We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
A comparison of the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free weight resistance.
- Authors
Frost, David Michael; Cronin, John Barry; Newton, Robert Usher
- Abstract
Pneumatic devices provide a resistance comprising minimal mass, possibly affording greater movement velocities, compared to free weight, while reducing the influence of momentum. Thirty men completed three testing sessions [free weight (FW), ballistic (BALL) and pneumatic (P)] each consisting of a one repetition maximum (1RM) and six sets (15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90% 1RM) of four explosive repetitions of a bench press. Dependent variables were expressed as mean and as a percentage of the concentric displacement. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were evaluated using two way repeated measures ANOVAs with Holm-Sidak post hoc comparisons. On average, the mean and peak P velocity were 36.5 and 28.3% higher than FW, and 22.9 and 19.1% higher than the BALL movements. The FW and BALL peak force were both significantly higher than the P (26.3 and 22.7% for FW and BALL, respectively). BALL mean power output was significantly higher than the FW and P at loads of 15 and 30% 1RM; however, between loads of 60-90% 1RM the highest mean power was produced with a P resistance. A 15% 1RM load maximized the peak power for each condition and no significant differences were found between the P and BALL. For loads of 45-90% 1RM the force, power and muscle activity were higher during the last 10-20% of the concentric displacement when subjects employed the P resistance. In summary, pneumatic resistance may offer specific advantages over loads comprising only mass (FW and BALL), although not without its own limitations.
- Subjects
KINEMATICS; DYNAMICS; PNEUMATICS; FREE weights; BALLISTICS; EQUIPMENT &; supplies
- Publication
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2008, Vol 104, Issue 6, p937
- ISSN
1439-6319
- Publication type
journal article
- DOI
10.1007/s00421-008-0821-8