Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 16 of 16 items for

  • Author: Alejandro Pérez-Castilla x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Prediction of the Maximum Number of Repetitions and Repetitions in Reserve From Barbell Velocity

Amador García-Ramos, Alejandro Torrejón, Belén Feriche, Antonio J. Morales-Artacho, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Paulino Padial, and Guy Gregory Haff

Purpose: To provide 2 general equations to estimate the maximum possible number of repetitions (XRM) from the mean velocity (MV) of the barbell and the MV associated with a given number of repetitions in reserve, as well as to determine the between-sessions reliability of the MV associated with each XRM. Methods: After determination of the bench-press 1-repetition maximum (1RM; 1.15 ± 0.21 kg/kg body mass), 21 men (age 23.0 ± 2.7 y, body mass 72.7 ± 8.3 kg, body height 1.77 ± 0.07 m) completed 4 sets of as many repetitions as possible against relative loads of 60%1RM, 70%1RM, 80%1RM, and 90%1RM over 2 separate sessions. The different loads were tested in a randomized order with 10 min of rest between them. All repetitions were performed at the maximum intended velocity. Results: Both the general equation to predict the XRM from the fastest MV of the set (CV = 15.8–18.5%) and the general equation to predict MV associated with a given number of repetitions in reserve (CV = 14.6–28.8%) failed to provide data with acceptable between-subjects variability. However, a strong relationship (median r 2 = .984) and acceptable reliability (CV < 10% and ICC > .85) were observed between the fastest MV of the set and the XRM when considering individual data. Conclusions: These results indicate that generalized group equations are not acceptable methods for estimating the XRM–MV relationship or the number of repetitions in reserve. When attempting to estimate the XRM–MV relationship, one must use individualized relationships to objectively estimate the exact number of repetitions that can be performed in a training set.

Restricted access

Velocity Performance Feedback During Ballistic Training: Which Is the Optimal Frequency of Feedback Administration?

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Ainara Jiménez-Alonso, Mar Cepero, Sergio Miras-Moreno, F. Javier Rojas, and Amador García-Ramos

This study explored the impact of different frequencies of knowledge of results (KR) on velocity performance during ballistic training. Fifteen males completed four identical sessions (three sets of six repetitions at 30% one-repetition maximum during the countermovement jump and bench press throw) with the only difference of the KR condition provided: no feedback, velocity feedback after the first half of repetitions of each set (HalfKR), velocity feedback immediately after each repetition (ImKR), and feedback of the average velocity of each set (AvgKR). When compared with the control condition, the ImKR reported the highest velocity performance (1.9–5.3%), followed by the HalfKR (1.3–3.6%) and AvgKR (0.7–4.3%). These results support the verbal provision of velocity performance feedback after every repetition to induce acute improvements in velocity performance.

Restricted access

Validation of a Novel Reaction Time Test Specific for Military Personnel

Danica Janicijevic, Sergio Miras-Moreno, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Jesús Vera, Beatriz Redondo, Raimundo Jiménez, and Amador Garcia-Ramos

A military-specific reaction time (RT) test was developed to explore its reliability and sensitivity to discriminate between military personnel and sport science students. Fifteen male professional Spanish soldiers and 16 male sport science students completed two RT test modalities: military-specific and nonspecific RT tests. For each RT test modality, both the Simple (i.e., one stimulus, one response) and the Go, No-Go RT (i.e., true, and false stimuli, one response) were tested. The military-specific RT test consisted of a video presented through virtual reality glasses of a forest environment in which soldiers would appear from behind different bushes (stimuli) and the response consisted of pressing the button of a gun-shaped mouse (when they saw a soldier pointing a rifle at them). Both Simple and Go, No-Go RT reached acceptable reliability in both populations (coefficient of variation ≤ 9.64%). Military personnel presented a lower RT than sport science students during the military-specific RT test (p ≤ .001), while no differences were obtained during the nonspecific RT test. RT values were not significantly correlated between the military-specific and nonspecific RT tests (r ≤ .02). These findings collectively suggest that the novel military-specific RT test is an ecologically valid alternative to evaluate the information processing abilities of military personnel.

Restricted access

The Novel Single-Stroke Kayak Test: Can It Discriminate Between 200-m and Longer-Distance (500- and 1000-m) Specialists in Canoe Sprint?

Milos R. Petrovic, Amador García-Ramos, Danica N. Janicijevic, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Olivera M. Knezevic, and Dragan M. Mirkov

Purpose: To test whether the force–velocity (F–V) relationship obtained during a specific single-stroke kayak test (SSKT) and during nonspecific traditional resistance-training exercises (bench press and prone bench pull) could discriminate between 200-m specialists and longer-distance (500- and 1000-m) specialists in canoe sprint. Methods: A total of 21 experienced male kayakers (seven 200-m specialists and 14 longer-distance specialists) participated in this study. After a familiarization session, kayakers came to the laboratory on 2 occasions separated by 48 to 96 hours. In a randomized order, kayakers performed the SSKT in one session and the bench press and bench pull tests in another session. Force and velocity outputs were recorded against 5 loads in each exercise to determine the F–V relationship and related parameters (maximum force, maximum velocity, F–V slope, and maximum power). Results: The individual F–V relationships were highly linear for the SSKT (r = .990 [.908, .998]), bench press (r = .993 [.974, .999]), and prone bench pull (r = .998 [.992, 1.000]). The F–V relationship parameters (maximum force, maximum velocity, and maximum power) were significantly higher for 200-m specialists compared with longer-distance specialists (all Ps ≤ .047) with large effect sizes (≥0.94) revealing important practical differences. However, no significant differences were observed between 200-m specialists and longer-distance specialists in the F–V slope (P ≥ .477). Conclusions: The F–V relationship assessed during both specific (SSKT) and nonspecific upper-body tasks (bench press and bench pull) may distinguish between kayakers specialized in different distances.

Restricted access

Feasibility of the 2-Point Method for Determining the 1-Repetition Maximum in the Bench Press Exercise

Amador García-Ramos, Guy Gregory Haff, Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Francisco Javier Rojas, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, and Slobodan Jaric

Purpose: This study compared the concurrent validity and reliability of previously proposed generalized group equations for estimating the bench press (BP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM) with the individualized load–velocity relationship modeled with a 2-point method. Methods: Thirty men (BP 1RM relative to body mass: 1.08 [0.18] kg·kg−1) performed 2 incremental loading tests in the concentric-only BP exercise and another 2 in the eccentric–concentric BP exercise to assess their actual 1RM and load–velocity relationships. A high velocity (≈1 m·s−1) and a low velocity (≈0.5 m·s−1) were selected from their load–velocity relationships to estimate the 1RM from generalized group equations and through an individual linear model obtained from the 2 velocities. Results: The directly measured 1RM was highly correlated with all predicted 1RMs (r = .847–.977). The generalized group equations systematically underestimated the actual 1RM when predicted from the concentric-only BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.15–0.94) but overestimated it when predicted from the eccentric–concentric BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.36–0.98). Conversely, a low systematic bias (range: −2.3 to 0.5 kg) and random errors (range: 3.0–3.8 kg), no heteroscedasticity of errors (r 2 = .053–.082), and trivial effect size (range: −0.17 to 0.04) were observed when the prediction was based on the 2-point method. Although all examined methods reported the 1RM with high reliability (coefficient of variation ≤ 5.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient  ≥ .89), the direct method was the most reliable (coefficient of variation < 2.0%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .98). Conclusions: The quick, fatigue-free, and practical 2-point method was able to predict the BP 1RM with high reliability and practically perfect validity, and therefore, the authors recommend its use over generalized group equations.

Restricted access

Influence of Grip Width and Anthropometric Characteristics on the Bench-Press Load–Velocity Relationship

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Daniel Jerez-Mayorga, Dario Martínez-García, Ángela Rodríguez-Perea, Luis J. Chirosa-Ríos, and Amador García-Ramos

Purpose: To compare the load–velocity (L-V) relationship between bench-press exercises performed using 4 different grip widths, to determine the association between the anthropometric characteristics and L-V profile, and to explore whether a multiple linear-regression model with movement velocity and subjects’ anthropometric characteristics as predictor variables could increase the goodness of fit of the individualized L-V relationship. Methods: The individual L-V relationship of 20 men was evaluated by means of an incremental loading test during the bench-press exercise performed on a Smith machine using narrow, medium, wide, and self-selected grip widths. Simple and multiple linear-regression models were performed. Results: The mean velocity associated with each relative load did not differ among the 4 grip widths (P ≥ .130). Only body height and total arm length were correlated with the mean velocity associated with light and medium loads (r ≥ .464). A slightly higher variance of the velocity attained at each relative load was explained when some anthropometric characteristics were used as predictor variables along with the movement velocity (r 2 = .969 [.965–.973]) in comparison with the movement velocity alone (r 2 = .966 [.955–.968]). However, the amount of variance explained by the individual L-V relationships was always higher than with the multiple linear-regression models (r 2 = .995 [.985–1.000]). Conclusions: These results indicate that the individual determination of the L-V relationship using a self-selected grip width could be recommended to monitor relative loads in the Smith machine bench-press exercise.