Velocity-based method in free-weight and machine-based training modalities: the degree of freedom matters
This study aimed to analyze and compare the load-velocity relationships of free-weight and machine-based modalities of 4 resistance exercises. Moreover, we examined the influence of the subjects strength level on these load-velocity relationships. Fifty men completed a loading test in the free-weigh...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha |
| Repositorio: | RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLM |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ruidera.uclm.es:10578/43828 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10578/43828 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Athlete Intensity Load-velocity relationship Programming Strength training |
| Sumario: | This study aimed to analyze and compare the load-velocity relationships of free-weight and machine-based modalities of 4 resistance exercises. Moreover, we examined the influence of the subjects strength level on these load-velocity relationships. Fifty men completed a loading test in the free-weight and machine-based modalities of the bench press, full squat, shoulder press, and prone bench pull exercises. General and individual relationships between relative intensity (%1RM) and velocity variables were studied through the coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of the estimate (SEE). Moreover, the velocity attained to each %1RM was compared between both modalities. Subjects were divided into stronger and weaker to study whether the subjects strength level influences the mean test (mean propulsive velocity [MPVTest]) and 1RM (MPV1RM) velocities. For both modalities, very close relationships (R2 = 0.95) and reduced estimation errors were found when velocity was analyzed as a dependent (SEE = 0.086 m·s-1) and independent (SEE = 5.7% 1RM) variable concerning the %1RM. Fits were found to be higher (R2 = 0.995) for individual load-velocity relationships. Concerning the between-modality comparison, the velocity attained at each intensity (from 30 to 100% 1RM) was significantly faster for the free-weight variant. Finally, nonsignificant differences were found when comparing MPVTest (differences = 0.02 m·s-1) and MPV1RM (differences = 0.01 m·s-1) between stronger and weaker subjects. These findings prove the accuracy and stability of the velocity-based method in the free-weight and machine-based variants but highlight the need to use the load-velocity relationship (preferably the individual one) specific to each training modality. |
|---|