Ergonomics evaluates the whole interaction: the athlete, exercise, equipment, controls and setting. Start with the intended users and task, then test fit, setup and performance.
In strength training, evaluation covers several distinct questions: structural safety, population fit, usability, acute mechanics, longer-term performance and clinical outcomes. A change in fit, muscle activation, bar velocity or comfort should be assessed with measurements suited to that outcome.
This article applies that process to the bench press, connecting fit and usability to measured mechanics and training outcomes.
Key Takeaways
- Ergonomics is compatibility, not comfort alone. It integrates user characteristics, task demands, controls, feedback, physical interfaces and context.
- Adjustment count is not the same as accommodation. Useful settings must cover the intended population, engage securely and be easy to identify and reproduce.
- Evaluate structural safety and exercise performance with tests suited to each outcome.
- Equipment can change an exercise condition. Bench angle, stability, grip constraints and support geometry can affect what the athlete actually performs, but results are protocol-specific.
- Evaluate injury-reduction claims with prospective studies that measure injury outcomes.
- The Launch Pad® has published acute and training results. Joint Ops™ is undergoing prototype evaluation.
Start With the Claim, Not the Feature
THE HUMAN FACTORS FRAMEWORK
Karwowski describes ergonomics and human factors as a discipline concerned with human-compatible systems, spanning physical, cognitive and organizational dimensions [1].
THE EVALUATION PROCESS
ISO 9241-210 translates that idea into a human-centered process: understand users and context, specify requirements, produce design solutions, evaluate them with users and iterate [2].
Physical
Physical ergonomics includes anthropometry, strength, reach, posture and contact.
Cognitive
Cognitive ergonomics includes how a person perceives labels, remembers settings and recognizes an error.
Organizational
Organizational ergonomics includes the workflow of a shared facility: supervision, transition time, maintenance and the consequences of a misconfigured station.
Ergonomics in strength training develops and evaluates equipment around the athlete, exercise and environment, including fit, controls, contact and feedback.
CLAIM DEFINITION · FOUR CONNECTED RECORDS
Turn a feature claim into a question that can be tested
Define the athletes
Training status, body dimensions, experience and intended user group.
Name the reference condition
Specify the alternative equipment or setup, and the variables held constant.
Identify the outcome
Fit, setup error, mechanics, performance or a directly measured clinical outcome.
State the task and exposure
Exercise, load, range, execution, setting and observation period.
Four Questions for Evaluating an Equipment Claim
Articles 01 and 02 explain the human-centered design process and bench specification. This article takes the evaluator’s position: a manufacturer, facility owner, coach or researcher arrives with a claim and asks what evidence would make it credible.
AMM Research · Claim-to-evidence map
Match each claim to a test
Evaluate accommodation, setup, mechanical safety and exercise outcomes separately.
Accommodation
Does the stated population fit the stated task at relevant settings and loads?
Evidence: dimensions + observed users.Configuration
Can users understand, set, verify and reproduce the intended state?
Evidence: error, time and repeatability data.Mechanical control
Do identified load, stability, entrapment and durability tests pass?
Evidence: named standard and test condition.Measured effect
Does the exact equipment condition change mechanics, performance or clinical outcomes?
Evidence: matched comparison at the claim level.- Fit → body dimensions and geometry
- Test whether intended users fit the equipment and task.
- Setup → errors and repeatability
- Test whether users can set and reproduce the intended state.
- Performance → a measured outcome
- Compare a defined task under matched conditions.
- Injury reduction → clinical outcomes
- Track the relevant outcome prospectively.
Use this map to select a test for the specific equipment requirement.
Article synthesis; see the references below.
The evaluation applies to a rack, machine, bench, attachment, pad or complete platform.
1. Does the Equipment Fit Its Intended Users?
Body dimensions influence reach, clearance, support and joint alignment. Stature alone is inadequate: two athletes of the same height can differ in torso breadth, segment lengths, shoulder width and limb proportions. Equipment designed around an “average” user may therefore fit fewer people than expected.
Design detail: choosing adjustment or discrete sizes
The design response is not always continuous adjustment. Some dimensions can be fixed around a carefully defined population; others may require discrete sizes or indexed positions. Garneau and Parkinson showed how anthropometric data and the user’s just-noticeable difference can be incorporated into models of physical accommodation for adjustable and discretely sized products [3]. The practical lesson is that a setting must differ enough to matter while offering enough range to cover intended users.
Reach
Can the user operate pins, handles and safeties from a stable position?
Clearance
Does the equipment leave room for the intended joint and implement path?
Support
Do contact surfaces support the intended body regions without creating an avoidable mismatch?
Reproducibility
Can the athlete identify, record and return to the same setup?
Accommodation must also be tested during the exercise. Foam compresses under load. Clothing changes friction. A cable or lever may approach the body differently at the end of a range. Static measurements identify candidates; observed use confirms whether the task is actually accommodated.
Observed-use sequence
Check fit through the task
Identify the intended user, contact surfaces and settings.
Observe the movement path and the loaded support surface.
Record the settings and confirm that the configuration can be reproduced.
2. Can Users Set It Up Correctly and Repeatably?
A machine with many positions can still create poor outcomes if its controls are ambiguous. Good indexing shows where the equipment is set, communicates full engagement and lets another user reproduce the setup.
In a team facility, adjustment time affects workflow.
In maximal training, a partially engaged lock is a safety problem.
In research, an undocumented setting is a confounder.
Bench angle illustrates why settings are part of the exercise prescription. Lauver and colleagues found that upper-extremity muscle activation changed across bench inclinations [4]. If the back angle is not known or two benches use different nominal increments, the sessions are not mechanically identical. More adjustment is valuable only when the range serves a real task and users can select it consistently.
AMM Research · Visual 37 · Study design and findings
The setting and the measurement window both matter
Lauver and colleagues compared four bench angles in 14 trained men, using six repetitions per condition at the same absolute load.
-
−15°Decline
-
0°Horizontal
-
30°Incline
-
45°Incline
Upper-pectoralis activation during the pressing phase
In the highlighted window, 30° and 45° produced greater upper-pectoralis sEMG than horizontal and decline conditions. The published abstract reports no difference across angles when the complete pressing phase was analyzed.
Feedback should be redundant where consequences are high: visible index numbers, tactile detents and positive mechanical engagement can each confirm the same state. The correct combination depends on environment, cleaning requirements, lighting, noise, gloves and supervision.
USABILITY · FROM ADJUSTMENT TO REPEATABILITY
A setting is useful when another session can reproduce it
See the setting
Visible indexing identifies the chosen position.
Check engagement
The locking mechanism provides a clear indication of full engagement.
Record the setup
A written setting record lets the next user or session reproduce the condition.
3. What Has Been Tested for Safety and Performance?
Structural safety
ISO 20957-1:2024 specifies general safety requirements, test methods and equipment classifications for indoor stationary training equipment [5]. Part 2 adds requirements specific to strength-training equipment [6]. Those requirements belong at the foundation of design. Capacity, stability, entrapment hazards, controls, instructions and foreseeable use all matter before an athlete begins evaluating performance.
A measured performance benefit
Measure exercise performance after confirming structural requirements. Use task-specific outcomes such as setup repeatability, bar velocity or strength gains.
AMM Research · Evidence checklist
Minimum evidence required for common ergonomic strength-equipment claims.
The lock is secure
- Minimum relevant evidence
- Specified mechanical and durability testing
- Appropriate wording
- Passed the identified test under identified conditions.
The station fits intended users
- Minimum relevant evidence
- Anthropometric analysis plus user accommodation testing
- Appropriate wording
- Accommodated the tested population and tasks.
The setup is repeatable
- Minimum relevant evidence
- Reliability, setting-recall and position-variability data
- Appropriate wording
- Reduced errors or variability in the tested workflow.
The interface changes mechanics
- Minimum relevant evidence
- Kinematic, kinetic, EMG or pressure comparison
- Appropriate wording
- Changed the named acute measure.
The product improves performance
- Minimum relevant evidence
- Controlled longitudinal trial
- Appropriate wording
- Produced a different outcome in the tested program.
The product reduces injury
- Minimum relevant evidence
- Prospective clinical injury-outcome research
- Appropriate wording
- Changed incidence or burden in the studied population.
4. Does the Equipment Change the Measured Task or Outcome?
Read the named outcome first. Bar length shows a condition mean or an explicitly labeled relative index.
Whiskers labeled SD show participant variability. An injury-rate range spans reported values; it is not a confidence interval.
Read the sample, task, comparison and result together.
The bench press demonstrates why ergonomics cannot stop at fit. Grip width, torso position, support, angle and stability can alter the work performed even when the exercise name stays the same.
35 participants · Grip and elbow position
In 35 strength-trained adults, Mausehund and colleagues measured net joint moments and EMG across grip widths and elbow positions. Wider grips increased shoulder moments, while narrower grips shifted more demand toward the elbow extensors and shoulder flexors [7].
34 participants · Training expertise and sex
A separate 34-person study found substantial technique differences between powerlifters and recreational lifters and differences in joint-moment distribution by sex [8]. Equipment that accommodates one technique may not fit every athlete identically.
Torso position matters as well. Cudlip and colleagues compared arched powerlifting and standardized techniques in 20 experienced men. The arch increased latissimus dorsi activation, while the standardized technique produced 8% larger integrated shoulder moments [9]. The bench did not act alone, but it provided the boundary against which the torso position was created.
AMM Research · Cudlip et al. (2022)
Torso technique changes the measured shoulder moment
20 experienced male lifters · arch and standardized techniques · 25%, 50% and 75% of self-reported 1RM.
Relative index · arch = 100
8% larger integrated shoulder moments with the standardized technique; reported p < .0001.
AMM Research · Measurement and meaning
Keep the measurement attached to its meaning
01 · Observation
Bar moves
- Measurement
- Position + time
- Interpretation
- Bar kinematics
02 · Observation
Muscle is active
- Measurement
- Surface EMG
- Interpretation
- Electrical activity
03 · Observation
Support changes
- Measurement
- Contact / pressure
- Interpretation
- Interface condition
Null Results Belong in the Evaluation
Goodman and colleagues asked whether replacing a flat bench with an exercise ball changed 1-RM, upper-body and trunk muscle activity or elbow ROM. Thirteen participants completed both conditions after familiarization, with tests separated by at least seven days [10].
No difference in the measured outcomes
The investigators reported no difference between the stable bench and exercise ball in 1-RM, recorded muscle activity or elbow range of motion.
- 1RMNo detected difference
- Muscle activityNo detected difference
- Elbow ROMNo detected difference
Test the complete exercise condition
For this protocol, the exercise ball produced similar measured outcomes to the stable bench. Compare the exact surface, exercise and load relevant to the training goal.
A changed pad changed measured posture
In 15 participants performing preacher curls, Biscarini and colleagues found lower shoulder protraction and thoracic kyphosis with an ergonomic thorax-stabilization pad than with a flat preacher-curl pad (both p < .001).[11]
AMM Research · Visual 38 · Biscarini et al. (2016)
A pad comparison with measured posture outcomes
Fifteen participants performed preacher curls with both pads. Bars show mean posture measurements; error bars show SD.
Shoulder protraction
cm · condition mean
Flat pad: 12.0 ± 2.4 · Ergonomic pad: 7.9 ± 2.6 cm
Mean ± SD · p < .001
Thoracic kyphosis
degrees · condition mean
Flat pad: 35.5 ± 8.2 · Ergonomic pad: 29.6 ± 8.5 degrees
Mean ± SD · p < .001
The standing-curl reference posture is not plotted.
Equipment category alone did not dictate adaptation
In 38 trained men, eight weeks of matched free-weight or machine training produced strength differences of ≤1.8% across the eight exercises considered together, hypertrophy differences of ≤2%, and similar joint-discomfort outcomes.[12] The 2026 ACSM overview found that equipment type did not consistently affect resistance-training outcomes in healthy adults.[13]
Strength
Difference in percentage change across the eight tested exercises; p ≥ .216.
Muscle size
Differences in percentage change; p ≥ .208.
Joint discomfort
Between-group comparisons for stiffness, pain and disability; p ≥ .144.
Reported between-group differences in 38 trained men over eight weeks; 19 participants per group.[12]
Additional null-result example · defined protocol
A pronounced arch did not automatically raise 1RM
1RM in the Smith-machine comparison
SD 17.9 kg
SD 18.4 kg
kg · bars show means; SD printed separately
Keep the claim tied to the test
Posture contrast ≠ surface comparison
This Smith-machine study compared flat and arched lifting techniques.
Compare the arch protocols →Study scope · intervention and mechanism
Peak power on a flat bench and Swiss ball
Peak power
SD 86.2 W
SD 65.1 W
W · means shown by bars; SD printed separately
What would isolate the cover?
Hold geometry and foam constant, test the material pair, then separately measure athlete drift. This proposed rig illustrates the material question.
Explore the two-stage test →Modeled Mechanics and Injury Outcomes Are Different Evidence
Noteboom and colleagues tested 10 experienced strength athletes across 21 combinations of grip width, shoulder-abduction target and scapular pose. They recorded motion and hand forces and used an OpenSim model to estimate shoulder reaction forces and muscle activity. Grip width, scapular pose and lateral hand forces affected selected modeled loads [14].
AMM Research · Visual 39 · Evidence pathway
From recorded movement to estimated joint loads
Noteboom et al.: 10 athletes · 21 technique conditions · 16 kg bar
Recorded in the experiment
Body motion and forces applied to the bar, across grip widths, shoulder positions and scapular poses.
Estimated by the model
Shoulder joint reaction forces and muscle activity, calculated using the recorded inputs and model assumptions.
Noteboom et al. · Table 2 · study result
One model result, with its measurement context
Supraspinatus anterior
SD 0.17 relative activity
SD 0.17 relative activity
SD 0.16 relative activity
relative activity · mean with SD · zero-origin scale
Read the measurement level
- Compared
- Neutral, retracted and released scapular conditions.
- Calculated
- Peak activity of the modeled supraspinatus anterior, relative to a maximum of 1.
- Application
- Compare technique-dependent responses under the 16-kg protocol; the released-scapula condition used a pool noodle.
AMM Research · Visual 65 · Hickey et al. (2018)
Scapular dyskinesis and subsequent shoulder pain
Future shoulder-pain relative risk
95% CI 1.05–1.93 · dashed line = RR 1.0
Study detail: interpreting injury surveillance
A review of 17 weightlifting and powerlifting injury reports found powerlifting incidence estimates of 1.0–4.4 injuries per 1,000 training hours. Common sites included the lower back/pelvis, shoulder and elbow/upper arm, across studies with different methods and injury definitions.[15]
AMM Research · Tung et al. (2024)
Injury estimates vary across reports
Reported incidence ranges · injuries per 1,000 training hours
AMM as an Equipment Evaluation Example
The Launch Pad studies are relevant to ergonomics because they test a support condition rather than relying on appearance or testimonials. In the randomized crossover study, 10 resistance-trained men performed five repetitions at 70% 1-RM under flat and Launch Pad conditions.
AMM Research · Visual 34 · Kidwell et al. (2026)
Acute changes in the measured repetition
Paired condition means from 10 trained men. Bars start at zero; error bars show SD. sEMG is normalized to maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Power was not statistically significant.
Right pectoralis sEMG
% MVC · condition mean
Flat bench: 70.2 ± 24.8 % MVC · Launch Pad: 87.3 ± 20.1 % MVC
p < .001 · d = .76
Left pectoralis sEMG
% MVC · condition mean
Flat bench: 68.3 ± 23.4 % MVC · Launch Pad: 86.8 ± 20 % MVC
p < .001 · d = .85
Mean bar velocity
m/s · condition mean
Flat bench: 0.40 ± 0.09 m/s · Launch Pad: 0.47 ± 0.09 m/s
p < .001 · d = .74
Peak bar velocity
m/s · condition mean
Flat bench: 0.57 ± 0.11 m/s · Launch Pad: 0.66 ± 0.09 m/s
p < .001 · d = .98
Vertical displacement
cm · condition mean
Flat bench: 38 ± 7 cm · Launch Pad: 44 ± 4 cm
p = .005 · d = 1.02
Concentric power
W · condition mean
Flat bench: 249 ± 103 W · Launch Pad: 271 ± 93 W
p = .071 · d = .23
Not statistically significantThe Launch Pad produced approximately 24–27% greater pectoralis activation, 15.8% greater peak velocity, 17.5% greater mean velocity and 15.8% greater vertical bar displacement. Power was approximately 8.8% greater but not statistically significant [16].
A four-week randomized parallel trial assigned 42 intermediate-trained men to the same supervised eccentric-overload program using either the Launch Pad or flat condition.
AMM Research · Visual 35 · Goldman et al. (2025)
Strength gains over four weeks
Mean 1RM changes after 12 sessions. Error bars show SD. Both groups used the same eccentric-overload program; the support condition differed.
1RM change
kg · group mean change
Control: +11.1 ± 2.4 kg · Launch Pad: +18.4 ± 4.3 kg
7.3 kg between-group difference · p < .001 · g = 3.85
Average 1-RM gain was 18.4 kg (40.6 lb) versus 11.1 kg (24.5 lb): a 7.3 kg (16.1 lb) absolute difference, approximately 66% greater average improvement, p < .001 [17].
An eight-week trial randomized 30 collegiate football players to the two support conditions within identical periodized training.
AMM Research · Visual 36 · Blatney et al. (2026)
Performance changes over eight weeks
After 24 sessions, The Launch Pad® group showed greater improvement in strength, NFL-225 muscular endurance and seated medicine-ball throw performance; all reported between-group comparisons were p < .001.[18]
Bench-press 1RM
Greater improvement reported with Launch Pad
Between-group p < .001
NFL-225 repetitions
Greater improvement reported with Launch Pad
Between-group p < .001
Seated medicine-ball throw
Greater improvement reported with Launch Pad
Between-group p < .001
The tiles summarize the direction and statistical significance of the reported comparisons.[18]
The Launch Pad group improved more in 1-RM, NFL-225 repetitions and seated medicine-ball throw distance; all reported between-group comparisons were p < .001 [18].
The acute trial found changes in pressing measures. The two training trials reported greater gains on their measured strength and performance tests.
Evaluate Equipment Where It Will Be Used
For athletes and coaches
- Record bench, angle, seat setting, rack height, grip and support condition when comparing performance.
- Match the apparatus to the goal: competition-standard equipment for specificity, alternative configurations for defined supplemental tasks.
- Record comfort alongside bar velocity, ROM and setup repeatability when comparing support conditions.
- Stop treating an unclear adjustment as user error by default; labels, detents and lock feedback are design responsibilities.
For facility owners
- Evaluate the actual user population, including shortest and tallest intended athletes, mobility limitations and accessibility needs.
- Test transition time, cleaning, serviceability, floor stability and instruction comprehension before purchasing at scale.
- Require clear load ratings and standards information, but do not confuse those documents with outcome evidence.
For equipment designers and researchers
- Define a measurable requirement for every feature.
- Test fit and usability before using expensive biomechanical or longitudinal protocols.
- Report apparatus dimensions, upholstery, settings and instructions in enough detail to reproduce the condition.
- Publish null findings and limitations; they are part of a credible design program.
Relevance to The Launch Pad® and Joint Ops™
The Launch Pad®
The Launch Pad® is designed for torso support, shoulder clearance, traction and repeatable positioning. Published studies report acute changes in pressing measures and greater gains in strength, muscular endurance and seated-throw performance under the tested programs.
Joint Ops™
Joint Ops™ combines selectable surfaces, adjustable lumbar positioning, torso support, seat geometry, bench angles and indexing. Prototype evaluation is underway.
Putting the Evaluation Together
Begin with defined users, tasks and requirements, then evaluate fit and usability and complete the relevant safety tests.
Review fit and accommodationBench angle, grip, torso technique, expertise and support conditions can influence acute mechanics. Read each comparison within its tested conditions, including studies that find no detectable difference.
Explore measured task comparisonsThe Launch Pad studies measured selected acute differences and different average performance gains in two controlled training trials.
Open the three Launch Pad studiesEvaluate each design against its intended users, tasks and outcomes.
Match the claim to its required testFor persistent symptoms or postoperative restrictions, work with an appropriate licensed clinician.
References
- Karwowski W. (2005). Ergonomics and human factors: The paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics, 48(5), 436–463. doi:10.1080/00140130400029167. ↩
- International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 9241-210:2019—Ergonomics of human-system interaction: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Official standard record. ↩
- Garneau CJ, Parkinson MB. (2013). Considering just noticeable difference in assessments of physical accommodation for product design. Ergonomics, 56(11), 1777–1788. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.838308. ↩
- Lauver JD, Cayot TE, Scheuermann BW. (2016). Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular activation during bench press exercise. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(3), 309–316. doi:10.1080/17461391.2015.1022605. ↩
- International Organization for Standardization. (2024). ISO 20957-1:2024—Stationary training equipment: Part 1, general safety requirements and test methods. Official standard record. ↩
- International Organization for Standardization. (2024). ISO 20957-2:2024—Stationary training equipment: Part 2, strength training equipment, additional specific safety requirements and test methods. Official standard record. ↩
- Mausehund L, Werkhausen A, Bartsch J, Krosshaug T. (2022). Understanding bench press biomechanics—the necessity of measuring lateral barbell forces. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(10), 2685–2695. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003948. ↩
- Mausehund L, Krosshaug T. (2023). Understanding bench press biomechanics—training expertise and sex affect lifting technique and net joint moments. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(1), 9–17. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004191. ↩
- Cudlip AC, Maciukiewicz JM, Pinto BL, Dickerson CR. (2022). Upper extremity muscle activity and joint loading changes between the standard and powerlifting bench press techniques. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(9), 1055–1063. doi:10.1080/02640414.2022.2046937. ↩
- Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, Gatt BM, Fairweather IH. (2008). No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 88–94. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815ef6b3. ↩
- Biscarini A, Benvenuti P, Busti D, Zanuso S. (2016). A Scott bench with ergonomic thorax stabilisation pad improves body posture during preacher arm curl exercise. Ergonomics, 59(5), 665–670. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1077276. ↩
- Hernández-Belmonte A, Martínez-Cava A, Buendía-Romero Á, Franco-López F, Pallarés JG. (2023). Free-weight and machine-based training are similarly effective on strength and hypertrophy: Challenging a traditional myth. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 55(12), 2316–2327. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003271. ↩
- Currier BS, D’Souza AC, Fiatarone Singh MA, Lowisz CV, Rawson ES, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. (2026). American College of Sports Medicine position stand: Resistance training prescription for muscle function, hypertrophy, and physical performance in healthy adults—an overview of reviews. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 58(4), 851–872. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003897. ↩
- Noteboom L, Belli I, Hoozemans MJM, Seth A, Veeger HEJ, van der Helm FCT. (2024). Effects of bench press technique variations on musculoskeletal shoulder loads and potential injury risk. Frontiers in Physiology, 15, 1393235. doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1393235. ↩
- Tung MJY, Lantz GA, Lopes AD, Berglund L. (2024). Injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting: An updated systematic review. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 10(4), e001884. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001884. ↩
- Kidwell JA, Yamamoto T, Hetherton KJ, Truneh N, Bright JJ, Blatney AE, et al. (2026). Acute effects of thoracic-spinal elevation via a novel bench press pad on sEMG and barbell kinetics in resistance-trained males. International Journal of Exercise Science, 19(1), 1003. doi:10.70252/IJES2026103. ↩
- Goldman P, Taylor J, Yamamoto T, Blatney AE, Sahni TK, Lechner RJ, et al. (2025). Eccentrically overloaded bench press training: Augmenting strength gains via a novel bench press pad. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 4(4), 480–490. doi:10.55860/JCDL3612. ↩
- Blatney AE, Kidwell JA, Yamamoto T, Goldman P, Hetherton KJ, Dolezal BA. (2026). Effects of an eight week training regimen with a novel bench press pad compared to a traditional bench on upper body strength and performance in collegiate American football players. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 5(1), 10–21. doi:10.55860/RNUB8627. ↩
- García-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Villar Macias FJ, Latorre-Román PÁ, Párraga JA, García-Pinillos F. (2021). Differences in the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and arched bench press in competitive powerlifters. Sports Biomechanics, 20(3), 261–273. doi:10.1080/14763141.2018.1544662. ↩
- Koshida S, et al. (2008). Muscular outputs during dynamic bench press under stable versus unstable conditions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(5), 1584–1588. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31817b03a1. ↩
- Hickey D, Solvig V, Cavalheri V, Harrold M, McKenna L. (2018). Scapular dyskinesis increases the risk of future shoulder pain by 43% in asymptomatic athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(2), 102–110. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097559. ↩