scholarly journals Validity and Reliability of Kinematics Measured with PUSH Band vs. Linear Encoder in Bench Press and Push-Ups

Sports ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland van den Tillaar ◽  
Nick Ball
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Lower Velocity ◽  
Linear Encoder ◽  
Measurement Devices ◽  
Level Of Agreement ◽  
Push Up

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of a PUSH band device with a linear encoder to measure movement velocity with different loads during the push-up and bench press exercises. Methods: Twenty resistance-trained athletes performed push-up and bench press exercises with four different loads: without weight vest, 10-20-30 kg weight vest, bench press: 50–82% of their assumed 1 repetition maximum (1 RM) in steps of 10 kg. A linear encoder (Musclelab) and the PUSH band measured mean and peak velocity during both exercises. Several statistical analyses were used to investigate the validity and reliability of the PUSH band with the linear encoder. Results: The main findings of this study demonstrated only moderate associations between the PUSH band and linear encoder for mean velocity (r = 0.62, 0.70) and peak velocity (r = 0.46, 0.49) for both exercises. Furthermore, a good level of agreement (peak velocity: ICC = 0.60, 0.64; mean velocity: ICC = 0.77, 0.78) was observed between the two measurement devices. However, a significant bias was found with lower velocity values measured with the PUSH band in both exercises. In the push-up, both the linear encoder and PUSH band were deemed very reliable (ICC > 0.98; the coefficient of variation (CV): 5.9–7.3%). Bench press reliability decreased for the PUSH band (ICC < 0.95), and the coefficient of variance increased to (12.8–13.3%) for the velocity measures. Calculated 1 RM with the two devices was the same for the push-up, while in bench press the PUSH band under-estimated the 1 RM by 14 kg compared to the linear encoder. Conclusions: It was concluded that the PUSH band will show decreased reliability from velocity measures in a bench press exercise and underestimate load-velocity based 1 RM predictions. For training, the PUSH band can be used during push-ups, however caution is suggested when using the device for the purposes of feedback in bench press at increasing loads.

scholarly journals Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between Push-up and Bench Press

2019 ◽  
Vol 03 (03) ◽  
pp. E74-E81
Author(s):  
Roland van den Tillaar
Keyword(s):  
Strength Training ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Muscle Activation ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Linear Encoder ◽  
Time Average ◽  
Push Up

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to compare the similarity in kinematics and upper-body muscle activation between push-up and bench press exercises over a range of loads. Twenty resistance-trained subjects (age 22.5±5.24 yrs, body mass 83.7±10.7 kg, height 1.80±0.06 m) executed bench presses and push-ups with 4 different loads. Bench press was executed at 50–80% of their assumed 1 repetition max in steps of 10 kg, while push-ups were executed without a weight vest and with a 10–20–30 kg weight vest. A linear encoder measured kinematics (displacement, time, average and peak velocity) during the exercises at each load, together with mean and maximal muscle activation of 8 upper body muscles and their timing for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate no differences in kinematics and muscle activation between the two exercises and that the different loads had the same effect upon both push-up and bench press in experienced resistance-trained men. For coaches and athletes, push-ups and bench presses for strength training can be used interchangeably. By using a weight vest, push-ups can mimic different loads that are similar to different intensities in the bench press that can be used to train strength demands.

scholarly journals Postactivation Potentiation of Bench Press Throw Performance Using Velocity-Based Conditioning Protocols with Low and Moderate Loads

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athanasios Tsoukos ◽  
Lee E. Brown ◽  
Panagiotis Veligekas ◽  
Gerasimos Terzis ◽  
Gregory C. Bogdanis
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Postactivation Potentiation ◽  
Acute Effects ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Under Five ◽  
Prime Movers ◽  
Semg Activity

AbstractThis study examined the acute effects of the bench press exercise with low and moderate loads as well as with two predetermined movement velocity loss percentages on bench press throw performance and surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity. Ten trained men completed 5 main trials in randomized and counterbalanced order one week apart. Mean propulsive velocity (MPV), peak velocity (PV) and sEMG activity of prime movers were evaluated before and periodically for 12 minutes of recovery under five conditions: using loads of 40 or 60% of 1 RM, until mean velocity dropped to 90 or 70%, as well as a control condition (CTRL). MPV and PV were increased 4-12 min into recovery by 4.5-6.8% only after the 60%1RM condition during which velocity dropped to 90% and total exercise volume was the lowest of all conditions (p < 0.01, Hedges’ g = 0.8-1.7). When peak individual responses were calculated irrespective of time, MPV was increased by 9.2 ± 4.4 (p < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 1.0) and 6.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 0.7) under the two conditions with the lowest total exercise volume irrespective of the load, i.e. under the conditions of 40 and 60% 1RM where velocity was allowed to drop to 90%. sEMG activity of the triceps was significantly greater when peak individual responses were taken into account only under the 60%1RM condition when velocity dropped to 90% (p < 0.05, Hedges’ g = 0.4). This study showed that potentiation may be maximized by taking into account individual fatigue profiles using velocity-based training.

scholarly journals Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions

Sports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
John C. Abbott ◽  
John P. Wagle ◽  
Kimitake Sato ◽  
Keith Painter ◽  
Thaddeus J. Light ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Inertial Sensor ◽  
Measurement Unit ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Pearson Correlations ◽  
Internal Error ◽  
3D Motion Capture ◽  
Level Of Agreement

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen’s d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error.

scholarly journals Validity and reliability of an optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during bench press and half squat in a Smith machine

2019 ◽  
Vol 234 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-97
Author(s):  
Borja Muniz-Pardos ◽  
Gabriel Lozano-Berges ◽  
Jorge Marin-Puyalto ◽  
Alex Gonzalez-Agüero ◽  
German Vicente-Rodriguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Testing Session ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Optoelectronic System ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Force System ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Strength Exercises ◽  
Wide Range

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of a camera-based optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during bench press and half squat at different load intensities. A total of 22 active males (age: 28.2 ± 3.9 years; one-repetition maximum bench press: 77.9 ± 19.0 kg; one-repetition maximum half squat: 116.6 ± 22.5 kg) participated in this study. After an initial one-repetition maximum testing session, participants performed five repetitions for each load (40%, 60% and 80% one-repetition maximum) and exercise (bench press and half squat) on a Smith machine in the second testing session. A third testing session was used for the test–retest reliability study. Time, displacement and mean propulsive velocity were simultaneously determined by the reference method (T-Force system) and the Velowin system. In bench press, ordinary least products regression analysis revealed low fixed biases for mean propulsive velocity at 40%, time at 60% and displacement at 80% one-repetition maximum (intercept = 0.065 m s−1, −28.02 ms and 0.87 cm, respectively). In half squat, low fixed biases were also detected for mean propulsive velocity at 40% and 80% one-repetition maximum (intercept = −0.040 and 0.023 m s−1, respectively), time at 40% and 60% one-repetition maximum (intercept = −53.05 and −101.85 ms, respectively) and displacement at 60% one-repetition maximum (intercept = −1.95 cm). Proportional bias was only observed for mean propulsive velocity at 80% bench press. In half squat, there was proportional bias for time and mean propulsive velocity at 40% one-repetition maximum, and also for time at 60% one-repetition maximum. The reliability test showed low and comparable fixed and proportional biases between systems across exercises and intensities. Velowin confirmed to be a valid and reliable system to measure movement velocity across a wide range of intensities (40%–80% one-repetition maximum) for two basic strength exercises through a robust statistical approach. Velowin would provide coaches and trainers with a suitable, affordable and easy-to-use equipment capable of measuring movement velocity in various exercises at different load intensities.

The Reliability of Individualized Load–Velocity Profiles

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry G. Banyard ◽  
Kazunori Nosaka ◽  
Alex D. Vernon ◽  
G. Gregory Haff
Keyword(s):  
Linear Regression ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Velocity Profiles ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Order Polynomial

Purpose: To examine the reliability of peak velocity (PV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and mean velocity (MV) in the development of load–velocity profiles (LVP) in the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Eighteen resistance-trained men performed a baseline 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) back-squat trial and 3 subsequent 1-RM trials used for reliability analyses, with 48-h intervals between trials. 1-RM trials comprised lifts from 6 relative loads including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% 1-RM. Individualized LVPs for PV, MPV, or MV were derived from loads that were highly reliable based on the following criteria: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) >.70, coefficient of variation (CV) ≤10%, and Cohen d effect size (ES) <0.60. Results: PV was highly reliable at all 6 loads. MPV and MV were highly reliable at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 90% but not 100% 1-RM (MPV: ICC = .66, CV = 18.0%, ES = 0.10, SEM = 0.04 m·s−1; MV: ICC = .55, CV = 19.4%, ES = 0.08, SEM = 0.04 m·s−1). When considering the reliable ranges, almost perfect correlations were observed for LVPs derived from PV20–100% (r = .91–.93), MPV20–90% (r = .92–.94), and MV20–90% (r = .94–.95). Furthermore, the LVPs were not significantly different (P > .05) between trials or movement velocities or between linear regression versus 2nd-order polynomial fits. Conclusions: PV20–100%, MPV20–90%, and MV20–90% are reliable and can be utilized to develop LVPs using linear regression. Conceptually, LVPs can be used to monitor changes in movement velocity and employed as a method for adjusting sessional training loads according to daily readiness.

An effective, low-cost method to improve the movement velocity measurement of a smartphone app during the bench press exercise

2021 ◽  
pp. 175433712110580
Author(s):  
Wladymir Külkamp ◽  
Jairo L Rosa-Junior ◽  
Jonathan Ache-Dias ◽  
Lorival J Carminatti
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Velocity Measurement ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Velocity Measurements ◽  
Range Of Movement ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
The Mean

Some studies have reported considerable errors in the movement velocity measurement when using the My Lift app. This study aimed to investigate whether these errors may be related to the use of a range of movement (ROM) statically measured prior to the movement (ROMMYLIFT) instead of ROM dynamically monitored. Ten young adults performed two repetitions of the bench press exercise on a Smith machine with loads that allowed two velocity conditions (above and below 0.6 m s−1). The exercises were monitored by the My Lift app, a magnet and a rotary encoder. After, 15 older adults performed the same exercise at different percentages of 1RM, monitored by the My Lift app and a magnet. The results revealed that ROM dynamically obtained by encoder (reference method) with the mean velocity above (0.497 ± 0.069 m) and below (0.450 ± 0.056 m) 0.6 m s−1 were quite different ( p < 0.05; large effect) from the ROMMYLIFT (0.385 ± 0.040 m). These errors provided highly biased and heteroscedastic mean velocity measurements (mean errors approximately 22%). The errors observed in adults were also observed in the older participants, except for loads equal to 85% of 1RM. The magnet method proved to be valid, presenting measurements very close to the encoder (mean errors approximately 1.7%; r > 0.99). In conclusion, the use of ROMMYLIFT is inadequate, as the higher the movement velocity, the higher the errors, both for young and older adults. Thus, to improve the measurement of the My Lift app, it is recommended that the magnet method be used in conjunction with the app to more accurately determine the ROM.

Specific warm-up enhances movement velocity during bench press and squat resistance training

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Ratings Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Warm Up

Background and objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of specific warm-up on squat and bench press resistance training. Methods: Thirty-four resistance-trained males (23.53 ± 2.35 years) participated in the current study. Among these, 12 were evaluated in the squat and 22 in the bench press. After determining the maximal strength load (1RM), each participant performed a training set (3 × 6 repetitions) with 80%1RM (training load) after completing a specific warm-up and without warming up, in random order. The warm-up comprised 2 × 6 repetitions with 40% and 80% of the training load, respectively. Mean propulsive velocity, velocity loss, peak velocity, mechanical power, work, heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion were assessed. Results: The results showed that after the warm-up, the participants were able to perform the squat and bench press at a higher mean propulsive velocity in the first set (squat: 0.68 ± 0.05 vs. 0.64 ± 0.06 m·s−1, p = 0.009, ES = 0.91; bench press: 0.52 ± 0.06 vs. 0.47 ± 0.08 m·s−1, p = 0.02, ES = 0.56). The warm-up positively influenced the peak velocity (1.32 ± 0.12 vs. 1.20 ± 0.11 m·s−1, p = 0.001, ES = 1.23) and the time to reach peak velocity (593.75 ± 117.01 vs. 653.58 ± 156.53 ms, p = 0.009, ES = 0.91) during the squat set. Conclusion: The specific warm-up seems to enhance neuromuscular actions that enable a higher movement velocity during the first training repetitions and to allow greater peak velocities in less time.

Power– and velocity–load relationships to improve resistance exercise performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 232 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel V Garnacho-Castaño ◽  
Arturo Muñoz-González ◽  
María A Garnacho-Castaño ◽  
José L Maté-Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Peak Power ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Maximal Power Output ◽  
Power Load ◽  
The Military

Knowledge of the power– and velocity–load relationships is a key factor to guide loads during resistance training and optimize sports performance. This study compares mean velocity–, peak velocity– and power–load relationships, and determines the load which elicits maximal power output in the military press and bench press. Fifty-seven healthy, active men were randomly assigned to a bench press (n = 28) or military press (n = 29) group. In separate test sessions, concentric-only or eccentric-concentric sequences of each exercise were performed in random order as incremental isoinertial load tests. Both mean velocity and peak velocity were highly related with the load lifted (% 1RM) in both bench press and military press (mean velocity: R2 = 0.94 and 0.95; peak velocity: R2 = 0.93 and 0.93, respectively). The loads maximizing mean power and peak power output were similar for the eccentric-concentric versus concentric sequences in bench press and military press. The loads maximizing mean power and peak power were between 54% and 57.5% 1RM for the bench press and 59.8%–63.1% 1RM for the military press. For the bench press, no significant differences were observed in mean power from 30% to 80% 1RM and peak power from 30% to 95% 1RM. For the military press, no significant differences were observed in mean power from 40% to 80% 1RM and peak power from 30% to 90%/95% 1RM. The close relationship detected between mean velocity or peak velocity and load means that the % 1RM can be estimated according to mean velocity and peak velocity. In both exercises, a broad range of relative intensities could be used at which power output is not significantly different than that at maximized power output (mean = 30%/40%–80% 1RM; peak = 30%–90%/95%). Mean velocity lower than approximately 0.33 m s−1 for bench press and 0.4 m s−1 for military press, as well as peak velocity lower than approximately 0.4 m s−1 for bench press and 0.5 m s−1 for military press do not optimize power output responses. The eccentric action was a determining factor for increasing power output only in bench press.

scholarly journals Validity and Reliability of a Smartphone Accelerometer for Measuring Lift Velocity in Bench-Press Exercises

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 2312
Author(s):  
Javier Peláez Barrajón ◽  
Alejandro F. San Juan
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Basic Program ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Linear Transducer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability that a smartphone accelerometer (ACC) used by a mobile basic program (MBP) can provide to measure the mean velocity of a bench-press (BP) lift. Ten volunteers participated in the study (age 23.1 ± 2.5 years; mean ± SD). They had more than one year of resistance training experience in BP exercise. All performed three attempts with different loads: 70%, 90%, and 100% of the estimated value of the one-repetition maximum (1RM). In each repetition, the mean velocity was measured by a validated linear transducer and the ACC. The smartphone accelerometer used by the mobile basic program showed no significant differences between the mean velocities at 70% 1RM lifts (ACC = 0.52 ± 0.11 m/s; transducer = 0.54 ± 0.09 m/s, p > 0.05). However, significant differences were found in the mean velocities for 90% 1RM (ACC = 0.46 ± 0.09 m/s; transducer = 0.31 ± 0.03 m/s, p < 0.001), and 100% 1RM (ACC = 0.33 ± 0.21 m/s; transducer = 0.16 ± 0.04 m/s, p < 0.05). The accelerometer is sensitive enough to measure different lift velocities, but the algorithm must be correctly calibrated.

scholarly journals Pre-exercise Caffeine Intake Enhances Bench Press Strength Training Adaptations

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verónica Giráldez-Costas ◽  
Carlos Ruíz-Moreno ◽  
Jaime González-García ◽  
Beatriz Lara ◽  
Juan Del Coso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Muscle Performance ◽  
Caffeine Intake ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Training Adaptations ◽  
Training Protocol

Previous research has identified acute caffeine intake as an effective ergogenic aid to enhance velocity and power during bench press exercise. However, no previous investigation has analyzed the effects of chronic intake of caffeine on training adaptations induced by bench press strength training. Thus, the aim of this investigation was to determine the effects of pre-exercise caffeine intake on training adaptations induced by a bench press training protocol. Using a double-blind, randomized experimental design, 16 healthy participants underwent a bench press training protocol for 4 weeks (12 sessions). Seven participants ingested a placebo and nine participants ingested 3 mg/kg/BM of caffeine before each training session. Three days before, and 3 days after the completion of the training protocol, participants performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and force-velocity test (from 10 to 100% 1RM). From comparable pre-training values, the strength training similarly increased 1RM in the caffeine and placebo groups (+13.5 ± 7.8% vs. +11.3 ± 5.3%, respectively; p = 0.53). In the caffeine group, the strength training induced a higher mean velocity at 40%, (0.81 ± 0.08 vs. 0.90 ± 0.14 m/s), 60% (0.60 ± 0.06 vs. 0.65 ± 0.06 m/s), 70% (0.47 ± 0.05 vs. 0.55 ± 0.06 m/s), 80% (0.37 ± 0.06 vs. 0.45 ± 0.05 m/s), 90% (0.26 ± 0.07 vs. 0.34 ± 0.06 m/s), and 100% 1RM (0.14 ± 0.04 vs. 0.25 ± 0.05 m/s; p &lt; 0.05) while the increases in the placebo group were evident only at 30 (0.95 ± 0.06 vs. 1.03 ± 0.07 m/s), 70% (0.51 ± 0.03 vs. 0.57 ± 0.05 m/s) and 80% 1RM (0.37 ± 0.06 vs. 0.45 ± 0.05 m/s) (p &lt; 0.05). The placebo group only increased peak velocity at 60 and 70% 1RM (p &lt; 0.05) while peak velocity increased at 10%, and from 30 to 100% 1RM in the caffeine group (p &lt; 0.05). The use of 3 mg/kg/BM of caffeine before exercise did not modify improvements in 1RM obtained during a 4 week bench press strength training program but induced more muscle performance adaptations over a wider range of load.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document