2018 - Garcia Slobdan Optimization of The Force-Velocity Relationship in Bench Press

“Optimization of the Force-Velocity Relationship Obtained From the Bench Press Throw Exercise: An A-Posteriori
Multicentre Reliability Study” by García-Ramos A, Jaric S

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The
article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was
provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited,
proofread, or formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Investigation
Article Title: Optimization of the Force-Velocity Relationship Obtained From the Bench
Press Throw Exercise: An A-Posteriori Multicentre Reliability Study
Authors: Amador García-Ramos1,2 and Slobodan Jaric3,4,5
Affiliations: 1Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences,

University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 2Department of Sports Sciences and Physical
Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of the Most Holy
Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 3Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology &
Biomechanics and Movement Science Graduate Program, University of Delaware, Newark,
DE, USA. 4Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Serbia.
5
Department of Human Motor Behavior, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical
Education in Katowice, Poland.
Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Acceptance Date: August 1, 2018
©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0457
Optimization of the force-velocity relationship obtained from the bench press

throw exercise: An a-posteriori multicentre reliability study
Submission type: Original investigation

Downloaded by DURHAM UNIVERSITY on 10/01/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
Authors: Amador García-Ramos,1,2 and Slobodan Jaric3,4,5
Institutional Affiliations:
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of
Granada, Granada, Spain.
2
Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE,
Catholic University of the Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile.
3
Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology & Biomechanics and Movement Science
Graduate Program, University of Delaware.
4
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Serbia.
5
Department of Human Motor Behavior, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education
in Katowice, Poland.
Corresponding author:
Amador García-Ramos. 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 the Most Holy
Concepción, Concepción, Chile. Tel.: +34677815348. E-mail: amagr@ugr.es
Preferred running head: Multicentre reliability study of the F-V profile
Abstract word count: 252
Text-only word count: 3134
Number of figures: 2
Number of tables: 2
ACKNOLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Alejandro Pérez Castilla, Francisco Luis Pestaña Melero, Sreten
Sreckovic, Ivan Cuk and Sasa Djuric for their participation in data collection. This work was
partially supported by the University of Granada under a post-doctoral grant
(perfeccionamiento de doctores) awarded to AGR.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: An a-posteriori multicentre 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 [Pmax]) using a two-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 of 63 healthy men derived from
3 studies were analysed. The F-V relationship obtained from the bench press throw exercise
was determined on 2 separate sessions using 3 different combinations of loads: (I) two-point
method (20–70% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]), (II) 4-loads multiple-point method (30–
40–50–60% of 1RM), and (III) 6-loads multiple-point method (20–30–40–50–60–70% of
1RM). Reliability was assessed through the coefficient of variation (CV), while a CVratio of
1.15 was deemed as the smallest important ratio. Results: The two-point method provided the
outcomes of the F-V relationship with higher reliability than the 4-loads multiple-point method
(F0: 3.58% vs. 4.53%, CVratio=1.27; V0: 5.58% vs. 7.85%, CVratio=1.41; F-V slope: 8.57% vs.
11.99%, CVratio=1.40; Pmax: 4.33% vs. 4.81%, CVratio=1.11). The reliability of the 6-loads
multiple-point method was comparable to the two-point method (F0: 3.53%, CVratio=1.01; V0:
5.32%, CVratio=1.05; F-V slope: 8.38%, CVratio=1.02; P0: 3.74%, CVratio=1.16). Conclusion:
The distance between experimental points is more important to obtain a reproducible F-V
relationship than the number of experimental points and, therefore, the two-point method could
be recommended for a quicker assessment of the F-V relationship.
Key words: multiple-point method, two-point method, maximum force, maximum velocity,
maximum power.
INTRODUCTION
The linear force-velocity (F-V) relationship is frequently used to evaluate the maximal
capacities of active muscles to produce force (F0), velocity (V0), and power (Pmax) during a
variety of tasks (vertical jump, bench press throw [BPT], isokinetic exercises, etc.).1–4 The F-
V slope (i.e., the ratio between F0 and V0) is also reported to assess the balance between
maximal F and V capacities. It is important to note that the F-V testing procedure provides
outcomes of higher informational value than the standard testing procedure conducted under a
single mechanical condition. Namely, while the F-V relationship allows to discern between the
maximal F, V and P producing capacities, the outputs of F, V, and P recorded under individual
loads are dependent on each other and do not reveal the individual maximal mechanical
capacities.5 Previous studies have also revealed that the outcomes of the F-V relationship (i.e.,
F0, V0, F-V slope, and Pmax) can be used to implement individualised resistance training
programs for enhancing ballistic performance as well as for injury management.6–9 A basic
prerequisite to implement effective training programs based on the F-V profile is that their
main outcomes should be highly reliable.
The routine testing procedure of the F-V relationship during isoinertial tasks consists
of the application of multiple (at least 4) loads (referred to as “multiple-point method”).10,11
The studies conducted with the multiple-point method have revealed that the F-V relationship
during a variety of isoinertial tasks is highly linear, while the outcomes of the F-V relationship
typically present a high reliability and moderate to high validity.2,12–15 Due to the high linearity
of the F-V relationship, Jaric16 proposed a quicker testing procedure based on the application
of only 2 loads to determine the F-V relationship (referred to as “two-point method”). Previous
studies have confirmed the similar reliability and high validity of the F-V relationship obtained
from the multiple- and two-point methods.1,17–20 However, it has also been shown that the
accuracy of the two-point method depends on several factors such as the distance between the
2 experimental points, the proximity of the points to the F and V intercepts, and the reliability
of the individual points.10,17,21 For instance, Pérez-Castilla et al.17 found that the reliability and
validity of the two-point method progressively decreased as the separation between the 2
experimental points was reduced (20-70%1RM > 30-60%1RM > 40-50%1RM; 1RM [1-
repetition maximum]). A practical question that remains open is whether the reliability of the
outcomes of the F-V relationship is more affected by the number or by the distance between
experimental points; in other words, what is more reliable a multiple-point method based on
proximal loads or a two-point method based on more distant loads? A higher reliability of the
multiple-point method using proximal loads (e.g., 30–40–50–60% of 1RM) as compared to the
two-point method using more distant loads (e.g., 20–70% of 1RM) would suggest that the
number of tested loads is more important than the distance between them, while the opposite
result would highlight the superiority of testing 2 distant loads rather than multiple proximal
loads.
To date, no study has been specifically designed to answer the question of whether to
optimise the reliability of the F-V relationship is more important the number or the distance
between experimental points. To address this research question, the data of three different
studies that collected F and V outputs against 6 different loads during the BPT exercise were
combined into a-posteriori multicentre reliability study. Specifically, the main objective of the
present study was to compare the reliability of the outcomes of the linear F-V relationship (F0,
V0, F-V slope, and Pmax) between a two-point method based on 2 distant loads (20–70% of
1RM) and a multiple-point method based on 4 proximal loads (30–40–50–60% of 1RM). In
addition, the reliability of the two-point method was compared against the multiple-point
method that considered the data of the 6 loads (20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM). We
hypothesised that (I) the two-point method would provide the outcomes of the F-V relationship
with higher reliability than the 4-loads multiple-point method, while (II) no significant
differences in reliability would be observed between the two-point method and the 6-loads
multiple-point method. The results of this study are expected to contribute in the refinement of
the testing procedure of the F-V relationship during the BPT exercise.
METHOD
Subjects
Data of 63 male sport and physical education students derived from three different
studies were analysed (Table 1).12,17,22 Subjects reported no chronic diseases or recent injuries
that could compromise testing, and they were instructed to avoid any strenuous upper-body
exercise at least the 2 days preceding each testing session. Subjects were informed of the study
procedures to be utilised and signed a written informed consent form prior to initiating the
study. The study protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved
by the University of Granada or University of Belgrade Institutional Review Boards.
Study design
An a-posteriori multicentre reliability study was conducted to elucidate whether the
reliability of the F-V relationship is more affected by the number or the distance between
experimental points. The subjects of the 3 independent studies were tested over 2 sessions
separated by less than 7 days. The mean values of F and V obtained under 6 loading magnitudes
during the concentric-only BPT exercise were collected on each testing session. The F-V
relationship was determined using 3 different combinations of loads: (I) two-point method (≈
20–70% of 1RM), (II) 4-loads multiple-point method (≈ 30–40–50–60% of 1RM), and (III) 6-
loads multiple-point method (≈ 20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM). The data of 1 subject from
the study of García-Ramos et al.22 was excluded from the multicentre reliability study since the
6th load of his incremental loading test corresponded to the 1RM trial. The maximum load was
lower than the 90%1RM for the 63 subjects included in the present study.
The reliability of the two-point method was compared against the 4-loads multiple-
point method to address the first objective of the study (i.e., if the reliability of the F-V
relationship is more affected by the number or the distance between experimental points). The
reliability of the two-point method was compared against the 6-loads multiple-point method to
address the second objective of the study (i.e., if the addition of 4 intermediate loads improves
the reliability of the F-V relationship compared to using only the 2 extreme points).
Procedures
The 3 studies were conducted according to similar procedures.12,17,22 Subjects were
familiarized with the concentric-only BPT exercise prior to the 2 main testing sessions.
Anthropometric data and the 1RM during the concentric-only BP exercise were also
determined in a previous session. The two sessions used for assessing the test-retest reliability
of the F-V relationship consisted of loaded BPTs performed against 6 different loads. The
magnitude of these loads typically ranged between the 20%1RM and 70%1RM. The 6 loads
were applied in a randomised order in the study of Sreckovic et al.12 and in an incremental
order in the studies of García-Ramos et al.22 and Pérez-Castilla et al.17. Subjects performed 2-
3 repetitions with each load, but only the repetition with the highest V at each load was
considered for the F-V modelling. The rest period between the repetitions performed with the
same load was 10-45 seconds, and 3-5 minutes were implemented between different loads.
The 1RM in the BP exercise and the BPTs used for the F-V modelling were tested in a
Smith machine. The 5-point body contact position technique (head, upper back, and buttocks
firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor) was used. The concentric-only BPT
technique was evaluated. The barbell was hold parallel to the subjects’ nipples just above (1-2
cm) their chest. From the initial position, subjects were instructed to throw the barbell as high
as possible. Two trained spotters were responsible of catching the barbell during its downward
movement.
Measurement equipment and data analysis
The values of F and V of the barbell were obtained with a linear position transducer in
the 3 studies: Pérez-Castilla et al.17 (Real Power Pro Globus, Codogne, Italy), Sreckovic et al.12
(Vivis Sport Med, Belgrade, Serbia) and García-Ramos et al.22 (T-Force System; Ergotech,
Murcia, Spain). Displacement-time or velocity-time data were recorded at a frequency of 1,000
Hz in the studies of García-Ramos et al.22 and Pérez-Castilla et al.17 and at 200 Hz in the study
of Sreckovic et al.12 The mean F and V data within the lifting phase (i.e., the time interval from
the initiation of the vertical movement of the barbell until the acceleration of the barbell drops
to -9.81 m·s-2) were used for the F-V modelling. Three different combination of loads were
used to determine the F-V relationship: (I) two-point method (≈ 20–70% of 1RM), (II) 4-loads
multiple-point method (≈ 30–40–50–60% of 1RM), and (III) 6-loads multiple-point method (≈
20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM) (see Figure 1 for illustration). A linear regression model (F[V]
= F0 – aV) was used to determine the 4 outcomes of the F-V relationship, where F0 represents
the F-intercept and a is the slope of the F-V relationship. They enabled the calculation of V0
(V-intercept; V0 = F0/a) and Pmax (Pmax = (F0∙V0)/4).
Statistical analyses
Paired samples t-test was used to compare the magnitude of the outcomes of the F-V
relationship between the 2 sessions. Test-retest reliability was assessed through the standard
error of the measurement (SEM) and the coefficient of variation (CV) with the corresponding
95% confidence interval. The reliability observed in each independent study as well as in the
multicentre reliability study was reported. Acceptable and high thresholds for the CV were set
at ≤ 10% and ≤ 5%, respectively.23 The ratio between 2 CVs was used to compare the reliability
of the two-point method against the 4-loads multiple-point method (objective 1) and the two-
point method against the 6-loads multiple-point method (objective 2). The smallest important
ratio of CVs was considered to be higher than 1.15.24 The reliability analysis was performed
by means of a custom spreadsheet.25 Alpha was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
The main findings of the present study are presented in Table 2. They revealed an
acceptable reliability (CV < 10%) in the 4 outcomes of the F-V relationship with the only
exception of the F-V slope obtained from the 4-loads multiple-point method in the studies of
García-Ramos et al.22 (CV = 12.8%) and Pérez-Castilla et al.17 (CV = 11.2%) as well as in the
multicentre reliability study (CV = 12.0%).
The comparison of the CV through the CVratio revealed that the two-point method was
able to determine the outcomes of the F-V relationship with higher reliability than the 4-loads
multiple-point method, while no meaningful differences in reliability were generally observed
between the two-point method and the 6-loads multiple-point method (Figure 2). The only
exception was Pmax that failed to show the differences between the two-point method and 4-
loads multiple-point method, as well as showing a higher CV when obtained from the two-
point method than from the 6-loads multiple-point method.
DISCUSSION
The data of 3 independent studies were combined into an a-posteriori multicentre
reliability study to answer the question of whether to optimise the reliability of the F-V
relationship is more important the number or the distance between experimental points. The
main finding of this study is that the reliability of the outcomes of the F-V relationship, with
the only exception of Pmax, was higher using 2 distant points (i.e., two-point method) than 4
proximal points (i.e., 4-loads multiple-point method). Therefore, the distance seems to be more
important than the number of loads tested. Moreover, the lack of differences in reliability for 3
out of 4 outcomes of the F-V relationship between the two-point and 6-loads multiple-point
methods suggests that the number of points presents trivial effects on the reliability of the F-V
relationship provided that the distance between the lightest and the heaviest load remains
constant. These results suggest that instead of focusing on testing many different loads, the
routine testing procedure of the F-V relationship should try to maximise the distance between
the 2 more distal points that are considered for modelling the F-V relationship.
Previous studies have already compared the reliability of the outcomes of the F-V
relationship between the multiple- and two-point methods.17,18 However, the multiple-point
method of these studies always considered the F and V data recorded at all the loads applied
during the testing procedure and, therefore, these studies were not properly designed to answer
the question of whether the reliability of the F-V relationship is more affected by the number
or by the distance between experimental points. The main novelty of the present study was the
comparison of a two-point method based on 2 distant loads (≈ 20–70% of 1RM) and a multiple-
point method based on 4 proximal loads (≈ 30–40–50–60% of 1RM). Therefore, the distance
between the loads was higher for the two-point method, while the number of loads was higher
for the multiple-point method.
The first hypothesis of the study was confirmed since the two-point method generally
provided the outcomes of the F-V relationship with higher reliability than the 4-loads multiple-
point method. The only parameter for which the smallest important CVratio of 1.15 was not
reached is Pmax (CVratio = 1.11), denoting no significant differences in reliability between the
two-point and 4-loads multiple-point methods. These results reinforce the recommendation of
using distant loads for assessing the F-V relationship.10 Therefore, rather than focusing on
recording F and V outputs under many different loads, we recommend to maximise the distance
between the minimum and maximum loads applied during the testing procedure to enhance the
reliability of the F-V relationship.
In line with our second hypothesis no meaningful differences in reliability were
generally observed between the two-point and the 6-loads multiple-point methods. Pmax was
the only parameter that showed a lower reliability for the two-point method compared to the 6-
loads multiple-point method (CVratio = 1.16). Previous studies have also reported a comparable
reliability of the two-point method when the 2 most distant loads were used with respect to the
multiple-point method.17,18 For example, García-Ramos et al.18 reported that the two-point
method is not only able to provide the outcomes of the F-V relationship during the leg cycle
ergometer exercise with a comparable reliability than the multiple-point method, but that the
outcomes of the two-point method were also highly valid and capable of detecting the specific
changes in the F-V relationship induced after a short-term sprint training program. A high
concurrent validity of the outcomes of the two-point method with respect to the multiple-point
method has also been reported for several exercises such as vertical jumps, BPT, cycling, bench
pull or the leg extension isokinetic exercise.1,17–19 Therefore, the results of this multicentre
reliability study bring additional support regarding the use of the two-point method as a quicker
and less prone to fatigue method of assessing the F-V relationship during the BPT exercise.
This study combined the data of 3 independent research studies into an a-posteriori
multicentre reliability study.12,17,22 The multicentre reliability study could be a viable approach
to more precisely determine the reliability of different fitness tests due to the possibility of
recruiting more subjects. Specifically, this study considered the data of 63 subjects, which
represents a sample size considerably larger than the used in previous studies related to the
testing procedure of the F-V relationship (n < 20).1,4,12,13,26,27 Note that a minimum of 50
subjects have been recommended when conducting reliability studies in sports science,28 but
this sample size is rarely accomplished. In addition, another advantage of the multicentre
reliability study could be an enhanced generalizability of the findings in comparison with
single-centre reliability studies, since the multicentre study may allow slight variations of the
testing procedures. In this regard, and despite the slight differences in the testing procedures of
the 3 independent studies (see Methods section for details), we observed that in the 3 studies
the least reliable outcome of the F-V relationship was the F-V slope, followed by V0, while F0
and Pmax showed the highest reliability. Similarly, when the reliability of the two-point and 4-
loads multiple-point methods were compared independently for each study, 10 out of 12
comparisons favoured the two-point method (CVratio > 1.15), while the Pmax obtained in the
study of Sreckovic et al.12 was the only case in which the 4-loads multiple-point method
provided a higher reliability (CVratio = 1.45). However, the low sample size of the study
conducted by Sreckovic et al.12 (n = 12) should be considered as a limiting factor. This result
emphasizes that the multicentre reliability study could be a viable approach to avoid wrong
conclusions about the reliability of fitness tests by incrementing the statistical power. Finally,
it should be noted that to simplify the testing procedure, the friction force of the Smith machine
barbell was not added for force computations. Therefore, although the magnitude of the F-V
slope should not differ when the friction force is considered, it is important to note that the no
inclusion of the friction force underestimates the actual values of F0, V0 and Pmax.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The comparable reliability of the two-point method and the 6-loads multiple-point
method places the two-point method as a practical alternative for practitioners that need to
evaluate multiple subjects within a brief period of time. The two-point method is not only a
more time efficient procedure, but it is also expected to reduce fatigue by decreasing the
number of loads tested. Note that the fatigue induced by a multiple-load testing procedure could
underestimate the outcomes of the F-V relationship, while the fatigue caused by the testing
procedure could also be counterproductive when a training session is programed just after the
testing procedure. Finally, the results of this study also highlight that 2 distant pairs of loads
should be applied to maximize the accuracy of the F-V relationship assessed through the two-
point method.
CONCLUSIONS
The higher reliability of the two-point method (20–70% of 1RM) compared to the 4-
loads multiple-point method (30–40–50–60% of 1RM) suggests that the distance between
experimental points is more important to obtain a reproducible F-V relationship than the
number of experimental points. No meaningful differences in the reliability of the F-V
relationship were observed between the two-point method and the 6-loads multiple-point
method (20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM), suggesting that adding intermediate points to the 2
most distant loads does not substantially improve the reliability of the F-V relationship.
Therefore, for a reliable assessment of the F-V relationship, coaches and researchers should be
more concerned about the distance between the lightest and the heaviest loads than about the
number of different loads tested.

REFERENCES
1. Grbic V, Djuric S, Knezevic O, Mirkov D, Nedeljkovic A, Jaric S. A novel two-velocity

method for elaborate isokinetic testing of knee extensors. Int J Sports Med.
2017;38(10):741-746.
2. García-Ramos A, Jaric S, Padial P, Feriche B. Force-velocity relationship of upper body
muscles: Traditional versus ballistic bench press. J Appl Biomech. 2016;32(2):178-185.
3. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A, Morin JB. Optimal force-velocity profile
in ballistic movements-Altius: Citius or Fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc.

2012;44(2):313-322.
4. Lemaire A, Ripamonti M, Ritz M, Rahmani A. Agreement of three vs. eight isokinetic
preset velocities to determine knee extensor torque- and power-velocity relationships.
Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2014;22(1):1-7.
5. Jaric S. Force-velocity relationship of muscles performing multi-joint maximum
performance tasks. Int J Sports Med. 2015;36(9):699-704.
6. Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, Brughelli M, Gimenez P, Morin J. Force-velocity
profile: Imbalance determination and effect on lower limb ballistic performance. Int J
Sports Med. 2014;35(6):505-510.
7. Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Brughelli M, Morin JB. Effectiveness of an
individualized training based on force-velocity profiling during jumping. Front
Physiol. 2017;7:677.
8. Mendiguchia J, Samozino P, Brughelli M, Schmikli S, Morin J-B, Mendez-Villanueva
A. Progression of mechanical properties during on-field sprint running after returning
to sports from a hamstring muscle injury in soccer players. Int J Sports Med.
2014;35(8):690-695.
9. Mendiguchia J, Edouard P, Samozino P, et al. Field monitoring of sprinting power-
force-velocity profile before, during and after hamstring injury: two case reports. J
Sports Sci. 2016;34(6):535-541.
10. García-Ramos A, Jaric S. Two-point method: a quick and fatigue-free procedure for
assessment of muscle mechanical capacities and the one-repetition maximum. Strength
Cond J. 2018;40(2):54-66.
11. Picerno P. Good practice rules for the assessment of the force-velocity relationship in
isoinertial resistance exercises. Asian J Sports Med. 2017; 8(3): e15590.
12. Sreckovic S, Cuk I, Djuric S, Nedeljkovic A, Mirkov D, Jaric S. Evaluation of force-
velocity and power-velocity relationship of arm muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2015;115(8):1779-1787.
13. Cuk I, Markovic M, Nedeljkovic A, Ugarkovic D, Kukolj M, Jaric S. Force-velocity
relationship of leg extensors obtained from loaded and unloaded vertical jumps. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2014;114(8):1703-1714.
14. Zivkovic MZ, Djuric S, Cuk I, Suzovic D, Jaric S. Muscle force-velocity relationships
observed in four different functional tests. J Hum Kinet. 2017;56:39-49.
15. García-Ramos A, Feriche B, Pérez-Castilla A, Padial P, Jaric S. Assessment of leg
muscles mechanical capacities: Which jump, loading, and variable type provide the
most reliable outcomes? Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(6):690-698.
16. Jaric S. Two-load method for distinguishing between muscle force, velocity, and
power-producing capacities. Sports Med. 2016;46(11):1585-1589.
17. Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S, Feriche B, Padial P, García-Ramos A. Evaluation of muscle

mechanical capacities through the two-load method: optimization of the load selection.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1245-1253.
18. García-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Pérez-Castilla A, Morales-Artacho A, Jaric S. Selective
changes on the mechanical capacities of lower body muscles after a cycle ergometer
sprint training against heavy and light resistances. Int J Sport Physiol Perform.
2018;13(3):290-297.
19. Zivkovic MZ, Djuric S, Cuk I, Suzovic D, Jaric S. A simple method for assessment of
muscle force, velocity, and power producing capacities from functional movement
tasks. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(13):1287-1293.
20. Dobrijevic S, Ilic V, Djuric S, Jaric S. Force-velocity relationship of leg muscles
assessed with motorized treadmill tests: Two-velocity method. Gait Posture.
2017;56:60-64.
21. García-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Morales-Artacho A, Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S. Optimal
resistive forces for maximizing the reliability of leg muscles capacities tested on a cycle
ergometer. J Appl Biomech. 2018;34(1):47-52.
22. García-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero F, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas F, Haff G. Mean velocity
vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity: which variable determines bench press
relative load with higher reliability? J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1273-1279.
23. James LP, Roberts LA, Haff GG, Kelly VG, Beckman EM. Validity and reliability of
a portable isometric mid-thigh clean pull. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(5):1378-1386.
24. Fulton SK, Pyne D, Hopkins W, Burkett B. Variability and progression in competitive
performance of Paralympic swimmers. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(5):535-539.
25. Hopkins W. Calculations for Reliability (Excel Spreedsheet). 2000. Available from:
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/relycalc.html%7B#%7Dexcel. Accessed 19
June 2018.
26. Jímenez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Pareja-Blanco F, et al. Validity of a simple method for
measuring force-velocity-power profile in countermovement jump. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2017;12(1):36-43.
27. Rahmani A, Samozino P, Morin J-B, Morel B. A simple method for assessing upper
limb force-velocity profile in bench press. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2018;13(2):200-207.
28. Hopkins W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med.
2000;30(1):1-15.
Figure 1. Force-velocity relationships obtained by a representative subject through the 6-loads

multiple-point method (straight line; the 6 loads were used), 4-loads multiple-point method
(line with long dashes; the 4 intermediate loads were used), and two-point method (dotted line;
only the lightest and heaviest loads were used). The regression equations and the Pearson's
correlation coefficients (r) are depicted. The r coefficient is not depicted for the two-point
method because a line drawn through two point always provide a r = 1.
Figure 2. Comparison of the reliability of the outcomes of the force-velocity relationship

between the two-point method and the 4-loads multiple-point method (upper panel), and
between the two-point method and the 6-loads multiple-point method (lower panel).
Meaningful differences in reliability was identified as a CVratio higher than 1.15.
CV, coefficient of variation; F0, maximum force; V0, maximum velocity; Pmax, maximum
power.
Table 1. Characteristics of the subjects of each independent study included in the present one.
Study n Age (years) Body height (cm) Body mass (kg) 1RM (kg)
García-Ramos et al.21 29 21.2 ± 3.8 178. 2 ± 7.3 72.1 ± 7.2 77.0 ± 12.4
Pérez-Castilla et al.16 22 21.7 ± 3.0 176.3 ± 5.2 74.9 ± 7.5 82.9 ± 12.2
Sreckovic et al.11 12 21.4 ± 2.9 183.4 ± 7.4 78.0 ± 7.6 100.3 ± 10.4
Multicentre study 63 21.4 ± 3.4 178.6 ± 6.6 74.3 ± 7.4 83.4 ± 12.0
Mean ± standard deviation. 1RM, 1-repetition maximum measured during the concentric-only bench press
exercise.
Table 2. Reliability of the force-velocity relationship parameters obtained from each

independent study as well as from the multicentre reliability study from the two-point method,
4-loads multiple-point method and 6-loads multiple-point method.
Study F-V method Parameter Session 1 Session 2 SEM CV (95% CI)

F0 (N) 774 ± 88 772 ± 91 25.3 3.28 (2.60, 4.43)
V0 (ms-1) 2.40 ± 0.25 2.40 ± 0.21 0.13 5.54 (4.39, 7.49)
Two-point
Pmax (W) 466 ± 80 465 ± 74 21.1 4.54 (3.60, 6.14)
a (Nsm-1) 324 ± 42 323 ± 43 28.4 8.77 (6.96, 11.9)
F0 (N) 743 ± 89 749 ± 82 36.5 4.89 (3.88, 6.62)

García-Ramos 4-loads V0 (ms-1) 2.32 ± 0.34 2.27 ± 0.24 0.20 8.64 (6.85, 11.7)
et al.21 multiple-point Pmax (W) 431 ± 76 426 ± 72 23.1 5.38 (4.27, 7.28)
a (Nsm-1) 327 ± 66 333 ± 41 42.1 12.8 (10.1, 17.2)
F0 (N) 747 ± 80 748 ± 86 25.3 3.38 (2.69, 4.58)
6-loads V0 (ms-1) 2.36 ± 0.25 2.35 ± 0.21 0.13 5.44 (4.32, 7.36)
multiple-point Pmax (W) 443 ± 74 441 ± 70 18.6 4.21 (3.34, 5.69)
a (Nsm-1) 319 ± 42 320 ± 40 27.8 8.71 (6.92, 11.8)
F0 (N) 735 ± 131 720 ± 112 32.4 4.45 (3.42, 6.36)
V0 (ms-1) 2.86 ± 0.22 2.83 ± 0.37 0.18 6.28 (4.83, 8.97)
Two-point
Pmax (W) 526 ± 96 509 ± 98* 24.1 4.67 (3.59, 6.67)
a (Nsm-1) 259 ± 56 259 ± 53 23.4 9.02 (6.94, 12.9)
F0 (N) 721 ± 110 705 ± 109 31.7 4.45 (3.42, 6.36)
Pérez-Castilla 4-loads V0 (ms-1) 2.81 ± 0.30 2.91 ± 0.52 0.23 8.18 (6.30, 11.7)
et al.16 multiple-point Pmax (W) 508 ± 97 509 ± 102 29.5 5.79 (4.46, 8.28)
a (Nsm-1) 259 ± 46 251 ± 64 28.6 11.2 (8.63, 12.9)
F0 (N) 726 ± 122 714 ± 110 30.3 4.21 (3.24, 6.01)
6-loads V0 (ms-1) 2.82 ± 0.22 2.83 ± 0.38 0.17 6.03 (4.64, 8.61)
a (Nsm-1) 259 ± 51 257 ± 53 22.2 8.59 (6.61, 12.3)
F0 (N) 877 ± 43 873 ± 41 24.4 2.79 (1.98, 4.74)
V0 (ms-1) 3.60 ± 0.51 3.57 ± 0.44 0.17 4.73 (3.35, 8.02)
Two-point
Pmax (W) 792 ± 130 780 ± 113 27.2 3.46 (2.45, 5.87)
-1 248 ± 33 248 ± 33 17.4 7.03 (4.98, 11.9)
a (Nsm )
F0 (N) 812 ± 64 819 ± 67 29.0 3.55 (2.51, 6.03)
Sreckovic et 4-loads V0 (ms-1) 3.68 ± 0.50 3.55 ± 0.38 0.19 5.21 (3.69, 8.85)
al.11 multiple-point Pmax (W) 746 ± 112 727 ± 102 17.6 2.39 (1.69, 4.06)
a (Nsm-1) 225 ± 37 233 ± 30 19.3 8.42 (5.97, 14.3)
F0 (N) 837 ± 52 835 ± 47 22.7 2.72 (1.93, 4.62)
6-loads V0 (ms-1) 3.61 ± 0.50 3.55 ± 0.40 0.15 4.14 (2.94, 7.04)
a (Nsm-1) 235 ± 33 238 ± 26 15.4 6.50 (4.60, 11.0)
F0 (N) 780 ± 110 773 ± 106 27.8 3.58 (3.04, 4.34)
V0 (ms-1) 2.79 ± 0.54 2.77 ± 0.54 0.16 5.58 (4.74, 6.76)
Two-point
Pmax (W) 549 ± 154 540 ± 148* 23.6 4.33 (3.69, 5.26)
a (Nsm-1) 287 ± 57 286 ± 56 24.5 8.57 (7.29, 10.4)
F0 (N) 749 ± 97 747 ± 97 33.8 4.53 (3.85, 5.49)
Multicentre 4-loads V0 (ms-1) 2.75 ± 0.62 2.73 ± 0.62 0.22 7.85 (6.68, 9.52)
study multiple-point Pmax (W) 518 ± 147 512 ± 142 24.8 4.81 (4.10, 5.84)
a (Nsm-1) 284 ± 69 285 ± 65 34.1 12.0 (10.2, 14.6)
F0 (N) 757 ± 100 753 ± 98 26.6 3.53 (3.00, 4.28)
6-loads V0 (ms-1) 2.76 ± 0.55 2.75 ± 0.55 0.15 5.32 (4.52, 6.45)
a (Nsm-1) 282 ± 56 282 ± 55 23.6 8.38 (7.13, 10.2)
*, significant differences with respect to session 1. F0, maximum force; V0, maximum velocity; a, force-velocity
slope; Pmax, maximum power; SEM, standard error of measurement; CV, coefficient of variation; 95% CI, 95%
confidence interval

2018 - Garcia Slobdan Optimization of The Force-Velocity Relationship in Bench Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 - Garcia Slobdan Optimization of The Force-Velocity Relationship in Bench Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Optimization of the Force-Velocity Relationship Obtained From the Bench Press Throw Exercise: An A-Posteriori

Multicentre Reliability Study” by García-Ramos A, Jaric S

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

Section: Original Investigation

Authors: Amador García-Ramos1,2 and Slobodan Jaric3,4,5

Affiliations: 1Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences,

Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Acceptance Date: August 1, 2018

©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Optimization of the force-velocity relationship obtained from the bench press

Submission type: Original investigation

Authors: Amador García-Ramos,1,2 and Slobodan Jaric3,4,5

Preferred running head: Multicentre reliability study of the F-V profile

Abstract word count: 252

Text-only word count: 3134

40–50–60% of 1RM), and (III) 6-loads multiple-point method (20–30–40–50–60–70% of

be recommended for a quicker assessment of the F-V relationship.

main outcomes should be highly reliable.

of the application of multiple (at least 4) loads (referred to as “multiple-point method”).10,11

1RM) and a multiple-point method based on 4 proximal loads (30–40–50–60% of 1RM). In

method that considered the data of the 6 loads (20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM). We

by the University of Granada or University of Belgrade Institutional Review Boards.

An a-posteriori multicentre reliability study was conducted to elucidate whether the

loads multiple-point method (≈ 20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM). The data of 1 subject from

The 3 studies were conducted according to similar procedures.12,17,22 Subjects were

Measurement equipment and data analysis

Murcia, Spain). Displacement-time or velocity-time data were recorded at a frequency of 1,000

multiple-point method (≈ 30–40–50–60% of 1RM), and (III) 6-loads multiple-point method (≈

(V-intercept; V0 = F0/a) and Pmax (Pmax = (F0∙V0)/4).

by means of a custom spreadsheet.25 Alpha was set at 0.05.

multicentre reliability study (CV = 12.0%).

multiple-point method, while no meaningful differences in reliability were generally observed

point method than from the 6-loads multiple-point method.

The data of 3 independent studies were combined into an a-posteriori multicentre

for the multiple-point method.

reliability of the F-V relationship.

In line with our second hypothesis no meaningful differences in reliability were

reliability study could be an enhanced generalizability of the findings in comparison with

number of experimental points. No meaningful differences in the reliability of the F-V

method (20–30–40–50–60–70% of 1RM), suggesting that adding intermediate points to the 2

number of different loads tested.

1. Grbic V, Djuric S, Knezevic O, Mirkov D, Nedeljkovic A, Jaric S. A novel two-velocity

in ballistic movements-Altius: Citius or Fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc.

17. Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S, Feriche B, Padial P, García-Ramos A. Evaluation of muscle

Figure 1. Force-velocity relationships obtained by a representative subject through the 6-loads

Figure 2. Comparison of the reliability of the outcomes of the force-velocity relationship

Table 2. Reliability of the force-velocity relationship parameters obtained from each

Study F-V method Parameter Session 1 Session 2 SEM CV (95% CI)

F0 (N) 743 ± 89 749 ± 82 36.5 4.89 (3.88, 6.62)

You might also like