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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McKenzie, Alec, Crowley-McHattan, Zachary, Meir, Rudi, Whitting, John, Volschenk, Wynand
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