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.

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%; CV_ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV_ratio = 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.

Aim: To determine the absolute and relative reliability of functional trunk tests, using a functional electromechanical dynamometer to evaluate the isokinetic strength of trunk flexors and to determine the most reliable assessment condition, in order to compare the absolute and relative reliability of mean force and peak force of trunk flexors and to determine which isokinetic condition of evaluation is best related to the maximum isometric. Methods: Test-retest of thirty-seven physically active male student volunteers who performed the different protocols, isometric contraction and the combination of three velocities (V₁ = 015 m s⁻¹ , V₂ = 0.30 m s⁻¹, V₃ = 0.45 m s⁻¹) and two range of movement (R₁ = 25% cm ; R₂ = 50% cm) protocols. Results: All protocols to evaluate trunk flexors showed an absolute reliability provided a stable repeatability for isometric and dynamic protocols with a coefficient of variation (CV) being below 10% and a high or very high relative reliability (0.69 < intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.86). The more reliable strength manifestation (CV = 6.82%) to evaluate the concentric contraction of trunk flexors was mean force, with 0.15 m s⁻¹ and short range of movement (V₁R₁) condition. The most reliable strength manifestation to evaluate the eccentric contraction of trunk flexors was peak force, with 0.15 m s⁻¹ and a large range of movement (V₁R_2; CV = 5.07%), and the most reliable way to evaluate isometric trunk flexors was by peak force (CV = 7.72%). The mean force of eccentric trunk flexor strength with 0.45 m s⁻¹ and short range of movement (V₃R₁) condition (r = 0.73) was best related to the maximum isometric contraction. Conclusion: Functional electromechanical dynamometry is a reliable evaluation system for assessment of trunk flexor strength.

The aims of the study were (i) to determine the reliability and concurrent validity of a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) to measure different isokinetic velocities, and (ii) to identify the real range of isokinetic velocity reached by FEMD for different prescribed velocities. Mean velocities were collected simultaneously with FEMD and a linear velocity transducer (LVT) in two sessions that were identical, consisting of 15 trials at five isokinetic velocities (0.40, 0.60, 0.80, 1.00, and 1.20 m·s⁻¹) over a range of movement of 40 cm. The results obtained using each method were compared using Paired samples t-tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient, while the reliability was determined using the standard error of measurement and coefficient of variation (CV). The results indicate that the mean velocity values collected with FEMD and LVT were practically perfect correlations ( r > 0.99) with low random errors (<0.06 m·s⁻¹), while mean velocity values were systematically higher for FEMD ( p < 0.05). FEMD provided a high or acceptable reliability for mean velocity (CV ≤ 0.24%), time to reach the isokinetic velocity (CV range = 1.68%–9.70%) and time spent at the isokinetic velocity (CV range = 0.53%–8.94%). These results suggest that FEMD offers valid and reliable measurements of mean velocity during a fixed linear movement, as well as a consistent duration of the isokinetic phase. FEMD could be an appropriate device to evaluate movement velocity during linear movements. More studies are needed to confirm the reliability and validity of FEMD to measure different velocity metrics during more complex functional exercises.

Background: The evaluation of the force in internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) of the shoulder is commonly used to diagnose possible pathologies or disorders in the glenohumeral joint and to assess patient’s status and progression over time. Currently, there is new technology of multiple joint isokinetic dynamometry that allows to evaluate the strength in the human being. The main purpose of this study was to determine the absolute and relative reliability of concentric and eccentric internal and external shoulder rotators with a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD). Methods: Thirty-two male individuals (21.46 ± 2.1 years) were examined of concentric and eccentric strength of shoulder internal and external rotation with a FEMD at velocities of 0.3 m s⁻¹ and 0.6 m s⁻¹. Relative reliability was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute reliability was quantified by standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV). Systematic differences across velocities testing circumstances, were analyzed with dependent t tests or repeated-measures analysis of variance in case of 2 or more than 2 conditions, respectively. Results: Reliability was high to excellent for IR and ER on concentric and eccentric strength measurements, regardless of velocity used (ICC: 0.81–0.98, CV: 5.12–8.27% SEM: 4.06–15.04N). Concentric outcomes were more reliable than eccentric due to the possible familiarization of the population with the different stimuli. Conclusion: All procedures examined showed high to excellent reliability for clinical use. However, a velocity of 0.60 m s⁻¹ should be recommended for asymptomatic male patients because it demands less time for evaluation and patients find it more comfortable.

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to: (I) determine the quality of evidence from studies assessing trunk isokinetic strength in subjects with acute low back pain (ALBP) compared to healthy subjects and (II) establish reference values of isokinetic trunk strength in subjects with ALBP. Methodology: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements were followed using keywords associated with trunk, strength and low back pain. Four databases were used: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). Results: A total of 1604 articles were retrieved, four included in this review. All were evaluated as high risk of bias (Rob). Due to the high Rob and the diversity of protocols, instruments and variables used, it was not possible to determine reference values for subjects with ALBP, we can only establish a range of flexion peak torque (PT) between 175.1 and 89.7 Nm at 60°/s and between 185 and 81.5 Nm at 120°/s, and for extension PT between 240.0 and 91.5 Nm at 60°/s and between 217.5 and 69.2 Nm at 120°/s in subjects with ALBP. Conclusions: Due to the low quality of the evidence and the diversity of protocols used when measuring trunk isokinetic strength, it is necessary to carry out new high-quality research to establish reference values of trunk strength in subjects with ALBP.