Effects of Different Rest Interval with in sets on Change of Repetition Maximum, Total Work, HR, SBP and RPP during 10RM Bench Press

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Lee sang ho ◽  
Kihing Kim ◽  
Sungsik Ko
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Total Work ◽  
Rest Interval ◽  
Repetition Maximum

scholarly journals Acute effects of different rest period between sets on neuromuscular bench press performance

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
Estêvão Rios Monteiro ◽  
Victor Gonçalves Corrêa Neto ◽  
Jefferson Da Silva Novaes
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Rest Period ◽  
Rest Interval ◽  
Acute Effects ◽  
Fatigue Index ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Press Performance ◽  
Rest Intervals

Introduction: Manipulation of resistance training variables allows the maintenance the performance of the proposed exercise. Objetctive: To evaluation the acute effects of different rest intervals on maximum repetition performance, perceived exertion, and fatigue index on bench press. Methods: Following ten-repetition maximum testing and retesting, four experimental sessions involved seven bench press sets to concentric failure with the goal of completing the maximum number of repetitions, which included: 1) one-minute rest interval between sets (P1), 2) two-minute rest interval between sets (P2), three-minute rest interval between sets (P3), and five-minute rest interval between sets (P5). Results: A main result was observed in maximum repetition performance for all sets (p0.001). In the fatigue index, only P3 and P5 showed significant differences compared to all other protocols (p0.001). Besides, the perceived exertion shows a similar trend to fatigue index for longer rest intervals. Conclusion: Reducing the maximum repetition performance in shorter intervals is an important tool for reducing the total workout time.

scholarly journals Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Using Reference Minimum Velocity Threshold Values in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
John F. T. Fernandes ◽  
Amelia F. Dingley ◽  
Amador Garcia-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Perez-Castilla ◽  
James J. Tufano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Young Group ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Velocity Threshold ◽  
Low Load ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Minimum Velocity

Background: This study determined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods when predicting one-repetition maximum (1RM) in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Methods: Two days after maximal strength testing, 20 young (age 21.0 ± 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 ± 6.7 years) resistance-trained males completed three repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row at loads corresponding to 20–80% 1RM. Using reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) values, the 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationships through multiple (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), two-point (20 and 80% 1RM), high-load (60 and 80% 1RM) and low-load (20 and 40% 1RM) methods for each group. Results: Despite most prediction methods demonstrating acceptable correlations (r = 0.55 to 0.96), the absolute errors for young and middle-aged groups were generally moderate to high for bench press (absolute errors = 8.2 to 14.2% and 8.6 to 20.4%, respectively) and bent-over-row (absolute error = 14.9 to 19.9% and 8.6 to 18.2%, respectively). For squats, the absolute errors were lower in the young group (5.7 to 13.4%) than the middle-aged group (13.2 to 17.0%) but still unacceptable. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reference MVTs cannot accurately predict the 1RM in these populations. Therefore, practitioners need to directly assess 1RM.

Dissociated time course between peak torque and total work recovery following bench press training in resistance trained men

2017 ◽  
Vol 179 ◽  
pp. 143-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo V. Ferreira ◽  
Paulo Gentil ◽  
João B. Ferreira-Junior ◽  
Saulo R.S. Soares ◽  
Lee E. Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Course ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Torque ◽  
Total Work ◽  
Work Recovery

scholarly journals Effects of Rest Interval Length on Smith Machine Bench Press Performance and Perceived Exertion in Trained Men

2013 ◽  
Vol 117 (3) ◽  
pp. 682-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramires A. Tibana ◽  
Denis C. L. Vieira ◽  
Vitor Tajra ◽  
Martim Bottaro ◽  
Jeffrey M. Willardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Interval Length ◽  
Rest Interval ◽  
Press Performance

Bench Press 1-Repetition Maximum Estimation Through the Individualized Load–Velocity Relationship: Comparison of Different Regression Models and Minimal Velocity Thresholds

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
Ivan Jukic ◽  
Jonathon Weakley ◽  
Amador García-Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Linear Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Multiple Point ◽  
Prediction Methods ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Minimal Velocity ◽  
General Velocity

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine 1-repetition maximum (1RM) prediction methods during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises performed in a Smith machine. Method: A total of 86 men performed 2 identical sessions (incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set to failure) in a randomized order during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises. Individualized load–velocity relationships were modeled by linear and polynomial regression models considering 4 loads (45%–60%–75%–90% of 1RM) (multiple-point methods) and considering only 2 loads (45%–90% of 1RM) by a linear regression (2-point method). Three minimal velocity thresholds were used: the general velocity of 0.17 m·s−1 (general velocity of the 1RM [V1RM]), the velocity obtained when lifting the 1RM load (individual V1RM), and the velocity obtained during the last repetition of a set to failure. Results: The 1RM prediction methods were generally valid (range: r = .96–.99, standard error of the estimate = 2.8–4.9 kg or 4.6%–8.0% of 1RM). The multiple-point linear method (2.79 [2.29] kg) was more precise than the multiple-point polynomial method (3.54 [3.31] kg; P = .013), but no significant differences were observed when compared with the 2-point method (3.09 [2.66] kg, P = .136). The velocity of the last repetition of a set to failure (3.47 [2.97] kg) was significantly less precise than the individual V1RM (2.91 [2.75] kg, P = .009) and general V1RM (3.00 [2.65] kg, P = .010). Conclusions: Linear regression models and a general minimal velocity threshold of 0.17 m·s−1 should be recommended to obtain a quick and precise estimation of the 1RM during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine.

scholarly journals Assessing Changes in Absolute and Relative One-repetition Maximum Bench Press After a Six-week Blindfolded Training

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (5S) ◽  
pp. 786-787
Author(s):  
Ali Boolani ◽  
Masoud Moghaddam ◽  
Timothy Baghurst ◽  
Timothy Jones ◽  
Essameldin Hamido ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Repetition Maximum

Differences in the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and arched bench press in competitive powerlifters

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Francisco Javier Villar Macias ◽  
Pedro Á. Latorre-Román ◽  
Juan A. Párraga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
The One
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document