ArticleBiology of sport2026
Training with an elastic bench press device provides comparable adaptations to conventional resistance training in trained men.
Article in Biology of sport, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of a 10-week powerlifting-style bench press resistance training program, with (EBD) and without an elastic bench press device (RAW), on one-repetition maximum (1-RM), body mass (BM), muscle mass (MM), fat-free mass (FFM), and muscle thickness of the triceps brachii and pectoralis major. Twenty-two trained males (EBD: n = 10, age 25.1 ± 4.5 years, relative 1-RM 1.05 ± 0.31; RAW: n = 12, age 24.9 ± 3.9 years, relative 1-RM 1.07 ± 0.31) performed training three times weekly, with the EBD group training at 10% higher intensity than the RAW group. Analysis revealed significant time effects for 1-RM (EBD: +8.5 ± 2 5.3%, d = 0.34, p ≤ 0.001; RAW: +7.8 ± 28%, d = 0.28, p ≤ 0.001) and pectoralis major muscle thickness (EBD: +15.5 ± 23.9%, d = 0.65, p = 0.007; RAW: +17.2 ± 13.2%, d = 1.31, p = 0.001). Despite significant time effects, BM revealed no relevant post hoc changes (EBD: +1.0 ± 23.8%, d = 0.04, p = 0.406; RAW: 0.0 ± 19.5%, d = 0.00, p = 1.000). No significant interaction effects emerged for any outcome, and triceps thickness, MM, FFM, and fat mass did not show statistically significant changes. EBD and RAW training produced comparable strength and hypertrophic adaptations. Although the RAW group showed slightly greater gains in pectoralis major thickness, the difference was not statistically significant. This study highlights that while EBD provides a viable alternative to conventional resistance training, it does not confer superior gains.
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.