Acute Effects of Barbell Bouncing and External Cueing on Power Output in Bench Press Throw in Resistance-Trained Men

Atle Hole Saeterbakken; Jorund Loken; Tom Erik Jorung Solstad; Nicolay Stien; Olaf Prieske; Suzanne Scott; Vidar Andersen

doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.899078

Acute Effects of Barbell Bouncing and External Cueing on Power Output in Bench Press Throw in Resistance-Trained Men

Front Physiol. 2022 Jun 6:13:899078. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.899078. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Atle Hole Saeterbakken¹, Jorund Loken¹, Tom Erik Jorung Solstad¹, Nicolay Stien¹, Olaf Prieske², Suzanne Scott³, Vidar Andersen¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
² Division of Exercise and Movement, University of Applied Sciences for Sports and Management Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
³ Department of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Abstract

The aims of this study were to compare power output during a bench press throw (BPT) executed with (BPT_bounce) and without (BPT) the barbell bounce technique, and examine the effect of cueing different barbell descent velocities on BPT power output in resistance-trained males. In total, 27 males (age 23.1 ± 2.1 years; body mass 79.4 ± 7.4 kg; height 178.8 ± 5.5 cm; and 4.6 ± 1.9 years of resistance training experience) were recruited and attended one familiarization session and two experimental sessions (EXP 1 and EXP 2). The force-velocity profile during maximal BPT and BPT_bounce (randomized order) under different loads (30-60 kg) was established (EXP 1), and the effect of varying external barbell descent velocity cues "slow, medium, and as fast as possible" (i.e., "fast") on the power output for each technique (BPT and BPT_bounce) was examined (EXP 2). Comparing two BPT techniques (EXP 1), BPT_bounce demonstrated 7.9-14.1% greater average power (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48-0.90), 6.5-12.1% greater average velocity (p ≤ 0.001, ES = 0.48-0.91), and 11.9-31.3% shorter time to peak power (p ≤ 0.001-0.05, ES = 0.33-0.83) across the loads 30-60 kg than BPT. The cueing condition "fast" (EXP 2) resulted in greater power outcomes for both BPT and BPT_bounce than "slow." No statistically significant differences in any of the power outcomes were observed between "medium" and "slow" cuing conditions for BPT (p = 0.097-1.000), whereas BPT_bounce demonstrated increased average power and velocity under the "medium" cuing condition, compared to "slow" (p = 0.006-0.007, ES = 0.25-0.28). No statistically significant differences were observed in barbell throw height comparing BPT and BPT_bounce under each cuing condition (p = 0.225-1.000). Overall, results indicate that both bouncing the barbell and emphasizing barbell descent velocity be considered to improve upper body power in athlete and non-athlete resistance-training programs.

Keywords: descending velocity; force–velocity relationship; kinematic; stretch-shortening cycle; upper limb power.