Fatigue Effects on Bar Kinematics During the Bench Press

Duffey, Michael J.; Challis, John H.

doi:10.1519/00124278-200705000-00046

Cited by 15 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies that analyzed the pattern of repetition velocity decline during a single set to muscle failure against different loads [14,15] did not use the MPV: mean propulsive velocity; Rep: number of completed repetitions in the set CV for the percentage of completed repetitions when 70 % and 75 % of MPV loss are reached against 85 % 1RM do not appear in the table because the maximum MPV loss that can be reached in the set against this load is approximately 65 % velocity of the first (fastest) repetition of the set to determine loading magnitude ( %1RM), i. e., these studies did not check whether the actual load used in the MNR tests corresponded to the proposed or prescribed load. Furthermore, the mean velocity of the last repetition in the set was very similar for all loads used (0.12-0.14 m • s − 1 ) in this study, and it was well in agreement with that reported for the 1RM load in this exercise (~0.14-0.15 m • s − 1 ) [6,11,15], which indicates that the participants actually performed the exercise sets to muscle failure. The average number of repetitions completed during the 8 MNR tests decreased as loading magnitude increased (▶table 1; ▶ Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to analyze: 1) the pattern of repetition velocity decline during a single set to failure against different submaximal loads (50-85% 1RM) in the bench press exercise; and 2) the reliability of the percentage of performed repetitions, with respect to the maximum possible number that can be completed, when different magnitudes of velocity loss have been reached within each set. Twenty-two men performed 8 tests of maximum number of repetitions (MNR) against loads of 50-55-60-65-70-75-80-85% 1RM, in random order, every 6-7 days. Another 28 men performed 2 separate MNR tests against 60% 1RM. A very close relationship was found between the relative loss of velocity in a set and the percentage of performed repetitions. This relationship was very similar for all loads, but particularly for 50-70% 1RM, even though the number of repetitions completed at each load was significantly different. Moreover, the percentage of performed repetitions for a given velocity loss showed a high absolute reliability. Equations to predict the percentage of performed repetitions from relative velocity loss are provided. By monitoring repetition velocity and using these equations, one can estimate, with considerable precision, how many repetitions are left in reserve in a bench press exercise set.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a multiple repetition set to volitional failure with 75% of 1RM in the bench press, time to complete the concentric portion of the lift more than doubled with a concomitant decrease in the peak and mean concentric velocity [5]. As the subjects progressed from first to last repetition, the lifting kinematics became more like those of the 1RM [5]. This may give insight to the importance of training intensity and the idea that if volume and intensity are equated, rep ranges are not as important.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Additionally, with different stimuli being placed on the body (i.e. different rep ranges, intensities and states of fatigue), variability will be seen in joint and barbell kinematics [4,21,25]. However, the literature is scarce when examining neuromuscular activity and kinematics in relationship to different loads while being instructed to lift at maximal intended velocity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To maximize efficiency in the bench press, maximal effort should be exerted throughout the concentric portion of the lift to ensure its success and to ensure maximal strength gains [12]. In a multiple repetition set to volitional failure with 75% of 1RM in the bench press, time to complete the concentric portion of the lift more than doubled with a concomitant decrease in the peak and mean concentric velocity [5]. As the subjects progressed from first to last repetition, the lifting kinematics became more like those of the 1RM [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of muscle activation and barbell kinematics during bench press with different loads

Tillaar

Sousa

2020

AKUT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare barbell kinematics and muscle patterning in bench press with different loads, but with maximum effort, in young males with resistance training experience. Ten healthy experiences strength-training males (aged 27.3±5.9 years, body mass 82.8±16.6 kg, height 1.78±0.05 m, experience 7.3±4.2 years) performed maximal effort bench presses (1–2 repetitions) with loads varying from 30%, with 10% increments until 100% of 1-RM. Muscle activity of seven muscles and barbell kinematics were measured during descending and ascending phases. Average and peak upwards lifting velocity increased, while lifting time decreases with each decreasing load. In general, the maximal activation of most muscles decreases with decreasing loads, but it was not linear. No effect of loads was shown for the biceps brachii and posterior deltoid muscles. Based upon these findings, it was concluded that maximal lifting velocity may compensate for increased loads, which may allow resistancetrained males who are both healthy or in rehabilitation to avoid heavy loads but experience similar muscle activation. By decreasing the loads, the mechanical stress decreases and time to recover is reduced. Using lower loads with maximal lifting velocity may allow athletes to increase the total volume without increasing the risk of injuries.

show abstract

“…However, the factors influencing the velocity of resistance training exercises are not well understood; different testing protocols, set and repetition schemes, levels of fatigue from previous training sessions or exercises, and other factors may affect the velocity of exercise execution in addition to load. 9,10 A velocity-based approach in prescribing resistance training has evidence supporting its use. 4,5,11 Specifically, velocity ranges have been suggested to correspond with a particular training emphasis (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between concentric velocities at varying intensity in the back squat using a wireless inertial sensor

Carroll¹,

Sato²,

Beckham³

et al. 2017

Journal of Trainology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of velocities in the back squat between one repetition maximum (1RM) and submaximally loaded repetition maximum (RM) conditions, specifically in regard to what has been described as the minimal velocity threshold (MVT). The MVT describes a minimum concentric velocity that an individual must reach or surpass in order to successfully complete a repetition. Design: To test the presence of a MVT, participants were tested for 1RM and RM back squat ability. The mean concentric velocities (MCV) of the last successful repetition of each condition were then compared. Methods: Fourteen male participants familiar with the back squat volunteered to participate in the current study (age = 25.0 y ± 2.6, height = 178.9 cm ± 8.1, body mass = 88.2 kg ± 15.8). The mean concentric velocity (MCV) during the last successful repetition from each testing condition was considered for the comparison. Results: Results indicated a non-significant negative relationship of MCV between the 1RM and RM conditions (r =-0.135), no statistical difference between testing conditions (p = 0.266), with a small-to-moderate effect size (d = 0.468). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that MVT should be further investigated to enhance its use in the practical setting. Additionally, coaches considering using a velocity-based approach for testing athletes should use data from either 1RM or RM conditions, but not both interchangeably. Coaches should be cautious when considering group averages or comparing velocity data between athletes, which may not be appropriate based on our results.

show abstract

Fatigue Effects on Bar Kinematics During the Bench Press

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise

Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise

Comparison of muscle activation and barbell kinematics during bench press with different loads

Relationship between concentric velocities at varying intensity in the back squat using a wireless inertial sensor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About