Full Range Bench Press Outperforms Partial Reps
Comparing three ranges of motion proves going chest-to-bar delivers superior results across all performance metrics
If you’ve been cutting your bench press short, stopping halfway or only at the top, thinking it’ll help you lift more weight and build more strength, this study may give you something to think about. A comprehensive 10-week study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research directly compared a full range of motion bench press against two partial variations in 50 trained men. The results were as expected.
PMID: 31567719
Key Points
Study Overview
This study examined whether training with a full range of motion (ROM) or partial ROM produces different neuromuscular adaptations in the bench press exercise over a prolonged training period. Researchers from the University of Murcia randomly assigned 50 recreationally to highly resistance-trained men into four groups:
Full bench press (BPFULL)
Two-thirds bench press (BP2/3)
One-third bench press (BP1/3)
A control group that ceased all training.
Study Aim
The primary objective was to determine the effects of full versus partial ROM training on neuromuscular strength adaptations after a 10-week velocity-based resistance training program, addressing conflicting findings from previous studies. The researchers sought to use advanced velocity-based monitoring methods to precisely control training intensity and evaluate comprehensive performance changes across the entire load-velocity spectrum.
Methods and Participants
Participants: Fifty resistance-trained men (mean age 24.0 ± 4.7 years, body mass 73.4 ± 9.9 kg) with an initial relative strength ratio of 0.98 ± 0.18 (1RM/body mass) participated in the study. All subjects had been training 2–4 sessions per week for the six months prior and were familiar with proper bench press technique.
Training Protocol: All three experimental groups trained twice weekly for 10 weeks (20 total sessions) using the same relative loading (60-80% 1RM), 4-5 sets, 4-8 repetitions, and 4-minute rest periods. The key difference was the ROM trained: full ROM (bar touches chest), two-thirds ROM, or one-third ROM. Individual ROM for each variation was precisely controlled using telescopic bar spotters to ensure consistency across all training and testing sessions.
Velocity-Based Training: Researchers employed velocity-based training methods, using mean propulsive velocity (MPV) to determine the appropriate load for each session rather than relying solely on percentage of 1RM. This ensured each athlete performed every repetition at the programmed intensity throughout the intervention.
Testing Procedures: Neuromuscular performance was evaluated before (T0) and after (T1) the 10-week intervention using progressive loading tests to determine 1RM strength and MPV across all three BP variations. Performance metrics included 1RM strength, 1RM/body mass ratio, and average MPV against all loads, low loads (<50% 1RM), and high loads (>50% 1RM).
Book a call with me here.
We’ll sit down and upgrade or build out your entire training and performance program in one session.
Key Results
The full range of motion group achieved the most impressive improvements across all performance measures: