Sex and Equipment Impact on Lifting Velocity and the Maximum Repetitions in Bench Press

Abstract

This study investigated how equipment and sex affect the prediction accuracy of the maximum number of repetitions performed to failure (RTF) using the fastest mean velocity of the set (MV_fastest). Sixteen men and twelve women completed four sessions (two using free-weight equipment and two sessions using the Smith machine). Each session involved three sets of repetitions to failure against the 65%, 75%, and 85% of the one-repetition maximum, interspersed by 10-min of rest. The goodness-of-fit of the individualized RTF-MV_fastest relationships was comparable between both equipment types and sexes (P≥0.510). Moreover, there were not significant differences in the MV_fastest associated with RTF between equipment types (P≥0.258). However, the MV_fastest associated with RTF was higher for men than for women in repetitions 6 to 15 (P≤0.043; ES≥0.69). In addition, the absolute errors when predicting RTF showed no significant differences between equipment types and loads (P<0.444). Specifically, these RTF estimates were within an acceptable range for men (<2 repetitions), but not for women (≥2 repetitions) (main effect of sex: P≤0.018; ES≥0.58). These findings suggest that individualized RTF-MV_fastest equations estimate the RTF with an acceptable precision in men during bench press exercises in both equipment types but exhibit lower precision for women.

Keywords

exercise prescription - exercise monitoring - resistance training - strength training - velocity-based training

• References

• 1 Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: a review of the acute programme variables. Sports Med 2005; 35: 841-851
• 2 Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 674-688
• 3 Niewiadomski W, Laskowska D, Gąsiorowska A. et al. Determination and prediction of one repetition maximum (1RM): Safety considerations. J Hum Kinet 2008; 19: 109-120
• 4 Wood TM, Maddalozzo GF, Harter RA. Accuracy of seven equations for predicting 1-RM performance of apparently healthy, sedentary older adults. Meas Phys Educ Med 2002; 6: 67-94
• 5 García-Ramos A, Haff GG, Pestaña-Melero FL. et al. Feasibility of the 2-point method for determining the 1-repetition maximum in the bench press exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 474-481
• 6 Rodríguez-Rosell D, Yáñez-García JM, Sánchez-Medina L. et al. Relationship between velocity loss and repetitions in reserve in the bench press and back squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 2537-2547
• 7 Pelland JC, Robinson ZP, Remmert JF. et al. Methods for controlling and reporting resistance training proximity to failure: Current issues and future directions. Sports Med 2022; 52: 1461-1472
• 8 Refalo MC, Helms ER, Hamilton DL. et al. Towards an improved understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A scoping review. J Sports Sci 2022; 40: 1369-1391
• 9 Pérez-Castilla A, Suzovic D, Domanovic A. et al. Validity of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35: 1800-1808
• 10 García-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Feriche B. et al. Prediction of the maximum number of repetitions and repetitions in reserve from barbell velocity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 353-359
• 11 Miras-Moreno S, Pérez-Castilla A, García-Ramos A. Lifting velocity as a predictor of the maximum number of repetitions that can be performed to failure during the prone bench pull exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2022; 17: 1213-1221
• 12 Jukic I, Helms ER, McGuigan MR. The fastest repetition in a set predicts the number of repetitions completed to failure during resistance training: The impact of individual characteristics. Physiol Behav 2023; 265: 114158
• 13 Haff GG. Roundtable discussion: Machines versus free weights. Strength Cond J 2000; 22: 18
• 14 Heidel KA, Novak ZJ, Dankel SJ. Machines and free weight exercises: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing changes in muscle size, strength, and power. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2022; 61: 1061-1070
• 15 Miller RM, Freitas ED, Heishman AD. et al. Test-retest reliability between free weight and machine-based movement velocities. The J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 440-444
• 16 Miras-Moreno S, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas-Ruiz FJ. et al. Lifting velocity predicts the maximum number of repetitions to failure with comparable accuracy during the Smith machine and free-weight prone bench pull exercises. Heliyon 2023; 9: e19628
• 17 Pérez-Castilla A, Fernandes JF, Garcia-Ramos A. Validity of the bench press one-repetition maximum test predicted through individualized load-velocity relationship using different repetition criteria and minimal velocity thresholds. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2021; 29: 369-377
• 18 Jiménez-Alonso A, García-Ramos A, Cepero M. et al. Velocity performance feedback during the free-weight bench press testing procedure: an effective strategy to increase the reliability and one repetition maximum accuracy prediction. J Strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 1077-1083
• 19 Pérez-Castilla A, Miras-Moreno S, Janicijevic D. et al. Velocity loss is not an accurate predictor of the percentage of completed repetitions during the prone bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2023; 37: 1001-1008
• 20 Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A. et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3
• 21 Ronai P, Taber C. The barbell bench pull. ACSM’s Health Fit J 2021; 25: 33-36
• 22 García-Ramos A, Suzovic D, Pérez-Castilla A. The load-velocity profiles of three upper-body pushing exercises in men and women. Sports Biomech 2021; 20: 693-705
• 23 Nuzzo JL. Narrative review of sex differences in muscle strength, endurance, activation, size, fiber type, and strength training participation rates, preferences, Motivations, injuries, and neuromuscular adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 2023; 37: 494-536
• 24 Hernández-Belmonte A, Courel-Ibáñez J, Conesa-Ros E. et al. Level of effort: A reliable and practical alternative to the velocity-based approach for monitoring resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 2992-2999