Pérez-Castilla, A, Piepoli, A, Delgado-García, G, Garrido-Blanca, G, and García-Ramos, A. Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially available devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1258–1265, 2019—The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and validity of 7 commercially available devices to measure movement velocity during the bench press exercise. Fourteen men completed 2 testing sessions. One-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press exercise was determined in the first session. The second testing session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% of 1RM). The mean velocity was simultaneously measured using an optical motion sensing system (Trio-OptiTrack; “gold-standard”) and 7 commercially available devices: 1 linear velocity transducer (T-Force), 2 linear position transducers (Chronojump and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin), 1 smartphone application (PowerLift), and 2 inertial measurement units (IMUs) (PUSH band and Beast sensor). The devices were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: (a) Speed4Lift (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.61%); (b) Velowin (CV = 3.99%), PowerLift (3.97%), Trio-OptiTrack (CV = 4.04%), T-Force (CV = 4.35%), and Chronojump (CV = 4.53%); (c) PUSH band (CV = 9.34%); and (d) Beast sensor (CV = 35.0%). A practically perfect association between the Trio-OptiTrack system and the different devices was observed (Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) range = 0.947–0.995; p < 0.001) with the only exception of the Beast sensor (r = 0.765; p < 0.001). These results suggest that linear velocity/position transducers, camera-based optoelectronic systems, and the smartphone application could be used to obtain accurate velocity measurements for restricted linear movements, whereas the IMUs used in this study were less reliable and valid.

García-Ramos, A, Pestaña-Melero, FL, Pérez-Castilla, A, Rojas, FJ, and Haff, GG. Mean velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity: which variable determines bench press relative load with higher reliability? J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1273–1279, 2018—This study aimed to compare between 3 velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV], and peak velocity [PV]): (a) the linearity of the load-velocity relationship, (b) the accuracy of general regression equations to predict relative load (%1RM), and (c) the between-session reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the 1-repetition maximum (%1RM). The full load-velocity relationship of 30 men was evaluated by means of linear regression models in the concentric-only and eccentric-concentric bench press throw (BPT) variants performed with a Smith machine. The 2 sessions of each BPT variant were performed within the same week separated by 48–72 hours. The main findings were as follows: (a) the MV showed the strongest linearity of the load-velocity relationship (median r ² = 0.989 for concentric-only BPT and 0.993 for eccentric-concentric BPT), followed by MPV (median r ² = 0.983 for concentric-only BPT and 0.980 for eccentric-concentric BPT), and finally PV (median r ² = 0.974 for concentric-only BPT and 0.969 for eccentric-concentric BPT); (b) the accuracy of the general regression equations to predict relative load (%1RM) from movement velocity was higher for MV (SEE = 3.80–4.76%1RM) than for MPV (SEE = 4.91–5.56%1RM) and PV (SEE = 5.36–5.77%1RM); and (c) the PV showed the lowest within-subjects coefficient of variation (3.50%–3.87%), followed by MV (4.05%–4.93%), and finally MPV (5.11%–6.03%). Taken together, these results suggest that the MV could be the most appropriate variable for monitoring the relative load (%1RM) in the BPT exercise performed in a Smith machine.

Background: Velocity loss (VL) experienced in a set during resistance training is often monitored to control training volume and quantify acute fatigue responses. Accordingly, various VL thresholds are used to prescribe resistance training and target different training adaptations. However, there are inconsistencies in the current body of evidence regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to (1) evaluate the acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training; (2) synthesize the available evidence on the chronic effects of different VL thresholds on training adaptations; and (3) provide an overview of the factors that might differentially influence the magnitude of specific acute and chronic responses to VL during resistance training. Methods: This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched, and studies were included if they were written in English, prescribed resistance training using VL, and evaluated at least one (1) acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, or perceptual response or (2) training adaptation. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Multilevel and multivariate meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results: Eighteen acute and 19 longitudinal studies met the inclusion criteria, of which only one had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Based on the included acute studies, it seems that the number of repetitions per set, blood lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion generally increase, while countermovement jump height, running sprint times, and velocity against fixed loads generally decrease as VL increases. However, the magnitude of these effects seems to be influenced, among other factors, by the exercise and load used. Regarding training adaptations, VL experienced during resistance training did not influence muscle strength and endurance gains. Increases in VL were associated with increases in hypertrophy (b = 0.006; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.001, 0.012), but negatively affected countermovement jump (b = − 0.040; 95% CI − 0.079, − 0.001), sprint (b = 0.001; 95% CI 0.001, 0.002), and velocity against submaximal load performance (b = − 0.018; 95% CI − 0.029, − 0.006). Conclusions: A graded relationship exists between VL experienced during a set and acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to resistance training. However, choice of exercise, load, and individual trainee characteristics (e.g., training history) seem to modulate these relationships. The choice of VL threshold does not seem to affect strength and muscle endurance gains whereas higher VL thresholds are superior for enhancing hypertrophy, and lower VL thresholds are superior for jumping, sprinting, and velocity against submaximal loads performance. Clinical Trial Registration: The original protocol was prospectively registered (https://osf.io/q4acs/) with the Open Science Framework.

Purpose:This study compared the concurrent validity and reliability of previously proposed generalized group equations for estimating the bench press (BP) one-repetition maximum (1RM) with the individualized load-velocity relationship modelled with a two-point method. Methods:Thirty men (BP 1RM relative to body mass: 1.08 0.18 kg·kg-1) performed two incremental loading tests in the concentric-only BP exercise and another two in the eccentric-concentric BP exercise to assess their actual 1RM and load-velocity relationships. A high velocity (≈ 1 m·s-1) and a low velocity (≈ 0.5 m·s-1) was selected from their load-velocity relationships to estimate the 1RM from generalized group equations and through an individual linear model obtained from the two velocities. Results:The directly measured 1RM was highly correlated with all predicted 1RMs (r range: 0.847–0.977). The generalized group equations systematically underestimated the actual 1RM when predicted from the concentric-only BP (P <0.001; effect size [ES] ...

Pérez-Castilla, A, García-Ramos, A, Padial, P, Morales-Artacho, AJ, and Feriche, B. Load-velocity relationship in variations of the half-squat exercise: influence of execution technique. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 1024–1031, 2020—Previous studies have revealed that the velocity of the bar can be used to determine the intensity of different resistance training exercises. However, the load-velocity relationship seems to be exercise dependent. This study aimed to compare the load-velocity relationship obtained from 2 variations of the half-squat exercise (traditional vs. ballistic) using 2 execution techniques (eccentric-concentric vs. concentric-only). Twenty men performed a submaximal progressive loading test in 4 half-squat exercises: eccentric-concentric traditional-squat, concentric-only traditional-squat, countermovement jump (i.e., ballistic squat using the eccentric-concentric technique), and squat jump (i.e., ballistic squat using the concentric-only technique). Individual linear regressions were used to estimate the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for each half-squat exercise. Thereafter, another linear regression was applied to establish the relationship between the relative load (%RM) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV). For all exercises, a strong relationship was observed between %RM and MPV: eccentric-concentric traditional-squat (R ² = 0.949), concentric-only traditional-squat (R ² = 0.920), countermovement jump (R ² = 0.957), and squat jump (R ² = 0.879). The velocities associated with each %RM were higher for the ballistic variation and the eccentric-concentric technique than for the traditional variation and concentric-only technique, respectively. Differences in velocity among the half-squat exercises decreased with the increment in the relative load. These results demonstrate that the MPV can be used to predict exercise intensity in the 4 half-squat exercises. However, independent regressions are required for each half-squat exercise because the load-velocity relationship proved to be task specific.

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.