The influence of calculation method and relative strength on the load-velocity relationship in bench press exercise

Bautista, Iker J.; Martín-Rivera, Fernando; Martinez, I.; Haff, G. Gregory; Maroto-Izquierdo, Sergio

doi:10.1177/17479541211035499

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean and standard deviation (± SD) of age, height, and body mass were 23.6 ± 4.1 years, 1.85 ± 0.11 m, and 85.4 ± 4.1 kg, respectively. The 1RM values were 79.33 ± 14.53 kg and 76.11 ± 6.95 kg, with a relative strength index [ 35 ] of 1.07 ± 0.003 and 1.12 ± 0.04 for BP and SQ exercises respectively. All study participants reported previous recreational experience in external resistance training for 1 to 3 years.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute effects of different external compression with blood flow restriction on force-velocity profile during squat and bench press exercises

Serrano-Ramon¹,

Cortell-Tormo²,

Bautista³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to compare the acute effects of bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) exercises with blood flow restriction (BFR) (40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of the complete arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)) and without BFR (CON) on the mean propulsive (Vel MED ) and maximum (Vel MAX ) bar velocity. Fourteen healthy, physically active males (age, 23.6 ± 4.1 years; height, 1.85 ± 0.11 m; body weight 85.4 ± 4.1 kg) took part in the study. There was one set for each testing condition (CON, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%) with 6 repetitions for BP and 6 repetitions for SQ, at 60% of 1RM, and 3 minutes of recovery between sets. The results showed statistically significant differences of the sets with 80% BFR vs. CON (mean difference [MD] = 0.035 m · s -1 , p < 0.05, ES = 0.52 [1.02–0.03]) and 100% BFR sets vs. CON (MD = 0.074, p < 0.001, ES = 1.08 [1.79–0.38]) for BP. In the SQ exercise, statistically significant differences were found between 100% BFR vs. CON (DM = 0.031 m · s -1 , p < 0.05), vs. 100% BFR 40% (MD = 0.04 m · s -1 , p < 0.05). Trend analysis showed a statistically significant linear trend (F[1,9] = 34.9, p < 0.001, F[1,13] = 27.32, p < 0.001) for the Vel MED in relation to the different levels of BFR. In conclusion, our results showed that BFR levels above ˜80% AOP (BP) and ˜100% AOP (SQ) produce a Vel MED improvement at 60% 1RM.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute effects of different external compression with blood flow restriction on force-velocity profile during squat and bench press exercises

Serrano-Ramon¹,

Cortell-Tormo²,

Bautista³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accuracy and reliability of perception of bar velocity loss for autoregulation in resistance exercise

da Silva,

Gantois

et al. 2024

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The perception of bar velocity loss (PVL) can be used as an alternative method for autoregulating intraset repetitions during velocity-based training. This study analyzed the accuracy and reliability of the PVL as a method to autoregulate the intraset repetitions using a moderate velocity loss (VL) threshold (15–30%). Methods A total of 22 resistance-trained men were familiarized with the PVL in a single session. Test–retest was performed in two sessions 1 week apart, in which participants completed three sets of bench press and back squat at 40, 60, and 80% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Participants stopped the sets when they reached a moderate VL zone using their PVL. Accuracy was assessed by analyzing whether the mean VL (actual) and the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval (CI) (95%) of each set were within the established VL range and quantifying the relative frequency of correctly interrupted sets. Test–retest reliability was examined by the intraclass correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation. Results PVL showed acceptable accuracy in both exercises at 60 and 80% 1RM (50–65% success rate) and retest for all loads (53–76% success rate). Similar PVL percentages were observed between most of the sets for the test and retest ( p > 0.05). Accuracy improved during the retest, especially for bench press (40% 1RM) and back squat (40 and 80% 1RM). PVL was not reliable in the test–retest comparison. Conclusion PVL can be a strategy with acceptable accuracy to autoregulate the intraset repetitions in a moderate zone (VL15–30%), but its reliability does not appear satisfactory after one familiarization session.

show abstract

Lifting More Than Two Loads Compromises the Magnitude of the Load–Velocity Relationship Variables: Evidence in Two Variants of the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare and associate the magnitude of the load–velocity relationship variables between the multiple-point and two-point methods and between the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric prone bench pull (PBP) variants. Twenty-three resistance-trained males completed a preliminary session to determine the concentric-only PBP one-repetition maximum (1 RM) and two experimental sessions that only differed in the PBP variant evaluated. In each experimental session they performed three repetitions against the 14 kg load (L1), two repetitions against the 85% 1 RM load (L4), three repetitions against an equidistant intermediate light load (L2), two repetitions against an equidistant intermediate heavy load (L3), and 1–5 1 RM attempts. The load–velocity relationship variables (i.e., load–axis intercept, velocity–axis intercept, and area under the load–velocity relationship line) were obtained from the multiple-point (L1-L2-L3-L4) and two-point (L1-L4) methods. All load–velocity relationship variables presented greater magnitudes when obtained by the two-point method compared with the multiple-point method (p < 0.001, ESrange = 0.17–0.43), while the load–velocity relationship variables were comparable between both PBP variants (p ≥ 0.148). In addition, the load–velocity relationship variables were highly correlated between both methods (rrange = 0.972–0.995) and PBP variants (rrange = 0.798–0.909). When assessing the load–velocity relationship variables, practitioners should prescribe only two loads, as this maximises the magnitudes of the variables and decreases fatigue.

show abstract

The influence of calculation method and relative strength on the load-velocity relationship in bench press exercise

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Acute effects of different external compression with blood flow restriction on force-velocity profile during squat and bench press exercises

Acute effects of different external compression with blood flow restriction on force-velocity profile during squat and bench press exercises

Accuracy and reliability of perception of bar velocity loss for autoregulation in resistance exercise

Lifting More Than Two Loads Compromises the Magnitude of the Load–Velocity Relationship Variables: Evidence in Two Variants of the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About