The Bench Press Grip Width Does Not Affect the Number of Repetitions Performed at Different Velocity Loss Thresholds

Abstract

This study aimed (I) to compare the number of repetitions that can be completed to failure (XRM) and before reaching a 15%, 30%, or 45% velocity loss threshold (XVLT) in the bench press exercise performed using different grip widths, and (II) to examine the inter-individual variability in the percentage of completed repetitions with respect to the XRM when the set volume is prescribed based on a fixed number of repetitions (FNR) and several velocity loss thresholds (VLT). Nineteen men performed four separate sessions in a random order where there was a single set of repetitions completed to failure against 75% of the one-repetition maximum during the Smith machine bench press exercise using a narrow, medium, wide, or self-selected grip widths. The XRM (p = 0.545) and XVLTs (p ≥ 0.682) were not significantly affected by grip width. A high and comparable inter-individual variability in the percentage of completed repetitions with respect to the XRM was observed when using both an FNR (median CV = 24.3%) and VLTs (median CV = 23.5%). These results indicate that Smith machine bench press training volume is not influenced by the grip width and that VLTs do not allow a more homogeneous prescription of the set volume with respect to the XRM than the traditional FNR.

Velocity Loss Is Not an Accurate Predictor of the Percentage of Completed Repetitions During the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

“…The discrepancy between studies may be attributed to certain methodological differences, such as the load adjustment method (% 1RM vs. velocity obtained from general or individual load-velocity relationships), velocity variable (mean velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity), or execution mode (touch-and-go technique vs. concentric-only technique from the bar holders or chest). Furthermore, the present findings are in line with previous studies (6,19,24) that have observed a comparable interindividual variability for the %Rep completed for a given %VL (between-subjects CV = 2.9–31.3%) and the actual number of repetitions that can be completed to failure against a given relative load (between-subjects CV = 8.6–38.5%). The high interindividual variability generally reported for the %Rep associated with different %VL suggests that implementing the same magnitude of %VL for all subjects does not ensure a homogeneous level of effort across individuals.…”

“…Therefore, it is plausible to observe a slightly lower interindividual variability for the maximal number of repetitions that can be completed to failure when loads are prescribed from the individual load-velocity relationship (8,24). Finally, in line with previous studies (6–8,19,22,24), the use of a Smith machine, which restricts the movement of the barbell to the vertical direction, may have limited the ecological validity of our results for athletes using free weights in their training programs. Future studies should examine the pattern of repetition velocity decline during training sets to failure with free-weight exercises, but a greater accuracy of velocity recordings for the free-weight variants of the exercises examined above is unlikely.

Practical Applications

The individual %Rep-%VL relationships present a better fit than the general %Rep-%VL relationships when they are determined in sets of the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise performed to failure against different loads.

…”

“…González-Badillo et al (7) and Sánchez-Moreno et al (24) observed low-to-unacceptable interindividual variability (between-subjects CV from 2.5 to 21.4%) for the %Rep as the %VL decreased from 85 to 15% against loads ranging from 50 to 90% 1RM. In contrast, García-Ramos et al (6) and Pérez-Castilla et al (19) reported a higher interindividual variability for the %Rep achieved at 15%VL (between-subjects CV = 28.5–34.3%), 30%VL (between-subjects CV = 16.6–25.7%), and 45 %VL (between-subjects CV = 10.7–19.1%) against multiple short (≤12 repetitions) or long (>12 repetitions) training sets or the 75% 1RM load using different grip widths (narrow, medium, wide, or self-selected), respectively. In agreement with Pérez-Castilla et al (19), the %Rep associated with different %VL also showed a high interindividual variability for the 3 loads evaluated in this study (60% 1RM, 70% 1RM, and 80% 1RM).…”

“…In contrast, García-Ramos et al (6) and Pérez-Castilla et al (19) reported a higher interindividual variability for the %Rep achieved at 15%VL (between-subjects CV = 28.5–34.3%), 30%VL (between-subjects CV = 16.6–25.7%), and 45 %VL (between-subjects CV = 10.7–19.1%) against multiple short (≤12 repetitions) or long (>12 repetitions) training sets or the 75% 1RM load using different grip widths (narrow, medium, wide, or self-selected), respectively. In agreement with Pérez-Castilla et al (19), the %Rep associated with different %VL also showed a high interindividual variability for the 3 loads evaluated in this study (60% 1RM, 70% 1RM, and 80% 1RM). The discrepancy between studies may be attributed to certain methodological differences, such as the load adjustment method (% 1RM vs. velocity obtained from general or individual load-velocity relationships), velocity variable (mean velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity), or execution mode (touch-and-go technique vs. concentric-only technique from the bar holders or chest).…”

“…In addition, the numbers of repetitions based on %VL has been justified by the strong relationship observed between the magnitude of %VL and the percentage of completed repetitions with respect to the maximal number of repetitions that can be completed to failure (%Rep) against a given relative load (coefficient of determination [ R 2 ] = 0.80–1.00) (7,8,22,24,25). The %Rep estimated from different general %Rep-%VL equations has a poor interindividual variability (between-subjects CV = 2.5–21.4%) (7,24), although definitive evidence is still lacking (6,19). Based on these findings, it has been suggested that when different subjects reach a given %VL, they likely experience a comparable level of effort independently of the actual number of repetitions performed (7).…”