Concentric-Only Versus Touch-and-Go Bench Press One-Repetition Maximum in Men and Women.
Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study
Cross-sectional repeated-measures testing study evaluating predictive accuracy of exercise testing methods
PubMed 33541232 · doi:10.1177/1941738120977861
What was done
A cross-sectional study evaluated 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) across 2 testing sessions comparing concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. Each session consisted of an incremental loading protocol to directly determine 1-repetition maximum (1RM), followed by a repetitions-to-failure test to assess the accuracy of 1RM prediction across variants, sexes, strength levels, and training experience.
What was found
Touch-and-go bench press yielded higher 1RM values than concentric-only bench press via direct testing (men: 7.80% higher; women: 7.62% higher) and repetitions-to-failure testing (men: 8.29% higher; women: 7.49% higher). Error in 1RM prediction correlated positively with repetitions performed to failure (r = 0.222; P < 0.01) and negatively with 1RM strength (r = -0.169; P = 0.01) and resistance training experience (r = -0.136; P = 0.05).
Why it matters
This study quantifies the ~7.5% to 8% performance difference between stretch-shortening cycle (touch-and-go) and purely concentric bench press across sexes. It shows that repetitions-to-failure tests are valid for both styles, though accuracy diminishes when repetitions exceed 10 or when testing weaker, less experienced lifters.
Limits
The sample was predominantly male (87 men vs 26 women). The correlations between prediction error and participant characteristics, while statistically significant, were weak (all r values between 0.13 and 0.23). The abstract does not specify the exact relative load used during the repetitions-to-failure testing.
Cited by
- supports Lifters can lift more weight or complete more repetitions using touch-and-go repetitions compared to reset repetitions.