Effect of the Stretch-Shortening Cycle on the Relationship Between Maximum Number of Repetitions and Lifting Velocity During the Prone Bench Pull
- PMID: 39425248
- PMCID: PMC11556646
- DOI: 10.1177/19417381241286519
Effect of the Stretch-Shortening Cycle on the Relationship Between Maximum Number of Repetitions and Lifting Velocity During the Prone Bench Pull
Abstract
Background: The fastest mean (MVfastest) and peak (PVfastest) velocity in a set are used to predict the maximum number of repetitions (RTF), but stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) effects on these relationships are unknown.
Hypothesis: Velocity values associated with each RTF would show higher values for eccentric-concentric and multiple-point methods compared with concentric-only and 2-point methods.
Study design: Cross-sectional study.
Level of evidence: Level 3.
Methods: After determining the prone bench pull (PBP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 23 resistance-trained male participants randomly performed 2 sessions (1 for each PBP exercise), consisting of single sets of RTFs against 3 relative loads (60%-80%-70%1RM). Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were constructed using the multiple-point (60%-80%-70%1RM) and 2-point (60%-80%1RM) methods.
Results: Goodness-of-fit was very high and comparable for concentric-only (RTF-MVfastest, r2 = 0.97; RTF-PVfastest, r2 = 0.98) and eccentric-concentric (RTF-MVfastest, r2 = 0.98; RTF-PVfastest, r2 = 0.99) PBP exercises. Velocity values associated with different RTFs were generally higher for eccentric-concentric compared with concentric-only PBP exercise, but these differences showed heteroscedasticity (R2 ≥ 0.143). However, velocity values associated with different RTFs were comparable for the multiple- and 2-point methods (F ≤ 2.4; P ≥ 0.13).
Conclusion: These results suggest that the inclusion of the SSC does not impair the goodness-of-fit of RTF-velocity relationships, but these relationships should be determined specifically for each PBP exercise (ie, concentric-only and eccentric-concentric). In addition, the 2-point method serves as a quick and less strenuous procedure to estimate RTF.
Clinical relevance: Practitioners only need to monitor the MVfastest or PVfastest and the RTF from 2 (2-point method) or 3 (multiple-point method) sets performed to failure to construct an RTF-velocity relationship. Once these relationships have been established, coaches need only monitor the MVfastest or PVfastest of the set to estimate RTF against a given absolute load.
Keywords: fatigue; level of effort; linear position transducer; strength training; velocity-based training.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no potential conflicts of interest in the development and publication of this article.
Figures
References
-
- Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training programmes to enhance muscular fitness. Sports Med. 2005;35(10):841-851. - PubMed
-
- Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310. - PubMed
-
- Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzaléz-Badillo JJ, Jimenéz-Reyes P. Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(12):1099-1106. - PubMed
-
- García-Ramos A. Resistance training intensity prescription methods based on lifting velocity monitoring. Int J Sports Med. 2024;45(4):257-266. - PubMed
-
- García-Ramos A. Two-point method: theoretical basis, methodological considerations, experimental support, and its application under field conditions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(10):1092-1100. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
