INTERNATIONAL KHJRNAL OF SPORT BIOMECHANICS. 1989. 5.

39(M02

Bar Path and Force Profile Characteristics

for Maximal and Submaximal Loads
in the Bench Press
Gregory J. Wilson, Bruce C. Elliott,
and Graham K. Kerr

The bar movement characteristics of 10 elite powerlifters were analyzed while

bench pressing a maximum load and a submaximal load in a simulated com-
petition using high-speed cinematography. Significant differences in bar path
and alterations to the general force profile of movement were evident as the
load was increased. These movement discrepancies resulted in the following
conclusions being drawn with reference to the bench press movement: (a)
The movement pattern adopted during the performance of an 81 % maximum
load was not specific to that which was utilized during the maximal load.
(b) Based upon the concepts of specificity of training and testing, the use
of the popular one-repetition maximum test to quantify strength changes de-
rived from submaximal training appeared invalid. This occurrence is further
accentuated when the testing protocol is conducted on a bench press machine.
(c) The design of "isotonic" bench press machines appeared to be load
specific. Further, the development of bench press machines that would allow
a number of bar paths to be pursued appear to represent a significant im-
provement over existing models.

The bench press is a popular exercise that is performed to develop the upper
body musculature. It is recognized by the National Strength and Conditionitig
Association in the U.S. as the most widely used of any weight training exercise
atid is a component of the sport of powerlifting. Competitive performance of the
bench press, as defined by the International Powerlifting Federation (1984), in-
volves taking a bar with the arms extended at the elbow joint while lying on a
bench. The bar is then lowered to the chest. After a momentary pause (approxi-
mately I sec) when the bar is motionless on tbe chest, the bar is symmetrically
raised until tbe arms are fully extended at the elbow joint to complete tbe lift.

This article is based on a study first reported in the Journal Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise titled "A Biomechanical Analysis of the Sticking Region in the
Bench Press," 1989, Vol. 21, pp. 450^62.
The authors are with the Department of Human Movement and Recreation Studies,
University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6009, Western Australia.
390
LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 391

In analyzing the underlying mechanisms of the sticking region in the bench

press movement, Elliott, Wilson, and Kerr (1989) reported alterations in bar path
and force profile characteristics between bench presses performed at differing
loads. This observation contradicted similar data presented by Lander, Bates,
Sawhill, and Hamill (1985). The purpose of the present study was to further
analyze tbe data from the study by Elliott et al. (1989) so that the bar path and
force profile characteristics of a single repetition maximum and submaximal (81 %
of maximal load) bench press, performed by elite powerlifters, could be com-
pared. The analysis subsequently considered the j>erformance differences between
loads with reference to the concepts of specificity of training and testing, and
the design of bench press machines. The 81% submaximal load was selected as
it approximates a standard training load used by many recreational lifters.
The effect of load variations on the kinematics and kinetics of the squat
movement were analyzed by Hay, Andrews, and Vaughan (1982). The applied
force-time profile produced by the subjects during the squat motion was remarkably
similar to that observed for the bench press movement (Madsen & McLaughlin,
1984; McLaughlin, Dillman, & Lardner, 1977). Hay et al. (1982) also reported
substantial changes in technique as the load increased from 40 to 60% and then
to 80% of four-repetition maximum (RM). These technique alterations signifi-
cantly altered the torque requirements about each of the joints such that the perfor-
mance of the movement changed substantially as the load was increased. For
example, as the load was increased from 40 to 80% of four RM, the trunk in-
creased its forward inclination toward the horizontal by approximately 10%. This
significant change in technique altered the kinetics of the movement such that
"the hip extensors assumed markedly more than their share of the increased load
and the knee extensors markedly less" (Hay et al., 1982, p. 103).

Methods
Subjects '
Ten male elite bench pressers, who had recorded maximum lifts ranging from
1471.5 N to 2403.4 N (150-245 kg), served as the subjects in this study. They
were at least Australian state championship level and included three national record
holders, one Commonwealth record holder, and one former world record holder.
Subjects ranged from the 75-kg to the super-heavyweight (over 125 kg) body
mass classifications and were in training at the time of testing (Table 1).

Administration and Filming Procedures

Subjects estimated the maximum weight they believed they could successfully
bench press on the day of the testing. The sequence of weights to be lifted, follow-
ing a warm-up, was then calculated based on percentages of perceived maximum.
The first lift attempted represented 80% of perceived maximum, the second 95 %
of perceived maximum, and the third 100% of perceived maximum. A fourth
and fifth load representing 103 and 105% of perceived maximum, respectively,
were included if the 100% effort was attained. Each subsequent attempt from
80 to 105 % of perceived maximum was only performed if the preceding attempt
was successful. Each subject was allowed as much warm-up as desired prior to
the first load and continued lifting the progressively heavier loads until a failed
attempt was recorded. All attempts were filmed at a nominal rate of 100 Hz by
392 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR

Table 1

Loads Pressed, Subjects' Previous Personal Best, and Relationship

of Loads to Maximal Successfully Completed Load

Max. Previous
Mass First successful Failed personal
classification load load load best
Subjects (kg) (kg) (%) (kg) m (kg) (%) (kg) (%)

M.K, 125 132.5 84.1 157.5 100 165.0 104,8 180,0 101.6
G.W.' 110 160.0 84.2 190.0 100 200.0 105.5 190.0 100
PS. 90 115.0 83,6 137.5 100 145.0 105.5 150,0 109.1
J.R.' 75 132.5 85.5 155.0 100 165,0 106.6 165.0 106.5
J.P. 75 125.0 78,1 160.0 100 165.0 103.1 157,5 98.4
B.W. 82.5 140.0 80.0 175,0 100 182.5 104.3 180.0 102,9
M.H.' 90 165.0 84.6 195,0 100 200,0 102,6 202.2 103.8
P.J, 110 165.0 245.0
W.L. 90 127,5 75.0 170.0 100 177.5 104,4 180.0 105.9
B.C.* 90 145.0 76.3 190,0 100 197.5 103,9 200.0 105.3
Mean 140.8 81.3 170.0 100 177.5 104,5 183.0 103.7

'Indicates current Commonwealth or Australian National bench press record holders.

Note. P,J. was injured on his second load and discontinued the experiment.
Loads lifted are presented in kg rather than Newtons for ease of interpretation.

a 16-mm Photosonics high-speed camera attached to a rigid tripod and fitted with
a lens of 25-mm focal length. The camera was positioned in line with the bar's
plane of motion.
A 1-meter rule divided into 0.1-m sections was filmed prior to the experi-
ment in line with the proximal (right) end of the bar, with reference to the camera,
and in the bar's plane of motion. This provided the necessary scaling factor for
positional data. An electronic sweep-hand clock, divided into0.02-sec intervals,
was positioned in the camera's field of view to enable film speed calibration.
The following landmarks were highlighted with a white marker of 1-cm
diameter to enhance the accuracy of the subsequent film analysis: (a) middle of
the right end of the bar, and (b) most lateral portion of the acromion process
of the right scapula. These points were circled in black paint so that the location
was evident from the camera orientation. The specific point digitized was the
apparent geometric center of the point of interest.
Collection of Data and the Experimental Schedule
In an attempt to simulate a familiar lifting environment, subjects, who were dressed
in standard International Powerlifting Federation competitive apparel, were tested
in pairs, typically with their training partner. One subject performed the press
while the other spotted and encouraged him. Standard competition style bench
LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 393

presses were performed. Trials in which rule infringements occurred (raising of

the buttocks, uneven arm extension, raising of heels) were repeated.
Researchers and nonlifting subjects were instructed to give the lifter vocal
encouragement prior to and throughout the lift. Although this was difficult to
standardize, it is an integral aspect of a powerlifting competition. Throughout
the testing procedure subjects were instructed to perform at as high a force out-
put as possible, irrespective ofthe lift being attempted. Subjects who were given
as much recovery time as desired between attempts typically required a 5- to 8-min
rest period between lifts.
Analysis and Treatment of Film Data
To avoid spurious movements being generated during the pause period, the down-
ward and upward phases ofthe lift were digitized separately. The downward phase
began just prior to the downward movement of the bar and ended 10 frames after
the bar lay motionless on the chest. Digitizing for the upward phase of the move-
ment began 10 frames prior to the initial movement off the chest and ended 10
frames after the bar reached its maximal distance from the chest. A second-order
dual pass Butterworth recursive digital filter similar to that developed by Winter,
Sidwall, and Holson (1974) was used to smooth the data at a cutoff frequency
of 5 Hz.
The instantaneous vertical component of the force applied (F) by the sub-
ject to the bar was calculated using the following formula:
F(ti) = m»a(ti) + m«g (for i = 1 to n)
where ti = time of data point, m = mass ofthe system, a = vertical acceleration
of the bar, determined by double differentiation of smoothed position data via
the process of simple finite difference calculus (Miller & Nelson, 1973), g =
gravitational acceleration, n = number of data points.
A one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (loads) was used
to compare the position of the bar and the force applied at selected positions
throughout the lift. The level of significance was chosen to be 0.05 for all statistical
tests.

Results and Discussion

The maximal lift successftilly attempted (100% load) and the initial submaximal
lift was analyzed for each subject. Table 1 presents the maximum mass lifted,
the personal best mass ever lifted by the subject, and each lifter's body weight
classification. The mean submaximal lift represented 81.3% ofthe maximum mass
lifted (see Table 1).
Applied Force
A consistent force profile for the ascent of the bar was recorded for the 1(X)%
lift over all subjects. Figure 1 depicts the applied force time curve for a represen-
tative subject. The force curve for a maximal lift is divided into an acceleration
phase, a sticking region, a maximum strength region, and a deceleration phase
as proposed by Lander et al. (1985).
The relative duration of the phases and regions of the bench press for the
394 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR

KEY :
Forces exerted by the lifter at;
1 Chest
2 Peak Acceleration
3 Peak Velocity
4 Mimmum Acceleration
5 Minimum Velocity
6 Peak Acceleration M.S.R.
7 Maximum Displacetnent
1500^

1400
F
o
r
c 1300
e
(N)
1200

1100

0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Time ( s )

Figure 1 — Applied force-time curve from a representative subject for the ascent
phase of a maximal load.

100% condition and for tbe 90% effort reported by Lander et al. (1985) are shown
in Table 2. Despite tbe differences in percentage of maximum lifted between these
two studies, tbe relative duration of the acceleration phase, sticking region, maxi-
mum strength region, and deceleration pbase were not significantly different. The
vertical positions of selected events in tbe bench press for the 1(X)% condition
also supported data in the literature, as shown in Table 3.
Tbe force profile for tbe 81 % load differed from that described for the 1(X)%
condition, witb only 3 of the 10 subjects exbibiting any resemblance to the former
movement pattem. Tbe other 7 subjects produced a set of consistent force pattems,
depicted in Figure 2, wbich consisted of an acceleration phase and a deceleration
pbase but witbout a sticking region or maximum strength region. Tbese subjects
produced large forces relative to bar weigbt during the acceleration pbase (aver-
age peak force 112.1% of bar weigbt) and tben partially coasted throughout the
remainder of the movement. Subjects producing this movement pattem spent an
LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 395

Table 2
Comparison of Phase Data for the 100<Vb Load
Compared With Data From Lander et al. (1985)

Absolute Relative
times (sec) timesi(%) Lander et al.
M SD M SD M SD

Accleration
phase 0.34 0.08 16.2 6.6 15.8 3.9
Sticking
region 0.66 0.29 28.B 8.0 26.0 10.9
Max. strength
region 0.71 0.32 31.6 10.6 40.2 7.9
Deceleration
phase 0.55 0.35 23.3 7.1 18.0 4.2
Total 2.27 0.7

Note. Time is expressed relative to total movement time.

Table 3

Comparison of Relative Vertical Positions (in %) of Selected Events

for the 100% Load Compared With Data From Lander et al. (1985)
and Madsen and McLaughlin (1984)

Lander et ai. Madsen & McLaughlin

Max. force 2.08* 1.M 2.6

Min. force 34.7 33.9
Min. velocity 47.9 52.1 50.2

"Position is relative to the vertical distance from chest to completion of lift;

"Lander et al, did not report this instance.

average of 48.3% of total ascent time in the acceleration phase and the remaining
51.7% of the time in the deceleration phase. The 3 subjects not typical of the
81% force curve illustrated in Figure 2 presented an applied force-time history
that involved only a minimal sticking region and maximum strength region, as
compared to the typical 100% force curve depicted in Figure 1.
Lander et al. (1985) observed a movement pattem at a load of 75 % of maxi-
mum which involved an acceleration phase and deceleration phase as well as a
396 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR

KEY :
Forces exerted by the l i f t e r i t :
1 Chest
2 Peak Acceleration
3 Peak Velocity
1800 7 Haxinum Displacement

1700-

0 t600'

c
e
1500'
(N)

1400 .

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Time (s)

Figure 2 — Applied force-time curve from a representative subject for the ascent
phase of an 81% maximal load.

sticking region and a maximum strength region. Furthermore, the specific move-
ment pattern observed was similar to that reported for the 90% load from that
study and the results of the 100% lift in the present study. The differences ob-
served in force profile between this study and data from Lander et al. (1985)
for the submaximal loads (81 and 75%, respectively) may be at least partially
due to order effects. The study conducted by Lander et al. (1985) involved the
performance of five trials at the 75 % load after performing five trials at the 90%
load. Subsequently, subjects' performance during the lighter load may have been
affected by fatigue. Alternatively, the similarity between movement patterns may
be attributed to proactive transfer, whereby the repeated performances of the 90%
ioad affected the subsequent movement pattern employed during the 75% trials.
Bar Path
The path of the bar is depicted in Figures 3 and 4 for the 81 and 100% loads,
respectively. The descent and ascent phases ofthe bar utilize different paths. This
occurrence has been previously reported by Madsen and McLaughlin (1984) and
is particularly evident for the 100% load where the descent path is distinctly more
vertical than the upward motion. The upward movement ofthe bar for the 100%
load corresponded closely with data presented by McLaughlin and Madsen (1984).
The bar path during ascent differed between the load conditions (Figure 5).
As the load increased, and thus the need to reduce the moment arm ofthe load
about the shoulder axis became increasingly important, there was a trend toward
LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 397

Y(ciii)
44-

1 Start
40 2 Peak negative acceleration
5 Peak velocity
4 Peak positive acceleration
5 Chest
6 First peak acceleration
36 7 Peak velocity
8 End

32

28

24

20

12 • 15

Descent

Ascent

Standard deviation

12 16 X(cm)
aioulder
axis

Figure 3 — Mean har path in the sagittai piane for the 81% iift.
398 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR

Y (cm) 1 Start
42 2 Peak negative ncoeleratLicn
3 Peak velocity
40 4. 4 Peak positive acoeleratiCTi
5 Qiest
38 6 First peak eKX3eleraticn
7 Peak velocity
8 Miniimin acoeleraticn
3b. 9 Minimum velocity
10 Seccnd peak accseleration
34. 11 End

32.

3U

28,

26.

24.

22.

20

18

16,

14,

U.

IQ
-- Descent
8
Ascent

6 Standard deviation

Shoulder •4-
axis 10 12 14 16 18 20
X {an}

Figure 4 — Mean bar path in the sagittal plane for the 100% lift.
LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 399

0.40

0.36

0.32

0.28 \

0.24
V
lOOX

\ \ 81S
0.20
\

0.16

11
0.12
KEY :

1 Chest
O.OB 2 Peak Acceleration
3 Peak V e l o c i t y
4 Ninimim Acceleration
5 Hinimum V e l o c i t y
6 Peak Acceleration M.S.R.
0.04
7 ttaximum Olspiaceaent

Shoulder 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

Origin
Horizontal 01spiacement (•)

Figure 5 — Mean ascent har paths in the sagittai plane for the 81% and 100% lirnds.
400 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR

increased horizontal displacement toward the shoulder. The bar was displaced
horizontally by a mean of 0.13 m during ascent for the maximal load, compared
with 0.09 m for the 81 % load. This significant increase in horizontal bar move-
ment for the 100% load occurred primarily during the sticking region (Figure 5,
points 3-5). Subsequently, at the completion of the lifts the horizontal distance
from bar to shoulder axis was significantly shorter for the maximal load as com-
pared with the 81% load.

Conclusions and Applications

Data have been presented which illustrate that substantial differences occur in
both bar path and force profile between a maximal load and a submaxima! load
which approximates a common training resistance. These data are similar in con-
cept to that reported for the squat by Hay et al. (1982). The movement pattern
adopted during the performance of an 81 % one-RM load was therefore not specific
to that which is adopted during a maximal load. Suhsequently, the training effect
gained from performing an 81 % one-RM load that could conceivably be trans-
ferred to a maximum lift, based on the concept of specificity of training, would
necessarily be suboptimal. In training, however, multiple repetition sets are usually
performed with a submaximal load. Frykman et al. (1988) reported significant
differences in the techniques adopted between the second repetition and the final
repetition of an exhaustive submaximal set of leg extensions. Thus, although the
first repetition of an 81% otie-RM load is performed with a movement pattern
nonspecific to a maximal load, the influence of fatigue may alter the technique
adopted so that lifts later in the set may more closely resemble the maximal effort
in both the pattern of force and the bar path. Further research is required to evaltiate
the effect of fatigue on the specificity of movement techniques adopted during
submaximal loads to those employed with maximal lifts.
It is a common practice to examine the effectiveness of multiple-repetition
r jbmaximal training routines via changes in one-RM tests (Berger, 1962a, ]962h,
1963; DeLorne, Ferris, & Gallagher, 1952; Gettman, Ward, & Hagan, 1982;
Wilmore et al., 1978). However, given the movement differences that occur as
the load was altered in the bench press and the squat movements (Hay et al.,
1982), this experimental paradigm, at least in these instances, would appear to
be of questionable validity. A more specific and thus valid criterion measure may
be the average or maximum force produced during the performance of a one-
maximum-effort repetition at the training load.
The problems in using a one-RM test as a strength criterion are accentuated
if the testing is conducted on a bench press machine (Gettman et al.. 1982; Wilmore
et al., 1978). This is because the bench press is a stretch/shorten cycle move-
ment whereby the underlying musculature undergoes initial eccentric stretching
followed by a concentric shortening motion. Such prestretching movements are
considered to augment the concentric phase of motion through a recoil of stored
elastic strain energy in combination with additional, reflexively induced, myoe-
lectric activity (Bosco, Tarkka. & Komi, 1982; Komi. 1984; Shorten, 1987).
Lander et al. (1985) and Elliott et al. (1989) suggested that the stretch/shorten
cycle nature of the bench press movement lent itself to the storage and subsequent
release of elastic strain energy. The problem with using a one-RM test as a criterion
LOADS IN THE BENCH PRESS 401

measure of muscular strength arises since typically the first repetition of a bench
press performed on a machine does not involve an eccentric phase, as the move-
ment begins from the chest. However, the second and subsequent repetitions do
incorporate the stretch/shorten cycle. Therefore most ofthe training is not specific
to the testing situation. Furthermore, the criterion measure of strength is insensi-
tive to strength adaptations derived from neural and/or mechanical origins related
to the performance ofthe stretch/shorten cycle (Bosco, Komi, Pulli, Pittera, &
Montoner, 1982; Komi, 1986).
The results from this study raise some question as to the design of com-
mercial isotonic bench press machines. These machines presumably are designed
based on the standard force profile of movement with a variable moment arm
of the load which alters length such that the torque of the machine is varied to
match the maximum torque-producing profile of an average lifter. The ascent
phase is therefore no longer limited by the existence of a sticking region, and
theoretically the exercising muscles can be worked at maximum throughout the
entire lift.
Such machines can only be developed effectively if the force profile of
motion is similar between individuals. Research performed using maximal loads
with a variety of individuals such as novice, skilled, light, and heavy powerlifters
have all reported a force profile similar to that depicted in Figure I (Elliott et
al., 1989; Lander et al., 1985; Madsen & McLaughlin, 1984; McLaughlin &
Madsen, 1984). However, the existence of vastly different force profiles for the
submaximal and the maximal loads suggested that the design of such bench press
machines was load specific. Subsequently, manufacturers should specity the load
ranges between which the machine was designed such that individuals can match
their force profile to that for which the machine bas been modeled.
Bench press machines are also designed on a fixed bar path that tends to
be common to both the descent and ascent phases. Data presented illustrate that
the ascent path of the bar adopted by the lifter during the movement was load
dependent (Figure 5) and that \hc descent and ascent phases have different paths
(Figure 4). This latter fmding supports previous research by Madsen and
McLaughlin (1984). These researchers have further reported substantial changes
in bar path across skill levels. McLaughlin and Madsen (1984) provide data depict-
ing differences in bar path between heavy and light elite lifters. A machine de-
signed to allow for a number of different paths during the bencb press movement
to be pursued by the lifter would therefore be a significant improvement over
existing models.

References
Berger, R.A. (1962a). Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research
Quarterly, 33, 168-181.
Berger, R.A. (1962b). Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research
Quarterly. 33, 334-338.
Berger, R.A. (1%3). Comparative effects of three weight training programs. Research
Quarterly, 34, 396-398.
Bosco, C , Komi, P.V., Pulli, M., Piaera, C , & Montoner, H. (1982). Considerations
ofthe training ofthe elastic potential ofthe human skeletal muscle, VIJ VI, 75-80.
402 WILSON, ELLIOTT, AND KERR

Bosco, C , Tarkka, 1., & Komi, P.V. (1982). Effect of elastic energy and myoelectrical
potential of triceps surna during stretch-shortening cycle exercise. International
Journal of Sports Medicine. 3, 137-140.
DeLorne, T.L., Ferris, B.J., & Gallagher, J.R. (1952). Archives of Physical Medicine,
33, 86-92.
Elliott, B.C., Wilson, G.J., & Kerr, G.K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the
sticking region in the bench press. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
21, (450-462).
Frykman, P., Rosenslein. R., Harman, E., Rosenstein, M., Kraemer, W., Falkel, J.,
& Maresh. C. (1988). Effects of fatigue during weightlifting exercise. Journal of
Applied Sport Science Research, 2(5), 57-58.
Gettman, L.R., Ward, P., & Hagan, R.D. (1982). A comparison of combined running
and weight training with circuit weight training. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise. 14, 229-234.
Hay, J.G.. Andrews, J.G.. & Vaughan. C L . (1982). The biomechanics of strength-training
exercises. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Sport, Physical Edu-
cation, Recreation and Dance (Vol. 7) (pp, 99-109). Kinesiological Sciences.
International Powerlifting Federation. (1984). Technical rules as adopted by the I.P.F.
Congress, Dallas.
Komi, P.V. (1984). Physiological and biomechanical correlates of muscle function:
Effects of muscle structure and stretch-shortening cycle on force and speed. Exer-
cise and Sport Science Reviews, pp. 81-121.
Komi. P.V. (1986). Training of muscle strength and power: Interaction of neuromotoric,
hypertrophic and mechanical factors. International Journal of Sport Medicine, 7,
10-15.
Lander, J.E., Bates, B.T.. Sawhill. J.A., & Hamill, J. (1985). A comparison between
free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Medicine and Science in Sports arid
Exercise, 17, 344-353.
Madsen, N.H., & McLaughlin. T.M. (1984). Kinematic factors influencing performance
and injury risks in the bench press exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise. 16, 376-381.
McLaughlin, T.M., Dillman, C.J., & Lardner. T.J. (1977). A kinematic model of perfor-
mance in the parallel squat by champion powerlifters. Medicine and Science in ^wrts
and Exercise, 9, 128-133.
McLaughlin, T.M., & Madsen, N.H. (1984, Aug./Sept.). Bench press techniques of elite
heavyweight powerlifters. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal.
pp, 62-65.
Miller, D.!., & Nelson. R.C. (1973). Biomechanics of sport. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Shorten, M.R. (1987). Muscle elasticity and human performance. Med. Sports Sci.,
25, 1-18.
Wilmore, J.H., Parr. R.B., Girandola, R,N., Ward, P., Vodak. P.A., Barstow. T.J..
Pipes. T.V., Romero. G.T.. & Leslie, P. (1978). Physiological alterations conse-
quent to circuit weight training. Medicine and Science in Sports, 10(2), 79-84.
Winter, D.A., Sidwall, H.G., & Holson, D.A. (1974). Measurement and reduction of noise
in kinematics of locomotion. Journal of Biomechanics, 7, 157-159.