Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964-0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55-7.61% for MV, 2.84-7.72% for MPV and 3.50-6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55-7.72% and 2.73-5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CVratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CVratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

The effects of traditional, superset, and tri-set resistance training structures on perceived intensity and physiological responses.

PURPOSE: Investigate the acute and short-term (i.e., 24 h) effects of traditional (TRAD), superset (SS), and tri-set (TRI) resistance training protocols on perceptions of intensity and physiological responses. METHODS: Fourteen male participants completed a familiarisation session and three resistance training protocols (i.e., TRAD, SS, and TRI) in a randomised-crossover design. Rating of perceived exertion, lactate concentration ([Lac]), creatine kinase concentration ([CK]), countermovement jump (CMJ), testosterone, and cortisol concentrations was measured pre, immediately, and 24-h post the resistance training sessions with magnitude-based inferences assessing changes/differences within/between protocols. RESULTS: TRI reported possible to almost certainly greater efficiency and rate of perceived exertion, although session perceived load was very likely lower. SS and TRI had very likely to almost certainly greater lactate responses during the protocols, with changes in [CK] being very likely and likely increased at 24 h, respectively. At 24-h post-training, CMJ variables in the TRAD protocol had returned to baseline; however, SS and TRI were still possibly to likely reduced. Possible increases in testosterone immediately post SS and TRI protocols were reported, with SS showing possible increases at 24-h post-training. TRAD and SS showed almost certain and likely decreases in cortisol immediately post, respectively, with TRAD reporting likely decreases at 24-h post-training. CONCLUSIONS: SS and TRI can enhance training efficiency and reduce training time. However, acute and short-term physiological responses differ between protocols. Athletes can utilise SS and TRI resistance training, but may require additional recovery post-training to minimise effects of fatigue