Optimization of the Force–Velocity Relationship Obtained From the Bench-Press-Throw Exercise: An a Posteriori Multicenter Reliability Study.

Purpose: An a posteriori multicenter reliability study was conducted to compare the reliability of the outcomes derived from the linear force–velocity (F–V) relationship (F-intercept [F₀], V-intercept [V₀], F–V slope, and maximum power [P_max]) using a 2-point method based on 2 distant loads with respect to a multiple-point method based on 4 proximal loads and a multiple-point method that considered all 6 tested loads. Method: Data from 63 healthy men derived from 3 studies were analyzed. The F–V relationship obtained from the bench-press-throw exercise was determined in 2 separate sessions using 3 different combinations of loads: 2-point method (20–70% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]), 4-load multiple-point method (30–40–50–60% of 1RM), and 6-load multiple-point method (20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM). Reliability was assessed through the coefficient of variation (CV), whereas a CV_ratio of 1.15 was deemed as the smallest important ratio. Results: The 2-point method provided the outcomes of the F–V relationship with greater reliability than the 4-load multiple-point method (F₀, 3.58% vs 4.53%, CV_ratio = 1.27; V₀, 5.58% vs 7.85%, CV_ratio = 1.41; F–V slope, 8.57% vs 11.99%, CV_ratio = 1.40; P_max, 4.33% vs 4.81%, CV_ratio = 1.11). The reliability of the 6-load multiple-point method was comparable to the 2-point method (F₀, 3.53%, CV_ratio = 1.01; V₀, 5.32%, CV_ratio = 1.05; F–V slope, 8.38%, CV_ratio = 1.02; P₀, 3.74%, CV_ratio = 1.16). Conclusion:The distance between experimental points is more important for obtaining a reproducible F–V relationship than the number of experimental points; therefore, the 2-point method could be recommended for a quicker assessment of the F–V relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]