No abstract

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [ r ] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs . 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs . 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

AimTo determine the absolute and relative reliability of functional trunk tests, using a functional electromechanical dynamometer to evaluate the isokinetic strength of trunk flexors and to determine the most reliable assessment condition, in order to compare the absolute and relative reliability of mean force and peak force of trunk flexors and to determine which isokinetic condition of evaluation is best related to the maximum isometric.MethodsTest-retest of thirty-seven physically active male student volunteers who performed the different protocols, isometric contraction and the combination of three velocities (V1 = 015 m s−1 , V2 = 0.30 m  s−1, V3 = 0.45 m s−1) and two range of movement (R1 = 25% cm ; R2 = 50% cm) protocols.ResultsAll protocols to evaluate trunk flexors showed an absolute reliability provided a stable repeatability for isometric and dynamic protocols with a coefficient of variation (CV) being below 10% and a high or very high relative reliability (0.69 < intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.86). The more reliable strength manifestation (CV = 6.82%) to evaluate the concentric contraction of trunk flexors was mean force, with 0.15 m  s−1 and short range of movement (V1R1) condition. The most reliable strength manifestation to evaluate the eccentric contraction of trunk flexors was peak force, with 0.15 m  s−1 and a large range of movement (V1R2; CV = 5.07%), and the most reliable way to evaluate isometric trunk flexors was by peak force (CV = 7.72%). The mean force of eccentric trunk flexor strength with 0.45 m  s−1 and short range of movement (V3R1) condition (r = 0.73) was best related to the maximum isometric contraction.ConclusionFunctional electromechanical dynamometry is a reliable evaluation system for assessment of trunk flexor strength.

Background The evaluation of the force in internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) of the shoulder is commonly used to diagnose possible pathologies or disorders in the glenohumeral joint and to assess patient’s status and progression over time. Currently, there is new technology of multiple joint isokinetic dynamometry that allows to evaluate the strength in the human being. The main purpose of this study was to determine the absolute and relative reliability of concentric and eccentric internal and external shoulder rotators with a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD). Methods Thirty-two male individuals (21.46 ±  2.1 years) were examined of concentric and eccentric strength of shoulder internal and external rotation with a FEMD at velocities of 0.3 m s−1 and 0.6 m s−1. Relative reliability was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute reliability was quantified by standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV). Systematic differences across velocities testing circumstances, were analyzed with dependent t tests or repeated-measures analysis of variance in case of 2 or more than 2 conditions, respectively. Results Reliability was high to excellent for IR and ER on concentric and eccentric strength measurements, regardless of velocity used (ICC: 0.81–0.98, CV: 5.12–8.27% SEM: 4.06–15.04N). Concentric outcomes were more reliable than eccentric due to the possible familiarization of the population with the different stimuli. Conclusion All procedures examined showed high to excellent reliability for clinical use. However, a velocity of 0.60 m s−1 should be recommended for asymptomatic male patients because it demands less time for evaluation and patients find it more comfortable.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine whether the addition of very light loads for modeling the force–velocity (F–V) relationship during the bench press (BP) exercise can confirm its experimental linearity as well as to increase the reliability and concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters (maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F–V slope, and maximum power (Pmax)).MethodThe F–V relationship of 19 healthy men were determined using three different methods: (I) 6-loads free method: six loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 1–8–29–39–49–59 kg), (II) 4-loads free method: four loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg), and (III) 4-loads Smith method: four loads performed during the ballistic bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg).ResultsThe linearity of the F–V relationship was very high and comparable for the three F–V methods (p = 0.204; median Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99). The three methods were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: 6-loads free (coefficient of variation (CV) range = 3.6–6.7%) > 4-loads Smith (CV range = 4.6–12.4%) > 4-loads free (CV range = 3.8–14.5%). The higher reliability of the 6-loads free method was especially pronounced for F–V slope (CVratio ≥ 1.85) and V0 (CVratio ≥ 1.49) parameters, while the lowest difference in reliability was observed for F0 (CVratio ≤ 1.27). The 6-loads free and 4-loads free methods showed a very high concurrent validity respect to the 4-loads Smith method for F0 and Pmax (r ≥ 0.89), a moderate validity for the F–V slope (r = 0.66–0.82), and a low validity for V0 (r ≤ 0.37).DiscussionThe routine testing of the F–V relationship of upper-body muscles through the BP exercise should include trials with very light loading conditions to enhance the reliability of the F–V relationship.