Published online: 14.02.

2020

Training & Testing Thieme

Validity and Reliability of the Isometric Prone Bench Pull Test

Authors
Danny Lum1, 2 , Luqman Aziz3

Affiliations Abs tr ac t
1 Sport Science and Medicine Centre, Singapore Sports Isometric strength tests are gaining popularity in recent years.
Institute, Singapore, Singapore However, no study has validated any isometric strength tests
2 Physical Education and Sports Science, Nanyang to assess upper body pulling ability. The aim of this study was
Technological University, Singapore, Singapore to investigate the validity and reliability of isometric prone
3 Sport Science and Sport Medicine, Singapore Sports bench pull. Twenty-three resistance trained athletes (age:
Institute, Singapore, Singapore 26 ± 4 years, height: 1.75 ± 0.07 m, body mass: 78.6 ± 11.5 kg)
were required to perform prone bench pull 1 repetition maxi-
Key words mum and isometric prone bench pull tests during the famil-
peak force, rate of force development iarization and actual testing sessions. Isometric prone bench
pull was performed at 90° and 120° elbow angles. Peak force
accepted 08.01.2020

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

and rate of force development measures were highly reliable
with intra-correlation coefficient between 0.881–0.987. Peak
Bibliography
force obtained from isometric prone bench pull at both elbow
DOI https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1103-2173
angles showed large correlations to prone bench pull 1 repeti-
Published online: 2020
tion maximum (r = 0.833–0.858, p < 0.01). Linear regression
Int J Sports Med
equations to predict 1RM performance from isometric prone
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
bench pull peak force produced an estimated 1RM with a stand-
ISSN 0172-4622
ard error of only 3–6 % of the average prone bench pull 1 rep-
etition maximum. The current findings show that isometric
Correspondence
prone bench pull is a reliable test and can be used to predict
Danny Lum
prone bench pull performance.
Sport Science and Medicine Centre, Singapore Sports
Institute
3 Stadium Drive
397630 Singapore
Singapore
Tel : + 65 9729 0819, Fax : + 65 6440 9205
[email protected]

Introduction dynamic performances [1–3, 11]. The number of available studies

Isometric strength tests are popular assessments that are widely on multi-joint upper body isometric strength test is lacking. The
used to assess maximum force-time curve characteristics of the existing literature have mainly focused on the isometric bench
muscular system for the lower [1–3] and upper limbs [4–6]. This press [6, 12–15], which is a measure of upper body pushing ability.
strength testing method has been shown to be an effective ap- To date, no multi-joint isometric test for upper body pulling ability
proach for monitoring strength training adaptations, especially in has been validated. Given the importance of upper body pulling
well trained athletes who show only subtle changes even after long ability in various sports such as kayaking [16] and swimming [17],
period of training [7, 8], or to assess acute changes in performance it is important for practitioners to use a validated and reliable test
during the recovery phase following high-volume resistance train- to assess the athletes’ upper body pulling force-time curve charac-
ing sessions [9]. Furthermore, measures obtained from isometric teristics.
strength tests have been shown to have high correlation to dynam- Prone bench pull (PBP) is an upper body pulling exercise that is
ic performances like jumping [2, 3], sprinting [10], change of direc- commonly used for training the upper back muscles and testing of
tions [11], squats [1], bench press [6, 12–14] and kayaking [5]. upper body pulling strength [5]. Studies have investigated the kin-
In the literature, most studies on multi-joint isometric strength ematics and kinetics of this exercise [18–20], as well as its relation
tests were done to access the validity, reliability and relation of iso- to sports performance [21–23]. Although, the study by Uali et al.
metric squat and isometric mid-thigh pull, and other lower limb

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing Thieme

[5] investigated the relation between isometric prone bench pull followed by upper body mobility exercises, including shoulder cir-
test (IPBP) and kayaking performance, no study has investigated cumduction, shoulder horizontal abduction and adduction, elbow
the validity and reliability of the IPBP against PBP. flexion and extension and wrist circumduction. The IPBP test com-
The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliabil- menced 1 min upon completion of the warm-up.
ity of IPBP against PBP. It was hypothesized that peak force and peak
electromyography (EMG) measures in IPBP across two different Isometric prone bench pull test
elbow angles would be reliable, exhibit high correlation, and show Participants were instructed to lie prone on a high bench and place
no significant differences with PBP 1-repetition max (1RM). their chin on the padded edge (▶Fig. 1). The high bench was placed
on a force platform (400 Series Performance Force Plate, Fitness
Technology, Adelaide, Australia) to collect the ground reaction
Materials and Methods force data sampling at 600 Hz. Participants executed the exercise
by pulling the barbell that was fixed at the position that allowed the
Experimental design participants to maintain either 90° (IPBP90) or 120° (IPBP120)
A crossover design was selected to assess the reliability and valid- elbow angle. Upon tester’s command to pull, participant pulled the
ity of IPBP performance. Participants were required to perform 1RM barbell as hard and as fast as possible. Participants performed four
test for PBP and IPBP during the familiarization and actual testing attempts of IPBP at each elbow angle. Each attempt was separated
sessions which were separated by a period of 48–72 h. All partici- by a 2-min recovery period. During the first and second attempts,
pants performed IPBP before the PBP 1RM during both sessions. participants were instructed to pull the barbell as fast as possible
The highest value for each test was retained for further analyses. and maintain a perceived 50 and 80 % maximum force, respective-
ly, for 3 s. This served as a warm-up repetition. For the two subse-

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

Participants quent attempts, participants were instructed to pull the barbell as
Thirty resistance-trained male national level athletes (▶ Table 1) fast as possible with maximum force, and hold for 5 s [5].
from various sports including water-ski, diving, sprint kayaking,
athletics (sprinters and throwers), rowing, weight lifting and com- 1-Repetition maximum test for prone bench pull
bat sports were recruited for this study. All participants have been The 1RM test commenced 15 min after the completion of IPBP test.
performing the PBP during their regular strength training. G power Participants adopted the same position as they did for the IPBP. The
analysis showed that a sample size of 21 participants is required to concentric phase began with elbows fully extended, hands slightly
obtain a statistical power of 0.80, on the basis of a 0.55 effect size wider than shoulder width apart and grabbing the barbell. Partici-
correlation. pants had to lift the barbell until it was in contact with the under-
Prior to participation, all participants were briefed on the re- side of the bench. The test was preceded by three warm-up sets
quirements and risks involved with the study. Participants were re- ranging from 2–10 repetitions, with load increasing by 5–20 % per
quired to sign a written informed consent prior to the initial test- set, and separated by 2 min. The athlete attempted a 1RM after
ing session. The study commenced after obtaining clearance from 3 min of recovery with a load that is 5–20 % heavier than the final
the Singapore Sports Institute Institutional Review Board. The study warm-up set. The athlete was provided with 3 min of recovery with
meets the ethical standard of the journal [24]. each successful attempt before attempting again. The heaviest load
that the athlete was able to lift for one repetition was considered
Procedure to be the athlete’s 1RM [25].
Both familiarization and actual testing sessions began with a warm-
up which included 5 min of moderate intensity ergometer rowing, Electromyography analysis
The EMG measurements were administered for seven randomly se-
▶Table 1 Descriptive statistics of participants’ characteristics and all lected participants during both PBP and IPBP to compare the mus-
measured variables.
cle activity levels during both tests. Muscles that were assessed in-
Mean ± SD cluded the latissimus dorsi, posterior deltoids and biceps brachii.
Age (years) 26 ± 4 A DELSYS™ Trigno Wireless EMG system (Delsys, Natick, MA, USA)
Resistance training age (years) 7±2 sampling at 2000 Hz synchronized was used to collect EMG data
Height (m) 1.75 ± 0.07 from the Trigno Avanti wireless surface sensors. Processing and
Body mass (kg) 78.6 ± 11.5 kg output of peak EMG data were performed using a customized MAT-
PBP 1RM (kg) 88.9 ± 12.5
LAB® software (The Mathworks, Natick, MS, USA). EMG data was
processed as follows: high-passed filtered using a cut-off frequen-
IPBP90 PF (N) 792.9 ± 128.8
cy of 20 Hz, full-wave rectified, and again low-passed using a cut-
IPBP90 RFD (N∙s − 1) 9982.2 ± 3362.9
off frequency of 6 Hz, in order to obtain a linear envelope. The peak
IPBP120 PF (N) 1123.5 ± 204.7
EMG for IPBP90 and PBP1 RM were normalized to that observed
IPBP120 RFD (N∙s − 1) 13 276.0 ± 5098.8
during IPBP120, as absolute force production was highest during
IPBP90 = isometric prone bench pull at 90° elbow angle, the performance of this test.
IPBP120 = isometric prone bench pull at 120° elbow angle,
PBP = prone bench pull, PF = peak force, RFD = peak rate of force
development.

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

 Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.
▶Fig. 1 Position adopted during isometric prone bench pull and prone bench pull.

▶Table 2 Reliability statistics for isometric prone bench pull. scores to examine differences between data sets and EMG activity
between test trials.
ICC LCI UCI TE
IPBP90 PF 0.986 0.971 0.994 23.5
IPBP90 RFD 0.881 0.750 0.943 614.0 Results
IPBP120 PF 0.987 0.973 0.994 37.4
The descriptive statistics for PBP 1RM and IPBP force-time curve
IPBP120 RFD 0.874 0.734 0.940 932.5
characteristics are presented in ▶ Table 1. Reliability statistics for
ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, IPBP90 = isometric prone IPBP PF and RFD at 90° and 120° elbow angles are presented in
bench pull at 90o elbow angle, IPBP120 = isometric prone bench pull
▶Table 2 and illustrated in ▶Fig. 2. There was no significant inter-
at 120o elbow angle, LCI = lower limit of confidence interval (95 %),
PBP = prone bench pull, PF = peak force, RFD = peak rate of force trial difference for all IPBP PF and RFD measures (P = 0.318–0.336,
development, TE = typical error, UCI = upper limit of confidence P = 0.663–0.839, respectively). The reliability of all the measured
interval (95 %). variables was very high (ICC = 0.837–0.992). Typical error for IPBP90
PF and IPBP120 PF were 26.9 and 44.1 N, respectively. While typi-
cal error for IPBP90 RFD and IPBP120 RFD were 738.1 N∙s − 1 and
Data analysis 1068.8 N∙s − 1, respectively.
Data were analyzed for normality using Shapiro-Wilk tests. Repeat- The correlations between PBP 1RM and IPBP force-time curve
ed measures ANOVA and intra-class correlations with typical error characteristics are presented in ▶ Table 3. There was a significant
was used to assess reliability of the IPBP. The relationship between and very large correlation between PBP 1RM with both IPBP90 PF
PBP 1RM and IPBP was determined using Pearson’s product-mo- and IPBP120 PF. However, there was no significant correlation be-
ment correlation. Correlational indices are set at: (i) small if tween PBP 1RM with both IPBP90 RFD and IPBP120 RFD.
0.1 ≤ |r| ≤ 0.29; (ii) moderate if 0.3 < |r| ≤ 0.49; (iii) large if Peak force for IPBP90 and IPBP120 were converted to weight in
0.5 ≤ |r| ≤ 0.69; (iv) very large if 0.7 ≤ |r| ≤ 0.89; (v) near perfect if kilograms and compared to PBP 1RM. On average, IPBP90 were 91 %
0.9 ≤ |r| ≤ 0.99; and (vi) perfect if |r| = 1 [26]. Linear regression and IPBP120 were 129 % of PBP 1RM. Linear regression equations
equations with standard errors of the estimates were calculated to predict 1-RM performance from isometric performance is as
using peak force (PF) obtained from both IPBP90 and IPBP120. In- shown in equations 1, 2 and 3 (▶ Fig. 3).The standard error of the
traclass correlation (ICC) and typical error (TE) were used to assess estimate obtained from equations 1, 2 and 3 were 2.7, 5.1 and
the repeatability of performances between trials for IPBP PF and 3.5 kg, respectively. This standard error represents 3, 6 and 4 % of
rate of force development (RFD). ICC values were interpreted ac- the average performance in PBP 1RM. There was no significant dif-
cording to the criteria of Cortina [27] where r ≥ 0.80 is highly reli- ference between predicted and obtained values for the data pre-
able. Paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction were used to com- sented here (p > 0.05).
pare observed and predicted (from regression equations) 1-RM test

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

Training & Testing Thieme

a
1 200

1 000

800

Peak Force (N)

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
b 25 000
Rate of Force Dveopment (N . s –1)

20 000

15 000

10 000

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

5 000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

c
2 000

1 500
Peak Force (N)

1 000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
d
30 000
Rate of Force Dveopment (N . s –1)

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Trial 1 Trial 2

▶Fig. 2 Comparison between trials for a IPBP90 peak force, b IPBP90 rate of force development, c IPBP120 peak force, d IPBP120 rate of force
development.

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

▶Table 3 Correlation between prone bench pull 1 repetition maximum formance was explained by isometric performance, and less than
and isometric bench pull force-time characteristics. 40 % of the variance was explained by other factors. Furthermore,
the standard errors of the predicted 1RM based on the regression
r R2 p
equations were only 3–6 %. This level of standard error is lower than
IPBP90 PF (N) 0.833 0.691 < 0.001
that obtained from the study by Blazevich et al. [28] (7.3–8.5 %)
IPBP90 RFD (N∙s − 1) 0.248 0.048 0.107
where the authors used regression equations based on isometric
IPBP120 PF (N) 0.858 0.681 < 0.001
squat and isometric forward hack squat to predict squat 1RM. One
IPBP120 RFD (N∙s − 1) 0.230 0.075 0.124
possible reason for the difference in standard error between the
IPBP90 = isometric prone bench pull at 90o elbow angle, 1RM predicted by Blazevich et al. [28] and the current study could
IPBP120 = isometric prone bench pull at 120o elbow angle,
be because the current equation uses PF achieved from two differ-
PBP = prone bench pull, PF = peak force, RFD = peak rate of force
development.
ent joint angles while the equations in Blazevich et al. [28] used
only PF achieved from one joint angle. The use of PF from two dif-
ferent angles accounts for force production through a greater range
of motion, and thus allows for a 1RM prediction with higher preci-
1RM = 0.039 × IPBP90 + 0.034 × IPBP120 + 19.605  (1) sion. Another possible reason is due most likely to differences in
the mode of contraction involved. During a squat, a countermove-
1RM = 0.088 × IPBP90 + 19.36  (2) ment would be performed prior to the initiation of concentric
phase, but that does not occur during an isometric squat. In con-
1RM = 0.054 × IPBP120 + 27.975  (3) trast, both PBP and IPBP were performed without a countermove-
ment phase. This might have allowed for the performance of IPBP

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

The comparison of peak EMG activity is illustrated in ▶ Fig. 4. No to better predict PBP 1RM.
significant differences in peak EMG for posterior deltoids, biceps Lieber [29] proposed that the length-tension relationship is a
and latissimus dorsi were observed between the IPBP90 and PBP critical factor for producing muscle force, especially during isomet-
1RM (P = 0.112, P = 0.090, P = 0.206, respectively), and IPBP120 and ric contractions. Force production during isometric contractions
PBP 1RM (P = 0.881, P = 0.994, P = 0.280, respectively). would alter depending on the angle of the joint [29]. Interestingly,
this study did not find significant differences in the peak EMG be-
tween the PBP, IPBP90 and IPBP120. Murray et al. [30] and Murray
Discussion
et al. [31] explained that the moment of the biceps brachii is close
The reliability of both IPBP90 and IPBP120 were very high for as- to maximum value when the elbow is flexed at 90 °. This may ex-
sessing PF (ICC = 0.986 and 0.987, respectively), but less reliable plain the lack of differences in peak EMG between PBP and IPBP90
for assessing RFD (ICC = 0.881 and 0.874, respectively). The ICCs as the range of 90 ° elbow flexion is achieved through both condi-
for PF are similar to that obtained for isometric bench press PF (0.89 tions. Hewit et al. [32] hypothesized that muscular activation pat-
to 0.97), but the ICCs for RFD are higher than that obtained for iso- terns will alter to accommodate the task, i. e. more activation for
metric bench press (0.56 to 0.65) [6]. The results showed that there more load. This could explain the absence of differences in peak
was no or little difference in performance between trials for the EMG between all three conditions (IBP, IBP90 and IBP120), as the
subjects tested in this study. Therefore, IPBP90 and IPBP120 can be performance for these conditions were at maximal efforts.
used to detect small differences in upper body pulling strength be- To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first study that
tween individuals or changes after a period of strength training. aimed to validate a multi-joint isometric strength test used to as-
Based on the current findings, a 2.9 % in IPBP90 PF and 3.3 % change sess the upper body’s pulling ability. Previous study on upper body
in IPBP120 PF, would be required to consider a meaningful differ- multi-joint isometric strength mainly investigated the correlation
ence. between isometric bench press and other dynamic pushing exer-
There were very large correlations between PBP 1RM and PF cises [12–15]. These studies showed that the correlation between
achieved from IPBP90 and IPBP120 (r = 0.833 and 0.858, respec- bench press 1RM and peak force achieved from isometric bench
tively), with more than 60 % of the variation in PBP 1RM explained press ranged from 0.47 to 0.78 [12, 13, 15]. It was suggested that
by IPBP PF. This shows that PF achieved from IPBP are strongly re- the difference in magnitude of correlation was due to the joint
lated to PBP 1RM. In addition, there was no significant difference angle at which the isometric test was administered [13]. However,
between the predicted 1RM by the regression equation and sub- the current results showed that the magnitude of correlation be-
jects’ actual 1RM. The results showed that isometric strength as- tween PF achieved from IPBP at both elbow angles with PBP 1RM
sessed using IPBP could be good indicators of dynamic perfor- were similar. A possible discrepancy between the findings for IPBP
mance for upper body pulling movement. Furthermore, the regres- and isometric bench press could be because of the difference in
sion equation obtained in this study could be used to predict PBP mode of muscle contraction for PBP and bench press. The bench
1RM. press involved eccentric loading prior to the concentric phase while
The correlations obtained in this study were more than 0.8, and PBP does not involve the eccentric phase prior to the concentric
could thus be considered indicative of high validity. The R2 values phase. The eccentric phase during the bench press allowed mus-
for the correlations between PBP 1RM with PF achieved from IPBP90 cles to build up a high level of force prior to the concentric phase
and IPBP120 suggest that 68–69 % of the variance in PBP 1RM per- that enabled the muscle to produce more work over the initial part

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing Thieme

a
120

100

1 Repetition Maximum (kg)

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1RM Eqn1

b
120

100
1 Repetition Maximum (kg)

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1RM Eqn2

c 120

100
1 Repetition Maximum (kg)

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1RM Eqn3

▶Fig. 3 Comparison between measured PBP 1RM with a estimated 1RM based on equation 1, b. estimated 1RM based on equation 2, c estimated
1RM based on equation 3.

of the concentric phase. This could be the reason why there was a There were several limitations to this study. First, although par-
difference in magnitude of correlation between peak force achieved ticipants were required to perform the IPBP with the same grip
during isometric bench press from different joint angles and bench width as PBP, there was no standardization among participants.
press 1RM, while no difference was observed for magnitude of cor- Hence, some participants adopted a shoulder width grip, while oth-
relation between PF achieved from IPBP at both elbow angles with ers adopted a wider grip. This was most likely the reason for the
PBP 1RM.

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

 References

2.00 [1] Bazyler CD, Beckam GK, Sato K. The use of the isometric squat as a
measure of strength and explosiveness. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29:
1386–1392
[2] Kawamori N, Rossi SJ, Justice BD et al. Peak force and rate of force
1.50 development during isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls
performed at various intensities. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 29:
483–491
1.00 [3] Tillin NA, Pain MTG, Folland J. Explosive force production during
isometric squats correlates with athletic performance in rugby union
players. J Sports Sci 2013; 31: 66–76
[4] Bellar D, Marcus L, Judge LW. Validation and reliability of a novel test of
0.50
upper body isometric strength. J Hum Kinet 2015; 47: 189–195
[5] Uali I, Herrero AJ, Garatachea N et al. Maximal strength on different
resistance training rowing exercises predicts start phase performance
0.00 in elite kaykers. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 941–946
Posterior Biceps Latissimus
Deltoids Brachii Dorsi [6] Young KP, Haff GG, Newton RU et al. Assessment and monitoring of
ballistic and maximal upper body strength qualities in athletes. Int J
IPBP90 IPBP120 PBP
Sports Physiol Perform 2015; 10: 232–237
[7] Hornsby WG, Gentles JA, MacDonald CJ et al. Maximum strength, rate
▶Fig. 4 Comparison of peak EMG activity between three different of force development, jump height, and peak power alterations in

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

bench pull across three muscle groups. weightlifters across five months of training. Sports (Basel) 2017; 5:
E78
[8] Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. Strength diagnosis: the use of test data to
determine specific strength training. J Sports Sci 1996; 14: 167–173
large variation in EMG activities for different muscle groups. A pre- [9] Bartolomei S, Totti V, Griggio F et al. Upper body resistance exercise
vious study by Kim [33] reported differences in muscle activities reduces time to recover following a high-volume bench press protocol
when performing push-ups with different palm positions. Second, in resistance trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2019 (Published ahead
participants in this study had been performing PBP as part of their of Print) doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002960

strength training program, and were therefore familiar with the ex- [10] Young W, McLean B, Ardagna J. Relationship between strength
qualities and sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1995;
ecution of the exercise. This might have increased the reliability of
35: 13–19
IPBP measurements. The current study was not able to determine
[11] Thomas C, Comfort P, Jones PA et al. A comparison of isometric
the number of familiarization trials required to attain the same level
mid-thigh pull strength, vertical jump, sprint speed, and change-of-
of reliability as the current findings for individuals without prior ex- direction speed in academy netball players. Int J Sports Physiol
perience in performing PBP. Therefore, future studies on this topic Perform 2017; 12: 916–921
should aim to address these limitations. [12] Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ, Pryor JF. The use of iso-inertial force mass
relationship in the prediction of dynamic human performances. Eur J
Appl Physiol 1994; 69: 250–257
Conclusion [13] Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ, Pryor JF et al. Isometric assessment of muscular
The current findings showed that IPBP is a highly reliable test for function: the effect of joint angle. J Appl Biomech 1995; 11: 205–215

assessing the peak force and rate of force development of the upper [14] Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. Poor correlation between isometric tests and
dynamic performance: relationship to muscle activation. Eur J Appl
limb pulling action. In addition, peak force obtained from IPBP at
Physiol 1996; 73: 353–357
both elbow angles were highly correlated to PBP 1RM, and can be
[15] Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon B. Generality versus specificity: A
used to predict PBP 1RM load with only a 3–6 % error. Furthermore, comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and
there was no difference in the EMG activity of the muscles analyzed speed-strength. Eur J Appl Physiol 1994; 68: 350–355
between IPBP and PBP 1RM. Altogether, the current study shows [16] McKean MR, Burkett B. The influence of upper-body strength on
that IPBP is a reliable alternative method to PBP 1RM for the assess- flat-water sprint kayak performance in elite athletes. Int J Sports
ment of upper limb pulling ability. Physiol Perform 2014; 9: 707–714
[17] Crowley E, Harrison AJ, Lyons M. The impact of resistance training on
swimming performance: A systematic review. Sports Med 2017; 47:
Acknowledgements 2285–2307

The authors would like to thank all the participants for their par- [18] Pearson SN, Cronin JB, Hume PA et al. Kinematics and kinetics of the
bench-press and bench-pull exercises in a strength-trained sporting
ticipation in this study.
population. Sports Biomech 2009; 8: 245–254
[19] Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Perez CE et al. Velocity- and
power-load relationship of the bench pull vs bench press exercises. Int
Conflict of Interest
J Sports Med 2014; 35: 209–216
[20] Zivkovic MZ, Djuric S, Cuk I et al. Muscle force-velocity relationships
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Observed in four different functional tests. J Hum Kinet 2017; 56: 39–49

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing Thieme

[21] Akça F. Prediction of rowing ergometer performance from functional [27] Cortina J. What is coefficient alpha?: An examination of theory and
anaerobic power, strength and anthropometric components. J Hum applications. J Appl Psych 1993; 78: 98–104
Kinet 2014; 41: 133–142 [28] Blazevich AJ, Gill N, Newton RU. Reliability and validity of two
[22] Garcia-Pallares J, Sanchez-Medina L, Carrasco L et al. Endurance and isometric squat tests. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 298–304
neuromuscular changes in world-class level kayakers during a [29] Lieber RL. Skeletal Muscle Structure and Function. Baltimore. United
periodized training cycle. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 106: 629–638 States: Williams & Wilkins; 2002
[23] Garcia-Pallares J, Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE et al. Physiological [30] Murray WM, Delp SL, Buchanan TS. Variation of muscle moment arms
effects of tapering and detraining in world-class kayakers. Med Sci with elbow and forearm positions. J Biomech 1995; 28: 513–525
Sports Exerc 2010; 42: 1209–1214
[31] Murray WM, Buchanan TS, Delp SL. Scaling of peak moment arms of
[24] Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Standards for ethics in sport and elbow muscles with upper extremity bone dimensions. J Biomech
exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 2002; 35: 19–26
813–817
[32] Hewit JK, Jaffe DA, Crowder T. A comparison of muscle activation
[25] Haff GG, Triplett N. (4th ed) Essentials of Strength Training and during the pull-up and three alternative pulling exercises. J Phy Fit
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: United States Human Kinetics; 2016 Treatment & Sports 2018; 5: 555669. DOI: 10.19080/
[26] Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM et al. Progressive statistics JPFMTS.2018.05.555669”
for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports [33] Kim YS, Kim DY, Ha MS. Effect of the push-up exercise at different
Exerc 2009; 41: 3–12 palmar width on muscle activities. J Phys Ther Sci 2016; 28: 446–449

Downloaded by: Murdoch University. Copyrighted material.

Lum D, Aziz L. Validity and Reliability of … Int J Sports Med