自由重量卧式和倾斜卧推中的载荷-速度关系。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Diogo Luís Marques, Waleed Abohasel, Shaea Alkahtani, Mohammed Alsaeed, Norah K Algarzae, Henrique Pereira Neiva, Daniel Almeida Marinho, Mário Cardoso Marques
{"title":"自由重量卧式和倾斜卧推中的载荷-速度关系。","authors":"Diogo Luís Marques, Waleed Abohasel, Shaea Alkahtani, Mohammed Alsaeed, Norah K Algarzae, Henrique Pereira Neiva, Daniel Almeida Marinho, Mário Cardoso Marques","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-12166-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared (i) the load-velocity relationship in the free-weight horizontal (HBP) vs. incline bench press (IBP) and (ii) the differences between general vs. individual load-velocity equations to estimate the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the HBP and IBP. Thirty males (26 ± 3 years) performed four sessions: two dedicated to assessing the 1RM in the HBP and IBP, and another two to measure the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) reached against loads of 40-90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP. Individual load-velocity equations estimated the MPV from 30 to 100% 1RM in the HBP and IBP and the 1RM in each exercise. Furthermore, general equations estimated the 1RM in each exercise. The estimated MPV values associated with 30-100% 1RM in the HBP and IBP were compared. The coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) determined the reliability between the actual and estimated 1RM in both exercises. The results showed higher MPV in the HBP than in the IBP from 30 to 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). General and individual equations provided acceptable estimates of the 1RM when using loads from 70 to 90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP (CV < 10% and ICC > 0.80) but not 40-60% 1RM (CV > 10% and ICC < 0.80). This study shows that the load-velocity relationship differs between HBP and IBP, with higher velocities reached in HBP. Furthermore, individual and general equations seem reliable in estimating the 1RM when using relative loads from 70 to 90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"26203"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Load-velocity relationship in the free-weight horizontal and incline bench press.\",\"authors\":\"Diogo Luís Marques, Waleed Abohasel, Shaea Alkahtani, Mohammed Alsaeed, Norah K Algarzae, Henrique Pereira Neiva, Daniel Almeida Marinho, Mário Cardoso Marques\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-12166-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study compared (i) the load-velocity relationship in the free-weight horizontal (HBP) vs. incline bench press (IBP) and (ii) the differences between general vs. individual load-velocity equations to estimate the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the HBP and IBP. Thirty males (26 ± 3 years) performed four sessions: two dedicated to assessing the 1RM in the HBP and IBP, and another two to measure the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) reached against loads of 40-90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP. Individual load-velocity equations estimated the MPV from 30 to 100% 1RM in the HBP and IBP and the 1RM in each exercise. Furthermore, general equations estimated the 1RM in each exercise. The estimated MPV values associated with 30-100% 1RM in the HBP and IBP were compared. The coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) determined the reliability between the actual and estimated 1RM in both exercises. The results showed higher MPV in the HBP than in the IBP from 30 to 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). General and individual equations provided acceptable estimates of the 1RM when using loads from 70 to 90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP (CV < 10% and ICC > 0.80) but not 40-60% 1RM (CV > 10% and ICC < 0.80). This study shows that the load-velocity relationship differs between HBP and IBP, with higher velocities reached in HBP. Furthermore, individual and general equations seem reliable in estimating the 1RM when using relative loads from 70 to 90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"26203\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274453/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-12166-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-12166-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了(i)自由重量卧式(HBP)与倾斜卧推(IBP)的载荷-速度关系,以及(ii)一般载荷-速度方程与个人载荷-速度方程之间的差异,以估计HBP和IBP的单次重复最大值(1RM)。30名男性(26±3岁)进行了四次试验:两次用于评估HBP和IBP中的1RM,另外两次用于测量HBP和IBP中40-90% 1RM负荷时达到的平均推进速度(MPV)。单独的载荷-速度方程估计在HBP和IBP中MPV从30%到100% 1RM,以及每次练习中的1RM。此外,一般方程估计了每个练习中的1RM。比较HBP和IBP中与30-100% 1RM相关的估计MPV值。变异系数(CV)和类内相关系数(ICC)决定了两个练习中实际和估计的1RM之间的信度。结果显示,HBP的MPV高于IBP,在30 - 80% 1RM (p 0.80),而不是40-60% 1RM (CV > - 10%和ICC)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Load-velocity relationship in the free-weight horizontal and incline bench press.

Load-velocity relationship in the free-weight horizontal and incline bench press.

This study compared (i) the load-velocity relationship in the free-weight horizontal (HBP) vs. incline bench press (IBP) and (ii) the differences between general vs. individual load-velocity equations to estimate the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the HBP and IBP. Thirty males (26 ± 3 years) performed four sessions: two dedicated to assessing the 1RM in the HBP and IBP, and another two to measure the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) reached against loads of 40-90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP. Individual load-velocity equations estimated the MPV from 30 to 100% 1RM in the HBP and IBP and the 1RM in each exercise. Furthermore, general equations estimated the 1RM in each exercise. The estimated MPV values associated with 30-100% 1RM in the HBP and IBP were compared. The coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) determined the reliability between the actual and estimated 1RM in both exercises. The results showed higher MPV in the HBP than in the IBP from 30 to 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). General and individual equations provided acceptable estimates of the 1RM when using loads from 70 to 90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP (CV < 10% and ICC > 0.80) but not 40-60% 1RM (CV > 10% and ICC < 0.80). This study shows that the load-velocity relationship differs between HBP and IBP, with higher velocities reached in HBP. Furthermore, individual and general equations seem reliable in estimating the 1RM when using relative loads from 70 to 90% 1RM in the HBP and IBP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信