Effect of the Stretch-Shortening Cycle on the Relationship Between Maximum Number of Repetitions and Lifting Velocity During the Prone Bench Pull.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1177/19417381241286519
Sergio Miras-Moreno, Amador García-Ramos, Jonathon Weakley, Francisco J Rojas-Ruiz, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla
{"title":"Effect of the Stretch-Shortening Cycle on the Relationship Between Maximum Number of Repetitions and Lifting Velocity During the Prone Bench Pull.","authors":"Sergio Miras-Moreno, Amador García-Ramos, Jonathon Weakley, Francisco J Rojas-Ruiz, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla","doi":"10.1177/19417381241286519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The fastest mean (MV<sub>fastest</sub>) and peak (PV<sub>fastest</sub>) 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.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Goodness-of-fit was very high and comparable for concentric-only (RTF-MV<sub>fastest</sub>, <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.97; RTF-PV<sub>fastest</sub>, <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.98) and eccentric-concentric (RTF-MV<sub>fastest</sub>, <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.98; RTF-PV<sub>fastest</sub>, <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 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 (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> ≥ 0.143). However, velocity values associated with different RTFs were comparable for the multiple- and 2-point methods (<i>F</i> ≤ 2.4; <i>P</i> ≥ 0.13).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Practitioners only need to monitor the MV<sub>fastest</sub> or PV<sub>fastest</sub> 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<sub>fastest</sub> or PV<sub>fastest</sub> of the set to estimate RTF against a given absolute load.</p>","PeriodicalId":54276,"journal":{"name":"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach","volume":" ","pages":"19417381241286519"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19417381241286519","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The fastest mean (MVfastest) and peak (PVfastest) 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.

Hypothesis: 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.

Study design: Cross-sectional study.

Level of evidence: Level 3.

Methods: 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.

Results: Goodness-of-fit was very high and comparable for concentric-only (RTF-MVfastest, r2 = 0.97; RTF-PVfastest, r2 = 0.98) and eccentric-concentric (RTF-MVfastest, r2 = 0.98; RTF-PVfastest, r2 = 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 (R2 ≥ 0.143). However, velocity values associated with different RTFs were comparable for the multiple- and 2-point methods (F ≤ 2.4; P ≥ 0.13).

Conclusion: 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.

Clinical relevance: Practitioners only need to monitor the MVfastest or PVfastest 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 MVfastest or PVfastest of the set to estimate RTF against a given absolute load.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
拉伸-缩短周期对俯卧卧推最大重复次数与提举速度之间关系的影响。
背景:一组动作中最快的平均速度(MVfastest)和峰值速度(PVfastest)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:研究设计:横断面研究:研究设计:横断面研究:证据等级:3级:在确定俯卧位卧拉(PBP)1-重复最大值(1RM)后,23 名接受过阻力训练的男性参与者随机进行了 2 次训练(每次 PBP 锻炼 1 次),包括针对 3 种相对负荷(60%-80%-70%1RM)的单组 RTF。采用多点法(60%-80%-70%1RM)和两点法(60%-80%1RM)构建了个性化的 RTF-速度关系:仅同心(RTF-MVfastest,r2 = 0.97;RTF-PVfastest,r2 = 0.98)和偏心-同心(RTF-MVfastest,r2 = 0.98;RTF-PVfastest,r2 = 0.99)PBP 运动的拟合优度非常高,且具有可比性。与单纯同心PBP运动相比,偏心-同心运动中与不同RTF相关的速度值普遍较高,但这些差异显示出异方差性(R2≥0.143)。然而,多点法和两点法与不同 RTF 相关的速度值具有可比性(F ≤ 2.4;P ≥ 0.13):这些结果表明,加入 SSC 不会影响 RTF-速度关系的拟合优度,但这些关系应针对每种 PBP 运动(即仅同心和偏心-同心)具体确定。此外,两点法是估算 RTF 的一种快速且不费力的方法:练习者只需监测 2 组(两点法)或 3 组(多点法)失败时的 MVfastest 或 PVfastest 和 RTF,即可构建 RTF-速度关系。一旦建立了这些关系,教练员只需监测成套动作中的最高速或最低速,即可估算出在给定绝对负荷下的 RTF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach
Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
101
期刊介绍: Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach is an indispensable resource for all medical professionals involved in the training and care of the competitive or recreational athlete, including primary care physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, physical therapists, athletic trainers and other medical and health care professionals. Published bimonthly, Sports Health is a collaborative publication from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM), the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA), and the Sports Physical Therapy Section (SPTS). The journal publishes review articles, original research articles, case studies, images, short updates, legal briefs, editorials, and letters to the editor. Topics include: -Sports Injury and Treatment -Care of the Athlete -Athlete Rehabilitation -Medical Issues in the Athlete -Surgical Techniques in Sports Medicine -Case Studies in Sports Medicine -Images in Sports Medicine -Legal Issues -Pediatric Athletes -General Sports Trauma -Sports Psychology
期刊最新文献
Sex Differences in Youth and Young Adult Sport Training Patterns, Specialization, and Return to Sport Durations. A Narrative Review of Softball Pitching Workload and Pitch Counts in Relationship to Injury. A Novel Approach for Monitoring Training Load and Wellness in Women's College Gymnastics. Could Motor Imagery Training Provide a Novel Load Management Solution for Athletes? Recommendations for Sport Medicine and Performance Practitioners. Small-Sided-Game-Induced Mechanical Load in Adolescent Soccer: The Need for Care and Consideration for Athlete Preservation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1