Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile.
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0212085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212085. eCollection 2019.
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%; CVratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CVratio = 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.
(I) 确定在自由重量俯式卧推运动中，最适合负载-速度关系的速度变量和回归模型；(II) 比较不同速度变量和回归模型在达到 1RM（一次重复最大值）不同百分比时的速度的可靠性；(III) 比较在达到每个 1RM%时的速度的个体内和个体间可变性。18 名男性（14 名赛艇运动员和 4 名举重运动员）在两次不同的会议期间进行了自由重量俯式卧推的递增测试。通过三个速度变量（平均速度[MV]、平均推进速度[MPV]和峰值速度[PV]）和两个回归模型（线性和二次多项式）对总体和个体的负载-速度关系进行建模。主要发现包括：(I) 总体（皮尔逊相关系数[r]范围=0.964-0.973）和个体（MV 的中位数 r=0.986，MPV 的中位数 r=0.989，PV 的中位数 r=0.984）负载-速度关系高度线性；(II) 在达到每个 1RM%的速度的可靠性在速度变量之间没有显著差异（MV 的变异系数[CV]范围=2.55-7.61%，MPV 的 CV 范围=2.84-7.72%，PV 的 CV 范围=3.50-6.03%），在回归模型之间也没有显著差异（线性回归和二次多项式回归的 CV 范围分别为 2.55-7.61%和 2.73-5.25%）；(III) 达到每个 1RM%的速度的个体内可变性低于轻-中度负荷的个体间可变性。在 1RM 试验的 MV 方面，个体内和个体间的 CV 之间没有观察到有意义的差异（6.02%与 6.60%；CV 比值=1.10），而在 PV 方面，个体内 CV 较低（6.36%与 7.56%；CV 比值=1.19）。这些结果表明，在自由重量俯式卧推运动中，为了获得最准确的相对负荷处方，应该使用线性回归模型来确定个体的负载-MV 关系。
