Monitoring Training Volume Through Maximal Number of Repetitions or Velocity-Based Approach

Load-Velocity Relationship in the Bulgarian Split-Squat Exercise

ABSTRACT

Rabal-Pelay, J, Gutiérrez, H, Bascuas, P-J, Pareja-Blanco, F, and Marco-Contreras, LA. Load-velocity relationship in the Bulgarian split-squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The objective of the current research was to analyze the load-velocity relationship in the Bulgarian split-squat (BSS) exercise and to compare these relationships between the dominant and nondominant legs. Twenty-one strength-trained men (age: 27.3 ± 7.3 years) performed a progressive loading test in the BSS exercise using a Smith machine for each leg. The protocol began with a load of 30 kg, incrementally adding 10 kg until the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) fell below 0.4 m·s-1. At that point, 5 kg increments were employed, with a final addition of 2.5 kg for the last estimated attempt one-repetition maximum (1RM). A total of 324 lifts were analyzed. Subjects exhibited a relative strength ratio of 1.23 ± 0.10, a 1RM of 91.3 ± 14.2 kg, and a mean range of motion of 44.7 ± 3.7 cm. Polynomial regression analysis showed a robust relationship with an R2 value of 0.945 (ρ ≤ 0.001) between the relative load (%1RM) and MPV. Despite the differences in 1RM between the dominant and nondominant legs, there were no significant differences in MPV at the %1RM between both legs. These findings suggest that training intensity can be prescribed via the MPV during the BSS exercise. Moreover, the load-velocity relationship is stable between limbs despite the potential differences in absolute strength levels.

A Comparison of Subjective Estimations and Objective Velocities at Quantifying Proximity to Failure for the Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men and Women

ABSTRACT

Hickmott, LM, Butcher, SJ, and Chilibeck, PD. A comparison of subjective estimations and objective velocities at quantifying proximity to failure for the bench press in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1206-1212, 2024-The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of quantifying repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the bench press among 18 men and 18 women between 2 conditions: (a) subjective estimations and (b) objective velocities. Subjects performed 4 sessions over 10 days: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test; (b) repetition-to-failure test at 80% of 1RM; (c) 3 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM; and (d) 3 sets to failure at 75, 80, and 85% of 1RM. During sessions 2, 3, and 4, subjects verbally stated their perceived 4 and 2 RIR intraset, whereas average concentric velocity was recorded on all repetitions. The dependent variable for the subjective estimations condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the subject's subjective estimated number of RIR at the verbally stated 4 and 2 RIR. The dependent variable for the objective velocities condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the number of RIR calculated from the subject's baseline individualized last repetition average concentric velocity-RIR profile. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Sessions 3 and 4 had significant ( p < 0.001) condition × set and condition × load interactions, respectively, at both 4 and 2 RIR. Objective velocities were significantly more accurate than subjective estimations on set 1 and set 2 at both RIRs during session 3 and for 75 and 80% of 1RM at both RIRs during session 4. Objective velocities exhibit significantly greater accuracy than subjective estimations at quantifying RIR during initial sets and lower loads.

Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales in Relation to Movement Velocity and Exercise Intensity During Resistance-Exercise: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Movement velocity (MV) may be a valid tool to evaluate and control the load in resistance training (RT). The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) also enables practical load management. The relationship between RPE and MV may be used to monitor RT intensity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity and practicality of RPE scales related to MV and training intensity in resistance exercise. We hypothesize a positive correlation among RPE, MV, and load intensity in RT. Therefore, RPE may serve as a supplementary indicator in monitoring RT load.

DATA SOURCES

Boolean algorithms were used to search several databases (SPORTDiscus, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published from 2009 to 2023 included clinical trials (randomized or not) in healthy female and male subjects that analyzed the relationship between different RPE scales and MV in basic RT exercises.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were selected using different RPE scales with reported MV training loads. Participants included RT and untrained male and female subjects (15-31 years old). Two RPE scales (OMNI-RES and repetitions in reserve) were used. The selected studies showed moderate positive correlations among these RPE scales, MV, and training load (eg, percentage of 1-repetition maximum [%1-RM]). In addition, equations have been developed to estimate %1-RM and MV loss based on the OMNI-RES scale.

CONCLUSION

Studies show that RPE scales and MV constitute a valid, economic, and practical tool for assessing RT load progression and complementing other training monitoring variables. Exercise professionals should consider familiarizing participants with RPE scales and factors that might influence the perception of exertion (eg, level of training, motivation, and environmental conditions).

Variability in the Relationship Between Velocity Loss and Percentage of Completed Repetitions During Horizontal Leg Press and Bench Press in Postmenopausal Women

ABSTRACT

Iglesias-Soler, E, Rial-Vázquez, J, Nine, I, Fariñas, J, Revuelta-Lera, B, and García-Ramos, A. Variability in the relationship between velocity loss and percentage of completed repetitions during horizontal leg press and bench press in postmenopausal women. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-This study aimed to analyze the intersubject variability in the relationship between percentage of velocity loss (%VL) and percentage of repetitions performed out of maximum possible (%MNR) in postmenopausal women. Thirty-five postmenopausal active women (58 ± 3 years) performed sets leading to muscular failure, completing 10-13 repetitions, in both leg press (LP) and bench press (BP). Mean lift velocity of each repetition was expressed as a percentage of the fastest repetition, and repetitions were quantified as a percentage of the maximum number of repetitions completed in the set. Given the hierarchical structure of the data, %VL-%MNR relationships were fitted by linear mixed model regressions. A significant intersubject variability in the intercept (i.e., %MNR associated with 0%VL) was detected (p < 0.001 in both LP and BP), even when centered values of the completed repetitions were included in the models. The estimated variance in the intercept for LP (117.39; SE: 45.41) was almost double that for BP (67.47; SE: 20.27). The variability observed in the intercept entailed variability in the estimated %MNR for specific %VL values. The use of velocity loss thresholds for estimating the intensity of effort in active postmenopausal women does not overcome uncertainty of more traditional methods.

Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review

The intensity of resistance training (RT) exercise is an important consideration for determining relevant health and performance-related outcomes. Yet, current objective exercise intensity measures present concerns in terms of viability or cost. In response to these concerns, repetition-in-reserve (RIR) scales may represent an adequate method of measuring and regulating intensity. However, no recent review has focused on how RIR scales have been used for this purpose in prior research. We prepared the present scoping review to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in selecting RT intensity. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (last search date April 2023) for experimental and non-experimental studies that utilized an RIR scale to measure proximity to failure in RT activities with apparently healthy individuals of any age. We qualitatively analyzed 31 studies (N = 855 mostly male adult participants) published between 2012-2023. RIR scales appeared to be contextually feasible and useful in prescribing and adjusting RT intensity. The most common trend in this research was to prescribe a target RIR and adjust the exercise load for a desired proximity to muscle failure. Additionally, when measuring proximity to failure as an outcome of interest, the literature suggests that the RIR prediction should be made close to task failure to increase its accuracy. Future research should further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection, and muscle conditioning on the overall RIR approach.

Inter-repetition Rest Impact on Percentage of Repetition Completed at Certain Velocity Loss

This study examined the impact of different inter-repetition rest (IRR) configurations (zero seconds [IRR0], three seconds [IRR3], and self-selected less than five seconds [SSIRR]) on estimating the number of repetitions (Nrep) and the percentage of completed repetitions relative to the maximum number of repetitions possible to failure (%rep) after reaching 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLT). Eighteen men completed three sessions, each with a different IRR configuration, separated by 48-72 hours. Single sets of repetitions to momentary muscular failure were performed against 65%, 75%, and 85% of the one-repetition maximum during free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. No significant differences were reported between IRR configurations for the Nrep (P≥0.089) and %rep (P≥0.061), except for %rep after reaching the 20-30%VLT against 65%1RM and the 10-20%VLT against 75%1RM in the bench press exercise (P≤0.048). Additionally, both Nrep and %rep exhibited high interindividual variability (between-subject CV=14-79%) across the different IRR configurations. The individual %rep-%VLT relationships were slightly stronger than the general %rep-%VLT relationships (median R 2 =0.914-0.971 vs. 0.698-0.900). Overall, regardless of the IRR configuration, this novel velocity-based approach does not guarantee the same effort levels across subjects in the free-weight back squat and bench press sets.

The fastest repetition in a set predicts the number of repetitions completed to failure during resistance training: The impact of individual characteristics

The aim of this study was to examine the goodness of fit and prediction accuracy of general and individual relationships between the maximum number of repetitions completed in a set (XRM) and the fastest repetition in the set (XRM-velocity relationship) in the free-weight back squat exercise. The effects of sex, training status and history, as well as personality traits, on the goodness of fit and the accuracy of these relationships were also investigated. Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males) performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests, 72 h apart. RTF tests were performed with 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM with 10 min of inter-set rest. A greater goodness of fit was found for individual XRM-velocity relationships (R² = 0.98; residual standard error [RSE] = 1.01-1.15) compared to general XRM-velocity relationships (R² = 0.45-0.49; RSE = 3.44-3.66). Individual, but not general XRM-velocity relationships established in the first testing session yielded acceptable prediction accuracy (mean error = 1.96 vs 2.81 repetitions) of XRM in the subsequent testing session. Sex, training status and history, and personality traits did not affect the goodness of fit of general and individual XRM-velocity relationships or their prediction accuracy, suggesting the potential generalisability of those findings among resistance-trained populations. Therefore, individual XRM-velocity relationships can be used to prescribe loads matching an intended XRM by recording only the fastest velocity of the set with a given load and predicting, with reasonable accuracy, the XRM for the individual.

Velocity loss is a flawed method for monitoring and prescribing resistance training volume with a free-weight back squat exercise

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine the goodness of fit, prediction accuracy, and stability of general and individual relationships between velocity loss and the percentage of completed repetitions out of maximum possible (VL-%_repetitions) in the free-weight back squat exercise. The effects of sex, training status and history, as well as personality traits, on the goodness of fit and the accuracy of these relationships were also investigated.

METHODS

Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males) performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests, 72 h apart. RTF tests were performed with 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM with 10 min inter-set rest.

RESULTS

The findings question the utility of using general and individual VL-%_repetitions relationships to prescribe training volume with free-weight back squats as (1) the agreement in the %_repetitions completed until reaching a given velocity loss threshold across two consecutive testing sessions was unacceptable, regardless of the load used; and (2) the ability of general and individual VL-%_repetitions relationships to predict %_repetitions in a subsequent testing session were poor (absolute errors > 10%). Sex, training status and history, and personality traits did not affect the goodness of fit of general and individual VL-%_repetitions relationships or their prediction accuracy, suggesting potential generalisability of those findings among resistance-trained populations.

CONCLUSIONS

VL-%_repetitions relationships do not seem to provide any additional benefits compared to costless, traditional methods and hence should not be used for monitoring and prescribing resistance training with a free-weight back squat exercise.

Upper-lower body super-sets vs. traditional sets for inducing chronic athletic performance improvements

Background

To promote chronic adaptations, resistance training needs the manipulation of different variables, among them, the order of the exercises and sets. Specifically, for velocity-based training, paired exercises alternating upper and/or lower-body muscle groups appear to be a good choice to promote neuromuscular adaptations.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effect of two velocity-based training programs only differing in the set configuration on muscle strength, muscular endurance and jump performance.

Methods

Moderately strength-trained men were allocated into a traditional (TS, n= 8) or alternating sets (AS, n= 9) configuration group to perform a 6-week velocity-based training program using the full squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The TS group completed all sets of the full squat (SQ) exercise before performing the bench press (BP) sets, whereas the AS group completed the first set of each exercise in an alternating manner. Training frequency, relative load, number of sets, percentage of velocity loss (%VL) within the set and inter-set rest were matched for both groups. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), load (kg)-velocity relationship, predicted 1RM, and muscular endurance for each exercise were evaluated at pre- and post-training.

Results

The TS and AS groups obtained similar and non-significant improvements in CMJ (3.01 ± 4.84% and 3.77 ± 6.12%, respectively). Both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in muscle strength variables in SQ (6.19-11.55% vs. 6.90-011.76%; p = 0.033-0.044, for TS and AS, respectively), BP (6.19-13.87% and 3.99-9.58%; p = 0.036-0.049, for TS and AS group, respectively), and muscular endurance in BP (7.29 ± 7.76% and 7.72 ± 9.73%; p = 0.033, for the TS and AS group, respectively). However, the AS group showed a greater improvement in muscular endurance in SQ than the TS group (10.19 ± 15.23% vs. 2.76 ± 7.39%; p = 0.047, respectively). Total training time per session was significantly shorter (p = 0.000) for AS compared to TS group.

Conclusions

Training programs performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate loads and %VL induce similar jump and strength improvements, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach.

Acute Mechanical and Metabolic Responses to Different Resistance Training Protocols With Equated Volume Load

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of different resistance training protocols with equated volume load on acute mechanical and metabolic responses.

METHODS

In a randomized order, 18 men performed 8 different training protocols in the bench press exercise consisting of (sets, repetitions, intensity, and interset recoveries) 3 × 16, 40% 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 2 and 5 minutes; 6 × 8, 40% 1RM, 2 and 5 minutes; 3 × 8, 80% 1RM, 2 and 5 minutes; and 6 × 4, 80% 1RM, 2 and 5 minutes. Volume load was equalized between protocols (1920 arbitrary units). Velocity loss and effort index were calculated during the session. Movement velocity against the 60% 1RM and blood lactate concentration pre-post exercise were used to assess the mechanical and metabolic responses, respectively.

RESULTS

Resistance training protocols performed with heavy load (80% 1RM) resulted in a lower (P < .05) total number of repetitions (effect size = -2.44) and volume load (effect size = -1.79) than the scheduled ones when longer set configurations and shorter rest periods were used in the same protocol (ie, higher-training-density protocols). Protocols including a higher number of repetitions per set and shorter rest times induced higher velocity loss, effort index, and lactate concentrations than the rest of the protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that resistance training protocols with similar volume load but different training variables (ie, intensity, number of sets and repetitions, rest between sets) produce different responses. Implementing a lower number of repetitions per set and longer rest intervals is recommended to reduce the intrasession and postsession fatigue.

Comparison between Olympic Weightlifting Lifts and Derivatives for External Load and Fatigue Monitoring

Load management is an extremely important subject in fatigue control and adaptation processes in almost all sports. In Olympic Weightlifting (OW), two of the load variables are intensity and volume. However, it is not known if all exercises produce fatigue of the same magnitude. Thus, this study aimed to compare the fatigue prompted by the Clean and Jerk and the Snatch and their derivative exercises among male and female participants, respectively. We resorted to an experimental quantitative design in which fatigue was induced in adult individuals with weightlifting experience of at least two years through the execution of a set of 10 of the most used lifts and derivatives in OW (Snatch, Snatch Pull, Muscle Snatch, Power Snatch, and Back Squat; Clean and Jerk, Power Clean, Clean, High Hang Clean, and Hang Power Clean). Intensity and volume between exercises were equalized (four sets of three repetitions), after which one Snatch Pull test was performed where changes in velocity, range of motion, and mean power were assessed as fatigue measures. Nine women and twelve men participated in the study (age, 29.67 ± 5.74 years and 28.17 ± 5.06 years, respectively). The main results showed higher peak velocity values for the Snatch Pull test when compared with Power Snatch (p = 0.008; ES = 0.638), Snatch (p < 0.001; ES = 0.998), Snatch Pull (p < 0.001, ES = 0.906), and Back Squat (p < 0.001; ES = 0.906) while the differences between the Snatch Pull test and the derivatives of Clean and Jerk were almost nonexistent. It is concluded that there were differences in the induction of fatigue between most of the exercises analyzed and, therefore, coaches and athletes could improve the planning of training sessions by accounting for the fatigue induced by each lift.

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

ABSTRACT

Pérez-Castilla, A, Miras-Moreno, S, Janicijevic, D, and García-Ramos, A. Velocity loss is not an accurate predictor of the percentage of completed repetitions during the prone bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The primary aim of this study was to explore the goodness of fit and accuracy of both general and individual relationships between the magnitude of velocity loss (%VL) and the percentage of performed repetitions with respect to the maximal number of repetitions that can be completed to failure (%Rep) during the Smith machine prone bench pull exercise. Fifteen male sports science students completed a preliminary session to determine the bench pull one-repetition maximum (1RM) and 2 identical experimental sessions separated by 48-72 hours. In each experimental session, subjects randomly performed single sets of repetitions to failure separated by 10 minutes against the 60% 1RM, 70% 1RM, and 80% 1RM during the Smith machine bench pull exercise. Individual %Rep-%VL relationships presented a greater goodness of fit than general %Rep-%VL relationships at the 60% 1RM (R2 = 0.85-0.97 vs. 0.79-0.85), 70% 1RM (R2 = 0.84-0.99 vs. 0.77-0.84), and 80% 1RM (R2 = 0.84-1.00 vs. 0.74-0.80). However, the accuracy (absolute errors) in estimating the %Rep during the second testing session based on the %Rep-%VL equations obtained in the first testing session did not differ between the individual and general %Rep-%VL equations in 8 of 9 comparisons (p ≥ 0.102). The absolute errors between the actual and predicted %REP were unacceptable (>10%) in 11 of 18 comparisons, and acceptable (5-10%) in 7 of 18 comparisons. These results highlight that the %Rep cannot be estimated with high degree of accuracy from VL recordings during the Smith machine bench pull exercise, regardless of whether individual or general Rep-%VL relationships are considered.

Toward a New Paradigm in Resistance Training by Means of Velocity Monitoring: A Critical and Challenging Narrative

For more than a century, many concepts and several theories and principles pertaining to the goals, organization, methodology and evaluation of the effects of resistance training (RT) have been developed and discussed between coaches and scientists. This cumulative body of knowledge and practices has contributed substantially to the evolution of RT methodology. However, a detailed and rigorous examination of the existing literature reveals many inconsistencies that, unless resolved, could seriously hinder further progress in our field. The purpose of this review is to constructively expose, analyze and discuss a set of anomalies present in the current RT methodology, including: (a) the often inappropriate and misleading terminology used, (b) the need to clarify the aims of RT, (c) the very concept of maximal strength, (d) the control and monitoring of the resistance exercise dose, (e) the existing programming models and (f) the evaluation of training effects. A thorough and unbiased examination of these deficiencies could well lead to the adoption of a revised paradigm for RT. This new paradigm must guarantee a precise knowledge of the loads being applied, the effort they involve and their effects. To the best of our knowledge, currently this can only be achieved by monitoring repetition velocity during training. The main contribution of a velocity-based RT approach is that it provides the necessary information to know the actual training loads that induce a specific effect in each athlete. The correct adoption of this revised paradigm will provide coaches and strength and conditioning professionals with accurate and objective information concerning the applied load (relative load, level of effort and training effect). This knowledge is essential to make rational and informed decisions and to improve the training methodology itself.

Lifting Velocity as a Predictor of the Maximum Number of Repetitions That Can Be Performed to Failure During the Prone Bench Pull Exercise

OBJECTIVE

To explore (1) the goodness of fit of generalized and individualized relationships between the maximum number of repetitions performed to failure (RTF) and the fastest mean velocity and peak velocity of the sets (RTF-velocity relationships), (2) the between-sessions reliability of mean velocity and peak velocity values associated with different RTFs, and (3) whether the errors in the prediction of the RTF under fatigued and nonfatigued conditions differ between generalized and individualized RTF-velocity relationships.

METHODS

Twenty-three sport-science students performed 4 testing sessions with the prone bench pull exercise in a Smith machine: a 1-repetition-maximum [1RM] session, 2 identical sessions consisting of singles sets of RTF against 4 randomized loads (60%-70%-80%-90%1RM), and 1 session consisting of 4 sets of RTF against the 75%1RM.

RESULTS

Individualized RTF-velocity relationships presented a higher goodness of fit (r2 = .96-.97 vs .67-.70) and accuracy (absolute errors = 2.1-2.9 repetitions vs 2.8-4.3 repetitions) in the prediction of the RTF than generalized RTF-velocity relationships. The reliability of the velocity values associated with different RTFs was generally high (average within-subject coefficient of variation = 4.01% for mean velocity and 3.98% for peak velocity). The error in the prediction of the RTF increased by ~1 repetition under fatigue (ie, set 1 vs sets 2-4).

CONCLUSIONS

Individualized RTF-velocity relationships can be used with acceptable precision and reliability to prescribe the loads associated with a given RTF during the match a specific XRM during the prone bench pull exercise, but a lower accuracy is expected in a fatigued state.

Reproducibility and Applicability of Traditional Strength Training Prescription Recommendations

Background: The aim of this study was to verify the reproducibility of a resistance training protocol in the bench press (BP) exercise, based on traditional recommendations, analysing the effect of the muscle fatigue of each set and of the whole exercise protocol. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, thirty male physical education students were divided into three groups according to their relative strength ratio (RSR), and they performed a 1RM BP test (T1). In the second session (T2), which was one week after T1, the participants performed a BP exercise protocol of three sets with the maximum number of repetitions (MNR) possible to muscle failure, using a relative load corresponding to 70% 1RM determined through the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) obtained from the individual load−velocity relationship, with 2 min rests between sets. Two weeks later, a third session (T3) identical to the second session (T2) was performed. The MPV of each repetition of each set and the blood lactate level after each set were calculated, and mechanical fatigue was quantified through the velocity loss percentage of the set (% loss MPV) and in a pre-post exercise test with an individual load that could be lifted at ~1 m·s−1 of MPV. Results: The number of repetitions performed in each set was significantly different (MNR for the total group of participants: set 1 = 12.50 ± 2.19 repetitions, set 2 = 6.06 ± 1.98 repetitions and set 3 = 4.20 ± 1.99 repetitions), showing high variation coefficients in each of the sets and between groups according to RSR. There were significant differences also in MPVrep Best (set 1 = 0.62 ± 0.10 m·s−1, set 2 = 0.42 ± 0.07 m·s−1, set 3 = 0.36 ± 0.10 m·s−1), which significantly reduced the % loss MPV of all sets (set 1 = 77.4%, set 2 = 64%, set 3 = 54.2%). The lactate levels increased significantly (p < 0.05) (set 1 = 4.9 mmo·L−1, set 2 = 6 mmo·L−1, set 3 = 6.5 mmo·L−1), and MPV loss at 1 m·s−1 after performing the three sets was 36% in T2 and 34% in T3, with acceptable intrasubject variability (MPV at 1 m·s−1 pre-exercise: SEM ≤ 0.09 m·s−1, CV = 9.8%; MPV at 1 m·s−1 post-exercise: SEM ≤ 0.07 m·s−1, CV = 11.7%). Conclusions: These exercise propositions are difficult to reproduce and apply. Moreover, the number of repetitions performed in each set was significantly different, which makes it difficult to define and control the intensity of the exercise. Lastly, the fatigue generated in each set could have an individual response depending on the capacity of each subject to recover from the preceding maximum effort.

Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.

Analysis of the Use and Applicability of Different Variables for the Prescription of Relative Intensity in Bench Press Exercise

Simple Summary

The aim of this research is to analyze the different variables that influence the prescription of resistance training (one-repetition maximum (1RM) and number of maximal repetitions (xRM)) through the velocity of execution, with the aim of approaching the precise definition and control of intensity in bench press exercise. Fifty male physical education students were divided into four groups according to their relative strength ratio (RSR) and performed a 1RM bench press test, and two maximum number of repetitions (MNR) tests one week apart, using a relative load corresponding to 70% 1RM determined through the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) obtained from the individual load–velocity relationship. Regarding MPV, the best (fastest) repetition of the set values were similar between groups (0.62 m·s⁻¹–0.64 m·s⁻¹). The average MNR was 12.38 ± 2.51, with significant variation between groups with regards to MNR (CV:13–29%), and greater variability in the group corresponding to the lowest RSR values (CV: 29%). The use of variables such as the 1RM or a MNR do not allow an adequate degree of precision to prescribe and control the relative intensity of resistance training. Besides, execution velocity control can offer an adequate alternative to guarantee an accurate prescription of intensity with regard to resistance training.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to analyze the use of variables such as % of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and number of maximal repetitions (xRM) with execution velocity to define and control the intensity of resistance training in bench press exercise. Hence, exercise professionals will achieve better control of training through a greater understanding of its variables. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, fifty male physical education students were divided into four groups according to their relative strength ratio (RSR) and performed a 1RM bench press test (T1). In the second test, participants performed repetitions to exhaustion (T2), using a relative load corresponding to 70% 1RM determined through the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) obtained from the individual load–velocity relationship. This same test was repeated a week later (T3). Tests were monitored according to the MPV of each repetition and blood lactate values (LACT). Results: Regarding MPV, the best (fastest) repetition of the set (MPVrep Best) values were similar between groups (0.62 m·s⁻¹–0.64 m·s⁻¹), with significant differences in relation to the high RSR group (p < 0.001). The average maximum number of repetitions (MNR) was 12.38 ± 2.51, with no significant differences between the RSR groups. Nonetheless, significant variation existed between groups with regards to MNR (CV: 13–29%), with greater variability in the group corresponding to the lowest RSR values (CV: 29%). The loss of velocity in the MNR test in the different groups was similar (p > 0.05). Average LACT values (5.72 mmol·L⁻¹) showed significant differences between the Medium RSR and Very Low RSR groups. No significant differences were found (p > 0.05) between T2 and T3 with regards to MNR, MPVrep Best, or MPVrep Last, with little variability seen between participants. Conclusions: The use of variables such as the 1RM, estimated using an absolute load value, or an MNR do not allow an adequate degree of precision to prescribe and control the relative intensity of resistance training. Besides, execution velocity control can offer an adequate alternative to guarantee an accurate prescription of intensity with regard to resistance training.

The placement of linear transducers affects the magnitude but not the intra-session reliability of kinematic variables during the bench press exercise

BACKGROUND: While linear transducers are the most accurate velocity monitoring devices, the horizontal motion of the barbell seems to affect its measurement error. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of cable inclination of the GymAware and T-Force linear transducers on the intra-session reliability and magnitude of kinematic variables during the Smith machine bench press exercise. METHODS: Twenty-eight resistance-trained males performed 2 blocks of 12 repetitions (4 repetitions at 40-60-80%1RM). In half of the repetitions with each load the two measuring systems were either vertically aligned with the barbell or positioned 15-cm away from the vertical projection of the barbell. RESULTS: Displacement and mean velocity variables were recorded with a high and comparable intra-session reliability regardless of the cable position and measuring system (CV=𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 1.79–8.38%; ICC=𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 0.69–0.98). The inclined cable position provided a lower displacement and mean velocity than the vertical cable position and the differences were comparable using both the GymAware (⩽ 1.52 cm; ⩽ 0.05 m⋅s-1) and T-Force (⩽ 1.53 cm; ⩽ 0.04 m⋅s-1). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that repeatable findings of kinematic variables can be obtained regardless of the cable position, but for comparative purposes, the cable position should remain constant from the start to the end of the lifts.