Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press :

We compared the effects of two resistance training (RT) programs only differing in the repetition velocity loss allowed in each set: 20% (VL20) vs 40% (VL40) on muscle structural and functional adaptations. Twenty-two young males were randomly assigned to a VL20 (n = 12) or VL40 (n = 10) group. Subjects followed an 8-week velocity-based RT program using the squat exercise while monitoring repetition velocity. Pre- and post-training assessments included: magnetic resonance imaging, vastus lateralis biopsies for muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and fiber type analyses, one-repetition maximum strength and full load-velocity squat profile, countermovement jump (CMJ), and 20-m sprint running. VL20 resulted in similar squat strength gains than VL40 and greater improvements in CMJ (9.5% vs 3.5%, P < 0.05), despite VL20 performing 40% fewer repetitions. Although both groups increased mean fiber CSA and whole quadriceps muscle volume, VL40 training elicited a greater hypertrophy of vastus lateralis and intermedius than VL20. Training resulted in a reduction of myosin heavy chain IIX percentage in VL40, whereas it was preserved in VL20. In conclusion, the progressive accumulation of muscle fatigue as indicated by a more pronounced repetition velocity loss appears as an important variable in the configuration of the resistance exercise stimulus as it influences functional and structural neuromuscular adaptations.

This study analyzed the contribution of the propulsive and braking phases among different percentages of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the concentric bench press exercise. One hundred strength-trained men performed a test with increasing loads up to the 1RM for the individual determination of the load-power relationship. The relative load that maximized the mechanical power output (P(max)) was determined using three different parameters: mean concentric power (MP), mean power of the propulsive phase (MPP) and peak power (PP). The load at which the braking phase no longer existed was 76.1+/-7.4% 1RM. P(max) was dependent on the parameter used: MP (54.2%), MPP (36.5%) or PP (37.4%). No significant differences were found for loads between 40-65% 1RM (MP) or 20-55% 1RM (MPP and PP), nor between P(max) (% 1RM) when using MPP or PP. P(max) was independent of relative strength, although certain tendency towards slightly lower loads was detected for the strongest subjects. These results highlight the importance of considering the contribution of the propulsive and braking phases in isoinertial strength and power assessments. Referring the mean mechanical values to the propulsive phase avoids underestimating an individual's true neuromuscular potential when lifting light and medium loads.

An athletic profile should encompass the physiological, biomechanical, anthropometric and performance measures pertinent to the athlete's sport and discipline. The measurement systems and procedures used to create these profiles are constantly evolving and becoming more precise and practical. This is a review of strength and ballistic assessment methodologies used in sport, a critique of current maximum strength [one-repetition maximum (1RM) and isometric strength] and ballistic performance (bench throw and jump capabilities) assessments for the purpose of informing practitioners and evolving current assessment methodologies. The reliability of the various maximum strength and ballistic assessment methodologies were reported in the form of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficient of variation (%CV). Mean percent differences (Mdiff = [/Xmethod1 - Xmethod2/ / (Xmethod1 + Xmethod2)] x 100) and effect size (ES = [Xmethod2 - Xmethod1] ÷ SDmethod1) calculations were used to assess the magnitude and spread of methodological differences for a given performance measure of the included studies. Studies were grouped and compared according to their respective performance measure and movement pattern. The various measurement systems (e.g., force plates, position transducers, accelerometers, jump mats, optical motion sensors and jump-and-reach apparatuses) and assessment procedures (i.e., warm-up strategies, loading schemes and rest periods) currently used to assess maximum isometric squat and mid-thigh pull strength (ICC > 0.95; CV 0.91; CV 0.82; CV < 6.5%) were deemed highly reliable. The measurement systems and assessment procedures employed to assess maximum isometric strength [M(Diff) = 2-71%; effect size (ES) = 0.13-4.37], 1RM strength (M(Diff) = 1-58%; ES = 0.01-5.43), vertical jump capabilities (M(Diff) = 2-57%; ES = 0.02-4.67) and bench throw capabilities (M(Diff) = 7-27%; ES = 0.49-2.77) varied greatly, producing trivial to very large effects on these respective measures. Recreational to highly trained athletes produced maximum isometric squat and mid-thigh pull forces of 1,000-4,000 N; and 1RM bench press, back squat and power clean values of 80-180 kg, 100-260 kg and 70-140 kg, respectively. Mean and peak power production across the various loads (body mass to 60% 1RM) were between 300 and 1,500 W during the bench throw and between 1,500 and 9,000 W during the vertical jump. The large variations in maximum strength and power can be attributed to the wide range in physical characteristics between different sports and athletic disciplines, training and chronological age as well as the different measurement systems of the included studies. The reliability and validity outcomes suggest that a number of measurement systems and testing procedures can be implemented to accurately assess maximum strength and ballistic performance in recreational and elite athletes, alike. However, the reader needs to be cognisant of the inherent differences between measurement systems, as selection will inevitably affect the outcome measure. The strength and conditioning practitioner should also carefully consider the benefits and limitations of the different measurement systems, testing apparatuses, attachment sites, movement patterns (e.g., direction of movement, contraction type, depth), loading parameters (e.g., no load, single load, absolute load, relative load, incremental loading), warm-up strategies, inter-trial rest periods, dependent variables of interest (i.e., mean, peak and rate dependent variables) and data collection and processing techniques (i.e., sampling frequency, filtering and smoothing options).