Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models
[EN] 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)...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Estado: | Versão publicada |
| Data de publicação: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universidad de León |
| Repositório: | BULERIA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de León |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:buleria.unileon.es:10612/27071 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://hdl.handle.net/10612/27071 |
| Access Level: | Acceso aberto |
| Palavra-chave: | Deporte Educación Física Load-velocity profile Prone bench pull Strength Resistance exercise |
| Resumo: | [EN] 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)betweendifferent velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men(14rowers 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 %1RMdidnotmeaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and3.50–6.03% 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 waslower 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 1RMtrial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV ratio ratio =1.10), while the within-subject CV was =1.19). These results suggest that the individual loadMVrelationship 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. |
|---|