This study examined the possibility of using movement velocity as an indicator of relative load in the bench press (BP) exercise. One hundred and twenty strength-trained males performed a test (T1) with increasing loads for the individual determination of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) and full load-velocity profile. Fifty-six subjects performed the test on a second occasion (T2) following 6 weeks of training. A very close relationship between mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and load (%1RM) was observed (R (2)=0.98). Mean velocity attained with 1RM was 0.16+/-0.04 m x s(-1) and was found to influence the MPV attained with each %1RM. Despite a mean increase of 9.3% in 1RM from T1 to T2, MPV for each %1RM remained stable. Stability in the load-velocity relationship was also confirmed regardless of individual relative strength. These results confirm an inextricable relationship between relative load and MPV in the BP that makes it possible to: 1) evaluate maximal strength without the need to perform a 1RM test, or test of maximum number of repetitions to failure (XRM); 2) determine the %1RM that is being used as soon as the first repetition with any given load is performed; 3) prescribe and monitor training load according to velocity, instead of percentages of 1RM or XRM.

Velocity loss and metabolic stress clearly differs when manipulating the number of repetitions actually performed in each training set. The high correlations found between mechanical (velocity and countermovement jump height losses) and metabolic (lactate, ammonia) measures of fatigue support the validity of using velocity loss to objectively quantify neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training.

We compared the effects of two resistance training (RT) programs only differing in the repetition velocity loss allowed in each set: 20% (VL20) vs 40% (VL40) on muscle structural and functional adaptations. Twenty-two young males were randomly assigned to a VL20 (n = 12) or VL40 (n = 10) group. Subjects followed an 8-week velocity-based RT program using the squat exercise while monitoring repetition velocity. Pre- and post-training assessments included: magnetic resonance imaging, vastus lateralis biopsies for muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and fiber type analyses, one-repetition maximum strength and full load-velocity squat profile, countermovement jump (CMJ), and 20-m sprint running. VL20 resulted in similar squat strength gains than VL40 and greater improvements in CMJ (9.5% vs 3.5%, P < 0.05), despite VL20 performing 40% fewer repetitions. Although both groups increased mean fiber CSA and whole quadriceps muscle volume, VL40 training elicited a greater hypertrophy of vastus lateralis and intermedius than VL20. Training resulted in a reduction of myosin heavy chain IIX percentage in VL40, whereas it was preserved in VL20. In conclusion, the progressive accumulation of muscle fatigue as indicated by a more pronounced repetition velocity loss appears as an important variable in the configuration of the resistance exercise stimulus as it influences functional and structural neuromuscular adaptations.

This study analyzed the contribution of the propulsive and braking phases among different percentages of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the concentric bench press exercise. One hundred strength-trained men performed a test with increasing loads up to the 1RM for the individual determination of the load-power relationship. The relative load that maximized the mechanical power output (P(max)) was determined using three different parameters: mean concentric power (MP), mean power of the propulsive phase (MPP) and peak power (PP). The load at which the braking phase no longer existed was 76.1+/-7.4% 1RM. P(max) was dependent on the parameter used: MP (54.2%), MPP (36.5%) or PP (37.4%). No significant differences were found for loads between 40-65% 1RM (MP) or 20-55% 1RM (MPP and PP), nor between P(max) (% 1RM) when using MPP or PP. P(max) was independent of relative strength, although certain tendency towards slightly lower loads was detected for the strongest subjects. These results highlight the importance of considering the contribution of the propulsive and braking phases in isoinertial strength and power assessments. Referring the mean mechanical values to the propulsive phase avoids underestimating an individual's true neuromuscular potential when lifting light and medium loads.

This study compared the velocity- and power-load relationships of the antagonistic upper-body exercises of prone bench pull (PBP) and bench press (BP). 75 resistance-trained athletes performed a progressive loading test in each exercise up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in random order. Velocity and power output across the 30-100% 1RM were significantly higher for PBP, whereas 1RM strength was greater for BP. A very close relationship was observed between relative load and mean propulsive velocity for both BP (R2=0.97) and PBP (R2=0.94) which enables us to estimate %1RM from velocity using the obtained prediction equations. Important differences in the load that maximizes power output (Pmax) and the power profiles of both exercises were found according to the outcome variable used: mean (MP), peak (PP) or mean propulsive power (MPP). When MP was considered, the Pmax load was higher (56% BP, 70% PBP) than when PP (37% BP, 41% PBP) or MPP (37% BP, 46% PBP) were used. For each variable there was a broad range of loads at which power output was not significantly different. The differing velocity- and power-load relationships between PBP and BP seem attributable to the distinct muscle architecture and moment arm levers involved in these exercises.

The use of bar velocity to estimate relative load in the back squat exercise was examined. 80 strength-trained men performed a progressive loading test to determine their one-repetition maximum (1RM) and load-velocity relationship. Mean (MV), mean propulsive (MPV) and peak (PV) velocity measures of the concentric phase were analyzed. Both MV and MPV showed a very close relationship to %1RM (R 2 =0.96), whereas a weaker association (R 2 =0.79) and larger SEE (0.14 vs. 0.06 m·s −1 ) were found for PV. Prediction equations to estimate load from velocity were obtained. When dividing the sample into 3 groups of different relative strength (1RM/body mass), no differences were found between groups for the MPV attained against each %1RM. MV attained with the 1RM was 0.32±0.03 m·s −1 . The propulsive phase accounted for ~82% of concentric duration at 40% 1RM, and progressively increased until reaching 100% at 1RM. Provided that repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity, a good estimation of load (%1RM) can be obtained from mean velocity as soon as the first repetition is completed. This finding provides an alternative to the often demanding, time-consuming and interfering 1RM or nRM tests and allows implementing a velocity-based resistance training approach.

A velocity-based RT program characterized by a low degree of fatigue (15% velocity loss in each set) is effective to induce improvements in neuromuscular performance in professional soccer players with previous RT experience.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on strength gains of two isoinertial resistance training (RT) programmes that only differed in actual concentric velocity: maximal (MaxV) vs. half-maximal (HalfV) velocity. Twenty participants were assigned to a MaxV (n = 9) or HalfV (n = 11) group and trained 3 times per week during 6 weeks using the bench press (BP). Repetition velocity was controlled using a linear velocity transducer. A complementary study (n = 10) aimed to analyse whether the acute metabolic (blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical response (velocity loss) was different between the MaxV and HalfV protocols used. Both groups improved strength performance from pre- to post-training, but MaxV resulted in significantly greater gains than HalfV in all variables analysed: one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength (18.2 vs. 9.7%), velocity developed against all (20.8 vs. 10.0%), light (11.5 vs. 4.5%) and heavy (36.2 vs. 17.3%) loads common to pre- and post-tests. Light and heavy loads were identified with those moved faster or slower than 0.80 m · s(-1) (∼ 60% 1RM in BP). Lactate tended to be significantly higher for MaxV vs. HalfV, with no differences observed for ammonia which was within resting values. Both groups obtained the greatest improvements at the training velocities (≤ 0.80 m · s(-1)). Movement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect. BP strength gains can be maximised when repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity.