Differences in the magnitude and reliability of velocity variables collected during 3 variants of the bench press exercise

Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?

“…It is plausible that the reliability could be compromised by redirecting the focus of attention to the auditory signal rather than maximizing performance in the subsequent lifting phase. This assumption is further supported by a recent study conducted in the bench press exercise that reported a lower reliability of velocity variables when the velocity of the lowering phase was externally controlled in comparison to the pause technique or performing the lowering phase at a fast and self-controlled velocity [24]. Based on the prevailing evidence, it is likely that resistance exercises performed with the externally-controlled rebound technique may increase the variability of velocity outputs and reduce its ecological validity since most sports activities are performed with fast stretch-shortening cycles or at least the velocity of the lowering phase is not externally stipulated [24].…”

“…This assumption is further supported by a recent study conducted in the bench press exercise that reported a lower reliability of velocity variables when the velocity of the lowering phase was externally controlled in comparison to the pause technique or performing the lowering phase at a fast and self-controlled velocity [ 24 ]. Based on the prevailing evidence, it is likely that resistance exercises performed with the externally-controlled rebound technique may increase the variability of velocity outputs and reduce its ecological validity since most sports activities are performed with fast stretch-shortening cycles or at least the velocity of the lowering phase is not externally stipulated [ 24 ]. Therefore, it seems that the pause technique does not provide more reproducible velocity outputs than the rebound technique when the lowering phase is performed at a fast and self-controlled velocity.…”

“…However, since it has been shown that machine-based exercises provide more reliable measures of movement velocity than free-weight exercises [ 21 ], we decided to use the Smith machine to eliminate the possible confounding factors that could be present during free-weight exercises (e.g., horizontal movements of the barbell). In addition, although it is less frequent in training, resistance training exercises are often performed in a Smith machine for testing purposes [ 11 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. It should be also noted that the application of the loads in an incremental order could have influenced the reliability comparisons across the loads due to a possible effect of potentiation or fatigue.…”

“…Moreover, the back-squat exercise has been shown to report more consistent velocity measurements using the pause technique compared to the rebound technique [ 19 ]. It should be also noted that machine-based exercises can provide more reliable measures of velocity than free-weight exercises [ 21 ], and, consequently, it is common that the testing procedures of mechanical performance against submaximal loads are performed in a Smith machine to reduce the noise of the test [ 11 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Therefore, it seems important to compare the reliability of the different performance variables during the back-squat exercise performed in a more controlled environment (i.e., Smith machine) using both the pause and rebound techniques.…”

Static and Dynamic Strength Indicators in Paralympic Power-Lifters with and without Spinal Cord Injury

“…However, the level of performance, as shown by the absolute and relative bench press 1-RM, was not significantly higher. Moreover, a study that aimed to compare the reliability and magnitude of the speed variables between three variants of the bench press exercise in individuals with and without training experience, concluded that regardless of the type of bench press variant, no significant differences in execution speed were observed between experienced and non-experienced participants [ 46 ]. Therefore, we may suggest that the larger experience in SCI group did not play a significant role herein.…”