Human Performance and Sports Science Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
J Strength Cond Res. 2023 Sep 1;37(9):e500-e509. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004480. Epub 2023 Apr 3.
Hernández-Belmonte, A, Buendía-Romero, Á, Pallares, JG, and Martínez-Cava, A. Velocity-based method in free-weight and machine-based training modalities: the degree of freedom matters. J Strength Cond Res 37(9): e500-e509, 2023-This study aimed to analyze and compare the load-velocity relationships of free-weight and machine-based modalities of 4 resistance exercises. Moreover, we examined the influence of the subject's strength level on these load-velocity relationships. Fifty men completed a loading test in the free-weight and machine-based modalities of the bench press, full squat, shoulder press, and prone bench pull exercises. General and individual relationships between relative intensity (%1RM) and velocity variables were studied through the coefficient of determination ( R2 ) and standard error of the estimate ( SEE ). Moreover, the velocity attained to each %1RM was compared between both modalities. Subjects were divided into stronger and weaker to study whether the subject's strength level influences the mean test (mean propulsive velocity [MPV Test ]) and 1RM (MPV 1RM ) velocities. For both modalities, very close relationships ( R2 ≥ 0.95) and reduced estimation errors were found when velocity was analyzed as a dependent ( SEE ≤ 0.086 m·s -1 ) and independent ( SEE ≤ 5.7% 1RM) variable concerning the %1RM. Fits were found to be higher ( R2 ≥ 0.995) for individual load-velocity relationships. Concerning the between-modality comparison, the velocity attained at each intensity (from 30 to 100% 1RM) was significantly faster for the free-weight variant. Finally, nonsignificant differences were found when comparing MPV Test (differences ≤ 0.02 m·s -1 ) and MPV 1RM (differences ≤ 0.01 m·s -1 ) between stronger and weaker subjects. These findings prove the accuracy and stability of the velocity-based method in the free-weight and machine-based variants but highlight the need to use the load-velocity relationship (preferably the individual one) specific to each training modality.
埃尔南德斯-贝尔蒙特、A、布恩迪亚-罗梅罗、Á、帕拉雷斯、JG 和马丁内斯-卡瓦、A. 基于速度的方法在自由重量和机器训练模式中的应用：自由度很重要。J 力量与条件研究 37(9)：e500-e509，2023 年-本研究旨在分析和比较 4 种抗阻训练的自由重量和机器训练模式的负荷-速度关系。此外，我们还研究了受试者的力量水平对这些负荷-速度关系的影响。50 名男性在卧推、深蹲、肩推和俯姿划船练习的自由重量和机器模式下完成了加载测试。通过决定系数（R2）和估计标准误差（SEE）研究了相对强度（%1RM）和速度变量之间的一般和个体关系。此外，比较了两种模式下达到的每个%1RM 的速度。根据研究目的，将受试者分为较强和较弱两组，以研究受试者的力量水平是否影响平均测试（平均推进速度[MPV Test]）和 1RM（MPV 1RM）的速度。对于两种模式，当速度被分析为依赖变量（SEE≤0.086 m·s-1）和独立变量（SEE≤5.7%1RM）时，发现非常接近的关系（R2≥0.95）和较小的估计误差。对于个体负荷-速度关系，拟合度更高（R2≥0.995）。关于两种模式之间的比较，在每个强度（从 30%1RM 到 100%1RM）下，自由重量变体的速度明显更快。最后，在比较较强和较弱的受试者时，MPV Test（差异≤0.02 m·s-1）和 MPV 1RM（差异≤0.01 m·s-1）之间没有发现统计学差异。这些发现证明了速度法在自由重量和机器训练模式中的准确性和稳定性，但强调需要使用特定于每种训练模式的负荷-速度关系（最好是个体的）。
