Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

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.

Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

“…However, the lower correlations between the BP variants observed in this study for V 1RM compared to V last suggest that the V 1RM could also be less reliable than V last . This would corroborate the results of previous studies that have reported a poor reliability for the V 1RM during the BP (Pestaña-Melero et al, 2018) and other resistance training exercises such as the back squat (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017), deadlift (Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018), or bench pull (García-Ramos et al, 2019b). Another limitation is that the BP was performed in a Smith machine, while the vast majority of athletes use the free-weight BP during their resistance training programs.…”

“…Previous studies have selected the minimal velocity threshold as either the individualized V 1RM (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017;Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018) or a general V 1RM for all subjects (García-Ramos et al, 2018a, 2019a. The assessment of the individualized V 1RM is associated with at least two problems: (I) the individual is required to perform a lift against the 1RM load and (II) the individual V 1RM has been demonstrated to be an unreliable metric for a number of exercises such as the back squat (coefficient of variation (CV) = 22.5%, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.42) (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017), deadlift (CV = 15.7%, ICC = 0.63) (Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018), Smith machine bench press (BP) (CV = 13.9-15.7%, ICC = 0.54-0.64) (Pestaña-Melero et al, 2018), or bench pull (CV = 6.36%, ICC = 0.18) (García-Ramos et al, 2019b). Therefore, it would be of interest to investigate whether the minimal velocity threshold (i.e., velocity value used to estimate the 1RM from the individualized L-V relationship) can be obtained with a higher reliability using other approaches that do not require the individual to perform a lift against the 1RM load.…”

Peer Review #1 of "Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum (v0.2)"

“…The lack of differences between the BP variants for the magnitudes of V 1RM and V last simplifies this approach because the same minimal velocity threshold could be used for both BP variants. According to the results of this and previous studies, the minimal velocity threshold should be set at 0.17 m•s -1 (García-Ramos et al, 2018;García-Ramos et al, 2019;González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;Sánchez-Medina, González-Badillo, Pérez, & Pallarés, 2014). However, Helms et al (2017) reported in 15 powerlifters (12 men and 3 women) a lower V 1RM during the free-weight BP exercise that was performed using a "press" command to simulate a powerlifting competition.…”

“…Movement velocity has been proposed as an accurate variable for estimating the 1repetition maximum (1RM) during a number of resistance training exercises (García-Ramos & Jaric, 2018;McBurnie et al, 2019). Early studies proposed generalized loadvelocity (L-V) relationship equations to estimate the percentage of 1RM from the velocity value recorded against a submaximal load lifted with maximal effort (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010). The basic premise of generalized L-V relationship equations is that a given velocity represents the same percentage of 1RM for all individuals.…”

“…Previous studies have selected the minimal velocity threshold as either the individualized V 1RM (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017;Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018) or a general V 1RM for all subjects (Garcia-Ramos et al, 2019;García-Ramos et al, 2018). The assessment of the individualized V 1RM is associated with at least 2 problems: (I) the individual is required to perform a lift against the 1RM load, and (II) the individual V 1RM has been demonstrated to be an unreliable metric for a number of exercises such as the back squat (coefficient of variation [CV] = 22.5%, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.42) (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017), deadlift (CV = 15.7%, ICC = 0.63) (Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018), Smith machine bench press (BP) (CV = 13.9-15.7% , ICC = 0.54-0.64) (Pestaña-Melero et al, 2018), or bench pull (CV = 6.36%, ICC = 0.18) (García-Ramos et al, 2019). Therefore, it would be of interest to investigate whether the minimal velocity threshold (i.e.…”