Evaluation of load-velocity relationships in the inclined leg press exercise: A comparison between genders

Martín-Fuentes, Isabel; Oliva-Lozano, José M.; Muyor, José M.

doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2021.06.005

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Men exhibit greater velocities at the same relative loads (%1RM) than women. These findings have been reported across various exercises, including the squat, deadlift, hip thrust, horizontal and inclined leg press, horizontal and inclined bench press, seated chest press, and seated military press 27 28 34 36 42 43 44 45 46 . Notably, the disparities between men and women are more pronounced when using lighter relative loads and gradually diminish as the relative load increases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…This observation was directly supported by Fernandes et al [47] in a study comparing young (21.0 ± 1.6 years) and middle-aged (42.6 ± 6.7 years) males during the bench press, squat, and bent-over-row exercises. Indirect evidence can also be obtained by comparing the generalized load-velocity (L-V) relationships reported by Marcos-Pardo et al [48] for elderly women (68.2 ± 3.6 years) during the bench press and inclined leg press with the generalized L-V relationships reported in other studies for young women [28,36,42,44].…”

Section: Problem 3 -The %1rm-velocity Relationship Is Age-specificmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited. [18,24,25], hip-thrust [26,27], leg press [23,28], leg extension [29], bench press [19,[30][31][32], bench pull [20,30,33], military press [34][35][36][37], and pull-up [21,38]. The ultimate goal of generalized L-V relationships is "to determine what is the %1RM that is being used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed with maximal voluntary velocity" [19].…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, a linear (in some studies a second-order polynomial) regression model is applied to the experimental points provided by all subjects to establish the generalized (i. e., averaged across the subjects) relationship between %1RM and lifting velocity. Generalized L-V relationships have been established for a variety of RT exercises, including the squat [17,22,23], deadlift [18,24,25], hip-thrust [26,27], leg press [23,28], leg extension [29], bench press [19,[30][31][32], bench pull [20,30,33], military press [34][35][36][37], and pull-up [21,38]. The ultimate goal of generalized L-V relationships is "to determine what is the %1RM that is being used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed with maximal voluntary velocity" [19].…”

Section: Generalized Load-velocity Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple studies have unequivocally demonstrated the individual nature of %1RM-velocity profiles 9 20 28 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 . Consistent findings provide irrefutable proof that individuals who exhibit higher velocities for a given %1RM during a specific exercise also tend to demonstrate higher velocities for the same %1RMs when the L-V relationship is assessed on separate occasions 20 56 57 63 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Resistance Training Intensity Prescription Methods Based on Lifting Velocity Monitoring

Ramos

2023

Int J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resistance training intensity is commonly quantified as the load lifted relative to an individual's maximal dynamic strength. This approach, known as percent-based training, necessitates evaluating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) for the core exercises incorporated in a resistance training program. However, a major limitation of rigid percent-based training lies in the demanding nature of directly testing the 1RM from technical, physical, and psychological perspectives. A potential solution that has gained popularity in the last two decades to facilitate the implementation of percent-based training involves the estimation of the 1RM by recording the lifting velocity against submaximal loads. This review examines the three main methods for prescribing relative loads (%1RM) based on lifting velocity monitoring: (i) velocity zones, (ii) generalized load-velocity relationships, and (iii) individualized load-velocity relationships. The article concludes by discussing a number of factors that should be considered for simplifying the testing procedures while maintaining the accuracy of individualized L-V relationships to predict the 1RM and establish the resultant individualized %1RM-velocity relationship: (i) exercise selection, (ii) type of velocity variable, (iii) regression model, (iv) number of loads, (v) location of experimental points on the load-velocity relationship, (vi) minimal velocity threshold, (vii) provision of velocity feedback, and (viii) velocity monitoring device.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Problem 3 -The %1rm-velocity Relationship Is Age-specificmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generalized Load-velocity Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Resistance Training Intensity Prescription Methods Based on Lifting Velocity Monitoring

Ramos

2023

Int J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Untitled

2024

Int J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resistance training intensity is commonly quantified as the load lifted relative to an individual's maximal dynamic strength. This approach, known as percent-based training, necessitates evaluating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) for the core exercises incorporated in a resistance training program. However, a major limitation of rigid percent-based training lies in the demanding nature of directly testing the 1RM from technical, physical, and psychological perspectives. A potential solution that has gained popularity in the last two decades to facilitate the implementation of percent-based training involves the estimation of the 1RM by recording the lifting velocity against submaximal loads. This review examines the three main methods for prescribing relative loads ( %1RM) based on lifting velocity monitoring: (i) velocity zones, (ii) generalized load-velocity relationships, and (iii) individualized load-velocity relationships. The article concludes by discussing a number of factors that should be considered for simplifying the testing procedures while maintaining the accuracy of individualized L-V relationships to predict the 1RM and establish the resultant individualized %1RM-velocity relationship: (i) exercise selection, (ii) type of velocity variable, (iii) regression model, (iv) number of loads, (v) location of experimental points on the load-velocity relationship, (vi) minimal velocity threshold, (vii) provision of velocity feedback, and (viii) velocity monitoring device. 257This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

show abstract

Influence of Body Composition, Load-Velocity Profiles, and Sex-Related Differences on Army Combat Fitness Test Performance

Boffey,

DiPrima,

Kendall

et al. 2023

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Boffey, D, DiPrima, JA, Kendall, KL, Hill, EC, Stout, JR, and Fukuda, DH. Influence of body composition, load-velocity profiles, and sex-related differences on army combat fitness test performance. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2467–2476, 2023—The Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) became the U.S. Army's mandatory physical fitness test in April of 2022. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between ACFT performance and both body composition and velocity profiles and to determine sex differences for these variables. Data were collected at 2 timepoints 4 months apart, from male (n = 55) and female (n = 17) Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) cadets. Body composition was assessed with a bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy device, and cadets completed a hex bar deadlift load-velocity profile (LVP) and ACFT on separate days. Stepwise multiple regressions were used to explain the amount of variance in ACFT total score and individual event performance. Significance for statistical tests was defined as an alpha level of p ≤ 0.05. Muscle mass and body fat percentage accounted for 49% of shared variance of total ACFT score, and deadlift maximal power and maximal velocity accounted for 67% of shared variance of total ACFT score. The 3 repetition maximum deadlift, standing power throw, hand-release push-up, and sprint-drag-carry events favored cadets with more muscle mass, whereas the leg tuck was influenced by the body fat percentage and the 2-mile run was affected by fat mass. Sex had greater predictive capability for the 2-mile run than body composition. Men outperformed women on all individual events, with the greatest differences on standing power throw and sprint-drag-carry. It is recommended that Army ROTC cadets taking the ACFT maximize lower-body power production and increase muscle mass.

show abstract

Evaluation of load-velocity relationships in the inclined leg press exercise: A comparison between genders

Cited by 4 publications

References 34 publications

Resistance Training Intensity Prescription Methods Based on Lifting Velocity Monitoring

Resistance Training Intensity Prescription Methods Based on Lifting Velocity Monitoring

Untitled

Influence of Body Composition, Load-Velocity Profiles, and Sex-Related Differences on Army Combat Fitness Test Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About