Search

Purpose: To investigate the effects of 3 training volumes in the bench-press exercise performed with interrepetition rest periods, matched for fatigue, on strength gains and neuromuscular adaptations. Methods: Forty-three resistance-trained men were randomized into 3 groups: low (LOW), moderate (MOD), and high (HIG) volume. The intensities increased from 70% to 85% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) over the 8-week training period. Each session consisted of only 1 set with short interrepetition rest periods. LOW performed only 3 repetitions per session (8-wk total: 48 repetitions); MOD completed 15, 12, 10, and 8 repetitions per session with 70%, 75%, 80%, and 85% 1RM, respectively (8-wk total: 180); and HIG performed 24, 21, 18, and 15 repetitions per session with 70%, 75%, 80%, and 85% 1RM, respectively (8-wk total: 312). Progressive loading and fatigue tests were conducted in the bench-press exercise before and after the training period. Electromyography (EMG) signals from the triceps brachii were registered during these tests. Results: HIG and MOD showed higher velocity loss than LOW (16% vs 12%). No significant group × time interaction was observed for any variable. All groups improved significantly in all strength-related variables, except for maximal unloaded velocity, where only MOD obtained significant gains. Only LOW and MOD induced significant improvements in EMG. MOD obtained the greatest effect sizes in almost all strength variables. Conclusions: No significant differences were found in the performance gains obtained by each group despite the wide differences in the total volume accumulated by each group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the acute effects on mechanical, metabolic, neuromuscular, and muscle contractile responses to different velocity-loss (VL) thresholds (20% and 40%) under distinct blood-flow conditions (free [FF] vs restricted [BFR]) in full squat (SQ). Methods: Twenty strength-trained men performed 4 SQ protocols with 60% 1-repetition maximum that differed in the VL within the set and in the blood-flow condition (FF20: FF with 20% VL; FF40: FF with 40% VL; BFR20: BFR with 20% VL; and BFR40: BFR with 40% VL). The level of BFR was 50% of the arterial occlusion pressure. Before and after the SQ protocols, the following tests were performed: (1) tensiomyography, (2) blood lactate, (3) countermovement jump, (4) maximal voluntary isometric SQ contraction, and (5) performance with the load that elicited a 1 m·s−1 at baseline measurements in SQ. Results: No "BFR × VL" interactions were observed. BFR protocols resulted in fewer repetitions and lower increases in lactate concentration than FF protocols. The 40% VL protocols completed more repetitions but resulted in lower mechanical performance and electromyography median frequency during the exercise than the 20% VL protocols. At postexercise, the 40% VL protocols also experienced greater blood lactate concentrations, higher alterations in tensiomyography-derived variables, and accentuated impairments in SQ and countermovement-jump performances. The 20% VL protocols showed an increased electromyography median frequency at postexercise maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Conclusions: Despite BFR-accelerated fatigue development during exercise, a given VL magnitude induced similar impairments in the distinct performance indicators assessed, regardless of the blood-flow condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study explored the effects of 4 bench-press (BP) training programs with different velocity-loss (VL) thresholds (0%, 15%, 25%, and 50%) on strength gains and neuromuscular adaptations. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained men (22.8 [4.4] y) were randomly assigned into 4 groups that differed in the VL allowed within the set: 0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50). Training loads (40%–55% 1-repetition maximum), frequency (2 sessions/wk), number of sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) were identical for all groups. Participants completed the following tests before and after an 8-week (16-session) BP training program: (1) maximal isometric test, (2) progressive loading test, and (3) fatigue test in the BP exercise. During all tests, triceps brachii muscle electromyography was assessed. Results: After completing the resistance-training program, no significant group × time interactions were noticed for isometric and dynamic BP strength variables. The dose–response relationship exhibited an inverted U-shaped relationship pattern, with VL25 showing the greatest effect sizes for almost all strength variables analyzed. The total number of repetitions performed during the training program increased as the VL magnitude increased. Conclusions: The group that trained with high VL threshold (50%), which performed a total of 876 repetitions, did not experience additional strength gains compared with those experienced by the 0%, 15%, and 25% of VL groups, which performed significantly fewer repetitions (48, 357, and 547, respectively). These findings suggest that when light loads (40%–55% 1-repetition maximum) are used, low and moderate VL thresholds (0%–25%) provide a higher training efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J, Páez-Maldonado, J, Rodiles-Guerrero, L, Sánchez-Moreno, M, Gómez-Guerrero, G, León-Prados, JA, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Acute responses to different lifting velocities during squat training with and without blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 39(3): 307–317, 2025—The aims of the research were to compare the acute mechanical, metabolic, neuromuscular, and muscle mechanical responses to different lifting velocities (maximal vs. half-maximal) under distinct blood flow conditions (free [FF] vs. restricted [BFR]) in full-squat (SQ). Twenty resistance-trained males performed 4 protocols that differed in the velocity at which loads were lifted (MaxV: maximal velocity vs. HalfV: half-maximal velocity) and in the blood flow condition (FF: free-flow vs. BFR: 50% of arterial occlusion pressure). The relative intensity (60% 1 repetition maximum), volume (3 sets of 8 repetitions), and resting time (2 minutes) were matched between protocols. Mean propulsive force (MPF), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), mean propulsive power (MPP), and electromyography (EMG) values were recorded for each repetition. Tensiomyography (TMG), blood lactate, countermovement jump (CMJ), maximal voluntary isometric contraction in 90° SQ, and performance with the load that elicited a 1-m·s−1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load) in SQ were assessed at pre-exercise and postexercise. The MaxV protocols showed significantly greater MPF, MPV, MPP, and EMG amplitude during the exercise than the HalfV protocols (velocity effect, p < 0.05). The FF protocols achieved higher MPF and MPP during exercise than BFR (BFR effect, p < 0.05). The BFR protocols induced greater blood lactate after exercise (BFR × time interaction, p = 0.02), along with higher postexercise impairments in mechanical performance (BFR × time interaction, p < 0.05). The MaxV protocols elicited superior performance and greater muscle activation during exercise. The BFR protocols resulted in lower force and power production during exercise and exhibited higher performance impairments and increased metabolic stress postexercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to analyze the evolution of repetition velocity throughout a set until failure in the bench-press exercise and to analyze the relationships between the percentage of performed repetitions (%Rep) regarding the maximum number of repetitions that can be completed (MNR) and the percentage of velocity loss (VL) in women. Sixteen women performed one set until failure with four different intensities (50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% of one-repetition maximum, 1RM). Two-testing sessions were performed with 50% and 80% 1RM to evaluate data stability. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. A close relationship was observed between the magnitude of VL and the %Rep (R2 = 0.85–0.92) and a low standard error of the estimation (6.85–9.81%). Regarding reliability, the MNR showed a coefficient of variation (CV) of 16.1% and 20.8% for 50% and 80% 1RM, respectively. Regarding the %Rep for a given VL (from 15% VL), CVs were: 6.3–19.6%, being higher when VL reached in the set was lower. This study shows the usefulness of monitoring VL to estimate, with considerable precision, the %Rep in women. However, the %Rep when a given VL was reached revealed only satisfactory absolute reliability from a certain VL threshold (>15% VL). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the acute responses to different set configurations (cluster [CLU] vs. traditional [TRA]) under distinct blood flow conditions (free vs. restricted) in full-squat (SQ). Twenty resistance-trained males performed 4 protocols that differed in the set configuration (TRA: continuous repetitions; vs. CLU: 30 seconds of rest every 2 repetitions) and in the blood flow condition (FF: free-flow; vs. blood flow restriction [BFR]: 50% of arterial occlusion pressure). The relative intensity (60% 1RM), volume (3 sets of 8 repetitions), and resting time (2 minutes) were equated. Mean propulsive force (MPF), velocity (MPV) and power (MPP), and electromyography (EMG) parameters were recorded during each repetition. Ten-siomyography (TMG), blood lactate, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, maximal voluntary isometric contraction, in SQ, and movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m⋅s-1 velocity at baseline (V1-load) in SQ were assessed at pre- and post-exercise. The CLU protocols allowed a better maintenance of MPF, MPV, MPP, and EMG median frequency during the exercise compared to TRA (clu-time interaction, p < 0.05). The TRA protocols experienced greater impairments post-exercise in TMG- and EMG-derived variables (clu-time interaction, p < 0.05) and SQ and CMJ performance (clu-time interaction, p = 0.08 andp < 0.05, respectively), as well as higher blood lactate concentrations (clu-time interaction, p < 0.001) than CLU. Moreover, BFR displayed decreases in TMG variables (bfr-time interaction, p < 0.01), but BFR-CLU resulted in the greatest reduction in twitch contraction time (p < 0.001). Cluster sets reduced fatigue during and after the training session and BFR exacerbated impairments in muscle mechanical properties; however, the combination of both could improve contraction speed after exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effect of 4 velocity-loss (VL) thresholds—0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50)—on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy during the bench press (BP) exercise using intensities ranging from 55% to 70% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Methods: Fifty resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to 4 groups that followed an 8-week (16 sessions) BP training program at 55% to 70% 1RM but differed in the VL allowed in each set (VL0, VL15, VL25, and VL50). Assessments performed before (pre) and after (post) the training program included (1) cross-sectional area of pectoralis major muscle, (2) maximal isometric test, (3) progressive loading test, and (4) fatigue test in the BP exercise. Results: A significant group × time interaction was found for 1RM (P =.01), where all groups except VL0 showed significant gains in 1RM strength (P <.001). The VL25 group attained the greatest gains in 1RM strength and most load–velocity relationship parameters analyzed. A significant group × time interaction was observed for EMG root mean square in pectoralis major (P =.03) where only the VL25 group showed significant increases (P =.02). VL50 showed decreased EMG root mean square in triceps brachii (P =.006). Only the VL50 group showed significant increases in cross-sectional area (P <.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that a VL threshold of about 25% with intensities from 55% to 70% 1RM in BP provides an optimal training stimulus to maximize dynamic strength performance and neuromuscular adaptations, while higher VL thresholds promote higher muscle hypertrophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Performing the bench-press (BP) exercise in a weight stack machine (WSM) is a common practice. However, no previous studies have analysed the load-velocity relationship in this BP variant. The purpose of this study was 1) to investigate the load-velocity relationship during BP exercise using a WSM; and 2) to compare the load-velocity relationship in this exercise in two conditions: WSM vs. Smith machine (SM). Twenty-six young men performed a BP progressive loading test to determine their one-repetition maximum and load-velocity relationship using a WSM. Additionally, 19 participants performed two progressive loading tests (WSM and SM). A high relationship was found between the relative load (%1RM) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) (R2 = 0.97; SEE = 0.07 m/s) in the WSM. Moreover, significant differences were observed (p <.05) in the MPV values attained in every %1RM in WSM and SM from 30 to 75% 1RM. The close relationship between the MPV values and the %1RM in BP exercise using a WSM enables coaches to use the MPV to accurately monitor their athletes on a daily basis. The differences observed between WSM and SM in the %1RM and their respective MPVs indicate that different equations must be used for each exercise mode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to analyze the effects of three different velocity loss thresholds (10%: VL10, 30%: VL30 and 50%: VL50) on maximal strength and velocity at different intensities during bench press using a weight stack machine (WSM-BP). Forty-five men were randomly assigned to three groups: VL10 (n=15), VL30 (n=15) and VL50 (n=15), which followed a 5-week (15 sessions) velocity-based WSM-BP program. Assessments performed Pre- and Post-training included: a) estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM) in WSM-BP; b) average velocity attained against all absolute loads common to Pre- and Post-training tests in WSM-BP; c) average velocity attained against all absolute loads that were lifted equal to or faster than 0.8 m·s−1 at Pre-training (light loads); and d) average velocity attained against all absolute loads that were lifted slower than 0.8 m·s−1 at Pre-training (heavy loads). All groups showed significant improvements in 1RM, velocity against all loads, and velocity against heavy loads (P<0.001–0.01). However, only the VL10 group showed significant enhancements in velocity against light loads (P=0.05). Therefore, the VL10 group showed a higher training efficiency compared to VL30 and VL50 interventions, since it obtained similar benefits by performing fewer repetitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]