Content uploaded by Amador García Ramos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amador García Ramos on Oct 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
Sports Biomechanics
ISSN: 1476-3141 (Print) 1752-6116 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20
The load-velocity profile differs more between
men and women than between individuals with
different strength levels
Alejandro Torrejón, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, G. Gregory Haff & Amador
García-Ramos
To cite this article: Alejandro Torrejón, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, G. Gregory Haff
& Amador García-Ramos (2018): The load-velocity profile differs more between men and
women than between individuals with different strength levels, Sports Biomechanics, DOI:
10.1080/14763141.2018.1433872
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2018.1433872
Published online: 21 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2018.1433872
The load-velocity prole diers more between men and
women than between individuals with dierent strength
levels
AlejandroTorrejóna, CarlosBalsalobre-Fernándezb, G. GregoryHac and
AmadorGarcía-Ramosa,d
aFaculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada,
Spain; bDepartment of Physical Education, Sport and Human Movement, Autonomous University of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain; cCentre for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia;
dFaculty of Education, Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, CIEDE, Catholic University of
Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the suitability of the load-velocity
relationship to prescribe the relative load (%1RM) in women, as well as
to compare the load-velocity prole between sexes and participants
with dierent strength levels. The load-velocity relationship of 14 men
(1RM: 1.17±0.19) and 14 women (1RM: 0.66±0.13) were evaluated
in the bench press exercise. The main ndings revealed that: (I) the
load-velocity relationship was always strong and linear (R2 range:
0.987–0.993), (II) a steeper load-velocity prole was observed in men
compared to women (Eect size [ES]: 1.09), with men showing higher
velocities for light loads (ES: −0.81 and −0.40 for the y-intercept and
30%1RM, respectively), but women reporting higher velocities for the
heavy loads (ES: 1.14 and 1.50 at 90%1RM and 100%1RM, respectively);
and (III) while the slope of the load-velocity prole was moderately
steeper for weak men compared to their strong counterpart (ES: 1.02),
small dierences were observed between strong and weak women
(ES: − 0.39). While these results support the use of the individual
load-velocity relationship to prescribe the %1RM in the bench press
exercise for women, they also highlight the large disparities in their
load-velocity prole compared to men.
Introduction
The use of load-velocity profiling is becoming popular in the strength and conditioning
field, since several studies have shown that there exists a strong and negative relationship
between the relative load (in terms of % of the 1-repetition maximum; 1RM) and the
velocity at which the load is lifted (Banyard, Nosaka, & Haff, 2017; González-Badillo &
Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Muñoz-Lopez, Marchante, Cano-Ruiz, Chicharro, & Balsalobre-
Fernandez, 2017). Given the very high correlation between the load and movement
KEYWORDS
Velocity-based resistance
training; one-repetition
maximum; relative load;
movement velocity; bench
press
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 5 October 2017
Accepted23 January 2018
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Amador García-Ramos amagr@ugr.es
2 A. TORREJÓN ET AL.
velocity, the load-velocity proling has been proposed as a time-ecient, non-invasive
and accurate means of estimating the 1RM and, therefore, to prescribe the training loads
during resistance training programs (González-Badillo, Marques, & Sánchez-Medina, 2011;
Jovanonic & Flanagan, 2014; Mann, Ivey, & Sayers, 2015).
It has been observed that movement velocity can predict, with a high degree of accuracy
(R2
> 0.97 in most cases), the relative load in basic resistance training exercises such as the bench
press, squat, or pull-up (Conceição, Fernandes, Lewis, Gonzaléz-Badillo, & Jimenéz-Reyes, 2016;
González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Muñoz-Lopez et al., 2017; Pérez-Castilla, García-
Ramos, Padial, Morales-Artacho, & Feriche, 2017; Sánchez-Moreno, Rodríguez-Rosell, Pareja-
Blanco, Mora-Custodio, & González-Badillo, 2017). Moreover, the load-velocity prole does not
seem to dier between age-matched participants of dierent strength levels (González-Badillo &
Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Sánchez-Medina, Pallarés, Pérez, Morán-Navarro, & González-Badillo,
2017). However, one of the main drawbacks of these studies is that, to the best of our knowledge,
the load-velocity prole has been analysed almost exclusively in male participants. erefore,
there is a need to replicate this type of research with women to elucidate whether movement
velocity is also a suitable tool to estimate %1RM in female participants, especially considering
the well-known large dierences in several strength-related capacities between men and women
(Bishop, Cureton, & Collins, 1987; Miller, MacDougall, Tarnopolsky, & Sale, 1993). A recent
study has shown that the velocity associated with each %1RM during the military press exercise
is higher in men compared to women (Balsalobre-Fernández, García-Ramos, & Jiménez-Reyes,
2017). Similarly, young men reported higher velocity values for each %1RM when compared to
middle-aged men (Fernandes, Lamb, & Twist, 2017). Although the underlying mechanisms of
these dierences are not fully understood, it is possible that some women and older individuals
may possess a greater concentration of slow twitch bres that may have impacted these results
(Lexell, 1995; Staron et al., 2000).
To address the existing gaps in the literature, in the present study, we evaluated the load-ve-
locity prole in the bench press exercise of both men and women participants. Specically, the
main objectives of the present study were (I) to determine the suitability of the load-velocity
relationship to prescribe the relative load (%1RM) in women, as well as (II) to compare the
load-velocity prole between men and women. Additionally, we also (III) explored the inuence
of strength level on the load-velocity prole separately for each sex. We hypothesised that (I) the
load-velocity relationship would be strong and highly linear for all the groups analysed (García-
Ramos & Jaric, 2017), (II) men would present a steeper load-velocity prole than women (i.e.,
the change in velocity for a given change in the %1RM would be higher for men) (Balsalobre-
Fernández et al., 2017) and (III) no meaningful dierences in the load-velocity prole would be
obtained between strong and weak participants of the same sex (González-Badillo & Sánchez-
Medina, 2010). e ndings are expected to expand the applications of movement velocity for
monitoring and prescribing the load during resistance training programs.
Methods
Participants
Although the power analysis conducted in previous studies revealed that sample sizes
of only 3–9 participants were needed to detect the dierences in mechanical variables
(force, velocity and power) (Sreckovic et al., 2015), we conservatively recruited 14 men
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 3
(age=23.8±2.5years; body mass=73.4±8.9kg; body height=1.77±0.07m) and 14
women (age=21.5±1.4years; body mass=62.2±8.7kg; body height=1.69±0.06m) to
participate in this study. At the beginning of the study, men presented higher experience
with the bench press exercise than women (6.2±2.0 and 1.2± 1.5years, respectively).
Participants did not report any physical limitations, health problems or musculoskeletal
injuries that could compromise testing. ey were also instructed to avoid any strenuous
exercise two days before the testing session. All participants were informed of the study
procedures and signed a written informed consent form prior to initiating the study. e
study protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by
the University of Granada Institutional Review Board.
Experimental design
is study was designed to examine whether there exist dierences in the load-velocity
prole between men and women. Prior to the testing session designed to assess the load-ve-
locity prole, participants were involved in a 4-week training period (twice a week, with
48–72 h of rest between sessions) with the objectives of increasing strength levels and
ensuring proper technique. In each training session participants performed 5 sets of the
bench press exercise in a Smith machine as well as some complementary exercises such as
the seated military press, lat pulldown or leg press. e intensity in the bench press exercise
ranged from ≈ 60%1RM to ≈ 90%1RM. A linear velocity transducer was used to measure
barbell velocity during all training sessions and the participants were told to stop when the
mean velocity (MV) of the barbell dropped below 0.30m/s in men and 0.35m/s in women
(approximately 2–3 repetitions in reserve) (García-Ramos et al., 2017). Dierent stopping
velocities were used to leave a similar number of repetitions in reserve since the velocity
of the 1RM is higher for women than men. e testing session consisted of an incremental
loading protocol in the bench press exercise up to the 1RM. All participants were evaluated
in the aernoon (between 16:00 and 20:00h) and under similar environmental conditions
(~22ºC and ~60% humidity).
Testing procedures
e testing session began with a 10-min standardised warm-up, which included jogging,
dynamic stretching, arm and shoulder mobilisation and one set of ve repetitions performed
as fast as possible with an external load of 17kg (mass of the unloaded Smith machine
barbell) in the bench press exercise. Aer warming up, participants rested for 3min before
undertaking an incremental load test. e initial external load for this test was set at 17kg
for both sexes. e load was progressively increased by 10kg increments for men and 5kg
increments for women until the attainment of MV was lower than 0.50m/s. From that
moment, the load was progressively increased in steps of 0.5 to 5kg for men and 0.5kg to
2.5kg for women until the actual 1RM was directly determined with the completion of a
single maximal li. e magnitude of the load increment was decided by a skilled investi-
gator aer reaching a consensus with the participant. For the lighter loads (MV>1.0m/s),
three attempts were executed at each load, two for the medium (0.65m/s≤MV≤1.0m/s)
and only one for the heavier loads (MV<0.65m/s). e rest period between the repetitions
performed with the same load was 10 s. e rest period between dierent loading conditions
4 A. TORREJÓN ET AL.
was set to 3min for lighter and medium loads, while 5min were implemented between the
heavier loads. Two trained spotters were present at both sides of the barbell on the Smith
machine to ensure safety and encourage the participants to li the barbell at the maximum
possible velocity. In addition, participants received velocity performance feedback imme-
diately aer completing each repetition to further encourage them to give maximal eort.
Participants performed the bench press using the standard ve-point body contact posi-
tion technique (head, upper back and buttocks rmly on the bench with both feet at on the
oor) and with a self-selected grip width that was kept constant on every li. Participants
initiated the task holding the barbell with their elbows fully extended. From this position,
they were instructed to perform the downward phase until contacting with their chest at
the lower portion of the sternum, and immediately aer contact they performed the upward
phase of the liing as fast as possible. e upward phase ended when the participants’ elbows
reached full extension.
Measurement equipment and data analysis
Height (Seca 202, Seca Ltd., Hamburg, Germany) and body mass (Tanita BC 418 segmental,
Tokyo, Japan) were assessed at the beginning of the testing session prior to the initiation
of the warm-up. A Smith machine (Technogym, Barcelona, Spain) coupled with a linear
velocity transducer (T-Force System; Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) which sampled the velocity
of the barbell at a frequency of 1,000Hz was used during the incremental loading test.
e MV (i.e., average velocity from the onset of positive velocity until the barbell reaches
maximum height) was used to model the load-velocity proles. e MV was selected as the
key measurement based upon previous research which has recommended using the MV
over mean propulsive velocity and peak velocity when determining the load-velocity prole
(García-Ramos, Pestaña-Melero, Pérez-Castilla, Rojas, & Ha, 2017).
Only the repetition with the highest MV value of each loading condition was used for
subsequent analysis. e loads that represented less than a 30%1RM were also excluded
from the analysis to ensure that the load-velocity proles were modelled with a similar range
of relative loads for men and women. e MV attained at each %1RM (in 10% increments
from 30%1RM to 100%1RM) were obtained from the individual load-velocity relationships
aer applying rst-order polynomials to the data. Note that the linear regression model has
been reported to provide a more reliable load-velocity prole when compared to the use of
a second-order polynomial when applied to the bench press exercise (Pestaña-Melero, Ha,
Rojas, Pérez-Castilla, & García-Ramos, 2017). To assess the eect of strength level on the
load-velocity prole, the groups of men and women were divided in two subgroups of strong
and weak participants according to their 1RM relative to body mass: (I) strong men, (II) weak
men, (III) strong women and (IV) weak women. erefore, the strong groups consisted of
the 7 men and 7 women with the highest relative 1RM bench press strength, while the 7 men
and 7 women with the lowest relative 1RM bench press were included in the weak groups.
Statistical analyses
Data are presented as means and standard deviations, while the Pearson’s multivariate
coecient of determination (R2) is presented through their median values and ranges. e
magnitude of the dierences in the 1RM strength (absolute and relative to body mass values)
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 5
and in the velocity of the 1RM was compared between sexes (men vs. women) and strength
levels (strong vs. weak) through the Cohen’s eect size (ES). e criteria for interpreting the
magnitude of the ES were: trivial (<0.2), small (0.2–0.6), moderate (0.6–1.2), large (1.2–2.0)
and extremely large (>2.0) (Hopkins, Marshall, Batterham, & Hanin, 2009). e relationship
between relative load (%1RM) and MV was established by means of linear regression models
(Banyard et al., 2017; Conceição et al., 2016). e goodness of t of the linear regressions
was assessed by r2. e Fisher’s Z-transformed Pearson’s correlation coecients (r) of the
individual load-velocity proles were compared through a two-way ANOVA with sex (men
vs. women) and strength level (strong vs. weak) as between-participants factors. e dier-
ences in the load-velocity prole (i.e., slope of the load-velocity prole, y-intercept and MV
from 30%1RM to 100%1RM in 10% increments) were also assessed with the ES and its 90%
condence interval. e ANOVA was performed using SPSS soware version 22.0 (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and statistical signicance was set at an alpha level of 0.05, while all
other statistical analyses were performed with a custom Excel spreadsheet.
Results
e dierences in the 1RM value between men and women were very large (absolute 1RM
ES=4.01; relative 1RM ES=3.23) (Table 1). As expected, the 1RM value was higher for strong
than weak participants for both men (absolute 1RM ES=1.62; relative 1RM ES=2.84) and
women (absolute 1RM ES=0.85; relative 1RM ES=2.60). On the other hand, the velocity of
the 1RM was higher for women than men (ES=0.90). It should be also noted that while trivial
dierences in the velocity of the 1RM were observed between strong and weak men (ES=0.18),
moderate higher values were observed for weak women compared to their strong counterparts
(ES=0.78).
e analysis of the whole data-set revealed a strong linear relationship between MV and rel-
ative load (%1RM) either for men (R2=0.95) and women (R2=0.94) (Figure 1). e individual
load-velocity relationships were also very strong for both sexes (R
2
=0.994 [0.981, 0.999] for men
and R2=0.992 [0.963, 0.999] for women). e ANOVA applied on the Fisher’s Z-transformed r
coecients did not reveal signicant main eects for sex (F=0.01, p=0.935,
𝜂2
p
=
0.00
), strength
levels (F= 0.64, p=0.433,
𝜂2
p
=
0.03
) or their interaction (F=0.80, p=0.381,
𝜂2
p
=
0.032
)
(Figure 2).
Table 1.One-repetition maximum (1RM) value and its associated velocity observed in the different
groups studied.
Notes: Men and women were divided in ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ groups according to their relative 1RM (i.e., 1RM normalised per
kg of body mass).
*Significantly different than men; #significantly different than their strong counterparts.
Variable
Men Women
All (n = 14) Strong (n = 7) Weak (n = 7) All (n = 14) Strong (n = 7) Weak (n = 7)
Absolute 1RM
(kg)
85.2 ± 14.5 94.4 ± 12.0 76.0 ± 10.7#39.9 ± 8.1*43.1 ± 8.8 36.7 ± 6.2#
Relative 1RM 1.17 ± 0.19 1.32 ± 0.13 1.02 ± 0.08#0.66 ± 0.13*0.75 ± 0.11 0.56 ± 0.04#
Velocity 1RM
(m/s)
0.167 ± 0.037 0.171 ± 0.039 0.164 ± 0.037 0.208 ± 0.053*0.188 ± 0.052 0.228 ± 0.050#
6 A. TORREJÓN ET AL.
Steeper load-velocity proles were observed in men compared to women (ES=1.09)
(Figure 3). As a consequence, while men achieved higher MV for light loads (e.g., the ES was
−0.81 and −0.40 for the y-intercept and 30%1RM, respectively), women reported higher
MV for the heavy loads. Finally, it should be noted that while the slope of the load-veloc-
ity prole was moderately steeper for weak men compared to their strong counterpart
(ES=1.02), small dierences in the slope of the load-velocity prole was observed between
strong and weak women (ES=−0.39) (Figure 4).
Discussion and implications
e present study was designed to elucidate whether the strong association between relative
load (%1RM) and movement velocity commonly reported for men can be extrapolated to
women, as well as to determine the possible dierences in the load-velocity prole that may
exist between both sexes. Our main ndings revealed (I) a very strong and linear relationship
between MV and %1RM regardless of the sex and strength level of the participants, (II)
large dierences in the velocity associated to each %1RM between men and women due
Figure 1.Relationship between relative load (%1RM) and mean velocity (MV) for men (filled dots and solid
line) and women (open dots and dashed line). R2, Pearson’s multivariate coefficient of determination;
N=number of trials included in the regression analysis.
Figure 2.Pearson’s correlation coefficients (median value with its range) obtained from the individual
load-velocity relationships.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 7
to a steeper load-velocity prole in men and (III) a steeper load-velocity prole for weak
men than strong men, but small dierences generally observed between weak and strong
women. ese results collectively support the use of MV to prescribe the %1RM regardless
of the sex and strength level of the individuals. However, our results also highlight that the
load-velocity prole largely diers between men and women, while the maximal strength
level (i.e., 1RM relative to body mass) does not seem to be responsible for the between-sex
dierences in the load-velocity prole.
Our rst hypothesis was conrmed since women showed an exceptionally strong and
linear relationship between MV and the relative load (%1RM). It should be also highlighted
that the accuracy of the load-velocity relationship was high for both men and women as
well as for weak and strong participants. e goodness of t of the individual load-velocity
relationships obtained in the present study (R2=0.99) was similar to previously reported
data for the bench press exercise (R2 ≈ 0.99) (Sánchez-Medina, González-Badillo, Pérez, &
Pallarés, 2014), as well as for other basic resistance training exercises such as the squat (R2
≈ 0.98) (Pérez-Castilla et al., 2017), vertical jumps (R2 ≈ 0.98) (Pérez-Castilla et al., 2017),
bench pull (R
2
≈ 0.99) (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014) and pull-up (R
2
≈ 0.98) (Muñoz-Lopez
et al., 2017). e high linearity of the load-velocity relationship supports the use of the linear
regression model instead of more complex calculation methods (e.g., polynomial model)
(Bobbert, 2012). In this regard, an almost perfect concurrent validity (trivial eect sizes
[from 0.02 to 0.17] and very high correlations [r ranged from 0.96 to 0.98]) of the bench
press 1RM predicted by the two-point method (i.e., load-velocity relationship modelled
through only 2 data points) has been reported with respect to the directly measured 1RM
(García-Ramos et al., 2017). erefore, the results of the present study add to the evidence
that movement velocity can be used to accurately estimate the relative load (%1RM) through
a linear regression model regardless of the sex and strength levels of the participants.
Figure 3.Standardised mean differences (90% confidence intervals) in the load-velocity profile between
men and women. Slope, absolute value of the slope of the load-velocity linear regression; y-intercept,
y-intercept of the load-velocity linear regression (i.e., MV at 0%1RM); MV, mean velocity; 1RM, one-
repetition maximum.
8 A. TORREJÓN ET AL.
Supporting our second hypothesis, large dierences in the load-velocity prole were
observed between men and women, with men possessing a steeper load-velocity prole
than women. As a consequence, while the MV associated with the light loads (≈ 30%1RM)
was higher for men, women presented higher MV values for heavy loads (≈ 100%1RM).
ese results speak against using generalised group equations that were proposed with
the objective of predicting the %1RM from the velocity recorded against a single loading
condition (Conceição et al., 2016; González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Pallarés,
Sánchez-Medina, Pérez, De La Cruz-Sánchez, & Mora-Rodriguez, 2014; Pérez-Castilla et
al., 2017). It should be noted that the results of the present study would encourage the use
Figure 4.Standardised mean differences (90% confidence intervals) in the load-velocity profile between
strong and weak men (upper panel) and women (lower panel). Slope, absolute value of the slope of the
load-velocity linear regression; y-intercept, y-intercept of the load-velocity linear regression (i.e., MV at
0%1RM); MV, mean velocity; 1RM, one-repetition maximum.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 9
of dierent equations for men and women. However, since meaningful dierences in the
load-velocity prole have also been reported for men (Helms et al., 2017; Pestaña-Melero
et al., 2017), the individual modelling of the load-velocity prole is preferable for a more
accurate prescription of the %1RM. Note that an individual prediction of the 1RM could
be obtained from the velocity data collected under only 2 dierent loading conditions (i.e.,
two-point method) (García-Ramos et al., 2017).
To the best of our knowledge, the present study has explored for the rst time the dier-
ences in the load-velocity prole between men and women during the bench press exercise.
Men reported a steeper slope for the load-velocity relationship (i.e., the change in MV for a
given change in the %1RM was higher for men than women). It should be also noted that
the velocity of the 1RM trial was higher in women (≈ 0.21m/s) as compared to men (≈
0.17m/s). e higher experience of men with the bench press exercise could be responsible
of these results. In this regard, it has been postulated that the dierences in the velocity
recorded during the 1RM trial could be responsible of the dierences in the velocity asso-
ciated to each %1RM (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010). Namely, participants
with a higher velocity during the 1RM trial are also expected to have higher velocities for
other relative loads (i.e., %1RM) (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010). However,
while women reported a higher MV during the 1RM trial, men presented higher MV values
for the light relative loads (e.g., 30%1RM). erefore, it seems that other factors beyond
an erroneous determination of the 1RM, typically associated with a high velocity during
the 1RM trial, should be responsible of the dierences in the load-velocity prole between
men and women.
To take into account the potential confounding factor of the dierent strength levels
between men and women, we also evaluated the dierences in the load-velocity prole
between strong and weak participants separately for each sex. Note that if the observed
dierences between men and women (i.e., steeper load-velocity prole for men that are
stronger) were caused by their dierent strength levels, we could expect that the stronger
participants of each sex also present a steeper load-velocity prole than their weaker coun-
terparts. However, weaker men presented a steeper load-velocity prole than their stronger
counterparts (ES=1.02), while small dierences in slope of the load-velocity prole was
observed between weak and strong women (ES=−0.39). ese data suggest that the dif-
ferences between men and women are not directly caused by their dierent strength levels.
erefore, although the underlying mechanisms require further investigation, it could be
possible that the higher predominance of slow muscle bres in women compared to men
could be one of the factors responsible for their lower velocity associated with light relative
loads (Lexell, 1995; Staron et al., 2000).
Conclusion
Movement velocity can be used to accurately prescribe the relative load (%1RM) regard-
less of the sex and strength levels of the participants. e prominent dierences in the
load-velocity prole between men and women highlight that the error of the generalised
group equations obtained with male participants may be increased when they are applied
to female participants. e results of the present study provide additional support for using
the individual load-velocity relationship instead of generalised group equations for a more
accurate prescription of the %1RM. Considering that the load-velocity relationship can be
10 A. TORREJÓN ET AL.
accurately determined by registering the velocity of just two dierent loads, which can be
measured with aordable smartphone or wearable technologies, individual load-velocity
proles can be easily determined nowadays.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Alejandro Torrejón http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-0728
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8329-1581
G. Gregory Ha http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-7750
Amador García-Ramos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0608-8755
References
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., García-Ramos, A., & Jiménez-Reyes, P. (2017). Load–velocity proling in
the military press exercise: Eects of gender and training. International Journal of Sports Science
& Coaching. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1747954117738243
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., & Ha, G. G. (2017). Reliability and validity of the load–velocity
relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31,
1897–1904. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657
Bishop, P., Cureton, K., & Collins, M. (1987). Sex dierence in muscular strength in equally-trained
men and women. Ergonomics, 30, 675–687. doi: 10.1080/00140138708969760
Bobbert, M. F. (2012). Why is the force-velocity relationship in leg press tasks quasi-linear rather than
hyperbolic? Journal of Applied Physiology, 112, 1975–1983. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00787.2011
Conceição, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., Gonzaléz-Badillo, J. J., & Jimenéz-Reyes, P. (2016). Movement
velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences,
34, 1099–1106. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1090010
Fernandes, J. F. T., Lamb, K. L., & Twist, C. (2017). A comparison of load-velocity and load-power
relationships between well-trained young and middle-aged males during three popular resistance
exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001986
García-Ramos, A., Ha, G., Pestana-Melero, F., Perez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F., Balsalobre-Fernandez, C.,
& Jaric, S. (2017). Feasibility of the two-point method for determining the one-repetition maximum
in the bench press exercise. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Advance
online publication. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0374
García-Ramos, A., & Jaric, S. (2017). Two-point method: a quick and fatigue-free procedure for
assessment of muscle mechanical capacities and the one-repetition maximum. Strength and
Conditioning Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000359
García-Ramos, A., Pestaña-Melero, F., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F., & Ha, G. (2017). Mean velocity
vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity: Which variable determines bench press relative load
with higher reliability? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001998
García-Ramos, A., Torrejón, A., Feriche, B., Morales-Artacho, A., Pérez-Castilla, A., Padial, P., &
Ha, G. (2017). Prediction of the maximum number of repetitions and repetitions in reserve
from barbell velocity. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0302
González-Badillo, J. J., Marques, M. C., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2011). e importance of movement
velocity as a measure to control resistance training intensity. Journal of Human Kinetics, 29, 15–19.
doi: 10.2478/v10078-011-0053-6
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 11
González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading
intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 347–352. doi: 10.1055/
s-0030-1248333
Helms, E. R., Storey, A., Cross, M. R., Brown, S. R., Lenetsky, S., Ramsay, H., … Zourdos, M. C.
(2017). RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadli in powerliers.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31, 292–297. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001517
Hopkins, W. G., Marshall, S. W., Batterham, A. M., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for studies
in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41, 3–13. doi:
10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
Jovanonic, M., & Flanagan, E. P. (2014). Researched applications of velocity based strength training.
Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 22, 58–69. Retrieved from https://traningslara.
se/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/hastighet.mladenjovanovic.pdf
Lexell, J. (1995). Human aging, muscle mass, and ber type composition. e Journals of Gerontology.
Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 50, 11–16. doi:10.1093/gerona/50A.Special_
Issue.11
Mann, J., Ivey, P., & Sayers, S. (2015). Velocity-based training in football. Strength and Conditioning
Journal, 37, 52–57. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177
Miller, A. E. J., MacDougall, J. D., Tarnopolsky, M. A., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Gender dierences in
strength and muscle ber characteristics. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology, 66, 254–262. doi: 10.1007/BF00235103
Muñoz-Lopez, M., Marchante, D., Cano-Ruiz, M. A., Chicharro, J. L., & Balsalobre-Fernandez, C.
(2017). Load, force and power-velocity relationships in the prone pull-up exercise. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1123/
ijspp.2016-0657
Pallarés, J. G., Sánchez-Medina, L., Pérez, C. E., De La Cruz-Sánchez, E., & Mora-Rodriguez, R. (2014).
Imposing a pause between the eccentric and concentric phases increases the reliability of isoinertial
strength assessments. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1165–1175. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.889844
Pérez-Castilla, A., García-Ramos, A., Padial, P., Morales-Artacho, A., & Feriche, B. (2017). Load-
velocity relationship in variations of the half-squat exercise: Inuence of execution technique.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002072
Pestaña-Melero, F., Ha, G., Rojas, F., Pérez-Castilla, A., & García-Ramos, A. (2017). Reliability of the
load-velocity relationship obtained through linear and polynomial regression models to predict
the one-repetition maximum load. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1123/jab.2017-0266
Sánchez-Medina, L., González-Badillo, J. J., Pérez, C. E., & Pallarés, J. G. (2014). Velocity- and power-
load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 35, 209–216. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1351252
Sánchez-Medina, L., Pallarés, J., Pérez, C., Morán-Navarro, R., & González-Badillo, J. (2017).
Estimation of relative load from bar velocity in the full back squat exercise. Sports Medicine
International Open, 1, E80–E88. doi:10.1055/s-0043-102933
Sánchez-Moreno, M., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Pareja-Blanco, F., Mora-Custodio, R., & González-Badillo,
J. J. (2017). Movement velocity as indicator of relative intensity and level of eort attained during
the set in pull-up exercise. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Advance
online publication. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0791
Sreckovic, S., Cuk, I., Djuric, S., Nedeljkovic, A., Mirkov, D., & Jaric, S. (2015). Evaluation of force-
velocity and power-velocity relationship of arm muscles. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
115(8), 1779–1787. doi:10.1007/s00421-015-3165-1
Staron, R. S., Hagerman, F. C., Hikida, R. S., Murray, T. F., Hostler, D. P., Crill, M. T., … Toma, K.
(2000). Fiber type composition of the vastus lateralis muscle of young men and women. Journal
of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, 48, 623–629. doi:10.1177/002215540004800506
