RESEARCH NOTE
PREDICTING THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC STRENGTH IN
BENCH PRESS: THE HIGH PRECISION OF THE BAR
VELOCITY APPROACH
IRINEU LOTURCO,1,2 RONALDO KOBAL,1 JOSÉ E. MORAES,3 KATIA KITAMURA,1 CÉSAR C. CAL ABAD,1
LUCAS A. PEREIRA,1 AND FÁBIO Y. NAKAMURA1,4
1
NAR—Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; 2Department of Mechatronics Engineering, University of Sa˜o
Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; 3CBRu—Brazilian Rugby Confederation, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; and 4State University of Londrina, Londrina,
Parana´, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Loturco, I, Kobal, R, Moraes, JE, Kitamura, K, Cal Abad, CC,
Pereira, LA, and Nakamura, FY. Predicting the maximum
dynamic strength in bench press: the high precision of the
bar velocity approach. J Strength Cond Res 31(4): 1127–
1131, 2017—The aim of this study was to determine the
force-velocity relationship and test the possibility of determin-
ing the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in “free weight” and
Smith machine bench presses. Thirty-six male top-level ath-
letes from 3 different sports were submitted to a standardized
1RM bench press assessment (free weight or Smith machine,
in randomized order), following standard procedures encom-
passing lifts performed at 40–100% of 1RM. The mean pro-
pulsive velocity (MPV) was measured in all attempts. A linear
regression was performed to establish the relationships
between bar velocities and 1RM percentages. The actual
and predicted 1RM for each exercise were compared using
a paired t-test. Although the Smith machine 1RM was higher
(10% difference) than the free weight 1RM, in both cases the
actual and predicted values did not differ. In addition, the
linear relationship between MPV and percentage of 1RM
(coefficient of determination $95%) allow determination of
training intensity based on the bar velocity. The linear relation-
ships between the MPVs and the relative percentages of 1RM
throughout the entire range of loads enable coaches to use
the MPV to accurately monitor their athletes on a daily basis
and accurately determine their actual 1RM without the need
to perform standard maximum dynamic strength assessments.
KEY WORDS performance tests, elite athletes, training
intensity, upper-body strength, mean propulsive power
Address correspondence to Irineu Loturco, irineu.loturco@terra.com.br.
31(4)/1127–1131
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
T
he bench press is one of the most commonly pre-
scribed exercises in strength power training settings
(12). To some extent, this popularity might be
related to its user-friendly characteristics (i.e., sim-
plicity of implementation) and proven effectiveness in increas-
ing functional upper-body performance (4). Actually, several
studies have reported the efficacy of this exercise in promoting
positive neuromuscular adaptations in athletes from different
training backgrounds and age categories (9).
Typically, bench press prescription is based on relative
intensities of the maximum dynamic strength assessment
(i.e., 1RM), which is frequently described as a very time-
consuming and critical procedure. Conversely, this “strength
training reference” has already been shown to be effective for
controlling the training intensity and evaluating athletic per-
formance (7). Therefore, seeking safer and simpler methods
for determining precise 1RM measures is of the utmost
importance in the field of sport science.
Recently, the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) has been
used to estimate the relative intensity of the strength training
and establish the velocity attained with the 1RM load (3).
Indeed, the very strong relationships (R2 . 0.95) between
the MPV and the distinct percentages of 1RM (3,8) enables
coaches to accurately predict maximum dynamic strength,
without exposing their athletes to the exhaustive and time-
consuming traditional 1RM assessments (2,8). For instance,
because of this “close linear force-velocity relation,” it is
possible to determine (with a precision of 96%) the 1RM
in the half-squat exercise and, notably, monitor fluctuations
in the strength levels of a given athlete on a daily basis (8).
Considering the popularity of the bench press and the
practicality of the velocity-based approach, it would be valu-
able to investigate whether this mechanical phenomenon is
also observed in this exercise. If this holds true, it would be
possible to determine the 1RM values and its respective
percentages also in bench press exercise, by using practical
and time-saving bar velocity measurements. Another impor-
tant aspect to investigate is whether elite athletes from different
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1127
 Bar Velocity in Bench Press

TABLE 1. Actual and predicted absolute 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine and free bench press
exercises, 1RM relative to body mass (1RM REL), and the bar mean propulsive velocity (MPV) during the 1RM test.*

Actual 1RM (kg) Predicted 1RM (kg) CV (%) 1RM REL (kg$kg21) 1RM MPV (m$s21)

Smith machine
Lower 104.2 6 14.8 103.1 6 15.5 1.37 1.25 6 0.07 0.16 6 0.04
Higher 131.9 6 15.4† 131.7 6 14.5† 0.86 1.51 6 0.10† 0.15 6 0.02
Total 118.1 6 20.5 117.4 6 20.7 1.12 1.38 6 0.16 0.15 6 0.03
Free
Lower 96.4 6 16.1 94.8 6 16.5 1.48 1.14 6 0.07 0.19 6 0.03
Higher 122.9 6 17.6† 122.0 6 18.2† 0.82 1.41 6 0.12† 0.18 6 0.02
Total 109.7 6 21.4 108.6 6 22.0 1.15 1.28 6 0.17 0.18 6 0.02

*CV = coefficient of variation calculated between the actual values of 1RM and the predicted values of 1RM; athletes were divided
into 2 groups, using a median split calculation, according to their maximum strength levels (i.e., higher and lower maximum strength
levels); total represents mean values for all subjects involved in the study.
†p # 0.05 in relation to “lower.”

sports disciplines, training backgrounds, and strength levels
may have their respective strength measures precisely pre-
dicted by this hypothetical relationship. Meanwhile the bench
press is normally executed using both Olympic barbells and
Smith machine equipment, it would be worth analyzing the
specific force-velocity profile of each exercise mode. Therefore,
the aims of this study were (a) to verify whether both exercise
modes (i.e., “free” or Smith machine bench presses) present
a linear relationship between their respective force and velocity
outputs, (b) to define the distinct relative loading intensities (%
of 1RM) for each exercise based on their respective values of
MPV, and (c) to examine the possibility of determining the
bench press 1RM using the MPV in athletes with different
strength levels and distinct training backgrounds.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Athletes attended the laboratory twice, with z1 week separat-
ing the visits. During each visit, they were submitted to a
standardized 1RM bench press assessment (free weight or Smith
machine, in randomized order). On both occasions, athletes
were requested to avoid strenuous exercises and beverages
containing caffeine or alcohol for 24 hours before testing.
Subjects
Thirty-six male top-level athletes from 3 different sports
(rugby union: n = 18, 24.7 6 4.7 years [range = 19.8 to
30.0 years], 181.6 6 7.5 cm, 97.4 6 10.2 kg; rugby sevens:
n = 8, 24.0 6 3.1 years [range = 20.3 to 28.8 years], 181.2 6
6.8 cm, 88.8 6 6.4 kg; and combat athletes [muay-thai and
taekwondo]: n = 10, 23.8 6 2.4 years [range = 20.7 to
29.0 years], 179 6 6.2 cm, 74.1 6 4.3 kg) took part in the
study. All participants signed an informed consent form, and
the study was approved by a local Ethics Committee.
Procedures
The free weight test was performed using an Olympic bar,
whereas the other test was performed in the Smith machine
(Hammer-Strength, Rosemont, IL, USA). In both cases, the

TABLE 2. Average bar mean propulsive velocity during the bench press exercise performed at a range of percentages
(%) of 1 repetition maximum.*

Smith machine bench press Free bench press

% of 1RM MPV (m$s21) % of 1RM MPV (m$s21)

43.5 6 3.23 1.08 6 0.10 45.8 6 2.08 1.01 6 0.09

54.2 6 2.57 0.92 6 0.06 54.5 6 3.07 0.87 6 0.07
64.2 6 2.64 0.72 6 0.08 64.3 6 2.33 0.72 6 0.09
75.1 6 2.40 0.55 6 0.05 75.1 6 2.53 0.58 6 0.08
85.3 6 3.18 0.39 6 0.07 85.5 6 2.84 0.38 6 0.07
94.6 6 2.45 0.24 6 0.06 94.6 6 2.48 0.26 6 0.05

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum; MPV = mean propulsive velocity.

the TM

1128 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Figure 1. Relationship between the bar mean propulsive velocities and distinct percentages of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine (A) and free
(B) bench press exercises.

testing procedures were adapted from the standard instruc-
tions proposed by Brown and Weir (1). After 5 minutes of
light running and smooth stretching, athletes performed 3
specific bench press warm-up sets. In the first set, subjects
performed 4 repetitions with 40% of the individually estimated
1RM; in the second, they performed 3 repetitions with 50% of
the individually estimated 1RM; in the third, they performed 2
repetitions with 60% of the individually estimated 1RM. A
3-minute interval was allowed between sets. Three minutes
after the warm-up, participants were allowed up to 5 attempts
(z70, 80, and 90% and [1–2 repetitions] .95% of the
estimated 1RM) to obtain the 1RM load (i.e., maximum
weight that could be lifted once using the proper tech-
nique), with a 3-minute interval between attempts (1). To
measure the bar velocity, a linear position transducer
(T-Force Measurement System; Ergotech Consulting S.L.,
Murcia, Spain) was attached to the bar. The validity and
reliability of this system were previously established, pre-
senting an associated error of ,0.25%, whereas displace-
ment was accurate to 60.5 mm (11). The best MPV for

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1129

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Bar Velocity in Bench Press
each percentage of 1RM load (including the warm-up sets)
was retained for analyses. A detailed description of the pro-
cedure can be found in the study by Loturco et al. (8).
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as mean 6 SD. Athletes were divided
into 2 groups, according to their relative 1RM values in each
exercise using a median split (i.e., lower and higher relative
1RM values). After testing the normality of data distribution
(Shapiro-Wilk test), a t-test for independent samples was
used to test for differences between groups. A linear regres-
sion was performed to establish the relationships between
bar velocities and the distinct 1RM percentages. The actual
(values obtained during the tests) and predicted 1RM (based
on the MPV at 1RM) for each exercise were compared using
a paired t-test. Level of significance was set at p # 0.05. The
coefficient of variation was used to express the degree of
accuracy of the predictive equation and calculated for indi-
vidual subjects and for each group of athletes.
RESULTS
Table 1 displays the 1RM (absolute and relative to body-mass)
data and the corresponding MPV, indicating that the pre-
dicted 1RM for both types of bench presses were not different
from their respective actual values. Regardless of the between-
group differences in the actual, predicted, and relative 1RM
values (p # 0.05), both groups presented the same bar velocity
at the maximum dynamic strength assessment, in both the
free and the Smith machine bench presses.
The average values of MPV (per percentage of 1RM) are
presented in Table 2. Figure 1 depicts the relationship
between the distinct percentages of 1RM (dependent vari-
able) and the MPV (independent variable), in both Smith
machine and free bench press exercises.
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to investigate the possibility of determining
the bench press 1RM values by using practical and time-
saving MPV measures. After examining the data collected
from 36 athletes with different strength levels, it is possible to
confirm that this variable can determine the 1RM with
a very high degree of precision ($95%), in both free and
Smith machine bench presses. Furthermore, the very close
relationships between bar velocity and the distinct 1RM
percentages enable coaches and sport scientists to define
and choose the appropriate strength training intensities by
using relative values of MPVs.
The strong relationships between MPV and the relative
intensities of the maximum dynamic strength in the Smith
machine bench press have already been reported in a pre-
vious investigation (3). However, this is the first study to
show that this variable can also be used to precisely predict
the 1RM in the free mode of bench press. Remarkably, these
relations showed to be very consistent and stable, and this
mechanical phenomenon is independent of the individuals’
the TM
1130 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
strength levels (Table 1). Although the Smith machine
equipment determines absolute perpendicular barbell dis-
placement (which is essential for very precise encoder meas-
urements), it seems that the “vertical trajectory” is not
affected during the free bench presses. Interestedly, for some
reason to be further clarified, the subjects can perform the
maximum lift in the Smith machine bench press at 0.15
m$s21, which represents a velocity z15% lower than the
MPV attained during the maximum attempts of free bench
presses (0.18 m$s21).
Despite this meaningful difference in the MPV at 1RM,
both modes of exercise presented a strict linear relationship
(R2 $ 0.95) between movement velocity and loading inten-
sity, evidencing that—for bench presses—the execution mode
(i.e., free or guided) does not disturb the very strong para-
metric correlation between force and velocity. Importantly,
this mechanical profile is capable of influencing the magni-
tude of the 1RM value achieved in each exercise type. Since
the MPV at maximum lifts is lower in the Smith machine, the
1RM value in this exercise mode is, on average, 10% higher
than the 1RM achieved during the free bench presses.
Therefore, the applied force is correspondingly greater dur-
ing the Smith machine attempts. Although the aspects
related to the specific transference of the neuromuscular ex-
ercises to sports performance should be considered for ade-
quate strength training prescription, sport scientists must be
aware of the implications of using movements with distinct
degrees of maximal force application (especially in top-level
sports, where small differences are critical to producing
meaningful results) (5). In this regard, coaches interested in
developing greater levels of maximum strength in elite ath-
letes are encouraged to frequently include in their training
routines the Smith machine bench press.
Another important reason to adopt the “velocity-based
approach” to assess and train professional athletes may be
directly related to its practical implementation. As previously
reported in a study examining the force-velocity relationship
in the half squat (8), the very close relationships between the
bench press velocity and the relative percentages of 1RM
throughout the entire range of loads enable coaches to use
the MPV to rapidly and precisely monitor their athletes on
a daily basis. Although we recognize that this method is
limited by the necessity of using an encoder, it should be
highlighted that this device is much less expensive than
other standardized force measurement equipment (i.e., force
plates), and investment in technology (and in human skills) is
a key feature of top-level sports. Considering these facts,
sport scientists can safely and frequently use the MPV to
control with a high degree of accuracy the variations in
the strength levels of their athletes and, accordingly, adapt
the strength training intensities whenever appropriate.
The findings presented herein are in accordance with
some previous studies (6,8,10,11) that have already described
the very close linear relationship that exists between force
and velocity. However, the notice that this parametric

relation is not dependent on the athletes’ backgrounds and
on the exercise mode (i.e., free or Smith machine bench
presses) may have a significant impact on the field of
strength and conditioning. From now on, coaches and sci-
entists involved in distinct sports specialties will have the
opportunity to use a very precise and safe manner to both
calculate and control the relative intensities of 1RM during
bench press executions.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Because the MPV can precisely determine the bench press
1RM and loading intensity, coaches are strongly encouraged
to use this applied measure to assess and train their athletes,
independent of their strength levels and training back-
grounds. Furthermore, sport professionals can use this
practical and time-saving approach to monitor the variations
in maximum strength levels on a daily basis. Importantly, to
avoid discrepancies between the predicted values of 1RM
and their respective percentages, coaches and sport scientists
must use the respective equations provided for each exercise
mode, to calculate the loads in both free and Smith machine
bench presses, with high degrees of accuracy. Further studies
should be conducted to determine whether these strong
relationships may be established in other traditional strength
exercises, such as deadlifts, rows, and shoulder presses.
REFERENCES
1. Brown, LE and Weir, JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I:
Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc
Physiol 4: 1–21, 2001.
2. Chapman, PP, Whitehead, JR, and Binkert, RH. The 225-1b reps-to-
fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 12: 258–
261, 1998.
3. Gonzales-Badillo, JJ and Sanchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med
31: 347–352, 2010.
4. Hoff, J and Almåsbakk, B. The effects of maximum strength training
on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female team-handball
players. J Strength Cond Res 9: 255–258, 1995.
5. Hopkins, WG. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance
test. Sportsci 8: 1–7, 2004.
6. Jidovtseff, B, Harris, NK, Crielaard, JM, and Cronin, JB. Using the
load-velocity relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength Cond Res
25: 267–270, 2011.
7. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR,
Newton, RU, Potteiger, J, Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, and Triplett-
McBride, T; College American of Sports M. American College of
Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364–380, 2002.
8. Loturco, I, Pereira, LA, Cal Abad, CC, Gil, S, Kitamura, K, Kobal, R,
and Nakamura, FY. Using the bar-velocity to predict the maximum
dynamic strength in the half-squat exercise. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 11: 697–700, 2016.
9. Mayhew, JL, Ball, TE, Arnold, MD, and Bowen, JC. Relative
muscular endurance performance as a predictor of bench press
strength in college men and women. J Strength Cond Res 6: 200–206,
1992.
10. Rontu, JP, Hannula, MI, Leskinen, S, Linnamo, V, and Salmi, JA.
One-repetition maximum bench press performance estimated with
a new accelerometer method. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2018–2025,
2010.
11. Sanchez-Medina, L, Perez, CE, and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ.
Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J
Sports Med 31: 123–129, 2010.
12. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. A comparison of successful and
unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 2056–2063, 2009.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 1131