Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free weight resistance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alamasbakk B, Hoff J (1996) Coordination, the determinant of velocity specificity? J Appl Physiol 80:2046–2052

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson KG, Behm DG (2004) Maintenance of EMG activity and loss of force output with instability. J Strength Cond Res 18:637–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asci A, Acikada C (2007) Power production among different sports with similar maximum strength. J Strength Cond Res 21:10–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker D (2001) Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 15:30–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker D (2002) Differences in strength and power among junior-high, senior-high, college aged, and elite professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 16:581–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker D, Nance S, Moore M (2001) The load that maximizes the average mechanical power output during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 15:20–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett CB, Kippers V, Turner P (1995) Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. J Strength Cond Res 9:222–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behm DG, Anderson K, Curnew RS (2002) Muscle force and activation under stable and unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res 16:416–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caiozzo VJ, Perrine JJ, Edgerton VR (1981) Training induced alterations of the in vivo force velocity relationship of human muscle. J Appl Physiol 51:750–754

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO (2008) Power–time, force–time and velocity–time curve analysis during the jump squat: impact of load. J Appl Biomech 24(2):112–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterman ML, Darby LA, Skelly WA (2005) Comparison of muscle force production using the smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res 19:169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN (2000) The role of maximal strength and load on initial power production. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:1763–1769

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin J, McNair PJ, Marshall R (2001) Developing explosive power: a comparison of technique and training. J Sci Med Sport 4:59–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN (2003) Force–velocity analysis of strength-training techniques and load: implications for training strategy and research. J Strength Cond Res 17:148–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doan BK, Newton RU, Marsit JL, Triplett-McBride NT, Koziris LP, Fry AC, Kraemer WJ (2002) Effects of increased eccentric loading on bench press 1RM. J Strength Cond Res 16:9–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan EL, Doyle TLA, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, Newton RU (2004) Determining the optimal load for jump squats: a review of methods and calculations. J Strength Cond Res 18:668–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott BC, Wilson GJ, Kerr GK (1989) A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21:450–462

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman S, Karpowicz A, Gray J, McGill S (2006) Quantifying muscle patterns and spine load during various forms of the push-up. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38:570–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw P, Lees A, Fowler N, Burden A (2006) Sport and exercise biomechanics. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock RE, Hawkins RJ (1996) Applications of electromyography in the throwing shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 330:84–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harman E (1983) Resistive torque analysis of five Nautilus exercise machines. Med Sci Sports Exerc 7:248–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Hislop HJ, Perrine JJ (1967) The isokinetic concept of exercise. Phys Ther 47:114–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holt L, Pelham TW (1992) The double acting concentric dynamometer. Natl Str Cond Assoc J 14:35–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortobagyi T, Katch FI, LaChance PF (1989) Interrelationships among various measures of upper body strength assessed by different contraction modes. Evidence for a general strength component. Eur J Appl Physiol 58:749–755

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo M, Hakkinen K, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Ibanez J, Gorostiaga EM (2002) Effects of long term training specificity on maximal strength and power of the upper and lower extremities in athletes from different sports. Eur J Appl Physiol 87:264–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaric S, Ropret R, Kukolj M, Ilic DB (1995) Role of agonist and antagonist muscle strength in performance of rapid movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 71:464–468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jidovtseff B, Croisier JL, Lhermerout C, Serre L, Sac D, Crielaard JM (2006) The concept of iso-inertial assessment: reproducibility analysis and descriptive data. Isokinet Exerc Sci 14:53–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanehisa H, Miyashita M (1983) Specificity of velocity in strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 52:104–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko M, Fuchimoto T, Toji H, Suei K (1983) Training effect of different loads on the force–velocity relationship and mechanical power output in human muscle. Scand J Sports Sci 5:50–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiser DL (inventor), Kintron Incorporated (assignee) (1980). Exercising device including linkage for control of muscular exertion required through exercising stroke. USA Patent: 4,227,689

  • Keiser DL (inventor), Keiser (assignee) (1981). Pneumatic exercising device. USA Patent: 4,257,593

  • Lander JE, Bates BT, Sawhill JA, Hamill J (1985) A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17:344–353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew JL, Ware JS, Johns RA, Bemben MG (1997) Changes in upper body power following heavy resistance strength training in college men. Int J Sport Med 18:516–520

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU (1999) A comparison of strength and power characteristics between power lifters, Olympic lifters, and sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13:58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU (2002) The effect of heavy versus light load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res 16:75–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moss BM, Refsnes PE, Abildgaard A, Nicolaysen K, Jensen J (1997) Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load–power and load–velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol 75:193–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newton RU, Kraemer WJ (1994) Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength Cond 16:20–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Humphries BJ, Murphy AJ (1996) Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. J Appl Biomech 12:31–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kraemer WJ, HaÈkkinen K (1997) Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 75:333–342

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegal JA, Gilders RM, Staron RS, Hagerman FC (2002) Human muscle power output during upper and lower body exercises. J Strength Cond Res 16:173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siff MC (2003) Supertraining, 6th edn. Supertraining Institute, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith F (1982) Dynamic variable resistance and the universal system. Natl Str Cond Assoc J 4(4):14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telle JR, Gorman IJ (1985) Combining free weights with hydraulics. Natl Str Cond Assoc J 7:66–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas GA, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Anderson JM, Maresh CM (2007) Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: influence of resistance and gender. J Strength Cond Res 21:336–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walshe AD, Wilson GJ, Ettema GJC (1998) Stretch shorten cycle compared with isometric preload: contributions to enhanced muscular performance. J Appl Physiol 84:97–106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicka MM, Wiegner AW (1992) Effects of weak antagonist on fast elbow flexion movements in man. Exp Brain Res 91:509–519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zatsiorsky VM (1995) Science and practice of strength training. Human Kinetics, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dennis Keiser for supplying the pneumatic equipment utilized during the investigation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    David Michael Frost

  2. School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia

    David Michael Frost, John Barry Cronin & Robert Usher Newton

Authors
  1. David Michael Frost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Barry Cronin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Usher Newton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Michael Frost.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frost, D.M., Cronin, J.B. & Newton, R.U. A comparison of the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free weight resistance. Eur J Appl Physiol 104, 937–956 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-008-0821-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-008-0821-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation