Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo

2019, García-Ramos, Amador, Ulloa-Diaz, David, Barboza González, Paola, Rodríguez Perea, Ángela, Martínez García, Darío, Quidel Catrilelbún, Mauricio, Guede Rojas, Francisco, Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Janicijevic, Danica, Weakley, Jonathon

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.

2021, Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Jukic, Ivan, González Hernández, Jorge Miguel, Janicijevic, Danica, Barboza González, Paola, Chirosa Ríos, Luis Javier, García-Ramos, Amador

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.

2020, Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, García-Ramos, Amador, Janicijevic, Danica, Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro, Chirosa-Ríos, Luis

Background: This study aimed to compare the effect of two upper-body resistance training programs (strength-oriented vs. ballistic) on bench press (BP) performance and handball throwing velocity (HTV). Methods: Thirty resistance-trained males were randomly assigned to a strength-oriented training group (STG) or a ballistic training group (BTG). The study consisted of 11 sessions: 2 pre-tests (week 1), 8 training sessions (weeks 2-5), and 1 post-test (week 6). The STG performed the BP at the 70-90% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM), and the BTG the BP throw at the 40% of 1RM. BP performance (BP 1RM and maximum velocity achieved against 20 kg [BP20]) and HTV were assessed before and after training. Results: The STG enhanced BP 1RM (effect size [ES]=0.24) but not BP20 (ES=0.21) or HTV (ES=0.10). The BTG enhanced BP20 (ES=0.63) but not BP1RM (ES=0.27) or HTV (ES=0.02). HTV was not significantly correlated with the BP 1RM (r≤0.181) or BP20 (r≤0.220). Conclusions: These results indicate that a short-term RT program based exclusively on the BP exercise performed against either heavy (strength-oriented) or light loads (ballistic) is not effective to increase HTV in resistance-trained men with little handball experience.

2019, García-Ramos, Amador, Barboza González, Paola, Ulloa-Diaz, David, Rodriguez Perea, Angela, Martinez Garcia, Darío, Guede Rojas, Francisco, Hinojosa Riveros, Hans, Chirosa Ríos, Luis Javier, Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Janicijevic, Danica, Weakley, Jonathon

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.

2022, Dr. Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, García-Ramos, Amador, Jukic, Ivan, Chirosa-Ríos, Luis, González-Hernández, Jorge, Janicijevic, Danica, Barboza-González, Paola, Guede-Rojas, Francisco

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.