ArticlePDF Available

Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise

March 2017
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

DOI:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0657

Authors:

Mario Muñoz López

Fit Generation

Jose Lopez Chicharro

Complutense University of Madrid

Show all 5 authorsHide

Purpose: To analyze the load, force and power-velocity relationships, as well as to determine the load that optimizes power output on the pull-up exercise. Methods: Eighty-two resistance trained males (Age = 26.8 ± 5.0 yrs.; Pull-up 1RM – normalized per kg of body mass– = 1.5 ± 0.34) performed two repetitions with 4 incremental loads (ranging 70-100%1-RM) in the pull-up exercise while mean propulsive velocity (MPV), force (MPF) and power (MPP) were measured using a linear transducer. Relationships between variables were studied using first and second order least-squares regression, and subjects were divided into three groups depending on their 1-RM for comparison purposes. Results: Almost perfect individual load-velocity (R2 = 0.975 ± 0.02), force-velocity (R2 = 0.954 ± 0.04) and power-velocity (R2 = 0.966 ± 0.04) relationships, which allowed to determine the velocity at each %1-RM as well as the maximal theoretical force (F0), velocity (V0) and power (Pmax) for each subject were observed. Statistically significant differences between groups were observed for F0 (p<0.01) but not for MPV at each %1-RM, V0 or Pmax (p>0.05). Also, high correlations between F0 and 1-RM (r = 0.811) and V0 and Pmax (r = 0.865) were observed. Finally, we observed that the load that maximized MPP was 71.0 ± 6.6 %1-RM. Conclusions: The very high load-velocity, force-velocity and power-velocity relationships allows to estimate 1-RM by measuring movement velocity, as well as to determine maximal force, velocity and power capabilities. This information could be of great interest for strength and conditioning coaches who wish to monitor pull-up performance.

No caption available

…

Figures - uploaded by Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández

Content may be subject to copyright.

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The

article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was

provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited,

proofread, or formatted by the publisher.

Section: Original Investigation

Article Title: Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise

Authors: Mario Muñoz-López1, David Marchante1, Miguel A. Cano-Ruiz1, José López

Chicharro2 and Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández3

Affiliations: 1Powerexplosive Center, Madrid, Spain. 2Complutense University of Madrid,

Madrid, Spain. 3Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain.

Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Acceptance Date: February 9, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0657

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

LOAD, FORCE AND POWER-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIPS IN THE PRONE PULL-

UP EXERCISE

Mario Muñoz-López1, David Marchante1, Miguel A. Cano-Ruiz1, José López Chicharro2 &

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández3

1Powerexplosive Center, Madrid, Spain

2Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

3Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain

Running head: LOAD-VELOCITY PROFILE IN THE PULL-UP EXERCISE

Submission type: Original investigation

Abstract word count: 249

Text-only word count: 3291

Number of figures: 4

Number of tables: 1

Corresponding author

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández

Department of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Spain

Address: C/ Tajo, Villaviciosa de Odón 28670, Madrid, Spain

Telephone: +34 606798498

E-mail: carlos.balsalobre@icloud.com

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To analyze the load, force and power-velocity relationships, as well as to determine

the load that optimizes power output on the pull-up exercise. Methods: Eighty-two resistance

trained males (Age = 26.8  5.0 yrs.; Pull-up 1RM – normalized per kg of body mass– = 1.5 

0.34) performed two repetitions with 4 incremental loads (ranging 70-100%1-RM) in the pull-

up exercise while mean propulsive velocity (MPV), force (MPF) and power (MPP) were

measured using a linear transducer. Relationships between variables were studied using first

and second order least-squares regression, and subjects were divided into three groups

depending on their 1-RM for comparison purposes. Results: Almost perfect individual load-

velocity (R2 = 0.975  0.02), force-velocity (R2 = 0.954  0.04) and power-velocity (R2 = 0.966

 0.04) relationships, which allowed to determine the velocity at each %1-RM as well as the

maximal theoretical force (F0), velocity (V0) and power (Pmax) for each subject were

observed. Statistically significant differences between groups were observed for F0 (p<0.01)

but not for MPV at each %1-RM, V0 or Pmax (p>0.05). Also, high correlations between F0

and 1-RM (r = 0.811) and V0 and Pmax (r = 0.865) were observed. Finally, we observed that

the load that maximized MPP was 71.0  6.6 %1-RM. Conclusions: The very high load-

velocity, force-velocity and power-velocity relationships allows to estimate 1-RM by

measuring movement velocity, as well as to determine maximal force, velocity and power

capabilities. This information could be of great interest for strength and conditioning coaches

who wish to monitor pull-up performance.

KEYWORDS: resistance training; monitoring; biomechanics; physical performance

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

INTRODUCTION

Resistance training has been previously reported to improve health, fitness and

performance 1–3. In order to optimize the response to resistance training, monitoring training

load has been suggested as a key factor; specifically, training intensity is generally

acknowledged as the most important variable to produce the desired neuromuscular adaptations

4,5. In this sense, strength and conditioning coaches often faces an issue when designing

resistance training programs, that’s it, how to objectively quantify and prescribe intensity in

resistance exercises. The most common method to quantify intensity is the measurement of the

1-Repetition maximum (1-RM, i.e., the load that can be lifted just once) 6,7; however, in the

recent years less demanding methodologies have emerged as an alternative to the 1-RM

paradigm 8–10. Among them, movement velocity was shown to be an accurate, effective and

non-fatiguing method to quantify relative intensity in resistance exercises 8,11,12. This method

is based on the load-velocity relationship observed in different resistance exercises, by which

the load (in terms of %1-RM) is highly related to the velocity at which that load is lifted 11,12.

Thus, the measurement of movement velocity has successfully been probed to estimate the 1-

RM and each of its percentages on different resistance exercises such as bench-press 11, bench-

pull 13, squat or leg press 12.

In addition to the measurement of the load-velocity relationship, several studies have

analyzed the well-known force and power-velocity relationships in order to understand the

maximal force, velocity and power capabilities of the athletes 14–16. Thus, the analysis of the

maximal theoretical force (F0), velocity (V0) and power (Pmax), and the slope of the force-

velocity profile has been shown to be of great interest to study the maximal neuromuscular

capabilities in different exercises 15,17. For example, Pmax and the slope of the force-velocity

profile have been probed to significantly influence the ballistic performance in vertical jumping

18. Also, a very high relationship between F0 and 1-RM has been recently observed in the

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

bench-press exercise 19. Finally, the load that maximizes power output has been extensively

studied in different exercises, since that load has been commonly used to improve ballistic

performance 7,20,21. Thus, the analysis of individual force-power-velocity characteristics could

be of great interest for coaches and sport practitioners.

However, research has shown that load-velocity, force-velocity and power-velocity

relationships are specific of each exercise 12,15,21, meaning that the velocity associated at each

%1-RM, as well as the load that maximizes power output or the maximal expressions of F0

and V0 depend on the movement pattern and muscle groups used 12,21. Therefore, more research

is needed in order to analyze the load, force and power-velocity relationships in other common

resistance exercises. Specifically, one of the most used multi-joint, closed-chain, upper-body

resistance exercises, the prone pull-up, has not been analyzed yet in this sense. The prone pull-

up has been used to assess the strength of the upper limbs in different populations such as

fitness practitioners 22, firefighters 23, swimmers 24 or climbers 25. However, to our knowledge,

there are no studies in the literature that analyze the specific relationships between load, force,

power and velocity on the prone pull-up exercise. Consequently, the aim of the present study

is to analyze the load, force, power-velocity relationships in this exercise.

METHODS

Subjects

Eighty-two resistance-trained males, with more than 4 years of experience in the prone

pull-up exercise, participated in this study (N = 82 men; Age = 26.8  5.0 yrs., Height = 1.80

 0.1m; Body mass = 81.6  9.3 kg; Pull-up 1RM – normalized per kg of body mass– = 1.47 

0.19). Participants were divided into three groups according to their normalized weighted pull-

up 1-RM (1-RM/kg): group 1 (G1: N = 27; 1-RM/kg < 1.4), group 2 (G2: N=27; 1-RM/kg <

1.52) and group 3 (G3: N = 28; 1-RM/kg > 1.52).

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

No physical limitations or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect testing were

reported. To join the study, each participant needed to perform a minimum of 15 repetitions to

failure in the un-weighted prone pull-up exercise and train the weighted prone pull-up exercise

at least once per week for the last 6 months. The study complained with the Declaration of

Helsinki and all participants signed informed-consent forms before participation. The study

was approved by the institutional review board.

Design

Least-squares regression analysis aiming to identify the load, force and power-velocity

relationships was conducted. All participants performed a 4-loads incremental test in the prone

pull-up exercise with loads ranging 70-100% of their 1RM (considered as body mass plus

external load) while mean propulsive velocity (MPV), force (MPF) and power (MPP) were

being registered at a sampling frequency of 1000Hz using the Smartcoach Power Encoder

linear position transducer (LPT) (Smartcoach Europe, Stockholm, Sweden). The software of

the LPT determined the propulsive phase of each repetition as the part of the concentric phase

in which measured acceleration was higher than g (i.e. a > 9.81 m/s2) as described elsewhere

11. MPF was indirectly calculated from propulsive velocity using the well-known impulse-

momentum theorem as follows:

F = m * (vf –v0) / t

where F is MPF (in N), m the system mass (i.e. body mass plus external load, in kg), vf is the

final velocity of the propulsive phase (in m/s), v0 is the initial propulsive velocity of the

concentric phase (in m/s) and t is the duration of the propulsive phase (in s). Finally, MPP was

computed as the product of MPF and MPV: MPP = MPF * MPV. The load that maximized

MPP was also registered accordingly. Each participant performed 2 repetitions with each load,

and the one with higher MPV was registered.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Furthermore, individual force-velocity and power-velocity relationships were used in

order to determine theoretical maximal force (F0), velocity (F0) and power (Pmax) production,

which represent the maximal neuromuscular capabilities of the participants 14. The values of

F0 and V0 were calculated as the y-intercept and x-intercept of the force-velocity linear

regression, and Pmax was computed as Pmax = F0*V0/4 as described elsewhere 14. It should

be noted that Pmax is a theoretical expression of the maximal power capabilities of the subject,

while maximal MPP is the actual maximal power attained within the incremental test.

Methodology

Body measures

At the beginning of the testing session, height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm

during a maximum inhalation using a wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca 202, Seca Ltd,

Hamburg, Germany). Then, body mass was measured using the Jata 531 scale (Jata S.A.,

Bizcaia, Spain).

Pull-up incremental test

One week prior to the testing session, a familiarization session was conducted so that

participants could get used to isoinertial testing. After conducting a proper 15-minutes warm-

up consisting on dynamic stretching and preparatory exercises (i.e., glenohumeral joint external

rotations, scapular retractions and 1 set of 5 un-weighted prone pull-ups), athletes performed 4

different sets on the prone pull-up exercise. Initial external load was set at 0kg (i.e., un-

weighted prone pull-up), and it was incremented until the 1-RM (i.e., weighted prone pull-up)

was reached. The magnitude of the increment in the external load was based in the drop of

velocity from the previous set, so that each set could be performed at least 0.1m/s slower than

the previous set. If the 1-RM was not reached in the 4th set, an additional set with 5-10% more

kg was performed. Consequently, the loads used ranged 70-100% 1RM approximately. Two

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

repetitions were performed with each load and the one with higher MPV was recorded. Sets

where separated by 3 minutes of passive rest.

The pull-up was performed with a prone grip and hands were separated by a distance

equivalent to participant’s acromion-to-acromion length. In order to consider a repetition valid,

the participant needed to start the movement hanging in the bar with the elbows fully extended

and the feet in the air with the knees flexed and the hip in neutral position. After holding that

position for 2 seconds, participants were encouraged to perform the pull-up as fast as possible

until their chins were above the bar.

Weight plates were located in the ventral section of the coronal plane using a specific

belt (Maniak Fitness, Málaga, Spain). The cable of the LPT was fixed to the rear label of

participants’ shorts at the sacral vertebrae height because of its proximity to the Center of Mass

and to avoid any contact with the weight plates.

Instrumental

The Smartcoach Power Encoder (Smartcoach Europe, Stockholm, Sweden) LPT was

used to register MPV (in m/s), MPF (in N) and MPP (in W) at a sampling frequency of 1kHz.

Butterworth filtering was used by this instrument to smooth the data. The LPT was placed in

the floor below participants’ Center of Mass so its cable could be aligned with the Z-axis (i.e.,

vertical position) following the criteria described by the manufacturer. Then, the LPT was

connected to the Smartcoach 5.0.0 software which was installed on a personal computer

running the Windows 10 operating system and all the data were exported to a spreadsheet for

further analyses.

Statistical analysis

Standard statistical methods were used for calculation of means and SDs. The normality

of the data was analyzed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. To analyze the load-velocity (i.e.

%1-RM-MPV) and force-velocity relationship (i.e. MPF-MPV), first order least-squares

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

regression was used, and to analyze the power-velocity relationship (i.e. MPP-MPV), second

order least-squares regression was used.

One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons was used to detect potential

differences between groups in the studied variables, as well as to analyze differences between

power output with different loads. Finally, the relationships between variables were calculated

using Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient and bootstrapping (N= 1000)

determined the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). The level of significance was set at .05, and the

IBM® SPSS® V.23 software (IBM Co., USA) was used for the analyses.

RESULTS

Load-velocity relationship

When analyzing individual load-velocity profiles for each participant, an almost perfect

relationship between %1-RM and MPV was observed in all cases (Mean (SD) from individual

values: R2 = 0.975  0.02, SEE = 0.035  0.02 m/s). Moreover, the slope (s = -0.017  0.004)

and intercept (i = 1.933  0.44 m/s) of the load-velocity relationship were similar for all

participants. See Figure 1 for more details.

When using each participant’s regression equation to estimate MPV for a certain %1-

RM, an almost perfect correlation, with no significant differences was observed between the

estimated and actual MPV for each %1-RM used in the incremental tests (r = 0.987  0.01,

Mean difference = 0.033  0.07 m/s, p = 1.00).

Force-power-velocity relationships

Almost perfect relationships between mean propulsive force (MPF) and MPV (R2 =

0.954  0.04), and mean propulsive power (MPP) and MPV (R2 = 0.966  0.04) were observed

for each participant. Using the force-velocity and power-velocity relationships, descriptive data

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

for F0, V0, Pmax and the slope of the force-velocity profile were calculated for each

participant. See Figure 2.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups of strength for V0 or

Pmax as revealed by the one-way ANOVA (p> 0.05). However, significant differences were

observed for F0 (p< 0.001) and the slope of the force-velocity profile (p< 0.05). See Table 1

for more details. Finally, it was observed that the load that maximized MPP was 71.0  6.6

%1-RM i.e., the first load of the incremental test in most cases. The absolute value of maximal

mean power output was 645.4  171.4 W. See Figure 2 for more details.

Correlations between variables

Finally, high, significant correlations were observed between 1-RM and F0 (r = 0.811,

CI: 0.623-0.930, p< 0.001) and V0 and Pmax (r = 0.865, CI: 0.801-0.917, p< 0.001). See Figure

DISCUSSION

The results of our study showed a very close individual load-velocity (R2 = 0.975 

0.02) relationship. Given the very high correlation between MPV and the load at which that

velocity was produced, individual regression equations allowed to estimate the velocity at

which each percentage of the 1-RM was performed. Moreover, no significant differences

(0.046  0.27 m/s, p = 1.00) were observed between the estimated and actual velocity

performed with the loads used in the incremental test. Therefore, results in our study showed

that the load used in the prone pull-up exercise can be accurately determined by measuring the

velocity at which that load is moved. This is in line with previous research that found similar,

very high correlations between load (in terms of %1-RM) and movement velocity in different

exercises such as bench press 11, bench-pull 13 or squat 12. However, unlike previous research

that showed an almost perfect fit (R2 > 0.98) when velocities at each %1-RM from each

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

participant were computed in the same regression equation 11, we observed a much lower value

(R2 = 0.780), meaning that an individual regression equations, and not a global one, should be

used to estimate the %1-RM of each participant. This could be due to a particularity of the

prone pull-up exercise: unlike other exercises where the athlete mainly faces the load that

represents the barbell and plates, the prone pull-up exercise is demanding with a load as low as

0kg of external load (i.e., the un-weighted pull-up) due to subject’s own body mass. Thus,

subjects with higher 1-RM find easier to perform the exercise without any load and,

consequently, can produce higher velocities. In fact, the one-way ANOVA showed significant

differences in the MPV of the unweighted pull-up as detailed in Table 1 (p<0.001). However,

when a maximal lift is performed (i.e., 100%1-RM) all participants produced the same velocity

(in our study the velocity at 1-RM = 0.26  0.05), which confirms previous research that

showed that velocity at 1-RM is very stable and doesn’t depend on athletes’ fitness 8,11,12. For

this, to accurately determine the percentage of 1-RM from movement velocity, individual

analysis to determine the athlete’s own load-velocity profile is highly recommended.

Also, very high force-velocity (R2 = 0.954  0.04), and power-velocity (R2 = 0.966 

0.04) relationships, which allowed the calculations of F0, V0 and Pmax were observed. Thus,

our study confirmed that the very high, linear force-velocity relationship and the very high

quadratic power-velocity relationship observed in different activities 15 are also present in the

prone pull-up exercise. There is an increasing interest in the analysis of the force-power-

velocity relationships since F0, V0 and Pmax have been proposed to represent the maximal

theoretical neuromuscular capabilities of the athletes 14,15. For example, vertical jump

performance was shown to be significantly influenced by participants’ Pmax 18, while bench

press 1-RM has shown to be very highly correlated with F0 19. Therefore, the analysis of the

force-power-velocity relationships has been proposed to provide interesting additional

information on the athletes’ neuromuscular performance for different activities such as jumping

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

26, sprinting 17, or bench-pressing 19. This is the first study that analyzed the force-power-

velocity relationships in the prone pull-up exercise. Also, to the best of our knowledge, this

study shows for the first time normative values of F0, V0 and Pmax for resistance-trained males

in this exercise. However, one important limitation should be noted when analyzing the force-

power-velocity characteristics in the pull-up exercise, that’s it, the instrumental used to

measure force. The gold standard for the measurement of force are force platforms since they

estimate force using the impulse-momentum theorem, providing an indirect measurement of

force in the basis of system mass and changes in velocity 27. Thus, to obtain a direct

measurement of force in this exercise, a special device that would register “bar reaction forces”

should be used; however, to the best of our knowledge, such device doesn’t exist yet. Therefore,

until technology provides a direct measurement of force in the pull-up exercise, the force (and

consequently, power) measures obtained with a linear transducer should be interpreted with

caution.

Interestingly, none of the variables analyzed in the force-power-velocity relationships

differed among groups of strength with the exception of F0 (p<0.001) and the slope of the

force-velocity profile (p<0.05) which were higher and lower, respectively, in G3 with respect

to the other two groups. Therefore, it seems that while strongest athletes had significantly

higher values of F0, none Pmax nor V0 were different from less strong subjects. In this sense,

it was observed that F0 and 1-RM were significantly correlated (r = 0.811), as well as Pmax

and V0 (r = 0.865), but no other pair of variables. Thus, it seems that high values of 1-RM are

related with high values of F0, but not with high V0 or Pmax. Therefore, considering our

results, athletes who wish to develop their 1-RM in the prone pull-up exercise might benefit

from increasing their maximal force capabilities, while those who want to increase their

maximal power might need to focus on developing maximal velocity.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Developing maximal power output is, in fact, one of the most common goals in strength

and conditioning since ballistic performance has shown to be influenced by muscular power in

several activities such as sprinting, jumping, lifting or tackling, among others 28,29. Thus, there

is a large body of research investigating which range of loads produce the higher maximal

power output, since it was proposed that training with the maximal power load could have

superior benefits to increase power production 20,30,31. For example, a recent meta-analysis on

the maximal power load on upper-body exercises has shown that power output on the bench

press exercise is maximized with loads ranging 30-70%1-RM 21. However, to date, no research

has described the range of loads that maximize the power output in the prone pull-up exercise.

In this sense, our study shows that, in most cases, the load that produced the greatest power

output was the first load on the incremental test which corresponded to 71.0  6.6 %1-RM. It

should be noted that this value corresponds to the maximal MPP production within the

incremental test, while Pmax (which is calculated from F0 and V0 as described in the methods

section) is a theoretical expression of the maximal power production capabilities of the subject.

In this sense, it was observed that the value of Pmax, derived from the force-power-velocity

relationships was higher than the actual maximal MPP produced in the incremental test (747.4

 232.9 vs. 645.4  171.4 W). Thus, we can conclude that the lightest load on the incremental

test (i.e. the unweighted pull-up) is not enough to express the absolute maximal power

capabilities of the subjects and, consequently, Pmax would only be reached with an assistance

that would reduce the body weight of the athlete and, therefore, could allow a highest

movement velocity.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which analyzes the load-force-

power-velocity relationships in the prone pull-up exercise.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

First, results in our study showed that there is an almost perfect relationship between

the load (in terms of %1-RM) and mean propulsive velocity in the prone pull-up exercise. Thus,

strength and conditioning coaches who wish to monitor training intensity when prescribing the

prone pull-up exercise might benefit from measuring movement velocity, because it would

allow to know athlete’s 1-RM without conducting an actual 1-RM test; however, individual

load-velocity profiles should be used for accurate estimations. Second, it was observed that the

load that produced higher power outputs was about 71.0 %1-RM in most cases (i.e., un-

weighted pull-up), although this value was lower than the maximal theoretical power (Pmax)

derived from the force-power-velocity relationships. Therefore, if absolute maximal power

capabilities are to be developed, subjects should use an assistance that would reduce body

weight and, therefore, could produce higher movement velocities. Also, Pmax was shown to

be highly correlated with maximal velocity (V0) but not to maximal force (F0). Therefore,

athletes who wish to focus on power development might benefit from training with no load, or

very light loads moved at high speeds to produce high power outputs. Finally, it was observed

that 1-RM was highly related with F0, meaning that if maximal force capability is to be

developed, athletes should probably focus on increasing their maximal load in the prone pull-

up exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

Very high load-velocity, force-velocity and power-velocity relationships which allows

to estimate training intensity (in terms of %1-RM) by measuring movement velocity, and to

estimate the maximal force (F0), velocity (V0) and power (Pmax) capabilities were observed

in the prone pull-up exercise. Our results could have potential practical applications for strength

and conditioning coaches who wish to use the prone pull-up exercise in their training programs.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors want to thank the participants, fitness centers and SéMovimiento team for their

involvement in this study.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

REFERENCES

1. Folland JP, Williams AG. The Adaptations to Strength Training. Sport Med.

2007;37(2):145-168.

2. Fahlman MM, McNevin N, Boardley D, Morgan A, Topp R. Effects of Resistance

Training on Functional Ability in Elderly Individuals. Am J Heal Promot.

2011;25(4):237-243.

3. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular Strength in

Athletic Performance. Sport Med. 2016;46(10):1419-1449.

4. Fry AC. The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre Adaptations.

Sport Med. 2004;34(10):663-679.

5. Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations in low-

versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci. December

2014:1-10.

6. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and

exercise prescription. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2004;36(4):574-688.

7. McBride JM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Effect of loading on peak power of the bar, body,

and system during power cleans, squats, and jump squats. J Sports Sci.

2011;29(11):1215-1221.

8. Jidovtseff B, Harris NK, Crielaard J-M, Cronin JB. Using the load-velocity

relationship for 1rm prediction. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(1):267-270.

9. Day ML, McGuigan MR, Brice G, Foster C. Monitoring exercise intensity during

resistance training using the session RPE scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):353-

358.

10. Kravitz L, Akalan C, Nowicki K, Kinzey SJ. Prediction of 1 repetition maximum in

high-school power lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):167-172.

11. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement Velocity as a Measure of

Loading Intensity in Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(5):347-352.

12. Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzaléz-Badillo JJ, Jimenéz-Reyes P.

Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. J

Sports Sci. 2016;34(12):1099-1106.

13. Sánchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Perez CE, Pallares JG. Velocity- and power-

load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med.

2014;35(3):209-216.

14. Samozino P, Morin J-B, Hintzy F, Belli A. A simple method for measuring force,

velocity and power output during squat jump. J Biomech. 2008;41(14):2940-2945.

15. Zivkovic MZ, Djuric S, Cuk I, Suzovic D, Jaric S. A simple method for assessment of

muscle force, velocity, and power producing capacities from functional movement

tasks. J Sports Sci. August 2016:1-7.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

16. Sreckovic S, Cuk I, Djuric S, Nedeljkovic A, Mirkov D, Jaric S. Evaluation of force–

velocity and power–velocity relationship of arm muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015.

17. Samozino P, Rabita G, Dorel S, et al. A simple method for measuring power, force,

velocity properties, and mechanical effectiveness in sprint running. Scand J Med Sci

Sports. June 2015.

18. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A, Morin J-B. Optimal force-velocity

profile in ballistic movements--altius: citius or fortius?. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

2012;44(2):313-322.

19. García-Ramos A, Jaric S, Padial P, Feriche B. Force-Velocity Relationship of Upper

Body Muscles: Traditional Versus Ballistic Bench Press. J Appl Biomech.

2016;32(2):178-185.

20. Hansen K, Cronin J. Training Loads for the Development of Lower Body Muscular

Power During Squatting Movements. Strength Cond J. 2009;31(3):17-33.

21. Soriano MA, Suchomel TJ, Marín PJ. The Optimal Load for Maximal Power

Production During Upper-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis. Sport Med.

2016;45(8):1191-1205.

22. Youdas JW, Amundson CL, Cicero KS, Hahn JJ, Harezlak DT, Hollman JH. Surface

electromyographic activation patterns and elbow joint motion during a pull-up, chin-

up, or perfect-pullupTM rotational exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3404-

3414.

23. Sanchez-Moreno M, Pareja-Blanco F, Diaz-Cueli D, González-Badillo JJ.

Determinant factors of pull-up performance in trained athletes. J Sports Med Phys

Fitness. 56(7-8):825-833.

24. Halet KA, Mayhew JL, Murphy C, Fanthorpe J. Relationship of 1 repetition

maximum lat-pull to pull-up and lat-pull repetitions in elite collegiate women

swimmers. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):1496-1502.

25. Deyhle MR, Hsu H-S, Fairfield TJ, Cadez-Schmidt TL, Gurney BA, Mermier CM.

Relative Importance of Four Muscle Groups for Indoor Rock Climbing Performance.

J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(7):2006-2014.

26. Morin J-B, Samozino P. Interpreting Power-Force-Velocity Profiles for

Individualized and Specific Training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. December 2015.

27. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement

techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech.

2007;23(2):103-118.

28. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, McBride JM. Optimal loading for maximal

power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med Sci Sport Exerc.

2007;39(2):340-349.

29. Soriano MA, Jiménez-Reyes P, Rhea MR, Marín PJ. The Optimal Load for Maximal

Power Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis. Sport

Med. 2015;45(8):1191-1205.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

30. Dugan EL, Doyle TLA, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, Newton RU. Determining the

optimal load for jump squats: a review of methods and calculations. J Strength Cond

Res. 2004;18(3):668-674.

31. Brandon R, Howatson G, Strachan F, Hunter AM. Neuromuscular response

differences to power vs strength back squat exercise in elite athletes. Scand J Med Sci

Sports. 2014.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Figure 1. Load-velocity linear regression from a typical participant.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Figure 2. Force-velocity linear regression and power-velocity quadratic regression. Data

represents average values from the whole group.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Figure 3. Correlation between A) F0 and 1-RM/kg and B) Pmax and V0.

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

“Load, Force and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise” by Muñoz-López M et al.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Table 1: Mean and standard deviations values for F0, V0, Pmax, slope of the force-velocity relationship, mean propulsive velocity without an

external load and mean propulsive velocity at typical percentage of the 1-RM (calculated from individual regression equations)

Measure

Total

F0(N/kg) *

14.8  2.1

16.3  1.1

19.0  2.6

16.7  2.6

V0 (m/s)

2.4  0.9

2.2  0.4

2.0  0.8

2.2  0.7

Pmax (W/kg)

8.6  2.8

9.1  1.9

9.6  3.1

9.1  2.7

F-V Slope *

-7.4  4.1

-7.5  1.8

-10.4  3.4

-8.5  3.5

MPV UP (m/s)*

0.61  0.12

0.80  0.1

0.81  0.15

0.73  0.16

MPV @80%1-RM (m/s)

0.61  0.09

0.56  0.12

0.59  0.1

MPV @85%1-RM (m/s)

0.52  0.07

0.52  0.08

0.49  0.1

0.51  0.09

MPV @90%1-RM (m/s)

0.43  0.06

0.44  0.07

0.41  0.09

0.43  0.07

MPV @95%1-RM (m/s)

0.34  0.04

0.35  0.06

0.33  .07

0.34  0.06

MPV @100%1-RM (m/s)

0.25 0.03

0.26 0.06

0.25 0.04

0.26  0.05

*p< 0.001; F0 = maximal theoretical force production at 0 velocity; V0 = maximal theoretical velocity at 0 force; Pmax = theoretical maximal power output; F-V slope =

slope of the force-velocity linear relationship; MPV @ = mean propulsive velocity at each percentage of 1-RM; UP = unweighted pull-up (i.e. 0kg of external load)

Downloaded by UPV Biblioteca Central on 03/03/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0

Article

Aug 2024
J SPORT SCI

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.

Road to Paris 2024: force-velocity profile in different speed climbers’ abilities

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2023
BIOL SPORT

ABSTRACT: Speed climbing will be a new discipline in Paris 2024. The physical requirements of speed climbing are different from the other climbing modalities due to the short event time requiring higher level of strength and power. These parameters have been measured through the Force-Velocity (F-V) profile in different climbing disciplines. However, there are no known results evaluating different speed climbing abilities to establish whether F-V relationship is a determining factor between performance levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the upper and lower limbs F-V profile in different speed climbing abilities considering sex. Twenty-six speed climbers were divided into two groups based on their level of performance: international level (men n = 7 and women n = 2) and national level (men n = 8 and women n = 7). Participants performed pull-ups and squat incremental tests and F-V profile variables [Maximum theorical values of force (F0), velocity (V0) and power (Pmax)], one-repetition maximum value (1RM) and %1RM where peak power was expressed were collected using a linear encoder. There were significant differences in F0, relative force, %1RM where peak power was expressed, and 1RM in pull-ups (p < 0.05) between groups. However, there were not significant differences between groups in squat variables. No significant sex differences were found in any variable. There were moderate-strong correlations between running time and 1RM (pull-ups and squat), F0 and FV-slope (pull-ups) (p < 0.05) analyzed in the whole group. In conclusion, F0 and 1RM in pull-ups were significantly higher in international climbers. Therefore, national climbers should focus their training on improving force by training with heavy loads. Additionally, squat F-V profile variables do not seem to be as important as in the pull-up for performance.

Control de la pérdida de velocidad a través de la escala de esfuerzo percibido en press de banca. Control of the velocity loss through the scale of perceived effort in bench press

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2019

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.

General minimum velocity threshold for one-repetition maximum prediction in two squat variations: does the load–velocity profiling approach matter?

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024
Sport Sci Health

Purpose Most studies examining the predictive value of the load–velocity relationship in determining one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the back squat implemented its direct determination to enable testing movement velocity within a predetermined set of relative loads (e.g., 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM). We determined whether a different approach of load–velocity profiling affects the accuracy of estimating 1RM. Methods Predictions based on a practical 2-point approach (no pre-determination of 1RM) were compared to those obtained with the conventional multipoint and 2-point approach (pre-determination of 1RM). 1RM was estimated relying on a reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) of 0.3 ms⁻¹. Analyses were conducted for separate back-squat variations (n = 13 Smith machine; n = 13 free-weight). Slopes and y-intercepts were compared. The accuracy of 1RM prediction was determined by contrasting actual vs. predicted 1RM values. Results The individual MVT did not differ from the general 0.3 ms⁻¹ value in either back-squat variation. Slopes and y-intercepts were similar between all determination approaches. For the Smith machine, estimated 1RM did not differ from the actual value with either approach (mean misestimate: −1.83 to 0.02 kg). However, the limits of agreement were wide (~ 12 kg) and the absolute percent error was significantly different from 0 with all approaches (p < 0.05). Conclusion 1RM can be estimated with similar accuracy with all profiling methods, irrespectively of the back squat variation. However, the free-weight variation displays higher systematic and random errors. It can be concluded that the wide limits of agreement preclude accurate 1RM estimations on an individual basis.

Pull-Up Performance Is Affected Differently by the Muscle Contraction Regimens Practiced during Training among Climbers

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Sport climbing performance is highly related to upper limb strength and endurance. Although finger-specific methods are widely analyzed in the literature, no study has yet quantified the effects of arm-specific training. This study aims to compare the effects of three types of training involving different muscle contraction regimens on climbers’ pull-up capabilities. Thirty advanced to high-elite climbers were randomly divided into four groups: eccentric (ECC; n = 8), isometric (ISO; n = 7), plyometric (PLYO; n = 6), and no specific training (CTRL; n = 9), and they participated in a 5-week training, twice a week, focusing on pull-ups on hangboard. Pre- and post-training assessments were conducted using a force-sensing hangboard, analyzing force, velocity, power, and muscle work during three pull-up exercises: pull-ups at body weight under different conditions, incremental weighted pull-ups, and an exhaustion test. The CTRL group showed no change. Maximum strength improved in all three training groups (from +2.2 ± 3.6% to +5.0 ± 2.4%; p < 0.001); velocity variables enhanced in the ECC and PLYO groups (from +5.7 ± 7.4 to +28.7 ± 42%; p < 0.05), resulting in greater power; amplitude increased in the ECC group; and muscle work increased in the PLYO group (+21.9 ± 16.6%; p = 0.015). A 5-week training period effectively enhanced arm performance, but outcomes were influenced by the chosen muscle contraction regimens and initial individual characteristics.

Intra-Rater and Test-Retest Reliability of Barbell Force, Velocity, and Power during the Landmine Punch Throw Test Assessed by the GymAware Linear Transducer System

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023

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.

Estimating the one-repetition maximum on the leg-press exercise in female breast cancer survivors

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023

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.

Optimizing exercise prescription during breast cancer rehabilitation in women: Analysis of the load–velocity relationship in the box squat exercise

Article

Full-text available

May 2024
EUR J SPORT SCI

The aims of this study were to assess (i) the load–velocity relationship during the box squat exercise in women survivors of breast cancer, (ii) which velocity variable (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV], or peak velocity [PV]) shows stronger relationship with the relative load (%1RM), and (iii) which regression model (linear [LA] or polynomic [PA]) provides a greater fit for predicting the velocities associated with each %1RM. Nineteen women survivors of breast cancer (age: 53.2 ± 6.9 years, weight: 70.9 ± 13.1 kg, and height: 163.5 ± 7.4 cm) completed an incremental load test up to one‐repetition maximum in the box squat exercise. The MV, MPV, and the PV were measured during the concentric phase of each repetition with a linear velocity transducer. These measurements were analyzed by regression models using LA and PA. Strong correlations of MV with %1RM (R² = 0.903/0.904; the standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 0.05 m.s⁻¹ by LA/PA) and MPV (R² = 0.900; SEE = 0.06 m.s⁻¹ by LA and PA) were observed. In contrast, PV showed a weaker association with %1RM (R² = 0.704; SEE = 0.15 m.s⁻¹ by LA and PA). The MV and MPV of 1RM was 0.22 ± 0.04 m·s⁻¹, whereas the PV at 1RM was 0.63 ± 0.18 m.s⁻¹. These findings suggest that the use of MV to prescribe relative loads during resistance training, as well as LA and PA regression models, accurately predicted velocities for each %1RM. Assessing and prescribing resistance exercises during breast cancer rehabilitation can be facilitated through the monitoring of movement velocity.

Sex Differences in the Load–Velocity Profiles of Three Different Row Exercises

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

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.

Assessing climbers’ pull-up capabilities by differentiating the parameters involved in power production

Article

Sep 2023

This study explored the capabilities of sport climbers to pull up with arms. The methodology aimed at assessing (i) concentric capabilities of arm muscles, (ii) body coordination skills (iii) characteristics of energy storage and (iv) capabilities to resist fatigue. Twenty-eight climbers were tested and the force exerted was recorded during three pull-up exercises: jump tests (with or without coordination, or preceded by an eccentric phase), incrementally weighted pull-ups and maximum number of pull-ups. Force, velocity, muscle power and muscle work were analysed using ANOVA with post-hoc tests and principal component analysis. Correlations with climbing level were also studied. Overall, jump test results showed that body coordination and stretch-shortening cycle phenomena contributed significantly to performance but only the body coordination was related to the climber’s grade level. Muscle work and maximum number of pull-ups are correlated with climbing level which showed that the capacity to resist fatigue is another crucial capability of climbers arms. The development of force capacities appeared crucial for performing whereas the velocity capabilities seemed to originate from the climber’s own characteristics/style without correlating with climbing performance. Our study provides the basis for evaluating these parameters in order to help trainers in the diagnosis process and training follow-up.

The Optimal Load for Maximal Power Production During Upper-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2017
SPORTS MED

Background External mechanical power is considered to be one of the most important characteristics with regard to sport performance. Objective The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the effect of load on kinetic variables such as mean and peak power during bench press and bench press throw, thus integrating the findings of various studies to provide the strength and conditioning professional with more reliable evidence upon which to base their program design. MethodsA search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 October 2015. Hedges’ g (95 % confidence interval) was estimated using a weighted random-effect model, due to the heterogeneity (I2) of the studies. Egger’s test was used to evaluate possible publication bias in the meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 434 subjects and 7680 effect sizes met the inclusion criterion and were included in the statistical analyses. Load in each study was labeled as one of three intensity zones: zone 1 represented an average intensity ranging from 0 to 30 % of one repetition maximum (1RM); zone 2 between 30 and 70 % of 1RM; and zone 3 ≥ 70 % of 1RM. ResultsThese results showed different optimal loads for each exercise examined. Moderate loads (from >30 to <70 % of 1RM) appear to provide the optimal load for peak power and mean power in the bench press exercise. Lighter loads (<30 % of 1RM) appear to provide the highest mean and highest peak power production in the bench press throw exercise. However, a substantial heterogeneity was detected I2 > 75 %. Conclusion The current meta-analysis of published literature provides evidence for exercise-specific optimal power loading for upper body exercises.

The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic Performance

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2016
SPORTS MED

This review article discusses previous literature that has examined the influence of muscular strength on various factors associated with athletic performance and the benefits of achieving greater muscular strength. Greater muscular strength is strongly associated with improved force-time characteristics that contribute to an athlete’s overall performance. Much research supports the notion that greater muscular strength can enhance the ability to perform general sport skills such as jumping, sprinting, and change of direction tasks. Further research indicates that stronger athletes produce superior performances during sport specific tasks. Greater muscular strength allows an individual to potentiate earlier and to a greater extent, but also decreases the risk of injury. Sport scientists and practitioners may monitor an individual’s strength characteristics using isometric, dynamic, and reactive strength tests and variables. Relative strength may be classified into strength deficit, strength association, or strength reserve phases. The phase an individual falls into may directly affect their level of performance or training emphasis. Based on the extant literature, it appears that there may be no substitute for greater muscular strength when it comes to improving an individual’s performance across a wide range of both general and sport specific skills while simultaneously reducing their risk of injury when performing these skills. Therefore, sport scientists and practitioners should implement long-term training strategies that promote the greatest muscular strength within the required context of each sport/event. Future research should examine how force-time characteristics, general and specific sport skills, potentiation ability, and injury rates change as individuals transition from certain standards or the suggested phases of strength to another.

Interpreting Power-Force-Velocity Profiles for Individualized and Specific Training

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2015
Int J Sports Physiol Perform

Recent studies have brought new insights into the evaluation of power-force-velocity profiles in both ballistic push-offs (e.g. jumps) and sprint movements. These are major physical components of performance in many sports, and the methods we developed and validated are based on data that are now rather simple to obtain in field conditions (e.g. body mass, jump height, sprint times or velocity). The promising aspect of these approaches is that they allow for a more individualized and accurate evaluation, monitoring, and training practices; the success of which are highly dependent on the correct collection, generation and interpretation of athletes' mechanical outputs. We therefore wanted to provide a practical vade mecum to sports practitioners interested in implementing these power-force-velocity profiling approaches. After providing a summary of theoretical and practical definitions for the main variables, we have first detailed how vertical profiling can be used to manage ballistic push-off performance with emphasis on the concept of optimal force-velocity profile and the associated force-velocity imbalance. Further, we have discussed these same concepts with regards to horizontal profiling in the management of sprinting performance. These sections have been illustrated by typical examples from our own practice. Finally, we have provided a practical and operational synthesis, and outlined future challenges that will help in further developing these approaches.

Force-Velocity Relationship of Upper Body Muscles: Traditional Versus Ballistic Bench Press

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2016

This study aimed at (1) evaluating the linearity of the force-velocity relationship, as well as the reliability of maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), slope (α), and maximum power (P0); (2) comparing these parameters between the traditional and ballistic bench press (BP); and (3) determining the correlation of F0 with the directly measured BP 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Thirty-two men randomly performed 2 sessions of traditional BP and 2 sessions of ballistic BP during 2 consecutive weeks. Both the maximum and mean values of force and velocity were recorded when loaded by 20-70% of 1RM. All force-velocity relationships were strongly linear (r > 0.99). While F0 and P0 were highly reliable (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient]: 0.91-0.96, CV [coefficient of variation]: 3.8-5.1%), lower reliability was observed for V0 and α (ICC: 0.49-0.81, CV: 6.6-11.8%). Trivial differences between exercises were found for F0 (ES [effect size] < 0.2), however the α was higher for the traditional BP (ES: 0.68-0.94), and V0 (ES: 1.04-1.48) and P0 (ES: 0.65-0.72) for the ballistic BP. The F0 strongly correlated with BP 1RM (r: 0.915-0.938). The force-velocity relationship is useful to assess the upper-body maximal capabilities to generate force, velocity, and power.

Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2015
J SPORT SCI

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between movement velocity and relative load in three lower limbs exercises commonly used to develop strength: leg press, full squat and half squat. The percentage of one repetition maximum (%1RM) has typically been used as the main parameter to control resistance training; however, more recent research has proposed movement velocity as an alternative. Fifteen participants performed a load progression with a range of loads until they reached their 1RM. Maximum instantaneous velocity (Vmax) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) of the knee extension phase of each exercise were assessed. For all exercises, a strong relationship between Vmax and the %1RM was found: leg press (r(2)adj = 0.96; 95% CI for slope is [-0.0244, -0.0258], P < 0.0001), full squat (r(2)adj = 0.94; 95% CI for slope is [-0.0144, -0.0139], P < 0.0001) and half squat (r(2)adj = 0.97; 95% CI for slope is [-0.0135, -0.00143], P < 0.0001); for MPV, leg press (r(2)adj = 0.96; 95% CI for slope is [-0.0169, -0.0175], P < 0.0001, full squat (r(2)adj = 0.95; 95% CI for slope is [-0.0136, -0.0128], P < 0.0001) and half squat (r(2)adj = 0.96; 95% CI for slope is [-0.0116, 0.0124], P < 0.0001). The 1RM was attained with a MPV and Vmax of 0.21 ± 0.06 m s(-1) and 0.63 ± 0.15 m s(-1), 0.29 ± 0.05 m s(-1) and 0.89 ± 0.17 m s(-1), 0.33 ± 0.05 m s(-1) and 0.95 ± 0.13 m s(-1) for leg press, full squat and half squat, respectively. Results indicate that it is possible to determine an exercise-specific %1RM by measuring movement velocity for that exercise.

The Optimal Load for Maximal Power Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2015

The development of muscular power is often a key focus of sports performance enhancement programs. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the effect of load on peak power during the squat, jump squat, power clean, and hang power clean, thus integrating the findings of various studies to provide the strength and conditioning professional with more reliable evidence upon which to base their program design. A search of electronic databases [MEDLINE (SPORTDiscus), PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science] was conducted to identify all publications up to 30 June 2014. Hedges' g (95 % confidence interval) was estimated using a weighted random-effect model. A total of 27 studies with 468 subjects and 5766 effect sizes met the inclusion criterion and were included in the statistical analyses. Load in each study was labeled as one of three intensity zones: Zone 1 represented an average intensity ranging from 0 to 30 % of one repetition maximum (1RM); Zone 2 between 30 and 70 % of 1RM; and Zone 3 ≥70 % of 1RM. These results showed different optimal loads for each exercise examined. Moderate loads (from >30 to <70 % of 1RM) appear to provide the optimal load for power production in the squat exercise. Lighter loads (≤30 % of 1RM) showed the highest peak power production in the jump squat. Heavier loads (≥70 % of 1RM) resulted in greater peak power production in the power clean and hang power clean. Our meta-analysis of results from the published literature provides evidence for exercise-specific optimal loads for power production.

A simple method for measuring power, force, velocity properties, and mechanical effectiveness in sprint running: Simple method to compute sprint mechanics

Article

Full-text available

May 2015
SCAND J MED SCI SPOR

This study aimed to validate a simple field method for determining force- and power-velocity relationships and mechanical effectiveness of force application during sprint running. The proposed method, based on an inverse dynamic approach applied to the body center of mass, estimates the step-averaged ground reaction forces in runner's sagittal plane of motion during overground sprint acceleration from only anthropometric and spatiotemporal data. Force- and power-velocity relationships, the associated variables, and mechanical effectiveness were determined (a) on nine sprinters using both the proposed method and force plate measurements and (b) on six other sprinters using the proposed method during several consecutive trials to assess the inter-trial reliability. The low bias (<5%) and narrow limits of agreement between both methods for maximal horizontal force (638 ± 84 N), velocity (10.5 ± 0.74 m/s), and power output (1680 ± 280 W); for the slope of the force-velocity relationships; and for the mechanical effectiveness of force application showed high concurrent validity of the proposed method. The low standard errors of measurements between trials (<5%) highlighted the high reliability of the method. These findings support the validity of the proposed simple method, convenient for field use, to determine power, force, velocity properties, and mechanical effectiveness in sprint running. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Evaluation of force–velocity and power–velocity relationship of arm muscles

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2015
EUR J APPL PHYSIOL

A number of recent studies have revealed an approximately linear force-velocity (F-V) and, consequently, a parabolic power-velocity (P-V) relationship of multi-joint tasks. However, the measurement characteristics of their parameters have been neglected, particularly those regarding arm muscles, which could be a problem for using the linear F-V model in both research and routine testing. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to evaluate the strength, shape, reliability, and concurrent validity of the F-V relationship of arm muscles. Twelve healthy participants performed maximum bench press throws against loads ranging from 20 to 70 % of their maximum strength, and linear regression model was applied on the obtained range of F and V data. One-repetition maximum bench press and medicine ball throw tests were also conducted. The observed individual F-V relationships were exceptionally strong (r = 0.96-0.99; all P < 0.05) and fairly linear, although it remains unresolved whether a polynomial fit could provide even stronger relationships. The reliability of parameters obtained from the linear F-V regressions proved to be mainly high (ICC > 0.80), while their concurrent validity regarding directly measured F, P, and V ranged from high (for maximum F) to medium-to-low (for maximum P and V). The findings add to the evidence that the linear F-V and, consequently, parabolic P-V models could be used to study the mechanical properties of muscular systems, as well as to design a relatively simple, reliable, and ecologically valid routine test of the muscle ability of force, power, and velocity production.

A simple method for assessment of muscle force, velocity, and power producing capacities from functional movement tasks

Article

Aug 2016
J SPORT SCI

A range of force (F) and velocity (V) data obtained from functional movement tasks (e.g., running, jumping, throwing, lifting, cycling) performed under variety of external loads have typically revealed strong and approximately linear F–V relationships. The regression model parameters reveal the maximum F (F-intercept), V (V-intercept), and power (P) producing capacities of the tested muscles. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the routinely used “multiple-load model” and a simple “two-load model” based on direct assessment of the F–V relationship from only 2 external loads applied. Twelve participants were tested on the maximum performance vertical jumps, cycling, bench press throws, and bench pull performed against a variety of different loads. All 4 tested tasks revealed both exceptionally strong relationships between the parameters of the 2 models (median R = 0.98) and a lack of meaningful differences between their magnitudes (fixed bias below 3.4%). Therefore, addition of another load to the standard tests of various functional tasks typically conducted under a single set of mechanical conditions could allow for the assessment of the muscle mechanical propertie s such as the muscle F, V, and P producing capacities.

Determinant factors of pull up performance in trained athletes

Article

Jul 2015

to investigate the relationship among pull up and lat pull exercises and different anthropometric dimensions in trained athletes. twenty-five males were evaluated for maximum number of pull ups, one-repetition maximum lat pull (1RM Lat Pull), lat pull repetitions at 80% 1RM (Lat Pull at 80% 1RM), lat pull repetitions at a load equivalent to body mass (Lat Pull at BM-load), and different anthropometric variables. Furthermore, the subjects were divided in higher (HPG, n = 12) and lower pull up performance (LPG, n = 13) to compare the differences in the variables analyzed between both levels. pull ups were significantly correlated with Lat Pull at BM-load (r = .62, P < .01) but neither with 1RM Lat Pull (r = .09) nor with Lat Pull at 80% 1RM (r = -.15). Pull ups showed a significant (P < .05) negative relationship with body mass (BM, r = -.55), lean body mass (LBM, r = -.51), and fat mass (FM, r = -.52), while BM and LBM were significantly correlated with 1RM Lat Pull (r = .55, P < .05). HPG showed significantly (P < .05) lower BM (0/3/97%), FM (1/3/97%) and LBM (1/4/95%) than LPG. Furthermore, HPG attained significantly (P < .05- .001) greater performance in Lat Pull at BM-load (100/0/0%) and 1RM Lat Pull•BM-1(96/3/2%) than LPG. these findings suggest that pull up and lat pull exercises have common elements. Moreover, the anthropometric dimensions seem to influence differently on both exercises,depending on the strength indicator evaluated.