Two-Point Method: A Quick and Fatigue-Free Procedure for Assessment of Muscle Mechanical Capacities and the One-Repetition Maximum
TL;DR: The results of several studies exploring the feasibility of the 2-POINT METHOD are summarized and practical recommendations for its application by strength and conditioning professionals are provided.
Abstract: ABSTRACT THE FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP IS USED TO EVALUATE THE MAXIMAL CAPACITIES OF ACTIVE MUSCLES TO PRODUCE FORCE, VELOCITY, AND POWER. THE LOAD-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP HAS ALSO BEEN USED TO PREDICT THE 1 REPETITION MAXIMUM (1RM) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE RELATIVE LOADS (%1RM). THE 2-POINT METHOD HAS RECENTLY EMERGED AS A QUICK AND FATIGUE-FREE PROCEDURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF BOTH THE FORCE-VELOCITY AND LOAD-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIPS. THIS ARTICLE SUMMARIZES THE RESULTS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES THAT HAVE EXPLORED THE FEASIBILITY OF THE 2-POINT METHOD AND PROVIDES PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITS APPLICATION BY STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PROFESSIONALS.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This review provides an applied framework for the theory and application of VBT to use velocity to provide objective feedback, estimate strength, develop load-velocity profiles for accurate load prescription, and how to use statistics to monitor velocity.
Abstract: Velocity-based training (VBT) is a contemporary method of resistance training that enables accurate and objective prescription of resistance training intensities and volumes. This review provides an applied framework for the theory and application of VBT. Specifically, this review gives detail on how to: use velocity to provide objective feedback, estimate strength, develop load-velocity profiles for accurate load prescription, and how to use statistics to monitor velocity. Furthermore, a discussion on the use of velocity loss thresholds, different methods of VBT prescription, and how VBT can be implemented within traditional programming models and microcycles is provided.
92 citations
TL;DR: The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.
Abstract: This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four...
61 citations
Cites background from "Two-Point Method: A Quick and Fatig..."
...However, it is important to consider that the general L-V relationship could also be associated with several limitations (Garcia-Ramos & Jaric, 2018)....
[...]
TL;DR: The results support the use of the individual load-velocity relationship to prescribe the %1RM in the bench press exercise for women and highlight the large disparities in their load-VELocity profile compared to men.
Abstract: This study aimed to determine the suitability of the load-velocity relationship to prescribe the relative load (%1RM) in women, as well as to compare the load-velocity profile between sexes and participants with different strength levels. The load-velocity relationship of 14 men (1RM: 1.17 ± 0.19) and 14 women (1RM: 0.66 ± 0.13) were evaluated in the bench press exercise. The main findings revealed that: (I) the load-velocity relationship was always strong and linear (R2 range: 0.987–0.993), (II) a steeper load-velocity profile was observed in men compared to women (Effect size [ES]: 1.09), with men showing higher velocities for light loads (ES: − 0.81 and − 0.40 for the y-intercept and 30%1RM, respectively), but women reporting higher velocities for the heavy loads (ES: 1.14 and 1.50 at 90%1RM and 100%1RM, respectively); and (III) while the slope of the load-velocity profile was moderately steeper for weak men compared to their strong counterpart (ES: 1.02), small differences were observed betwee...
55 citations
TL;DR: The results support the two-point method based on distant loads as a quick and less prone to fatigue procedure for testing the F-V relationship through vertical jumps.
Abstract: This study aimed to compare the reliability and validity of the force-velocity (F-V) relationship parameters obtained from two-point methods differing in the distance between experimental points, a...
50 citations
TL;DR: The main findings suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.
Abstract: This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964-0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55-7.61% for MV, 2.84-7.72% for MPV and 3.50-6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55-7.72% and 2.73-5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CVratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CVratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.
45 citations