Miras-Moreno Sergio, García-Ramos Amador, Weakley Jonathon, Rojas-Ruiz Francisco J, Pérez-Castilla Alejandro
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, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile.
Sports Health. 2024 Oct 18:19417381241286519. doi: 10.1177/19417381241286519.
The fastest mean (MV) and peak (PV) velocity in a set are used to predict the maximum number of repetitions (RTF), but stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) effects on these relationships are unknown.
Velocity values associated with each RTF would show higher values for eccentric-concentric and multiple-point methods compared with concentric-only and 2-point methods.
Cross-sectional study.
Level 3.
After determining the prone bench pull (PBP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 23 resistance-trained male participants randomly performed 2 sessions (1 for each PBP exercise), consisting of single sets of RTFs against 3 relative loads (60%-80%-70%1RM). Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were constructed using the multiple-point (60%-80%-70%1RM) and 2-point (60%-80%1RM) methods.
Goodness-of-fit was very high and comparable for concentric-only (RTF-MV, = 0.97; RTF-PV, = 0.98) and eccentric-concentric (RTF-MV, = 0.98; RTF-PV, = 0.99) PBP exercises. Velocity values associated with different RTFs were generally higher for eccentric-concentric compared with concentric-only PBP exercise, but these differences showed heteroscedasticity ( ≥ 0.143). However, velocity values associated with different RTFs were comparable for the multiple- and 2-point methods ( ≤ 2.4; ≥ 0.13).
These results suggest that the inclusion of the SSC does not impair the goodness-of-fit of RTF-velocity relationships, but these relationships should be determined specifically for each PBP exercise (ie, concentric-only and eccentric-concentric). In addition, the 2-point method serves as a quick and less strenuous procedure to estimate RTF.
Practitioners only need to monitor the MV or PV and the RTF from 2 (2-point method) or 3 (multiple-point method) sets performed to failure to construct an RTF-velocity relationship. Once these relationships have been established, coaches need only monitor the MV or PV of the set to estimate RTF against a given absolute load.
一组动作中的平均最快速度（MV）和峰值速度（PV）用于预测最大重复次数（RTF），但拉伸-缩短周期（SSC）对这些关系的影响尚不清楚。
与每个RTF相关的速度值在离心-向心和多点方法中会比仅向心和两点方法显示出更高的值。
横断面研究。
3级。
在确定俯卧凳拉（PBP）的1次重复最大值（1RM）后，23名经过抗阻训练的男性参与者随机进行2次训练（每次PBP练习1次），包括针对3种相对负荷（60%-80%-70%1RM）进行单组RTF练习。使用多点（60%-80%-70%1RM）和两点（60%-80%1RM）方法构建个体化的RTF-速度关系。
仅向心（RTF-MV， = 0.97；RTF-PV， = 0.98）和离心-向心（RTF-MV， = 0.98；RTF-PV， = 0.99）PBP练习的拟合优度非常高且相当。与仅向心PBP练习相比，离心-向心PBP练习中与不同RTF相关的速度值通常更高，但这些差异显示出异方差性（≥ 0.143）。然而，多点和两点方法中与不同RTF相关的速度值相当（≤ 2.4；≥ 0.13）。
这些结果表明，纳入SSC不会损害RTF-速度关系的拟合优度，但这些关系应针对每个PBP练习（即仅向心和离心-向心）具体确定。此外，两点法是一种快速且强度较小的估计RTF的方法
