ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Effects of asymmetric load bench press offset training on muscle activation levels and exercise-induced fatigue in collegiate bodybuilders.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Enhanced Brain Connectivity Following Six Weeks of Upper Extremity Offset Loading in Neurotypical Adults-A Preliminary Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study systematically investigated the effects of graded asymmetric load bench press offset training on muscle activation patterns, exercise-induced fatigue, and movement performance in bodybuilders. Methods: Ten male athletes (age: 24.20 ± 1.91 years; 1 R M bench press: 120.00 ± 14.66 kg) underwent randomized crossover trials with 0% (symmetrical), 2%, 4%, and 6% asymmetric load interventions (70% 1 R M total load). Surface electromyography (sEMG) quantified activation levels of pectoralis major (PM), anterior deltoid (AD), triceps brachii (TB), and external oblique (EO), while barbell kinematics, blood lactate, and heart rate were analyzed to assess fatigue. Result: Key findings revealed significant interlimb asymmetry under symmetrical loading, with dominant-side PM (51 ± 6.82 vs 35 ± 5.32 MVIC%, p = 0.009) and AD (48.2 ± 5.05 vs 32.6 ± 9.21 MVIC%, p = 0.038) exhibiting higher activation than the non-dominant side. Asymmetric loading effectively mitigated this imbalance: 6% intervention increased non-dominant PM (54.4% ± 8.46% vs 0%: 35 ± 5.32 MVIC%, p = 0.035) and AD activation (52.3% ± 12.7% vs 0%: 32.6 ± 9.21 MVIC%, p = 0.022), but triggered compensatory EO recruitment (31.1% ± 12.3% vs 0%: 12.8 ± 3.34 MVIC%, p < 0.001). Performance metrics declined progressively with higher asymmetry: 6% loading reduced barbell velocity (MV: 0.28% ± 0.03% vs 0%: 0.38 ± 0.04 m/s, p < 0.001), repetitions (6.63% ± 2.40% vs 0%: 13.90 ± 2.52, p < 0.001), and power (MP: 357% ± 43% vs 0%: 437 ± 53.70 W, p = 0.009). Physiological fatigue markers intensified at 6% asymmetry, evidenced by elevated post-exercise blood lactate (7.42% ± 1.59% vs 0%: 9.88 ± 0.75 mmol/L, p = 0.003) and prolonged heart rate recovery. Conclusion: The study identifies 2%-4% asymmetric loading as optimal for enhancing non-dominant muscle activation while minimizing fatigue, whereas 6% interventions induce core compensation and performance deterioration. These findings establish evidence-based thresholds for precision training protocols, addressing interlimb asymmetry while balancing neuromuscular efficacy and physiological strain. Methodological innovations include multidimensional analysis of biomechanical, electromyographic, and physiological responses, advancing the understanding of neuromuscular coordination in asymmetric resistance training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.