CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sports Med Int Open 2019; 03(03): E74-E81
DOI: 10.1055/a-1001-2526
Training & Testing
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019

Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between Push-up and Bench Press

Roland van den Tillaar
1   Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, Levanger, Norway
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 18 June 2019
revised 20 July 2019

accepted 07 August 2019

Publication Date:
05 September 2019 (online)


The purpose of this study was to compare the similarity in kinematics and upper-body muscle activation between push-up and bench press exercises over a range of loads. Twenty resistance-trained subjects (age 22.5±5.24 yrs, body mass 83.7±10.7 kg, height 1.80±0.06 m) executed bench presses and push-ups with 4 different loads. Bench press was executed at 50–80% of their assumed 1 repetition max in steps of 10 kg, while push-ups were executed without a weight vest and with a 10–20–30 kg weight vest. A linear encoder measured kinematics (displacement, time, average and peak velocity) during the exercises at each load, together with mean and maximal muscle activation of 8 upper body muscles and their timing for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate no differences in kinematics and muscle activation between the two exercises and that the different loads had the same effect upon both push-up and bench press in experienced resistance-trained men. For coaches and athletes, push-ups and bench presses for strength training can be used interchangeably. By using a weight vest, push-ups can mimic different loads that are similar to different intensities in the bench press that can be used to train strength demands.

  • References

  • 1 Blackard DO, Jensen RL, Ebben WP. Use of EMG analysis in challenging kinetic chain terminology. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 443-448
  • 2 Bosco C, Belli A, Astrua M, Tihanyi J, Pozzo R, Kellis S, Tsarpela O, Foti C, Manno R, Tranquilli C. A dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1995; 70: 379-386
  • 3 Calatayud J, Borreani S, Colado JC, Martin F, Tella V, Andersen LL. Bench press and push-up at comparable levels of muscle activity results in similar strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 246-253
  • 4 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. 174
  • 5 Dillman CJ, Murray TA. Biomechanical differences of open and closed chain exercises with respect to the shoulder. J Sport Rehab 1994; 3: 228-238
  • 6 Duscha BD, Cipriani DJ, Roberts CP. A review of open vs. closed kinetic chain exercise for lower extremity rehabilitation. Clin Exerc Physiol 1999; 1: 57
  • 7 Elliott BC, Wilson GJ, Kerr GK. A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 450-462
  • 8 Garcia-Masso X, Colado JC, Gonzalez LM, Salva PAU, Alves J, Tella V, Triplett NT. Myoelectric activation and kinetics of different plyometric push-up exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 2040-2047
  • 9 Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Sanchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 347-352
  • 10 Gottschall JS, Hastings B, Becker Z. Muscle activity patterns do not differ between push-up and bench press exercises. J Appl Biomech 2018; 34: 442-447
  • 11 Gouvali MK, Boudolos K. Dynamic and electromyographic analysis in variations of push-up exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 146-151
  • 12 Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Standards for ethics in sport and exercise science research: 2018 update. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38: 1126-1131
  • 13 Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000; 10: 361-374
  • 14 Landin D, Thompson M. The shoulder extension function of the triceps brachii. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011; 21: 1601-1605
  • 15 Langenderfer J, Jerabek SA, Thangamani VB, Kuhn JE, Hughes RE. Musculoskeletal parameters of muscles crossing the shoulder and elbow and the effect of sarcomere length sample size on estimation of optimal muscle length. Clin Biomech 2004; 19: 664-670
  • 16 Mayhew JL, Ball TE, Arnold MD, Bowen JC. Push-ups as a measure of upper body strength. J Appl Sport. Sci Res 1991; 5: 16-21
  • 17 McCaw ST, Friday JJ. A comparison of muscle activity between free weight and machine bench press. J Strength Cond Res 1994; 8: 259-264
  • 18 Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kreamer WJ, Häkkinen K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997; 50: 311-320
  • 19 Saeterbakken A, van den Tillaar R, Fimland M. A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stbility requirements. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 533-538
  • 20 Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Muscle force output and electromyographic activity in squats with various unstable surfaces. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 130-136
  • 21 van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. A comparison of successful and unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 2056-2063
  • 22 van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. The “sticking period” in a maximum bench press. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 529-535
  • 23 van den Tillaar R, Saeterbakken A. Effect of fatigue upon performance and electromyographic activity in 6-RM bench press. J Hum Kin 2014; 40: 57-65
  • 24 van den Tillaar R, Saeterbakken AH, Ettema G. Is the occurrence of the sticking region the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press?. J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 591-599