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

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.

Download Full-text

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

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance ◽

10.1123/ijspp.2017-0158 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. 326-331 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

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.

Download Full-text

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

Isokinetics and Exercise Science ◽

10.3233/ies-202247 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance ◽

10.1123/ijspp.2020-0312 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

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

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching ◽

10.1177/1747954120911312 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (3) ◽

pp. 337-346 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

Concentric-Only Versus Touch-and-Go Bench Press One-Repetition Maximum in Men and Women

Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach ◽

10.1177/1941738120977861 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 194173812097786

Author(s):

Amador García-Ramos ◽

Danica Janicijevic ◽

Ivan Jukic

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Bench Press ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Training Experience ◽

Loading Test ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Repetitions To Failure

Background: One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests are time-consuming, and they might not always be logistically possible or warranted due to increased risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athletes. Repetitions-to-failure tests are a widespread method of predicting the 1RM, but its accuracy may be compromised by several factors such as the type of exercise, sex, training history, and the number of repetitions completed in the test. Hypothesis: The touch-and-go bench press would provide a higher 1RM than the concentric-only bench press for both genders regardless of whether the 1RM was obtained by the direct or repetitions-to-failure method and the error in the 1RM prediction would be positively correlated with the number of repetitions performed to failure and negatively correlated with the 1RM strength and resistance training experience. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) were tested on 2 sessions during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM load, followed by a repetitions-to-failure test. Results: The 1RM was higher for the touch-and-go bench press using both the direct (men, 7.80%; women, 7.62%) and repetitions-to-failure method (men, 8.29%; women, 7.49%). A significant, although small, correlation was observed between the error in the estimation of the 1RM and the number of repetitions performed ( r = 0.222; P < 0.01), 1RM strength ( r = −0.169; P = 0.01), and resistance training experience ( r = −0.136; P = 0.05). Conclusion: The repetitions-to-failure test is a valid method of predicting the 1RM during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. However, the accuracy of the prediction could be compromised with weaker and less experienced individuals and if more than 10 repetitions are completed during the repetitions-to-failure test. Clinical Relevance: The repetitions-to-failure test does not require any sophisticated equipment and enables a widespread use in different training environments.

Download Full-text

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

Behavioral Sciences ◽

10.3390/bs11050071 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Force–Velocity Relationship of Upper Body Muscles: Traditional Versus Ballistic Bench Press

Journal of Applied Biomechanics ◽

10.1123/jab.2015-0162 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 32 (2) ◽

pp. 178-185 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

Amador García-Ramos ◽

Slobodan Jaric ◽

Paulino Padial ◽

Belén Feriche

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Maximum Velocity ◽

Maximum Force ◽

Upper Body ◽

Strongly Correlated ◽

Mean Values ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Velocity Relationship ◽

Force Velocity ◽

Relationship Of

This study aimed to (1) evaluate the linearity of the force–velocity relationship, as well as the reliability of maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), slope (a), and maximum power (P0); (2) compare these parameters between the traditional and ballistic bench press (BP); and (3) determine the correlation of F0 with the directly measured BP 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Thirty-two men randomly performed 2 sessions of traditional BP and 2 sessions of ballistic BP during 2 consecutive weeks. Both the maximum and mean values of force and velocity were recorded when loaded by 20–70% of 1RM. All force–velocity relationships were strongly linear (r > .99). While F0 and P0 were highly reliable (ICC: 0.91–0.96, CV: 3.8–5.1%), lower reliability was observed for V0 and a (ICC: 0.49–0.81, CV: 6.6–11.8%). Trivial differences between exercises were found for F0 (ES: < 0.2), however the a was higher for the traditional BP (ES: 0.68–0.94), and V0 (ES: 1.04–1.48) and P0 (ES: 0.65–0.72) for the ballistic BP. The F0 strongly correlated with BP 1RM (r: 0.915–0.938). The force–velocity relationship is useful to assess the upper body maximal capabilities to generate force, velocity, and power.

Download Full-text

Effect of the Menstrual Cycle When Estimating 1 Repetition Maximum From the Load-Velocity Relationship During the Bench Press Exercise

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research ◽

10.1519/jsc.0000000000003712 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Felipe García-Pinillos ◽

Carlos Lago-Fuentes ◽

Pascual Bujalance-Moreno ◽

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla

Keyword(s):

Menstrual Cycle ◽

Bench Press ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Velocity Relationship

Download Full-text

Effects of Ischemic Preconditioning as a Warm-Up on Leg Press and Bench Press Performance

Journal of Human Kinetics ◽

10.2478/hukin-2020-0055 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 75 (1) ◽

pp. 267-277

Author(s):

Luiz Guilherme da Silva Telles ◽

Luiz Cristiano Carelli ◽

Igor Dutra Bráz ◽

Christian Junqueira ◽

Estêvão Rios Monteiro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resistance Exercise ◽

Ischemic Preconditioning ◽

Bench Press ◽

The Other ◽

Acute Effects ◽

Warm Up ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Healthy Men ◽

Leg Press ◽

Press Performance

Abstract Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been used to increase performance in sports. The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of IPC with different warm-up methods on the number of repetitions and total volume in resistance exercise (RE). Sixteen healthy men recreationally trained in RE participated in this study. After the anthropometric evaluation and familiarization, a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test and retest were performed in the bench press (BP) and in the leg press 45° (LP) exercise. After these tests, participants were randomly assigned to one of the five protocols: a) IPC; b) SHAM; c) a specific warm-up (SW); d) aerobic exercise (AE), and e) active stretching (AS) prior to performing 3 sets at 80% 1RM until concentric failure. The number of repetitions was higher following IPC compared to the SW following three sets both for the BP and LP. Similarly, the number of repetitions for IPC was higher in comparison to SHAM following three sets for the LP. The number of repetitions was higher following IPC compared to AE following 1st and 2nd sets for the LP and following the 2nd set for the BP. Finally, the number of repetitions was higher following IPC compared to AS following 1st and 2nd sets for the LP. The total volume was higher following IPC compared to SHAM, SW, AE, and AS for both the BP and LP. The IPC protocol increased the number of maximum repetitions and the total volume when compared to the other tested methods, thus indicating a better utilization during the pre-work warm-up. These results indicate positive associative responses to IPC with performance maintenance, which is of importance for both athletes and coaches.

Download Full-text

Loaded Inter-set Stretching for Muscular Adaptations in Trained Males: Is the Hype Real?

International Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1055/a-1529-6281 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Tanuj Wadhi ◽

Christopher Barakat ◽

Alexandre L. Evangelista ◽

Jeremy R. Pearson ◽

Ashmeet S. Anand ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bench Press ◽

Rest Period ◽

Muscle Thickness ◽

Time Effect ◽

Repetition Maximum ◽

Volume Load ◽

Rest Periods ◽

Traditional Resistance Training ◽

Muscular Adaptations ◽

Repetitions To Failure

AbstractThe study examined the effects of adding a loaded stretch in the inter-set rest period (ISS) compared to traditional resistance training (TR) on muscular adaptations in resistance-trained males. Twenty-six subjects were randomly assigned into two groups (ISS: n=12; TR: n=14) and underwent an 8-week training regimen. Subjects in ISS underwent an additional loaded stretch for 30 s at 15% of their working load from the prior set during the inter-set rest periods. Muscle thickness of the pectoralis major at the belly (BMT) and lateral (LMT) portions, One-repetition maximum (1RM) and repetitions-to-failure (RTF) on the bench press exercise were measured at baseline and post 8 weeks of training. Additionally, volume load and perceptual parameters for exertion and recovery were measured. Both groups had similar total volume load and average perceptual parameters (p>0.05). There was a main time effect (p<0.01) for all but one dependent variable indicating that both groups responded similarly across time [(∆BMT: ISS=2.7±1.7 mm; TR = 3.0±2.2 mm), (∆LMT: ISS=3.2±1.6 mm; TR=2.8±1.7 mm, (∆1RM: ISS=6.6±3.8 kg; TR=7.5±5.7 kg). Repetitions-to-failure did not change in either group (∆RTF: ISS=0.0±2.1 repetitions; TR=0.0±2.3 repetitions, p>0.05). Our results suggest that addition of a loaded ISS does not affect muscular adaptations either positively or negatively in resistance-trained males.

Download Full-text