DOES TRAINING WITH ELASTIC RUBBER BAND SUPPORTED EXERCISES
FACILITATE IMPROVEMENTS IN PERFORMANCE AND MUSCULAR ADAPTIONS IN
HIGH LEVEL POWERLIFTERS?
Lars Edvin Samnøy 1,2, Alexander Kirketeig 2, Dietmar Wolf 2, Olivier Seynnes 1, Gøran
Paulsen 1 and Truls Raastad 1.
1
Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, 2Norwegian Power Lifting Federation.
INTRODUCTION
Training with support from Elastic Rubber Bands (ERB) is a common training commodity in the
Powerlifting community, popularized in the USA in the 1990s by Louie Simmons at Westside Barbell
club. When connected to the bar from a power rack the support from the rubber bands mimic the
effects of the suits used in powerlifting competitions (International Powerlifting Federation, IPF). The
tightly fitted suits contribute greatly to the performance of the powerlifters by supporting elastic
properties. The greatest contribution occurs in the biomechanically least efficient positions for the
muscles to generate force, i.e. the bottom position in the squat (Nissell et al.1986), at the chest level in
the bench press (Ariel. 1976) and during knee pass in the deadlift (Escamilla et al. 2000).
Consequently, training the three powerlifting exercises with the support of ERB may be closer to the
actual competition lifts than performing the same exercise without any supporting equipment.
Furthermore, training with ERB-support might lead to more specific adaptations at the muscular level
which in turn may lead to better in-competition performance in Squat with equipment (SQEQ) and
deadlift with equipment (DLEQ).
Therefore, the hypothesis of the current study was that training with ERB-support would lead to
specific muscular adaptations, as reflected by changes in muscle architecture. Furthermore, these
specific adaptations would in turn lead to improved performance in Squat (SQ) and Deadlift (DL)
performed with IPF approved suits.
METHODS
Twenty-four powerlifters volunteered to participate in the study (20 males and 4 females). Four lifters
did not complete the study. Top national athletes from the Norwegian powerlifting federation were
included in the study. The included lifters were randomly assigned to either the rubber band supported
training group (RBTG) or to the normal unsupported training group (NUTG) from pairs of ranked
lifters (RBTG group: n = 12, age = 20.6 ± 2.5 BW = 100.3 ± 28.0, NUTG: n = 12, age = 23.6 ± 6.5,
BW = 97.9 ± 27.4). The subjects completed tests before and after an 8-week training intervention as
well as a powerlifting competition with equipment after 10-weeks. The RBTG completed all training
in the SQ and DL with rubber bands supporting the bar from top of a power rack. The effect of ERB
supported training in bench press was not evaluated in this study due to the fact that the lifters already
had years of experience with bench press training with rubber bands or similar supportive devices.
1RM tests (without equipment) in SQ and DL were tested in both groups before and after 8 weeks of
training, with and without rubber bands on the same day. Training loads (kg) for the 8-weeks
intervention was determined from 1RM with rubber bands in the RBTG and 1RM without rubber
bands for the NUTG. All subjects performed SQ and DL training 4-days a week, and they followed
the same training program (sets x reps). Other outcome variables included maximal isokinetic and
isometric knee-extension torque, MRI scan of thigh muscles, and ultrasound scan of the m. vastus
lateralis to check for possible changes in muscle architecture. The 1RM tests in competition after 10
weeks of training were done wearing suits. Results from this competition were compared with the
latest competition results recorded for each individual lifter.
RESULTS
Both groups increased 1 RM performance in squat and rubber band supported squat by 4% (p<0.05),
while no change was observed in competition result in the squat exercise (figure 1). In deadlift, the
RBT-group increased the rubber band supported 1 RM and competition performance by 5% and 3%
respectively (p<0.05). A tendency towards improvement (p<0.10) was seen in the NUT-group. No
group differences were found.
Figure 1. 1 RM results in squat and deadlift before and after the 8 weeks for the “Rubber band supported training
group (RBTG) and the “Normal unsupported training group (NUTG), 1 RM results Comp Squat and deadlift
after 10 weeks. ERBS squat = elastic rubber band supported squat, ERBS deadlift = elastic rubber band
supported deadlift, Comp squat = Squat with equipment, Comp Deadlift = Deadlift with equipment).
No significant changes were observed in muscle architecture (thickness, pennation angle and fascicle
length), or in cross sectional area of the thigh muscles, in any group.
DISCUSSION
In this study the RBT-group performed all SQ and DL training with the bar attached to elastic rubber
bands hanging from the top of a power rack. The elastic bands unloaded the bar substantially, in the
distal portion of the lifts (25-30%, 34-55 kg) with gradually less unloading near full extension of the
lifts. Only the RBT-group reached statistically significant improvement in the DLEQ. However,
neither group improved their result significantly in the SQEQ. This might be explained by the
difference in technical difficulty between the SQEQ and DLEQ, with SQEQ being far more
technically difficult to perform. Performance improvements in the SQEQ likely require a larger
training volume and more frequent training with equipment than what was performed in this period
(only 1% of the total training volume was done with equipment in both groups). An eight week
training period is likely to be too short to induce significant changes in muscle size and architecture in
highly trained powerlifters.
CONCLUSION
The results indicate that training with Elastic Rubber bands may be beneficial for high level
Powerlifters as a valuable training tool to improve competition performance in the deadlift with
equipment. However, in the squat exercise no detectable advantages were seen for competition
performance when comparing training with or without supportive rubber bands for 10 weeks.
REFERENCE
1) Nissell, R. &J. Ekholm. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 8:63–70. 1986.
2) Ariel, G. Scholast Coach 46: 68–69, 74, 1976.
3) Baker, DG & Newton, RU. J Strength Cond Res., Vol. 23: 1941-6. 2009.
4) Comfort, P., Bullock, N. & Pearson, S.J. Strength Cond Res 26(4): 937–940, 2012.
5) Cormie, P., McCaulley, G.O. & McBride, J.M. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 39 (6): 9961003.
6) Escamilla, R.F et al. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1265–1275, 2000
7) Kawamori, N & Haff, G.G. J. Strength Cond.Res. 18(3):675–684. 2004.
8) Kenya Kumagai, et al. J Appl Physiol 88:811-816, 2000.
9) Roig, M., et al.. Br J Sports Med 2009 43: 556-568.