Original Research

Bench Press at Full Range of Motion Produces

Greater Neuromuscular Adaptations Than Partial
Executions After Prolonged Resistance Training
Alejandro Martı́nez-Cava,1 Alejandro Hernández-Belmonte,1 Javier Courel-Ibáñez,1 Ricardo Morán-
Navarro,1 Juan J. González-Badillo,2 and Jesús G. Pallarés1
1
Human Performance and Sports Science Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Physical Activity and Sport, University
of Murcia, Murcia, Spain; and 2Physical Performance and Sports Research Center, Faculty of Sport, Pablo de Olavide University,
Seville, Spain

Abstract
Martı́nez-Cava, A, Hernández-Belmonte, A, Courel-Ibáñez, J, Morán-Navarro, R, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pallarés, JG. Bench press at
full range of motion produces greater neuromuscular adaptations than partial executions after prolonged resistance training. J Strength
Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—Training at a particular range of motion (ROM) produces specific neuromuscular adaptations.
However, the effects of full and partial ROM in one of the most common upper-limb exercises such as the bench press (BP) remain
controversial. In this study, 50 recreationally to highly resistance trained men were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 training groups: full bench
press (BPFULL), two-thirds bench press (BP2/3), and one-third bench press (BP1/3) and control (training cessation). Experimental groups
completed a 10-week velocity-based resistance training program using the same relative load (linear periodization, 60–80% 1 repetition
maximum [1RM]), only differing in the ROM trained. Individual ROM for each BP variation was determined in the familiarization and
subsequently replicated in every lift during training and testing sessions. Neuromuscular adaptations were evaluated by 1RM strength and
mean propulsive velocity (MPV). The BPFULL group obtained the best results for the 3 BP variations (effect size [ES] 5 0.52–1.96); in turn,
partial BP produced smaller improvements as the ROM decreased (BP2/3: ES 5 0.29–0.78; BP1/3: ES 5 20.01 to 0.66). After 10-week of
training cessation, the control group declined in all neuromuscular parameters (ES 5 0.86–0.92) except in MPV against low loads. Based
on these findings, the BPFULL stands as the most effective exercise to maximize neuromuscular improvements in recreational and well-
trained athletes compared with partial ROM variations.
Key Words: maximum strength, technique, strength reduction, powerlifting, load-velocity

Introduction probably the most common upper-limb exercise, are still under
controversy (23).
The choice of the most effective range of motion (ROM) to pro-
Only 3 studies have examined the effects of training at different
duce specific neuromuscular adaptations after a given resistance
ROM in BP exercise after an RT intervention (3,18,19). Massey
training (RT) program has been a matter of debate
et al. (18,19) evaluated the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) strength
(1,11,18,19,28). In addition to the conventional full ROM
after 10 weeks of RT in 3 groups, only differing the ROM trained
exercises, some authors consider training at partial ROM bene-
(full, partial, and a combination of both). However, these 2
ficial, since it allows lifting higher loads, decreases the neural
studies showed contradictory results (18,19). Although the first
inhibition, increases the force produced, and improves the co-
one found no differences in between-group 1RM improvements
ordination of primary and stabilizing muscles (2,18–20). Also,
in male recreational weightlifters, the second reported greater
because lower ROMs allow lifting more weight, since they avoid
enhancements (112.0% 1RM) on female lifters who trained BP
the sticking region of the movement (16,17), this strategy is
with full ROM. For its part, Clark et al. (3) found that a combi-
commonly used by powerlifting athletes in training and compe-
nation of ROMs in the same training session increased the force
tition (7,8). In contrast to this assumption, a recent and exhaus-
improvements compared with training only the full ROM both in
tive research has found that lower ROMs generate limited
throw, isokinetic, and isometric BP variants. These controversial
performance improvements in comparison with full ROMs, be-
findings could be explained by some questionable methodological
sides increments in pain and discomfort after a prolonged RT
aspects such as the absence of a control group, the only evaluation
program in the back squat exercise (24). These results concur with
of the 1RM parameter instead of the whole load-velocity spec-
previous findings concluding that full squat maximizes neuro-
trum, as well as the used of 1RM percentages (%1RM) instead of
muscular and functional performance both in novice (1) and well-
velocity-based method for programming and control the RT in-
trained athletes (11). Although this evidence has been proven in
tervention (10), which encourage further research.
essential lower-limb RT exercises such as the squat, the effects of
In recent years, a valid, reliable, and highly sensitive method based
training full and partial ROM in the bench press (BP), which is
on the barbell velocity (i.e., velocity-based RT) has been developed to
Address correspondence to Dr. Jesús G. Pallarés, [email protected]. (a) determine an athlete’s maximum strength without the need to
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–6 perform 1RM or maximum number of repetitions to failure (nRM)
ª 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association tests (9); (b) determine the %1RM (using the load-velocity

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Full Bench Press Produces Greater Strength Gains (2019) 00:00

relationship) that is being used from the first repetition performed at familiarization sessions for each BP variation and was instructed
maximal voluntary velocity for a given load (31); (c) estimate the on how to properly perform the lifts. Some practice sets of light
muscle power output production (30); and (d) quantify the neuro- and medium loads were then performed. Subjects were required
muscular fatigue induced by resistance exercise using a noninvasive not to engage in any other type of strenuous physical activity,
and objective method (21,22,26,27,29). Taking into account this exercise training, or sports competition for the duration of the
velocity-based method, a recent study has established the load- present investigation.
velocity relationship for 3 different ROMs in the BP exercise: full
bench press (BPFULL), two-thirds bench press (BP2/3), and one-third
bench press (BP1/3) (16). This new determination of the load-velocity Subjects
relationship makes possible an accurate control of the stimulus ap-
The required sample size was determined for the primary out-
plied during RT interventions and improves the evaluation of the
come variable, the BPFULL 1RM. According to similar inter-
training effects at different ROMs in BP, as effectively proven in the
ventions on subjects with comparable characteristics (19),
squat (17,24). Hence, it would be interesting to use evidence-based,
a clinically relevant change is about 15.0% 1RM increments after
advanced monitoring methods to identify the true effects of training
a 10-week training. A sample size of 10 subjects can be estimated
at different ROM in one of the most popular exercises such as the BP.
to detect differences of 15 6 15% 1RM with a power of 80% and
Therefore, based on the data provided by Martı́nez-Cava et al.
a significance a of 0.05 using the MedCalc Statistical Software
(16), the aim of this study was to clear up the effect of full or
version 18.2.1. Although a maximum loss of follow-up of 20%
partial ROMs on neuromuscular adaptations after a prolonged
was assumed, we recruited at least 12 healthy athletes per ex-
RT program in recreational and well-trained athletes. Despite the
perimental group meeting the following inclusion criteria: (a)
fact that previous studies have examined the effect of training at
having a 1RM strength/body mass ratio (relative strength ratio
different ROM in BP, it is difficult to suggest a clear hypothesis,
[RSR]) higher than 0.75 in the BPFULL and (b) no physical limi-
since to date, the aforementioned intervention has not been
tations, health problems, or musculoskeletal injuries that could
monitored by using velocity-based RT.
affect training. Fifty resistance-trained men volunteered to par-
ticipate in this study (mean 6 SD: age 24.0 6 4.7 years, body
Methods mass 73.4 6 9.9 kg, height 176.2 6 8.4 cm, and body fat 10.6 6
4.3%). Their initial 1RM strength for the BPFULL exercise was
Experimental Approach to the Problem 71.8 6 14.2 kg and RSR of 0.98 6 0.18 (0.75–1.49). In the 6
A randomized controlled experimental design was used. The 3 months preceding this study, subjects completed 2–4 RT sessions
experimental groups (BPFULL, BP2/3, and BP1/3) trained twice per week including the BP exercise as a part of their conditioning.
a week (48–72 hours apart) for 10 weeks for a total of 20 ses- In this period, subjects were instructed in proper technical exe-
sions, after a progressive RT program (described later in detail; cution for the 3 BP variations. Subjects were randomly assigned in
Table 1). The control group was required to fully discontinue a counterbalanced way according to their initial BPFULL strength
any kind of programmed resistance or endurance stimuli other to 1 of 4 groups (3 experimental and 1 control). The experimental
than the normal physical activity of the active life of these young groups were classified according to the specific BP ROM per-
adults during the intervention. Subjects completed a set of formed during the RT intervention: BPFULL (n 5 12), BP2/3 (n 5
neuromuscular evaluations before (the week before; T0) and 13), and BP1/3 (n 5 13). Members of the fourth group (n 5 12)
after training (the week after; T1) in 3 sessions (Monday, were assigned as controls and fully discontinued any kind of
Wednesday, and Friday). Each testing day, subjects performed physical training program. The study complied with the Decla-
in a randomized and counterbalanced way 1 of the 3 progressive ration of Helsinki and was approved by the Bioethics Commis-
loading tests (BPFULL, BP2/3, and BP1/3). Once a progressive sion of the University of Murcia. Written informed consent was
loading test schedule was assigned to each subject in T0, the obtained from all subjects. No physical limitations, health prob-
same order was replicated in T1. Before evaluations, subjects lems, or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect training were
performed 9 familiarization sessions separated by 48–72 hours. found after a medical examination.
The first session was used for body composition assessment,
personal data and health history questionnaire administration,
medical examination, and identification of the starting position Procedures
for each of the 3 BP variations analyzed (described later in de- Velocity-Load Relationship and One Repetition Maximum
tail). Then, in random order, each subject performed 3 Strength Determination. After the familiarization sessions, the

Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of the resistance training program performed by the full bench press (BPFULL), two-thirds bench press (BP2/3),
and one-third bench press (BP1/3) groups.*
Scheduled Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10
%1RM ;60 ;60 ;65 ;65 ;70 ;70 ;75 ;75 ;80 ;80
Sets 3 reps 438 538 438 538 436 536 435 535 434 534
Target MPV (m·s21)
Group BPFULL 0.76 0.76 0.68 0.68 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.54 0.47 0.47
Group BP2/3 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40
Group BP1/3 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.30
*1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; target MPV 5 maximal intended velocity repetition performed at the end of each session’s warm-up to ensure that the load (kg) to be used matched the velocity associated with
the intended %1RM.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Full Bench Press Produces Greater Strength Gains (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

individual load-velocity relationships were determined by means every repetition, provided auditory and visual velocity feedback
of a progressive loading test up to the 1RM for the 3 BP varia- in real time, and stored data on disk for analysis. Measures from
tions, performed in a Smith machine (Multipower Fitness Line; the following neuromuscular parameters were considered for
Peroga, Murcia, Spain). After the warm-up, initial load was set at the analysis: 1RM strength in kg, 1RM to body mass ratio
20 kg and was gradually increased in 10-kg increments until the (1RM/BM), average MPV attained against all absolute loads
attained mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was #0.50 m·s21 (31). common to T0 and T1 (MPVALL), average MPV attained
Thereafter, load was individually adjusted with smaller incre- against absolute loads lower than 50% 1RM common to T0 and
ments (5 down to 2.5 kg), so that the 1RM could be precisely T1 (MPV,50% 1RM, “low” loads), and average MPV attained
determined. Three repetitions were executed for light (,50% against absolute loads higher than 50% 1RM common to T0
1RM), 2 for medium (50–80% 1RM), and only 1 for the and T1 (MPV.50% 1RM, “high” loads).
heaviest loads (.80% 1RM). Interset recoveries ranged from 3
minutes (low loads) to 5 minutes (high loads) (30). The 1RM Resistance Training Program. The intervention consisted of a 10-
was considered as the heaviest load that each subject could week RT program (2 days a week). The 3 experimental groups
properly lift while completing full ROM for each BP variation, (BPFULL, BP2/3, and BP1/3) trained using the same relative loading
without external help. The reliability of this testing protocol magnitude (progressively increasing from 60 to 80% 1RM over the
has been recently described (5) with excellent reproducibility time course of the study), interset recoveries (4 minutes), and volume
and repeatability. (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC 5 (4–5 sets and 8–4 repetitions) but differed in the BP ROM trained
0.999, 95% confidence interval 5 0.999-0.999, Coefficient of (Table 1). Relative loads were determined from the load-velocity re-
Variation, CV 5 1.8%). lationship because it has recently been shown that there exists a very
For the 3 BP variations, subjects lay supine on a flat bench, with close relationship between %1RM and MPV in the 3 BP variations
their feet resting flat on the floor and hands placed on the barbell under study (16). Thus, a target MPV to be attained in the first (usually
slightly wider (5–7 cm) than shoulder width. The position on the the fastest) repetition of the first exercise set in each session was used as
bench was carefully adjusted, so that the vertical projection of the an estimation of %1RM; i.e., a velocity-based training was actually
barbell corresponded with each subject’s intermammary line. performed, instead of a traditional loading-based RT program (24).
Both bench position and grip widths were individually recorded After the standardized warm-up and previous to the first RT set, the
for each subject to be reproduced on every lift. Subjects were not absolute load (kg) was individually adjusted to match the velocity
allowed to bounce the barbell off their chests or raise the associated (60.03 m·s21) with the %1RM that was intended for that
shoulders or trunk off the bench. With the elbows fully extended session. During training, subjects received immediate velocity feedback
and shoulders in contact with the bench (final position), subjects while being encouraged to perform each repetition at maximal inten-
were required to descend in a continuous motion until reaching ded velocity. This procedure ensures that each athlete performed every
their previously determined concentric initial position for each BP BP repetition at the programmed load intensity during the training
variation (16): session, thus avoiding the mismatches that typically occur when pro-
c Full bench press (BPFULL): descent until the bar contacted the gramming is solely based on the %1RM value measured in T0.
chest, i.e., full ROM.
c Two-thirds bench press (BP2/3): descent until the bar reaches
Statistical Analyses
two-thirds of the full ROM.
c One-third bench press (BP1/3): descent until the bar reaches Mean, SD, and SEM were calculated. Assumption of normality
one-third of the full ROM. was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the homogeneity of
The individual ROM for the 3 BP variations was carefully variance across groups (BPFULL, BP2/3, BP1/3 and CON) using
determined during the first familiarization session and sub- Levene’s test. A 4 3 2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA)
sequently replicated in each training and testing session with with post hoc was performed to evaluate changes in the neu-
the help of 2 telescopic (61 cm precision) bar spotters placed at romuscular parameters between groups (BPFULL, BP2/3, BP1/3
the left and right sides of the Smith machine (25). This was and CON) and time points (T0 and T1). One-way ANOVA was
designed to: (a) precisely control and replicate the individual run to compare the percentage of change scores (%) and abso-
eccentric ROM between trials and (b) allow subjects to mo- lute values (m·s21) between T0 vs. T1 in the selected variables
mentarily release the weight of the bar on the spotters for 2 between experimental groups. Statistical significance was
seconds, therefore minimizing the contribution of the stretch- established at the p # 0.05 level. Effect sizes (ES) were classified
shortening cycle (i.e., rebound effect) and performing a purely as “small” if between 0.2 and 0.5, “medium” if between 0.5 and
concentric action, thus increasing measurement re- 0.8, and “large” if higher than 0.8 (4,14). Statistical analyses
liability (25). were performed using SPSS software version 24.0 (IBM Corp.,
Subjects were required to perform the concentric phase in an Armonk, NY).
explosive manner (at maximal intended velocity) and the eccen-
tric phase at a controlled mean velocity of 0.45–0.65 m·s21 (25).
This protocol was practiced during the familiarization sessions
Results
accomplished with the aid of the visual and auditory feedback in There was 1 dropout from the BPFULL group due to personal
real time provided by the linear velocity transducer software, so issues not related to the RT intervention, with 49 subjects com-
that subjects could adjust the eccentric velocity to the required pleting the study. Training compliance was 100% of all sessions.
range. Repetitions that failed to meet any of these requirements No significant differences between the groups were found at T0
were automatically discarded and repeated after a 3-minute rest. for any of the variables analyzed (p . 0.05) (Table 2).
All testing and training lifts were made using a Smith machine The BPFULL group increased significantly all neuromuscular
with no counterweight mechanism. A dynamic measurement parameters (Table 2 and Figure 1) for the 3 BP variations (p ,
system (T-Force System, Ergotech, Murcia, Spain; 1,000 Hz) 0.05; 8.8–21.5%, ES 5 0.56–1.96), except the 1RM in BP2/3 (p .
automatically calculated the relevant kinematic parameters of 0.05; ES 5 0.52). The BP2/3 group obtained the second-best

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Full Bench Press Produces Greater Strength Gains (2019) 00:00

results with significant enhancements in all neuromuscular strength adaptations after a 10-week RT program (18). Other
parameters (p , 0.05, 7.3–11.1%, ES 5 0.59–0.78), except the studies, in contrast, suggest no differences (19) or even higher
1RM/BM in the BPFULL and BP2/3, the 1RM in BPFULL, and the improvements by using other strategies such as the combination of
MPVALL, MPV,50% 1RM, and MPV.50% 1RM in BP1/3 (p . 0.05). ROMs in the same training session (3). Our findings corroborate the
The BP1/3 only improved significantly the MPVALL in BP1/3 (p , first assumption and demonstrate that BPFULL is the best exercise for
0.05; 5.6%, ES 5 0.66), although small to moderate ES were increasing neuromuscular strength, both at maximal (1RM) and
found in some parameters of the 3 BP exercises (p . 0.05; ES 5 submaximal low (,50% 1RM) and high (.50% 1RM) loads
0.20–0.59). For its part, except the MPV,50% 1RM performance, compared with partial BP variations. Similarly, a recent and com-
the control group declined on all the neuromuscular parameters, prehensive study found that lower ROMs in the back squat exercise
mainly on the MPV.50% 1RM in BP2/3 and BP1/3 (p , 0.05; generate limited neuromuscular and functional improvements in
8.4–13.2%; ES 5 0.86–0.92). comparison with full ROMs, besides increments in pain and dis-
Individuals in all 3 training groups improved significantly more comfort after a 10-week RT program (24). It can be speculated that
at the specific ROM at which they trained (i.e., BPFULL for the training by using ROMs which have to overcome the sticking region
BPFULL group, BP2/3 for the BP2/3 group, and BP1/3 for the BP1/3 in each lift could generate greater strength improvements than those
group). However, comparisons between the 3 groups of training ROMs that avoid this biomechanical disadvantage (16,17,24).
(Table 2 and Figure 1) revealed that the greater the BP ROM, the More importantly, BP training with full ROM lifts produced
higher the increments in strength (BPFULL . BP2/3 . BP1/3). moderate to high increases in 1RM, 1RM/BM, and MPV on the 3
ROMs variations. In turn, training at restricted ROM, especially in
BP1/3, resulted in lower performance increments and the worst
transfer to other ROMs. Some authors suggested that greater im-
Discussion
provement and adaptations would occur at the specific angle and
This study aimed to clear up whether training at full or partial ROM of training (15,18,19). Our findings partly support this ar-
ROMs produces different neuromuscular adaptations after gument by showing the highest increments in neuromuscular per-
a prolonged RT program. The main findings were (a) the group formance at each group BP ROM. However, according to our data,
training at BPFULL exercise obtained the greatest neuromuscular the greater BP ROM was, the higher the increments were at all the
improvements in all the performance parameters for the 3 BP variations. This means that training at BPFULL produced greater (or
variations (BPFULL, BP2/3, and BP1/3) after 10 weeks of RT, (b) at least equal) gains in strength in any of the 3 BP variations
individuals from all the 3 BP training groups improved signifi- (BPFULL, BP2/3, and BP1/3) compared with the other groups.
cantly more at the specific ROM at which they trained, and (c) 10 An innovative aspect of this study is the use of velocity-based
weeks of RT cessation in recreationally and highly trained ath- RT methods to check that every BP repetition was executed at the
letes (control group) significantly reduced the neuromuscular programmed load intensity (9). This was possible by using the
strength, mainly against high loads. recently published relationships between relative load (% 1RM)
Only 1 previous study supports the recommendation that training and MPV for the 3 BP variations (16). It is worth noting, as
at greater ROM (i.e., BPFULL) elicits the greatest neuromuscular recently pointed out, the 1RM value measured at the beginning of

Table 2
Changes in selected neuromuscular performance variables from before to after training for each BP group.*†
Exercise/Pre-post
BPFULL BP2/3 BP1/3
Group Variable T0 T1 ES T0 T1 ES T0 T1 ES
BPFULL (n 5 11) 1RM (Kg) 71.8 6 15.6 80.7 6 15.8‡ 0.56 83.5 6 15.9 91.8 6 16.4 0.52 107.3 6 16.6 118.7 6 17.7‡ 0.66
1RM/BM 0.98 6 0.18 1.14 6 0.18‡ 0.86 1.15 6 0.18 1.30 6 0.19‡ 0.84 1.47 6 0.19 1.68 6 0.15‡ 1.17
MPVALL (m·s21) 0.79 6 0.06 0.90 6 0.06‡ 1.96 0.72 6 0.07 0.79 6 0.09‡ 0.91 0.57 6 0.07 0.62 6 0.08‡ 0.73
MPV,50% 1RM (m·s21) 1.11 6 0.09 1.24 6 0.08‡ 1.47 1.00 6 0.10 1.09 6 0.13‡ 0.77 0.80 6 0.11 0.87 6 0.12‡ 0.65
MPV.50% 1RM (m·s21) 0.46 6 0.06 0.56 6 0.07‡ 1.62 0.44 6 0.07 0.50 6 0.09‡ 0.82 0.33 6 0.04 0.37 6 0.05‡ 0.77
BP2/3 (n 5 13) 1RM (Kg) 71.3 6 13.1 76.3 6 11.9 0.40 83.0 6 9.5 89.1 6 8.7‡ 0.67 111.2 6 17.1 123.2 6 14.8‡ 0.75
1RM/BM 0.96 6 0.21 1.02 6 0.19 0.29 1.11 6 0.20 1.19 6 0.21 0.43 1.50 6 0.29 1.66 6 0.20‡ 0.63
MPVALL (m·s21) 0.81 6 0.08 0.88 6 0.10‡ 0.78 0.73 6 0.08 0.80 6 0.09‡ 0.78 0.56 6 0.06 0.59 6 0.08 0.40
MPV,50% 1RM (m·s21) 1.12 6 0.10 1.20 6 0.12‡ 0.78 1.01 6 0.11 1.10 6 0.12‡ 0.75 0.81 6 0.09 0.84 6 0.11 0.29
MPV.50% 1RM (m·s21) 0.50 6 0.07 0.55 6 0.10‡ 0.59 0.45 6 0.07 0.50 6 0.08‡ 0.68 0.32 6 0.05 0.35 6 0.07 0.47
BP1/3 (n 5 13) 1RM (Kg) 75.4 6 18.1 75.2 6 14.6 20.01 84.0 6 19.6 86.3 6 15.2 0.13 110.4 6 22.5 117.5 6 19.8 0.34
1RM/BM 0.98 6 0.19 0.99 6 0.16 0.06 1.11 6 0.21 1.15 6 0.17 0.20 1.47 6 0.26 1.56 6 0.26 0.36
MPVALL (m·s21) 0.80 6 0.07 0.82 6 0.04 0.45 0.76 6 0.05 0.78 6 0.07 0.42 0.58 6 0.05 0.61 6 0.05‡ 0.66
MPV,50% 1RM (m·s21) 1.13 6 0.11 1.17 6 0.06 0.49 1.05 6 0.08 1.08 6 0.08 0.33 0.82 6 0.08 0.86 6 0.07 0.59
MPV.50% 1RM (m·s21) 0.47 6 0.06 0.48 6 0.05 0.20 0.46 6 0.04 0.48 6 0.07 0.42 0.33 6 0.04 0.35 6 0.05 0.47
Control (n 5 12) 1RM (Kg) 68.8 6 9.9 66.0 6 12.2 20.25 81.0 6 13.2 76.5 6 13.2 20.34 110.8 6 12.9 105.8 6 15.0 20.36
1RM/BM 0.99 6 0.14 0.95 6 0.16 20.30 1.17 6 0.20 1.10 6 0.18 20.36 1.60 6 0.16 1.53 6 0.11 20.54
MPVALL (m·s21) 0.84 6 0.11 0.84 6 0.10 0.00 0.73 6 0.06 0.71 6 0.04 20.27 0.58 6 0.07 0.56 6 0.04 20.43
MPV,50% 1RM (m·s21) 1.13 6 0.11 1.15 6 0.10 0.12 1.00 6 0.08 1.01 6 0.07 0.15 0.80 6 0.08 0.80 6 0.04 0.13
MPV.50% 1RM (m·s21) 0.54 6 0.11 0.52 6 0.10 20.12 0.46 6 0.06 0.42 6 0.03‡ 20.86 0.36 6 0.07 0.31 6 0.05‡ 20.92
*ES 5 effect size; BPFULL 5 full bench press; BP2/3 5 two-thirds bench press; BP1/3 5 one-third bench press; 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; BM 5 body mass; MPV 5 mean propulsive velocity.
†Data are mean 6 SD.
‡Significant differences compared with T0.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Full Bench Press Produces Greater Strength Gains (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Figure 1. Changes in relative strength ratio (A) and velocity developed against all (B) low (,50%
1RM—C) and high (.50% 1RM—D) loads common to pre-test and post-test. BPFULL 5 full bench
press; BP2/3 5 two-thirds bench press; BP1/3 5 one-third bench press; CON 5 control. *Significant
differences when compared with the BP2/3 group; #significant differences when compared with the
BP1/3 group; †significant differences when compared with the CON group. ES 5 range of effect size
for each resistance training group. Data are presented as mean 6 SEM.

an RT program (T0) will be considerably altered over the training performance in recreational and well-trained athletes after
weeks due to the neuromuscular improvements and/or fatigue continued training. These findings question the recommenda-
processes that occur in the athletes’ functional performance (26). tion that greater improvement and adaptations occur at the
Therefore, the use of velocity-based devices and force-velocity specific angle and ROM of training. This is particularly in-
calculations to accurately determine the individual load intensity teresting for powerlifters since these athletes train and compete
at each BP lift is a main contribution of this article and encourages at reduced BP ROMs (BP2/3 or even BP1/3) generated by different
future studies to replicate and extend these findings. postural modifications (e.g., a pronounced lumbar arch or an
Another finding worthy of discussion was that 10 weeks of RT accentuated scapular retraction) (7) and wide grips (8). How-
cessation severely decreases upper-limb neuromuscular perfor- ever, although this lower ROM could be more specific to the
mance in athletes with different levels of experience in strength movement performed in the competition, results found in the
training. In particular, we found velocity reductions against both current study support the inclusion of BPFULL training sessions
maximal (1RM, ES 5 20.25 to 20.36) and submaximal loads to maximize the strength improvements, just like it has been
(MPVALL, ES 5 0.00 to 20.43). These reductions on upper-body previously suggested by Clark et al. (3).
neuromuscular performance are lower than those found in the This is the first study using velocity-based methods for moni-
lower body (back squat exercise) after an identical training ces- toring each repetition and for evaluating changes on neuromus-
sation intervention, testing procedures, and loads assessed (1RM, cular performance after a prolonged RT intervention based on
ES 5 21.01 to 21.21; MPVALL, ES 5 20.52 to 20.83) (24). different ROMs in the upper limb. The thoroughness of this work
Also, just like Pallarés et al. (24), the current study found greater encourages future studies to test BP programs using these
strength reductions against maximal loads (1RM) than against methods.
submaximal loads (MPVALL). In relation to this aspect, other
studies supported that submaximal strength may be much more
rapidly lost than maximal strength, after finding larger reductions Practical Applications
on strength performance against light-medium loads than high The current study determined the effect of training at different
loads (6,12,13). These contradictory results could be explained ROMs on BP exercise. Taking into account that the higher the
by the differences in methodological aspects such as the exercises ROM used, the greater improvements, both on the 1RM, as
tested, the durations of the training cessation, or the subjects’ well as on the whole load-velocity spectrum, we encourage
experience. trainers and athletes to use a full ROM in BP exercise to
This study demonstrates that BPFULL is a more effective ex- maximize the neuromuscular adaptations.
ercise than partial ROM variations to improve strength

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Full Bench Press Produces Greater Strength Gains (2019) 00:00

Acknowledgments 16. Martı́nez-Cava A, Morán-Navarro R, Hernández-Belmonte A, et al.

Range of motion and sticking region effects on the bench press load-
The authors thank the subjects for their invaluable contribution velocity relationship. J Sports Sci Med. 18: 645–652, 2019.
to the study. The experiments comply with the current laws of 17. Martı́nez-Cava A, Morán-Navarro R, Sánchez-Medina L, González-
Spain. The authors report no conflict of interest, and no funding Badillo JJ, Pallarés J. Velocity-and power-load relationships in the half,
parallel and full back squat. J Sports Sci 37: 1088–1096, 2019.
was received for this study. 18. Massey CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Johnson JT. Influence of range of
motion in resistance training in women: Early phase adaptations.
J Strength Cond Res 19: 409–411, 2005.
References 19. Massey CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Moore M, Johnson JT. An analysis of
1. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, et al. Effect of range of motion in full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the de-
heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl velopment of strength in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 18:
Physiol 113: 2133–2142, 2013. 518–521, 2004.
2. Clark R, Bryant L, Humphries B. An examination of strength and con- 20. Mookerjee S, Ratamess N. Comparison of strength differences and joint
centric work ratios during variable range of motion training. J Strength action durations between full and partial range-of-motion bench press
Cond Res 22: 1716–1719, 2008. exercise. J Strength Cond Res 13: 76–81, 1999.
3. Clark RA, Humphries B, Hohmann E, Bryant AL. The influence of vari- 21. Morán-Navarro R, Martı́nez-Cava A, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. Move-
able range of motion training on neuromuscular performance and control ment velocity as a measure of level of effort during resistance exercise.
of external loads. J Strength Cond Res 25: 704–711, 2011. J Strength Cond Res 33: 1496–1504, 2017.
4. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, IL: 22. Morán-Navarro R, Pérez CE, Mora-Rodrı́guez R, et al. Time course of
Routledge Academic, 1988. pp. 20–27. recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. Eur J Appl
5. Courel-Ibáñez J, Martı́nez-Cava A, Morán-Navarro R, et al. Re- Physiol 117: 2387–2399, 2017.
producibility and repeatability of five different technologies for bar ve- 23. Newmire DE, Willoughby DS. Partial compared with full range of motion
resistance training for muscle hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 32:
locity measurement in resistance training. Ann Biomed Eng 47:
2652–2664, 2018.
1523–1538, 2019.
24. Pallarés JG, Cava AM, Courel-Ibáñez J, González-Badillo JJ, Morán-
6. Garcı́a-Pallarés J, Sánchez-Medina L, Pérez C, Izquierdo-Gabarren M,
Navarro R. Full squat produces greater neuromuscular and functional
Izquierdo M. Physiological effects of tapering and detraining in World-
adaptations and lower pain than partial squats after prolonged resistance
Class Kayakers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1209–1214, 2010.
training. Eur J Sport Sci 15: 1–10, 2019.
7. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Villar-Macias FJ, et al. Differences in
25. Pallarés JG, Sánchez-Medina L, Pérez CE, De La Cruz-Sánchez E, Mora-
the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and
Rodriguez R. Imposing a pause between the eccentric and concentric
arched bench press in competitive powerlifters. Sports Biomech 11: 1–13, phases increases the reliability of isoinertial strength assessments. J Sports
2018. Sci 32: 1165–1175, 2014.
8. Gomo O, Van Den Tillaar R. The effects of grip width on sticking region in 26. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. Effects of
bench press. J Sports Sci 34: 232–238, 2016. velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength
9. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27: 724–735,
loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347–352, 2010. 2017.
10. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L, Pareja-Blanco F, Rodrı́guez- 27. Pareja-Blanco F, Sánchez-Medina L, Suárez-Arrones L, González-Badillo
Rosell D. Fundamentals of Velocity-Based Resistance Training. Murcia, JJ. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on performance in
Spain: Ergotech, 2017. pp. 20–25. professional soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 12: 512–519,
11. Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M, et al. Influence of squatting depth 2017.
on jumping performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3243–3261, 2012. 28. Rhea MR, Kenn JG, Peterson MD, et al. Joint-angle specific strength
12. Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, et al. Detraining and tapering adaptations influence improvements in power in highly trained athletes.
effects on hormonal responses and strength performance. J Strength Cond Hum Mov 17: 43–49, 2016.
Res 21: 768–775, 2007. 29. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of
13. Kraemer WJ, Koziris LP, Ratamess NA, et al. Detraining produces mini- neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
mal changes in physical performance and hormonal variables in recrea- 43: 1725–1734, 2011.
tionally strength-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 16: 373–382, 2002. 30. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo J, Pérez C, Pallarés J. Velocity- and
14. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative sci- power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J
ence: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol 4: 863, 2013. Sports Med 35: 209–216, 2014.
15. Lander JE, Bates BT, Sawhill JA, Hamill J. A comparison between free- 31. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of the
weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17: 344–353, propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 31: 123–129,
1985. 2010.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.