Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40757582›Full record

ArticleMuscles (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Complete Upper Body Bar Enhances Strength Training During Bench Press.

He Wang, Hannah Bradshaw, Ben VonGunten, John Andamasaris, Emma Burns, Caroline Ashton, Clark Dickin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Muscles (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

He WangBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Hannah BradshawBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Ben VonGuntenBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
John AndamasarisBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Emma BurnsBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Caroline AshtonBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Clark DickinBiomechanics Laboratory (HP 311B), Health and Physical Activity Building, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3104-4167

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Barbell (BB) and dumbbell (DB) devices are commonly used during a bench press to develop the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and upper arms. Recently, a complete upper body bar (CUBB) was designed to train the muscles of the forearm by allowing for pronation and supination while providing the same traditional training for the rest of the upper body. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the CUBB relating to the EMG activity of the forearm during a bench press.

methodsA total of 21 healthy college-aged men volunteered for this study. EMG sensors were placed on the anterior deltoid (AD), pectoralis major (PEC), triceps brachii (TRI), pronator teres (PRO), and supinator (SUP). The participants went through a bench press test in a series of three different randomized conditions: the DB, the BB, and the CUBB. Resistance was set at 30% of body weight. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze the normalized EMG data (alpha = 0.05).

resultsFor the forearm muscles, the CUBB exhibited 41% and 37% higher PRO activation than the DB and BB, respectively. In addition, the CUBB exhibited 67% and 30% more SUP activation than the BB and DB, respectively. For the shoulder and chest muscles (AD and PEC), no significant differences were found among the three conditions.

conclusionsBench pressing with a CUBB can engage more upper body muscles and offer individuals additional training benefits.

Indexed as

bench pressEMGpronator teressupinator

Identifiers

PMID40757582
PMCPMC12121310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.