Authors
Nicholas A. Buoncristiani, [1] Neuromuscular Assessment Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, [2] Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, [3] School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA
Grant T. Malone, [1] School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA, [2] Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
Danilo V. Tolusso, [1] School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA, [2] Department of Physical Therapy, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA
Scott W. Arnett, School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA
International Journal of Exercise Science 19(4): 4006, 2026.
DOI: 10.70252/IJES2026406
Abstract
purpose of this study was to compare electromyographical activation, barbell velocity differences at submaximal loads, and strength differences between the traditional (TB) and Swiss barbells (SB). Eleven college-aged males (age = 21.27 ± 0.65 yrs; stature = 178.41 ± 5.56 cm; body mass = 87.45 ± 13.41 kg) were recruited for this investigation. The first two sessions consisted of one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing with the TB or SB. The final session consisted of two sets (65% and 85% of 1RM) of three repetitions with each barbell. Surface electromyography (sEMG) and mean barbell velocity (MBV) were examined. A repeated-measures design was used to compare the effects of bench pressing with the two barbells on sEMG, MBV, and 1RM. A 2X2 repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine differences in MBV and sEMG. Paired sample t-tests and Pearson correlations were used to examine the differences and relationships between 1RM for each barbell, respectively. A main effect was found for barbell type for sEMG of the lateral head of the triceps brachii ( = 0.66, p < 0.01). Main effects for intensity were also found for all observed muscles ( ≥ 0.51, p ≤ 0.03), apart from the latissimus dorsi. Further, a significant interaction between barbell type and intensity was observed for MBV ( = 0.54, p = 0.01), with larger decrements in MBV observed in the SB across intensities. There were significant differences in the 1RM outcomes, with the TB having a higher 1RM compared to the SB (p < 0.001, g = 1.26). However, there was a strong positive relationship (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) between barbell 1RM values. Practitioners may consider using the SB to mimic sport-specific movements, decrease injury risk, and elicit similar muscle activation at lower absolute loads.
Recommended Citation
Buoncristiani, Nicholas A.; Malone, Grant T.; Tolusso, Danilo V.; Arnett, Scott W. (2026) “Muscle Activation, Barbell Velocity, and One-Repetition Maximum Comparisons Between the Traditional and Swiss Barbell During the Bench Press,” International Journal of Exercise Science, 19(4):4006.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70252/IJES2026406