Impact of Lifting Straps on the Relationship Between Maximum Repetitions to Failure and Lifting Velocity During the Prone Bench Pull Exercise.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Sergio Miras-Moreno, Amador García-Ramos, Francisco J Rojas-Ruiz, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla
{"title":"Impact of Lifting Straps on the Relationship Between Maximum Repetitions to Failure and Lifting Velocity During the Prone Bench Pull Exercise.","authors":"Sergio Miras-Moreno, Amador García-Ramos, Francisco J Rojas-Ruiz, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla","doi":"10.1177/19417381241235163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fastest mean (MV<sub>fastest</sub>) and peak (PV<sub>fastest</sub>) velocity of the set have been proposed to predict the maximum number of repetitions to failure (RTF) during the Smith machine prone bench pull (PBP) exercise.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Goodness-of-fit would be higher for individualized compared with generalized RTF-velocity relationships and comparable for both execution equipment conditions (with or without straps), and the MV<sub>fastest</sub> and PV<sub>fastest</sub> associated with each RTF would be comparable between execution equipment and prediction methods (multiple- vs 2-point method).</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 PBP 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 20 resistance-trained male athletes performed 2 sessions randomly, with and without lifting straps, consisting of single sets to failure against the same load sequence (60% to 80% to 70% 1RM). Generalized (pooling data from all subjects) and individualized (separately for each subject using multiple-point or 2-point methods) RTF-velocity relationships were constructed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were always stronger than generalized RFT-velocity relationships, but comparable with (MV<sub>fastest</sub>: <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.87-0.99]; PV<sub>fastest</sub>: <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.88-1.00]) and without (MV<sub>fastest</sub>: <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.82-1.00; PV<sub>fastest</sub>: <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.89-0.99]) lifting straps. The velocity values associated with each RTF were comparable between execution equipment (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.22), but higher for the multiple-point compared with the 2-point method (<i>P</i> < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of lifting straps during the Smith machine PBP exercise does not affect the goodness-of-fit of the RTF-velocity relationships or the velocity values associated with different RTFs. However, caution should be exercised when using different methods.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The benefits of the RTF-velocity relationships can be extrapolated when using lifting straps, and the 2-point method can also be used as a quick and more fatigue-free procedure. Nevertheless, it is imperative for coaches to ensure that these relationships are reflective of fatigue experienced during training.</p>","PeriodicalId":54276,"journal":{"name":"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach","volume":" ","pages":"332-341"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11569576/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19417381241235163","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Fastest mean (MVfastest) and peak (PVfastest) velocity of the set have been proposed to predict the maximum number of repetitions to failure (RTF) during the Smith machine prone bench pull (PBP) exercise.

Hypothesis: Goodness-of-fit would be higher for individualized compared with generalized RTF-velocity relationships and comparable for both execution equipment conditions (with or without straps), and the MVfastest and PVfastest associated with each RTF would be comparable between execution equipment and prediction methods (multiple- vs 2-point method).

Study design: Cross-sectional study.

Level of evidence: Level 3.

Methods: After determining the PBP 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 20 resistance-trained male athletes performed 2 sessions randomly, with and without lifting straps, consisting of single sets to failure against the same load sequence (60% to 80% to 70% 1RM). Generalized (pooling data from all subjects) and individualized (separately for each subject using multiple-point or 2-point methods) RTF-velocity relationships were constructed.

Results: Individualized RTF-velocity relationships were always stronger than generalized RFT-velocity relationships, but comparable with (MVfastest: r2 = 0.87-0.99]; PVfastest: r2 = 0.88-1.00]) and without (MVfastest: r2 = 0.82-1.00; PVfastest: r2 = 0.89-0.99]) lifting straps. The velocity values associated with each RTF were comparable between execution equipment (P ≥ 0.22), but higher for the multiple-point compared with the 2-point method (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: The use of lifting straps during the Smith machine PBP exercise does not affect the goodness-of-fit of the RTF-velocity relationships or the velocity values associated with different RTFs. However, caution should be exercised when using different methods.

Clinical relevance: The benefits of the RTF-velocity relationships can be extrapolated when using lifting straps, and the 2-point method can also be used as a quick and more fatigue-free procedure. Nevertheless, it is imperative for coaches to ensure that these relationships are reflective of fatigue experienced during training.

在俯卧拉伸运动中,提拉带对最大重复失败次数和提拉速度之间关系的影响。
背景:有人提出用一组动作的最快平均速度(MVfastest)和峰值速度(PVfastest)来预测史密斯机俯卧台上拉(PBP)练习中的最大失败重复次数(RTF):假设:个体化的 RTF-速度关系的拟合优度将高于一般化的 RTF-速度关系,并且在两种执行设备条件下(有带或无带)具有可比性,与每个 RTF 相关的 MVfastest 和 PVfastest 在执行设备和预测方法(多点法与两点法)之间具有可比性:研究设计:横断面研究:证据等级:3 级:在确定 PBP 1 次重复最大值(1RM)后,20 名接受过阻力训练的男性运动员随机进行了 2 次训练,分别使用和不使用提拉带,以相同的负荷顺序(60% 至 80% 至 70% 1RM)进行单组训练直至失败。结果表明:RTF-速度关系的构建有广义的(将所有受试者的数据汇总)和个性化的(使用多点或两点法对每个受试者分别进行)两种:结果:个体化的 RTF-速度关系总是强于广义的 RFT-速度关系,但在使用(MVfastest:r2 = 0.87-0.99];PVfastest:r2 = 0.88-1.00])和不使用(MVfastest:r2 = 0.82-1.00;PVfastest:r2 = 0.89-0.99])提升带的情况下具有可比性。与每种 RTF 相关的速度值在不同执行设备之间具有可比性(P ≥ 0.22),但多点与两点法相比更高(P < 0.01):结论:在史密斯机PBP练习中使用提拉带不会影响RTF-速度关系的拟合度,也不会影响与不同RTF相关的速度值。然而,在使用不同方法时应谨慎:临床相关性:在使用提拉带时,可以推断出RTF-速度关系的益处,而两点法也可作为一种快速且更无疲劳感的方法。不过,教练员必须确保这些关系能够反映训练过程中的疲劳情况。
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 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信