Examining Unilateral and Bilateral Exercises through the Load-velocity Relationship.

This study aimed to examine the load-velocity (L-V) relationship in the bench-press (BP) and leg-press (LP) exercises performed unilaterally, and compared this unilateral L-V relationship with the bilateral variants. Nineteen men (age=23.5±2.1 years) completed two incremental tests in BP and LP, performed bilaterally and unilaterally, across two sessions with a 48-hour rest period. We found a close relationship between medium propulsive velocity (MPV) and %1RM in unilateral BP (R2 =0.97, SEE=0.06 m·s-1) and LP (R2=0.96, SEE=0.06 m·s-1). No significant differences were observed between the preferred and non-preferred sides in the L-V relationship for either exercise. Additionally, higher velocities were achieved in unilateral exercises compared to bilateral exercises, particularly with light and moderate loads (30-70%1RM) in BP (p<0.05) and with light loads (30-45%1RM) in LP (p<0.05). Close L-V relationships were observed in unilateral exercises, without differences in the L-V relationships between preferred and non-preferred sides despite the interlimb asymmetries in the absolute strength values. Interestingly, lower velocities were observed at light loads (~30-45% 1RM) for bilateral compared to unilateral exercises, which could be explained by different strength deficits for these exercises.

Inter-repetition Rest Impact on Percentage of Repetition Completed at Certain Velocity Loss.

This study examined the impact of different inter-repetition rest (IRR) configurations (zero seconds [IRR0], three seconds [IRR3], and self-selected less than five seconds [SSIRR]) on estimating the number of repetitions (Nrep) and the percentage of completed repetitions relative to the maximum number of repetitions possible to failure (%rep) after reaching 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLT). Eighteen men completed three sessions, each with a different IRR configuration, separated by 48-72 hours. Single sets of repetitions to momentary muscular failure were performed against 65%, 75%, and 85% of the one-repetition maximum during free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. No significant differences were reported between IRR configurations for the Nrep (P≥0.089) and %rep (P≥0.061), except for %rep after reaching the 20-30%VLT against 65%1RM and the 10-20%VLT against 75%1RM in the bench press exercise (P≤0.048). Additionally, both Nrep and %rep exhibited high interindividual variability (between-subject CV=14-79%) across the different IRR configurations. The individual %rep-%VLT relationships were slightly stronger than the general %rep-%VLT relationships (median R 2 =0.914-0.971 vs. 0.698-0.900). Overall, regardless of the IRR configuration, this novel velocity-based approach does not guarantee the same effort levels across subjects in the free-weight back squat and bench press sets.

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

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 (MVfastest). 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-MVfastest relationships was comparable between both equipment types and sexes (P≥0.510). Moreover, there were not significant differences in the MVfastest associated with RTF between equipment types (P≥0.258). However, the MVfastest 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-MVfastest equations estimate the RTF with an acceptable precision in men during bench press exercises in both equipment types but exhibit lower precision for women.

Match and Training High Intensity Activity-Demands Profile During a Competitive Mesocycle in Youth Elite Soccer Players.

The monitoring of the high intensity activity-demands profile during official matches (OMs) and training sessions (TSs) provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between training and competition loads as well as players' fitness characteristics. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe the training and match high intensity activity-demands profile in U-19 soccer players; 2) compare the profile depending on the type of session (OM or TS) throughout match-weeks; and 3) differentiate between profiles depending on the match location (home or away). Twenty-five U-19 Spanish soccer players were monitored during TSs and OMs for a one-month competitive period using a WIMU PROTM wearable inertial device. The variables of the study were: high speed running distance (HSRD), total sprints (SPs), maximum speed (MS) and player load (PL). OMs required higher demands than TSs in HSRD (460.99 ± 206.18 vs. 315.45 ± 180.12 m; p < 0.01; d = 0.75), SPs (10.86 ± 6.64 vs. 7.23 ± 4.82; p < 0.01; d = 0.69), MS (29.99 ± 2.54 vs. 28.50 ± 2.4 km/h; p < 0.01; d = 0.59) and PL (103.08 ± 24.15 vs. 83.18 ± 17.96 a.u.; p < 0.01; d = 0.94). The interaction between the type of session and mean week's demands presented differences with medium effect size in MS (p < 0.01; ωp 2 = 0.06) and small effect size in HSRD (p = 0.04; ωp 2 = 0.03), and SP (p = 0.05; ωp 2 = 0.03), but there were no differences in PL (p = 0.18; ωp 2 = 0). Finally, no differences were found in the match location comparison (p > 0.33; d = 0.22-0.33). Therefore, the profiles presented could be useful for future scientific purposes and serve as valid information for coaches trying to optimize performance.