (907 vs. 817 W; < 0.01; ES = 0.35), MP (556 vs. 496 W; < 0.01; ES = 0.46), PV (1.24 vs. 1.14 m/s; < 0.01; ES = 0.35) and MV (0.89 vs. 0.82 m/s; < 0.01; ES = 0.34) for the CB condition when compared to the SB. A significantly longer TUL for the CB was observed, when compared to the SB (1.89 vs. 1.51 s; < 0.01; ES = 1.38). The results of this study showed that the CB significantly increased power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise at 50%1RM compared to the SB. Therefore, the additional ROM, made possible through the use of the CB, allows for the acceleration of the bar through a significantly longer displacement, which has a positive impact on power output. However, a simultaneous increase in TUL may cause higher fatigue when the bench press is performed with the CB compared to the SB.
本研究的主要目的是评估与标准杠铃(SB)相比,在卧推练习中使用弧形杠铃(CB)对功率输出和杠铃速度的影响。十名健康的力量训练男性(年龄=27.9±3.7岁;体重=90.1±12.5千克;阻力训练经验=6.5±2.7年;卧推一次重复最大值(1RM)=118.5±21千克)分别使用标准杠铃和弧形杠铃以50%的1RM进行一组3次重复的卧推练习,以评估两种情况下峰值功率输出(PP)、平均功率输出(MP)、峰值杠铃速度(PV)、平均杠铃速度(MV)、运动范围(ROM)和负重下正向工作时间(TUL)的差异。t检验表明,与标准杠铃相比,弧形杠铃的平均ROM显著更高(52.7厘米对44.9厘米;P<0.01;效应量=1.40)。此外,与标准杠铃相比,使用弧形杠铃时的PP(907瓦对817瓦;P<0.01;效应量=0.35)、MP(556瓦对496瓦;P<0.01;效应量=0.46)、PV(1.24米/秒对1.14米/秒;P<0.01;效应量=0.35)和MV(0.89米/秒对0.82米/秒;P<0.01;效应量=0.34)均显著更高。与标准杠铃相比,使用弧形杠铃时的TUL显著更长(1.89秒对1.51秒;P<0.01;效应量=1.38)。本研究结果表明,与标准杠铃相比,在50%的1RM卧推练习中,弧形杠铃显著提高了功率输出和杠铃速度。因此,通过使用弧形杠铃实现的额外ROM,使得杠铃能够在更长的位移上加速,这对功率输出有积极影响。然而,与标准杠铃相比,使用弧形杠铃进行卧推时TUL的同时增加可能会导致更高的疲劳感。