scholarly journals Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (21) ◽  
pp. 7811
Author(s):  
Elias J. G. Caven ◽  
Tom J. E. Bryan ◽  
Amelia F. Dingley ◽  
Benjamin Drury ◽  
Amador Garcia-Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Female Athletes ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Multiple Point ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Minimum Velocity

This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load–velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load–velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method.

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.

Differences in the Load–Velocity Profile Between 4 Bench-Press Variants

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Francisco Javier Rojas ◽  
Guy Gregory Haff
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Incremental Loading

Purpose: To compare the load–velocity relationship between 4 variants of the bench-press (BP) exercise. Methods: The full load–velocity relationship of 30 men was evaluated by means of an incremental loading test starting at 17 kg and progressing to the individual 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in 4 BP variants: concentric-only BP, concentric-only BP throw (BPT), eccentric-concentric BP, and eccentric-concentric BPT. Results: A strong and fairly linear relationship between mean velocity (MV) and %1RM was observed for the 4 BP variants (r2 > .96 for pooled data and r2 > .98 for individual data). The MV associated with each %1RM was significantly higher in the eccentric-concentric technique than in the concentric-only technique. The only significant difference between the BP and BPT variants was the higher MV with the light to moderate loads (20–70%1RM) in the BPT using the concentric-only technique. MV was significantly and positively correlated between the 4 BP variants (r = .44–.76), which suggests that the subjects with higher velocities for each %1RM in 1 BP variant also tend to have higher velocities for each %1RM in the 3 other BP variants. Conclusions: These results highlight the need for obtaining specific equations for each BP variant and the existence of individual load–velocity profiles.

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.

scholarly journals Estimation of Relative Load From Bar Velocity in the Full Back Squat Exercise

2017 ◽  
Vol 01 (02) ◽  
pp. E80-E88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Sánchez-Medina ◽  
Jesús Pallarés ◽  
Carlos Pérez ◽  
Ricardo Morán-Navarro ◽  
Juan González-Badillo
Keyword(s):  
Relative Strength ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Relative Load ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Training Approach ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Squat Exercise ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Bar Velocity

AbstractThe use of bar velocity to estimate relative load in the back squat exercise was examined. 80 strength-trained men performed a progressive loading test to determine their one-repetition maximum (1RM) and load-velocity relationship. Mean (MV), mean propulsive (MPV) and peak (PV) velocity measures of the concentric phase were analyzed. Both MV and MPV showed a very close relationship to %1RM (R2=0.96), whereas a weaker association (R2=0.79) and larger SEE (0.14 vs. 0.06 m·s−1) were found for PV. Prediction equations to estimate load from velocity were obtained. When dividing the sample into 3 groups of different relative strength (1RM/body mass), no differences were found between groups for the MPV attained against each %1RM. MV attained with the 1RM was 0.32±0.03 m·s−1. The propulsive phase accounted for ~82% of concentric duration at 40% 1RM, and progressively increased until reaching 100% at 1RM. Provided that repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity, a good estimation of load (%1RM) can be obtained from mean velocity as soon as the first repetition is completed. This finding provides an alternative to the often demanding, time-consuming and interfering 1RM or nRM tests and allows implementing a velocity-based resistance training approach.

Validity and reliability of the WIMU® system to measure barbell velocity during the half-squat exercise

2019 ◽  
Vol 233 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe García-Pinillos ◽  
Pedro A Latorre-Román ◽  
Fernando Valdivieso-Ruano ◽  
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández ◽  
Juan A Párraga-Montilla
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Squat Exercise ◽  
The Mean

This study aimed at determining the reliability and concurrent validity of the WIMU® system when measuring barbell velocity during the half-squat exercise by comparing data with the gold standard. A total of 19 male competitive powerlifters performed an incremental loading test using the half-squat exercise. The mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity of all repetitions were recorded through both WIMU and T-Force systems. As a measure of reliability, coefficient of variations ranged from 6%–17% and standard error of means ranged from 0.02–0.11 m/s, showing very close reliability of data from both devices. Validity, in terms of coefficient of correlations and pairwise comparisons, was also tested. Except for some relative loads, the Pearson correlation analysis revealed significant correlations between both devices for mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity (r > 0.6, p < 0.05). The mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity were underestimated for the WIMU system compared to T-Force data at some points of the load–velocity relationship. The linear regression models performed revealed a strong load–velocity relationship in the half-squat exercise for each individual using mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity and maximum velocity, regardless of the instrument used (R2 > 0.77 in all cases). Bland–Altman plots revealed low systematic bias (≤0.06 m s−1) and random error (≤0.07 m s−1) for the mean velocity and mean propulsive velocity obtained from the WIMU system as compared to the T-Force, while the maximum velocity resulted in an underestimation by the WIMU system (–0.16 m s−1) as compared to the linear position transducer system. The results indicate that the WIMU system is a reliable tool for tracking barbell velocity in the half squat, but these data also reveal some limitations regarding its concurrent validity as compared to the gold standard, with velocity measures slightly underestimated in the tested conditions.

Precision of 7 Commercially Available Devices for Predicting Bench-Press 1-Repetition Maximum From the Individual Load–Velocity Relationship

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 1442-1446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Antonio Piepoli ◽  
Gabriel Garrido-Blanca ◽  
Gabriel Delgado-García ◽  
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Inertial Measurement Units ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Measurement Units ◽  
The Individual

Objective: To compare the accuracy of different devices to predict the bench-press 1-repetition maximum (1RM) from the individual load–velocity relationship modeled through the multiple- and 2-point methods. Methods: Eleven men performed an incremental test on a Smith machine against 5 loads (45–55–65–75–85%1RM), followed by 1RM attempts. The mean velocity was simultaneously measured by 1 linear velocity transducer (T-Force), 2 linear position transducers (Chronojump and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin), 2 inertial measurement units (PUSH Band and Beast Sensor), and 1 smartphone application (My Lift). The velocity recorded at the 5 loads (45–55–65–75–85%1RM), or only at the 2 most distant loads (45–85%1RM), was considered for the multiple- and 2-point methods, respectively. Results: An acceptable and comparable accuracy in the estimation of the 1RM was observed for the T-Force, Chronojump, Speed4Lift, Velowin, and My Lift when using both the multiple- and 2-point methods (effect size ≤ 0.40; Pearson correlation coefficient [r] ≥ .94; standard error of the estimate [SEE] ≤ 4.46 kg), whereas the accuracy of the PUSH (effect size = 0.70–0.83; r = .93–.94; SEE = 4.45–4.80 kg), and especially the Beast Sensor (effect size = 0.36–0.84; r = .50–.68; SEE = 9.44–11.2 kg), was lower. Conclusions: These results highlight that the accuracy of 1RM prediction methods based on movement velocity is device dependent, with the inertial measurement units providing the least accurate estimate of the 1RM.

Comparison of the bench press one-repetition maximum obtained by different procedures: Direct assessment vs. lifts-to-failure equations vs. two-point method

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga ◽  
Dario Martínez-García ◽  
Ángela Rodríguez-Perea ◽  
Luis J Chirosa-Ríos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Direct Method ◽  
Maximum Load ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Incremental Loading

This study examined the differences in the bench press one-repetition maximum obtained by three different methods (direct method, lifts-to-failure method, and two-point method). Twenty young men were tested in four different sessions. A single grip width (close, medium, wide, or self-selected) was randomly used on each session. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the one-repetition maximum, followed by a single set of lifts-to-failure against the 75% one-repetition maximum load. The last load lifted during the incremental loading test was considered the actual one-repetition maximum (direct method). The one-repetition maximum was also predicted using the Mayhew’s equation (lifts-to-failure method) and the individual load–velocity relationship modeled from two data points (two-point method). The actual one-repetition maximum was underestimated by the lifts-to-failure method (range: 1–2 kg) and overestimated by the two-point method (range: –3 to –1 kg), being these differences accentuated using closer grip widths. All predicted one-repetition maximums were practically perfectly correlated with the actual one-repetition maximum ( r ≥  0.95; standard error of the estimate ≤ 4 kg). The one-repetition maximum was higher using the medium grip width (83 ± 3 kg) compared to the close (80 ± 3 kg) and wide (79 ± 3 kg) grip widths ( P ≤  0.025), while no significant differences were observed between the medium and self-selected (81 ± 3 kg) grip widths ( P =  1.000). In conclusion, although both the Mayhew’s equation and the two-point method are able to predict the actual one-repetition maximum with an acceptable precision, the differences between the actual and predicted one-repetition maximums seem to increase when using close grip widths.

Validity of the bench press one-repetition maximum test predicted through individualized load-velocity relationship using different repetition criteria and minimal velocity thresholds

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
John F.T. Fernandes ◽  
Amador García-Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Prediction Methods ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Maximum Test ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Minimal Velocity ◽  
Preliminary Session

BACKGROUND: More practical and less fatiguing strategies have been developed to accurately predict the one-repetition maximum (1RM). OBJETIVE: To compare the accuracy of the estimation of the free-weight bench press 1RM between six velocity-based 1RM prediction methods. METHODS: Sixteen men performed an incremental loading test until 1RM on two separate occasions. The first session served to determine the minimal velocity threshold (MVT). The second session was used to determine the validity of the six 1RM prediction methods based on 2 repetition criteria (fastest or average velocity) and 3 MVTs (general MVT of 0.17 m⋅s-1, individual MVT of the preliminary session, and individual MVT of the validity session). Five loads (≈ 2540557085% of 1RM) were used to assess the individualized load-velocity relationships. RESULTS: The absolute difference between the actual and predicted 1RM were low (range = 2.7–3.7%) and did not reveal a significant main effect for repetition criterion (P= 0.402), MVT (P= 0.173) or their two-way interaction (P= 0.354). Furthermore, all 1RM prediction methods accurately estimated bench press 1RM (P⩾ 0.556; ES ⩽ 0.02; r⩾ 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The individualized load-velocity relationship provides an accurate prediction of the 1RM during the free-weight bench press exercise, while the repetition criteria and MVT do not appear to meaningfully affect the prediction accuracy.

scholarly journals Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e8760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
Jorge M. González-Hernández ◽  
Justin W.L. Keogh ◽  
Jonathon Weakley
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Healthy Men ◽  
Velocity Threshold ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Minimal Velocity ◽  
Repetitions To Failure ◽  
Incremental Loading

Background This study aimed to determine the reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure (Vlast) and the association of Vlast with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum (V1RM) during the paused and touch-and-go bench press (BP) exercises performed in a Smith machine. Methods A total of 96 healthy men participated in this study that consisted of two testing sessions. A single BP variant (paused BP or touch-and-go BP) was evaluated on each session in a randomized order. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM, followed by two sets of repetitions to failure against a load ranging from 75% to 90% of 1RM. Results The reliability of Vlast was unacceptable for both BP variants (CV > 18.3%, ICC < 0.60). The correlations between V1RM and Vlast were small for the paused BP (r = 0.18) and moderate for the touch-and-go BP (r = 0.37). Conclusions Although these results suggest that Vlast could be a better indicator of the minimal velocity threshold than V1RM, the low reliability of Vlast and the similar values of Vlast for both BP variants suggest that a standard V1RM should be used to estimate the 1RM from the individualized load-velocity relationship.

scholarly journals Movement velocity can be used to estimate the relative load during the bench press and leg press exercises in older women

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e7533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Jorge Marcos-Pardo ◽  
Jorge Miguel González-Hernández ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Abraham López-Vivancos ◽  
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Older Women ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Leg Press ◽  
Relative Load ◽  
Heavy Loads ◽  
The One

BackgroundMovement velocity has been proposed as an effective tool to prescribe the load during resistance training in young healthy adults. This study aimed to elucidate whether movement velocity could also be used to estimate the relative load (i.e., % of the one-repetition maximum (1RM)) in older women.MethodsA total of 22 older women (age = 68.2 ± 3.6 years, bench press 1RM = 22.3 ± 4.7 kg, leg press 1RM = 114.6 ± 15.9 kg) performed an incremental loading test during the free-weight bench press and the leg press exercises on two separate sessions. The mean velocity (MV) was collected with a linear position transducer.ResultsA strong linear relationship between MV and the relative load was observed for the bench press (%1RM = −130.4 MV + 119.3;r2= 0.827, standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 6.10%1RM,p< 0.001) and leg press exercises (%1RM = −158.3 MV + 131.4;r2= 0.913, SEE = 5.63%1RM,p< 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the bench press and leg press exercises for the MV attained against light-medium relative loads (≤70%1RM), while the MV associated with heavy loads (≥80%1RM) was significantly higher for the leg press.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the monitoring of MV could be useful to prescribe the loads during resistance training in older women. However, it should be noted that the MV associated with a given %1RM is significantly lower in older women compared to young healthy individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document