Movement Velocity as Indicator of Relative Intensity and Level of Effort Attained During the Set in Pull-Up Exercise
Purpose: to analyze the relationship between movement velocity and relative load (%1RM) in the pull-up exercise (PU), and to determine the pattern of repetition velocity loss during a single set to failure in pulling one’s own body mass. Methods: Fifty-two men (age = 26.5 ± 3.9 years, body mass = 74...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO) |
| Repositorio: | RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:rio.upo.es:10433/21748 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10433/21748 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Loading intensity Training volume Velocity loss Velocity based resistance training Strength training |
| Sumario: | Purpose: to analyze the relationship between movement velocity and relative load (%1RM) in the pull-up exercise (PU), and to determine the pattern of repetition velocity loss during a single set to failure in pulling one’s own body mass. Methods: Fifty-two men (age = 26.5 ± 3.9 years, body mass = 74.3 ± 7.2 kg) performed a first evaluation (T1) consisting of an one-repetition maximum test (1RM), and a test of maximum number of repetitions to failure pulling one’s own body mass (MNR) in the PU exercise. Thirty-nine subjects performed both tests on a second occasion (T2) following 12 weeks’ training. Results: We observed a strong relationship between mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and %1RM (r = -.96). Mean velocity attained with 1RM load (V1RM) was 0.20 ± 0.05 m·s−1 and it influenced the MPV attained with each %1RM. Although 1RM increased by 3.4% from T1 to T2, the relationship between MPV and %1RM, and V1RM remained stable. We also confirmed stability in the V1RM regardless of individual relative strength. We found a strong relationship between percentage of velocity loss and percentage of performed repetitions (R2 = .88), which 35 remained stable despite a 15% increase in MNR. Conclusions: Monitoring repetition velocity allows estimation of the %1RM used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed, and the number of repetitions remaining in reserve when a given percentage of velocity loss is achieved during a PU exercise set. |
|---|