Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239937›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2020

A Comparison of Muscle Activation between Barbell Bench Press and Dumbbell Flyes in Resistance-Trained Males.

Tom Erik Solstad, Vidar Andersen, Matthew Shaw, Erlend Mogstad Hoel, Andreas Vonheim, Atle Hole Saeterbakken

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tom Erik SolstadWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Science, Campus Sogndal, Norway.
Vidar AndersenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Science, Campus Sogndal, Norway.
Matthew ShawWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Science, Campus Sogndal, Norway.
Erlend Mogstad HoelWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Science, Campus Sogndal, Norway.
Andreas VonheimWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Science, Campus Sogndal, Norway.
Atle Hole SaeterbakkenWestern Norway University, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Science, Campus Sogndal, Norway.
Vestlandsforsking · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the muscle activity in the prime movers and antagonist between the barbell bench press (BBP) and the dumbbell flyes (DF) Seventeen resistance-trained men (age 22.9 ± 1.8 yrs; height 1.80 ± 0.06 m; body mass 80.0 ± 8.3 kg), with 4.8 ± 2.0 years resistance training experience, completed the study. The surface electromyographic activation was measured in four different muscles (pectoralis major, anterior deltoids, triceps brachii, and biceps brachii) during six repetition maximum loads in both exercises. To better understand eventual differences, an in-depth analysis of the fifth repetition was performed, dividing it into six phases (lower, middle, and upper phase of the descending and ascending movement). The results showed a higher muscle activation in the whole movement and the majority of the lifting phases for pectoralis major, deltoids anterior, and triceps brachii for the BBP compared to the DF (8-81 %, p ≤ 0.05). However, the antagonist biceps brachii showed a higher muscle activation (57-86 %, p ≤ 0.05) in the DF compared to the BBP. In conclusion, both exercises could be included in training programs, but the BBP should be emphasized because of the higher muscle activation overall. Among specific populations, were tasks based on strength and control in a horizontal shoulder flexion position with extended elbows often occurs, the DF might prove useful.

Indexed as

Cross-Over StudiesDeltoid MuscleElectromyographyHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalPectoralis MusclesRange of Motion, ArticularResistance TrainingTorsoUpper ExtremityWeight LiftingYoung Adultmulti-jointneuromuscular activationpectoralis majorsingle-jointStrength training

Identifiers

PMID33239937
PMCPMC7675616
OpenAlexW3081046561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.