Original Research

Effects of Horizontal and Incline Bench Press on Neuromuscular Adaptations

in Untrained Young Men
SUENE F. N. CHAVES†1, VALDINAR A. ROCHA-JÚNIOR‡2, IRISMAR G. A.
ENCARNAÇÃO†1, HUGO C. MARTINS-COSTA‡3, EDUARDO D. S. FREITAS†4, DANIEL B.
COELHO‡5, FREDERICO S. C. FRANCO‡1, JEREMY P. LOENNEKE‡6, MARTIM BOTTARO‡7
and JOÃO B. FERREIRA-JÚNIOR‡1

1Federal Institute of Sudeste of Minas Gerais, Rio Pomba, MG, BRAZIL; 2National Police
Academy, Federal Police, Brasília, DF, BRAZIL; 3Pontifical Catholic University of Minas
Gerais, Campus Coração Eucarístico, Belo Horizonte, MG, BRAZIL; 4University of Oklahoma,
Department of Health and Exercise Science, Norman, USA; 5Sport Center, Federal University
of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, BRAZIL; 6Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory,
Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of
Mississippi, Oxford, USA ; 7University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, BRAZIL
†Denotes graduate student author, ‡Denotes professional author

ABSTRACT
International Journal of Exercise Science 13(6): 859-872, 2020. The aim of the current study was to
investigate the effects of horizontal and incline bench press as well as the combination of both exercises on
neuromuscular adaptation in untrained young men. Forty-seven untrained men were randomly assigned to one
of the three groups: 1) a horizontal bench press group (n= 15), 2) an incline bench press group (n= 15), and 3) a
combination (horizontal + incline) group (n= 17). Training was conducted once a week for eight weeks, with
equalized number of sets among groups. Muscle thickness, isometric strength and electromyography (EMG)
amplitude of the pectoralis major were measured one week before and after the training period. There was no
difference between groups for the change in horizontal bench press isometric strength (~ 10 kg increase, p=0.776)
or incline bench press isometric strength (~ 11 kg increase, p=0.333). Changes in muscle thickness differed only in
one of the three sites. The changes in the second intercostal space of the pectoralis major was greatest in the
incline pressure group compared with the horizontal [mean difference (95% CI) of 0.62 (0.23, 1.0) cm, p=0.003]
and combination groups [mean difference (95% CI) of 0.50 (0.14, 0.86) cm, p=0.008]. The change in EMG
amplitude following training differed between groups in only one out of the four sites. The present results
indicate that strength and conditioning professionals might consider that horizontal and incline bench press
exercises, or a combination of both exercises can render similar change in general strength.

KEY WORDS: Exercise choice, exercise variation, strength, hypertrophy

 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

INTRODUCTION

When designing resistance training programs, strength and conditioning professionals have to
take into consideration the manipulation and combination of several training variables,
including volume, load, rest intervals, contraction velocity, muscle action, training frequency,
and exercise choice and order (2,30). There are many ways to select and vary resistance
exercise programs, such as: 1) free weights vs. machine, 2) unilateral vs. bilateral, 3) single- vs.
multiple-joint, 4) stable vs. unstable surface, 5) open vs. closed kinetic chain, and 6) flat vs.
incline (2). Several studies have been conducted in order to evaluate the effects of exercise
choice on neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training (12–14). However, there is a
paucity of studies comparing the chronic adaptations to resistance training when the same
exercise is performed at different angles (e.g., supine or incline position).

Bench press is a multi-joint exercise that allows large loads to be lifted and that demands high
neuromuscular activity, which makes it a popular upper-body exercise utilized to increase
muscle size and strength across several populations (31,33). Variation to the bench press
exercise may be added by changing the angle of the bench. Bench pressing at different angles
elicits differences in muscle activation, force production, etc. that might ultimately impact
neuromuscular adaptation. To illustrate, during inclined bench press, the humerus is flexed
while it performs horizontal adduction, which involves the recruitment of additional muscles
(i.e., infraspinatus, subscapularis, and teres minor) in order to minimize the glenohumeral
compression (16). Consequently, the exercise load tends to be reduced as the angle of the
bench is increased (33). Upper body surface electromyography (EMG) amplitude may also be
affected by changes in the incline angle. Flat bench press produces the highest EMG signal
with respect to the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major (4,33), while inclining the bench to
44 degree tends to produce the greatest EMG amplitude within the clavicular portion (33).

Given the impact of joint specificity and the differential loading and EMG amplitudes
associated with horizontal and incline bench press exercise (21,29,35), the general
recommendation has been to perform both exercises in order to maximize the training
stimulus as it relates to muscle growth and strength gains (33). A previous study has
suggested that varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group might lead to greater
strength gains in comparison to constant exercise (7). The authors evaluated only lower body
resistance exercises (i.e., squat, leg press, dead lift and lunge) for the lower limbs. Nonetheless,
studies exploring upper body resistance exercises, and the long-term neuromuscular
adaptations of the same exercise performed at different angles (e.g., bench press) are lacking.
Therefore, there is a critical need to investigate the chronic neuromuscular adaptations to
different bench press training protocols (31). Investigating this issue could provide valuable
information for strength and conditioning professionals who seek to utilize the most effect
resistance training programs.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

860
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of horizontal and incline
bench press as well as the combination of both exercises on neuromuscular adaptation in
untrained young men. For the above reasons, it was hypothesized that the combination of both
horizontal and incline bench press would maximize neuromuscular adaptations. Additionally,
based on the specificity principle, it was expected that there would be angle specific
differences between the horizontal and incline bench press.

METHODS

Participants
Seventy-two young male college students were included in the current study. However, data
from 16 subjects were excluded because they failed to attend at least 80% of the training
sessions (10) and from 2 other subjects because they altered their nutritional habits. Moreover,
7 subjects did not complete the training period for personal reasons. Therefore, a total of 47
subjects (21.1±3.3 years, 71.9±13.5 kg, 176±7 cm) completed the training protocols. The
inclusion criteria were: 1) male subjects between the ages of 18 to 30 years; 2) fit for the study
by answering no to all PAR-Q questions (32); 3) subjects were involved with moderate
physical activity for an average of 3 days a week; and 4) subjects were not engaged in
resistance exercise over the past 6 months. Volunteers were told about the design and
experimental procedures of the study and all potential risks and discomforts before signing an
informed consent form. This research was carried out fully in accordance to the ethical
standards of the International Journal of Exercise Science (27) and was approved by the
University’s Institutional Review Board (Protocol: 44608115.6.0000.558).

Protocol
Figure 1 shows the experimental design of the study. During the first 2-week period, subjects
were requested to attend the laboratory on four separate occasions, with a period of at least 48
h between them. The first visit consisted of familiarization to the study procedures and
anthropometric assessment (weight and height). Baseline values were assessed in the second
occasion in this order: muscle thickness of the pectoralis major, maximal isometric strength
and EMG amplitude. In order to better determine the training load, the third visit consisted of
the 10-repetition maximum (RM) test for the horizontal and incline bench press, and the
10RM retest was conducted once more in the fourth visit. Thereafter, subjects were randomly
assigned to one of the three groups: 1) a horizontal bench press group (n=15), in which
subjects were trained using only the horizontal bench press exercise; 2) an incline bench press
group (n=15), in which subjects were trained using only the incline bench press exercise; and
3) a combination group (n=17), in which subjects were training utilizing both horizontal and
incline bench press exercises. Training was conducted once a week for eight weeks. Subjects
in the horizontal and incline bench press groups performed 4 to 6 sets of their specific
resistance exercises, while the combination (horizontal + incline) group completed 2 to 3 sets
of each exercise. The goal repetitions for each group ranged from 8 to 12RM. If participants
were able to complete more repetitions, they were allowed to until task failure was reached.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

861
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

Figure 1. Experimental design of the study.

Muscle thickness of the pectoralis major, maximal isometric strength in the horizontal and
incline bench press exercises and surface EMG amplitude were measured, in that order, one
week before and after the training period. Forty-seven subjects completed the training
protocols, but we had 30 subjects for the muscle thickness data (10 subjects in each group),
and 43 subjects for EMG amplitude (13 in the horizontal bench press group, 14 in the incline
bench press group and 16 in the combination group). In addition, subjects were advised to
visit the laboratory always at the same time of day (± 1 h) and not to alter their nutritional
habits (i.e., restricting caloric intake, or becoming a vegetarian).

Muscle thickness: Subjects rested for 10 min on a stretcher in a supine position. Thereafter, a
B-Mode ultrasound (model DP- 30; Mindray, Shenzhen, China) was used to assess muscle
thickness of the pectoralis major at three different sites: 1) between the second and third costa
(second intercostal space), 2) between the third and fourth of costa (third intercostal space),
and 3) between the fifth and sixth costa (fifth intercostal space); all under the clavicle
midpoint. The measurement points were based on previous studies (28,36). Water-soluble
transmission gel was applied to each measurement site, and a 7.5-MHz ultrasound probe was
placed perpendicular to the skin, without depressing it. Once the interfaces of the pectoralis
major-intercostal muscles and the subcutaneous adipose tissue–pectoralis major muscle were
identified, the image was frozen on the monitor and transferred to a flash drive. Then, the
Image-J software (version 1.37; National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD) was used to
analyze the images. Pectoralis major muscle thickness was defined as the distance from the
subcutaneous adipose tissue-pectoralis major muscle interface to the pectoralis major-
intercostal muscles interface.

Maximum isometric strength assessment: Maximum isometric strength in the horizontal and
incline bench press exercises was assessed using a load cell (capacity of 500 kgf, EMG System,
São José dos Campos, Brazil) connected to a signal acquisition system (SAS1000V4, EMG
System). The load cell was calibrated to the signal acquisition system, and data was collected
using a sampling rate of 2,000 Hz. The subjects warmed-up by performing 10 repetitions of
push-ups before bench press isometric tests. Two minutes later, they performed the
horizontal and then, the incline bench press isometric tests. Both tests were performed with
the elbow joint positioned at 90° (0° extended) by using a digital goniometer (SAS1000V4,
EMG System) connected to a signal acquisition system (SAS1000V4, EMG System). In

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

862
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

addition, the incline bench press test was performed at an angle 44 degrees above horizontal
(33). Hand position and height of the Smith machine bar were recorded in all exercises to
ensure the same positioning for all tests. The subjects were asked to perform 2 maximum
voluntary isometric contractions of each exercise for 4 s, with a 60 s rest period between trials.
They were also asked to maximally contract their muscles for each isometric test and to
maintain their feet on the floor during each test. The signal acquisition system was used to
filter the signal, allowing the passage of the low frequencies, with a cutoff frequency of 23 Hz.
The highest maximum isometric strength of each attempt was recorded, and the mean peak
value used for statistical analysis. Verbal encouragement was given throughout the tests.

Electromyographic activity: Surface EMG amplitude was obtained using active bipolar
electrodes (Ag/AgCl – 15 mm diameter with interelectrode distance of 20 mm) and an
acquisition system SAS1000V4 (EMG System, Brazil) with gain of 2,000 V/V and common
rejection mode of 110 dB). The signal was registered at a frequency of 2,000 and amplified 100
times. Data from the maximal isometric strength tests were synchronized with EMG by the
system interface. The electrodes were placed at the: a) sternal head of pectoralis major – at the
fifth intercostal space of the rib cage along the midclavicular line (15) and b) the clavicular
head of the pectoralis major – at the second intercostal space along the midclavicular line (15).
Before electrode fixation, the skin was shaved and cleaned with alcohol according to SENIAM
recommendations (17). EMG data were processed in Matlab 6.5 (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA,
USA). The signal was initially band-pass filtered with cutoff frequencies of 20–500 Hz using a
fourth order, zero-lag Butterworth filter (1). Then, the root mean square (RMS) was calculated
as amplitude indicator in a rectangular window of 4,000 samples (2 s) extracted from the
middle part of EMG burst in which the greatest signal energy was identified. The RMS of
each attempt was recorded, and the mean RMS value used for statistical analysis.

Resistance training protocol: All subjects trained one day per week for eight weeks as this has
previously been show to produce favorable changes at the muscle (9,11). The horizontal bench
press group training regimen consisted of horizontal bench press-only, while the incline bench
press group performed the incline bench press-only. The combination group performed the
horizontal bench press and then, the incline bench press. Additionally, 4-6 sets of seated row
and squat or 45° leg press exercises were performed by all subjects. During each training
session, the subjects initially warmed-up by performing 10 push-ups. Then, subjects of both
the horizontal and incline bench press groups performed 4 sets of 8–12RM of the group
designated bench press exercise, whereas the combination group carried out 2 sets of 8–12RM
repetitions of both exercises. The load used in each exercise in the first training session was
determined by the 10RM test (6). Training volume increased to 6 sets from the fifth week for
the horizontal and incline bench press groups, and to 3 sets of both exercises for the
combination group. Each repetition lasted 2 s for the concentric and 2 s for the eccentric phase,
controlled by an electronic metronome, and the rest interval between sets and exercises were
90 s. Range of motion was also controlled for all groups so that for the eccentric phase, they
had to touch their chest and return to a position with their elbows fully extended at the end of
the concentric phase. Subjects were instructed to perform all sets until concentric failure, and
loads were adjusted during each set by the researcher to maintain the 8–12RM. Although the

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

863
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

goal was 8-12RM, subjects were not stopped if they were able to perform more than 12
repetitions. All bench press exercise was completed on a Smith Machine. The incline bench
press exercise was performed at 44 degrees above horizontal (33). The subjects were asked to
maintain their feet on the floor during bench press exercises. Hands and height of the Smith
machine bar was recorded in each exercise to ensure the same positioning in all training
sessions.

Statistical Analysis
Changes in muscle size, strength, and surface EMG amplitude were analyzed using an
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline value as the co-variate. A p value of 0.05
and below was considered statistically significant. All statistical analysis was performed using
IBM SPSS 25. Descriptive data are presented as mean (Standard Deviation) and all inferential
results are presented as the adjusted change score and 95% confidence interval of that change.

RESULTS

The physical characteristics of the subjects are found in Table 1.

Table 1. Physical characteristics of the participants in the horizontal bench press group, incline bench press
group, and the combination group.
Age (years) Body Mass (kg) Height (cm)
Horizontal Bench Group (n=15) 20 (3) 72.8 (16) 179 (5)
Incline Bench Group (n=15) 21 (3) 70.1 (9.3) 175 (9)
Combination Group (n=17) 21 (3) 69.9 (10) 175 (6)
Mean (Standard Deviation).

Figure 2. The pre to post change in isometric horizontal (A) and incline (B) bench press across the three separate
training groups. Each value reported was adjusted for the baseline value with the middle dot representing the
change with the variability represented by 95% confidence intervals.

Changes in maximal isometric strength are reported in Figure 2 (Pre and Post values noted in
Table 2). There was no difference between groups for the change in horizontal bench press
isometric strength (Figure 2A, p=0.776) or incline bench press isometric strength (Figure 2B, p

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

864
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

= 0.333). This indicated that there were no differences between groups for changes in isometric
strength. In an attempt to quantify changes in a more specific task, we compared (post hoc) the
change in load lifted for the first set on the first training session to the load lifted for the first
set on the final training session. There was no difference (Figure 3A, p=0.264) between groups
for the change in load lifted for the horizontal bench press exercise (i.e. horizontal bench press
group vs. combination group) but there was a difference between groups for the incline bench
press exercise (Figure 3B, p=0.001). The change in load lifted for the incline bench press group
was greater than the change in load lifted for the combination group [mean difference (95% CI)
of 4.6 (1.9, 7.2) kg].

Table 2. Maximal isometric strength (kgf) over time for each group.
Pre-training Post-training
Horizontal press
Horizontal bench group 72.9 (20.1) 81.6 (18.2)
Incline bench group 74.4 (19.9) 83.6 (19.1)
Combination group 72.1 (22.5) 84.9 (18.9)
Incline press
Horizontal bench group 68.3 (21.5) 75.3 (18.6)
Incline bench group 66.4 (10.5) 78.8 (16.6)
Combination group 66.2 (21.3) 81.4 (16.0)
Mean (Standard Deviation).

Figure 3. The pre to post change in load lifted for the horizontal (A) and incline (B) bench press. Each value
reported was adjusted for the baseline value with the middle dot representing the change with the variability
represented by 95% confidence intervals. * represents a significant between group difference in the change in load
lifted.

Changes in muscle thickness are reported in Figure 4 (Pre and Post values noted in Table 3).
There was a statistical difference for muscle thickness changes in the second intercostal space
of the pectoralis major (Figure 4A, p=0.005). The change was greatest in the group training
exclusively with the incline bench press compared with the group training exclusively with the
horizontal bench press [mean difference (95% CI) of 0.62 (0.23, 1.0) cm, p=0.003] or a
combination of the two [mean difference (95% CI) of 0.50 (0.14, 0.86) cm, p=0.008]. There was
no difference at this site between the group training exclusively with the horizontal bench

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

865
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

press and the group training with a combination [mean difference of 0.11 (-0.25, 0.48) cm,
p=0.524]. There was no difference between groups for muscle thickness changes in the third
(Figure 4B, p=0.095) or fifth (Figure 4C, p=0.227) intercostal space of the pectoralis major. This
indicated that in two of the three sites, changes in muscle thickness were similar.

Table 3. Pectoralis major muscle thickness (mm) over time for each group.
Pre-training Post-training
2nd intercostal space
Horizontal bench group 11.9 (2.0) 15.7 (3.9)
Incline bench group 15.1 (3.8) 24.5 (4.1)
Combination group 14.3 (5.3 18.8 (6.5)
3rd intercostal space
Horizontal bench group 13.2 (3.5) 19.3 (5.0)
Incline bench group 15.4 (4.3) 23.8 (5.7)
Combination group 17.1 (5.0) 21.2 (4.9)
5th intercostal space
Horizontal bench group 12.6 (2.7) 18.0 (5.1)
Incline bench group 14.4 (4.2) 22.8 (5.4)
Combination group 16.0 (5.5) 22.7 (5.9)
Mean (Standard Deviation).

Changes in surface EMG amplitude are reported in Figure 5 (Pre and Post values noted in
Table 4). There was no statistical difference for changes in surface EMG amplitude in the
clavicular region taken during the horizontal bench press (Figure 5A, p=0.516). There was,
however, a statistical difference between groups for changes in surface EMG in the sternal
region taken during the horizontal bench press (Figure 5C, p=0.012). The change in the group
training exclusively with the horizontal bench press was greater than the group training
exclusively with the incline bench press [mean difference (95% CI) of 67.6 (8.0, 127.1) µv,
p=0.027] or the combination group [mean difference (95%) of 89.1 (30.3, 147.9) µv, p=0.004].
Notably, there was no difference between the incline bench press group and the combination
group [mean difference of 21.5 (-34.1, 77.3) µv, p=0.439]. Changes in surface EMG taken during
the incline bench did not differ between groups for the clavicular (Figure 5B, p=0.453) region
or the sternal region (Figure 5D, p=0.929). This indicated that the change in surface EMG
amplitude following training did not differ at 3 out of the 4 sites measured.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

866
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

Figure 4. The pre to post change in muscle thickness at the 2nd intercostal (A), 3rd intercostal (B), and 5th
intercostal (C) across the three separate training groups. Each value reported was adjusted for the baseline value
with the middle dot representing the change with the variability represented by 95% confidence intervals. *
represents a significant between group difference in the change in load lifted.

Table 4. EMG amplitude (µV) over time for each group.

Pre-training Post-training
Clavicular site for horizontal press
Horizontal bench group 10.0 (4.2) 11.4 (5.1)
Incline bench group 10.2 (5.8) 10.1 (6.0)
Combination group 12.2 (7.1) 12.9 (6.2)
Sternal site for horizontal press
Horizontal bench group 192.0 (83.3) 242.1 (79.1)
Incline bench group 237.0 (166.3) 210.2 (145.6)
Combination group 282.9 (247.4) 225.1 (220.1)*
Clavicular site for incline press
Horizontal bench group 12.5 (11.6) 11.3 (11.4)
Incline bench group 7.8 (4.2) 8.8 (5.5)
Combination group 10.0 (5.7) 9.4 (5.2)
Sternal site for incline press
Horizontal bench group 98.9 (48.2) 110.5 (43.9)
Incline bench group 145.0 (110.2) 150.3 (105.5)
Combination group 199.8 (174.3) 195.0 (144.9)
Mean (Standard Deviation).

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

867
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

Figure 5. The pre to post change in surface EMG amplitude at the clavicular site for the horizontal (A) and incline
(B) bench press across the three separate training groups. The pre to post change in surface EMG amplitude at the
sternal site for the horizontal and incline bench press across the three separate training groups is found in part C
and D, respectively. Each value reported was adjusted for the baseline value with the middle dot representing the
change with the variability represented by 95% confidence intervals. * represents a significant between group
difference in the change in load lifted.

DISCUSSION

The current study sought to evaluate the neuromuscular adaptations in untrained young men
to horizontal bench press exercise, incline bench press exercise, or a group training with both.
Outside of two measurements, there were no differences for changes in muscle thickness or
changes in surface EMG amplitude. Although our original hypothesis was that the
combination of both bench press exercises would maximize training adaptations, our findings
did not find support for this contention with the variables measured within this study. This
hypothesis was based in previous studies suggesting that both exercises should be performed
to maximize the training stimulus, thus leading to greater muscle growth and strength gains
(33). However, it should be considered with some caution, since greater surface EMG
amplitude do not necessarily mean greater motor unit recruitment (34). Additionally,
according to these authors, further investigation is required in order to elucidate if chronic
adaptations can be inferred from acute changes in surface EMG amplitude. To the authors’
knowledge, this is the first study which examined the chronic effects of horizontal bench press
exercise, incline bench press exercise, and a group performing both on changes in muscle size

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

868
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

and surface EMG amplitude of the pectoralis major. Thus, the current findings cannot be
directly compared to previous studies.

Although both horizontal and incline bench press require similar shoulder horizontal
adduction and elbow extension, the difference in bench angle between both exercises affect
humerus position, resulting in different exercise loads and EMG amplitudes (16,19,33). These
differences are a consequence of the activation of the infraspinatus, the subscapularis, and the
teres minor muscles to reduce glenohumeral compression when the humerus is elevated,
whether in forward flexion or abduction (16). When those muscles are recruited during
humerus elevation, they also generate a force vector that reduces the resultant force generated
by the anterior deltoid and the clavicular portion of the pectoralis and supraspinatus (16,19).
Due to these neuromuscular specificities, a combination of bench press exercises at different
angles has been recommended in order to maximize EMG amplitude and then, muscle
adaptations (22,33). The present results did not support this statement with changes in non-
specific strength, since isometric strength gains were not different across groups. Of note, the
change in load lifted in the first set was greater within the group training exclusively with the
incline bench pressure compared to the combination group. This might provide support for
the importance of training specificity, however, this same effect was not observed for changes
in load lifted in the horizontal bench press. This, along with the post-hoc nature of the
analysis, suggests that caution is needed when interpreting that particular finding.

Traditionally it has been stated that strength changes from exercise are initially due to neural
adaptations followed by contributions from muscle growth (18,26). Although muscle growth is
thought to be an important mechanism of strength gain, the experimental evidence for this
claim is non-existent and recent work suggests that changes in muscle size may not be playing
an influential role for changing strength (5,23). The current study used changes in surface
EMG amplitude as an estimate of neural adaptation and changes in muscle thickness as a
measure of muscle growth. Overall, our results found that the changes in these variables were
not different between groups. Whether the change in surface EMG amplitude and muscle
thickness contributed to a change in muscle strength cannot be inferred from the current study
design. However, what can be stated is that in this sample, there were little differences in the
changes observed between each group.

It is important to note that the primary outcome for muscle performance was assessed using a
non-specific strength test (i.e., isometric). The authors opted for the isometric strength test
because it presents good intra and inter-session EMG reliability in bench press assessment
with maximal loads (3) and previous studies do not indicate satisfactory inter-session for EMG
dynamic analysis (20). However, it is important to note that the exercise was completed using
isoinertial exercise and not isometric. It is not known if differences between groups would be
detected using a specific strength test (i.e. 1RM test) rather than a more general test of strength
(i.e. isometric). Another limitation of the present study is that muscle activation was inferred
from surface EMG amplitude. Differences in neural drive cannot necessarily be inferred from
this estimate (25) and this variable should be interpreted with this in mind. Lastly, muscle size
was estimated via B-mode ultrasound in the current study rather than the gold standard

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

869
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

estimate of magnetic resonance imaging. Previous work has found small differences between
the two estimates, however, it was indicated that the conclusions produced would be similar
(8,24).

In summary, the results of the current study demonstrated that horizontal and incline bench
press exercises, or a combination of both exercises lead to similar isometric strength gains in
untrained young men. It is noteworthy that the current study examined the short-term
response to resistance training, and it is not known whether the specific adaptations in EMG
amplitude and muscle growth observed in each group would differ with longer-term
resistance training. Future studies could also examine how these changes might also contribute
within the task each group was specifically training by evaluating, for instance, the 1RM or
10RM strength.

REFERENCES

1. Aagaard, P, Simonsen, EB, Andersen, JL, Magnusson, P, and Dyhre-Poulsen, P. Increased rate of force
development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Applied Physiol 93(4):
1318-1326, 2002.

2. ACSM. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41(3): 687-708, 2009.

3. de Araújo, RC, Tucci, HT, de Andrade, R, Martins, J, Bevilaqua-Grossi, D, and de Oliveira, AS. Reliability of
electromyographic amplitude values of the upper limb muscles during closed kinetic chain exercises with stable
and unstable surfaces. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19(4): 685-694, 2009.

4. Barnett, C, Kippers, V, and Turner, P. Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of
five shoulder muscles. J Strength Cond Res 9(4): 222-227, 1995.

5. Dankel, SJ, Bell, ZW, Spitz, RW, Wong, V, Viana, RB, Chatakondi, RN, et al. Assessing differential responders
and mean changes in muscle size, strength, and the cross-over effect to two distinct resistance training protocols.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2019. Epub ahead of print.

6. Ferreira, D V., Ferreira-Júnior, JB, Soares, SRS, Cadore, EL, Izquierdo, M, Brown, LE, et al. Chest press exercises
with different stability requirements result in similar muscle damage recovery in resistance-trained men. J
Strength Cond Res 31(1): 71-79, 2017.

7. Fonseca, RM, Roschel, H, Tricoli, V, De Souza, EO, Wilson, JM, Laurentino, GC, et al. Changes in exercises are
more effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. J Strength Cond 28(11): 3085-3092, 2014.

8. Franchi, M V., Longo, S, Mallinson, J, Quinlan, JI, Taylor, T, Greenhaff, PL, et al. Muscle thickness correlates to
muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sport
28(3): 846-853, 2018.

9. Franco, CMC, Carneiro, MAS, de Sousa, JFR, Gomes, GK, and Orsatti, FL. Influence of high- and low-frequency
resistance training on lean body mass and muscle strength gains in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res, 2019.
Epub ahead of print.

10. Gentil, P and Bottaro, M. Effects of training attendance on muscle strength of young men after 11 weeks of
resistance training. Asian J Sports Med 4(2): 101-106, 2013.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

870
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

11. Gentil, P, Fischer, B, Martorelli, AS, Lima, RM, and Bottaro, M. Effects of equal-volume resistance training
performed one or two times a week in upper body muscle size and strength of untrained young men. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness 55(3): 144-149, 2015.

12. Gentil, P, Soares, S, and Bottaro, M. Single vs. Multi-joint resistance exercises: Effects on muscle strength and
hypertrophy. Asian J Sports Med 6(2): e24057, 2015.

13. Gentil, P, Soares, SRS, Pereira, MC, da Cunha, RR, Martorelli, SS, Martorelli, AS, et al. Effect of adding single-
joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance-training program on strength and hypertrophy in untrained
subjects. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 38(3): 341-344, 2013.

14. Giannakopoulos, K, Beneka, A, Malliou, P, and Godolias, G. Isolated vs. complex exercise in strengthening the
rotator cuff muscle group. J Strength Cond Res 18(1): 144-148, 2004.

15. Glass, SC and Armstrong, T. Electromyographical activity of the pectoralis muscle during incline and decline
bench presses. J Strength Cond Res 11(3): 163-167, 1997.

16. Hart DL, CS. Biomechanics of the shoulder. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 6(4): 229–234, 1985.

17. Hermens, HJ, Freriks, B, Disselhorst-Klug, C, and Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG
sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10(5): 361-374, 2000.

18. Ikai, M and Fukunaga, T. A study on training effect on strength per unit cross-sectional area of muscle by
means of ultrasonic measurement. Int Zeitschrift für Angew Physiol Einschließlich Arbeitsphysiologie 28(3): 173-
180, 1970.

19. Inman, VT, Saunders, JB, and Abbott, LC. Observations of the function of the shoulder joint. 1944. Clin Orthop
Relat Res 330: 3-12, 1996.

20. Jobson, SA, Hopker, J, Arkesteijn, M, and Passfield, L. Inter- and intra-session reliability of muscle activity
patterns during cycling. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23(1): 230-237, 2013.

21. Knapik, JJ, Mawdsley, RH, and Ramos, MU. Angular specificity and test mode specificity of isometric and
isokinetic strength training. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 5(2): 58-65, 1983.

22. Lauver, JD, Cayot, TE, and Scheuermann, BW. Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular
activation during bench press exercise. Eur J Sport Sci 16(3): 309-316, 2016.

23. Loenneke, JP, Dankel, SJ, Bell, ZW, Buckner, SL, Mattocks, KT, Jessee, MB, et al. Is muscle growth a
mechanism for increasing strength? Med Hypotheses 125: 51-56, 2019.

24. Loenneke, JP, Dankel, SJ, Bell, ZW, Spitz, RW, Abe, T, and Yasuda, T. Ultrasound and MRI measured changes
in muscle mass gives different estimates but similar conclusions: a Bayesian approach. Eur J Clin Nutr 73(8): 1203-
1205, 2019.

25. Martinez-Valdes, E, Negro, F, Falla, D, De Nunzio, AM, and Farina, D. Surface electromyographic amplitude
does not identify differences in neural drive to synergistic muscles. J Appl Physiol 124(4): 1071-1079, 2018.

26. Moritani, T and DeVries, HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain.
Am J Phys Med 58(3): 115-130, 1979.

27. Navalta, J, Stone, W, and Lyons, S. Ethical issues relating to scientific discovery in exercise science. Int J Exerc
Sci 12(1): 1-8, 2019.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

871
 Int J Exerc Sci 13(6): 859-872, 2020

28. Ogasawara, R, Thiebaud, R, Loenneke, J, Loftin, M, and Abe, T. Time course for arm and chest muscle
thickness changes following bench press training. Interv Med Appl Sci 4(4): 217-220, 2012.

29. Rossi, FE, Schoenfeld, BJ, Ocetnik, S, Young, J, Vigotsky, A, Contreras, B, et al. Strength, body composition,
and functional outcomes in the squat versus leg press exercises. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 58(3): 263-270, 2018.

30. Schoenfeld, BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Appl
Physiol 24(10): 2857-2872, 2010.

31. Stastny, P, Gołaś, A, Blazek, D, Maszczyk, A, Wilk, M, Pietraszewski, P, et al. A systematic review of surface
electromyography analyses of the bench press movement task. PLoS One 12(2): e0171632, 2017.

32. Thomas, S, Reading, J, and Shephard, RJ. Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q).
Can J Sport Sci 17(4): 338–345, 1992.

33. Trebs, AA, Brandenburg, JP, and Pitney, WA. An electromyography analysis of 3 muscles surrounding the
shoulder joint during the performance of a chest press exercise at several angles. J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 1925-
1930, 2010.

34. Vigotsky, AD, Beardsley, C, Contreras, B, Steele, J, Ogborn, D, and Phillips, SM. Greater electromyographic
responses do not imply greater motor unit recruitment and “hypertrophic potential” cannot be inferred. J
Strength Cond Res 31(1): e1-e4, 2017.

35. Wirth, K, Hartmann, H, Sander, A, Mickel, C, Szilvas, E, and Keiner, M. The impact of back squat and leg-
press exercises on maximal strength and speed-strength parameters. J Strength Cond Res 30(5): 1205-1212, 2016.

36. Yasuda, T, Fujita, S, Ogasawara, R, Sato, Y, and Abe, T. Effects of low-intensity bench press training with
restricted arm muscle blood flow on chest muscle hypertrophy: A pilot study. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 30(5):
338-343, 2010.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

872