Cargando…
Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ?
The purpose of this study was to profile and compare the kinematics, using 3D motion capture, and muscle activation patterns, using surface electromyography (sEMG), of three common dip variations; the bench, bar, and ring dips. Thirteen experienced males performed four repetitions of each dip variat...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9603242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36293792 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013211 |
_version_ | 1784817501762224128 |
---|---|
author | McKenzie, Alec Crowley-McHattan, Zachary Meir, Rudi Whitting, John Volschenk, Wynand |
author_facet | McKenzie, Alec Crowley-McHattan, Zachary Meir, Rudi Whitting, John Volschenk, Wynand |
author_sort | McKenzie, Alec |
collection | PubMed |
description | The purpose of this study was to profile and compare the kinematics, using 3D motion capture, and muscle activation patterns, using surface electromyography (sEMG), of three common dip variations; the bench, bar, and ring dips. Thirteen experienced males performed four repetitions of each dip variation. For each participant, repetitions 2–4 were time-normalized and then averaged to produce a mean value for all kinematic and sEMG variables. The mean maximal joint angles and mean peak sEMG amplitudes were compared between each variation using a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Several significant differences (p < 0.05) between dip variations were observed in both kinematic and sEMG data. The bench dip predominantly targets the triceps brachii but requires greater shoulder extension range. The mean peak triceps brachii activation was 0.83 ± 0.34 mV on the bench, 1.04 ± 0.27 mV on the bar, and 1.05 ± 0.40 mV on the ring. The bar dip is an appropriate progression from the bench dip due to the higher peak muscle activations. The ring dip had similar peak activations to the bar dip, with three muscles increasing their activation intensities further. These findings have implications for practitioners prescribing the dip, particularly to exercisers with a history of shoulder pain and injury. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9603242 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96032422022-10-27 Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? McKenzie, Alec Crowley-McHattan, Zachary Meir, Rudi Whitting, John Volschenk, Wynand Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The purpose of this study was to profile and compare the kinematics, using 3D motion capture, and muscle activation patterns, using surface electromyography (sEMG), of three common dip variations; the bench, bar, and ring dips. Thirteen experienced males performed four repetitions of each dip variation. For each participant, repetitions 2–4 were time-normalized and then averaged to produce a mean value for all kinematic and sEMG variables. The mean maximal joint angles and mean peak sEMG amplitudes were compared between each variation using a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Several significant differences (p < 0.05) between dip variations were observed in both kinematic and sEMG data. The bench dip predominantly targets the triceps brachii but requires greater shoulder extension range. The mean peak triceps brachii activation was 0.83 ± 0.34 mV on the bench, 1.04 ± 0.27 mV on the bar, and 1.05 ± 0.40 mV on the ring. The bar dip is an appropriate progression from the bench dip due to the higher peak muscle activations. The ring dip had similar peak activations to the bar dip, with three muscles increasing their activation intensities further. These findings have implications for practitioners prescribing the dip, particularly to exercisers with a history of shoulder pain and injury. MDPI 2022-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9603242/ /pubmed/36293792 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013211 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article McKenzie, Alec Crowley-McHattan, Zachary Meir, Rudi Whitting, John Volschenk, Wynand Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? |
title | Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? |
title_full | Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? |
title_fullStr | Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? |
title_full_unstemmed | Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? |
title_short | Bench, Bar, and Ring Dips: Do Kinematics and Muscle Activity Differ? |
title_sort | bench, bar, and ring dips: do kinematics and muscle activity differ? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9603242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36293792 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013211 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mckenziealec benchbarandringdipsdokinematicsandmuscleactivitydiffer AT crowleymchattanzachary benchbarandringdipsdokinematicsandmuscleactivitydiffer AT meirrudi benchbarandringdipsdokinematicsandmuscleactivitydiffer AT whittingjohn benchbarandringdipsdokinematicsandmuscleactivitydiffer AT volschenkwynand benchbarandringdipsdokinematicsandmuscleactivitydiffer |