This study aimed to determine the suitability of the load-velocity relationship to prescribe the relative load (%1RM) in women, as well as to compare the load-velocity profile between sexes and participants with different strength levels. The load-velocity relationship of 14 men (1RM: 1.17 ± 0.19) and 14 women (1RM: 0.66 ± 0.13) were evaluated in the bench press exercise. The main findings revealed that: (I) the load-velocity relationship was always strong and linear (R range: 0.987-0.993), (II) a steeper load-velocity profile was observed in men compared to women (Effect size [ES]: 1.09), with men showing higher velocities for light loads (ES: - 0.81 and - 0.40 for the y-intercept and 30%1RM, respectively), but women reporting higher velocities for the heavy loads (ES: 1.14 and 1.50 at 90%1RM and 100%1RM, respectively); and (III) while the slope of the load-velocity profile was moderately steeper for weak men compared to their strong counterpart (ES: 1.02), small differences were observed between strong and weak women (ES: - 0.39). While these results support the use of the individual load-velocity relationship to prescribe the %1RM in the bench press exercise for women, they also highlight the large disparities in their load-velocity profile compared to men.

These results indicate that generalized group equations are not acceptable methods for estimating the XRM-MV relationship or the number of repetitions in reserve. When attempting to estimate the XRM-MV relationship, one must use individualized relationships to objectively estimate the exact number of repetitions that can be performed in a training set.

A single set of resistance training leading to muscular failure causes an instantaneous and progressive IOP rise in healthy young individuals. These IOP rises depend on exercise type (squat > military press = biceps curl > calf raise), but not on participant´s sex. OPP diminished as a consequence of performing resistance training exercise, being statistically significant for the squat and military press exercises. Future studies should include glaucoma patients aiming to corroborate the generalizability of our findings.

Background: The execution of resistance exercise against heavy loads promotes an acute intraocular pressure (IOP) rise, which has detrimental effects on ocular health. However, the effect of load on the IOP behavior during exercise remains unknown due to technical limitations. Hypotheses: IOP monitoring during isometric squat exercise permits assessment of IOP behavior during physical effort. Second, greater loads will induce a higher IOP rise.

This study determined the optimal resistive forces for testing muscle capacities through the standard cycle ergometer test (1 resistive force applied) and a recently developed 2-point method (2 resistive forces used for force-velocity modelling). Twenty-six men were tested twice on maximal sprints performed on a leg cycle ergometer against 5 flywheel resistive forces (R1-R5). The reliability of the cadence and maximum power measured against the 5 individual resistive forces, as well as the reliability of the force-velocity relationship parameters obtained from the selected 2-point methods (R1-R2, R1-R3, R1-R4, and R1-R5), were compared. The reliability of outcomes obtained from individual resistive forces was high except for R5. As a consequence, the combination of R1 (≈175 rpm) and R4 (≈110 rpm) provided the most reliable 2-point method (CV: 1.46%-4.04%; ICC: 0.89-0.96). Although the reliability of power capacity was similar for the R1-R4 2-point method (CV: 3.18%; ICC: 0.96) and the standard test (CV: 3.31%; ICC: 0.95), the 2-point method should be recommended because it also reveals maximum force and velocity capacities. Finally, we conclude that the 2-point method in cycling should be based on 2 distant resistive forces, but avoiding cadences below 110 rpm.