Force–velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition

Abstract

Background Due to the absence of evidence in the literature on Paralympic Powerlifting the present study investigated various methods to assess bench press maximum repetition and the way each method influences the measurement of minimum velocity limit (MVT), load at zero velocity (LD0), and force–velocity (FV). Objective To evaluate the precision of the multi-point method using proximal loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one repetition maximum; 1RM) compared to the four-point method (50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM) and the two-point method using distant loads (40 and 80% and 50 and 80% of 1RM) in in the MVT, LD0, and FV, in bench press performed by Paralympic Powerlifters (PP). Methods To accomplish this, 15 male elite PP athletes participated in the study (age: 27.7 ± 5.7 years; BM: 74.0 ± 19.5 kg). All participants performed an adapted bench press test (free weight) with 6 loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM), 4 loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), and 2 loads (40–80% and 50–80% 1RM). The 1RM predictions were made by MVT, LD0, and FV. Results The main results indicated that the multiple (4 and 6) pointsmethod provides good results in the MVT (R2 = 0.482), the LD0 (R2 = 0.614), and the FV (R2 = 0.508). The two-point method (50–80%) showed a higher mean in MVT [1268.2 ± 502.0 N; ICC95% 0.76 (0.31–0.92)], in LD0 [1504.1 ± 597.3 N; 0.63 (0.17–0.86)], and in FV [1479.2 ± 636.0 N; 0.60 (0.10–0.86)]. Conclusion The multiple-point method (4 and 6 points) and the two-point method (40–80%) using the MVT, LD0, and FV all showed a good ability to predict bench press 1RM in PP.

A Bibliometrics-Enhanced, PAGER-Compliant Scoping Review of the Literature on Paralympic Powerlifting: Insights for Practices and Future Research

“…Seven studies [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] were excluded with reason ( n = 2, not reporting sufficient details; n = 5, not disaggregating data according to para-sports discipline). Finally, 37 studies [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] were retained in the present scoping review. We found that the included studies focused on a range of aspects involving health, classification, the etiology of injuries, and performance.…”

“…Six studies [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] developed new analytical/statistical approaches for kinematics assessments and predictions of mechanical outputs in strength exercises. The Functional ANOVA (FANOVA) model is a generalized regression model, with logistic, probit, and Poisson regression as special cases.…”

“…Aidar et al [ 60 ] assessed different methodologies (two-, and four-point methods with distal loads, and six-point methods with proximal loads) to evaluate BP maximum repetitions and their impacts on the measurement of the minimum velocity limit, load at zero velocity, and force velocity (FV) in a sample of 15 elite male PP athletes (aged 27.7 ± 5.7 years). The authors found that all methods exhibited a good ability to predict BP 1RM in PP.…”

“…Methodological and statistical advancements [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] have enabled a better assessment of performance outcomes, for which classical approaches relying on the null-hypothesis significant statistic may be misleading. A few studies have utilized the magnitude-based inference (MBI) model, which seems to be a promising and better statistical proposition compared with conventional inferential statistics to quantitatively analyze and interpret sports performance outcomes.…”

A Scoping Review with Bibliometric Analysis of Para-Rowing: State of the Art and Future Directions

“…However, pulling to the maximum implies maximum stress for the involved structures, such as muscles, tendons, joints, and even neural networks. For this reason, in para-athletes, the 1RM test is often replaced by alternative tests to prevent injuries, technical failures, and fatigue [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. While in the upper limb both methods (i.e., 1RM and alternative tests) can be used to assess the intensity of resistance training, in the lower limb 1RM is more accurate than alternative tests, especially for athletes with one leg amputated [ 36 ].…”