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: Velocity-Based Method in Free-Weight and Machine-Based Training Modalities: The Degree of Freedom Matters.
    Author: Hernández-Belmonte A, Buendía-Romero Á, Pallares JG, Martínez-Cava A.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2023 Sep 01; 37(9):e500-e509. PubMed ID: 37015023.
    Abstract:
    Hernández-Belmonte, A, Buendía-Romero, Á, Pallares, JG, and Martínez-Cava, A. Velocity-based method in free-weight and machine-based training modalities: the degree of freedom matters. J Strength Cond Res 37(9): e500-e509, 2023-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 subject's 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 subject's strength level influences the mean test (mean propulsive velocity [MPV Test ]) and 1RM (MPV 1RM ) 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 MPV Test (differences ≤ 0.02 m·s -1 ) and MPV 1RM (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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]