Complete Upper Body Bar Enhances Upper Body Strength Training

BACKGROUND: The bench press is a common exercise for developing the major musculature of the chest, shoulders, and upper arms. The barbell (BB) and dumbbell (DB) conditions are most often used, but there is little emphasis placed on the muscles of the forearm with either of these implements. Recently, the Complete Upper Body Bar (CUBB) (Resistance in Rotation LLC) was developed to train the muscles of the forearm by allowing for pronation and supination, while simultaneously providing the same traditional training for the rest of the upper body. PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of the CUBB relating to the EMG activity of the forearm during the bench press. METHODS: 11 healthy college-aged males volunteered for the study. EMG sensors were placed on the right anterior deltoid (AD), pectoralis major (PEC), triceps brachii belly (TRI), pronator teres (PRO), and supinator (SUP). The participants went through a bench press test in a series of three different randomized conditions: the DB, the BB, and the CUBB. Each set was done at 30% body weight guided by a 60-bpm metronome. Electromyography (EMG) data was collected using a Delsys Trigno wireless system. A maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) was recorded for each muscle to normalize muscular contraction levels for each participant. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the normalized EMG data expressed in %MVC (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Peak concentric PRO reveals that the CUBB (100.1 ± 105.1) was greater than the BB (65.3 ± 71.7; p = .029), while there was no significant difference between the CUBB and DB (86.4 ± 87.1), nor DB and BB (p = .444 and p = .103, respectively). There were significant or close to significant differences in the peak concentric SUP data, where CUBB > BB (83.4 ± 88.2, 46.7 ± 59.5; p = .010), CUBB > DB (83.4 ± 88.2, 67.2 ± 80.1; p = .082) and DB > BB (67.2 ± 80.1, 46.7 ± 59.5; p = .052). No significant changes in EMG activity of the AD or PEC were observed across any of the conditions. CONCLUSION: The CUBB has demonstrated increases in activation of the PRO and SUP during the bench press. Activation for the CUBB is significantly more than the BB in all categories but is consistent with the DB condition in some aspects of activation. EMG data for the AD and PEC was enhanced with use of the DB and CUBB conditions, making the CUBB a viable option for upper body strength training.