Velocity- and power-load relationships in the half, parallel and full back squat

Martínez-Cava, Alejandro; Morán-Navarro, Ricardo; Sánchez‐Medina, Luis; González-Badillo, Juan José; Pallarés, Jesús G.

doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1544187

Cited by 91 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Systematic difference (bias) and its 95% limits of agreement (LoA = bias ± 1.96 SD) were calculated. Maximum errors (MaxError) were calculated from the SEE (Max Error SEE ) and the bias (MaxError bias ) as the double of the upper bound of a 95% CI to represent the largest error expected from a given measurement [26] and were expressed in absolute values (m/s) and as the corresponding relative load (% 1RM) for each velocity and exercise based on previous studies [2,12,14]. Criteria for acceptable reliability were ICC > 0.990 and SDC < 0.07 m/s (~5% 1RM) according to previous recommendations [26,28,32] and based on the differences identified in MPV after shortterm resistance training interventions [3,35,36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A description of the BP and SQ testing protocols has been previously detailed [12,14]. After a familiarization session.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An optimal VBT prescription needs the use of reliable devices to accurately measure the barbell velocity for effectively managing the training load and maximize the adaptive responses. This requirement constitutes one of the main drawbacks of VBT since very small changes in velocity can represent decisive improvements or decrements in neuromuscular and functional performance [12][13][14]. As a consequence, there is an increasing number of available devices to measure the barbell velocity using a wide variety of technologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An interesting approach has been presented based on the changes in performance (% 1RM) produced by increments in the barbell velocity [26][27][28]. Previous studies describing the load-velocity relationship for different resistance training exercises performed in a Smith machine observed that changes between 0.05 to 0.10 m/s in bench press (BP) and full squat (SQ) would represent 5% 1RM improvement [2,12,14]. Based on these findings, to determine these gains in performance, one would require a device accurate enough to ensure that the changes are not produced by the error of the measurement but represent a real performance improvement (i.e., error < 0.05 or 0.10 m/s, at least).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the inter-and intra-device agreement of four new devices marketed for barbell velocity measurement. Mean, mean propulsive and peak velocity outcomes were obtained for bench press and full squat exercises along the whole load-velocity spectrum (from light to heavy loads). Measurements were simultaneously registered by two linear velocity transducers T-Force, two linear position transducers Speed4Lifts, two smartphone video-based systems My Lift, and one 3D motion analysis system STT. Calculations included infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoA), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and maximum errors (MaxError). Results were reported in absolute (m/s) and relative terms (%1RM). Three velocity segments were differentiated according to the velocity-load relationships for each exercise: heavy (� 80% 1RM), medium (50% < 1RM < 80%) and light loads (� 50% 1RM). Criteria for acceptable reliability were ICC > 0.990 and SDC < 0.07 m/s (~5% 1RM). The T-Force device shown the best intra-device agreement (SDC = 0.01-0.02 m/s, LoA <0.01m/s, MaxError = 1.3-2.2%1RM). The Speed4Lifts and STT were found as highly reliable, especially against lifting velocities �1.0 m/s (Speed4Lifts, SDC = 0.01-0.05 m/s; STT, SDC = 0.02-0.04 m/s), whereas the My Lift app showed the worst results with errors well above the acceptable levels (SDC = 0.26-0.34 m/s, MaxError = 18.9-24.8%1RM). T-Force stands as the preferable option to assess barbell velocity and to identify technical errors of measurement for emerging monitoring technologies. Both the Speed4Lifts and STT are fine alternatives to T-Force for measuring velocity against high-medium loads (velocities � 1.0 m/s), while the excessive errors of the newly updated My Lift app advise against the use of this tool for velocity-based resistance training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A description of the BP and SQ testing protocols has been previously detailed [12,14]. After a familiarization session.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,8 Firstly, strong relationships (R 2 = .94-.98) between %1RM and movement velocity have been reported for exercises conducted on Smith machine such as bench press (BP), 8 prone bench pull, 9 pull-up, 10 and different squat variants. 11,12 Notably, it has also been reported that these relationships are not affected by individual strength levels or training background. 13,14 These strong relationships open up the possibility of prescribing exercise intensity on a daily basis by adjusting the absolute load (kg) to match the movement velocity associated with the %1RM that is scheduled for the training session.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

Pareja‐Blanco

Alcázar

Cornejo-Daza

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the effects of four velocity-based training (VBT) programs in bench press (BP) between a wide range of velocity loss (VL) thresholds-0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50)-on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy. Methods: Sixty-four resistance-trained young men were randomly assigned into four groups (VL0, VL15, VL25, and VL50) that differed in the VL allowed in each set. Subjects followed a VBT program for 8-weeks using the BP exercise. Before and after the VBT program the following tests were performed: (a) cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements of pectoralis major (PM) muscle; (b) maximal isometric test; (c) progressive loading test; and (d) fatigue test. Results: Significant group x time interactions were observed for CSA (P < .01) and peak root mean square in PM (peak RMS-PM, P < .05). VL50 showed significantly greater gains in CSA than VL0 (P < .05). Only the VL15 group showed significant increases in peak RMS-PM (P < .01). Moreover, only VL0 showed significant gains in the early rate of force development (RFD, P = .05), while VL25 and VL50 improved in the late RFD (P ≤ .01-.05). No significant group × time interactions were found for any of the dynamic strength variables analyzed, although all groups showed significant improvements in all these parameters. Conclusion: Higher VL thresholds allowed for a greater volume load which maximized muscle hypertrophy, whereas lower VL thresholds evoked positive neuromuscular-related adaptations. No significant differences were found between groups for strength gains, despite the wide differences in the total volume accumulated by each group.

show abstract

Optimizing exercise prescription during breast cancer rehabilitation in women: Analysis of the load–velocity relationship in the box squat exercise

Díez‐Fernández,

Esteban‐Simón,

Baena‐Raya

et al. 2024

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this study were to assess (i) the load–velocity relationship during the box squat exercise in women survivors of breast cancer, (ii) which velocity variable (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV], or peak velocity [PV]) shows stronger relationship with the relative load (%1RM), and (iii) which regression model (linear [LA] or polynomic [PA]) provides a greater fit for predicting the velocities associated with each %1RM. Nineteen women survivors of breast cancer (age: 53.2 ± 6.9 years, weight: 70.9 ± 13.1 kg, and height: 163.5 ± 7.4 cm) completed an incremental load test up to one‐repetition maximum in the box squat exercise. The MV, MPV, and the PV were measured during the concentric phase of each repetition with a linear velocity transducer. These measurements were analyzed by regression models using LA and PA. Strong correlations of MV with %1RM (R2 = 0.903/0.904; the standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 0.05 m.s−1 by LA/PA) and MPV (R2 = 0.900; SEE = 0.06 m.s−1 by LA and PA) were observed. In contrast, PV showed a weaker association with %1RM (R2 = 0.704; SEE = 0.15 m.s−1 by LA and PA). The MV and MPV of 1RM was 0.22 ± 0.04 m·s−1, whereas the PV at 1RM was 0.63 ± 0.18 m.s−1. These findings suggest that the use of MV to prescribe relative loads during resistance training, as well as LA and PA regression models, accurately predicted velocities for each %1RM. Assessing and prescribing resistance exercises during breast cancer rehabilitation can be facilitated through the monitoring of movement velocity.

show abstract

Velocity- and power-load relationships in the half, parallel and full back squat

Cited by 91 publications

References 36 publications

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

Optimizing exercise prescription during breast cancer rehabilitation in women: Analysis of the load–velocity relationship in the box squat exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About