See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336364588

Influence of Grip Width and Anthropometric Characteristics on the Bench-Press

Load–Velocity Relationship

Article in International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · October 2019

DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0549

CITATIONS READS

6 567

6 authors, including:

Alejandro Pérez Castilla Daniel Jerez-Mayorga

University of Granada Universidad Andrés Bello
90 PUBLICATIONS 808 CITATIONS 102 PUBLICATIONS 282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Darío Martinez-Garcia Angela Rodriguez Perea

University of Granada University of Granada
14 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ON MUSCLE POWER: HIPOBIA HIPOBARICA VS. HIPOXIA NORMOBARICA View project

Differences in Sprint Mechanical Force-Velocity Profile Between Trained Soccer and Futsal Players. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amador García Ramos on 22 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0549
© 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Influence of Grip Width and Anthropometric Characteristics on the

Bench Press Load–Velocity Relationship
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Daniel Jerez-Mayorga, Dario Martínez-García, Ángela Rodríguez-Perea,
Luis J. Chirosa-Ríos, and Amador García-Ramos

Purpose: (1) To compare the load–velocity (L-V) relationship between the bench press exercise performed using 4 different grip
widths, (2) to determine the association between the anthropometric characteristics and the L-V profile, and (3) to explore
whether a multiple linear regression model with movement velocity and subjects’ anthropometric characteristics as predictor
variables could increase the goodness of fit of the individualized L-V relationship. Methods: The individual L-V relationship of
20 men was evaluated by means of an incremental loading test during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine
using a narrow, medium, wide, and self-selected grip width. Simple and multiple linear regression models were performed.
Results: The mean velocity associated with each relative load did not differ among the 4 grip widths (P ≥ .130). Only body height
and total arm length were correlated with the mean velocity associated with light and medium loads (r ≥ .464). A slightly higher
variance of the velocity attained at each relative load was explained when some anthropometrics characteristics were used as
predictor variables along with the movement velocity (r2 = .969 [.965–.973]) in comparison with the movement velocity alone
(r2 = .966 [.955–.968]). However, the amount of variance explained by the individual L-V relationships was always higher
compared with the multiple linear regression models (r2 = .995 [.985–1.000]). Conclusions: These results highlighted that the
individual determination of the L-V relationship using a self-selected grip width could be recommended to monitor the relative
loads in the Smith machine bench press exercise.

Keywords: 1-repetition maximum, Smith machine, velocity-based training, linear position transducer

Velocity-based training has emerged as an effective method for accuracy. However, although the grip width used during the BP is
the prescription and monitoring of resistance training programs.1,2 known to affect muscle activation,16,17 no study has examined the
Due to the strong and negative relationship between the load and effect of the BP grip width on the L-V relationship. The L-V
movement velocity described in previous studies,3–7 movement relationship has been commonly determined using a self-selected
velocity has been recommended as an indicator of resistance grip width,4,7 raising the methodological question of whether the
training intensity.1–3,8 The relationship documented between the L-V relationship could be affected by the grip width selected by the
magnitude of velocity loss and metabolic markers of fatigue also subjects. For example, Lockie et al18 observed greater peak power
suggests that the monitoring of movement velocity may serve as a and velocity for the BP 1-repetition maximum (1RM) load using a
practical indicator of neuromuscular fatigue.9 Furthermore, the close grip width in comparison with the use of a self-selected grip
provision of real-time velocity feedback during training seems to width. In contrast, when the same relative loads are compared,
acutely increase athletes’ motivation and mechanical perfor- Lockie et al19 did not found significant differences in the load–
mance,10 which could also lead to better training adaptations.11 power relationship between a close and self-selected grip width. It
However, despite these potential applications, more research is still has also been shown that a narrow grip width provides a higher
warranted to facilitate the implementation of velocity-based resis- recruitment of the triceps brachii, whereas the pectoralis major is
tance training programs in practice. recruited more using wider grip widths.16 In this regard, García-
The bench press (BP) is one of the exercises most used in Ramos et al7 reported higher velocity values against the same
the scientific literature to explore the characteristics of the load– submaximal relative loads (ie, %1RM) for the seated military press
velocity (L-V) relationship.3,4,6,7,12,13 Previous investigations have and 45° inclined BP in comparison with the flat BP. This result
examined the influence of the BP mode (free weight vs Smith could be explained by a higher recruitment of the more powerful
machine),12 BP variant (eccentric–concentric vs concentric-only),4 pectoralis major during the flat BP. Therefore, it is plausible that the
and BP technique (flat vs arched)13 on the L-V relationship. It has velocity associated with a given submaximal load (ie, <1RM)
also been examined which type of velocity variable (mean velocity, during the flat BP could also be progressively reduced with the
mean propulsive velocity, and maximum velocity)14 and regression increment of the grip width because it may allow a higher recruit-
model (linear and polynomial)15 may provide the L-V with a higher ment of the pectoralis major.
General L-V relationship equations have been reported in the
scientific literature to estimate the 1RM during the BP exercise
Pérez-Castilla, Martínez-García, Rodríguez-Perea, and Chirosa-Ríos are with the
from the velocity recorded against a submaximal load.3,6,12 How-
Dept of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of
Granada, Granada, Spain. Jerez-Mayorga is with the Facultad de Ciencias de la
ever, the use of general L-V equations has been discouraged due to
Rehabilitación, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile. García-Ramos is with the high between-subject variability in the velocity associated with
the Dept of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, a given %1RM.4,7,15 Previous studies have examined the potential
Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile. García- sources of the between-subject variability in the L-V relationship
Q1 Ramos ([email protected]) is corresponding author. during the BP exercise,20,21 and the anthropometric characteristics
1
2 Pérez-Castilla et al

have been proposed as one of the potential factors that could form before initiating the study. The study protocol adhered to the Q2
explain this variability. Fahs et al21 found a positive relationship tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the
between body height and humerus length with the mean velocity Institutional Review Board (approval: 491/CEIH/2018).
attained at moderate loads (55%–75% 1RM) likely due to the
greater range of motion in higher subjects. Anthropometry char- Experimental Design
acteristics have also been successfully used as a predictor of the BP
1RM strength,22–25 whereas the accuracy of repetitions-to-failure A randomized crossover design was used to examine the effects of
equations for predicting the BP 1RM also seems to improve when different grip widths and anthropometric characteristics on the L-V
the anthropometry characteristics are considered in a multiple relationship during the BP exercise performed in a Smith machine.
linear regression model.22,26,27 Therefore, it is plausible that con- A preliminary session was used to determine the subjects’ anthro-
sidering both the anthropometric characteristics and movement pometric characteristics and ensure that all subjects were able to
velocity could provide a more accurate estimation of the BP %1RM perform the BP with a proper technique. Afterward, subjects came
compared with the only use of movement velocity. to the laboratory on 4 occasions within a 2-week period with each
To address the existing gaps in the literature, the objectives of session separated by at least 48 hours. The individual L-V
this study were (1) to compare the L-V relationship between the relationship was determined on each session by means of an
Smith machine BP exercise performed using 4 different grip widths incremental loading test.4 A single BP grip width (narrow, medium,
(narrow, medium, wide, and self-selected); (2) to determine the wide, or self-selected) was used on each session in a random order.
association between anthropometric characteristics and the move- All testing sessions were performed at the same time of the day for
ment velocity associated with a light (20% 1RM), medium (60% each subject (±1 h) and under similar environmental conditions
1RM), and heavy load (100% 1RM); and (3) to explore whether the (∼22°C and ∼60% humidity).
inclusion of anthropometric characteristics together with move-
ment velocity in a multiple linear regression model could increase Testing Procedures
the accuracy in the estimation of the %1RM compared with using
movement velocity alone. We hypothesized that (1) higher veloci- All anthropometric measures were taken in the first session
ties for the same %1RM would be obtained using narrower grip following the protocol of the International Society for the
widths,7 (2) body height and total arm length would be positively Advancement of Kinanthropometry.28 The anthropometric pro-
associated with the movement velocity attained at 20% 1RM and tocol involved the measurement of body height, body mass,
60% 1RM but not at 100% 1RM,21 and (3) a more precise biacromial width (measured as distance between left and right
estimation of the %1RM would be obtained using the movement acromioclavicular joints), mesosternal perimeter (measured as the
velocity together with the subjects’ anthropometric characteristics contour of the thorax at the level of the mesosternal point),
as predictor variables compared with using movement velocity anteroposterior chest diameter (measured as distance between
alone.22 the mesosternal point and the spinous process located at that
level), transverse chest diameter (measured as distance between
the most lateral points of the thorax at the level of the mesosternal
Methods point), and total arm length (measured as distance from the
Subjects acromioclavicular joint to the ulna’s styloid process). The grip
width during each session was randomly determined based on
In total, 20 men volunteered to participate in this study (Table 1). 100% (narrow grip width; 38.6 [2.5] cm), 150% (medium grip Q3
All subjects were physically active sport science students with at width; 57.8 [3.8] cm), and 200% (wide grip width; 77.1 [5.0] cm)
least 2 years of resistance training experience (2–5 sessions per of biacromial width distance,17,29 as well as the preferred grip
week) and were accustomed to performing the BP exercise as a part width position adopted by each subject (self-selected grip width;
of their academic curriculum. None of them reported any physical 67.0 [8.6] cm).18,19
limitation, health problem, or musculoskeletal injury that could The 4 remaining testing sessions were identical with the excep-
compromise the tested performance. Subjects were instructed to tion that only one BP grip width was used on each testing session. All
avoid any strenuous physical activity over the course of the study. sessions began with a standardized warm-up consisting of jogging,
Subjects were informed regarding nature, aims, and risks associ- dynamic stretching, arm and shoulder mobilization exercises, and
ated with the experimental procedures and signed a written consent 1 set of 5 repetitions with an external load of 15 kg (mass of the
unloaded Smith machine bar). Afterward, a standard incremental
Table 1 Descriptive Data of the Subjects’ Anthropo- loading test was applied.4 The initial external load was set at 15 kg
and was progressively increased in 10 kg increments until the attained
metric Characteristics
mean velocity was lower than 0.50 m·s−1. From that moment, the load
Mean (SD) Range was progressively increased in steps of 5 to 1 kg until the 1RM
Age, y 22.5 (3.7) 19–33
strength was determined. Two repetitions were performed with light–
moderate loads (mean velocity ≥ 0.50 m·s−1), but only 1 repetition
Body height, cm 177.8 (6.4) 168–192
was performed with heavier loads (mean velocity < 0.50 m·s−1).
Body mass, kg 77.9 (13.1) 63–110 Ten seconds of rest were implemented between repetitions with
Biacromial width, cm 38.6 (2.5) 35–45 the same load and 3 minutes between different loads. The average
Mesosternal perimeter, cm 94.3 (9.0) 80–115 number of loads tested was 8.3 (1.2) (narrow grip width), 8.9 (1.4)
Anteroposterior chest diameter, cm 20.7 (2.6) 17–26 (medium grip width), 8.5 (1.5) (wide grip width), and 8.6 (1.3) (self-
Transverse chest diameter, cm 27.5 (2.8) 20–32 selected grip width). Subjects received velocity performance feed-
back immediately after each repetition to encourage them to perform
Total arm length, cm 58.6 (8.2) 27–65
all repetitions at the maximal intended velocity.
(Ahead of Print)
 Load–Velocity Profile and Bench Press Grip Widths 3

Subjects started the task lying supine on a flat bench, with their Pearson product-moment correlations or Spearman rho (r) were
feet resting on the floor; their elbows fully extended; and their used to quantify the association between the anthropometric
hands placed on the bar using either a narrow, medium, wide, or characteristics and the mean velocity values attained at 20% 1RM,
self-selected grip width. From this position, they lowered the bar to 60% 1RM, and 100% 1RM for each BP grip width. The criteria for
touch the chest, hold this position for approximately 2 seconds, and interpreting the magnitude of the r correlations were as follows:
then lifted the bar as fast as possible until their elbows reached full trivial (.00–.09), small (.10–.29), moderate (.30–.49), large
extension.13 The BP was performed according to the 5-point body (.50–.69), very large (.70–.89), nearly perfect (.90–.99), and perfect
contact position technique (head, upper back, and buttocks firmly (1.00).31 Finally, multiple linear regression models were conducted
on the bench with both feet flat on the floor). The position of the to estimate the relative load (%1RM) using movement velocity
bench was adjusted so that the vertical projection of the bar along with anthropometrics characteristics as predictor variables.
corresponded to each subject’s intermammary line. The distance The adjusted r2, SEE, regression constant (a), raw score (b), and
between the index fingers was previously measured and marked on standardized coefficient (b-weights) were reported. Alpha was set
the bar with tape to keep constant the subject’s hands position at P < .05. All statistical analyses were performed using the soft-
throughout all lifts.18 ware package SPSS (version 22.0; IBM SPSS, Chicago, IL).

Measurement Equipment and Data Analysis

Results
Anthropometric measurements were performed by means of a steel
flexible tape (Rosscraft Anthrotape; Rosscraft Innovations Inc, Strong linear relationships were observed between the mean
Vancouver, Canada) and a large sliding caliper (Campbell 20; velocity and relative loads (%1RM) across the 4 BP grip widths
Rosscraft Innovation Inc). Body height was measured using a wall- when the data of all subjects were pooled in a general L-V
mounted stadiometer (seca 202; seca Ltd, Hamburg, Germany), relationship (r2 = .966 [.955–.968], SEE ≤ 5.9% 1RM; Figure 1).
while the body mass was assessed using a contact electrode foot-to- The individual L-V relationships were also strong for the narrow
foot body fat analyzer system (TBF-300A; Tanita Corporation of grip width (r2 = .995 [.991–.999], SEE ≤ 4.2% 1RM); medium grip
America Inc, Arlington Heights, IL). All tests were performed in a width (r2 = .996 [.985–.999], SEE ≤ 4.9% 1RM); wide grip width
Smith machine (GervaSport, Madrid, Spain). Although highly (r2 = .995 [.986–.999], SEE ≤ 5.0% 1RM); and self-selected grip
trained individuals are not typically using the Smith machine to width (r2 = .994 [.986–1.000], SEE ≤ 4.8% 1RM).
train the BP, the Smith machine was used in this study to eliminate The mean velocity associated with each relative load did not
the confounding factors that could be present during the free- differ between the BP grip widths (P ≥ .130; Table 2). Regarding
weight BP (eg, horizontal movements of the bar) and only examine the other dependent variables, the analysis of variances revealed a
the influence of the grip width. A linear velocity transducer (T- significant main effect for the 1RM (F3,57 = 3.45, P = .022, and
Force System; Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) was fixed to the bar with a η2p = .15) due to higher 1RM values obtained using the medium
tether and sampled the instantaneous bar velocity at a sampling rate grip width compared with the narrow grip width (P = .035), while
of 1000 Hz. The mean velocity (ie, average velocity from the start no significant differences between the grip widths were obtained
of the concentric phase until the bar reached the maximum height) for the velocity of the 1RM (F3,57 = 0.89, P = .452, and η2p = .05);
was used to determine the L-V relationships.14 The repetition with mean test velocity (F3,57 = 2.13, P = .106, and η2p = .10); and L-V
the highest mean velocity of each loading condition was used for slope (F3,57 = 1.31, P = .282, and η2p = .06) (Figure 2).
statistical analyses. The mean velocity attained at each relative load Body height and total arm length were the 2 anthropometric
(ie, from 20% 1RM to 100% 1RM in 5% increments) as well as the characteristics that presented higher correlations with the mean
mean test velocity were obtained from the individual L-V relation- velocity attained at 20% 1RM and 60% 1RM (r ranged from .464
ships. The mean test velocity was calculated as the average velocity [moderate] to .670 [large], P ≤ .039; Table 3). Body mass was
value from all relative loads.4 also positively correlated with the mean velocity reported at light
and medium loads (20%–60% 1RM) for the medium grip width
(r = .445–.472 [moderate], P ≤ .049), whereas the biacromial width
Statistical Analyses was negatively associated with the mean velocity attained at 100%
Data are presented as means and SDs, while Pearson multivariate 1RM for the wide grip width (r = −.584 [large], P = .007). No
coefficient of determination (r2) is presented through their median significant correlations were found for the remaining compari-
values and range. The normal distribution of the data (Shapiro– sons (P ≥ .058).
Wilk test) and the homogeneity of variances (Levene test) were The addition of the anthropometrics characteristics into mul-
confirmed (P > .05) with the exception of some anthropometric tiple linear regression models along with movement velocity only
characteristics (body mass, mesosternal perimeter, and transverse contributed to explain a slightly higher variance of the velocity
chest diameter). The L-V relationships were established by means attained at each %1RM compared with the only use of movement
of linear regression models.15 The goodness of fit of the L-V velocity (Table 4). In addition, it should be noted that the amount of
relationships was assessed by r2 and the standard error of the variance explained by the individual L-V relationships (r2 = .995
estimate (SEE). One-way repeated-measures analysis of variances [.985–1.000], SEE ≤ 5.0% 1RM) was always higher compared
with Bonferroni post hoc tests were applied to compare between the with the multiple linear regression models (r2 = .969 [.965–.973],
4 grip widths: (1) the mean velocity attained at each relative load, SEE ≤ 5.2% 1RM).
(2) the 1RM strength, (3) the velocity of the 1RM, (4) the mean test
velocity, and (5) the L-V slope. Partial eta squared (η2p ) was also Discussion
calculated for the analysis of variances where the values of the
effect sizes 0.01, 0.06, and >0.14 were considered small, medium, This study was designed to examine the effects of different grip
and large, respectively.30 Depending on the nature of the data, widths and anthropometric characteristics on the L-V
(Ahead of Print)
4 Pérez-Castilla et al

Figure 1 — Load–velocity relationships obtained for the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine using a narrow grip width (upper left
panel), a medium grip width (upper right panel), a wide grip width (lower left panel), and a self-selected grip width (lower right panel). 1RM indicates 1-
repetition maximum; N, number of trials included in the regression analysis; r2, Pearson multivariate coefficient of determination; SEE, standard error of
the estimate.

relationship obtained during the BP exercise performed in a %1RM from the velocity of the barbell in different variants
Smith machine. The main findings of this study revealed that of the BP exercise (r2 ≥ .92).4,7,12,13 However, rejecting our first
(1) the mean velocity associated with each %1RM did not hypothesis, the velocity attained at each %1RM did not differ
significantly differ between the 4 BP grip widths, (2) body between the 4 BP grip widths. These results are in line with Lockie
height and total arm length were the 2 anthropometric variables et al,19 who did not find significant differences during the free-
more correlated with the mean velocity values reported at light weight BP exercise in the peak power attained at different %1RM
(20% 1RM) and medium (60% 1RM) loads, (3) the multiple between a close and self-selected grip width. More importantly, the
linear regression models using movement velocity and the current findings seem to contradict previous findings that suggested
anthropometric characteristics as predictor variables were able that the higher velocities associated with submaximal loads during
to explain a slightly higher variance of the velocity attained at the seated military press and 45° inclined BP compared with the flat
each %1RM compared with the only use of movement velocity, BP could be cause by the higher recruitment of the pectoralis major
and (4) the individual L-V relationships always provided a more during the flat BP.7 It should be noted that a higher recruitment of
accurate estimation of the %1RM than the multiple linear the pectoralis major has been observed using wider grip widths.16 It
regression models. These results suggested that the individual should also be noted that while García-Ramos et al7 reported higher
L-V relationship should be modeled using the self-selected 1RM values for the flat BP compared with the 45° inclined BP
grip width as it represents the most practical and accurate (≈8%) and seated military press (≈24%), no significant differences
procedure for estimating the %1RM in the BP exercise per- in 1RM strength were observed in this study between the 4 BP grip
formed in a Smith machine. Future studies should elucidate widths, which is in consensus with the available literature.32 These
whether these results are applicable to the free-weight BP results suggest that the self-selected grip width could be recom-
exercise. mended as the most ecological and practical procedure to deter-
Strong and linear L-V relationships were observed for all BP mine the L-V relationship during the BP exercise. Note that the
grip widths (r2 ≥ .96 for pooled data and r2 ≥ .99 for individual self-selected grip width in this study (174% [22%] of biacromial
data). These results are in line with previous studies that have also width) was comparable to the previously reported in literature
reported a high accuracy of linear regression models to estimate the (189% of biacromial width).29
(Ahead of Print)
Table 2 Comparison of the Mean Velocity (in Meters per Second) Attained at Each Relative Load (%1RM) During the
BP Exercise Performed in a Smith Machine Using 4 Different Grip Widths
ANOVA Grip width
Load (%1RM) F3,57 P value η2p Narrow Medium Wide Self-selected
20 1.41 .251 .07 1.36 (0.11) 1.33 (0.11) 1.33 (0.11) 1.35 (0.12)
25 1.47 .216 .07 1.29 (0.11) 1.26 (0.11) 1.26 (0.10) 1.28 (0.11)
30 1.53 .251 .08 1.21 (0.10) 1.18 (0.10) 1.19 (0.10) 1.20 (0.11)
35 1.60 .199 .08 1.14 (0.09) 1.11 (0.09) 1.11 (0.09) 1.13 (0.10)
40 1.67 .183 .08 1.06 (0.08) 1.04 (0.08) 1.04 (0.09) 1.05 (0.09)
45 1.75 .167 .08 0.99 (0.08) 0.97 (0.08) 0.97 (0.08) 0.98 (0.09)
50 1.82 .153 .09 0.92 (0.07) 0.89 (0.07) 0.90 (0.07) 0.91 (0.08)
55 1.89 .142 .09 0.84 (0.06) 0.82 (0.06) 0.82 (0.07) 0.83 (0.08)
60 1.94 .134 .09 0.77 (0.06) 0.75 (0.06) 0.75 (0.06) 0.76 (0.07)
65 1.97 .130 .09 0.70 (0.06) 0.67 (0.05) 0.68 (0.06) 0.68 (0.06)
70 1.96 .251 .09 0.62 (0.04) 0.60 (0.05) 0.60 (0.05) 0.61 (0.06)
75 1.92 .137 .09 0.55 (0.04) 0.53 (0.04) 0.53 (0.04) 0.54 (0.05)
80 1.83 .153 .09 0.47 (0.03) 0.45 (0.04) 0.46 (0.04) 0.46 (0.05)
85 1.69 .178 .08 0.40 (0.03) 0.38 (0.03) 0.38 (0.04) 0.39 (0.05)
90 1.54 .215 .08 0.33 (0.03) 0.31 (0.03) 0.31 (0.03) 0.31 (0.04)
95 1.36 .264 .07 0.25 (0.02) 0.23 (0.03) 0.24 (0.03) 0.24 (0.04)
100 1.19 .322 .06 0.18 (0.03) 0.16 (0.03) 0.17 (0.03) 0.16 (0.04)

Abbreviations: 1RM, 1-repetition maximum; ANOVA, analysis of variance; BP, bench press;F, Snedecor F. Note: Data are presented as mean (SD). No significant
differences were observed between the 4 BP grip widths for any %1RM (P > .05).

Figure 2 — Individual values of the 1RM (upper left panel), mean V1RM trial (upper right panel), MTV (lower left panel), and L-V slope (lower right
panel) for the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine using 4 different grip widths. Filled dots represent the data averaged across the subjects.
1RM indicates 1-repetition maximum; L-V slope, load–velocity relationship slope; MTV, mean test velocity; V1RM, velocity of the 1RM. *Significantly
lower than medium grip width (P < .05; analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction).

(Ahead of Print) 5
 6 Pérez-Castilla et al

Table 3 Correlations Between the Anthropometric Characteristics and the Mean Velocity Associated With a Light
(20% 1RM), Medium (60% 1RM), and Heavy (100% 1RM) Load for Each BP Grip Width
Load Body Body Biacromial Mesosternal Anteroposterior Transverse Total arm
Grip width (%1RM) height mass width perimeter chest diameter chest diameter length
Narrow 20 .398 .269 .387 .140 .067 .245 .485*
60 .383 .283 .357 .122 .060 .142 .464*
100 −.073 −.071 −.139 −.120 −.031 −.404 −.104
Medium 20 .481* .445* .431 .231 .346 .206 .428
60 .466* .472* .386 .163 .307 .008 .390
100 −.079 −.098 −1.83 −.159 −.158 −.422 −.160
Wide 20 .412 .173 .185 .051 .090 .292 .574**
60 .365 .173 .024 −.004 .041 .137 .567**
100 −.045 .158 −.584** −.320 −.166 −.186 .170
Self-selected 20 .546* −.244 .369 .198 .241 .322 .653**
Q4 60 .531* .326 .303 .141 .181 .203 .670**
100 .182 .373 −.061 −.094 −.097 −.154 .332

Abbreviations: 1RM, 1-repetition maximum; BP, bench press.

*P < .05. **P < .01.

The application of general L-V relationship equations has been relationships was always higher (ie, higher r2 and lower SEE)
questioned because they do not take into account the individual compared with the multiple linear regression models. Therefore,
factors that can affect the movement velocity associated with each % this study provides additional evidence that encourages the use of
1RM.4,7,15 Supporting our second hypothesis, several anthropomet- the individual L-V relationship instead of the general L-V rela-
ric characteristics (mainly body height and total arm length) were tionship to obtain a more precise estimation of the %1RM from
significantly correlated with the velocity achieved against a given % movement velocity.4,5,7,15,33
1RM. Therefore, the anthropometric characteristics seem to at least The main limitation of this study was the use of a Smith
partially explain the between-subject variability in the velocity machine, which restricts the movement of the bar to the vertical
associated with each %1RM reported in previous studies conducted direction, may limit the ecological validity of our findings because
with the BP exercise.4,7,15 In line with the findings of Fahs et al,21 athletes typically perform the BP with free weights. However, since
body height and total arm length were positively correlated with the previous studies have found trivial differences in the L-V between
mean velocity attained at light and medium loads (20%–60% 1RM), the BP exercise performed in a Smith machine and free weights12
although the magnitude of the correlations was dependent on the BP and a higher reliability of movement velocity during the BP
grip width. In addition, our findings are in consensus with Lockie exercise performed in a Smith machine,34 we decided to use
et al,25 who did not observe a significant correlation between the arm the Smith machine in order to eliminate all possible confounding
span (ie, a metric that incorporates the length of both arms) and the factors that could be present during the free-weight BP
mean velocity recorded during the 1RM trial using either a close or (eg, horizontal movements of the bar) and only examine the
self-selected grip width. It is plausible that the higher velocities influence of the grip width. It should be noted that our sample
observed for taller subjects with longer arms could be explained by size was composed exclusively of physically active men with
the greater range of motion.21 Therefore, sport practitioners should limited resistance training experience, and it should be verified
be aware that the general velocities associated with each %1RM whether the findings of this study are applicable to highly trained
reported in previous studies for the BP exercise could not provide individuals. However, although elite level athletes are expected to
accurate information when training very tall or short athletes. For show higher 1RM performances, we believe that the main finding
example, athletes with a very large body size (eg, basketball or of this study (ie, the velocity associated with each %1RM is not
volleyball players) are expected to present higher velocities for each affected by the grip width) would not differ if elite athletes are
submaximal load than what has been typically reported in the tested since previous studies have demonstrated that the L-V profile
scientific literature.3,6,12 Futures studies should compare the L-V is not meaningfully affected by the strength levels of the indivi-
relationship between subjects with meaningful differences in their duals.3,35 This study has shown that the mean velocity associated
body size to test this hypothesis. with each %1RM is not affected by the grip width, but more
To our knowledge, this is the first study that has examined research is needed to determine the effect of the BP grip width on
whether the combination of movement velocity and anthropomet- peak velocity and peak power and how these differences are
ric characteristics into a multiple linear regression model could affected by anthropometric characteristics.
improve the estimation of the %1RM during the BP exercise
performed in a Smith machine. The main finding was that the Practical Applications
inclusion of several anthropometric characteristics in the model
marginally increased the amount of variance explained compared No significant differences in the mean velocity associated with
with the use of movement velocity alone. However, it is important each %1RM between the 4 BP grip widths suggest that a self-
to highlight that the goodness of fit of the individual L-V selected grip width could be recommended to simplify the BP
(Ahead of Print)
 Load–Velocity Profile and Bench Press Grip Widths 7

Table 4 Multiple Linear Regression Models Generated to Predict the Relative Load (%1RM) Using Movement
Velocity and the Anthropometric Characteristics as Predictor Variables
Predictor MV and BM MV and TAL MV, TAL, and TCD MV, TAL, and BIA MV, TAL, BIA, and BH
Narrow
Constant (a) 13.42*** 6.96*** 7.58***
MV −65.4 (−0.99)*** −65.7 (0.99)*** −65.8 (−0.99)***
TAL 0.41 (0.05)*** 0.45 (0.06)*** 0.96 (0.12)***
BIA Not included 0.55 (0.05)*** 0.91 (0.08)***
BH Not included Not included −0.33 (−0.08)**
Adj. r2 (SEE) .969 (4.9% 1RM) .972 (4.7% 1RM) .973 (4.6% 1RM)
ANOVA P value <.001 <.001 <.001
Medium
Constant (a) 6.82***
MV −66.0 (−0.99)***
BM 0.235 (0.055)***
Adj. r2 (SEE) .970 (4.8% 1RM)
ANOVA P value <.001
Wide
Constant (a) 12.02*** 9.21***
MV −66.4 (−0.99)*** −66.4 (−0.99)***
TAL 0.561 (0.073)*** 0.57 (0.07)***
TCD Not included 0.27 (0.03)*
Adj. r2 (SEE) .969 (4.9% 1RM) .969 (4.9% 1RM)
ANOVA P value <.001 <.001
Self-selected
Constant (a) 9.25*** 3.91*** 5.10***
MV −65.0 (−0.99)*** −65.2 (−0.99)*** −65.3 (−0.99)***
TAL 0.79 (0.10)*** 0.84 (0.11)*** 1.45 (0.19)***
BIA Not included 0.59 (0.05)*** 1.03 (0.09)***
BH Not included Not included −0.40 (−0.10)**
Adj. r2 (SEE) .965 (5.2% 1RM) .968 (5.0% 1RM) .969 (4.9% 1RM)
ANOVA P value <.001 <.001 <.001

Abbreviations: 1RM, 1-repetition maximum; Adj. r2, adjusted Pearson multivariate coefficient of determination; ANOVA, analysis of variance; BH, body height; BIA,
biacromial width; BM, body mass; MV, mean velocity; SEE, standard error of the estimate (%1RM); TAL, total arm length; TCD, transverse chest diameter. Note: Data are
Q5 multiple linear regression model raw-score constants (a), raw score (b), and standardized coefficient (b-weights, in parenthesis). Q6
Coefficient significance: *P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001. Only the anthropometric variables with a significant coefficient were included in the multiple linear regression
models (P < .05).

testing procedure. The individual L-V relationship provided a 2 anthropometric characteristics more correlated with the mean
more accurate estimation of the BP %1RM than the general velocity associated with light and medium loads (20%–60% 1RM);
L-V relationship, and the multiple linear regression models subjects with larger body size reported higher velocities for the
constructed using the anthropometric characteristics and move- same submaximal relative loads. However, the addition of sub-
ment velocity as predictor variables. Therefore, the individual jects’ anthropometric characteristics along with movement velocity
L-V relationship obtained during the BP exercise performed as predictor variables did not meaningfully improved the prediction
using a self-selected grip width could be recommended to obtain capability of the BP %1RM. Finally, it is important to note that the
an accurate estimation of the BP %1RM. Note that the individual individual L-V relationship always provided the most accurate
L-V relationship can be quickly determined through the record- estimation of the BP %1RM.
ing of movement velocity against only 2 different loads (ie,
2-point method).33 Acknowledgments

Conclusions The authors would like to thank all the subjects who selflessly participated
in the study. This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of
The mean velocity associated with each %1RM was comparable Education, Culture and Sport under a predoctoral grant (FPU15/03649)
for the 4 BP grip widths. Body height and total arm length were the awarded to A.P.-C.

(Ahead of Print)
 8 Pérez-Castilla et al

References 17. Calatayud J, Vinstrup J, Jakobsen MD, Sundstrup E, Colado J,

Andersen LL. Attentional focus and grip width influences on bench
1. Mann J, Ivey P, Sayers S. Velocity-based training in football. Strength press resistance training. Percept Mot Skills. 2018;125:265–277.
Cond J. 2015;37:52–57. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177 PubMed ID: 29231125 doi:10.1177/0031512517747773
2. Nevin J. Auto-regulated resistance training: does velocity-based 18. Lockie RG, Callaghan SJ, Moreno MR, et al. An investigation of the
training represent the future? Strength Cond J. 2019;41(4):34–39. mechanics and sticking region of a one-repetition maximum close-
doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000471 grip bench press versus the traditional bench press. Sport. 2017;5(3):
3. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a E46. doi:10.3390/sports5030046
measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med. 19. Lockie RG, Callaghan SJ, Orjalo AJ, Moreno MR. Loading range for
2010;31:347–352. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248333 the development of peak power in the close-grip bench press versus
4. García-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, the traditional bench press. Sport. 2018;6:E97. doi:10.3390/
Haff GG. Differences in the load-velocity profile between 4 bench sports6030097
press variants. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13:326–331. 20. Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Zourdos MC. Analysis of factors related to
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0158 back squat concentric velocity. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32:2435–
5. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Muñoz-López M, Marchante D, García- 2441. PubMed ID: 30137028 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002295
Ramos A. Repetitions in reserve and rate of perceived exertion increase 21. Fahs CA, Blumkaitis JC, Rossow LM. Factors related to average
the prediction capabilities of the load-velocity relationship [published concentric velocity of 4 barbell exercises at various loads. J Strength
online ahead of print October 10, 2018]. J Strength Cond Res. Cond Res. 2019;33:597–605. PubMed ID: 30640305 doi:10.1519/
Q7
6. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ, Pérez CE, Pallarés JG. JSC.0000000000003043
Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs bench 22. Macht JW, Abel MG, Mullineaux DR, Yates JW. Development of
press exercises. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35:209–216. 1RM prediction equations for bench press in moderately trained men.
7. García-Ramos A, Suzovic D, Pérez-Castilla A. The load-velocity J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30:2901–2906. PubMed ID: 26913865
profiles of three upper-body pushing exercises in men and women doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001385
[published online ahead of print July 12, 2019]. Sports Biomech. 23. Reya M, Skarabot J, Cveticanin B, Sarabon N. Factors underlying
Q8
8. Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of velocity-based and bench press performance in elite competitive powerlifters [published
traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength online ahead of print March 15, 2019]. J Strength Cond Res. Q12
and power adaptations [published online ahead of print February 18, 24. Caruso JF, Taylor ST, Lutz BM, et al. Anthropometry as a predictor of
2019]. J Strength Cond Res. bench press performance done at different loads. J Strength Cond Res.
Q9
9. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator 2012;26:2460–2467. PubMed ID: 22027858 doi:10.1519/JSC.
of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports 0b013e31823c44bb
Exerc. 2011;43:1725–1734. PubMed ID: 21311352 doi:10.1249/ 25. Lockie RG, Callaghan SJ, Orjalo AJ, Moreno MR. Relationships
MSS.0b013e318213f880 between arm span and the mechanics of the one-repetition maximum
10. Weakley JJ, Wilson KM, Till K, et al. Visual feedback attenuates traditional and close-grip bench press. Facta Univ Ser Phys Educ
mean concentric barbell velocity loss, and improves motivation, Sport. 2018;16:271–280.
competitiveness, and perceived workload in male adolescent athletes. 26. Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, Robergs RA. Prediction of one repetition
J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(9):2420–2425. doi:10.1519/JSC. maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and
0000000000002133 anthropometry. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:584–592. PubMed ID:
11. Weakley J, Till K, Sampson J, et al. The effects of augmented 16937972
feedback on sprint, jump, and strength adaptations in rugby union 27. Hetzler RK, Schroeder BL, Wages JJ, Stickley CD, Kimura IF.
players following a four week training programme. Int J Sports Anthropometry increases 1 repetition maximum predictive ability
of NFL-225 test for division IA college football players. J Strength
Q10 Physiol Perform. 2019;14:1205–1211. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0523
12. Loturco I, Kobal R, Moraes JE, et al. Predicting the maximum Cond Res. 2010;24:1429–1439. PubMed ID: 20453681 doi:10.1519/
dynamic strength in bench press: the high precision of the bar velocity JSC.0b013e3181d682fa
approach. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31:1127–1131. PubMed ID: 28. Norton K, Olds T. Anthropometrica: A Textbook of Body Measure-
28328719 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001670 ment for Sports and Health Courses. Sidney, Australia: UNSW Press;
13. Garcia-Ramos A, Perez-Castilla A, Villar Macias FJ, Latorre-Roman 1996.
PA, Parraga JA, Garcia-Pinillos F. Differences in the one-repetition 29. Wagner LL, Evans SA, Weir JP, Housh TJ, Johnson GO. The effect of
maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and arched bench grip width on bench press performance. Int J Sport Biomech.
press in competitive powerlifters. Sports Biomech. 2018;1–13. 1992;8:1–10. doi:10.1123/ijsb.8.1.1
Q11
14. García-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, 30. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Gregory Haff G. Mean velocity vs mean propulsive velocity vs peak Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.; 1988.
velocity: which variable determines bench press relative load with 31. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive
higher reliability? J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32:1273–1279. doi:10. statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci
1519/JSC.0000000000001998 Sports Exerc. 2009;41:3–13. PubMed ID: 19092709 doi:10.1249/
15. Pestaña-Melero FL, Haff GG, Rojas FJ, Pérez-Castilla A, García- MSS.0b013e31818cb278
Ramos A. Reliability of the load–velocity relationship obtained 32. Green CM, Comfort P. The affect of grip width on bench press
through linear and polynomial regression models to predict the 1- performance and risk of injury. Strength Cond J. 2017;29:10–14.
repetition maximum load. J Appl Biomech. 2018;34:184–190. doi:10. doi:10.1519/00126548-200710000-00001
1123/jab.2017-0266 33. García-Ramos A, Haff G, Pestana-Melero F, et al. Feasibility of the 2-
16. Lehman GJ. The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/ point method for determining the 1-repetition maximum in the bench
supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during the flat bench press exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13:474–481.
press. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:587–591. PubMed ID: 16095407 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0374

(Ahead of Print)
 Load–Velocity Profile and Bench Press Grip Widths 9

34. Miller RM, Freitas EDS, Heishman AD, et al. Test-retest reliability 35. Torrejón A, Balsalobre-Fernández C, Haff GG, García-Ramos A. The
between free weight and machine-based movement velocities load-velocity profile differs more between men and women than
[published online ahead of print September 7, 2018]. J Strength between individuals with different strength levels. Sports Biomech.
Q13 Cond Res. 2019;18:245–255. doi:10.1080/14763141.2018.1433872

(Ahead of Print)

View publication stats