The addition of very light loads into the routine testing of the bench press increases the reliability of the force–velocity relationship

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine whether the addition of very light loads for modeling the force–velocity (F–V) relationship during the bench press (BP) exercise can confirm its experimental linearity as well as to increase the reliability and concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters (maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F–V slope, and maximum power (Pmax)).MethodThe F–V relationship of 19 healthy men were determined using three different methods: (I) 6-loads free method: six loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 1–8–29–39–49–59 kg), (II) 4-loads free method: four loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg), and (III) 4-loads Smith method: four loads performed during the ballistic bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg).ResultsThe linearity of the F–V relationship was very high and comparable for the three F–V methods (p = 0.204; median Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99). The three methods were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: 6-loads free (coefficient of variation (CV) range = 3.6–6.7%) > 4-loads Smith (CV range = 4.6–12.4%) > 4-loads free (CV range = 3.8–14.5%). The higher reliability of the 6-loads free method was especially pronounced for F–V slope (CVratio ≥ 1.85) and V0 (CVratio ≥ 1.49) parameters, while the lowest difference in reliability was observed for F0 (CVratio ≤ 1.27). The 6-loads free and 4-loads free methods showed a very high concurrent validity respect to the 4-loads Smith method for F0 and Pmax (r ≥ 0.89), a moderate validity for the F–V slope (r = 0.66–0.82), and a low validity for V0 (r ≤ 0.37).DiscussionThe routine testing of the F–V relationship of upper-body muscles through the BP exercise should include trials with very light loading conditions to enhance the reliability of the F–V relationship.

Force-Velocity Profile of Competitive Kayakers: Evaluation of a Novel Single Kayak Stroke Test

“…It is known that for obtaining the F-V relationship parameters with high reliability, the experimental points should be as close as possible to the axis intercepts . The addition of one experimental point very close to the velocityintercept during the SKST could be responsible for the higher reliability of V0 variable observed in the present study compared to the reliability of © Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics the same variable in exercises such as the vertical jump and the bench press (Cuevas-Aburto et al, 2018;García-Ramos et al, 2016). Regarding the somewhat lower between-session reliability for the F-V slope and V0, there are still no data to elucidate whether the observed phenomenon originates from the tested task, from the participants' skill, or from other factors.…”

On the Shape of the Force-Velocity Relationship in Skeletal Muscles: The Linear, the Hyperbolic, and the Double-Hyperbolic

“…The authors based their conclusion on the observation of individual R 2 values ranging from 0.76 to 1.00, while no comparison was conducted between linear and hyperbolic models. By a careful analysis of the data from one subject presented in Figure 1 of that study Cuevas-Aburto et al (2018) we observed that the fit of a hyperbolic model was slightly superior to a linear model ( R 2 = 1.000 vs. 0.997; standard error of the estimate = 0.012 vs. 0.045), although they also might be considered to be similar. However, the linear model underestimated P 0 (-7%) and V 0 (-5%) and overestimated W max (+4%), optimal force (+6%) and optimal velocity (+12%) compared with the hyperbolic model.…”

“…In this sense, while a linear fitting might be an excellent representation of the F-V relationship at forces above ∼40% of P 0 due to the deviation of F-V values below the rectangular hyperbola above 90% of P 0 , the F-V values will deviate progressively from the linear model below ∼40% of P 0 as they approach V max . In contrast with the latter, a recent study concluded that the F-V relationship during a multi-joint exercise (bench press) was linear even when a set of loads ranging from 12 to 83% of P 0 was considered (Cuevas-Aburto et al, 2018). The authors based their conclusion on the observation of individual R 2 values ranging from 0.76 to 1.00, while no comparison was conducted between linear and hyperbolic models.…”

Force–velocity profile during vertical jump cannot be assessed using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction tasks

“…On the contrary, replacing high load jump with isometric tasks need further refining and exploration. Previous research that targeted bench press exercise showed that addition of the light loads improved the repeatability of the F-V profiling 44 , which in turn could have an effect on the validity. Therefore, since there was a relatively large gap between bodyweight jump and first loaded jump (20 kg), especially considering that some individuals could only increase the load up to 40 kg (n = 2) or 50 kg (n = 4), perhaps the validity of the multiple-point method as used in this study is also not indisputable.…”