Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo

This study aimed to compare the acute effect of traditional (TR), cluster (CL), and rest redistribution (RR) set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual measures of fatigue. Thirty-one resistance-trained men randomly performed a Control session and 3 experimental sessions consisting of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises performed against the 10 repetition maximum load using TR (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), CL (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 30 seconds of intraset rest every 2 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), and RR (9 sets of 2 repetitions; 45 seconds of interset rest) set configurations. A significant effect of “set configuration” (p = 0.002) was observed for barbell velocity. The average velocity of the training session was lower for TR compared with CL (% difference = 5.09% in SQ and 5.68% in BP) and RR (% difference = 5.92% in SQ and 2.71% in BP). The 3 set configurations induced comparable decrements in countermovement jump height (% difference from −6.0% to −8.1%) and throwing velocity (% difference from −0.6% to −1.2%). Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-10) values collected after the sets were higher for TR (SQ: 6.9 ± 0.7 a.u.; BP: 6.8 ± 0.8 a.u.) compared with CL (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.4 ± 0.7 a.u.) and RR (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.6 ± 0.9 a.u.), while the session RPE did not differ between the set configurations (p = 0.595). CL and RR set configurations allow for higher velocities and lower RPE values during resistance training sessions not performed to failure in comparison with a TR set configuration.

Purpose: To compare the effects of 2 upper-body strength-training programs differing in set configuration on bench press 1-repetition maximum (BP1RM), bench press throw peak velocity against 30 kg (BPT30), and handball throwing velocity. Methods: Thirty-five men were randomly assigned to a traditional group (TRG; n = 12), rest redistribution group (RRG; n = 13), or control group (n = 10). The training program was conducted with the bench press exercise and lasted 6 weeks (2 sessions per week): TRG—6 sets × 5 repetitions with 3 minutes of interset rest; RRG—1 set × 30 repetitions with 31 seconds of interrepetition rest. The total rest period (15 min) and load intensity (75% 1RM) were the same for both experimental groups. Subjects performed all repetitions at maximal intended velocity, and the load was adjusted on a daily basis from velocity recordings. Results: A significant time × group interaction was observed for both BP1RM and BPT30 (P < .01) due to the higher values observed at posttest compared with pretest for TRG (effect size [ES] = 0.77) and RRG (ES = 0.56–0.59) but not for the control group (ES ≤ 0.08). The changes in BP1RM and BPT30 did not differ between TRG and RRG (ES = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). No significant differences in handball throwing velocity were observed between the pretest and posttest (ES = 0.16, 0.22, and 0.02 for TRG, RRG, and control group, respectively). Conclusions: Resistance-training programs based on not-to-failure traditional and rest redistribution set configurations induce similar changes in BP1RM, BPT30, and handball throwing velocity.

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

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.

Background: The aim of this study was to examine whether the addition of very light loads for modeling the force–velocity (F–V) relationship during the bench press (BP) exercise can confirm its experimental linearity as well as to increase the reliability and concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters (maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F–V slope, and maximum power (Pmax)). Method: The F–V relationship of 19 healthy men were determined using three different methods: (I) 6-loads free method: six loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 1–8–29–39–49–59 kg), (II) 4-loads free method: four loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg), and (III) 4-loads Smith method: four loads performed during the ballistic bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg). Results: The linearity of the F–V relationship was very high and comparable for the three F–V methods (p = 0.204; median Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99). The three methods were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: 6-loads free (coefficient of variation (CV) range = 3.6–6.7%) > 4-loads Smith (CV range = 4.6–12.4%) > 4-loads free (CV range = 3.8–14.5%). The higher reliability of the 6-loads free method was especially pronounced for F–V slope (CVratio ≥ 1.85) and V0 (CVratio ≥ 1.49) parameters, while the lowest difference in reliability was observed for F0 (CVratio ≤ 1.27). The 6-loads free and 4-loads free methods showed a very high concurrent validity respect to the 4-loads Smith method for F0 and Pmax (r ≥ 0.89), a moderate validity for the F–V slope (r = 0.66–0.82), and a low validity for V0 (r ≤ 0.37). Discussion: The routine testing of the F–V relationship of upper-body muscles through the BP exercise should include trials with very light loading conditions to enhance the reliability of the F–V relationship.