These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Mean Velocity vs. Mean Propulsive Velocity vs. Peak Velocity: Which Variable Determines Bench Press Relative Load With Higher Reliability?
    Author: García-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, Gregory Haff G.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2018 May; 32(5):1273-1279. PubMed ID: 28557855.
    Abstract:
    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 = 0.989 for concentric-only BPT and 0.993 for eccentric-concentric BPT), followed by MPV (median r = 0.983 for concentric-only BPT and 0.980 for eccentric-concentric BPT), and finally PV (median r = 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]