No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Velocity- and Power-Load Relationships of the Bench Pull vs. Bench Press Exercises
Abstract
This study compared the velocity- and power-load relationships of the antagonistic upper-body exercises of prone bench pull (PBP) and bench press (BP). 75 resistance-trained athletes performed a progressive loading test in each exercise up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in random order. Velocity and power output across the 30-100% 1RM were significantly higher for PBP, whereas 1RM strength was greater for BP. A very close relationship was observed between relative load and mean propulsive velocity for both BP (R2=0.97) and PBP (R2=0.94) which enables us to estimate %1RM from velocity using the obtained prediction equations. Important differences in the load that maximizes power output (Pmax) and the power profiles of both exercises were found according to the outcome variable used: mean (MP), peak (PP) or mean propulsive power (MPP). When MP was considered, the Pmax load was higher (56% BP, 70% PBP) than when PP (37% BP, 41% PBP) or MPP (37% BP, 46% PBP) were used. For each variable there was a broad range of loads at which power output was not significantly different. The differing velocity- and power-load relationships between PBP and BP seem attributable to the distinct muscle architecture and moment arm levers involved in these exercises.
... The BP is considered as a nonspecific but useful exercise used to improve some physical capacities, with the ability to transfer to sports actions (e.g., punching or throwing speed) (3,29). The loadvelocity relationship in this exercise has been extensively studied in different populations, showing a high degree of reliability, stability, and precision, regardless of strength level, change in performance, or gender of subjects (5,11,31,35). Some authors (23,24) have indicated that the load-velocity relationship could be influenced by various factors related to the time available to apply force and the ability to apply force over the range of motion (ROM). ...
... As indicated, MPV, MV, and PV variables showed very high polynomial relationships with the %1RM (R 2 5 0.994 6 0.04) against any grip width. These results were similar to those obtained in previous studies in the BP exercise using a single (11,30,35) or different bar grip widths (32,33). Therefore, our results seem to confirm that each %1RM has its own velocity, allowing estimation, with high precision, of which %1RM is being used when a repetition at maximal intended velocity with a given load is performed (11). ...
... In addition, our results showed greater average absolute and relative reliability scores for narrow compared with medium and wide bar grip widths. Discrepancies with the results obtained by Perez-Castilla et al. (33) may be related to the procedure used to determine the relative loads under study (35,55, and 75% 1RM) in the different types of grip widths. In this previous study (33), the 1RM test was performed with a given bar grip width and based on these results, the %1RM in the rest of the bar grip widths were estimated. ...
Herrera-Bermudo, JC, Puente-Alcaraz, C, Díaz-Sánchez, P, González-Badillo, JJ, and Rodríguez-Rosell, D. Influence of grip width on the load-velocity relationship and 1 repetition maximum value in the bench press exercise: a comparative and reliability analysis of mean velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2024—This study aimed to analyze the reliability and compare the load (percentage of 1 repetition maximum [%1RM])-velocity relationship, bar displacement (DIS), the 1RM, and the velocity attained against the 1RM value (V1RM) in the bench press exercise using 3 different bar grip widths: narrow (120% of the biacromial distance [BD]), medium (160%), and wide (200%). A group of 54 healthy, physically active men randomly performed a total of 6 incremental tests (1 week apart) up to 1RM (2 with each bar grip width) on a Smith machine. The mean velocity (MV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), peak velocity, and DIS were recorded for the subsequent analysis. The 3 velocity variables showed high relative (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90–0.97) and absolute (coefficient of variation: 2.21–9.38%) reliability in all grip widths against all relative loads. The 1RM value and the V1RM present high absolute and relative reliability in all grip widths. There are no significant differences in the value of 1RM and V1RM between grip widths. High relationships were observed between the relative load (%1RM) and velocity variables, with MPV showing the best fit. Significant greater values in MPV, MV, and DIS associated with each %1RM were observed for narrow and medium compared with wide grip width. In conclusion, our results suggest that the 3 velocity variables were highly reliable at the different grip widths used against all relative loads. In addition, there was a tendency to reach higher MV, MPV, and DIS values as the grip width decreased. Therefore, this factor should be considered for the assessment and design of training.
... This makes it possible to estimate the relative load an athlete is lifting using the velocity of a single repetition, for example, the last one of the incremental warm up sets. This agrees with many other studies that have tested this in different exercises (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2018;Benavides-Ubric et al., 2020;Conceição et al., 2016;de Hoyo et al., 2021;García-Ramos et al., 2021;González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;Hernández-Belmonte et al., 2021;Loturco et al., 2018;Martínez-Cava et al., 2019;Morán-Navarro et al., 2021;Muñoz-López et al., 2017;Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2017). However, our results also showed that there is a specificity component that influences the precision of the load-velocity profiles, since the sex-specific equation showed more precision (R 2 = 0.96 for males and 0.97 for females), even though these values were still not as good as the individual equation (R 2 = 0.99). ...
... With respect to the load that maximized power output, our data showed that it was 54% 1RM. Sánchez-Medina (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014) found it to be at 37% 1RM. Reasons for this difference might be: (I) different exercises, since we studied the decline bench press using free weights and they performed the horizontal bench press using a Smith machine. ...
... The main strengths of this study were (I) the protocol, which was based on a solid line of research composed of previous studies (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2018;Benavides-Ubric et al., 2020;Conceição et al., 2016;González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;Martínez-Cava et al., 2019;Morán-Navarro et al., 2021;Muñoz-López et al., 2017;Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2017) and (II) the statistical treatment, specifically the individual load-velocity and load-power profiles, which allowed the high correlations observed in the data. ...
The purpose of this study was to analyse the load-velocity and load-power relationships of the decline bench press exercise (DBPE) and to compare sex-related differences. Twelve young healthy men and women performed a progressive loading test for the determination of 1RM strength and individual load-velocity and load-power relationship in the DBPE. A very close relationship between mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and %1RM was observed (R2 = 0.94). This relationship improved when plotting data separately by sex (R2 = 0.96–97). Individual load-velocity profiles gave an R2 = 0.99 ± 0.01. The relationship between mean propulsive power (MPP) and %1RM was R2 = 0.23. When separating data by sex, R2 = 0.64–73 were obtained. Individual load-power profiles gave an R2 of 0.93 ± 0.07. Significant sex-related differences were found for MPV, with males having faster velocities than females from 30% to 40% 1RM (p = 0.01) and for MPP, with males having greater MPP (W) than females from 30% to 95% 1RM (p < 0.001). The results of this study show that a strong correlation exists between relative load and MPV/MPP in the DBPE, allowing the possibility of using one to predict the other with great precision, especially when a sex-specific equation is used.
... Training & Testing Thieme sistance-trained men [10][11][12][13], although increasing investigations are extending information about this practical methodology in clinical populations [14][15][16]. Specifically for breast cancer survivors, the only investigation to date found very favorable results supporting the implementation of the L-V relationship as an evaluation and programming approach for the leg press exercise [17]. ...
... 1b). Thus, the progressive loading test started with a lighter load than that used in Multipower evaluations including young men [12,13] and women [19], thus allowing us to study a sufficient number of loads up to 1RM. Once the first load (3.5 or 5 kg depending on the woman's estimated 1RM) was measured, the bar weight was gradually increased in 2.5-kg increments until the attained mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was ~0.42 m · s − 1 (80 % 1RM) [19]. ...
... The strong L-V relationships this study found agreed with that described for young resistance-trained women and men in BP (R 2 = 0.954-0.970) [12,13] as well as in another pushing exercise like the shoulder press (R 2 = 0.940-0.968) [11,25]. ...
We examined the effect of breast cancer surgery and adjuvant therapy on the relationship between bar velocity and relative intensity (load-velocity [L-V] relationship) of the bench press (BP) exercise. Twenty-two breast cancer survivors (age: 48.0±8.2 yr., relative strength: 0.40±0.08) completed a loading test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the BP using a lightweight carbon bar. General and individual relationships between relative intensity (%1RM) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) were studied. Furthermore, the mean test velocity (MPVTest) and velocity attained to the 1RM (MPV1RM) were analyzed. These procedures and analyses were also conducted in 22 healthy women (age: 47.8±7.1 yr., relative strength: 0.41±0.09) to examine the differences in velocity parameters derived from these L-V relationships. Polynomial regressions showed very close relationships (R2≥0.965) and reduced estimation errors (≤4.9% 1RM) for both groups. Between-group differences in MPV attained to each %1RM were small (≤0.01 m·s−1) and not significant (p≥0.685). Similarly, the MPVTest (0.59±0.06 m·s−1) and MPV1RM (0.17±0.03 m·s−1) were identical for breast cancer survivors and healthy women. These results suggest that practitioners could use the same velocity parameters derived from the BP L-V relationship to prescribe this exercise in middle-aged women, regardless of whether they have suffered from breast cancer.
... To date, most of the evidence on the velocity-based method has been conducted using the Multipower modality (i.e., Smith machine) (11,14,28,32,34). This fact made it possible to develop the basis of this methodology in a controlled environment, allowing researchers to examine the possible influence of factors, such as the range of motion (21,22), grip width (29), or execution phases (6) on velocity parameters. ...
... Prone bench pull ( Figures 1B and 2B): Subjects were positioned prone on a flat bench installed horizontally (PBP Free ) or vertically (PBP Machine ) to the floor, with hands placed either on the bar (PBP Free ) or on the handles (PBP Machine ) slightly wider than shoulder-width apart. With elbows fully extended and chest in contact with the bench, subjects had to pull until the load touched the underside of the bench (PBP Free ) or a brake specifically designed to adjust the concentric displacement (PBP Machine ) (32). After that, they were required to descend the load in a continuous motion until reaching the initial position described above. ...
... It is worth noting that these fits were stronger (R 2 $ 0.995) when individual load-velocity relationships were analyzed. General adjustments we found showed to be similar to those previously described in the Multipower modality of the BP (MPV and MV, R 2 5 0.97) (21,32), SQ (MPV, R 2 5 0.96; MV 5 0.95) (22), SP (MPV and MV, R 2 5 0.97) (11), and PBP (MPV, R 2 5 0.95; MV 5 0.96) (32). Most of the evidence to date on the velocity-based method has been conducted using the Multipower modality (11,28,32,34), which has made it possible to develop the basis of this methodology in a controlled environment. ...
Hernández-Belmonte, A, Buendía-Romero, Á, Pallares, JG, and Martínez-Cava, A. Velocity-based method in free-weight and machine-based training modalities: the degree of freedom matters. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2023-This study aimed to analyze and compare the load-velocity relationships of free-weight and machine-based modalities of 4 resistance exercises. Moreover, we examined the influence of the subject's strength level on these load-velocity relationships. Fifty men completed a loading test in the free-weight and machine-based modalities of the bench press, full squat, shoulder press, and prone bench pull exercises. General and individual relationships between relative intensity (%1RM) and velocity variables were studied through the coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of the estimate (SEE). Moreover, the velocity attained to each %1RM was compared between both modalities. Subjects were divided into stronger and weaker to study whether the subject's strength level influences the mean test (mean propulsive velocity [MPVTest]) and 1RM (MPV1RM) velocities. For both modalities, very close relationships (R2 ≥ 0.95) and reduced estimation errors were found when velocity was analyzed as a dependent (SEE ≤ 0.086 m·s-1) and independent (SEE ≤ 5.7% 1RM) variable concerning the %1RM. Fits were found to be higher (R2 ≥ 0.995) for individual load-velocity relationships. Concerning the between-modality comparison, the velocity attained at each intensity (from 30 to 100% 1RM) was significantly faster for the free-weight variant. Finally, nonsignificant differences were found when comparing MPVTest (differences ≤ 0.02 m·s-1) and MPV1RM (differences ≤ 0.01 m·s-1) between stronger and weaker subjects. These findings prove the accuracy and stability of the velocity-based method in the free-weight and machine-based variants but highlight the need to use the load-velocity relationship (preferably the individual one) specific to each training modality.
... 3 For example, performing repetitions at 0.4 to 0.6 m·s −1 and 0.9 to 1 m·s −1 is suggested for strength and power development, respectively. [8][9][10] The corresponding loads required for the target training stimulus (and thus velocities) are established or adjusted during a multiset warm-up protocol. ...
... This is done by comparing the actual velocity outputs at given submaximal loads with the reference individual load-velocity relationships. 3,8,9 To adjust training volume, VBT involves terminating an ongoing set after a number of repetitions when velocity exceedes an absolute value or, more commonly, if velocity exceeded a given percentage. Accordingly, objective "velocity loss" thresholds have been proposed to adjust the target volume in a given exercise, an overall session, or throughout a block of training with the aim to selectively develop different physical qualities, such as muscular power (<20%), strength (ie, 20%-40%), and hypertrophy (>40%). ...
... Second, while reporting PCV after every repetition allows for more data points to be collected, it is not aligned with the practical use of VBT, in which trainees are required to terminate a set only when velocity exceedes a threshold relative to the first repetition. 1,3,8,9,11 Moreover, the studies of Sindiani et al 14 Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to investigate if resistance-trained participants performing the bench press exercise to task failure can accurately perceive velocity loss at 20% and 40% relative to the first repetition. Participants completed 4 sets with 4 different loads selected across the spectrum of the individual loadvelocity relationship. ...
Purpose:
Velocity-based training is used to prescribe and monitor resistance training based on velocity outputs measured with tracking devices. When tracking devices are unavailable or impractical to use, perceived velocity loss (PVL) can be used as a substitute, assuming sufficient accuracy. Here, we investigated the accuracy of PVL equal to 20% and 40% relative to the first repetition in the bench-press exercise.
Methods:
Following a familiarization session, 26 resistance-trained men performed 4 sets of the bench-press exercise using 4 different loads based on their individual load-velocity relationships (∼40%-90% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]), completed in a randomized order. Participants verbally reported their PVL at 20% and 40% velocity loss during the sets. PVL accuracy was calculated as the absolute difference between the timing of reporting PVL and the actual repetition number corresponding to 20% and 40% velocity loss measured with a linear encoder.
Results:
Linear mixed-effects model analysis revealed 4 main findings. First, across all conditions, the absolute average PVL error was 1 repetition. Second, the PVL accuracy was not significantly different between the PVL thresholds (β = 0.16, P = .267). Third, greater accuracy was observed in loads corresponding to the midportion of the individual load-velocity relationships (∼50%-60% 1RM) compared with lighter (<50% 1RM, β = 0.89, P < .001) and heavier loads (>60% 1RM, 0.63 ≤ β ≤ 0.84, all P values < .001). Fourth, PVL accuracy decreased with consecutive repetitions (β = 0.05, P = .017).
Conclusions:
PVL can be implemented as a monitoring and prescription method when velocity-tracking devices are impractical or absent.
... This method involves measuring the linear velocity throughout the concentric phase of a movement with different aims. For instance, measuring means propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak velocity (PV) may be useful for estimating fatigue over series [2][3][4]. Additionally, MPV can offer valuable insights for athletes in training programs [1,5]. However, identifying a reliable device capable of accurately measuring it is essential to fully leverage this information. ...
... The g values were interpreted as trivial (g < 0.2), small (g < 0.5), moderate (g < 0.8) and large (g ≥ 0.8). Significance was set up at p< .05. 4 ...
This study evaluated the concurrent validity of the Vitruve linear encoder compared to the T-Force device for measuring mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak velocity (PV) during the free-weight bench exercise. Twelve resistance-trained men participated in three sessions, during which MPV and PV were recorded sim-ultaneously by both devices. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and effect size calculations, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. The results showed discrepancies between the Vitruve and T-Force devices across different intensity levels. Specifically, the Vitruve device generally reported higher MPV and lower PV values, particularly at moderate and low in-tensities. Vitruve was deemed useful for MPV measurements, especially at velocities below 0.65 m/s during free-weight bench press exercises. In conclusion, the Vitruve device overestimated MPV and underestimated PV at moderate and low loads (> 0.65 m·s⁻¹), with the discrepancies increasing as velocity rose. It can provide valuable data for monitoring and assessing resistance training programs focused on MPV at heavier loads (< 0.65 m·s⁻¹). Researchers and practitioners should take these findings into account when incorporating the Vi-truve into velocity-based strength training protocols.
... 8,15 Another important advantage of VBT is the possibility of monitoring intensity during RT sessions. In this regard, a strong relationship (R 2 = .94-.98) between the relative load (ie, percentage of 1RM: %1RM) and movement velocity has been reported for different upper and lower body exercises, such as BP, 8 prone bench pull, 16 pull-up, 17 and different squat variants 11,18,19 in machines and, more recently, free-weight-based training modalities. 20 As a result, general equations derived from group-based load-velocity relationships have been proposed for each exercise, which determine a fixed bar velocity value associated with a certain %1RM. ...
... 8,11,12,20 However, critical considerations regarding the use of these generalized equations should be highlighted. First, considerable individual differences were observed in the velocity attained at each %1RM (∼0.12 m·s −1 ) compared to velocities obtained from general equations, 15,16,18,21 which can cause mismatches in the relative load of approximately 10% 1RM across individuals. Second, it has been suggested that individual load-velocity relationships could provide more accurate predictions of %1RM from barbell velocity than general equations. ...
Purpose : This study analyzed the influence of 2 velocity-based training-load prescription strategies (general vs individual load–velocity equations) on the relationship between the magnitude of velocity loss (VL) and the percentage of repetitions completed in the bench-press exercise. Methods : Thirty-five subjects completed 6 sessions consisting of performing the maximum number of repetitions to failure against their 40%, 60%, and 80% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine bench-press exercise using generalized and individualized equations to adjust the training load. Results : A close relationship and acceptable error were observed between percentage of repetitions completed and the percentage of VL reached for the 3 loading magnitudes and the 2 load-prescription strategies studied ( R 2 from .83 to .94; standard error of the estimate from 7% to 10%). A simple main effect was observed for load and VL thresholds but not for load-prescription strategies. No significant interaction effects were revealed. The 40% and 60% 1RM showed equivalence on data sets and the most regular variation, whereas the 80% 1-repetition maximum load showed no equivalence and more irregular variation. Conclusion : These results suggest that VL is a useful variable to predict percentage of repetitions completed in the bench-press exercise, regardless of the strategy selected to adjust the relative load. However, caution should be taken when using heavy loads.
... In this sense, knowing the timing the cortisol response will optimise collecting (Hall & Hall, 2020). The same happens with the implementation of an easily replicable, standardised exercise, and transferring it to sports abilities such as bench press throw, which has been used by other authors (Baker et al., 2001;Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014;Stokes et al., 2013). Furthermore, as fatigue progresses continuously until muscle failure occurs (Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011), homogenizing effort levels is of the essence so as to gain clearer insights into the relation between fatigue and its hormonal effects. ...
... Furthermore, the present results showed that repetitions appear less in the peak power load than in a lower percentage of 1RM (Allen et al., 2008;Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014). This evidence is supported by effort character (González-Badillo & Gorostiaga-Ayestarán, 2002), since the higher the intensity the fewer repetitions, thus assuming that the velocity is characteristic of an exercise and intensity (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010), the velocity loss by repetition might be higher in percentages closer to 1RM. ...
Velocity loss has been recognized as an effective fatigue index in resistance training. However, the physiological consequences of this fatigue should be described. Traditionally, researchers have debated the hormonal response to non-failure resistance training. Cortisol on salivary concentration was one of the hormones under study, which is linked to the inflammatory process from exercise. This study aimed to compare the acute salivary cortisol (Sal-C) response at different percentages of 1RM with fatigue standardized by a 10% velocity loss. An experimental, randomized, and counterbalanced activity was designed. Fifteen men took part in the study (they fasted for 12 hours before carrying out the test), performing 6 sets of bench press throw with different 1RM percentages (30% - 90% 1RM). Salivary Cortisol was collected before and after each test. Velocity loss was measured by a linear encoder. ANOVA and Effect Size were performed. Sal-C showed a significant decrease in all percentages and effect size was greater with low loads (1.61 high) than with high loads (0.95-1 moderate). Peak power was significantly higher between 40-70% of 1RM compared to other percentages (30-80% 1RM). The results of this research support the idea that velocity-based training sustains the dynamic equilibrium of organisms independently of intensity training. Moreover, untrained subjects could perform efficiently up to six sets at all percentages but with fewer repetitions at higher intensities, as this study shows that untrained subjects achieved 10% velocity loss under four repetitions.
... Velocity-based RT (VBRT) is considered a novel approach founded on monitoring repetition movement velocity for assessing, programming, and dosing the degree of effort during RT [2]. The close relationship observed between the movement velocity and the %1RM allows us to use the lifting velocity of the first repetition of the set as a considerably accurate and valid estimator of the relative load (provided that each repetition is conducted at maximal intended velocity) [2,[5][6][7]. ...
... In brief, the most important criterion to be considered in a measurement device for implementing VBRT should be validity, which implies an accurate and reliable measurement of bar velocity. This is because changes in the MPV of 0.07 to 0.10 m·s −1 imply changes in~5-10% 1RM in the PB and SQ exercises [5,6,33,40], involving relevant changes in the degree of effort exerted during training or in the assessment of individual performance status. For this reason, it is necessary to have a considerably accurate device to ensure that changes in movement velocity are not due to measurement errors. ...
This study aimed to analyze the intra-device agreement of a new linear position transducer (Vitruve, VT) and the inter-device agreement with a previously validated linear velocity transducer (T-Force System, TF) in different range of velocities. A group of 50 healthy, physically active men performed a progressive loading test during a bench press (BP) and full-squat (SQ) exercise with a simultaneous recording of two VT and one TF devices. The mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak of velocity (PV) were recorded for subsequent analysis. A set of statistics was used to determine the degree of agreement (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient [CCC], mean square deviation [MSD], and variance of the difference between measurements [VMD]) and the error magnitude (standard error of measurement [SEM], smallest detectable change [SDC], and maximum errors [ME]) between devices. The established velocity ranges were as follows: >1.20 m·s−1; 1.20–0.95 m·s−1; 0.95–0.70 m·s−1; 0.70–0.45 m·s−1; ≤0.45 m·s−1 for BP; and >1.50 m·s−1; 1.50–1.25 m·s−1; 1.25–1.00 m·s−1; 1.00–0.75 m·s−1; and ≤0.75 m·s−1 for SQ. For the MPV, the VT system showed high intra- and inter-device agreement and moderate error magnitude with pooled data in both exercises. However, the level of agreement decreased (ICC: 0.790–0.996; CCC: 0.663–0.992) and the error increased (ME: 2.8–13.4% 1RM; SEM: 0.035–0.01 m·s−1) as the velocity range increased. For the PV, the magnitude of error was very high in both exercises. In conclusion, our results suggest that the VT system should only be used at MPVs below 0.45 m·s−1 for BP and 0.75 m·s−1 for SQ in order to obtain an accurate and reliable measurement, preferably using the MPV variable instead of the PV. Therefore, it appears that the VT system may not be appropriate for objectively monitoring resistance training and assessing strength performance along the entire spectrum of load-velocity curve.
... 45 Although these procedures are simple and practical, they have their limitations. For instance, to achieve a true 1RM, traditional multi-joint strength exercises must reach a specific movement velocity (MV) that characterises them, [47][48][49] so if this is not achieved, it is not possible to speak of a true 1RM. Regarding the nRM, the number of repetitions performed between 50% and 85% 1RM shows a large inter-individual variability (~20%) with bench press exercise, 50 so if two individuals train with the same number of maximum repetitions, they may be training at a different %1RM. ...
... Recent evidence has reported that traditional multijoint strength exercises have a very high relationship between MV and %1RM, [47][48][49] allowing with few submaximal loads to estimate 1RM, reducing the risk of injury and the variability of applying nRM. Furthermore, control of MV allows assessing the velocity loss (VL), with the latter being associated with the level of effort (LoE) in relation to the repetitions in reserve (RIR) and to the percentage of repetitions performed for the maximum possible (%rep). ...
Physical inactivity is a major health concern, associated with the development of several non-communicable diseases and with an increased mortality rate. Therefore, promoting active lifestyles has become a crucial public health necessity for enhancing overall health and quality of life. The WHO guidelines for physical activity (PA) present valuable contributions in this respect; however, we believe that greater specificity should be added or complemented towards physical exercise (PE) testing, prescription and programming in future recommendations. In this review article, we suggest simple and practical tools accessible to the entire population to improve the specificity of this approach, highlighting aspects of PE programming used by trained subjects. By adopting these suggestions, exercise professionals, clinicians and physical trainers can optimise the current general PA recommendations towards PE prescription to improve fitness status and encourage PE adherence in the general population.
... Recently, many authors, based on the force-velocity relationship [8], have recommended the use of velocity feedback to quantify training loads [1,9,10]. This approach is based on a previously reported high correlation (R 2 > 0.97) between the load and the mean velocity at which each load is lifted [10][11][12]. Velocity-based training (VBT) requires measurement of the velocity at which the barbell is moved in the concentric phase with regard to different resistance exercises, which provide accurate, indirect estimations of the 1 RM without the need to perform a maximal lift [7,13,14]. It has been reported that barbell velocity during the bench press, back squat, and bench pull are highly correlated with training intensity in terms of %1RM [15][16][17][18]. ...
... We suggested that the results from the current study are of great applicative value for coaches and athletes. Since in most of the papers, barbell velocity was evaluated during more classical strength exercises, i.e., the bench press, back squat, and bench pull [1,7,12], our study is the first in which the reliability of the barbell force, power, and velocity were assessed during the LPT test applying various loads. ...
Background: Velocity-based training (VBT) requires measurement of the velocity at which
the barbell is moved in the concentric phase with regard to different resistance exercises, which
provides accurate, indirect estimations of 1 RM. However, for assessing punch performance, no
study has been carried out to date. The purpose of this study was to analyse the reliability of the
GymAware linear transducer for the measurement of barbell velocity during the landmine push
throw (LPT) test using four loads. Methods: Twenty-five healthy, physically active male students,
aged 24.13 2.82 years, volunteered to take part in this study. The reliability of the LPT test was
measured at two separate visits, with a 2-day interval between them. One series of the test protocol
included four parts of the LPT test with progressively increasing loads (20, 25, 30, and 35 kg) and
5 min intervals for rests between loads. Results: For all four loads, excellent intra-rater and test–retest
reliability was noted for the mean force variable (ICC = 0.97–0.99). Additionally, very strong and
significant correlations were established between measurements (r = 0.96–0.99). Poor reliability was
observed for barbell height and total work (ICC below 0.5). A trend of decreasing reliability was
detected with increasing barbell load. Furthermore, measurements without the barbell throw were
more reliable than those with it. Conclusions: These results support the use of the GymAware linear
transducer to track barbell velocity during the LPT test. This device may have valuable practical
applications for strength and conditioning coaches. Therefore, we suggest that the LPT assessed with
the GymAware linear transducer may be a useful method for evaluating upper limb strength and
power during boxing punches.
... Free-weight exercises are generally preferred in the context of sports performance due to their greater similarity with sport-specific actions and greater involvement of stabilizer muscles [5,9,10]. However, most applications of velocity-based training (VBT), including the ability to predict RTF from lifting velocity, have been mainly explored during exercises performed in a Smith machine [8,[11][12][13][14]. This is because the available linear position transducers do not discriminate the direction of the movement (vertical, lateral, or anteroposterior) and the use of a Smith machine restricts the displacement of the barbell to the vertical direction potentially maximizing the accuracy of velocity recordings [15]. ...
... standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 5.31-5.90%1RM) [12] compared to using free-weights (r 2 = 0.90-0.91; SEE = 6.27-6.56% ...
This study compared the accuracy of the fastest mean velocity from set (MVfastest) to predict the maximum number of repetitions to failure (RTF) between 2 variants of prone bench pull (PBP) exercise (Smith machine and free-weight) and 3 methods (generalized, individualized multiple-point, and individualized 2-point). Twenty-three resistance-trained males randomly performed 2 sessions during Smith machine PBP and 2 sessions during free-weight PBP in different weeks. The first weekly session determined the RTF-MVfastest relationships and subjects completed single sets of repetitions to failure against 60-70-80-90%1RM. The second weekly session explored the accuracy of RTFs prediction under fatigue conditions and subjects completed 2 sets of 65%1RM and 2 sets of 85%1RM with 2 min of rest. The MVfastest associated with RTFs from 1 to 15 were greater for Smith machine compared to free-weight PBP (F ≥ 42.9; P < 0.001) and for multiple-point compared to 2-point method (F ≥ 4.6; P ≤ 0.043). The errors when predicting RTFs did not differ between methods and PBP variants, whereas all RTF-MVfastest relationships overestimated the RTF under fatigue conditions. These results suggest that RTF–MVfastest relationships present similar accuracy during Smith machine and free-weight PBP exercises and it should be constructed under similar training conditions.
... With this in mind, an alternative method is to use repetition velocity as a measure of loading intensity in real-time based on the strong relationship between %1RM and repetition velocity, also named velocity based training (VBT) (Weakley et al., 2020). A large number of studies have confirmed that there is a very high level of agreement between repetition velocity and %1RM in some primary bilateral exercises using free weights and a Smith machine, such as the squat (R 2 = 0.95) (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017), bench press (R 2 = 0.97) (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014), and press up (R 2 = 0.99) (Balsalobre-Fernandez, Garcia-Ramos & Jimenez-Reyes, 2018). Theoretically, the load velocity profile (LVP) derived from its regression equation can also be used to measure the %1RM accurately. ...
... A possible explanation for this might be due to the different execution techniques employed between studies, noting that Sánchez- Medina et al. (2017) imposed a pause during their back squat protocol. The relevance here is that a pause eliminates the SSC, which may have resulted in notable reductions in measurement error (Pallarés et al., 2014). However, the non-pause technique utilizing the SSC is likely to hold greater value to athletes given its prevalence in a wide variety of sporting movements (e.g., sprinting, jumping, kicking, etc.). ...
This study investigated the grouped and individualized load-velocity profile (GLVP vs. ILVP) in Bulgarian split squat using Smith machine and free weight. Seventy five recreational male lifters completed two incremental loading tests of Bulgarian split squat. Mean velocity was measured by a linear-position transducer (GymAware). Linear regression equation was applied to construct the GLVP and ILVP. The agreement of predicted %1RM and measured %1RM was assessed by a combination of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Bland-Altman analysis. Acceptable validity was defined as ICC > 0.75, CV ≤ 10% and p ≥ 0.05 (a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test). A very high level of inverse load-velocity relationships were demonstrated in Bulgarian split squat (r = −0.92) with free weights and a Smith machine. ILVP (ICC ≥ 0.98, CV ≤ 8.73%, p ≥ 0.56) was valid enough to predict the %1RM, but GLVP of both limbs revealed large CVs in free weights (CV: 15.4%,15.63%) and a Smith machine (CV: 11.24%, 12.25%). Cross-validation between the actual %1RM and predicted %1RM using free weights and a Smith machine ILVP was not acceptable (p ≤ 0.03, CV ≥ 14.07%). A very high level of inverse relationship were observed between %1RM and MV in Bulgarian split squat using free weights and a Smith machine, indicating individualized load velocity properties, and the ILVP showed high between-devices variability in both scenarios. Using velocity as a measure of loading intensity in Bulgarian split squat needs to consider the individualized load velocity properties, and difference between free weights and a Smith machine.
... e., averaged across the subjects) relationship between %1RM and lifting velocity. Generalized L-V relationships have been established for a variety of RT exercises, including the squat [17,22,23], deadlift [18,24,25], hip-thrust [26,27], leg press [23,28], leg extension [29], bench press [19,[30][31][32], bench pull [20,30,33], military press [34][35][36][37], and pull-up [21,38]. The ultimate goal of generalized L-V relationships is "to determine what is the %1RM that is being used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed with maximal voluntary velocity" [19]. ...
... e., averaged across the subjects) relationship between %1RM and lifting velocity. Generalized L-V relationships have been established for a variety of RT exercises, including the squat [17,22,23], deadlift [18,24,25], hip-thrust [26,27], leg press [23,28], leg extension [29], bench press [19,[30][31][32], bench pull [20,30,33], military press [34][35][36][37], and pull-up [21,38]. The ultimate goal of generalized L-V relationships is "to determine what is the %1RM that is being used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed with maximal voluntary velocity" [19]. ...
Resistance training intensity is commonly quantified as the load lifted relative to an individual's maximal dynamic strength. This approach, known as percent-based training, necessitates evaluating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) for the core exercises incorporated in a resistance training program. However, a major limitation of rigid percent-based training lies in the demanding nature of directly testing the 1RM from technical, physical and psychological perspectives. A potential solution that has gained popularity in the last two decades to facilitate the implementation of percent-based training involves the estimation of the 1RM by recording the lifting velocity against submaximal loads. This review examines the three main methods for prescribing relative loads (%1RM) based on lifting velocity monitoring: (i) velocity zones, (ii) generalized load-velocity relationships, and (iii) individualized load-velocity relationships. The article concludes by discussing a number of factors that should be considered for simplifying the testing procedures while maintaining the accuracy of individualized L-V relationships to predict the 1RM and establish the resultant individualized %1RM-velocity relationship: (i) exercise selection, (ii) type of velocity variable, (iii) regression model, (iv) number of loads, (v) location of experimental points on the load-velocity relationship, (vi) minimal velocity threshold, (vii) provision of velocity feedback, and (viii) velocity monitoring device.
... The PBP is likely the most-used exercise in strength and conditioning programs to develop upper-body pulling strength [13,14]. Moreover, pulling actions are of considerable importance for success in various sports disciplines (e.g., sailing and rowing) [15,16]. ...
... Moreover, pulling actions are of considerable importance for success in various sports disciplines (e.g., sailing and rowing) [15,16]. Typically, the subject starts the pulling phase with the barbell motionless and raised, such that their arms are straight beneath the bench (i.e., the "concentric-only PBP variant") [6,13,14,17]. The PBP exercise is therefore characterised by a descending strength curve where maximum strength is produced at the start of the lift [13]. ...
This study aimed to compare and associate the magnitude of the load–velocity relationship variables between the multiple-point and two-point methods and between the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric prone bench pull (PBP) variants. Twenty-three resistance-trained males completed a preliminary session to determine the concentric-only PBP one-repetition maximum (1 RM) and two experimental sessions that only differed in the PBP variant evaluated. In each experimental session they performed three repetitions against the 14 kg load (L1), two repetitions against the 85% 1 RM load (L4), three repetitions against an equidistant intermediate light load (L2), two repetitions against an equidistant intermediate heavy load (L3), and 1–5 1 RM attempts. The load–velocity relationship variables (i.e., load–axis intercept, velocity–axis intercept, and area under the load–velocity relationship line) were obtained from the multiple-point (L1-L2-L3-L4) and two-point (L1-L4) methods. All load–velocity relationship variables presented greater magnitudes when obtained by the two-point method compared with the multiple-point method (p < 0.001, ESrange = 0.17–0.43), while the load–velocity relationship variables were comparable between both PBP variants (p ≥ 0.148). In addition, the load–velocity relationship variables were highly correlated between both methods (rrange = 0.972–0.995) and PBP variants (rrange = 0.798–0.909). When assessing the load–velocity relationship variables, practitioners should prescribe only two loads, as this maximises the magnitudes of the variables and decreases fatigue.
... According to the second aim, it has also been observed that there is a decrease in the magnitude of the different kinematic and mechanical parameters as the load intensity increases, both during phases 2 and 3, aligning with the muscle mechanical model previously described by Hill [48]. Moreover, this behaviour supports the proposed hypotheses and aligns with previous studies that have observed an inverse relationship between load and velocity in weightlifting exercises [49][50][51]. However, the results show a unique case: Mechanical work decreases at each interval, despite the increase in load, which should increase the mechanical work performed. ...
This study aimed (1) to explore the spatio-temporal phases of the execution of the bench press (BP) exercise based on barbell acceleration and power; (2) to describe barbell velocity, acceleration, mechanical power, and mechanical work at different load intensities; and (3) to analyse differences in kinematic and mechanical parameters. Twenty-one men (21.4 ± 1.5 years; 175.1 ± 6.7 cm; 75.8 ± 7.7 kg; 1RM: 91.7 ± 13.7 kg) and nine women (21.7 ± 2.3 years; 163.3 ± 10.8 cm; 57.2 ± 6.8 kg; 1RM: 38.9 ± 10.5 kg) were evaluated during the eccentric and concentric phases of the BP at different load intervals: interval 1 (55 to 75% 1RM), interval 2 (>75 to 85% 1RM) and interval 3 (>85 to 100% 1RM). Both temporal (duration) and mechanical variables (velocity, acceleration, mechanical power and mechanical work of the barbell) were determined using the Xsens MVN Link System. Mechanical variables were compared among the three different intervals. Interval 3 displayed greater duration compared to intervals 1 and 2. Barbell acceleration and power showed four different phases of BP movement, corresponding to the second and third phases of the exercise, bar braking (eccentric) and bar acceleration (concentric), respectively; the first and fourth phases are mainly determined by gravity instead of muscle intervention. Velocity and acceleration were different among the three different intervals during both the eccentric and concentric phases (p < 0.05). No differences were found between intervals 2 and 3 in mechanical power or mechanical work during the eccentric phase. In conclusion, the BP exercise has four phases considering barbell acceleration and power. The maximum and mean velocity and acceleration during BP performance decrease as load intensity increases. Maximum and mean mechanical power, and mechanical work, decrease progressively in the second and third intervals for both the eccentric and concentric phases. Thus, kinematics and mechanical parameters vary depending on load intensities.
... Due to these limitations of the submaximal repetitions to fatigue method for estimating 1RM, others have sought to utilize load-velocity profiles. Previous findings have demonstrated a strong linear relationship (R 2 ≥ 0.9) between 1RM and average concentric velocity (ACV) [21][22][23], with early investigations suggesting ACV at 1RM is relatively stable [22,24,25]. Conversely, more recent investigations have brought into question the validity of this method due to the large variation in ACV at an athlete's 1RM [16]. ...
Background: One repetition maximum (1RM) is a vital metric for exercise professionals, but various testing protocols exist, and their impacts on the resulting 1RM, barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular performance testing are not well understood. This study aimed to compare two previously established protocols and a novel self-led method for determining bench press 1RM, 1RM barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular performance measures. Methods: Twenty-four resistance-trained males (n = 12, 24 ± 6.1 years) and females (n = 12, 22.5 ± 5.5 years) completed three laboratory visits in a randomized crossover fashion. During each visit, a 1RM was established using one of the three protocols followed by a single set to volitional fatigue using 80% of their 1RM. A Sex:Protocol repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effects of sex and differences between protocols. Results: No significant differences were observed between the protocols for any measure, except for 1RM peak power (p = 0.036). Post hoc pairwise comparisons failed to identify any differences. Males showed significantly higher 1RM, average, and peak power (ps < 0.001), while females demonstrated a greater average concentric velocity (p = 0.031) at 1RM. Conclusions: These data suggest the protocol used to establish 1RM may have minimal impact on the final 1RM, 1RM barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular endurance in a laboratory setting.
... Pareja-Blanco et al. (30) found that small changes in velocity over the course of a set can signify practically significant fatigue-induced changes in neuromuscular and functional performance. Other research describing the load-velocity relationship for various resistance training exercises observed that changes ranging from 0.05 to 0.10 m/s in the bench press and full squat on a Smith machine could represent a 5% 1RM improvement (23,31). ...
The aim of this study was to determine the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of a new linear position transducer (LPT) device (RepOne) to a previously validated LPT (Tendo) during the barbell back squat and bench press exercises. Fourteen recreationally resistancetrained individuals (7 males and 7 females) performed three repetitions for the back squat and bench press at loads ranging from 30–90% 1RM. Both devices recorded average (ACV) and peak (PCV) concentric velocities concurrently for every repetition at each load. Significant correlations were observed between RepOne and Tendo during the back squat (PCV: r = 0.90–0.99, p < 0.01; ACV: r = 0.84–0.99, p < 0.01), bench press (PCV: r = 0.74–0.99, p < 0.01; ACV r = 0.81–0.99, p < 0.01). ICCs reveal good to excellent reliability between devices for back squat (PCV, 0.85–0.99; ACV, 0.83–0.99) and bench press (PCV, 0.79–0.99; ACV, 0.83–0.99). Bland-Altman plots revealed greater bias during PCV for both exercises across intensities (back squat, 0.072 to 0.110 m/s; bench press, 0.039 to 0.107 m/s), although ACV bias was lower for both exercises (back squat, −0.002 to −0.029 m/s; bench press, −0.022 to 0.015 m/s). The RepOne device generally exhibited higher smallest detectable change (SDC) values compared to the Tendo, except for specific loads in certain conditions. Additionally, the RepOne device demonstrated higher smallest worthwhile change (SWC) values than the Tendo unit for most loads in back squat ACV. Collectively, the RepOne exhibits strong validity and reliability comparable to the Tendo across both barbell back squat and bench press exercises, despite some variations in sensitivity metrics like SDC and SWC, indicating its efficacy for resistance training application.
... In contrast, PV remains unaffected by this issue since it is recorded before barbell contact with the bench (ie, analyzing the velocity-time curves, the PV fastest is reached at approximately 50% of the concentric phase during the PBP exercise). 23 Second, the present study showed that the incorporation of the SSC does not impact the goodness-of-fit of the RTF-velocity relationships. These findings differ from studies reporting an enhancement of the goodness-of-fit of the load-velocity relationships when incorporating the SSC. ...
Background: The fastest mean (MVfastest) and peak (PVfastest) velocity within a set have been used to predict the maximum number of repetitions (RTF) but, the stretch-shortening cycle effects on these relationships are unknown.
Hyphotesis: The velocity values associated with each RTF would show higher values for eccentric-concentric and multiple-point method compared to concentric-only and two-point method, respectively.
Study-design: Cross-sectional study.
Level of evidence: 3
Methods: After determining the prone bench pull (PBP) one-repetition maximum (1RM), 23 resistance-trained males randomly performed two sessions (one for each PBP exercise), consisting of single sets of RTFs against 3 relative loads (60-80-70%1RM). Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were constructed using the multiple-point (60-80-70%1RM) and two-point (60-80%1RM) methods.
Results: The goodness-of-fit was very high and comparable for the concentric-only (RTF-MVfastest: r2 = 0.97; RTF-PVfastest: r2 = 0.98) and eccentric-concentric (RTF-MVfastest: r2 = 0.98; RTF-PVfastest: r2 = 0.99) PBP exercises. The velocity values associated with different RTFs were generally higher for the eccentric-concentric compared to the concentric-only PBP exercise, but these differences showed heteroscedasticity (R2 ≥ 0.143). However, the velocity values associated with different RTFs were comparable for the multiple- and two point methods (F ≤ 2.4; P ≥ 0.131).
Conclusion: These results suggest that the inclusion of the stretch-shortening cycle does not impair the goodness-of-fit of RTF-velocity relationships, but these relationships should be determined specifically for each PBP exercise (i.e., concentric-only and eccentric-concentric). Additionally, the two-point method serves as a quick and less strenuous procedure to estimate the RTF.
Clinical relevance: Practitioners only need to monitor the MVfastest or PVfastest and the RTF from 2 (i.e., two-point method) or 3 (i.e., multiple-point method) sets performed to failure to construct a RTF-velocity relationship. Once these relationships have been established, coaches only need to monitor the MVfastest or PVfastest of the set to estimate the RTF against a given absolute load.
... Power is the product of velocity and force, and is typically presented in units of watts or joules per second [11][12][13][14]. Studies have shown that increasing load worn on the body reduces mean propulsive velocity (MPV) but increases mean propulsive force (MPF) [14,15]. Thus, if the reduction in MPV and increase in MPF happened in a balanced way during a physical test, then mean propulsive power (MPP) would remain constant. ...
Objectives. The main objective of this study was to evaluate mean propulsive velocity (MPV), mean propulsive force (MPF) and mean propulsive power (MPP) in elite police officers under LOADED and UNLOADED conditions. The study also investigated the association of body composition and strength levels under the same load conditions. Methods. Twenty-one men from an elite unit in Brazil participated in the study, performing Smith machine half squats and an agility test. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry measured body composition; a linear encoder measured MPV, MPF and MPP during the half squats; and a manual chronometer registered agility test performance. Results. The results showed that wearing and carrying occupational loads did not alter the squat exercise's MPP, MPV and MPF but reduced the performance of relative MPP and agility (p < 0.05). The results also showed that MPP had a higher association with force (i.e., MPF and one-repetition maximum [1RM]) than velocity (i.e., MPV and agility) under the LOADED condition (p < 0.05). Among the body composition variables, only lean body mass was associated with MPP under the LOADED condition (p < 0.05). Conclusion. These findings suggest that load carriage does not reduce absolute mechanical power output, but reduces the relative MPP and agility in military police officers.
... La intensidad del entrenamiento de fuerza se ha prescrito tradicionalmente en función del porcentaje sobre la repetición máxima (RM), o en función del máximo número de repeticiones que un sujeto puede realizar con una carga 5,14,15 ; pero en los últimos años se ha propuesto la velocidad de ejecución como una alternativa más precisa, fiable y segura para el control de la intensidad [16][17][18] . Se ha demostrado una relación carga (%RM)-velocidad, específica para diferentes ejercicios, según la cual, cada carga está estrechamente relacionada con la máxima velocidad a la que puede ser levantada [16][17][18][19][20][21] . Por otro lado, se ha demostrado que entrenar hasta el fallo muscular resulta innecesario, y es menos beneficioso que entrenar lejos del fallo muscular para el rendimiento deportivo [22][23][24][25] , siendo especialmente negativo para el RFD 12 . ...
Resumen: Controlar las variables de entrenamiento es vital para garantizar las adaptaciones deseadas en el entrenamiento de fuerza, siendo la intensidad especialmente importante para mejorar la fuerza máxima y el RFD. La velocidad de ejecución ha resultado ser la mejor variable para monitorizar la intensidad del entrenamiento de fuerza, en particular las pérdidas de velocidad relacionadas con la fatiga. Sin embargo, existen impedimentos materiales para poder utilizar esta variable. Por tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es analizar la relación entre el RPE y las pérdidas de velocidad como alternativa para controlar el entrenamiento. Se midió a 5 sujetos (4 hombres y 1 mujer) pertenecientes a la selección española de lucha libre olímpica un total de 15 series de press de banca (3 series/sujeto), de las cuales solo 14 se incluyeron en el análisis estadístico por incumplir una de ellas el protocolo, con 3 cargas relativas distintas (5 series/carga) y una pérdida de velocidad entre 20%-32%. Las variables dependientes fueron: RPE, la pérdida de velocidad, el número de repeticiones realizadas en cada serie y velocidad de la mejor repetición de cada serie. Se analizaron las correlaciones entre las variables RPE-pérdida de velocidad; RPE-número de repeticiones; RPE-velocidad mejor repetición, obteniéndose solamente correlación significativa (r Pearson 0,843; P <0,001) entre el RPE y la pérdida de velocidad; la correlaciones entre el RPE-número de repeticiones y RPE-velocidad mejor repetición no mostraron significación estadística. Estos resultados podrían indicar la posibilidad de gestionar la fatiga y la intensidad del entrenamiento utilizando la relación RPE-pérdida de velocidad, aunque es necesario llevar a cabo estudios similares con tamaños muestrales mayores que refuercen los resultados obtenidos en este estudio.
Summary: Controlling the training variables is vital to ensure the desired adaptations in resistance training; intensity is the most important variable to improve maximum strength and rate of force development (RFD). The movement velocity has shown to be the best variable to monitor the intensity of resistance training, in particular the velocity loss related to fatigue. However, there are material impediments to use this variable. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between RPE and velocity losses as an alternative to control training. Sample included 5 subjects (4 men and 1 woman) from the Spanish Olympic Wrestling team who performed a total of 15 sets of bench press (3 set/subject), of which only 14 were included in the statistical analysis for breaching one of them the protocol, with 3 different relative loads (5 set/load) and a velocity loss between 20%-32%. The dependent variables were: RPE, the velocity loss, the number of repetitions performed in each set and the velocity of the best repetition of each set. The correlations between the RPE-velocity loss; RPE-number of repetitions; and RPE-velocity best repetition variables were analyzed, obtaining only significant correlation (r Pearson 0.843, P <0.001) between the RPE and the velocity loss; correlations between RPE-number of repetitions; and RPE-velocity best repetition did not show statistical significance. The results of the present work could indicate the possibility of managing fatigue and controlling training intensity using the RPE-velocity loss relationship, although it is necessary to carry out similar studies with larger sample sizes that reinforce the results of this study.
... Previous work has demonstrated that ECCD strongly influences 1RM performance, with longer ECCD negatively influencing 1RM. 3 As such, alternative mechanisms likely explain concentric and 1RM differences between groups. CONV has been suggested as a method to predict 1RM, with the suggested minimum velocity threshold for bench press being 0.17 m/s. 4 It should be noted that 3 of the studies used to determine this suggestion use the Smith machine, [6][7][8] with only 1 study using free weights and having a lower mean velocity for 1RM (0.10 m/s). 9 Only ST was close to this velocity, indicating a strong relationship between load and velocity. ...
One repetition max (1RM) testing is used to assess strength performance. Previous work suggests variables like eccentric velocity influence 1RM performance, with faster eccentric velocities contributing to better 1RM performances. Further, concentric velocity has been suggested as a means to predict 1RM. However, limited work has compared 1RM performance between stronger (ST) and weaker (WK) lifters. PURPOSE: To compare 1RM kinematic performance differences between ST and WK lifters. METHODS: Recreationally trained males (n=14) completed bench press (BP) 1RM testing. Post hoc, participants were split into ST (n=7, age=23.4±3.5 yrs, ht=174.4±6.2 cm, wt=86.0±11.7 kg, relative 1RM=1.45±0.07) and WK (n=7, age=23.6±3.0 yrs, ht.=176.5±10.7 cm, wt.=90.4±15.1 kg, relative 1RM=1.06±0.04) groups. To divide participants, median relative 1RM was calculated. Those below and above the median were placed in WK and ST, respectively. Bar displacement and time data were collected with a linear position transducer sampling at 1000 Hz. Mean eccentric (ECCV) and concentric velocity (CONV), and relative mean and peak eccentric and concentric force were derived from bar position-time data. An independent samples t-test was used to assess group differences for relative 1RM, eccentric (ECCD) and concentric duration (COND), ECCV, CONV, and relative force variables (p<.05). RESULTS: Relative 1RM was higher in ST (p<.001, g=6.42), though body mass (BM) was similar (p=.55, g=.31). Self-reported resistance training experience did not differ between groups (p=.25, g=.61). ECCD was not different between ST (1.11±0.21 sec) and WK (1.08±0.31 sec, p=.81, g=.12). Though COND was not significant (p=.052), a large effect size (g=1.08) indicated higher COND in ST (2.76±0.55 vs 2.11±0.56 sec). ECCV was similar between groups (p=.17, g=.72). However, lower CONV was noted in ST (0.11±0.04 vs 0.18±0.04 m/s, p=.004, g=1.76). All force values were greater in ST (p<.05, g=1.64-6.43). CONCLUSION: Greater forces were seen in ST. As BM was similar, this was likely influenced by bar load. Though ECCD and ECCV were similar between groups, greater COND and lower CONV were noted in ST. As CONV can be used to predict 1RM, coaches should understand how kinematic performance differences between stronger and weaker lifters may influence 1RM performance.
... Nonetheless, in 1 study, BP was performed on the Smith machine, so that the more stable trajectory could have helped to maintain similar linear barbell velocity (8), while the other study involved paralympic athletes who may have had a less pronounced arched-back technique compared with our subjects (23). As expected, incrementing the load led to diminishing the mean and peak barbell velocity in both the flatback and the arched-back BP, which is in line with the forcevelocity(max) principle (24). ...
Bartolomei, S, Caroli, E, Coloretti, V, Rosaci, G, Cortesi, M, and Coratella, G. Flat-back vs. arched-back bench press: Examining the different techniques performed by power athletes. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2024—The International Powerlifting Federation recently changed the regulations concerning the bench press (BP) technique, not allowing an accentuated dorsal arch anymore. We investigated the difference between the flat-back vs. arched-back BP performed by competitive powerlifters as concerns the following parameters: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and barbell displacement; (b) mean and peak barbell velocity and power, and (c) the excitation of the prime movers. Fifteen highly resistance trained individuals (BP 1RM/body mass ratio: 1.38 ± 0.18) performed the flat-back and arched-back BP at their 50, 70, and 90% of the respective 1RM and performed each lift with the intent to maximally accelerate the barbell. Barbell displacement and velocity, power, and the excitation of the upper and lower pectoralis and triceps brachii were assessed. The 1RM was greater with the arched-back BP (+4.2 Kg, 95% confidence intervals + 0.0/+8.4, effect size [ES]: 0.22), whereas the barbell displacement was greater with the flat-back BP for all loads (ES from 0.40 to 0.61). Greater mean (+0.052 m·s ⁻¹ , 0.016/0.088, ES: 0.42) and peak barbell velocity (+0.068 m·s ⁻¹ , +0.026/0.110, ES: 0.27) were observed in the flat-back BP, whereas power did not differ. The excitation of upper and lower pectoralis was similar, while an overall trend for an increased activation of triceps brachii was noted in the arched-back vs. flat-back BP. Interestingly, no between-load difference in the excitation of upper and lower pectoralis was observed ( p > 0.05). Depending on the training purposes, both flat-back and arched-back BP may be used. The present outcomes may assist practitioners and competitive powerlifters to inform training session.
... On the other hand, MRI is not the only way to quantify and monitor the intensity of the training load and thus control the objective aspects of a session. When we consider the execution speed (relative to the executed load), we can see the actual performance of each repetition (González & Sánchez, 2010) and proximity to muscle failure, quantifying more objectively the level of effort (Morán-Navarro et al., 2019), given the high ratio between 1RM and LCA (González & Sánchez, 2010;González-Badilo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; and muscle failure (Morán-Navarro et al., 2019), in addition, the evaluation of submaximal loads, is more than sufficient to observe changes in performance (Balsalobre & Jiménez, 2014), on the other hand, limitations during prescribed work towards a given percentage of the MRI base the assumption that two subjects working at the same percentage will work at the same intensity or relative effort (Fisher, Steele & Smith, 2013), thus, there can be large variations of repetitions under a given percentage (both in men and women) (González & Sánchez, 2010;Sánchez et al., 2014). This is why the evaluation or control of intensity is presented as a useful tool, which could be used in strength sports, such as powerlifting, in which residual fatigue can affect the programming given the proximity with the 1RM due to the high degree of effort required. ...
El uso de escalas de tasa de esfuerzo percibido (RPE) basadas en repeticiones de reserva (RIR) puede ser un complemento a los métodos absolutos, como 1 repetición máxima (1RM), la variable porcentual con respecto a 1RM (xRM) y la velocidad concéntrica media (VCM), optimizando el control de la intensidad del entrenamiento. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la validez del uso de la escala de esfuerzo subjetiva RPE-RIR como herramienta de autorregulación con respecto a los métodos de cuantificación de la intensidad de la carga de entrenamiento. Realizamos una búsqueda sistemática en las bases de datos PubMed, WOS y Scopus. Se revisaron un total de 2.271 artículos, de los cuales 7 cumplieron con los criterios de elegibilidad. En estos estudios participaron 147 sujetos entrenados en fuerza (novatos, experimentados, profesionales, levantadores de pesas), que respondieron a la implementación de protocolos que cuantifican la intensidad de carga subjetiva y objetiva (relación RPE-RIR e intensidad de carga objetiva, velocidad concéntrica media - 1RM/xRM). Se encontraron fuertes correlaciones entre las variables del estudio RPE-RIR/ Velocidad concéntrica media (r = 0,90 - 0,92; r = -0,98 a -1,00; EL: r = 0,85/ r = -0,88, NL: r = 0,85/ r = -0,77), RPE-RIR/1RM (r = 0,88 a 0,91). Las principales conclusiones de esta revisión sistemática en relación con los métodos y medios para cuantificar la intensidad objetiva y subjetiva de la carga de entrenamiento indican una fuerte correlación entre el RPE-RIR (como método subjetivo) y el VCM y 1RM/xRM (como método objetivo), especialmente en poblaciones inexpertas. Sin embargo, estas conclusiones deben considerarse individualmente, dadas las diferencias entre protocolos y movimientos analizados y el análisis limitado de poblaciones noveles. Palabras clave: Esfuerzo subjetivo, carga de entrenamiento, metodologías de ejercicio. Abstract. The use of rate of perceived effort scales (RPE) based on reserve repetitions (RIR) can be a complement to absolute methods, such as 1 maximum repetition (1RM), the percentage variable with respect to 1RM (xRM), and the average concentric velocity (ACV), optimizing control of training intensity. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of using a subjective RPE-RIR effort scale as a self-regulation tool with respect to quantifying the intensity of the training load. We perform a systematic search in PubMed, WOS, and Scopus databases. 2,271 articles were reviewed, of which 7 met the eligibility criteria. These studies involved 147 subjects trained in strength (novices, experienced professionals, and powerlifters), who responded to the implementation of protocols that quantify the subjective and objective load intensity (RPE-RIR relationship and objective load intensity, mean speed - 1RM/xRM). There are strong correlations between the variables in the RPE-RIR study/ Average concentric velocity (r = 0.90 - 0.92; r = -0,98 to -1,00; EL: r = 0.85/ r = -0.88, NL: r = 0.85/ r = -0.77), RPE-RIR/1RM (r = 0.88 to 0.91). The main conclusions of this systematic review regarding methods and means of quantifying objective and subjective intensity of training load indicate a strong correlation between RPE-RIR (as a subjective method) and ACV and 1RM/xRM (as an objective method), especially in inexperienced populations. However, these findings should be considered individually, given the differences between protocols and movements analyzed and the limited analysis of novice populations. Keywords: Subjective Effort, Training Load, Exercise Methodologies.
... The regression models utilized for LVR analysis include linear and polynomial regression. In earlier studies, researchers commonly employed polynomial regression to establish LVR, typically requiring the assessment of movement velocity across 5-9 different loads [13,20,21]. In recent years, investigations have indicated no significant disparity in goodness of fit (R 2 ) between linear and polynomial regression models for LVR [22][23][24]. ...
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the two-point method in predicting 1RM compared to the direct method, as well as analyze the factors influencing its accuracy. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases was conducted. Out of the 88 initially identified studies, 16 were selected for full review, and their outcome measures were analyzed. The findings of this review indicated that the two-point method slightly overestimated 1RM (effect size = 0.203 [95%CI: 0.132, 0.275]; P < 0.001); It showed that test-retest reliability was excellent as long as the test loads were chosen reasonably (Large difference between two test loads). However, the reliability of the two-point method needs to be further verified because only three studies have tested its reliability. Factors such as exercise selection, velocity measurement device, and selection of test loads were found to influence the accuracy of predicting 1RM using the two-point method. Additionally, the choice of velocity variable, 1RM determination method, velocity feedback, and state of fatigue were identified as potential influence factors. These results provide valuable insights for practitioners in resistance training and offer directions for future research on the two-point method.
... Mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) variables have been used to determine the load-velocity relationship and predict the 1RM in different exercises (Garcia-Ramos & Jaric, 2018;Benavides-Ubric et al., 2020;Díez-Fernández et al., 2021). Although the general load-velocity relationship has been traditionally determined through polynomial regression models (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014), recent evidence suggests that linear models could be more appropriate to estimate the 1RM through the individualized load-velocity relationship (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017;Ruf, Chéry & Taylor, 2018). Briefly, linear models assess movement velocity against two (two-point method) or more than two (multiple-point method) submaximal loads (Garcia-Ramos & Jaric, 2018;. ...
We examined the accuracy of twelve different velocity-based methods for predicting the bilateral leg-press exercise one-repetition maximum (1RM) in breast cancer survivors. Twenty-one female breast cancer survivors (age 50.2 ± 10.8 years) performed an incremental loading test up to the 1RM. Individual load-velocity relationships were modeled by linear and quadratic polynomial regression models considering the mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) values recorded at five incremental loads (~45-55-65-75-85% of 1RM) (multiple-point methods) and by a linear regression model considering only the two distant loads (~45–85% of 1RM) (two-point method). The 1RM was always estimated through these load-velocity relationships as the load associated with a general (MV: 0.24 m/s; PV: 0.60 m/s) and an individual (MV and PV of the 1RM trial) minimal velocity threshold (MVT). Compared to the actual 1RM, the 1RMs estimated by all linear regression models showed trivial differences (Hedge’s g ranged from 0.08 to 0.17), very large to nearly perfect correlations (r ranged from 0.87 to 0.95), and no heteroscedasticity of the errors (coefficient of determination ( r ² ) < 0.10 obtained from the relationship of the raw differences between the actual and predicted 1RMs with their average value). Given the acceptable and comparable accuracy for all 1RM linear prediction methods, the two-point method and a general MVT could be recommended to simplify the testing procedure of the bilateral leg-press 1RM in breast cancer survivors.
... There is limited information available regarding the relationship and agreement among varying upper body push and pull tests to determine 1RM. Garcìa-Ramos et al. [18] observed that MRF at 83 ± 4% of 1RM overestimated the actual 1RM, while the L-V relationship model proposed by Sánchez-Medina et al. [19] underestimated the 1RM when performing prone bench pull with free weights. The authors in the latter study concluded that the individual L-V relationship was the most accurate method for predicting 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. ...
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to explore the validity and reliability of three different strength testing approaches to determine one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press and prone bench pull.
Methods
Twenty-eight recreationally active subjects (25 ± 2 years, 178 ± 8 cm, 78 ± 9 kg) were assessed for load-velocity (L-V) relationship, 1RM, maximal isometric force (MIF), and maximal repetitions to failure (MRF) in a Smith Machine on three separated sessions. Linear regression was used for L-V relationship, MIF, and MRF to predict 1RM. Level of significance was set to ρ ≤ 0.05.
Results
Reliability analyses of the varying 1RM estimations revealed mean differences from 0.6 to -1.3 kg (mainly trivial effects) between test days 1 and 2, intraclass correlation coefficient was > 0.96, and coefficient of variation (CV) was in the range 2.3–8.3% for all tests. Regarding validity, all 1RM predictions exhibited a mean difference ≤ 1.3 kg (trivial), except for the L-V relationship method that underestimated the predicted 1RM by 5 kg (small) compared to the actual bench press 1RM. However, the L-V relationship method showed the least mean absolute errors. CVs were in the range 4.5–13.2%. Standard error of the estimate was in the range 3.2–9.7 kg. Change scores for all tests were significantly correlated with change scores in actual 1RM, except for MIF in the prone bench pull. Smallest deviations in 1RM predictions were observed for the L-V relationship approach.
Conclusions
All 1RM prediction methods were highly comparable to the traditional 1RM test. However, given the high variability associated with individual predictions for each method, they cannot be used interchangeably.
... Velocity-based training (VBT) can be used to accurately determine the intensity of training [3]. VBT uses the velocity of the bar to determine the relative load, and there are many studies that calculated the velocity of the bar for each percentage of 1RM in different exercises: prone bench pull [4], pullup [5,6], leg press [7], hip thrust [8], and a number of variations of the squat and bench press exercise [9,10], finding differences between exercise in the velocity associated to each percentage of 1RM (e.g., 70% 1RM in the squat: 0.73 ± 0.05 m/s vs. 70% 1RM in the bench press: 0.58 ± 0.08) ( Table 1). In this sense, differences in the range of motion between exercises could affect the rate of force development, activation and synchronization of motor units [11]. ...
The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the differences in the mean propulsive velocities between men and women in the different exercises studied (squat, bench press, inclined bench press and military press). Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlational Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Six studies of good and excellent methodological quality were included. Our meta-analysis compared men and women at the three most significant loads of the force-velocity profile (30, 70 and 90% of 1RM). A total of six studies were included in the systematic review, with a total sample of 249 participants (136 men and 113 women). The results of the main meta-analysis indicated that the mean propulsive velocity is lower in women than men in 30% of 1RM (ES = 1.30 ± 0.30; CI: 0.99-1.60; p < 0.001) and 70% of 1RM (ES = 0.92 ± 0.29; CI: 0.63, 1.21; p < 0.001). In contrast, for the 90% of the 1RM (ES = 0.27 ± 0.27; CI: 0.00, 0.55), we did not find significant differences (p = 0.05). Our results support the notion that prescription of the training load through the same velocity could cause women to receive different stimuli than men.
... Regarding sensitivity, SDC revealed that only values higher than approximately 0.03 m/s must to be considered as real changes in performance, for both Ergonauta I and Vitruve when monitoring MV and MPV (Tables 2 and 3). In practical terms, this value allows practitioners to detect 1RM changes <5% for most resistance exercises (Garcia-Ramos et al., 2021;Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014;Morán-Navarro et al., 2021). This value of sensitivity (SDC) was similar to the value observed by Martínez Cava et al. (2020) for Vitruve and T-force, but smaller compared to the values presented by Courel-Ibáñez et al. (2019). ...
The aim of this study was to verify the concurrent validity and the biological error-free reliability of a novel low-cost commercial encoder (Ergonauta I). Validity protocol involved comparisons with a custom system and other encoder commercially available (Vitruve). Reliability protocols involved inter devices and inter unit comparisons. No participants were recruited, and reliability assessments were performed in a Smith Machine by bar free fall tests. Our results showed a significant bias for mean velocity (MV) estimated by both encoders only in one of the four conditions investigated (bias=0.05 m/s). Regarding sensitivity, the smallest detectable change suggests only values higher than 0.03 m/s must to be considered as real changes in performance, when monitoring MV and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) through Ergonauta I and Vitruve. Between-days intra-device reliability showed Ergonauta I remains highly reliable after one week for most assessments, whereas slightly less sensitive for peak velocity and peak power output.
... Furthermore, muscular and functional performance improves with small incremental changes in velocity relative to some reference loads in well-trained athletes [7,[17][18][19]. Thus, it is essential to measure movement velocity with an accurate and reliable monitoring system. ...
Recent advances in training monitoring are centered on the statistical indicators of the concentric phase of the movement. However, those studies lack consideration of the integrity of the movement. Moreover, training performance evaluation needs valid data on the movement. Thus, this study presents a full-waveform resistance training monitoring system (FRTMS) as a whole-movement-process monitoring solution to acquire and analyze the full-waveform data of resistance training. The FRTMS includes a portable data acquisition device and a data processing and visuali-zation software platform. The data acquisition device monitors the barbell's movement data. The software platform guides users through the acquisition of training parameters and provides feedback on the training result variables. To validate the FRTMS, we compared the simultaneous measurements of 30-90% 1RM of Smith squat lifts performed by 21 subjects with the FRTMS to similar measurements obtained with a previously validated three-dimensional motion capture system. Results showed that the FRTMS produced practically identical velocity outcomes, with a high Pear-son's correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, and coefficient of multiple correlations and a low root mean square error. We also studied the applications of the FRTMS in practical training by comparing the training results of a six-week experimental intervention with velocity-based training (VBT) and percentage-based training (PBT). The current findings suggest that the proposed monitoring system can provide reliable data for refining future training monitoring and analysis.
... From a practical standpoint, it is consensual that the load-velocity relationship can be used to estimate relative load (%1RM) based on movement velocity (42). Generalized equations have even been developed to predict relative load from the velocity recorded during a single repetition performed at the maximal intended velocity in different resistant exercises, such as the full, parallel and half squat, 45°i nclined leg press, prone bench pull, prone pull-up, bench press, deadlift, and shoulder press (3,6,12,17,20,26,(36)(37)(38). These equations assume that a specific velocity is equivalent to the same %1RM for all individuals (15). ...
Mendonca, GV, Fitas, A, Santos, P, Gomes, M, and Pezarat-Correia, P. Predictive equations to estimate relative load based on movement velocity in males and females: accuracy of estimation for the Smith machine concentric back squat. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-We sought to determine the validity of using the Smith machine bar velocity to estimate relative load during the concentric back squat performed by adult male and female subjects. Thirty-two subjects (16 men: 23.3 ± 3.8 and 16 women: 26.1 ± 2.7 years) were included. The load-velocity relationship was extracted for all subjects individually. Mean concentric velocity (MCV), combined with sex, was used to develop equations predictive of relative load (% one repetition maximum [1RM]). Prediction accuracy was determined with the mean absolute percent error and Bland-Altman plots. Relative strength was similar between the sexes. However, male subjects exhibited faster concentric MCV at 1RM (p < 0.05). Mean concentric velocity and the sex-by-MCV interaction were both significant predictors of %1RM (p < 0.0001), explaining 89% of its variance. The absolute error was similar between the sexes (men: 9.4 ± 10.0; women: 8.4 ± 10.5, p > 0.05). The mean difference between actual and predicted %1RM in Bland-Altman analysis was nearly zero in both sexes and showed no heteroscedasticity. The limits of agreement in both men and women were of approximately ±15%. Taken together, it can be concluded that sex should be taken into consideration when aiming at accurate prescription of relative load based on movement velocity. Moreover, predicting relative load from MCV and sex provides an error of approximately 10% in assessments of relative load in groups of persons. Finally, when used for individual estimations, these equations may implicate a considerable deviation from the actual relative load, and this may limit their applicability to training conditions in which extreme accuracy is required (i.e., more advanced lifters and athletes).
... In the last decade, velocity-based training has been proposed as a useful method for individualized daily training variables to increase the quality of performance-oriented RT programs (8). The VBT allows the use of concentric execution velocity as an indicator of relative intensity (i.e., the percentage of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) in several RT exercises (2,5,8,10,25,(30)(31)(32). In addition, the percentage of velocity loss (VL) in the set could quantify the fatigue (29), training volume (33), and level of effort (27). ...
The present study compared, for the first time, the effects of 6 weeks of 20% (20VL) vs. 40% (40VL) velocity loss (VL) resistance training (RT) programs on muscle oxygen dynamics during the squat exercise. Twenty-three young men (21.4 ± 2.4 years) were randomly allocated into the 20VL group (n = 8), 40VL group (n = 7), or control group (CG; n = 8). The RT program consisted of 3 sets of Smith machine back squat exercise at 20VL or 40VL with a 3-minute rest between sets, twice per week for 6 weeks. Tissue oxygenation index (TOI) was measured using near-infrared spectroscopy in the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis during a squat test (8-repetition 1 m·s−1 load test), and the maximum (maxTOI) and minimum (minTOI) TOIs were measured during a 3-min recovery period. After the 6-week RT program, TOI increased significantly at the beginning of the test in both muscles (during the first 4 repetitions in the vastus lateralis and 5 repetitions in the vastus medialis) in the 20VL group (p < 0.05), with nonsignificant changes in the 40VL group and CG. The maxTOI was significantly increased in the vastus medialis (+3.76%) and vastus lateralis (+3.97%) after the training only in the 20VL group (p < 0.05). The minTOI in the vastus medialis reached during the test remained unchanged postintervention for both training groups, with the CG showing significantly higher values compared with the 20VL group (+14.1%; p < 0.05). In conclusion, depending on the VL reached during a squat RT program, different changes in muscle oxygen dynamics can be expected. Training at 20% of VL improves metabolic efficiency and the reoxygenation peak after the set.
... Participants were required to achieve an execution speed of at least 1 m/s (60% of 1RM) [25][26][27] to determine the load for the next repetitions [28]. The T-Force Dynamic Measurement System (Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) was used to quantify bench press capacity, as in similar studies [29][30][31]. It is a dynamic system for assessing and training muscle strength and enables one to obtain a direct estimate of load shift velocity in each repetition. ...
Background. The muscular response of athletes in a judo contest is one of the most important aspect to measure with precision. Objective. Our purpose was to obtain and analyse the variability of strength associated to muscular performance parameters during a judo contest. Methods. Thirty-five men performed five 5-minute bouts with 15 minutes of passive rest. Immediately after each bout, muscular performance parameters were tested: countermovement jump (CMJ), maximal dynamic strength capacities (mean power velocity (MPV), mean strength (MS), maximum strength (MXS), mean power (MP) and maximum power (MXP)) in upper body, dominant (DHS) and non-dominant handgrip isometric strength (NDHS). ANOVA to compare baseline test data and successive bouts was used. Results. ANOVA revealed significant differences in NDHS (p<0.001), DHS (p<0.001), CMJ (p<0.001), MPV (p<0.001), MXS (p<0.001), MP (p<0.001) and MXP (p<0.001). No significant differences in MS (p = 0.008) were found. Some significant correlations between NDHS and ΔPMX (r=0.368, p=0.050), MPV and ΔMXS (r=0.528, p=0.001) and ΔMXP (r=0.683, p<0.001), MPX and ΔMXS (r=0.528, p=0.001) and ΔMP (r=0.877, p<0.001) were found. Conclusion. Due to judo contest can be considered a high intensity exercise, it produces an amount of muscular fatigue and therefore significant loss strength that it cannot be recovery during rest-times between successive bouts. For this reason, it was a high variability in strength production capacities, which are modified during a judo contest.
Background: A recent advancement in velocity-based training involves estimating the maximum number of repetitions to failure (RTF) by analyzing the fastest velocity recorded within a set. A systematic review that examines the fundamental characteristics of the RTF-velocity relationship is still lacking. Purpose: This study aimed to (1) determine the basic properties of the RTF-velocity relationships (goodness-of-fit, reliability, and accuracy) and, (2) offer guidance on implementing various methodological factors that can impact the RTF accuracy prediction. Methods: Data was sourced from three databases: Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus. Studies qualified for inclusion if they involved at least two sets performed to failure with different loads, utilized multi-joint weight-lifting exercises, and monitored the RTF and fastest velocity for each set. Results: Six studies demonstrated: (i) robust goodness-of-fit, (ii) acceptable to high between-session reliability for the velocities associated to each RTF (1–15RTF) and, (iii) acceptable RTF prediction accuracy during fatigue-free sessions (long inter-set rest) but, when fatigued (i.e., short inter-set rest) the accuracy was compromised except for athletes with high training experience (e.g., >2 years training to failure experience). Conclusions: The relationship properties remain unaffected regardless of the exercise (upper- vs. lower- body), equipment (Smith- vs. free-weight), velocity variable (mean and peak velocity) and resting time (from 5 to 10 minutes). However, the modelling procedure used (multiple- vs. two-point) did alter the accuracy. The individualized RTF-velocity relationships can be constructed through a linear regression model but, the failure experience seems to be a critical factor to increase its accuracy.
The purpose of this study was to determine the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of the jump shrug (JS) using the barbell acceleration characteristics of repetitions performed with relative percentages of the hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age=25.5±4.5 years, body mass=88.5±15.7 kg, height=176.1±8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC=1.3±0.2 kg·kg-1) completed two testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and JS repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM HPC. A linear position transducer was used to determine concentric duration and the percentage of the propulsive phase (P%) where barbell acceleration was greater than gravitational acceleration (i.e., a > −9.81 m/s2). Two 1 way repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare each variable across loads, whereas Hedge’s g effect sizes were used to examine the magnitude of the differences. Concentric duration ranged from 449.7 to 469.8 milliseconds and did not vary significantly between loads (p=0.253; g=0.20-0.39). The P% was 57.4±7.2%, 64.8±5.9%, 73.2±4.3%, 78.7±4.0%, and 80.3±3.5% when using 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% 1RM HPC, respectively. P% produced during the 80 and 100% 1RM loads were significantly greater than those at 20, 40, and 60% 1RM (p<0.01, g=1.30-3.90). In addition, P% was significantly greater during 60% 1RM compared with both 20 and 40% 1RM (p<0.01, g=1.58-2.58) and 40% was greater than 20% 1RM (p=0.003, g=1.09). A braking phase was present during each load and, thus, a 1RM JS load was not established. Heavier loads may be needed to achieve a 100% propulsive phase when using this method.
The purpose of this study was to estimate the one repetition maximum hang high pull (1RM HHP) using the peak barbell velocity of a 1RM hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age = 25.5 ± 4.5 years, body mass = 88.3 ± 15.4 kg, height = 176.1 ± 8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC = 1.3 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1) with previous HPC experience participated in two testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, and 80% of their 1RM HPC. Peak barbell velocity was measured using a linear position transducer during the 1RM HPC and HHP repetitions performed at each load. The peak barbell velocity achieved during the 1RM HPC was determined as the criterion value for a 1RM performance. Subject-specific linear regression analyses were completed using slope-intercept equations created from the peak velocity of the 1RM HPC and the peak barbell velocities produced at each load during the HHP repetitions. The peak barbell velocity during the 1RM HPC was 1.74 ± 0.30 m·s-1. The average load-velocity profile showed that the estimated 1RM HHP of the subjects was 98.0 ± 19.3% of the 1RM HPC. Although a 1RM HHP value may be estimated using the peak barbell velocity during the HPC, strength and conditioning practitioners should avoid this method due to the considerable variation within the measurement. Additional research examining different methods of load prescription for weightlifting pulling derivatives is needed.
Velocity-based resistance training is a fundamental component of sports science, offering a systematic approach to investigating the load variables of resistance exercises. This research focused on assessing the load across various resistance exercises by examining the barbell velocity during the concentric phase. The study involved 11 male athletes representing the China badminton team, who underwent 1RM testing for bench press, hip thrust, back squat, and single leg press exercises and the maximum repetition testing at load intensities of 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% of 1RM. Simultaneously, measurements were taken of the barbell’s concentric phase velocity during each exercise. The findings revealed a robust negative correlation between barbell velocity and load intensity. Furthermore, exercises engaging greater muscle strength displayed smoother fitting curves. Analysis of velocity loss rates indicated that the hip thrust exhibited a higher completion percentage compared to the back squat and the bench press. Similarly, the non-dominant leg press showed a higher completion percentage than the dominant leg press. The study emphasizes the significance of delineating barbell velocity distributions in resistance training involving large muscle groups, as well as the accurate determination of load intensity. Precise load determination can be facilitated by employing fitting curves derived from distinct movement patterns and varying load intensities. The utilization of velocity data offers a quantifiable approach to achieving targeted training outcomes.
Meta-session autoregulation, a person-adaptive form of exercise prescription that adjusts training variables according to daily fluctuations in performance considering an individual’s daily fitness, fatigue, and readiness-to-exercise is commonly used in sports-related training and may be beneficial for non-athlete populations to promote exercise adherence. To guide refinement of meta-session autoregulation, it is crucial to examine the existing literature and synthesize how these procedures have been practically implemented. Following PRIMSA guidelines a scoping review of two databases was conducted from August 2021 to September 2021 to identify and summarize the selected measures of readiness-to-exercise and decision-making processes used to match workload to participants in meta-session autoregulatory strategies, while also evaluating the methodological quality of existing study designs using a validated checklist. Eleven studies reported utilizing a form of meta-session autoregulation for exercise. Primary findings include: (i) readiness-to-exercise measures have been divided into either objective or subjective measures, (ii) measures of subjective readiness measures lacked evidence of validity, and (iii) fidelity to autoregulatory strategies was not reported. Results of the risk of bias assessment indicated that 45% of the studies had a poor-quality score. Existing implementations of meta-session autoregulation are not directly translatable for use in health promotion and disease prevention settings. Considerable refinement research is required to optimize this person-adaptive strategy prior to estimating effects related to exercise adherence and/or health and fitness outcomes. Based on the methodological deficits uncovered, researchers implementing autoregulation strategies would benefit reviewing existing models and frameworks created to guide behavioral intervention development.
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a contemporary method of resistance training that allows for the accurate and objective prescription of the intensity and volume of resistance training based on the velocity of the concentric part of the repetitions-exclusively for explosive types of repetition execution. The use of VBT has increased in recent years due to advances in technology that are affordable, portable, and allow for easy monitoring of exercise performance in practice. In the article, the basics of VBT training are presented in chapters, namely feedback, equipment, variable selection, load-velocity relationship, 1RM estimation, velocity loss threshold, and training planning. The aim of the article is to provide a critical presentation of the VBT approach. Based on the current literature, we evaluate the VBT approach as too mechanistically and commercially oriented, while neuromuscular and other physiological determinants of resistance training are oftentimes ignored. We believe that the measurement of movement velocity plays a crucial role in resistance training, but in some contexts unrelated to the current representation of VBT. We conclude that resistance training with measuring movement velocity would be a more appropriate term than velocity-based training. Movement velocity should not be used as a goal of the movement but as a reflection of the underlying physiological determinant of strength/ power, which we want to improve through training. We argue that traditional neuromuscular activation-oriented resistance training methods, which are based on physiological mechanisms, can be optimized by measuring the velocity of movement as feedback on the quality of execution. From a mechanical perspective, solely following the velocity of the movement, as presented in the current literature, blurs the main idea of resistance training.
This study examined the force-velocity profile differences between men and women in three variations of row exercises. Twenty-eight participants (14 men and 14 women) underwent maximum dynamic strength assessments in the free prone bench row (PBR), bent-over barbell row (BBOR), and Smith machine bent-over row (SMBOR) in a randomized order. Subjects performed a progressive loading test from 30 to 100% of 1-RM (repetition maximum), and the mean propulsive velocity was measured in all attempts. Linear regression analyses were conducted to establish the relationships between the different measures of bar velocity and % 1-RM. The ANOVAs applied to the mean velocity achieved in each % 1-RM tested revealed significantly higher velocity values for loads < 65% 1-RM in SMBOR compared to BBOR (p < 0.05) and higher velocities for loads < 90% 1-RM in SMBOR compared to PBR (p < 0.05) for both sexes. Furthermore, men provided significantly higher velocity values than women (PBR 55-100% 1-RM; BBOR and SMBOR < 85% 1-RM; p < 0.05) and significant differences were found between exercises and sex for 30-40% 1-RM. These results confirm that men have higher velocities at different relative loads (i.e., % 1-RM) compared to women during upper-body rowing exercises.
Velocity-based training (VBT) is an increasingly popular programming strategy used by strength and conditioning professionals to develop their athlete's ability to express force rapidly. To implement the varying forms of VBT effectively within their training regimes, strength and conditioning professionals need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of strategies, such as predicting 1 repetition maximum using the load-velocity profile, modulating training loads using the load-velocity profile, and controlling training volume using the magnitude of velocity-loss. The aim of this review was to highlight these strengths and weaknesses and then provide practical examples of when each programming strategy may be most effectively implemented.
Determining the load during training and competition
is of key importance in the work of the fitness coach.
The isoinertial dynamometer is an instrument that
finds wide application in biomechanical diagnostics as
well as in training. The instrument has the required
validity and reliability and is easy to use. The metrics
it calculates are of key importance in speed-based
training. Research shows that this method of training
very often has greater positive effects than the
traditional one.
Determining the load/velocity profile, predicting one
repetition maximum, assessing daily readiness,
autoregulation and fatigue management are the
primary goals of speed-based training.
The large number of indicators calculated by this
device represent an excellent basis for objective
planning, programming and implementation of the
training process.
Wer wünscht sich nicht ein einfaches System zur Ermittlung der optimalen Trainingsbelastung? Herkömmliche Verfahren sind oft aufwendig, wenig objektiv und werden den Trainierenden wegen der unvermeidbaren Leistungsschwankungen oft nicht gerecht. Geschwindigkeitsbasiertes Krafttraining verspricht hier Abhilfe. Es ermöglicht eine relativ einfache Ermittlung der optimalen Trainingsparameter, verspricht gute Ergebnisse bei geringerer Ermüdung und lässt sich im Trainingsalltag leicht umsetzen.
This study assessed the reliability of mean concentric bar velocity from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) across four sets in different exercises (bench press and prone row) and with different loads (60 and 80% 1-repetition maximum; 1RM). Whether velocity values from set one could be used to predict RIR in subsequent sets was also examined. Twenty recreationally active males performed baseline 1RM testing before two randomised sessions of four sets to failure with 60 or 80% 1RM. A linear position transducer measured mean concentric velocity of repetitions, and the velocity associated with each RIR value up to 0-RIR. For both exercises, velocity decreased between each repetition from 3- to 0-RIR (p ≤ 0.010). Mean concentric velocity of RIR values was not reliable across sets in the bench press (mean intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.40, mean coefficient of variation [CV] = 21.3%), despite no significant between-set differences (p = 0.530). Better reliability was noted in the prone row (mean ICC = 0.80, mean CV = 6.1%), but velocity declined by 0.019-0.027 m·s-1 (p = 0.032) between sets. Mean concentric velocity was 0.050-0.058 m·s-1 faster in both exercises with 60% than 80% 1RM with (p < 0.001). At the individual level, the velocity of specific RIR values from set one accurately predicted RIR from 5- to 0-RIR for 30.9% of repetitions in subsequent sets. These findings suggest that velocity of specific RIR values vary across exercises, loads and sets. As velocity-based RIR estimates were not accurate for 69.1% of repetitions, alternative methods to should be considered for autoregulating of resistance exercise in recreationally active individuals.
The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of traditional strength and power interval training methods on the development of velocity parameters in the concentric phase of loaded-squat jump exercise and to determine which training method improves velocity parameters more. To achieve this goal, 30 male students who were studying at the School of Physical Education and Sports and did not regularly exercise participated voluntarily in this study. Participants were divided into three different groups using randomization: traditional strength training group, power interval training group, and control group. The participants performed a weighted squat jump exercise using external loads equivalent to 40% of their body weight in both pre-test and post-test measurements, and their mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity values were obtained through an isoinertial velocity transducer. According to the analysis results, it was found that peak velocity significantly increased after traditional strength training. In addition, the power interval training method made a significant difference on the 1 RM pre-post test. The effect size of traditional strength training on peak velocity was determined as "small". In conclusion, it is thought that traditional strength training is a more prominent training method in improving movement velocity compared to power interval training.
Background
To promote chronic adaptations, resistance training needs the manipulation of different variables, among them, the order of the exercises and sets. Specifically, for velocity-based training, paired exercises alternating upper and/or lower-body muscle groups appear to be a good choice to promote neuromuscular adaptations.
Objective
This study aimed to compare the effect of two velocity-based training programs only differing in the set configuration on muscle strength, muscular endurance and jump performance.
Methods
Moderately strength-trained men were allocated into a traditional (TS, n= 8) or alternating sets (AS, n= 9) configuration group to perform a 6-week velocity-based training program using the full squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The TS group completed all sets of the full squat (SQ) exercise before performing the bench press (BP) sets, whereas the AS group completed the first set of each exercise in an alternating manner. Training frequency, relative load, number of sets, percentage of velocity loss (%VL) within the set and inter-set rest were matched for both groups. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), load (kg)-velocity relationship, predicted 1RM, and muscular endurance for each exercise were evaluated at pre- and post-training.
Results
The TS and AS groups obtained similar and non-significant improvements in CMJ (3.01 ± 4.84% and 3.77 ± 6.12%, respectively). Both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in muscle strength variables in SQ (6.19–11.55% vs. 6.90-011.76%; p = 0.033–0.044, for TS and AS, respectively), BP (6.19–13.87% and 3.99–9.58%; p = 0.036–0.049, for TS and AS group, respectively), and muscular endurance in BP (7.29 ± 7.76% and 7.72 ± 9.73%; p = 0.033, for the TS and AS group, respectively). However, the AS group showed a greater improvement in muscular endurance in SQ than the TS group (10.19 ± 15.23% vs. 2.76 ± 7.39%; p = 0.047, respectively). Total training time per session was significantly shorter ( p = 0.000) for AS compared to TS group.
Conclusions
Training programs performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate loads and %VL induce similar jump and strength improvements, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach.
El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar el efecto que tiene el entrenamiento de fuerza basado en la velocidad sobre el rendimiento en jugadores de pelotaris. Los participantes del estudio fueron cinco varones sub 23. Los sujetos realizaron el entrenamiento de fuerza dos veces a la semana durante 8 semanas. Las variables de rendimiento que se evaluaron fueron el salto con contramovimiento (CMJ), sentadilla y press banca a partir de un test de carga-velocidad. El efecto que tuvo el programa de entrenamiento fue calculado en base a la media de los resultados obtenidos en el pre-test y post-test, en base a la prueba t-student, al tamaño del efecto y a la correlación entre las variables analizadas. Como resultado, hubo mejoras significativas tanto en la variable press banca (p=.03; tamaño de efecto (TE=3.03) como en el CMJ (p=.03; TE=1.30) y en la sentadilla (p=.05; TE=1.07). Finalmente, parece ser que el programa de entrenamiento basado en la velocidad de ejecución mejora el rendimiento físico en pelotaris sub23.
Bu çalışmanın amacı, serbest ağırlık ve smith makine barbell bench press egzersizindeki doğrudan ölçülen bir tekrarlı maksimum (1TM) ile yük-hız ilişkisinden elde edilen 1TM minimal hız eşiği (1TMMHE) ve 1TM sıfır hızdaki yük (1 TMSHY) tahmin yöntemleri arasındaki ilişkileri ve farklılıkları belirlemektir. Çalışmaya, en az 5 yıl direnç antrenmanı geçmişine sahip rekreasyonel amaçlı vücut geliştirme branşıyla ilgilenen 15 erkek çalışmaya gönüllü olarak katıldılar. Çalışma toplam 4 oturumda gerçekleştirildi. Birinci ve ikinci oturumda serbest ağırlık ve smith makine barbell bench press 1TM ve hızı belirlendi. Üçüncü ve dördüncü oturumda yük-hız profili oluşturmak için birinci ve ikinci oturumlarda belirlenmiş 1 TM’nin %30-85 arasındaki yükler kullanılıp barbell bench press egzersizi gerçekleştirildi. Yük-hız ilişkisinden 1TM tahminleri için MHE ve SHY yöntemleri kullanıldı. Araştırmanın veri analizi için ölçülen gerçek 1TM ile tahmin yöntemleri arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesinde Pearson Korelasyon Analizi, üç yöntem arasındaki farkı belirlemek için Tekrarlı Ölçümlerde ANOVA yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Serbest ağırlık ve smith makinede gerçekleştirilen doğrudan ölçülmüş gerçek 1TM, 1TMMHE ve 1TMSHY yöntemleri arasında pozitif yönlü çok güçlü ilişki bulunurken (r=0,918-0,949 arasında), tüm 1TM yöntemleri arasında istatistiksel farka rastlanmadı (p>0,05). Araştırmanın sonucuna göre 1TMMHE ve 1TMSHY tahmin yöntemlerinin 1TM’yi tahmin etmede geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu saptanmıştır. Barbell bench press egzersizi için hem serbest ağırlık hem de smith makinede yük-hız profilinden 1TM’yi tahmin etmek isteyen pratisyenler bu iki yöntemden birisini kullanabilir.
Aim. The purpose of this study was to determine fitness profiles of top-level female judokas of the Serbian national team and to find which physical and physiological characteristics separate the more successful from less successful athletes. Methods. Sixteen elite female judokas of the Serbian national team (weight categories from 48-78 kg) took part in the study. The participants were allocated in two experimental groups (Group A and Group B) according to their achievements in previous international competitions. Group A (top-quality performers) consisted of eight judokas who won at least one or more individual medals in international competitions in the last five years. Group B (sub-elite athletes) consisted of eight athletes who had not won any individual medals internationally. Anthropometric and physical fitness values (including body fat, muscle strength, aerobic and anaerobic fitness) were measured in all subjects. Results. Group A had significantly lower fat mass as compared to group B (P<0.05). The differences between the two groups for aerobic fitness were non-significant after normalizing maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) for lean body mass (P>0.05). The differences between two groups were significant for bench press and seated-row pull with superior results recorded for elite athletes as compared to sub-elite counterparts (P<0.05). Significant differences between groups were found in number of throws during specific judo fitness test (SJFT) and lactate concentrations 5 minutes post-exercise (La 5) (P<0.05). Conclusion. The present study indicates that a strong relationship exists between body fat, strength and performance level in elite female judo.
The Importance of Movement Velocity as a Measure to Control Resistance Training Intensity
Configuration of the exercise stimulus in resitance training has been traditionally associated with a combination of the so-called ‘acute resistance exercise variables’ (exercise type and order, loading, number of repetitions and sets, rests duration and movement velocity). During typical resistance exercise in isoinertial conditions, and assuming every repetition is performed with maximal voluntary effort, velocity unintentionally declines as fatigue develops. However, few studies analyzing the response to different resitance training schemes have described changes in repetition velocity or power. It thus seems necessary to conduct more research using models of fatigue that analyze the reduction in mechanical variables such as force, velocity and power output over repeated dynamic contractions in actual training or competition settings. Thus, the aim of this paper was to discuss the importance of movement velocity concerning control training intensity.
To investigate whether caffeine ingestion counteracts the morning reduction in neuromuscular performance associated with the circadian rhythm pattern.
Twelve highly resistance-trained men underwent a battery of neuromuscular tests under three different conditions; i) morning (10:00 a.m.) with caffeine ingestion (i.e., 3 mg kg(-1); AM(CAFF) trial); ii) morning (10:00 a.m.) with placebo ingestion (AM(PLAC) trial); and iii) afternoon (18:00 p.m.) with placebo ingestion (PM(PLAC) trial). A randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo controlled experimental design was used, with all subjects serving as their own controls. The neuromuscular test battery consisted in the measurement of bar displacement velocity during free-weight full-squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises against loads that elicit maximum strength (75% 1RM load) and muscle power adaptations (1 m s(-1) load). Isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC(LEG)) and isometric electrically evoked strength of the right knee (EVOK(LEG)) were measured to identify caffeine's action mechanisms. Steroid hormone levels (serum testosterone, cortisol and growth hormone) were evaluated at the beginning of each trial (PRE). In addition, plasma norepinephrine (NE) and epinephrine were measured PRE and at the end of each trial following a standardized intense (85% 1RM) 6 repetitions bout of SQ (POST).
In the PM(PLAC) trial, dynamic muscle strength and power output were significantly enhanced compared with AM(PLAC) treatment (3.0%-7.5%; p≤0.05). During AM(CAFF) trial, muscle strength and power output increased above AM(PLAC) levels (4.6%-5.7%; p≤0.05) except for BP velocity with 1 m s(-1) load (p = 0.06). During AM(CAFF), EVOK(LEG) and NE (a surrogate of maximal muscle sympathetic nerve activation) were increased above AM(PLAC) trial (14.6% and 96.8% respectively; p≤0.05).
These results indicate that caffeine ingestion reverses the morning neuromuscular declines in highly resistance-trained men, raising performance to the levels of the afternoon trial. Our electrical stimulation data, along with the NE values, suggest that caffeine increases neuromuscular performance having a direct effect in the muscle.
In this study we investigated if the occurrence of the sticking region was a result of diminishing potentiation (coinciding delayed muscle activation) or the result of a mechanically poor region in which the muscles can produce less force. A regular one-repetition maximum (1RM) free-weight bench press was compared with isometric bench presses performed at 12 different positions. A lower force at the sticking region compared to the other regions in the isometric bench presses would confirm the mechanically-poor-position hypothesis. Twelve resistance-trained males (age 21.7 ± 1.3 years, mass 78 ± 5.8 kg, height 1.81 ± 0.05 m) were tested in 1RM and in isometric contractions in bench press in 12 different positions, indicated by the vertical distance between barbell and sternum, covering the whole range of motion during the concentric phase. Barbell kinematics and muscle activity were registered. In both types of executions a region of lower force output was observed, which supports the mechanically-poor-position hypothesis. Electromyographic activity of four muscles showed the same pattern in the isometric and 1RM attempts. It was concluded that diminishing effect potentiation could not explain the existence of the sticking region.
In the quest to maximize average propulsive stroke impulses over 2000-m racing, testing and training of various strength parameters have been incorporated into the physical conditioning plans of rowers. Thus, the purpose of this review was 2-fold: to identify strength tests that were reliable and valid correlates (predictors) of rowing performance; and, to establish the benefits gained when strength training was integrated into the physical preparation plans of rowers. The reliability of maximal strength and power tests involving leg extension (e.g. leg pressing) and arm pulling (e.g. prone bench pull) was high (intra-class correlations 0.82–0.99), revealing that elite rowers were significantly stronger than their less competitive peers. The greater strength of elite rowers was in part attributed to the correlation between strength and greater lean body mass (r = 0.570.63). Dynamic lower body strength tests that determined the maximal external load for a one-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press (kg), isokinetic leg extension peak force (N) or leg press peak power (W) proved to be moderately to strongly associated with 2000-m ergometer times (r=-0.54 to -0.68; p
The objective of this study was to investigate the acute effects on volume load (VL) (load × repetitions) of performing paired set (PS) vs. traditional set (TS) training over 3 consecutive sets. After a familiarization session 16 trained men performed 2 testing protocols using 4 repetition maximum loads: TS (3 sets of bench pull followed by 3 sets of bench press performed in approximately 10 minutes) or PS (3 sets of bench pull and 3 sets of bench press performed in an alternating manner in approximately 10 minutes). Bench pull and bench press VL decreased significantly from set 1 to set 2 and from set 2 to set 3 under both the PS and TS conditions (p < 0.05). Bench pull and bench press VL per set were significantly less under TS as compared to PS over all sets, with the exception of the first set (bench pull set 1) (p < 0.05). Session totals for bench pull and bench press VL were significantly less under TS as compared to PS (p < 0.05). Paired set was determined to be more efficient (VL/time) as compared to TS. The data suggest that a 2-minute rest interval between sets (TS), or a 4-minute rest interval between similar sets (PS), may not be adequate to maintain VL. The data further suggest that PS training may be more effective than TS training in terms of VL maintenance and more efficient. Paired set training would appear to be an efficient method of exercise. Practitioners wishing to maximize work completed per unit of time may be well advised to consider PS training.
To determine relationships between general strength, maximal skiing speed (V(max)), pole and leg kinetics and kinematics, 16 male elite skiers underwent three V(max) tests in double poling, diagonal stride and V2 on a treadmill. The analyzed skiing speeds and leg and arm kinetics were among the highest ever recorded. Relationships between general strength exercises and V(max) were technique dependent. Power output in bench press and bench pull were related to V(max) in DP and diagonal stride, whereas each 1 repetition maximum was related to V2. Isometric squats were not associated with V(max) in all three techniques, whereas jump height and rate of force development during squat jump were. Analysis of kinetics and kinematics revealed that it was not exclusively the magnitude of applied forces during skiing, but the timing and proper instant of force application were major factors discriminating between faster and slower skiers. For all techniques, the faster skiers used different skiing strategies when approaching V(max) when compared with the slower skiers. General strength and power per se seem not to be major determinants of performance in elite skiers, whereas coordination of these capacities within the different and complex skiing movements seems to be the discriminating factor.
The purpose of this study was to examine muscle activity and three-dimensional kinematics in the ascending phase of a successful one-repetition maximum attempt in bench press for 12 recreational weight-training athletes, with special attention to the sticking period. The sticking period was defined as the first period of deceleration of the upward movement (i.e. from the highest barbell velocity until the first local lowest barbell velocity). All participants showed a sticking period during the upward movement that started about 0.2 s after the initial upward movement, and lasted about 0.9 s. Electromyography revealed that the muscle activity of the prime movers changed significantly from the pre-sticking to the sticking and post-sticking periods. A possible mechanism for the existence of the sticking period is the diminishing potentiation of the contractile elements during the upward movement together with the limited activity of the pectoral and deltoid muscles during this period.
This study determined whether backward grinding performance in America's Cup sailing could be improved using a training intervention to increase power capability in the upper-body pull movement. Fourteen elite male sailors (34.9 +/- 5.9 years; 98.1 +/- 14.4 kg; 186.6 +/- 7.7 cm) were allocated into experimental (speed-focussed) and control groups. Grinding performance was assessed using a grinding ergometer and an instrumented Smith machine measured force, velocity and power during the bench pull exercise. Conventional training produced significant improvements in bench pull 1 RM (5.2 +/- 4.0%; p = 0.016) and maximum force production (5.4 +/- 4.0%; p = 0.014). Speed-focussed training improved maximum power (7.8 +/- 4.9%; p = 0.009), power at 1 RM (10.3 +/- 8.9%; p = 0.019) and maximum velocity (8.4 +/- 2.6%; p = 0.0002). Backward grinding performance showed greater improvements in the experimental group than the control group for moderate (+1.8%) and heavy load (+6.0%) grinding. Changes in maximum power output and power at 1 RM had large correlations (r = 0.56-0.61) with changes in both moderate and heavy load grinding performance. Time to peak force had the strongest relationship, explaining 70% of the change in heavy load grinding performance. Although the performance benefit was not entirely clear the likelihood of a detrimental effect was low (< 5%) and therefore implementation could be recommended.
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 8 wk of resistance training to failure versus not to failure training regimens at both moderate and low volumes for increasing upper-body strength and power as well as cardiovascular parameters into a combined resistance and endurance periodized training scheme.
Forty-three trained male rowers were matched and then randomly assigned to four groups that performed the same endurance training but differed on their resistance training regimen: four exercises leading to repetition failure (4RF; n = 14), four exercises not leading to failure (4NRF; n = 15), two exercises not to failure (2NRF; n = 6), and control group (C; n = 8). One-repetition maximum strength and maximal muscle power output during prone bench pull (BP), average power during a 20-min all-out row test (W 20 min), average row power output eliciting a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol x L(-1) (W 4 mmol x L(-1)), and power output in 10 maximal strokes (W 10 strokes) were assessed before and after 8 wk of periodized training.
4NRF group experienced larger gains in one- repetition maximum strength and muscle power output (4.6% and 6.4%, respectively) in BP compared with both 4RF (2.1% and j1.2%) and 2NRF (0.6% and -0.6%). 4NRF and 2NRF groups experienced larger gains in W 10 strokes (3.6% and 5%) and in W 20 min (7.6% and 9%) compared with those found after 4RF (-0.1% and 4.6%), whereas no significant differences between groups were observed in the magnitude of changes in W 4 mmol x L(-1) (4NRF = 6.2%, 4RF = 5.3%, 2NRF = 6.8%, and C = 4.5%).
An 8-wk linear periodized concurrent strength and endurance training program using a moderate number of repetitions not to failure (4NRF group) provides a favorable environment for achieving greater enhancements in strength, muscle power, and rowing performance when compared with higher training volumes of repetitions to failure in experienced highly trained rowers.
The objective of this study was to examine the chronic effects on strength and power of performing complex versus traditional set training over eight weeks. Fifteen trained males were assessed for throw height, peak velocity, and peak power in the bench press throw and one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and bench pull exercises, before and after the eight-week programme. The traditional set group performed the pulling before the pushing exercise sets, whereas the complex set group alternated pulling and pushing sets. The complex set training sessions were completed in approximately half the time. Electromyographic (EMG) activity was monitored during both test sessions in an attempt to determine if it was affected as a result of the training programme. Although there were no differences in the dependent variables between the two conditions, bench pull and bench press 1-RM increased significantly under the complex set condition and peak power increased significantly under the traditional set condition. Effect size statistics suggested that the complex set was more time-efficient than the traditional set condition with respect to development of 1-RM bench pull and bench press, peak velocity and peak power. The EMG activity was not affected. Complex set training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to efficiency and strength development.
Understanding how loading affects power production in resistance training is a key step in identifying the most optimal way of training muscular power - an essential trait in most sporting movements. Twelve elite male sailors with extensive strength-training experience participated in a comparison of kinematics and kinetics from the upper body musculature, with upper body push (bench press) and pull (bench pull) movements performed across loads of 10-100% of one repetition maximum (1RM). 1RM strength and force were shown to be greater in the bench press, while velocity and power outputs were greater for the bench pull across the range of loads. While power output was at a similar level for the two movements at a low load (10% 1RM), significantly greater power outputs were observed for the bench pull in comparison to the bench press with increased load. Power output (Pmax) was maximized at higher relative loads for both mean and peak power in the bench pull (78.6 +/- 5.7% and 70.4 +/- 5.4% of 1RM) compared to the bench press (53.3 +/- 1.7% and 49.7 +/- 4.4% of 1RM). Findings can most likely be attributed to differences in muscle architecture, which may have training implications for these muscles.
The performance of ten elite powerlifters were analyzed in a simulated competition environment using three-dimensional cinematography and surface electromyography while bench pressing approximately 80% of maximum, a maximal load, and an unsuccessful supramaximal attempt. The resultant moment arm (from the sagittal and transverse planes) of the weight about the shoulder axis decreased throughout the upward movement of the bar. The resultant moment arm of the weight about the elbow axis decreased throughout the initial portion of the ascent of the bar, recording a minimum value during the sticking region, and subsequently increased throughout the remainder of the ascent of the bar. The electromyograms produced by the prime mover muscles (sternal portion of pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, long head of triceps brachii) achieved maximal activation at the commencement of the ascent phase of the lift and maintained this level essentially unchanged throughout the upward movement of the bar. The sticking region, therefore, did not appear to be caused by an increase in the moment arm of the weight about the shoulder or elbow joints or by a minimization of muscular activity during this region. A possible mechanism which envisages the sticking region as a force-reduced transition phase between a strain energy-assisted acceleration phase and a mechanically advantageous maximum strength region is postulated.
Guidelines for resistance training include the number of exercises, sets, repetitions, and frequency of training, but only vaguely mention movement velocity. Nevertheless, different velocities imply different performances, i.e. a different number of repetitions or different loads. Studies investigating the effect of different movement velocities on resistance training have not reached a consensus. Some studies indicate specificity in strength gains while others indicate generality. Some indicate slow training to be better, others indicate fast training, and still others indicate no differences. Most of these studies were conducted on isokinetic or hydraulic equipment. Very few used isotonic equipment for training, and their results seem to tend towards generality and no differences in gains of strength between velocities. Defining the training velocity is mostly important for athletic performances where a wide range of velocities is needed and transfer of gains would greatly optimise training. At the other end of the spectrum, there are the most frail and elderly, to whom power loss may impair even daily functions, but training with fast velocities might increase injury risk and, therefore, transfer of gains from slow training would be greatly beneficial. Movement velocity for resistance training with isotonic equipment needs to be further investigated so that recommendations may be made.
The efficient coordination of agonist and antagonist muscles is one of the important early adaptations in resistance training responsible for large increases in strength. Weak antagonist muscles may limit speed of movement; consequently, strengthening them leads to an increase in agonist muscle movement speed. However, the effect of combining agonist and antagonist muscle exercises into a power training session has been largely unexplored. The purpose of this study was to determine if a training complex consisting of contrasting agonist and antagonist muscle exercises would result in an acute increase in power output in the agonist power exercise. Twenty-four college-aged rugby league players who were experienced in combined strength and power training served as subjects for this study. They were equally assigned to an experimental (Antag) or control (Con) group and were no different in age, height, body mass, strength, or maximal power. Power output was assessed during bench press throws with a 40-kg resistance (BT P40) with the Plyometric Power System training device. After warming up, the Con group performed the BT P40 tests 3 minutes apart to determine if any acute augmentation to power output could occur without intervention. The Antag group also performed the BT P40 tests; however, an intervention strategy of a set of bench pulls, which is an antagonistic action to the bench throw, was performed between tests to determine if this would acutely affect power output during the second BT P40 test. Although the power output for the Con group remained unaltered between test occasions, the significant 4.7% increase for the Antag group indicates that a strategy of alternating agonist and antagonist muscle exercises may acutely increase power output during complex power training. This result may affect power training and specific warm-up strategies used in ballistic sports activities, with increased emphasis placed upon the antagonist muscle groups.
A great deal of literature has investigated the effects of various resistance training programmes on strength and power changes. Surprisingly, however, our understanding of the stimuli that affect adaptation still remains relatively unexplained. It is thought that strength and power adaptation is mediated by mechanical stimuli, that is the kinematics and kinetics associated with resistance exercise (e.g. forces, contraction duration, power and work), and their interaction with other hormonal and metabolic factors. However, the effect of different combinations of kinematic and kinetic variables and their contribution to adaptation is unclear. The mechanical response to single repetitions has been investigated by a number of researchers; however, it seems problematic to extrapolate the findings of this type of research to the responses associated with a typical resistance training session. That is, resistance training is typified by multiple repetitions, sets and exercises, rest periods of varying durations and different movement techniques (e.g. controlled and explosive). Understanding the mechanical stimuli afforded by such loading schemes would intuitively lead to a better appreciation of how various mechanical stimuli affect adaptation. It will be evident throughout this article that very little research has adopted such an approach; hence our understanding in this area remains rudimentary at best. One should therefore remain cognizant of the limitations that exist in the interpretation of research in this field. We contend that strength and power research needs to adopt a set kinematic and kinetic analysis to improve our understanding of how to optimise strength and power.
The metabolic response to resistance exercise, in particular lactic acid or lactate, has a marked influence upon the muscular environment, which may enhance the training stimulus (e.g. motor unit activation, hormones or muscle damage) and thereby contribute to strength and power adaptation. Hypertrophy schemes have resulted in greater lactate responses (%) than neuronal and dynamic power schemes, suggesting possible metabolic-mediated changes in muscle growth. Factors such as age, sex, training experience and nutrition may also influence the lactate responses to resistance exercise and thereafter, muscular adaptation. Although the importance of the mechanical and hormonal stimulus to strength and power adaptation is well recognised, the contribution of the metabolic stimulus is largely unknown. Relatively few studies for example, have examined metabolic change across neuronal and dynamic power schemes, and not withstanding the fact that those mechanisms underpinning muscular adaptation, in relation to the metabolic stimulus, remain highly speculative. Inconsistent findings and methodological limitations within research (e.g. programme design, sampling period, number of samples) make interpretation further difficult. We contend that strength and power research needs to investigate those metabolic mechanisms likely to contribute to weight-training adaptation. Further research is also needed to examine the metabolic responses to different loading schemes, as well as interactions across age, sex and training status, so our understanding of how to optimise strength and power development is improved.
The endocrine system plays an important role in strength and power development by mediating the remodelling of muscle protein. Resistance training scheme design regulates muscle protein turnover by modifying the anabolic (testosterone, growth hormone) and catabolic (cortisol) responses to a workout. Although resistance exercise increases the concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1 in blood following exercise, the effect of scheme design is less clear, most likely due to the different release mechanisms of this growth factor (liver vs muscle). Insulin is non-responsive to the exercise stimulus, but in the presence of appropriate nutritional intake, elevated blood insulin levels combined with resistance exercise promotes protein anabolism. Factors such as sex, age, training status and nutrition also impact upon the acute hormonal environment and, hence, the adaptive response to resistance training. However, gaps within research, as well as inconsistent findings, limit our understanding of the endocrine contribution to adaptation. Research interpretation is also difficult due to problems with experimental design (e.g. sampling errors) and various other issues (e.g. hormone rhythms, biological fluid examined). In addition to the hormonal responses to resistance exercise, the contribution of other acute training factors, particularly those relating to the mechanical stimulus (e.g. forces, work, time under tension) must also be appreciated. Enhancing our understanding in these areas would also improve the prescription of resistance training for stimulating strength and power adaptation.
The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of isoinertial assessment to monitor training effects. Both parametric and curve analysis of the results were used to underline the specificity of maximal strength and maximal velocity resistance training methods.
Twenty-four untrained subjects were randomly assigned into three groups: a maximal strength-training group (heavy loads: 80% to 98% of the one repetition maximum [1-RM]), a maximal velocity-training group (light loads: 25% to 50% of 1-RM) and a control group. All the subjects were tested in bench press exercises before and after the 6-week training period. An isoinertial dynamometer was used to assess velocity and power at four increasing loads: 35%, 50%, 70% and 95% of the 1-RM load. Post-test protocol also included a trial at 105% of the 1-RM load.
Isoinertial assessment demonstrated for both training groups significant gains at each load. Some specific adaptations appeared: strength training presented a greater increase for average power (+49%, P<0.001) and average velocity (+48%, P<0.001) at 95% of 1-RM, while velocity training emerged as a more effective way to improve performance at 35% and 50% of 1-RM (+11 to 22%) in comparison with strength training (+7 to 12%). The analysis of power and velocity curves specified that strength training enhanced performance earlier in the movement, while velocity training extended the propulsive action at the end of movement.
The original combination of parametric and curve isoinertial assessment appears to be a relevant method for monitoring specific training effects. The complementarity of both strength and velocity training programmes underlined in this study could lead to practical applications in profiling training programmes.