Search

The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the shape of the load-velocity (L-V) and force-velocity (F-V) relationships obtained during the medicine ball throw (MBT) test, (2) to explore the reliability of their parameters (L-V parameters: maximal load ( L0), maximal velocity ( V0(L-V)), slope of the L-V relationship ( a(L-V)), and area under the L-V relationship line (Aline); F-V parameters: maximal force ( F0), maximal velocity ( V0(F-V)), slope of the F-V relationship ( a(F-V)), and maximal power ( Pmax)), (3) to explore the concurrent validity of the two-point with respect to the multiple-point method, and (4) to evaluate the external validity of L0 and F0 with respect to the maximal strength. Twelve males performed MBTs against four loads, a bench press 1-repetition maximum (1 RM), and maximal isometric medicine ball push. The L-V and F-V relationships were strongly linear (individual r ≥ 0.886). V0 was the only variable that always showed an acceptable reliability (CV ≤ 3.4%). L0 and F0 presented trivial to moderate correlations with the bench press 1RM and maximal isometric medicine ball push performance. Therefore, the MBT test can be implemented to reveal the maximal velocity capacity of upper-body muscles, but not maximal force or power capacities due to their low reliability and external validity.

Background: One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests are time-consuming, and they might not always be logistically possible or warranted due to increased risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athletes. Repetitions-to-failure tests are a widespread method of predicting the 1RM, but its accuracy may be compromised by several factors such as the type of exercise, sex, training history, and the number of repetitions completed in the test. Hypothesis: The touch-and-go bench press would provide a higher 1RM than the concentric-only bench press for both genders regardless of whether the 1RM was obtained by the direct or repetitions-to-failure method and the error in the 1RM prediction would be positively correlated with the number of repetitions performed to failure and negatively correlated with the 1RM strength and resistance training experience. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) were tested on 2 sessions during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM load, followed by a repetitions-to-failure test. Results: The 1RM was higher for the touch-and-go bench press using both the direct (men, 7.80%; women, 7.62%) and repetitions-to-failure method (men, 8.29%; women, 7.49%). A significant, although small, correlation was observed between the error in the estimation of the 1RM and the number of repetitions performed ( r = 0.222; P < 0.01), 1RM strength ( r = −0.169; P = 0.01), and resistance training experience ( r = −0.136; P = 0.05). Conclusion: The repetitions-to-failure test is a valid method of predicting the 1RM during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. However, the accuracy of the prediction could be compromised with weaker and less experienced individuals and if more than 10 repetitions are completed during the repetitions-to-failure test. Clinical Relevance: The repetitions-to-failure test does not require any sophisticated equipment and enables a widespread use in different training environments.

This study aimed to compare the reliability and agreement of mean velocity (MV) and maximal velocity (Vmax) between the two velocity monitoring devices (GymAware vs T-Force) most commonly used in the scientific literature. Twenty resistance-trained males completed two testing sessions. The free-weight barbell back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined in the first session (125.0 ± 24.2 kg; mean ± standard deviation). The second session consisted of two blocks of 16 repetitions (six repetitions at 45% 1RM and 65% 1RM, and four repetitions at 85% 1RM). Half of the repetitions were performed with the GymAware on the left side of the barbell and the other half of the repetitions were performed on the right side of the barbell (opposite placement for the T-Force). MV and Vmax were recorded simultaneously with the GymAware and T-Force. The overall reliability, which was calculated pooling together the data of three loads, did not differ between the T-Force (coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.28 ± 1.79%) and GymAware (CV = 5.79 ± 2.26%) (CVratio = 1.10), but the reliability was higher for Vmax (CV = 5.08 ± 1.79%) compared to MV (CV = 5.98 ± 2.73%) (CVratio = 1.18). MV was significantly higher for the T-Force ( p max ( p = 0.455, Δ = 0.22%). These results support the use of both the GymAware and T-Force as gold-standards in studies designed to validate other velocity monitoring devices. However, systematic bias, albeit rather constant, exists for the magnitude of MV between the two devices.