Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

Amador García-Ramos, David Ulloa-Díaz, Paola Barboza-González, Ángela Rodríguez-Perea, Darío Martínez-García, Mauricio Quidel-Catrilelbún, Francisco Guede-Rojas, Jesualdo Cuevas-Aburto, Danica Janicijevic, Jonathon Weakley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0212085
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

Linear Models
exercise
Exercise
Weights and Measures
Prescriptions
Light
Polynomials
Linear regression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

García-Ramos, A., Ulloa-Díaz, D., Barboza-González, P., Rodríguez-Perea, Á., Martínez-García, D., Quidel-Catrilelbún, M., ... Weakley, J. (2019). Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models. PLoS ONE, 14(2), [e0212085]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212085
García-Ramos, Amador ; Ulloa-Díaz, David ; Barboza-González, Paola ; Rodríguez-Perea, Ángela ; Martínez-García, Darío ; Quidel-Catrilelbún, Mauricio ; Guede-Rojas, Francisco ; Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo ; Janicijevic, Danica ; Weakley, Jonathon. / Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models. In: PLoS ONE. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 2.
@article{2589e8fb684e4a4ea9a2673dc12cc57a,
title = "Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models",
abstract = "This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each {\%}1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each {\%}1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61{\%} for MV, 2.84–7.72{\%} for MPV and 3.50–6.03{\%} for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72{\%} and 2.73–5.25{\%} for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each {\%}1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02{\%} vs. 6.60{\%}; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36{\%} vs. 7.56{\%}; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.",
author = "Amador Garc{\'i}a-Ramos and David Ulloa-D{\'i}az and Paola Barboza-Gonz{\'a}lez and {\'A}ngela Rodr{\'i}guez-Perea and Dar{\'i}o Mart{\'i}nez-Garc{\'i}a and Mauricio Quidel-Catrilelb{\'u}n and Francisco Guede-Rojas and Jesualdo Cuevas-Aburto and Danica Janicijevic and Jonathon Weakley",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0212085",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "2",

}

García-Ramos, A, Ulloa-Díaz, D, Barboza-González, P, Rodríguez-Perea, Á, Martínez-García, D, Quidel-Catrilelbún, M, Guede-Rojas, F, Cuevas-Aburto, J, Janicijevic, D & Weakley, J 2019, 'Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models', PLoS ONE, vol. 14, no. 2, e0212085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212085

Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models. / García-Ramos, Amador; Ulloa-Díaz, David; Barboza-González, Paola; Rodríguez-Perea, Ángela; Martínez-García, Darío; Quidel-Catrilelbún, Mauricio; Guede-Rojas, Francisco; Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo; Janicijevic, Danica; Weakley, Jonathon.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 14, No. 2, e0212085, 01.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

AU - García-Ramos, Amador

AU - Ulloa-Díaz, David

AU - Barboza-González, Paola

AU - Rodríguez-Perea, Ángela

AU - Martínez-García, Darío

AU - Quidel-Catrilelbún, Mauricio

AU - Guede-Rojas, Francisco

AU - Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo

AU - Janicijevic, Danica

AU - Weakley, Jonathon

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

AB - This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062183663&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0212085

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0212085

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 2

M1 - e0212085

ER -