Sports Biomechanics
ISSN: 1476-3141 (Print) 1752-6116 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20
Effect of exercise order with barbell and machine modalities on upper body volume load and myoelectric activity Ewertton S. Bezerra, Brad J. Schoenfeld, Gabriel Paz, Déborah de Araújo Farias, Raphael L. Sakugawa, Iago Vieira, Mateus Rossato & Humberto Miranda To cite this article: Ewertton S. Bezerra, Brad J. Schoenfeld, Gabriel Paz, Déborah de Araújo Farias, Raphael L. Sakugawa, Iago Vieira, Mateus Rossato & Humberto Miranda (2018): Effect of exercise order with barbell and machine modalities on upper body volume load and myoelectric activity, Sports Biomechanics, DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2018.1515980 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2018.1515980
Published online: 02 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2018.1515980
ARTICLE
Effect of exercise order with barbell and machine modalities on upper body volume load and myoelectric activity Ewertton S. Bezerraa,b, Brad J. Schoenfeldc, Gabriel Pazd, Déborah de Araújo Fariasa,d, Raphael L. Sakugawab, Iago Vieiraa, Mateus Rossatoa,b and Humberto Mirandad a
Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil; bCenter of Sports, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; c Department of Health Sciences, City University of New York, Bronx, NY, USA; dSchool of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of exercise order on volume load (VL) and myoelectric activation (EMG) during the bench press (BP), military press (MP) and closegrip bench press (CGBP) exercises executed with a barbell and Smith machine. Twelve men experienced in resistance training performed four different exercise sessions in randomised order. Each session consisted of four sets of a given exercise order: O1 = CGBP + MP + BP with barbell; O2 = inverse O1 with barbell, O3 = same O1 with Smith Machine; O4 = same O2 with Smith machine. EMG was assessed for the Clavicular head pectoralis major (PMC), anterior deltoid (AD), triceps brachii long head (TBLH) and biceps brachii (BB). Results showed that VL in BP was affected by exercise order, independent of the mode (p < 0.05). However, the CGBP showed higher VL in O1. Moreover, when the BP was positioned last in the sequence (O1 and O3), myoelectric activity was higher for PMC, AD and TBLH (p < 0.05). Findings were similar in the CGBP (PMC and TBLH), but for the AD (Smith machine > barbell, p < 0.05). Therefore, it appears that the order and modes of exercises influence both volume load and myoelectric activation patterns during multiple set of resistance training.
Received 19 February 2018 Accepted 17 August 2018 KEYWORDS
Exercise; biomechanics; kinesiology; performance; training
Introduction Resistance training (RT) has been prescribed with the diverse goals of improving quality of life, facilitating rehabilitation and enhancing sports performance, among others (Ratamess et al., 2009). Outcomes associated with RT programmes are believed to be optimised by the manipulation of methodological exercise variables (Fleck & Kraemer, 2014). As is the case with all these variables, the training volume and exercise order can affect performance during the workout (Simão, Farinatti, Polito, Maior, & Fleck, 2005). RT volume is a function of the total work performed in a workout, which includes the sum of sets, external loads and repetitions completed for all exercises. However, some practitioners monitor the training volume only by total repetitions, which may fail to CONTACT Ewertton S. Bezerra
[email protected]
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
accurately reflect work performed as it does not represent the true volume load (VL). Recently, Scott et al. (2016) suggested different ways to monitor VL, but all methods must consider the total weight lifted (absolute or relative). Many factors can influence VL, including the order in which exercises are performed. The most recent American College of Sports Medicine (Garber et al., 2011) position statement on RT recommends that exercises for major muscle groups and multiple joints should be performed before exercises for small muscle groups and single joints, with the goal to acutely increase training volume and thus develop long-term strength gains. However, previous studies (Moraes et al., 2016; Simão et al., 2005) have found that the last exercise in a given sequence invariably results in a significantly lower number of repetitions completed. These findings beget the question as of the order of exercises impacts myoelectric activity. Previous studies (Brennecke et al., 2009; Gentil et al., 2007) have shown that exercise order may affect myoelectric activity for upper body movements in a pre-exhausted condition (isolated followed by compound exercise) versus the inverse sequence (prioritised). The results showed no alteration on the target musculature during the pre-exhausted condition. Furthermore, both studies showed an increase in activation of the triceps brachii. Recently, two other studies expanded on the results of the two aforementioned studies. Soares et al. (2016) showed similar myoelectric activity during pre-exhausted versus traditional (no preexhausted) on the triceps brachii. Araújo Farias et al. (2017) observed greater pectoralis major and biceps brachii activity of the participants when performed the bench press with dumbbells, greater myoelectric activity of the anterior deltoids when bench pressing with a Smith machine and greater myoelectric activity of the triceps brachii using the more stable implements (barbell and Smith machine). The triceps brachii achieved higher myoelectric activity when performed after the bench press using a barbell. However, the protocols applied during the above-mentioned studies are limited from an ecological validity standpoint considering that traditional resistance training programmes are generally composed of several exercises and multiple sets. Soncin et al. (2014) endeavoured to address the topic in a cohort of resistance-trained men during three sets of 8RM (repetition maximum) in the following exercise sequence: bench press, chest fly, shoulder press, shoulder abduction, close grip bench press and lying triceps extension (sequence A) versus the reverse order (sequence B), with all exercises executed using free weights. Results showed that myoelectric activity of the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major was considerably higher in the chest fly during sequence A compared to sequence B. For the anterior deltoid, the opposite to occurred (chest fly before than bench press), with higher activation in sequence B than sequence A. For the long head of the triceps brachii, only the shoulder press showed differences between sequences (A > B). These findings indicate that exercise order could modify the training results and these changes may result in different training adaptations. Despite the large range of studies focused on exercise order as mentioned above, there remains a lack of evidence regarding the influence of exercise order on VL and myoelectric activity when the exercises are executed with different modes (barbell versus Smith machine). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of exercise order on volume load (sets × repetitions × load), Scott et al. (2016), and myoelectric activation during the bench press, military press and close-grip bench press exercises executed on the barbell and Smith machine. We hypothesis that the
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
3
exercise performed first in the session would show better performance (higher volume load), but results would occur independently of the modality (i.e., barbell or Smith machine). On the other hand, we hypothesised that myoelectric activity during the bench press, military press and close-grip bench press exercises would vary between the barbell and Smith machine due to different movement patterns of the respective modalities.
Methods Participants Twelve healthy resistance-trained men participated in this study (age = 21 ± 2 years, height = 1.73 ± 0.06 m, mass = 77.59 ± 9.53 kg, fat mass percentage = 18.55 ± 6.59, Body Mass Index = 25.1 ± 2.9 kg/m2). There was no control over nutritional intake. Participants were excluded from the study if they had any functional limitations (e.g., orthopaedic or cardiovascular) that would be contraindicated by performance of the experimental protocol. The inclusion criteria consisted of the following: age ranging between 20 and 30 years old, and at least 1 year RT experience with a frequency of at least three times a week. Participants were instructed to refrain from any additional resistance training targeting the upper body muscles during the whole experiment. All procedures were approved by the Federal University of Amazonas institutional ethics committee where the study was developed (protocol number: 15340113.7.0000.5020). Experimental protocol This study used a within-participant randomised design to compare two orders and modes of exercise. Following six sessions of assessment of 10RM loads, four sessions were conducted with least 1-week recovery between sessions. We chose 10RM as this is a commonly applied loading scheme employed by fitness enthusiasts seeking to maximise muscle hypertrophy. Each session consisted of four sets of a given exercise order. The sessions consisted of the following protocols in randomised order: O1 = CGBP + MP + BP with barbell; O2 = BP + MP + CGBP with barbell, O3 = CGBP + MP + BP with Smith Machine; O4 = BP + MP + CGBP with Smith machine. The total number of repetitions performed was recorded for each order; as well as sEMG (surface electromyography) activity for the clavicular head of pectoralis major (PMC), anterior deltoid (AD), triceps brachii long head (TBLH) and biceps brachii (BB) (Figure 1). Anthropometric measurements Anthropometric measurements consisted of height, body mass and body fat. The body fat percentages of all participants were evaluated using air displacement plethysmography (A BODPOD®, Body Composition System; Life Measurement Instruments, Concord, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The body density was determined by the pressure and volume values, and the body fat percentage was calculated by the Siri equation (Siri, 1993)
4
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
Figure 1. Experimental protocol.
Ten-repetition maximum (10 RM) load determination A randomised order for 10 repetition maximum (10 RM) load was determined for each participant on the BP, MP and CGBP in the barbell and Smith machine during three non-consecutive days (two exercises per day). All machine-based exercises were performed on Rotech equipment (Brazil, GO). Participants reported to the laboratory having refrained from any exercise other than activities of daily living for at least 48 h prior to baseline testing. Prior to the 10-RM test, participants performed a general warm-up prior to testing that consisted of light cardiovascular exercise lasting approximately 5–10 min. A specific warm-up set of the given exercise of 20 repetitions was then performed at ~50% of participants’ perceived 10 RM. During the 10-RM testing, a maximum of five 10-RM attempts were performed for each exercise on a given day, with a 5-minute rest between attempts and a 15-min rest between exercises. After 72 h, a 10-RM retest was performed at the same time of the day according to the first test session (Simão, et., 2005). A biacromial distance was adopted to standardise the grip width (McAllister, Schilling, Hammond, Weiss, & Farney, 2013). During the tests and retests, the body segments (head, shoulder girdle and hips) remained flat on the bench (Saeterbakken, van den Tillaar, & Fimland, 2011). In all phases of study, the cadence of movement execution was controlled by a metronome at a constant pace of 4 s per repetition (2 s for the concentric phase and 2 s for the eccentric phase) (Gentil et al., 2007). Two researchers assisted participants by lifting the barbell off the rack to stabilise the weight until participants had fully extended their arms (initial phase). The eccentric phase consisted of lowering the barbell until it touched the chest (Saeterbakken et al., 2011). The sum of the 10-RM loads for the Smith machine and barbell was calculated as
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
5
the sum of the weight plates plus barbell weight. The heaviest load achieved on either of the test days was recorded as the 10 RM. Exercise sessions Forty-eight hours after the last 10-RM retesting session, participants performed the first of four experimental protocols in the barbell and Smith machine in a randomised fashion on non-consecutive days. A least 1-week rest interval was afforded between each experimental session. Each experimental session was preceded by a warm-up set of 20 repetitions at 40% of the 10-RM load for the BP on barbell or Smith machine, depending on the experimental protocol of the day. A 2-min rest interval was given following the warm-up set and prior to beginning each experimental protocol. Each condition comprised four sets using 100% of the 10-RM load with all sets carried out to muscular failure. A 2-min rest interval was afforded between sets and exercises. Surface electromyography (sEMG) The sEMG data for the PMC, AD, TBLH and BB muscles were collected during all exercises. Pre-gelled, self-adhesive Ag/AgCl EMG surface electrodes (4 × 2.2 cm figure 8-shaped, 2 cm inter-electrode distance, Noraxon USA Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) were placed across the muscle belly in parallel with the muscle fibres according to Surface Electromyography for the Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles (SENIAM) guidelines. The electrodes were placed on the right side of the body. Preparation included shaving hair, abrading, and cleaning the skin surface with alcohol. Adhesive tape was applied to ensure the electrodes adhered to the skin. Surface electrodes were connected to an amplifier and streamed continuously through an analog-to-digital converter to a Windows-compatible notebook computer. After electrode positioning, impedance was verified and accepted with less than 5 kΩ (Tarata, 2003). The impedance was observed between pairs of electrodes using a signal frequency of 25 Hz. For acquisition of sEMG, surface signals were collected using a wireless Noraxon MyoSystem® (Scottsdale, AZ, USA) 1400A with eight input channels. The sEMG signal was filtered with a band pass between 20 and 450 Hz. The sampling rate of the signal was 1000 Hz. Root mean square (RMS) of sEMG signal processing was calculated over a 125-ms moving window and used on all sEMG data for the duration of the exercise obtained relative to all exercise modes (PMC, AD, TBLH and BB), in which the signal amplitude and muscle activity was expressed as a percentage of the peak value. The sEMG values were determined by an average of the sEMG values of three central repetitions of each set (de Araújo Farias, Willardson, Paz, Bezerra, & Miranda, 2017). Normalisation was carried out using the highest peak sEMG value (Araújo Farias et al., 2017; Wright, Delong, & Gehlsen, 1999). All data processing was carried out in MATLAB® (Natick, MA, USA). Statistical analyses Test-retest reliability of 10-RM loads and EMG signal parameters were determined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient with a two-tailed t-test used to
6
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
determine whether a significant difference existed between the two tests. The ShapiroWilk test and sphericity (Mauchly test) showed that all variables presented normal distribution and homoscedasticity. A two-way repeated measure ANOVA ([set (1, 2, 3 and 4)] × order (O1, O2, O3 and O4)] was used to compare sEMG. A one-way repeated measure ANOVA order (O1, O2, O3 and O4) was used to compare VL within each exercise. Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction were applied when applicable. The VL (load × repetitions × load) was calculated for BP, MP and CGBP. Sample size was calculated using GPOWER software (version 3.0.1) with a target effect size = 0.8, αlpha = 0.05, power = 0.8, resulting in an estimated sample of 12 participants. The level of statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 for all tests. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The effect size was classified according to Cohen (1988) as follows: small (>0.20), moderate (>0.50) and large effect (>0.80).
Results The test-retest ICC of the EMG measures for the three monitored muscles ranged between 0.90 and 0.95. The ICC between test and retest for barbell and smith machine was 0.99 and 0.99 to bench press (mean CV = 29%), 0.99 and 0.98 to military press (mean CV = 18%), and 0.99 and 0.98 to close grip bench press (mean CV = 22%), respectively. Significant differences were noted in 10-RM loads between barbell and Smith machine during the MP (20 ± 4 kg and 21 ± 3.5 kg, respectively) and CGBP (22 ± 5 kg and 23 ± 5 kg, respectively), p < 0.05, but there was no difference for BP (29 ± 9 kg and 28.5 ± 8 kg, respectively), p > 0.05. Exercise order significantly affected VL to BP (F = 29.31, p < 0.001, ES = 1.64). Volume load on O4 was higher than O2 (p = 0.025). Whilst both previous orders were higher than O1 and O3 (p < 0.010), VL to O1 and O3 were the same. Furthermore, order significantly affected CGBP VL (F = 15.73, p < 0.001, ES = 1.20). Volume load on O1 was higher than O2 (p > 0.001) and O4 (p = 0.045), but equal to O3. Additionally, O3 was higher than O2 (p = 0.035) and similar to O4 (p > 0.05), and the O4 was higher than O2 (p = 0.030). The order did not significantly affect MP (F = 2.44, p < 0.050, ES = 0.47), Figure 2. No main effect for interaction was noted in normalised sEMG of the PMC, AD and TBLH between set versus order (p > 0.05), nor set versus mode (p > 0.05), nor set versus mode versus order (p > 0.05) for the BP, MP and CGBP. However, PMC, AD and TBLH presented significant effects for set (p < 0.05, ES = 0.40; 0.51; 0.55) and order (p < 0.05, ES = 0.37; 0.31; 0.26), respectively. On BP, all muscles (PMC, AD and TBLH) showed higher activity on O1 compared to O2, p < 0.05. Regarding the sets, PMC activation was higher in set 4 than set 1 (p = 0.010) and set 2 (p < 0.05). Moreover, AD (p = 0.015) and TBLH (p = 0.038) presented higher activation on set 4 than set 2, Figure 3. Regarding MP, set 4 showed higher activation than set 1 for the PMC (p = 0.004) and set 2 (p = 0.009). All other muscles showed no statistical differences in activation, independent of the order or mode (p > 0.05), Figure 4. Regarding CGBP, PMC activation was higher on set 4 compared with set 2 (O2 and O4 > O1 and O3, p = 0.039); however, no statistical difference was noted for the mode (p > 0.05), Figure 5. AD showed a statistically significant difference for the mode (Smith
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
7
Figure 2. Volume load (VL) per exercise in different orders during the experimental protocol. The arrow means the sequence of exercise execution (order). Mean and SD. p < 0.05, significant difference: *Order 1 # Order 2; $ Order 3; @ Order 4.
machine > barbell, p = 0.030), but no statistical difference for sets (p > 0.05) or order (p > 0.05). TBLH activity was higher on O2 and O4 than O1 and O3 (p = 0.036); and on set 4 than set 2 (p = 0.016), independent of the mode (p > 0.05), Figure 5. BB showed a main effect for interaction (time × mode × order, F = 3.53; p = 0.017; ES = 1.08); it was higher on the Smith machine than the barbell in set 2 (p = 0.040) and set 3 (p = 0.037); furthermore BB was higher in O2 and O4 than O1 and O3, p = 0.041, Figure 5.
Discussion and implications The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of exercise order on VL and myoelectrical activation during the BP, MP and CGBP exercises executed with the barbell and Smith machine. In regard to VL, a higher VL was observed when the exercise was performed early in the sequence irrespective of the order or mode. These results corroborate the findings of previous studies (Farinatti, da Silva, & Monteiro, 2013; Figueiredo et al., 2016; Moraes et al., 2016) showing that exercises performed at the beginning of the workout result in a greater number of repetitions when compared to the same exercises performed at the end of the workout. Thus, it is recommended that exercises considered important to a given individual should be performed at the beginning of the session to avoid fatigue-induced decreases in strength performance. Our results showed a higher VL for BP in the O2 and O4 (BP first), although the VL on the barbell was 10% higher on average than the Smith machine. These findings run contrary to those observed by Araujo Farias et al. (Araújo Farias et al., 2017), who did not note differences between BP modes when comparing barbell, Smith machine and dumbbell variations. In the present study, the participants had an average of 2 years of strength-training experience, whereas Araújo Farias et al. (2017) had an average of 7.6 ± 4.6 years. According to Rhea (2004), individuals training consistently from 1 to 5 years are considered ‘recreationally trained’, while those with more than 5-year
8
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
Figure 3. Root mean square (RMS) for clavicular head pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, triceps brachii long head and biceps brachii during bench press executed in to mode (barbell and Smith machine) in different order (1 and 3: CGBP + MP + BP; 2 and 4: BP + MP + CGBP). The arrow means the sequence of exercise execution (order). p < 0.05, significant difference to: $ set 2 (independent of the mode); an order 1 (in the Smith machine); A barbell in order 2 (independent of the set).
experience are ‘highly trained’. Thus, one possible explanation for the differential results between studies is that more highly trained status of participant's in Araújo Farias et al. (2017) led to a greater amount of exercise practice and consequently less difference in performance between modes.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
9
Figure 4. Root mean square (RMS) for clavicular head pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, triceps brachii long head and biceps brachii during military press executed in to mode (barbell and Smith machine) in different order (1 and 3: CGBP + MP + BP; 2 and 4: BP + MP + CGBP). The arrow means the sequence of exercise execution (order). p < 0.05, significant difference to: # set 1 (independent of the mode); $ set 2 (independent of the mode).
The decrease in VL on BP can be explained by higher activation on PMC, AD and TBLH on the last set (set 4) and O1 (BP last in workout); therefore, the myoelectric activation is influenced by order and set. These findings partially corroborate those of Araújo Farias et al. (2017), who found similar PM activity when comparing barbell BP
10
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
Figure 5. Root mean square (RMS) for clavicular head pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, triceps brachii long head and biceps brachii during close-grip bench Press executed in to mode (barbell and Smith machine) in different order (1 and 3: CGBP + MP + BP; 2 and 4: BP + MP + CGBP). The arrow means the sequence of exercise execution (order). p < 0.05, significant difference to: * order 1 (independent of the mode); # set 1 (independent of the mode); $ set 2 (independent of the mode).
and Smith machine BP, as well as TBLH. However, the AD elicited more activity in the Smith machine compared to the barbell BP. These differences potentially can be explained by the fact that Araújo Farias et al. (2017) applied barbell and Smith machine BP first in workout in order to observe the effect of BP mode on VL and myoelectic
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
11
activity of the triceps brachii during the triceps extension exercise. In contrast, the present protocol investigated the exercise order with two exercises preceding the barbell BP, which may have influenced myoelectric activity. Moreover, as previously mentioned, participants in Araújo Farias et al. (2017) were highly trained, while those in our study were recreationally trained. Our findings are generally in accordance with those of Schick et al. (2010) and Saeterbakken et al. (2011), as both these studies found no differences between barbell and Smith machine BP. That said, the study by Schick et al. (2010) found a greater activation of the lateral deltoid for a barbell BP, and the protocol by Saeterbakken et al. (2011) analysed 1 RM. However, neither study compared the influence of exercise order on VL (total repetitions × weight lifted), which would ultimately influence the training outcomes. To date, Soncin et al. (2014) conducted the only study designed to investigate the effects of exercise order on the shoulder muscles in young, resistance-trained men. Results showed that EMG amplitude in the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major was 109% MVIC when the BP was performed first versus 95% MVIC when it was last. In contrast, we observed greater activation of the PMC when the BP was performed last. These findings should be taken in the context that: (1) Soncin et al. (2014) carried out RT using the dumbbell BP and (2) the rmsEMG was not expressed on a set-by-set basis. Our results indicate that BP affected the PMC activation in the last exercise in the order with the use of barbells, and this activation increased during the sets sequence. Despite the fact that the MP was always executed second in the exercise sequence, its VL was greater in O1 (beginning in CGBP) when using the barbell as opposed to the Smith machine (O3). However, the VL showed lower decreases when using the barbell (average 6%) compared to the Smith machine (average 10%). These findings are consistent with those of Simão et al. (2005), who observed performance of a greater number of total repetitions when the MP was executed after the BP (MP was before triceps extension) than when it was the penultimate exercise in the workout. Recently, Figueiredo et al. (2016) found no statistical difference between various exercise orders, as VL was similar when the MP was the third on workout (after leg curl and standing biceps curl) and when MP was the fourth set on workout (after bench press, leg press and machine lat pull-down). When attempting to draw practical inferences, some important differences between studies should be considered. Moraes et al. (2016) and Simão et al. (2005) utilised machine versions of the MP, whereas we used a barbell and Smith machine. Moreover, participants in Moraes et al. (2016) were untrained male teenagers and those in Simão et al. (2005) were women and men; in contrast, participants in our study were resistance-trained men. During the MP, muscle activity in the PMC was higher in the fourth set than the first set, independent of the order. In contrast to our results, Soncin et al. (2014) observed differences between exercise order for both the PMC and AD, with both muscles showing higher activity when performed first in the workout. Differences in findings can perhaps be explained by the fact that Soncin et al. (2014) carried out exercise performance with dumbbells, whereas our study used the barbell and Smith machine (Saeterbakken et al., 2011). The VL in the CGBP was higher when executed first in the workout (O1 and O3) than last (O2 and O4). Furthermore, the VL when performed with a barbell
12
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
was consistently higher than Smith machine, independent of the order (reductions of 11% versus 17%, respectively). Although the CGBP is generally prescribed to target the TBLH (elbow extension), the PMC, AD and BB are also involved from the accompanying shoulder flexion. The PMC myoelectric activity on CGBP showed effects during the sets, but not during the order, consistent with the findings by Soncin et al. (2014). The AD showed higher myoelectric activity in the Smith machine than the barbell BP. Schick et al. (2010) hypothesised that this response may be explained by the increased stability afforded by the Smith machine. Finally, the TBLH and BB showed higher activity in O2 (CGBP first in the sequence); however, there was no difference in TBLH activation between modes, while the BB showed greater activation with the Smith machine compared to the barbell. Our results are consistent with those of Soncin et al. (2014) for exercise order. However, to our knowledge no previous study analysed BB muscle activity in the CGBP. We can speculate that the differences in BB activation during this exercise is due to its action as a synergist during shoulder flexion and the fact that it can be influenced by the increased stability afforded by the Smith machine (Schick et al., 2010). It should be noted that our findings are specific to training carried out in a moderate repetition range (i.e., 10 RM); it remains unclear whether these results would hold true with the use of heavier or lighter loads. Moreover, all sets in our study were carried out to failure and thus cannot necessarily be generalised to programmes where training is stopped short of failure.
Conclusion In summary, the VL is affected by exercise order, with a greater VL noted in the first exercise independent of the mode for the BP. Given the well-established dose–response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy (Schoenfeld, Ogborn, & Krieger, 2017), these findings indicate that those whose goal is to increase muscle hypertrophy should prioritise exercises targeting underdeveloped muscles by performing them first in a routine. Although the CGBP showed higher VL in the first exercise as well, a greater VL was seen during the barbell compared to Smith machine. Moreover, when the BP was positioned last in the sequence, myoelectric activity was higher for all muscles (PMC, AD and TBLH) than when it was the first exercise. Findings were similar in the CGBP for PMC and TBLH, but for the AD only the mode affected the myoelectric activity (Smith machine > barbell). It is therefore important for practitioners to consider the exercise sequence in RT programme design when attempting to place greater emphasis on the target musculature (for example, in an RT routine with focus on hypertrophy).
Acknowledgments Prof. ES. Bezerra would like to thank the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Amazonas (FAPEAM/Brazil) for the scientific research scholarship conceded to I. Viera.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
13
Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References Araújo Farias, D., 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, 1879–1887. doi:10.1519/ JSC.0000000000001651 Brennecke, A., Guimarães, T. M., Leone, R., Cadarci, M., Mochizuki, L., Simão, R., . . . Serrão, J. C. (2009). Neuromuscular activity during bench press exercise performed with and without the preexhaustion method. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 1933–1940. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b73b8f Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (N.J.: L.E.A. Eds.) 2nd. Hillsdale, 25–27. Farinatti, P. T. V., da Silva, N. S. L., & Monteiro, W. D. (2013). Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions, oxygen uptake, and rate of perceived exertion during strength training in younger and older women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27, 776–785. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825d9bc1 Figueiredo, T., Miranda, H., Willardson, J. M., Schneider, A., de Salles, B. F., Spineti, J., . . . Simão, R. (2016). Influence of exercise order on one and ten repetition maximum loads determination. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 19, 84–90. Fleck, S., & Kraemer, W. J. (2014). Designing resistance training programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 162–190. Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B. A., Lamonte, M. J., Lee, I. M., . . . Swain, D. P. (2011). Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43, 1334–1359. doi:10.1249/ MSS.0b013e318213fefb Gentil, P., Oliveira, E., De, V., Rocha, A. J., Nior, J., Do Carmo, J., & Bottaro, M. (2007). Effects of exercise order on upper-body muscle activation and exercise performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21, 1082–1086. doi:10.1519/R-21216.1 McAllister, M. J., Schilling, B. K., Hammond, K. G., Weiss, L. W., & Farney, T. M. (2013). Effect of grip width on electromyographic activity during the upright row. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27, 181–187. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824f23ad Moraes, E., Nobre, M. P., Maia, M. D. F., Salles, B. D. F., Miranda, H., & Simão, R. (2016). Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions in untrained teenagers. Manual Therapy, Posturology & Rehabilitation Journal, 14, 326. doi:10.17784/ mtprehabJournal.2016.14.326 Ratamess, N. A., Alvar, B. A., Evetoch, T. K., Housh, T. J., Kibler, W. B., Kraemer, W. J., & Triplett, N. (2009). Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41, 687–708. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670 Rhea, M. R. (2004). Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 918–920. doi:10.1519/14403.1 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, 533–538. doi:10.1080/02640414.2010.543916 Schick, E. E., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., Judelson, D. A., Khamoui, A. V., Tran, T., & Uribe, B. (2010). A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench
14
E. S. BEZERRA ET AL.
press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24, 779–784. doi:10.1519/ JSC.0b013e3181cc2237 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, 1073–1082. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197 Scott, B. R., Duthie, G. M., Thornton, H. R., & Dascombe, B. J. (2016). Training monitoring for resistance exercise: Theory and applications. Sports Medicine, 46, 687–698. doi:10.1007/ s40279-015-0454-0 Simão, R., Farinatti, P. T. V., Polito, M. D., Maior, A. S., & Fleck, S. J. (2005). Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed and perceived exertion during resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 152–156. doi: 10.1519/15334287(2005)192.0.CO;2 Siri, W. E. (1993). Body composition from fluid spaces and density: Analysis of methods. 1961. Nutrition, 9, 480–491. Soares, E. G., Brown, L. E., Gomes, W. A., Corrêa, D. A., Serpa, É. P., da Silva, J. J., . . . Marchetti, P. H. (2016). Comparison between pre-exhaustion and traditional exercise order on muscle activation and performance in trained men. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 15, 111–117. Soncin, R., Pennone, J., Guimarães, T. M., Mezêncio, B., Amadio, A. C., & Serrão, J. C. (2014). Influence of exercise order on electromyographic activity during upper body resistance training. Journal of Human Kinetics, 44, 203–209. doi:10.2478/hukin-2014-0127 Tarata, M. T. (2003). Mechanomyography versus electromyography, in monitoring the muscular fatigue. Biomedical Engineering Online, 2, 3. doi:10.1186/1475-925X-2-3 Wright, G. A., Delong, T. H., & Gehlsen, G. (1999). Electromyographic activity of the hamstrings during performance of the leg curl, stiff-leg deadlift, and back squat movements. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13, 168–174. doi:10.1519/1533-4287
