Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Randomized Trial Comparing Barbell and Dumbbell Bench Press on Maximal Strength and Power Output

Published onMay 09, 2023
Randomized Trial Comparing Barbell and Dumbbell Bench Press on Maximal Strength and Power Output
·
history

You're viewing an older Release (#1) of this Pub.

  • This Release (#1) was created on May 09, 2023 ()
  • The latest Release (#2) was created on May 16, 2024 ().

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess a) the effects of 12-week training intervention programme with barbell and dumbbell bench press on one repetition maximum (1-RM); b) the impact of these exercises on increases in throw performance; and c) the transfer effect of the training from barbell to dumbbell bench press and vice versa.

Methods: Thirty resistance trained men (age 18.1 ± 0.5 years; body mass 97.4 ± 11.3 kg; stature 183.7 ± 11.3 cm) were randomly assigned to either a barbell [G1 (n = 16) or dumbbell [G2 (n = 14)] bench press and completed 2 weekly training sessions at a relative percentage of the respective 1 repetition maximum (1RM) during a 12-week period. Study outcomes included strength levels measured using 1RM in barbell (BBP) and dumbbell (DBP) bench press, and power measured by seated medicine ball throw (SMBT) test.

Results: There was a significant main effect of time for 1RM BBP (F (1,28) = 212.952, p < 0.001, ⍵2=.387), 1RM DBP (F (1,28) = 88.325, p < 0.001, ⍵2=.336), and SMBT (F (1,28) = 66.579, p = .001, ⍵2=.241). No significant interactions between group and time were observed for any of the dependent variables.

Conclusions: Findings indicate that BBP and DBP exercises may be equally efficacious in improving measures of upper-body strength and power in resistance trained men.

Introduction

The barbell bench press is a widely used exercise in resistance training programmes to develop upper-body musculature. Due to its popularity and effectiveness, extensive research has been conducted to investigate its mechanical and physiological responses [1][2], as well as the effectiveness of different resistance training modalities for improving physical conditioning in both novice and athletes [3][4]. The exercise primarily targets the pectoralis major, triceps brachii, and anterior deltoid muscles [5] and can be performed using a barbell or a dumbbell.

One key distinction between the barbell bench press (BBP) and dumbbell bench press (DBP) is their differing levels of stability. DBP requires greater muscular stabilisation and control due to the increased freedom of movement in multiple planes, while BBP requires less balance of the external load. The instability inherent in DBP may prevent the upper body from effectively engaging the muscles typically activated during BBP, leading to altered muscle forces during movement performance [NO_PRINTED_FORM]. Previous research has shown that BBP allows individuals to lift heavier loads than DBP [7][8] . For example, Saeterbakken et al [7], reported that the BBP load was 17% greater than the one used in the one repetition maximum (1RM) test for DBP.

However, research investigating the simultaneous application of both exercises to improve maximal strength and power performance is limited. Currently, comparative data on these exercises is scarce and primarily consists of electromyographic analyses or biomechanical comparison studies [7][8][9][10]. While understanding the kinetic and muscle activity during an exercise is essential, it is equally important to directly compare long-term measurements such as strength and power and the transfer of gains between the BBP and DBP. Surprisingly, to the found knowledge, no existing studies have investigated these effects. 

Therefore, given the limited research, the objective of this paper is to evaluate: a) the impact of a 12-week training intervention programme utilising both BBP and DBP on strength; b) the influence of BBP and DBP on enhanced throw performance; and c) the transferability of the training effect from BBP to DBP and vice versa.


Material and methods

Subjects

Forty healthy men participated voluntarily in this research. After accounting for drop-outs, 30 participants (age 22.7 ± 4.1 years; body mass 71.2 ± 7.7 kg; stature 172.4 ± 5 cm) completed the study (Figure 1). The inclusion criteria required participants to be between 20 and 30 years old, have at least three years of consistent resistance training experience, be free from current or previous injuries that could be aggravated by upper-body exercises, and have refrained from using drugs or supplements for six months prior to the study. Additionally, the participants had to be technically proficient in both barbell and dumbbell bench press techniques. They were instructed not to train for 72 hours before the testing session. Before the study began, each participant received information about the study's goals, requirements, benefits, and inherent risks, and provided written informed consent. The research adhered to all relevant national requirements and institutional guidelines, followed the Declaration of Helsinki, and complied with the current ethical standards in sport and exercise science research [11].


Figure 1

Study flow


Experimental approach

This study utilized a randomized, pre- and post-test repeated measures design. Subjects were randomly divided into two parallel groups using simple randomization procedures (computer-based random numbers in 1:1 ratio). G1 (n = 16) included only BBP as an upper-body strength exercise, while G2 (n = 14) included only DBP as an upper-body resistance exercise. The study was conducted over a 14-week period, consisting of a pretest in the 1st week, a training intervention program from the 2nd to 13th week, and a post-test in the 14th week. The training intervention program consisted of two weekly training sessions during a 12-week period, with participants performing the same training volume, frequency, range of motion, and rest interval between sets. All training sessions were completed under the direct supervision of a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist.

Baseline testing was conducted on two separate days, each separated by 48 hours. The first day consisted of anthropometry measurements, followed by a 1RM test. The strength tests for both bench press variations were conducted on days 1 and 2, respectively, with the testing order counterbalanced to avoid an order-effect. The power test was performed on day 2, after the strength test, with a mandatory 15-minute rest period. After the intervention period, all baseline tests were repeated. Figure 2 illustrates the steps in the process.


Figure 2

Schematic representation of the study design.


Procedures

Strength assessment

Assessment of one repetition maximum (1RM) for both bench press variations was measured following the guidelines suggested in previous reports [12]. In brief, after a 10-min warm-up on a static bicycle, subjects performed three warm-up sets: (1) 5 repetitions at 50% of the estimated 1RM (based on previous training history), (2) 3 repetitions with additional 2.5–5 kg, and (3) 1 repetition with additional 2.5-5 kg. This procedure was repeated with a series of single attempts until the participants were unable to lift a heavier weight. A 3-min rest interval between each trail was allowed. In the barbell bench press, subjects grasped the bar at a position slightly greater than biacromial width, while the position of the arms was individually selected using the dumbbells. Participants lowered the bar or dumbbell in a smooth and controlled manner to the lower portion of the pectorals and then rapidly extended the arms to full extension. Two spotters assisted the participants during the unracking and reracking of the barbell, and helped to stabilise the dumbbell until participants had fully extended arms in each set.

Seated medicine ball throw assessment

The upper-body explosiveness was determined by throwing a 3 kg and 22 cm diameter rubber medicine ball (MB; Soomloom, Japan). The MB was slightly covered with magnesium carbonate powder to ensure reliable and stronger grip to prevent slipping of the ball from the hands. It also left the mark on the floor where the ball landed and ensured precise measurement of the throwing distance. From a sitting position on a bench with support for the back, the subjects were instructed to keep their upper back firmly pressed against the backstop, staying in contact throughout the full throw to avoid any observable trunk flexion movement, grasped the MB against their chest with both hands, and on the given audible sign pushed the ball from the centre of the chest with maximal effort as far forward as possible. The subjects performed 3 trial throws, separated by approximately 2 minutes of recovery between each trial.  The distance score was measured from the midpoint of the mark left by the MB on the floor to the starting line. The distance for each test was recorded to the nearest 1 cm, and the average distance score was utilised for statistical analysis. The test–retest reliability coefficient was r ≥ 0.95


Intervention programme

The intervention programme lasted 12 weeks and consisted of two training sessions per week. The training was performed on Tuesdays and Saturdays to ensure sufficient recovery between sessions. Each of these sessions included only one exercise, the BBP or the DBP. Groups followed the same prescribed training loading pattern over the 12 weeks and were divided into four periodised phases of 3-week, progressively increasing intensity and decreasing training volume proportionately at each phase. In the first (weeks 2-4), second (weeks 5-7) and third (weeks 8-10) phases, subjects performed 3-5 sets of 8 repetitions at 72-77% of 1RM, 5 repetitions at 80-85% of 1RM and 3 repetitions at 87-92% of 1RM respectively. In the last phase of training (weeks 11-13), subjects performed a descending load scheme of distributing training load. In this approach, the load increased progressively to higher intensity (85-98% of 1RM) while the number of repetitions decreased in each set. Phases 1 and 2 utilised 2-3 min of recovery between sets, while phases 3 and 4 used 3-5 min inter-set rest (See also Table 1).


Table 1

Tuesday

Saturday

Phase 1: week 2-4 (72-77%1RM)

Barbell or dumbbell bench press

8 – 8 - 8

8 – 8 – 8 – 8 - 8

Phase 2: week 5-7 (80-85%1RM)

Barbell or dumbbell bench press

5 – 5 - 5

5 – 5 – 5 – 5 - 5

Phase 3: week 8-10 (87-92%1RM)

Barbell or dumbbell bench press

3 – 3 - 3

3 – 3 – 3 – 3 - 3

Phase 4: week 11-13 (85-98%1RM)

Barbell or dumbbell bench press

5 – 4 – 3 – 2 - 1

5 – 4 – 3 – 2 - 1

Table 1. 12-week upper-body training parameters


Data processing and analysis

Collected data were analysed by using JASP statistical software for analysis (Version 0.16.3; JASP Team, 2022). A mixed factor analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of both BBP and DBP on muscular strength and power. Prior to the analysis, the normal distribution of the data was confirmed for all factor combinations using the Shapiro-Wilk test, while the Levene's test was used to test for homogeneity of variances. The level of statistical significance was accepted at p < .05.


Results

The results for strength and power indicated a significant main effect of time for 1RM BBP (F (1,28) = 212.952, p < 0.001, ⍵2=.387); 1RM DBP (F (1,28) = 88.325, p < 0.001, ⍵2=.336); and SMBT (F (1,28) = 66.579, p = .001, ⍵2=.241). However, no significant main effect for group was observed for 1RM BBP (F (1,28) = 0.476, p = .496, ⍵2=.000); 1RM DBP (F (1,28) = 0.795, p = .380, ⍵2=.000); or SMBT (F (1,28) = 1.431, p = .242, ⍵2=.007). (see also Table 2


Table 2

Variables

Groups

Pre

Post

BBP 1RM Test (kg)

G1

104.4 ± 8.6

117.0 ± 6.8

G2

107.1 ± 7.7

117.9 ± 6.4

DBP 1RM Test (kg)

G1

75.6 ± 8.7

86.0 ± 6.1

G2

77.5 ± 8.5

88.6 ± 6.6

SMBT Test (mt)

G1

4.9 ± 0.5

5.4 ± 0.6

G2

4.7 ± 0.4

5.2 ± 0.4

Tabla 2. Changes in muscular fitness in response to 12 weeks training intervention (mean ± SD).


Discussion

This investigation indicates that different upper-body strength training programmes, in which participants performed either BBP or DBP, displayed similar increases in strength and power.

Both G1 and G2 groups showed significant improvements in muscle strength, with a 12% and 10% increase in BBP 1RM, and a 13.7% and 14.3% improvement in DBP 1RM, respectively. These findings support prior research that indicates increases in maximum strength are highly specific to the exercise being performed [13][14]. Furthermore, the results show a positive cross-training effect between BBP and DBP exercises, although transfer from BBP to DBP was greater than from DBP to BBP. Previous studies have reported varying transfer effects between exercises [15][16], indicating the importance of exercise selection in designing training programs.

Previous research has indicated that the stability requirements of BBP and DBP exercises are different, leading to varying levels of muscle activation for agonist, synergist and antagonist muscles [7]. This may help explain the current study's finding that the increase in 1RM for the G2 group may be due to both strength and motor strategy improvements, with only strength gains being transferable to the BBP exercise as it requires less stabilising motor strategy compared to DBP. On the other hand, the 1RM increase in the G1 group may be solely attributed to strength gain, which can be fully transferred to the DBP exercise.

These differences in force output under different dynamic conditions have been reported in previous research by Behm et al. [13], who found that less stable movements produce lower force levels compared to more stable movements. Consequently, part of the muscular activity is used to stabilise undesirable movements [17], reducing the effectiveness of motor strategy. In a study by Ostrowsky et al. [18] comparing the effects of stable and unstable loads on primary and stabilising muscles during the bench press, it was found that in the less stable condition, there was an increase in the level of synergist and antagonist muscle activation, while agonist muscle activation remained similar compared to the more stable condition. This indicates that the increased antagonist muscular co-activation is produced to enhance joint stability and reduce the level of external force that can be generated for a given level of agonist muscle force. Therefore, when exercise are less stable, training loads are often lighter [19].

Improvements in coordination may play a significant role in strength gains during less stable exercises. Research has shown that training with an unstable exercise leads to a rapid reduction in antagonist activation and an increase in synergist activation [20].

Additionally, both variations of the bench press exercise resulted in a significant increase in throw distance (10.2% and 10.6% for G1 and G2, respectively) from pre- to post-test, although there were no significant interactions between groups noted for the SMBT test.

The similarity between the movements in the trained exercises and the throw test appears to be the reason for the observed improvements. Abernethy and Jürimäe [NO_PRINTED_FORM] have suggested that training effects are best evaluated when the test movement pattern is similar to the trained exercise. In both the BBP and DBP exercises, participants performed a shoulder lateral adduction and elbow extension while pushing against resistance. It is likely that the prescribed strength stimulus and subsequent improvements in upper-body strength for each group enhanced force generation capacity required for throw performance, mainly through increased motor units recruitment [22]. This confirms the relationship between maximum strength and power suggested by several authors [23](Bompa & Buzzichelli, 2015).  Indeed, Stone et al. [25] have demonstrated a strong correlation between muscular strength and throwing performance.

However, it is possible that more significant changes could be achieved with specific power training to fully exploit the increase in muscle strength (Bompa & Buzzichelli, 2015). Coordination improvements in maximum strength movements and high-velocity strength movements are different [26], and thus, simply increasing maximum strength does not necessarily lead to improved power without specific training [27].

Incorporating both BBP and DBP exercises in a training program may lead to improved strength levels by enhancing inter- and intramuscular coordination and targeting specific adaptations. A combination of horizontal pressing movements with different stability levels may be advantageous, with the BBP exercise improving agonist muscle activation and the DBP exercise increasing synergistic muscle activation while decreasing antagonist muscle co-activation.


Conclusions

The study findings suggest that incorporating both BBP and DBP exercises into a 12-week training program can effectively enhance upper-body strength and power in resistance-trained men. This suggests that if the goal of the training program is to increase muscle strength and power, then either modality of training can be used effectively to accomplish this outcome. However, it is important to note that these findings may not necessarily apply to longer training programs or less experienced individuals. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that maximal force capacity developed in resistance training—regardless of barbell or dumbbell bench press training parameters—can be transferred to throws performance where the common requirement is the ability to produce initial high levels of force with greater reliance on concentric strength. However, when it come to throws performance, coaches should select exercises that address the underlying neuromuscular requirements of the task, rather than just focusing on exercises that appear similar to the target performance. In this regard, increasing eccentric strength is a necessary strategy.

Comments
1
Ovais Mirza:

This study presents a well-structured approach to assessing upper-body strength and explosiveness through 1RM bench press variations and seated medicine ball throws. The detailed methodology ensures accuracy and reliability, particularly with spotters and precise measurement techniques. The high test–retest reliability (r ≥0.95) further strengthens the credibility of the findings. Great insights for strength training research!

Regards,

Cyber Security Course in Delhi

Pubg Mobile Hacks 2025