Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40783763›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025

Investigation of bench press muscle activity and kinematic parameters under stable and unstable load conditions.

Barbaros Demirtaş, Onur Cakir, Murat Cilli, Ozkan Isik, Onat Cetin, Malik Beyleroglu

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Barbaros DemirtaşFaculty of Sport Science, Sakarya Applied Sciences University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Onur CakirFaculty of Sport Science, Sakarya Applied Sciences University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Murat CilliFaculty of Sport Science, Sakarya Applied Sciences University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Ozkan IsikFaculty of Sport Science, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey.
Onat CetinFaculty of Sport Science, Yalova University, Yalova, Turkey. onat.cetin@yalova.edu.tr.
Malik BeylerogluFaculty of Sport Science, Sakarya Applied Sciences University, Sakarya, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnstable load training (ULT) has become increasingly popular for its potential to enhance muscle activation, strength, and neural development. Unlike unstable surface training (UST), ULT introduces instability through an unsteady load. Studies suggest ULT increases muscle activation in both stabilizing and primary muscles, particularly in multi-joint exercises. This study aims to assess whether ULT in the bench press improves stabilizer muscle activation, identify the most effective ULT methods, and examine their impact on kinematic parameters.

methodsSixteen male participants (age: 25 ± 3.14 years, body mass: 85.05 ± 5.39 kg, height: 1.78 ± 0.06 m, lifting experience: 6.75 ± 1.56 years, and bench press 1RM: 127.31 ± 13.45 kg) performed the bench press exercise under four different load conditions: Standard bar with a stable load (75% of 1RM), Standard bar with a stable load (60% of 1RM), Standard bar with an unstable load (60% of 1RM), Flexible barbell (60% of 1RM). Displacement, velocity, movement duration, and time parameters were compared under four different conditions. Surface electromyography was used to detect the activity of the pectoralis major, triceps brachii, anterior deltoid, lateral deltoid, rectus abdominis, and external oblique muscles.

resultsThe Stable Load 75% condition exhibited the highest muscle activation across most muscles. It showed greater activation than Unstable Load, Stable Load 60%, and flexible barbell in the Pectoralis Major, Triceps Brachii, Rectus Abdominus, External Oblique, and Lateral Deltoid (p < 0.002). In the Anterior Deltoid, the Standard Unstable Load (97.02%) showed higher activation than Stable Load 60% (76.84%) (p < 0.001), with no significant difference to flexible barbell (89.49%). The flexible barbell showed greater displacement (cm) (eccentric: 39.84 ± 4.5, concentric: 40.17 ± 4.62) and velocity (m/s) (eccentric: 0.62 ± 0.11, concentric: 0.54 ± 0.11) compared to the Standard Unstable Load and Stable Load 75% (p < 0.005). The Standard Unstable Load (eccentric: 1.14 ± 0.61, concentric: 1.07 ± 0.42) and Stable Load 75% (eccentric: 0.87 ± 0.28, concentric: 0.95 ± 0.21) had the longest movement duration (s), while flexible barbell (eccentric: 0.64 ± 0.15, concentric: 0.72 ± 0.13) exhibited the shortest durations (p < 0.000).

conclusionThis study demonstrates that Stable Load 75% resulted in the highest muscle activation across major muscle groups. Muscle activation depends on both the load and the phase of movement. Unstable Load Training (ULT) using a flexible barbell enhances movement dynamics by increasing displacement and velocity but does not show a significant difference from Stable Load 60% in most kinematic parameters. Therefore, load selection should align with training goals, whether the aim is to maximize muscle activation or improve movement efficiency.

Indexed as

Bench pressKinematicMuscle activityStable loadUnstable load

Identifiers

PMID40783763
PMCPMC12335049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.